This article was inspired by recent work on some army lists and the discussion generated when the lists were shown to fellow gamers for comments. One thing that surprised me is the diversity of approaches to creating army lists. I had thought that lists would be fairly easy to develop, if information on their historical models was available, but this was not the case. There was considerable disagreement about how many of each troop type to permit and how broad a period of history to cover. Development of the lists was also dependent on the set of rules being used as the rules stressed different aspects such as weapons, armour, morale, troop density and training.
I considered some of these things to be obvious when composing my lists. Given the feedback from others, I now wonder if anything can be assumed. For example, one should be able to calculate some number ranges for troop types based on their likely frequency of use. If not used all of the time, then a minimum of zero would be reasonable. Trying to justify this conclusion requires lots of research that may not always be possible if trying to developing lots of army lists as commonly done for most rule books in our periods of history.
There is a great deal of interest in developing army lists and this is influenced by various aims. Some gamers are looking for the "killer" army, which has the ability to deal with all tabletop opponents, if the appropriate mix of troops can be drawn from the list for that game. Others are looking for a historical representation of their favourite army and these can be very specific even down to including each known unit. Still others want to follow a shopping list to help with the buying of the figures so that they are enough to create an army without going over budget.
It is not easy to pick a list, despite the many commercially available ones. One reason is that each set of rules usually has its own variant, which may not be a good model to follow if the gamer prefers another set of rules or changes rules. Thus it is difficult to find a generic army list that is not tied to a set of rules. Several attempts have been made in the past, but these have had mixed commercial success and are now hard to locate even if still in production.
Despite this chequered history, the demand for lists ensures that there is always a supply available to the interested gamer. Publications such as this have provided a forum for non-commercial development, although most are ultimately linked to a set of rules. One advantage of this forum is that there are no restrictions placed on space and no deadlines imposed. Writers can submit lengthy articles detailing their own interpretations over several issues of the preferred journal. Material can be included on any related topic no matter how irrelevant to most tabletop games.
This is a luxury not often shared by commercial writers, who must fit their text into a few paragraphs at most. They can not always provide related information on logistics, impact of religion, detailed organisations and tactics. In these pages, we can create a much more verbose description of our favourites with only the editor's allocation of space as a limiting factor. Since there are fewer restrictions, writers can afford to be more generic in their development of lists. With a few guidelines, readers can easily create more specific armies tailored for their chosen set of rules.
I have presented such a list in Saga # 64 (Maurikian Byzantine Army). The development of the article followed some common sense guidelines. These were employed after reading several sets of rules to determine what the rules writers consider important. These included unit strength, organisation, morale, training, weapons, armour and tactics. While not all of these criteria were used in the Byzantine list, they did influence what was researched.
Unit strength is important because most rules set limits on the number of troops represented by tabletop forces. One of the first things stated in most rules is the figure ratio, which can range from 1:1 to 1:200 depending on the type of action represented by a game. A skirmish usually selects a low figure to personnel ratio, while a full-scale battle is usually at the high end. When providing information on numbers, it is useful to consider several things.
What does the maximum sized unit represent? Is it a formation or unit or sub-unit? For some armies, this is easy to determine because there are examples of groups from the smallest to the largest, regardless of whether the army is defined as regular or not. Most regular armies equate to the modern groupings such as squad, platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps and army. Even irregular forces follow similar models in family, clan and tribal groupings. Whether figures are based individually or in groups to represent their fighting style (open, loose or close), lists can be developed to reflect the various minima and maxima permitted by most sets of rules. A stand of four Roman legionaries represents a century at 1:20 scale or a cohort at 1:100. Thus the same group of four figures can be used in different sets of rules without the need to rebase (particularly if standard sizes are used for bases).
Organisation is defined here as how the troops are employed rather than how they are grouped. Troop types vary considerably, although most sets of rules follow similar concepts. There are open order or primarily skirmishing troops, loose order or troops requiring space to move and fight and close order or tightly grouped troops (the traditional heavy units regardless of arms and armour).
Regular armies often developed a system, which links the various troop types. One excellent example is the Roman army that followed a pattern in its many developments from early days to the later Byzantine periods. The legion consisted of a core of close order troops supplemented by other infantry and cavalry. The number of legions within an army was often pre-determined so that a simple number of ratios can be used to provide guidance for selecting a representative tabletop army, particularly true for early Republican armies.
Even if the historical ratio is unknown or unclear, it is possible to develop a likely ratio through comparison with earlier and later organisations. This is much harder to do for irregular armies but there are some historical examples to consider as models. Often troop types were identified by age groups, family ties or social status. Deficiencies could be made good by employing allies or mercenaries. Troop types were referred to by specific name such that Tarantine units employed as mercenaries influenced the development of a specific troop type, which adopted the name. Identification of such trends is useful to determine many troop types and how best to represent them on the tabletop.
Morale is important although not always specified in rules. It often influences how troop types are rated or graded. Its presence is important if morale tests or checks are included in the rules and also to determine how units perform. Even if such tests are not developed, morale has influenced the development of general army cohesion states or levels. Some rules have opted for "break points" based on certain key units or a percentage of losses.
Training determines how well the units can perform permitted moves, change formation and respond to different situations. Normally this is divided into two categories, either regular or irregular, or trained or untrained. While the two words used to describe the categories vary, there is little to differentiate their intent. Professional troops, who are paid, trained, drilled and organised into standard units follow doctrine, which specifies the tactics and strategies to be employed in military operations. Other military forces, which lack formal structure and philosophy, tend to fall into the alternate category. These distinctions are diminished by historical examples that defy pigeonholing neatly into either category. Rule writers have placed varying emphasis on the factors, which determine how armies are categorised and some rules do not bother to distinguish the difference. Whether or not armies are categorised, there is still a role for training in determining how troops perform. The process by which troops are given orders (verbal, written, by visual signals or use of musical instruments) can be used to set the conditions for moving tabletop units. The ability to alter shape suggests what specific formations can be represented on the table. Even non-professional forces followed some guidelines such as where certain groups were placed in the battle line. Games tend to encourage the deployment of troops in a universal pattern; infantry in the centre and cavalry on the flanks. This is based on historical trends dating back thousands of years.
Weapons tend to be given importance based on the scope of the game. In skirmishes and small-scale actions, weapons are very important. Larger actions place less emphasis on the impact of weapons, although the use of massed weapons of a common type does normally have some bearing. The ability of weapons to inflict casualties usually determines how many losses will be the norm when calculating casualties. This can be very detailed such that the kinetic energy of a weapon and its potential penetration of various armour and defensive weapons (primarily the shield) are reflected in the probability to inflict a "kill".
At the other end of the spectrum, weapons and manpower are combined to determine the likelihood of casualties. Quantity of missiles, rate of fire, length of shaft and others have been considered when fine tuning the extent to which casualties will be inflicted. Again their importance is reflected in the scale of the game with more importance being noted in smaller actions and increased abstraction in the larger ones.
Armour usually is stressed in proportion to the influence of weapons. The relationship is based on the importance of offensive and defensive capabilities. The calculation of casualties is usually based upon this relationship and determines how missile and melee actions will be resolved. There has been debate over the quality of various metallic and non-metallic defences, but generally some protection lessens the likelihood of casualties.
Tactics and possibly strategy tend to be less concrete ideas. Unless specified in the rules, players can deploy their forces in a multitude of ways. Some will be based on historical precedents and others influenced by the rules. Not all rules favour historical deployments and it may be necessary to develop alternates (something I discussed in Saga #66). Tabletop tactics can be as straightforward as knowing the rules with information about your opponent and his forces being useful as well. At times, historical knowledge can be handy to minimise the risk of deploying in potentially harmful manners such as putting fast moving troops in behind slower ones or masking long-range weapons.
In addition, historical examples can provide some useful ideas when developing ways to use a tabletop army. Tactics can also influence how the troops are organised into groups. Since rules permit mixing of troop types and weapons, it can be useful to know when to add a rank of archers to a unit of Roman infantry or when to deploy cavalry in a wedge.
Apart from the points covered above, a list can be useful in assisting beginners in selecting figures, painting and assembling them, and forming them into units. The appearance of an army often adds to the appreciation of the game. While some players may prefer that units be depicted as accurately as possible by having historical colour schemes, realistic standards and accurate weapons, even a more general presentation can simplify identification of units. While weapons and armour may not be factors in a game, they still clarify what troops are being fielded. It less likely for players to confuse even unhistorical or fantasy figures if they are equipped like the troops that they represent.
Another part of the list could be the references (bibliography) used to gather the information. This enables further research into the army should the player or rule writer be interested as well as highlighting alternate sources of information, which may not be commonly known. Many sources are difficult to acquire so the list does allow a glimpse at new information.
One final thought is that such lists can be developed further with the input from others. Since they are unrestricted, they can always be updated without having to purchase another complete book or new set of rules.
One complaint that I have with rules is their limited figure scale, which reflects small forces, say several thousand, when battles may have involved tens of thousands. This can be a problem because most army lists reflect the total composition of the historical army. Should every tabletop army include a sample of all troop types, when the rules suggest that only a portion of an army is represented in a game. For example, the Norman armies of southern Italy (Apulia, Calabria and Sicily) rarely numbered more than a few thousand. Even for the campaigns against the Byzantine Empire, the Normans had a small army. By contrast, the Byzantine army could raise tens of thousands of troops; however, regional forces were probably on par with the Norman forces.
There are few Byzantine lists that reflect such a "provincial" army as most consider the central army as compulsory troops. Whereas each Norman commander would have a cadre of personal troops that might be defined as guards, it is less clear whether each Byzantine provincial commander would field equivalent troops. So it is easy to raise a Norman army of a few hundred or thousand troops to represent one of the many small Norman states. The average Byzantine army will represent only the main field army. Furthermore, the typical Byzantine army will include klibanophoroi or kataphractoi (heavily armoured close order cavalry), which may have only been used in small numbers, in certain areas and over a limited time period.
If the rules envision a force of several hundred or thousand troops, than the army lists should reflect such forces. If larger armies are the norm, then the army lists should allow for the construction of armies of tens of thousands.
Creating a generic army list is made more difficult by such problems. One solution is to divide the list into sections representing major and minor armies. By identifying what each commander can have in his force, a variety of tabletop armies can be created. The need for such lists has been driven by the restrictions imposed by tournaments as well as rules. Players must follow guidelines as to the size and time period for tournaments. They may not wish to be required to field a lot of expensive units because their army only represents the forces of the king or emperor. Conversely, players may want to model a very large force for a multi-player game and need to be able to use large numbers of core troop types without exceeding the maxima.
There has been consensus on base sizes such that there is almost a "universal" scale with base frontages for 15mm figures being 40mm and for 25mm figures a frontage of 60mm.
I think it would be useful to have a similar standardisation for army lists so we know that the typical army of Huns has a core of nobles and retainers, who can be depicted in the same fashion whether or not the rules refer to them as HC and LC or Cv and LH or two other terms. In addition, the Huns are supported by the same allies and subordinates.
This would mean that we do not have to rebase figures and we do not have to reorganise our armies too much.
Back to Saga #74 Table of Contents
Back to Saga List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Terry Gore
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com