Parthians vs Seleucids - this time

[Chris]

Gentlemen,

Extending an invitation to read all about Parthians vs Seleucids in two refights of an adapted campaign battle originally staged a little more than 30 years ago.   

The first engagement was played with ARMATI and employed double-size armies.

The second engagement used GRAND TRIUMPH! and employed one slightly-modified-in-size army.

Here is the link:
https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/A%20Pair%20of%20Parthian%20Puzzles


Thanks for taking the time, it is appreciated.

Cheers,
Chris

[Imperial Dave]

Brilliant Chris. Enjoyed reading that and I think you have done a great job of trying to fathom the interplay of units and how history and wargaming can overlap

Nice work sir

[Ian61]

Good account, I liked the way the diagrams were at right angles to text so they linked well.

[Erpingham]

I seem to be well quoted in the report. I will comment there on some things.  Taking a leaf out of Nick harbud's book in the AI topic, how about asking an AI "Who would win a wargame between Parthians and Seleucids and why ?" under some selected rule sets and see if it comes up with a similar bias?

[Imperial Dave]

This could be a bit of a rabbit hole.....

[Chris]

Imperial Dave - Many thanks for you kind words.

Ian - Thanks for the comment re the diagrams. As the playing surface was 10.5 ft by 3.75 ft, I tried to match that dimension with each graphic. As noted, however, this 1 inch on the map equals 1 real foot on the tabletop can lead to trouble in reproducing the playing pieces. The combination of simple visuals and captions does limit my usual tendency to verbosity.

AC - Having scanned the recent/ongoing discussion thread regarding AI and its uses (or potential dangers) to the hobby, it is an interesting question. I defer to those with more 'I' than I in this regard or endeavor. I do wonder if AI could look at a defined number of rulesets in conjunction with the original guidelines of the "hobby horse" and produce an equal number of battle reports, if not some additional remarks regarding the matched historical pair. I suppose one could also input other historical pairs or ahistorical pairs and hit "run" or "process" or whatever.

Thanks again to all for taking the time.