Seven ancient games on 30cmx30cm testing revisions to Ancients Battlelines Clash

Introduction

I continue to test the latest iteration of my ancient rules with seven games on a 12”x12” table. The armies are all the Basic Impetus Volume 1: Age of Chariots converted to my troop definitions and then cutting down the number of units by about one-third to fit on the small board.

Note: after these games I went back to the drawing board and have a much revised ruleset I am using for 2’x2’ battles so this is likely the last of the games using my Ancient Battlelines Clash rules.

Background

I played some dark ages battles last year on a 1’x1’ table and quite liked how it played.  My goal with my own rules has always been to be play out the historical battles.  Over the years I have come to the realisation I am looking to capture the grand sweep of the games and not so much the tactical. Another factor is I am looking at better rules than the ones I used last time to do another Imperator campaign and also to do some more One Hour Wargame scenarios.

I have been stalling with the replaying of the historical games as I was finding it hard to get motivated to find the figures and then set up the game on a 2’x2’ for a playing time that was shorter than the setup and take down!  A 1’x1’, crazy as it seems, is so much faster to setup and the play time is not that much shorter.  It is also an excuse to get in a more games, albeit fast ones and smaller.

I have modified my rules again and rather than test them out with the next few historical games, I wanted to see if they work ok on a 1’x1’ table.  So I got the Basic Impetus army lists, loaded them in a excel spreadsheet and converted them all to ABC troop types.  For the Chariot era I randomised options and opponents (enemies cribbed from DBA 1.1.).  I also created four extra army lists that are in DBA but not in BI.   I then deleted as many selections as I could to try and get each army only used once.  There were 35 armies and I got it down to 23 games (so 46 armies would have be used total and 11 used twice).   But only played seven.

Rules

I have be Fascinated by both DBSA (the predecessor to DBA) for its simplicity (bows are subsumed into Psiloi) and De Bellis Minimus (DBA on a 1’x1’ board).

I must reread DSBA every year but just cannot bring myself to play a game without elite/poor and/or hit markers (I do like DBM100 which has superior/inferior).  I am getting closer every year though.

So it has long range missile fire but really at the scale of large battles 1’ wide, maybe missile fire is limited to a centimetre or less.  Maybe change my ABC rules and do missiles at contact – use the melee table but the missile modifier?  I drafted up a QRS reflecting this.  The rules were much streamlined and worked really well.  I planned to use the 23 1’x1’ rules to test them out.  Spoiler: only got to game 7 (see above).  Note after game 3 I had a delay and I did a bunch of soul searching and why develop my own rules, blah blah blah.  Anyway, the end result was all I did was put back in missile ranges so some units fire longer than a 1 (mainly heavy archers fire out to 3).

I have stopped using these rules now and have gone to a heavily modified Bill Banks Ancients.

Definitions and solo play

(skip this if not too interested – troop types are fairly obvious and solo engine is the same as found in older version of my rules)

Troops mapped to DBx

While not always an exact match, this will at least give an idea on the troop types used by the rules

HC, Heavy Cavalry – Cavalry Cv

LC, Light Cavalry – Light Horse, LH

CH, Chariots – Cavalry, Cv (sort of)

HI, Heavy Infantry – Blade and Spearmen, Bd/Sp

WB, Warband – Warband, Wb

HA, Heavy Archers, Bowmen Exception, Bw (X)

MA, Medium Archers - Bowmen, Bw

MI, Medium Infantry – Auxilia, mostly Superior or Exceptional Ax(S)/Ax(X)

MM, Mixed Missile (Light Infantry) – Bows Inferior Bw(I) or Auxilia, Ax

SK, Skirmishers – Psiloi, Ps

Army solo engine

I did write a programmed opponent for version 2 of my rules but v3 changed troop types just enough it would not quite work.  Generating tactics for the three zones (2 flanks and centre) and deployment still fine so used these for both sides for these games.

An army will be one of six types based on its unit mix (Mounted, Warband, Missile, Infantry, Skirmish and Other)

This army type determines the overall tactics possible (see below). Not all types have the option of all the army tactics e.g. a Mounted army type will only have an army tactic of either Flank, Envelop flanks or Oblique.

Army Tactic

The army tactic is random based on the army type:

All Out: Attack all along the line.

Centre: Attack with the centre units with the aim to break the enemy’s centre.  Flank units are held back to protect the forward flanks of the centre units. 

Flank:  Attack with one flank, advance at high speed, hoping the break the opposing flank. Advance with the centre to protect the attacking flank and hold back the other weaker flank.

Envelop flanks: Attack with both flanks at high speed while holding the centre.

Oblique:  Attack with the centre and a strong flank while holding back the weak flank. Advance at high speed in mutual support the centre and strong flank.

Staged Retreat: Dispersed units wear down the enemy, usually by missile fire, and hope to draw the enemy out.  Heavier troops then attack. Similar to Defensive but with offensive use of skirmishers.

Defensive:  Advance steadily, defending along the line, with archers and skirmishers to the front.  Only one side will ever have a defensive tactic.

This dictates what each of the three zones (centre and two flanks) tactics are:

Tactic	Left/Strong	Centre	Right/Weak
All Out	Attack	Attack	Attack
Centre	Probe	Attack	Probe
Flank	Attack	Probe	Wait
Envelop flanks	Attack	Probe	Attack
Oblique	Attack	Attack	Probe
Staged Retreat	Probe	Probe	Probe
Defensive	Hold	Hold	Hold

 

I have percentage of force allocated to each zone based on the army tactic e.g. Envelop flanks has 30% of units in the centre and 40% of units on each flank.

Zone tactics

Where it all ends up.  The Zone tack dictates what each troop type can do (troops types are grouped into about 5 high level roles e.g. Impetuous, Missile Armed).  While there used to be fairly specific directions for each of these roles I use these general rules.  After about 3 moves the orders per type do not work so well and make the best moves for the situation but still try to align to zone orders.

ATTACK: Impetuous and non-missile armed shockers (shockers are those that get a “charge” bonus in the first round of a melee) troops will charge.  Missile units will advance into range and then fire. Missile armed shockers will charge into favourable melees. Non-missile units will advance to within 1 but only charge into favourable melees.

PROBE: Impetuous will charge. Missile units will advance into range and then fire.  Non-missile armed shockers will advance to within 1 or charge into favourable melees. Other non-missile units will advance to 2 of the enemy; if within 2 will advance 1; Heavy Foot will charge from any distance into favourable melees. 

HOLD: Do not advance over the centre line until an adjacent zone has advanced over the centre line.  Generally act as per Probe subject to the centre line constraint.

WAIT: As per HOLD but the first charge by any unit in that zone (including enemy or friendly mandatory) then change orders to ATTACK.

Game 1 - 1.1 Early Sumerian 3000 -2250 BC (attacker) Vs 1.13 Kassite and Later Babylonian 1600-750 BC

1.1 Early Sumerian 3000 -2250 BC. Tactic: Defensive. BP: 6.

Sumerians

1 Battle Cars, CH (Chariots), leader. CV: 2

2 Royal Bowmen, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

2 Slingers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

2 Militia Spearmen, HI (Heavy Infantry), poor. CV: 2

1 Household Foot, HI (Heavy Infantry). CV: 3

 

1.13 Kassite and Later Babylonian 1600-750 BC. Tactic: Envelop flanks. BP: 5.

Babylonians

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow, leader. CV: 2

1 Foot, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

2 Archers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

1 Cavalry, HC (Heavy Cavalry). CV: 1

2 Archers, HA (Heavy Foot with Bows), bow. CV: 2

Terrain

Hill         -              -

-              -             -

-              -             -

Deployment and tactics

Deployment

1.1 Early Sumerian 3000 -2250 BC

Strong flank: 20%. Hold.

Centre: 70%. Hold.

Weak flank: 10%. Hold.

Cart and leader on the right flank, the two archers on the left flank and the remaining heavy infantry with skirmisher screen holding the centre.

 

1.13 Kassite and Later Babylonian 1600-750 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Attack.

Centre: 40%. Probe.

Weak flank: 30%. Attack.

Chariot and leader with one bowmen on the left flank and the cavalry and the other bowmen on the right flank.  This creates two strong flanks with the medium infantry with skirmish screen to hold the centre long enough for the flanks to do the job. 

Game report

The Babylonians advance both their flanks while the Sumerians advance slightly.

The Babylonians right flank of cavalry and bowmen attack their opposing flank of two heavy archers.

Babylonian right flank attacks

The Babylonians left flank heavy archers contact a spearmen unit (poor) and rout them and receive a disorder in return.

The Sumerian centre is where they have the advantage so advance.  The skirmish screen goes ahead.  Both sides skirmish screen meet and all retire.  The Babylonian left flank chariot continues to advance

The Sumerian centre and right.  Skirmishers are meeting at the left of the image.

No damage inflicted on the Babylonian infantry but the main aim was the clear the skirmishers and that has been done.

 The centre cleared of Babylonian skirmishers

The Sumerian left flank medium archers rout the opposing bowmen and cavalry (excellent rolling).

The Babylonians are only one unit away from breaking and so have no real choice but to charge leader to leader.

Leader Vs leader

The Babylonians will be at an advantage as they are not a single unit, and the chariots have bows while the battle cars do not.  The missiles rough up the battle car and the subsequent melee sees the leader and battle car routed.  Bad news for the Sumerians – tis causes them to reach their army breakpoint and they flee.

Notes on rules

Incorporating bowfire into the initial melee (with different modifiers) really helps with speeding up the game.

The random deployment and zone tactics worked well to help differentiating what to do for each side.

The game was loads of fun.  I do like that the battle is full of tactical decisions – only a few dice rolls per turn and resolution is almost a given.  While a few unlucky rolls can see a side off, it is certainly makes my brain think on every move.  Deployment is important – the Sumerians should have supported the Battle car with another unit and the light Babylonian centre was one turn from routing (and they would have then lost the game).

 

Game 2 - 1.2 Old and Medium Kingdom Egyptian 3000 -1543 BC (attacker) Vs 1.3 Nubian 3000 -2250 BC

1.2 Old and Medium Kingdom Egyptian 3000 -1543 BC. Tactic: Envelop flanks. BP: 7.

Egyptians

1 Warriors, MI (Medium Foot), leader. CV: 3

1 Warriors, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

1 Elite or Nubian Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

2 Conscript Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

1 Conscripts Foot, HI (Heavy Infantry), poor. CV: 2

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow. CV: 1

 

1.3 Nubian 3000 -2250 BC. Tactic: Envelop flanks. BP: 5.

Nubians

1 Nobles, WB (Warbands), elite, leader. CV: 4

2 Warriors, WB (Warbands). CV: 2

2 Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

1 Skirmishers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

1 Javelinmen, SK (Skirmishers), javelins. CV: 0

Terrain

Wood    -              -

Hill         -              -

-              -              -

Deployment and tactics

Deployment, Egyptians on the left.

1.2 Old and Medium Kingdom Egyptian 3000 -1543 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Attack.

Centre: 40%. Probe.

Weak flank: 30%. Attack.

1.3 Nubian 3000 -2250 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Attack.

Centre: 40%. Probe.

Weak flank: 30%. Attack.

 

Game report

Egyptians move all ahead, Nubians move just the flanks.

Egyptian right flank engages with Nubian left flank.  Egyptian Bowmen contacts Skirmishers, the latter, Bowmen disordered.

Egyptian left flank advances. Nubian Skirmishers are within range and so Skirmishers fires and disorders the Warriors with the leader. The Skirmishers routs.

Nubian warriors charge.

Contact along the line.

Warband Vs chariot: Chariot missile fire with no effect. Subsequent melee: Both disordered.

Warband Vs Warband+leader (disordered): Attacking Warband disordered.

Nubian right flank elite Warband charges the opposing Bowmen and the Nubian Bowmen charges the Egyptian warband warriors:

Egyptian Bowmen forces Warband back disordered.

Egyptian Warband forces Nubian Medium Bowmen back disordered and then in the subsequent melee the Medium Bowmen is destroyed.

The Nubian elite Warband charges Egyptian Bowmen and it routs.

The Nubian elite Warband pursues and is now within range of the Egyptian Bowmen; these fire and routs the Warband and leader (a lucky 6 and the Warband is already disordered!).  The Nubian leader is gone.

Due to losing their leader and two units, the Nubians army flees.

The end game

Notes on rules

Except for the Elite warband, most of these units have a low Combat Value of 2 compared to heavy infantry of 3.  It was interesting and the mix of bowmen and warband gave the rules a good workout and they worked fine.

 

Game 3

1.3 Nubian 3000 -2250 BC (attacker) Vs 1.5 Early Libyans 3000-665 BC

1.3 Nubian 3000 -2250 BC. Tactic: Defensive. BP: 5.

Nubian

1 Nobles, WB (Warbands), elite, leader. CV: 4

2 Warriors, WB (Warbands). CV: 2

2 Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

1 Skirmishers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

1 Javelinmen, SK (Skirmishers), javelins. CV: 0

 

1.5 Early Libyans 3000-665 BC. Tactic: Staged retreat. BP: 4.

Early Libyans

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow, leader. CV: 2

2 Warriors, WB (Warbands). CV: 2

2 Javelinmen, SK (Skirmishers), javelins. CV: 0

2 Archers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

1 Warriors, WB (Warbands), elite. CV: 3

Terrain

-              Rise        -

-              -              -

-              -              -

Deployment and tactics

Deployment – Nubians on the left.

1.3 Nubian 3000 -2250 BC

Strong flank: 15%. Hold.

Centre: 70%. Hold.

Weak flank: 15%. Hold.

 

1.5 Early Libyans 3000-665 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Probe.

Centre: 50%. Probe.

Weak flank: 20%. Probe.

 

Game

I did take about 5 pictures for the game action but I can only find one.  I have never lost an image before and as the images are numbered sequentially then maybe I only did take one.

The Libyan chariot uses of on the skirmisher javelineers as chariots runners.  While together, the chariots get +1 to their front against all but heavy foot troops.

Both sides advance.   The Nubians have hold orders so can’t go across the half-way line.

The Libyan chariot flank advances to within range of the Nubian left flank archers.  Firing occurs.  Libyan skirmisher routs, Libyan chariot disordered, Nubian archers retreat.  No followup as units are now more than 1 (4cm) from each other.

The Libyan centre does not move but the L. left flank moves against the archers.  Libyan Skirmisher routs, the Nubian archer disordered.

The Nubian centre advance – the Skirmisher can contact the opposition so can cross the centre line to do so.  One Skirmisher each side routs.

The Libyan chariots charges again into the Nubian archers.  Nubian archers destroyed.  Chariot pursues.

The Libyan left flank warband charges the archers and the result is both remain locked in melee.

Overview of game

The Nubian centre moves against the Libyan centre. Nubian Skirmisher routs, the ensuing melee the Libyan are worse off but no routs.

 

The Libyan Chariot has been wheeling and next turn will be able to smash into the rear of the Nubian battleline.  Alas the melee in the centre sees the Libyan Warband and Leader rout.  The Libyan breakpoint is reached and the Nubians win.

 

Verdict

Another good game.  It could have gone either way.  One day I may figure out how to make this work on a grid but at the moment the two on one combats that occur is inherent to making some of the mechanisms of the game work and hang together.   I have tried in the past not successfully.  Ah well.  Next time I get the urge I will try.

 

Game 4 - 1.4 Early Elamites 3000-800 BC (attacker) Vs 1.6 Akkadian Empire 2300-2193 BC

1.4 Early Elamites 3000-800 BC. Tactic: Envelop flanks. BP: 5.

Early Elamites

1 Household Spearmen, HI (Heavy Infantry), leader. CV: 4

1 Household Spearmen, HI (Heavy Infantry). CV: 3

2 Household Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

4 Archers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow. CV: 1

 

1.6 Akkadian Empire 2300-2193 BC. Tactic: Oblique. BP: 5.

Akkadian

1 Battle Cars, CH (Chariots), leader. CV: 2

1 Household Spearmen, HI (Heavy Infantry). CV: 3

1 Militia Spearmen, HI (Heavy Infantry), poor. CV: 2

1 Household Retinue, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

1 Household Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

6 Militia Archers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

Terrain

-              -              -

-              Rise        -

-              -              -

 Deployment and tactics

Deployment, Akkadians on the left

1.4 Early Elamites 3000-800 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Attack.

Centre: 40%. Probe.

Weak flank: 30%. Attack.

 

1.6 Akkadian Empire 2300-2193 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Attack.

Centre: 50%. Attack.

Weak flank: 20%. Probe.

 

Game

Akkadian strong flank is the right.  All basically advance, skirmishers clash.  First to melee is the Akkadian right flank – battlecar (with general) and medium foot Vs chariot and archers. 

Akkadian battlecar Vs Elamite chariots

Later the chariots are routed the Akkadian battlecar, and the archers by the Akkadian medium foot.

 

The Akkadian left flank sees the Elamite Household Spearmen rush the Skirmishers and Medium Archers.  The Medium Archers is disordered. 

Akkadian archers Vs Elamite spears

The centre still has not made contact due to the last of the skirmishers still firing but then later in the game the Akkadian bowmen stubbornly hang on (Akkadians kept rolling a 1 for combat).  Finally they were destroyed and the Elamite army routs.

The centre rolled up by the Akkadians (the Elamites have all routed)

Rules Changes

Big change to the rules since I first thought of then around 2012 and a few minor changes:

Vastly reduced rolling for movement.  Now by default every group/unit can move and there are limited instances you have to roll a 4+ (far from leader, untrained complex moves).  This has also been something in the back of my mind that you roll for every group, mostly it being Ok. And rolling for a complex move should not be required normally- you get disordered if you do one anyway!

I have added into the rules that for every split of groups from the start of the games is one additional breakpoint. This should discourage splitting except when you really need it.

I have put back in missile ranges.  While I was aiming for none, I did have a rule that missile combat happened when you got within 1 (4cm).  I have just extended that to 3 for Heavy and medium archers.  So ranges are back.  But the melee and missile table is still combined, so a win for the rules there.

I added in that a second disorder result on light units saw them rout.  Seems Ok.  It also helps with the light units evade that had an additional marker (spent) so they could not evade again.  With disorder, they can’t evade so back to one marker only!

With the +1 breakpoint for splitting groups and the small number of units I have increased the breakpoint of an army by one.  Games were going too fast – as soon as 2-3 units break the game is over. May not need to do this with larger battles though.  I have toyed with variable game ending (i.e. rolling when getting to breakpoint to see if the whole army routs or rolling for each unit to see if if routs every time a unit breaks after 50% lost) but found for me I am fine with a definitive end point.  

What bought some of this on – There was a chanced of playing a game with my 13yo son and looking at rules – DBA, Fantasy Rules! TCE, Mighty Armies: Ancients and Armati all came to mind.  I was leaning to FR!TCE but then thought maybe combine that with DBA.  But then maybe use Armati mechanisms but use PIPS to move.  But my ABC rules are designed to actually be like a faster “inspired by” Armati.  So why not so make ABC a little more like Armati (hence the “all can move” change and bringing back missile ranges).  I have three rulesets half written where I combined some of the above (!) but went with the “change ABC” option.  It is faster than all the others after all!  I may have to try this on the “big table” (i.e. the 2’x2’ J)

p.s. Haven’t played that ancients game with my son yet. ended up playing some WW2 games with him.

Verdict

The rules changes are working fine.  The movement is a lot simpler with less die rolling or thinking if it needs to be rolled for, Lights double disorder never came up as there are were no light foot other than skirmishers (that rout on any adverse result). 

 

Game 5 - 1.7 Old Assyrian and Babylonian 1900-1600 BC (attacker) Vs 1.14 New Kingdom Egyptian 1543-1069 BC

1.7 Old Assyrian and Babylonian 1900-1600 BC. Tactic: Defensive. BP: 8.

Assyrians

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow, leader. CV: 2

2 Retinue Foot, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

1 Warriors, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

1 Retinue Foot, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

2 Retinue Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

 

1.14 New Kingdom Egyptian 1543-1069 BC. Tactic: Oblique. BP: 5.

Egyptians

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), elite, bow, leader. CV: 3

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), elite, bow. CV: 2

1 Shardana Royal Guard, HI (Heavy Infantry). CV: 3

1 Foot, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

4 Skirmishers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

Terrain

-              -              Rise

-              -              -

Hill         -

Deployment and tactics

Deployment – Assyrians on the left

1.7 Old Assyrian and Babylonian 1900-1600 BC

Strong flank: 20%. Hold.

Centre: 60%. Hold.

Weak flank: 20%. Hold.

1.14 New Kingdom Egyptian 1543-1069 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Attack.

Centre: 50%. Attack.

Weak flank: 20%. Probe.

 

Game

New Kingdom Egyptian strong flank is their right (with the Chariot).

Assyrians hold; New Kingdom Egyptian advance; Assyrian flanks advance as can see the opposing flanks are weaker.  Assyrian centre on the hill is a great advantage.

New Kingdom Egyptian Attacking zones advance.  The New Kingdom Egyptian left flank does not advance as the opposition is stronger, and they have PROBE orders.

 

New Kingdom Egyptian’s right flank Skirmisher routs, flanks exchange missile fire - both disordered; New Kingdom Egyptian Chariot charges in and is destroyed!

NKE chariot prior to routing.

Assyrian chariot manages to get on the flank of the New Kingdom Egyptian Heavy Infantry but only disorders. The New Kingdom Egyptian spearmen waited too long to try to use covering Skirmisher to soften up the Steep hill.  But a subsequent melee sees them rout.

Chariot in flank on Egyptian spearmen

On the Assyrian right flank, a MA is lost but in the centre it was never going to end well with the chariot in melee up hill.  The chariot is lost and the New Kingdom Egyptian army routs.

End game (New Kingdom Egyptian chariot about to rout)

Rules changes

Clarified what happens with shock units that also have bows e.g. chariots.  They fire and then charge (this was in the previous version) but it got left out in the latest revision.

 

Verdict

Not sure what else the New Kingdom Egyptian could have done as the attacker.  The tactics were poor (pre-generated).  If the strong flank was actually their right flank it may have made a difference.  That and rolling too many 1s.

 

Game 6 - 1.8 Early Hittite 1680-1380 BC (attacker) Vs 1.13 Kassite and Later Babylonian 1600-750 BC

1.8 Early Hittite 1680-1380 BC. Tactic: Oblique. BP: 6.

Hittites

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow, leader. CV: 2

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow. CV: 1

2 Guardsmen, MI (Medium Foot), elite. CV: 3

1 Foot, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

1 Javelinmen, SK (Skirmishers), javelins. CV: 0

1 Skirmishers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

 

1.13 Kassite and Later Babylonian 1600-750 BC. Tactic: Flank. BP: 6.

Kassites

1 Elite Chariots, CH (Chariots), elite, bow, leader. CV: 3

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow. CV: 1

2 Archers, HA (Heavy Foot with Bows), bow. CV: 2

1 Foot, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

 

Terrain

-              Rise        -

-              -              -

Hill         -              -

 

Deployment and tactics

Deployment.  Kassites on the left.

1.8 Early Hittite 1680-1380 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Attack.

Centre: 50%. Attack.

Weak flank: 20%. Probe.

1.13 Kassite and Later Babylonian 1600-750 BC

Strong flank: 40%. Attack.

Centre: 40%. Probe.

Weak flank: 20%. Wait.

 

Game

Hittites all advance.  The Kassite chariots move into range and missile fire is exchanged.

Chariots exchanging missiles

Well, in an interesting turn of events, the Kassite general and Chariot rout.  A Hittite chariot also routs. And then the remaining Kassite chariot manages to rout the Hittite chariot and general.  A run of 6s on both sides!  This should cause the Hittite army to flee but I will play on a turn just to test the infantry combats.

 

The Kassite Heavy archers caused one disorder on the Hittite guards and the other advanced.  This caused a split (another breakpoint) and the ensuing combat was inconclusive. 

Centre combat

Rules changes

For these small battles, I think I need a breakpoint of two-thirds rather than one half.  Although in this battle ii was excellent dice rolling that saw the Hittite chariots rout. 

Verdict

A short game but still fun.

 

Game 7

1.9 Hyksos 1645-1537 BC (attacker) Vs 1.4 Early Elamites 3000-800 BC

1.9 Hyksos 1645-1537 BC. Tactic: Defensive. BP: 9.

Hyskos

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow, leader. CV: 2

3 Retinue Foot, MI (Medium Foot). CV: 2

1 Retinue Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

2 Light Troops, MM (Light Infantry with Missiles), javelins. CV: 1

4 Skirmishers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

 

1.4 Early Elamites 3000-800 BC. Tactic: Staged retreat. BP: 7.

Elamites

1 Household Spearmen, HI (Heavy Infantry), leader. CV: 4

1 Household Spearmen, HI (Heavy Infantry). CV: 3

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), elite, bow. CV: 2

1 Chariots, CH (Chariots), bow. CV: 1

1 Household Archers, MA (Bowmen), bow. CV: 1

4 Archers, SK (Skirmishers), bow. CV: 0

Terrain

-              Hill         -

-              -              -

-              -              -

Deployment and tactics

Deployment – Elamites on the left

1.9 Hyksos 1645-1537 BC

Strong flank: 25%. Hold.

Centre: 60%. Hold.

Weak flank: 15%. Hold.

1.4 Early Elamites 3000-800 BC

Strong flank: 30%. Probe.

Centre: 50%. Probe.

Weak flank: 20%. Probe.

 

Game

The Hyksos cannot really beat any of the opposing units one on one.  Their left flank could be the only option and so advance only that flank.

The Elamites move their entire line forwards.

The Hyskos leader in the chariot has a chance to attack the opposing chariot and so charges.

 

Hyksos chariot charges the opposing chariot

The Elamite chariot is disordered, the accompanying Hyksos archers are disordered and retreat due to missiles from the Elamite Skirmisher (who retire after inflicting this result) .

 

The Elamite right flanks charges the opposing group. One MM destroyed, the other has retreated.

Elamite right flank.

The Hyskos battleline mostly remain where they are – being inferior to the opposition.  Except on their right flank flank where the Hyskos chariot and leader routs the opposing Elamite chariot.  The accompanying Hyskos bowmen also rout though.

Hyskos chariot and bowmen in melee with the Elamite chariot

The Hyskos right flank is rolled up by the Elamite chariot.  The Hyskos chariot on the other flanks races to hit the rear of the Elamite heavy infantry but is not in time for the Hyskos infantry line to collapse while in melee with the Elamite infantry (including the Elamite leader)

Game end position.

Verdict

I do like these rules and still have fun playing them.  But not as much as I used to. I did write them and have used variations of these same rules to play hundreds of games over the last 10 years. But these last few games have finally convinced me that I need a change. 

 

Overall Verdict

I got to game 7 after 8 months of playing here and there and thought – what am I doing?  I am supposed to be playing the Peter Sides Scenario games to test out the rules, not getting distracted!  If I am going to play my rules try and stick to the plan.  And if I am playing less than one game a month and they take so little time, is it time for a change?

This “try and stick to the plan” lasted a day.  I was thinking on how I could use grids with this game (it is always in the back of my mind).

The mechanism I use with a single die roll for combat is proving limiting. I am not going to move away from single die rolls for resolution though – just implement a different mechanism (use a CRT rather than die modifiers).  And I am finding I am moving away from activate a unit and do everything (move, fire, melee) to a more pseudo I Go You Go (e.g. move side a, side B fires, conduct melees). I am finding it easier to game this way than unit activations for ancient battles, and I am finding that the overall narrative of a battle when playing with a small number of units is batter formed with this process rather than induvial activations.  Of course, I may go back to activations next year as I realise I really do like them.   I think part of the reason for changing is looking for a change 😊

So I thought of a game I loved and was one of the inspirations for my rules - Bill Banks Ancients.  They are hexes not grids but I used the Ancients rules as a basis, changed the things I have never been fond of and played a few games.  Loved it and am now back to playing historical games with these rules (but with free measurement) on the a 2’x2’ table.  Back to the plan the play historical battles in chronological order.  I like to think these digressions make the rules better – it has in the past! 

There is a (dry) blog post in the works on my journey from Bill Banks Ancients rules to the ones I have been using since the games in this post.