Introduction
This is game 75 in play testing my ancient rules by
replaying historical battles. My last
few games was using a revision of my own Ancient Battlelines Clash rules and I
do like them. This current significant
revision goes back to ABC version 2.5 from years ago (the one I played the
most) and does away with disorder, so no markers on the table. It also combines the missile and melee table
and units rout more easily than the original ABC. It is on a grid and still has
reactions to enemy moves/combat results, so it solo friendly once again. I have
played this version about 10 times already with Chariot period armies and it
has worked fine, just some minor tweaks and clarifications added. ABC is
designed to finish in less than 30 minutes on a 2’x2’ or smaller table;
currently using a 10x10 grid on 40cmx40cm table.
Battle of Argentoratum, 357 AD
Julian repels a Gothic barbarian invasion.
Scenario source: Bill Banks Ancients, Peter Sides
Ancient Historical Battles Volume 1.
Link(s):
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg
Troops
Julian (Rome)
*p
1 LDR, 1 KN (Cataphracts), 1 LC, 2 HI (Legions) with
one elite, 2 MI (Auxilia) with 1 elite.
Breakpoint: 2.5
Chnodomar, Chief of the Allemani
1 LDR, 6WB (Warbands)
Breakpoint: 3
Scenario
Map: Open with a wood in Chnodomar right flank
deployment zone (1/3 in from deployment edge) and 2BW wide.
Special rules: None.
Deployment
Julian (Rome): MI MI+ (1BW gap) HI+ HI (1BW gap) KN*
LC
Chnodomar, Chief of the Allemani: WB (1BW gap) WB
WB* WB WB (1BW gap) WB (in the woods).
BW=basewidth or 1 square
Game
The warbands advance, except the unit in the woods that was going a bit slow. Julian responds by advancing centre and right flank. The Auxilia at the woods also is being a bit slow (i.e. failed to activate).
First moves
The warbands continue to advance, except the unit in the woods that is still finding it slow going. The Auxilia move right to protect the centre. The Cataphracts charge the warband while the light cavalry also advances for support if required. The Cataphracts, unsurprisingly, rout the warbands and advance.
The Cataphracts making short work of that flank
The warbands advance into the legions. One routs, the other is still in melee. In the subsequent melee (in the Roman turn) the remaining Legions unit routs.
Warbands Vs Legions
Julian and his Cataphracts move to assist in the now collapsed centre.
Some warbands charge the Auxilia but they stand fast.
Warbands Vs Auxilia with the Cataphracts closing in
An Auxilia is subsequently destroyed and the Cataphracts hit the warbands, the latter routing
Cataphracts Vs a warband
The Romans have reached their breakpoint and flee the battle. It was a close game. Could have easily see defeat for the Goths.
End
Verdict
A short simple, straightforward game. Fairly equal sides could easily see one or
the other win. In this case, history was
not repeated. I did play one more turn
that saw another Roman unit routed, definitely a Goth win this time. It took me a week to get around to playing
this after setting it up (other things got priority). It was fairly quick, I should have just
played it earlier! And no changes to the
rules.
.jpg)
Very interesting; I thought the Cataphracts might make short work of the Germans (which I suppose the did, but insufficiently). How does the scale of the battle work? IIRC the Germans were supposed to heavily outnumber the Romans, or is it better to treat them as functionally ~equal in combat power?
ReplyDeleteWhenever the Cataphracts contacted a warband, the latter routed. I think in the actual battle the Cataphracts turned the tide.
DeleteIn this latest iteration of the rules, a warband base represents probably double the actual warriors numbers compared to another heavy infantry unit (such as the legions). In DBA terms this would be a warband with a supporting warband behind representing one ABC warband unit. So while the Germans in this battle had about twice the soldiers, in ABC units terms this is about equal. Warbands do have an advantage over other heavy infantry to compensate - HI such as legions have a combat value 3, WB have combat value 4 in melee Vs HI to their front.
Thanks Shaun, that all makes sense.
DeleteI really ought to try out ABC as an alternative to Dominion for Ancients games. The grid seems to have settled down now. Is it a 10x10? If so I can do that on one of my numerous gridded mats.
ReplyDeleteHello Martin,
DeleteIt is a 10x10. The rules work fine on 6x6, and I also have a 3x3 variant and even a 3 sector variant (so like Dominion of the Ancients). I have moved on a bit from the ABC rules I posted late last year in a blog post. I have a unformatted version of the rules (I am using Google Keep so I can tweak them wherever and whenever) and also off to New Zealand for a holiday in a week. I will hopefully put up an OK formatted version in the next few days.
It seems like blogger gives me some challenges by commenting under my own account on some of my devices again. So again, and not so anonymously; Straight forward and enjoyable battle report. really interesting.
ReplyDeleteThanks Roger. It was straightforward but fun, and close for both sides.
DeleteVery close, but the outcome was a victory for the barbarians ⚔️⚔️
ReplyDeleteI suppose the greater combat value of the Warbands in melee reflects the fact that (as far as ABC is concerned) there are more warriors.
Cheers,
Geoff
Hello Geoff
DeleteI do not mind a victory for the Goths - the Romans deserve a kicking every now and then!
The greater value of the Warbands is definitely because there are a lot more of them. For the rules I did consider making Warbands less of a combat value and cheaper, hence having more of them. But on a grid I find it is easier to flank units and so having more units is a big advantage, hence large warbands units. And it fits with what I have read of historical battles where there barbarian armies had deep formations of warband warriors, rather than shallow and long battlelines.