The (Unofficial) Great Battles of History
Some interesting GBoH-related messages have posted on the CONSIM-L mailing list, including some design rationale by Mark Herman. I've archived that material here for posterity.
My editing has been limited to HTML markup and changing quotes from the
common
>quote
>goes
>here
format (which doesn't work so well in HTML) to
"<<quote goes here>>". I've shortened some of the quoting, too,
since the message referenced is available a few screens up.
Subject: Re: Simpler GBOH ?
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 05:00:00 EST
From: Brandon Einhorn <BRANDON@GLOBAL-TECH.COM>
<<
> Brandon Einhorn <brandon@global-tech.com> writes:
> >
> >The bottom line is SPQR is fun, but a totally unrealistic simulation.
Bold sweeping assertions require proof in my book. Sorry, to jump on you so hard but, you and Markus always come across with this "I was there so, I know" kind of attitude that I find less than helpful. Obviously, Mark Herman and Richard Berg would disagree with your assessment. Since we have two pairs of learned individuals with opposing views (actually, the only person's credentials I can comment on are Mark Herman's based ...>>
Fair enough. I base my comments on my play of SPQR and my reading of
the books mentioned in the SPQR bibliography.
1) The Command Control (C&C) system gives players much greater
control of individual units than historically existed. I can issue a
line command and perform 20 individual maneuvers, including
penetrating a break in the line and attacking units from the rear
while others attack from the front and position other units to cover
a flank and to have other units form part of another line and etc.
2) The impulse and trump system dont work and are gamey. In real
life an army of 3 successive lines will presumably march forward
quasi-simultaneously. But in the game, movement is broken into
discrete segments (that did not exist historically) that present
opportunities for the panzer like cavalry to kill many units from the
rear.
3) The cavalry is much too deadly. The best tactic is to have 2 good
leaders control one cavalry group and get 2-4 consecutive movements
and kill a line from behind.
4) Its very easy to out flank units, why didnt it occur so often
historically.
5) The Romans with their attack superiority are simply too powerful.
If they were this strong they would have never lost many of the
battles they did. And they would have stomped the German barbarians.
6) Its better to defend back from a hill rather than at the top
because the 1 TQ hit suffered by units crossing the contour line is
worse than the paltry 1 column shift.
7) Phalanxes are too weak. I dont care what Mark Herman says. They
can be defeated frontally in ONE attack, two at the most. Remember I
say Frontally not from the flank. Once the lines have crashed the PH
units are immobile, and if there is a single routed PH the entire
line is soon lost. Saying there should be reserves to plug this gap
is true BUT was not done at that point.
8) Rally should be based on units TQ not the leaders. Well trained
units are more likely to rally than rabble despite the fact that
Hannibal is yelling to them from 300 yards away.
9) I dont think missile fire and skirmishers are well represented.
Non Velite skirmishers are too inneffective, because they can be
killed immediately, or they will rout while under going orderly
withdrawal.
10) Its too easy to regroup cavalry, and there are weird situations
where some cav pursues, and some stays, and if the leader goes to
regroup the pursuing cav, the on board cav sits there waiting to die.
<< an interview I read) let's open the floor to some scholarly debate. I would like it if everyone stuck to quotes from first hand witnesses of the various battles but, given that it seems their aren't a lot of these and in some cases they disagree with each other anyway, I'll accept any period writings. I have no knowledge of this period (modern stuff is more my thing) so, I am more than willing to be educated here. ...
Nick Sauer>>
If you want quites from battles look at the SPQR Zama scenario: Its a
quick Roman blowout. Hannibal wouldnt have fought this battle if his
chance of winning was 0%.
How often do you read about a group of cavalry dashing between enemy
lines killing/routing 2,000-5,000 men, pulling back and then doing it
again in 20 minutes (and were not talking Parthians or Turks ).
The game reminds me of PanzerLeader (AH) or Blue & Grey ( SPI). The
final results are realistic, even though the mechanics are not.
Im not trying to be arrogant or a jerk. But this is NOT a realistic
game. On the other hand it is fun, and pretty, and is still better
than every other ancients game. It simply is still not good enough.
brandon@global-tech.com
Subject: Re: Simpler GBOH ?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:30:59 -0400
From: Mark Herman <MarkHerman@AOL.COM>
I think you need a new opponent. I've never had a blowout in Zama and I've won with both sides. Well local experiences will differ. Mark
Subject: Re: Simpler GBOH ?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:00:00 EST
From: Brandon Einhorn <brandon@GLOBAL-TECH.COM>
<< What are the historical references that you found that give your interpretation of how combat was fought more validity than the existing game system? I'm not trying to be a contrarian here but, I want to see facts so that I can learn which model is more accurate.>>
I missed your question before, sorry, let me answer it now. I am a bit rusty as I have not read any ancients history in over a year (concentrating on WW2 amd middle ages)
Take the Zama scenario. Historically I think the Cartheginian levies fought the legions for a little while, got routed, were rallied either fought some more or hung around. Then the next two lines fought (the Romans 2nd line vs. the Cartheginian Green MI 5 TQ units) When the MI tried to flee the mail line vets dint let them through. Finally the two last lines fought, it was close and ... Massenisa returned with his cavalry, slaughter begins.
In game turns the cartheginians are already outflanked on both flanks. Because of the activation rules the Romans can use two 2 initiative leaders to move two lines before Hannibal can do anything. The Romans can eliminate (not just rout) an entire line at a time, thus quickly winning on rout points.
In the Dertosa scenarion (from C3I) the cartheginians were pushed back in the center and their double envelopment failed. In the game, those units attacked by the Romans rout almost immediately. Its been a while and I dont remember the specifics of some of the other battles. I will say that I dont remember reading about cavalry nipping and killing 1000-3000 men every 20 minutes in battles from that period. But this is a common occurance with this system. Also if the Romans were truly able to inflict double losses on their opponents, they would have not lost to the Cimbri and Germans.
<< So far, this reminds me of my physical chemistry training in that while the outcome of a reaction can be predicted, the path taken to get to that outcome is unknown and, often their are competing reaction-path models to describe how the process occurs. What I am looking for are historical witness quotes that describe how the Einhorn model is more factually correct as compaired to the Herman/Berg model. All I have is your say so that it is. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before but, I want a blow-by-blow description from a historical chronicler that demonstrates which model of battle is more accurate at simulating what actually happened on the battlefield.>>
I dont claim to have a better system. There are weaknesses in the GBOH that I have tried to correct, and Im not satisfied with some of my corrections. It was much harder for Mark Herman and Richard Berg to design a system, than for me to criticize or attempt to improve it. But a rules system can usually be improved.
<<< The game reminds me of PanzerLaader (AH) or Blue & Grey (SPI). The final results are realistic, even though the mechanics are not.>>>
<<If the final results are realistic, then how is your interpretation of
how combat was fought more accurate? That's basically all I am asking here
and, so far, all I have is your model versus the one provided by the game's
designers.>>
Forget about my modifications for a moment. Im not saying they are
the miraculous savior of this system. Just because the final results
are realistic, does not mean they were reached in a realistic way. A
good model should allow the players to sometimes recreate the
historical results, but not always. But it should do it in a
realistic way, so the players can better understand the period.
<< Well, as someone interested in tactical games what am I supposed to play then? By the time another designer gets around to tackling the project I could easily be dead (given the rate at which wargame companies seem to move).
Nick Sauer>>
I have tried MANY ancients games, and am still looking. SPIs The
Conquerors has some interesting ideas, but doesnt work. Its also an
old game (Rich Berg, 1977) and would probably be better if designed
today. Imperium Romanum (West End, Al Nofi) has a wealth of
information, but falls apart operationally the moment one begins to
play.
Perhaps Ted Raicer will take the challenge and do for ancients what hes done for WW1.
brandon@global-tech.com
Subject: Re: Simpler GBOH ?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:00:00 EST
From: Brandon Einhorn <BRANDON@GLOBAL-TECH.COM>
<< Could you provide me with which books/historians these accounts came from?>>
Try the excellent bibliography mentioned in the SPQR and Caesar games. Delbruck is quite good, but he assumes detailed knowledge of the period/battle. Reading him without being familiar witrh the period will not yield much. Some of the other authors are Adcock and Connoly.
<<
My point (which I would guess I am not communicating at all well here) is
that no one seems to know what the correct "reaction path" for these
battles were (or if they do know, they are not providing the historical
references to demonstrate such). The problem, I am starting to gather, is
that it doesn't seem clear what the realistic way was due to a serious lack
of available documentation. As such, making any kind of claim that one model
is wrong with respect to another should be prefaced with a fairly large IMHO.
Actually, any model presented should be presented from this viewpoint
as well.>>
Again I dont remember the specific works (Fuller and Dodge can be
added to those above) but I dont recall reading about battles
where the main line of front line troops (not militia) caved in
immediately and the 2nd line of Romans immediately killed them, say
in a 10-15 minute time frame. I am talking about front line troops
(say 5 TQ MI). A Roman legion will rout such a unit on the first
attack 85% of the time. How were the Romans defeated by a mass of
barbarians. If SPQR is accurate in reflecting the Romans tactical
advantage, than Julius Caesar and the other Roman generals
campaigning in Gaul were morons to ever fear the Gauls in open combat.
Hell, they would have defeated 250,000 Gauls at Alesia, not just the
70,000 +/- 10,000. If the Romans were that good than no idiot would
attack them even up, with the Romans inside a fortress!
brandon@global-tech.com
Subject: Re: Simpler GBOH ?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:17:59 -0500
From: Steve Sickels <steve@LIBRARY.KIRKWOOD.CC.IA.US>
If i could jump in the original and subsequent GBOH games (GBA and SPQR,
Caesar and GBA Deluxe) were based on a large part of Victor Hansen's "The
Western Way of War" a short paperback from a solid scholar and
researcher who explained the "process" of ancient battlefield warfare.
This is just my opinion but reading the book (based on primary resources)
and then playing the games in the system, it does simulate the process of
combat as far as we can know it. Just a thought from a player who has
played ancients since PRESTAGS.
steve
Subject: Re: Simpler GBOH
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:05:22 -0500
From: Jeff Boschmann <jboschmn@rconnect.com>
Brandon Einhorn wrote...
<< If SPQR is accurate in reflecting the Romans tactical advantage, than Julius Caesar and the other Roman generals campaigning in Gaul were morons to ever fear the Gauls in open combat. Hell, they would have defeated 250,000 Gauls at Alesia, not just the 70,000 +/- 10,000. If the Romans were that good than no idiot would attack them even up, with the Romans inside a fortress!>>
Not to nick-pick, and _definately_ not wanting to get in the middle of this discussion, I took a quick look at my copy of Caesar. With the reformed legion system, legion cohorts are no longer AS verses barbarian infantry (BI). In fact, BI actually are AS verses Conscript Cohorts.
Did the quality or fighting style of the Celts/Gauls change from SPQR to Caesar? I don't know, but Caesar does give us much tougher barbarians.
Just my two cents
Jeff Boschmann
Subject: Re: Simpler GBOH ?
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 05:00:00 EST
From: Brandon Einhorn <BRANDON@GLOBAL-TECH.COM>
<<<<Has anyone tried a written orders system for either version of
GBOH, kind of a ancient Gamers CWB mix ? >>>>
<<<My friend and I have extensively rewtitten the GBOH (SPQR) rules,
borrowing from the Crossbow & Cannon 2 command system.>>>
<<How 'bout a short explanation ?
Is this a Markham command chit system ?>>
Yes. Essentially, back in the good old days C&C was quite limited and
a formation could be given a general order like move forward, attack,
perhaps move left/right (if it were Roman), hold your ground. To
change this order requires rolling the leaders command rating. Thus
if you are being outflanked you can not automatically fall back and
reposition your line, you must roll, and it may take a while, giving
the enemy a chance to do some damage.
<<The CWB orders system would be out of place for this era.>>
The CWB order system is quite good, but I feel its more applicable to
the period where orders were there were staffs and written orders
commonly used. Perhaps 1750 onward.
As for SPQRs flaws, let me say this. They plaing the game and then reading about the battle and see if there is any similarity. Zama is a BLOWOUT in the game, in real life it was close till the end. There is too much C&C, the Romans are too powerful, the phalanxes are too weak, the skirmishers dont function well, the impulse movement and activation are gamey and allow cavalry to slip in between moving formations and decimate them because of the sequence of play. After playing this game, one would think the ancients were fools, and that they needed much, much more cavalry.
brandon@global-tech.com
Subject: Re: Simpler GBOH ?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:38:11 -0400
From: Mark Herman <MarkHerman@AOL.COM>
I have done this kind of thing before and I have no problem with it. I continually get the comment that Phalanxes were stronger and the Legion is too strong. Given the way things turned out that's an interesting comment. The Phalanx, as its portrayed in the game is a powerful, yet fragile entity. I can find no evidence that any phalanx lasted longer than about an hour in combat. I have also noticed that those who comment on this 'flaw' use them in an ahistorical manner. As far as the Legion goes it depends on which era you are talking about, but if the Legion isn't vulnerable to cavalry, which it was, then how does one account for the various successes of Hannibal. My sources are all listed in the rules booklet, but reasonable people can disagree about these things. I accept there can be other interpretations, but I am amused about the certainty of others in their views. Take care. Mark
Subject: GBOH system
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:00:00 EST
From: Brandon Einhorn <brandon@GLOBAL-TECH.COM>
Mark,
I am not the only one of my group that feels Zama is a Roman win.
The Cartheginians can win (I did against an opponent who foolishly
consistently tried to trump with Massenisa and failed) but given the
initial set up the cartheginians are in the hole. I have no fear
taking the Romans against all comers.
<< I have done this kind of thing before and I have no problem with it. I continually get the comment that Phalanxes were stronger and the Legion is too strong. Given the way things turned out that's an interesting comment. The Phalanx, as its portrayed in the game is a powerful, yet fragile entity. I can find no evidence that any phalanx lasted longer than about an hour in combat. I have also noticed that those who comment on this 'flaw' use them in an ahistorical manner.>>
But when were phalanxes penetrated frontally in 20 - 30 minutes? I
am sure it may have happened in a Phalanx vs Phalanx charge, BUT its
my impression that flank attacks are what really did them in. one of
the problems with the system is I can march a line up to a phalanx,
take my licks, then sit. The phalanx is engaged, cant recover CH,
probably doesnt want to attack because it will be on the 7 table (as
opposed to receiving an attack on the 1-4 table) which even if it
inflicts 3 CHs, it will take 2 and be vulnerable to immediate
rout.
How are they used in an ahistorical manner? The Romans or who ever
charge, get hurt, one phalanx routs, the next line exploits through
the gap, 2 more Phalanxes die, and next turn its over. Or line A
charges and gets hurt badly. Next turn it attacks again, routs, and
line B moves up and attacks the Phalanxes each with 3-5 cohesion
hits, routing most of them, leving them waiting to be killed by any
attacking unit. Essentially a Phalanx is two 3 or 3.5 CH units.
In the game model CH and TQ are the key. Thus rather than having 1 unit of size 3 with a 6 TQ, its much better to have 3 units of size 1 with 6 TQ. Even with the extra shifts for size, these many small units will do in the enemy quickly.
<<As far as the Legion goes it depends on which era you
are talking about, but if the Legion isn't vulnerable to cavalry, which it
was, then how does one account for the various successes of Hannibal. My
sources are all listed in the rules booklet, but reasonable people
can>>
Hold on, ALL units are too vulnerable to cavalry because of the way
the activation system works. I realize cavalry was important, but
its so deadly in this game, that one wonders why it wasnt used more
often in greater quantities. Either the Ancients were:
Stupid (no)
Locked into a Rigid system of thought and formation (perhaps, but one
does learn after a few defeats)
Unable to obtain cavalry (may be tougher for some than others)
There need to be reaction rule that units can face formations
approaching from their rear and flank, given enough time [say from 4
hexes away]
<< disagree about these things. I accept there can be other interpretations, but I am amused about the certainty of others in their views. Take care. Mark>>
As for the certainty of my views, well Im certain that the results we obtain plying SPQR (with GOOD opponents) are very different than what happened historically, and the historical result in some scenarios is either difficult or impossible to recreate.
brandon@global-tech.com
Subject: GBOH historicity
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:34:59 BST
From: Peter Card <Peter.Card@JET.UK>
In GBOH, there are basically 3 ways to take down an enemy unit. You can hit it in the flank or rear, get a favourable match up on the unit type matrix ( eg. Alexander's Companion heavy cavalry blowing away Persian light horse) or outlast it ( eg. Alexander's Companions with their very high TQ sending Persian heavy cavalry back where they came from after 3 rounds of combat, typically )
The problem, if there is one, with phalanx units v legions, is that good quality legionary infantry stand some chance of outlasting a phalanx in a frontal slogging match. With a 2:1 match up against a double width phalanx counter, the Romans will have twice as much TQ to lose, and even though the phalanx will generally have a slight edge in each individual combat, after 3 rounds of combat the phalanx will be on the edge of routing, while some of the legionaries will still be in relatively good shape.
There are two ways to look at this. The SPQR take on the hellenistic system is that the pike phalanx was there to pin the enemy while the heavy cavalry chewed up the flanks. If you are slugging it out with Romans in the centre, you are playing their game. Historically, the later hellenistic armies that lost to the Romans seem to have placed more emphasis on the pike phalanx, so maybe you have an excuse that you aren't doing any worse than Philip V or Antiochus the Not So Great.
However, the records of the battles seems to show that the pike phalanx generally did better than all right in the frontal match up with roman legionaries, and actually succumbed to flanking attacks when the more flexible Romans were able to envelope them. The Seleucid armies also seem to have had a low TQ ratio, running away uncontrollably once the Romans got the upper hand.
Actual primary sources from the period are almost non-existent. However, Polybius was a near contemporary, was personally acquainted with veterans of the Punic, Macedonian and Syrian wars, and would probably be a consim-l subscriber if he was alive today. He devotes a chapter in his histories to the question "How the hell did the Romans win", a matter of some interest to his audience. Basically, his theory was that while the pike phalanx would always win in a frontal fight on a flat battlefield, in practice battlefields aren't always flat and the Romans usually found an opportunity to flank it, if only when a local victory led a portion of the phalanx to expose itself ( reminiscent of Braveheart :-)
In terms of GBOH, this might translate into a slighly improved performance against legionaries frontally, but they still get you anyway when the 2nd line takes advantage of the mess that follows from winning against the first line. Also, there is some doubt as to the staying power of the phalanx in real life, as Mark noted earlier. The bottom line is that GBOH broadly succeeds in showing how the Romans coped with a pike phalanx, even if there are some quibbles about the low level details.
Also, Polybius was talking specifically about Macedonian and Seleucid armies. There is nothing in his history to suggest that the Carthaginians employed a pike phalanx at all. There is a sweeping statement for you.
Try the Penguin Classics edition "The Rise of the Roman Empire"
Subject: Re: GBOH historicity
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 05:00:00 EST
From: Brandon Einhorn <BRANDON@GLOBAL-TECH.COM>
<< In GBOH, there are basically 3 ways to take down an enemy unit. You can hit it in the flank or rear, get a favourable match up on the unit type matrix ( eg. Alexander's Companion heavy cavalry blowing away Persian light horse) or outlast it ( eg. Alexander's Companions with their very high TQ sending Persian heavy cavalry back where they came from after 3 rounds of combat, typically )
The problem, if there is one, with phalanx units v legions, is that good quality legionary infantry stand some chance of outlasting a phalanx in a frontal slogging match. With a 2:1 match up against a double width phalanx counter, the Romans will have twice as much TQ to lose, and even though the phalanx will generally have a slight edge in each individual combat, after 3 rounds of combat the phalanx will be on the edge of routing, while some of the legionaries will still be in relatively good shape.>>
What the Romans should do (and what the system unrealistically allows) is to attack once and hope for a single phalanx to rout. At most it will take two attacks to rout at least 1 Phalanx. and more likely 2-4. Then do no more attacking with the units engaged against the Phalanx. Instead send fresh units (the panzer reserves) thru the gap(s) ank KIA the routed Phalanx AND the two adjacent Phalanxes. The system should require combat between two adjacent units, even after the initial contact. Units that were fighting hand to hand 20 minutes ago. may tire and slacken, but there is still combat taking place. To allow NO combat unless a leader orders it, seems unrealistic. And if one attacks a phalanx and has a few units rout. Simply stop the attack, rally, and recover them, and send them back in. If the Phalanx owner is stupid enough to attack he may rout a few more units BUT will be extremely vulnerable to counter attacks.
Mark Herman makes a good point concerning the length of these battles. The main contest didnt last hours (the slaughter/pursuit did). But, I still feel the system doesnt work. There is much too much individual command control, Romans too powerful, Phalanx too weak, and mainly the activation system does not work. At the very least the order of activation should start with the best leaders and work downward. Also the system is non-continuous and allows for hit and run attacks in between moving formations, when in reality the formations were moving simultaniously (the Hastati and Princeps moved at the same time, not one line while the other watched). I do not mean to slight the designers research or design. The system would probably be more accurate with shorter turns. As a design decision, IF a typical battle takes 60-75 minutes, than it doesnt make sense to me to have 20 minute turns. Why not 15 or 10 minute turns. If rallying units too quickly or regrouping to fast is a concern than only allow that every other turn.
brandon@global-tech.com
Subject: Re: GBOH historicity
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 05:41:07 -0400
From: Mark Herman <MarkHerman@AOL.COM>
Good summation. As you know your reference was one of the key ones and also the only one for the most part that takes this issue on. Other research actually takes a slightly different spin. At a level below the counters, maniple level, it appears that the Romans had sub-tactical maneuvers that left gaps which the linear phalanx seeped into and then other maneuver elements struck these leakers in the flank. The phalanx solution is the double phalanx. In the GBOH system this allows you to spread the cohesion hits to simulate the fact that when the Romans used their sub-tactical maneuvers, the new deeper phalanx had effectively tactical reserves to avoid gaps. Again I stand by my reasoning and my research, but if you don't agree make the PH AS versus the front of Legionaires and see what happens. To save you some of the effort, you will get Phalanxes that act like you think they should, but they also won't allow you to get any of the historical results. The Legion was better, did on occasion break the front of Phalanxes, Trebbia, and was the dominant tactical formation for over five hundred years. Mark
Subject: Re: GBOH historicity
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:10:28 +0200
From: Markus Stumptner <mst@DBAI.TUWIEN.AC.AT>
<<"How the hell did the Romans win", a matter of some interest to his audience. Basically, his theory was that while the pike phalanx would always win in a frontal fight on a flat battlefield, in practice battlefields aren't always flat and the Romans usually found an opportunity to flank it, if only when a local victory led a portion of the phalanx to expose itself ( reminiscent of Braveheart :-)>>
The interesting question is at what level those outflankings actually happened. If they did not happen at cohort level (i.e., hex wide gaps), but usually below, then it would indeed make sense to simply give the Romans more staying power.
Markus
Subject: Re: GBOH historicity
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 05:58:21 -0400
From: Mark Herman <MarkHerman@AOL.COM>
Markus has aluded to a point I made in a recent post. There were things going on below the cohort level, which in the game is a convienence prior to the cohort legion. Many people get hung up on the fact that the smaller Legion has more staying power than the Legion. Let me make two points, its no mistake and I used spreadsheets extensively when building the CRTs. I know what they do. But, consider this point. Why did the Phalanx evolve? If it was better than the Legion on open ground as Polybius states, but was weak on the flanks, why would they evolve the formation to have greater frontal strength plus exacerbate the known problem the phalanx had of losing cohesion on broken ground. My view is that it initially it wasn't stronger frontally. That the Roman Legion was designed to use waves, especially at a level below the Legion cohorts in the game and penetrate the Phalanx from the front. If you look at the all the battles between the formations there is evidence that this occurred. Also, the Phalanx Polybius is speaking of may be the double phalanx, its not exactly clear. As I say, modify it if you disagree, but try and have fun. Mark
Subject: Re: GBOH historicity
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:45:03 -0400
From: John Murphy <jmurphy@SHENTEL.NET>
Mark Herman has stated a couple of times a reference to the doublinf of phalangite depth as a response to the supposed superiority of the legion in frontal combat. (I hope I have not mis-quoted you Mark)
Two responses are in order to this, if I may do so without incurring the wrath of someone who has designed a terrific boardgame.
First, Pyrrhus' phalangites do not seem to have had too much problem dispatching legions. Much of the infantry combat in the second punic war involved non-phalangite carthos against the legion and for me at least the results are a little difficult to interpret. At Cynocephalae (sp?) the phalanx was not on flat ground and the sources I have read are pretty clear that a multiple-cohort force slipped into a developing gap between phalanx units and settled the issue before the front of the phalanx was ever properly engaged. At Magnesia was it the flanks that decided the battle (my only real understanding of that one comes from the GBOH game notes anyway)?
Second, and most signifigantly, it is quite possible that several folks are making an error in interpreting the meaning of "double depth" phalanxes. I would have to see the actual terms used in the sources but my understanding which I am prepared to back up if you like) is that even Phillip's and Alexander's phalangites (and hence all those thereafter) had a "double depth" or "deep order" formation which was used for marching over broken ground and involved the same number of men on the same total frantage- but with twice the frontage per man (open order) and twice the number of men per file. SO, at Cynocephalae for instance, the double-depth was not a response to Roman superiority but rather a normal formation from previous eons for deploying over rough terrain. What happened was that the phalanx was caught in the rough before it had deployed (ie still in double-depth open order) and taken through a very large gap in the center between phalanx units, in the flank, by a large multi-cohort force of Romans.
For sources on Macedonian phalangite formations I suggest Asklepidotius as a primary source, or John Warry who is more accessible and is listed in the GBOH bibliography. For verification of the use of double-depth in manner by Alexander I expect you could check some primary source descriptions of the deployment phase at Issos.
Subject: Re: GBOH historicity
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:57:48 -0400
From: Mark Herman <MarkHerman@AOL.COM>
I read those sources and I don't agree with your interpretation. In a phalanx battle the casualties of the winner were traditionally very low, on the order of one hundred. If you rout that's another story. Pyrhus experienced the frightening power of the gladius and the Legion. His personnel casualties were extraordinary hence the cliche. Oh well. Mark
Subject: Re: GBOH system
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:42:57 -0400
From: Mark Herman <MarkHerman@AOL.COM>
In the Renaissance period the Spanish resurected the Legion and the Swiss resurrected the Phalanx. In that period using similar technology, and there are specific tactical quotes, the sword and buckler folks won. At Trebbia, the Romans that survived the defeat were the ones that cracked the Carthaginian center and retreated out the back side of Hannibals army. Pyrhus barely got out with his skin with huge Phalanx casualties, which never occurred when you won in this period. The bottom line is if the Phalanx got engaged by a Legion it got the worst of it. Both Pyrhus and Hannibal won on the flanks before they lost in the center. The timing was close and you have to play very precisely to win.
Now I don't have the time to re-write some of my graduate research on Hannibals campaigns, but here is the short story on Zama. Hannibal has lost his Numidian cavalry and Hannibal is forced to fight Zama with an army designed to fight Cannae. What does he do? He puts his best troops in the third line, not on the flanks, such as Cannae and puts out his weakened cavalry on the flanks. I believe he expected to lose on the flanks, and that he wanted the Romans to pursue his cavalry columns into the distance to get them off the field. He wanted the Romans to use there best troops against his worst who would tire them out and then counterattack with his best troops in the closing phase. It was a well conceived plan that would give him a chance, but still inferior to the type of battle he would have preferred to fight. It was starting to work when the Numidians came back. The game system allows for this type of interaction.
The example of Cynoscephaleae and later battles demonstrated the Phalanx countertactic was deeper phalanxes, which in the system allow you to distribute the hits and the Phalanxes get sturdier against the Legion. Well we can disagree about this forever. I continue to research and design for this era. This is my view on how it was and if I'm wrong there is no one who can dispute my findings with any assuredness. I accept other interpretations, but when I look at them I see their deficiencies based on a different set of ancient assumptions. Whose right, can't say, all I can say is that GBOH is not contradicted by the available information, but I have filled in the large gaps to the best of my abilities. All I can say is GBOH is my best effort and if it doesn't meet your needs there are other fine products you can choose from. Take care. Mark
Subject: Re: GBOH system
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 05:00:00 EST
From: Brandon Einhorn <BRANDON@GLOBAL-TECH.COM>
<< In the Renaissance period the Spanish resurected the Legion and the Swiss resurrected the Phalanx. In that period using similar technology, and there are specific tactical quotes, the sword and buckler folks won. At Trebbia, the Romans that survived the defeat were the ones that cracked the Carthaginian center and retreated out the back side of Hannibals army. Pyrhus barely got out with his skin with huge Phalanx casualties, which never occurred when you won in this period. The bottom line is if the Phalanx got engaged by a Legion it got the worst of it. Both Pyrhus and Hannibal won on the flanks before they lost in the center. The timing was close and you have to play very precisely to win.>>
I do not dispute you BUT consider this: A phalanx unit is of size 9 or 10 vs two size 3 LG units. If the legions keep attacking and dont use the tactic I suggested earlier (which the game allows) of stop attacking and exploit the gap, they will still easily win because while the first 2 attacinf legion units will rout, the next 2 will almost immediately rout the battered Phalanx. One of the problems with the system is size means too little, its soley a function of how many CH a unit can take. In this system its better to have 3 units of size 1 and TQ 6, than one of size 5 and TQ6, even though the latter has 67% more manpower than the combined former.
<<Now I don't have the time to re-write some of my graduate research on Hannibals campaigns, but here is the short story on Zama. Hannibal has lost his Numidian cavalry and Hannibal is forced to fight Zama with an army designed to fight Cannae. What does he do? He puts his best troops in the third line, not on the flanks, such as Cannae and puts out his weakened cavalry on the flanks. I believe he expected to lose on the flanks, and that he wanted the Romans to pursue his cavalry columns into the distance to get them off the field. He wanted the Romans to use there best troops against his worst who would tire them out and then counterattack with his best troops in the closing phase. It was a well conceived plan that would give him a chance, but still inferior to the type of battle he would have preferred to fight. It was starting to work when the Numidians came back. The game system allows for this type of interaction.>>
NO IT DOES NOT! The Romans can quickly KIE (not just rout) many units, close to the Cartheginian breaking point. I have played this scenario twice, as has my friend. Its plainly obvious that the cartheginian player has little chance of winning UNLESS hes VERY luck with all of his trumping and reactivation rolls.
<<The example of Cynoscephaleae and later battles demonstrated the Phalanx countertactic was deeper phalanxes, which in the system allow you to distribute the hits and the Phalanxes get sturdier against the Legion. Well>>
This does not seem to be reflected in the system. A deuble depth phalanx is more vulnerable and doesnt yield that much of a boost. It is my impression that if two phalaxes crashed into each other, the double depth would really make a difference (and in a short time scale, just like the legions).
<<we can disagree about this forever. I continue to research and design for this era. This is my view on how it was and if I'm wrong there is no one who can dispute my findings with any assuredness. I accept other interpretations, but when I look at them I see their deficiencies based on a different set of ancient assumptions. Whose right, can't say, all I can say is that GBOH is not contradicted by the available information, but I have filled in the large gaps to the best of my abilities. All I can say is GBOH is my best effort and if it doesn't meet your needs there are other fine products you can choose from. Take care. Mark>>
I am sure you are more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. As for the game not meeting my needs, I feel it is a major step evolutionary step BUT it has a way to go.
brandon@global-tech.com
Subject: Re: GBOH system
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 05:48:50 -0400
From: Mark Herman <MarkHerman@AOL.COM>
That distinction between three TQ units being better than one unit is no accident. It is an important design element to show the advantages of articulation. The advantage is significantly muted when you use double Phalanxes, which was the response to a known weakness, that the Legion could beat a Phalanx in a toe to toe encounter. If what you say is true, why did they have to adapt. If they could beat the Legion head on why would they go to a more rigid formation. In my view of events you need to avoid letting three Legion units attack that un-doubled Phalanx, if possible, while you beat the Romans on the flanks and roll them up. That's why Pyrhus was as good as he was, he beat the Legion with the inferior Phalanx, but it cost him. After Trebbia Hannibal at Cannae uses the convex to concave center formation to try and buy additional time against the Legion juggernaut. The basic notion is that you don't take the Legion on in a head to head fight. Mark
Subject: GBOH
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 19:03:00 -0400
From: John Murphy <jmurphy@SHENTEL.NET>
Let me start by saying Deluxe Alexander and SPQR are my 2 favorite boardgames. Period.
In my very humble opinion the entire problem with the combat system pretty much boils down to a very forgivable apparent oops on the part of the designers when they decided to allow a multi-unit attacker or defender SPLIT the hits between units rather than having each unit take the full total. Then are probably other quirks that were adjustments to attempt in vain to compensate for this.
Think about what TQ hits represent in terms of disorder. A combat result that indicates a certain amount of disorder in the attacking or defending force, with size already taken into account, shouldn't be mitigated because you have 2 units half as big as opposed to 1 unit.
Unfortunately the whole legion vs pike thing doesn't indicate the severity of the problem. It is actually possible for lousy Persian javelin cavalry at Granicus, if they only had the leadership (try switching leaders' sides), to rout phalangites frontally by a combination of missiles and melee and 3-on-2 attacks with soakoffs in between! This is non-"shock" cavalry against the front of a pike phalanx!
Fixing this would go a long way towards fixing the combat system.
The command system is a little more complicated to pick at. Despite best intentions, the change from Igo/Hugo to Interactive does seem to break down in a system which legitimately places such an emphasis on flanks. Further the basic momentum system tied to movement RATES has the right feel for Flashpoint: Golan but not really for ancients.
So, in my very humble opinion at least, the game would be better served by returning to an Igo/Hugo. Use something like Markham's command chits for the top level leaders and wing commanders to give orders to their lower echelon subs. Leadership would be better represented at this level by more command chit changes per turn for a top-level leader's underlings. Then allow the lower leaders to issue a number of orders to units- halt (free), forward and wheel (the last becoming halt after execution for a single turn). Each unit is under one and only one of these orders at a time. It is just my opinion, of course, but I feel this better simulates the command energy expended in moving troops around. Giving TQ hits for starts, stops and wheels (except for well-drilled guys like Spartan hoplites, Macedonian / Successor and 2nd Punic war & subsequent Roman heavy infantry) makes it even better.
Of course upper echelon leaders should be able to forego issuing command chit changes to concentrate on the immediate tactical situation and issue tactical orders instead. Or they can forego this as well and participate in combat.
Mometum becomes turning inside the enemy's decision cycle by adjusting to the tactical situation more quickly- not having the troops run faster.
In my humble opinion this will also cure a lot of the cavalry move in and zap someone on the flank stuff. Now it will happen in situations more appropriate.
One last thing concerns the scale. I'd like to see individual ile, lochoi, maniples and syntagmata/spiera represented. Besides belieing my love for CNA-like complexity, at this level it should also be possible to have the heavy infantry of an SPQR half-legion occupy the same roughly 200 yards as a phalangite taxis.
And don't ever forget that if it weren't for GBOH the state of the art would be AH's Alexander, PRESTAGS, Men at Arms (advanced rules, I shudder to think of it otherwise) and 3W Ancients (plus the DG stuff which I've never played). Even the 3W Markham system (which I am not saying is all that great either) has yet to touch on the Hellenic and Hellenistic/Republican eras.
I think the designers' and developers' work against that backdrop speaks well for the excellence of this game system.
My sincere thanks to mssrs Herman and Berg.
-John Murphy
Subject: Re: GBOH
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:14:41 +0200
From: Markus Stumptner <mst@DBAI.TUWIEN.AC.AT>
John,
The combat system has never been my primary bone of contention, so I won't comment on it here.
But I would like to congratulate you on your comments on the command system, which say what I typically seem to take twice the space to touch on. A great summary, and while I have never thought further than the basic notion of replacing trumping and individual movement orders by a Markham-like order system, I find your lower-level ideas quite interesting.
I am not sure if the movement sequence would need to conform to a strict Igo-Hugo system - an interactive sequence (e.g., chit pulls) might still be useful once it's disconnected from its current linkage to unit speed.
The one desirable effect that an order-based command system could have on the *combat* system is that it could be used to remove the current effect that even if two players are moving to attack each other's line, the player who makes contact first is treated differently in combat. Actually, the effects should be symmetric (modulo TQ/armament/leaders/etc.etc., of course) *if* both sides are actually doing the same thing at the moment of contact. To do that, you actually need a mechanism that tells you whether they are in fact doing that - and looking at the current order status of the units is exactly what's needed for this. But that is actually icing on the cake.
<<In my humble opinion this will also cure a lot of the cavalry move in and zap someone on the flank stuff. Now it will happen in situations more appropriate.>>
Note that simply by placing constrictions on order change you could also get impetuous cavalry charging off the battlefield - or spontaneously attacking barbarians - for free. No longer a need to introduce special rules at odds with the rest of the command system.
And last, by having both sides set initial orders in secret, you will finally get an approach that will somehow approximate the historical self-inflicted quandaries (in historical setup scenarios) and the historical insecurity that both sides' commanders faced (in scenarios with more free choice in the setup). Alexander, of course, will still move around freely most of the time.
Comments?
As for the state of the art - I think you asked me in our last round of discussions half a year ago whether I liked the games, and I never answered this because I was away for a couple of weeks and did not want to pick up the same discussion again. As they stand now, no, I don't. I don't play them any more, and I don't have the time to perform the surgery I think is required (and changing the command system and tuning new leader and formation ratings certainly rates as major surgery in my book). But I do think the flaws are repairable in principle, and I think this is the way to go. It would bring great joy to my heart since I could finally play all these battles. And it would be awful for my wallet.
Markus