Vegetius: second vs third formation?

[kronenblatt]

Could someone please explain why the second formation/disposition is better than the third, according to Vegetius? Does the third formation/disposition simply assume that my best troops are still on the right wing? That the left wing needs to be reinforced from the right? Because otherwise, if I decide to attack on the left wing instead, I simply put my best troops there already at start. I must have misunderstood something basic here...

vegetius_obliques.jpg (413.33 KiB) Viewed 2036 times

[pompeytheflatulent]

Soldiers have their shields on their left, so advancing on the left flank would expose yourself to fire on your unshielded side. And it is a lot easier for mounted troops to fire arrows or throw javelins to the left across the body vs to the right. Of course none of this applies in game.

[Swuul]

In ancient times it was a well known fact that the right flank always began to fall behind the left flank. This was because of basic human nature, you do not want to be the fool without cover. The shield was held in left hand, and you try to stay behind it as much as you can. When two lines met, they eventually did not meet in a straight line, but in an oblique.

To correct the oblique line, the toughest and most crack men were placed on the right flank. It was made a honorary position, as it would imply these are men who do not fall behind. This of course led to many battles on ancient times saw first the flanks clash, as both armies tended to advance in low U format; right went ahead because they were proud and crack, left because they were "pushed" ahead by the troops in center who tried to stay behind shields.

That however often meant both sides left flanks broke at the same time (like for example happened in the first battles depicted by Xenophon in Anabasis), because the crack troops on the right flank met the not so crack units of opponent left. This then led to tactics such as explained by Vegetius, the oblique line. In the oblicque line the right flank would first nuke out the opponent left, and your center and left would then reach enemy line at about the same time; however, as their left had already been run over, their center began to panic, and thus the battle might be well in the rout phase when center and left made it to the enemy line.

[Schweetness101]

Soldiers have their shields on their left, so advancing on the left flank would expose yourself to fire on your unshielded side. And it is a lot easier for mounted troops to fire arrows or throw javelins to the left across the body vs to the right. Of course none of this applies in game.

do you think there would be much purpose or interest in trying to mod:

1) higher casualties for receiving ranged fire on the right/back of a unit, and/or lower casualties for ranged fire into the front/left
2) greater damage or higher poas or something for flanks on a unit's right side compared to flanks on its left

?

[Swuul]

Soldiers have their shields on their left, so advancing on the left flank would expose yourself to fire on your unshielded side. And it is a lot easier for mounted troops to fire arrows or throw javelins to the left across the body vs to the right. Of course none of this applies in game.

do you think there would be much purpose or interest in trying to mod:

1) higher casualties for receiving ranged fire on the right/back of a unit, and/or lower casualties for ranged fire into the front/left
2) greater damage or higher poas or something for flanks on a unit's right side compared to flanks on its left

?

This, I think, is already in the game. It is called "quality". There is no *actual* difference in combat efficiency whether you are on left or right; when you get attacked it does not matter which direction you are attacked from, because you will raise your shield anyway against that direction anyway. Crack units had no issues with being at right flank because they knew this to be a fact, it is the less experienced troops that had the tendency to try to hide behind the shield of your mate to the left of you. In fact, because of the tendency of placing the more experienced troops on the right hand side of the unit that the right flank always was considered to be the stronger side.

This is btw still true in modern times, in most drill units in any army in the world the tallest and most handsome soldiers are placed to the right front corner, while the shortest and less handsome soldiers are in the back left corner. That placing has nothing to do how good soldiers they are though (and I say this as who back in the days was one of the dudes who stood in my drill unit pretty close to the right front corner).

[rbodleyscott]

Soldiers have their shields on their left, so advancing on the left flank would expose yourself to fire on your unshielded side. And it is a lot easier for mounted troops to fire arrows or throw javelins to the left across the body vs to the right. Of course none of this applies in game.

do you think there would be much purpose or interest in trying to mod:

1) higher casualties for receiving ranged fire on the right/back of a unit, and/or lower casualties for ranged fire into the front/left
?

The reason we did not do this is that it is probably much easier to get skirmishers behind the right flank/rear of enemy units in game than it would be in real life. This would be a case where bottom-up design, though logical, produces the wrong overall result.

[Schweetness101]

Soldiers have their shields on their left, so advancing on the left flank would expose yourself to fire on your unshielded side. And it is a lot easier for mounted troops to fire arrows or throw javelins to the left across the body vs to the right. Of course none of this applies in game.

do you think there would be much purpose or interest in trying to mod:

1) higher casualties for receiving ranged fire on the right/back of a unit, and/or lower casualties for ranged fire into the front/left
?

The reason we did not do this is that it is probably much easier to get skirmishers behind the right flank/rear of enemy units in game than it would be in real life. This would be a case where bottom-up design, though logical, produces the wrong overall result.

that makes sense, and what about making the right flank more vulnerable than the left in close combat? it might be a bit too bottom up as well I guess, but it could be interesting to do a test for it with just hoplite units and see if it motivates that historical shifting to the right behavior, although the game doesn't really do that lateral type movement so it might be pointless, and I guess it would just be for hoplite vs hoplite

[rbodleyscott]

do you think there would be much purpose or interest in trying to mod:

1) higher casualties for receiving ranged fire on the right/back of a unit, and/or lower casualties for ranged fire into the front/left
?

The reason we did not do this is that it is probably much easier to get skirmishers behind the right flank/rear of enemy units in game than it would be in real life. This would be a case where bottom-up design, though logical, produces the wrong overall result.

that makes sense, and what about making the right flank more vulnerable than the left in close combat? it might be a bit too bottom up as well I guess, but it could be interesting to do a test for it with just hoplite units and see if it motivates that historical shifting to the right behavior, although the game doesn't really do that lateral type movement so it might be pointless, and I guess it would just be for hoplite vs hoplite

Best avoided in my opinion.

[Athos1660]

what about making the right flank more vulnerable than the left in close combat?

If you look for modding ideas : what about a huge mod with cavemen, aliens, Napoleonic soldiers, galleys or whatever else ? You’re good at modding.

[kronenblatt]

Soldiers have their shields on their left, so advancing on the left flank would expose yourself to fire on your unshielded side. And it is a lot easier for mounted troops to fire arrows or throw javelins to the left across the body vs to the right.

In ancient times it was a well known fact that the right flank always began to fall behind the left flank. This was because of basic human nature, you do not want to be the fool without cover. The shield was held in left hand, and you try to stay behind it as much as you can. When two lines met, they eventually did not meet in a straight line, but in an oblique.

To correct the oblique line, the toughest and most crack men were placed on the right flank. It was made a honorary position, as it would imply these are men who do not fall behind. This of course led to many battles on ancient times saw first the flanks clash, as both armies tended to advance in low U format; right went ahead because they were proud and crack, left because they were "pushed" ahead by the troops in center who tried to stay behind shields.

That however often meant both sides left flanks broke at the same time (like for example happened in the first battles depicted by Xenophon in Anabasis), because the crack troops on the right flank met the not so crack units of opponent left. This then led to tactics such as explained by Vegetius, the oblique line. In the oblicque line the right flank would first nuke out the opponent left, and your center and left would then reach enemy line at about the same time; however, as their left had already been run over, their center began to panic, and thus the battle might be well in the rout phase when center and left made it to the enemy line.

Thanks for answers! So under the assumption that quality of men are the same on the two flanks, i.e., before crack troops were placed on the right in order to speed movement up there, is the correct conclusion that the left moved faster forward but much more exposed due to the shield on the left arm?

And that Vegetius reflects not only this exposure for the left flank, but also that better troops are generally/traditionally placed on the right flank, making disposition 3 less suitable as formation?

[pompeytheflatulent]

what about making the right flank more vulnerable than the left in close combat?

If you look for modding ideas : what about a huge mod with cavemen, aliens, Napoleonic soldiers, galleys or whatever else ? You’re good at modding.

Warhammer Fantasy or Lord of the Rings total conversion please!

[Swuul]

If you look for modding ideas : what about a huge mod with cavemen, aliens, Napoleonic soldiers, galleys or whatever else ? You’re good at modding.

One of these days I have to take some time (ie learn how to mod, how to make the gfx, and how to make it all work) and make a galley mod. From Triremes to Deceres

[Schweetness101]

what about making the right flank more vulnerable than the left in close combat?

If you look for modding ideas : what about a huge mod with cavemen, aliens, Napoleonic soldiers, galleys or whatever else ? You’re good at modding.

Warhammer Fantasy or Lord of the Rings total conversion please!

unironically a LOTR mod would be amazing, but it would primarily be content/artwork and not gameplay changes I would think, and I am no artist unfortunately. Art stuff is often actually a LOT more work than making coding changes.

[Athos1660]

If you look for modding ideas : what about a huge mod with cavemen, aliens, Napoleonic soldiers, galleys or whatever else ? You’re good at modding.

One of these days I have to take some time (ie learn how to mod, how to make the gfx, and how to make it all work) and make a galley mod. From Triremes to Deceres

Nice !

I guess it is easier, when possible, to specialise (in coding, modelling/importing 3d models, texturing...) and join forces with other modders.