tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post1479330461301670576..comments2024-03-28T03:10:23.679-07:00Comments on Polemarch: ClassificationsThe Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-46211245792588298772013-03-18T01:34:07.112-07:002013-03-18T01:34:07.112-07:00I suppose it depends on the rules and their view o...I suppose it depends on the rules and their view of 'historical accuracy', whatever that might be....<br /><br />At a tactical level, getting the characteristics right is hard, but if you can do it you can create Spitfires, Zeros and Me 109s. At a higher level they are all 'fighters'. If you try to mix the two then it does matter.<br /><br />Within the game, the players just live with it, of course. Whether this has got anything to do with anything historical is moot.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-66330290354256080502013-03-17T04:02:28.924-07:002013-03-17T04:02:28.924-07:00How much of a problem do you think this ends up be...How much of a problem do you think this ends up being, game-wise? <br /><br />And is this as much of an issue in games which employ a 'stat-line', like Warhammer or many air/naval wargames, compared to those which use broad troop classifications? The stat-line dictates that a Spitfire, say, uses its tight turning-circle against a Me109, but uses its speed and dive characteristics against a Zero, without changing 'the rules'?<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />JohnJWHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637785437909299947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-65608948638796992842013-03-09T05:32:50.897-08:002013-03-09T05:32:50.897-08:00Well, I think the the last point the Cv classifica...Well, I think the the last point the Cv classification in DBM was a bit flakey, because it covered all sorts who were not Kn or LH. But some fought with spears, some with javelins, some with bows, and some with a combination. Now, you might argue that this is fine, shooting to disrupt but then charging, but it isn't exactly what we read about some of the troop types classified as Cv, like Persian cavalry at Platea, for example.<br /><br />The thought I'm trying to pursue in the first bit is that the same troops in India are treated differently because their context has changed. The troops might still be classified as Hussars, but their effect will be different because they are facing Indian troops rather than European. <br /><br />We could change the classification, and call them, in an Indian context, heavy cavalry, say. But then the same troops with the same tactics are treated differently at the same time. <br /><br />It gets a wee bit confusing at that point, whichever way you look at it.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-20689809699922071442013-03-08T23:41:49.199-08:002013-03-08T23:41:49.199-08:00"So the cavalry in Europe would be different ..."So the cavalry in Europe would be different from the same unit in India, because the game is different, not necessarily because the classification changes."<br /><br />I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here? Do you mean that the opposition in India would be classified in such a way that the European cavalry, without having to change its 'game classification', would end up being used in a different way than when fighting the French in Spain, for instance?<br /><br />Also, can you think specifically of where other rulesets get into trouble with this classification issue - i.e. has produced in-game effects which you have thought, that just *could not* happen?<br /><br />RegardsJWHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637785437909299947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-4391194932344251522013-03-06T00:16:40.171-08:002013-03-06T00:16:40.171-08:00Some of the stuff deriving from Keegan's '...Some of the stuff deriving from Keegan's 'Face of Battle' is quite interesting on this - the individual, unit and general's eye view of the battle.<br /><br />The point is that it looks very different from these different levels. <br /><br />Surely the general didn't need to know the cultural stuff 'cos he was part of the culture. Except some Roman generals, of course...The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-26880592517336102782013-03-05T08:43:02.543-08:002013-03-05T08:43:02.543-08:00Well yes, entirely the point - I did the same with...Well yes, entirely the point - I did the same with Polemos NApoleonic. The general doesn't need to know the cultural stuff - it's sufficient to know the unit is lost, rather than that the individuals in it are fleeing for the hills, standing back to back and being cut to pieces or rendering themselves up as prisoners for ransom or exchange. It's very important if you are one of the individuals.<br /><br />Ok, I'm an old git, and remember rulesets being written in latin..... <br />WRG very much unit based,but wargamers' megalomania being what it is, we were never going to stick to the size of 'armies' the rules were written for. Armies grew, and the detailed classifications became a burden. Chris Gricenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-59722056634696405942013-03-05T00:17:09.269-08:002013-03-05T00:17:09.269-08:00I think part of the issue is that the classificati...I think part of the issue is that the classifications and game actually are part of the same thing; they do not exist one without the other.<br /><br />So the cavalry in Europe would be different from the same unit in India, because the game is different, not necessarily because the classification changes. <br /><br />I do think it is important also to realize that rule sets do work at different levels. I made a conscious effort to write PM:SPQR from a general's eye view. I suspect that WRG was really a unit view, with generals bolted onto the top. But then, I am too young to have played them...<br /><br />The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-21526510414446525592013-03-04T05:54:33.676-08:002013-03-04T05:54:33.676-08:00Hmm, a couple of fairly contradictory thoughts cam...Hmm, a couple of fairly contradictory thoughts came to me as I read this. (Congrats once again on making me think.)<br /><br />First thought was that the culture is the important thing. The rules should classify troops according to the culture they operate in, and there is no point in having classifications which cross cultures or time periods. That is, why would you ever need to compare the hoplite with the fyrdman, unless you were (heaven forfend) writing a WRG style 3000BC - 3000AD rule set? The difficult bit is fixing the boundaries of your rules, because all wargaming periods are subject to woolliness round the edges.<br />The boundaries aren't always chronological. A British redcoat at Waterloo operated in a very diferent culture to his brother fighting the Gurkhas in Nepal in the same year; British light cavalry in Europe should be reclassified as heavy the moment they're sent to India, and so on. Classifications should be comparative with the troops that might be encountered as allies or enemies.<br /><br />The second thought - which I hate myself for - is that the object of the game should frame the classification to some extent. <br />If you are writing rules for large numbers of units where the player is C-in-c of an army, a highly detailed troop classification system adds confusion, not clarity. WRG were a case in point, but it wasn't the rules writers' fault. Detail in classification made sense when you were considering 1000 point armies, but when the norm became 2000 or 2500, or in one game I remember 12,000 points, it gets out too much to handle. Chris Gricenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-6895051834109327792013-03-04T00:34:23.611-08:002013-03-04T00:34:23.611-08:00I think that this is pretty well the nub of the pr...I think that this is pretty well the nub of the problem; our classification systems are either too broad, or too narrow to be workable, too simplified or too complex. which is why I try to stick to fairly narrow time bands. Even then there is room for argument, at least.<br /><br />I think the point is that somehow we have to classify in order to make the troop types and battles intelligible, but that sometimes our classification systems may not achieve that simplification, or are too simple to really explain anything.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-90692740689497178062013-03-02T06:46:50.743-08:002013-03-02T06:46:50.743-08:00One of the traps of classification is deciding how...One of the traps of classification is deciding how broad or narrow to make the classes and sub-classes. Another is deciding which sorts of similarities are relevant and which aren't.<br /><br />Does one lump a peasant and a spear and an armoured and trained Flemish spearmen because both are medieval and armed with spears? Or does the training and discipline of the latter and the cohesion supplied by the need to keep the respect of his neighbors if a citizen or earn his pay and be hired again if a mercenary make the latter a different beast? ( make them substantially different in battle field effect, (eg Courtrai etc) <br /><br />Does one lump a Democratic Athenian Citizen with A Spartiate or a conscripted Spartan Helot or a Thesalian hoplite following his King to war? Is a picked mercenary hoplite serving a Syracusian Tyrant the same as a conscripted citizen who has been cowed into reluctant obedience? What about a hoplite defending the Pharaoh against a Mede invasion or serving one Persian lord against another?<br /><br />Their armour and tactics are all similar though some are better trained and drilled than others and some may have more say about things off the battle field. Their options in battle are pretty limited though, stay in ranks and fight or run away. The reason Socrates was praised was that it was unusual to NOT run away once the ranks were broken apart from the Spartans who took good care not to let their ranks be broken.<br /><br />Which is how the old WRG rules came to classify troops by discipline & training, morale, tactical style, armour and weapons (as in Regular B, heavy infantry with long thrusting spear and shield vs Irregular D medium infantry with short thrusting spear etc.) Unfortunately it turned out that was either too few classifications, or else too many. Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.com