"Do roads matter?" Topic

Do roads need to be represented on the Ancients battlefield?

One argument is that battles often occurred where roads happened to be, therefore they should be represented on the tabletop.

The counterargument is that roads typically have no tactical significance, except in the rare case of a column moving rapidly along a road (or an ambush!).

However, I've read of roads providing cover (well, actually the ditches alongside the road)…

Yes, roads matter.

Rick

Roads are especially important when they run through other terrain. A road running through a woods comes to mind. I also allow faster movement uphill while on a road.

With a ground scale of 1" = 20 yards, and standard base widths of 2 1/2" = 50 yards minimum frontage for any given unit; it is impossible to accurately represent a unit in column along a road. So no, I don't bother with roads.

Are you doing a 1:1 skirmish or a 10,000+ hoplite battle? It makes a difference.

Yes.

Dry roads always make movement easier. Anyone who has done any hiking should know this. Many battles result from
the need to control/capture road junctions. So, they are also objectives. In any period.

Well if roads didn't matter the Romans are looking like idiots…

We have roads on most battlefields for that very reason.

Roads through rough terrain matter. Otherwise, roads only really have campaign value, IMHO. For one thing, they get you from
A – B with less chance of getting lost. Travelling cross country over unknown ground must have been a nightmare – you could end up anywhere!

Depends on the scale.

Yes Roads mattered, but more so for logistics and moving an ancient army to battle than the actual battle itself.

Like olicana says above:
Campaign – Yes
a path though difficult terrain – Yes

But
Ancient troop in battle formation – no

Rhodes matters

I think it depends on the scenario. Unless the terrain is really bad I don't think they're necessary.

Roads usually have tactical significance.

If they didn't facilitate transit, you wouldn't build them. In some situations, the facilitation is directional only, in which case they could be represented simply by which side of the board leads where.

Battlefields look stupid without them.

I was going to say that roads have strategic significance in an ancient/medieval/fantasy battle (assuming a mass battle), but only limited (if any) tactical significance.

Battles occur near roads because roads are the best way (by land) to get anywhere. Therefore, if you want to attack the enemy's city, you take the road to get there. If you want to stop the enemy before he reaches your city, you meet him on that same road. (This strikes me as a bit of "duh" thing, but let's state it anyway.) Thus, ambushes are probably on a road, confrontations are at least near a road, caravan raids are on a road, capture-the-noble raids are on a road, but not because everyone wants to fight over the road (though one can), but because the road is simply how everyone travels. You march your army down a road because it's easier and faster than trying to scrabble through an overgrown forest. The Romans didn't build roads to win at battles; they built roads so they could get their troops wherever they needed to be as quickly as was possible. In short, they built roads to win wars. (Oh, and also to administer their conquests and make money with trade and tribute.)

Whether or not a road affects the tactics of a battle, aside from "don't let the other side get by us," depends on the scale of the battle and the conditions of the road and surrounding terrain, as well as the disposition of the enemy.

There's no question that moving at full march in column an army will move faster along a road than going across the local fields. But if that army is approaching a line of the enemy, does that speed actually translate to any tactical significance? For one thing, at some point the army has to spread out into some sort of counter line to the enemy's position, rendering the advantage of the road moot. Also, in the sight of the enemy, would the army continue at full march, or would it react to a more cautious, preparatory approach? If the road leads to a significant advantageous position, yes, they might move faster. But if not, the prudent commander would most likely abandoned the road as useless, and deploy into line, perhaps even athwart the road, at which point the road does little for either side, and will more or less be tactically ignored.

Now, if the road has ditches, embankments, hedges, walls, fences, etc., etc. lining it, well these will be tactically significant. But these aren't features of the road itself— they are terrain in their own right.

So, if tactically significant (or as objectives), yes, roads should be represented. If just "this is where everybody walks, so this is where we meet for battle," not so much.

Yes

Yes

Extra- Yep. My group plays alot of Shako II, which provides no benefit to road travel. So, on our quick Thursday night games, we sometimes skip the roads. It looks really odd, towns and bridges connected by nothing.

Parzival-
I must disagree. When we play F&F, moving on a road very much helps one "be firstest with the mostest". And, since
that is true under these rules, the roads/crossroads become natural points of contention.
Unlike Shako II, a rule set at a similar level of command.

Perhaps its because we almost never start our F&F games in line of battle, but instead in march column?

Yes, of course roads matter. The question is how do you represent them on ancient battlefields. When the ground scale is 1" = 20 yards, do you lay a piece of dental floss on the table top to represent a road or do you make the road about an inch wide which may look better but is an unrealistic 60 feet wide at game scale. I have not come across a set of ancient rules which accounts for a unit in a road column. Especially hard to represent when the minimum base width represents 50 yards.

Yes, for both the strategic and tactical issues cited. Also, aesthetics. If a road was present in an historical scenario, then put it out there. Even if it played no role. Let's just admit it: most ancient gaming tables are flat terrain. A road at least breaks up the monotony.

But if that army is approaching a line of the enemy, does that speed actually translate to any tactical significance? For one thing, at some point the army has to spread out into some sort of counter line to the enemy's position, rendering the advantage of the road moot.

Yes, but if you have to spread out into a cornfield, the battle on the road is going to be different than the battle off road. As you point out, this is more about the environs than the road, So, in that case (or scrub terrain, thicket, etc.) you aren't laying down a road on otherwise flat terrain, you are showing the road by not putting cornfields in the part cleared for the road. F'r'ex at Thermopylae, the road was the battlefield.

Rhodes matters

But only if he can keep Jameson in check.

Agreed with Parzival. Once battle was joined, and if it wasn't an ambush of a column on a road, the road would not have been of much tactical significance, especially since unit formations would have tended to be much wider than any road.

Of course, in ADLG and other rule systems, transverse roads are of great tactical significance…

Being an old former Infantrymen , you can generally move faster on a road or trail then cross country. Of course I was not serving in Ancient times.

But I'd think no matter what era the outcome would be the same … on the gaming table or the RW …

They all lead to Rome

Good point !

If in an agricultural area, then you also need to put in place walls on one (or both sides), as farmers would build them as they removed pesky rocks from their fields… ;-)

of strategic importance yes but not tactically on the battlefield