Hoplites, tactical use?

[bigdamnhero]

Whats wrong with finding some really impassable terrain with a gap in the middle, putting your hoplites in it and speaking Scottish? Surely it must work?!!!

ps Watch out for the 9 foot tall Persian king!...and the hunchback....

Failing that, use your hoplites in depth with generals close by. I agree that the larger units stay up fornt to soak up the damage with smaller units in the rear and flanks as support. Dont be too clever with them though - you may find LH all over you!

[Agesilaus]

Richard

Hello from another former DBM player and congratulations on the new rules. (I still haven't received mine yet, thanks to Amazon and their popularity, but the list books I am reading with great enthusiasm and what I have read of the rules so far sounds very good too.)

I have been following this thread and I just want to clarify two things - troop types versus armies, and play balance. Regarding your quote:

Its the only historical way of playing them, and also probably the most effective in the game. If you wanted an army of manoeuvre, I fear you picked the wrong one.
A certain amount of echeloning, with the best quality/armoured BGs hitting the enemy first, is probably the best you can achieve with a hoplite army.

On the first point, I agree that Hoplites (or any large spear blocks) were not that maneuverable and the game should correctly represent that. However, historically some of the better drilled spear units, notably Hannibal's African Veterans and Spartans, did maneuver in battles with critical success as you know. The same was true for well drilled pike armies, like Swiss much later. So I presume it will still be possible to form (slightly) more maneuverable smaller Hoplite units with historically appropriate armies? Also, there were still variations within Hoplite armies that did a lot of maneuver - EG Brasidas' Spartan army in the Peloponesian war, that included greek and thracian peltasts with good effect. So again, as long as the lists are constructed so as to permit all legitiate historical options, there should be no problem.

However this leads to a second point, game balance, that was a major problem in DBM 1.4 and onwards IMO. If any units or troop types can be easily outmanuevered in the game, then their cost should be adjusted accordingly. So if Greek hopites really can't maneuver past many opponents, and can also still be bested frontally by rival troops (eg impact infantry) then they really shouldn't cost as much as more flexible alternatives. Otherwise the game becomes unbalanced, and people who go to the trouble of painting up an army only to discover that its core is not viable, will soon discard the rules just as DBM was dropped by many players here in Oz in recent years. In other words, I agree we should first get the game and lists accurate in terms of replicating history as best we can (and as best we know it!) but then adjust the points to make it balanced. Otherwise we will have books filled with lists that nobody ever plays.

I hope somebody is playtesting Hoplite lists in this regard, and for that matter other large spear lists too. I would be concerned if all the less maneuverable options were priced the same as more maneuverable troops. So for example, armies stuck with only picking large units of undrilled hopllites or spear, should be able to pay a lower price per base for them.

kind regards

Scott Elaurant

[neilhammond]

On the first point, I agree that Hoplites (or any large spear blocks) were not that maneuverable and the game should correctly represent that. However, historically some of the better drilled spear units, notably Hannibal's African Veterans and Spartans, did maneuver in battles with critical success as you know. The same was true for well drilled pike armies, like Swiss much later. So I presume it will still be possible to form (slightly) more maneuverable smaller Hoplite units with historically appropriate armies?

Yes, the army lists allow for more manoeuverable drilled spear units - and they are much better at manouever on the table.

I hope somebody is playtesting Hoplite lists in this regard, and for that matter other large spear lists too. I would be concerned if all the less maneuverable options were priced the same as more maneuverable troops. So for example, armies stuck with only picking large units of undrilled hopllites or spear, should be able to pay a lower price per base for them.

Undrilled average holpites cost 7 points. Drilled superior legionaries cost 14 points each. That's probably at the extreme, and most drilled units cost somewhere between.

[shall]

As you debate such manouvrability issues also bear in mind Battleline power as well as individual BGs.

Some troops work best in long BLs that pressure enemy - a long line of undrilled Hoplites is very good at this and affordable. It is then for the clever dodgeball experts to do their stuff or die

Si

[Agesilaus]

Thanks Neil and Si,

I agre from what I have read so far the maneuver rules look pretty good - can't wait to try them out in a game.

Regarding the points, I do have one philosophical concern. FOG has a BG movement system that is reminiscent of the unit system in 7th edition (good!). But in 7th edition army points, there was an allowance for comadn points for each unit. Thus if you wanted to get lots of small maneuverable units, you paid a points penalty compared with armies with a small number of large units. FOG has got unit/BG maneuver again, but without the cost penalty there woudl appear to be an uncosted benefit to have lots of small unis if you can. This shoudl be watched over time and may need a slight adjustment ot the points system.

[shall]

Don't worry in 7th it was imbalanced but in FOG the many small BGs has been set up to be as much a liability as a benefit such that there is no need for such points.

Many reasons that I am sure will become clear as you play so won't go into them here - just to say far from watching the point we tested it to destruction several times during development.

Worry not

Si

[rbodleyscott]

Neil and Simon have covered the points - I agree with what they have said.