CK eye witness

[martin goddard]

CK takes place a long time ago.
So much literature and carvings has been lost.
What we have left is a bit speckled.
Some accounts are pretty good in terms of plausibility.
Some are written from a  distance of a 100 years or so.
Many/most  battlefields are not sprinkled with artefacts.

Having given all this negativity there are still quite a few primary/orginal sources.


For CK we shall use some primary sources, but also  stuff filtered down by modern authors who have done all the work for us.

This means we will not sniffy about Ospreys, WRG and Victorians.

300 might be pushing it a bit though.
CK will not focus on tactics at squad level but more on unit (maniple and upwards) tactics.
The players are generals not file leaders.

Does that all sound a good basis for  forward  movement??


martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

I may still sniff at some Victorians 

Simon

[Moggy]

Sounds good to me. I always take histories, no matter the source, with a pinch of salt.

For Anyone playing against me please note. I don't care that you are fielding heavy armoured knights with your ancient Britons or 3 horse chariots or Elephants with your aborigonal army as long as you pay the points for them! Yes, I may field snowmen or angry gingerbread men to represent.....well whatever!

Derek

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

As long as the range of adversaries have comparable tech levels (within reason)... you could argue that the Imperial Roman Legions enjoyed a considerable tech superiority over the Gauls and Germans yet on their own turf they managed quite well all things considered. There is no point fielding a chariot based army against an armoured cavalry heavy one hundreds of years apart.. Chariots were invented when horses were considerably smaller and incapable of bearing a seated rider, for example. Otherwise you are venturing into the realms of Pike and Shot or Black Powder colonial - Conquistadores Vs Aztecs or Incas or Brits Vs Zulus. Even most ancient cavalry rode stirrup-less...