The question recently came up during a demo game of Ancient Warfare, "Why are there no unit costs in your rules?" This is a question we dealt with soon after the SAGA edition of Medieval Warfare was released (which did, by the way, have unit command costs). As the game became more widely played, gamers were not adhering to keep track of the unit costs. Mitch Abrams bluntly pointed out that the command system itself, with a limited number of generals capable of issuing a limited number of orders, made the whole aspect of bothering with charging extra points for a unit superfluous. If a gamer wanted to have fifty separate units of two stands each, fine. With a maximum of five or six orders (extremely rare, usually three or four is the norm) allowable for each general, most of those fifty units will stand there and do nothing all game.

Mitch was right, of course. I have tried large armies with twenty-four units commanded by three generals. Not a very good choice. Fully half of my army could not be given orders each turn. That's equivalent to my old DBM experience of throwing ones or twos for PIPs each turn. The smart, intelligent and historical thing to do is to have fewer independent units and as many commanders as possible to lead them.

Throughout history, the large, unwieldy armies (Xerxes' Persians, Darius' horde at Gaugamela, Alexius Comnenal's polyglot army at Durazzo and the French at Agincourt, for examples) were impossible to coordinate and maneuver efficiently. This failure cannot always be blamed on the commanders, though their lack of tactical ability often attributed to the breakdown of army morale and discipline. One cannot, however, fault Alexius Comnena, who was an excellent battlefield tactician, for the defeat of his army at the hands of Guiscard's Normans at Durazzo in 1082 A.D. No, most of the problems were in the sheer size of the armies and the inability to command such numbers (units) of men.

This is reflected quite graphically in the command limitations of MWIAW. You want a huge army with massive numbers of units? good luck. A small number of tactical units can be sufficiently commanded and ordered each turn, forcing the larger army to quickly abandon its own battle plan attempting to conform to the enemy's. Many of its units will be sitting each turn, unable to take their own initiative as necessary portions of the front line make reactive moves to try and counter the smaller army's attacks. Sound familiar? Any reading of Arrian, Sallust or Froissart will quickly bring this tactical reality to mind.

So then, we have decided to build our favorite army, not with fifty units of two stands each, but with eighteen units of ... how many of-ands make up a unit? What's the best size? What eve my precedents? All valid questions and worthy of discussion. One big problems with DBM was the lack of any unit integrity. Your army could be in one long line (again a necessity for PIP rolls mine), but there were no defining units; each stand (element) being unit in itself. For tactical level rules like ours (one figure equals 10-20 men in MW, 30 in AW), units are essential for morale purposes, command control and determination of group integrity, n to mention the simple fact that men did actually fight in trained and organized bodies of troops througout history.

The famous Roman cohort of 140 B.C. to 200 A.D. pi:ovides us with a prime example of a known unit size. There were from 450-500 Men in each of the ten cohorts of a Roman legion, with the first cohort being expanded to approximately 800 men in the latter half of the first century A.D. Under AW, four stands of four figures each, or sixteen figures, provides us with a 480 man cohort. That was easy.

What about a Celtic warband, however? Is there any guide to follow for an accurate assessment of unit sizes? Well, yes and no. Tribal warbands were organized under a local headman, chieftain or warlord. Studies by the U.S. Marine Corps concludes that a platoon leader's voice will carry far enough to reach 100-160 men, albeit spread out in very loose order, in the heat of battle. Since the tribal warbands functioned under the close supervision of their chieftain, it stands to reason that each warband would be limited in size by the very fact that orders could not be directed over a very large area. Perhaps a hundred fifty yards would be the limit for directing men under such a close-knit command structure. Therefore, warband sizes could be in the vicinity of 350-750 men, dependent on the leadership ability and charisma of the individual leaders. This size limitation also would have been partially defined by the foraging ability of these bodies of troops. Any larger number would be extremely difficult to provide for when living off the land. In AWIMW, the usual size for a warband is from four to six stands per band. Any larger and severe problems would have occurred insofar as command control and feeding the group axe concerned. Besides, tribal warbands were drawn form a geographic area. Sparsely populated villages and hamlets could hardly have provided larger numbers of fighters.

What about larger amalgamations of gathered troops, such as Scots fighting in their schiltrons? True, it is difficult to replicate a 1,500 man schiltron as a single body of troops. In essence, this would break down to a body of over seventy figures, or twelve stands. Certainly, you could have a body that large under aw rules, but would you want to? The Scots sacrificed maneuverablilty and offensive capability in their reliance on large bodies of trees in a static defense, an William Wallace tragically found out at Falkirk in 1298. Better then to use our tactical hindsight to the unwieldy schiltrons down into a more managable size, say 4-600 men such an Douglas commanded at Bannockburn. Now a six or eight stand unit is much more versatile and tactically proficient, and am good generals learn from history, don't they?

As far as the role of skirmishers goes, I have yet to find any study which endorses the ability of open order, unarmored skirmisher foot to stand up to closer ordered, better armed and armored adversaries. It has been argued that skirmishers could oppose such enemy in rough terrain ... but did they? What is the function of a skirmisher? Not to stand and fight hand-to-hand, but to disrupt an enemy formation from a distance and/or to screen bodies of closer ordered friends from unfriendly fire. When faced with the prospect-- of being charged by their betters, these troops did not throw caution to the wind as in some Hollywood epics and stand to fight and die to the last man. They turned and retired as fast as they could. If they were given the chance, however, they would pounce upon the flank or rear of an enemy formation, their bravery enhanced by the inability of a foe to respond in kind.

Facing other skirmishers was another matter. These they would fight, psychologically being aware that the rest of the army was watching them, as they were often out front and were facing their counterparts. Skirmisher fights were certainly a common aspect of warfare throughout recorded history, but when faced by a superior enemy, there was no disgrace in fulfilling their primary focus, skirmishing and evading close action.

In the on-going evolution of AWIMW, these and many other situations are continually being dealt with, successfully, I believe. For any of you who might be interested, there will be at least three games of Ancient Warfare being presented at Historicon this July as well as two or more games of Medieval Warfare. Write to me at 890 James Rd., Rochester, N.Y. 14612 U.S.A. or e-mail UB at tlgore@frontiernet.net with questions or comments. Medieval Warfare is being published by The Foundry and should be available later this year or early in 1999. Ancient Warfare will follow shortly after.