TINKERING WITH TRIUMPH!

Shortly after purchasing the PDF version of TRIUMPH! - Rules for Tabletop Battles, Ancient and Medieval (Version 1.1, November 2019) near the end of July, I set up a tutorial involving an “army” of Athenians and an “army” of Thebans. [1] Being a “newbie” to the rules, I wanted to focus on movement and more on melee than anything else. Therefore, there was no terrain, there were no camps, and there was no flank march nor Battle Cards. Some readers might roll their eyes, shake their heads, or even feel slightly sick to their stomachs, but there were no figures employed either. The opposing formations of hoplites (heavy foot), psiloi (rabble), and horsemen (javelin cavalry) were represented by simple cardboard counters (prepared with 60 mm frontages and corresponding depths) with identification labels attached. 

After brief advances (the opposing forces were not that far apart on a very simple battlefield), which went smoothly (my inexperience considered), about half a dozen turns of pushing and shoving followed. The ordered lines of hoplites soon resembled jigsaw puzzle pieces spread out over a card table. In some sections of the line, the Thebans had done rather well. In fact, at one point, they managed to overwhelm the unit led by the Athenian general and essentially split the Athenian “army” in two. In other sections of the line, the Athenians stubbornly held their ground or were able to push back the Theban phalanxes. In a few melees, the Athenians managed to rout their foes. Growing a little tired of the back and forth, I halted the experiment and started thinking about trying different armies or perhaps even a larger battle. 

Being more familiar with rules like Armati, IMPETVS, Hail Caesar, L’Art de la Guerre, Tactica II, and To The Strongest!, it felt odd not to mark losses or even fatigue on any of the engaged units. [2] The timing of combats, that is the picking and choosing of where and when, and the possible overlaps that might result also struck me as a little odd, as I would have thought that a group of four or five units making contact with four or five enemy units would result in a fairly intense and large fight instead of a series of local ones. Then again, I can see the point of breaking down something large and chaotic into smaller and somewhat more orderly pieces for the sake of resolution of a necessarily abstracted melee process. 

The strangeness of not marking casualties and noting levels of fatigue appeared again in an attempt to stage a contest that bore a resemblance to The Hydaspes (326 BC). Once again, no camps or flank marches were employed, and terrain was not really a concern, as the model battlefield was featureless, flat and dark green in color. The units or stands were slightly more attractive, however, as they were fabricated from colored poster board. Having gained a little experience with command points, movement, and melee, I was eager to study the mechanics and or procedures of missile fire as well as deploy elephants on the table and see how these animals would perform under the new rules. 

In brief summary, after about eight turns of fighting, I halted the proceedings as both sides appeared to be pretty beat up, for lack of a more technical or appropriate wargaming term. Over on Alexander’s right, a couple of units of Horse Bow were engaged in a protracted back and forth tussle with an equal number of Indian chariots. The impetuous leader himself was hotly engaged by a few units of enemy chariots. This fight was a drawn out affair as well. Alexander rolled pretty poor dice (even with the bonus for a general) and was almost always “forced back,” only to re-enter the combat in the following turn. The Indian archers, that is, Bow Levy, and accompanying elephants did not really do much against the pike phalanx. In fact, once the pikemen were able to advance through the beaten zone, the resulting melees with the archers were rather short and usually one sided. Over on the Indian right, command and control problems prevented the large numbers of Indian horse from enveloping the Macedonian left flank, but another group of Indian elephants were able to wreak havoc on the mercenary hoplite formations. Eventually, the opposing lines of cavalry met and a “to and fro” contest resulted, even though the Indians had a numerical advantage. After a few turns of fighting, both commands on this side of the field were demoralized. (In GRAND TRIUMPH!, Article 15.1 explains that a command becomes demoralized once it has lost a third - in points - of its original strength. This status impacts command radius as well as the fighting ability of the remaining units.) The Indian center had been punctured, but Alexander was still hung up on the right, with the chariots, horse archers, and companions continuing to fight as if they were as fresh as daisies and had suffered no losses at all. 

After dismantling this very amateur and not very aesthetically appealing refight of a historical battle, I spent a few days doing what I should have done in the first place. Instead of setting up a battle on my tabletop (whether normal or full-size using the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules), I staged several “learning labs” wherein I could focus more on the mechanics of missile fire, melee, outcome moves, and the interaction of the 26 troop types. I also spent several hours, approximately, watching and enjoying the catalog of YouTube videos dedicated to explaining TRIUMPH!

Just over three pages into a draft of a possible article/post about these experiments, it occurred to me that my efforts would be fairly redundant, so I stopped typing, moved the partial document into a folder reserved for incomplete ideas (at the risk of revealing too much, the folder is rather full), and started looking around for another idea or source of inspiration. 

The arrival of the July/August 2021 issue of Slingshot (a well known publication I once contributed to but was dismayed to be informed in June of 2020 that the volume of my submissions created an editorial concern of “single author dominance,” therefore . . .) reminded me that the postponed Battle Day was rapidly approaching. [3] Wanting to participate in some fashion, if indirectly as well as atypically, I started drawing up plans for a late fifteenth century contest that would take place on the Continent instead of on an island nation and would see Later Ordonnance French forces take on Later Germans instead of armies representing the interests of the houses of York and Lancaster. [4] While this decision would not provide me the opportunity to command historical personalities and perhaps draft some scenario rules for treachery, it would afford me the chance to lead knights, pikemen, archers, and skirmishers carrying primitive firearms, as well as deploy a variety of equally primitive cannons.  

Another read through of the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules was followed by a period of intense unit production. On a modified tabletop that bore a faint resemblance to the ancient battlefield of Chaeronea (338 BC), 144 points worth of Later French advanced upon and engaged 143 points of Later Germans. (Oddly enough, the Germans had five more units than the French when the orders of battles were compared.) Once again, neither side deployed a camp or camps, neither side opted for a flank march, and there were no Battle Cards in play.

In his engaging and thought-provoking article about solo wargaming, John Hastings (a long standing and respected member of The Society of Ancients) stated: “Time and space are two essentials for any activity.” I do not disagree, but would suggest that money or discretionary income is also rather important when undertaking or pursuing an activity. Recognizing that space would be a challenge, John elected to collect 6 mm figures and armies. While available playing surface is also a concern of mine, I find that available funds is more of a worry or stressor. Hence, I choose to employ colored counters instead of traditional figures, painted and based on flocked stands. To borrow from or reference the “Game Mechanics and Realism” article written by Anthony Clipsom (another long standing and respected member of The Society), in the ‘Playing Games’ section of his brief “paper,” he summarizes: 

We play for different reasons; we have different styles and different tastes. 

Some people are quite restrictive in the games they want to play, others 

omnivorous. To some, the wargames table is a moving diorama where they direct 

some historical recreations of battles past. To others it is the arena in which an 

intellectual exercise is played out . . . 

While this is very well stated, I have often wondered if the principle of “acceptance” or as I’ve read in some articles and posts, “horses for courses,” is easier said or trotted out (no play on words intended), as opposed to practiced. Anyway. In this photo, the opposing armies are lined up for battle. The French (in blue) are on the left; the Germans (in gray) are on the right. The right wing and center commands of the Later French Ordonnance are visible, as is part of the hill (with the ruins) which faced the German left. 

Eight turns of this fictional contest were completed before interest began to wane and then reached a level where it was decided to not continue. Once again, the formations of the engaged commands (there were three essentially equal corps or battles on each side) started to resemble a collection of puzzle pieces. While they were all right side up, many were separated from friends or neighbors and more than several found themselves in flanking positions while at the same time, in the zone of control of an enemy unit. Once again, I was taken aback by the lack of casualty and fatigue markers. [5] In addition, I found myself wondering about the interaction between some of the troop types. I also raised an eyebrow or two when lop-sided competitive die roles resulted in the obliteration of an otherwise full strength unit without producing any apparent negative effects on neighboring units. [6] At the risk of slipping further into a kind of “critique” or “questioning mode,” from the onset, I wondered about the universal benefit of having a general attached to or integrated with a specific unit and the universal command range of leaders. If one tries to refight The Hydaspes, would Alexander really be the same kind of leader as Porus? If one builds and commands a Roman army during the time of Caesar and places the Great Man himself in charge, does that mean Caesar will have the same capabilities and or qualities of the British, Gallic, or Parthian commander facing him? 

Coincidentally, the July/August issue of Slingshot contained interesting material from the desk and mind of John Hastings as well as from Anthony Clipsom. The first gentleman offered a collection of thoughts on aspects of solo wargaming. The second gentleman offered his thoughts on the interrelated topics of “gameyness,” realism, plausibility and playability. Being a veteran solo wargamer (I have been commanding both sides on my tabletop since the late 1980s), I could identify, relate, and sympathize with everything John had to say on the topic. Though I have not specifically focused on the several categories examined by Anthony, it would be foolish to suggest that they were never considered or worried about in the scores of battles I have waged in “miniature.” 

A close up taken of the German right command, a few turns into the fictional contest. The large red/brown die shows the number of command points available to the local German commander. The blue and white dice mark the units involved in the missile fire phase of the game turn. Per the rules and tables on the QRS, archers get a +3 modifier for ranged combat while most targeted units also receive a +3 modifier. The elite cavalry formation has trotted up to but not attacked the “deep” formation of German bow levy and horde. 

An extreme close up of action on the French right, showing a melee between the opposing lines of foot. Here, three units of German infantry are “ganging up” on an isolated unit of French pikemen. Per the QRS, the German heavy foot have a combat factor of 4. Normally, the French would have a combat factor of 3, but since they are overlapped on both sides, their combat factor is reduced to 1. 

Another view of the French right, showing the “firework effect” or “puzzle pieces syndrome.” Some French bow levy have managed to secure the ruins of the monastery, while the German Bad Horse seem content to watch and the German bow levy wait in reserve while their heavier counterparts do the majority of the fighting. 

Taken on the German right, showing the chaotic melee between the “deep” formations of bow levy and horde versus the numerous enemy elite cavalry. As the local fighting progressed, the Italian knights got involved as did some of the heavier German foot units. 

More often than not, either a French of German unit found itself engaged frontally and then assaulted on its flank.

I do not believe that my recent engagement or experiment with TRIUMPH! was a waste of time or of money. [7] While I did find the lack of casualty and fatigue markers a bit jarring - at least initially, and the interaction of the various troop types as well as outcomes a bit like learning a foreign language, this set of rules won’t be relegated to the storage bin containing sets of rules purchased and read but never played. For the short term, however, my focus will not be on becoming more experienced or versed in how to make better (or more historical) use Rabble, Heavy Foot, Bad Horse, and War Wagons, just to name several troop types. I have been mulling over an idea about Command and Control, especially as it pertains to the Armati stable of rules. Recently, I have also found myself thinking about naval warfare in the ancient period. This was sparked by my recent post about Salamis and some of the comments it generated. I confess, however, that I am worried about getting in over my head with respect to this topic. 

As life and time permits, I am quite certain that I will be rewatching many of the instructional videos about TRIUMPH! I will also be watching the wargames that were played with the rules. (The reconstructions of Hastings and Hattin are engaging and interesting.) I certainly hope more battle narratives are produced and posted. If COVID-19 and its vexing variants have run their courses by next year, I hope to attend a day or two of Little Wars 2022, where I hope to find a TRIUMPH! game or three on the events program. I think participating in these convention games would, obviously, result in additional experience, as well as providing an opportunity for a great level of engagement as well as entertainment.  

Notes

1. These Classical Greek armies are among hundreds, “ranging from the Sumerians to the early Renaissance,” available for free at http://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home. Much ink (more electronic than traditional) has been spilled regarding this set of rules. According to my amateur and brief research, Andreas Johansson, a long standing and respected member of The Society of Ancients, initiated a discussion thread about TRIUMPH! on November 19, 2016. The ensuing conversation (sometimes debate) was, as per usual, lively, “loud,” and long-running. On April 26 of 2020, in Reply #79, a Forum Administrator by the name of Nick Harbud remarked that the conversation had been interesting, but had run its course. The discussion thread was locked or closed. A traditional or printed review of Version 1.0 of TRIUMPH! (as opposed to “early access” editions) appeared in the November/December 2018 issue of Slingshot. The author was Anthony Johansson. As I recall, these published remarks did not ignite a storm of commentary. Other impressions, thoughts about and reviews of TRIUMPH! were found at the following links: https://www.thewargameswebsite.com/forums/topic/thoughts-on-triumph-fast-play-rules/; http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=512986; http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=483578, and http://minimaerk.blogspot.com/2017/07/triumph-test-game.html. Additional material or explanation (rationale?) was found on the TRIUMPH! Forum. A post/reply made by one David Schlanger (Grand Master WGC) on February 18, 2021, was quite informative. At the risk of extending this note, it strikes me as ironic that I actually have copies of DBA and DBM in my “rules library.” While I have read these rulebooks and I have seen some videos about the mechanics of play and or wargames played with them, I have never staged a wargame using either set of rules. 
2. If pressed to rank my familiarity or experience, I would rank these sets in the following order (from most experience, familiarity and comfort to least): Armati, L’Art de la Guerre, IMPETVS, Hail Caesar, Tactica II, and To The Strongest! 
3. The Battle of Bosworth, 1485 AD, was the historical engagement selected for Battle Day 2020, an annual event hosted/sponsored by The Society of Ancients since 2004. Informed ahead of time of this particular selection, I “went to work” in early 2018 and by the middle of 2019 had refought the battle three times using three different sets of rules. A narrative report of my “miniature” wargames was submitted for consideration and in the May/June 2020 issue of Slingshot, “The Red Dragon vs The White Boar” was published. Evidently, the article was not widely read. Unfortunately, those who did bother to wade through it commented that it had missed the mark; that it was not a very good effort. To amend an old saying: “You can displease some of the people some of the time.” Anyway. The sensibly delayed as well as restricted in numbers/tables Bosworth Battle Day was rescheduled for August 15 and moved to a new venue. Previously, the annual gathering had been held at Sycamore Hall in Bletchley.
4. The choice of these two forces may have been a product of my current reading material. I recently picked up THE WESTERN FRONT: A HISTORY OF THE GREAT WAR 1914-1918, by Nick Lloyd, from my local library. 
5. Perhaps this is proof, if I may amend the saying, that you cannot teach an old wargamer new tricks.
6. There is no disorder or similar status in TRIUMPH! Given the level of abstraction, perhaps there does not need to be. I think I understand the mechanics of the overlap, and perhaps this negative modifier represents, in some fashion, the impact on morale of friendly units next to those who are destroyed or broken.
7. The PDF version of the rules costs 15 dollars US, or the approximate price of a “complicated” or “fancy” cup of coffee, a yogurt, a breakfast sandwich, and a donut from my local Starbucks.