"The 5 Test Battles for Ancients" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

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?

And in the final round of voting:

13% of the votes: "Cannae (Roman v Carthaginian)"
12%: "Hastings (William vs. Harold)"
11%: "Gaugamela (Alexander vs. Darius)"
10%: "Zama (Scipio Africanus vs. Hannibal)"
10%: "Agincourt (Henry vs. Charles)"

I look for something that works for mass chariots

Must say I disagree with the list. They are all fairly eccentric battles.

When testing technology, I usually have my people do basic verification in the common areas and concentrate around the edges. Most things work for the easy/common cases and they are very well "tested" during development OR it is relatively easy to know when they don't work for those cases.

What would a non-eccentric (regular?) battle be?

I would say that any Classical rules should be vetted by these scenarios:

Chaeronea- because hoplites and cavalry and phalanxes can be tested against each other.

Issus- because Alexander should have lost, so one needs to understand how to factor that in. Most games have Alexander get handed his lunch in this scenario- what is wrong?

Sicilian Wars between Syracuse and Carthage- These armies have large mixes of various types of troops, and various classical phalanx units, and battles can then 'vet' many different interactions.

Heraclea- Because Pyrrhus vs. Rome is the perfect shell for a drawn game if both sides play well. Elephants.

Metaurus- Because the Carthaginians have to be really stupid to lose as badly as in reality.

Battles where the result isn't unbalanced by massive stupidity, or massive failed tactical gambits on one side are not good tests.

Gaugamela- probably should not have been fought- but illustrates the frustration of the miniature painter who has a set of a dozen shiny scythed chariots only to find out they are worthless.

Zama- is marred by the failure of the elephant gambit- otherwise it is a good test of infantry types- until the flanks cave in from the returning cavalry. Why didn't Hannibal use his elephants as a cavalry screen? Were they needed to rub out the Roman velites- who had become unsung heroes of the new legions? If those questions are answered by your rules- then they probably are good.

Apparently at least 12% of respondents think that AD 1066 is ancient?

I would say that battles that were anomalies are not good for test playing a set of rules, but rather an evenly matched fight. Odd battles like Bannockburn and Agincourt are hard to duplicate in my opinion. My go to test play battle is Bouvines 1214. Evenly matched armies with a variety of troop types (for a medieval battle) and a pretty open field. That's just how I do it, but I can see the argument for "if it can handle this odd situation, it can handle anything…"