[EB]3v3 or 4v4 Historical Battle Idea

Ok, so LazyO had originally brought this idea to my attention through his participation in a late Roman era mod battle of the same concept. Anyway, the general idea would be for two 3 player teams composed of armies that are roughly similar to those used in the historical battle. Obviously, some differences would occur and such but the general idea is to find enough players, select a date in the near future at a time when all can participate, and then hold the battle.

Here is a rough draft of the rules I would impose though I hope to hear back from those interested on possible changes:
-Each team would have a "captain" who would act as the general present at the battle. This member is the only one capable of ordering the entire team through team chat. The others have to remain silent and "follow orders" although they would certainly not have to and could act on their own even disregarding their own general if they see fit! If the general dies during battle, the captain could no longer give orders and all will have to work independently of one another with not team chat coordination
-The divisions of players armies would vary depending on the battle chosen. Some might command the majority of the cavalry, others perhaps a wing. Each army would not be made equal as well, so selecting which army component each teammate would get would be of utmost importance.
-The battles would not necessarily be 100% balanced but no Thermopylae style battles for example. Each side would certainly have a good chance at victory. Some liberties may be taken in terms of troop numbers present to ensure this is the case.
-While terrain often played major roles in these battles, it is important to note that most EB maps are not well suited for even battles and that usage of typical maps such as Grassy Flatland or Pripyet Marshes may be unavoidable in order to ensure no clear advantages or disadvantages.

Some of the historical battles I feel would work well are as such: (mind you I am pulling these out of my behind at 2:15 at night so if I am somewhere off in left field let me know)
-Magnesia
-Cynoscalphae
-Raphia
-Arausio
-Carrhae
-Asculum
-Beneventum
-Zama
-Cannae
-Panion
-Bibracte
-Vosges
-Tigranocerta
-Chaeornea

If any of these ideas sound good or you have some others, post here please. I'd love for this to happen sometime soon within the next week or two.:2thumbsup:

Sounds great. Would have to be fairly balanced armies though... Me wanna be Hannibal at Zama and kill Scipio.

Too easy.

I suggest Magnesia.

Magnesia was actually my first choice as well. You can see I put it first in my list :p

Arent you an early riser. Mind coming on hamachi? we can discuss it in depth.

Really? I thought Magnesia is quite unbalanced as per Livy and Appian.

I don't see how it so unbalanced. Antiochus had a substantially larger force but it was poorly trained and organized in comparison to the experienced Roman force. Obviously we would play around with the estimates of soldiers present but I don't think it would be unbalanced. Poor organization can be handled numerous ways as in giving commanders a variety of units that do not necessarily constitute a proper army and forcing them to integrate in many places at once.

Oh and Lazy, I'm only up so early to study so sorry to disappoint lol

I'm interested, but are we going to reenact them or simply taking over the army compositions?

Sounds good. Not knocking the idea (which I love); just considering possible options.

Sounds good. Not knocking the idea (which I love); just considering possible options.

An odd double post by Shak, 2 hours apart lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

I'm interested, but are we going to reenact them or simply taking over the army compositions?

---

I think just take over army compositions. There are too many factors involved in attempting a reenactment and a proper one would involve us already knowing who wins and who loses. I don't think there would be that much fun in that. It a chance to create an alternative history.

Haha, sorry about double post. No idea how that happened. Think I might have refreshed browser or something. Anyways, re-enactment would be dull... we should re play!

Great idea! Even I will try to find time for that! I vote for battle of Cynoscephalae. Maybe not quite balanced according to Plutarch but very interesting historically.

I tried to put something like this together but the army lists are the hard part to come up with.

It will require some imagination I'll admit, but a general consensus on army type, at the very least, is reachable.

Well, the research is kind of done already. The Historical Battles Pack contains a lot of them; all we have to do is maybe tweak it to general consensus! :)

I somehow don't possess the historical battle pack...
I'll have to dl it and check it out though I do have a book on the great battles of the Hellenistic world which goes into some detail about army compositions.

Cool. It's pretty interesting (the pack). The Battle of Cannae is awesome.

We should increase the numbers of units etc, to make it you know "more epic" :D

Lol! good luck 3v3ing that!

Don't get me wrong, its a great idea. Im just not sure everyone's comp can take it tho

The problem with Cannae is...well, the Roman commander was just not that smart.

No problem we can just reduce unit numbers for the carthaginians and put vega and gaius incharge of the romans :P

hahahaha. I wasn't proposing Cannae, was just saying the battle in the historical battles pack is great.

Great idea. I propose more specifically 3v3 on huge and on an EB map, not a vanilla one. Latest EDU (or 3.0 final when it's released). Players will take left centre and right respectively. These will be anywhere from 45 to 60 units on each side altogether. Ask gg2 and he can describe what historical battles are like on 3v3 in NTW3.

Some EB maps on the bottom are causing crash to me when i wanna to choose them :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vega

Some EB maps on the bottom are causing crash to me when i wanna to choose them :inquisitive:

---

What are their names?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

What are their names?

---

Oh yeah. I need maps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Oh yeah. I need maps!

---

this is that famous map it crashes everytime i will edit post if i find more this one is on the bottom "EB marmarike kliffs"

Dibs capitain position and command over cavalery MUAHAHAHA! Doesnt matter which army!

If you ask me it should be a main army led by a captain, and two other armies of 10 units preferably auxillaries and mostly light armed.

I'm interested.

Any battle with more than greeks it's fine for me. I mean , i specialize in butcher's work and skirmishing so give me the galatai/thraikioi/east keltoi contingents any day.

@Robin, Mind setting up a poll on which battle to play so I can get started on making the scenario?

Yeah! Let's get the basics sketched out so we can proceed with this fairly quickly.

With regard to the issue of General’s and teams:

I think it would be a good idea for those interested to post that they are interested and also indicating which faction they would prefer once the battle is chosen. Any imbalances can be corrected by an appointed neutral person ensuring that both teams have more or less equal amount of experience.

Regarding the battle, an agreement will have to be reached on army composition.

Once teams are made, I think a democratic process of choosing the leader would be best: each team member votes for 1 person (apart from themselves) to be the general. The appointed neutral person tallies the votes and announces the generals.

Of course, if a player does not want to be the general, they can indicate so.

After this has been decided, I think the best way to go about it is to allow the team flexibility in deciding who gets what command, with the general getting the final say: ie splitting it into wings and center, or deciding 1 player will play cav, skirmishers, etc.

So lets decide on which battle quickly! Say within next 24 hours please! Since Lazy and Robin brought this up, for the first one, why don’t we let them choose? (also for the sake of getting things moving quickly)



To make this thing more epic, it would be very interesting to play the battle from general’s camera only: though that might be incredibly restrictive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheShakAttack

To make this thing more epic, it would be very interesting to play the battle from general’s camera only: though that might be incredibly restrictive.

---

Actually I think this is a phenomenal idea and would help make the smaller armies more manageable than the larger ones, as was often the case in these battles. Only thing is, there is no way to police this that I am aware of. We would just have to take each other at their words.

Actually, I think this is might be possible. The person who hosts can usually set the camera and it becomes mandatory on all who join. I will test when I get home.

There is a restrict camera option.

I propose that we be allowed to see who has voted for what.

Yes but restrict camera does little to make more difficult the various aspects of commanding a large army quite like the general's camera does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheShakAttack

Yeah! Let's get the basics sketched out so we can proceed with this fairly quickly.

With regard to the issue of General’s and teams:

I think it would be a good idea for those interested to post that they are interested and also indicating which faction they would prefer once the battle is chosen. Any imbalances can be corrected by an appointed neutral person ensuring that both teams have more or less equal amount of experience.

Regarding the battle, an agreement will have to be reached on army composition.

Once teams are made, I think a democratic process of choosing the leader would be best: each team member votes for 1 person (apart from themselves) to be the general. The appointed neutral person tallies the votes and announces the generals.

Of course, if a player does not want to be the general, they can indicate so.

After this has been decided, I think the best way to go about it is to allow the team flexibility in deciding who gets what command, with the general getting the final say: ie splitting it into wings and center, or deciding 1 player will play cav, skirmishers, etc.

So lets decide on which battle quickly! Say within next 24 hours please! Since Lazy and Robin brought this up, for the first one, why don’t we let them choose? (also for the sake of getting things moving quickly)



To make this thing more epic, it would be very interesting to play the battle from general’s camera only: though that might be incredibly restrictive.

---

HAHAHA Forget it! You say so only becuz u didnt had dibs and u wish u had! I had dibs! I general!!!!!;] :D
Im all for restricting camera in every game tho!

Lol. I don't think "dibs" is going to be a very popular system Yav. Though it woulda been funny if that's how it worked historically.

I also wanted to add.... there should a rule against camping (unless that is what happened during battle historically). By that I mean doing nothing and just hanging back. Tactical reserves, missile duel etc are obv not included in this.

I think we should just wait until the weekend when everyone is on and we decide it on hamachi chat.

I kind of agree with you. We can decide teams, finalise rules on Sat and play on Sun. However, if we wait for the weekend to plan a rough outline, it won’t be until next-to-next weekend we can get a game going (since the weekend is the only time that we get a lot of people online). I’m quite keen to get as much planned and ready (certainly the battle) as possible so we can actually get a game this weekend. We can always update rules etc and make next-to-next weekend’s one even better.

The forum would be even slower.

But at least we can hammer out details over the next 4 days. I agree there will not be an opportunity for a quick and efficient meeting like on Hamachi, but rather than wait until the weekend, lets get as much organised as possible so that the final details are decided on Sat and we can play on Sun.

The weekend is 2 days away Shak :P .

Force people to make account and vote we have 6 votes from 20 possibly :D Also this idea is so nice, cant wait to start with this

Lazy Lazy Lazy.....

It's Tuesday morning. So we have: Tuesday, Wed, Thurs, Fri.

That's approx 4 days. Where do you get 2 days from?!

If we count wed and thurs and dont count today its 2 days of waiting ;)

"If we only count half of the days remaining, then we have, in fact, reduced the time to wait by half!"

Yeah, for some reason I think there's a flaw in your logic somewhere. :rolleyes:

Lol. Also, Lazy, you forget, Friday is the beg of the weekend for you, but for everyone else (apart from storm) weekend doesn't start until Saturday.

About the chain of command, we should keep the historical divisions of troops (for example Magnesia Antiochos the right, Seleucos and Antipatros the left etc...), that gives already who gets which units...
And whoever is playing the general chooses the battle plan, the rest is to follow orders :)

Seems we are going for Magnesia, here are the compositions according to Livy:

Battle of Magnesia (190 BC)
Map: EB River Jordan

Arche Seleukeia roughly 50.000

Antiochos III Megas (right)

Antiochos' guard (general unit) - 1 Somatophylakes Strategou (1 chevron)
1.500 Gallograeci - 2 Galatikoi Kuarothoroi
3.000 cataphracti - 3 Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi
1.000 agema - 1 Hetairoi (1 chevron)
16 elephants - 1 Elephantes Indikoi
??? argyraspides - 1 Argyraspides (1 chevron)
1.200 Dahae horse archers - 1 Daha Baexdzhyntae
1.500 cretan archers - 2 Toxotai Kretikoi
1.500 Tralles archers - 2 Toxotai
2.500 mysian archers, cyrtian slingers and elymaean archers - 1 Thanvarê Payâhdag, 1 Shûbân-î Fradâkhshânâ and 1 Thanvarê Pârsig
2.000 caetrati Pisidians, Pamphylians and Lydians - 2 Akontistai

Zeuxis (center)

16.000 native phalangitai in 10 taxeis (general unit) - 4 Klerouchoi Phalangitai and 9 Pantodapoi Phalangitai
22 elephants, 2 between each taxeis - 1 Elephantes Indikoi
??? cyrtian slingers and elymaean archers - 1 Shûbân-î Fradâkhshânâ and 1 Thanvarê Pârsig
2.700 miscellaneous force - 1 Thanvarê Payâhdag and 1 Shûbân-î Fradâkhshânâ
2.000 caetrati Pisidians, Pamphylians and Lydians - 2 Gund-î Paltâ

Seleukos IV Philopator (left)

1.500 Gallograeci - 2 Galatikoi Kuarothoroi
2.000 Cappadocians - 2 Keltohellenikoi Hoplitai
3.000 cataphracti - 3 Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi
1.000 agema (general unit) - 1 Hetairoi (1 chevron)
??? scythed chariots - 1 Harmata Drepanephora
??? arabian dromedary archers - 1 Shivatîr-î Pahlavânîg
??? Tarentines - 1 Hetairoi Aspidophoroi
2.500 Gallograeci cavalry - 3 Curepos
1.000 cretan archers - 1 Toxotai Kretikoi
1.500 Carians and Cilicians - 2 Uazali
1.500 Tralles - 2 Anatolikoi Phyletai
16 elephants - 1 Elephantes Indikoi

SPQR roughly 50.000


Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (center left)

Scipio's guard (general unit) - 1 Eqvites Consvlares
1.200 roman cavalry - 2 polybian Eqvites Romani
2 Velites
2 Akontistai
2 polybian Hastati
2 polybian Principes (1 chevron)
1 polybian Triarii (2 chevrons)
2 Hastati Samnitici
2 Pezoi Brettioi (1 chevron)
1 Toxotai

Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (center right)

Scipio's guard (general unit) - 1 Eqvites Consvlares
16 elephants - 1 Pilei Ya'ar Libim
2 Velites
2 Akontistai
2 polybian Hastati
2 polybian Principes (1 chevron)
1 polybian Triarii (2 chevrons)
2 Hastati Samnitici
2 Pezoi Brettioi (1 chevron)
1 Accensi

Eumenes II - Makedonia (right)

3.000 pergamese and achaean caetrati - 3 Peltastai
800 agema (general unit) - 1 Hetairoi (2 chevrons)
2.200 roman cavalry - 2 Lonchophoroi Hippeis (1 chevron)
500 Tralles - 1 Sphendonetai
500 cretan archers - 1 Toxotai Kretikoi
2.000 Makedones and Thraikioi guarding camp - 1 Thureophoroi (1 chevron) and 1 Thraikioi Peltastai (1 chevron)

Imo there were more Romani, maybe Africanus had 4 legions and Asiaticus 4 aswell...

PS: a river on Romani's left is needed or play next to map's end :D

Nice. If we're allowed to pick I want to be Antiochus!

Give me the Ptelmic composition so I can get started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

Give me the Ptelmic composition so I can get started.

---

Uh, where do they come in?

I thought we was doing Raphia. Ok, Roman army, nao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

I thought we was doing Raphia. Ok, Roman army, nao.

---

Yeah. Arjos has very helpfully listed the army compositions and corresponding EB units above.

SPQR had less men then the Arche? BS I dont buy that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

SPQR had less men then the Arche? BS I dont buy that.

---

Lol. Whether you believe it or not, that is what is recorded :P

I gotta say though, it's hard to see SPQR pulling this off in EB if armies are kept proportionate. Even with the stupid chariot moves made by AS during the battle.

I told ya we should've chosen Raphia, but did you guys listen? Nooooooooo, you wanted Magnesia! You wanted Romans! Well, you voted for this, but now that you have it, Raphia suddenly start looking more and more attractive. Hm? I could say "you should be careful what you wish for", but I prefer to say "I told you so".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

I find it hard to believe that a Roman like Africanus, was taking part merely as a legatus, doesn't make sense, so I'll give him 4 legions too, making it all the standard double consular composition, adding 20.000 men and making the battle even...

I want romans so I can bash some romans.

That is all.

im GONNA be ScipiO! And im going to do my best,, :P, also dont compare Marian-imperial rome with polybians they are more different i wanted to play vs macedons but Magnesia is nice as well :D

That is certainly one approach (doubling the size of the recorded army and refusing to accept it), lol. The other would be to give significant experience bumps to the romans. Am I incorrect in thinking that they were a lot more experienced that Anti's AS army?

The thing is that for Livy, Antiochos lost like 50k men, 3k cavalry, 1.5k captured with some escaping...
Read even that Seleukidai were 70k in total, but you can add the numbers and is close to 50k...
I think there's ground to believe he took away 20k from the Romani and put it to the other side...

As for the experience, it could be that there were some veterans from Hispania and Africa...
But what happened was the chariots disrupted the flank routing, Eumenes exploited that routing the left, while Antiochos mad rushed toward the camp, just to be halted and beaten there, with the center giving up while peppered by pila and not being able to form the phalanx...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

The thing is that for Livy, Antiochos lost like 50k men, 3k cavalry, 1.5k captured with some escaping...
Read even that Seleukidai were 70k in total, but you can add the numbers and is close to 50k...
I think there's ground to believe he took away 20k from the Romani and put it to the other side...

As for the experience, it could be that there were some veterans from Hispania and Africa...
But what happened was the chariots disrupted the flank routing, Eumenes exploited that routing the left, while Antiochos mad rushed toward the camp, just to be halted and beaten there, with the center giving up while peppered by pila and not being able to form the phalanx...

---

I wasn't really asking about what happened- rather, were the roman troops sig more experienced than AS in Magnesia? If so, we could use this to try and balance things out in our battle...

I wrote that, because that's what we know and pretty much is what we have to extrapolate if someone was a veteran given his performace :P
Seeing how casualties are very inflated, I'd say that most likely the people who got killed were the kataphraktoi (Livy says how the weight slowed them down), all AS light troops routed just at the sight of the chariots (they were the less experienced in the battle), and the 4 cavalry squadrons plus the camp guards managed to repel Antiochos...

From that the experienced soldiers on the roman side were: Eumenes', Cn. Domitius' cavalry, the Makedones and the Thraikioi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

From that the experienced soldiers on the roman side were: Eumenes', Cn. Domitius' cavalry, the Makedones and the Thraikioi...

---

Compared to most of the AS troops, right?

I mean: is it accurate giving the roman troops an exp bonus and not giving one to AS thereby stating that the Roman troops you mention above were more experienced?

Yes, Antiochos' army was fairly fresh recruited, except for the Medians and Syrians hetairoi, who most likely took part in his eastern expedition...
The Makedones and Thraikioi actually volunteered, so yes killing was their thing :D
Eumenes seemed like a pretty sharp tactician with decent men at his command...
Domitius was actually routed, by getting wheeled from the river, but the camp's tribune regrouped them, so maybe Aemilius gets the credit, even though was Eumenes with only 200 that saved the camp...

As for the roman infantry, the triarii might have fought against Hannibal, but nothing special...
There must have been 8 legions instead of 4, that would explain also why the 16.000 phalangitai played for time...

You guys are trusting anceint sources for numbers ? REALLY?

It is a histotical battle. i'm happy for the numbers to be adapted though. just exploring diff approaches: more balanced nos vs same numbers but more exp for romans.

There were two consular armies, and that makes sense, just look at the roman cavalry: 3.400 for 4 legions?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

You guys are trusting anceint sources for numbers ? REALLY?

---

Do you have better sources?

A brain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazy O

A brain?

---

Unless you're saying that we (or is that you personally?) should just make shit up and pretend as if that's historical - or even serious - then you're going to have to be a little less vague, and a lot more precise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kival

Do you have better sources?

---

Guys, I have to say, you would do very well to adjust ancient reports on army sizes for propoganda. If that means evening ridiculous differentials, then please, by all means do so. There is no need to fall into the laps of the ancients, especially those commissioned by rulers to write a past that makes their state appear most superior and their rule the most legitimate...

P.S. Nothing 'historical' was produced until the last couple centuries. What we think of as history is non-existent in the ancient world.

Thank you vartan.

Don't worry, Vartan, no one here (that I can see, anyway) is advocating that we should have complete faith in their words. ~:)

Not that, but still omitted legions sounds more reasonable than all Romani being veterans even as hastati and velites, when recruited the very same year XD

I'm working on unit lists right now. The armies are going to be somewhat similar in size with a small advantage to the AS. AS will have far superior cavalry but I will try to cause some coordination problems in a couple of different ways. We also have to edit the export_units to give romans elephants and such so I will post an edited one for historical battle play sometime before the weekend.

Oh, and I'm planning on using Makedonia to represent Pergamon. Thoughts?