Please count me in. Armies to follow.

Please count me in.

#1 - Ptolemaic 55-30 BC with Roman 105-25 BC ally
#2 - Gallic 300-101 BC with Samnite 355-272 BC ally
#3 - Thracian (Hellenistic) 350-281 BC with Antigonid 320-301 BC ally
#4 - Achaemenid Persian 480-461 BC with Greek 680-461 BC ally

Please count me in.

#1 - Byzantine 963-987 AD with Arab (Syria/Iraq) 890-1008 AD ally
#2 - Khorasanian 821-1003 AD with Arab (Abbasid) 815-835 AD ally
#3 - Dailami 928-1055 AD with Armenian 885-1045 AD ally
#4 - Arab (North Africa) 789-999 AD with Andalusian 756-1049 AD ally

Please count me in.

#1 - Assyrian 681 BC to 689 BC with Egyptian 664 BC to 571 BC Ally
#2 - Egyptian 664 BC to 571 BC with Assyrian 681 BC to 689 BC Ally
#3 - Median (626-550 BC) with Babylonian (626-539 BC) ally
#4 - Hebrew (681-586 BC with Egyptian (664-571 BC) ally

To my point of view, the best way to simulate it seems to have a secret random level of each army panic: I.e: for each side a random is made at the start but the player do not know the result of the level of routing troops that will made it all army too rout. sommething like 35+/- 10% with a 20+/- ...

There is a (good) reason we did not do it this way - if the cheaper units don't count as much for army morale, they can be (unrealistically) used as suicide troops. Is this really always unrealistic? I would be surprised if no general ever callously sacrificed useless rabble for the sake of distrac...

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:01 pm

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:48 pm

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:40 pm

Classical is missing 105BC Romans

Thanks. (stockwellpete)

So the Roman 105BC is not moving to Later Antiquity?

Pete said that he is keeping Late Antiquity to 0-599 AD?

Mike I've read the posts now and see it is staying in Classical Antiquity.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:01 pm

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:48 pm

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:40 pm

Classical is missing 105BC Romans

Thanks. (stockwellpete)

So the Roman 105BC is not moving to Later Antiquity?

Pete said that he is keeping Late Antiquity to 0-599 AD?

I'm not sure because the proposed army lists still has it moving to later antiquity.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:40 pm

Classical is missing 105BC Romans

Thanks. (stockwellpete)

So the Roman 105BC is not moving to Later Antiquity?

That's because Warband vs Warband involves taking a -1 for losing vs shock, AND not getting the +1 for being heavy infantry. The raw hoplites only suffer from the former Well that has got to be what it is. I haven't done the math but you would think because raw troops re-roll 6's there ability to n...

I just did the 13 cat vs Limitanei test again and got exactly the same result. 3 cohesion tests and one cohesion drop. Interestingly the predicted % win dropped to between 30% and 34%. Why does that happen? I tested the 13 Parthian superior cataphracts against 13 Etruscan Raw offensive spear. Catap...

I just did the 13 cat vs Limitanei test again and got exactly the same result. 3 cohesion tests and one cohesion drop. Interestingly the predicted % win dropped to between 30% and 34%. Why does that happen?

I've been working on this video https://youtu.be/-P5I-YJu1zU and have found out a few useful things - I thought at BUA was difficult terrain, for instance, but in fact it is rough terrain. However I am a bit stumped to be able to say what the POA effect is of being disordered or severely disordered...

melm wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:31 am

terrain doesn't effect POA. It only starts kicking in after POA translated into win-draw-loss percentage.

That doesn't sound correct.

I quickly set up a test scenario, just to see how effective Cataphracts are against Irregular Foot and Raw Legionaries in FOG2. I had 10 cataphracts pitted against 10 Raw Legionaries, and another 10 cataphracts against 10 Irregular foot all in open terrain. I ran it through once, and I know that is...

What makes you think medium foot would be easier and less costly than a shieldwall? It seems to me that the shieldwall was retained in many cultures because it was one of the easiest ways to make poorly armored and trained men into effective fighters. The Parthians and Sarmatians aren’t popular bec...

I certainly don't think the ability for troops to rally should be enhanced. Is there a historical precedent? While I agree with you that units that have already broken should not be easier to rally, I do think that certain circumstances should allow units which are about to break to rally (actually...

I'm not saying that you are all wrong in wanting cataphracts (and other lance armed ancient cavalry?) to crush infantry on impact, but it needs to be backed up with historical evidence. BTW, there is also the battle of Panion, where the Seleucid cataphracts broke part of the Ptolemaic phalanx, but ...

Livy was a Roman propaganda machine and the founder of false news :D But he is the primary ancient source for the battle of Magnesia. Appian, the only other ancient writer who mentions the battle, was writing over 300 years after the event and gives even less detail on this incident. [/quote] I was...

Is there any actual historical evidence for ancient Cataphracts destroying infantry? Can anyone quote the name of a battle or two? Weren't cataphracts the only cavalry type to break Roman legionaries in a frontal charge? I think it was Magnesia. If you take Gaugamela didn't Alexander's Companions c...