Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Get all the latest news on Slitherine.

Moderator: Slitherine Core

Post Reply
AlbertoC
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:22 pm

Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by AlbertoC » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:00 pm

Friday is Aggressors day, and today we have something special to show you.

It's the first part of a units infographics, showing the special units coming with Aggressors: Ancient Rome. This time we'll focus on three culture groups: Barbarians, Greeks and Carthaginians.

Enjoy and let us know if you have any question or comment!

Image

Image

Image

Retributarr
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by Retributarr » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:44 pm

Weather Condition's & Terrain are determining factor's in the Cohesion and Battle-Worthy Effectiveness of an Army:

***The Season's & Geographical Terrain have direct bearing on the Sustainability/Viability and Effectiveness of an Army!. Don't take for granted...as in the Case...of Hannibal, the devastating effect's of Winter or of the difficult to navigate hazardous Mountain Terrain.***

https://www.historyextra.com/period/rom ... beat-rome/

http://www.historyrevealed.com/qa/how-m ... -over-alps

The year was 218 BC, and Rome was locked in a bitter conflict with its rival, the Mediterranean superpower of Carthage.

Although Hannibal (29 Year's of Age) did successfully negotiate the Alpine passes, his losses were considerable. Over half his army died in the severe, cold conditions, Hannibal himself was blinded in one eye, and it is recorded that only one of his elephants survived the trek.

(PICTURE:) Map of Hannibal's Trek across the Alp's:
Image
Journey to cross the Alps to Attack Rome.

How Hannibal beat the Alps but couldn’t beat Rome

https://www.historyextra.com/period/rom ... beat-rome/

Some Back-Ground & History behind the Alp's crossing!:

In the 20 years preceding the war, Carthage had been slowly making up for the losses it suffered in the First Punic War by campaigning in Spain. And it was from Spain that Rome’s greatest opponent emerged: the young Hannibal crossed the river Ebro in June 218 BC with 40,000 troops and 37 elephants.

The Alps towered in his way, but Hannibal turned east and took them on, probably crossing Mont Cenis (arguably by the Savine Coche pass, around 7,500 feet high) in late October.

When he came down into the plains above Turin he had only 20,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry (Appoximately half of his Army remained); none of the elephants had yet died.

He followed it up in late December with a crushing victory over a Roman army at the river Trebbia (near Piacenza).

By then he had also lost almost all his elephants: only seven survived the cold winter and Hannibal, the most famous “elephant-general”, never used them again in battle (?).

Although his army was already halved, he still won a first skirmish against Roman troops by the river Po.

A key to his success here was the doubling of his army with recruits from the anti-Roman Gauls in north Italy. They had at first hesitated to join him, but they were encouraged by his initial success and his terror tactics (IE: Pillaging their village's, burning the village's to the ground...and finally selling off the Captives into slaverly) towards those who had refused to join him in his crusade against the Roman's!.

In August 216 BC Hannibal won his supreme victory at "Cannae" in south-east Italy by pitting what were now some 50,000 of his troops against a Roman army which was probably about 87,000 strong. ***I am quite sure that this situation is a classic example of a 'Flank & Rear-Attack' "Ambush!"...that in this instance resulted in around 18 to 20 Legion's being destroyed!***

From now on, Roman control of the sea proved crucial and so from 214 BC onwards the Roman fleet held enough of the Italian coast to block any more foreign support from reaching their enemies. Italy & Spain were Blockaded by Roman Fleet's to prevent reinforcement for the Carthaginian's. By land, meanwhile, Fabius Maximus insisted on a strategy of devastating the crops and avoiding battles on Hannibal’s terms. The Carthaginians began to be bottled up.

In summer 207 BC one of Hannibal’s brothers did at last manage to bring reinforcements (and fresh elephants) into Italy from Spain. However, his dispatches were intercepted and he was defeated by a swift Roman counter-action up the east coast of Italy. It was the Carthaginians’ last chance and without more reinforcements Hannibal became only a long-running sore on Italy’s toe.

He had assembled 80 African elephants, but they ended up stampeding the Carthaginian's instead, doing more harm to their own side than to Rome’s.

Not until six years later after Hannibal returned to A frica...was he driven out of Carthage, this time by his Carthaginian enemies at Zama in Africa in 202 B.C.

Horance
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:34 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by Horance » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:02 pm

Thanks for the news. This looks very promising.

I'm a bit surprised that the third Greek infantry unit is called "phalanx". While an hoplite is an unit, a phalanx sounds like a military formation to me.
As far I understand it, a phalanx can be composed of either hoplites (spear) or phalangites (pike/sarissa).

I suppose that by "phalanx", you were referring to the Macedonian phalanx. In this case, I would have expected the unit to be called something like "phalangites" or, more specifically, "pezhetairoi".

What is the rationale behind the choice of the "phalanx" term?

pavelk
Kubat Software
Kubat Software
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 4:27 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by pavelk » Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:08 am

Hi Horance,
thank you for your point.
Horance wrote:I suppose that by "phalanx", you were referring to the Macedonian phalanx.
Practically yes but there is one thing to be added.

Granularity of Aggressors' units is on pretty high level. Basically every unit represents one army (in case of Roman Empire it is one Legion, in case of barbarian tribe it can be an army group). In that time (and it is not much different nowadays) almost every type of army consisted of different unit types (archers, legionaries, cavalry, etc.) but these details are hidden from Aggressors perspective.

With this in mind, specific unit type names might partially lost its original meaning. Our aim (when we were thinking about the names of different types) was to create an easy to remember and well known names which will be at least partially in sync with the army development and power.

Greek unit types were one of the easier "cases" where we could use well known names like "hoplite" or "phalanx" but there were much bigger tradeoffs necessary.

For example, barbarian tribes didn't change much of their gear or weapons for centuries but we still wanted to put some kind of "army development" to the game. Even barbarian tactic and effectiveness of their units have improved over time. That is the reason why we came up with some made up names like "axemen" and "axemasters" despite the fact that there is no such a thing in history so explicitely named.

I hope that this at least partially explained the reason for this decision.

FightingPoultry
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:59 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by FightingPoultry » Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:43 pm

thees units look more fantasy than anything else - especially the barbarians -' Axemasters', really?. If you are going to make it a historical game , try to keep it as realistic as you can, there is plenty of research out there to tell you how these units were equipped and functioned.
Your numidians are depicted as having wapping great shields and big swords - my understanding is that they were very lightly equipped and armed with javelins, peltasts as far as i am aware were not generally armed with long spears -at least not in the days of classical Greece, they were again , lightly armoured skirmishers, the term peltast is derived from 'pelta' which was the unique crescent shaped shield used by the thracians, who were i think the originators of peltast tactics ( may be worng here) - hope you dont mind the comments , game looks pretty good otherwise

gwgardner
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:59 am

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by gwgardner » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:09 pm

On the other hand, from wiki: Barbarian tribes that the Romans encountered north of the Alps did include iron war axes in their armories, alongside swords and spear ....

Cablenexus
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1632
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by Cablenexus » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:14 pm

"Your numidians are depicted as having wapping great shields and big swords - my understanding is that they were very lightly equipped and armed with javelins, peltasts as far as i am aware were not generally armed with long spears -at least not in the days of classical Greece"

Since I thought to look it up myself in the most easy way, the wiki ;-) (There are absolutely more archives haha) I think they even are not really sure how to call it:

First alinea:

The Sacred Band was an elite unit of the Carthaginian army. Since its formation in the 4th century BC, the unit consisted exclusively of the sons of the noble Carthaginian citizens. The unit usually did not fight outside of Africa.[8] As a unit of heavy spearmen, the unit was placed in the center of the army formation immediately behind the row of elephants and protected by auxiliary wings of mercenaries and cavalry.

Second alinea:

With their elite status, members of the Sacred Band received the best equipment in the Carthaginian army. Their weapons and training were similar to those of the Greek hoplites: heavy spear, sword, hoplon shield, and bronze greaves, helmet, and breastplate.

I'm absolutely not an expert, I'm just curious to which archives you are refering to so the developer can eventually improve it.

pavelk
Kubat Software
Kubat Software
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 4:27 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by pavelk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:13 am

Hi FightingPoultry,
there is no reason to say that you are not right in most of your points and we are aware of that.
I already tried to explain our view here http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 74#p733305, I am not sure if you read that.

With such a granularity (like Aggressors have) there is no way to use any of the historical terms, because peltasts were never used as a whole army but always just as one part of the army. We wanted to have such unit type names, which can (at least partially) show the "development" of the army and its power and not use names like "greek basic" army but a name which would be easy to remember. That is why we came up with scale peltasts-hoplites-phalanx for example. This might not be accurate from the development point of view but it is from the effectiveness and power point of view.
I hope that it makes sense a bit.

ZygfrydDeLowe
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:49 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by ZygfrydDeLowe » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:17 pm

Just my 2 cents.

I really like where you are heading with your game, and it's one of the few titles I look forward to purchasing.

That being said, I think you could consider re-thinking some choices. I understand what you are trying to achieve here, i.e. create "tiers" and sense of progression, so the player can see at a first glance which units are more advanced.
I like the graphical side, except for the double-sided axe. It's something straight from the Conan comics, and it's especially grating for cavalry. I think something akin to "Elite Warriors". or "Elite Axemen" would sound better. "Axemaster" doesn't sound right in the context. Also giving it a regular (or with a golden decorative element) axe would look better.

As for the Carthaginian cavalry - perhaps naming the first tier "Numidian Cavalry" would work better, as the contrast between the unit name and the model wouldn't be as jarring.
You are making a game set in a known period, and you are advertising your game on strategy forums, so expect that many potential players and buyers have knowledge about the period.
Don't underestimate the immersion factor. It lies in details like this. And things like this will most likely be pointed out in reviews.

Retributarr
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by Retributarr » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:11 am

***This "Posting"...is not a description of 'Infantry-InfoGraphics', but of an 'Equipment' description!...which was a Compliment or Accoutrement' for the infantry.***

The Roman Carroballista was an ancient, cart-mounted ballista, a type of mobile field artillery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroballista
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista

The Carroballista was an ancient, cart-mounted ballista, a type of mobile field artillery. According to the Roman author Vegetius (Epitoma rei militaris II.25), each legion had 55 carroballistae (one per century) which were arrow/bolt-shooter of the cheiroballistra type. the cart was pulled by two mules or horses.

Vegetius tells us that each carroballista was carried by mules and operated by one contubernium (i.e. ten private soldiers commanded by one decanus).

Image
A four-wheeled ballista drawn by armored horses, from an engraving illustrating a 1552 edition of De Rebus Bellicis.

Image
A four-wheeled ballista drawn by armored horses, from an engraving illustrating a 1552 edition of De Rebus Bellicis.[/b]
Roman cart-mounted ballista (Trajan's Column)

Firing position
The carroballista was operated/manoeuvred by one man mounted on the cart with the ballista and by another man positioned behind the cart and operating probably some sort of winch handle. The presence of the mules in front of the cart suggests that the carroballista could be easily moved through the battle-field whilst shooting bolts.

***(More likely...quickly shuttled to a new location, brought to a 'Complete Stop', and then postions were taken for controlling the Ballista...'Sighting/Aiming & Firing'...and not doing so while the 'Wagon-Mounted-Ballista' was in motion!.)***

Ballistae could be easily modified to shoot both spherical and shaft projectiles, allowing their crews to adapt easily to prevailing battlefield situations in real time.

As the role of battlefield artillery became more sophisticated, a universal joint (which was invented just for this function) was integrated into the ballista's stand, allowing the operators to alter the trajectory and firing direction of the ballista as required without a lengthy disassembly of the machine.

The ballista was a highly accurate weapon (there are many accounts of single soldiers being picked off by ballista operators), but some design aspects meant it could compromise its accuracy for range. The maximum range was over 500 yards (460 m), but effective combat range for many targets was far shorter.
The Romans continued the development of the ballista, and it became a highly prized and valued weapon in the army of the Roman Empire.

It was used, just before the start of the Empire, by Julius Caesar during his conquest of Gaul and on both of his campaigns in subduing Britain

Ballistae in the Roman Empire
During the conquest of the Empire, the ballista proved its worth many times in sieges and battles, both at sea and on land.

After Julius Caesar, the ballista was a permanent fixture in the Roman army and, over time, modifications and improvements were made by successive engineers. This included replacing the remaining wooden parts of the machine with metal, creating a much smaller, lighter and more powerful machine than the wooden version, which required less maintenance (though the vital torsion springs were still vulnerable to the strain).

Ballistae were not only used in laying siege: after AD 350, at least 22 semi-circular towers were erected around the walls of Londinium (London) to provide platforms for permanently mounted defensive devices.[7]

When the missile is discharged from the grooved shaft, it is propelled with such force that it attains the distance of not less than two bow-shots, and then, when it hits a tree or a rock, it pierces it easily. Such is the engine which bears this name, being so called because it shoots with very great force[8]

pavelk
Kubat Software
Kubat Software
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 4:27 pm

Re: Aggressors - Units infographics part I

Post by pavelk » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:31 pm

Hi Zygryd,
thank you for your message and support.

You are absolutely right that people might point out these inconsistencies. We will review the names once again and try to find something more appropriate. Especially the axemasters and the double sided axe. We actually like your idea of "Elite axemen". Thank you for the suggestion.

Post Reply

Return to “News & Announcements”