Being tales for those who have trouble sleeping or need to get out more......
Not sure if this heading is supposed to be for this sort of thing, but we'll see. I attach two recent battle write ups of my solo 6mm battles.
The first has appeared in the Greek army research thread and did spark some discussion which has morphed into the Command and Control thread.
The second (Trinovantes v Spartans) was a re-fight of an earlier battle between the Trinovantes and the Athenians. Whilst I couldn't re-create the random dice throws and had tweaked the rules a bit, the terrain and the Trinovante battle plans were the same. The Athenians won but the Spartans didn't, and I'm struggling to work out what might be stopping the Spartans recreating their historical reputation.
Any comments or feedback welcome.
David, I think the root of the problem is, as you point out, here.
"This warband then felt strong enough to take on the Spartiates. At this point the Spartan morale
started to falter. The Laconians were unwilling to support the Spartiates and the Tegans and
Messene allies clung to the hills worrying about the flanking troops appearing behind them."
The question is: why?
Actually there are two questions:
1) why do irregular warbands do so well against Spartan and allied hoplites, and
2) why did Laconian morale fail at the critical point in the battle?
Patrick
Interesting battles, David. To add to Patrick's questions, why did the Laconians fail to support the Spartiates in the second battle? Was that a command and control failure or a morale failure?
They're nice looking games, and as I also use hex mats occasionally I'd be interested to know what rules you are using. I used to use Commands & Colors: Ancients, but have gone off those rules a bit of late.
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron,
The rules are of my own design (as featured in Slingshot 282) and so feature quite a lot of my own "preferences" which may not be historically accurate.
Patrick and Aaron,
The Laconians failed to support because of low morale. The two units in that division were at 13% and 42% respectively. They also had enemy chariots close by and several unengaged enemy divisions in adjacent hexes. Both of these factors, together with their losses made them unwilling to attack heavier or larger enemy formations although they would have stood to receive a charge.
The warband by contrast was still at nearly 75% strength, had won their most recent melee, their general behind urging them on and generally got carried away.
The Trinovantes are classified as "barbarians" and not "irregulars". I use both classifications. Barbarians tend to start with higher morale than irregulars (and regulars) and enjoy a different scale at which their morale decays making them more resilient when things get tougher. They are also "warriors" as opposed to "peasants" which improves their weapon skill dice.
I have tweaked the weapon skill dice that the "elite" troops (e.g. Spartiates and Laconians) use as this might improve their edge and at some point I ought to try out downgrading the warbands to peasants to see if that has an impact. I've also altered the way the collective morale of an army is calculated which might tip the scales more in favour of the early victors.
Of course this might not have the desired outcomes......
One learns by experimentation, just as in real life. :)
Because Spartan hoplites never met Britons in combat (at least as far as we know) we do not have a direct guide for expected results. However, given the ease with which hoplite armies in their heyday mastered every military system pitted against them, with the occasional exception such as Aetolians in rough country, I would expect hoplite losses against warbands to be quite low even if the fight took some time to decide, and would expect hoplites of Spartan calibre to show a clear superiority in combat.
Ergo, to restore the Spartans to their historical prominence they need to get better and/or their opponents need to get worse. The changes you suggest look promising, and will force the Trinovantes to rely on outflanking to win a success. This would see a cunning Spartan general pick a narrow battlefield precisely to avoid being outflanked, just as Suetonius Paullinus did against Boadicea (Boudicca). The resultant zero-sum situation (narrow battlefield = Spartans win; wide battlefield = Spartans lose) would probably be not too far from what one would expect in real life (had British tourists made it to the Med back then) and would mean one side or the other would have to adapt its style quite radically if it found itself caught on an unfavourable battlefield.
Thus, on a wide battlefield the Spartans would perhaps be driven to trying a double-line deployment which might even end up as a hollow rectangle (not unlike Alexander the Great at Gaugamela, but unless they can hit something valuable they are not guaranteed the same result!) and Trinovantes on a narrow battlefield would quickly catch on that the opposing left is the place you want to hit with your best warbands in deep columns whereas the enemy right, with the good troops, just needs to be kept occupied by something it would not break your heart (and more importantly your army's morale) to lose.
Anyway, enough waffle on my part. Pray proceed and play.
Patrick
Could the Trinovantes (Are they Essex Boys?) pull off an outflank in open field? I rather think they would have to set up an ambush and that means meeting the Spartans in woods or cut up terrain.
I suppose masses of chariots might disconcert the Spartan cavalry who are a poor lot and then proceed to skirmish with the Spartans and hope for a Sphacteria effect?
Roy
Given an opponent of limited frontage and scant mounted forces, I would expect the Trinovantes to have - and probably be able to use - considerable overlap capability. A thundering horde of Gallic chariots almost turned the fortunes of the day at Sentinum, and a thundering horde of British chariots in a similar situation might well do the same.
One suspects that a Spartan army with Trinovantes foot ahead and Trinovantes chariots behind is not necessarily going to be a bookmaker's favourite.
While the Trinovantes might well hope to pull off an ambush in difficult terrain, such an action would need the cooperation of the Spartan commander ("Oh, look, some difficult terrain: let us march blindly through it in a narrow column rather than, say, sending cavalry and psiloi to reconnoitre") - some Roman commanders could be (and were) thus obliging, but a Spartan king or general with this degree of incompetence would be a rare find.
Another report for those still struggling to get to sleep....
This was the first time out for the Athenians in their new command structure. As a result of the "command and control" thread discussion I moved all the hoplites into a single command under the Strategos, rather than spreading them about. This had quite an interesting impact.
I'm still painting up more Thebans, so my small Corinthian army were pressed into service as their allies to balance up the sides. For once the Corinthians actually did more than stand on the periphery.
The moral seems to be not to let the C-in-C die. ;)
I wonder if the effect of a C-in-C's death may be overrated. In hoplite battles where the C-in-C came a cropper, his side sometimes lost (Leuctra, Amphipolis) but occasionally won (2nd Mantinea), and while his demise certainly did not help his side it does not seem to have precipitated a flight.
My impression is that the loss of the C-in-C in a hoplite battle would remove the positives associated with his presence/existence but not add any negatives (at Leuctra the Spartans fought like tigers to recover Cleombrotus' body and only then succumbed to Theban pressure), unlike a Hellenistic battle where if the king goes down one can expect his forces to follow suit.
When one had an elected/appointed strategos leading the field, his loss did not seem to have quite the same impact.
Having finally managed to paint a few more Persians (they seem to take forever for some reason), I wanted to try them out but in something a little different from the usual line them up style battle. Hence the invasion scenario with some elements from various real life battles. It was an interesting and probably the longest (in terms of duration) battle I've fought going well into the 12th period before it really became obvious which side had lost.
Interesting fight, with a couple of unusual elements:
1) The Persians were handled rather well while the Greeks were handled noticeably badly (historically it was usually the other way round, but players are players).
2) The Thebans were fighting against the Persians. This must be unique. ;)
One feature of these actions is the appearance of poor quality Greek 'militia' in the Greek OB - my impression of the period is that Greek citizen troops were generally of fairly uniform status and fairly good quality. Where they made up numbers was in fielding large numbers of light infantry (psiloi) - at least one per hoplite - and although these do not feature much in Herodotus' and Thucydides' accounts, their skirmishing potential is evident (and, in cases such as Sphacteria, explicit).
Would it be worth considering dropping 'poor' status altogether for Greek troops?
Thanks for the feedback Patrick - As it was a solo battle, I hope the difference in handling reflected the different structures of the two sides (the Persians were a single army with subordinate corps all them of commanded by "loyal" officers whereas the Greeks were 3 different allied armies) rather than any disturbing personality traits on my part.
The relative morale of the two sides may have played a more significant part. WRG "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars" indicates that the hoplite levies were really part-time troops with limited training in most cases and the Osprey "Plataea 479" suggests that the Persians should be regarded as more professional than the Greeks. These observations may have caused my classifications to become too skewed, but apart from Plataea do we have any record of the Immortals in battle? (I'll ask on the army research thread and see if there is a response)
Raising the Greek militia to the next skill level ("trained") would have made a minimal change under my rules as the majority of the dice used for assessing damage is dependent upon formation and fighting style irrespective of training levels and morale class. The upgrade would have changed their weapon skill die from 2,1,1,0,0,0 to 2,1,1,1,0,0 which doesn't alter the odds much. Moving to the "elite" level does though!
The one time the Immortals did enter combat against Greek troops (apart from Plataea) was at Thermopylae, where they met the foes they loved to hate: the Spartans. Also present were various other Greek contingents, and:
"When the Medes had been roughly handled, they retired, and the Persians whom the king called Immortals, led by Hydarnes, attacked in turn. It was thought that they would easily accomplish the task. [2] When they joined battle with the Hellenes, they fared neither better nor worse than the Median army, since they used shorter spears than the Hellenes and could not use their numbers fighting in a narrow space. [3] The Lacedaemonians fought memorably, showing themselves skilled fighters amidst unskilled on many occasions, as when they would turn their backs and feign flight. The barbarians would see them fleeing and give chase with shouting and noise, but when the Lacedaemonians were overtaken, they would turn to face the barbarians and overthrow innumerable Persians. A few of the Spartans themselves were also slain. When the Persians could gain no inch of the pass, attacking by companies [telea = large formations] and in every other fashion, they withdrew.
It is said that during these assaults in the battle the king, as he watched, jumped up three times from the throne in fear for his army. This, then, is how the fighting progressed, and on the next day the barbarians fought no better. They joined battle supposing that their enemies, being so few, were now disabled by wounds and could no longer resist. [2] The Hellenes, however, stood ordered in ranks by nation, and each of them fought in turn, except the Phocians, who were posted on the mountain to guard the path. When the Persians found nothing different from what they saw the day before, they withdrew." - Herodotus II.211-212
The designation 'militia' for Greek citizen infantry is highly misleading. Greek citizen troops were the best infantry in the world in the 5th century BC, and on the Persian side only the Immortals even came close. Persians - especially the Immortals - were brave, even suicidally brave, but were quite outclassed both in terms of equipment and training. Regarding the Persians as 'more professional' than the Greeks is especially misleading as it gives the impression that Persian equipment, training and tactics were superior whereas it was actually the other way around.
A good demonstration of this is that after Cyrus the Younger made his unsuccessful bid for the Persian throne Persia's rulers did not field additional 'professional' troops on the pattern of the Immortals but started hiring mercenary Greeks in considerable numbers and relying on them as the cutting edge of Persian armies.
The description of the Lacedaemonians pretending to run away and then turning on their pursuers doesn't sound like our traditional interpretation of how hoplites fought. It sounds more like the actions of a Homeric hero from a previous era. If our interpretation is right that hoplites fought in close order with overlapping shields and in deepish formations then I'm not too sure how I can picture this working. I know there is some evidence for the Spartans having lightly armoured hoplites (Figure 17 in WRG's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars) but these seemed to used for chasing off skirmishers rather than taunting the opposition and then giving an exhibition bout in front of their mates.
Spartans actually seem to have been quite versatile: Xenophon comments favourably on their extensive training. In a straight hoplite battle they usually have little scope to display their full repertoire, but in a situation like Thermopylae they can exercise their talents to the full.
The break-off-run-counterattack technique is particularly interesting. Against other Greeks this might or might not work, but the Medes and Persians obligingly interpreted retirement as flight, and chased after them with severe loss of order and formation. The Spartans knew what they were going to do (so had obviously been practising) and their opponents had no idea what was about to happen (it presumably took place behind the wall, out of sight of the rest of the army, so was a fresh surprise for every contingent sucked into the trap).
Leonidas' men seem to have been using the break order - move fast - regain order principle that seems to have lain behind a number of classical manoeuvres. In this case, a swift about-turn followed by each file putting distance between itself and the foe, then another about-turn and rapid adjustment into a perfect line followed by a charge against a now disordered foe would be doubly effective, as the shock of seeing the Spartans suddenly facing them in perfect fighting formation would paralyse counter-action and inhibit reforming to meet the Spartan charge.
Spartans were highly-trained, and royal retinues probably the most highly-trained of all. The unique circumstances of Thermopylae allowed them to use tactics which may have been part of their normal repertoire or may have been devised specially by Leonidas for the occasion.
Another tale for those who really ought to have something better to do...
More of a simpler line them up and set them off style battle this time.
Oh no! Another boring battle report for those who need some help to drift off...
This was essentially a re-play of a battle I fought in November (but didn't write up). Since then I had tweaked the rules (as one does) to give the hoplites a bit more "umpf" and give the CinCs an additional characteristic (the Spartan was "royal" and the Theban a "warlord"). Despite these changes, the end the result was much the same, including that most of the terrain wasn't used, and moved the Spartans firmly to the bottom of my success league.
Lovely terrain and fine report, David! Good stuff.
Agreed. Great battle report with a nice mix of photos and narrative with tactical analysis of the result. Good enough for a Slingshot battle-report :)
Interesting report and well laid-out. Just one suggestion: might it be an idea to fix a camera overhead and get a panoramic shot of the battlefield at the end of each player turn? Just so one can readily see where each unit is by rapport with the rest of the army.
Can cameras be remote operated?
I'm afraid the keyboard and the camera shutter have both clicked and another battle report has appeared. Greeks again (sorry) but hopefully I've referenced the photographs a bit better.
This was the first battle I've fought after a major change to the melee calculations. Instead of a focus on precise positioning to calculate casualties inflicted and received I now use a more generic approach with emphasis on the degree and style of involvement and also have a new way to try to make the die rolls more consistent and reflective of skill levels.
The Athenians were also fielding some new troops for the first time. Hopefully this will be their final configuration, but I've thought that before....
This was planned to be a straight forward battle between two of my smaller armies that tend to be relegated to the support or ally role in bigger battles. This was to be the opportunity for them to shine (or not) in their own light.
However, when setting up a previous battle I noticed all the urban terrain I had "created" but never used. I decided this was the opportunity to change that.
Love the terrain.
It strikes me that you're using 6mm figures as they should be used, in battles that include some of the pre-battle stuff. Rather than just lining up in formal battle
Jim
This is a larger battle than the last one - about 30,000 aside (over 1,200 figures in total) - between my Persians and a Greek alliance.
Being that much bigger I found that trying to write up the report in my normal style would either result in a novel or be too summarised to make interesting reading, so I explored an option that may be more suited to the digital age by creating an animated Powerpoint presentation.
Unfortunately, even in slide show format the file was too large to load so I had to tinker with it (cut the size of the photos down so I could squeeze the arrows into the margins) and turn it into a pdf. I'm not sure if this works as a concept but, depending upon feedback, it might be worth trialling again but using a different source application.
Feedback both technical and gaming welcome.
I loved the layouts for the battles recorded.
The Persian/Greek battle was especially well presented and narrated.
Whether the intention was a Platea refight I am sure I am not the only one to see the similarities. This time the Persians won. Perhaps it was more of a close run thing than envisaged.
Having just finished painting some Megarans and a few more Theban allies, I was looking for an opportunity to use them along with some hills I purchased at Salute in April. Flicking through the WRG "Armies of the Greek and Persian Wars" I came across Delium (424BC) and thought that would do as a basis. The Athenians would be supported by the Megarans and the Thebans could have the Corinthians to balance the numbers out and I even had a temple too!
So off I went and the rest - as they say - was nothing like history.....
PS. Somewhat surprised (but pleased) to see this thread has passed the 1,000 view mark. Is this a record?
PPS. I don't think most of them have been me.
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 21, 2015, 08:30:07 PM
PS. Somewhat surprised (but pleased) to see this thread has passed the 1,000 view mark. Is this a record?
Not quite a forum record - there are some over 3000 in army research. Might be a section record though.
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 21, 2015, 08:30:07 PM
Having just finished painting some Megarans and a few more Theban allies, I was looking for an opportunity to use them along with some hills I purchased at Salute in April. Flicking through the WRG "Armies of the Greek and Persian Wars" I came across Delium (424BC) and thought that would do as a basis. The Athenians would be supported by the Megarans and the Thebans could have the Corinthians to balance the numbers out and I even had a temple too!
So off I went and the rest - as they say - was nothing like history.....
Indeed: the Thebans appear to have scored a noteworthy 'own goal' with their battle-plan, which seems to have relied on the Leuctra/Second Mantinea 'best on the left, deep as you can get' approach but without the flank guards, an omission which quickly made itself felt.
Even so, the battle might have gone more like history despite the different deployment if the Theban cavalry had managed to stay out of action until both armies were engaged and it could drop in on the Athenian flank.
Good battle report, Dave.
Yes Patrick, my Theban commander tends to like to play the gang up on the left card a bit too often, but then some of the Greek commanders do tend to follow certain patterns. I was surprised in this encounter that the Corinthians hang around for so long and did stand up to an initial charge. Usually the cautious nature of their strategos and the low morale of their troops tends to make them a bit edgy and reluctant to engage and they spend most of the battle as bystanders.
I think this paragraph summarises why:
"The Megarans plucked up their courage to attack the Corinthians who were now becoming a bit more doubtful but they stood their ground. A combination of being uphill and slightly better dice gave the advantage to the Corinthian Strategos who cut his opposite number down and heavy missile fire from the Corinthian light troops weakened the poorer Megaran hoplites. Very quickly all the Megarans were in rout."
Being attacked uphill by a force about half their size and killing the opposing strategos doubtless helped. It looks like a good recipe to follow in future. ;)
I was fortunate enough over the summer period to get the opportunity to fight three battles. I've written up the two that might be the least boring in a shortened form.
However, if you are interested in battles with some sort of historical reality then you probably need to "look away now".
Two interesting battles and I do like the terrain :)
Thanks Jim. I'm quite impressed with the terrain too - especially when I compare it back to green cloths and beer mat based woods I was using back in the 80's. It does take a while to set up (even allowing for the carrying of the boxes from their storage cupboard to the dining room) but I'm getting a bit quicker at it.
I think it's worth the effort ;)
Another battle with probably too much terrain on the battlefield. But it was a good excuse for some extremely odd tactical decisions and probably a fair representation of the local area on a wet day in late autumn.
The games always look good 8)
The Greek force seems to have had much the same capabilities against the Trinovantes as a Roman one: the Britons' best bet is to skirmish with mobile forces and avoid any large-scale clash completely. If such a clash becomes inevitable, putting some vexing terrain between oneself and the classical types seems necessary, but it appears anything short of a complete river is likely to be inadequate.
One gets an insight into why Caractacus' method of waging war against the invaders (as with Cassivellaunus earlier) was plenty of mounted hit-and-run, meanwhile avoiding battle unless his infantry could defend a river, hill fort or both.
The first battle of 2016 and two new armies as well!
To understand why the Thessalians may be Greek "but not as we know them Jim" you will need to read Robert Heiligers' article in Slingshot 299 and also the discussion (probably a few years back) on the army research thread about Greeks. I've taken the view that most of the infantry weren't hoplites just to make them different from my other Greek armies.
I admit the Persians are very fictional. The army is supposed to represent that of the Satrapy of Somewherefarawai (keep saying it and it might come to you) which I've placed in far north-east of the Empire, hence the Bactrian and Saka allies.
Having been inspired by some of Justin's work on animated battle reports, I'd thought I'd try to see if I could do something similar and see how it worked for my rules.
Well, I did but unfortunately the resultant pdf was a touch too big to be uploaded to this forum. So if you are interested you'll have to visit https://veryverylittlewars.wordpress.com/ and have a look at Battle 55. The result isn't as polished or as entertaining as Justin's output but may be this style could be a different way forward to the more typical narrative and occasional photograph article.
Views and comments welcome.
This is brilliant. Very clear - I was able to use my mouse wheel to go backwards and forwards to see exactly what was going on. I definitely encourage you to do battle reports like this in future. First rate!
Second Mr. Swanton's opinion.
A visual feast . . . pictures next to maps with captions. Appreciated the introduction and conclusion as well.
Excellent presentation, Dave. The action is easy to follow and distinctly clearer than the traditional narrative with photos.
Picking up on Patrick's comments, I wonder if this might indicate a "sea change" in the format of battle reports?
Should we try to imitate this style? What kind of impact will this have on future issues of Slingshot?
Are maps and pictures with captions better than maps and pictures with text?
The comments made by Justin, myself, and Patrick would seem to point to the affirmative.
I think the response from me is not necessarily as a lot would depend on the media and the rules and how much detail readers / viewers wanted.
I followed up on Justin's ideas of an overhead viewpoint following comments that sometimes - despite wonderful photography on my part - it was difficult to follow everything through but still wanted to include shots of the figures to remind everybody that the little figures did run about. I wouldn't think this style of presentation would suit the printed format typically well.
Potentially Slingshot could carry a synopsis of a battle with some photographic highlights (much the same as a newspaper report of a football match) and then readers could go on-line to "view the video".
IF I get time over the next few days I'll try and draft up what might be the Slingshot version of the battle for consideration / comparison.
Go for it!
The attached is a little rough round the edges and might warrant a bit more time to tidy up but is reasonable as a first stab.
I've tried not to dwell on detail but give an overall feel for the armies, the tactics and the major incidents or flow in the battle. Whether a few more photographs might have helped or a more round-by-round summary, I'm not sure.
However I did manage to keep it to 2 sides of A4 (a typical requirement when writing reports for work) so it could be about the right size for a Slingshot article.
Having read the Society's publication "Simple Campaigning" whilst on holiday, I borrowed a few ideas to generate the mechanisms to allow me to simulate the seemingly random Greek wars fought in the period between the Persian invasions and the rise of Macedonia. I'm adding more details on the mechanics as I develop them to www.veryverylittlewars-wordpress.com for those who are fed up with the football.
The attached document summarises the encounters that happened during the first campaign of the first war, when Tanagara decided to invade Tegea (no real reason just the way the dice rolled).
The concept of the "retreat" encounter was generated from the ideas in the WRG "Setting Up A Wargames Campaign". Other encounter types could have occurred if the initial battle had ended differently.
Nice work, Dave.
For various reasons we players rarely if ever conduct an operational/strategic retreat and follow-up on the tabletop, so it is nice to see these neglected activities aired for once.
John G-L's Simple Campaigning is a gem. One of these days I shall finish a review of it; one of the hidden advantages is that one can 'borrow' the concepts and extend them to other settings, as you have done.
Another battle, another write up (sorry chaps).
Again somewhat fictional in terms of opponents and general context (i.e. an early geographical error meant that East Anglia was joined on to the north east area of Persia enabling the Trinovantes to mount an invasion).
Attached is the Slingshot style narrative and a few photographs article. For those who want a more detailed period by period story please go to www.veryverylittlewars-wordpress.com and look up Battle 56.
Chris,
Sorry if the links didn't work. I've just tried them and they seemed to work OK for me whether I went from the home page or the battles page.
I attach a pdf with where I've highlighted the links, if you can let me know which one(s) didn't work for you I can check further. (might be best to send a message rather than post a reply).
https://veryverylittlewars.wordpress.com/ Link to site should be as to the left.
Thanks for the comments on the article.
For those bored of elections, attached is a write up of a recent battle.
The Athenians should be fairly recognisable, but some of you may blink at the Persians. This particular Persian army is my representation of a Satrap's force from some where far away in the north east corner of the empire. Highly conjectural and suspicious I know.
For those who are really bored a longer version in a slide format exists on my website.
Very thorough and interesting battle report, and beautiful photos. The terrain pieces make my mouth water.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on May 19, 2017, 06:14:39 PM
Very thorough and interesting battle report, and beautiful photos. The terrain pieces make my mouth water.
yes David's terrain is something else :-)
never really looked at hex terrain before but yes it does look somewhat gorgeous
Guessing at the dimensions of the field/table: 6 or 7 feet by 3?
If I recall correctly, figures are 6-10mm and rules are of David's own design. (Seem to recall an article about leadership in a previous issue of Slingshot . . .)
Agree with the assessments regarding the terrain. Guessing here too that the hexes are polystyrene or some such. (Reminds me of Kallistra products.)
Playing surface appears very clean . . . Reading numerous ADLG reports on TMP, the field/table is often awash in plastic casualty markers, various devices and dice, and even the oddly large command figure.
Thanks for posting/sharing David. Provides inspiration or at least ideas to many, I am sure.
Cheers,
Chris
Thanks for the positive comments guys.
The hexes are Kallistra (https://www.kallistra.co.uk/) mostly flocked by them although I've decorated some plain ones myself (woods and rough terrain).
The table is about 1.6m by 1m (or 63in by 36in in old money).
Figures are 6mm - mostly Baccus - and rules are my own (was an article in Slingshot about issue 282 and I've prattled about them in various threads or there is some detail on my website). All the information for a battle is held within an Excel spreadsheet and as the hex is the universal measure there is not much paraphernalia apart from a few dice, hence the clean battlefield although a slice of cake did appear in one photograph somewhere......
Despite having all the necessary figures at 25mm I never got round to fighting a battle with a full legion deployed. Having just recently finished my first legion at 6mm I had just had to give them a try and test out a number of rule modifications that I had been working on over the summer.
Short battle report attached. Longer version available at www.veryverylittlewars.wordpress.com for those who need an excuse to put off that really important chore....
Justifiably distracted by a splendid report, splendid table, and splendid troops (figures), I decided to delay addressing the pressing chore(s). Thanks, David. ;)
For some reason, I thought a 6mm roman legion would have been bigger . . . guess I may have been spoiled by the Pharsalus report featuring these tiny metal men.
In stark contrast to an ADLG tabletop, I did not see a single die or marker on your excellent-looking terrain. How do you keep track of what is going on? Rosters?
Very well done, IMO. Kudos!
Curious: Will you be recreating Paraetacene on or around Battle Day? I would be interested to see how you model the engagement and how your rules handle Successors.
Thanks for posting.
Chris
second that. Great report. Very well written and with good visuals. I am quite taken with the hex terrain
In response to Chris:
- the figure:real man scale I play at is 1:50 so a cohort of 400 men is represented by 8 figures on a single base. A full legion is quite easily represented by 12 bases (including a double strength first cohort, the cavalry and a bolt shooter) and fits into 3 hexes. More legions are planned!
- In the full report some dice do photobomb in one shot but I managed to avoid getting a shot of cake in this time. The monitoring aspect of both casualties and morale is held in a spreadsheet, which I think I may have bored for England on before, but always happy to drone on again if you wanted some more detail.
- The only phalangites in my collection are part of my Commagene army, so not enough for a full successor engagement. They are based in 4x4 blocks and despite low morale / weapon skill seem to punch above their weight though they haven't faced up to legionnaires nor Persian immortals yet.
Glad I was able to provide a diversion.
Quote from: dwkay57 on October 05, 2017, 08:48:37 PM
Despite having all the necessary figures at 25mm I never got round to fighting a battle with a full legion deployed. Having just recently finished my first legion at 6mm I had just had to give them a try and test out a number of rule modifications that I had been working on over the summer.
Short battle report attached. Longer version available at www.veryverylittlewars.wordpress.com for those who need an excuse to put off that really important chore....
First-rate report. I put off several chores reading the long version :).
As promised in response to the slow start to campaigning thread, my first battle of 2018.
Not the most exciting of battles perhaps, but probably the largest I've fought so far.
Short report attached. Longer (and one of them is very long) reports on my website (www.veryverylittlewars.wordpress.com) for those of you who are snowed in.
Quote from: dwkay57 on March 18, 2018, 09:17:12 PM
As promised in response to the slow start to campaigning thread, my first battle of 2018.
Not the most exciting of battles perhaps, but probably the largest I've fought so far.
Short report attached. Longer (and one of them is very long) reports on my website (www.veryverylittlewars.wordpress.com) for those of you who are snowed in.
I do like your battlefields 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on March 18, 2018, 09:29:42 PM
Quote from: dwkay57 on March 18, 2018, 09:17:12 PM
As promised in response to the slow start to campaigning thread, my first battle of 2018.
Not the most exciting of battles perhaps, but probably the largest I've fought so far.
Short report attached. Longer (and one of them is very long) reports on my website (www.veryverylittlewars.wordpress.com) for those of you who are snowed in.
I do like your battlefields 8)
I second that and the report was great, just the right balance of pictures and description for me