From: Argrath@aol.com
Date: Thu 22 Sep 1994 - 20:16:11 EEST
Devin asks, in response to my bit about the Combat Factor in
Warhamster not taking into account tactics,
>Well, first, shouldn't those tactics you are talking about be
>representied by the miniatures themsleves and not in the CF? In
>other words, if the Hoplite tactics are so great, then the Sun
>Domers should use them by keeping their minis in formation et
>al. In other words, won't the benefits of a shield and
>Pike wall show through by the way the minis are setup and run?
Beats me. Like I said, I'm a former wargamer, not a miniatures guy. If bunching the troops together like that gives you more dice to roll against your foes, even if the individual skill levels are lower, then it seems like you might get the appropriate tactical effect. However, the Romans fought in open maniples, not closed up like a phalanx (see below).
>Second, morale is a big factor in most battles, and well
>organized troops generally have better morale. Simply give
>hoplites and their ilk morale bonuses while in formation.
I don't think this is going to solve the problem, as it means that the hoplites will (other things being equal) take heavy casualties every time, they just won't run because of it. Whereas the historical analogue shows that troops with decent formations take fewer casualties. Quasi-Roman units should have high morale, as the Romans were willing to take much higher casualties than their opponents before routing. But that's not the whole picture.
Sandy raises the same points, and agrees that the average Barbarian was a better fighter than the average Legionary. I think that in small groups, as well, the Romans often lost to the barbarians. Oh, and Caradoc was (0-2), not (0-1).
Roman soldiers under the Monarchy fought in phalanxes, but the reform of the army under the Republic resulted in the open formation which served the Romans so well, on into the Imperial period. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th ed.), "Much of its strength lay in the same qualities which made the Puritan soldiers of Cromwell terrible--the excellent character of the common soldiers, the rigid discipline, the high training." The men were all citizens, mostly farmers, called up as needed. In that period (when the Romans conquered Italy and neighboring regions), there was no professional army.
From what we can tell, the army depended on maneuver and the ability to bring up fresh troops while the front line retired in good order. Perhaps this can be simulated by letting Legionaries retreat through friendly troops with the same facing and/or letting Legionaries advance through friendly forces without becoming disordered. This makes the "bunched together look" much harder to justify on historical grounds, but we know so little of how the actual fighting occurred that we can stick with it if nothing better presents itself. Maybe each little clump of soldiers is bunched up, with gaps between maniples.
The Imperial Roman army recruited mostly from the citizens of the provinces, but was organized much like the Republican army. The auxiliaries became more important (or rather, became important for the first time). The major difference was that the army became garrisoned along the frontier and (for a period of centuries) never called together. This is analogous to the post- Nights of Horror Lunars, who face no equal enemies on their borders.
I agree that fudge factors are not generally preferred. But if we can abstract the Warhamster rules at a level where individual fighting ability doesn't enter in, it'd be lots quicker to resolve battles. At a level where one unit is 100 men, individual skill won't count for much. Drill, discipline, and morale will. And you can roll a few dice, explain to the players what their characters see happening, take that into consideration (where appropriate), roll some more dice, and the battle will be over quickly enough that roleplaying will not be suspended.
--Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:37:01 EEST