Between light foot and raider?

[greedo]

I was looking at the Iberian force and noticed that it has lots of light foot. Some are battle line (Scutarii) and some are not (Caetrati), which as far as I can figure makes the slightly heavier Scutarii weaker since they are the same but with less flexibility in deployment..

Looking at the celtiberian Spanish, you get light foot and raiders which seems reasonable. But treating Iberian Scutarii as Raiders might make them a bit too good.

So I’m wondering, is there either either a troop type or a battle card to make light foot in between light foot and raiders that would fit the Scutarii slightly better to represent their being slightly heavier than their Caetrati cousins?

[greedo]

On review, it looks like raiders are the good choice for Scutarii if I wanted to get *slightly* better than light foot so perhaps I’ll just play the celtibarians..

But then the question becomes why are are celtibarians raider instead of warband or warrior? I always thought it was the celt, Gaul influence on them..

[David Kuijt]

No matter what number of buckets we have, someone is going to want more buckets. Why are thureophoroi rated the same as thorakitai? Why are horsebow with recurve bows rated the same as horsebow without? Why are Mongol horsebow rated the same as Khitan Liao horsebow? Why are Egyptian archers rated the same as Syrians? Why are English Longbowmen rated the same as French Crossbowmen? Why do Late Roman Auxilia Palatina with no body armor fight as well as Early Roman Auxilia with mail coats? Why do Viking Raiders fight differently from Slavs with identical equipment? I could go on, and on, and on.

If you want to make a distinction, by all means, go for it. Games are played for enjoyment; do what you find fun. If you're asking why we didn't rate Scutari and Caetrati differently, it's because we didn't see them as fighting differently. And historical sources don't differentiate much either, style-wise. And the Lusitanians used different proportions of Scutari and Caetrati and weren't noted as being less effective thereby.

And with the Celtiberians, there was enough historical evidence to make a distinction -- they were widely seen by contemporaries as better.

Rating them as Warband, as you suggest, is a poor alternative. Then they will be the same as Gauls (which they historically were seen as better-than) and will be outperformed by the other Ancient Spanish tribes (which they were historically seen as better-than). Warrior is even worse -- that makes them close order, and slower, while not changing their combat ability against historical enemies.

When Fantasy Triumph comes around, there are some things you could do in there (battle cards you could choose) to draw a distinction between Scutari and Caetrati. I wouldn't recommend it -- but whatever makes you happy.

[David Kuijt]

Some are battle line (Scutarii) and some are not (Caetrati), which as far as I can figure makes the slightly heavier Scutarii weaker since they are the same but with less flexibility in deployment..

As a side note -- talking about battleline as making a stand type "weaker" is a peculiar choice of phrase. Choices of who were used in central deployment ("battleline" troops) were military and cultural choices within particular armies and are based upon so many variables that it would be exhausting to name them; the only thing that is important is that we found evidence that in army A, troop type Z was habitually deployed in the center. There are chariot armies where the chariots were deployed in the center. There were chariot armies where the chariots were deployed on the wings. There are chariot armies where the light foot were deployed in the center. There are chariot armies where the light foot were deployed on the wings. Battleline usage has nothing to do with making a particular troop type "weaker" -- that's an odd way to think about things.

Or to say it another way -- how could being battleline make the Scutarii "weaker"? They are exactly the same as Caetrati. If you paint up more Scutarii, you have to put 24 pts of Light Foot in the center. If you paint up more Caetrati, you have to put 24 pts of Light Foot in the center. Some armies have way more than 24 pts of Battle line troops -- they have to put 24 pts of them in the center, and the rest can be deployed elsewhere. That doesn't make the center stuff weaker than the others. Some armies have less than 24 pts total of Battleline troops -- that doesn't make it a stronger army. It still has to put 24 pts of dudes in the center. And what if you're facing Bow Levy in the enemy center? That's what you would like to fight with your Light Foot, so does it make LtFt "stronger" if they are Battleline and the enemy has Bow Levy as Battleline? Stronger and weaker aren't good descriptive terms for deployment restrictions based upon historical use.

Deployment rules are a way to try and create historical deployment patterns, when gamers have a natural inclination to push the boundaries of the peculiar. We introduced the deployment rules to solve a set of problems (gamers creating very non-historical deployments; deliberately off-set or center-empty deployments) that created very non-historical battles. They were largely successful in that aim; they don't have any impact on the point value of stands.

[greedo]

I see. Thanks for the explanation. That all makes sense. Lines do need to be drawn somewhere.

[David Kuijt]

I see. Thanks for the explanation. That all makes sense. Lines do need to be drawn somewhere.

Sorry if I wrote too long a response -- this is a question that comes up two or three times a year, from different people (asking for justification for a different troop category) every time, so the answer was (in a sense) preloaded.

Many of the examples I used are ones I've heard before -- English Longbowmen, Samurai <various types>, and Mongol Horsebow being favorites for this sort of advocacy. But as you say, lines need to be drawn somewhere. And every single bucket (troop type category) has a bunch of different things inside the bucket -- the real question is whether things inside the bucket are more alike, or more like some other group outside in some other bucket.

[greedo]

No worries. My question was purely from a game design stand point, as opposed to advocating for something specifically. I'm the guy who reads all the game design note sidebars (which I'm glad to see Triumph has!) because I'm really interested in the game design process. Tradeoffs have to be made, even with the number of different troop types that T has, lines have to be drawn. So I can see why now. I re-read the combat results and CF values, and realized how close Light Foot is to Raiders (with some significant differences), so it doesn't really make sense to have one inserted between them without yet another troop type.

That said, I'm sure during the huge amount of testing that went into this game, people were always trying to support their favorite troop from history to ensure that they wouldn't get killed in games..

I was actually wondering about how you'd model Longbow, but the CF of bows and no bow support I think has more benefits than minuses, so totally cool with that.

As to the "weaker" comment, that was poorly phrased, but I completely support a historical limitation on deployment, otherwise gamers will do all sorts of silliness.

Thanks again.

[David Kuijt]

That said, I'm sure during the huge amount of testing that went into this game, people were always trying to support their favorite troop from history to ensure that they wouldn't get killed in games..

Some were. Mostly those gamers without a broad perspective -- the more armies you own, and the more you read, the less likely this was.

To be fair, though, people with monofocus on a particular time or theme or army are also helpful in finding new research on that time period / theme / army. Distributed effort.

I was actually wondering about how you'd model Longbow, but the CF of bows and no bow support I think has more benefits than minuses, so totally cool with that.

We live in an anglophile environment, speaking English, growing up on Agincourt and Henry V. So we hear a lot about the superiority of the Longbow. There's a veneration for it.

Longbow aren't that special. There wasn't something magical about yew as a material. Yew was used for bows by the Vikings (and Ash, and other woods), and a gradual increase in the length of bows doesn't make them special. Bows used by the Welshry didn't make a technological leap in the time of Edward I -- an archer who drowned on the Mary Rose in 1545 was using essentially the same tool as an archer of Rhodri Mawr fighting the Danes in 870, and either of them could have used each other's bow. The recurved composite horn bows used from Scythian times was an even better bow in terms of delivering arrows down-range.

There was a confluence of societal impacts that gives rise to some interesting changes in the 14th and early 15th centuries. Up until then, the myth was that the Knight was the only important thing on the battlefield. It wasn't true -- had never been true, the situation was never that simple -- but the courtly class paid for writers, who sucked up to their patrons. In the century or so from 1315 through 1430 there was a century of major shakeups to this comfortable image. Knight armies were beaten by the Scots at Bannockburn, by the Burghers of the Low Countries, by the halberds of the Swiss, by the archers of the English (again and again), by the Pikes of the Swiss when they switched to pikes, by the archers of the English some more, and by the wagons of the Hussites. Every one of those defeats was seen as shocking by the noble class (the horse owners). English-speaking countries focus on the Longbow, but there's nothing magic about that tool. The Palmyrans in the 3rd century could have slaughtered the French as easily from the same positions at Crecy. And one of the reasons the English had such success is that they were so clearly outnumbered in their biggest battles (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt are the three famous ones) that their commanders were forced to abandon the Knight-Combined-Arms approaches they had used in the warfare between Edward Longshanks and Simon de Montfort. Once the French pulled their heads out of their noble asses under the example of the Maid of Orleans and started trying something a little more creative then "Charge with your eyes shut screaming", it became once again clear that the systematic use of bows was not the answer to every possible military question.

Yet the myth of the tool (the longbow) rather than the man (the systematic training and development of archers shooting for sport in England) has persisted ever since. It led the Spider King in France to try and form his own longbow corps in the later 15th century -- a notable failure.

These sort of myths exist all over in military history, especially the simplified military history of casual gamers. Another one that makes me peevish is the idea that gunpowder weapons were superior to the longbow -- that their superiority as a weapon caused the abandonment of the longbow. When what actually led to the gradual military abandonment of the Longbow in England was the rise of native wool production. Sheep pastures, to be specific, replaced archery ranges in every town and hamlet, leading to a gradual decrease of the number of trained yeomanry throughout England. Gunpowder weapons didn't get more accurate, or more range, than longbows until the Sharps Rifle around 1850.

As to the "weaker" comment, that was poorly phrased, but I completely support a historical limitation on deployment, otherwise gamers will do all sorts of silliness.

True dat!

[greedo]

What led to my wondering about the Iberians was a series of papers by Fernando Quesada which postulated that Iberian infantry fought in roughly similar manner to their Roman opponents, and not as the light infantry we always think of.

Might be able to find the pdf online for free, but you have to sign up for this site:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... nistic_Age

It got me thinking, but then again, it's a relatively new paper/idea, so not sure if academia (and eventually wargamers) has accepted it yet.
Regardless it's good reading, and great that serious academics are at least thinking about it.

I'm certainly no expert on history, but the thing I've noticed with ancient history is how little of it there is, and yet we extrapolate so much. A picture of a few hoplites lined up on a vase? It must be like a rugby match! Saw a gaul warrior in a certain pose on Trajan's column? They must fight like X! A few lines in Polybius, and it must be Y!
I certainly believe in the model that most ancient wargamers play (and with Triumph in it's approach), but as Ridley Scott said when people started criticizing Gladiator's historical accuracy, "We really don't know. So we made up what seemed like the most logical thing for the film", so there's lots of room to maneuver as it were.

Here's an interesting youtube vid from an ancient historian regarding movie battles. I got mad when he said that Hoplite scrum/push was an idea came up with 100 years ago and it's rubbish. I was like "It bloody well IS like a.... wait.... I really have no idea.... ok continue".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPGdOXstSyk&t=988s

[David Kuijt]

What led to my wondering about the Iberians was a series of papers by Fernando Quesada which postulated that Iberian infantry fought in roughly similar manner to their Roman opponents, and not as the light infantry we always think of.

Interesting article, thanks for the link.

Much of what he says doesn't contradict Triumph's ratings -- it seems that his arguments are focused on other people (whose articles aren't directly cited). For example, when he says there was more difference between Romans and Greeks in the eyes of Roman commentators, he's talking about what we call Pike. In our game, that's obvious. Similarly for Iberians in Carthage employ (some of them fighting in what we would call close order) -- later Carthaginian armies include a variety of troops (including Iberians and Gauls) as Heavy Foot (or even as Hannibal's Veterans, as Elite Foot).

The really interesting question is whether Iberians fighting in their tribal units would be fighting as close-order troops or open order. He makes some interesting points, to be sure. But note also in his article where he quotes Livy as describing the Celtiberians in ways that almost force them to be rated as Raiders (or as Light Foot). That's in the footnotes (footnote 22).

As a separate note, one of his Livy quotes includes the passage that gives Ancient Spanish mounted the ability to dismount during a battle (mid-battle dismounting battle card).