|
|
Post by davel on Feb 13, 2021 10:48:37 GMT
Having been inspired to read OHW again after reading Anthony's post about ECW basing, and as I've just finished my 60mm Ancients project of Macedonian and Persians, I read through the Ancient section of this rules book again.
Having asked the question regarding using the OHW for large games (27 Macedonian units and 39 Persian units), the general consensus was that the rules could be used.
However, my armies contain troops that the rules don't account for, so I wondered if I could use this thread to sound fellow Ancient gamers out to see if they thought my rules expansions would work.
I have quite a few ideas, so will be posting them in sections in order to get feedback and refine my ideas.
Please be as brutal/ honest as you like. We're all friends on this site and I bow down to those of you who are more experienced than me. After all, we always want to get things right in our games.
Thanks.
1 Pike Phalanx
In the rules for Hand-to-hand combat, when rolling a D6 to assess casualties, it says that infantry should add 2 to the result, which is then halved to account for any armour the enemy force is wearing.
As the pike phalanx was do devastating, I wondered if a +3 (not 2) should be added to the dice to account for this?
Also, should the +3 also apply to deep units and warbands (some rules seem to imply that these units had an advantage)?
|
|
|
|
Post by davel on Feb 13, 2021 10:52:25 GMT
2 Skirmishers
As these units were possibly smaller that the heavy infantry units, and as they lacked armour and were more vulnerable, what do people think about reducing the number of hits skirmishers can take before being destroyed?
In the rules, ALL units can take 15 hits before being destroyed.
What do people think about reducing this to 8 (or maybe 10) for skirmish units and archers?
|
|
|
|
Post by rossmac on Feb 13, 2021 11:51:18 GMT
The evidence for pikes is not as clearcut as many rules suggest. It is clear that the professional combined arms Macedonians had an advantage against parttime citizen armies which lacked the flexiblitiy and against armies of poorly trained levies. In the end, the pike disappeared fir a thousand years while spearmen and swordsmen with throwing spears of various types persevered.
My.02
Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by rossmac on Feb 13, 2021 12:01:24 GMT
On the question of depth they don't inflict more casualties man for man or exert physical pressure (otherwise the guys in the middle would be squished and suffocated as sometimes happened when the enemy attacked from the rear while a unit was engaged frontally.
A narrow formation was also vulnerable to being flanked unless another unit protected it which implies superior numbers.
In ohw, without changing things too much, you could try allowing a player to stack 2 units together one behind the other. The front unit fights as normal but the two units split any casualties between them.
Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by rossmac on Feb 13, 2021 12:16:53 GMT
Re light troops, in OHW the aim is to represent the over all effect of troops in period. So a Skirmish wargame unit would represent several small units. They also usually fought using missile weapons (javelins, slings, bows etc) in a dispersed formation, avoiding hand to hand combat. The rules represent this by having the units touching to signify that they are engaged but they wouldn't be fighting hand to hand though the heavies might try to catch some with limited charges etc depending on the particular armies.
In addition, although they usually fought in smaller units, there would often be many of the smaller units. Probably best to consider 1 OHW skirmish unit as being several sk units working together. Either that or field 2 1/2 strength units for each skirmish unit and 1/2 their effect as well, but that could produce unforseen side effects and be somewhat contrary to the intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by rossmac on Feb 13, 2021 12:18:45 GMT
Last thoughts:
All of that said, on your table its your game so experiment and tweak it to your tastes.
Some ideas work some don't but its part of the fun!
Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by spiritofethandune on Feb 13, 2021 12:20:54 GMT
Dave,
I find that when wanting to add more period-specific troop types to OHW it is often easiest to just port over troop types from other chapters of the rules. To give an out-of-period example, if I wanted elite infantry in a Napoleonic scenario I would simply use the Zouave troop type from the ACW chapter. It fights with a +2 bonus and that would be enough for me. As Ross said pike formations are vulnerable to outflanking and don't do well on anything except flat ground. It could be argued that in such a streamlined set of rules as OHW the pros and cons of pike cancel each other out. Regarding barbarians, when playing Romans vs Germans etc I use the warband troop type from the Dark Age chapter. It works perfectly, as warband get a melee bonus but do not halve casualties for armour, which makes them good at attacking but lacking staying power. By the way, skirmishers are already penalized by having a combat penalty of -2 to represent their fragility, so I don't see the need for any change there.
Cheers
Anthony
|
|
|
|
Post by davel on Feb 13, 2021 19:34:24 GMT
Thanks for the help and input Ross and Anthony.
Reflecting on what you've said, I think I'll just stick to the rules as they are and forget my ideas.
Now on to things thst aren't included in the rules.
First, scythed chariots. Here are my ideas.
Movement 12" like other cavalry.
These were really a one hit wonder, the drivers trying to jump off beforectye chariots hit their targets.
Therefore, 15 hits seems a bit of a non-starter here (unless one takes into account archery/javelin fire before they attack).
Proposal:
a) If the chariot charges from a distance of 8"-12" from thectarget, they get a +2 bonus on the casualty throw to represent them beingvable to "get their speed up".
b) If they charge from less than 8", they just get the D6 result without a bonus.
After hitting the target, they care removed from play.
Phalangites: the Macedonians were trained to open their ranks to combat scythed chariot attacks.
Proposal:
Macedonian phalangites and Hypaspists throw a D6 to decide if they are successful in doing this.
Result: 4,5 or 6 successful and the scythed chariot rides through the o
Open ranks
1-3 fail, and the unit is hit by the chariot.
In each case, the chariot is removed from play at the end of the move
Thoughts please Gentlemen
|
|
|
|
Post by rossmac on Feb 13, 2021 19:48:19 GMT
Well, first thought I really like Anthony's suggestion of borrowing troop types from similar periods. I actually did this when trying out the rules but had forgotten it.
It bugs me sometimes that he bans all arms armies although they weren't uncommon. When using his army lists I often roll twice on the 3 unit chart so that its possible but not definite.
Scythed chariots are an iffy thing but who would voluntarily take such a weak one shot weapon? Maybe it could be a chance card event? Or maybe give the side choosing scythed chariots three of them taking 5 hits each but counting as a single unit for army count?
Definitely not allowed anywhere but good terrain.
Good fun just thinking and chatting about this kind of stuff.
Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by altfritz on Feb 13, 2021 20:30:17 GMT
I don't have the OHW rules (though I do have his Ancient and Medieval set. Similar?)
re. Pikes - I think the issue was how vulnerable they became if disordered, plus once engaged they couldn't respond to other attacks easily. Once the pikes were leveled it must have been very hard to disengage; the only way was forward. (IMO).
Also don't forget that the Swiss re-introduced the pike with some considerable success (I believe).
What is the advantage given for "Deep Units" - I think pikes should certainly get that, and have a advantage against cavalry - being able to hold them off at least.
re. Scythed Chariots, I'd given them a higher chance of opening the lanes, particularly if on good ground with lots of room. In my reading it seems that the chariots may have been effective against the Persians local foes, but not so much against a disciplined army like the Macedonians.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiritofethandune on Feb 14, 2021 11:43:32 GMT
Dave, I see scythed chariots being like the Roman use of flaming pigs-a bizarre gimmick not really part of the user's normal orbat and certainly not to be used as a building block for one's army. I think Neil Thomas would agree with Ross if he were here-in fact he does, since he excludes scythed chariots from his ancient lists  If you really want them, the simplest thing in my opinion would be to give them a +2 in melee and then either remove the unit after it has fought one round or (my preference) allow all opponents to double casualties against it as though it had been hit in the flank or rear. This would mean it wouldn't hang around long but if lucky might do significant damage before dying. Cheers Anthony |
|
|
|
Post by davel on Feb 14, 2021 12:04:44 GMT
Thanks for the above guys.
Hope you don't mind, but there's more.......
Artillery range 24" Full casualties on a D6
Horse Archers
Movement 12" as for all cavalry.
Neil doesn't allow units to move and shoot, but with these being mounted, do you think they should be allowed to move the 12" and fire at the end of the move?
Also:
1 range for firing as for the foot archers, but they take the -2 on the casualty result to simulate the fact that they are firing from horseback, so wouldn't have the same steady footing as a foot archer?
2 To try to simulate the tactics of these "hit and run" units, allow them to do a half move - 6" - fire, then move back 6" to their original starting position?
|
|
|
|
Post by altfritz on Feb 14, 2021 14:32:02 GMT
I wouldn't bother with the penalty; I think horse archers are skilled at shooting from the saddle. I'd give the penalty to any other archer trying to do the same, however! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by rossmac on Feb 14, 2021 16:19:59 GMT
I would make the artillery immobile. Place it before the game and it stays put. I suspect the full d6 is too much or they'd have been used more often but on the other hand its a game and people need a reason to use them other than be forced to by a die roll. They should have a severe penalty in melee.
As for horse archers, its tricky, them seem to have shot at very close range and I'd be tempted to treat them like his horse & musket cavalry, ie they move to contact, roll their melee dice, no bonus, then retreat.
.02
Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by davel on Feb 14, 2021 21:00:07 GMT
Thanks guys. Getting a lot if good feedback here. Just hope I'm not wasting my time trying to come up with solutions - but when I've painted all the figures, I want to use them, and OHW come with a good recommendation.
I thought I might add a Skirmisher EVADE rule. This would seem logical as it fits in with the role of the skirmisher.
So, I wondered, instead of giving an automatic EVADE rule, I'd make it more interesting by giving a D6 roll to decide the outcome, but giving some advantage for skirmishers to carry out their role.
D6 3-6 - successfully EVADE and make a full move backwards
1-2 - fail and take the consequences of an attack
The real "biggie" is camels and elephants.
Before getting on to the nitty gritty of combat, etc., for these animals, which I'll do in a separate post, I wondered what you thought about the following idea.
Apparently, the smell from camels and elephants was enough to cause unease amongst horses.
To try to reflect this in a battle, I wondered about the following:
1 I thought the 12" move distance for cavalry was a bit too long to implement the following idea, so thought that perhaps 9" was a better distance to create the unease?
2 So, if a mounted unit is within 9" of a camel or elephant unit, I wondered if they should roll a D6 to decide the outcome of this encounter?
Mechanism: Roll a D6
1-3 FAIL. Move back half a move 6"
4-6 PASS Stay in place
Would a cavalry unit attack a camel or elephant unit?
I'm not sure. What do others think?
If they would/did, I feel a D6 roll might be in order to see if the attack went ahead.
Mechanism: Roll a D6
1-4 FAIL - no attack
5-6 SUCCESS - attack takes place
Would appreciate your thoughts on this
Many thanks Dave
|
|
