A Very Indian Civil War

[Chris]

Rather than attempt to develop, stage, and prepare a report on a Tactica II version of Bosworth (though the idea does have a certain appeal . . . I wonder if anyone will attempt such a scenario next month?), I thought I would take a cue from this year's Battle Day selection and stage a fictional contest taking place on the subcontinent circa 385 BC. As indicated by the adapted title of this narrative [1], this solo scenario would see two Indian armies or competing factions facing off against each other. In keeping with the derivative and improvised theme, one force would be from or represent the claims of the northern regions or territories and the other force would be from or represent the claims of the southern regions or territories. Perhaps, for the sake of simplicity, the opposing factions could be called the "Blue" and the "Gray". Anyway.

Orders of Battle
The year or date given for the Indian army list on page L9 of Tactica II is 321 BC. The provided list, in comparison to other lists for Classical Indians [2], is rather bland or sparse. Perhaps "generic" is a better word. Interested in seeing if I could work out something with the list as given, I decided to give one army quite a few elephants as well as better quality infantry. The other force, perhaps I could call them the "rebels", would field fewer elephants but twice as many cavalry. They would also have quite a few units of militia grade foot. With regard to heavy chariots, I decided that both armies would be roughly equal in this arm.

One would think that I had learned a valuable lesson from the previous scenario [3], and so, would stage a smaller action. Unable to resist the allure of a large battle, I prepared 9 commands or divisions for each side. In a little more detail, the army with plenty of pachyderms had 648 massed infantry, 90 massed cavalry, 90 figures worth of heavy chariots (each model vehicle represents 6 figures), and an impressive total of 258 figures worth of war elephants (each animal represents 6 figures). Added together, this gave the Northern Army or Blue Faction a breakpoint of 561.

Terrain
Borrowing a page from history, I landscaped my table to look a little bit like the Hydaspes. [4] Draping my usual dark green cloth over my table, I smoothed out the wrinkles, making an essentially flat and featureless but quite verdant plain. On second thought, I decided to indicate an area of marshy ground along one short-edge of the tabletop by placing a few skinny patches of specialty paper cut into irregular shapes.

Adjustments & Amendments
a) I employed 7.5mm scale units. These formations occupied a footprint 50 percent smaller than the dimensions given for 15mm scale figures and their formations.
b) Though terrain was not really a factor in the intended battle, I reduced the dimensions of 15mm scale terrain features by half as well.
c) A diagram of deployment areas is given on page 8 of the rules. The table size for 15mm enthusiasts is offered as 64 inches long by 40 inches deep. This seems like an odd size to me. As I was using the equivalent of 7.5mm scale "figures", I suppose that my table should have been 128 inches by 80 inches. Instead, I established a right and left zone of 14 inches and a central zone of 44 inches.
d) On page 21, one paragraph states that missile armed troops can shoot through enemy skirmishers in the beaten zone in order to engage an enemy massed unit. The rationale given is that skirmisher screens were quite porous. In a subsequent paragraph, however, it states that friendly skirmishers block friendly troops from shooting at enemy targets. As a test, I decided to allow massed formations with missile capability to shoot through friendly skirmishers, provided those friendly skirmishers were at least 2 inches away.
e) As described and detailed on pages 45 and 47, elephant and chariot units retain all of their melee dice until the unit is broken. Finding this questionable, I decided to test an amendment that would decrease the number of dice elephant and chariot units got to roll in melee and when conducting missile fire if and when the unit had suffered losses. In summary, I did not believe an elephant or chariot model should get dice if it was no longer a functioning part of the unit. In summary, if an elephant unit containing 4 models had lost 1 due to missile fire or melee, then that unit of elephants would roll dice for 3 models instead of 4.
f) In "Pikes versus Pila", I substituted centimetres for inches when measuring moves and missile ranges. For this scenario, I decided to be consistent and use half of the move rate or missile range as indicated by the 2/3rds scale rulers purchased from Litko Aerosystems, Inc. more than a decade ago. In brief summary, units of foot would move 4 inches instead of 8, while cavalry formations would trot or gallop 6 inches instead of 12. The arrows of the various Indian formations would be able to reach enemy units 7.5 inches away. Wheels would be reduced to 1 inch for foot and 2 inches for cavalry, instead of the usual 2 and 4 inch allowances.
g) Instead of halving the rout path distance and panic zone areas, I decided to keep these measurements at 4 scale inches.

Deployments
The Northern Army drew up on the near edge of my table. Starting on the right wing, there was a command of 15 heavy chariots. These shock vehicles capable of missile fire were reinforced by a division of 15 pachyderms. Moving left down the line, a command of 5 units of militia grade archers (36 figure formations, 3 ranks of 12) was accompanied by 4 elephants and screened by a handful of skirmishers. This formation was supported by 5 units of veteran archers (24 figures in 2 ranks of 12). The left-centre of the line was assigned to 5 more units of veteran archers (24 figure formations). They had 3 elephants on their immediate right as well as a command of 12 elephants to their front. A six unit formation of veteran archers (again, 24 figures in 2 ranks) stood in reserve. These troops had a small screen of skirmishers and a few elephants on their left. The left wing of the Northern Army consisted of 6 units of cavalry supported by another infantry command. Five more units of veteran archers, screened by some skirmishers and assisted by 3 elephants, waited to advance behind the trotting cavalry.

Just over three bowshots across the essentially flat and featureless field, the Rebels or Southern Alliance arranged themselves. Their right wing consisted of 14 heavy chariots reinforced by 5 units of cavalry. The first line of infantry contained 13 units of militia grade archers (36 figure formations deployed in 3 commands) screened by 4 units of skirmishers. There were 5 elephants embedded in this line. The reserve line contained 10 units of veteran archers (24 figure formations deployed in 2 commands) with 5 elephants attached to the foot regiments. There was also a command of 12 elephants posted in the centre of the reserve. The Rebel general was stationed just behind these colourful and trained-for-battle animals. The left wing of the Rebel army was guarded by 5 more units of cavalry.

Having no readily available or even interested opponent, I could not use maps for deployment or the blind (a tall divider set in the middle of the table that would allow for simultaneous deployment) suggested by the rulebook. So, I let the dice decide. In brief summary, I posed myself a series of questions and then let the roll of a six-sided die provide the answers. With this simple and quick process, the decision of where to place my elephants, chariots, and cavalry was removed from my responsibility. With this simple and quick process, I was able to eliminate bias and foreknowledge of the enemy deployment from my "plans".

How It Played
The first few turns of this fictional engagement saw the Rebels advancing faster than the troops of the Northern Army. Missiles were soon flying between the opposing battle lines. The heavy chariots on the the right wing of the Northern formations drew first blood on the day when their volleys of arrows landed among the ranks of the enemy cavalry. In the centre of the field, the various skirmisher units and their supports were also exchanging missiles. Men fell on both sides. On the Rebel centre-right, foot archers managed to score some hits against a unit of massed elephants. By the end of the fifth turn, the cavalry and chariots on both wings had been fighting for a couple of turns. It appeared pretty obvious that the cavalry of both armies was being taught a lesson by the heavy chariots of both armies. A different point of view might suggest that the chariots were paying a fairly steep price against the swarming horsemen. The foot archers in both armies seemed content to stand off at a distance and launch arrows at one another. An elephant attack was ordered against the Rebel centre-right, but the pachyderms, probably suffering from close range arrow volleys, were not able to hit the enemy line with any kind of impetus. In the ensuing melee, the Rebel archers were able to hold their position. Friendly units to the right of this contest were also able to hold their ground when charged by a small force of Northern cavalry.

At the end of the ninth turn of play, a pause was ordered and stock was taken. Against the Rebel left wing, the Northern army had scored a local victory. The Rebel cavalry was destroyed, if at some cost to the Northern chariot division. Ever so slowly, the surviving chariots started to move around the Rebel left. These wheeled vehicles were followed by a strong command of elephants. These colourfully decorated animals walked forward, it seemed, at a leisurely pace. Across the centre of the field, both armies charged with their archer regiments instead of standing back to continue to loose volley after volley of arrows. The destruction wrought by this atypical use of archers was quite evident. Gaps started to appear in the opposing lines. These gaps transformed into gaping holes as the losses mounted and the morale impact was felt. At the end of the ninth turn, only fragments of the forward lines of each army remained. Obviously, some units were in worse condition than others. Over on the Rebel right wing, there were few surviving chariots. The contest against the enemy cavalry had been won, but like the other flank, it had been a costly victory. When enemy reinforcements advanced and let fly, the chariots were severely outnumbered. The Rebels did have another formation of cavalry on this flank, but any move forward would have been subjected to at least one volley of arrows from several units of bowmen.

A check of losses suffered by both sides informed that the Rebels had taken 294 points of casualties. This figure represented 54% of their determined breaking point. The Northern Army had taken 372 points of casualties, which represented 66% of their determined breaking point. To be sure, the calculations appeared to favour the Rebels. However, another look at the field strongly suggested that the tactical advantage lay with the Northerners. They had more men to spare and more commands that were fresh. The Rebels had fewer men available, even if they had also not seen action yet. Additionally, there was the slowly developing threat to the Rebel left flank. For these reasons and others not directly related to the tabletop proceedings, the contest was halted. A marginal and rather costly win was awarded to the Northern Army.

Assessment
I should like to start with a point by point review of the adjustments and amendments.
a) This was not a proper wargame, as miniatures were not used. This is "normal" for me. I hesitate to even start adding up what the cost of traditional miniatures would have been - even for 10mm armies. 
b) There was no proper terrain either. The "aesthetic" of the features along one short-edge was certainly abstract. It did break up the green canvas of the tabletop, however. 
c) I confess to taking a little license with the deployment zones, as the Northern Army positioned a division of archers in reserve on its left wing/flank. That is sometimes a problem when staging larger-than-usual battles.
d) As I recall, there were only a few instances of massed archers shooting through or over friendly skirmishers. As both sides closed, the skirmishers scampered for cover behind friendly lines. More testing of this amendment is needed.
e) I thought that adjusting the strength of elephant or heavy chariot units as their numbers decreased worked well. The only hiccough was when half of an elephant or chariot unit had been destroyed. I was left with a counter of the original size, so contact would be made with enemy units that should not have occurred. Again, this amendment needs review and further testing. (I recall that elephants in Hail Caesar are individual models formed into units.) 
f) On reflection, I should have left the movement rates and missile ranges alone. The reduction slowed down the progress of both armies, especially in the flank zones. Had I continued the scenario, the Northern formations would have taken at least 3 more turns and probably 4, to mount a serious threat against the Rebel left.
g) Leaving the rout distance alone proved effective, perhaps too effective. Then again, it serves me right for following too close behind massed elephants.

What did I like about the "completed" engagement? Well, setting it up and playing almost 10 turns served as an excellent distraction, albeit only temporary, from more pressing concerns, be they familial, national, or international. I was able to stage a fairly large contest for little cost. I was able to gather more experience with Tactica II, and as just summarised, I think the amendments and adjustments, worked fairly well. 

What did I dislike or do I continue to struggle with? Well, having to throw handfuls of dice remains something of a bother. It is to be expected, however, with the rules and with such a large battle. I am not sure I agree with the game move sequence. I think it would be better to move the missile fire phase before the movement phase, like in Armati 2nd Edition. It struck me as curious that skirmishers have absolutely no recourse against elephants. I would have thought these fleet-footed and sparsely-clothed troops could really pester elephants. Perhaps my impression has been formed by other rules.
I am not used to lower level commanders not having an impact whatsoever on the course of the action. In the recently dismantled scenario, they seem no more than placeholders, devoid of ability and personality. I am not so sure about commands fighting to the last man or figure, or nearly so. In this contest, the cavalry and chariot divisions of both sides fought until there was essentially no one left. It seems to me that commands would lose heart at a certain point and melt away. A quick fix or amendment to this issue would be assigning a morale breakpoint to the left, centre, and right, instead of having the three combined into one large or potentially large break point. Another thought I had concerned the missile halt rules. What happens when a unit is subjected to this result twice in a row. I wondered why there was not a negative result or retreat if a unit found itself made into a "pin cushion" on Turn 5 and then again on Turn 6. I confess that I continue to struggle with the appearance of some of the melees and other interactions that took place in this wargame. For instance, it struck me as odd or unusual that a supporting unit, with just a fraction of its frontage touching the engaged enemy, would roll a full complement of dice and inflict more damage than that of the main unit. 

This bloody civil war contest was originally staged as a To The Strongest! scenario. Unfortunately, due to the size of the engagement, the activation chits were rather small, and the process of drawing, placing, and collecting these chits became a little tiring. Keeping track of all the arrow ammunition also proved a little taxing. Here again, size becomes an issue. Somewhat related to this, I recently read and enjoyed Simon's posts about the recent tournament or competition. I should really make an effort to stage smaller games. Not only of TTS, but with other rules as well.

Also somewhat related to this, I have been thinking about the recent discussion thread on/about conforming. I think there is an article in there . . . somewhere. Perhaps working on this idea will keep me away from battles that are simply too big for my small tabletop?


Notes
1. I am indebted to the creative mind(s) behind the development and formation of A Very British Civil War. Please see https://atlanteangames.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/1938-a-very-british-civil-war/.
2. The time frame or window for the Pauravan and Mauryan Indians list on pages 38-39 of the Hail Caesar Biblical & Classical Supplement is from the 5th century to 3rd century BC. There is a greater variety of troops offered in this list. The Classical Indian list on page 123 of the L'Art de la Guerre rulebook provides a time span of 500 BC to 535 AD. As with the Hail Caesar list, a greater variety of troop types is offered in this list. For example, one could field Guard Infantry with two-handed swords or maces in addition to a stampeding herd or two or three.
3. Please see "Pikes versus Pila", posted to this forum on February 19.
4. This was the historical engagement selected for Battle Day 2015. The event received quite a bit of coverage in Slingshot (Issue 301, July-August 2015), obviously, as well as an article in Wargames Illustrated.  Dr. Paul Innes, a former editor of this journal, along with a group of accomplished gamers, presented a spectacular version of the battle at Carronade. Please see http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/2015/05/hydaspes-at-carronade.html.

[simonw]

Chris,

Interesting report again. Another large game. You really are a 'sucker for punishment' giving yourself (alone) responsibility for managing such large games. We would have a minimum of 2 players a side for this, if not 3. That keeps dice rolling manageable.

I have had a quick read over and my initial comments are as follows:

1. Re. LISTS:QUOTE: "Armies in TACTICA should be used against only historical opponents but this is not mandatory; this recommendation is ignored by many gamers anyway. The Army Lists provided are just samples—ballpark representations of their historical counterparts. There is no such thing as a definitive or wholly accurate representation due to the evolution of research and because these lists are meant for convenient "pick-up" games or tournaments; they are not scenarios representing particular battles."  Now this quote from the rules is only a 'starter'. I helped to persuade Arty to include the (few) LISTS that are actually included in the present rules. Arty is not a 'fan' of 'official' army lists. Originally he was going to only include 2 or 3 as 'sample lists' with the stipulation that players should formulate their own on the basis of their historical research. Nonetheless, I have a set of 'Lists' that were originally compiled for inclusion in the rules but which, in the end were not for the reasons specified above AND also to minimise the cost of production. These include about 70 armies varying from Assyrian and Babylonian through Successor variants (Lysimachid etc.), Barbarian types (Dacians etc.) and numerous others (Sassanids, Byzantine, Goths, Mongols, Hungarians, Wars of the Roses and so on). So, it is absolutely Arty's intention that people should compile their own Lists for gaming with Tactica 2; based on Historical Research BUT also with the underlying philosophy that they will produce a 'fair' and even game between matched historical opponents. So some 'favourite' troop types can be included but not at the expense of introducing 'gimmicky supertroops'.

Accordingly, he will be pleased to see your efforts on this front!

2. Essentially however, the game you have produced is too big for the tabletop to produce the kind of free-flowing game that the rules are intended to induce. This is apparent from your photographs that show the 2 armies in multiple lines which is not really typical of the kind of (pre-Roman) deployments in the ancient world. It did happen of course upon occasion and to a greater or lesser extent but it certainly wasn't 'usual'.

3. Chariots and elephants: If you change the 'fighting figure' numbers for chariot and elephant units in proportion to unit 'casualties' as you do, you fundamentally alter the 'game balance' of these troop types. This is OK for specific scenarios but I wouldn't apply it to the rules 'in general' as this will skew game balance that was the result of years of 'trial gaming' and rules evolution. Given that chariot and elephants when used as massed units can ONLY be on a 2 model or 3 model frontage and are usually only in a single rank, personally I don't have any problem with this. In other foot and cavalry units, it is 'assumed' that the ranks behind the first 'step up' to fill gaps in the front ranks to maintain the 'full-figure' fighting capacities of the whole front rank (by and large at least  until units are effectively near-exhaustion anyway). Then to me, I can easily justify it in my mind that it's only the absence of 2nd rank models in a game that might make this appear anomalous. BUT if you think about it, each 4 horse chariot model and'or elephant model is both deeper than it is wide AND also effectively counts a 6 figures in 2 ranks. So for the most part, retaining all its melee dice even after losing one model out of 3 is effectively only the same as an infantry unit in 2 ranks suffering one third casualties. It 'appears' anomalous but really it isn't. It's only the fact that chariot and elephant models are damned expensive; too expensive to deploy on the tabletop (usually) in multiple ranks and it is also the result of the actual sizes of the models themselves.

4. I see that you don't appear to have used the elephant screen rules. These rules, in my mind is one of the strengths of Tactica 2.  I can't think of any other rules set that has such a mechanism. It really gives a better historical feel for the way that elephants were typically used in the ancient battlefield than the usual 'massed tank' type systems. I strongly recommend that you should try it out. It is a bit of an eye-opener the way that an opponent's co-ordination of attack can be so effectively disrupted. But it can also be a two-edge sword.

5. Shooting through/over skirmishers: I also have 'reservations' about this. We often (but not always) use a house rule that 'massed units' with bows can shoot over/through ENEMY skirmishers at enemy massed units behind BUT that skirmishers must shoot at any enemy skirmishers to their front (effectively as a priority target) rather than ignoring them to shoot an any enemy massed units behind . Intervening friendly skirmishers do always 'block' friendly 'fire' though.

6. 'CONFORMING': I think you know my thoughts on this from the SoA Forum. I would be ABSOLUTELY dead against applying this to TACTICA 2 which is a unit -based games system rather than a stand-based system. I'm actually against it as well  for stand-based systems as I feel that it fundamentally changes the tactical  'distribution' of forces/units in a game which thereby altering a player's 'tactical' plan/configuration MERELY as a 'convenience' for resolving a melee. In comparison, the 'stop on contact' system does not do this and is also a much simpler game-mechanism which makes 'playing the game'  less 'tiresome' process. I easily justify it to myself as in effect 'freezing the game at the point of entry' to the melee. It does NOT actually simulate the configuration and movement of individual stands/models/troops during the course of the melee or the melee itself. The melee is simply 'resolved' by the  dice rolling mechanisms. These don't actually represent 'kills/casualties' either but more just act as a measure of the gradual reduction in the combat power/resistance of the units involved in the melee with time. If you want to actually 'simulate a melee' by counting individual figures in contact etc. and using 'flowing around' mechanisms etc. them this is a completely different philosophy of game; more akin to a skirmish than a 'big battle'. So in sum, I have absolutely NO problems with the melee mechanisms in Tactica 2. Sometimes it looks a bit funny but it works and I'm fine with that. As I say, I look at is as a kind of 'black box' mechanism where the melee participants are 'frozen' in position at their point of entry into the 'black box'. I think that this is much better than using complex (and 'tiresome') 'sliding' and 'aligning' conforming protocols such as in DBM, ADLG etc. which can produce entirely 'unintended' and game-changing consequences in the distribution of stands'units'troops in the post-melee configuration. It's a kind of 'half-way house' between the 'free movement' games system and the grid-based mechanisms of 'To the Strongest' for instance.

So in sum, I would say that you certainly have used the Tactica 2 rules to conduct a 'Big Scenario' game and very interesting it is too. However, it's not really a 'test' of the Tactica 2 games system as a set of rules because the scenario specifics in effect lie 'outwith' the scope of what the rules intend to comprise a 'normal game'. A normal game would be for 25/8mm scale on an 8ft by 5 ft table, for 15mm scales a 6ft by 4 ft table and between 1750pts and 2500pts worth of arrnies on each side.

Are you ever going to get around to this? I would be 'wary' of recommending 'amendments' to the rules until you have had some more experience of more 'typical' games perhaps. For instance, our game on Monday night was a 2000pt (each) game between Antigonid  and Eumenid Successors. The Antigonids won a hard-fought contest; albeit it was a little 'messy' to my eyes. But then I was on the losing side!

However, it was 'fun' too.

Many thanks for giving me a once over your report. I certainly is most interesting to see how you're coping with the games and the rules from a relative 'newbie' viewpoint. I hope you persevere with Tactica 2; maybe on a reduced scale. I'm sure that as you become more comfortable with the game mechanisms and the philosophy behind them you will get more and more fun out of your games. I certainly recommend trying out the 'Elephant Screen' rules; either in a Successsor game or in the Indian v Macedonian matchup. Keep gaming anyway! (P.S. in the Indian v Macedonian match up, if using 2000 points at least, do NOT use fewer than 12 elephants).

Cheers and best wishes

Simon

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks Chris for your battle report and thanks Simon for your measured response. I was particularly pleased to see your note about the shooting over other bodies. I think a local rule allowing shooting over other bodies should be allowed but only if on higher ground and wouldn't countenance through skirmishers on the level

[simonw]

Dave,
Have you managed to have a game yet with your Late Romans and/or Romano-British and/or Saxons?
Cheers
Simon?

[Imperial Dave]

Not yet but if I send you a list would you mind doing a deployment plan for it?

[simonw]

Dave
Sure; no worries.
Cheers

[Chris]

Simon -

Thanks very much for taking the time to wade through my narrative and comment upon and offer constructive criticism to my latest effort and tinkering. Much appreciated.

A normal size game? 

Well, I will think about it. 

I should probably focus on the impending Battle Day and save additional Tactica II adventures for later.

Thanks again for reading and offering your review.

Cheers,
Chris

[simonw]

Chris,
No worries. The report is very interesting and comprehensive.
By 'normal' size, I mean about 2000pts a side. This will help you get a better feel for the Tactica 2 system and how it's configured to work. This will then help you when you want to expand into larger scenarios as to which rules to amend and  how best to do it.

For instance, I don't know if you're familiar with the original Tactica rules. If you are then you'll know about the 'Manoeuvre Column' rule which could easily be transferred directly into Tactica 2 for scenarios which include 'outflanking marches' for instance.

Of course, I'm willing to offer any help/advice I can if ever you want to ask.
Cheers
Simon