Tri66

66% is the size I settled on. Look good. Relatively easy to make. The hemiolia is possible - stands in as a pentekonter/scout.66% is nearly 50 and gives nearly four times the playing surface.

An unexpected bonus is that the models stand alone and no base is needed. The oar-banks just need bending down a bit. I painted the undersides with pva glue and sprayed the models with matt varnish. The finished thing is quite strong and does not need such care in storage as do full-size models on bases.

Deck crew at this scale could be a problem but the 6mm card figures I made for full size models actually look quite ok. (phew)

Pros and Cons of Scaling-down

Pros

1. Construction was not too onerous using shortcuts.
2. Finished models still look far more 'lively' than lead
3. Cost is very low : pence versus several quid for lead

Cons

1. Construction time
2. Do the shortcuts detract from the models?
3. Deck troops..hmmm.. v.small. 6mm still look ok on 75% scale-down.
   

SCALED-DOWN CONSTRUCTION

I printed a Hotz trireme at 50%, 66% and 75% original size.

To simplify the fiddly bits I

• Left the outrigger off
• Cut the stem-post straight instead of curved
• Cut base-tabs and oar-tabs off
• Did not add extra ram-thickening
• No interior walls - coloured them black
  

I used superglue, scissors and a modelling knife.

It was not too bad. Took about half an hour for each model.

It was necessary to secure the deck to the main hull with glue so that unsightly 'wobble' was avoided.

The final models. Viewed here with a full-size 1/300 Hotz trireme and a lead one which, I think, is a Navwar 1/1200(theoretically) trireme.

PDF scaling..aaaargh!

Trying to scale Eric's files for 50% printing proved a nightmare.

Adobe Acrobat only allows limited scaling. Trial and error with the page options failed.

Searched possible options and found, at last, free download of FoxitReader HERE.

FoxitReader has a %scaling option , just set 'Scaling type' to 'Custom' and Robert is your mother's brother.

Having measured the print it is a little variable - just use a constant value to ensure all prints are compatible!

Also, switch centering off - then you can send the card into the printer the other way round and get two prints on the same A4 sheet. (now 4 would be even better ?)Now there is just the question of cutting and assembling................................(but I will stick with card models ..I am hoping).

Periplous and Diekplous

These tactics are often misunderstood as manouvres by single ships against their opponent. They are actually unit actions whereby a group of ships outflanks the enemy line or makes a breakthough, after which they can attack the vulnerable sterns of the enemy.

More support for using units of ships for a game rather than playing each model individually.

UNITS

Ships should operate in units to be historically accurate.

At Mylae the Carthaginians seem to send a wave of 30 ships ahead of the rest - according to Polybius (1.23)
At Drepana (Pol. 1.50) the Carthaginian commander assembles and coordinates a flank attack with 5 ships in line. Only attacking when they were ready and presented a united front.
At Ecnomus the Roman fleet forms up in 4 squadrons which altogether make a formation. (Pol.1.26)

At Arginusæ the Athenians deploy in what appear to be units of 15 ships (Xen. Hist.Græ.1.6.29..)
Their Spartan opponents deploy in squadrons of 10-15 line-astern.

There are other references but this is enough to make the point that the ancient sea battle was not a free-for -all of single ships before organisation broke down.
The other point is that order and coordination was important so that formations could be maintained and ships could cooperate to cover each other and threaten the enemy.

Nuff said: a set of rules requiring ships to operate in units is not unhistorical.

Impetus Navalis Rules

A test version of these rules is available HERE.



They seem to be highly stylised but may give a quick playable game.