Slitherine

Fugu wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

Levies [0-24 Bases]:
MF, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled, Offensive Spearmen [4pts] 6-8 base/BG

try defensive spear. I don't think the levies are more aggressive than some of the other troops.

Other side of the equation is that it's easier to motivate people to charge then it is to receive one. It takes a bit of nerve to accept one. I'm not committed either way.

Offensive spear are no worse than defensive spear for receiving charges, so all you are doing is making them better at charging without affecting their willingness to receive a charge.
It seems unlikely that the levies would be well motivated enough to charge without orders, which is a characteristic of Offensive spear in the game.

If you think they are not well motivated enough to receive a charge, then don't give them any POA for impact. Posession of the equipment is not sufficient in FoG to qualify for a POA; you have to be able and willing to use it.

Here's my stab at a list (with a big nod to Fugu for starting this):

-----------------------------------------------------------
Western Han Chinese Army

Territory: Agricultural, Developed, Hilly, Mountain

Cavalry (8-24 Bases):
Cv, Protected, Average, Drilled, Lance, Swordsmen @10 pts, 4-6 bases/BG
Cv, Protected, Average, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen @10 pts, 4-6 pts/BG (to represent halberd armed cavalry)
Cv, Protected, Average, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen @11 pts, 4-6 bases/BG
Upgrade one BG to superior +2 pts/base

Light horse archers (8-24 Bases):
LH, Unprotected, Average, Bow @8 pts, 4-6 bases/BG

Spearmen (6-18 bases):
HF, Protected, Average, Drilled, Defensive Spearmen @ 7pts, 6-8 bases/BG
Downgrade to Poor -2pts/base
Upgrade to Offensive Spearmen (halberdiers) +1pt/base

Crossbowmen (6-18 bases):
MF, Unprotected, Average, Drilled, Crossbow @ 6pts, 6-8 bases/BG
Downgrade to Poor -2pts/base

OPTIONS:

Replace all Spearmen and Crossbowmen with mixed formations (12-36):
½ each BG HF, Protected, Average, Drilled, Defensive Spearmen @ 7pts,
½ each BG MF, Protected, Average, Drilled, Crossbow @ 7pts
6-8 bases/BG
Downgrade whole BGs to Poor -2pts/base

Chariots (0-4 bases):
HCh, Superior, Drilled, Bow @ 22 pts, 4 bases/BG

Light horse lancers (0-8 Bases):
Lh, Unprotected, Average, Light Spear @ 6 pts, 4-6 bases/BG

Archers (0-12 bases)
LF, Unprotected, Average, Bow @5 pts, 4-6 bases/BG

Swordsmen (0-6 bases):
MF, Protected, Average, Drilled, Skilled Swordsmen @ 8pts, 4-6 bases/BG
Upgrade to Superior +2pts/base
Upgrade to Impact Foot +1pts/base OR replace Skilled Swordsmen with Heavy Weapon capability at no cost

Peasant rabble/convicts/Levy (0-12 bases)
Mob, Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled @ 2pts, 8-12 bases/BG

Artillery (0-2 bases)
Lart, Drilled @ 17 pts, 2 bases/BG
-------------------------------------------------

I don't know if there's anything too controversial in here, but the things that concern me primarily relate to the spearmen:

1) I've kept the spearmen as HF rather than MF, partly as my figures are based this way and partly to avoid giving them spurious rough-terrain abilities. Can anyone give an argument either way? Were Chinese infantry of this period particularly prone to running away from cavalry? If so, would this justify the change to MF bearing in mind the increased movement and terrain abilities it would give them? As far as infantry vs infantry, are there any instances where they fought what we regard as heavy infantry, and how did they do?
2) Offensive spear vs defensive spear - I put OS in as an option as it was suggested in a previous post that troops armed with halberd might be classed as this. However, I feel that 'spearmen', whether armed with halberd or spear, should probably be classed the same as the tactical doctrine and motivation of the troops is probably more important than what they are carrying.

I find it quite hard to find references for Chinese infantry in combat (versus other infantry and cavalry), so perhaps someone else might be able to stick their oar in with respect to HF/MF and defensive/offensive spear classification.

Until then, I'll just have to make a best guess!

Intothevalley wrote:Here's my stab at a list (with a big nod to Fugu for starting this):

Cavalry (8-24 Bases):
Cv, Protected, Average, Drilled, Lance, Swordsmen @10 pts, 4-6 bases/BG
Cv, Protected, Average, Drilled, Light Spear, Swordsmen @10 pts, 4-6 pts/BG (to represent halberd armed cavalry)
Cv, Protected, Average, Drilled, Crossbow, Swordsmen @11 pts, 4-6 bases/BG
Upgrade one BG to superior +2 pts/base

hmm.. I wonder about the Lance. From my reading Han Cav didn't just try and change all the time but waited for the opposition to be softened up first which would make Light Spear be a better representation. Perhaps when they developed "cataphract" cav later Lance might be an option... Just my thoughts

Intothevalley wrote: I don't know if there's anything too controversial in here, but the things that concern me primarily relate to the spearmen:

1) I've kept the spearmen as HF rather than MF, partly as my figures are based this way and partly to avoid giving them spurious rough-terrain abilities. Can anyone give an argument either way? Were Chinese infantry of this period particularly prone to running away from cavalry? If so, would this justify the change to MF bearing in mind the increased movement and terrain abilities it would give them? As far as infantry vs infantry, are there any instances where they fought what we regard as heavy infantry, and how did they do?

The two differences that effect the Chinese army fro MF to HF is the mobility and how it accepts a mounted charge. I can see arguing either way for the spear units.

Intothevalley wrote: 2) Offensive spear vs defensive spear - I put OS in as an option as it was suggested in a previous post that troops armed with halberd might be classed as this. However, I feel that 'spearmen', whether armed with halberd or spear, should probably be classed the same as the tactical doctrine and motivation of the troops is probably more important than what they are carrying.

I find it quite hard to find references for Chinese infantry in combat (versus other infantry and cavalry), so perhaps someone else might be able to stick their oar in with respect to HF/MF and defensive/offensive spear classification.

Until then, I'll just have to make a best guess!

Agreed. I've gone through my personal library on it but I only have a few books that cover this period, the bulk being for the Song Dynasty. Hoping the university will have a better selection and that I can talk someone into taking them out for me

Have watched one game, and just played in another so very hazy on actual rules. But as a point of clarification, the Chinese "ji" or dagger-axe was NOT a halbard - it had a point and was used as a spear versus infantry or horse, but the dagger part was a curved hook not an axe head as on a halbard. It was used to unhorse enemy cav by hooking the rider, then dispatching said enemy on the ground. It was NOT a chopping weapon. The primary function was to protect the punch troops - the crossbowmen. The "ji" were set to receive charges by horse or foot - not really an Offensive Spear but a Defensive Spear - the impact or "shock" troops were the heavy cavalry.

Also, as far as I can tell there is no historical basis for chariots charging formed troops. Light chariots were the original missile troops to cause disorder, then pursue broken troops. Heavy chariots were apparently used to ferry the crew forward to a flank or rear of the enemy, then dismounted to fight on foot (a la armored personnel carriers). This function hasn't been modelled in any ruleset to date.

Draka wrote:But as a point of clarification, the Chinese "ji" or dagger-axe was NOT a halbard - it had a point and was used as a spear versus infantry or horse, but the dagger part was a curved hook not an axe head as on a halbard. It was used to unhorse enemy cav by hooking the rider, then dispatching said enemy on the ground. It was NOT a chopping weapon. The primary function was to protect the punch troops - the crossbowmen. The "ji" were set to receive charges by horse or foot - not really an Offensive Spear but a Defensive Spear - the impact or "shock" troops were the heavy cavalry.

Apologies, I used 'halberd' as I thought it might be clearer to people not familier with Chinese weaponary. However, someone on this thread mentioned that it might be used to hook away opponent's shields, opening up an enemy formation for attack, which could suggest a more offensive role for troops so armed. Alternatively, I've read on the China History Forum (http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/) that it could have been thrown into an enemy formation and dragged back again, with the sharp 'axe' point wounding and disrupting. However, whether this was how they were actually used - I have no idea!

Draka wrote:Also, as far as I can tell there is no historical basis for chariots charging formed troops. Light chariots were the original missile troops to cause disorder, then pursue broken troops. Heavy chariots were apparently used to ferry the crew forward to a flank or rear of the enemy, then dismounted to fight on foot (a la armored personnel carriers). This function hasn't been modelled in any ruleset to date.

I haven't been able to find many references to how 'heavy' (i.e. with four horses/3-4 crew) chariots actually fought. Most of the Chinese references I've been able to find (from my rather limited library) talk of shooting bows, or receiving bowfire, rather than actual close combat (unless the chariot has become stranded). When you refer to the battlefield taxi role, do you mean chariots in general, or specifically relating to Chinese chariots? Again my references are pretty bare, but it seems even when chariots were stranded, the crews would prefer to wait for other chariots to come and rescue them, rather than opt to flee on foot - which implies they weren't prepared to fight on foot under normal battlefield conditions either.

Perhaps they were just used as mobile shooting platforms, against other noble chariotry, with the heavy chariots being introduced as superior against the former light chariots, rather than considering the effects against infantry (who are barely mentioned in texts from the Spring and Autumns period). As infantry became more important through the Warring States era, the chariotry was probably progressively ignored as increasingly irrelevant. But this is just conjecture, and as always there are more questions than answers. Could someone just invent a time machine!!

Fugu wrote: hmm.. I wonder about the [Cv] Lance. From my reading Han Cav didn't just try and change all the time but waited for the opposition to be softened up first which would make Light Spear be a better representation. Perhaps when they developed "cataphract" cav later Lance might be an option... Just my thoughts

I'm not sure about the lance either. I'm going on WRG 6th and 7th edition classification, which may or may not be a good source of information! I guess we'll just have to see what the powers that be decide!

Fugu wrote:Agreed. I've gone through my personal library on it but I only have a few books that cover this period, the bulk being for the Song Dynasty. Hoping the university will have a better selection and that I can talk someone into taking them out for me

I'm thinking about expanding my book collection too, but answers just seem frustratingly elusive - it's like eating soup with a fork!

Intothevalley wrote: I'm not sure about the lance either. I'm going on WRG 6th and 7th edition classification, which may or may not be a good source of information! I guess we'll just have to see what the powers that be decide!

They're a good place for what gamers expect out of the army. And from some quick glances through the DBMM wiki for request for army adjustments it seems it is required that specific documentation be attached. From what I hear though the game mechanics for the classifications work differently between the game systems needs to be taken into account to.

Intothevalley wrote: I'm thinking about expanding my book collection too, but answers just seem frustratingly elusive - it's like eating soup with a fork!

Apparently texts from the Han dynasty are less abundant then later ones so primary sources are scarcer. In addition the bulk of the good treaties on Chinese history are still in Chinese, making them a little unavailable to the average non Chinese There is quite a big push though to get more translated so feed the "west's" knowledge of China. Several of my books reference still untranslated works.

I'd feel better about working on an army of later times since the reference material is more abundant but the local group have decided on this time frame for all our armies So while they get to just pick up the book and go, I'm back to the library. As if painting up a 1000 new 10mm figures wasn't time consuming enough

Draka wrote:Have watched one game, and just played in another so very hazy on actual rules. But as a point of clarification, the Chinese "ji" or dagger-axe was NOT a halbard - it had a point and was used as a spear versus infantry or horse, but the dagger part was a curved hook not an axe head as on a halbard. It was used to unhorse enemy cav by hooking the rider, then dispatching said enemy on the ground. It was NOT a chopping weapon. The primary function was to protect the punch troops - the crossbowmen. The "ji" were set to receive charges by horse or foot - not really an Offensive Spear but a Defensive Spear - the impact or "shock" troops were the heavy cavalry.

A good staqrting place to find quite a few discussions on the Ji:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index. ... topic=1836

Draka wrote: Also, as far as I can tell there is no historical basis for chariots charging formed troops. Light chariots were the original missile troops to cause disorder, then pursue broken troops. Heavy chariots were apparently used to ferry the crew forward to a flank or rear of the enemy, then dismounted to fight on foot (a la armored personnel carriers). This function hasn't been modelled in any ruleset to date.

Interesting. Do you have reference sources for this? More reading.. always more reading..

Since I had posted a list suggestion earlier which included a Heavy Weapon unit, I'd like to explain my thinking.

First, form and function: it seems clear to me that the 'dagger ax' or 'ji' or 'ko' does not have the same long edge as European medieval 'true' halberds. Discussion about tactical usage is speculative, based on the design--hooking and pulling, stabbing, etc. I would note that most European pole arms were modified spears, not modified axes, and in other rules were termed 'cut and thrust' weapons. Have I erred in equating FoG's Heavy Weapon class with these?

Evidence for tactical use of Chinese pole arms is slim. A silhouette graphic of a land and water battle (which I have seen in several books, and is shown toward the bottom of http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/lofive ... t1836.html) shows the weapon being used overhand--a technique associated with the offensive use of medieval pole arms--including pikes.

According to Werner, who uses the term "ch'iang" for spear, there is a distinction in between offensive "stabbing and cutting" use of multi narrow-bladed pole arms ("kou ch'iang") and defensive spears ("fei huo ch'iang"). He notes several other names for 'spear' which denote different lengths. Unfortunately his work is only a summary, and mixes references to different historical periods from Shang to modern. That said, it does speak to the diversity of pole arms.

My take-away is that there would have been 1. spears--common throughout Chinese history (supposedly invented by Huang Ti, who lived around 2600BC!) and 2. pole arms with some specialized purpose.

Second, wargame representation: I am not particularly bound to the idea that these must be represented as heavy weapon, but suggested its inclusion to allow for the same weapon (ji) to be deployed in different roles, though not by every unit. I would be satisfied with limiting it to offensive and defensive spearmen. I did not mean to infer that it was a pole ax, _per se_.

I do prefer accurate historical representations, but when evidence is so sparse, and scholarship faddish, I think the wargaming representations should provide for historical outcomes against historical opponents, and avoid the creation of 'super' armies. For that reason, I think the spear types in the Han list ought to be HF unless specifically representing troops told off for particular tasks, and designation of heavy weapon limited.

Ultimately I'm looking for an enjoyable game and enjoyable discussions and lessons about history--hoping they augment one another, the lessons being a bit more serious and the games entertainment.

As for my earlier post on chariots - this url is what got me thinking. For as long as I have been wargaming, the whole bit of chariots crashing into a line of steel points never "felt" right - horses aren't that witless:

http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2008/02/ ... e-age.html

And the other thing that always gets me in a very hot argument on "shock" vs "fire & maneuver" armies is the Chinese technique of firing crossbows by platoon volley - the effect is very similar to the British volley fire of Napoleonic fame. Three lines firing on command line by line, and with the additional difference that a Chinese crossbow is a lot more accurate than a Brown Bess! No wargame ruleset I have played to date will ever allow a unit to be destroyed by missile fire. Not really expecting this one to allow it either ..... There are two opponents that the Chinese were mainly developed to fight - earlier chariot armies of the Shang thru Chou eras, and the Hsiung-nu raiders. Both required the massive missile fire to disrupt and kill the enemy, as the normal foot couldn't catch them. Nor the Chinese heavy cavalry of later developement once the Han obtained "heavenly horses" and had the larger mounts needed.

At any rate, this is a area that has very few English language sources - I have quite a few but as the Chinese had a ever-growing bias against public military writings it isn't even very extant in Chinese writings in the first place!

One last point - the bamboo strips found in the Northwest document that the officers were tested once a year in their ability to hit a target with a crossbow (aimed fire - new concept) - and as an old Army man, I can with confidence say that anything an officer is required to test on will most certainly be passed on to all those under his command!

p.s. Edited for typoes

The influence of Han China on Korea through their Commandaries is noticeable in pictures from their museums. I just got some books from museums in North Korea. One picture of relics from 100BC was a crossbow. A mural from the Koguryo cave paintings show armored warriors of 600AD. The noble is in a Han style Heavy chariot with a typical Han unbrella.

Just a few comments, since the mid-Korean city states got their start as vassals and enemies of various Han Commandaries.

Draka wrote: And the other thing that always gets me in a very hot argument on "shock" vs "fire & maneuver" armies is the Chinese technique of firing crossbows by platoon volley - the effect is very similar to the British volley fire of Napoleonic fame. Three lines firing on command line by line, and with the additional difference that a Chinese crossbow is a lot more accurate than a Brown Bess! No wargame ruleset I have played to date will ever allow a unit to be destroyed by missile fire. Not really expecting this one to allow it either ..... There are two opponents that the Chinese were mainly developed to fight - earlier chariot armies of the Shang thru Chou eras, and the Hsiung-nu raiders. Both required the massive missile fire to disrupt and kill the enemy, as the normal foot couldn't catch them. Nor the Chinese heavy cavalry of later developement once the Han obtained "heavenly horses" and had the larger mounts needed.

There are many period references that revere the crossbow as THE weapon of choice for the Chinese military. Hard hitting, accurate, and simple to train with.

I've acquired several more tombs to read through to help refine my list. Hopefully I'll have more to add to it soon

Rudy_Nelson wrote:The influence of Han China on Korea through their Commandaries is noticeable in pictures from their museums. I just got some books from museums in North Korea. One picture of relics from 100BC was a crossbow. A mural from the Koguryo cave paintings show armored warriors of 600AD. The noble is in a Han style Heavy chariot with a typical Han unbrella.

Just a few comments, since the mid-Korean city states got their start as vassals and enemies of various Han Commandaries.

Hopefully the upcoming books will cover them as well It would be nice to be able to do several asiatic armies, and have a full tournament dedicated to it

Draka wrote:As for my earlier post on chariots - this url is what got me thinking. For as long as I have been wargaming, the whole bit of chariots crashing into a line of steel points never "felt" right - horses aren't that witless:

http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2008/02/ ... e-age.html\

Excellent amateur article. Definitely gives considerable food for thought

Wow - just found on YouTube a National Geographic cut of the ge and ji in use - check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZdKoZcYE2c

I want one! LOL!

Draka wrote:Wow - just found on YouTube a National Geographic cut of the ge and ji in use - check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZdKoZcYE2c

I want one! LOL!

Bit mellow dramatic but does illustrate the differences

MarkSieber wrote:Since I had posted a list suggestion earlier which included a Heavy Weapon unit.

I wouldn't mind dagger-axes/ji being classed as heavy weapon - they look quite good, especially cancelling the armour POA in melee.

Of course we're still in the dark about how these weapons were used, and how usage changed across time/Dynasties.

So, for Chinese close-combat infantry we have choices of MF or HF, as defensive spearmen, offensive spearmen or heavy weapon. I can't say which of these is most appropriate - up to the rules wallahs I guess?

Draka wrote:As for my earlier post on chariots - this url is what got me thinking. For as long as I have been wargaming, the whole bit of chariots crashing into a line of steel points never "felt" right - horses aren't that witless:

http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2008/02/ ... e-age.html

Interesting points, though as the author confesses it is conjecture, albeit well argued and thought out. However, under scenario 3a, wouldn't another possibility be that the extra crewman could act as a shield bearer during the chariot vs chariot combat. For Chinese chariots, I have a book 'The Chariot: The Astounding Rise and Fall of the World's First War Machine' by Arthur Cotterell, who asserts that the dagger-axe could have been used in a sweeping motion as opposing chariots passed each other by. Again, just plausible conjecture.

Draka wrote:And the other thing that always gets me in a very hot argument on "shock" vs "fire & maneuver" armies is the Chinese technique of firing crossbows by platoon volley - the effect is very similar to the British volley fire of Napoleonic fame. Three lines firing on command line by line, and with the additional difference that a Chinese crossbow is a lot more accurate than a Brown Bess! No wargame ruleset I have played to date will ever allow a unit to be destroyed by missile fire. Not really expecting this one to allow it either ..... There are two opponents that the Chinese were mainly developed to fight - earlier chariot armies of the Shang thru Chou eras, and the Hsiung-nu raiders. Both required the massive missile fire to disrupt and kill the enemy, as the normal foot couldn't catch them. Nor the Chinese heavy cavalry of later developement once the Han obtained "heavenly horses" and had the larger mounts needed.

I think someone's pointed out how deadly crossbows will be against light horse, either when charged by them or when exchanging fire. Those pesky Xiong Nu WILL be brought to order and obey the Emperor (as long as they don't get round your flanks)! However, effectiveness of crossbows against foot looks to be dissappointing (at least from a gamer's point of view).