Byzantines vs Ghaznavids, The Sequel

[Chris]

BYZANTINES vs GHAZNAVIDS


This solo wargame, the second of three planned scenarios, was played with the ARMATI 2nd Edition rules. As described previously, the tabletop engagement was inspired by Nicholas Barrett's very brief as well as rather old battle report published in the July 1981 issue of Slingshot, wherein Ghaznavids faced off against Late Byzantines.

The terrain for this encounter would be the same as that utilized in the initiating battle. The following is a copy or repeat of the description already provided.

The look of my 6.5 by 3.75 foot tabletop was based, in as much as it was possible, on the simple map provided with the original report. Starting on the Byzantine left flank and stretching across the model battlefield to the left of the Ghaznavid position, there were several one-tier hills or gentle rises. The one closest to the Ghaznavid deployment was the smallest of the four. There were two medium-size hills; these were in front of the Ghaznavid left wing and on the left of the Byzantine formation, respectively. The largest hill or gentle rise looked like a boot, sock, or capital letter L, laid on its back, with the toe pointing at the center of the Ghaznavid formations. In terms of other terrain features, there was a very small patch of woods and scrub just in front of the Ghaznavid right. There was also a thin line of trees and scrub extending from the medium-size hill in front of the Ghaznavid left to almost the short-edge of the field on this side of the tabletop.

For this ARMATI 2nd Edition game, the Byzantines were drafted from the 11th Century Byzantine list found on page W. (This army is actually the first in the 'Age of Chivalry' section of the catalog.) The Ghaznavid army was assembled from the list found on the Warflute site. (Please see http://warflute.org/armies/ghaznavid_mark_army_t4.html)

In terms of size, for each combatant, I doubled the Core and Bonus Unit availabilities as well as the Control Ratings and Core Army Breakpoint. Each army was permitted 150 points of Bonus Units. In brief, this gave the Byzantine commander 8 Heavy Division Control Points and 8 Light Division Control Points. (It was not mandatory for all of these control points to be used.) The initiative rating of this army remained at 7, a very impressive rating. With the doubled Core Units and purchased Bonus Units, the Byzantines had an army break point of 10 key units. The Ghaznavids matched the Byzantines in every category just listed, save that of initiative. The commander of this force enjoyed an initiative rating of 5 for his army.

For a change of pace, there was very little tinkering done with this scenario. None of the debated, discussed and subject to further testing rule variants were employed. (Please see http://warflute.org/playtest_rules_en.php) The only adjustments made were to unit footprints and movement rates and missile ranges. This was done in order to maximize the available playing surface. Referencing the diagram and table on page 1 of the rules, 15mm Epic Units were reduced in size by 50 percent. Instead of reducing the provided ruler (page 36) by the same ratio, I used the 75 percent scale rulers made for previous experiments. To establish a little bit of context, with the modified ruler, light cavalry could move up to 7.5 inches per turn, while heavy infantry could plod forward 3 inches per turn.

Both armies deployed in what might be termed the traditional style or manner, with infantry in the center and cavalry on the flanks. For the Byzantines, this meant that the Tagmatics and Normans were on the left flank, screened by Cuman light cavalry and Hyperkerastai. The center was a single group of Kontaratoi, anchored by a few units of Varangians. The army general rode behind one of these units of heavy foot armed with spears and axes. There was a small group of Cataphracts to the right of this formation. The right flank was lightly held, with a unit of Prokursatores and 3 units of Pechenegs. On the Ghaznavid side of the familiar field of battle, there were Ghulams on the right wing, screened by Turkish light cavalry. The center formation was "bookended" by single units of elephants and some Dailami light infantry on the right. The main line of foot was a mix of Hindu infantry and Ghulams, along with another squadron of elephants. The army general was behind this line, very near to a single unit of Guard heavy cavalry. The left flank was held by some more elephants as well as a contingent of Arab cavalry. These horsemen were assisted by some Khorasani light cavalry.

At the end of six turns of play, the Ghaznavids were a key unit away from breaking and quitting the field. Figuring that the battle and the day was lost, the Ghaznavid general conceded. In fairly sharp contrast, the Byzantine general had lost just 4 key units. The idea of conceding the contest was not even in his mind. The following is an attempt at a summary of how it happened.

The majority of the action took place on the flanks of each army. The opposing centers did advance into arrow range, but a volley or two from the Hindu archers scored only 1 hit against the Byzantine infantry. On the Byzantine right wing, starting on the third turn, the Pechenegs and Prokursatores were involved against the Khorasani light horse, the Arabs, and the elephants that were left of the Ghaznavid center. The Pechenegs did rather well, and they enjoyed the support of the Cataphracts. The Arabs and Khorasani fought stubbornly, but were broken in a series of melees. The Ghaznavid elephants were able to make contact with a unit of Cataphracts as well as a unit of Byzantine infantry on the far end of their battle line, but the elephants could not achieve any kind of breakthrough. Although panicked, the very heavy horse managed to hold against the pachyderms. In this sector of the field, the Byzantines destroyed 4 enemy key units while losing 2 key units of their own.

Over on the Ghaznavid right, the Turks and Ghulams were subjected to quite a bit of attention from the Cumans, the Normans, the Tagmatic units, and the Hyperkerastai. A few volleys of arrows were followed by sharp combats between opposing units of light cavalry. These combats were "joined" by supporting units of heavy cavalry. A group of Norman cavalry made contact with some Ghulams, but did not fare well, as they had been weakened by enemy archery. The additional weight of some elephants into the swirling combat did not help the Norman cause. In fact, half of their formation was routed. The Tagmatics were able to make contact with the Ghulams. These melees were tipped in the favor of the Byzantines when a "division" of Hyperkerastai were able to work their way around the right and rear of the Ghaznavid horse. This extra weight, even though from light cavalry, did not bode well for the Ghulams on the right  wing or for the larger army. At the end of six turns, this sector witnessed the rout of 5 Ghaznavid key units while just 2 Byzantine key units were broken.


The Byzantine victory "tied the game" between the two selected opponents. The third contest would decide which "miniature" army could claim bragging rights.

Given the movement allowance of light cavalry, it was not surprising to see the battle begin on the flanks. Given the advantage in army initiative held by the Byzantines (7 versus 5), it was not surprising to see that they won the move option for 5 of the 6 turns. It was, perhaps, a little surprising or maybe disappointing, to see that the centers of each army were not able to come to grips before the engagement was decided or called based on the observed status of the field.

Light cavalry units that are classed as key units can be somewhat fragile under the ARMATI rules. They do not have a lot of melee power, obviously, and they do not have a lot of stamina, meaning these units cannot take a lot of punishment. Initially, I thought my deployment of these light cavalry formations was acceptable or even historical. I had placed them as screens in front of heavier formations of cavalry. However, playing the rules as written, this did not permit the light cavalry units to evade through friendly formations. The rules do not allow the heavier horse to come up and interpenetrate the engaged or stressed units of light horse. I second-guessed myself in the middle of the scenario, wondering if I should have positioned the light cavalry further out on the flanks. This placement would have allowed pressured light cavalry to evade or withdraw if damaged by enemy missiles and or threatened by heavier enemy cavalry.

In other respects or regards, I thought the wargame went pretty well; I thought the result historical and possible. When the flanks of an army are broken or heavily damaged, it does not require more evidence to know that committing the center will most likely result in a bigger disaster or defeat.

Given that I have employed two different rulesets for this short-term project, it seems that it would be helpful to offer a brief comparison/contrast between the main points of the rules, at least as I understand them.

Command and Control /
The TRIUMPH! rules use a die roll and command pips to move troops; ARMATI allows for greater control, but the player-general has to deploy his forces properly, using the provided rating points for heavy and light divisions.

Movement /
Both rules use an "I Go, You Go" sequence. However, ARMATI allows for the possibility of one side gaining and even holding the initiative during a few turns. In other words, one force can make the other force "dance to their tune." This happened in the action recently completed. The Byzantines controlled the tempo, were able to engage the enemy formations when they wanted, and were also able to dictate the direction in which melees were resolved. There is not a general direction of melee resolution in TRIUMPH! Movement in ARMATI is fairly simple, meaning there are 3 to 4 categories of troops and their allowances. Under these rules, wheeling is time-consuming and conforming for close combat is not required. If opposing units clip corners, then a melee will result. There is a greater variety of troop types in TRIUMPH! and there is a greater range of movement allowances. Bow Levy troops are very slow; Javelin Cavalry can move 4 times as fast as Bow Levy. Further, movement is less restrictive in TRIUMPH! Interpenetration is allowed, and wheeling or other complex moves are possible as long as the command points are paid.

Missiles /
Generally speaking, missiles have a greater range in ARMATI. Under these rules, targeted units can be weakened. With the TRIUMPH! rules, it has been my experience that shooting is less effective. Sometimes a targeted unit will be forced back, and on rare occasions, it will be dispersed or destroyed by arrows or other missiles.

Melee /
The melee process in ARMATI involves a comparison of the involved units fighting value added to a d6 roll. The higher score wins and inflicts a hit point or casualty against the opponent. Both sides receive a fatigue marker. Sometimes, a melee will result in a tie, in which case both units get a casualty marker as well as a fatigue marker. There is also a procedure for impetus in melee, which allows certain units to rout/destroy enemy units in the first turn of a combat. Broadly speaking, the ARMATI process is more attritional. The melee process in TRIUMPH! appears more contextual, for lack of a better word. There is no tracking of unit break points or fatigue. A unit engaged in close combat in TRIUMPH! can be pushed back, forced to evade, or even pushed to panic. It all depends on which unit wins a competitive die roll, which is modified by the melee factor of the troop type. Phrased another way, the ARMATI melee process seems more focused or "small picture," while the melee process in TRIUMPH! has a more "big picture" approach.

Morale /
As related in the report, ARMATI determines key units in an army and the number of these units that need to be lost, broken, routed, etc., in order of an army to break and quit the field. There is no such distinction or separation in TRIUMPH! These rules, depending on the scale of the game played, operate on a "points lost" determination. In this way, skirmishers and light infantry and heavy cavalry are worth the same when it comes to army morale. That is to say, the loss of these units counts. Under the ARMATI rules, of these three categories of troop types, usually, it is only the heavy cavalry unit that would be counted as key.

In summary, the brief wargame was engaging and entertaining. I do not know which contest I preferred or which one I thought was more historical. I do know that I find it interesting that in both cases, the centers were not able to participate in the battle. I am also left with a feeling that the ARMATI wargame felt very different without any rule variants being used.

[Jon Freitag]

Chris, this is exactly the information a wargamer (like me!) unfamiliar with either or both of these rulesets needs to get a flavor of the two systems.

Excellent work and much appreciated.

Thank you.

[Chris]

Jon and others,

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment positively.

Apologies for the troubles with the links.        I was informed by a TMP reader that these did not work. WTF? (translation: Well, that's farfetched!)   

Don't know why the provided links did not function. 

I am including new ones here in the hopes that those interested will find success.

http://warflute.org/armies/ghaznavid_mark_army_t4.html

http://warflute.org/approved_army_en.php


http://warflute.org/playtest_rules_en.php


Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

Don't know why the provided links did not function. 

Full stops (aka periods) at the end .  I'll fix them in the original.

Add : Done

[Chris]

Cheers Anthony, and thanks.

That is curious . . . 

I do not believe that I've run into that formatting issue before.

Note made for future posts.

Thanks again,
Chris

[Erpingham]

I do not believe that I've run into that formatting issue before.

Ah, its a mistake I've made before and had it pointed out to me by a former colleague 

[Jon Freitag]

Ah, its a mistake I've made before and had it pointed out to me by a former colleague 

I hope pointing out this little error was not the triggering event for this reclassification as "former" colleague.

[Erpingham]

Ah, its a mistake I've made before and had it pointed out to me by a former colleague 

I hope pointing out this little error was not the triggering event for this reclassification as "former" colleague.

Not at all  He moved on to a better job (more IT focussed). He was quite a difficult character to manage but he taught me a lot of basic, useful stuff about websites, databases and so forth.