Hammy (Spartan Army List)
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
Hammy (Spartan Army List)
Following on from our discussion at Ascot, I couldn't find the thread regarding the Spartan Hippeis.
I still believe these should be elite under the rules.
I still believe these should be elite under the rules.
-
- Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:04 am
- Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
The main thread on this is here viewtopic.php?t=5076
I think the problem is that people are getting hung up on the terms superior and elite rather than the relative performance of the troops in question in the game. Have a read of the other thread and feel free to kick it back into life.
I think the problem is that people are getting hung up on the terms superior and elite rather than the relative performance of the troops in question in the game. Have a read of the other thread and feel free to kick it back into life.
I think there are really three issues here : Troop Quality, Game Balance and Numbers.
The spartan Hippeis was formed from the best of the spartiates, consequently are better than your 'average' Spartiate. Looking at their battlefield performance then one can note on the two occassions where things weren't going there way the fought to the last. I am not sure how many times Roman legionaries 'choose' to do so let alone the same cohort. Consequently they should be Elite.
I noticed the comment regarding 18 Elite Romans, people seem to forget that they lost a lot of times. In a hoplite battle there would be no competition between the Spartiates and the Helots. What happened when the Romans fought slaves .... they lost repeatedly.
The Hippies represents between 7%-40% of the spartiates between 480 and 371 BC. How many 'elements' do the Sacred band get? I can see Nik's point about having putting a general with them but then you could have quite a 'big' battle group of them.
Regarding it being a game . . true.
The spartan Hippeis was formed from the best of the spartiates, consequently are better than your 'average' Spartiate. Looking at their battlefield performance then one can note on the two occassions where things weren't going there way the fought to the last. I am not sure how many times Roman legionaries 'choose' to do so let alone the same cohort. Consequently they should be Elite.
I noticed the comment regarding 18 Elite Romans, people seem to forget that they lost a lot of times. In a hoplite battle there would be no competition between the Spartiates and the Helots. What happened when the Romans fought slaves .... they lost repeatedly.
The Hippies represents between 7%-40% of the spartiates between 480 and 371 BC. How many 'elements' do the Sacred band get? I can see Nik's point about having putting a general with them but then you could have quite a 'big' battle group of them.
Regarding it being a game . . true.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Well done Dave, you've managed the usual not comparing like with likeDford666 wrote:
I noticed the comment regarding 18 Elite Romans, people seem to forget that they lost a lot of times. In a hoplite battle there would be no competition between the Spartiates and the Helots. What happened when the Romans fought slaves .... they lost repeatedly.
1. The Romans who are represented by the Elites in the lists did not lose loads of times - other Romans not so classified did that.
2. the Romans who lost to the slaves were most definitely not the elites so making a comparison of them to spartiates and helots is meaningless.
To add a touch of, dare I say, academic reality to this rather than wargamer myth I would note that in his recent "Lost battles" Phil Sabin comments that the performance of the usual Roman conscript armies of the period covered by the FoG Mid Republican list was on a par with the Spartans. Personally I have a great deal of respect for Phil Sabin and his knowledge on this so for me this carries great weight.
The Spartans, and especially the spartiates, were by far the best hoplites in Greece - and as Superior Drilled ar so in FoG, however, lets not get carried away.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
I am not an expert on the Slave revolt but I thought they defeated a proper Roman field army at some point. I would also say that the performance of the army is differant to the performance of its constitant parts.
I know of Phil Sabins book but haven't read it, is he saying that Roman conscripts are as good 'quality' wish as the Spatiates. Interesting I must look into this.
Not having the lists, which roman army gets 18 elites - Trajan?
I know of Phil Sabins book but haven't read it, is he saying that Roman conscripts are as good 'quality' wish as the Spatiates. Interesting I must look into this.
Not having the lists, which roman army gets 18 elites - Trajan?
As a matter of intellectual curiosity I have just plugged the numbers for 3 files of superior spear hitting 3 files of average the result was quite suprising.
The average spear will be disrupted 33.28% of the time to the superiors 14.41% and the average will be fragmented 2.97% of the time compared with 0.15% for the superiors. I have checked my sums and think they are right but this is a very significant advantage for the superiors.
If you do the same sums with elite vs average you get
Average disrupted 41.67% and fragged 3.89% vs elite disrupted 7.24% and fragged 0.05%
The long and short of it is that Spartan spearmen are more than good enough to get the correct effect against their historical opponents as superiors and if they were elite they would be soooo good compared to their historical opponents that they would IMO be wrongly modeled.
The average spear will be disrupted 33.28% of the time to the superiors 14.41% and the average will be fragmented 2.97% of the time compared with 0.15% for the superiors. I have checked my sums and think they are right but this is a very significant advantage for the superiors.
If you do the same sums with elite vs average you get
Average disrupted 41.67% and fragged 3.89% vs elite disrupted 7.24% and fragged 0.05%
The long and short of it is that Spartan spearmen are more than good enough to get the correct effect against their historical opponents as superiors and if they were elite they would be soooo good compared to their historical opponents that they would IMO be wrongly modeled.
For the elite legionaries the question is what do you consider their historical opponents. To be honest the most likely opponents are more Romans and as the norm for Roman legionaries is superior the elite legions have to be better than them assuming that they were infact better which if you believe the histories certain legions were.
Elite legionaries will tear Gauls or Britons to pieces but as they cost more than twice as much then from a game POV that is reasonable.
Elite legionaries will tear Gauls or Britons to pieces but as they cost more than twice as much then from a game POV that is reasonable.
-
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:01 am
- Location: just slightly behind your flank
is this all a bit of a DBM hangover
Blades are a bit better than spear, so Bd(S) elite legions (if DBMM lists are to be believed) will lock up against Spear S and not a lot will happen for a long time, with the Bd having a bit of an edge in the long run.
the impact foot / Offensive spear classification is a bit more complex.
Superior impact foot are really going to have their work cut out to face Spartan spearmen, and are likely to be beaten if they are not lucky on impact.
Elite Impact foot might actually have a chance.
so backwards translating - superior impact foot legionaries are closer to DBM bd(O), they need to be Elite to be 'superior blades'
makes sense to me
basically Armoured Offensive spearmen are better than DBM Spear (O)
Blades are a bit better than spear, so Bd(S) elite legions (if DBMM lists are to be believed) will lock up against Spear S and not a lot will happen for a long time, with the Bd having a bit of an edge in the long run.
the impact foot / Offensive spear classification is a bit more complex.
Superior impact foot are really going to have their work cut out to face Spartan spearmen, and are likely to be beaten if they are not lucky on impact.
Elite Impact foot might actually have a chance.
so backwards translating - superior impact foot legionaries are closer to DBM bd(O), they need to be Elite to be 'superior blades'
makes sense to me
basically Armoured Offensive spearmen are better than DBM Spear (O)
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Nobody has said they didn't defeat Roman armies, however, those Roman armies would not be considered FoG elite grade troops.Dford666 wrote:
I am not an expert on the Slave revolt but I thought they defeated a proper Roman field army at some point. I would also say that the performance of the army is differant to the performance of its constitant parts.
Yes - their tenacity and fighting ability.Dford666 wrote:
I know of Phil Sabins book but haven't read it, is he saying that Roman conscripts are as good 'quality' wish as the Spatiates. Interesting I must look into this.
Dford666 wrote:
Not having the lists, which roman army gets 18 elites - Trajan?
Late Republican - think Caesar's tenth and such like at the end of his Gallic campaigns.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
BTW in all of this we must remember that Dave started with a reference to the hippeis and not the whole of the Spartans.
IMO there is indeed an argument that these could have been represented by a small BG of Elite troops - it was raised during the list development process and, I'm afraid, I can't recall the reason it was rejected
IMO there is indeed an argument that these could have been represented by a small BG of Elite troops - it was raised during the list development process and, I'm afraid, I can't recall the reason it was rejected
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:00 pm
- Location: Reading, England
From a purely "histroical" approach I thought Elite should be an option for part of the spartan army.
However I think a key consideration for the rules designers, which I reluctantly agree with is to model the overall effectiveness of the troops as a whole. Elite offensive spear would be too good, they would be able to beat pike etc that historically they did not tend to beat.
Same thing with pike they are very good as they are but if you allowed armoured as an option they would be unbeatable. Part of the way through his campaign Alexander replaced all his phalangites armour with top notch metal suits, it should from historical perspectives be enough to class them as armoured, (they certainly had better armour than mid rep roman hastati who are allowed to be armoured in the lists) but from game mechics point of view it would imbalance them
These are game balancing fixes and as such I think are good things. I don't think anyone really wants one army to be far superior to all the others, it would spoil the game.
Instead for "comptetition" purposes I would like to see a significant REDUCTION in the number of elite legionaries you are allowed to take. The list allow you to take virtually an entire army listed as ELITE which is ludicrous, and anything that isn't elite will certainly be superior. I could live with the OPTION to have all superior and maybe up to 8 elite, but the current 18 elite is way way too much. Fine for a specific historical game rather than a typical points game.
The problem we have now is that against armoured, elite, drilled, skilled swordsmen, your typical gallic or germanic warband has absoloutely no chance on earth of achieving anything. IMHO
Andy
However I think a key consideration for the rules designers, which I reluctantly agree with is to model the overall effectiveness of the troops as a whole. Elite offensive spear would be too good, they would be able to beat pike etc that historically they did not tend to beat.
Same thing with pike they are very good as they are but if you allowed armoured as an option they would be unbeatable. Part of the way through his campaign Alexander replaced all his phalangites armour with top notch metal suits, it should from historical perspectives be enough to class them as armoured, (they certainly had better armour than mid rep roman hastati who are allowed to be armoured in the lists) but from game mechics point of view it would imbalance them
These are game balancing fixes and as such I think are good things. I don't think anyone really wants one army to be far superior to all the others, it would spoil the game.
Instead for "comptetition" purposes I would like to see a significant REDUCTION in the number of elite legionaries you are allowed to take. The list allow you to take virtually an entire army listed as ELITE which is ludicrous, and anything that isn't elite will certainly be superior. I could live with the OPTION to have all superior and maybe up to 8 elite, but the current 18 elite is way way too much. Fine for a specific historical game rather than a typical points game.
The problem we have now is that against armoured, elite, drilled, skilled swordsmen, your typical gallic or germanic warband has absoloutely no chance on earth of achieving anything. IMHO
Andy
What would the definition of Roman conscripts be>. In most other periods of history professionals are generally better than conscripts.
The only potential time that Elite hoplites would face pike to my knowledge was the sacred band are Chaeronea, I know little about the specifics of this battle apart from them being surrounded at destroyed. Did they actually fight the pike.
I am currently researching into the battle of Leuktra, a very interesting engagement. Which looks like being quite a close run thing, given that the Hippeis were disordered and the king killed early. Being pro Spartan I think the Thebans would of really struggled if this two events hadn't happened.
Ok this isn't pike but it is a 50 deep formation.
The only potential time that Elite hoplites would face pike to my knowledge was the sacred band are Chaeronea, I know little about the specifics of this battle apart from them being surrounded at destroyed. Did they actually fight the pike.
I am currently researching into the battle of Leuktra, a very interesting engagement. Which looks like being quite a close run thing, given that the Hippeis were disordered and the king killed early. Being pro Spartan I think the Thebans would of really struggled if this two events hadn't happened.
Ok this isn't pike but it is a 50 deep formation.