Stakes on a Plain

[Chris]

Frustrated by two failed attempts to adapt Justin Swanton's "Clash of the Titans" (see his battle report posted to this forum on 31 July) to my own tabletop (the first debacle was staged with heavily modified Armati 2nd Edition and super-sized armies [3-times the usual size]; the second exasperation employed slightly modified Impetvs and deployed armies numbering 8 commands with a combined total of 2,953 points), I figured - or hoped - that the third time would prove a charm and went back to the drawing board.

After briefly considering the pros and cons of switching to a different set of rules (meaning one that I don't play very often, such as Rick Priestley's Hail Caesar or Bob Bryant's Might of Arms - given my lack of success, I suppose Impetvs could be included in this list as well, though I have played more battles with these rules than with Hail Caesar), I decided to return to Armati 2nd Edition. Instead of employing very large forces for this attempt, I limited myself to armies twice the accepted size. This would entail using double the core forces and giving myself an allowance of 200 points for the purchase of bonus units. The next question revolved around the rules. Should I play them as written, or should I play them as amended? Or, should I play them somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum, understanding that this choice is subjective and a potential slippery slope.

As I wasn't pressed for time and as I thought it might be interesting to see how the planned wargame turned out, I decided that I would stage one battle using the rules  as written and then stage the same engagement with a heavily revised version of the rules. The following is a narrative of the preparations and ensuring contest using the rules as written.

The respective orders of battle were chosen from the Tournament Armies - Age of Empires lists found on the Warflute site. (Sidebar: It is interesting and instructional to compare and contrast these documents with the catalogs found in Book 2 of the DBM Lists (page 30), page 79 of Might of Arms, page 37 of Extra Impetvs 4, and pages 52-53 of the Biblical & Classical supplement book to Hail Caesar.) First up, the Seleucids.

Antiochid Seleucids  223 BC to 190 BC
Control Ratings: Heavy x 8; Light x 6; Army Breakpoint 4 + 8 = 12, and INITIATIVE 4

Core
4 x PH - Pezetairoi - key
2 x PH - Argyraspids - key
4 x LI - Peltasts
6 x SI (bows)
2  x  EL (indian) - key

Bonus
3 x HC - Xystophoroi - key 10 points per unit/30 points for all three formations
1 x HC - Companions - key 11 points for the unit/41 points total accumulated cost
1 x PH - Argyraspids - key 12/53
6 x PH - Pezetairoi - key 60/113
3 x WB - Galatians - key 24/137
2 x HC - Galatians - key 20/157
4 x LC - Dahae 24/181
1 x Scythed Chariot 6/187
1 x CAM - key 7/194
2 x SI (bows) 4/198
2 x veteran units 2/200

And the Carthaginians.

Carthage Resurgent 218 BC - 202 BC
Control Ratings: Heavy x 10; Light x 8; Army Breakpoint 4 + 11 = 15, and INITIATIVE 5

Core
4 x WB - Celts- key
2 x FT - Citizens of Allies - key
2 x HC - Spanish or Celts - key
4 x LC - Numidians
4 x SI (Balaerics - slingers)
4 x SI (Spanish or Moorish - javelins)

Bonus
6 x WB - Celts - key 7 points per unit/42 points for all 6 formations together
6 x FT - Citizens or Allies - key 48 points cost for 6 units/90 points accumulated cost
3 x FT - African or Bruttii - key 30/120
2 x  COH - Hannibal's African Elites - key 26/146
2 x LHI - Hannibal's Spanish - key 18/164
3 x HC - Spanish, African, or Allied - key 30/194
3 x SI (Spanish and African - javelins) 6/200


No points were spent on terrain. Instead, I decorated  my 6  by 4-foot table in the following manner. Close to each short-edge of the field there was a gentle hill. These measured approximately 20 cm long  by 8 cm wide. In the center of the field there was a ridge (an extended gentle hill) which measured 45 cm and 10 cm wide. In close proximity to the end of one of the smaller hills and the end of the ridge line, there was a hexagonal shaped patch of scrub (i.e., woods). In other respects, the terrain of this fictional field was featureless and flat.

Deployments
Adapting the process used by John Hasting's in his well written "Agricola Against the Ordovices" (Part 1 ran in Issue 299 and Part 2 ran in Issue 300 of SLINGSHOT), I rolled two six-sided dice (each of a certain color - one for the Carthaginians and one for the Seleucids) and awarded the high roll the near long-edge of the table. This army was then sent up per the established deployment zone rules. (As my tabletop was 72-inches long, I extended the 15 mm deployment zones to 14 inches for each flank and 36 inches for the center; the off limit zones were kept at 4 inches.) When done, the arrangement was carefully covered with a number of green hanging file folders so that no part of the deployment could be seen. Then I waited a week or so to make sure that my mind was filled with other concerns and details. After seven days or so, I went back to the table and deployed the other army. Only after this set up was completed did I remove (again, carefully) the folders that created a bit of the "fog of war."

Battle
Borrowing and then adapting a page from Messieurs Grindlay, Bradley, and Auger (see their "Glasgow Armati Battle Reports" in the May/June 2015 issue of SLINGSHOT; I believe Vincent is the only true Frenchman), I thought it might be entertaining to describe the tabletop action solely from the perspective of Hahnno (or perhaps Hanno . . . it has a better ring to it), the Carthaginian general.


I'll leave it to one of my cousins to deal with/handle those unpredictable elephants. Give me more soldiers any day. Guessing that I would be facing a phalanx and perhaps a few "funny" types, I decided on a fairly traditional, even conservative, deployment. I split my cavalry between the flanks, assigning 2 light and 2 heavy units to the left and 2 light and 3 heavy units to the right. I added 5 units of skirmishers (arranged in a line) on the left flank, positioned between the Numidians and their heavier brothers. As for my center, well, it was a goulash of troops. The line had bookends of Celtiberian warbands (divisions of 3 units deployed wide) placed forward of 2 divisions of Allied infantry and Bruttii foot. The division on the left contained 5 units and the one on the right contained 4 units. In the approximate center of my battle line, I placed 4 units of Celtiberians deployed in depth. In proximity of the Celt bookends, I positioned units of Spanish light-heavy infantry. In reserve, I arranged my 4 units of Citizen infantry and the 2 units of African elites. These veterans were deployed in depth, just like the Celtiberian warriors in the center. Two small screens of skirmishers (3 units of slingers and javelinmen) "covered" the front of the Allied and Bruttii formations.

My plan? Hold on the flanks and overwhelm him in the center. I hope to be able to handle his elephants and not become too involved with his "funny" troops. I also hope that I will be able to attack the flanks of his phalanx.

Well, I've lost one of my Numidian units on the left flank already (Three turns have been completed.) If I can get my skirmishers into the scrub, they should be safe from those Seleucid peltasts. Should be . . . If the Celtiberians can handle the elephants, that should free my small division of heavy horse to get in on the right flank and rear of the enemy. I'll just have to make sure to steer clear of those camels. In the center, my deployed in depth Celtiberians have taken the ridge. There are enemy skirmishers to their front; these "gnats" will be easily dispersed. My skirmishers on the left were able to take out the scythed chariots, so that's one Seleucid worry I can scratch off my list. It looks like I will be able to put more infantry on the ridge and so be in a position to counter the expected advance of the enemy's phalanx. Over on the right, my Numidians have caught the evading Dahae horse archers and have eliminated one unit. The other one is proving stubborn. My cavalry and light-heavy infantry attacked the Galatian horse and with the unfortunate exception of my Spanish infantry being broken, the melee is going my way.

I've managed to win the move option for 4 out of 6 turns so far, but that cannot last as my initiative rating is down to zero due to divisions being split by melee and split by choice. On my right flank, the Numidians sold themselves dearly to hold up the enemy horse (the Xystophoroi). One unit was broken immediately; the other formation was able to inflict a loss on its target (huzzah!). The supporting Celtic cavalry charged home but has essentially ruined itself while only placing fatigue markers on the engaged enemy. Closer in, my Allied and Spanish horse have fallen victim to the Galatian nobles. These barbarians were wounded in the process however, and both units are now exhausted. As predicted, my main line was able to gain the ridge and prepare itself for the enemy advance. Unfortunately, my Celtiberians were bothered by the good shooting of some enemy skirmishers and even though they had the advantage of the upper slope, the warriors were really no match for the attacking phalanx. One unit was broken and 2 others are on the verge of collapsing. The group on the right seems to be doing better. A portion of this division has moved into the scrub near the end of the ridge and engaged some Galatian warriors. The rest of the division kept going forward. I hope they will be able to wheel and move back to the center of the contest.

On the left end of the ridge, I've lost a unit of Allied foot to a charge by Seleucid Companion cavalry. Fortunately, my Bruttii foot stood their ground against these heavy horsemen. To the left, my poor Celtiberians were broken and then bashed in even more by the enemy elephants. The local defeat wasn't a complete waste though; both of the elephant units are exhausted and one is very close to breaking. Further left, a couple of my skirmishers were dispersed by enemy light infantry, but I managed to catch these enemy troops with my heavy cavalry and run them to ground after a sharp fight. Enemy camels were looking to get after the flank of my Celtiberians, and in so doing, opened themselves up to an attack by by Numidians. The melee has gone back and forth; both sides teeter on the edge of elimination. I've chosen to ignore the Dahae horse archers that are working their way around my left rear. They have too far to go to have any significant impact. I am hoping to get my heavy cavalry and surviving unit of Celts wheeled and moving toward the enemy's right flank. My foot soldiers will have to hold out against the best troops of the Seleucid phalanx however. Not an easy task by any means.

Perhaps it is too late, but I've started moving up my reserve line of Citizens and African veterans. I expect that there will be enemy cavalry coming after me soon. Looking over the field, it does not appear that it's a good day to be a Carthaginian. The army has lost 7 key units and is on the verge of losing 3 more. After 6 turns of battle, I haven't managed to rout a single key unit of Seleucids. Bah!

Unfortunately, it appears that it is quite too late. Four more of my key units have broken (1 succumbed to arrow fire; the other 3 were routed in melee), and the situation looks dire indeed. My right is no more. There are 5 units of enemy heavy horse gearing up to sweep across the level ground and take on my reserve formation. On the ridge, that bloody ridge, my center is nearly wiped out and I cannot think that my Allied foot will stand against the Argyraspids.

I am going to conceded the battle and save myself further embarrassment or worse, complete annihilation. Double-bah . . . If only I had chosen 1 unit of elephants, I could have placed them on my right and . . .

Assessment
To my chagrin, the Carthaginians were defeated soundly. Granted, the wargame was not officially over, but I could certainly tell that the Phoenician script was etched upon the wall. I thought I had the numbers and position. It seems that these advantages do not matter a jot if the dice decided to turn against you.

In my amateur opinion, using the rules as written provided a clean and surprisingly quick battle. To be certain, yielding at the end of Turn 7 shortened the engagement quite a bit but carrying on seemed rather futile. The deep ranks of the Seleucid phalanx doubled or tripled the melee power focused on my line, and the Allied foot and especially Celtiberian warriors just could not stand their ground. In other respects, however, employing the rules as written seemed a bit stilted, for lack of a better word. For example, one of my key units of Spanish light-heavy infantry was put down by long range arrows from those annoying Dahae horse archers. While the dice certainly failed me here, it seems arguable that a modifier could be applied to the protection rating of a unit taking fire at long range or to the shooting value of a unit conducting the fire. In some respects, too, it seems odd that friendly heavy cavalry would just stand by while a group of friendly light cavalry galloped in against enemy horse. One would think, unless I'm much mistaken, that the heavy cavalry would support their light-weight friends. To be sure, I can see the mixture of friendly light and heavy against enemy heavy becoming something of a mess, but the addition of a melee modifier or perhaps two would address this situation and allow the cooperation of friendly formations.

Originally, I stated that I was intent upon staging 2 battles between Carthaginians and Seleucids so that I could compare the experience of using the rules as written and the rules as heavily modified. However, I now find myself somewhat pressed for time and so, do not think that I will be able to stage a rematch of this decidedly one-sided contest. Given the performance of the Carthaginians on my table (they did better in Justin Swanton's contest even if they still lost), I wonder if heavily modified rules would make all that much difference. My purpose with the rule amendments and variations is not to make the Carthaginians into Seleucid killers, it is to make the wargame experience and experiments more historical, more realistic, and thus, more enjoyable.

When my schedule does permit it, perhaps I will stage the second part of this contest. My guess is that my interests will have drifted elsewhere by then. And there's nothing terribly wrong with that.

[Chris]

Well, at least it's not as bad as "Legion vs Legion."

Yet, anyway. 

[Patrick Waterson]

I think the result was about right, or at any rate what I would expect between more or less numerically equal Carthaginian and Seleucid armies.

Carthaginians traditionally had an indifferent track record against Greek armies, taking forever to try and subdue Sicily and getting the occasional serious upset in the process (Gelo's victory at Himera in 480 BC; Agathocles' campaigns in Africa - out of interest, the battlefield at Himera has been found and partly excavated), and they did no better against Romans until they acquired good battlefield leaders (Xanthippus, Hamilcar, Hannibal).

Their track record against Seleucids would probably depend upon the leadership on both sides.  I rate the Seleucid army as having several advantages over the Carthaginians in a straight fight on a level plain: better elephants, better cavalry and more effective infantry being the obvious ones.  With equal leadership, the Seleucids would be likely to prevail.  If however we had Antiochus III versus Hannibal, the Seleucids would probably win on Antiochus' wing while Hannibal took apart the rest of their line in their C-in-C's absence.

Having said all that, if the system used depends heavily upon dice then sooner or later they will assuredly turn against you.  We have all known it happen, Steve Neate more than most.