TLC for Hoplites

[TheGrayMouser]

So I cannot d/l the beta now as there some nonsense of tornado warnings in my state. Haven’t heard any but occasionally get a flickering of lost power so I just won’t try til manana.

Like the proposed changes but have some questions regarding increasing protection values of various light foot. I can’t say I know but everything I read about Thurophori is that they seem they are much less protected than contemporary hoplites ( the thuro shield described as narrow and not particularly good for close rank combat )

I cannot find anything on armor, did they wear any? Even if so the shield alone seems to merit less protection than a later hoplite, also rated as mere protected.

My point is now not only are mediums one upping them, various light foot are getting equivalent in game protection to hoplites. Is there no love for the hoplite and his expensive Panalopy?

Perhaps I’m missing something in terms of overlap and perhaps hoplites were not really contemporary to thuro’s and ezoeni?

Anyways, would a boost in armor for later hoplites ever be considered? Not a full level but say “partially armoured” upgrade for the protected ones? ( the early ones in theme seem fine as is I reckon). I’d prefer slightly better troops with an increase in cost versus having more mediocre troops. The Ai loves to paint the map with raw hoplites when available too.

[SnuggleBunnies]

My understanding is that hoplites of the Pelopponesian War and later were largely unarmored. The earlier ones get 'Armoured' status. So the 'Panapoly' of this era would be a shield, open faced helmet and... for most, that was it. Some had greaves and the like. Few had body armor.

[TheGrayMouser]

My understanding is that hoplites of the Pelopponesian War and later were largely unarmored. The earlier ones get 'Armoured' status. So the 'Panapoly' of this era would be a shield, open faced helmet and... for most, that was it. Some had greaves and the like. Few had body armor.

Meaning they had morphed into the “iphicratian” hoplites? Perhaps but there seems to be lot of controversy on them. I just read an interesting article that the Greeks since the 4th century we’re going lighter and longer(spears) and the Thebans under Epimondinus were wielding the spears with two hands. Supposedly the spear used by iphicratian was twice as long as the doru. Anyhow , the suggestion is that the Greeks were seemingly trending toward “pike like” infantry and Phillip went back to Macedon after his vacation in Thebes and rebuilt his infantry based on what was beginning to trend...

Any way the problem perhaps is the protected hoplites represent troops from the Persian wars thru the end of the 3rd century. Certainly the early ones were wearing the reinforced Lino thorax which if you go to any forum people voraciously argue the linen offered almost equal protection to a bronze cuirass.

No matter what the armor though, the hoplite shield alone merits better armor stats than the “thin” thuro or a peltast shield, with no other protection being considered.

[SnuggleBunnies]

No, just that they wore little to no armor by the Pelopponesian War. I also think it is quite likely that the bronze panapoly was rare by the Persian Wars, with the Linothorax more common.

Also, in game, the Persian Wars era Greek lists contain high proportions of Armored Hoplites, but also can get protected ones.

I'm not sure how down in the weeds RBS wants to get with armor ratings - would the difference between the round Hoplite shield and the taller but thinner Thureo shield merit as large a difference as Protected vs Lightly Protected? My guess is no? Regardless of the micro details on armor, the important thing is always the overall balance/effectiveness of the units, which I think is achieved. Average Protected Hoplites are a considerably better choice than Thureos for fighting in Open Ground due to cohesion bonuses etc.

The only change I would consider is an overall change to MF - perhaps making them pay half points for maneuverability, so that Thureos cost 45 as opposed to 48 for Mercenary Hoplites, for example. That would theoretically help quality based armies over the quantity ones that often do better in League play, but it would be important to test such a change for wider balance implications, as the MF domination is at least partially a meta/era problem of Late Antiquity (between massed Brythonic Foot types and the still terrifying Zealots).

Getting totally OT, but I will note that I'm not necessarily convinced such a change is needed. Both in recent friendly Rome vs Samnite games, and in my League games using Thracian and Median MF armies, the lack of those +2 cohesion rolls was glaringly evident.

[TheGrayMouser]

No, just that they wore little to no armor by the Pelopponesian War. I also think it is quite likely that the bronze panapoly was rare by the Persian Wars, with the Linothorax more common.

Also, in game, the Persian Wars era Greek lists contain high proportions of Armored Hoplites, but also can get protected ones.

I'm not sure how down in the weeds RBS wants to get with armor ratings - would the difference between the round Hoplite shield and the taller but thinner Thureo shield merit as large a difference as Protected vs Lightly Protected? My guess is no? Regardless of the micro details on armor, the important thing is always the overall balance/effectiveness of the units, which I think is achieved. Average Protected Hoplites are a considerably better choice than Thureos for fighting in Open Ground due to cohesion bonuses etc.

The only change I would consider is an overall change to MF - perhaps making them pay half points for maneuverability, so that Thureos cost 45 as opposed to 48 for Mercenary Hoplites, for example. That would theoretically help quality based armies over the quantity ones that often do better in League play, but it would be important to test such a change for wider balance implications, as the MF domination is at least partially a meta/era problem of Late Antiquity (between massed Brythonic Foot types and the still terrifying Zealots).

Getting totally OT, but I will note that I'm not necessarily convinced such a change is needed. Both in recent friendly Rome vs Samnite games, and in my League games using Thracian and Median MF armies, the lack of those +2 cohesion rolls was glaringly evident.

Yeah Im not sure how much difference it would make but at least one ancient account stated that Thurophori coudnt stand up to real heavy foot because of lack of protection.... They seem to have morphed or disappeared in a hundred years too...
Im not convinced that no armor was worn. Meybe as was became larger and or citizens became poorer there was less men i armor but those in the front ranks would have protection. What does "little armor mean? a currisss is a curriass, regardless of its construction?

[SnuggleBunnies]

I mean I can dig out my sources if you want, but basically officers and maybe a few wealthier men wore the Linothorax but the majority wore no armor at all other than a helmet.

Or at least, that's my opinion. Others think that armor was never widely worn, but that artistic conventions changed. That also seems plausible.

[TheGrayMouser]

I mean I can dig out my sources if you want, but basically officers and maybe a few wealthier men wore the Linothorax but the majority wore no armor at all other than a helmet.

Or at least, that's my opinion. Others think that armor was never widely worn, but that artistic conventions changed. That also seems plausible.

So all those vases were wrong ! ( kidding I think they were all from the arachaic period) NAh I'll poke around on my own, Seems odd that it would disappear that early, and then be introduced when pikes became the main weapon , considering the stand off difference would mean less more potentially was needed.

[rbodleyscott]

I mean I can dig out my sources if you want, but basically officers and maybe a few wealthier men wore the Linothorax but the majority wore no armor at all other than a helmet.

Or at least, that's my opinion. Others think that armor was never widely worn, but that artistic conventions changed. That also seems plausible.

So all those vases were wrong ! ( kidding I think they were all from the arachaic period) NAh I'll poke around on my own, Seems odd that it would disappear that early, and then be introduced when pikes became the main weapon , considering the stand off difference would mean less more potentially was needed.

Apart from the fact that pikemen shields were smaller, and could not be moved around much because of the two-handed pike grip.