A Medieval Indian Idistaviso

[Chris]

Brief Explanatory Note:
The following is not a "traditional" battle report. It's more along the lines of what would appear in the "Game Last Played" forum, but due to its length and the inclusion of footnotes, I thought it prudent to post the narrative here.

______________________________________


Medieval Indian - Hindu State vs Medieval Southern Indian (Tamil) using Armati 2nd Edition rules. [1] The armies were three times the usual size and included 300 points worth of bonus units. [2] The landscape of my 6 by 4-foot tabletop was modeled after the historical field of Idistaviso. [3] The Southern Indian army took the place of Romans, and the numerous formations of the Hindu State stood in for the Germanic tribes.

Deployment guidelines (restrictions) were ignored and both armies arranged their forces from the edge of the "great forest" to the near bank of the anonymous river. The leader of the Southern Indian army placed all of his light infantry on his left flank. Several units were deployed within the wooded area. In the "avenue" between the forest and first tier of the large hill, there 3 units of archers supported by the remaining 3 units of light infantry and a "small" division of elephants (3 units). A long, thin line of footmen (archers) extended from one side of the three-tier hill to the other. Another long line of footmen occupied the plain between the hill and river. This formation was interspersed with elephants. There were three local reserves positioned in support of the footmen (archers). On the highest point of the hill, there were 2 units of guard infantry and 1 unit of elephants. On the right of the very long line, the was a combined formation of 2 units of infantry and 4 units of elephants. The general placed himself at the head of 3 units of noble heavy cavalry. This formation was behind the approximate center of the defensive line. 

Intending to counter the large number of pachyderms in the enemy force, the Hindu prince placed the majority of his skirmishers on his left. The first line contained light  cavalry retainers (armed with bows) on the left and trained skirmishers with bows on the right. The second and third line of skirmishers consisted of levy troops armed with an assortment of weapons. (Per the list provided by one Aetius, these skirmishers had no missile capability.) Behind this cloud of light cavalry and skirmishers stood a wall of warband units. The Hindu archers were deployed with the hill as their objective. These missile troops were reinforced by another large division of warband. The right flank was tasked to the Rajput contingent. The mounted warriors were placed in front with their brother warbands close behind. The few elephants in this assembled army were held in reserve behind the right flank. The 15 units of heavy cavalry were set up in 5 divisions and were positioned as reserve formations behind the crowded left and less crowded center of the attacking army's deployment.

Battle Summary
For the first three turns of the battle, the Hindu army held the initiative. This advantage coincided with their initial success on the left (the flat plain bordered by the river), where bow-armed skirmishers and similarly armed light cavalry rained arrows down on the static line of the enemy. Growing tired of this harassment, the Tamil footmen and their integral-to-the-formation elephants started moving forward. Unable to resist this advance, the Hindu skirmishers and light cavalry gave ground. As they did so, the flights of arrows continued to inflict damage. After paying a price (2 units of footmen were broken by the almost constant barrage of arrows), the Tamil infantry and elephants were able to squeeze the enemy skirmishers and light cavalry against a waiting wall of warbands. Some skirmishers evaded through "holes" in this wall; the majority were dispersed as the Hindu warriors advanced toward the Tamil line. The light cavalry retainers were not so fortunate. These irritating horsemen (marksmen all, apparently, by the cumulative effect of their archery) were corralled against the solid wall of warbands and shot down by close range fire from vengeful Tamil formations. When it came time for close combat, there was only a local action on the right end of the Hindu line, for by this time, both armies had their initiative reduced to zero as a result of missile fire and melees taking place on other parts of the field.

On the far left of the Tamil deployment, the separate units of footmen received a wild charge by 3 units of Rajput cavalry. The center unit of the infantry line was broken, but the other 2 formations held on stubbornly and barred further progress of the victorious Rajput horsemen. As this prolonged combat went on, the local Tamil commander brought up some light infantry and even a group of elephants to make the Rajput cavalry even more uncomfortable. While this fighting was going on, the Tamil light infantry in the woods executed a "left hook," scattered some levy skirmishers and then took on all of the elephants in the Hindu army. This group of gray-skinned animals was quickly overwhelmed by the "swarm" of enemy light infantry. A division of cavalry sent over in support of the pachyderms soon found themselves embroiled in a confused fight. Unable to make any real forward progress (command and control issues, again), these horsemen were engaged from behind as well as from the front by enemy light infantry whose blood lust was certainly up.

In the approximate center of the battlefield, the forward line of Hindu archers enjoyed initial success against their counterparts. The Hindu infantry would shoot, inflict several break points on targeted enemy formations, then move forward and repeat the process. Although the Tamil footmen had the advantage of the higher ground, their dice rolling was rather poor. Volleys of arrows were answered by volleys of arrows. The hillside was soon littered with scores of casualties from both sides. Taking the worst of the exchange, the Tamil foot soldiers decided to advance on their foe and engage them with swords and javelins instead of bows and arrows. At first, the contest was even; each line lost a couple of units. As the turns proceeded, however, the fighting ability  of the Tamil formations proved itself (i.e., their dice luck turned very much in their favor). Having taken a fair amount of punishment in the exchange of arrow volleys, the Hindu archers could not really stand up to this face-to-face fight and began melting away. As gaps opened in this line, the Tamil footmen started sending arrows against the supporting line of enemy warbands. By turn 7, the tally of broken key units stood at 6 for the Tamil army and 11 for the Hindus. (Incidentally, the Hindus had not won the move option since the third turn.) The dice gods did not favor the Hindu prince and his subordinates at all during the last 3 turns of the battle. At the end of turn 9, there were 19 broken key units on the Hindu side of the field compared to just 7 in the Tamil ranks. On the next turn, another unit of Tamil footmen succumbed to the attention of enemy warbands. However, a decisive victory was won when 5 more units of Hindu troops routed. This drove the Hindu army to its breaking point and left the field in the bloodied hands of their enemy. 

Comments 
Three turns were played on the 6th of October and three more were played on the 7th of October. The last four turns were played between the 8th and 10th of the month. The game appeared to move at a good clip as I did not interrupt the proceedings to type notes after every game turn. Instead, I typed a brief summary after every third turn. As a lot happened during the seventh game turn, I broke my own rule and took notes on this particular turn so that I would have material for the planned narrative. So it seems that pulling back on my note taking helps to move the wargame along. I cannot help but wonder if the lack of rule variants also helps to speed play. For example, I did not have to keep checking missile range or  movement rate charts to make sure that I was operating within the new rules. I also did not have to check for the various distances of rout paths for  broken units, the effect of panicked elephants, and so forth. In these respects then, this contest between Medieval Indian armies was a very clean game. I am not so sure, however, if it was all that realistic or as realistic as I would have liked it to be. For instance, I think the impact of the skirmishers on the Hindu left may have been greater than what would have happened during an actual battle. For these missile troops - and their light cavalry brothers - to break 2  units of enemy foot seems a bit far-fetched. Then again, I could be completely mistaken. This would be a case for a rule amendment, such as making all skirmisher fire result in fatigue markers instead of actual casualties. I have employed this adjusted rule on prior occasions but  did not employ it in this game as I wanted to play it with the rules as written. To be sure, the ability of these skirmishers and light cavalry units did not win the game for the Hindu army, but . . . On a somewhat related subject, perhaps it is simply my very limited experience with IMPETVS influencing my thinking here, but I wonder if letting units shoot and fight at full strength when they have a number of unit break points is realistic or even fair? For example, several units in the line of Tamil footmen on the hill suffered 2 or  even 3 unit break points in the exchange of arrow volleys with the Hindu archers. And yet, when it came time for the melee between these two lines, the Tamil infantry fought at full strength. The rule adjustment I am thinking about as a result is this: subtract the number of unit break points from the melee total. For instance, if a Hindu archer unit with a frontal fighting value of 4 has 2 unit break points marked on it and is  also exhausted (has 4 fatigue markers), then it will subtract a total of 4 (minus 2 for a heavy infantry unit being  exhausted and minus 2 for the  2 break points) from its total melee roll. Let us say that a 5 is rolled for the combat. The fighting value of 4 plus 5 equals 9. Four is subtracted from this total, giving an overall melee score of 5. Admittedly, this is another step and a little more math, but I think it reflects the degradation of a unit's ability to shoot and melee, to fight.

As briefly explained in a footnote, this was the second battle where these two  armies faced each other. The first action employed quite a few amendments and rule variations. Some of these "tweaks" need additional work, but overall, I think they do lend themselves to a more realistic (accepting the subjective nature of this word) and therefore, more enjoyable wargame. The tricky part is finding that right (also accepting the subjective nature of this word) balance.



Notes
[1] These were found in the Tournament Armies - Age of Chivalry section on the Warflute site. See http://warflute.org/armies/medieval_indian_hindu_state_aetius_army_t5.html  and http://warflute.org/armies/medieval_southern_indian_tamil_aetius_army_t5.html. This was the second game. The first collapsed under the weight of too many rule additions and amendments. For command and control, I tried Barry Hilton's procedure from page 35 of "Backing the right Horse" (August 1999 issue of Wargames Illustrated). For additional "flavor," I grafted some Hail Caesar and Impetvs rules onto the Armati body. Allowing supporting units to participate in melee and providing for "destiny rolls" and the degradation of units to impact their fighting ability - among other variations - did not, to my disappointment and frustration, work very well.

[2] The Hindu army contained the following:
3 units of HC (Nobles, etc.) armed with lance/bow [2 of these units were classed as Veterans]
6 units of HC (Provincial) armed with lance - Protection value of 1
3 units of HC (Provincial) armed with lance - Protection value of 2
3 units of EL (elephants) armed with various weapons
3 units of HC (Rajput) armed with lance/bow and subject to obligatory charge rule [1 of these units was classed as Veterans]
18 units of WB (Hindu warriors) armed with various weapons
10 units of FT (Hindu archers) armed with bows
3 units of WB (Rajput warriors) armed with various weapons and subject to obligatory charge rule
6 units of SI (skirmishers armed with bows)
24 units of SI (levy skirmishers armed with various weapons. no missile capability)
6 units of LC (Retainers) armed with bows

*A production error resulted in the fabrication of just 6 units of skirmishers armed with bows instead of the 9 allowed when the core force of Hindus is multiplied by 3.

The Tamil army contained the following:
28 units of FT (heavy infantry) armed with various weapons/bows
14 units  of EL (elephants)  armed with various weapons
7 units  of LI (light infantry) armed with javelins
2 units of FT (guards - heavy infantry) armed with spears
3 units of HC (Nobles) armed with lances [2 of these units were classed as Veterans]

*A triple-size Medieval Southern Indian army has 12 heavy divisions and 9 light divisions. As only 7 units of light infantry were selected/purchased, each formation could be deployed as its own division.

[3] See page 192 of Warfare in the Classical World, edited by John Warry.

[aligern]

Hi Chris,
I have thought long and hard about the kack of missile attrition in Armati and the impact that is it has on the game. On the one hand it seems odd that a unit that has suffered several 'casualties'  advancng against missile troops should fight at full effect. Surely all those hits will have weakened its fighting ability.
I came up with a rationale for a he existing rules:
1) The casualties represent men leaving the formation and those that stay are the best men in the unit. As long as these men can still form a frontage  and lets remember that there are still 80% of the original strength there, then the unit can still acquit itself well.
2) If a unit advances on an opponent shooting at it and suffers three casualties as it advances then the enemy unit only has to inflict once on the advancing unit to break it. If the archer unit is FV4 and the injured attacker FV5 then there is about a 90% chance that you n three rounds of fighting it will inflict one casualty and break the attacker.
3) And lastly,  if units are diminished in fighting capacity through missile casualties then there is a premium pkaced upon getting missile hits on units gefore melee occurs. That would favour the defence as standing back and shooting would have a much greater chance of success than advancing and attacking.nIt would also place a premium on using small divisions of SI to get two close range shots in n an oppising unit ,mdegrade it and then  evade back through their own trouble ps who would now have a considerable advantage.
Roy

[Mark G]

We briefly discussed dropping si protection to 0, at the derby comp.

Idea being that they should absorb a hit or two, but not be the hardest things to shoot off on most tables.

It sort of covers ammunition too, if they are that unlikely to hang around to mid game, and the overall effect should be to make foot bows more effective.

[Chris]

What ho?! Responses to my latest battle report? Huzzah - 

For a few days there, I was concerned that this narrative would join the ranks (no pun intended) of my "Legion vs Legion" clunker. 

Appreciate - as always -  the interesting comments from experienced experts.

I am presently engaged (pun intended) in a scenario where Early Byzantines are fighting Italian Ostrogoths. The opposing centers are foot with bows and melee weapons. The Byzantines, however, are not able to move if they shoot. Again, it has proved an archery contest between bodies of foot until the Ostrogoths weathered the arrow storm and moved into contact. I hope to reach a conclusion by the end of this week.

Still struggling to find that right balance (subjective of course! ) between rules-as-written and amendments.

With respect to skirmishers, briefly, it's interesting to compare their use and value in IMPETVS and Hail Caesar to their use and value in ARMATI. The question of playability versus historicity has been raised and reviewed in the  discussion thread about terrain in wargames. I think it also applies here. There's a level of fun to be had in Hail Caesar when your skirmishers can buzz around the edges of two heavy infantry units engaged in a death struggle, but I wonder about the validity of this. I should think that unarmoured skirmishers carrying light javelins would maintain a respectable and safe distance from any better armoured enemy infantry.

Thanks again, Roy and Mark G., for taking the time to read and comment.

Regards,

Chris

[aligern]

Hi Chris,
There seems to be no readon why the Byzantines could not move and shoot and we always play it that they can. Comare much less manoeuvreable armies suchbas the Achaemenid Persians who are porting large pavises around are not penalised so why should the Byzantibes be? So lift that restriction.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

There's a level of fun to be had in Hail Caesar when your skirmishers can buzz around the edges of two heavy infantry units engaged in a death struggle, but I wonder about the validity of this. I should think that unarmoured skirmishers carrying light javelins would maintain a respectable and safe distance from any better armoured enemy infantry.

If they wanted to live, this would usually be a good idea.   Concerning the general principle of skirmish types adding their two cents or javelins or whatever to an ongoing heavy infantry fight, we have Hannibal's peltasts (logkophoroi) at the Trebia doing the following:

"... the flanks of the [Roman] line being thus left unprotected, the Carthaginian peltasts and the main body of the Numidians, passing the line of their own heavy infantry, attacked the Roman flanks: and, by the damage which they did them, prevented them from keeping up the fight [effectively] against the troops on their front ... Finally both the Roman wings, being hard pressed in front by the elephants, and on both flanks by the light-armed troops of the enemy, gave way, and in their flight were forced upon the river behind them." - Polybius III.73.7 - III.74.2

So once the Roman cavalry had been bundled away by Hannibal's heavier horse, the peltasts, which had withdrawn through the heavy foot once skirmishing was concluded, made their way round to the Roman flanks and shot from there, as did the Numidian cavalry.  This impeded the Roman wings (consisting of allies) and significantly degraded their efforts against the elephants and Carthaginian infantry they faced.

This kind of on-the-fringes activity does seem feasible provided the better armed/protected enemy infantry are preoccupied with something more life-threatening than javelin-throwing skirmishers.

[Chris]

To Roy first:
Too late in the proceedings to lift the restriction. Both lines of foot are now engaged and for what it's worth, the Italian Ostrogoth foot are getting the worst of it. But correction noted, thanks!

Next, to Patrick:
Thanks for providing the historical evidence. So there is a precedent. Now it  becomes a matter - at least for my chosen rule set - of deciding how to proceed. Does skirmisher support provide a +1 to the unit engaged in melee? Should I roll a d6 to determine if the skirmishers can participate? Do I simply allow shooting into a melee? And if I do, should I allow for the possibility of hitting friends? Then again, does all of this run the risk of complicating  an otherwise fine and I believe still rather popular set of ancient rules?

Appreciate the feedback and the food for thought, gentlemen.

Regards,

Chris

[Patrick Waterson]

I shall leave relating Armati to history to those who have and play the rules - guesses on my part would be made in ignorance and not be very useful.

One thought, though: any missile troops with skill levels above totally raw should not have any chance of hitting friends.  Either they have a clear shot at the enemy and use it effectively, or they cannot see to shoot and do not.  So if they can get a normal line of sight, they should be able to shower the foe at no risk to their friends.  The effect of this is up to our Armati experts.

[Duncan Head]

One thought, though: any missile troops with skill levels above totally raw should not have any chance of hitting friends.  Either they have a clear shot at the enemy and use it effectively, or they cannot see to shoot and do not.  So if they can get a normal line of sight, they should be able to shower the foe at no risk to their friends.

At the Battle of Pelagonia in 1259 (according to the Chronicle of the Morea), the Nicaean commander ordered his Hungarian and Cuman horse-archers to shoot into a cavalry melee aiming at the horses of the opposing Latin knights, without worrying about the chances of hitting their own German mercenaries. So friendly fire does seem to have been a real risk. It may depend whether they were showering arrows into the fight from a distance, or riding close enough to snipe reliably at individual horses.

(I recall this from Ian Heath's WRG Feudal Europe, but see also, or instead,  https://www.academia.edu/1222130/The_Campaign_and_Battle_of_Pelagonia_1259_Domus_Byzantinus_17-18_2009-2010_ )

[Chris]

Hmmm . . . interesting. Food for thought, certainly.

I cannot claim expertise (no matter how flexible the definition) with regard to Armati, but  do acknowledge a level of experience as well as interest in these rules.

Perhaps I shall allow fire into an ongoing melee with the risk of hitting and hurting friends? Perhaps instead of a casualty marker, a successful hit will add to the fatigue level of the unfortunate troops, thereby representing a degradation of fighting ability without actual loss of numbers?

Chris

[Mark G]

As simple mechanisms go, roll the normal shooting die. If its odds, it hits friends (keeping the 2,3 5) and they roll shooting doe against that.
If its evens, it hits enemy.

So no extra dice rolled, and a 6 goes where you want it, but a 1 really hurts.

You should know though, the first draft of tactica 2 allowed skirmishers to shoot into melee .
Arty dropped that idea pretty quickly in playtedting as it made the game too heavy on shooting, and made melees too fast.

[Duncan Head]

Well, one could read the Pelagonia anecdote as implying that troops normally wouldn't shoot into a melee - or at least, into a confused cavalry melee - precisely because of the risk of hitting your own side; and that it only happened this time (1) because the general specifically ordered it, and (2) because "his own side" were expendable mercenaries. I'm not sure therefore whether it needs to be covered in a game except maybe for a Pelagonia refight.

And of course I play DB*, where you move an element into close combat with the flank of a frontally engaged enemy and it doesn't matter whether they're assumed to be using their bows or their swords anyway 

[Jim Webster]

Wasn't it suggested that the Germans rode armoured horses whilst the Franks didn't so would suffer less?
(Mind you it might have been suggested in 'Count Geoffrey's Fancy' )

The fact that the Germans were regarded as expendable probably counted for more. Again, didn't they ride off in a huff after the battle?

[Mark G]

Thinking on, for cavalry melee, the in game mechanism to reflect skirmish support into melee would be to have the si act as light support for the cavalry, giving a plus one, at the cost of an additions light command.

[Patrick Waterson]

Wasn't it suggested that the Germans rode armoured horses whilst the Franks didn't so would suffer less?
(Mind you it might have been suggested in 'Count Geoffrey's Fancy' )

The fact that the Germans were regarded as expendable probably counted for more. Again, didn't they ride off in a huff after the battle?

In Lord Geoffrey's Fancy (an excellent way to get the feel of Frankish Achaia during the 13th century) the Franks decide upon a single concentrated charge into the centre of the enemy line in the hope of rupturing it, panicking the rest of the Byzantine army, and getting clear.  The Sebastocrator anticipates this move, putting his German plate-armoured mercenaries directly against the Franks, who nevertheless manage to make head against them, but while this is going on the melee is surrounded by mounted archers who carry on shooting until the horsemen are all down.

After the battle, the Sebastocrator offers to buy the Germans new horses but they leave in a huff (as Jim says), which suggests (if Alfred Duggan is drawing on period information) that they had not been told what was to happen; meanwhile the Frankish prisoners were offered generous pay to become  Latinikon.  (They declined, paid ransoms and went home - eventually - poorer but perhaps wiser.)

This episode seems to reflect actual events at Pelagonia.  How this relates to wargame possibilities would seemto fall into the 'special events' or 'stratagems' bracket rather than standard rules, unless one wishes to, as Mark suggests, divide incoming shooting equally or proportionally between the sides engaged.  For a melee in which both sides are heavily intermixed, as the cavalry fight at Pelagonia probably was, this would serve.

A different approach would seem preferable where both engaged formations have a clearly-defined interface because back ranks can then become a target.  The Carthaginian peltasts at the Trebia (Trebbia) seemed able to shoot into the deep allied formations on the Roman wings without endangering their own side, particularly their own elephants.  (A cynic might note that all but one of the elephants died following the battle, with cold weather being given as the excuse, but had the elephants received serious doses of their own side's javelinry one would expect them to run in various directions, and this is noticeably absent from accounts of the battle, so it seems we can exonerate the Carthaginian peltasts from any question of friendly fire.)

I would suggest that they key feature when shooting into a melee from the flank is the depth of the target.  As a very rough guess, if it has four (infantry) ranks or less there might be a risk of hitting friendly troops.  Five to eight ranks and you are probably OK.  More than eight and your shooters are completely in the clear.  The Romans at the Trebia would have been 16-21 deep in the later stages of the battle, depending upon how many lines had been committed to relief.