"Test Battles for Ancients Rulesets" Topic

Any new battle-level set of rules should be tested against certain battles to see if the rules work properly. Which battles would you suggest as test cases?

I use Cannae because of the contrasting and interacting diverse troop types and the potential for double envelopment.

Marathon. Cannae. Issus? Zama? 1st Mantinea for hoplite on hoplite clashes. Pydna for later phalanx warfare vs. the Republican Roman machine. Something from the Gallic wars to test Marian Roman against barbarians.

As rules are generalisations based upon standard operating procedures I would not use an exceptional battle like Cannae to test an ancient rule set at the outset.

At Cannae, the Roman army was not drawn up in an established, conventional battle array for the period.
Zama would be a much better test of the manner that both armies operated throughout most part of the 2nd Punic War.

To test basic rules one needs battles with no unusual conditions… exceptional cases like Cannae call for special scenario conditions, rules or modifiers.

What is useful is to select parts of battles in which you should expect a definite results in a test – somehow the dice + modifying circumstances should cover the range of results that are possible in those tests.
I think this is true of the various episodes that have taken place in the contest between the Roman Legion and the Macedonian Pike Phalanx.

Several classic battles that I would offer as suitable for testing and making rules comparisons:

Kadesh (Hittites vs. Egyptians)
Platea (Greeks vs. Persians)
Gaugamela (Alexander vs. Darius)
Zama (Scipio Africanus vs. Hannibal)
Pharsalus (Caesar vs. Pompey)
Hastings (William vs. Harold)
Agincourt (Henry vs. Charles)

I'd add one of the great phalanx vs. legion battles (e.g. Pyda, Magnesia)and one of the classic Roman vs Gallic/German/British battles for a more comprehensive list.

The Trebbia. I have a good OB. it's not a huge battle. The armies acted according to their intrensic strengths, Numidian Cav on the flanks, Punic treachery, Elephants, the legion moving to close and smite the enemy and so on.

Battles with a fairly evenly matched pair of armies with very different tactical systems are the best test.

Plataea (Greek v Persian)
Issos (Macedonian v Persian)
Magnesia (Roman v Seleucid)
Cannae (Roman v Carthaginian)
Sambre (Roman v Gaul)

I agree with you Dexter, but I don't think you can ignore battles between armies with similar weapons and tactics when play testing. If a rule set is too rigid in its definition of troop types available, and their capabilities, then battles between armies of similar abilities are likely to be bore draws. We all know these existed, but many other battle arszultss in de isive victories for one side or the other. A good rule set needs to allow for differences within similarly armed and trained armies to be able to produce decisive results. For example, Pharsalus is a fascinating battle, and is, in my opinion, a very good test of a set of rules.

Mollinary

Battles that test out the various tactical systems against one another are best. I think Cannae is a poor choice if only because it is a very, very specialized case.

Marathon
Hereclea
Zama
Magnesia
Kadesh
Carrhae
Sambre
Mons Graupius
Chalons

If you are going to use one battle it has to be "Magnesia"

So many different unit types … If your rules work for Magnesia they should work for most all battles.

Scipio

Would you be willing to share your OOB for Trebbia, John? I'm interested in giving that a go with my 6mm ancients armies.

Actium
Hydaspes
Carrhae
Bibracte
Marathon
Kadesh
Pharsalus
Gaugamela
Granicus
Calinicum
Nemedia

Chaeronea is also an important one, especially since it seems the pike phalanx didn't seem that much more effective against the shieldwall phalanx in head-to-head combat.

I agree that Cannae is not a good battle to test out a set of rules. As was said, the Romans abandoned normal tactics to gain depth and most rules sets would need special rules to accommodate the Roman deployment.