Indians vs Seleucids

[Chris]

Opposing Armies: Classical Indians vs Seleucids

Approximate Season and Year: Early Summer of 199 BCE

Rules: GRAND TRIUMPH! [though not religiously . . .]

Deployment & Points: 
The Indian left had 16 units (9 of Bad Horse, 4 of Horde, and 3 of Elephants) amounting to 47 points. Indian center was composed of 18 units (a blend of Elephants, Bow Levy, Horde, and Heavy Foot) adding up to 48 points. The Indian right contained 15 units (6 of these being Chariots, with the rest being a mix of Elephants, Bow Levy and Heavy Foot) with a value of 48 points.

The Seleucid right was all cavalry, and consisted of 12 units (6 of Cataphracts, and 2 each of Knights, Javelin Cavalry and Horse Bow), which equaled 48 points. The Seleucid center was the phalanx and contained 16 units. The majority of these (12 units) were Pikes, and the point value of this phalanx was 50. The Seleucid left was a mixture of 15 units (4 of Raiders, 2 of Pikes, 1 Elephant, 1 Cataphracts, 4 Warriors, 1 Light Foot, 1 Javelin Cavalry and 1 Horse Bow) adding up to 49 points.

Notes:
Not all of the troops described as 'Battle Line' were contained within that defined area on my tabletop.
Unit stands were 70mm (7 cm) across, which is not one of the listed dimensions in the rules.

Description of tabletop: Approximately 117 inches by 45 inches. The "model" battlefield could be compared to the arguably flat and featureless terrain of Paraetacene (317 BCE). 

Notes:
1. Per GRAND TRIUMPH! (Section 5.1), "the game board is 96 MU wide by 32 MU deep." With a MU of 3.5 cm, this should have produced a board 336 cm wide (132.28 inches) by 112 cm deep (44 inches).

Summary:
As their first line was Bad Horse, it was not a complete shock to see the Indian left become demoralized shortly after being charged by the Seleucid Cataphracts and other cavalry. The Seleucids lost a single unit of Knights (i.e., Companions) in this sector. The Cataphracts were able to turn their attention to the Indian center, which had just been engaged by the multiple units of Pike. The Seleucids mowed down the enemy Bow Levy, adding a unit of Heavy Foot and one of Elephants to this total. Though their ranks were disorganized, the Seleucids had demoralized the Indian center without taking any losses. The only bright spot for the Indian army was their right wing, where their Chariots had done some solid work. The Bow Levy line seemed quite stubborn when faced with Seleucid Pike and Warrior units. Causing 14 points of damage on the Seleucid left was not enough to win the field and day, however. With two commands demoralized and the remnants of these sectors subject to further damage if not simply running away, the battle was called as a Seleucid victory. 

Length of Game: Approximately 110 minutes.

Remarks/Take aways:
It was rather odd to field an Indian army and not have to roll any dice to resolve missile fire. (I gather that the effect of Indian archery is abstracted with the numerous Bow Levy units.)
It was somewhat unusual to have just 3 divisions or corps on each side.
The "firework effect" was evident, especially on the Seleucid right as they dismantled the enemy wing to their front. This display was also apparent in the center to the tabletop.
It might be interesting to see if a more 'terrain friendly tabletop' would have any influence on how the battle developed.
It might also be interesting to see if there is or are any better Indian OBs that would provide a more balanced or at least interesting game. (It could be remarked that the Seleucids pretty much rolled-over the Indians, the contest on the left excepted of course.)
Even though it has been a while since I last played TRIUMPH!, I was able to recall and or re-familiarize myself with the rules. This is not to say, however, that the scenario was mistake-free.

References, Sources, & Ideas:
The opposing armies were drafted from https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home. Much of the inspiration and resulting preparation for this simple project can be traced to Simon Watson's battle Indians vs Seleucids report, which was posted on 14 January. (Please see https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=8834.0) The rest of the inspiration could be attributed to looking for something simpler. In the early stages, some consideration was given to putting together a 10,000 points per side Tactica II battle or a large To The Strongest! scenario. Some quick checking informed (or reminded me) that a large Indians vs Seleucids game had been staged in June of 2024 with Simon Miller's rules. Reviewing the blog entries/posts also resulted in matches from December 2023 as well as April of 2022.

I suppose that I could also cite the 'vonketteringham' YouTube video from May 20, 2022.

[Erpingham]

Although the points seem pretty even (147 to 143), the Indians seem seriously overmatched.  Is this a question of army composition choices or does it indicate a broader issue with the points system?

[Chris]

Cheers AC,

Thanks for taking the time to read and remark. (Appreciate our recent Editor for 'liking' as well.)

Well . . . placing the Bad Horse in the first line might have been incorrect, but it seemed fairly historical, based on what little I know about ancient battles wherein Indian armies were involved.

In the center, overflow Cataphracts and double-rank Pikes (earning a melee bonus against most troop types) were also able to do a lot of damage. So, from my perspective, it does seem to be a result of the composition choices available to the Indian commander(s). It may also point to a points system 'problem,' which topic has been debated and discussed in these forums previously.

Then again, one should not dismiss my generalship in playing the Indians. Perhaps under a more skilled player with these rules, the Seleucids would have been subject to a reverse or reverses.

At the risk of extending this reply, the mention of the lack of shooting - at least in the traditional sense (see Armati, Tactica II, Hail Caesar, et al.), did seem to benefit the Seleucids.

There have been about a dozen readers (or maybe bots) of this on the TRIUMPH! boards. No comments, criticisms, or questions as yet.

Thanks again.

[simonw]

Chris,

Interesting report - thanks. You are probably aware that I play Tactica 2 rules (and little else) but nevertheless, there may be tactical considerations for the Indians v Seleucids matchup in common between different rulesets (one would hope so anyway).

In Tactica 2, the Indians are powerful but ponderous. Their tactical options are somewhat limited with respect to multi-component armies like the Seleucids though which have troop types available to fight in Terrain and powerful cavalry as well as the 'steamrollerYou cannot view this attachment.You cannot view this attachment.  ' Phalanx. By comparison, the Indians seem more inflexible and limited really as their most mobile troops (the cavalry) are usually of pretty low quality and the infantry of lower fighting value than the Phalanx. Consequently, broad outflanking manoeuvres on the wings are usually impractical against armies with superior quality (and more numerous) mounted troops. The Indians' Heavy Chariots are also slow and the Elephants slow and difficult to manoeuvre to intervene in the centry and so exploit any successes on the flanks.

So the question the Indian Commander has to ask him/herself at the start is 'How am I going to win'?

There is a chance. The Elephants are the strike force and there is plenty of missile support potential.

So in Tactica 2, seemingly a good option is to hold the flanks for as long as possible with the cavalry and chariots (and skirmishers) possibly supported by Elephants in a local Screen (if there  are enough) BUT to win by frontal assault; smashing the enemy centre using the combination of elephants (usually in front of the infantry in a screen) with missile support from the infantry and usually culminating in finishing off the enemy by closing to hand to hand with the infantry.

Sometimes this works in Tactica 2 as the elephant screens are 'unpredictable' with successes often achieved locally in places along the line with quick losses elsewhere where local Phalanx battalions quickly breakthrough.. One effect of this though is that it often significantly disrupt the cohesion of the enemy Phalanx exposing individual (successful) battalions to concentrations of Indian bowfire followed by isolated melees against multiple Indian infantry opponents.

This process can lead to a sequential collapse of the whole line if the Indian infantry manage to get Breaks on Seleucid phalanx units with 2 v 1 melees the Indians can succeed; despite their lower fighting value. However, all this needs to be achieved before the Seleucids are able to turn one or both of the Indian flanks.

This tends to be the favoured Indian approach to battle although there are variations in how to use the elephants; in screens or as massed Units or a combination of both.

How does this go in triumph?

Cheers

Simon

[Jon Freitag]

Simon, good tips on fighting with an Indian army.  Chris, are any of these tactics applicable to Triumph?

[Keraunos]

Simon,
Given the number of elephants facing them, I should think the shelf of Dutch courage behind the opposition will come in handy!
Cheers indeed.

[Chris]

Cheers Gents -

Simon: Thanks for the tutorial and the excellent pictures. (Confess that I am curious as to why the Indian skirmishers are behind the elephant screen instead of with or in front of the nellies to offer at least some protection.) Regarding the elephants - In the Triumph! rules and army lists, there is no difference between African and Indian types, though I suppose a house rule might crafted. The animals do require an extra command pip and always pursue when winning a melee round, but there are no rules governing their panic and likely problems for friendly on enemy troops in the way of a rampage. In general, these rules tend to be more abstract than other sets. In addition, there is no unit or figure scale in Triumph! so this can sometimes cause issues when trying to reconstruct historical engagements. Then again, it could just be me. The one respondent over on the Triumph! boards suggested a couple of Fantasy rule amendments that might make the Indian Bow Levy a little better. I still wonder though, why this army list under these rules does not contain a single Archer unit. I second General Jon's assessment of your lesson on how to command and do better (fingers crossed and dice willing) with an Indian army. Given the abstracted level(s) of Triumph! and given my comparative inexperience, I do not know if these suggestions can be used. Given the lack of a choice between screening elephants and elephants as massed units along with other factors (no ability of Indian Bow Levy to distant shoot), my guess is probably not.

Keraunos has a point about needing some liquid reinforcement to steady the commander of the tiny troops facing all those tusks and trunks!

[simonw]

Chris,

The Skirmishers usually move in front of the Elephants when the advance starts. In Tactica 2, the Elephants in the Screen can swivel once (in situ) before they move. After they move, NO further changes in direction are permitted.

Cheers

Simon

[Chris]

Cheers Simon,

Many thanks for the clarification. Having gained a little more experience with these rules - though by no means as much as your level, and without the benefit of group play, as well as rereading your pieces in SLINGSHOT - I feel that I am making some advances.

That prohibition with regard to the screening elephants is interesting. I am CONSIDERING an amendment that would allow the mahout to exercise a little more control over his animal, so that he could perhaps steer the pachyderm into an enemy phalanx or body of horse as opposed to being confined to a single and straight path of movement, which could potentially make his elephant moot in the larger battle.

Thanks again.

Chris

[simonw]

Chris, By all means try things out as you wish. Initially, it does seem a bit 'harsh' to completely prohibit any direction changes at all to elephants in a Screen but in effect, my experience is that the nature of the Screen (i.e. Elephants one base-width only apart) usually means that there's little  chance of 'missing' completely.

Essentially, as with all rules, there is a mix of considerations involving simplicity, gameplay and simulation and for what it's worth, my personal opinion is that the Screen rules work very well as they are. The inability of players to manoeuvre the individual Elephants certainly prevents 'pokels' and if it is important to get more than one or 2 Elephants into combat against an opposing unit then players can consider employing the Massed Unit option which does permit Wheeling after Deployment. So an option is there.

Perhaps, perhaps, an experiment with a Wheel permitted (only) at the start of a non-Obligatory Charge move could be a place to start. Doing any more than this would (I think) fundamentally change the 'nature' of the Screen in game terms and how it plays.

Good luck with your musings. I look forward to hearing how things work out.

Cheers

Simon

P.S. My MAIN consideration for Elephants is "have enough of them'!