Hi all,
I have been doing a lot of reading on ancient battles recently, and also among the various games available on the topic and one thing that stands out is terrain.
Across the various historical sources, it is very clear that phalanx struggled in terrain.
It is fairly clear that hoplites also disliked terrain, though there are accounts of single-type combat at the front of a phalanx for example, and also greece is extremely hills but that is OK because hills aren't really 'terrain' in the sense we apply to it in our games - they don't impede movement.
It is really quite unclear about the Romans - indeed they seem to have approached the enemy in a shield-wall like formation of 3x3 approx and then broken out into a more open formation for melee combat as soon as possible - enough room to swing the sword, or around 5x3.
Everyone else, well seems to have fought like either the greeks if they were spear armed or Romans if they were sword armed - mostly due to the space needed to fight effectively.
Skirmishers of course would have spread out more, and certainly slingers.
Bowmen seem to actually fight rather closer together - similar spacing to 'open' Romans, and therefore most everyone else.
Sparabara for example that we consider to be loose, probably fought no further than the Roman open formation - and if you think about it you want to be behind that bloke with the spear don't you?
So my underlying question to all of this really is.. where's the evidence of the 'looser' troops being less disadvantaged in terrain? (that is, that 'close' troops take a penalty in combat due to terrain but loose troops do not)
I can't see that loose troops in a field for example would be any more spread out than fighting Romans in their sword-fighting formations.
Hoplites might be at a bit of a disadvantage because they would be forced perhaps to open their ranks a little, but if the other guys do as well then why should they be particularly disadvantaged other than perhaps because they are not applying the typical doctrine.
I suppose the whole close vs loose thing in terms of terrain just doesn't work that well for me.
I have to say as well that this is a ADLG/MeG/FoG and probably also DBM, 7th edition etc construct - but I'm not at all sure that the available evidence we have stacks up to the end conclusions we get in our games.
It seems to me pretty obvious that a close formation might suffer a penalty, but that's really only spearmen and pikes rather than everyone else.
I Look forward to hearing some thoughts!
Stu.
A topic that could elicit a long answer, but I'll keep this short ;D
Basically I agree that there is no real basis for the Loose formation troops intermediate between Close and Skirmisher/Open Order - you basically have "Line of Battle" and "Skirmisher". IMO it is very telling that Phil Sabin who uses wargames as a tool to teach and understand the period did not include a "Loose" category in his Lost Battles.
The idea of "Loose" formation troops goes back much further than WRG 7th and, alas, now seems to be taken as " a thing" by most wargamers of the period :(
I'd agree with your thought that who is affected by terrain is better looked at by their fighting method rather than being based on formation.
Nik summarises the position well.
I would regard the "loose" formation as a game mechanism to add interest to the game. I do not see it as a historical thing. In my set of rules I developed before MeG I did not have a loose category - and we did discuss it during the development of MeG. The flexible category arose from these discussions.
When compiling the army lists I don't regard "Loose" troops as necessarily being in a more open formation. I actually regard it as troops who can fight in terrain better (in the same way as classifying a troop type with short spear doesn't necessarily mean that they carried light spears). The aim of the army lists is to ensure that troops and armies feel right.
In a scenario game, you might have Pike and Long Spear troops disadvantaged and reclassify any loose troops with long spear as short spear.
I certainly regard the old "Light heavy infantry" and "Light medium infantry" as a bit of a wargaming myth (along with the impetuous advance).
Richard
Thanks for your comments gents, I'm quite glad you agree as I was having real trouble finding any supporting evidence that really matched up.
I also think that sometimes it's better to add something within the bounds of reasonableness for the sake of game design.
In wargames there is definitely a tendency for one game to influence another until it's a case of 'everyone knows that's how it works' - when actually, that isn't necessarily the case.
One interesting titbit I did see though was the Persian reluctance to use their cavalry on hilly terrain (Persian invasions of Greece) - they were not at all keen on fighting in hills, which we also don't end up with in MeG. Perhaps though they were more like rough hills or stony hills, which would have been bad for unshod hooves. Certainly a bit later on Alexander's troops didn't seem to mind so morale and/or doctrine might well have been a factor there.
And in terms of impetuous advance I tend to agree - even the 'barbarians' of Gaul managed to stand around and wait to attack. The idea of a zombie swarm running pell-mell into the jaws of death just doesn't seem particularly believable short of (possibly) fanatics who may well have been too inebriated to go very far anyway.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 23, 2020, 07:17:38 AM
A topic that could elicit a long answer, but I'll keep this short ;D
Basically I agree that there is no real basis for the Loose formation troops intermediate between Close and Skirmisher/Open Order - you basically have "Line of Battle" and "Skirmisher". IMO it is very telling that Phil Sabin who uses wargames as a tool to teach and understand the period did not include a "Loose" category in his Lost Battles.
The idea of "Loose" formation troops goes back much further than WRG 7th and, alas, now seems to be taken as " a thing" by most wargamers of the period :(
I'd agree with your thought that who is affected by terrain is better looked at by their fighting method rather than being based on formation.
I tend to agree that we have dealt with some of the legacy of the wargames creation of loose but bot all. Lots of myths created that we have at least started unpicking and will continue to do so.
But when I looked at Mortem et Gloriam I never thought of Loose and Close quite how the previous rues did. To me it isn't about spacing its about cow coordinated your fighting is with the person next to you. You will see that if you read the definitions them on page 45. Its also why there is no movement penalty. I kept to the terms for the age of continuity. It is a dialogue worth continuing to its conclusion and some renaming.
As I ponder more ... most troops clustered close together. it was more whether they were skilled enough to make use of that tightness to results and assault - either through pearliness, shieldwalls etc.
So we probably have it largely right init with old labels. I would prefer formation fighter and individual fighter or some such thing. Formation fighters have trouble in terrain and individual fighters not. There is then a reasonable argument for a few more flexible ... more also that some ;close' with melee expert are not so bad, but may be better defined as superior flexibles even if they have long spear.
A fine debate to have ... essentially close and loose in the sense they were first described never existed IMHO ...
Si
HI Simon, I wasn't picking on MeG - more the general wargamer idea that this was 'a thing' when the reality seems to be that it really wasn't.
I think of all the figures games MeG is 'least wrong' - close vs loose in the open is about even. Add in terrain though and loose are advantaged.
MeG does better with legionaries and the idea of flexible formations - at least they can go into loose and then clear out that field, whereas in other games the most lethal fighting force known to man at that time would be stopped by said field. "if we go in there the bowmen will kill us.." I have seen this many times in other systems and it always struck me as just nonsense.
Oh I'm not that sensitive Stu.
Didn't even read the slightest criticism in your post.
Read it all as developmental.
No I think its a very good discussion.
I started the journey of improving it and I think we can go a bit further yet.
S