Help support TMP


"Republican Roman Maniple in Warmaster Ancients?" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

Ancients

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA)


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Eureka Amazon Project: Nude Phalangites

More figures for the 28mm Amazon army!


Featured Profile Article


2,042 hits since 8 Apr 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
cooey2ph08 Apr 2009 7:47 p.m. PST

The Republican Roman army's use of the maniple gave them the advantages of tactical flexibility, independence, maneuverability. Given that each warmaster unit is made of three stands, how would one go about modelling these into the game in terms of deployment and movement in a 1000pt army list? How would you illustrate/model the difference between the hastati, triarii and principes? Would arranging the stands in a checkerboard pattern as maniples were deployed confer any game advantage? I'd be very interested to know what other gamers think. Btw, I'm using Brumbaer's Republican Roman army list here. He has special rules for the maniple which can be found here link We've used these and found them ok but would like have more options. Thanks in advance.

Pictors Studio08 Apr 2009 9:00 p.m. PST

I would have little difference between hastati and principes. At the scale that warmaster is designed to be play on I wouldn't put much in the way of difference between them and the triarii either, honestly. Maybe you could give them a 5+ save instead of a 6+ save for them having a little more staying power but that is tough because it means they actually save twice as many hits.

I think that the manipular formations would best be modeled with having small brigades of two units in each of the rows of checkerboard.

So have a front rank with 4 brigades of two units each, a second rank lined up exactly behind the spaces that you leave for them with four more brigades and then have a rear rank of triarii with 2 brigades.

The advantage this would offer is that an army attacking would push the first units back if victorious but if they are, say 60mm frontage with 60mm spaces and the next rank is 40mm behind them then they would only be able to push them 40mm back before they are lined up with the full rank. If they tie at some point then you have another unit ready to charge in on initiative in the next turn, if they lose then they are pushed back and at some point become level with the next rank, who because of how they are arranged will be able to bring some stands to bear into the combat.


xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx

So if you have them arranged like that, with the bottom being the front of your army you can see how they would have some flexibility built in. You also deny the enemy the chance to use their numbers to great advantage if they decide to come en mass.

This has it's drawbacks, of course, you could be flanked as your army is obviously going to be deeper than your enemies but also not as wide.

But you have some serious ability to respond to that with the rear ranks fanning out if you have the command to do it.

Well worth a shot methinks.

I'd keep all the legion troops as being more or less the same, if anything maybe allow the triarii a bonus to receive commands, like they can reroll their first failed command in a turn if they are the first unit that commander has ordered or something like that.

fightingwise, at that scale, there would not be much difference.

Pictors Studio08 Apr 2009 9:00 p.m. PST

Crap. The spacing didn't work out on that at all.

The diagram is for Bleeped text!

Who asked this joker09 Apr 2009 7:25 a.m. PST

I think at the level the game plays, line relief and manniples would be completely abstracted. If you really want a manniple rule, how about this.

The Legion normally gets a 6 for a saving throw. If it uses column, it gets a 5 or 6 save. This represents the line relief that each successive rank is providing.

To add some color to the formation, make each legion unit a stand of Hastati, a stand of Princepes and a stand of Triari. When they go into collum, place them in that order front to back. Viola! 3 line system and no whiggum rules!

rddfxx09 Apr 2009 9:12 a.m. PST

I believe it is generally accepted that the Republican Roman army pre Marian reforms fought in lines. The maniples were grouped by twos into centuries. The tactical evolutions of centuries by maniple facilitated line interchanges, for purposes of line replacement/relief and/or retreat. The maniples did not fight as independent tactical units per se. So you want to model the line exchange system. To do so by modeling the tactical evolutions of individual maniples is beyond the "granularity" of most rules sets including Warmaster Ancients. I like Acarhj's suggestion for a reasonable abstraction.

cooey2ph09 Apr 2009 11:23 p.m. PST

Excellent suggestions all. Will be making each unit like acarhj suggested and will try out the column saves as well as pictors studio's checkerboard deployment.Allowing the triarii a bonus to receive commands sounds good too. Thanks!

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.