Slitherine

I recently was involved in some AoW play testing and was pleasantly surpised to see that troop quality in AoW, as it has always been in real warfare, is one of the most significant factors. In AoW, Superior troops are more reliable when asked to execute complex manouvres, less likely to lose cohesion, recover morale more easily, and are more consistent when asked to evade charges. They also shoot and melee more reliably (more likely to score casualties and force the opposition to lose cohesion and morale). Superior, let alone Elite, status in AoW provides a significant advantage in almost all facets of the game compared to Average troops of the same type.

This set me thinking - Armies of these periods were generally not fulltime or highly trained by modern standards. IMHO the main way that armies of this era achieved better than Average status was, not so much through better training or more confidence, but by experience! Average in AoW appears to represent competent and trained troops of their type with further minor differences (points of advantage) based upon weapon skills and doctrine preferences. IMHO many armies of this period would not see enough quality battle experience for anything better than a minority core to have Superior status, let alone Elite. Admittedly, some military and social structures were better than others at tapping usefully into this experienced core to benefit the whole.

I then looked through the sample army lists - I acknowledge that Slitherine have provided these samples as starters for ten and illustrations and that they are not therefore definitive lists - and feel some degree of concern. How much of Darius' army had experienced meaningful battle experience before the campaign to halt Alexander's invasion? I would suggest not many. By contrast, how much of Alexander's army had some worthwhile battle experience by the time of the invasion of Asia Minor? I would suggest substantially more as a proportion compared with the Persians. This does not appear to be reflected in these sample army lists.

Superior in most armies should be the exception and not the rule. I hope the AoW army lists take a fresh and realistic approach to troop quality, and are not bound by past 'perceived wisdom' from previous rules and lists.

moswin wrote:
This set me thinking - Armies of these periods were generally not fulltime or highly trained by modern standards.

I am utterly in awe of your audacity in making such a sweeping statement about a game that covers four and a half millennia of warfare

Seriously, bud. The legions of imperial Rome, when the men served for 20-22 years? The housecarls of Charlemagne? The cataphracts that served with Belisarius?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "modern standards" when speaking of the pre-gunpowder era, but I'd have to take exception to the statement I'm quoting above.

The legions of imperial Rome, when the men served for 20-22 years? The housecarls of Charlemagne? The cataphracts that served with Belisarius?

Hey Possum - you have missed my point. The examples you've quoted do not counter my argument that armies of this period were generally not fulltime or highly trained by modern standards. In point of fact you have reinforced my point - you have called on examples of armies and units that are the exception, not the norm.

Your examples are of armies and units that most historians and wargamers (including myself) would classify as Superior or even Elite.

Interesting point Moswin. I think it must be very difficult for army list writers to classify a BG's training and experience of warfare particularly as, in the Early Medieval Period which is my own particularly period of interest, a very considerable number of troops may have been 'veterans' of skirmish warfare yet have no experience of a large scale battle, which I presume is what AOW is aimed at. I think such BG's would have been fine at just moving straight forward and hammering at whoever was in the way but, under battle conditions, the shuffling sidestep so beloved of many wargamers would have been totally beyond them. I will have to wait and see what the rules will actually offer before deciding whether to part with me shekels - providing the producers accept such currency

Moswin, no, not really. I didn't miss your point.

I was just citing the first and most notable exceptions to what you'd said that popped into my tiny marsupial brain

OK, let's talk Rome. How long did Imperial Rome endure? Shall we say 300 years? From 100 AD (by which time the republic was quite dead) to 400 AD (by which time the western empire was pretty dead). I think that's being conservative, since one could argue persuasively for extending both those dates. And for that matter, many of the legions of the late republic were some damned professional formations. How long did Gaius Julius have "X Leg Fret" under arms?

Eh, then again, on the gripping hand, we could argue for months over just when the republic died, but I DIGRESS, as I am wont to do.

OK, let's say 400 years, shall we?

Fine, you made a sweeping statement covering 4500 years. In the space of a few paragraphs, I've shown that your statement was patently untrue for nearly 10% of that period.

My point is that for a very large percentage of those four and a half millennia, there did exist a fulltime warrior class of professional fighters who were supported by their parent societies for the express purpose of military operations.

Partly the confusion is brought about by obvious historical, uhh, inconsistencies, let's say.

My favorite example is the byzantine cataphracts at the time of the height of the eastern empire.

On the one hand, we are told they were yeoman farmers. On the other hand, we are told that they -

1. Fought both mounted and dismounted, and had the capability to change from one to the other on the battlefield.

2. Fought competently with lance, sword, axe, and bow.

3. Competently executed complex battlefield maneuvers.

Now, for anybody who stops and thinks about it, this is a huge red flag with the word "BULLSHIT" emblazoned across it. Never in the history of the world has any part-time cavalry outfit been able to do those things.

The lance alone takes years to master. Let alone bow, axe, and sword.

The only way cavalry can execute complex maneuvers reliably on the battlefield is to practice them for at least 2 hours a day, at least 5 days a week, until the signals (bugle, drum, what have you), play directly on the nervous systems of both horse and man, and the maneuvers are executed automatically, without even thinking about them.

In fact, most cavalry manuals advocate more like 3-4 hours of drill a day, and 6 days a week!

In short, there's no way in hell the byzantine cataphracts were sodbusters. That they held land I believe, but you can be sure someone else worked that land, for the cataphracts were fulltime soldiers. There is no other way they could have done upon the battlefield those things that history tells us they did.

My point, in opposition to your own, is that throughout most of that 4500 years, there has in fact existed a class of fulltime warriors in most western societies.

Let me spell out exactly what my point is in relation to what I'd like to see in the AoW army lists. I think the discussion to date proves that this can be an area that provokes strong opinions.

Armour, mounts, weapons and skills in their use, drill, and tactical doctrine preferences are all a matter of equipment, training, social and military culture among other factors.

It is my contention that by default competent and trained troops of a given type should be classified as average. I am arguing that to deserve superior status or better is not so much a matter of training, being born a noble, being full-time or part-time or similar. I am arguing that to rate as superior or better requires meaningful battle experience for a significant portion of the personnel in the battle group. To get such experience requires survival first and foremost so by meaningful experience the implication is therefore that a battle group is used to being on the winning end most of the time.

Undoubtedly there are examples thoughout history where exceptional training and military culture makes it easier for battle groups and whole armies in some rare cases to acquire good experience and deserve Superior status or better. These are the exceptions. I am arguing that the norm should be average.

Hey it's just my opinion.

Although I cannot speak for the list writers, besides Moswin's point, which I agree with, the lists have as superior those troops that systematically beat similar troops from other nationalities/armies. So the Swiss become superior pikemen all around because for a century they beat any other pikemen (and most other things that got into pike reach). Whether it was elan, experience or superior tactics at the pike square level, it is represented by a superior status.

Something similar happens with the French and Hungarian knights in the XVth century, which is why they are superior while most others are average.

Sometimes it is used just to differentiate some unit from the bulk of the army, such as a bodyguard or a group of handpicked troops, a common practice that does not need to be recorded historically, and a way to add variety to a dull army.

I agree there may be too many superior knights in the middle Middle Ages lists, when a mix of superior and average might play better. But units that fought to the last man, or almost, are likely to get also the superior status, as that is one of its main effects in the rules, holding cohesion against the odds. And that is a feature of many warrior classes in history, from chariots to knights.

On the Byzantines, tagmata units are usually superior (or better!) while thematic troops (those supposed landholders) are average or even poor. And it works quite well, in my limited opinion.

This is a simulation, but it is also a game, so the fun factor is also important. Having some troops you really can root for helps the fun factor, at least for me.

Jos?©

I agree with Moswin to the extent that Superior troops should be relatively rare on the tabletop. In looking over the sample army lists on the Slitherine web site, I notice that the only troop types on the Late Achaemenid Persian list for which Superior is an option are the "Applebearer" guard infantry, and optionally some of the armoured (i.e. noble) cavalry. As these units represent the elites of the Persian army, with historically attested battlefield success (other than against Alex of course), this seems perfectly reasonable and historically accurate to me.

In the Alexandrian Macedonian list, those troops enjoying Superior status include the Companion cavalry, the Thessalian horse (optional), the Hypaspists, Agrianian javelinmen and Cretan archers. As with the Persian list, each of these ratings can be justified by their historical battlefield performance, and so also appear to be reasonable and accurate. They also represent a significantly larger percentage of Superior troops than for the Persian army.

Given that, I am at something of a loss as to the source of Moswin's concern. Is it that the Persian list includes too high a percentage of Superior troops, or that Macedonians have too low a percentage? The former would appear to contradict the historical record - i.e. the Applebearers did in fact appear to possess the requisite attested battlefield performance, as did at least some of the mounted nobility. The latter would appear to contradict Moswin's contention (with which I agree) that "Superior in most armies should be the exception and not the rule." IMHO at least, the sample AoW lists appear to be both consistent and historically justifiable in this regard.

Cheers,
Scott K.

Even "professional" armies were probably mostly made up of men with little or no actual combat experience for most of the time.

Exceptions such as Caesar's X legion were notable even in the Roman army, while "raw" legions were numerous in the times of protracted warfare. LAter on the troops with the most experience of warfare might be considered to be those in the Limes - the border fortifications, and they were considered poor quality!

Combat experience is not the sole pre-requisite for "superiority", however you may choose to determine what that is.

What interests me is that "superior" troops are aparently better at everything - were they all so uniformly drilled and also brave at the same time? THAT seems like a big call over a couple of thousand years of warfare.

Scott I don't see how you can be at a loss as to Moswin's concerns since you repeated both of his explicitly stated ones!! They are no mutually exclusive.

So, for the benefit of those who have not read the rules, is anyone able to say how the rules define 'superior' or 'elite' (to use the terms expressed in the army lists referred to in Moswin's original post)

Moswin, I was just having fun playing historical nitpicker with one statement you made.

I apologise for derailing your thread

stalins_organ wrote:Scott I don't see how you can be at a loss as to Moswin's concerns since you repeated both of his explicitly stated ones!! They are no mutually exclusive.

I do understand his concerns, but I do not see them actually being reflected in the AoW sample lists. Based on my understanding of the historical record, I do not think that there are either too many Superior troops represented in the Persian list, or too few in the Macedonian one. And in fact a significantly higher (and just as importantly, historically justifiable) proportion of troops in the Macedonian list are rated as Superior or better. Thus I am at a loss as to the rationale behind the concern expressed that the lists appear to be unhistorical or "heroic."

Cheers,
Scott

The problem is how will the point system solve this advantage of having an elite army.

Spartacus slaves should always have a balanced chance of winning.
How much will be a inca warrior compared with a spanish conquistador.
What will be the cost of a recently recruited roman soldier at Cannae.

killerhobbit wrote:The problem is how will the point system solve this advantage of having an elite army.

Spartacus slaves should always have a balanced chance of winning.
How much will be a inca warrior compared with a spanish conquistador.
What will be the cost of a recently recruited roman soldier at Cannae.

I am not sure how this ties in to elite...

There will be a very small amount of superior troops available to Spartacus (the former gladiators, assuming they fought together)

Inca warriors are yet to be classified but I suspect that even if superior troops they will have less armour, no cavalry and lesser weapons than their invaders.

Roman legionaries will be available in different flavours depending on the era of the Roman army and the level of training of the troops represented. The less well trained and motivated ones will be significantly cheaper than the veterans.

Hammy

The problem is how will the point system solve this advantage of having an elite army.

Spartacus slaves should always have a balanced chance of winning.
How much will be a inca warrior compared with a spanish conquistador.
What will be the cost of a recently recruited roman soldier at Cannae.

There are mechanisms in the rules that will make winning games with small amounts of elite troops not at all easy. This is important before dealing with the points values. In essence 4 things do it:

1. The results spreads even if advantaged - so elites can lose a combat to poors (its not easy but it has been done)
2. Numbers matter a lot - if you get 2 overlpas on a 6 base elite unit you get 10 dice vs their 6 - so they need some class to compensate. Swampiong is therefore possible
3. If you get hit in the flank, it doesn't matter what hits you much they are at an advantage. A small number of elite unitsget exposed heavily on this one as they cannot cover a table.
4. Small BGs can be brittle - and top class troops can only be afforded and allowed in small BGs.

You need things like this to balance the game - points cannot do it alone. But once you have the above the points can, and do.

The game has a very even balance in the value of average and quality troops.

I played another author wheere they hed a roman army that was 60%+ superior against ancient british with 90% average and poor. The Britons won without losing a battlegroup. That is not say the odds are in their favour, but they are certainly not overly stacked towards the smaller quantities of high calibre troops.....as longa s you make the 4 things above play to your advantage of course.....

Si

I think the problem is that very good melee troops are very easy to play. Point to the enemy and trust on average luck. With worse quality you need to take into account you will lose more BGs to cohesion, you need generals to bolster them more often, you need rear support, and you need to maneuver if a frontal melee will be in their favour.

So at the beginning it is easier to win with a small elite army than with a bigger non-elite one. Once you start to handle units better, you realise two BGs, even if worse, are better than an elite one in most circumstances.

A well led elite army is frightening, but if you are psyched up to have twice as many losses, and still win, and if your personal morale as a general does not break, you have a very good chance with a balanced average army.

Jos?©