"Any finesse to city-state battles?" Topic

I am waiting on a large purchase of second-hand 25mm Greeks. I am not sure if I want to keep them, or if I will sell them.

Anyway, was there much finesse to city-state combat, or is it mostly hoplites slamming into each other? My limited reading indicates small amounts of cavalry and light infantry.

Do we know much about how they fought?

Slamming into each other.

I'd recommend something simple like DBA or Triumph.

I think this looks interesting, but I haven't tried it:

link

I've played a number of Hoplite Heyday events with DBA, they're quite fun.

On paper, the armies all look much the same, most of them are a bunch of spears with a few assorted supporting troops. But when they're fighting each other, the differences in those supporting troops really stands out and effects the tactical choices quite a bit.

I could be cheeky and recommend the book I wrote that covers the topic (amongst other things).

OK, I'm cheeky.

Try DBA, I've always thought that Hoplite vs. Hoplite battles are one of the things it simulates best. As miniMo said, it's the supporting troops that make the difference.

There was an old Aelred Glidden piece in MWAN written for 1/72 individually-based classical Greeks, so should work with 25mm. I think it's called "Sparta's Wars." Thebans were able to stack deeper to some effect. The Spartans were faster to change front. If you can't find it, nudge me with a PM.

Given the army composition and terrain they fought over for the Greek City States it appears that most battles were hoplites slamming into each other

Why would anyone play DBA when there are a multitude of good ancient rules out there that will give a decent result? DBA has its place in panoply of gaming but to recommend as the preferred set for hoplite battles seems a bit odd to me.

DBA gives a quick and fun game and does nt require a huge investment in figures to do so.

The Osprey Men of Bronze 'bluebook rules' is specifically done for this period, not played so can t say how good it would be but sure worth a look.

Classical hoplite warfare does seem to have largely been made up of two sets of hoplites slugging it out (or flinching and giving way). Found interesting book which goes into this in some depth:

Hoplites. The Classical Greek Battle Experience by V D Hanson, Routledge 1991.

Yeah, I would suggest Men of Bronze as well. Rules looks interesting but not complicated. The author has some battle reports on his blog so you can get an idea about how the rules work. I think there may be some Youtube videos as well. There is asupplement on Wargame Vault and a Republican Roman era set of rules too.

If you decide to get rid of them, I own a bunch and would be interested.

thanks

John

Marcus, what would you recommend? Specifically for hoplite warfare, you understand.

I had another suggestion myself, but as John points out, it's a fast resolution for battles in which the commander doesn't make a lot of decisions after deployment, and you're only looking at a 100 casting investment. (No idea how big 79th PA's "large purchase" is.)

Spartans and Successors, available on Wargames Vault is another option. It's grid based though which I know is not for everyone.

I loved DBA and played a lot of it, for about 15 years. Hoplite armies were among the most boring matchups possible. I think the only type of ancients system I'd like less for hoplite warfare is an old pen-and-paper-roster system with a million DRMs.

Really, shieldwall battles of any era are a tough gaming experience from which to extract fun. There's not a lot of generalship going on. You need a game that presents other aspects of the style of warfare as the appeal.

If I had a large lot of 25mm Greeks I'd probably try to adapt Lion Rampant. At it's core it's a mass-skirmish system that gives character to stodgy static hand-to-hand melee armies, and it has a lot of potential for adding influential individuals, bolting on house rules, and giving each city-state or special unit a special character. That's the right approach for Greek hoplite battles.

I'm one of the biggest critics of the Warhammer engine, but I imagine Warhammer Ancients could be a fun experience for the same reasons. The Warhammer approach also offers a lot opportunities to "tune" units for individual character, and it comes with teeming throngs of gamers familiar with the system.

If this collection of hoplites is really large, you might also look at Tactica. That game eventually bored me into rigor mortis, but massed armies and simple mechanics have wide appeal.

- Ix

If yopu8 wish to reproduce a historical hoplite v hoplite battle then Lost Battles would give you a good game. The old SPI PRESTAGES would also do this, once again for historical battles rather than a points based game.

You could try Hoplomachia from the Perfect Captain

Specifically written for Hoplite on Hoplite actions
There a bit of arts & crafts involved in the set-up as it is a downloadable game.

There's also a campaign.

Regards
David

There's a bit more to hoplites than forming up two phalanxes and going at it until one breaks. Hoplite warfare evolved up to the sophistication of Second Mantinea which saw the Theban column, the oblique line and the Theban phalanx subunits wheeling to form an instant column and march left. The Theban cavalry had hamappoi and did some fancy footwork themselves round the flanks. Greek cavalry weren't all that ineffectual against infantry either: the Thessalian cavalry on the Theban right flank gave the Athenian hoplites a really hard time until the Euboean cavalry reserve came to the Athenians' aid. Does any ruleset replicate all that?

Greek light infantry divides into peltasts and light foot proper. Peltasts could engage hoplites at a pinch as they did at Second Mantinea, and cavalry, e.g. vs Persian cavalry at Cunaxa. They would almost certainly lose against hoplites if something wasn't helping them, but they could stand up to mounted troops.

Greek lights divided into javelinmen, slingers and possibly archers (not sure if Greek skirmisher archers was ever a thing). None were capable of hand-to-hand combat against heavier troop types, even against peltasts (who were designed to take them out).

I'm quite fond of Simon Millers To The Strongest and it has some nice hoplite drift subtle touches, makes for a big game.

Of course the real problem with any hoplites ruleset is the impossibility of replicating the contraction of the hoplite line that initially started with each file being about 3 feet wide (the width of the shield) narrowing to as little as 2 feet wide as the hoplites advanced and moved rightwards in order to be protected by the overlapping shields of their neighbours. That means a hoplite line could shrink to as little as 2/3 its original length – a line initially 1km wide could contract to, say, 670m, losing 330m in the process. How do you do that on a wargaming table?

Lost Battles does a good job with Hoplite warfare and actually makes it interesting, if you don't mind grids and some abstraction. Most Ancient battles were decided by the initial army deployment, and LB models they deployment phase as well as the bit where they bash into each other and throw dice.

Besides the aforementioned Men of Bronze, Hoplomachia, Spartans and Successors and the available-not-anymore-but-soon-to-be-published Alala! rules I'd like to add the extensive and interesting rules Storm of Spears and two free rule sets from one publisher Paean and Phalanx.
So there is plenty of choice if you think specific rules will do better for your Hoplite battles.

@Martin – actually I doubt that most Ancient battles were decided by the initial army deployment. Rather the opposite, I believe. Armies deployed in a standard fashion in plain sight of the enemy who would be able to match and counter your deployment. That's why I don't take a fancy to the standard one-side-deployes-first-then-the-other-side-deployes, don't think that's realistic. Different story of course if you like marching through the Teutoburger Forest, and tough luck if you happen to fight a certain Hannibal Barca.

Most Ancient battles were decided by the initial army deployment, and LB models they deployment phase as well as the bit where they bash into each other and throw dice.

I've played a lot of Legion – LB's predecessor – in which the units enter the board via an edge hex and then fan out. It's a good mechanism.

With most Greek hoplite battles deployment was a pretty straightforward affair, phalanxes lining up opposite each other, matching widths and then going in for it. With some battles though it got more sophisticated, Second Mantinea being a good example.

I've played a lot of Legion – LB's predecessor – in which the units enter the board via an edge hex and then fan out. It's a good mechanism.

I agree. I use a figure game conversion of the SPI PRESTAGE rules and typically play with both armies entering the playing area. The rules are easy to learn so i use it to get new players into the hobby.

The rules play reasonably quickly so you can complete a reasonable game within 4 hours. What I typically notice players tend to get so wrapped up with their deployment they don't take much notice of the opponents deployment. I wonder if that is historical, or not?

What I typically notice players tend to get so wrapped up with their deployment they don't take much notice of the opponents deployment. I wonder if that is historical, or not?

Not. Generals paid close attention to what their opponents were doing, including Greek generals, who used the pre-battle skirmishing by light foot as an opportunity to fine-tune their deployment, taking into account their opponent's deployment. Alexander would make last-minute adjustments to the placing of his troops once he saw what the Persians were doing, e.g. shifting the Thessalian cavalry from his right to his left flank.

If I was designing my own set of ancient rules (I'm not) I would have a pre-battle skirmish phase where both sides compared the number of skirmish units (foot and cavalry) and had that determine the deployment options on both sides. I am not sure exactly what a skirmish phase would entail but it would get one side an potential advantage in deployment. It seems to me that once the battle starts skirmishers are less useful but in the pre-battle phase they could be decisive.

Not. Generals paid close attention to what their opponents were doing

That does sound reasonble, i suspect player whoa re use to rules where they start deployed are unfamiliar with the actual deployment process.

Not. Generals paid close attention to what their opponents were doing, including Greek generals, who used the pre-battle skirmishing by light foot as an opportunity to fine-tune their deployment, taking into account their opponent's deployment. Alexander would make last-minute adjustments to the placing of his troops once he saw what the Persians were doing, e.g. shifting the Thessalian cavalry from his right to his left flank.

I am not certain what you are actually proposing? Are you suggesting the commanders waited to see how the other side deployed before deploying their own forces? That seems completely unlikely to me. I should point out that Alexander making a few last minute adjustments in his deployment is noteworthy because he was the exception to the rule. Did the Persians adjust their deployment in facing him?

That does sound reasonble, i suspect player whoa re use to rules where they start deployed are unfamiliar with the actual deployment process.

No, I don't think so. When armies deployed they did so from a prearranged plan. That plan was implemented independent of what the other side was doing. A perfect example of this is Ilipa. After many days of standard deployment with both sides best infantry in the middle and less reliable forces on the flanks Scipio forced Hasdrubal to deploy quickly and rearranged Romans forces to have his best troops on the flanks. The Carthaginians were unable to respond by redeployment and suffered a major defeat.

So the standard setup in many games totally conforms to history. Most armies deployed far enough away that the opposing side was unable to interfere with it and they did so from prearranged plans.

No, I don't think so. When armies deployed they did so from a prearranged plan. That plan was implemented independent of what the other side was doing. A perfect example of this is Ilipa. After many days of standard deployment with both sides best infantry in the middle and less reliable forces on the flanks Scipio forced Hasdrubal to deploy quickly and rearranged Romans forces to have his best troops on the flanks. The Carthaginians were unable to respond by redeployment and suffered a major defeat.

Not quite. Scipio spent several days deploying his legions in the centre and his Spanish allies on the flanks. Hasdrubal mirrored this by deploying his Carthaginian phalanx in the centre and his own Spanish allies on the flanks. Finally, Scipio got his men up before dawn and deployed in the predawn gloom, with his Spanish in the centre and his legions on the flanks.

Hasdrubal assumed Scipio was deploying as on the previous days and deployed his own troops accordingly, it was only when the light was strong enough that he could see he had been duped, but by then it was too late to redeploy or retire. Holding back his Spanish, Scipio smashed Hasdrubal's flanks with his legions and forced the Carthaginian phalanx to retreat to its camp.

It was Scipio's most brilliant victory but not something any ruleset caters for.

There are rulesets that make out-scouted armies deploy first and move second. That might have a similar effect.

Not quite.

You simply rehearsed my point back to me. I notice that you didn't address it. Commanders are not, by and large, able to react to the deployment of their enemies. Each side deploys and makes the best use of their deployment. So the typical ancient rules sets out there are quite accurate in how they require players to set up ancient battles.

There are rulesets that make out-scouted armies deploy first and move second. That might have a similar effect.

The problem with this approach is that historically speaking, both sides would begin deployment with a preconceived plan. I can't think of any battle where one side sets up in a manner that allows the other side complete freedom in their deployment. With that said, it might be fair mechanism to attempt represent both superior commanders and out-scouted opponents.

You simply rehearsed my point back to me. I notice that you didn't address it. Commanders are not, by and large, able to react to the deployment of their enemies. Each side deploys and makes the best use of their deployment. So the typical ancient rules sets out there are quite accurate in how they require players to set up ancient battles.

Sorry, yes. I was writing on the fly and didn't pay close attention to your post. My point was that Hasdrubal didn't deploy according to a prearranged plan, but according to what Scipio was doing, and he deployed on the day of the battle on the assumption Scipio was doing the same thing he had done on previous days. Both generals were paying attention to what the other was doing, but Scipio was able to take advantage of the fact.

Both Scipio and Hasdrubal were continually deploying their armies in a prescribed, preplanned way. As you say Scipio took advantage of that tendency. Of course, Scipio had to have planned this in advance and reorganized his standing orders for deployment. One does not deploy 50,000 men on a whim. And one does not easily change a deployment in the face of the enemy as Hasdrubal evidently demonstrates. So the idea that on the day of battle a commander is paying close attention to his opponents deployment is self evidently true. This attention to detail may effect the course of the battle but it will not generally impact the original deployment of his forces.

{quote]Both Scipio and Hasdrubal were continually deploying their armies in a prescribed, preplanned way.{/quote]Actually that's very true. An army is structured to function in a certain way and there isn't that much leeway for tinkering. Scipio, seeing the initial deployment of the Carthaginians, would have devised a plan to switch his legionaries and Spanish when the time was right, but his subcommanders would have had to know that well ahead of time. There can be some fine-tuning once deployment is done – perhaps stretching the line to match that of one's opponent (lines do seem to have matched widths in most battles). At the most transferring a unit after deployment from one part of the battlefield to the other, as Alexander did at Issus, but no substantial rearranging. Generals certainly didn't have the freedom of action of wargamers who put down their stands any way they choose. Does any ruleset cater for this?

I remember a set I used in the early 80s called Hoplite warfare. The two things I remember are firstly the army lists, where you rolled 10 times against a chart for 10 units, so your army is what was available.
The second thing was that units had three stats, morale, fighting ability and drill. So Spartan Spartiates were A9A the best score possible. There was a later expansion called Hellenistic warfare adding pikes, elephants, better cavalry and scythed chariots.
Board game geek has an entry link

Here's a summary:

link

Mortal Gods, by Footsore, covers hoplite skirmishes and is a lot of fun.