A TACTICA II TRIPLE PLAY

In May of 2019, I finished editing a comparatively lengthy article (approximately 8,000 words along with 10 diagrams) wherein I described my limited experience with Arty Conliffe’s newest rules, Tactica II. In addition to providing detailed summaries of several educational, albeit lacking in fuller context exercises, I presumed to suggest a number of amendments to these thoroughly play tested rules. Unfortunately as well as disappointingly, the finished article was not accepted by the sitting editor of Slingshot, The Journal of The Society of Ancients. Personally, I think it would have been a nice addition or perhaps contrasting point of view to the excellent material provided by Paul Innes and Simon Watson, two gentlemen who wrote at length about their own years-long experience with and enjoyment of Tactica II. However, an editor always knows best, right? As it is sometimes said or rationalized: “It’s water under the bridge,” or “That’s history. Time to move on.” Unfortunately, due to an annoying lack of focus, I never followed up on these rule amendments or variations. I never produced narratives or reports wherein I employed, tested, and critiqued my own suggestions. More water under that figurative bridge, I suppose.

Fast-forwarding a couple of years, “Tactica II: Testing and Tinkering” was published to my blog in June of 2021. It generated a little conversation and some commentary, most of this discussion taking place on the rules forum of The Society of Ancients website. (There was no similar conversation over on the Ancients Discussion Board at TMP.) My interest rekindled by this chain of events, I decided to revisit Tactica II. Oddly enough, even though it would have been the logical course of action, however delayed, my goal was not to test the previously drafted amendments and variations. The new plan was to attempt something fairly large as well as long-term, so that I could distract myself (rightly or wrongly, successfully or not) from more pressing as well as distressing concerns and matters. The plan, as informed by the alliterative title, was to stage three battles on my tabletop using the Tactica II rules. 

The “Big Picture”

Reviewing the historical selections in the small army list catalog provided in the spiral-bound set of rules, I decided to stage the following matches: Ptolemaic vs Seleucid, Roman (2nd Punic War) vs Carthaginian (2nd Punic War), and Arab (Conquest) vs Byzantine. [Note: This last selection or pairing was changed, for a number of reasons, to an earlier contest wherein Alexander would face off against a Persian host.] As July was almost upon me and as I did not know what the future might hold (who really does?), I also decided to allow myself at least six months, if not longer, to complete these three historical contests. Being a fan of large engagements, I set a minimum point value of 4,000 for each army. Ideally, the opposing forces would be fairly similar in terms of total points. Initially, I thought about adopting or adapting an ancient battlefield for use throughout this new set of educational exercises. For example, I could have taken Cannae (216 BC) or Pharsalus (48 BC), as presented in the pages of Warfare in the Classical World, or I could have borrowed a landscape used for one of the previous 17 Battle Day events. [Please see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day.] However, in order to gain more experience with Tactica II, I decided to use the terrain rules as written, especially the placement procedures outlined in Section 11.1 on page 51. In order to avoid fatiguing or offending the reader with three long battle reports, I will strive to keep each narrative under 1,200 words in length. (I will also try to vary the sentence length as it has been remarked that, sometimes, I have a tendency to type rather lengthy sentences.) I have not decided, at least at this point, if I will incorporate pictures of the proposed engagements. While I understand that this is a visual hobby and spectacular-looking miniatures and splendid model terrain are the traditional raisons d’etre of the pursuit and often drive as well as compliment the reports published in physical magazines as well as myriad blogs, there are many different ways to engage in and be entertained by the wonderful hobby of historical wargaming. My particular approach, as I have often explained, tends to be less aesthetically pleasing but more functional and focused on the wargame, the rules, and the history, as opposed to “the look.”  

A Struggle Between Successors

Over the long July 4 weekend, I set up my table for this first clash. The terrain was very simple: each army opted for just one roll and wound up placing a gentle rise forward of their respective center-right deployment area. With regard to opposing deployments, each army chose to arrange their forces in a “fairly traditional” way. (The phrase is in quotes, as I am sure some readers will disagree.) The Seleucids occupied the near table edge and positioned their good cavalry on the right wing. The Agema and army commander were placed here as well. Moving left down the long battle line, the Argyraspides and “veteran” phalanxes were deployed. The center consisted of units of Greco-Bactrians and Levy/Arabs. These formations were screened by scythed chariots and an impressive collection of elephants (the Indian variety). There were also clouds of skirmishers in this sector. A group of Galatians was placed on the left. Further to the left, there were some heavy cavalry (Greek Militia) along with a contingent of camels and various light cavalry (Scythians and Bactrians). Based on my calculations, this army added up to 5,149 points and contained 735 massed unit “figures.”

The Ptolemaics occupied the far edge of my 10.5 by 3.75 feet tabletop. While not an exact mirror-image of the Seleucid deployment, it was fairly similar. The good cavalry was positioned on the right wing. These troopers were accompanied by the Agema and the army commander. This wing was screened by a small number of light cavalry and four elephant “models,” The infantry were next, and these were arranged in order from better to not-so-good. The Macedonian phalanx was left alone; the Egyptian formations were shielded by all of the elephants (African types) and most of the skirmishers. Galatians and peltasts were drawn up on the left of this equally long line. The left wing was a mixture of cavalry and camels. There was another smaller unit of Agema present on this wing. There was also an elephant screen of three “models.” The point value of this Ptolemaic army was just over 5,000. There were 768 massed unit “figures” present. 

Picture 1 - Taken from above the Seleucid right and Ptolemaic left, showing the approximate length of the fictional battlefield. The Seleucids have screened their center with a herd of elephants, a cloud of skirmishers, and a small number of scythed chariots. The Ptolemaic center is not a well screened. 

How It Played - 

First blood of the day was spilled on the Seleucid left wing, when an exchange of arrows and javelins between opposing lines of skirmishing light cavalry saw men from both sides fall. This exchange was a prelude to an extended and swirling cavalry combat in this sector. The Ptolemaic elephant screen lumbered into a large unit of camels, and the supporting heavy cavalry kept their distance due to the smell and noise that resulted. Eventually, the elephants were able to defeat the camel riding troops and the Ptolemaic horse swept forward, chasing the Scythians and Bactrians away. Surprisingly, this advance was met and then quickly defeated by the Greek heavy cavalry stationed as a kind of reserve. Just to the right of this action, from the Ptolemaic point of view, their superior phalanx and supporting formations were ripping into the Galatian units. As it turned out though, this would be the one bright spot in a rather dismal day for the Ptolemaic army. 

Picture 2 - Taken from above the Ptolemaic right and Seleucid left, showing the armies advancing. In the immediate foreground, the elephant screen is being peppered by arrows from the skirmishing Bactrians and Scythians. 

In the center of the field, the opposing lines of skirmishers did not really get a chance to test their collective mettle, as a formation of scythed chariots dashed forward and was countered by an equal number of African elephants. Being disordered by the elephants, the chariots did not fare well and were soon destroyed or careening back towards their own lines. In other parts of the center of the large field, the Seleucid elephants managed to do some damage to the enemy phalanx and even more damage to the Egyptian formations. As the various contests developed, the elephants of both sides found themselves wounded or killed by opposing blocks of pikemen and more flexible lines of peltasts hurling javelins. The comparatively brittle morale of the Egyptian pike blocks did not hold up to rampaging friendly elephants, and by the sixth turn of the contest, the Ptolemaic center was a shadow of its former self. 

Picture 3 - A closer look at the developing action on the Seleucid left wing, where opposing lines of skirmishing cavalry and an elephant screen were rather quickly engaged in a running or lumbering fight.

Picture 4 - The initial clash over the gentle rise on the Seleucid center-right. The Argyraspides and their neighbors made short work of the enemy peltasts and then started dealing out punishment to the supporting Galatian warriors. Note: The red markers indicate current casualties/losses, while the stars indicate the breaking point of the particular unit. 

Over on the Seleucid right and center-right, their formations were eventually victorious or at least in a very good position to completely turn the Ptolemaic left flank. The cavalry action was somewhat slow to start as the Ptolemaic high command had positioned another disturbing elephant screen in this sector. The Seleucid horse tried to work their way around this screen but experienced some command and control issues, so the fighting had to be done face-to-face instead of from a flank. While the opposing lines of cavalry were jockeying for a better position (which was hard to do considering the presence of the pachyderms, some camels, and a lack of space), the veteran phalanx of the Seleucid army advanced against some hired Galatian warriors. To their credit, the Galatians fought bravely, even after becoming disordered and after watching neighboring formations collapse and flee. In the final analysis, however, they could not stand against the deeper formed, more experienced, and better trained enemy pikemen. 

Picture 5 - The Ptolemaic left is in trouble. The elephant screen is taking losses in a melee against Seleucid heavy cavalry, and the supporting camels have been engaged. A small unit of Agema is preparing to join in the contest, while the surviving and disordered Galatians prepare to face the Argyraspides.

Picture 6 - The left side of the Ptolemaic center, showing their massed elephants about to engage the opposing Greco-Bactrians and peltasts. The African elephants would not do well and would cause problems for the Egyptian units waiting in reserve. 

Picture 7 - A close up as well as top-down view of the prolonged combat between the Ptolemaic elephant screen (on their far right) versus a large camel unit fighting for the Seleucids. 

Picture 8 - Taken from behind the Greek Militia cavalry on the Seleucid left wing. These troops did not get into the battle until relatively late, but when they did, the dice rolled in their favor and they swept away all the Ptolemaic cavalry units arranged against them. 

Ironically but not unexpectedly, both sides had essentially won on their right. The center of the field, due to the number of formed units available, belonged to the Seleucids. A comparison of casualty figures (this calculation made at the end of Turn 6) informed that the day belonged to the Seleucids. They had lost 192 figures compared to the 273 figures lost by the Ptolemaics. This gave the Seleucids a 20 percentage point advantage or cushion in the “race” to each army’s breaking point. Given the state of the tabletop, it seemed justifiable to call the large and fictional contest for the Seleucids. 

Evaluation

The critical reader as well as more experienced Tactica II player will no doubt find several errors or questionable items in the preceding narrative summary. It goes without saying that traditional historical miniature wargamers will probably raise their eyebrows or turn up their noses at my approach. On reflection and review, I grant that this was probably too large of a scenario to introduce or reintroduce myself to the Tactica II rules. That admission made, I think, even though the wargame was halted at the end of half-a-dozen turns, that the battle was fairly historical in its outcome. As both sides had deployed their forces with their better troops on the right of their respective lines, both sides won in that sector of the field. The center, as related above, was won by the Seleucids after both sides committed and then lost their elephants and scythed chariots. The after effect of these melees caused more disorder in the Ptolemaic ranks than in the Seleucid, so the latter had a better grip of things in the center of the field. 

Some readers, experienced with Tactica II or not, may take issue or object to the fact that I did not play until one side was truly broken, at least according to the rules. This is a fair point, but perhaps not a very strong argument. Reviewing the state of the table (I have yet to dismantle the wargame), I count 10 units in the Ptolemaic left and center. Two of these are single “model” elephants screens, and 4 of the 10 units are disordered. In stark contrast, the Seleucids have 14 units available to them. While not a commanding lead in terms of numbers, the Seleucids do have plenty of good heavy cavalry remaining and they do have an abundance of powerful pike formations. In fact,  second examination of the table behind me informs that both units of Greco-Bactrians and both units of the veteran pikemen (as opposed to the Argyraspides) have no Ptolemaic units to their front. In other words, there is a rather substantial hole in the Ptolemaic line of battle. There is no comparable gap or tear in the Seleucid line. Based on this situation or condition, it seems to me that a sensible Ptolemaic commander would save what he could and live to fight another day. A less conservative commander or player-general might try to “snatch victory from the jaws of defeat,” but this impresses as “gamey.” The Ptolemaic left wing is under great pressure; there is a huge hole in the line, and the remaining Egyptian troops in the center are fragmented. 

Regarding actual play and understanding of the rules, as each turn developed I would stop, briefly, after each sub-phase and type notes as well as sometimes consult the rulebook to make sure I understood situations like who could evade, or if a unit could shoot arrows or javelins at an enemy formation if even a tiny section of that enemy unit was engaged in melee, etc. To be certain, there were still mistakes made, but I do not think these rule bloopers or gaffes resulted in a disappointing or even unfair wargame. 

Having a Go at Hannibal

For this fictional engagement, I built a Roman army containing 6 legions in addition to some allied formations as well as some cavalry. Due to previous losses, one-third of the legionaries were fresh from their training camps and so, were rated as Militia Grade instead of Veterans. 

Even though I had assembled 6 legions, I was well under my stated point total. The Roman commander (the Consul Crissus Introverticus) had 3,100 points of troops under his direction. When 217 figures from massed units were lost, then they day and field would be lost as well. 

The Carthaginian commander (the more clever and more experienced Hanno was present; there were rumors about Hannibal showing up at some point) led a polyglot force. He had Africans, Citizen Hoplites, Spanish, and Allies. There were large numbers of Celts as well. He had a good mix of horse, both light and battle cavalry. There were also a handful of elephants, though these were the smaller variety and did not carry towers stuffed with archers.  

Both sides decided to throw twice for terrain determination. Even though both sides would have appreciated a patch of woods or a steep hill behind which an ambush could have been set, 3 of the throws produced a gentle rise (not as part of a ridge), and the last throw resulted in a stretch of open ground/clear terrain. Terrain feature dimensions are described on the bottom left corner of page 52 in the rulebook. As I was employing modified 15mm scale units, each gentle rise should have measured no more than 4 inches on a side. However, I keyed in on the following sentence, which read: “But providing the pieces don’t unfairly dominate the battlefield, Terrain sizes are flexible.” These slight elevations were positioned in the approximate center of my 6.5 feet by 3.75 feet table. 

Deployments - 

The Romans were arranged in a traditional or typical manner. There were cavalry on the flanks (Roman horse on the right and allied squadrons on the left) and infantry in the center. The legions formed a fairly deep and flexible block of heavy infantry, what with the Hastati supported by the Principes, and the Principes supported by the Triarii. A contingent of allied foot held the left flank. 

The Carthaginians also arranged their army with cavalry on the wings. A cloud of Numidians hovered on the left flank. These nimble horsemen were reinforced by a small screen of elephants. The heavy cavalry (Spanish, Celts, and some Carthaginian troopers) were over on the right wing. Two groups of Celts were drawn up on the interior flanks. These fierce warriors were joined by a collection of skirmishers that screened the African infantry positioned in the center of the line. On the left, a “division” of Spanish infantry supported the Celts. On the right, a “division” of allied foot, along with a few more elephants, supported the barbarians. 

Picture 9 - Taken from above the Roman right and Carthaginian left, looking down the tabletop. The multi-line deployment of the six Roman legions can be seen on the left of the photo; the Carthaginian formations are on the right. The three gentle rises (simple yet functional) are shown in the middle of the field.

Picture 10 - From above and behind the Roman line, showing better detail of the legions in battle formation. Velites screen the Hastati, who are supported by Principes, who are supported by Triarii, if the need arises.

How It Played - 

As the opposing armies were deployed 4 bow shots apart (60 scale inches), the focus of the first several turns of the contest was on moving. The Carthaginians appeared to have flanking in mind, as they concentrated on their cavalry and the two groups of Celts. The main line of infantry only started forward on the third turn. On the Roman side of the field, movement was limited to their cavalry wings as well. The allied foot on the left advanced steadily; the legions, all six of them, remained motionless. 

Barbarian and Spanish cavalry were soon embroiled in melee with the Allied horse on the Roman left. This swirling and vicious contest soon saw the destruction and rout of 3 units. The Carthaginians had the advantage, as 2 of these units were fighting for the Roman side. Neither side could control their squadrons; all the winning troopers pursued their vanquished foe. The Allied formation on the right came within a hair of carrying on into an advancing warband of Celts. One cavalry melee continued; the Spanish were winning.  

Picture 11 - The initial cavalry contest of the battle, over on the Carthaginian right, where their heavy cavalry mixed it up with the Roman allies. Spoiler Alert: The allied cavalry formations did not last very long. 

Picture 12 - A top-down look at the charge of some Celts into the Italian Allies. This action took place just to the right (from the Roman point of view) of the clash of cavalry shown in Picture 11. Two of the Celt warbands have impetus against the allied foot, and many casualties are being inflicted on both sides of the melee.

Over on the Carthaginian left wing, Numidian skirmishing cavalry paid a price for galloping too close to the heavier Roman horse. The rest of the skirmishers decided to withdraw and the formed units of Numidians decided to see how the small elephant screen did. The pachyderms, though few in number, lumbered into the center of the Roman line and started unseating riders right and left. It was a one-side contest until the Roman unit on the right of the chaotic combat managed to inflict some damage on the smelly and odd-looking animals. 

Picture 13 - The interesting situation over on the Roman right, where they faced an elephant screen and plenty of Numidian light horse. This photo shows contact has been made between the elephants and the Roman cavalry. The Numidian skirmishers have withdrawn behind their formed supporting units. 

Picture 14 - A close-up of the general melee described in Picture 12. Here, the one warband without impetus (double the normal amount of dice thrown) has managed to do pretty well anyway, scoring 9 hits or kills. The Italian allies have not done terribly, managing to inflict 6 hits of kills on the barbarians.

By the end of Turn 8, the “arrow of fortune” was not pointing toward the Roman side of the field. After a lengthy contest with an elephant screen on their right flank, only half of the Roman horse remained, and these units were out of command range. The Roman right faced a large number of Numidian cavalry as well as a curious warband of Celts that had wheeled away from its parent formation. Over on the opposite flank, the last unit of Allied cavalry had been caught in the flank by a unit of enemy horse and attacked from the front by a formation of elephants. Needless to say, the melee did not last long. The Carthaginian horse could not fully exploit this advantage however, as they were a bit disorganized and slow in changing direction so that they could angle for the flank of the distant legions. The contest between the Celts and the Allied foot was savage. Two units of Allied infantry were disordered, and one of these was very near its breaking point. Another unit had been broken. The Celts had lost a unit as well. A second unit, though severely depleted, continued to fight on by some miracle (a passed Fates Test). The last unit in this barbarian formation was disordered by the collapse of its neighbor. The Carthaginians held the advantage in this sector though, as the Celts had reinforcements - including elephants - coming up. The Roman allies had no support whatsoever. 

Picture 15 - On the other side of the field, the other group of Celts is approaching the Roman legionaries. The skirmishers screening the warbands have taken quite a few losses, and one unit has been halted by a effective javelin volley from some Velites. The separated warband is attempting to assist in the Numidian standoff.

Picture 16 - Developments on the Roman left, after the destruction of the Allied cavalry. The various units of Carthaginian horse are working their way around this side of the Roman line. The Italian allies and Celts continue to struggle; the melee is starting to lean toward the barbarians.

At the conclusion of Turn 11, the Roman position was deemed untenable. Their remaining cavalry on the right wing had finally succumbed to the more numerous Numidians. To be certain, the Roman horse took a number of enemy with them, but after a couple of turns of melee, the Roman right was completely open. The Numidian light cavalry would have no obstacles to galloping around the Roman right and into their rear.

Picture 17 - A close-up showing actual contact between a Celt warband and a unit of Hastati from Legion IV. The pre-melee pila volley did some damage, and the effective use of short sword and shield did even more against the hard-charging Celts. Again, even without gaining impetus, the barbarians scored 8 kills on the unfortunate Hastati.

The Roman left was in a similar condition. The heavy Carthaginian horse continued to move, however disjointedly, towards the left flank of the legion’s position. The Principes and Triarii of these outer formations began to wheel to meet the threat. The Hastati were left to face the 4 units of Africans and Citizen spearmen approaching at a steady pace. On the gentle rise over on the Roman left, the Carthaginian allies were occupied with eliminating the last unit of Roman allied foot. 

In the center of the field, the Hastati of a few legions had survived the charge of some fierce-looking Celts. The pila volleys and short sword work cut the barbarians down in droves. Their ranks were reinforced faster than the heavy infantry, and one unit of Hastati on the left found itself overwhelmed so had to withdraw, the survivors assisting the wounded who could walk. Losses for both sides were calculated, and it was determined that the Romans were just 23 figures away from reaching their morale breaking point. In contrast, the Carthaginians were well over 100 figures away from reaching their “critical mass.” Based on the current state of the Roman position, a rather one-sided victory was called in favor of the Carthaginians. 

Evaluation

This fictional contest appeared fairly historical. The Romans lost on the flanks when their cavalry wings were defeated by the polyglot formations of the Carthaginians. The Celts were essentially sacrificed to damage and exhaust the Roman infantry, softening the legionaries up for the supporting formations. With the exception of the combat on the Roman left between two opposing groups of allies, the heavy infantry of each side did not meet. With the exception of a few melees involving some Hastati, the legions did not really become involved in the battle. The same can be said for the Spanish and African contingents. To reiterate, the main lines of infantry did not need to meet in the center and decide the issue; the battle had been decided on the flanks. The battle had been decided in favor of the Carthaginians. 

It seems safe to conclude then, that most everything went right for the Carthaginians and very little went right for the Romans. At the risk of sounding cavalier, the action on the wings seemed like a “coin toss.” These sectors could just as easily have gone to the Romans. Indeed, even with the assistance of the elephant screen, the Numidians had some difficulty in handling the Roman horse on this side of the field. This concern was why a warband of Celts was diverted to assist but never arrived in time to participate in the final melee. 

The Roman plan seemed reasonable and solid, even if it did rely too much on the cavalry wings. Nearly every turn, there was an internal argument over whether or not the legions should advance and “take the fight to the enemy,” instead of just remaining in place. The conservative side of the acting consul won and so saved the legions from a severe mauling. If a general advance had been made and the cavalry wings had been lost, then the Roman heavy infantry would have found themselves hemmed in on three sides, possibly four, and fighting for their collective lives. The recently ended action allowed the Roman consul to withdraw with his legions intact. He and his men would live to fight another day and perhaps exact revenge against the ad-hoc army of barbarians. 

Cardaces and Companions

For the third and final scenario of this exercise, I decided to stage a contest between Alexander and Darius, two historical figures who, I suspect, do not need an introduction. I also decided to forgo the terrain determination phase or process, as I was not having much luck with it and I figured that perhaps this fictional battle would be a kind of precursor or practice for Gaugamela. In that respect, my tabletop was completely flat and featureless. There would be no hazards or obstacles for Alexander’s phalanx or Companions; there would be no hazards or obstacles for the large numbers of Persian cavalry. 

With regards to numbers and points, it appears, unfortunately, that I am not keeping my “promise” about having at least 4,000 points per side. A calculation of the Persian formations informed that Darius mustered 551 figures in a variety of massed units, adding up to 2,817 points. In contrast, Alexander brought 3,378 points and an even 500 figures to this imaginary battle. 

With regards to opposing deployments, the Persians drew up on the near side of my table (adjusted to 6.5 feet by 3.75 feet) placing cavalry on the flanks and infantry in the center. The better quality horse were on the right. Darius was in this sector too, behind a large unit of Guard cavalry. Three units of Scythians screened the heavier regiments. A handful of paid hoplites were next in line. This formation included a unit of Apple Bearer Guards. To their left was a “division” of Cardaces, Takabara, and peltasts. Both lines were screened by skirmishers. The Persian left consisted of 5 units of Colonist heavy cavalry screened by 5 units of Persian light cavalry. 

Alexander’s Companions, along with the great man himself, were positioned on the right, behind a screen of light cavalry. Hypaspists and phalangites formed the Macedonian center, and it was quite an imposing one, to be certain. Three units of peltasts and a long line of skirmishers screened these two heavy infantry and heavy-hitting formations. The left wing was assigned to a mix of Greek and Thessalian cavalry. 

How It Played - 

Once again, the opposing forces were arranged approximately 4 bow shots (60 scale inches) apart. Once again, the majority of the first few turns were spent moving the formations of each side as opposed to resolving missile fire and melees. 

First blood was scored by the Scythians against the Macedonian/Greek left, as numerous arrow volleys found their targets. Instead of breaking off and letting the “big boys” (i.e., the heavy cavalry of each side) get involved, the light cavalry of each side engaged in close combat. Even though the Scythians fought stubbornly, they were soon overwhelmed and routed. The supporting Persian cavalry was not disordered by this development; they moved forward and engaged the “tired” Greeks. This melee between the heavier units of each side went back and forth for quite some time. Eventually, the Persians prevailed, though at some cost. While the Persian Guard cavalry was not involved (they were over on the interior left of the action), they did consider advancing to threaten the flank or rear of the Macedonian phalanx. However, due to command limitations, they were not able to do this. Further out to the right, a unit of Medes finally caught up with some evading Prodromoi and after a sharp contest, were able to rout this annoying unit of Greek light cavalry. 

Picture 18 - A close-up showing the developing action on the Macedonian right/Persian left. The light cavalry of each side exchanged javelin volleys before engaging in melee. Alexander and his Companions wait their turn. 

Picture 19 - On the opposite flank, the Scythians are about to be routed by the Prodromoi. The Greek heavy horse has been wounded by previous flights of Scythian arrows. There are six (6) units of Persian heavy cavalry moving forward to join the fight.

A similar clash took place over on the other flank. Both sides advanced with their light cavalry and both sides hurled javelins prior to engaging in hand-to-hand. The more numerous Persian cavalry gained the advantage, but this was reversed once Alexander released his Companions. The local Persian commander countered by ordering his Colonist regiments into the action. The swirling melee went back and forth; the experienced Companions doing great damage to the militia grade Persians. At the same time, the large numbers of Persians were able to land a few body blows of their own in this fight. When the battle was halted, 2 units of Companions had been destroyed and 1 was very near to breaking. Most of the Persian light cavalry had been eliminated and two-thirds of their heavy horse had been routed. Another two-thirds was close to quitting the field. 

In the center of the field, not a lot happened until the Macedonians had marched most of the way across the plain. A sharp contest between opposing lines of skirmishers saw casualties on both sides. This scrap was soon replaced by a fight between opposing units of formed light infantry. Being deployed ahead of and on the right of the phalanx, the Hypaspists were the next formation to see action. They slammed into enemy Takabara and Cardaces. A series of very poor die rolls saw the Persian line disintegrate, and in a matter of minutes, there was a gaping hole on the Persian center-left. 

Picture 20 - Taken from behind the Macedonian center. The screen of peltasts has made contact with the Persian Takabara and Cardaces. The pike phalanx waits behind this combat; the Hypaspists are off to the lower right and will play a big part in destroying a large portion of the Persian line.

Picture 21 - Taken from behind the Persian center a couple of turns later. One unit of Cardaces remains, albeit disordered from friends breaking on both sides. The Macedonian light infantry remains, even if rather bloodied by the previous melees. The phalanx (several units of it anyway) can be seen waiting behind the light infantry.

Picture 22 - Very late in the engagement, over on the Macedonian right/Persian left. The Companions have been much reduced, as have the Persian Colonist heavy cavalry. Alexander has not been involved in any of the fighting, though he is rather close to enemy formations. (The black die showing a 4 indicates the move option adjustment that the Macedonians will suffer on the following turn.) 

Picture 23 - On the opposite flank, this photo shows the state of things on the Persian right when the game was halted. All of the Greek horse have been eliminated. The Persian heavy cavalry have taken some losses, but they remain a rather powerful force. The Persian commander is in this sector as well. The big question, unanswered but much discussed, was how or if the Persian horse could swing around the Macedonian left and possibly attack the phalanx from the rear. 

At the end of 10 turns of play (each side had won the move option 5 times), an accounting was done and a survey of the status of the field was made. The Persians had suffered 220 losses (out of an available 275) compared to the Macedonian casualties of 140 (out of a limit of 250). While the numbers favored Alexander, the status of the field cast some doubt on this position. His left flank was gone. Approximately half a dozen Persian cavalry units posed a threat to the flank and or rear of his phalanx. The question was when these enemy formations would be able to form up and launch this attack. His right flank, where the great man himself was stationed, was not in very good condition. Alexander had one fresh unit of Companions available; a second unit of heavy cavalry was in poor condition. There were a few units of enemy cavalry (many of these were also on their last legs) out on the flank of Alexander’s position. In the center, the only viable Persian force was a group of paid hoplites along with a unit of Apple Bearers. These men faced a probable engagement with several units of pikemen. There was also the potential of the Hypaspists wheeling left and threatening the hoplites from the flank. 

Based on a review of the numbers and on the supposition that the Persian heavy cavalry could not form up and launch an effective attack in sufficient time, the battle was awarded to the Macedonians. 

Evaluation

I confess to being of mixed opinions about this third and final play using the Tactica II rules. While I was pleased to see that the Companions and Hypaspists were able to get involved, I was a little disappointed with the performance of Alexander’s cavalry. I was also disappointed that Alexander did not get personally involved. Then again, as half of his Companions were routed, perhaps it was for the best that Alexander stayed out of the melee(s). 

I liked the overall look of the battle/wargame, even if it was free of terrain features and 15 or 28 mm miniatures were absent. I could appreciate the local victory of the Persian cavalry on their right, but was frustrated by the difficulty of engineering a sweeping move around an exposed Macedonian flank. I confess that I was also frustrated by the command limitations experienced over on this flank. It struck me as odd that an evading unit would have to be within command range to keep evading an enemy or perceived threat. I would have figured that an object or formation set in motion would remain in motion, but perhaps my very basic understanding of physics does not apply (or should not be applied) to events taking place on my wargames table. 

Disappointment reared its recognizable head again in that I was not able to finish, or decided against finishing the wargame as originally intended. With a gaping hole in the Persian center-left, with the complete obliteration of the Macedonian left flank, and given the weak status of both sides on the Persian left, I wondered how long or even if each army would continue the battle. At the risk of getting into the consideration of a detail that probably belongs in the next section, I wondered how tired various formations would have been after fighting for so long, and how this condition or unit status would have impacted their future performance. 

Assessment

As the plans for this project were drafted, revised, and then confirmed, the estimation was that this would be a long-term project. Oddly enough (or perhaps I should type typically enough), I was quite a bit off in this guess. In actuality, these three wargames were completed in the space of a month. Additional review informed that I was mistaken with regard to the sizes of these fictional engagements. The initial scenario was the biggest battle staged. The Carthaginian v. Romans clash was the second largest, which leaves Alexander’s effort against the Persians (both sides mustered a point total that was less than the desired 4,000) as the smallest engagement. Despite the progressive reduction in points, the second and third battles still filled the available playing space and still provided for a level of engagement and entertainment. Readers who are still with me at this point might wonder if I achieved the stated goal regarding narrative length. I am pleased to report that each “How It Played” section came in well under the 1,200 word limit. Ironically, the first wargame, the largest scenario, was covered in less than 600 words. 

In addition to meeting or almost meeting these various targets, playing three games with the Tactica II rules increased my experience level. To be certain, I would have benefitted from group play, from participating in these fictional scenarios with player-generals who possessed greater experience and familiarity with the rules. However, due to a number of factors, this option was not immediately available to this amateur author. This limitation accepted, I would maintain that even though none of the wargames were fought to a “rules conclusion,” the scenarios were generally historical as well as educational and engaging. Those readers with a critical eye or those readers who are just more critical in general, might object to the “wall to wall” deployments used in each battle, the manner in which various formations of foot, horse, and elephants were represented, and note or even list the various blunders made while I went through the sub-phases of each turn. Again, I think that these scenarios were fairly historical in that every one of these actions were decided on the flanks. This is not to suggest, however, that nothing occurred in the center of each wargame. I will stipulate to the objections (or expected chastisements) about my particular way of wargaming. Of greater interest, I think, will be the comments and questions from readers who have more experience with the chosen rules. (This assumes, of course, that there will be comments and questions.) 

As the last wargame wound down, I found my sense of frustration with the rules growing. I found myself making a mental list of comments and questions about this or that rule. For example, why can’t units evade when not in range of their divisional commander? It occurs to me that a unit in motion would stay in motion, especially when trying to get away from a threatening enemy unit. This particular restriction seemed to suggest that the divisional commander is more important than the rules allow. Then again, perhaps I need to review this section of the rules. Perhaps my modification of the stated scale dimensions somehow impacted this process? To be sure, I would probably benefit from a participation game, wherein the rationale would be explained and well as modeled. I also wondered about the splitting up of melees into various segments or zones. Understanding that it is all an abstraction and more often than not, controlled or resolved by a number of die throws or turns of a playing card, it still struck me as a little unusual that a single friendly formation engaged by two enemy formations would fight two separate melees instead of just one large melee. It seemed unusual that a negative result in the first melee would have an immediate impact on the second melee. Perhaps I need to try harder to keep other rules “locked away” so they do not interfere with my use and understanding of another set of rules? Anyway. While leading Alexander’s Companions and the Persian heavy cavalry, I would sometimes let my mind wander to my previous “work” about tinkering with Tactica II. I also started thinking about additional ideas for amendments. In the interests of full disclosure, while setting up the table for the last wargame, I took a short break and drew up some plans for a version of Chalons employing Tactica II. For now, these plans remain on my computer “chalkboard.”