AGEOD's New Game - ALEA JACTA EST

[Florent]

Here is an exemple of tower (Roman), the Romans are late Augustan, not of the Gallic /civil war period.

[Philippe]

"take supply wagons around in large enough quantities... "

That's precisely what my post on logistics was about, and that's exactly what I'm not sure you could do in classical antiquity.

The game engine may want you to have large collections of supply wagons moving around, but if you jumped into a time machine and went back to Roman times and looked around, I don't think you would see many wagon trains.

At the very least, depots would not have been created by expending a couple of wagon trains. A depot would have been created by giving some administrative orders and saving surplus food from the next harvest.

[yellow ribbon]

"take supply wagons around in large enough quantities... "

That's precisely what my post on logistics was about, and that's exactly what I'm not sure you could do in classical antiquity.

The game engine may want you to have large collections of supply wagons moving around, but if you jumped into a time machine and went back to Roman times and looked around, I don't think you would see many wagon trains.

At the very least, depots would not have been created by expending a couple of wagon trains. A depot would have been created by giving some administrative orders and saving surplus food from the next harvest.

+1 , however somehow they have to simulate it for games sake...

At least the supply wagons CANNOT substitute a fixed winter quarter. under no circumstances a supply wagon should be able to compensate damage from harsh weather conditions.

but i have an example from times of gallic war, 6th year of it, Caesars troops at all:

...



Battle array / composition OF ALL TEN LEGIONS:

Legionare (legionares) 50 000
Auxiliartruppen zu Fuß (aux. infantry) 10000
Auxiliartruppen zu Pferd (aux. cav) 3000 - 4000

---------------------------------
63 000 (-64 000)


Bedienungsmannschaften (train / troops responsible for)

calones der Legionare (responsible for the horses only, mostly slaves) 7000
muliones der Legionare (responsible for the animals used for transports, mostly slaves) 3000
calones und muliones der Auxiliartruppen (only resposible for the animals of the auxiliaries) 1000-1500

---------------------------------
11 000 (bis 11 500)


Reit- und Lasttiere (war horses, and pack ANIMALS of the train)

equi der Reiterei (horses for the cav. only) 3000-4000
equi der Legionsführung (horses for officers and legions commanders) 1000
muli der Legionare (pack animals for legionares) 12000
muli der Reiterei (pack animals for cav. only) 1200
muli der übrigen Auxiliartruppen (pack animals for aux. only) 2000

---------------------------------
19 200 (- 20 200)

having a maximum of 2kg flour a day per every legionare, half ration for aux., another 25% for animals, 2000-5000 Gauls excluded...

the train of each legion however took care about tents, reserve weapons, material for engineers, fortification, etc thus the name: impedimenta

100 tons a day, makes it impossible not to live from the land to amass many legions, or to feed them from the next street corner for having "supply wagons".

EDIT:

know lets say a pack horse (which is not a sure factor) takes 30% of its own weight and this days the horse were smaller than now, stick with 100-115kg a horse minus gear.

if we take the 12000 "horses" for granted in all situations, 12.000 times 100, we can roughly expect them t fulfill all needs of ONE single day.

horses are to be put in doubt, as well as a rate of more than 40% of them in use for supplies, or the army would remain immobilized and without any reserve.
still would need additional supply dumps very close, closer than the ability to be supplied from friendly tribes on daily basis


looting/foraging is an interesting question in the game

for fixed positions with good logistics, after long time of preparation: largest winter quarter, next AXONA / Aisne, 8 Legions

[El Nino]

Lodilefty, are Sicily and Egypt playing important role in supply, i mean the player securing them having an advantage or rather more supply ?

Yes, the wheat supply of the people of Rome is includ in the game, coming from Aegyptus, Africa, Sicilia... and if it is lack of this, the player controlling Rome could have problems...

[Florent]

Excellent for historical immersion but anything about tower, Rams, Catapults, or War Elephants, it seems that they were used at Thapsus in Africa.

[Hohenlohe]

Can any Roman army build fortified camps and depots on open fields or is this not available...

greetings

Hohenlohe

[PhilThib]

Can any Roman army build fortified camps and depots on open fields or is this not available...

greetings

Hohenlohe

I think the designers found a nice solution for this: Roman legionaries have the Entrencher ability, and thus will entrench faster...in addition, only the Romans have an entrench level of 2, while other factions have 0, so this will represent rather nicely this feature IMHO

[yellow ribbon]

Excellent for historical immersion but anything about tower, Rams, Catapults, or War Elephants, it seems that they were used at Thapsus in Africa.

if you address me,

above mentioned numbers are from Gaul only, pre-civil war, no preparations.

in Gaul towers were often enough build ad hoc, not even with wheels like i suppose them from the linked picture of the Augustian above, but a earthen rampart and then building the tower close to the wall.
as i said, Romans were frightend how easy the Germans and some Belgian tribes simply copied digging trenches and building towers

siege engines/ballistes (as well as troops for torturing prisioners) were actually own units attached to the legion. some cannot count on it, that every legion had the men, as well as the material around.
For Caesar i remember numberless occasions the ballistes protected the camp, so must have been part of the train.

War Elephants could be seen as Auxiliares for Pompey.

Caesar could not follow Pompey over the Adrian sea, for being far inferior at sea.

So he fought in Spain, before turning to the Greek area. Unnatural long time to assembly mercenaries and auxiliaries from Pompeys asian legions.
After Pharsalos, August 48BC, and Pompeys dead in September 48BC, Caesar invaded Africa in December 48BC.

Thapsus was in 47BC, i belief, i remember it was supported by King Juba, but he actually did not participate with his main force to support the Pompeian defenders. so, war elephants would be a "local" phenomena, having lot of time to assembly them to the area. (whats also true for Hannibal, isnt it)

brings up a new point, in Thapsus fought for Caesar as many legions as Caesar had in whole Gaul campaign, 10... would not be possible without the fleet and half of former Pompeian troops just sitting around without commanders

[Bohémond]

Excellent for historical immersion but anything about tower, Rams, Catapults, or War Elephants, it seems that they were used at Thapsus in Africa.

There is a brand new feature for Siege warfare, not seen in previous AGEOD games.

Please be patient, we will give news about it.

[yellow ribbon]

There is a brand new feature for Siege warfare, not seen in previous AGEOD games.

Please be patient, we will give news about it.

HANNIBAL AD PORTAS... cant wait

[Florent]

"in Gaul towers were often enough build ad hoc"

I have to verified Caesar about his gallic wars but i think towers were used at Avaricum. I will wait Bohémond's new features.

[yellow ribbon]

regarding sieges, they have been used a couple of times, especially in the southwest, when he had to split forces for treacherous "allies".

i remember two occasions one they just made it up with woodland around, the second they just build it exactly under the enemies walls, using the tortoise/turtle formation.

i dont mean the tower they build in their camps for defensive action. i recall even at Alesia the barely used twenty of them, spread to both sides of the double palisades

[PhilThib]

"in Gaul towers were often enough build ad hoc"

I have to verified Caesar about his gallic wars but i think towers were used at Avaricum. I will wait Bohémond's new features.

This is handled slightly differently: Caesar has special siege abilities showing his own talent here....I don't think the game will (or need to) go into that kind of details, between various siege 'machinery'...as long you have a unit that does the job, it's good.... remember, the more is the enemy of the good...

[Florent]

What is the currency used for the game : Talents or Sesterces ?

A cool feature with other games was that after a battle you could get somes muskets/rifles, did you (will you do ) do something of a rule after the taking of a city by assault giving some money by the selling of captives or ransoms.
Mark Herman for his wargame about the Peloponnesian war had a rule where you did receive 300 talents after taking a town by siege by putting prisonners on the market slave.
At the times of Caesar the armies were followed by merchants just for this.

[yellow ribbon]

incidentally, a PS to the supply discussion:

Vercingetorix is supposed to have a kind of scorched earth strategy to cut the ability to live from the land for Caesars troops.... i cant verify the number, but i am actually seeing a number of about ONLY TWENTY larger villages which were burned down by the Gauls....

so, either Vercingetorix was nuts, or foraging was extremely common rather than supplies flowing in

[Bohémond]

For those who cannot wait ;


[url=[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/802/pompeiusaje50.jpg/][/url]][/URL]


Regards

[Solemnace]

I can't read what it says. What does it say?

[yellow ribbon]

thank you and have a nice weekend

I can't read what it says. What does it say?

it states "Fall of Rome" / ALPHA SCREENSHOT

[Florent]

Nice

[Philippe]

incidentally, a PS to the supply discussion:

Vercingetorix is supposed to have a kind of scorched earth strategy to cut the ability to live from the land for Caesars troops.... i cant verify the number, but i am actually seeing a number of about ONLY TWENTY larger villages which were burned down by the Gauls....

so, either Vercingetorix was nuts, or foraging was extremely common rather than supplies flowing in

Foraging probably was the way it was done back then, but foraging as practised then is not the same as what we would understand if we were thinking in terms of the 18th or 19th century.

The model described in Xenophon's Anabasis of Cyrus is that you sent representatives to various towns along your expected route of march and informed the locals that you expected them to make a market for your soldiers if they didn't want to be treated as hostiles. If your army showed up and the locals had set up a marketplace in front of their town, your troops went in and bought what they needed individually. The buying and selling was done between local private farmers and your own private soldiers.

If your army arrived at a town and the gates were shut and there was no market set up in front of it, your troops went hungry and you probably attacked, if for no other reason than to encourage other towns along your route to cooperate.

This making of a market is probably what we should think of as foraging. It takes place at an individual level, but the generals keep an eye on it because they don't want their troops going hungry. The reason soldiers got paid was so they could buy their daily bread at the ancient equivalent of a convenience store.

What I've just described is how a Greek mercenary army was supplied in the early fourth century BC. Roman practise was a bit different, but this was probably the normative model in the back of everyone's mind. It's a far cry from detached bands of hussars scavenging around the countryside and stealing the pigs and chickens. But it also means that if the harvest doesn't produce an agricultural surplus, there probably isn't much campaigning. Xenophon describes the effect on his soldiers of marching through a region that had exhausted its agricultural surplus, and the word he uses is usually translated as 'ox hunger'.

It's been a while (three decades?) since I looked at the details of the campaigns in Spain (Sertorius and later), but what I remember was coming away with a suspicion that the logistics setup in Spain was very fragile, and that that may have had a lot to do with why armies did or did not move into certain places where you would have expected them to otherwise. I think the famous dictum (that came from the Peninsular War ?) is that in Spain large armies starve and small armies are defeated.

[yellow ribbon]

F

The model described in Xenophon's Anabasis of Cyrus is that you sent representatives to various towns along your expected route of march and informed the locals that you expected them to make a market for your soldiers if they didn't want to be treated as hostiles. If your army showed up and the locals had set up a marketplace in front of their town, your troops went in and bought what they needed individually. The buying and selling was done between local private farmers and your own private soldiers.

If your army arrived at a town and the gates were shut and there was no market set up in front of it, your troops went hungry and you probably attacked, if for no other reason than to encourage other towns along your route to cooperate.

true, buts known for the campaign in Gaul, Spain and Africa, that they sent out the men with scythes and mere hands. From the German campaigns as well, the Germans tried to deprive them from the not yet spoiled land on purpose more than once.

We know C. exaggerated numbers of enemies, but still there would be summoned a couple of ten thousands within hours/days. or you just dont want to break the column into pieces

even if they robbed the last grain from the civilians, malnutrition would have to follow if not either a harbor/river or kinda fortified position around. the latter one could be a friendly tribe as well.

i am sure the Romans did what you described, the extend is just questionable, especially after the Marian reforms and the new large formations.

For Spain, exactly...thats why from Pompey to Napoleon all had the problem of civil uprises, only looting/pressing to service was possible.

however as i wrote earlier, logistic and supply are different matters.

they had comparable good equipment and supply.

the very question is the forwarding (preplanned logistical abilities disregarding winter quarters). if they have the simply system in the new game, fine.

but the use of a fleet of supply wagons...eh....

and dont worry, for me its also lost school knowledge, but 14 years ago. and de bello gallico in me shelve ^^

[Philippe]

If you start from the premise that some of the coastal regions in Spain had more or less adequate supply but that the interior tended to be a "supply desert", and then couple that with the concept that you couldn't really project supply overland for any appreciable distance, you may have some working insight into why the Romans had so much trouble reducing Numantia.

I have trouble believing that it was impossible to move supplies overland for more than a week because of the consumption problem, but I suspect that the maximum projection range was pretty short. I'm also not comfortable with the concept of fleets serving as floating supply depots: it may have happened on a case by case basis, but I'd need to see reference to a lot of ancient texts before I accepted it as general practise.

What I think is more likely is that supply was more plentiful in coastal areas to begin with. That's where the towns and cities usually were, and towns and cities couldn't exist without an agricultural surplus. Shipborn grain may have helped things somewhat, but at the end of the day you were probably buying your meals off the local farmers.

The other thing that you have to think about is that if the production of supply is really seasonal rather than constant, to model what was going on you either have to create some draconian command and control rules that freeze armies in place during the non supply producing months, or, more simply, make the production of supply mimic the agricultural cycle. That would mean supply gets generated during harvests and gets consumed by troops eating food points: what doesn't get eaten carries over to future turns until it is eventually consumed. Too much book keeping for a board game, but well within the capabilities of a computer game.

If you have your heart set on areas constantly generating the same supply level regardless of season, what you might want to play around with is a rule that dramatically increases the supply requirements of units that move off-season. That way units that stayed in adequate winter quarters wouldn't starve, but units that moved when there were no supplies around (early spring rather than early winter) would experience a multiplied out-of-supply penalty and learn the meaning of ox-hunger first hand. But to be realistic in net effect the penalties would have to be different for different seasons in different regions.

[Nikel]

There are scenes in the Trajan's column that display supply and logistics, like wagons, pack of mules, riverine supply, pillaging and foraging.

For example legionaries foraging protected by cavalry

[Philippe]

There are scenes in the Trajan's column that display supply and logistics, like wagons, pack of mules, riverine supply, pillaging and foraging.

For example legionaries foraging protected by cavalry

No one is suggesting that the Romans didn't use wagons and pack animals. And I think there are even hints of riverine supply in the early part of Caesar's campaign in Gaul.

But take a close look at that picture and ask yourself what those soldiers are doing and why. They wouldn't be out in the fields cutting corn with sickles if the supply tent or the RX were issuing everything they needed. There may have been a rudimentary supply tent, but there certainly wasn't an RX. They're foraging, and they're probably foraging because they have to, even though that particular campaign was very well prepared in advance, probably with lots of pre-positioning of supplies.

There are a lot of things we take for granted in the modern world. The Romans were administering whole provinces with perhaps a score of people, whereas in modern times the same activity in a comparable area would involve hundreds if not thousands of bureaucrats. Things that we assume will always happen in an army, province, or city simply didn't.

[yellow ribbon]

The other thing that you have to think about is that if the production of supply is really seasonal rather than constant, to model what was going on you either have to create some draconian command and control rules that freeze armies in place during the non supply producing months, or, more simply, make the production of supply mimic the agricultural cycle. That would mean supply gets generated during harvests and gets consumed by troops eating food points: what doesn't get eaten carries over to future turns until it is eventually consumed. Too much book keeping for a board game, but well within the capabilities of a computer game. [...]

see, its what i meant with the argument that a supply wagon in game, should not be able to compensate damage by harsh weather...

i understood the game runs monthly turns, so i agree, recovering/pinned down phases for 2-3 months and maybe running around 2 further in mud and rain, while taking additional hits, is not a problem.
the first campaign, civil war, then runs 100+ turns. 20 will be considered recover and fill up the ranks... maybe we can mod it afterwards...

*********************

what you actually describe, is the concept of "entrepots" known in regional economics as well as logistics. i would narrow it down to a common line, either you see it from the higher availability due to harbors, rivers, winter quarters, or from my point of very next civilized spots where you can steal some of the harvest doesnt matter, the effect is the same. the question of "forwarding" it remains.... having the old system of no automatic forwarding but having supply wagons in a larger extend, simply makes sense then

i found something for your "market" example, at least in peacetimes, [color="#FF0000"]frumentarii [/color] is the name for soldiers who took care about buying and transporting

***********

Nikel, i have added a simple calculation above to the structure of the forces in Gaul. the own structures and organizations obviously existed, but could they support the armies movement AND forwarding supplies from far away the same time... this kind of harvesting legionares are exactly what is written numberless times in de bello gallico, riverine at least once, for total lack of transporting food over the river...

taking into account that the values are (Soll-Stärke)/required strength and giving the maximum supplies needed per person a day, you already be at the utmost limits the limit.

***********************

lets find a simple agreement, historically it makes no sense to have external suppliers only (fleet, supply wagons), which simply cant cover it all. Also the own organizational structure within legions is not enough.

As the engine offers the foraging situation already, it could be extended EITHER in game or as mod. the typical situation, foraging or entrenching troops turn the back to the enemy, they simply dont have full organization.

this and additional hits by harsh weather would encounter large winter campaigns anyway, would they.

[Nikel]

No one is suggesting that the Romans didn't use wagons and pack animals.

Just wanted to illustrate the discussion


Regarding water/land supply. There are references in the ancient sources on the use of naval ways.

Naval could be risky but was preferred because it was cheaper and faster.

Somebody has even quantified it for ancient romans, 50:1 in favor of water.

[Nikel]

i found something for your "market" example, at least in peacetimes, [color="#FF0000"]frumentarii [/color] is the name for soldiers who took care about buying and transporting

There are more latin words:


Aquatio: foraging for water

Lignatio: for wood

Pabulatio: for fodder

Frumentatio: for grain

[yellow ribbon]

thanks, but i restricted myself to military expressions. frumentarii was used for the soldiers till the emperors time, meanwhile i saw afterwards they called the secret police and simple messengers that way

[Nikel]

Yes, in a military context, for example in the African War:


Quibus rebus cognitis Caesar iubet milites qui extra munitiones processerant pabulandi lignandique aut etiam muniendi gratia quique vallum petierant quaeque ad eam rem opus erant, omnis intra
munitiones minutatim modesteque sine tumultu aut terrore se recipere atque in opere consistere.


When he learned of this Caesar gave orders that those troops who had gone forward outside the fortifications, whether to forage or fetch wood or even to work on the fortifications, as well as those who
had been collecting stakes and what was needed for that work, should all retire within the fortifications — gradually and in a disciplined manner, without any fuss or alarm — and take their stand in the fieldworks.

[yellow ribbon]

see, my Latin is awfully rusty, but i think the english translation is dependent on a pre-determined/expecting context.

what i mean, i.e.:

your aquatio means as well

watering with;

watering place;

it rains;

OR:

fetching of water


EDIT:

narg, even in German handbooks it has more meaning than one... Basisform Tränke / Nominativ: Wasserholen which are quite different Nikel

"searching for" and "fetching of" also have a different impact on activities, especially if you send out troops

****

lignatio... (i had to google this)

The place where wood or firewood is cut or made.

The felling, procuring, or collecting of wood or firewood.

its highly modal, tricky...


while "Frumentarius" singl / frumentarii plr.

has a standing meaning, which changed when military was reorganized in the emperors reigns ^^

have a nice weekend