"Quantity versus quality" Topic

Whilst by no means always essential, it is often useful to have a rough parity between wargames' armies.

In armies where their is a preponderance of better units opposing ones where there might be a greater number of unreliable/untrained troops, the answer is to increase numbers of the latter.

In my gaming, this might describe Romans against Celts (using the FoG rules) or Prussian SYW versus the French (using my home-groan rule set).

However, I would postulate that unless grossly unequal in numbers, a smaller, better army is very often successful against a larger & poorer force.

Your views on the matter?

Well, it depends. :)

But for the tabletop, I like playing numerically and skill wise unbalanced forces. It drives the action away from a straight up slugfest and requires the players to employ, and possibly change midstream, a strategy that maximizes their strengths and to look for opportunities. I think that is lots of fun.

Just rereading beneath the lilly banners.

And the swdes are supermen, but should always a 50-100% stronger enemy.

Also as they almost never get 3 full bases of muskets, they will likely loose any firefight. So while very strong, you are forced to use one strategy and one strategy only. Attack and make mele contact. You can do some variations on it, but in essence, attack attack and attack.

A lot depends on what command control rules are in use.

You can have fun with a smaller army v a larger on in DBA, because each side gets to move (on average) the same number of groups. This allows the smaller force to ensure that they can engage a larger one at a chosen point: the larger army may even have to leave some of it's units behind – or move much more slowly. If all units can move with no command restrictions it's much harder for a smaller force.

Again, if combat inflicts gradual deterioration on a unit's ability to fight, then no matter how good you are, you will eventually lose to a horde. But you might win if combat is a win/lose proposition.

I have heard that quantity has a quality all of it's own.

I have seen such fights go both ways. What I have noticed is victory is usually total – no bloody draws, more like complete wipe outs….

Punkrabbit…..believe Stalin said that

Would think that quality matters most in close in fighting where the morale difference matters most. In a fire-fight, the larger weight of lad flying will overwhelm a smaller force regardless of how big their hats are.

Though taking Mollwitz as the classic example, the Austrian foot bunched up and were poor in returning fire while the better trained prussians kept formation and combat effectiveness. And more thano ne set of tactical ww2 rules makes hitting veteransh harder.

The principle of "mass and economy of force" comes to mind. What is more important than quantity is battlefield position and bringing the right type of troops to bear at the right time. It's like a game of chess in that you can lose more pieces but still win the game. War is more about maneuver, position, and timing than just numbers.

I think that table size plays a huge part in a game where one side is good quality, the other poor quality but greater numbers. If the more numerous side can outflank or surround the good side, it may have a reasonable chance. But if the table can be filled with wall-to-wall heavy infantry, the poorer quality side has no chance.

Whilst by no means always essential, it is often useful to have a rough parity between wargames' armies…..
However, I would postulate that unless grossly unequal in numbers, a smaller, better army is very often successful against a larger & poorer force.

Are you talking about equal points, straight up battles ? If so, then if it is a decent points system, the difference in points should account for the difference in quality, and you should get a reasonably balanced game, even between forces that differ significantly in quality and size. This is one of the best ways to test (or playtest) a points system.

Dagwood has it right – if geography allows poorer quality troops to get into the flank or rear of better quality troops, they have a good chance – but straight up head-to-head, well remember the Battle of Watling Street

Are we talking about games here or real life?

I play enough British Colonial games to know that quality can win the fight. But it's not a thing one can take for granted. And that's true even when the enemy has no chance of flanking the 'better' force. Such as when a British force is in square. Some good luck is still needed for the 'better' force. It also helps if the other side has some bad luck at the same time.

British colonial games….that's why there are so many nice things at the British museum not to mention follys and ha has – gun beats spear!

"If the more numerous side can outflank or surround the good side, it may have a reasonable chance. But if the table can be filled with wall-to-wall heavy infantry, the poorer quality side has no chance."

Historically (depending on period) it was common to put worse quality troops in more ranks, so their overall frontage was similar to better quality troops, but deeper so they had more staying power.

Real commanders seemed to have great difficulty 'stretching their troops right across the table' as wargamers love to do, and instead matched frontages. Depending on period. Command and control limitations I expect.

Pulling off a proper Napoleonic flank march in Corps strength relied formations and command structures unheard of by Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance and even eighteenth century commanders.

@ Martin

too true. We all rely on the table edge far too much.
However, a well planned battlefield should have difficult areas where a canny commander can anchor a flank etc.

In my experience, It really comes down to the rules and, more accurately, the commanders. Quite a few ancients games we played (hail caesar) it seems that the romans/spartans never stand a chance. with the war band clash bonus and always having 3 supports, my poor cohorts/phalanx(es?) always seem to die valiantly. and ignominiously. then I tried something out with my lotr Elves and that wasn't fun either, hairy barbarians didn't stand a chance. Perhaps a bit more historically correct, the bigger army can take a mistake or 2 on the part of the commander, whereas the elite army usually needs to play a perfect game. I find this less true in the horse and musket period. something to do with needing skill to use a sword, but far less to use a firearm (I practice Longsword and am an avid shooter, trust me this is VERY true. I can teach you to hit 80-90% of the time at 100 yards in an afternoon, but after 5 weeks I'm still a bumbling idiot with a sword) ? We can manage a few victories with napoleonic spanish over the french. actually last game I drove off the terrible 57th with crappy spanish line, NEVER living that down!
Long ranting answer that probably didn't help any ;P

Interestingly, vis-à-vis "the Romans", their armies were not often that much larger than anyone else's. And they lost a fair percentage of field battles. Where they won was long term: they suffered fewer casualties as a rule when they lost a field battle, and they always came back with new armies. Their enemies could not compete in the logistics department and lacked unit training and regular drill. On the table top I think it is inaccurate to make Romans better fighters. They weren't. But they were better tactically, i.e. at withdrawals, and reinforcing lines and maintain cohesion and morale….

Having a Late Achaemenid army I would disagree but you need a very large table (25mm figs) to effect flanking attacks effectively.