Is V2 more, or less, historically accurate?

[Eques]

What are peoples' opinions on whether V2 has made the game more or less historically accurate?

I don't mean playability, fairness etc. just historical accuracy for the purposes of this thread.

Thanks

[marty]

I consider the general reduction in manouverability a big plus in terms of historical accuracy.

There are no changes I am particularly troubled by on the historical accuracy front.

Martin

[bahdahbum]

Difficult to say what is "historically accurate" we were not there

But I would have interdicted thur 90 £ or even 180% to phalanx . They were not designed for such formations . they were designed to go forward and could not go backwards . They could make square . And there lies the roman advantage : manoeuvrability of the cohorts .

And I do use phalanx and love them .

[philqw78]

IMO pike should not be drilled. Pike phalanx was used because it involved little training, as said above they went forward.

[nikgaukroger]

IMO pike should not be drilled. Pike phalanx was used because it involved little training, as said above they went forward.

Probably true for the majority of the majority of Pikemen, but not all.

[paullongmore]

But I would have interdicted thur 90 £ or even 180% to phalanx . They were not designed for such formations . they were designed to go forward and could not go backwards . They could make square . And there lies the roman advantage : manoeuvrability of the cohorts .

Seleucid Argyraspids reversed over a wall while engaged by Roman Legionaries at Thermopylae

[bahdahbum]

It might be but argyraspides were not the "lambda" pikemen . So I would say that is should at least be a test to turn 180° . 90% is out of question if the formations is to stay "steady" and in phalanx formation . The only real way to turn was to pivot which takes time .

Legionaries feared the phalanx but outmanoeuvred them . When a phalanx was steady they never could beat it frontally .

Perhaps in V3 shal we have the phalanx treated as it should : a big unit with little mobility except forwards + shift or pivot

[pyruse]

I don't know where this idea comes from that the phalanx was ponderous. I think it is wargames wisdom, not based on history.
Alexander famously bamboozled the Illyrians tribesemen by doing a drill display with his phalanx - countermarching, wheeling and so on.

[ravenflight]

What are peoples' opinions on whether V2 has made the game more or less historically accurate?

I don't mean playability, fairness etc. just historical accuracy for the purposes of this thread.

Thanks

I think few battles were decided by rolling dice.

[philqw78]

I think few battles were decided by rolling dice

I thought ancient battles were decided by boiling the entrails of live goats and sacrificing legionaries, which is why we have to roll dice now.

[bahdahbum]

I don't know where this idea comes from that the phalanx was ponderous. I think it is wargames wisdom, not based on history.
Alexander famously bamboozled the Illyrians tribesemen by doing a drill display with his phalanx - countermarching, wheeling and so on.

Was he marching and counter marching soldiers in phalanx formation in the hills or using soldiers as what we call medium foot with javelins .

Look at it this way . The front ranks of the phalanx was historically more armoured than the rear ranks . That's one point .
The whole foration is designed to push forward ( not to stab but push as just try to stab with a pike and the tell me it is easy ) .The whole organisation of a phalanx, ranks, officers are placed in a way to controll the phalanx while it goes forward and not backwards or turn 90° . If seasoned troops or well drilled it should be possible to go slowly backwards . it is of course possible to wheel ...by the way did you try to make a linear formation wheel and stay linear ...it is not that easy .So, put yur pikes up, turn 90° and lower the pikes would mean that a phalax is a square with officiers place on all "strategic points" . No way . It is a limitation on which many historians agree . The manoeuvrability of a phalanx is limited which is how the romans did beat the phalanx . They outmanoeuvred the phalanx as the cohort was more flexible . The only way they did beat phalanx frontaly was when the phalanx was disorganised due to terrain or anythng else . Even at Magnesia they did not dare assault the stopped and surrounded phalanx . they waited till the seleucid elephants did panick and go trough the phalanx, disorganising it

[nikgaukroger]

I don't know where this idea comes from that the phalanx was ponderous. I think it is wargames wisdom, not based on history.
Alexander famously bamboozled the Illyrians tribesemen by doing a drill display with his phalanx - countermarching, wheeling and so on.

Was he marching and counter marching soldiers in phalanx formation in the hills or using soldiers as what we call medium foot with javelins .

The pike phalanx.

It is also pretty much a unique occurence IIRC.

[bahdahbum]

Perhaps some old hands could do it, but I wonder at the average soldier ...

[ravenflight]

If seasoned troops or well drilled it should be possible to go slowly backwards . it is of course possible to wheel ...by the way did you try to make a linear formation wheel and stay linear ...it is not that easy. So, put yur pikes up, turn 90° and lower the pikes would mean that a phalax is a square with officiers place on all "strategic points" . No way .

It is FAR worse, actually.

A 16x16 man phalanx CANNOT wheel. It can FORM (which is similar, but more difficult and time consuming) and you are TOTALLY disordered while performing the form. It takes a great deal of expereince to successfully perform a form, and forms OTHER than 90 degrees are even more difficult - 45 degrees being the next easiest but stillrather complex formation change similar to what we call 'a wheel'.

It may seem like there are minimal differences, but it's complex.

Now doing a form 2 or 3 phalanxes wide - well, i hope they have been practicing - A LOT - and I hope no enemy is around.

When 'wheeling' on the wargames table you should PROBABLY half or even quarter your movement rate.

[grahambriggs]

I don't know where this idea comes from that the phalanx was ponderous. I think it is wargames wisdom, not based on history.
Alexander famously bamboozled the Illyrians tribesemen by doing a drill display with his phalanx - countermarching, wheeling and so on.

Was he marching and counter marching soldiers in phalanx formation in the hills or using soldiers as what we call medium foot with javelins .

The pike phalanx.

It is also pretty much a unique occurence IIRC.

Granicus anti chariot drill was quite nifty - as the football comentators would say "that one is straight from the training ground". But then the taxies had been together for a long time by then so would have been a very settled unit.

I suspect there was a big difference for close order long spear and pike troops in what you can do when the enemy is far away (as there were in that instance) and what you can do when engaged frontally with the enemy. If you put the pike vertical, I imagine you can do quite a bit - in the same way that the Spartans did the Laconian countermarch.

I watched some hoplite re-enactments in Athens a while back and was struck that each man had a role to play, some with spear, some physically supporting. No doubt that would break down as casualties mount but it was clearly the case that they were very much focused to the front. With the number of ranks of pikement that can bear on the enemy I imagine this was very much the case for pike.

So I suspect it's not so much that they were generally any clumsier than others when manouvering, but that when things get close the benefit of frontal fighting power comes at the expense of not being able to react to threats from another direction.

[bahdahbum]

When "far" from the ennemy, the phalanx would manoeuver ( move ) in open ranks and close when near action . When you look at the info we have about ancient battle, it seems that phalanxes never had an opportunity to really manoeuver as we do ( 90°+move and so on ) .They did what they are supposed to do : strike forward and hope the flanks are secure

[pyruse]

Which begs the question - how many ancient troops were capable of doing much more than going straight ahead?
I think the answer is 'very few' - but the trouble is it makes for a boring game (Tactica is a rule set that enforces realistic restrictions, but is not very interesting to play for that reason).
Strike forward and hope the flanks are secure is what 90% of ancient battles were like.

[ravenflight]

Which begs the question - how many ancient troops were capable of doing much more than going straight ahead?
I think the answer is 'very few' - but the trouble is it makes for a boring game (Tactica is a rule set that enforces realistic restrictions, but is not very interesting to play for that reason).
Strike forward and hope the flanks are secure is what 90% of ancient battles were like.

Exactly my point. Dancing around the battlefield is rare as hens teeth. Flanks were secured by the fact it was bloody hard to get there with anything remotely powerful enough to worry about. So in the 'which is more historically accurate' stakes = nothing where manouver is an integeral part of the game. In the 'which is a more balanced GAME' = I have no idea, but it seems the points (which are ahistorical in the first place) disparity between drilled and undrilled have been minimised (a good thing IMHO) and quite probably will make for a better GAME.

Come-on guys - do any of you REALLY think this is ANYTHING like history?

[grahambriggs]

I've heard RBS suggest that the game includes the pre-battle manouver as well as the battle itself. Not entirely sure I buy that. But if you did think of it in that way then The actual battle could be when the figures get quite close to each other. I think the reduction of the "turn and move" distances and the reduction in some mounted missile ranges may cut down on some of the move extreme manouverability of v1.

In that respect, it may be that v2 is a little more historical than v1.

[bahdahbum]

Come-on guys - do any of you REALLY think this is ANYTHING like history

Yes, HISTORY is the way the victorious conqueror writes the story of what happened .

Science ficyion is what historians find out . Like ...the fact that gallic tribes did charge slowly maintaining ranks ....not charging madly against a well organised ennemy ...