Slitherine

nikgaukroger wrote:Not really - I'll go with the bloke who actually served in the army, not the one who just copied things

You know that Ammianus also mentioned 'exculcatores'...

And that Vegetius mentions 'levis armatura'...

ValentinianVictor wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Not really - I'll go with the bloke who actually served in the army, not the one who just copied things

You know that Ammianus also mentioned 'exculcatores'...

And that Vegetius mentions 'levis armatura'...

As we are talking about troops acting outside their "normal role" levis armatura (as in levis armatura auxiliis) is more appropriate that exculcatores as these latter are, per Vegetable, specialist light foot.

Nik

Much better. Means choices have to be made but I believe it makes some armies viable again which weren't under V2.0 as it was going.

timmy1 wrote:Nik

Much better. Means choices have to be made but I believe it makes some armies viable again which weren't under V2.0 as it was going.

And in the other hand gets the main issue unresolved again: did thureophoroi suffer more from mounted? No. Did they get into terrain? Yes. Now they suffer one and not the other.

The previous proposal had some very good virtues. For example, it could have allowed to regrade some Spanish troops as the heavy types of light foot, whereas keeping other troops as HF. If the HF could deploy as the "special" lights representing ambushing we would have had a very nice representation of events, with Spanish line infantry not suffering against mounted and being prepared for ambushing action. Right now, we get to where we were.

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Not really - I'll go with the bloke who actually served in the army, not the one who just copied things

You know that Ammianus also mentioned 'exculcatores'...

And that Vegetius mentions 'levis armatura'...

As we are talking about troops acting outside their "normal role" levis armatura (as in levis armatura auxiliis) is more appropriate that exculcatores as these latter are, per Vegetable, specialist light foot.

If this is the case then 'expediti' might be a better catch-all term to use as all troop types could be split off as expediti as discussed in an earlier post.

ValentinianVictor wrote:
If this is the case then 'expediti' might be a better catch-all term to use as all troop types could be split off as expediti as discussed in an earlier post.

Again not really as it is quite possible that "expedita" just meant without impedimentia.

I may be mis-remembering my Notitia Dignidangly here...

Wasn't Excultatores actually a unit name?

ShrubMiK wrote:I may be mis-remembering my Notitia Dignidangly here...

Wasn't Excultatores actually a unit name?

That as well, which is another good reason to not use it in this context

There are 3 Exculcatores units in the ND IIRC.

Strategos69 wrote:

timmy1 wrote:Nik

Much better. Means choices have to be made but I believe it makes some armies viable again which weren't under V2.0 as it was going.

And in the other hand gets the main issue unresolved again: did thureophoroi suffer more from mounted? No.

When equipped with Spears we grade them as HF, so they won't, will they?

Did they get into terrain? Yes

When equipped with Javelins (MF/LF).

Wherein lies the conflict with the history?

We are trying to reflect it more accurately, not less so.

Our position (following the analysis of Luke Ueda-Sarson) is that previous interpretations have conflated two separate roles of thureophoroi, and that on the day they carried only the equipment required for their proposed role in the forthcoming battle - either as line of battle troops, or as light troops, but not both at the same time, nor even in the same battle.

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:
If this is the case then 'expediti' might be a better catch-all term to use as all troop types could be split off as expediti as discussed in an earlier post.

Again not really as it is quite possible that "expedita" just meant without impedimentia.

Remind me again where 'levis Armatura auxilis' are noted as being 'specialist' troops?

Nicasie and others take 'expediti', as in 'legionarii expediti', 'velites expedti', 'expediti auxiliarum' to mean those troops types are 'light-armed', possibly acting as lighter infantry in more specialist roles rather than just infantry or cavalry not wearing their armour.

ValentinianVictor wrote: Remind me again where 'levis Armatura auxilis' are noted as being 'specialist' troops?

Well not in anything I've said I believe.

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote: Remind me again where 'levis Armatura auxilis' are noted as being 'specialist' troops?

Well not in anything I've said I believe.

'As we are talking about troops acting outside their "normal role" levis armatura (as in levis armatura auxiliis) is more appropriate that exculcatores as these latter are, per Vegetable, specialist light foot.'?

ValentinianVictor wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote: Remind me again where 'levis Armatura auxilis' are noted as being 'specialist' troops?

Well not in anything I've said I believe.

'As we are talking about troops acting outside their "normal role" levis armatura (as in levis armatura auxiliis) is more appropriate than exculcatores as these latter are, per Vegetable, specialist light foot.'?

"Latter" refers to the Exculcatores - those are the specialists.

rbodleyscott wrote:
When equipped with Spears we grade them as HF, so they won't, will they?

I think that was a good move. MF Armoured Offensive Spearmen was an inmediate choice and does not reflect that they were line troops. Note that I still think that cavalry is overpowered anyway.

rbodleyscott wrote:
When equipped with Javelins (MF/LF).

Wherein lies the conflict with the history?

We are trying to reflect it more accurately, not less so.

Our position (following the analysis of Luke Ueda-Sarson) is that previous interpretations have conflated two separate roles of thureophoroi, and that on the day they carried only the equipment required for their proposed role in the forthcoming battle - either as line of battle troops, or as light troops, but not both at the same time, nor even in the same battle.

When writing I had more in mind Ancient Spanish and alike troops than specifically the peltasts. I like giving options but the former proposal had a good move in making troops suitable for different circumstances to get rid of line troops being MF. The problem is that the definition of MF now comprises lightly equipped thureophoroi, and that does not seem right. I could see the extremes, whether you are line troops or specialists for assaulting enemy in rough terrain. In fact it allowed the regrade of hypaspist to accomplish the tasks they were given as they would have no disorder in difficult terrain. And it had some nice applications for redeploying Ancient Spanish as ambushers.

According to Luke Ueda-Sarson, there is no evidence that these troops suffered from cavalry and when they are mentioned as lightly equipped they are storming fortifications or attacking enemy into terrain, some of the roles that maybe FoG cannot cover as it is not a siege games. The former proposal forced players to make a choice between the two. Right now, the MF option is THE option or we might see these peltasts skirmishing and screening the army, which they did not.

Sorry, Nik, I thought your post meant that you wanted the 1/3 to represent the specialist roles. I would have to say that in that case both 'ferentarii' or 'exculcatores' fits the bill as both those where terms to denote skirmishers or light troops.
It would be nice to see 'expediti' appear in a ruleset though, I rather like the word...

Thumbs up from me for the revised proposal - I feel motivated to continue painting my Hellenistics now!

ValentinianVictor wrote:Sorry, Nik, I thought your post meant that you wanted the 1/3 to represent the specialist roles. I would have to say that in that case both 'ferentarii' or 'exculcatores' fits the bill as both those where terms to denote skirmishers or light troops.
It would be nice to see 'expediti' appear in a ruleset though, I rather like the word...

Well there is always the blurb for the lists - will see if I can accommodate

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:Sorry, Nik, I thought your post meant that you wanted the 1/3 to represent the specialist roles. I would have to say that in that case both 'ferentarii' or 'exculcatores' fits the bill as both those where terms to denote skirmishers or light troops.
It would be nice to see 'expediti' appear in a ruleset though, I rather like the word...

Well there is always the blurb for the lists - will see if I can accommodate

How about this:

Adrian came up with some ideas, but I quickly expedited them out of the door

After seeing the proposal I have my doubts about some of it.

The ‘at deployment’ is the clincher. The proposal makes LF very expensive as you have to pay for HF to get LF. This gets worse for Romans as they pretty much need their HF to be armoured both vs historical opponents (sg barbarian impact foot, armoured lancers (eg Alans) or Sassanid armoured cav) and against a lot of anachronistic matchups (eg spearmen) to at least get even POA’s (or against barbarian foot to offset their impact advantage). Protected isn’t going to cut it.

So;

1. If I want to field superior LF it goes something like this; you take 4 Superior auxiliaries with Lt spear and 2 archers in support (cost 60 pts) and this becomes 4 LF +2 LF bow (40 pts). So for 60 pts outlay you get 40 pts of LF (or roughly 67% value).
2. If I want to field average LF it goes something like this; you take 4 average auxiliaries with Lt spear and 2 archers in support (cost 46 pts) and this becomes 4 LF +2 LF bow (30 pts). So for 46 pts outlay you get 30 pts of LF (or roughly 65% value).

To put it simply if the above is accurate I can’t see much value in buying LF in the circumstances as they would have to be just about the worst value LF BG’s around. So the Doms will likely end up with their usual paltry 4 bases of LF. I suggest that this be increased to a minimum of 4-6 bases in line with every other BG in their list (with the exception of artillery) so I can at least field ONE unit of viable LF.

If you really want to give players a viable option of using MF and LF then I suggest that they be allowed to purchase these in their list as usual at standard AP’s (as is given for the lighten huscarles option in the Anglo-Saxon list). It seems unlikely that Roman generals had less of an idea of campaign than did Harold Godwinson and to plan accordingly.

If you are a clever general with an "idea of campaign", perhaps you know in advance that you want to field a certain amount of LF, and therefore you would choose to not pay for those HF to be armoured.

The option to then choose at deployment to convert even more of the HF to LF would then be a bonus, which you would only take advantage of if exceptional circumstances dictated that was a smart thing to do. Some people might see that as a nice-to-have freebie option for the Romans, not a disadvantage to be complained about!