Difference between styles
- Thread starter gran_orco
- Start date
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Not every option needs to provide mechanistic balance. Some choices are defined from the character's perspective by culture, tradition or cult.gran_orco said:
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
Not having the rules yet, how are phalanx pikemen dealt with as regards their static (can't think of a better word at the moment) shield, as they are using their two hands for the pike?
Loz
Mongoose
Lord High Munchkin said:
They don't get any specific treatment (no formations do), but I assume you're meaning a shield set to the ground in front of the soldier so that he can set his pike against the enemy?
If so, the shield is going to provide cover for specific locations - legs, abdomen and chest. The rules have this kind of cover provided and, of course, you can rule that the AP of the shield offers additional AP to the covered locations equal to the shield's as long as formation/position are maintained. As to the combat style, then the simplest is Pike although there's no reason why couldn't have Spear and Shield as equally effective - although given the limitations (and forgive my ignorance of the style and period you're referring to) you could rule that no additional Combat Action is gained even though the hoplite has two weapons (because of the needs to brace a very long weapon and maintain a shield, too).
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
I was thinking of a carried aspis (erroneously called a hoplon)... you know the Macedonian/Marble phalanx style with ranks marching forward.
But you answered it I think.
But you answered it I think.
in fact, the macedonian phalanx shield is not the same as the hoplite shield:
Hoplite shield: Aspis koile (convave shield) diameter 90cm, 9kg
two handles, a Porpax (for the forearm) and a antilabe (for the hand)
Macedonian shield: Pelte or peltarion?? diameter 60cm, 5kg only a Porpax and a sort of belt around shoulder.
You can't pary with it, (because your hand is on the shaft of the pike and have no mobility) it work like a covert.
Hoplite shield: Aspis koile (convave shield) diameter 90cm, 9kg
two handles, a Porpax (for the forearm) and a antilabe (for the hand)
Macedonian shield: Pelte or peltarion?? diameter 60cm, 5kg only a Porpax and a sort of belt around shoulder.
You can't pary with it, (because your hand is on the shaft of the pike and have no mobility) it work like a covert.
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
Err, not exactly.... The Pelte (or in Latin peltarion) was used by peltasts, and was typically a crescent-shaped wicker shield.
Hoplon itself merely means "tool" in Ancient Greek (although it has become used for "shield" in Modern Greek). Thus a sword is technically a hoplon, a helmet a hoplon, etc...
A "Hoplite" is a hoplite because he carries the tools (of war)—a 'man-at-arms'.
Hoplon itself merely means "tool" in Ancient Greek (although it has become used for "shield" in Modern Greek). Thus a sword is technically a hoplon, a helmet a hoplon, etc...
A "Hoplite" is a hoplite because he carries the tools (of war)—a 'man-at-arms'.
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
I wouldn't completely trust either Osprey or (sadly) Peter Connolly 100%... they are generally pretty good, and far better than nothing, but not totally reliable.
The main problem is that they are generalist, and go out of date quite quickly. Additionally (and specifically in the case of Connolly's reconstructions of the aspis) access to rare original items is difficult for non-academics (military historians not generally being considered as such by academics and their institutions). The cross-section of Connolly's reconstructed shield being a case in point.
The main problem is that they are generalist, and go out of date quite quickly. Additionally (and specifically in the case of Connolly's reconstructions of the aspis) access to rare original items is difficult for non-academics (military historians not generally being considered as such by academics and their institutions). The cross-section of Connolly's reconstructed shield being a case in point.
Simulacrum
Mongoose
I'm wrestling with this right now. Two things I'm looking at in particular and need to playtest and canvas ideas on:
1) any kind of fixed shield - I am presuming that this is cover to a location (or several, depending on type and size). If the attacker gains a CM - which he probably will do if it is a static pike formation as there will be no parry - he needs to use a bypass armour CM to avoid striking shield, but would need a second to also bypass whatever armour is covering the location. For the purist, one needs to find a way to cater for the defensive effect of mased pikes in forming an obstacle to missiles.
2) Shields used actively in defence, where the warrior concentrates on blocking instead of striking. Now this should make him very hard to hit from the front, particularly if equipped with a big shield such as a classical period Aspis or roman Scutum. I'm proposing that the defender using a combined shield plus weapon combat style, and spending his CAs defend himself should a) get a bonus to his parry from his shield type/size so long as he has spent no CA on anything else so far that round; and b) that the riposte manoeuvre can be conducted not with the parrying weapon as ruled but with the pointy part of the combo.
This is for a setting-specific modification, in which I am keen that soldiers can behave like soldiers - ie hold the line and don't get killed rather than lay into the enemy with gay abandon - particularly low-skilled troops.
Opinions welcome!
1) any kind of fixed shield - I am presuming that this is cover to a location (or several, depending on type and size). If the attacker gains a CM - which he probably will do if it is a static pike formation as there will be no parry - he needs to use a bypass armour CM to avoid striking shield, but would need a second to also bypass whatever armour is covering the location. For the purist, one needs to find a way to cater for the defensive effect of mased pikes in forming an obstacle to missiles.
2) Shields used actively in defence, where the warrior concentrates on blocking instead of striking. Now this should make him very hard to hit from the front, particularly if equipped with a big shield such as a classical period Aspis or roman Scutum. I'm proposing that the defender using a combined shield plus weapon combat style, and spending his CAs defend himself should a) get a bonus to his parry from his shield type/size so long as he has spent no CA on anything else so far that round; and b) that the riposte manoeuvre can be conducted not with the parrying weapon as ruled but with the pointy part of the combo.
This is for a setting-specific modification, in which I am keen that soldiers can behave like soldiers - ie hold the line and don't get killed rather than lay into the enemy with gay abandon - particularly low-skilled troops.
Opinions welcome!
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
Number 1. was what I was asking about.
With a melee weapon one also has to duck under the several ranks of pike points (off the top of my head I think it's 5 lines of pike-heads in a later phalanx) before one even reaches the first file-man.
How would this layered defence be handled?
With a melee weapon one also has to duck under the several ranks of pike points (off the top of my head I think it's 5 lines of pike-heads in a later phalanx) before one even reaches the first file-man.
How would this layered defence be handled?
PrinceYyrkoon
Mongoose
I have to chip in...
The Macedonian pikeman carried a shield, but it wasnt the same as a hoplites shield. The hoplite shield (whatever name you wish to give it, the term 'hoplon' is the modern term), was fairly substantial, with an arm strap and hand grip, the Macendonian pikemans shield was used slung over the shoulder, so he could still use his pike with two hands.
The Macedonian pikeman carried a shield, but it wasnt the same as a hoplites shield. The hoplite shield (whatever name you wish to give it, the term 'hoplon' is the modern term), was fairly substantial, with an arm strap and hand grip, the Macendonian pikemans shield was used slung over the shoulder, so he could still use his pike with two hands.
PrinceYyrkoon
Mongoose
Similarly, a pelte, was, originally used for a light infantrymans shield, the peltast, however, by the time of Alexanders Successors, the term pelte or Peltast, was often, confusingly, attributed to heavy infantry guard pike units, the equivalent of Alexanders Hypastpists, (who are also confusingly defined).
The Silver Shield 'Peltasts' are, I suspect, named after the latter use of the term, i.e., heavy infantry.
The Silver Shield 'Peltasts' are, I suspect, named after the latter use of the term, i.e., heavy infantry.
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
Well, yes and no.PrinceYyrkoon said:
You are right, they are not the same exact type of shield, as the Macedonian aspis was rimless (as in the Pergamon example and carvings), but was not worn hung over the back. There would be no point it that, rather it was slung on a baldric over the left side with the pike likely resting and steadying both itself and the shield by use of the strap. Plutarch mentions them being worn so.
However, with little access to material at the moment, the only example I can find of a contemporary depiction of a "rimless" Macedonian shield (from Delphi) has a "hoplite-style" grip and fore-arm loop.
As to the Silver Shields, I thought that they were a light (as most Tarsh Peltast units are) to medium infantry (they have 4 pt chest armour, but 2 on limbs, in the Cradle adventure—although that might be through some spell augmentation). They are illustrated with the light crescent shields in any case.
Edit: Just checked a few sources. The Silver Shields are a medium unit with a large number of dog companions (they are called the "Dog Soldiers"). They are depicted with both the crescent pelta and an all-metal round shield with a central boss and a grip-rod that crosses the entire back. It's circular to better depict the shining face of the Goddess.
I hope this isn't getting too technical or involved for the original subject of the original post.
Blackyinkin
Mongoose
Hi All,
Ok, going back in history to the wonderful Sun County published by Avalon Hill, by Michael O'Brien the way the 'slung shield' and pike technique worked in RQ3 was that the shield was strapped to the shoulder, but hung loose and that it increased the armour points of the locations the shield hung over, usually the left arm, chest and abdomen. In most cases the shield used would be a Hoplite shield, so you would gain 6 AP in those locations, but you negated any other form of parry in my opinion.
I would also increase the damage of the Hoplite to 1d6 or even 1d8, unlike the other shield which were used to push or bash, the edge of the hoplite was used to hammer and slice into the opponent, and was more than capable of severing a head, smashing through collar bones and into the chest. If you have seen the excellent 'Deadliest Warrior' series on Bravo and watched one of these shield slice through ballistic gel covered skeletons would know what I mean.
Simon
Ok, going back in history to the wonderful Sun County published by Avalon Hill, by Michael O'Brien the way the 'slung shield' and pike technique worked in RQ3 was that the shield was strapped to the shoulder, but hung loose and that it increased the armour points of the locations the shield hung over, usually the left arm, chest and abdomen. In most cases the shield used would be a Hoplite shield, so you would gain 6 AP in those locations, but you negated any other form of parry in my opinion.
I would also increase the damage of the Hoplite to 1d6 or even 1d8, unlike the other shield which were used to push or bash, the edge of the hoplite was used to hammer and slice into the opponent, and was more than capable of severing a head, smashing through collar bones and into the chest. If you have seen the excellent 'Deadliest Warrior' series on Bravo and watched one of these shield slice through ballistic gel covered skeletons would know what I mean.
Simon
Simulacrum
Mongoose
Lord High Munchkin said:
That's a tough one. My guess for now:
Setup - the points of 5 sarissas project in front of the phalanx; the swordsman has to get past 4 of them to get close enough to engage a pikeman in the first rank. However the GM has to determine how many of the sarissophoroi are actively spending a CA trying to stop him.
option 1 - a sorting test for the file of pikeman vs the swordsman's evade: They all spend the CA (they don't have much else to do, except the front rank man). The GM rolls one weapon roll, and applies a modifier to each spear in the file. First rank -30, second -20, and so on. The reason the mod is counter-intuitively reversed is because otherwise everyone fails if the front man does. So let's say they have a 60% average skill and the GM rolls 35. If our swordsman makes his roll he gets past the first spearpoint but no further - try again next CA. At least the guy whose spear point is nearest him is penalised if he tries to attack because he is obstructed by the man in front. The phalangites cannot maneouver to push him out - now it's hold him at bay or pin him. What they can do is drive him with them as they advance.
option 2 - the modifiers are applied more intuitively, getting worse for each rank in the file, but our swordsman must make his one evade against four enemy rolls to get to striking range. His progress is stopped at the first enemy who beats him in the opposed test, and once again he can try and progress further next CA.
In either event a critical result puts him up at the shields.
Does that work?
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
It's five ranks of points... probably an attacker would be subject to about three initial pike attacks (I guess given frontage). If they get through those, about two feet further in there will be another three pikes, and so on repeating the experience.
That means about 15 pike attacks to be faced before reaching the file-front. The pikeman would be relatively helpless though, if an attacker made it that far.
The pikeman could I suppose rest his pike on the strap and draw his sword— but at a massive penalty. He would more likely try a shield bash.
I'm thinking this through, but that's sort of it.
That means about 15 pike attacks to be faced before reaching the file-front. The pikeman would be relatively helpless though, if an attacker made it that far.
The pikeman could I suppose rest his pike on the strap and draw his sword— but at a massive penalty. He would more likely try a shield bash.
I'm thinking this through, but that's sort of it.
PrinceYyrkoon
Mongoose
Munchkin
I'll just qualify...
'Over the shoulder' doesnt mean 'on the back', the pike shield was worn to hang down on straps to protect the forward arm, whilst the pikeman held the pike with both hands, horizontally. These pikes could be anywhere from 12 to 21 foot long (longer during the Successor period to deal with things such as elephants). Both a pelte and a 'hoplon' had a different function, and, in fact, the hoplon was falling out of use at this time, when infantry were becoming 'lighter' equipped partially as a reaction to encounters with Darius' Persian army, and the infantry of Thrace who had adopted the crescent shaped pelte.
Anyway, back to the OP...
I'll just qualify...
'Over the shoulder' doesnt mean 'on the back', the pike shield was worn to hang down on straps to protect the forward arm, whilst the pikeman held the pike with both hands, horizontally. These pikes could be anywhere from 12 to 21 foot long (longer during the Successor period to deal with things such as elephants). Both a pelte and a 'hoplon' had a different function, and, in fact, the hoplon was falling out of use at this time, when infantry were becoming 'lighter' equipped partially as a reaction to encounters with Darius' Persian army, and the infantry of Thrace who had adopted the crescent shaped pelte.
Anyway, back to the OP...
These last two months I have read over thirty books and documents on the ancient military equipment and took notes. (I want to create a game aid on antique weapons and armor for BRP Rome, MRQII and the French RPG “Oikouménè”)
The only occurrence of a Greek name for the Macedonian shield was "Pelte”.
I don’t know if this is the only appellation or the more accurate, but is the only one I have at the moment.
If anyone knows a different name to avoid confusion with the peltast shield , I'm very interested!
:wink:
The only occurrence of a Greek name for the Macedonian shield was "Pelte”.
I don’t know if this is the only appellation or the more accurate, but is the only one I have at the moment.
If anyone knows a different name to avoid confusion with the peltast shield , I'm very interested!
:wink:
