The workstation.

Proof that we're back on the painting horse...

Pharsalus: a Lost Battles variant game

Following on from the recent lively discussions on the yahoo group around the topic of dice in Lost Battles, Patrick W and I decided to use VASSAL to test out his averaging combat variant, which uses a much narrower range of combat outcomes than the standard game.

The variant is simple: instead of attempting to roll the 'to-hit' number on 2d6 for each individual unit attacking in a combat, players consult a table that converts the 'to-hit' numbers of each attacker into fractions of 36.  These fractions are then added together and a hit registered each time a whole number is reached (ie, 36 points).   Left over fractions are then reconverted to a 'to-hit' number, against which 2d6 are rolled to see whether an extra hit is scored.

In practice, what this means is that players can predict the likely course of the action with far more certainty than usual, and in keeping with Patrick's philosophy, the game becomes less dependent on dice and more dependent on player choices.

The battle we chose for our refight was Pharsalus as it is fairly well documented and thus relatively easy to refer back to for testing purposes.  The dice gods gave me command of the forces of the ever magnanimous Gaius Julius Caesar, while Patrick took those of that opportunistic demagogue [lately turned establishment] Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus...

Caesar listening to Cato the Younger.
 (Wikimedia Commons)

  

Pompeius listening to Cato the Younger.
(Wikimedia Commons)

           

Historical deployment (turn 1).

Pompeius (bottom of screen) begins by advancing the cavalry on the left and deploying his average legionaries in line.  Caesar sends forward his own cavalry and positions his veteran legionaries across the three central zones, though with more weight on his right. Marcus Antonius commands the left wing.

Turn 2 (Pompeius' move).

Pompeius orders the cavalry to attack on his left.  One of Caesar's units is spent; the other is lucky to escape the same fate.  Pompeius himself leads reinforcements to join the cavalry.  The skirmishers reintegrate with the infantry on the left, but the legionaries stay put, reluctant to advance and give Caesar's men the first strike.

Turn 2 (Caesar's move).

Unbeknownst to Pompeius*, Caesar declares a flip-flop, and reverses the turn order.  In preparation for the imminent attack he reinforces his cavalry wing and advances the infantry into contact.  His right concentrates on the cavalry, intending to see off the immediate threat before turning on the infantry.

*As a nice touch, it turned out that Patrick had forgotten Caesar's ability to do this, so he was indeed caught out by this unexpected manoeuvre!

Turn 3 (Caesar's move).

Caesar now uses the flip-flop to attack Pompeius' cavalry.  By leading off with his own zone he is able to inflict three hits, which results in all of the cavalry units being left spent.  Caesar's cavalry wing now piles in and shatters the lead unit, and this carries the rest of the cavalry off the field in flight.  Pompeius himself makes for the safety of the camp, taking him out of the battle.

The legions crash together, with Marcus Antonius' wing launching a determined attack at some cost to the tenth legion.

Turn 3 (Pompeius' move).

Pompeius' infantry resist strongly, putting pressure on along the line.  They are unable to take advantage of Caesar's distraction on the left (the carry-over roll was not successful), but they have numbers on their side and from here on it will be a grinding fight.   

Turn 4 (Caesar's move).

Caesar swings his right about to face the infantry of the Pompeian left, with modest success.  He pulls the cavalry in behind him to provide extra strike power and sends Crastinus' surviving friends to the far right with instructions to await orders for an outflanking move.  

Elsewhere the grind continues, with Marcus Antonius, pressing the attack strongly, in inspirational form on the left.

Turn 4 (Pompeius' move).

Pompeius' men maintain the line doggedly, with their effectiveness giving both Caesar and Marcus Antonius  immediate cause for concern.  If the Optimates can maintain their strength and enthusiasm for the battle they could yet fight Caesar to a standstill.

Turn 5 (Caesar's move).

With the battle at its crisis point, Marcus Antonius rises to the challenge, urging his veterans to remember their courage and drive off the enemy.  They respond by shattering an enemy unit.  Are the Pompeians about to lose heart?

Caesar signals for the right wing to advance and outflank the Pompiean left.  

Turn 5 (Pompeius' move).

The left attacks vigorously (it gets five attacks due to the presence of the outflanking force) but fate does not smile kindly upon the men, and they cannot find a break in the line.

Turn 6 (Caesar's move).

Marcus Antonius' men shatter one unit and need a carry-over roll of 5 to shatter another.  An 8 is scored, so the second unit also shatters, reducing the morale of the entire army down to zero.   The other troops in the zone run, as do the light infantry from the left.     

   

The centre attacks, needing just one shatter to send their opponents racing for safety.  Thanks to the averaging system the shatter is achieved with no fuss, and Pompeius' central zone also joins the rout.

Finally, the combined attacks on the Pompiean left drive the rest of the army off the field.  The day belongs to Caesar, but it is Marcus Antonius to whom the laurels must go!  

The final points tally sees Pompeius claim a well-deserved handicap victory by 97 points to 91, on the back of his having spent 13 units' worth of Caesar's valuable veterans. 

So how did it go?

The result was quite similar to the historical result.  Pompey stayed on his baseline and did not fight for the centre, which gave Caesar a morale advantage he did in fact claim to have had historically.  This meant that it was easier for Caesar to force the rout of the entire army.  While this was advantagous in VP terms (for Pompey did not lose so many units shattered), if the Pompeians has stayed on field longer they may have been able to score some shatters of their own, thereby increasing the margin of game victory.  

And the averaging system?

This seemed to work pretty well for a first outing, but it is not without its quirks.  Double hits are out of the game, meaning that light infantry has lost some of its character, and the precisely calculable nature of the combat table meant that there was a real hesitancy to undertake certain moves, an example being Caesar's reluctance to make an outflanking move due to the fact that it would give Pompeius' men an extra attack on the left, with the increased likelihood of a carry-over hit being scored having the potential to quickly exhaust Caesar's limited manpower resources.

But we'll need more tests to see what effect on player decisions the increased predictability will have.

We played this game with set command and morale rolls, so adding variation there might be a good way to introduce more uncertainty but without altering the attrition rate significantly.

There are some small changes and at least one more test planned, so we'll see how it goes.  I think Patrick has done a good job, and as far as having the variant do what it is intended to do is concerned, he seems to be on the right track.  

Some years later...

Ant: ...and so that's how I upstaged the old man at Pharsalus.  
Cle: How fascinating, Antonius!  I never tire of that story.  Would you please tell me that bit about the CRT again?

Getting back into the swing of things

With summer and its excessive humidity fast approaching time is running out for my annual spring priming session.  I did however manage to sneak in a couple of hours with the file, pin vise and glue this afternoon, and have made some reasonable progress with my Xyston Gallic cavalry. 

It took a bit of work to get them to fit neatly on the horses but I think they'll look quite impressive once painted up.  There is a nice variety of poses and they should do the business for the Punic, Gallic and Roman Civil wars.

Well, back to the workbench!

Tokyo trip and a conversation with the wife

Apologies for having been so quiet on this blog of late.  Some old friends have been visiting from New Zealand, so gaming and blogging has had to make way for more social activities such as going out for a few beers and the odd yarn.  It's been good - too good, in fact! 

We also had a family trip to Tokyo, during which I managed to get along to a game shop called Shosen Grande.   They have a floor dedicated to board and miniatures games, and  I'd never seen so many games together in one place before.  I was quite overwhelmed - not least by the prices.

After a bit of a browse I found two games in particular that I'd been coveting and had decided to get one of them.  My wife, however, interfered, the conversation going something like this:  

"So I might get this one.  It's quite pricey though..."

"OK.  I'll get this puzzle for the kids, too."

"Good idea."

"Is there anything else you want?"

"Oh, there's one other thing but it's pretty expensive, and I'd probably not get to play it with anyone anyway..."

"Can you get it through your online thing?"

"Well, it's out of print and shipping from the US or Europe would be ridiculous, so no, not really."

"Is it one you want to get?"

"Yeah, at some stage, I guess.  It's considered a bit of a classic."

"Well, why don't you get it now."

"Take a look at this price!"

"Well, you may as well get it now when you can.  It's probably cheaper than getting it later."

"Hmm, well...."  *ahem*

"Do you have enough money on you?" 

And so it was that, at a cost of around $US300, I walked away from Shosen Grande with two board games instead of one, a couple of things for the kids, a happy wife, and a no doubt bemused look on my face. 

To finish, here's a quick shot of one quarter of the games floor.  There were three double sided shelves devoted to board war games and to Flames of War, as well as lots of other stuff.  Quite expensive, but well worth a look if you're in Tokyo.

And now it's (almost) time to return to normal life...

Book Review - Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon

(Image taken from Amazon.com)

Basil Liddell Hart, the somewhat controversial British military theorist, published this biography of Scipio Africanus in 1926.  In it he narrates and celebrates Scipio's many achievements and, as the subtitle "Greater than Napoleon" intimates, argues that the Roman deserves a place in the foremost rank of the great generals of history.

"Scipio's battles are richer in stratagems and ruses - many still feasible to-day - than those of any other commander in history", he writes.  Study of Scipio's campaigns, he continues, is still relevant, "because the moral objective was the aim of all his plans, whether political, strategical or tactical".

As the above quotations are taken from the preface, it can be seen that Liddell Hart states his position early, and from it he does not budge.

The book covers the whole of Scipio's career, from his heroic intervention at the Ticinus through to his retirement from public life.  The author makes frequent use of anecdotes from Livy and Polybius - often quoting long sections verbatim - to tell the story of Scipio's rise.  All of the battles and campaigns are covered in some depth, as are his motivations, so far as they are known.  His actions, exploits and stratagems are explained, interpreted, analysed - and in some cases rehabilitated - in a engaging manner.

One of the interesting things about Liddell Hart's treatment of his subject is that it is not composed in isolation. Scipio's career is portrayed not just as an example of great generalship but also as an illustration of twin themes: that heroic failure is more celebrated that unleavened success, and that successful prosecution of war requires a keen understanding of the relationship between mental, physical and moral elements.

These are themes to which he returns elsewhere.

But if we put aside our reservations about didacticism, the narrative is clear and interesting.  Aided by helpful geographical and battle maps, the wargamer is able to clearly envisage the events described, and I found it gave me a better understanding of the events, particularly those in Spain, than I received from either Lazenby or Goldsworthy.  As mentioned before, he uses a lot of direct quotation from Livy and Polybius, so a more learned (or more cynical) man than me might say "you may as well just read the original texts"; but as an interested amateur I appreciated the way in which he weaves his own commentary into the narrative, giving a good sense of the strategic significance of the events described and providing a welcome overview of the course each campaign took.

I found the book complements other sources on the era, and as long as the author's biases and didactic purpose is taken into account it provides a useful and readable account of Scipio's career.  While a lot is made of Scipio's character, there is enough focus on the military exploits to give the wargamer plenty of material to work with.

In short, if you are interested in the man and the era and can find a cheap copy I would recommend it, but I do caution against taking Liddell Hart's conclusions wholly at their face value.

Basil Liddell Hart online: 

The Strategy of Indirect Approach

Why Don't We Learn From History?

Pyrrhic campaign: Asculum, 279BC

This is the second part of the Pyrrhic campaign that Luke and I fought out today.  Pyrrhus had died at Heraclea (see here  for the report), but we sailed blithely on, conveniently ignoring the fact that his army would've broken up and gone home...

Greeks, with a fighting value of 74:

5 units of average and 2 units of levy phalangites (18,000 men)
7 units of average and 1 unit of levy heavy infantry (18,000 men)
1 unit of elephants, and one of light infantry (20 elephants and 3000 men)
2 units of average light cavalry (2000 horse)
1 unit of veteran and 3 units of average heavy cavalry (3500 horse)
Average leader, a precocious Alexander perhaps?

Romans, with a fighting value of 80:

13 units of average legionaries (26,000 men)
2 units of levy light infantry (8000 men)
5 units of average heavy cavalry (5000 horse)
Average commander (Publius Decius Mus), uninspired leader (Sulpicius)

The Greeks deploy their main cavalry force on the right and have strong infantry centres.  Rome looks to win the cavalry fight on their own right and hold on the left.  The Romans err in not activating the cavalry of the left separately and securing their left wing. 

Elephants and light infantry in advance of the Greek centre left.

Equites deploy with the infantry of the left centre.

(Very!) Young Alexander of Epirus out for revenge.

The lines engage.  The Roman left is weaker than the opponents they face, so a speedy win on their own right is required.

Alexander double moves his men forward to trap the equites behind the Roman infantry line and reduce their room to manoeuvre.

The Greek right exerts tremendous pressure.

The Roman right shatters the enemy cavalry, but at a cost of some disorder to their own ranks.

Both sides' lefts are beset by superior forces, but the Greek attacks have more sting.

The legionaries begin to succumb to the spears of the enemy...

The last line on the left.

Charge and...

The Roman left breaks!  They rout, but the centre holds firm.

The Roman right tries to emulate that of the enemy, but without the same degree of success.

It's now the turn of Decius and the Roman centre to take the brunt of the Greek attack as the phalangites look to roll up the line.

Sulpicius breaks the Greek left in turn!  Again, the Greek centre refuses to panic.

The Roman centre with enemies on three sides.

The elephants show no mercy.

The Roman right turns its attention to the Greek centre in a classic 'revolving door' clash.  Both centres finally give way, but without the respective right flanks hold.

The victorious rights cross as darkness falls.

Sulpicius tries one last attack, but without success.   The remnants of both armies return to camp, having fought each other to a standstill.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Well, after ten turns of carnage both sides still had forces on the field, so a draw was declared.  The victory points told a different story however - a narrow victory to the Epirote prince, 102 to 90.  A fine battle, and a thoroughly deserved victory to Luke and his Greeks.  Sadly, due to my work commitments in the morning, we did not have enough time to fit in the third of our trinity, Beneventum.  We may save that for another time.

All in all, it was a fantastic day's gaming.  Lots of laughs and plenty of moments of high tension as fortunes ebbed and flowed.  Many thanks to Luke for making the trip down, and will look forward to doing it again as soon as possible.

Pyrrhic campaign: Heraclea, 280BC

Here are some shots from the Pyrrhic campaign Luke and I played today.  The plan was to play Heraclea, dice for force changes based upon the battle, then play Asculum, dice again, and finish with Beneventum.

Reported here is Heraclea (280 BC), which sees four legions and allies under Laevinus challenge Pyrrhus and his men.

The Roman army, with a fighting value of 74, is comprised of:

13 units of average legionaries (26,000 men)
2 units of levy light infantry (8000 men)
5 units of average heavy cavalry (5000 horse)
Uninspired commander, Publius Valerius Laevinus.

Pyrrhus' army has an FV of 81, and is comprised of:

1 unit of veteran, 9 units of average, and 1 unit of levy phalangites (23,000 men)
1 unit of average heavy infantry (2000 men)
1 unit of average light infantry (2000 men)
2 units of elephants (20 elephants and 2000 men)
4 units of veteran and 1 unit of average heavy cavalry (3000 horse)
1 unit of average light cavalry (1000 horse)
Inspired leader, Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Both armies are surprised, meaning that they can only deploy four units per turn, and Rome moves first.

The Roman advance guard and their Greek counterparts in the middle distance.

Elephants and cavalry find themselves facing legions.  Where's that phalanx!

Pyrrhus himself.

Ah, here they come...

The legions advance in a solid mass.

The lines solidify.

Engagement of the centres, but both wings are still out of contact.

Pyrrhus' novel tactic of leading off with light cavalry in the centre pays dividends: they skirmish with irritating effectiveness!

By turn 5 the Roman centre is entirely spent, with one unit shattered, as the light cavalry, elephants and phalanx combine to inflict hit after hit.

Despite the furious fight in the centre, elsewhere the engagement is still tentative.

The Roman centre withdraws to buy time and get the trairii into the line.

The Greeks advance in the centre and on the right.

The Romans attack on the right, but the battle is Pyrrhus' to lose...

Oh oh - look out!  The Epirote adventurer dies in an ill-advised rally attempt (ill-advised only because it didn't succeed!) and then Luke rolls a 1 for morale, which sees most of his army flee the field, including the hitherto victorious centre.  Perhaps Pyrrhus should have exchanged cloaks with someone?

Fortuna takes a hand, and the Romans breathe again!

The Greek right escapes to fight another day, but the phalanx of the centre left is trapped, and butchery is about to begin.

Steady boys, steady!

And from an almost certain defeat comes Roman victory, proving that the enemy scoring three ones in a row at the right time can rescue even the most dire of situations!

The end result was major victory to Rome, even though they only shattered one unit!  Pyrrhus' death undid a formidible position, and it was a very lucky break for me.

It was said that Pyrrhus did not defeat Rome, but that Pyrrhus defeated Pyrrhus...

As a result of this battle, the forces for Asculum were slightly changed - the Roman commander was promoted to average, and he was given an uninspired sidekick to lead the cavalry.   The Greeks lost Pyrrhus of course, had two of their Macedonians phalanx units replaced with levy Italians, lost an elephant unit, and had two units of veteran cavalry downgraded to average quality.

(Go here to see Asculum)