A Surfeit of Sassanids - Part 2

[Chris]

"Abstract" — As the title informs, this is the second  and final "chapter" of my Sassanids vs Romans scenario. As with the Armati treatment, this narrative contains several sections. There is a paragraph describing the general orders of battle. Next, I briefly consider adjustments and amendments of the rules-as-written. The third section discusses terrain, or in this particular case, the lack of it. I proceed to describe the opposing deployments and then summarise the wargame. I conclude with an assessment. There is a final section wherein I briefly compare and contrast the two rulesets employed. The reader may be interested to know that this narrative contains only 2,451 words and a single note. As I included a Spoiler alert in the first installment, I will offer one here. Skip this sentence if you don't want to find out that the battle was a bloody draw.



The Art de la Guerre Getaway
Orders of Battle - From List 109 on page 140, I selected approximately 800 points of Sassanid Persian troops. As one might expect or imagine, this army was rather heavy in the cavalry arm. There were 17 units of Asavaran (heavy cavalry bow) and 16 units of Cataphracts, 8 of these being classed as elite regiments. Being a fan of elephants, at least in ancient wargames and on nature specials broadcast on cable television, I drafted 12 units of these animals. The rest of the force contained light cavalry, light infantry, as well as a fair portion of levy. If the figure of 1,000 men for each heavy infantry unit is accepted, then the Sassanids had 16,000 foot. They also had 8,000 light troops. Once again, they brought 240 pachyderms to the field. The Persian host had 14,250 cavalry present. Their opponents were chosen from List 85 on page 127, and when the various values were added together, this Middle Imperial Roman army amounted to around 800 points as well. While the Romans did field some cavalry formations, their strength resided in their auxiliary troops and legions. For the former type, the Romans drafted 26 units. As for legions, 30 units were present on the model field. Eight of these units (heavy swordsmen with impact) were rated as elite. A small portion of this infantry-heavy force consisted of light cavalry and light infantry. The Romans also purchased 4 units of light artillery. (Typical or traditional ADLG wargames involve much smaller forces. The point value of each army adds up to 200 points. See for example: https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-hambone.html, https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2019/05/bedlam-2-round-1-greeks-vs-ptolemaic.html, and http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/BHGS_Challenge_2017_1.php.)

Adjustments - None, at least as far as the rules-as-written were concerned. I did make some changes, however, with regard to unit depiction. As usual, coloured counters were employed. The frontage of these counters was a uniform 1.5 inches (3.81 centimetres). The depth of these units varied, depending on their type. Missile ranges and movement rates were measured with computer-produced rulers, each having 6 "blocks" measuring 1.5 inches on a side. Referring to both 'Terrain Size and Shape' on page 63 and 'Terrain and deployment' on page 76, it appeared that the size of my terrain features or elements could be increased to a template measuring 12 UD or 18 inches.

Terrain - A thicker and dark green cloth was substituted for the previous light-weight and tan (sand) coloured cloth used in the Armati scenario. I went back and forth about which way to go with regard to landscaping the tabletop. I could follow the terrain selection, placement, and movement rules provided in the rulebook. I could try to model the field from a battle in history, like Cynoscephalae or Metaurus. I could also choose not to bother with terrain features at all and deploy the opposing forces on a simple, flat stretch of green. After spending a couple of days weighing the pros and cons of each option, and making lists, I decided on the simplest course of action. [1]

Deployment - On the evening of 04 November, a "no-man's land" 10 UDs wide (range of foot bows times 2.5) was established. The opposing armies were deployed for battle in the 17 inches remaining on either long-edge of the table. The Romans arrange their various commands or corps in a fairly traditional manner. They had cavalry on the wings. The light horse was forward of the heavier squadrons. Each wing also has a small reserve of horse. The Clibanarii were on the right. The main line consisted of auxiliaries supported by legionaries. In greater detail, the Lanciarii were positioned in the centre; the auxiliaries with integral archer support were to their right. In the second formation, the elite legionaries were stationed behind the Lanciarii. To their right and left were long lines of regular legionaries. The four "batteries" of light artillery were with this line. The army commander was located in the centre of the centre, protected by three select units of elite legionaries. On the other side of the flat field, the Sassanids deployed horse archers and Arabs on their left wing. These light troops were reinforced by Asavaran as well as a corps of cataphracts. The centre of the position was a fairly thick mixture of elephants, light-medium troops, mediocre medium spearmen, and levy. There were more than several units of skirmishers present as well. The right wing was essentially a duplicate of the left flank formation, but without the Arab contingent. Triple-checking my addition, the Persians had 101 units on the table versus 90 for the Romans. The planned struggle would most likely take some time to resolve, but it was hoped that it would prove entertaining. 

Summary of the Engagement
The first losses of this battle were suffered on the Sassanid right, when an exchange of arrow volleys between opposing cavalry units saw men fall on both sides. At the end of 3 turns of play, however, more Roman units deployed on the left were whittled down and eventually routed by a combination of effective arrow volleys and close action. Things were bad enough that the reserve formation of Roman horse had to be ordered forward to prevent the left of the legionary line from being flanked. Over on the other flank, the Romans were doing a little better. Though most of their light cavalry had been destroyed, their heavy squadrons were keeping the Sassanid light horse honest. The Clibanarii regiments had been ordered forward as well, given the ground-shaking charge of a sizable formation of Asavaran. A line of Roman auxiliaries moved forward to meet these horsemen and paid a steep price for their foolhardiness. In the centre of the field, things were going rather better for the Romans. The auxiliaries and Lanciarii were proving more than a match for the tribesmen armed with javelins and the unenthusiastic Sassanid infantry. The Roman foot were even standing up to and defeating the elephants. In fact, it would be fair to comment that the Lanciarii had created something like a hole in the Persian line. They were not able to take advantage of this development, however, as there were no friendly cavalry nearby. The fighting had been chaotic and bloody thus far. The Romans had lost 16 units and an ordinary leader. They had 9 units currently disordered. The Sassanids had a dozen units in disorder. They had lost 14 units but all of their leaders and sub-commanders remained unharmed.

At the end of 6 turns of play, the Roman left was in tatters or very close to that condition. Some legionaries had been moved left to assist, but their slow rate of march put the remaining Roman cavalry in jeopardy of being wiped out. Sassanid horse archers were getting ready to wheel left and gallop across the Roman rear. A line of auxiliaries tried to stop a cataphract charge and were trampled into the ground, essentially. The Roman wing on the opposite side of the field had more units but was not doing anything dramatic or effective. The Roman heavy horse had been split up. One unit was being ganged up on by some enemy light cavalry; one unit had the misfortune of being engaged by some cataphracts, and the rest were chasing the Arab camelry and light cavalry. The Roman Clibanarii had been assailed in the flank. While the engaged unit fought stubbornly, the rest of the command continued to trot forward, trying to get around the Persian left. In this sector, a large formation of Sassanid heavy cavalry made the mistake of attacking a formed line of legionaries. While the Asavaran managed to run over the bolt shooters and damage a cohort or two, the majority of the Sassanids were removed from their horses, never to ride again. In the centre of the field, not much was happening, as the Lanciarii and other troops were mopping up what remained of the enemy. A few Sassanid units continued to fight, and desperately, but all of the elephants were gone, and all of the leaders had been killed. The levy and the last of the elephants were all that stood in the way of the Romans. This "block" of troops was still a few moves away from seeing any fighting, however. Counting up the losses so far, it was determined that the Persians had lost 32 units and 3 leaders. When added to the number of units that were currently disordered, the Sassanids had 76 points toward their break point of 101. The Romans had lost 31 units and 2 commanders. They had a dozen units in a state of disarray.
Coincidentally, the Romans had 76 points toward their lower break point of 90. 

Carefully reviewing the status of the tabletop at this point, I decided to call a halt to proceedings. It appeared evident to me that the attritional battle would continue. It also appeared evident that the Sassanids enjoyed the advantage, however slight it was. The Roman right wing was outnumbered, at least in terms of cavalry, by 23 to 5. Granted, with regard to heavy cavalry it was only 10 to 5 or 2 to 1, but still. Over on the Roman left, 4 units of horse (split evenly between light and heavy) faced 5 units of Persian light cavalry, 3 units of heavy cavalry, and 8 units of cataphracts. The centre belonged to the Romans. The formation of Sassanid levy, even supported by a few stands of elephants, was not expected to last long against auxiliaries and legionaries. However, the problem was that the further the Roman foot advanced into the centre of the field, the greater their risk of being flanked by swarms of Persian horse. I declared it a draw, and quite a bloody one at that.

Assessment
This second pitched battle went fairly well. And though it was not played to a rules-sanctioned conclusion, I was satisfied with the non-result as well as with the time spent. In several ways, I feel more confident with ADLG than I did a year ago. I am becoming more adept with the game turn sequence or process, and I feel that I am becoming more familiar with the modifiers. This is not to state, however, that the game was free of errors. On that subject, I learned the hard way not to charge ordered Roman legionaries with heavy cavalry. That resulted in a mess of horseflesh and riders. I also learned that Roman auxiliaries seem to have an easy time when fighting against elephants. Additionally, I learned (and readers might remark that this should have been obvious) that 800 points per side is just a bit too large of a battle for my smallish table. If I stage another ADLG scenario before the end of the year, I expect that there will only be 600 points per side.
The complete lack of terrain did not detract from my enjoyment. The straight-forward nature of the contest did not bother me either. At least this time, the cataphracts were able to get their lances blooded. A few legionary units even got a chance to test their mettle. In summary, it was another engaging and entertaining experiment.
   
Evaluation
The table has not been cleaned up yet, and already I am thinking about what a To The Strongest! version of this engagement would look like and how it would play. (The recent arrival of several packs of small playing cards tends to do that.) I do not believe I could come anywhere near the size of the armies employed in either the Armati 2nd Edition or ADLG contest.

To be certain, there are advantages and drawbacks to employing each set of rules. There are, obviously, proponents for each set of rules as well. As a kind of conclusion, I should like to spend a few minutes comparing and contrasting the rules.

With respect to troop type, the lists provided in ADLG provide more variety as well as specificity. For example, the levy used in the recently declared a draw solo wargame were medium spearmen mediocre or levy, which are class as heavy infantry, but with 3 cohesion points instead of the usual 4. In the Armati list provided in the rulebook, Sassanid levy are quite poor troops. Turning to command and control, ADLG seems more flexible as well as dice-based than the stricter heavy and light division control point system used in Armati. Then again, in ADLG, one can have individual units scampering here and there. I believe this is labeled the "firework effect". In Armati, unless a single unit is deployed as a single division, it is very difficult to move them around. It is very difficult to switch directions, whereas in ADLG, it simply costs a command point (pip). With regards to combat, Armati is simpler as well as stricter than ADLG. With Armati, it is simply a comparison of fighting values. With ADLG, one has to check a chart (memorization is possible with frequent play) and then factor in various modifiers. In ADLG, one also has to make sure that units conform. In contrast, Armati allows units that just "brush" each other to engage in melee. Close combat in Armati also produces fatigue markers. ADLG does not consider fatigue. Just as melee in ADLG is more complicated than it is in Armati, the terrain features available in ADLG are more numerous and so, slightly more complicated than the general categories available for Armati players. Victory conditions are another point of contrast with these rules. Armati focuses on the loss of key units, and these usually amount to a fraction of the units deployed. ADLG looks at demoralisation. Disordered units count for a certain amount; routed units count for a certain amount, and lost commanders also count for a certain amount. An army break point in ADLG is determined by adding up the total number of units deployed for battle.

Both sets offer the opportunity for enjoyable battles or games. Both sets can be used for tournament play. This appears to be the main focus of ADLG. Both sets can be used for solo wargaming, obviously. Both sets can also be used for refighting historical engagements, such as those selected for the annual Battle Day. As far as I know, though, ADLG has yet to make an official appearance at Sycamore Hall.



Notes
1. In at least one respect, my table looked very similar to the one pictured here: http://westsoundwarriors.blogspot.com/2019/06/tactica-2-at-enfilade-2019.html.

[Chris]

Just out of curiosity, to what do I attribute the difference between readings or visits/clicks for Part 1 and Part 2. Understanding that the replies and remarks tend to generate more interest than the actual narrative, the numbers from Part 1 are approximately five times the numbers for Part 2.

Is it a case of too much Sassanids? Is it a case of the rules being used for Part 2? Or, is it a case of too many reports from a particular Society member? Or, is it something else?

Thanks.
Chris

[Erpingham]

I think its because people with a general interest will chose one or the other and part 1 seems a logical one to pick.  Then people post there, rather than going on to part 2 and others look at the posts and maybe respond to posts already made in Part 1, so more visits.