CONSUL VERSUS KING: A PERMUTATION OF PYDNA [2]

[Chris]

Apologies for the two parts, gentlemen. Received a message that the length of the narrative (number of characters) was too large for a single post. Here is the rest of it.


TURN 7 -
Starting on the Macedonian left, a unit of skirmishing bowmen was able to kill off some elephants. Unfortunately, the surviving and panicked animals routed into another group of pachyderms which produced a kind of chain reaction. The second group of elephants stampeded into a unit of mercenary foot, crushing it as well as the attached group leader. There was less drama in the cavalry contest on this flank. Here, the Italians managed to hold on against increasing odds. While a small formation of Tarantine light horse was able to move around at will in the right rear of the Roman/Numidian line (it was at this point that I regretted no placing any camps on my table), they were as effective as the Numidians on the other side of the river. The squadron engaged by Misagenes and his light infantry was defeated and destroyed. In the centre of the field, the phalanxes started to gain the upper hand if they did not have it already. There were 26 units of pikemen facing 14 units of Romans and Italians. There were 26 units of pikemen waiting in the second line. The right wing saw the Thracians beginning to wear down the Italian cavalry, while the opposing infantry formations continued to jostle for position.

In the Roman phase of this turn, the stubborn Italian cavalry on the right wing finally lost heart and routed. This decision left only the Numidian light horse on this flank, and these were fairly scattered. As for their elephants, well, against the enemy foot, they did rather less well than they did against the Macedonian heavy horse. Half of the elephants were dead or panicked, and those that remained were somewhat isolated from friendly support. The centre of the table was almost stripped of Hastati as the phalanx units did some mopping up while keeping in line. There were just 9 units of Romans or Italians standing against the solid wall of pikemen. A minor bright spot was the action of some light-medium infantry and medium infantry against the "Agema". These troops manage to frustrate and hold these elite infantry. On the left wing, some Italian cavalry were able to get behind a part of the Thracian horse and rout a unit in a sharp melee. The heavy cavalry from Pergamon finally joined in the action and charged the Thracian foot. The light-medium infantry were ridden over but the other sections stood up to the attack and inflicted a few losses.

Demoralisation Check: At the end of Turn 7, the Macedonian left was teetering on the edge of dissolving. It had lost 44 points out of its limit of 45. The right wing was in danger as well, having lost 41 points out of a limit of 51. The Roman flanks were also in danger of collapsing. The left wing had lost 44 points out of a limit of 46, while the Numidians on the right had lost 33 points out of 35.
[Sidebar: Curiously and interestingly, neither King Perseus nor Consul Paullus have involved themselves or their cavalry formations in the battle. The Macedonian commander has, however, ordered his royal guard over to the right wing.]

TURN 8 -
Playing the various roles of King Perseus and his subordinates, I hoped that it would not be too late to rally a few units on the left wing and stave defeat in this sector. Fortunately, the anonymous commander of the Macedonian heavy cavalry redeemed himself by rallying two of the slightly damaged units in his formation. (These squadrons were able to self-rally, as they were more than 4 uds from any enemy.) Two more points were added to the balance then. It looked as thought the Macedonian left would be safe for another turn. Without their leader, the mercenary foot could do very little. It appeared as though they would be at the mercy of the 30 or so elephants. Having defeated the Italians, the Greek heavy cavalry turned their attention on the Numidian troopers. These horsemen evaded, of course. In the centre, the left wing of the phalanx continued to push against some very stubborn units of Hastati. Over on the right side of the phalanx, the bronze shields and "Agema" marched forward, gaining more of a foothold on the Roman side of the river. One stubborn unit of Italians held out against a unit of elite pikemen, however. Over on the right wing, the Thracian cavalry made an excellent command roll and put it to good use. A unit of Italian cavalry was taken in the flank and routed. Its survivors caused disorder in a nearby unit. Otherwise, not much else was happening in this sector.

Demoralisation Check: At the end of the Macedonian phase, a quick accounting was made of the status of the respective flanks. It was found that the Numidians were at their tipping point. Therefore, per the scenario rules, the surviving Numidian units were removed from the field. This included the recently victorious Misagenes as well as the isolated but still potent pachyderms.

The loss of the Numidians signaled the beginning of the end for Consul Paullus and his army. In the centre of the field, 2 more units succumbed to the meat grinder of the Macedonian phalanx. On the teetering left wing, an attempt to rally several units did not succeed. Either the die roll was not the right number or there were not sufficient command points. The first unit to rout was the stubborn allied foot fighting against the "Agema". The second unit to run away was, quite surprisingly, a squadron of Pergamene cavalry. In the melee against the Thracian foot, they managed a 1, while the Thracian unit rolled a 6. This loss pushed the Roman left past its tipping point. With his flanks gone, Consul Paullus was forced to quit the field. He ordered his surviving formations to withdraw before the enemy could envelop and pursue from the left and right and before the phalanx could advance and engage the Principes.

Questions and Answers
Did I enjoy the wargame? Was I entertained?
A definite yes on both counts. I confess, however, to being a bit surprised that a conclusion was reached after only 8 turns of play. Then again, I did set some pretty specific victory conditions.

Was I surprised by the result?
In some respects, yes. At one point, it seemed to me that the Macedonian left was going to fail and rout. I imagined that one side would lose a flank while the other side would suffer the loss of  an opposite flank. I kind of hoped to see the decisive clash take place between the legions and the formations of the phalanx.

How did the written rules handle things?
I feel that I am getting more and more comfortable with ADLG. Those gamers who have more experience will, no doubt, find fault with sections of this narrative. That is their right. I welcome constructive criticism. I thank these individuals in advance for furthering my ADLG education.

How did the scenario specific rules "perform"?
Funnily enough, less than half of the temporary amendments were tested on my table top.
Neither King Perseus nor Consul Paullus took part in the action. The Macedonian King did, however, move his royal regiment over to the right flank. The Roman Consul never moved.
With the exception of Misagenes, the Numidian commander who was chased by some Tarantines, not a single subordinate was involved in the fighting either. These personalities either remained in place or followed their commands as they marched or rode forward. The increase of group frontage or width to 8 units worked very well, I thought. This change did not have a negative impact on the wargame. Having spent some time thinking about and then borrowing ideas for Roman line relief, it figures that I did not employ it. More about this in the next question about battle plans and tactics. The increase in the rout path/distance for defeated units added a bit to the exercise, I think. To be certain, the Romans and their allies suffered more from this than the Macedonians did. The division of the demoralisation level into four parts worked well and was, I would argue, realistic. Finally, I come to the river, or my representation of it. Though very basic in its appearance, it did add some colour to the model landscape. Neither side took advantage of the melee advantage, however. I am not sure if this was a product of the irregular course of the river or due more to the fact that formations made their way across and onto to "terra firma" before being engaged by the enemy. On this point, it seems that the Romans  failed to make good use this river bank bonus. But again, this seems like something better discussed in the next answer.

What were the battle plans of each side and how well did each side do with respect to tactics?
I did not write any specific plans for either army. I did, however, adopt more of a defensive posture as the Roman Consul in overall command. It seems to me, on reviewing the just completed action, that the Romans responded more to the Macedonians than forced the Macedonians to respond to them. There are exceptions to this of course. For example, the Numidian formations, especially the elephants, caused fits over on the Macedonian left flank. As the Macedonian king, I ordered a general attack or advance all along the line. As evident in the narrative, this had its successes and failures. I came very close to defeat on the left. This I attribute to the foolish mounted charges against the Numidian elephants. In the centre, I think my phalanx did very well, but then I think a lot it had to do with the poor handling of the Roman formations. Their Velites never got a chance to deliver javelin volleys. Their Hastati were ordered into melee without supporting lines of Principes. It is not difficult to imagine how things might have gone differently if the phalanx units had been worn down by effective javelin volleys from skirmishers and effective cooperation between Hastati and Principes units.

Was it historical?
With the exception of inflating the orders of battle, yes, I think the wargame was historical.

Is bigger better?
A qualified yes here. Many of the phalanx units and many of the legionary units did not see combat in the wargame. While they added a certain level of visual appeal, it was a bit disappointing to find that none of these formations entered into melee. For my 6 by 4-foot table, I think this engagement was a very good size. It was larger than most I have set up, but it was manageable.

What is my overall assessment/impression?
Overall, I think it went very well. To reiterate, I was entertained and I enjoyed playing each turn.I enjoyed doing the research and setting things up. I stipulate that this wargame looked more like a boardgame, albeit without the hexes, and looked nothing at all like the previous attempts referenced above, but it served its purpose.

What is next on your agenda?
Well, I don't have a set agenda or wargaming calendar, per se. I have been thinking about Telamon, the engagement selected for Battle Day 2019. I have also been thinking about doing something with Scythians, as I have never commanded or faced them on a table top before. In addition, I have also been thinking about setting up some kind of campaign. Something with primitive artillery and firearms perhaps, as I find that I sometimes miss the report of cannon and the smell of gunpowder on my "miniature" battlefield.

How can interested readers see pictures of this Permutation of Pydna?
If you would like to see pictures of this no-miniatures-involved ancient wargame, please let me know. I can be contacted at: hahchcopar1066@gmail.com. I will send you a 9-page pdf with 48 hours of opening and reading your e-mail.

[Patrick Waterson]

This looks like something with Slingshot potential, Chris.

[Chris]

Thanks for taking the time to read, Patrick.

I will take the Slingshot suggestion under advisement.

Cheers,
Chris

[RichT]

Yes thanks for this Chris, interesting (long...) reading.

Here's some random thoughts and questions that occur to me (not criticisms! Just things that occur to me).

All the Pydna reconstructions you consulted, and the maps, and the version you did, have Pydna as a classic pitched battle with both armies fully deployed. I'm quite surprised at that - to me it's clear that Pydna was more of a meeting engagement (for all that the armies met as they emerged from camp, rather than on the march), with units engaging more or less piecemeal. I know you weren't aiming for a refight in yours.

The river - yes the course of the river is an interesting question, but the main thing is that it doesn't seem to have been tactically significant (for all that you might expect a knee high river to pose a bit of an obstacle to a phalanx) - so maybe it is best ignored (unless added just for colour).

Army sizes - doubling the armies is an interesting decision - you are obviously a man of great patience. How long did it take to play out the game, and how much of that time was spent in mechanical operations of moving units (150 a side!) and calculating combat? I would regard that as utter purgatory. Do you find that using more individual units is desirable in itself - maybe giving a more epic feel, or more fine-grained combat resolution?

It's a bit unfortunate the battle was decided by the flanks, rather than the legion v. phalanx contest, which is the bit that most Pydna battles would hope to represent, and how we could judge how well the rules handled the situation. Would it be worth just fighting the centres alone to see what happens?

I don't think I see any sign of the gaps in the phalanx that the Romans exploited in your version - because things didn't get that far, or does ADLG represent this more abstractly (or not at all)?

[willb]

Interesting account Chris. In Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars the account of the battle has it starting as a skirmish between troops of the opposing sides gathering water from the river. The Macedonian army was first to deploy fully and advanced quickly forcing the Romans to fight near their camp so the river would have already been crossed by the Macedonians. Is there any provision in ADLG for troops to fall back or be pushed back? The Romans supposedly made a planned retreat.  Gaps in the phalanx happened when the phalanx advanced into broken ground. The phalanx pushing the Romans back, as also happened at Kynoskephalai, tends to support Polybius description of the two combat systems in his histories.

[Chris]

Appreciate, again, those who took the time to read and post comments. (Do find it curious that Part 1 shows 13 views, while Part 2 has had 32 views.)

Richard - Apologies for the length. I do suppose I could have reduced the orders of battle and simply summarized the battle report as opposed to narrating a turn-by-turn account. This format would have probably allowed me to post it in one go instead of two halves.

Glad to see that the links worked here. Curious to find that they did not appear to function in the TMP post. Perhaps the links are too dated? Valid point re the meeting engagement versus pitched battle. I confess that I had no thought of that. A more careful reading (as referenced by Will) would, perhaps, have inspired a different treatment. Something to consider . . .

A valid point as well re the river. I added one to my table for colour and the chance of having the positive modifier for defending the bank, which was not used during the wargame.

Game length. Well, the following is an estimate, as I played this over 4 days and took time to type up notes after each side had moved so that I would no forget key events . . . so let me advance approximately 6 hours. The first turn was simply moving after rolling for CPs (command points). The flanks were engaged first and mainly horse, so that was not so terribly involved. Once the first phalanx contacted the Hastati, it was just a matter of going from one end of the table to the other. And yes, sometimes it does get a bit repetitive.

Staging an epic does have a certain appeal. I do recognize though, that I have to balance that against playability. I like to be able to see the "cracks" appear in a group, division, command, or whatever you want to call it. I find it more acceptable to have morale impact portions of the army before impacting the whole.

A "centres only" version of Pydna. That, too, is worth thinking about. I do recall being questioned about wanting to try this in another ancient. The argument was, essentially, how can you divide a contest into three parts when developments or results in one part of the field might well affect the action in another?

Re the phalanx not being split up and falling into disorder. The first line of units did see some fighting and several of these units were marked with losses. However, there was no "fireworks" here with respect to units of pikemen moving hither and yon. Only on the far right of the phalanx did the "agema" become a little disordered when 3 units marched forward while 1 stayed behind to beat up a stubborn unit of Italian allied foot. Gaps in a unit of heavy infantry pikemen may be represented by the cohesion loss suffered. Units of pike typically fight at +2 when not disordered (marked with losses). When units of pike have taken losses, they are still at +1 (original +2 modifier, -1 for being disordered, results in a +1 modifier). If units of pike are flanked, then they will fight with a 0 modifier, and so, of course, are more vulnerable. ADLG, like other systems, does allow a flanked unit to reorient itself in subsequent rounds of melee so that it can fight without being at a disadvantage.

I hope these additional remarks serve to answer and clarify things a bit more. Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment, Richard. Very much appreciated!

Now, to address Will's comments.
I do recall reading something in the translation about how the first casualties or some casualties occurred within 250 paces of the Roman camp, so it seems that I may have be in error to fabricate and place the river. ADLG does allow troops to evade. They have to be faster that their opponents. Troops in ADLG can also disengage. There is no "push back" like one sees in Hail Caesar, Impetus, or DBMM (in this last set, I think the term is "recoil"?). In the wargame, the phalanx never approached patches of rough ground. The Hastati came out to meet them on the Roman side of the water "obstacle" and paid a steep price for this. Perhaps it would have been better and more historically accurate to have had Consul Paullus deploy his legions in rough ground and on the forward slopes and then order them to yell insults and thumb their noses at the Macedonians? Again, more to think on.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, Will. Have you tried this battle using Scutarii? I wonder how it might play with those rules?

Cheers,
Chris

[willb]

Hi, Chris.   I haven't played Pydna, Magnesia, or Kynoskephalai yet.   I have been looking at them though.   Scutarii has a disengage/fallback rule that allows units engaged in combat to deliberately fall back part of a move from combat and tempting their opponents to follow up.   Rough terrain would have a much greater disorganization effect on pike formations than the Romans creating the effect of gaps in the phalanx line.  I noticed the same difference in views of the two blog posts that I did for Paraetacenae with more views of the second action.  I have no idea why the links in your post on TMP do not work as the URLs are the same as those here.

[Patrick Waterson]

One thought about the Macedonians and rough terrain.  Our accounts of Pydna have Perseus, the Macedonian C-in-C, not in attendance - either he was indisposed from being contacted by the wrong end of a horse the previous evening or he left the field early to pray at the temple of Heracles.  Possibly both.  Either way, he does not appear to have been on the field when the Macedonian phalanx advanced into difficult terrain, suggesting the Macedonians fought the battle effectively out of command.

This brings me to an observation Jim (Webster) made some time ago: that it might be a good idea if rules required command input in order to stop units (or lines of battle) from moving.  Something like this would seem to address the Macedonian situation perfectly: Perseus manages to get them started but then subtracts himself from the field to nurse his apprehensions and/or his broken ribs and the Macedonians just carry on ... and on ...

For those with the Slingshot DVD, it may be worth looking up an article on Pydna by Richard Taylor many issues ago (I forget the issue but the indexing function should get you there).  Very good article and well worth reading.

[Chris]

Rather at a loss . . . Appears that I need to go back and reread the ancient author. Appears that I missed much in my study. 

I do recall Mr. Webster's piece about "Pips" and using them to stop as well as start movement. If I recall, the size of the game was or was estimated to prove problematic. Keeping track of  which formations were still following advance orders and so forth. Worth considering though.

I do not have the DVD nor the actual back issue, but here is the issue reference to Mr. Taylor's effort:

The Battle of Pydna (267/13-22, Richard Taylor)

Cheers,
Chris