More thoughts on Ancient and Medieval Wargaming

I had some initial thoughts that after a few ore games I thought maybe were not such a good idea.  One thought was that skirmishers, especially javelin armed skirmishers were not any good.  True they could get slaughtered in a fight but historically they are simply harassing units.  It was thought by several folks that light troops in general should have some sort of evade rules.  I am not so certain.  In my last fight, my velites were able to shoot and then inflict a few more hits in melee.  True they took heavy casualties but I allowed them to retreat through the formed body.  I was then able to counter attack with fresh units on the next turn.   So I was able to pull back spent units before they were eliminated, and thuse being counted as victory points.

Some units are a bit weak.  Specifically, the Punic infantry and Hellenistic cavalry.  Though both units were substantial armor, Neil Thomas felt for some reason that they should only have a 6+ armor.  And yet, the Roman cavalry have a 5+ armor!  Both of these I would change to 5+.  Speaking of Punic infantry, I also had a notion that they should be classified as auxiliary infantry.  However, I think the Hoplite classification is fine.  they can deliver a punch and then start to fall apart when they lose that first stand.  I do think the Punic Veterans should be heavy infantry as the Romans are.

Finally, there is the differentiation between Hoplites and Pike phalanx.  Hoplites deliver a tremendous attack until the first stand is lost.  I think the Pike Phalanx should have a 3+ armor save against non-pike units (frontal only!) until the first stand is lost.  This 3+ only applies to melee.  They retain the usual 5+ against missile fire.

My next fight shall be Hereclea, the classic matchup between Pyrrhus and Rome.





5 Responses to More thoughts on Ancient and Medieval Wargaming

  1. Dan M says:

    Hello! I really enjoy your blog, and so have awarded you the “Liebster Blog Award”. You can read more about it here:

    Keep up the good work 🙂


  2. Shaun Travers says:


    Is not 3+ a bit of a leap from 5+, maybe 4+? And a pike phalanx is made up of so many men, I would be tempted to extend that to missile fire as well (4+). So a pike phalanx has 4+ armour save Vs non-pikes from the front and 4+ until the first stand is lost. But that is just me. And I am not sure it would make them a little too invunerable to missiles.

  3. acarhj says:


    The 3+ thing is used for shield wall in the Dark Age rules. I figured it would be fine for Pike Phalanx. Understand that after 1 stand is eliminated, the phalanx becomes permanently disordered. It defends as Auxilia. When fighting other heavy infantry that will mean that the unit takes casualties at twices the rate. Also the armor drops to 5+. Finally, if a flank becomes vulnerable, it does not get the 3+. I left the missile defense the same for two reasons. 1) The actual missile defense of many pikes probably only helps against long ranges falling shots. 2) Game balance. There has to be a way to soften up the phalanx before contact!


  4. I see the reason for the 3+. But should not a hoplite phalanx get shield wall too? My reasoning for the 4+ was to bring the armour value into line with Heavy hoplites. But I can see your point of view and where you are going as well. Oh for a time machine to see how it all really worked..

  5. Shaun Travers says:


    I got nominated for a Liebster award and included you in one of my five nominations to pass it on to. I do know you already have one, obviously.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: