Saturday 27 May 2023

Battle of Philippi 42BC using Ancients Battlelines Clash

Introduction

This is game 62 in play testing my ancient rules by replaying historical battles.  They are definitely a work in progress as I again vacillate between mechanisms.  These rules now require no markers, are based of a gridded version I did previously but the movement rules owe a lot to Phil Sabin’s Phalanx game.  Games are designed to be played solo on a 50cmx30cm table and finish in under 30 minutes.   Note the 50cmx30cm – I am playing on a 60cmx60cm.  The depth does not matter greatly as just deploying the opposing sides closer to one another.  They are still at their core Ancient Battlelines Clash so still calling them ABC version 6.

 

Interlude

I have been soul searching for a while on why I am actually using my own rules to play these games.  Originally it was to create some rules that were fast and solo friendly for a small table and chronologically playing historical battles was a good way to test them.  But more recently it is the reading of and the playing of the historical battle that if more important.  I still will be using my own rules as I want something fast and very solo friendly but these historical battles will be less about the testing of the rules (although they do get tested by playing the battle scenario) and more about actually playing the battle.  So I expect the rules will continue to change, they already have gone through three major rewrites anyway!

Between this battle (done back in April 2022) and this one in September I have played about a dozen games with my 6mm forces on a 12x12 gridded table. These are using a mashup of Phil Sabin’s Phalanx for movement and my older rules for the reactions and results. 

 

Post script

This is the last outing with a variation of my Ancient Battles Clash rules.  I have been tweaking them for 12 years and after several hundred games with them I have moved to my own rules based on Phil Sabin’s Phalanx for movement and 1d6 with some simple results for combat.  The next replay is with Phalanx and then after that is the mashup. 

 

Battle of Philippi 42BC

The last battle in the Wars of the Second Triumvirate between the forces of Mark Antony and Octavian.

 Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Philippi

 

Troops

Roman Second Triumvirate

Right Wing (Octavian)

3 HI, Legions

1 MC, Cavalry

1 Camp

1 Leader

  

Left wing (Antony)

5 HI, Legions

1 MC, Cavalry

1 leader

Breakpoint: 11

 

Roman Liberators

Left wing (Cassius)

4 HI, Legions

1 MC, Cavalry

1 Camp

1 Leader

 

 Right wing (Brutus)

4 HI, Legions

1 MC, Cavalry

1 Camp

1 Leader

 

Breakpoint: 11

 

 Scenario changes

Reduced the forces by about 80% and flipped the battle map (the Marsh on the left is now on the right).

 

Deployment

Deployment

Quite a different deployment to the usual battle.  There are two wings facing one another but also the flanking force of Antony’s (1 HI in my scenario on top of the hill on the left) is facing most of Cassius forces.

 

Game

Note: originally I had the narrative going back and forth between each flank.  As each flank was a distinct battle I have split the game report into Antony Vs Cassius and Octavian Vs Brutus.


Antony Vs Cassius

Antony (left) Vs Cassius (right). Antony's flanking force is on the hill


Antony advances and engages with Cassius forces on the defensive line but all locked in melee.

Antony and Cassius’s forces engage


Cassius rearguard forces advance up the hill and are locked in melee with Antony’s flank force.

Antony’s flank force is engaged by Cassius’s forces

Antony Vs Cassius sees Antony’s cavalry flank attack a legion that is destroyed, the cavalry pursue and being looting Cassius’s camp.

Cavalry helps destroy a legion and then loots the camp

Cassius routs Antony’s flanking force.

Antony flanking force is no more

The Antony holding force at the defense line is routed and some units loot the camp, others are going around.

Looting the camp


Octavian Vs Brutus

Octavian (left) Vs Brutus (right)


Octavian advances.  Brutus also advances legions only into Octavian’s legions, also now all locked in melee.  Did not charge the cavalry as that is a straight 1:1 and no advantage there, unlike the legions that is 4 legions to 3.

Brutus engages with Octavian’s legions

Octavian manages to rout an opposing legion

Routed a Brutus legion


Final moves

Antony manages to rout the cavalry unit and Octavian routs another legion.  This results in the combined Cassius and Brutus army reaching their breakpoint.

Antony routs Cassius’s cavalry


Octavian manages to rout another of Brutus’s legions


Rule changes

None.

 

Verdict

I should have done them as two distinct games on the same table as there is no interaction between the two combats.  It then could have had one side win while the other side loses.  Instead it was overall losses that saw the Liberators lose.  It was a very close game and could have gone either way.

 

This the last game played with Ancients Battlelines Clash.  They have been fun but I am have currently moved to 8x8 grids and a mashup of Phil Sabin and 1d6  combat.  So still playtesting via the Peter Sides’ scenarios, but with different rules!  They actually have similar results but less complex and still reflecting my view of ancient battles.

6 comments:

  1. Always interesting to hear of your game evolving and I get the bit about playing for the sake of the rather than for rule evaluation or playtest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Norm. While I do like writing rules and rule tweaking, I think I have done enough with the ruleset called "Ancient Battlelines Clash" and will just go with the flow for a while. Meaning still playing with rules I write (or rules that are tweaked) but not really so much for playtesting but just to to play out the historical scenarios.

      Delete
  2. As long as you enjoy it 😉
    Cheers,
    Geoff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Geoff. I have learnt over the years to not force myself to play a game if my gaming mojo is low!

      Delete
  3. Second the comments made by Norm and Anonymous. Admittedly, I have not been a religious follower of your blog, but I have referred to once and then in my own wargaming writing. It remains foundational evidence for the "to each their own" and "there are more ways to play at war on a tabletop than can be counted" philosophies or arguments.

    This ancient battle never fails to intrigue and interest. As I recall, my first exposure to it was through the historical fiction of C. McCullough. Her narrative and interpretation based on the sources she read has been read and enjoyed quite a few times.

    Anyway, I think I can go on record as empathizing and sympathizing with your experienced peaks and valleys regarding the hobby, even though I am not a rules writer/creator like yourself.

    Coincidentally, responding to your post has afforded me the welcome opportunity to procrastinate with regard to a current project or idea that is proving especially annoying/frustrating. Adding to this challenge is the temptation of tinkering with two established sets of rules to see what I can make.

    Anyway, thanks for posting this latest report and I wish you continued success as the leaves of autumn begin to turn.

    Cheers,
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Chris,

      Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I do not think I did the battle to much justice on a 2'x2' board but at least believe the broad brush of the battle survived. It is the first time playing this battle, although I did know of it beforehand. One reason to play through the ancient battles chronologically is to have a greater understanidng of each battle and come across new ones. While is has been a few months since this battle, I am actually prepping for the next few ones.

      Delete