First re-fight of Daras 351AD

[CarlL]

This was my first re-fight of the battle of Daras of 531AD.  My tabletop game used 25mm figures and 'To The Strongest' (TtS) rules, (on a 15cm square grid 16x8 boxes). My starting point was that I had just finished painting Byzantine figures from my lead pile and I wanted to use them! (see earlier post under Army Array on painting tab for initial deployments.) My next thought was let's see how a historical re-fight works with TtS. Then I got lazy and I didn't research the battle but relied on the old scenario booklet, 'Ancient Historical Battles, volume 2' by Peter Sides to give me a tabletop terrain (although I added in camps) and rough army numbers. (I divided his 'historical' army numbers by 1000, and this gave me my number of units per side.)

My command of TtS is still fragmentary, (as I have rarely played them) despite having the rules since they were first published (and this is another problem as I keep going back to my paper copy of first edition, and missing changes in the electronic pdf updates that I have)! So my use of rules contains errors from my calculation of points, (although in both re-fights to date this didn't matter as the armies were not selected using a points total), to inaccurate exercise of rules. My apologies if you spot errors.

So re-fight one: in brief the Byzantine army had four commands and 4 generals (all detached, mounted); with (overall) 13 Cavalry lancer, veteran units; 1 Light cavalry, javelin and bow armed, veteran unit; 2 close order, foot javelin men units; 4 close order, foot spear armed units; and 4 light infantry armed with bow. (These do reflect any official list accompanying the rules but my interpretation of what unit types might reflect the army at that time.) They all came with standard ammunition supply (3 'shots' for bow armed) and no re-supply (although rules allow this I did not). There was a camp too, although in reality this should have been the city of Daras, in the first game I used a Roman marching camp.

Their opponents were more numerous, so much so I had to call in 'allies' to make up the numbers on the tabletop!  The Sassanids had four commands and 4 generals (all detached and mounted). Overall, there were 18 cavalry lancer units (no bow, possibly unhistorical); and 6 cavalry veteran lancer units (to represent the Sassanid Immortals); 12 light cavalry, bow and javelin armed, veteran units; 6 close order spear armed units; and 3 light infantry units with slings; and a fortified / palisade camp.

I didn't use the stratagem or set up rules as this was a scenario based game but the Byzantine mercenary Huns (who perhaps should be cavalry lancers from the Gepids and Huns?) were placed in ambush as per that Stratagem rule. But this ambush had little impact in either game as Huns failed to take part so I need to develop some specific random cards for solo games to make their impact more like history ... a possible battle winner.

I played the game over several short sessions, playing the game to a conclusion in 16 game turns. The armies were unequal in numbers, but more quality (ie veterans) in the Byzantine army. In terms of the game mechanics, the Byzantines had to lose 18 victory medals and the Sassanids 29 victory medals to lose the game. In unit terms the end result was that Byzantines lost: 6 lancer cavalry units, 1 HI spear units, 1 general (wounded then later killed), and 2 light infantry archer units to lose the game (these accounted for 18 victory medals). The Sassanids at point of their victory, had lost: 1 veteran lancer cavalry unit; 6 other lancer units; 2 light cavalry units; 1 general (again initially wounded then killed); 1 light infantry slinger unit; (amounting in total to 19 victory medals lost).

It is an interesting fast play system, using decks of playing cards (well Ace to number tens only ie no picture cards) to give scores for activation of groups or individual units, and for calculating the effect of their shooting or their melee prowess. The turn of cards also gets used in saving 'throws' when units get a chance to negate hits (I assume to reflect their armour, use of shields or impact of their formation). The overall game is 'knife edge' in its creation of uncertainty although in this games numbers did eventually tell over quality. This led me to experiment with more equal numbers for the second game.

Some photos of the gameto follow, if I can find any of decent enough quality!

CarlL

[Imperial Dave]

well done Carl, never easy to play and write up a report on an unfamiliar system

[CarlL]

Apologies, bit monochrome those images. Some better colour here. CarlL

[Jon Freitag]

Good to see you giving TtS! a whirl on the table.  It is a straightforward set of mechanisms but I find to "set" the rules in mind, one really needs an opponent to lend a hand.