Ancient battle reports on small grids to playtest my own rules, part 1

Introduction
I develop some rules for 3x2 games (similar is scope to Dominion of the Spear but using my own rules), do a little playtesting.  Then quickly move on to modifying them for a 6x6 gridded table for a subsequent move to 10x10 grids and larger.  Hopefully to then get back to playing through the Peter Sides’ historical battle scenarios.
This post was quite long and stretched out over 7+ battle reports (I am still going).  So I have split it into logical parts. This post is a few 3x2 and 6x6 gridded battle reports and playtesting notes.

Background

I have been here before on what to play and use. But this is different again :-)

The 3x2 Rules

The rules are a combination of my own Ancient Battlelines Clash recent rules and Dominion of the Spear (DotS).  They are not as nuanced as DotS as I use a one D6 for combat while DotS uses 2d6 (1d6 for each combat unit).  But in summary:

Generally setup like DotS.  Reserves are allocated to a zone and can move only to that or adjacent zone.

Basically each unit has a Combat Value (CV), normally 2 to 4.  Combat is resolved by rolling 1d6 + Attacker value - Defender Value.  Shooters do the same but CV is always 2 for shooting and ignore adverse results, and if shooting fails by a lot the defender charge into melee, else the defender does nothing.

The base combat table, and modifiers are

2- Attacker destroyed

3 if Attacker CV > Defender CV, Attacker destroyed, else nothing

4 if Defender CV > Attacker CV, Defender destroyed, else nothing

5+ Defender Destroyed 

+1 to CV if flank attacking, (+2 infantry Vs mounted), flanking attacking is combat with an  adjacent zone that also has a friendly unit there.

A unit attacked on gentle hill, or a unit with a general, ignores a modified ‘5’ result.

note only the attacker or defender can be destroyed, there is no mutual destruction.

A friendly unit will move sideways if there is no enemy in their zone, and the adjacent enemy unit has no friendly unit in that zone.

So I managed to get it down to 2 modifiers.  But I did cheat as some units have special CV values - e.g. warbands are 3CV, except 5CV vs mounted in melee, Elephants are 4CV, except 6CV Vs mounted.

Change Log

But here is the possibly slightly interesting bit to a couple of people.  I wrote the rules down, played a few games and every time I made a change, I logged the change.  A small insight into playtesting.

After a few playtests:

• I had mounted CV one less than the equivalent infantry and a +1 Mounted Vs infantry. I increased Mounted CV by 1 and removed +1 Vs infantry. There were also a couple of unit specific modifiers removed. This did require an overall modifier to increase shooting to +1 Vs mounted (but this was removed in a second set of playtests - noted this below) and flank attack by infantry Vs  mounted to +2, rather than +1.
• Deceased shooting to actual CV (basically went from CV3 to CV2) but modified combat table from the 3-4 result being n/a to if 3: A CV > D CV, A KO, else n/a and 4: D CV > A CV, D KO else n/a.  The game will be faster but balances out shooting, and to a lesser extent melee.
• Change PX from CV5, CV3 shot at, 2 hits if shot at, -1 with a hit, extra -1 flank attack to CV5, shot at CV4, flank attack extra +1
• Clarified a flank attack is only if a friendly unit is also in the adjacent zone.

After a few more:

• Clarified that if no friendly unit in an adjacent zone when attacking, then move the attacking unit to that zone .  With a friendly unit in the zone, an attacking unit receives no adverse result (this was missing).

After a few more:

• Really was concerned Medium Infantry underpowered Vs shooting.  Ran some numbers.  Yep.  Made them CV4 Vs shooting but realising heading down the path of all non-missile being CV4 Vs shooting.  Changed melee values for LI and LC to 1 instead.  But that then throws out all the missile Vs missile unit combat, so then more crunching - LI are CV1 in melee Vs infantry, CV3 Vs mounted in melee (CV2 shooting).  Seems to give a decent balance and also differeentiation.  Also while crunching it highlighted the +1 for shooting Vs cavalry no longer seems required so removed it (needs more testing so still in as a possibility).  
• EL was CV4, made them CV5 (think it was an error anyway having them CV4) but CV4 Vs shooting. Elephants were CV3 Vs LI/MI but removed it (elephants had a >50% chance of being destroyed), especially now LI are CV3 Vs Mounted in melee. EL are now the same as CAT, maybe not a bad thing, but should be +1 Vs mounted.  Currently now making them CV4 but CV6(!) Vs cavalry in melee. playtesting required.
• CAT are CV 4 shot at, really only to give LI/LC a 1 in 6 chance of routing them.  May remove it after further testing - CATs were very tolerant of missiles.
• CH are identical to HA (except infantry will shoot at them better.  Thinking of increasing to CV4 Vs mounted and leaving CV3 Vs infantry.  This makes them the same as HC Vs mounted and leaves them the same as HA (CV3) Vs infantry.  Maybe vice versa - CV4 Vs infantry in melee (as shock) and CV3 Vs cavalry (equal to MC).
• Had to think about terrain and how to make it work for larger games (if I ever get to them!).  And most terrain is a gentle hill.  Rather than +1/-1 to CV, ignore an end result of 5. The terrain is removed if the unit occupying it charges to a flank attack etc (i.e. attacks that would cause it to move off the terrain).

 Anyway, onto some battle reports.

Game 1  Marathon 

I have found Marathon is such a great game for playtesting, even with only a few units per side.  Shooters Vs Phalanx.  Every game is different.  For this and my most recent playtests I have cavalry present for the Persians. This is actually the fourth of about 6 games I played.  Outcomes varied from an extreme of Persians losing badly to Greeks losing badly.  On balance the Greeks won more games and lost a few units themselves.

Greek: 2xPX, 2xHI; Persian: 2xHA, 3xLI, 1xMC

HI represent the shallow phalanx units.

Setup, Greeks at the top

The Greek right phalanx charges the Light Persian Archers but rout in the face of the missiles.  A poorer phalanx fills the gap.

Greek phalanx charges the Light Archers

The centre Sparabara fires at the opposing poorer hoplites.  It has no effect and the hoplites charge into melee, eliminating the Sparabara.

Sparabara and hoplites clash in the centre

The left flank phalanx charges the Light archers.  The missiles do not deter their charge and the subsequent melee sees off the Persian light archers.

Phalanx does away with the opposing archers

The centre Sparabara fires at the opposing hoplites.  To escape further arrows, the hoplites charge and rout the Sparabara. The cavalry fill the gap.

The centre Sparabara fires at the hoplites; the Sparabara subsequently rout 

The left flank phalanx charges the light archers that replaced the previous light archers the Greek unit routed.  In a repetition of the predecessors, the light archers fire for no effect at the chargers.  The Greek hoplites rout the light archers.

Again, the phalanx does away with the opposing archers

The best bet is for the Persian archers on the left flank to try and rout the hoplites with arrows.  It was not to be and the archers are routed by a charge of the hoplites.  

The Persian’s last hope, the left flank archers

The Persians are down to one unit and the Greeks have won!

End

Moving to 6x6

So I added some simplest movement and activation rules I was happy with to play on a 6x6 grid.  I knew it was going to double the length of the rules, and I have not tested them a lot. They are rough and succinct and may have some stuff that is inferred but I have been using them fine :-). If I keep using them past 2026 (as I want to used them for larger games as well) I will put them in a better formatted document with more explanation.

ABCD 6x6 30 September

Game 2 - Marathon (6x6)

Greek: 2xPX, 2xHI; Persian: 2xHA, 3xLI, 1xMC

(I actually played this twice as I forgot to take a bunch of pictures for the first game)

Setup; Persians on the left and the Greek thinned out phalanx in the centre

Both sides advance, the Persians to get into bowfire range, the Greeks to close as fast as they can.

The centre Sparabara fire t the hoplites, only is hit, the other shrugs off the hits and continues to charge forwards.

First fire from the Sparabara

The right phalanx advances into missile fire for no effect so continues to advance on the Light Archers.  They archers survive (Greeks rolled a 1) and manage to evade (now out of melee, means they can fire next turn).

The centre hoplites advance into the Sparabara.  One gets into melee but nothing happens, the other it hit prior to contact and slows down their advance (not in melee),

The left flank phalanx charges the Light Archers and the archers are destroyed.

The Greeks contact the Persians

The right flank archer turns to fire at the phalanx.  The latter turns to face. The fire is ineffective and the Phalanx rout the light archers in the melee.

The Sparabara not in melee fires missiles but to no effect.  The hoplites charge into contact but the melee sees the hoplites hit.  They are already hit and so are routed.

The light archers fire at the phalanx, who are hit.  No melee.

The cavalry will do nothing, if the light archers survive a melee they could flank attack the phalanx.

The battleline with a few less units

The right Greek phalanx once again charges the light archers and this time make it into melee. The light archers are destroyed!

The hoplites in contact with the Sparabara do better this round of melee and destroy the Persian Sparabara.

The left flank phalanx charges the other Sparabara but the heavy bowfire prevents them from contact, and they are also hit in the process.

A few more Persian losses

The cavalry charges the hoplites who are hit, it is their second hit so destroyed.

Persian success with the cavalry

The hoplite turns to face the cavalry and inflicts a hit.

The left phalanx destroys the opposing Sparabara.

End - the phalanx routs the remaining Sparabara

The Greeks have won!

Verdict

That was interesting and fun. Usually the cavalry either does not have chance for much involvement, or routs. This game they actually routed something!

Let us try another random scenario from my archives as I think I have played Marathon at this small scale about 10-15 times already.

Game 3 - Allia River (6x6) 387BC Gauls Vs Early Romans

I have played this before on a 12”x12” table as part of a 30 battles in 30 days a few years ago https://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com/2023/12/30-ancient-games-in-30-days-games-11-to.html

Gauls: 2xMC, 3xWB; Roman: 2xPX, 1xMC, 1xLI, 1 hill

The Gallic Chariot is not really a missile armed unit so I am treating it as Medium Cavalry.

Setup

The Gauls advance, the Light infantry fire on the Chariot, causing a hit.  Next activation, the chariot charges the light infantry.

Light infantry firing on the chariot

The Light infantry fail to stop the chariot charge and are destroyed in melee.

Light Infantry in melee with the Chariots

The Gauls continue to advance, the left flank chariots advance up the hill to melee with the Roman cavalry. The Gallic chariot suffers a hit. 

Gauls advancing

The Gallic warbands contact the Roman phalanxes.  The right flank chariots turns to assist the battleline.

Contact!

One Warband is routed, as it a Roman phalanx.

The battleline is thinning

The remaining Roman phalanx melees with a warband but the phalanx routs.  The Gauls win!

Last Roman Phalanx destroyed

Verdict

That was a bit dull, as it was originally in 2023. Surprising as Marathon is just two battlelines clashing.  I think in Marathon it is more interesting as the shooting breaks up the line. I (foreshadowing) redid this battle force and the deployment for later games and it was more interesting.

Interim Verdict

Not sure exactly where I am going with this sequence of games.  I have played the next four (all Allia River based games) but with variations of the rules.  It is playtesting, and the rules are holding up well with just minor clarifications added.  I guess in this sequence I am also looking at:

• What rules to use to play out the battles in a simple campaign (don't know)
• What rules to use for the 10x10 historical battle scenarios that I want to get back to doing (probably these)
• What size battlefield, gridded or non-gridded, do I like to play; may be more than one answer to this (don't know)

I do not think I will get a definitive answer, but will get an answer that fits late-2026 that is subject to change at a later date :-)

A diversion into ancient rules testing using original DBA as a basis

Introduction

For the last 14 years I have been developing and playtesting my rules based on Bill Banks Ancients and Warrior Kings - Ancient Battlelines Clash. In a bit of a rules funk so for something a little different, I try my hand at developing rules based on DBA and Armati. By the end they morphed into a newer version of my own rules,

Background

There are three main rules that have influenced the creation of these rules: DBA, Armati 2 and my own ABC rules.

DBA

I have always admired how great DBA is as a tight small simple ruleset.  But I find when I play it I find it just ordinary.  But I try again every now and then.  I have always been particularly intrigued by the forerunner to DBA, DBSA.  DBSA was written for a Society of Ancients event while Phil was working on DBA version 1 as a more comprehensive ruleset (the Slingshot magazine 148 has Phil Barker explaining the development of DBSA and DBA).  DBSA has no shooting, has chariots as a distinct troop type and simpler quick kill rules.  I have used DBSA as a basis for attempting to craft a ruleset I liked but never managed it (I do seem to add in shooting all the time though).

Armati 2

I think Armati 2 is my favourite ancient miniature wargaming ruleset.  I play this occasionally with another friend over the last 20 years.  It really seems to capture how I envisage an ancient battle unfolds, and has a lot of tactical decision-making required.  I have tried solo playing it and it is just not the same.  When I add some solo elements, it morphs into a different feel.  Which is why I created my own rules - Ancient Battlelines Clash.

Ancient Battlelines Clash

Ancients Battlelines Clash has been my go to rules since developing them in 2012.  Originally aiming to play battles on a 2’x2’ in under 30 minutes. However, I seem to have lost my way in the last 5-6 years and constantly tinker with them, changing mechanisms, outcomes etc.  Not necessarily for the better.  And still going at it.  Ah well.

Deja vu

While looking at Google for the location of DBSA it put up a blog post of mine where I see went through a lot of this 3 years ago in the blog post: https://shaun-wargaming-minis.blogspot.com/2023/04/600000-views-and-13-years.html

I do vaguely remember all of this.  I am glad I wrote a post about it or would have forgotten how much time I did spend on DBSA/Armati (and Phalanx!). I did look over all the rules I wrote at that time when relooking at DBSA a month ago but did not realise I had actually played them a few times.

Rules development

Looking for rules with about 6 units a side and playing on an 8x8 grid (about half a standard DBA board). The smaller board is good as it helps test out the rules and it very fast. I started with DBSA and De Bellis Minimus (rules to play DBA on a 1'x1' board with 6 elements a side ) as a foundation.  But then changed lots :-)

• No d6=1 treated as a 0
• Used 1d3 for PIPs (aim to go to +1/-1 for command difference later)
• Change unit labels (e.g. Ax = MI, Light Horse = LC)
• Changed the 2d6 opposed roll combat  to 1d6
• Added in a grid
• Overlap are only when no enemy in your ZOC
• Melee happens in a square and a recoil result in separating into respective originating squares.
• Flee became move 1 entire square back (called this retreat later)
• Added in distance shooting
• Resisting adding in a point system
• Changed combat outcomes, in DBA terms: <½ is always destroyed but added LC/LI retreat (former flee) result to ½ and > ½ 
• Added in a minor movement restrictions to tidy up grid movement
• Added in mandatory/impetuous charging for Heavy Cavalry, Warbands and a few others
• Clarified shooting results  - all shooting results in either retreat (instead of a recoil) or destroyed
• Resisting adding in a point system but did add in that LI (aka Psiloi) are only worth ½ a victory point.  And later I did read a similar suggestion on fanacticus.org so it is not just me!

The following add in reactions to enemy actions to make it a bit more solo friendly.  I did not add them to the first few games (could not help myself and did later on). These move the game along at a pace, add some unpredictability and I use them in my own ABC rules. They do remove the need to spend dice pips for enemy movement as a lot is reactive:

• If shot at in ZOC of enemy and no result target charges shooter
• If Bow shot a mandatory charger and no result then target charges Bow
• If enemy moves into charge distance of a mandatory charger then should the charger immediately charge?

A question in the back of my mind is should maybe only bound or non-bounding fires rather than both?  Bowfire can be powerful but units do start close together.  I played both until I added in reactions, where a unit fires when activated and a target missile unit will return fire anyway.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to the rules after playtesting. not fully tested and (spoiler) replaced with other rules.

ABCD rules August 2026 v0.1a.pdf

This is the end of these rules. Pre-empting the end of this post, I have morphed these rules to include reactions to actions, more streamlining and tweaking to play on larger grids, and modified a lot more too!

Playing the rules

I used an 8x8 (20cmx20cm) grid with 6mm forces set up next to my computer..  This way it took up very little space and was quite accessible.

Sumer Vs Akkad

I played about 6-8 games of this, with different setups.  I seem to have taken no pictures of any of the games.  But it did help with some clarifications.

Marathon

8x8 board 

Setup (in Algebraic Notation)

Greeks (move first)

Phalanx (c2), Spear (d2), Spear (e2), Phalanx* (f2)

Persians

Light Infantry (c7), Bowx2* (d7), Bowx2 (e7), Light Infantry (f7)

Optional: replace LI (f7) with Medium Cavalry (f7)

Optional: replace Bowx2 (e7) with Bow (e7) and LI (g7)

* = General

Marathon with cavalry

I did do a couple of games with the cavalry option, just to see what it was like.

Side quest

And then got caught up doing a whole bunch of 6 elements a side army lists based on DBA 1.1 army lists.  I thought as the rules have a basis in early DBA should test them with the early lists.  I started with the first army (Sumerian and Akkadian), picked the first enemy (Early Syrian) and played the game with the army being the first player, enemy the second.  Work down the list to find the next unplayed army and work across to find the next unplayed enemy.  I also have a simple programmed opponent I can use to decide on army tactics that helps with deployment and the first few moves. I managed three games before I realised I prefer some reactions to enemy moves. 

Akkadian (1/1 Vs Early Syrian  1/4b) 

1  Sumerian & Akkadian: 2 Ch 3 Sp 1 LI    (Mounted: Left Flank)

4b  Early Syrian: 1 WB 2 Ax 3 LI    (Missile: Staged retreat)

Two terrain pieces, 1 steep hill (Syrian side), 1 gentle hill (Akkadian side)

The Akkadians did win but it was a close thing. Both Akkadian chariots were routed, along with their Light infantry.  The Syrians being in the difficult going really helped with slowing down the speed of victory.

Egyptian Vs Nubian

2  Old & Middle Kingdom Egyptian: 2 Sp 3 Bw 1 LI    (Missile: Flank)

3  Nubian: 2 Wb 2 Bw 2 LI    (Missile: Defensive)

1 steep hill

The Egyptians did well charging straight ahead and routing a warband and then a Bow unit. However, a bit of manoeuvring by the Nubians saw a Bow unit overwhelmed and then the General unit trapped and killed.  Nubians win!

Libyan Vs Hyskos (with some changes in the rules)

Was to be: 

4a  Early Libyan: 1 Wb 5 LI

8a  Hyksos: 3 LCh 1 Sp 2 LI

And this is where I had a change of heart.  While the rules I have created are great, they are really two player.  They are solo friendly in as far as you are playing both sides and fairly easy to do so.  I miss the reactions that provided uncertainty for each side and so the tactical situation constantly changed.  My original intent was to create a set of very solo-friendly rules (ABC) but I do like how these feel, just need to add in some reactions (I did allude to this earlier). Anyway, I added my normal reactions I seem to put into most of my rules:

• Possibly charge after being shot at

• Shoot at an enemy if they move into range

• Impetuously charge if an enemy comes into range.

This is all done the moment the situation occurs.  No IGOYGO  This does also mean the rolling PIPs for moves needs to go (a fair amount of movement is now involuntary) and back to activating groups with a roll (basically a 2+, 3+ for single units).

I did also take the opportunity to go for point based armies rather than 6 a side, and medium cavalry will Quick Kill infantry (like Armati).

So now:

4a  Early Libyan: 2 Wb 4 LI     (Missile: Right Flank)

8a  Hyksos: 3 LCh 1 Sp 1 LI    (Missile: Defensive (Right Oblique)

There is a steep hill on the Libyan right flank.  I forgot a deployment photo but here is the end state with a decisive win for the Hyksos as the chariots routed the Libyan light infantry and the Warbands bounced and routed off the Hyksos Spearmen. Most of the remaining elements in the picture are Hyksos.

Worked well.

End note

This is also where I remembered I should really be replaying historical battles as that is what I actually enjoy.  I have had the Battle of Adrianople, 378 AD, set up with 15mm forces on my 10x10 grid for over 4 months as I detoured into testing these rules using 6mm on a 8x8 grid.  While the 8x8 grid with pre-generated armies are great for campaign games (although I am thinking Dominion the the Spear may still be my rules of choice for them), I am going to go and see if my motivation can get me back to playing the historical games.  These DBA rules are not very different now from the ABC rules, with the combat mechanism being the main change.  I like them at the moment, let us see how long they survive further playing! Spoiler - did not survive but did morph into other similar rules.

Post-script

I then went down a rabbit hole of generic-ish 3x3 rules for ancients, SF skirmish and WW2 and maybe even other stuff (may be worthy of another post!).  And then I thought “could I apply these to larger sized ancient games?” (have been here before - scaling up and down).  Currently deciding between continuing with the 10x10 grid I have been using for the last couple of years; or looking to do a 15x15 grid (i.e. 2’x2’ table split into 40mm squares) to match my 15mm ancient figures.  Really, I just need to stop thinking and play a few games on different sized boards to see what I currently enjoy!

Spoiler - the generic-ush 3x3 rules were once again a dead end.  I have been down this rabbit hole about 3 times in the last 6 years, never successfully.  At least I am consistent. I ten went to a 1d6 alternative to Dominion of the Spear ;like games (again, have been here before) and expanded to a 6x6 grid and then hopefully a 10x10 grid. But that belongs in another post. It did take me about eight weeks to do this one, so I may try for a shorter time until the next one :-)

An an aside

Just to show I am not just thinking about gaming but also playing, I did get a chance to play a WW2 game with my18yo son on a table tennis table with my 20mm kit.  It was actually setup ready to go for 3 weeks until we could both find a few hours free to play the game.

Summary

Got a new combat mechanism I like, and should be transferable to more Armati-like games. Otherwise the rules are still my own Ancient Battlelines Clash at the core.  Got in some games as well. Still in a bit of a gaming funk but believe I may be ready to get back to playing some historical games on a 10x10 or larger grid.