The Game is Broken

[rahamy]

Thank you for the clarifications, Greg. When designing a game there is the interesting conundrum of trying to meet every players expectation. Some want a simple, very playable game even if this means a slightly unrealistic version others only perfect representation of historical fact is acceptable. Some want to play the game under challenging circumstances others want consistant predictability in every move. The sensible balance is always somewhere between the extremes but the optimum is also very difficult to judge. The skirmishing issue has been hotly debated within the Ancient Warfare team and some wanted light units always to be able to skirmish away. This did cause its own problems - if they always managed to avoid contact they became invincible and a player would only need to use his light troops. There needed to be a possibility that the light units could be caught and the result would be a slaughter as you said was the case at Pharsalus.

The A.I. is built with a degree of random behaviour to ensure different results occured each time you replayed a battle. If not you only needed to play 2 or 3 scenarios and you would from then on always defeat the A.I. This way, a player sees the A.I. as regularly creating a challenge. The A.I. is set with a number of options (usually 2 or 3) under each possible combination of events and it chooses at random which to initiate in the early moves but reduces to more consistant responses to options as the battle goes on.
The Roman option of 'Retire Front Line' does not always work as units in combat conduct morale tests and may not respond to the order given. However, if you could support your point with historical text references that Roman units no longer performed such a tactic then HPS are happy to adjust the game for historical accuracy.

We believe your point on 'Uncontrolled' units is very valid and will be taken into account on the next update in 2009. Thank you for your input, we appreciate such support as it allows HPS to develop better games.

[RADO]

With respect to the legionary relieving the line. This was a "manipular phalanx" operation. This organization was still in use in the Second Punic War however, it must be added at once that the cohort was also in use, particularly with allied troops. Livy mentions this many, many times throughout his history. We know for a fact that Scipio used cohort organization on occassion for legionary soldiers as it is specifically mentioned in Livy and in Gellius' Attic Nights. Even Polybius mentions the use of cohorts by Scipio on one occassion.

Perhaps the best secondary source I know of with respect to the organization and use of the legion is Hans Delbruck's Warfare in Antiquity. He elaborates on this in detail. The relieving the line tactic is speculative at best, and I think it was much more of a manipular phalanx rather than what many people commonly think of. It manouvered in maniples, with all the advantage of smaller units with a smaller frontage, thereby affording them faster movement until the "hinges", so to speak, formed up into a battle line, which then it was nothing more than a phalanx.

The legion of Caesar was quite simply ten cohorts of legionary soldiers. The manipular designation was retained only for organizational, not tactical purposes. The smallest unit on the field of battle was the cohort. It moved as a unit from 8 to 10 ranks deep. The legion of this period normally fought in three lines; four cohorts in the front line, and three each in the second and third line. At Pharsalus, Caesar took one cohort from each of six legions to compliment his right flank.

I cannot think of a single source offhand that mentions any Roman tactic or doctrine from Caesar's period that says that there was "relieving the line" tactics in use. Once the second line of cohorts went forward and filled in the gaps between the cohorts in the front line, the legion was a phalanx for all practical purposes. The Roman advantage was in thrusting swords instead of slashing, their use of the shield as an offensive weapon, and of course, the pilum.

- Greg