"Game or Simulation?" Topic

I`ve decided to add an optional rule which I hope will broaden the appeal of my new ancient rules. That is by simply omitting a modifier for Roman heavy infantry. This will mean that players` die rolls will have more weighting in the combat calculation.
This makes for an "easy game" setting, whereas normally the advantage for heavy infantry will make for a more historical, or "difficult game".

Do all your games involve Romans?

I don't see how omitting a single modifier makes a game easy or difficult. I don't know enough about the period but if the Romans really do deserve a modifier, getting rid of the modifier makes it bland rather than easy.

This rule set does, it covers Rome`s Wars with Barbarians from 102 BC the end of the Cimbrian Wars to 102 AD and Trajan`s war with the Dacian Alliance.

I have my Napoleonic rules here:
grandmanoeuvre.co.uk

My Ancient rules use the same game mechanisms.

Well no, actually Paul, it`s not exactly a modifier; it is a big point in the combat calculation which favours heavy infantry.

I have always thought that the main reason for the advance and establishment of the Roman Empire had little to do with the innate superiority of Roman heavy infantry.
It was the bloody mindedness of the Roman state. How many times was the army defeated against a foreign foe, but the Senate would just send another army. And then another.
It was a martial population, rather than martial superiority.

I have seen too many Ancients rules that went out of their way to insert "stupid Roman rules" to give them a superiority they did not really have.

Isn't getting rid of a modifier for Roman Heavy Infantry especially problematic when your rules focus on Roman Heavy Infantry wars?

There are other rules that do not give Romans an edge against other heavy infantry automatically, but those rules tend to cover all ancient warfare.

Will be interesting to see how you make Romans and Barbarians different enough for the taste of most wargamers (actually, I am myself not convinced that an automatic positive modifier for Romans is the last word in a clever ancients rules design).

Another question is, why do you connect the question of that modifier with the technical design of your rules? Why do you want to give more weighting to the die rolls? These should be two different aspects to think about.

Simulation claims are way harder before 17 th century for the lower number of sources, independant, contemporay, memoirs etc. Even battlefiedls often we are not sure where they are!

It is very easy to put as normal practice something that may bhave happened in 2 battles. ( flamming pigs?)

It would be problematic if I was not aiming to broaden the appeal – and to allow more balanced games to take place in the period I`ve selected.

I make no claims to clever design – but my combat rules are a little different to most and this is a "combat point" in my game mechanism, not merely a minor influence on a random die roll.

In the optional ruling, I want it to provide for more of a "game" for people who prefer these to a simulation/game.

It would have been nice if you had said so in the first place. I had nothing more to go on than "That is by simply omitting a modifier for Roman heavy infantry" and based the reply on that.

Back to the point – if the section of rules is complicated and leads you to believe it is either inaccurate or too complicated then by all means try to find a less complicated or more accurate way of handling it.

I`m sorry that I gave so little away in my OP.

I think the rules are as simple, or as complex as they need to be. They include what I think are essential tactical elements of the type of warfare and they play quite quickly. I`m not removing an element in the rules in order to simplify the game play – the basic combat mechanism still stands.

You might like to play with the optional rule then Winston?

…or burning logs JC ?

I see my post is also more "crotchety" then it should have been.

As for me, I'd like to see a game where armored troops fought a little differently (which is what it sounds like). It is a more design for cause rather than design for effect, and if done well could help with understanding why. Within the limits of what is known of course.

Winston, I very much agree with you so:

Remove the beneficial modifier for Romans, insert:
"If the Romans lose a battle, the Roman player (only) may choose to fight again. Repeat until the Romans win. The last battle is the decider."

Re. armour and hardware… I`ve rated warbands as medium infantry, as I think that there was a wide range of armour used by warriors of different status and means… and in weaponry too as I beleive there was no standardisation of equipment. But I have given falx-armed troops a little bit more of an edge – well, initially in a fight!

The pilum has a negative effect in calculating impetus before actual contact is made – I felt I could afford to break things down like this as the combat rules are quite quick anyhow.

I prefer simulations over games.

I have always thought that the main reason for the advance and establishment of the Roman Empire had little to do with the innate superiority of Roman heavy infantry.
It was the bloody mindedness of the Roman state. How many times was the army defeated against a foreign foe, but the Senate would just send another army. And then another.

Peter Heather in his book The Fall of the Roman Empire, shows just how devastating the Roman legionnaire and the legion as whole as a whole could be. They were true killing machines. Probably the best heavy infantry of all time (that is my opinion.)

Hi Rudy,

Yes, I think that`s the way that I tend to go with rules also. That`s been my approach in writing Grand Manoeuvre Napoleonics and also with these Ancients rules.

My standard combat rules have emphasis on; unit class, morale, tactical situation, etc…. with a minor random element – so the players` die rolls may only modify or add just a little to the more important, conditional factors.

I`m giving players the option to "game" it more. They may have a reason like Winston`s, or they may just prefer games over simulations.

Marcus Brutus is mainly right. Opponents did occasionally beat Romans, but only Hannibal really does so frontally. The defeats tend to be ambushes , or skirmishing opponents or bad Roman generals, though I cannot think of an accoubt where the Romans are overwhelmed from the front. Of course there is an element of Roman authors covering in derail only their victories, Looking at Caesar it is apparent that the Barbarians start with attempts to take on the Romans frontally, then after that has failed they try ambushes, sieges, starving them out etc. because they know the Legions are invulnerable frontally. A lot is made of the near success of pike armies against tgem, but in actuality the pike always lose (pace Pyrrhus) because Rome can always put out a battle line that is longer than the pike phalanx and the pikes do not acheive breakthrough. On the occasion where cavalry beat a legion frontally the cavalry do not have the command and control to turn the flank of the Roman army.
As someone posted earlier, if Macedon loses one army it is dead, if Rome loses one army then another is raised. However, the outcomes of the battles suggests that mostly Rome won first time round.

Hi Roy,
Although there were moments of crisis from time to time, like early in the 2nd Punic War and the Cimbrian War, and Spartacus` Servile War No III, one has to agree, on the whole with the durability of the Roman state to raise more armies and to come back again after serious defeats.

Hannibal wasn`t put off by chosing ambush tactics; he used ambush and enveloping tactics at Lake Trasmene and Trebbia and at Cannae a double envelopement using infantry, he also had the command and control to have cavalry do somthing other than fight and pursue the enemy`s cavalry.

Anyhow, for the non-Roman player there`s still some joy in defeating those poorly-led Roman armies in the first place ;)

Without context it is difficult to provide an useful answer. Does the Heavy Infantry bonus detract or overcomplicates combat resolution in your rules? How much of a benefit actually would be? Is it the bonus intended for Heavy Infantry in general or just for Roman Heavy Infantry? Is it related to training and weapons standarization (probably the two main advantages of Romans over their Germanic/Celts/Dacian opponents)? Or are those independent variables in your game system? Or perhaps none of them makes an appearance at all? Is it Fatigue an issue? and, if it is, affects Heavy Infantry more than other units armed with lighter panoplies?

This is true, without having the rules in front of you.

To answer your questions though…

"Does the Heavy Infantry bonus detract or overcomplicates combat resolution in your rules?"
No, it`s a one point in a very simple calculation.

"How much of a benefit actually would be?"
If no other point applies, then that one point would be enough to disorder an emeny element.

"Is it the bonus intended for Heavy Infantry in general or just for Roman Heavy Infantry?"
Yes, it`s not just for Romans.

"Is it related to training and weapons standarization (probably the two main advantages of Romans over their Germanic/Celts/Dacian opponents)?"
Yes, it is more than just a case of having armour and a good sword.

"Or are those independent variables in your game system?"
I have given falx-equipped Dacians and lance armed cavalry bonuses in intial combats, so I have tried to make some allowance for weaponry and the tactics.

"Is it Fatigue an issue?"
No, but disorders can mount up and trigger new morale levels.

"…and, if it is, affects Heavy Infantry more than other units armed with lighter panoplies?"
No, if i did have this, I would need to have a simple way of representing it for medium rated troops. I`ll think about that one – thanks!

Sorry for delay in following up the last point in the previous post.

Thought about it and this is already covered by treating medium troops (peltasts) as an intermediary type – they take hits as disorders like heavy troops do. They may shoot (javelins) and fight, but they may not shoot & fight in a melee combat in the same turn.
Warbands are treated as medium infantry, but with no missile capability.

Light infantry just take hits and, keeping it simple; it`s "two hits and out!"