"Impetus navalis (starting a fleet)" Topic

These are the first two ships of my greek fleet:
link

I´m actually working on two triremes. I hope to finish them this week.

I want to use them with the new ruleset Impetus navalis:
PDF link

Have you try the rules? Any comment?

I hadn't heard of these until you posted but they look interesting.

The models look great as well.

The problem I have with most (all?) rules for ancient naval combat is that ancient fleets were HUGE, numbering several hundred ships per side.
Rules like these where the models represent a single ship (or at the most a dozen or so ships) just don't work for these big ancient battles.

Mike, not all – I wrote a set of fleet action rules where each model represented a "squadron" of about 10 ships that was published in one of the glossies a few years back :)

I am also slightly puzzled by the reference to the "diekplous" being a tactic used by a column of ships. The accepted view of the diekplous was a "sailing through and out"
jstor.org/pss/642944
- there is no indication that the attacking ships needed to be in "column" to effect the manoeuvre. Indeed ships in line abreast would be more effective in that each ship would have less distance to travel in order to engage its opponents sides or sterns than if in line ahead.

Nice looking ships, although shouldn't the masts be down for combat?

"Rules like these where the models represent a single ship (or at the most a dozen or so ships) just don't work for these big ancient battles."

"I wrote a set of fleet action rules where each model represented a "squadron" of about 10 ships"

Yes, I think that is what I said.

"Nice looking ships, although shouldn't the masts be down for combat?"

Yes, they probably should.

Why couldn't the two ships in the picture not represent 20 ships?

Yes, mast should be down (or in the beach) for combat. But they look VERY nice. I specially like the ships I´ve asembled with sails.

I´m working on some rules for V2…

"Why couldn't the two ships in the picture not represent 20 ships?"

They could. But you'd still need an awful lot of models to play a typical ancient naval battle. Now if each ship model represented 50 ships … but then of course you'd have to change the rest of the rules quite significantly.

I think that, with 10 ships per side, you could represent a nice battle…

"I think that, with 10 ships per side, you could represent a nice battle…"

Except it wouldn't be a typical ancient naval battle, with several hundred per side!

greel cities…

diekplus made wrong…

weird latin here and there…

but jolly good galleys Hetairoi!

Ok but, when playing WAB-Impetus-FoG, do you deploy 10.000 or more soldiers per side?!

With 10 ships you can reproduce some of the most tipical manouvers.

I have doubts on that.

The fact is that maneuver was constricted by space. If yu have ever tried the excellent War Galley from GMT you will have realized how crazy was maneuvering with full fleets.

I think naval impetus need a rethought…

Impetus Navalis is just a first draft (hence not yet advertised apart in the Impetus forum), a starting point open to any suggestion, like all Impetus variants.

The rules on diekplous are a first step as well, and will be evolved. Anyway column could achieve more results with a Diekplous manouvre hence the advantage to use more ships.

There is no scale at the moment (so it is not stated that a ship is a ship or more) but in my idea a Unit will represent more than a ship. I can't see why this is not possible. Just because was not done but other sets?

Of course this leads some kind of abstraction, but this is for every rules/period.

@ Mike, yes you dod. My bad (I blame it on sleeping in a tent for too long just recently). If I'd read your post properly I'd have mentioned that I've heard from players who used my rules with each model representing 20 or 30 ships rather than just 10, with one responder mentioning that they'd played Salamis quite nicely with about 100 models. And I guess its worth remmebering tat whilst the big batles were REALLY big there were many more fought on more modest scales, where smaller scale rules are quite appropriate.

Lorenzo, there is no evidence that a column was achieving more effect using the diekplous. If you read Lazenby article in Greece and Rome that Mika has linked you will discover that the entire idea of column is preposterous.

Column was rarely used in galley warfare, it was a cruising not battle formation. So why the hell you want to have column? and make it more effective than line? to be quite honest a column would be less effective in a diekplous maneuver than a line.

Arrigo, the diekplous was to break the enemy line (a sort of breakthrough manouvre). Break the enemy line with one ship is not a great achievment and above all being Impetus Navalis not a skirmish game there are no other way to simulate this in opposition to a standard melee.

All images you can find show the Diekplous made by more ships (though the term column may get confusion to so wargamer).

This is just one
picture

but you can find similar description in
Paul McDonnel's article on Ancient Warfare Vol II, issue 3

or in books like Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World.

Just find me an image without more ships making the diekplous manouvre.

BTW I accept the fact that this could be made also by a single ship but this cannot be simulate in Impetus Navalis in a different way than standard combat.

The Diekplous rules just put focus on such a manouvre made by several ships. With a fleet trying to break the line of another fleet.

This doesn't lead to an advantage of Column vs Line as Units in line have other advantages according to Impetus rules.

And also Lazenby says "the passing of a ship or ships". Honestly I don't find in his text something that say that what I made is wrong.

the point is…

as the rules are presented putting units in line ahead will make the diekplous more effective. Yet this is not the point. The diekplous and Lazenby as proved it pretty well made to break into the enemy line to then exploit the advantage of attacking outside the enemy front.

Now if you charge in line ahead and the enemy in line abreast as lazenby points out your lead ship will be in a less than pleasant position. IF said ship is disabled the following ships will have their life complicated and beeven more exposed.
Lazenby poin tou that the diekplous was performed in line abreast not in column. The image you posted is nice, bt excpet the enemy ship will not do anything to react to the charge.

Simply drop any pretension of increase effectiveness of a diekplous in column. The point was just to get past the enemy line and then engage. Lazenby said the manuver was perfomer by single ships (and that is making sense) but the tactics was a fleet one. If you have each unit represting multiple ships as you stated the entire representation of diekplous in impetus navalis is crazy… look you have a long column of ships moving forward trying to stay in formation, and then passing the line and reforming…

The problem is that ancient sources cleraling mentions the diekplous as used when ships were in line abreast not line ahead. Also sources clearly mentions the line ahead was a very rare occurence in combat.

so why you want to add the impetus bonus of the ships? Is this that I do not understand!

"Ok but, when playing WAB-Impetus-FoG, do you deploy 10.000 or more soldiers per side?!"

When I play Lost battles I have armies that match the historical formations. e.g. Gaugamela: 47,000 Macedonians vs. ~45,000 Persians!

"Just find me an image without more ships making the diekplous manouvre."

Any "image" will only be some modern historian's interpretation of the diekplous. As Arrigo has said the primary sources talk about ships in line abreast not line ahead.

"Errors" in primary sources have never stopped wargamers putting their own spin on their rules :)

Why not forget the battle in its entirety, and just focus on what you can fit on the tabletop, leaving the rest as someone elses problem? Play as a senior officer, not the whole Department of Defence!