Your Favourite army

[shall]

Not quite true. Hoplites and Scots are about the same once in combat. The classic Greek Hoplite I imagine being hard to break down with bowfire is drilled and armoured when the scots are undrilled and portected. Its very very hard to DISR an armoured foot unit with bowfire. Also the drilled has a big effect on how well you can get them in vs bowmen. So the net result is that the scots are much more vulnerable to bowfire. The longbow is another issue - more effective than bowfire vs armoured targets - so if the classic hoplite faces longbow it may have problems that are similar - and perhaps would have done.

Some of the less classic and lower quality hoplites will be undrilled and protected and these are the same.

We seem to be saying the same thing from different directions...........

Some of the hoplites....the ones I imagine being hard to stop with bowfire.....are armoured (early ones) and others are undrilled and protected so just the same as the scots.

Note I did not say anything about the majority - merely the characterstics of those I imagine being hard to kill with bows. It depends which ones you choose. The one time I used the army it had mainly armoured hoplites in it. But it is true that most of the histocical versions of the hoplites are undrilled protected, so if you are doing refights you would be useing these much of the time.

The question was whether the hoplites are the same as scots. The answer to that is no.

Early hoplites can be armoured
Spartans and several other mercenaries can be drilled
The rest are protected and undrilled, as are the scots

Can't add to Richards point on Longbows. As you say its great source of debate about composite bows and longbows. At the end of the day the Longbow seems pretty well balanced in the game - certainly no super troop (in fact we have trid to avoid this throghout).

That's all. Hope that is clear.

Si

[benny]

Hoplites are mostly undrilled. They tend to be Armoured until the middle of the 5th century BC and Protected therafter. The ones fighting the Persians in Greece would mostly be graded as Armoured.

Does Armoured' means metal armour in AoW? If so, I'd be interested to learn why hoplites in the Persians Wars are Armoured whereas later ones are Protected. I don't claim to be an expert by any means but what I've read does not suggest any change in the level of protection during the 5th century. The bronze bell corselet fell out of general use in the 6th century, well before the Persian Wars, and from then on I'd understood linen and leather corselets were the norm, apart from the occasional wealthy individual splashing out on a bronze 'muscled' cuirass.

Of course during the 4th century you get some hoplites disgarding all body armour so are these the ones you are classing as Protected? Again though, I'd always thought they, like the few with metal armour, were also a minority and the mass of hoplites continued to wear linen.

Are you suggesting that 'armour' was a key factor in Greek success in the Persian Wars? This was really where my question started. If Scots spearmen and Greek hoplites are modelled in similar ways, how does AoW represent their different historical results against massed archers?

Benny

[rbodleyscott]

Does Armoured' means metal armour in AoW? If so, I'd be interested to learn why hoplites in the Persians Wars are Armoured whereas later ones are Protected. I don't claim to be an expert by any means but what I've read does not suggest any change in the level of protection during the 5th century. The bronze bell corselet fell out of general use in the 6th century, well before the Persian Wars, and from then on I'd understood linen and leather corselets were the norm, apart from the occasional wealthy individual splashing out on a bronze 'muscled' cuirass.

The bronze bell corselet was replaced by the composite corselet, comprised of leather covered with iron scales. This was still in use in the Persian War period. The proportion of hoplites still so equipped at this stage is uncertain.

Our army lists therefore allow a cross over period between 490 BC and 460 BC when hoplites can be optionally graded as armoured or protected. This date range was decided on the advice of experts.

Are you suggesting that 'armour' was a key factor in Greek success in the Persian Wars? This was really where my question started. If Scots spearmen and Greek hoplites are modelled in similar ways, how does AoW represent their different historical results against massed archers?

Our view is that the main factor in the effect of English archery against Scots spearmen was the "pinning" of the Scots spear formations by the threat of knightly charges. Also the adoption by the English archers of defensive positions on steep hills that rendered the Scots formations ineffective when they tried to attack.

In AoW Protected spearmen are not at much risk from archery if they maintain a solid line and do not stand halted for long periods while being shot at.

If they are divided into separated bodies so that archery can be concentrated on them, or if they are unable to advance because of the threat of a knightly charge, they are more likely to be affected. Even then it may take some time.

If they attempt to advance up a steep hill against English longbowmen, they are doomed.

From a game design point of view our principal aim is that historical re-fights should work correctly. We are less concerned with comparing troops of widely separated historical periods with each other.

Even in an AoW refight of Thermopylae, with the Spartans stationary, as Superior Drilled Protected spearmen with a general they would not be likely to collapse from the archery that could be brought to bear on them.

[spartan]

No prizes for guessing my favourite army
Generally unsuccessful in previous rules, too small, too expensive and once in contact generally like watching paint dry.
Very rarely get any results that mirror historical accounts.
Although I have read widely about the army, I'd be interested how certain awkward interpretations are modelled.

Allowing the composite cuirass to be interpreted either way is a good method, and well thought through. My understanding is that the cuirass, may or may not have included some metal inside the liner.

Is the intention to have a separate list for the Spartan army? They don't exactly fit within a generic hoplite list, even if allowing the Spartiates to be upgraded. Representing the organisation is difficult too, with probably 24 Lochoi of variable numbers. They may have employed less Peltasts and Thracians than other Greek armies of the period, including them into a generic Greek list allows more flexibility than perhaps the army should allow.

Whats the plan for the Periokoi? I have seen some interpretations that these formed a back rank to the Spartiates, which is perhaps unlikely.

Their cavalry may need some option for an upgrade in the very late period, successfully beating the Thessalians iirc.

[rbodleyscott]

No prizes for guessing my favourite army
Generally unsuccessful in previous rules, too small, too expensive and once in contact generally like watching paint dry.

Combats between heavy infantry in AoW are decided rather faster than in certain previous rules sets, so the "watching paint drying syndrome" is a thing of the past.

Is the intention to have a separate list for the Spartan army? They don't exactly fit within a generic hoplite list, even if allowing the Spartiates to be upgraded. Representing the organisation is difficult too, with probably 24 Lochoi of variable numbers. They may have employed less Peltasts and Thracians than other Greek armies of the period, including them into a generic Greek list allows more flexibility than perhaps the army should allow.

Whats the plan for the Periokoi? I have seen some interpretations that these formed a back rank to the Spartiates, which is perhaps unlikely.

Their cavalry may need some option for an upgrade in the very late period, successfully beating the Thessalians iirc.

At the moment we do not plan to have a separate list for Spartans as we feel they can be accommodated within the Classical Greek list. AoW lists are generally easy to use, and should be free of the problems of interpretation existing with some previous lists. We want AoW to be a fun set of wargames rules. Our policy is to allow historically accurate armies to be fielded whilst avoiding the extreme pedantry of some previous army lists.

So we do grade Spartan citizens and perioikoi differently from other states' hoplites: Citizens as Superior, Drilled, Perioikoi as Average, Drilled, most other city state hoplites as Average, Undrilled.

We also allow for special troops such as Agesilaus's Paphlagonians, and the Syracusan supplied Spanish and Gallic mercenaries in 369-368.

However, we don't specially restrict Spartan access to peltasts etc.

Of course, if you want to stick purely to known historical orders of battle you can impose additional restrictions on yourself. There is nothing in the list that will prevent you from doing so.

[shall]

Quote:
No prizes for guessing my favourite army
Generally unsuccessful in previous rules, too small, too expensive and once in contact generally like watching paint dry.

Combats between heavy infantry in AoW are decided rather faster than in certain previous rules sets, so the "watching paint drying syndrome" is a thing of the past.

Probably most importantly the combats become as series of swings along the line with sections starting to crack and being bolstered by generals. At Usk there was a roman battle which has some 20 base width of legions on either side hammering away. It was actually one the most exctiting games to watch as bits of each line crumbled, wobbled, recovered and eventually the centre of one line colllapsed. It was a real nail biter complete with nose bleed from the tensions...it isn't anything like the boring slugging match of draw - draw - draw etc.

Hope that helps

Si

[jdm]

TRying to drag this thread back on track. What we are looking for is information on your favourite army that might be suitable for inclusion in the army list notes

REgards
JDM

[karakhanid]

Hello, my favourite army is the T'Ang chinese on the early period, a flexible combination of well armoured horsemen (lancers with bow and light and heavy archers) and masses of well trained lancers,archers and well armoured swordmen.And almost everybody was well trained.Lots of maneouvers to get the barbarians crazy(yes you all ).
I hope that in AoW there won't be the DBX idea "they didn't conquer the world, so they could't be so good, let's change the list"
My excuses for my poor english
Mikel

[philqw78]

Trying to drag this thread back on track. What we are looking for is information on your favourite army that might be suitable for inclusion in the army list notes

Perhaps you should start a new thread with a more descriptive title JD, like info for army lists.

[caliban66]

Maybe this is useful. Herodotus wrote that Marathon battle started with the athenian hoplites charging through 8 "stadius" (around a mile or so) against the persians, who thought they were just crazy. Can a heavily armoured man run a mile and keep the breath enough to win a battle?

[hammy]

Maybe this is useful. Herodotus wrote that Marathon battle started with the athenian hoplites charging through 8 "stadius" (around a mile or so) against the persians, who thought they were just crazy. Can a heavily armoured man run a mile and keep the breath enough to win a battle?

Can a solider carry a 40 kilo pack over 100 kilometers in a few days and still fight effectively on a modern battlefield?

Ask the Royal Marines on this one.

It is my belief that we seriously understimate how fit ancient warriors were. I imagine that the 'charge' in question would not have been a full sprint but still a rapid advance and that the Athenians would have been up to the task.

Hammy

[plewis66]

Oh go on then, I'll b the one to trigger QI hooter: Testudo.

I know there are doubts about it's effectiveness and how often it was used. Also that it was used primarily in seige, and so might be intended for a supplement. But isn't there also some evidence that it was tried in open battle on occaision, and did have distinct effects?

I'm thinking of Carhae, where testudo was effective against missile fire, but a hinderance against cavalry charge.

Maybe something similar Orb could be incorporated:

* compex manoevre to form/unform
* can unform and charge in own impact phase
* reduce movement by 1MU
* move forwards only
* only allowed in open terrain
* missiles get a '-' POA against (maybe '--'?)
* legionaries lose Impact Foot whilst in formation

I've said 'unform and charge in own impact phase' because the point of it's use in open battle was to get close enough to charge under cover, and without this the other factors would make it fairly undesirable.

I'm sure this must have been discussed during development, but it's such an obvious one, someone needed to say it!

[caliban66]

Maybe this is useful. Herodotus wrote that Marathon battle started with the athenian hoplites charging through 8 "stadius" (around a mile or so) against the persians, who thought they were just crazy. Can a heavily armoured man run a mile and keep the breath enough to win a battle?

Can a solider carry a 40 kilo pack over 100 kilometers in a few days and still fight effectively on a modern battlefield?

Ask the Royal Marines on this one.

It is my belief that we seriously understimate how fit ancient warriors were. I imagine that the 'charge' in question would not have been a full sprint but still a rapid advance and that the Athenians would have been up to the task.

Hammy

True, but mind that still exists a difference between marching and charging. You can march for a long time, and then place a camp, and fight from there. But keeping the breath after a mile running loaded with at least 30 kg, (that makes around 60 pounds, doesn??t it) is something very different. Shooting a gun from a static position is less hard than trying to stab someone with a 2 mtr. long spear with a heavy point while you??re holding a quite heavy shield and receiving direct hits on it. That??s why lighter troops were so important. Tucidides describes a battle in which hoplites just were not able to engage with ligh infantry, who inflicted them several injuries.

[hammy]

Maybe this is useful. Herodotus wrote that Marathon battle started with the athenian hoplites charging through 8 "stadius" (around a mile or so) against the persians, who thought they were just crazy. Can a heavily armoured man run a mile and keep the breath enough to win a battle?

True, but mind that still exists a difference between marching and charging. You can march for a long time, and then place a camp, and fight from there. But keeping the breath after a mile running loaded with at least 30 kg, (that makes around 60 pounds, doesn??t it) is something very different. Shooting a gun from a static position is less hard than trying to stab someone with a 2 mtr. long spear with a heavy point while you??re holding a quite heavy shield and receiving direct hits on it. That??s why lighter troops were so important. Tucidides describes a battle in which hoplites just were not able to engage with ligh infantry, who inflicted them several injuries.

It rather depends on what Herodotus means when he says charge. I don't believe that anyone can run full tilt in armour for a mile and then engage in combat effectively but I do believe that a group of fitt men used to their armour can advance rapidly over a mile, end with a ferocious charge and fight well.

From my reenactement days I remember wearing 30 plus pounds (15 Kg) of armour plus carying a huge shield and various weapons up and down spiral staircases for many hours and still being able to fight. The most notable memory of one 16 hour session was taking the armour off at the end of the day and feeling like I was flying.

[philqw78]

Shooting a gun from a static position is less hard than trying to stab someone with a 2 mtr. long spear

It would be physically easier to bayonet somebody after the run, or shoot them at very close range. Unfortunately our tactics have us do this. We can't afford the missiles and bombers . Not that this helps AoW

[whitehorses]

TRying to drag this thread back on track. What we are looking for is information on your favourite army that might be suitable for inclusion in the army list notes

REgards
JDM

How about for the Feudal English era?

That Knights did not dismount until Stephen - Battles of The Standard(1138) & Lincoln(1141) - & then not again until Edward III, at Dupplin Moor(1332), Halidon Hill(1333) & then the 100 Years War when it became common practice.
Inbetween those years, Knights had to be held in check & supported by Longbows, or else impale themselves on the Welsh Spears/Scottish Schiltrons. as at Maes Madog(1295) & Falkirk(1298). The Longbowmen having created enough holes, the Knights could then be let loose to force an enemy rout.


Cheers,
Jer

[malekithau]

I haven't got anything to add to the notes of my favourite armies, I'll leave that to more knowledgeable peeps. What I would like is for someone to look at the Carthaginian spearmen in a little more detail. Most army lists ahve them as little more then Hoplites who are descibed as having a shorter then normal spear. They may have indeed have been nothing more then quasi-Hoplites but I suspect that they were more likely to have picked up the fighting styles of the Western Med as opposed to the East. They still wore the panoply of the hoplites but after many years in Iberia would they not have picked up much of the skilsl of the Iberians? Would this help explain why the Libyans in Hannibals army were able to go toe to toe with legio in Italy but the later units in Iberia where less capable? Were the spears shorter because they were actually a throwing spear of some sort? Had they become more a capable with swords after exposure to the Spanish swords? Indeed after already having faced Roman legio?

Hewy I could bhe wrong but something always struck me as odd about the way Carthaginian spearmen are treated. If Roman Legionaries could operate like Iberians in the Later Republic after years of garrisoning Iberia why not the Carthaginians? Hasdrubal (the elder) and Hannibal don't strike me as the types to let any innovations escape them.

It would certainly help set the AOW Carth list apart from the others.

Anyway I'll leave it to the scholarly types to assess my thoughts and then, probably, dismiss them as the ravin sof a lunatic.

Thanks
John O

[benny]

The bronze bell corselet was replaced by the composite corselet, comprised of leather covered with iron scales.

Iron? I hope you really mean bronze. A minor point I know but I'm not aware of iron being used in Greek body armour for a good 150 years after the Persian Wars. And to suggest that the proportion of composite corslets with metal reinforcing was anything close to significant is rather stretching the evidence I'd suggest..........

This was still in use in the Persian War period. The proportion of hoplites still so equipped at this stage is uncertain.

Our army lists therefore allow a cross over period between 490 BC and 460 BC when hoplites can be optionally graded as armoured or protected.

Again, this idea that there was some form of lightening of armour in this period? With due respect to your anonymous experts, I'd be fascinated to see the reaction if this sort of claim was posted on a forum such as AncMed............

[rbodleyscott]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this subject. The army lists do allow for your interpretation. It is part of our army list policy not to impose one particular interpretation where there is room for doubt.

The experts included Luke Ueda-Sarson

The evidence for the late 6th century would seem to
indicate metal thorakes in the large majority, but it is far from
clear if this was still true by 480 even in the (less prevalent)
artistic depictions; given the 480 armies were mass levies one might
expect a lower average quality even without the artistic evidence (or
to be more precise, lack of it. There are of course depictions of
hoplites from this era- lots even, bit noticeably less that before).

As you can see the evidence is unclear, but the presence of a significant proportion of metal armoured men in 480 remains a reasonable possibility - hence the list allows for either situation.

The amount of armour worn only changed over time because the proportion of wealthy hoplites decreased with time. Hoplites of ca.
300 BC could still wear metal cuirasses - but they were by then in
the distinct minority, unlike 200 years before. Mercenaries were
likely, at least in Greece, to be even less wealthy than normal.

[whitehorses]

TRying to drag this thread back on track. What we are looking for is information on your favourite army that might be suitable for inclusion in the army list notes

REgards
JDM

Regarding the 100 Years War English army, is it going to be well balanced of the ilk of Edward III, the Black Prince & Henry V?
After the sea battle of Sluys, were Knights & other Mounted transported across or were the Knights & Men-at-arms chiefly from Mercenaries & English territories in France?
How effective were Billmen in reality to French Knights & did they need to be backed up by Men-at-Arms & Knights?
And how do stakes get used by Longbowmen?


Cheers,
Jer