"Commands and Colors Troop type query" Topic

I'm planning on doing C&C as a miniatures game. There are several helpful posts which convert the C&C troop types into historical types – Heavy Infantry = Hastati etc. However, in the maps for Trebbia, Beneventum and Castulo the romans are given 'Warrior Infantry'. Could anyone suggest what troops might be represented here?

Maybe they are meant to represent the allied Legions?

They are some sort of allied gallic tribe types.

I just use Warbands, as that is what they are. Usual wild eyed barbarians not wearing much.

They could be some sort of wildly impetous Roman legionaries who only get a bonus dice when charging, but if it looks like a warband, smells like a warband…

The only troop types in CnC Ancients different from generic DBA types are the differentiated psiloi/missile types. I usually just use Triarii as heavy legionaries and Princeps as the mediums.

Triarii = heavy infantry
Hastati & Princeps = medium Infantry
Velites = light Infantry
Italian Allies = Auxilla
Cispalpine Gauls, other hill tribes = Warriors

Allied Gallic tribes. There were some Gallic tribes allied with Rome in this period.

Thanks for the response. Gallic tribes then.
Checking on some of the other posts on this topic, its interesting that some players use AI as Hastati, others as Auxilia. I assumed Hastati as C&C often puts them near the front of the battle line…

I'm trying to puzzle this out as A)I've not read enough of the history to get a handle on what troop types where present in which battles, and B)I need to know what figures to buy.

Hastati and Principes were heavy infantry, not mediums.
I don't know why C&C classifies them as mediums

Dexter Ward, I suppose this done to provide a greater variety of troop types, to make the game more interesting.Actually this may also be a way of differentiating them from the Triarii. These are 'elite' troops in the game and are HI making them the most powerful infantry in the game.

Also… I remember reading somewhere that recent scholarship suggest they Hastati and Principes fought in a looser formation than had been previously supposed.

Hastati and Principes were heavy infantry, not mediums.
I don't know why C&C classifies them as mediums

The distinction between medium and heavy does not always map to a more relative wargamer description of "heavy infantry." C&C could have just as easily used the terms heavy and very heavy to distinguish such infantry. Many troops that would be thought as "medium infantry" would best map to "Auxiliary Infantry" in the C&C system. Within period they work well, but the very heaviest infantry in many armies are best represented in C&C as "Medium Infantry" and occasionally a unit gamers would think are mid-grade (medium-ish) maps best to "Auxiliary Infantry" as "Medium Infantry" is too heavy.

I think the system is incredibly flexible, and that is how it is used by Richard Borg. C&CA has its own system of rating troops, and it is not easy to transfer it across to other systems. It seems to me that it varies from scenario to scenario, and reflects quality, morale, numbers, as well as basic equipment and fighting style. Just look at the basic scenario for Cannae, and try and justify it in any other way. The scenarios seem to be designed to reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of the combatants in that scenario, rather than a general, universally applicable, categorisation of ancient troop types. I would see some scenarios describing hatstati as auxilia, and others as auxila, to provide balance. I think it succeeds spectacularly, but would be interested to hear others' views?

Mollinary

Dexter
To make the Triarii the toughest thing on the board.

Yes, the Roman Warrior Infantry would likely be from Gallia Cisalpina.

I would also agree that the in-game classification of hastati/principes as 'medium infantry' and triarii as 'heavy infantry' is best understood to by seeing their combat dice differences translate into regular and elite troop capabilities.

On Sunday played a game of Epic Zama, with. My long time wargame opponent John Dz. It reminded me what an amazing game Epic C&CA is. We did not manage to finish, as I had to travel back to the continent, but even in half a game we had many, many, challenges, and a barrel of fun. Epic allows much more latitude for bad dice throws than the basic game, and the ability to play one, two or three cards at a time gives the commanders difficult choices. Zama shows Richard Borg's approach to the rating of different troop types at different battles to good advantage. Look T the Roman deployment, and compare it with historical OOBs. It is not a simple, Roman Hastati are this class, Allies are that class. Both Romans and Allies have troops of each type. Do I like this system? No. I LOVE it!

Mollinary

This is interesting – but, Ether, if hastati/princeps are 'medium infantry' and the LI are Velites how would the Aux. Inf. be represented with figures? There are a lot of them in the game.

Hobhood,

I appreciate your question is not to me, but I think the point I am trying to make is that whether hastati or principes are medium or auxiliary is scenario dependent – it is not always the same. It takes account of performance, and therefore of morale and quality, and other such intangible things, in individual battles. To have all Allies as auxilia, for example, would unbalance the line of battle, and Borg does not do this, or at least I do not think he does. To answer your basic question, I think if you look at the OOBs in something like Phil Sabin's excellent "Lost Battles", or other purely historical works, and then compare them with the relevant C&CA OOBs, you will get the concept. If you prefer to go for a straightforward all hastatiii are mediums approach you can,of course, do so – but I think you will end up with a very different game.

Mollinary

Mollinary, thanks for your reply – I understand your point,and I realize I need to do more research into individual battles to find the most likely matches for the C&C troop types. However, I still need to buy some figures. Despite having played the board game, The 2nd Punic War is a new area for me, and I'd like to get started on the paiting. I've worked out that the basic game requires total numbers of say, Auxilia infantry units. What I need to decide is what figures to buy to basically cover my needs for this (and every) troop type. Perhaps starting with assembling armies for just one battle might be a good idea…

I always thought the warrior infantry was the less disciplined infantry from allied Italian states-but I could be wrong.

Trebbia would be the allied Cenomani; Beneventum (214BC) would be the slave legions; Castulo would be Iberian / Celtiberian warrior types.

Hope that helps!

Cheers,
Aaron

There were Celts on both sides at Trebbia specifically. 1500 defected to Hannibal preceding the battle. that probably left around 3000 on the Roman side. It is likely they were not used by Roman during the engagement as they now were viewed as untrustworthy. That, and what Aaron said.

John

You should also consider spatial position.

From what I understand of Rep Roman formation their Latin troops occupied the centre. This means the hastati, principes, and triarii, with the velites arrayed in front.

The allies of various sorts were placed on either wing.

Roman Auxilia in most C&C base game scenarios are placed on the wings, so I would interpret them as allied Italian infantry, e.g. Campanians, Oscans, etc. These tribes are usually classed as Ax in DBA, too. Lightly armoured, full shield, javelin troops.

I'm engaged in a similar 15mm conversion project and I am using various Italiote figures (Xyston, warmodelling) as the Auxilia.

Ether Drake, looks as if we are doing more or less the same thing. So all your AI are Italian allies? Seems like a good idea although most other converters seem to have AI as Hastati at least some of the time. I'm inclined to go with your idea too. What kinds of figures are you using for your medium units? Are you doing some as Hastati and some as Principes?

@Hobhood4 I've been researching this lately. As far as I can tell there isn't a whole lot of information on how infantry allies were equipped and used tactically (with the exception of the elite extraordinarii who were consular bodyguards).

Some sources say allies, especially Latin allies were indistinguishably equipped as compared to the Roman troops, i.e. as Medium infantry hastati/principes. However, this doesn't match most orders of battle in C&C:A nor does it seem to match the tactical behaviour of C&C's Auxilia (though the term is borrowed from the Roman).

Italiote hill tribe allies who were armed in a variety of ways ranging from javelins to hoplite-equivalent would seem to fit the tactical function of C&C Auxilia better (missile plus below average melee).

Therefore, I'm pretty much using Italiote models for the Auxilia. However, you can get away with using hastati if you like to represent Latin allies equipped like principes who may engage in more hit and run tactics, although C&C doesn't model the range effects of pila in the Republican era. In the absence of clear historical data you have some leeway.