Slitherine

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote: I thought the current thinking is that 'expediti' is akin to 'special forces' troops, going on special missions such as river crossings or ambushes, There is even a reference to 'equites expediti' where several units of cavalry/light horse are sent to protect narrow passes and to act as ambushers.

"Special forces" is a terrible term to use as it just brings up images of the SAS or similar. Troops detached on "special duty" may be a better term - Caesar once had expediti leading the normal column of march for example.

I agree. There is something of the 'universal soldier' about the Romans, and I can't shake the impression that they grab guys and tell them to go do whatever the mission requires.

It would be a mistake to get hung up on Roman auxilia. There are other MF out there. Almost the entire inventory of Far Eastern infantry for instance, where the MF classification was used to make them a tad vulnerable against mounted troops. Same for Bronze Age chariot-fodder come to that.

I chose to make the Thureophoroi in my army MF rather than HF, because they would otherwise be indistinguishable from hoplites, in game terms. If the widespread adoption of the troop type from the early third century onwards was driven by something other than a new shape of the shield, what was it?

peteratjet wrote:It would be a mistake to get hung up on Roman auxilia. There are other MF out there. Almost the entire inventory of Far Eastern infantry for instance, where the MF classification was used to make them a tad vulnerable against mounted troops. Same for Bronze Age chariot-fodder come to that.

I chose to make the Thureophoroi in my army MF rather than HF, because they would otherwise be indistinguishable from hoplites, in game terms. If the widespread adoption of the troop type from the early third century onwards was driven by something other than a new shape of the shield, what was it?

Exactly. I think that is why some people have argued in favour of "mix" categories. We are told that thureophoroi could skirmish with javelins and that they had long spears to counter cavalry and other heavy infantry. Thus, although I agree they should be classified as HF (I can't see why they would suffer more against mounted or other infantry) they would be missing something like, for example, the javelins capability or more movement in rough going.

In the other hand, right now some armies like Illyrians or Ancient Spanish (tons of average protected MF) are the perfect target for cavalry attacks, which seems completely mislead since a historical point of view.

Unless V2 allows HF better movement rates than now I would answer the poll in the negative. Even then I would allow some units of Roman Auxilia to be MF to take into account lightly armed units used for special duties. Here I might also digress for a moment and suggest that HF movement in open gound in V2 be bought up to 4MU (ie same as MF). The current rate is pedestrian to say the least and makes it difficult in a game to even get across the board. The change would lead to a far better gaming experience and would (historically) allow foot to charge mtd archers etc in an attempt to drive them off or engage them in combat as soon as possible. MF would still of course have the advantage in other terrain.



cheers

zocco

peteratjet wrote: I chose to make the Thureophoroi in my army MF rather than HF, because they would otherwise be indistinguishable from hoplites, in game terms. If the widespread adoption of the troop type from the early third century onwards was driven by something other than a new shape of the shield, what was it?

Well, it might be simply the shape of the shield.

The hoplite shield covers half of the bearer and half of the next man.

This has a morale effect in giving the hoplite a direct responsibility to and direct reliance on his mates, which may be important in getting a community of militia gentleman farmers to fight. The disadvantage is the man on the end is ony half covered, so he'll pull his shield towards him, causing the man on his left to edge right to try and get behind it again, and so on, ultimately resulting in the whole formation drifting to the right.

With a thureos the bearer protects himself only. This is possibly more psychologically in keeping with a mercenary, which a great many thureophoroi were. This would also allow the man to remain fully protected when the formation is broken up by uneven ground, although this may still affect the "wall of spear points". Possibly what is needed is a kind of infantry that fights as heavy foot in the open but is less disadvantaged by terrain.

That leads us towards narrowing the distinction between MF and HF. MF and HF would be identical, except MF would be better in terrain. This would mean MF should cost more points.

Most troops that are MF, in the west anyway, tend to be protected or less, while proper HF and cavalry are armoured, so the MF are already at a disadvantage even without the -1 on CTs.

lawrenceg wrote:

peteratjet wrote: I chose to make the Thureophoroi in my army MF rather than HF, because they would otherwise be indistinguishable from hoplites, in game terms. If the widespread adoption of the troop type from the early third century onwards was driven by something other than a new shape of the shield, what was it?

Well, it might be simply the shape of the shield.

The hoplite shield covers half of the bearer and half of the next man.

This has a morale effect in giving the hoplite a direct responsibility to and direct reliance on his mates, which may be important in getting a community of militia gentleman farmers to fight. The disadvantage is the man on the end is ony half covered, so he'll pull his shield towards him, causing the man on his left to edge right to try and get behind it again, and so on, ultimately resulting in the whole formation drifting to the right.

With a thureos the bearer protects himself only. This is possibly more psychologically in keeping with a mercenary, which a great many thureophoroi were. This would also allow the man to remain fully protected when the formation is broken up by uneven ground, although this may still affect the "wall of spear points". Possibly what is needed is a kind of infantry that fights as heavy foot in the open but is less disadvantaged by terrain.

That leads us towards narrowing the distinction between MF and HF. MF and HF would be identical, except MF would be better in terrain. This would mean MF should cost more points.

Most troops that are MF, in the west anyway, tend to be protected or less, while proper HF and cavalry are armoured, so the MF are already at a disadvantage even without the -1 on CTs.

Quite support this idea. Lots of troops behave this way (Gauls warbands are one, may be legion too) but this will lead to a superior kind of troops (which seems to be correct) which is still different from standard MF (like the persian troops which cannot work as HF).

After re-reading Head's Armies of Macedonian and Punic Wars, thureophoroi are described as the successors of the peltasts, some "heavy" skirmishers, that are able to drive off enemy skirmishers and operate in rough going. Though, they could extend the main battle lone while armed with the spear, so they should be more like MF (perhaps giving the option to buy them as MF or LF, jav, LS) and perhaps they are better depicted as Light Spear, Swordsmen.
HF, Offensive Spear means that they can stand a mounted charge like the finest spear formations and I cannot find evidence for that.
May I ask what sources were used by the designers to back up their view on the role of thureophoroi?
For myself I read somewhere that the replacement of the hoplon by the thureos was only the next step on getting the hoplite's equipment cheaper, but I cannot recall where that was from.

You need to look on Luke Ueda-Sarson's web site for his pair of articles on Iphikrates infantry and that of the Successors. A Google search should find it.

lawrenceg wrote:Possibly what is needed is a kind of infantry that fights as heavy foot in the open but is less disadvantaged by terrain.

Which is exactly what the present MF are intended to represent. We assume that the compromises made to allow the latter affect the former - slightly vs HF and more vs mounted.

So you don't feel the distinction between HF and MF somewhat artificial in many cases?
You do allow many troops to be fielded as MF or LF and many to be fielded as Cv or LH both at the same time.
But the same with HF and MF is quite rare.

I feel Cv getting evade rules and thus behaving more like LH while in a specific formation is a very good rule as it narrows the artificial gap between troop types.
If there was such a rule for infantry, you could model many troop types better. Such as thureophoroi which acted as LF-, MF- and HF-like troops.

Mehrunes wrote:So you don't feel the distinction between HF and MF somewhat artificial in many cases?
You do allow many troops to be fielded as MF or LF and many to be fielded as Cv or LH both at the same time.
But the same with HF and MF is quite rare.

I feel Cv getting evade rules and thus behaving more like LH while in a specific formation is a very good rule as it narrows the artificial gap between troop types.
If there was such a rule for infantry, you could model many troop types better. Such as thureophoroi which acted as LF-, MF- and HF-like troops.

It seems interesting. It could be like cavalry in line to let them evade in certain circumstances. Depending on the formation, they would be or not disordered in terrain. The problem I see is that it can be very complex to implement.

Just use MF and HF bases just as markers and what is in the front rank counts for the entire BG or something like that. You could change formation while stationary with a CMT or something like that. Exact wording has to be discussed.
Single line isn't appropriate for infantry with BGs having 6 bases+.

Perhaps give certain units the ability to change between MF and HF for a CMT test. Can't do it within 6", etc.

Seems really overpowered, though.

Yeah, perhaps it is sufficient to allow it during deployment just as the hypaspists.

Perhaps increase HF move in good going to 4 MU would do the trick.

This would lessen the difference between HF and MF (and would speed up the game for HF armies which is definitely a change in the right direct). I seem to recall Greek HF shifting a tad at Marathon and Roman HF pushing on into Sasanian Cv.

I'd also like to see HF move 3 MU in uneven - not as fast still as MF and they would still be disordered (unlke MF).

I'm open minded on the question of what the classification of auxilia and thureophoroi should be. My auxilia (later Romans) are MF, perhaps because the army was started back in WRG 6th days...but then again I probably doubled or more the size of the army in the past 2 years and was not inspired to rebase the old auxilia, so I guess if put on the spot I would come down on the side of MF. But maybe that's just inertia on my part! But anyway, that's why I'm voting

I would definitely disagree with the line of argument that says that HF and MF are a totally artificial distinction. I feel that in fact there would be considerably more categories of non-skirmishing infantry out there, with varying degrees of movement speed (whilst retaining combat-ready cohesion), and usefulness in different types of terrain, and if anything having only two distinct classes, which also couple movement speed directly with terrain suitability, is likely to be an over-simplification (which is justified by keeping the rules and game mechanics from becoming unwieldly).

And I seem to recall historical references with particular nationalities and troop types being claimed to be especially dangerous in close terrain - Samnites and Spaniards spring to mind - attacking suddenly and quickly withdrawing out of range of counter-action.

Sure some troops were very capable of operating in different modes at different times, and the rules might want to reflect that flexibility - but the danger is that it would go against other precepts of the rules (e.g. limiting the combination of combat capabilities any one base may possess, presumably to limit the possibly unbalancing effect of uber-troops on the game).

Which is why an option for troops with flexible capabilities to deploy in different modes, but then stay in the same mode for the rest of the game, would seem preferable to allowing to much choice during the game.

So, as usual, the tricky art of achieving a reasonable balance between the contradictory elements of ultimate historical realism (even assuming we could all agree on exactly what that means!) and good gameplay...

Agree, just make the auxilia and thureophoroi like hypaspists.
Decide at deployment how to field them.

Am I being stupid? (And I realise I'm inviting the obvious answer )

I can't see any way to vote.

ShrubMiK wrote:Am I being stupid? (And I realise I'm inviting the obvious answer )

I can't see any way to vote.

Freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

"We are the dead!"

"Yes you are the dead!"

"...uh-oh."

Hmmm, I managed to vote alright in the other thread. Clearly my views are not welcome in this one