PIKES vs PILA IN PONTUS

Having absolutely no competitive or friendly play experience with Tactica II and the same amount of experience commanding a Pontic army (circa 110-84 BC), it occurred to me that I might have gone too far by “building” 20 scythed chariots for use in an impromptu solo wargame wherein I would employ those very rules. The word building is in quotes because the models that would roll across my tabletop with the express intention of colliding with enemy formations and causing destruction as well as disorder looked nothing like the splendid models prepared by the admired, prolific, and recognized hobby standard-bearer Simon Miller. (Please see https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/search/label/Scythed%20Chariots.) Instead, I chose a functional, simpler, and less money as well as less skill/talent involved option. My scythed chariots would be represented by two-dimensional color counters. Furthermore, to make the most of a comparatively small playing surface, the base dimensions for 15mm chariot models (as listed on page 1 of the spiral-bound rules) would be reduced by half. The Pontic scythed chariots on my tabletop would be modeled with small squares measuring 20mm on each side. Referencing the army list on page L16, I divided these “models” into 6 squadrons of 3 chariots each. The leftover chariots were organized into a smaller squadron containing 2 chariots. Rather than deploy all of these “ancient guided missiles” into one or two divisions, I distributed the “one hit wonder” vehicles across a number of infantry and cavalry commands. 

My functional, inexpensive, and rather large Early Pontic army consisted of 7 divisions of cavalry and 7 divisions of infantry. The composition and organization was as follows:

Division - 4 units of Scythians / skirmishing cavalry / 9 figures per unit

Division - 4 units of Scythians / skirmishing cavalry / 9 figures per unit

Division - 6 units of Pontic Light Cavalry / 12 figures per unit

Division - 4 units of Pontic Light Cavalry / 12 figures per unit

Division - 2 units of Cataphracts / 27 figures per unit

Division - 2 units of Armenian HC and 1 unit of Rhoxalani HC / 27 figures per unit

Division - 4 units of Pontic HC / 27 figures per unit

Division - 2 units of Brazen Shields PH / 40 figures per unit, 3 units of Phalangites PH / 48 figures per unit and 1 unit of LI (light infantry) at 16 figures

Division - 2 units of Phalangites PH / 48 figures per unit, 4 units of Ex-Slave Phalangites PH / 36 figures per unit and 2 units of LI (light infantry) at 16 figures per unit

Division - 5 units of Galatians WB / 24 figures per unit

Division - 5 units of Galatians WB / 24 figures per unit

Division - 4 units of LI (Thureophoroi) / 18 figures per unit

Division - 4 units of LI (light infantry) / 16 figures per unit and 1 unit of LI (Thracians) at 18 figures

Division - 3 units of LI (light infantry) / 16 figures per unit, 1 unit of LI (Thureophoroi) at 18 figures and 1 unit of LI (Thracians) at 18 figures

There were 36 skirmishers armed with bows and another 36 skirmishers armed with slings distributed across the foot divisions. These groups of skirmishers were divided into 6 units of 12 figures each. 

According to my calculations, this “miniature” Pontic army added up to 8,991 points and contained 1,433 massed unit “figures.” Per the rules in Section 12.0, the Pontic force would be broken when it had lost 717 of those massed unit “figures.”

For the opposition, I drafted (using my ancient MacBook computer) then printed and assembled a Marian Roman army from the list found on page L14. This force was also fairly large but it was neither as impressive nor as numerous as the Pontic army. The following is a list of the various commands or divisions under the Roman eagles and standards.

Division - 3 units of HC (Tribal) / 18 figures per unit and 2 units of HC (Tribal) at 12 figures per unit

Division - 3 units of LC (Various) / 12 figures per unit and 1 unit of LC (Various) at 8 figures

Division - 4 units of LI (Allies) / 18 figures per unit

6 Veteran Legions of 88 figures each; 3 formations having a cohort of Auxiliary LI (18 figures) attached

1 Elite Legion of 88 figures

1 Militia Grade Legion of 88 figures

8 units of SI (Auxilia/Allies) / 9 figures per unit; 5 units with javelins, 2 with slings, and 1 with bows

A second set of sums was completed. The Roman commander would have an army valued at 7,061 points. He would have 968 massed unit “figures” under his control. This meant that the Romans would lose heart and run away when they had lost 484 “figures.”

Scenario Design

Initially, I thought I might borrow the terrain used for “The Battle of Korepsis Pass.” This engaging report is found in Chapter 5—in fact, it is Chapter 5—of Charles Grant’s excellent 1979 book, Wargame Tactics. I figured that the Romans would take the place of the Athenians, and the Pontic army would assume the role of the Aetolians. Then I thought I might consider the nearly geometric terrain featured in “A Return to Ancients.” This WRG 7th Edition contest, wherein 15mm Galatians faced off against 15mm Republican Romans, appeared in the October 1990 issue of Miniature Wargames and was authored by Chris Tofalos. The idea of having woods on the wings and the estimated problems the trees and associated terrain would cause to the Roman and Pontic cavalry formations gave me significant pause, however. After mulling it over for a few days, I decided to design a very plain looking tabletop. To break up just over 39-square feet of dark green cloth, I added six irregularly shaped patches of appropriately colored felt or specialty paper to add some “interest” to the terrain. These half-dozen areas did not indicate or represent woods, scrub, or bog/marsh; they were simply employed to add a bit of variety to the unbroken expanse of green. 

Initially, I thought I would stay with the numerical disparity between the opposing armies. Then, after thinking about this over the course of a few days as well, I decided to add another legion (albeit a Militia Grade one) to the Roman force. I also doubled their cavalry contingent. The revised numbers for the army of Flavius Status Asthmaticus (insert your own comical or serious Roman commander’s name here) were as follows: 8,359 points and 1,176 massed unit “figures.” This reinforcement changed the Roman breaking point to 588 massed unit “figures.” With this adjustment, the Pontic advantage was reduced from 1,930 points to just 632. Their advantage in massed unit “figures” was decreased to a more manageable 129 from a rather daunting 233. 

Deployments

I confess that due to the size of the forces involved, I did not strictly adhere to the deployment parameters diagrammed on page 8 and detailed in Section 3.1 fo the rules. Four units of Scythian skirmishing horse archers screened 4 units of Pontic light cavalry and 4 units of Pontic heavy cavalry on the right flank or wing. (There was a little less than 2 inches—actual, as opposed to scale—separating the right end of the Scythians and Pontic light horse from the right short edge of my tabletop.) There were 5 scythed chariots (in two groups of 3 and 2 vehicles, respectively) directly in front of the light cavalry. A small division of cataphracts (2 units) along with 3 more scythed chariots were placed in reserve on this side of the field/tabletop. The infantry of the army was arranged in the center. On the right of the deployment, 4 units of skirmishers screened a line of light infantry (peltasts and Thracians). In turn, the light infantry screened a fairly large phalanx of pikemen. (The pikemen were drawn up about 4 actual inches from the rear long edge of my tabletop.) On the right of this line were the Brazen Shields. To their left were the regular Phalangites, and to the left of these formations were the Ex-Slave Phalangites. Over on the center-left, there were 2 more units of skirmishers screening 5 units of light infantry. The light infantry screened two divisions of Galatian warriors, each command composed of 5 warbands. The rest of the Pontic cavalry was “crowded” into the remaining space on the far left. (Here too, there was about 2 inches of space from the end of the left-most cavalry unit to the edge of my pretend battlefield.) Again, 4 units of skirmishing Scythians screened 6 units of Pontic light cavalry (arranged in two rows). Three units of heavy horse (1 of Rhoxalani and 2 of Armenians) were drawn up in a column between the Galatians and the light cavalry. 

This aerial view shows a portion of the Pontic phalanx and main battle line. The Brazen Shields are at the bottom center of the photo. The rest of the phalanx extends to the left toward the top of the frame. The pikemen are screened by a formation of light infantry and scythed chariots. This formation, in turn, is screened by several groups of skirmishers.

Over on the other side of the field/table, the Romans assumed what might be called a traditional deployment. They placed their cavalry on the flanks and their legions in the center. There was a slight modification to this arrangement. On the Roman left wing, 5 units of auxiliary light infantry screened the cavalry contingents. Five legions, drawn up in ‘acies duplex’ formation, formed the center. These heavy infantry were screened by 8 units of skirmishers armed with either javelins, slings, or bows. Three legions were held in reserve. These formations were drawn up in a single line, with no gaps between the cohorts comprising each legion. Another legion, one that had just completed its training and so was classed as Militia Grade, guarded the off-table encampment. The formation could be called upon to join the battle, if it was deemed necessary. 

A view, if a bit out of focus, of a part of the Roman battle line. Skirmishers screen the legions, formed in “acies duplex” as well as in a single, long line of cohorts. The forward legions are drawn up with 5 cohorts in the first line and 5 more in support. (The larger First Cohort - carrying the eagle - is stationed on the right of the line.) The purple markers on each cohort indicate the pila volley ability. This marker is removed once the Roman heavy infantry discharge their pila immediately prior to resolving melee. 

A close up of the deployed light infantry and cavalry on the Roman left wing. Auxiliary foot form the first line. These troops are reinforced by a mix of light cavalry and heavy cavalry. 

Another aerial view, taken above the Pontic right. On the left of the photo, one can see the large formations of Pontic heavy cavalry and cataphracts. A portion of the Scythian light cavalry screen can be seen as well. The Pontic center (phalanx, light infantry and skirmishers) can be seen at the top left. The waiting Romans are on the right of the picture. 

Rule Revision for the Engagement

As I was playing with 7.5mm “figures” or representative units “built” with 7.5mm “figures,” I reduced the movement rates and missile ranges by 50 percent. Infantry could advance 4 scale inches instead of 8; cavalry could trot or gallop 6 scale inches instead of 12. Wheels were reduced to just 1 inch for infantry, chariots and elephants, and corrected to 2 inches for mounted units.  

Unfortunately, I discovered that I could not be consistent with regard to reducing the command radius of division commanders. Therefore, the command radius rules as written remained in effect. 

Summary of the Contest

The first several turns were spent advancing the numerous and various units of each army. The opposing lines had been set up approximately 4 light cavalry moves apart (i.e., roughly 24 modified inches or 40 centimeters). The Pontic commanders pushed forward on both wings, with the Galatian contingent, and with all the light infantry formations. The heavy infantry of the pike phalanx remained in place. The Romans countered by advancing their forward legions as well as the light infantry auxiliaries on the left. Being rather outnumbered in cavalry, the Romans held back on their right, initially, and were cautious on their left wing. 

Looking down the length of the tabletop from just above the Pontic right/Roman left. The opposing lines have started moving towards each other. Skirmishers from each side are readying their arrows, sling stones and or javelins for the inevitable exchange.

First blood of the day was scored by the Scythian light cavalry on the Pontic right, as their arrow shafts rained down upon the advancing ranks of Roman auxiliaries. As the opposing lines of skirmishers in the center closed, there were quite a few missiles being exchanged. It appeared that the Romans were getting the worst of these volleys. Over on the Pontic left, several groups of Scythians galloped forward and were soon loosing arrows on some reluctant Roman light horse. One volley proved especially effective; the targeted unit was forced into a missile halt.

A close up of the opening action on the Roman left wing, showing the scores of Scythian skirmishing cavalry annoying the Roman auxiliary foot. The red markers indicate casualties. This Pontic wing has scythed chariots, light cavalry and heavy cavalry in support. 

With regard to close combats, over on the Pontic right wing, a group of scythed chariots and a large unit of Pontic heavy cavalry made contact with 2 units of Roman light infantry. The contest against the chariots was fairly even, but the heavy cavalry literally rode over the enemy foot. This local disaster forced a couple of morale checks which saw the neighbors of the destroyed light infantry unit become disordered. It seemed that the Roman left wing was off to a poor start. 

A snapshot of the opening stages of the contest on the Roman right. Again, the Scythians “swarm” the Roman light cavalry. The red markers track unit casualties; the red d6 indicates the targeted unit has suffered a “missile halt.” 

By the end of Turn 8, recognizable formations of skirmishers were few and far between. On the Pontic left, the Scythians had been dispersed when the formed bodies of opposing light cavalry clashed. This contest went against the Romans; their troopers were rather discomforted by the presence of scythed chariots. The column of heavy cavalry, led by the Rhoxalani, made contact with a unit of Roman (Tribal) heavy horse, and a protracted melee resulted. The rest of the Roman horse charged into a line of Pontic light infantry. The cavalry was joined by a few cohorts from the closest legion. The Pontic foot did not fare well, even if they inflicted some losses on the Roman formations. 

Taken from above the Roman left-center, showing the collision of Pontic heavy cavalry against auxiliary light infantry and three cohorts of the VIII Legion. The yellow d6 indicates a unit in disorder, which puts it at quite a disadvantage when it comes to rolling melee dice. 

In the center of the field, the opposing screens of skirmishers either evaded as the lines of heavier troops closed or were dispersed by friends or enemies. The pila volleys delivered by the Roman infantry were generally ineffective or unimpressive. Their performance with the short sword and shield was much more effective. While the legionaries took some casualties, they made quick work of the Pontic light troops, carving a number of holes in the line screening the phalanx. Attempts by some scythed chariots to further annoy or disrupt the Roman line were only partially successful. 

This photo shows the developing action on the Roman right wing. Roman cavalry face enemy heavy horse as well as thousands of Galatian warriors. The slight physical contact between the Tribal auxiliary heavy cavalry and Rhoxalani heavy cavalry is evident. The supporting units of Armenian heavy cavalry are blocked by this melee. 

On the Pontic right wing, the Scythian skirmishing horse suffered a similar fate as their counterparts on the left. In this sector, however, the Roman light cavalry did better. This was because they were deployed behind a strong line of auxiliaries. These light infantry did most of the fighting and dying on this flank. As a result, the Pontic horsemen were rather weaker than the fresh Roman allied light cavalry. The ensuing melees were desperate as well as chaotic. In the space between the Roman left and the center of the field, the Pontic heavy cavalry was engaged in a mighty struggle against enemy heavy horse as well as some legionary infantry. Gradually, the scales started to tip in favor of the Pontic cavalry versus the enemy mounted formations, but the legionaries proved especially stubborn if not also capable. 

Taken from the Pontic left looking down the battlefield/tabletop. The Pontic light infantry have engaged a part of one legion and are facing off against some Roman heavy cavalry. At the top of the photo, two units of scythed chariots are rapidly approaching the Roman line. Numerous warbands of Galatians and several units of ex-slave phalangites wait their turn. 

An accounting of losses was made and at the end of eight turns of play. The Pontic army had lost 134 “figures,” while the Romans had lost 162. 

When the final sub-phase of the twelfth turn was completed, it was quite obvious that the gods of battle and fortune (or die rolling) were smiling on the Pontic army. The Roman right had been cleared of cavalry. There was one unit of heavy tribal horse still present, but its strength was so low that a sneeze from a light infantryman could have sent them scattering to the wind. The elite Fourth Legion had been fighting hard, but the combination of fierce Galatian warriors and stubborn ex-slave pikemen proved deadly. The First Cohort had succumbed to wave attacks and the legion was now at half-strength. In summary, there was nothing on the Roman right save for a reserve legion several moves away from getting into the battle line. 

The XVI and IV Legions are engaged by the Pontic heavy infantry. The Romans have been reduced by their initial melees versus the enemy light infantry. The ex-slave pikemen did rather well in the subsequent combats. They benefitted from better dice as well as from the depth bonus. 

Over on the opposite flank, two small units of Roman cavalry remained, but they posed no significant threat. The Pontic heavy cavalry (albeit damaged), two units of cataphracts, a unit of Thureophoroi, and two squadrons of scythed chariots were advancing into the Roman center-left unopposed. Again, there was a reserve Roman legion a few moves distant, but for the heavy infantry to stand and fight would have been foolish. 

A close up of scythed chariots colliding with cohorts of the XVI Legion. Again, the red markers indicate losses on the involved units; the purple markers indicate the pila volley available to the Romans. (If I am not mistaken, the Romans were not able to hurl these missiles at the scythed chariots. The second bullet point under ‘The Pila Firing Phase’ under Section 10.5 - Roman Pila, covers this procedure.)

The tide of the engagement turned sharply in the center during the eleventh and twelfth turns. One legion reached its breaking point and two more were being pushed, at the business end of hundreds of pikes, to their determined breaking points by the strength and stubbornness of the Pontic phalanxes. (The ex-slave formations were proving especially capable.) An impetuous charge by thundering cataphracts trampled three cohorts, breaking the legion posted on the left of the Roman battle line. 

Near the end of the wargame, taken above the Pontic center-right. This shows the local victory of the pike phalanxes against the Roman legions. The forward cohorts of the engaged legions have been broken/destroyed; the reserve cohorts have yet to become involved but a number of them have been disordered by their fellow soldiers running away.

This picture, also taken above/on the Pontic right wing, shows the result of the charge of the impetuous (green d6) cataphracts. The opposing Roman heavy infantry was trampled into the ground and the Roman left was essentially smashed. 

In order to clean up the detritus of the evolving action, a brief halt was called so that dice could be collected, broken units removed and sorted, casualties counted, and an assessment of the field made. The loss of all their auxiliary troops, the vast majority of their cavalry, and the damage to the legions put the Romans at 500 “kills.” This number was just 88 “figures” away from the revised army break point. Given the general state of the field (the Pontic army controlled the flanks and would soon advance into the Roman “zone”) and the advantage held by the Pontic army (even though the scythed chariot “corps” was a shadow of its former self and the light infantry had been severely mauled, they were 362 “figures” from routing), the Roman commander decided to concede and ordered his surviving formations to withdraw. 

Remarks

Compared to my previous effort, wherein “hundreds” of Byzantines did battle with “hundreds” of Sassanids, this was a slightly smaller project. In this engagement, approximately 16,000 points of “model” troops fought. In the ‘Battle around Behistun Castle,’ there were close to 20,000 points involved. This most recent tabletop engagement might be judged as more historical if only for the reason that the deployments of each army were more historical or traditional. Each force was arranged with cavalry on the flanks or wings and infantry in the center. From a visual standpoint, this latest effort was also more aesthetically attractive or pleasing than the “boardgame” battle staged in the Byzantines versus Persians contest. However, even if the overall look was improved (and this is an admittedly subjective assessment), this project still pales in comparison to the typical effort presented by hobby notables such as Simon Miller, James Roach, and Ron Ringrose, to name just a few. 

Even though I now have almost two dozen turns worth of experience with Tactica II, I make no claim regarding expertise. However, I do think that I am getting more comfortable with the mechanics and sub-phases of the game turn. At the same time, I find that I am still questioning and wondering about these same procedures. (Note: This questioning persists, even after studying two excellent articles in Slingshot. See, if you are able to, “Tactica II: A Personal Perspective,” by Simon Watson in Issue 329. See also, again if you can, “Tactica II: A Ruleset Analysis,” by Dr. Paul Innes in Issue 330. I have also had the good fortune to benefit from several emails providing additional explanation and remarks authored by Simon.) 

For example, I wondered why I was not able to save or conserve the numerous “figures” of skirmishing Scythian light cavalry on the wings. They had been set up as screens and directed to harass the approaching enemy formations with flights of arrows. While not entirely successful in this task, I was slightly disappointed that these horsemen were not able to find sufficient space to evade or simply withdraw behind their heavier or more organized friends and neighbors. Then again, it occurs to me that I very probably deployed too many points and units on my expanded tabletop. The Scythians would have been better used further out on each wing. In this way, they could have enveloped and better annoyed the opposing cavalry formations. 

For another example, I continue to struggle with the melee process as presented and explained in Tactica II. The one episode that sticks out from the recently completed if also fictional battle was when a large unit (27 “figures” arranged in 3 ranks of 9) of Rhoxalani heavy cavalry made contact with a unit of Roman (Tribal) heavy cavalry (18 “figures” drawn up in 2 ranks of 9). The right-most edge of the Rhoxalani touched the leftmost edge of the Roman unit. Despite this small intersection of the opposing formations, each unit was able to roll its full allotment of melee dice. To be sure, this “struggle” suggests a degree of inconsistency on my part, as I have never really had this “problem” when using Armati or Armati 2nd Edition. Perhaps the “feeling” is just compounded by the number of dice involved or required? 

As an extension of this “concern,” I find it unusual that the side winning the move option does not also benefit from being able to determine the direction of melees. Again, my prior experience with Armati and its sequels likely colors my perception or even makes me a little (or more than a little) biased. Further, I wonder about allowing missiles to be added into melees from friendly units that are not involved but appear to have a sufficient “field of fire.” I need to do some research on this particular question to find out if it happened historically, on a regular basis, and then some tinkering to find out the right balance of this interaction on my tabletop. Staying with the melee process or procedures, I wondered why barbarian units (warbands) and scythed chariots would have to roll for impetus. It seems to me that, historically, these types of units would almost always have some kind of impact on the targeted formations. Admitting that my knowledge of ancient military history does not begin to approach the doctoral level (or even masters level), perhaps it would be simpler to roll a single die and on a result of 1 or 1 and 2, perhaps, then impetus would not be gained.

For my final example, I could not help but notice that as the wargame progressed and as cohorts of the front line legions became more involved, especially against the pike phalanxes, the stamina of these cohorts was, at least in my opinion, unrealistic. To be certain, the Tactica II rules provide explanations for the modeling or abstraction of both Republican and Marian Legions, but it still struck me as odd (i.e., unrealistic) to have cohorts fight to the last man. One might think that if a cohort started a battle with a strength of 480 men and then lost 240 men during a stretch of intense fighting, the survivors (many probably wounded if not tired as well as stunned by the situation) would probably not be interested in staying around for further punishment. I also could not help but think about my previous “ideas” wherein I tinkered with the Tactica II rules on this specific point.   

Shifting to a broader assessment of the recently completed wargame, I note that like the previous effort, mistakes were made. However, on the plus side, the rule interpretation errors were fewer in number. This improvement can be directly attributed to communication and clarification received from helpful members on the Tactica II Forum. (Thanks again, gentlemen!)

More experienced players (at least those who take the time to do a close reading of this post) will no doubt find that a number of tactical mistakes were made. On reflection, it appears that I deployed an additional auxiliary unit on the Roman left wing. I rationalize this gaffe as a last-minute decision by the overall Roman commander to borrow a unit of light infantry from one of the legions in order to strengthen the left flank. I continue to mull over the arrangement of the first Roman line of legions, wondering if their deployment helped or hindered them as the engagement developed. While there is certainly a great degree of flexibility in having the individual cohorts separated, this formation also leaves them somewhat vulnerable to more concentrated enemy lines. 

Overall, I think that this Tactica II wargame was better than the previous one. Even though it did not reach an “official” conclusion, it appeared rather obvious which side would win the day at the end of Turn 12. I believe that it flowed better too, despite the additional troop types involved. 

As for what is next on my “wargaming calendar,” I cannot say for sure. However, I am considering or toying with a number of ideas or options. One of these choices is a large chariot-era battle using Tactica II. I am also looking at a solo campaign wherein I would fight 7 to 9 battles against myself using a different set of rules. As mentioned above, I am also revisiting the idea of staging a battle, probably something set in the Successor period, wherein I would employ a “modified” version of the Tactica II rules. Then again, I might run into something on a blog or in one of the many hobby publications that provides an idea or inspiration. 

A BIGGER BATTLE AT BEHISTUN

In Chapter 9 of his excellent book Wargame Tactics (1979), Charles Grant provides an engaging and entertaining account of a fictional sixth century engagement between Byzantines and Sassanid Persians. As a way of introducing the narrative, Mr. Grant admits his preference for Byzantines, and argues for deploying them in large units (30 infantry with spears and large shields, supported by 15 archers), as the visual spectacle often makes up for their poor performance on the model battlefield. With respect to rules and orders of battle, it appears that some version of WRG is being employed, as the two experienced player-generals are assisted by an umpire (perhaps Mr. Grant himself?) as well as two ‘scorers.’ The opposing armies seem to be fairly sizable in that the Byzantines bring 250 foot and 160 horse (presumably 25/28mm figures) to the contest, while the Sassanids muster 125 cavalry, 350 infantry, and 6 elephants carrying missile-armed crews in their attached towers. The landscape for this engagement appears to be rather simple. On one side of the 9 by 7-foot tabletop there is a largish tongue of ridge or two-tiered hill, upon which sits the abandoned ruins of a castle named Behistun. There are two smallish woods on the other side of the plain, and there is also a slight loop of fordable river. The vast majority of the battlefield is open and unencumbered by fields, scrub, steep hills, buildings, or other terrain features. Using this scenario and its narrative as a source of inspiration, In October of  2021, I decided to stage a version of this battle.

The contrasts between my wargame and the one played by Mr. Grant’s colleagues some 40 years ago are numerous as well as significant. First and foremost, I would not be employing any painted and based miniatures. Were this “founding father” or very important figure in the hobby still with us, I can imagine him turning up his nose (in a classically polite English manner) and or rolling his eyes at this “method” of historical wargaming, especially when his beloved Byzantines are involved. Second, I would be using the Tactica II rules instead of a version of WRG. There would not be five people around the tabletop, there would be only one. This was a solo wargame project. As the provided army lists for Byzantines and Sassanids (Later) in the selected rules are rather different from the “lists” included with the original battle report, my opposing armies would not contain the exact same troop types. However, my armies would be substantially larger than those used in the latter years of the 1970s. In fact, I would endeavor to field forces that would add up to 10,000 points on each side. With regard to terrain, to the extent that I was able, I would recreate the look of the original battlefield on my 10.5 by 3.75-feet playing surface. 

Orders of Battle, Deployments, and Plans

The Byzantine army, under the overall command of Belisarius (this historical name borrowed from Mr. Grant’s scenario), contained 12 divisions. The vast majority of these were cavalry; only one division consisted of infantry or Skutatoi. There were 8 “battalions” of foot in this division. There were 4 divisions of Hun light cavalry, each having 5 “regiments.” There were 3 divisions of other light cavalry, adding 20 more “regiments” to the army’s total. The heavy cavalry contingent was represented by 4 divisions of horse. These formations added 27 largish “regiments” (each containing 27 “figures” arranged in 3 rows of 9) to the assembly of troops. The majority of these formations were Kavallarioi. There were also a few units of Boukellarioi and Optimates. 

Crunching the numbers for Belisarius, it was found that his army contained 1,435 “miniatures.” The vast majority of these were mounted; only 288 “figures” were infantry. The point value of his force was calculated at 9,954. Applying the approximate figure scale provided in Section 1.1 of the rules, the Byzantine army had a strength in the range of 57,400 to 86,100 men. Again, only a fraction of these numbers were infantry. 

On the other side of the adopted and fictional battlefield, the Sassanids (under the command of Chosroes—this name also borrowed from Mr. Grant’s narrative) assembled an infantry “corps” numbering 20 units of Levy Foot, 3 units of light infantry, all reinforced by 4 units of elephants, which added up to 13 pachyderms carrying towers and crews of archers. The cavalry component of this force included 9 units of light cavalry (Chionites, etc.), 8 units of Arab light cavalry, and 10 additional units of Persian light horse. Of heavy cavalry formations, there were a total of 23; two of these “regiments” were Immortals. In terms of divisional organization, there were 3 divisions of infantry, 5 divisions of light cavalry, and 3 divisions of heavy horse. In terms of numbers, Chosroes would lead the equivalent of 1,997 “figures” into battle. (Using the same approximate figure scale, the Persians mustered between 79,880 and 119,820 infantry and cavalry for the contest. There was no representative scale provided for the elephants. They were, however, worth 6 “figures” each.) The value of the Sassanid army was determined to be exactly 10,000 points. 

Deployments

Section 3.0 of the rules explains how opposing player-generals or teams of player-generals may deploy their forces for battle. One method involves the creation of a basic map; the other method requires the use of a “blind” or screen running the length of the tabletop. If this second method is employed, then both armies may deploy at the same time, but they will not be able to see how, exactly, the enemy is being arranged for the coming engagement. 

As a “veteran” solo wargamer, neither method appealed and the setting up of a screen seemed nonsensical. After thinking it over for a few minutes, I decided to let a d6 determine how each army would be arranged for battle. As each army was rather different (the Byzantines did not have any elephants in their roster), I quickly drafted two tables. 

Byzantine Deployment

d6 result Arrangement

1 Skutatoi on the right wing; heavy cavalry stacked in the center and 

screened by some light cavalry; the vast majority of light cavalry 

                        (Huns) on the left wing

2 Skutatoi held in reserve in the center; screened by a division of heavy 

cavalry; wings consist of heavy cavalry screened by light cavalry (Huns 

on the right)

3 Skutatoi held in reserve in the center; screened by 2 divisions of heavy 

horse and a division of light cavalry; rest of the heavy cavalry on the 

right, screened by another group of light horse; majority of light cavalry 

on the left wing

4 Skutatoi on the left, positioned in front; reserve of heavy cavalry 

                        division; center contains majority of heavy cavalry screened by 1 

                        division of light horse; the right wing is all light cavalry

5 Skutatoi on the left, in reserve and screened by 2 divisions of light horse;

heavy horse split evenly between center and right; both sectors 

                        screened by light cavalry (Huns on the right wing)

6 Huns spread across entire line of battle; reinforced by Byzantine light 

cavalry; Skutatoi in the center; heavy cavalry divided between the 

right and left wings

Sassanid Persian Deployment

d6 result Arrangement

1 Infantry and elephant squadrons spread across left, right, and center, 

                        but in reserve; heavy cavalry spread across sectors as well, and all light 

cavalry positioned as a screen for the army (Arab contingent on the left 

wing)

2 Infantry and elephants concentrated on the right; heavy cavalry 

                        “stacked” in the center, and light cavalry on the left wing

3 Infantry and elephants concentrated on the left, heavy cavalry 

                        “stacked” in the center, and light cavalry on the right wing

4 Two infantry divisions (with elephants) forward in the center; an 

                        infantry division (with elephants) placed in reserve on the right; 

                        majority of heavy horse in reserve in the center; one division of heavy 

                        horse and one of light cavalry deployed on the right wing; remainder of 

                        cavalry posted to the left wing

5 Infantry and elephants deployed as a central reserve; 3 light cavalry 

divisions placed as a screen for these units; heavy cavalry and rest of 

                        the light horse divided evenly between the wings

6 All heavy cavalry posted on the right wing, screened by a single 

                        division of light horse; 2 infantry divisions positioned in the center, 

                        slightly forward; rest of mounted troops on left wing, reinforced by 

                        infantry and elephants

The dice were rolled and the blue d6 determined that the Byzantines would deploy as stated for a result of 5. The Sassanid d6 (a plain white cube) informed that their arrangement would follow the directions listed in 4. 

In more detail, Belisarius placed all of his Hun light cavalry on this right wing. Three divisions were arranged in a line; the fourth division was placed behind the right-most formation. Both of these units were quite close to the banks of the easily fordable river. Two divisions of heavy cavalry (one contained 8 “regiments” and the other 6) supported the Huns in this sector. The center of the Byzantine line consisted of two more divisions of heavy cavalry (another 14 “regiments”), but only the right division was screened by 7 “regiments” of light cavalry armed with javelins. Eight “battalions” of Skutatoi (spearmen supported by archers) were posted on the left, several moves distant from the ruins of Behistun Castle. These infantry formations were screened by two divisions of light cavalry (13 “regiments”) armed with javelins.

Drawn up against the Byzantine left wing, the Sassanid commander positioned a division of light cavalry on his far right. There was a division of heavy cavalry deployed to the left of this formation. The cavalry in this sector was supported by a division of foot containing 6 units of Levy, a “battalion” of light infantry, and two squadrons of elephants (a total of 5 “models”). Two more divisions of foot were arranged in the center of the Persian line of battle. There were quite a few units of Levy, two more formations of light infantry, and two large squadrons of elephants (4 “models” each). These rather deep infantry formations were reinforced by two very strong divisions of heavy cavalry. All together, there were 16 “regiments” of Clibanarii and Immortals arrayed for the engagement. The Sassanid left wing was divided by a terrain feature. Four divisions of light horse, one of which contained a number of Arab “regiments,” were split evenly by a medium-sized woods. These Persians and Arabs would face the Huns and their supports.

Taken from above the Byzantine right and Persian left before the battle commenced. The strength of the Huns can be seen (the brown/tan counters), and the opposing Persian formations, separated by the woods, are also visible. (The Arb contingent is on the lower right.) The “attached” unit rosters behind each unit/formation can also be seen. 

Taken from behind the Persian center, this picture shows the deployment of the deep Levy foot formations supported by the elephants and light infantry. At the bottom of the photo, the massed “regiments” of Sassanid heavy cavalry are visible.

Based on these determined-by-a-die-roll dispositions, it seemed that the best plan for Belisarius was to advance and attack with his wings while fighting a holding action in the center. The contest on the left would be difficult; the attack on the right would be more successful (hopefully) and allow for a flank attack against the enemy center. As Chosroes surveyed the field of battle, he worried about his left wing but determined to push forward with all haste and strength in the center and on the right. The Sassanid commander figured that it would probably be a battle of attrition, but believed that his army could make the Byzantines bleed more. 

Rule Adjustments & Notes

The dimensions for a 25mm cavalry figure base are listed in Section 1.2 of the rules. This scale of miniature stands or rides on a base measuring 20mm by 40mm. (Of course, this suggested size may be adjusted due to variations in actual figure size, depending on the company or manufacturer where the purchase or purchases were made.) A unit of 27 HC (heavy cavalry), arranged in 3 ranks of 9 miniatures, would have a footprint of (approximately) 180mm by 120mm. In order to maximize the available playing surface, I reduced this area by a third, and then reduced it by another third. My revised “25mm cavalry unit” would have a footprint measuring 6 cm across by 4 cm deep. Similar calculations were made for heavy infantry, light infantry, light cavalry, and elephants. 

Rather than apply the same math to a standard ruler (a standard ruler—the inches side—is used for 25/28mm Tactica II games), I decided to substitute centimeters for inches and retain the listed ranges for missiles and movement rates for the various types of troops. Infantry and cavalry armed with bows would be able to “reach out and touch someone” at a distance of 15 cm; elephants and pikemen could advance at a speed of 8 cm per turn. 

Initially, and based on previous experience (however limited compared to other players of Tactica II), I had some concerns about command radius. Specifically, I was worried that my division commanders (per Section 3.2.2 of the rules, these leaders are simply “markers” and play no significant role in the miniature battle—or other representation of ancient warfare—save to indicate the position of the “abstract” command structure of a group of units) would not have sufficient reach for the various units in their commands. A quick test was conducted for my largish division of Byzantine Skutatoi. I was rather relieved to find that my two-dimensional division commander would be able to issue orders to the 8 “regiments” of foot within his formation. 

Under Section 2.9 (Unit Kills) on page 4 of the rulebook, suggestions are offered regarding how to keep track of casualties in massed units. After considering a number of options, I decided to use a “following roster” method. Instead of marking the losses directly on to the unit stand or counter, there would be a small unit-specific roster “attached” to the unit stand. This roster would be updated each time the unit was targeted by missiles or engaged in a melee. 

With respect to marking the operational status of each unit, I decided it would be easier to use colored d6s rather than create specific status markers. A red d6 would indicate missile halt; a yellow d6 would indicate disorder, and a green d6 would indicate an impetus bonus. 

How It Played

As opposed to a summary for every three or four turns played, I thought I would attempt to imitate the excellent Paraitakene Report prepared by Simon Watson of the TRADESTONE Wargames Club in Glasgow. (Simon is also a long-standing, respected, and contributing member of The Society of Ancients.) The 16-page PDF (posted to the Tactica Forum in the latter months of 2020) included an introduction and review of the basic mechanics of the rules, orders of battle formatted as tables, a turn-by-turn narrative supported by numerous as well as stunning color photographs of the action, and a brief analysis and commentary. My narrative will not contain a brief about the rules. The orders of battle have already been detailed or summarized. While I will include pictures, they will not be comparable (at all) to the visuals provided by Simon. Like the veteran player of Tactica II, I shall attempt an analysis. Failing that, I will at least offer comments and remarks about how the experience/experiment went. Without further delay then, let us begin . . . 

Turn 1: Belisarius won the move option roll (5 to 3) and decided to “open the dance” by moving first. Given the distance between the opposing formations, there was no evade phase; no missiles were exchanged and no melees were initiated. The Sassanids responded in kind, moving their cavalry, infantry, and pachyderms forward across the rather lush plain. [1]

Turn 2: Chosroes secured the initiative this turn with a roll of 4 against 2, which was modified to 4 against 0. His army was able to make another move and force the Byzantines to react or respond. On the right, the Huns elected to remain in place except for the middle division in the front line. This group wheeled or angled to its left, as the patch of woods acted as a kind of barrier. In the exchange of missiles between the Arabs and Huns, the former were quite outmatched. In fact, it appeared that their hurled javelins were scared of the enemy horses and riders. The contest between the Huns and Chionites was more even, with men from both sides falling off their mounts. In the center of the large field, javelins from Byzantine light cavalry rained down on Sassanid Levy foot as well as light infantry. One deep unit of poorly trained spearmen was forced to halt, rather discomforted by the effect of the volley. Over on the Persian right wing, the Clibanarii troopers drew and loosed a volley against the approaching line of enemy light horse. These arrows had more impact, albeit not devastating, compared to the javelins thrown by the Byzantines. 

In the shadows of the castle ruins (an admittedly primitive representation of a terrain feature), opposing lines of cavalry advance towards each other. 

Turn 3: The Byzantines won the move option and immediately decided to evade the light cavalry formations (over on the left wing) that were staring at some rapidly approaching Persian heavy horse. The retreating light troopers took some casualties from the arrow volleys, but these losses were judged better than being squashed and scattered in close combat with Clibanarii. Nearby, some Byzantine heavy cavalry loosed arrows on deep formations of Persian Levy. One unit was halted and there were a smattering of casualties in other formations. This was the extent of missile exchange as many contacts had been made up and down the length of the battle line. 

Chosroes won the melee direction die roll and decided to start on his right wing. Opposing light cavalry units waged a desperate and bloody fight north of the ruins of Behistun Castle (the far left flank of the Byzantine position). Light cavalry attempted (perhaps foolishly) to make a dent in the massed Persian foot in the center of the plain. Over on the Sassanid left, Chionites and Arabs were engaged by numerous units of Huns. The efforts of the Byzantine light horse in the center were to no effect; three units were broken on a thick wall of spears. Moving over to the right, it was a fairly even contest between the Huns and Chionites. Further to the right, near the banks of the river, the Arabs were roughly handled by the Huns, losing several units. To be fair, most of these routs were the result of poor control tests (i.e., morale rolls) instead of units reaching their actual breaking point due to losses.

Byzantine light horse engage the Persians in the center of the field. The red die marks the one unit of Levy that has been “missile halted” by an effective volley of javelins.  

Turn 4: The dice gods smiled on Belisarius this turn, as he won both the move option or initiative as well as the melee direction roll. He started on his left wing, turning his evading light cavalry around so that they would not be charged from the rear. This maneuver did them no good, however, as the charging Clibanarii wiped them out to a unit, just as a field laborer might cut down wheat with a scythe. Two units of Sassanid horse pursued the survivors and ran right into the waiting lines of Skutatoi. Over on the nearby hill, the light cavalry divisions beat each other senseless; their formations were ragged and the losses were rather high. 

In the center of the field, several “regiments” of Byzantine heavy cavalry made contact with the ponderous formations of Persian foot. These initial contests favored the horsemen but Belisarius worried about their stamina. A unit of Optimates crashed into some Sassanid light infantry and nearly destroyed them. The finishing blows were made by a neighboring unit of Byzantine cavalry. Their lances blooded, the Optimates did not control their mounts and careened into a supporting unit of enemy elephants. In the chaotic light cavalry combats over on the Byzantine right wing, the Huns continued to do well even if they took many casualties. In terms of reserves available, Belisarius had quite the advantage in this sector. The Persians had just one division of light horse compared to a fresh division of Huns and two divisions of Byzantine heavy horse. 

In terms of losses, thus far, the Byzantines had suffered 170 “massed unit” casualties. All of these were from light cavalry formations. The Sassanids recorded 122 “massed unit” kills in comparison. These losses were from light cavalry, Arabs, as well as some light infantry. 

The battle heats up on the Persian center-left as the Huns and Sassanid light horse engage in melee. The yellow dice indicate units that are in disorder, either by morale results or because of a complex move. The attached unit rosters show the casualties for each unit.  

Turn 5: Having won the move option for two turns in a row, the Byzantines had a minus 4 modifier on this turn. The Sassanids secured the initiative. They would also determine the melee direction. Over in the shadow the castle ruins, the division of Persian foot and elephants slowly approached the gentle slopes of the hill. Forward and to the left, the rest of the Clibanarii joined their eager brothers in a charge against the Skutatoi. (One “regiment” did not have quite enough speed (it started about 14 cm away from the enemy line) and was halted by a well-timed volley of arrows. The initial round of combat was costly for both sides. In the center of the field, attrition was the order of the day. The Byzantine heavy cavalry hacked and slashed at the Persian Levy; the poorly trained but deployed in depth infantry jabbed and stabbed the charging horsemen. Scores of men fell on both sides. The Sassanid elephants were engaged as well. This melee was chaotic, as one might imagine. On the Sassanid left wing, the Huns were starting to fall in larger numbers and then rout, but the damage had been done. The Arabs were essentially eliminated and the Chionite light cavalry had been hurt badly. There were five units of fresh Persian light cavalry between the river and the woods, but these troopers faced a fresh division of Hun light horse as well as the supporting Byzantine heavies. In summary, the Sassanid left was in trouble. 

Taken from high above the center, this picture shows the Byzantine heavy horse charging into the Persian foot. The action between the light cavalry near the woods continues. The strength of the reserves of both armies can also be seen. The vast majority of these “regiments” or units would not see action in the battle, however.

Turn 6: Belisarius took back the move option this turn. He also determined the order of the melees, of which there were plenty. Of missile fire, there was little. Most of this took place on the Byzantine right, as Huns engaged Persian light cavalry with a series of volleys. Very few losses were inflicted. Over on the left wing, the Skutatoi continued their bloody struggle with the Sassanid Clibanarii. On a local level, this did not look very good as casualties were mounting and there was an enemy “regiment” poised to make a flank charge against the right end of the infantry line. In the center, a bloody battle of attrition was being fought. The Byzantine heavy horse were cutting huge holes in the massed ranks of the Persian Levy foot, but they were taking some losses as well. While one formation of Sassanid infantry was broken and another of light infantry was finally routed, the enemy line still held. A squadron of elephants remained uncommitted and there were quite a few “regiments” of Persian heavy horse waiting for their turn. The Byzantine right wing saw little in the way of close combat. The Huns, both those that had been fighting for a while and those that were fresh, focused on archery. However, as stated previously, these arrows had little effect. 

The contest on the Sassanid right wherein Clibanarii and Skutatoi engage in a series of desperate melees. The Byzantines have no reserves. The Persians have Levy and elephants as well as some light cavalry to call upon. Again, the progress of the melees can be seen on the attached unit rosters. Note also the single Persian “regiment” poised on the exposed right flank of the Byzantine infantry line. 

Turn 7: Belisarius, due to a very good die roll, was able to keep the initiative this turn. However, he lost the melee direction determination. Once again, there was very little in the way of missile exchanges as both sides, all along the front, were heavily engaged. Starting on the Sassanid far left, their Persian light horse were able to despatch the tired and wounded Huns. There was another division of these savage warriors in close proximity, however. In the center, the Byzantine heavy cavalry were being dragged down by large numbers of Persian Levy. Over on the left of this local contest, the Sassanids managed to rip a hole in the enemy line. Being untrained troops, of course the Persian infantry chased the surviving cavalry. In other places along the line, the blood-letting continued. The Levy had more men to spare than the Byzantines. Over on the Persian right wing, a unit of Clibanarii managed to get a good angle and fall on the exposed right flank of the Skutatoi. The targeted “battalion” was trampled to pieces. [2] Though shaken by this development, the infantry line held, but would fight desperately. Masses of Persian foot (more untrained troops) were advancing down from the slopes of Behistun Hill. The Byzantine infantry, despite one or two attempts at supporting rear attacks by friendly light cavalry against the Clibanarii, were between a big rock and a very hard place. 

This picture shows the developing contest between the Huns and Persians between the river loop and wooded area. The Persian light horse were the last troops available on this flank or wing. The Huns were reinforced by Byzantine heavy cavalry, but these “regiments” did not take part in this local contest. 

Turn 8: Having held the move option for the previous two turns, it was almost inevitable that the pendulum of initiative would swing back to the Sassanid side of the field. While Chosroes did win the move option, there were not that many unengaged formations that could be moved. The Persian light horse on his left wing had moved into contact with the last of the Huns. The center of the field could be called a slaughter house as hundreds of Byzantines and Persians had been killed or wounded there. In fact, it appeared that the Byzantine heavy cavalry was losing the battle of attrition to the Levy. The Persians did not have a total advantage, however, as on their center-left, the Byzantines and Huns had started turning this local flank. The large reserve of Sassanid heavy horse was not under any immediate threat, however. Over on the Persian right wing, a unit of Clibanarii was riding down the enemy line, attacking a succession of infantry units in the flank. As the foot were focused on fighting the Sassanids to their front, the flank attack or charge came as quite a shock. [3] Six “battalions” out of an original eight remained on the field. This command was not only being bled by combats against Persian horse, but it was also close to being attacked by a formation of Sassanid Levy, elephants, and light infantry. 

A brief halt was called so that casualties could be calculated. After double checking the math, it was noted that both sides were almost equal in the damage each had suffered: the Sassanids had lost 460 “figures” while the Byzantines had lost 480 “figures.” Some additional checking was done, and it was determined that the breaking point for the army of Belisarius was 718 “figures.” At the end of Turn 8, the Byzantines were over halfway there, having taken 67% of their army break point. The Sassanids, by contrast, were not quite halfway there, having lost 46% of their army break point. [4]

The fight in the center continues . . . The yellow dice mark those units that are disordered and will suffer a penalty in subsequent melees. The unit rosters show the status of each unit, and a small gap or hole is apparent in the Byzantine line on the right. 

Turn 9: Even though Chosroes had a minus 2 modifier on the move option roll, a result of 6 was no match for the awful roll of 1 made by the Byzantines. The Sassanids retained the initiative. There was not a lot of movement, however, as melees were still raging up and down the line. Over on the Persian right, a wave of Persian troops began approaching the sand castle-like line of Skutatoi. On the flanks of the reserve formations waiting in the center of the field, the end units were wheeled nearly 90 degrees to prevent possible flanking attacks by Hun cavalry on one side and one or two rogue Byzantine “regiments” on the other side. Movement by the Byzantine formations was just as limited. On the center-right, a few units moved forward a little, but there were no sweeping advances. 

Belisarius won the melee direction roll and decided to start on his right wing. The contest between the Persian light horse and the last division of the Huns was quite desperate. When the dust settled for this round of melee, each side had lost 2 units. The surviving Sassanid formations were closer to the river, but it was hardly expected that these few squadrons would be able to cause any kind of trouble on this flank. The battle in the center was a different story. 

Another view of the center of the battlefield taken late in the engagement. This picture shows the cumulative effect of a battle of attrition. Many of the “regiments” of Byzantine heavy horse have been broken; the various units of Levy and elephants are moving forward into the vacated space. On the lower right of the picture, two units of Persian horse have wheeled (complex move or about face) in order to address a perceived threat from some Byzantine cavalry. 

Due to the presence of elephants and the seemingly inexhaustible supply of Levy foot to be thrown into a veritable meat grinder, the Byzantine heavy horse were very hard pressed. In fact, in several instances, they were broken by the strain of long close combats. Eight units of Sassanid infantry and some elephants were advancing into the heart of the Byzantine deployment. These various formations faced no real or organized opposition. Over on the left wing, a very desperate engagement saw the collapse of another unit of Skutatoi as another flank charge unhinged the line. The neighboring unit was disheartened by this rout but remained in place and delivered a severe blow to the Sassanid heavy horse it was fighting. The broken Persian cavalrymen took along a unit of Levy in their flight. Despite this local victory or at least delay of the inevitable, things looked rather grim in this sector. The Byzantines were outnumbered and they seemed to have no answer for the rampaging unit of Persian heavy horse that was falling upon exposed flank after exposed flank. 

This picture shows the state of the Byzantine center-right at the end of the engagement. Some Huns are trying to turn the Sassanid flank, while Byzantine heavy horse move up in support. Space and other limitations prevent Belisarius from capitalizing on this local advantage. At the top of the frame, two units of Levy have broken through the line and a unit of Byzantine horse is disordered as it fights for its life against more Levy and elephants. 

Another intermission was called to tabulate the additional losses. After checking my sums a second time, it was determined that the Byzantines had lost another 110 “figures” against the Sassanid total of 95. The army of Belisarius was well on its way to breaking, having lost 590 out of 718 “figures.” To be certain, the Sassanids were bleeding, but they had more “figures” to spare or spend. At  the end of this turn, Chosroes had 444 “figures” in his “bank account” versus Belisarius, who had only 128 “figures.” This disparity, as well as an assessment of the state of the field which showed that the Persians would win their right and the center while losing their left, informed the decision to end the battle and declare a rather Pyrrhic victory for the Sassanid Persians.   

Evaluation

Reviewing the original plans developed by the opposing generals (me, in both cases, though wearing a different outfit and riding a different horse—figuratively, of course), it appeared that the Sassanid commander followed through better and was, therefore, more successful in the engagement. To be certain, his army was damaged (the numbers of “figures” lost make that argument), but he could absorb more punishment than the formations commanded by Belisarius. The Byzantines advanced too quickly in the center, were hamstrung by poor dice rolls on the left, and on their right wing, their heavy horse was essentially immobilized by the prolonged combat between the Huns and the Persian light horse. 

Acknowledging the unusual size of this tabletop contest, two questions arose. [5] First, was the scenario too big for a solo wargamer? Second, was the scenario too large for Tactica II? Having played nine turns over the course of a number of days, and having reached an estimated or logical conclusion based on the condition of the armies and the state of the field, I do not think the scenario was too much for a single player-general to handle. Were there mistakes made and some small details missed? Of course there were. However, I think these imperfections or situations often occur in large games between teams of player-generals. As far as I can tell, none of my mistakes regarding rule interpretations directly impacted the course or outcome of the wargame. As nine turns were completed and a “decision” was reached, it follows that the fictional battle was not too much for the Tactica II rules.  Then again, looking at the tabletop now, a day or so after the engagement was halted, I could not help but notice that about 30 units  never saw any action (missile fire or melee) on the model battlefield. In addition to these general positives, I gained more experience with the rules, so the time and resources invested in the project were not wasted. However, as with any wargaming project—and especially those set up on my table, there were some perceived negatives. 

Purists, traditionalists and or “old school” historical miniature wargamers will object to, take issue with, or simply dismiss my approach as it does not present the hobby in its best visual aspects. I stipulate to this observation readily as I have done on numerous previous occasions. While a great degree of visual appeal was sacrificed in order to build comparatively massive armies for use on my tabletop, a historical wargame, albeit a solo one, was still played over the course of several days. I was engaged, entertained, and educated by the experience and experiment.

This recently completed big battle has me thinking more about the role of division commanders and how these leaders are abstracted in Tactica II. I will have to do some research, but it seems to me that leaders and officers played a rather important role on the ancient battlefield. Depending on my findings, I might tinker with the rules as written on this point. In fact, I recall one turn of the just-finished battle when two units of Byzantine heavy cavalry made a pursuit move after winning a melee and were in a position to turn and flank a part of the Sassanid line. Unfortunately, these cavalry units were now outside of the range or radius of their figurative division commander. As a result, the cavalry was unable to move. This struck me as slightly unrealistic. It seemed to me, and perhaps I am reaching here, that any average cavalry “regiment” commander would recognize the situation and would not have to wait for orders from higher-up to launch a flanking attack. 

The light cavalry contests on both flanks of my battlefield were rather lengthy but also rather bloody affairs. I wondered if I was mistaken to not have deployed some of the formations as skirmishers. I also wondered if I should develop interpenetration rules for light cavalry units or adjust the fighting quality of the Huns so that they were a little better than average light cavalry. At the same time, I wondered if I should have made the opposing lines of light cavalry just stand off and launch arrow volleys at each other instead of joining in melee, as “massed unit” light cavalry seems especially vulnerable in close combat in Tactica II.

Finally, as the engagement unfolded and both sides became fully involved (at least those units in the front line), I wondered about the stamina of the opposing formations. The Byzantine cavalry certainly outclassed the Persian Levy, but in protracted melees, it was the heavy cavalry who were defeated and broken. This unfortunate result despite melee rounds wherein the horse inflicted 5, 6 or more “kills” against the deep infantry compared to the 0 or 1 “kills” they suffered. Because of previous experience with another set of rules written by Arty Conliffe, I wondered if I could incorporate some kind of fatigue rule(s) in the framework of Tactica II. Then again, I recall reading narratives written by Charles Grant, wherein he talks about his house rules that provide for “enforced cavalry retirement and rest” after two or three rounds of melee. 

In summary, this very large Tactica II scenario was, in my opinion, a good wargame and a good experience. To be sure, I am still rate as a “rookie” with the rules, and perhaps I did go overboard with respect to the size of the solo contest, but it did work. Instead of being discouraged by the scenario and the rules, I find myself encouraged. Even as the big battle at Behistun started winding down, I found myself drawing up rough plans for the next Tactica II engagement. While I would attempt to stage something similar in size, the armies involved would be different. As I drafted and revised these work-in-progress orders of battle, I continued to debate the efficacy, playability and realism of several proposed rule amendments. 

Notes

1. Out of simple curiosity, I timed how long the movement of the arranged units (i.e., counters) took. I started on the left of the Byzantines and moved over to the right. I then started on the right of Persian deployment and moved over to the left. It took me approximately 19 minutes to move all the units and their roster cards. This time would decrease, obviously, as formations came into contact and melees were initiated. Ideally, I should have liked to stage this fictional battle on desert-like terrain. However, attempts to secure the proper cloth and stay within budget proved unsuccessful. This Battle of Behistun would take place on greener ground than one might associate with the regions and terrain of Byzantium and or Sassanid Persia.
2. During this game turn, I mistakenly followed the melee direction from one side of the field to another instead of resolving the flank attacks or combats first. That error aside, I was confused by the procedure, at least as it relates to pursuit and its effects. After wiping out the unfortunate unit of Byzantine infantry (the Sassanid horse rolled 18 dice and many of these scored “kills”), the “regiment” pursued into the next unit of enemy foot. The Byzantine infantry had passed its rout path check, but according to the rules (Section 7.7), a unit hit in the flank by a heavy unit is automatically disordered. In melees, disordered units can only roll half of their allotted dice. In Section 9.6, which covers ‘Pursuit Movement,’ a paragraph refers to new melees being resolved in the following turn. After several reviews of this section, I could find nothing specifically addressing my tabletop circumstance. So, I played it normally, meaning that the Byzantine foot were not considered disordered until the next turn. I admit that this may have been an error on my part. 
3. My inexperience with the rules will be evident in this note. Several times during the seventh and eighth turns of play, I ran into situations where a friendly unit (disordered from a previous turn) had a neighboring unit break and rout. In checking the rules and the QRS, I could not find an explicit statement regarding the fate of disordered units that fail a control test in this specific circumstance. I noted the point about disordered units being outscored in a melee area, but again, saw nothing about my particular question. Something to ask on the Tactica Forum, I suppose. 
4. The casualties suffered by both sides were essentially equal. However, the Byzantines were 20 percentage points ahead of the Sassanids in this deadly category. The Persians outnumbered the Byzantines in total points and in total “figures.” Consequently, the Persians had a higher army break point. At this stage of the contest, it could be remarked that the Sassanids were winning. This struck me as interesting as well as a little odd, given my amateur study of ancient military history. Broadly speaking, it seems that the victors on an ancient battlefield suffered comparatively few losses when the casualties of the losing army were added up. Broadly speaking, it could be asserted that a victorious army might lose around 10 percent of its strength, whereas the losing army would suffer three or four times as many dead and wounded if not greater losses. 
5. In the last week of October 2021, I posted an inquiry to the Tactica II Forum, asking about the largest game members had played with the rules. I received several answers, but based on this small sample, there were no reports of games exceeding 5,000 points per side.