Naval Battles with Wooden Walls

[Adrian Nayler]

Rather than post in the 'most recently played' thread, I've started this one instead to make it easier to keep track of progress with my naval rules, Wooden Walls, should you want to follow it.

My previous battle report on a clash of triremes during the Peloponnesian War can be found here:

https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=169.msg112790#msg112790

Posts about the model fleets used in the above game are here:

https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=6521.msg113453#msg113453

and here:

https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=6521.msg113454#msg113454

[Adrian Nayler]

Pseudo-Salamis (no, the other one)

This week we played a large naval game using my Wooden Walls rules. The scenario was based upon the battle of Cyprian Salamis in 306 BCE between the successor generals Demetrius and Ptolemy. I've pitched most of my playtesting efforts at actions of between 80 to 100 real ships a side. This time we went up to 150 vessels each, at the upper end of my 'design envelope.'

To recap, the rules are intended for fleet actions and focus on the interaction of squadrons rather than determining the fates of individual ships. The game 'unit' is a squadron of about 10 real-life ships represented by three ship models. This scenario uses some of the first large polyremes – Demetrius' 'sixes' and 'sevens' – and they behave slightly differently to smaller vessels in the game. They are less manoeuvrable but hold an advantage in boarding over everything else on the table and, being equipped with stone-throwing artillery, have a unique ranged 'battering attack'.

Squadrons of polyremes are presumed to be of mixed composition in the game, it being assumed they contain about three or four actual polyremes with the remainder made up of smaller 'fours' or 'fives'. The exact combinations and types of ships in each such squadron are not specifically accounted for in my rules. (I'm painting with broader brush strokes than Kim's Aegaeon project.)

I like the idea of this battle as, though the forces are roughly the same size, there is an asymmetry to their compositions. Demetrius certainly has the biggest ships, and they have an advantage over any opponent, but the majority of his fleet are triremes with relatively few 'fours' and 'fives'. Ptolemy, on the other hand, though being unable to counter the biggest ships otherwise has many more 'fours' and 'fives' than Demetrius and should hold the advantage wherever the 'sixes' and 'sevens' are not. So, potentially an interesting contest with both sides racing to capitalise on their own advantage before their opponent overcomes their weakness.

The scenario was not an exact recreation of Salamis. This was deliberate as I wanted to see how things went using my pre-game fleet generation process. The mixes of ship types are probably appropriate historically but Demetrius should have about a 20-ship advantage in numbers, that's 16 squadrons to 14 in game terms, whereas I have actually given each fleet 15 squadrons.

I made another decision for this game in that I decided to not use the Poseidon's whim card mechanism. Whilst I consider this to be a fundamental part of the game's design that gives players various ways of ameliorating some of the dice based-luck it also, by its nature, extends the game's playing time as one considers when and where to intervene with one's cards. The mechanism is also the one by which commands can recover a little lost cohesion and gives squadrons a few further opportunities to recover from disorder. Without those the game will resolve itself faster. I'm hoping that this will counteract the longer playing time the larger forces inevitably require. I'm also interested in seeing whether the guts of the rules can stand alone in a somewhat 'cleaner' state.

You cannot view this attachment.
Above: The Ptolemaic deployment. Unpainted front-line squadrons are quinqueremes. All others are quadriremes except the furthest two squadrons of triremes.

You cannot view this attachment.
Above: The Antigonid deployment. Unpainted front-line squadrons are 'sixes', 'sevens' and one central 'five'. Second line unpainted  squadrons are 'fours'. All painted squadrons are triremes.

A benefit of using larger fleets is that it's perhaps more viable to form a second line to deter or nullify breakthrough attacks. In games with fewer squadrons using two lines can be more of a risk as one can more easily be outflanked and surrounded. Furthermore, by placing half your ships in a second line you also 'halve' your potential attack opportunities, as it were. You can see from the deployment photos that both fleets drew up in two lines, each eight sea-areas wide with their landward flanks next the shore. As one area was occupied by the shoreline, this left three areas of 'sea room' available for manoeuvres to seaward (the table is notionally 12 areas wide). There was no other terrain.

Demetrius' fleet (to the right) comprises four squadrons of 'sixes' and 'sevens', one of 'fives', two of 'fours' and eight of 'threes'. As Demetrius wanted to form a complete second line but having only seven squadrons to spare, he broke down two of them form three depleted squadrons of 'threes' (with a starting strength of two ships models rather than three). Ptolemy's fleet (to the left) comprises five squadrons of 'fives', eight of 'fours' and two of 'threes'. He likewise broke down two squadrons to create three depleted squadrons of 'fours' in his second line.

The coloured D10s track the current cohesion levels of the different commands, whilst the coloured meeples are a quick visual reminder as to which commands have or have not used their signal to change stance as a group. I regret that I had to use some unpainted models and, if you decide to look closely, the painted 'blue' (Ptolemaic) fleet's light trireme models are being used as stand-ins for quadriremes. The souvenir Macedonian helmet marks possession of the initiative.

Both admirals decided to close with their enemy as steadily as possible and knew they would need to co-ordinate their commands' stances using signals. (It's important for the second line to keep pace with the first to prevent potential breakthroughs.) The best way to do this is to assign all squadrons the Engage (2) stance which guarantees squadrons will move forward together and, if all commands adopt it, the lines will close in a coordinated fashion. The first turn thus saw both fleets successfully signalling the advance along much of the line. On the Ptolemaic right (seaward) the two leading squadrons of quinqueremes, the finest in the fleet being 'fast' ships, used Manoeuvre (1) to move forward and also to seaward intending to try and outflank the 'sixes' opposing them, thinking rightly that they would be outclassed in a frontal fight. Their trireme supports failed to change their stances and both remained stationary, fortuitously as it transpired later. Over on the Antigonid right to landward their command failed in its signal but all squadrons bar one managed to individually adopt Cruise (3) none-the-less, but then made little headway forward.

Turn two saw the respective centres come to contact with the Antigonids getting in the first blow due to precedence in the turn sequence. Inevitably, with three of the four engaged Antigonids being 'sevens' or 'fives' against Ptolemaic 'fours' the latter suffered immediate casualties. Against smaller opponents, the larger ships have a greater chance of winning a 'ram and board' combat and they tend to do more damage when they do. To seaward the Antigonid 'sixes' pressed inexorably forward with their supporting squadrons of 'fours' behind. Their opponents continued their encroachment and ended the turn in position to launch attacks into the end polyreme's flank. To landward the Antigonids held back, extending the time it would take for Ptolemy's offensive wing to contact them.

You cannot view this attachment.
Above: Turn 2. The Ptolemaic 'fast' quinqueremes begin their outflanking move in the foreground. Antigonid polyremes begin their grim work in the centre, where two squadrons have become locked in combat. The Ptolemaic landward wing remains unengaged.

Turn three saw the initiative with the Antigonids, scuppering any Ptolemaic idea to flank the polyremes in their initial positions, for Demetrius managed to get a reserve squadron of 'fours' in place to protect his flank (though they were likely to get thumped when their opponents activated).

The hitherto failure of the Ptolemaic second line to seaward to move, Demetrius' unanticipated seizure of the initiative (changing the order of movement from that he had anticipated), together with his faulty assessment of the differences between Engage and Cruise stances led him to keep his 'sixes' on Engage (2). This compels them to move closer to the enemy and, if becoming adjacent, further compels them to initiate an attack changing their facing if necessary to do so. It's the ancient equivalent to the Napoleonic "engage the enemy more closely".

This caused both Antigonid squadrons to move forward drawing level with enemies to their flanks. Thus they were compelled to change facing and, as polyremes are deemed much less manoeuvrable than smaller vessels, both squadrons lost their opportunity to attack this turn having done so. They still managed to inflict a little disorder with their artillery 'battering attack' but the Ptolemaic squadrons escaped a probable pummelling. More threatening was the future potential for the polyremes to be attacked in their own flanks by the Ptolemaic reserves moving forward. Having worked through the implications of all this, Demetrius realised he might have been better to wind back his Engage (2) stance to a less aggressive Cruise (3). Had he done so his squadrons would not have had to change facing and thus would not have exposed their flanks and still been in position to potentially move forward. Still, its easy to be wise after the event and both admirals waited to see what transpired. Antigonid success continued in the centre and Ptolemy's landward wing continued to bear down on their opponents who sat awaiting their fate on their start line.

[Adrian Nayler]

Turn four finally saw squadrons engaged all along the lines with a fairly equitable exchange of combat outcomes, though perhaps more to the favour of Demetrius.

You cannot view this attachment.
Above: Turn 4: Ptolemy's offensive wing (blue A) finally hits home on the Antigonid right with both front lines becoming disordered. Some Ptolemaic 'fives' (blue B1) are hanging on but the rest of the centre front line has been annihilated by Demetrius' 'fives' (red B2) and 'sevens' (red B3 and B4), as witnessed by the three debris markers. Elements of Ptolemy's reserve line (C2) have been forced to navigate the debris and engage red B2 due to a failure to change stance to Cruise (3). They have become disordered and teeter on the brink of destruction.

You cannot view this attachment.
Above: Turn 4: Ptolemy's best squadrons (foreground P and Q) have disposed of the Antigonid flank guard and are poised to further encroach behind the enemy's line. Demetrius' 'sixes' are beginning to sort themselves out after being forced to turn and engage to their flanks, though now Ptolemy's seaward reserve line have now managed to engage them. The odds are still not favourable to the 'fours' as flanking the polyremes just brings parity rather than advantage.

Turn five commenced with the two Ptolemaic squadrons of fast 'fives' dancing away from their larger polyreme opponents, using Manoeuvre (1) to seek out the vulnerable flanks and rears of more manageable Antigonid foes. (These are the tactics that light Athenian triremes should adopt in the game to prevail against their opponent's heavy triremes - if you can't breakthrough then outflank the enemy always seeking out a flank or rear attack. When the enemy responds by turning to face, Manoeuvre away and seek out a more vulnerable foe.)

Otherwise, the struggle continued as the two fleets continued their ram and board actions. Casualties started to mount and by turn's end Ptolemy had lost four squadrons with another depleted, whilst Demetrius had lost just two squadrons though five others were depleted. More worrying was that both Ptolemy's centre and Demetrius' landward wing were down to their last cohesion point and, had it not been for a small miracle of passed morale tests, both should have turned and fled.

You cannot view this attachment.
Above: The position at the end of turn 5.

Turn six would be an important moment one way or another. With little movement possible the fighting continued. Several squadrons failed to recover and were forced to continue unfavourable locked boarding actions against their will, and suffered for it. The turn became increasingly tense as the two vulnerable commands continued to lead charmed lives but at the last both succumbed to failed morale and fled. Ptolemy had now lost seven squadrons and Demetrius' six, and either side would be defeated if they lost a ninth. The battlefield was now strewn with wreckage (debris markers) that could hinder both sides as they attempted to come to grips with their remaining foes.

Ptolemy's landward wing seemed to be in the better position as he had a closer and clearer path to several depleted squadrons in the Antigonid centre which, additionally, was now also down to its last cohesion point. Demetrius' heavy ships had certainly made their mark but they were now a little out of position and their inherent unwieldiness would slow their redeployment, a delay their enemies would try to exploit.

Turn seven saw continued hard fighting between the seaward wings with the Antigonids chipping away at Ptolemaic cohesion. However, to landward Ptolemy's wing made short work of the remaining Antigonid centre which turned tail and fled. The end of the turn brought Ptolemy an emphatic victory, having defeated 12 Antigonid squadrons for the loss of seven of his own. Demetrius was left with all four of his tough polyreme squadrons largely intact but every other of his squadrons were lost.

You cannot view this attachment.
Turn: 7. The final position after the recently broken commands have fled. I've run out of painted debris markers and have had to sub in counters (the white ones in the far corner).

So, what did we learn from the game?

1) It was entirely possible to coordinate the battle lines to prevent the possibility of 'breakthrough' attacks. Given the various disparities in ship sizes, attempting a breakthrough with an outclassed squadron becomes a more attractive prospect even for squadrons of modest seamanship ability. However, the second reserve line forced outclassed squadrons to fight it out in boarding actions they were less suited to.

2) Some expertly crewed and/or 'fast' ships on an open flank are able to extricate themselves from situations they are unsuited to, and provide a threat from encirclement that their enemies can find difficult to counter.

3) Once the front line is penetrated, any deliberately depleted second line squadrons (created at deployment to fill out a full reserve line) have little resilience. This tactic favoured both sides initially, but both then suffered the drawbacks subsequently when their front lines were penetrated.

4) The large polyremes are both powerful and resilient but are most suited to a centrally deployed position. Through a combination of circumstances, enemy action and stance restrictions two of the four polyreme squadrons were drawn to their flanks and 'tied up' for several turns by smaller but 'faster' ships. The polyremes survived the game but their impact was thus lessened giving their opponents the opportunity to achieve ascendancy elsewhere.

5) I was pleased that the game came to a decisive conclusion in seven turns. Time-wise, not using the Poseidon's whim mechanism certainly seemed to have ushered along the proceedings but there were occasions where I regretted not having some of the flexibility their use brings, especially for this game the additional opportunities to remove disorder. Without them, the basic mechanisms and outcomes were very much emphasised which I thought might help novice players more readily assimilate what's going on without distraction.

6) I also felt that the larger battle was a little more straightforward than a smaller engagement when it came to assessing movement options as most squadrons had their place in the line and no opportunity to leave it. Only on the seaward flank were there harder choices over squadrons' movement options. Finally, a considerable debris 'field' accumulated across the battlefield which provided sufficient navigational hazard to influence how quickly victorious squadrons could return to the fray.

All-in-all I thought it was a successful play-test, bringing a large number of ships models to the table but resolving in good time. I shall have to play the scenario again but using the Poseidon's whim cards to see just what a difference they may make. Finally, I'd like to apologise to you all as I know that following exactly what is going on from the photographs might be a little confusing!
 

[Imperial Dave]

Amazing effort and report sir! Brilliant work 

[Keraunos]

Indeed, a great report both visually and for the detail in the writing that brings out what these rules are capable of providing.  I am sorry both for not being able to join the game and that the immediate response I wrote to it has disappeared into the ether.  If anyone spots it loitering elsewhere on the site, let me know. 

I assume that the beautifully painted and pedestaled hoplite reported on another thread is to take its place as an initiative marker in future battles?

[Adrian Nayler]

Kim,
Yes, popping over from HK for the evening might be somewhat inconvenient! Shame about that. The recently coined 'Pedestal Ares' will likely reserve himself for encounters on land as he doesn't need a quarrel with Poseidon. On a more practical level, if he were to muscle-in on the sea battles too, it would invalidate my holiday souvenir purchase of novelty Greek helmets (initiative markers, six, for the use of).

[Erpingham]

it would invalidate my holiday souvenir purchase of novelty Greek helmets (initiative markers, six, for the use of).

Like Simon Watson's initiative helmet?  He also has initiative obelisks for chariot wars.

[Adrian Nayler]

Like Simon Watson's initiative helmet?  He also has initiative obelisks for chariot wars.

Quite so. Simon uses a much more substantial souvenir than I. Mine gave me six different choices of helmet that I could use for different time periods. The only downside is that, perhaps rather predictably, one of the six is a Spartan '300' design of Corinthian which for elitist snobbish reasons never sees the light of day. (We all have our foibles.)

[Adrian Nayler]

We've now replayed last week's game of pseudo-Salamis using exactly the same forces and  deployments but now including the Poseidon's whim cards. The aim was to try and get a sense of what difference their use makes, especially as regards to the playing time of a large scenario.

I shan't bore you with a blow-by-blow account but will summarise the events and outcomes this time around. Perhaps inevitably, whilst the starting positions were identical, the course of the action took a quite divergent path right from the start.

Unlike the previous play-through which saw the fleets coordinate their movements and approach each other in close array, this time both fleets seemed to have appointed recalcitrant officers to command positions, and neither managed to coordinate much at all. However, by turn three both sides had pretty much sorted themselves out but the advance of their various commands had been rather haphazard and their battle lines somewhat ragged.

Learning from the previous encounter, Demetrius moved early to counter the now expected Ptolemaic outflanking to seaward and also made sure his large polyremes were less likely to be pulled out of position by too aggressive a stance. An added bonus, enabled by Poseidon's whim, saw a squadron of his 'fours' inflicting an unexpected defeat on the leading Ptolemaic squadron of 'fives' who became disordered and lost a casualty. This left some of the best 'fast' ships on the table vulnerable (and somewhat nonplussed).

In the centre, however, a string of adverse combat results and poor morale throws saw the Antigonid command rapidly lose cohesion, having but one point left by turn's end (I don't see this situation often and it caused serious concern to Demetrius). The following turn saw some give and take on the seaward wings and, as Ptolemy had held back from his opponent's heavy polyremes, they were only now just getting into combat (being unable to move faster than one area closer a turn). Demetrius had some success on his landward wing where he withstood the attacks of Ptolemy's larger ships but nothing could ultimately prevent the Antigonid centre fleeing as it lost further cohesion. At this point Demetrius had lost six squadrons to Ptolemy's one.

The final act came quickly as Ptolemy capitalised on his success. Despite their initial reverse his squadrons of 'fast' 'fives' to seaward overcame Demetrius' 'fours' and to landward the Antigonids lost a further squadron of triremes, enough to cause their fleet to flee at the end of the sixth turn. It ended an overwhelming victory for Ptolemy who had lost just two squadrons to Demetrius' nine.

Both battles thus saw Ptolemy victorious, a reversal of the outcome in the historic encounter (which we were not explicitly reconstructing). One victory was hard earned and the other unexpectedly swift. The latter's outcome was certainly influenced by the rapid collapse of the Antigonid centre where everything seemed to go against them.

Having played a further two battles with the larger polyremes, we thought that their performance should be tweaked to make them a little more mobile. At the moment, they cannot adopt Manoeuvre (1) stance, primarily to prevent them from 'racing' across the table at high speed, and they always lose their attack if they change formation or facing, to reflect their presumed lack of 'handiness'.

I'm going to try out allowing them the same options as other squadrons but have them roll two dice and use the lowest score when they test their seamanship in these situations. That should give them more agility at the cost of a higher relative risk of disorder. Perhaps more importantly, it will remove their opponent's certainty that they are immune to attack in some situations due to the absolute restrictions currently placed on the polyremes.

Using the Poseidon's whim cards gave the players opportunities to influence the flow of the game and alter some outcomes of either their own or their opponent's actions, or sometimes even both. However, as the supply of cards is limited and their application wide, the players needed to evaluate and prioritise their card play between current demands and future opportunities. Though this adds further interest and flexibility to game play it comes at the cost of increased playing time. Both sides managed to inflict the unexpected on their opponent as each pulled the occasional rabbit out of the hat. There were moments where cards either prolonged or shortened proceedings and I thought the balance between these didn't necessarily increase the overall playing time. However, the process of players contemplating how and when they would intervene with their cards did cost time. Fortunately, the time added did not prove excessive as I hadn't fully appreciated that a larger game does not necessarily mean a greater flow of cards through players' hands.

I'm not sure that either way of playing was necessarily preferable to the other as they were different and I enjoyed both. Overall, I preferred using Poseidon's whim (though, to be honest, I was probably always going to lean that way).

[Keraunos]

Good to see the progress, Adrian.  Getting the balance between the polyremes and the lighter vessels right is still very much a work in progress with me as well.  We need someone to build a full scale replica of a deceres to compare against the Olympias but I don't think that is high on anyone's agenda - maybe we could interest Musk in visiting Poseidon's locker instead of Mars?   

[Adrian Nayler]

I've found, Kim, that one can sometimes create rules that one feels can be justified on an historical or gameplay basis, only to find that in the context of an actual game they conspire to demonstrate that nothing is ever as straightforward as it initially seems!

The issue with my polyremes appears to be that their restrictions were too absolute, in that my players came to perceive what they could or could not do and so exploit that knowledge. My current approach restores some of the jeopardy back into the encounter. Both players have now to make choices on how they deal with the situation. For the polyremes, a slow and steady 'safe' approach is still perfectly fine but it cedes considerable leeway to the opponent elsewhere on the battlefield. If the polyremes choose now to close at a faster rate they can begin their attacks sooner, attacks they are most likely to win, but then have to accept the risk of becoming more vulnerable through disorder due to their exertions. I'll have to see how it pans out but I hope this is a better way forward.