"It bugs me, period" Topic

At TMP or for that matter everywhere else in the hobby, we have so called epovs or periods, Ancients, WW2, ACW,etc when in fact there are a lot more epocs or periods or timeframes. Just as we recognize that a WWI tank is quite different from even a WW2 tank, an Egyptian soear is not the same as a sarissa or pilum. Yet we differentiate the first but not the second. A shield is still a shield over a thousand years so also a rifle over 200 years?
Is anyone bothdred by this??

In game terms what is the difference between a pilum and soear? Tanks have different speeds gun and armor so have different game effects. But a spear is a spear…

I have 1 or 2 favourite periods in which my knowledge is good enough to know differences in weapon and troop types, but my secondary periods are enjoyed without the same degree of knowledge, so I am happy with such minor generalisations in their troop types etc.

For the same reason I am probably less picky about a set of rules for a secondary interest.

I already struggle to know which is the 'right' Roman army for the period without making it more academic'

I agree with Crispy, at the scale we game would there be much difference? I tend to believe training and formation are major factors to how a spear is used. The key is to study and learn as much as you can about your period and then take the rules as "flavor" them base do the rule mechanic.

Chris

The rate of change of technology tends to increase over time, so earlier periods are longer than later periods.

Just as we recognize that a WWI tank is quite different from even a WW2 tank, an Egyptian spear is not the same as a sarissa or pilum. Yet we differentiate the first but not the second.

All the ancients games I enjoy differentiate them. What rules are you playing?

A shield is still a shield over a thousand years so also a rifle over 200 years?

Again, different rules differentiate minor differences to varying degrees. I've played ancients or Medieval rules where the size of shield matters, others where the size/type of shield is unstated because it is subsumed into the characteristics of the troop type wielding it, and skirmish or RPG style games where the specific size and type of shield matters, as well as the weapon you choose to use with it.

I think I'm missing something. What's the real complaint here? What do you want to see that you're not finding?

- Ix

The epochs as defined in miniature wargaming have more to do with figure ranges than with the rules.

If the issue is that 'Ancients' is too wide a period, there are a few reasons. One is the lack of detail available in comparison to more recent times: we simply don't know the differences. Many classical wars were only documented by a single side so the information is one-sided. And as mentioned above, much of the technology didn't change. Finally, ancient wargaming is a niche within a niche: narrowing it down further would make a small market indeed.
But there are specific rules out there: Aurelian, Shattered Lances (on the crusades), various Dark Age games. And if you have a specific interest, you can always adapt a more generic set.

It's mainly tactical changes rather than technological ones in the ancient/early medieval periods. Obviously there were changes in equipment, but a Roman auxiliary cavalryman wouldn't have been shocked by a Norman knights gear. But the speed of change since the industrial revolution has been immense, so our wargaming periods get shorter and shorter.

It really depends on the scale.

At 1 to 1, then yes, a buckler is quite different than a scutum.

At 1000 to 1, the army doctrine of the two sides is far more important than their weaponry.

On a theater level, the logistical capability of the two sides is more important than their doctrine.

I'm with you Rick Don Burnette.
There are major differences between weapons, shields, missile weapons and fighting doctrine, which I like to see in my ancients games. My advice is find a set of rule mechanics you like, and then tailor them to fit your own perceptions of the above.
A small group of friends and I did that with 'Alea Iacta Est' by Justin Taylor (of Veni Vedi Vici shield decals fame)
The rules were originally written for fast play, large battles, in the classical/imperial period, but lend themselves well to tinkering and adaptation. With period specific add-ons we now play between Biblical and the advent of gunpowder.
We particularly liked his treatment of pilum and sword as a 'weapons system' rather than individual entities. His rules also were very good at replicating maniple/cohort battlefield replacement.

It just depends how much detail you and your playing partners want. Different strokes for different folks.

Personally, I never saw any attraction in DBA, too impersonal for me, a bit like chess with figures. I'd sooner play chess.

Hello from Veni Vidi Vici.

Newbury rules had factors for bronze age weapons extra.

Providing you keep armies within their time frame you should not have a problem. I think Norman knights would have made mince-meat of Alexanders Companions, but they were never going to meet in real life.

But there were differences in period. I would not give much for a Persian spara against a Greek hoplite spear, so in the Die in Cast rules they have their own rules (Spara, shield barrier).

Rick, you are looking at technology, when the real differences are in sociology.

Example: the Zulus were tougher opponents than the (closely related) Xhosa. Why? Not because of technology, but because of organization (military and social) and command control. The Xhosa could never have pulled off Isandlhwana because first, they never could have achieved a concentration of that many warriors, and second they couldn't have coordinated them if they did.

Not because of technology,

Well the Zulu put it down to not using sandals and better spears and shields.

Hi Justin, how are you doing?

As you look further back in time the groupings of things become bigger. As analogy think music categories: radio has dedicated channels to 70s music, 80s music, 90s etc. then they have a classical music channel playing anything from Gregorian chant dated back to the 7th century to Bach of the 17th century up through modern. Classical music spans over a thousand years and the music of 18th century Mozart is completely different then that of 19th century Beethoven (at least to the trained ear).

"Ancients" is the classical music of war gaming.

Some observations
Before and after Chariots, Stirrups, Saddles, the Sarissa, chain mail, leather clothing, phalanx, legion, other formation, crossbow and
as there are rules that cover a wide range of years in the modern or 20th century era, how many poimts or tanks like the FT17 equal a T72 or even a T34. Cav in stirrups v bareback cav, 75mm WW2 AT vs Chobham armor
Oh yes, Igor Stravinsky, Ludwig Beethoven and Mozart are classical music onlybecause some illiterate said so. Rite of Spring was as revolutionary as jazz was and as different from Mozart

I recognize two periods.
1. Stick people
2. Gun people

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Hi Justin, how are you doing?

Well OK. The cancer, heart attack and diabetes are not the most fun things.

so. Russ, you are ok with a game of an ACW brigade vs one Bradley IFV and its squad? or a early dynasty Egyptian army vs one late Republican Roman legion Being these putside their worldviews, the ACW and Egyptian, despite numbers, would have no chance. Playbalance cannot be done, not even in closer combats of say the Bradley v a FT17

Hope you're feeling better Justin, had or have had those (except cancer, yet), plus gastric bypass etc. I'm fully retired for about 20 months now), although I still don't seem to have any spare time. See you at a show sometime, maybe York?.

I note that the OP ignores the numerous intelligent rebuttals to his premise, and instead focuses on Russ's joke about dividing history into just two periods.

Rick/Rich: unless you are just trolling, why don't you answer the questions? What set of ancient rules are you talking about that conflates sarissa, spear, and pilum? Even DBA, always the favorite target of threads like this, clearly distinguishes between all three: the Egyptians with spears are Spear, the Romans with their pila are Blades, and the Macedonians with sarissae are Pikes. And each of those plays differently, with different combat factors, rear-support rules, and combat outcomes.

And a shield is pretty much a shield. A pavise is different…but DBA even treats that separately under 3.0 and 2.2+.

Have you ever even played an ancients game? What rules? I challenge you to respond, or out yourself as a troll.

It depends on how much detail you want in your game. The rule set "Might of Arms" is designed for ancients, dark ages, and medieval battles. So in other words it's a game for armies with 'sticks' and not 'guns'. Yes we all know there is a difference between a spear and a pilum, but it's not covered in this set of rules. To cover every detail the rules would be hundreds of pages long and practically unplayable. And back to the music analogy, I'm quite versed in the difference between Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc types of music, but it can all be labeled as classical. There are multiple ways to classify things depending on how much detail you want. Saying there are games for guys with sticks, and games for guys with guns is perfectly legitimate. Pick the rule set that you like.

If you play armies out of their period, "Bradley tank vs ACW brigade -- then you are basically playing Sci-Fi so what's the difference, all bets are off. Remove the machine gun and airplane and ww1 armies are not a whole lot different then earlier gun armies really.
Obviously as mankind moved into the 20th century technology began to have a bigger effect. If you was to take General Lee and place him in ancient Egypt with the Pharaoh--or reverse -- I doubt either one would have a whole lot of adjustments? They would both see the horse, the wheel, governments, water systems, etc etc, --- move Lee forward just 100 years and he would have some real problems.
I actually believe a Egyptian army would not be all that helpless against a Roman army. Many Roman armies were destroyed by much less organised armies such as the Egyptians.
Regards
Russ Dunaway

I,for one,welcome our new Stick Man Overlords!

YES, YES !!! ALL bow to the stock peoples

But what about the 'schisms'? Is it merely a sharpened stick, or the more technologically advanced fire-hardened stick, or perhaps a blunt stick (club)?

Well eventually they did discover that the stick could be fired from a bow, then they discovered the horse drawn firing platform and called it a chariot --eventually realizing, " heck, who needs the chariot, let's just get on the horse"???🤔
Nonetheless, they are still just shooting sticks?
Regards
Russ Dunaway