A COMPETITION OF CONDOTTIERI

Eight turns into a fictional Italian Wars scenario (based loosely on the historical battle of Waterloo and borrowing heavily from Mark Fry’s engaging and excellent “Chalons Battle Report” published in the July-August 2013 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients) using Advanced Armati rules and army lists, I found myself growing disappointed with how things were proceeding and in general, losing interest. Rather than analyze the root causes of this disappointment and increasing level of apathy, though it seems a safe bet to remark that the size of the engagement, the veritable ‘catalog’ of rule amendments, and the positives and negatives associated with the holiday season had something to do with it, I decided to cancel the solo wargame, clean up the tabletop, and start afresh. I suppose one could categorize it as an early New Year’s resolution. 

My first solo wargame project of 2022 then (preparations actually started in the final week of 2021), would feature rather large concentrations of Italian Condottieri, approximately three double-sized “armies” on each side, fighting over a historical battlefield determined by rolling 2d6 and consulting a table that had been drafted for possible use in a solo campaign game. [1] Initially, I thought the opposing bands of Condottieri would have city-state sponsors. For example, the “Blue Force” would have the backing of The Duchy of Milan, while the “Gray Force” would represent the interests of The Republic of Venice. However, in this particular contextual regard, I decided to keep things simple and so, the “Blue Force” and the “Gray Force” would remain identified only by their respective colors. In terms of points, the “Blue” side was given three allowances of 70, 80, and 90 bonus points, while the “Gray” side was awarded 80, 80, and 100 bonus points. From the start then, the “Gray Force” would outnumber the “Blue Force” by 20 bonus points, the approximate equivalent of three key units of FT (Foot) armed with pikes. 

Orders of Battle

Left Wing - Blue Force

2 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

2 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

6 - FT (Militia) KEY         5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

4 - SI                 2 [1] 1 +2 X-bows

1 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

1 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

2 - FT (Pikes) KEY         6 [0] 0 +1 Pikes

2 - LHI (Swords & Buckler) 4 [1] 2 +1 Swords

1 - LC (Turks) KEY         1 [0] 0 +1 Bows

Center - Blue Force [includes 2 units classed as Veterans]

2 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

2 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

6 - FT (Militia) KEY         5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

4 - SI                 2 [1] 1 +2 X-bows

3 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

2 - FT (Pikes) KEY         6 [0] 0 +1 Pikes

1 - FT (Militia) KEY         5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

2 - LHI (Swords & Buckler) 4 [1] 2 +1 Swords

3 - SI                 2 [1] 1 +2 X-bows

1 - LB KEY                 4 [1] 1 +1 Longbows

Right Wing - Blue Force [includes 2 units classed as Veterans]

2 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

2 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

6 - FT (Militia) KEY              5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

4 - SI                 2 [1] 1 +2 X-bows

2 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

2 - FT (Pikes) KEY         6 [0] 0 +1 Pikes

2 - LHI (Swords & Buckler) 4 [1] 2 +1 Swords

1 - LC (Turks) KEY         1 [0] 0 +1 Bows

Under the ‘Bonus Unit Procedures’ paragraphs on page 34 of the rules, each “corps” of the “Blue Force” would have 8 heavy division control points and 4 light division control points. The initial break point of each sector would be the loss of 4 key units. The cumulative army initiative rating would be 15 (5 for each sector). A similar distribution of control points and initiative rating was assigned to the “Gray Force.” The detailed order of battle for this “army” was as follows:

Left Wing - Gray Force [includes 2 units classed as Veterans]

2 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

2 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

6 - FT (Militia) KEY         5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

4 - SI                 2 [1] 1 +2 X-bows

1 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

1 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

2 - FT (Pikes) KEY         6 [0] 0 +1 Pikes

1 - FT (Militia) KEY         5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

2 - LHI (Swords & Buckler) 4 [1] 2 +1 Swords

1 - LC (Hungarians) KEY         1 [0] 0 +1 Bows

Center - Gray Force [includes 2 units classed as Veterans]

2 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

2 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

6 - FT (Militia) KEY         5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

4 - SI                 2 [1] 1 +2 X-bows

3 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

2 - FT (Pikes) KEY         6 [0] 0 +1 Pikes

1 - FT (Militia) KEY         5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

2 - LHI (Swords & Buckler) 4 [1] 2 +1 Swords

4 - SI                 2 [1] 1 +2 X-bows

2 - LB KEY                 4 [1] 1 +1 Longbows

Right Wing - Gray Force [includes 2 units classed as Veterans]

2 - KN (Condotta Lanze) [d] KEY 6 [2] 0 +3 Lances

2 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

6 - FT (Militia) KEY         5 [0] 0 +1 Spears/X-bows

4 - SI                 2 [1] 1 +2 X-bows

2 - MA (Lanze Spezzate) [d] KEY 5 [1] 0 +2 Lances

2 - HC [d] KEY                 5 [0] 0 +1 Lances

2 - FT (Pikes) KEY         6 [0] 0 +1 Pikes

2 - LHI (Swords & Buckler) 4 [1] 2 +1 Swords

1 - LC (Hungarians) KEY         1 [0] 0 +1 Bows

In brief summary, the opposing bands of Condottieri were roughly equal in size. While the “Gray Force” did have a bonus point advantage 20 as well as two more veteran formations than the enemy army, their advantage in actual fighting formations was only 81 to 78. 

Terrain and General Deployment

The die roll (made in the early hours of Monday, December 27) informed that the various contingents of Condottieri would face off across an Italian battlefield that looked rather similar to the one on which Caesar and Pompey fought in 48 BC. Accordingly, I retrieved my copy of Slingshot 303 from storage. The November-December 2015 issue contained Richard Lockwood’s annual ‘Battle Pack.’ This overview and analysis concerned Pharsalus. After studying the brief paragraph on terrain and skimming the various battle reports of those who were fortunate to attend and or participate, I set up my 10.5 by 3.75 feet table to resemble, however crudely, a mid-fifteenth century Pharsalus. In addition to the river and foothills present on the ancient plain, I added a small farm/villa and a few olive groves. Otherwise, my imaginary battlefield was very flat, green, and unremarkable. 

Another die roll determined that the “Blue Force” would stand in for Caesar’s legions and so occupy that long-edge of my model battlefield. The “Gray Force” would represent the legions of Pompey and arrange themselves on the other long-edge of the tabletop. 

Scenario Rules

In order to fit nearly 160 units on my tabletop, I reduced the dimensions given for 15 mmm Epic Unit Sizes by 50 percent. My heavy infantry formations had a frontage of 40 mm or 4 cm and a depth of 22.5 mm or 2.25 cm, while heavy cavalry formations had a frontage of 4 cm and a depth of 30 mm or 3 cm. Initially, I thought I would use my Litko 2/3rds rulers and employ the same “50 percent adjustment,” but figured it would be less “fiddly” to substitute centimeters and retain the provided missile ranges and movement rates. 

With regard to other amendments or variations to the written rules, I reviewed the ‘scenario specific changes’ offered by Mark Fry in the July/August 2013 issue of Slingshot and made several selections. I also reviewed the 17 Variants found on the War Flute site. Here, I made several additional selections from those amendments I was familiar with and thought would add something to the planned proceedings. 

Two more “modifications” were made before I deployed the “armies” and rolled to see which side would move first. First, I adopted the ‘Sword & Buckler Units’ rule detailed on page 25 of the original Armati rulebook. Then I tinkered with it a bit. Instead of breaking formations that contained pike elements, these “specialist” troops would cause the attacked unit to become “undressed” or disordered and so, fight with a fairly substantial negative modifier in subsequent melee rounds. The second adjustment concerned troops armed with crossbows, whether skirmishers, formed, or mixed units. Unable to reconcile the rule about crossbow units and restricted movement with the suggested approximate time scale for a turn, I permitted units armed with crossbows to move on the same turn they fired or loosed their bolts on enemy formations. 

Summary of the Engagement

The opposing forces were set up a little over three crossbow ranges apart. (Under the adjusted rules, units armed with crossbows could “reach out and touch someone” 18 cm distant.) Broadly speaking, each contingent was deployed with infantry in the center and cavalry on the wings. An exception to this was on the left of the “Gray Army,” where the various cavalry units of this contingent were arranged in front of the foothills while their infantry brothers were positioned to the right. Broadly speaking, the infantry “divisions” of each contingent were screened by a line of skirmishers carrying crossbows and a ‘sleeve’ or quiver of at least a dozen bolts, if not more. 

Showing the general layout of the table — both terrain (such as it was) and troops. The “Blue Army” is on the left; the “Gray Force” is on the right. Cavalry formations are indicated by those stands, counters, or units with the universally understood symbol for mounted troops. 

As might be expected, during the initial turns of the engagement, the cavalry formations of both sides were the first to see action. These contests occurred on the wings as well as on the local flanks of certain sectors. In general, the heavy cavalry was able to hold their own versus men-at-arms, and both lesser types were able to resist the attention of knights thundering across the plain with lowered lances. In one or two instances, cavalry units were able to pass by their enemy counterparts and advance upon and charge into waiting lines of foot. Two units of militia on the “Blue Force” right were broken by a concentrated charge. (Evidently, the infantry were nervous as their integral crossbowmen were still trying to load bolts to loose upon the approaching horsemen.) Over on the other side of the field, a small section of the “Gary Force” infantry was attacked by some enemy men-at-arms, but they were able to hold their position and dole out punishment as well as exhaust the cavalry. 

A close up of one of the contingents fighting for the “Gray Army.” A largish division of Militia and Pikes stands behind a screen of skirmishers carrying crossbows. Sword & buckler units (LHI) are positioned in “reserve” on the respective flanks. A couple of cavalry units are visible as well.

As for the opposing lines of infantry, well, they were still in the process of moving forward. There had been numerous volleys of crossbow bolts exchanged between the screens of skirmishers, however. Some cavalry formations had drawn the attention of these missile troops as well. Aside from the odd fatigue marker and even rarer casualty marker, the efforts of the crossbow-armed skirmishers were barely worth noticing. The next several turns would, of course, provide more information as to how the battle was going. The next several turns would see the resolution of a few cavalry contests as well as witness the collisions of the infantry lines. 

An aerial view taken from behind the “Blue Army” right wing. The proximity of the various formations can be noted; the engagement of opposing cavalry units on the right of the frame is also evident. As related in the brief summary, the cavalry actions were the first combats in the battle. The infantry contests and melees came much later.

The prediction proved rather prescient, as the cavalry contests on the left flank of the “Gray Force” went their way which resulted in the eventual collapse of the “Blue Force” in this sector of the field. The opposing infantry lines had just come to grips and ironically, there were two units of enemy men-at-arms probing the open ground behind the left and center of the “Gray Force.” The infantry combat could not continue, as the heart went out of the “Blue Force.” Their cavalry formations saw what was going on and had to reverse course so that they could join in the retreat. As the goddess of fortune would have it, a similar situation developed over on the right wing of the “Gray Force.” However, this time, it was their troops who broke after a few rounds of back and forth melee which saw numerous charges and counter charges by cavalry and knights as well as a bloody drawn out affair between groups of foot soldiers. Each army or collection of Condottieri had won on their right flank. The engagement would be decided in the center of the field. Here, the opposing formations of cavalry were on the wings of the fully engaged infantry lines. The men-at-arms and knights were growing weary from the chaotic melees. The various foot units were also becoming fatigued by the continuing clash of bodies of spearmen and blocks of pikemen. 

Taken from behind the “Gray Army” center, showing the approach of the opposing lines. The skirmishing crossbowmen are out front; the main lines of heavy infantry (Militia, Pikes, and the odd Longbow company) are waiting in reserve. Again, the cavalry formations on the flanks of each sector are already engaged. Casualties are being inflicted and fatigued markers are being placed. (The black die indicates the Initiative Rating of the contingent. The red dice indicate the number of key units that can be lost before the contingent or division breaks and runs away.)

Turn 9 saw the “Gray Army” retain the initiative and thus the direction in which melees were resolved. There was not a great deal of movement as the victorious wings of both armies continued their ponderous wheels and adjustments in futile attempt to bring more men to bear on the action in the center of the field. The opposing lines of infantry and cavalry were already “stuck in” so there was very little maneuver. Hoping to secure an advantage, the “Gray Force” started on their right when it came to processing the melees. Unfortunately, the first die rolls went very much against their efforts. Decimated and exhausted units of the “Blue Army” proved quite stubborn. At the risk of employing an overused phrase, these formations fought like cornered animals. Eventually, however, the dice turned. Two units of “Blue” Militia reached their breaking point and with their rout, the center of the “Blue Army” reached its key unit loss limit and dissolved in a panic. The Condottieri employed by the “Gray Consortium” had won the day. Without question though, it had been a costly victory. 

A close up of the infantry fight in the center at the end of the scenario. Both sides have held back their longbow companies from joining in the general melee with spear-armed militia and pikemen. The casualty and fatigue markers (red and purple, respectively) give an indication of the seriousness of the fighting. As informed by the red die behind each army general, the “Gray Force” is in better condition. The center of the “Blue Force” is dangerously close to its determined breaking point. 

Evaluation & Remarks

I cannot, in all honesty, state that this new or revised “Italian Wars” project was substantially better than the cancelled scenario. This fairly large contest between various bands of Condottieri was played to a conclusion but it was neither nail-bitingly exciting nor was it a spectacular tableau worthy of inclusion as a feature article in one of the signature publications of this world-wide hobby. What were the perceived problem areas or points of concern then? Were there any positives to be found? 

As an indirect way of answering these specific as well as subjective questions, I am going to refer to Mark Fry’s inspirational as well as borrowed-a-lot-from “Chalons Battle Day Report” which appeared in the July/August 2013 issue of Slingshot. I am going to attempt a comparison/contrast format. 

The differences between my amateur effort and that completed by one with a much greater level of experience (and expertise, it must be said) are notable and rather stark. First of all, Mark and his colleagues employed 1,708 fifteen millimeter scale miniatures in their historical refight. Not a single metal or hard plastic figure was used in my fictional albeit historical contest. While versions of the Armati rules were used in both settings, the group effort was centered on refighting a historical engagement. My solo project concerned an imaginary scenario. Commenting further on this approach, Mark’s refight involved a total of a dozen player-generals over the course of two wargames of the historical battle. The recently completed scenario on my tabletop involved just one player-general (assuming the role of four identified but anonymous commanders) leading the assembled and opposing forces in just one battle. (Note: Having recently gifted myself with a copy of Henry Hyde’s THE WARGAMING COMPENDIUM - better late than never, I suppose — there is certainly no question as to which tabletop action the accomplished author and publisher would prefer.)

Shifting my critical focus to the similarities between the two — separated by approximately eight years — efforts, both wargames relied upon the Armati rules and associated amendments. Both tabletop scenarios also employed large armies consisting of three smaller armies or contingents. Based on numerous readings of the “Chalons Battle Report,” it appears that these two historical refights were resolved or fought as three separate or almost separate wargames on a 72-square foot table. My fictional battle could also be viewed or explained as three smaller wargames within a larger wargame. (Note: At some point in the future, this year or in 2023, I should like to try an even larger version of the Armati Chalons game presented by Mark and his associates. I think it might be interesting and entertaining to double the orders of battle provided in the original article.) An additional point of similarity can be made with regard to the relative quickness of the tabletop action. At the 2013 Battle Day event, Chalons was fought/wargamed two times with the revised Armati rules. While I did not complete two battles on my table, the solo wargame lasted just nine turns. This number might be revised to seven turns, given that the first couple of turns were spent on moving units across the intervening green space. 

Although I was not present at the 2013 Chalons refight, more than several readings of the supplied narratives written by those fortunate enough to be in attendance indicate that the dozens of player-generals found the various refights to be more realistic than not, fun was had, and the overall effort was worthwhile. How does my solo project do when these three categories are examined? 

On the subjective question of realism, it appears that my “historical wargame” was lacking. The first concern revolves around movement or command and control. During every turn in the recently completed action, I had complete control over every unit/formation on my table. I had complete knowledge of what was happening on my left flank even if I happened to be occupied with moving and resolving combats on my far right wing. This issue is not a brand new one for me, though I will admit to playing for a number of years in blissful ignorance. The concern and thinking was reinforced with the recent purchase of LOST BATTLES. (Again, I readily admit to being a very late member of this “band wagon” or “wagon train.”) At the bottom of page 35, Professor Sabin discusses chess and more traditional wargames, explaining that the “extremes of movement” permitted in both are “unrealistic.” A related concern about movement and command and control came up when or after the right wings of the opposing armies were broken. Instead of worrying about the retreat and probable pursuit of these formations, I wondered how or even if the victorious wings would be able to wheel and reorient themselves so that they might play a further part in the engagement. Under the rules as written however, it seems very unlikely if not impossible to have more than one or two units from a winning sector have any kind of impact on the action in a nearby sector of the larger battlefield. Perhaps this is an area where I can experiment with another “house rule or rules”?

Moving from command and control to combat, there were a couple of instances when I wondered why the longbow units did not contribute to the ongoing and chaotic melees between the opposing lines of militia and pikemen. To establish some context: when I moved the opposing lines into contact, I held the longbows back a bit (still in contact with friends on either side) as their melee ability and stamina or unit breakpoint suggested that this troop type, obviously, was not best used in melees. Anyhow. As the combats raged around them, the unengaged longbow units were prohibited from loosing volleys of shafts at rather close range even though their frontage was completely clear of friendly formations. This struck me as a bit odd or unrealistic, but I guess it is a product of separating missile fire from melee combat. I wonder if this is another area for experimentation or if it will prove to be quicksand; a potential rules trap. 

Henry Hyde’s opus arrived about half-way through my last wargame of 2021/first wargame of 2022. His acknowledgement of the myriad forms of wargaming but stated preference gave me pause and made me wonder if this fictional contest would have been better, more enjoyable, more exciting if it had been played with properly painted and based miniatures arranged on a carefully modeled tabletop. Understanding that these terms are quite subjective, and admitting to the visual attractiveness of miniature men-at-arms, skirmishers with crossbows, and command stands with spectacular standards “waving in the wind” — all well painted and based on stands that are flocked with suitable terrain, I would be inclined to answer in the negative. In fact, I might be more concerned about “dice damage” or the accidental bending of pike points due to an errant hand or, heaven forbid, dropping of a stand. Perhaps the problem (or my problem) resides in the design of the scenario? On review, the arrangement of large forces on rather sparse terrain does not allow for much in the way of maneuver or even subtlety. Units and “divisions” — such as they were represented — were lined up and given the order to advance. While the presence of colorful miniatures may well have added a certain aesthetic appeal, I cannot help but recall the saying or portion of a saying about “putting lipstick on a pig.” I also find myself thinking about the opinions of Simon Miller and Rick Priestley, two well known figures in the hobby of historical miniature wargaming. I have quoted these gentlemen on several previous occasions and so, run the risk of being redundant here. Be that as it may, in the last two paragraphs of page six of Version 1.1 of his popular To The Strongest! rules, Simon speaks to the advantages or perhaps the inclusivity of the larger hobby. In broad summary, he “argues” that it is not necessary to have several hundred well painted and based 28 mm figures in order to have fun. In Appendix 2 of Hail Caesar, the prolific Rick Priestley offers a similar comment, even if he does seem a little less accepting of a non-miniatures approach. 

As I type this line on the second day of the New Year, I do not see myself “graduating” or progressing from a historical wargamer to a historical miniature wargamer over the next 12 months or in the next few years. My interests, though residing primarily within the ancient/medieval periods (3000 BC/BCE to 1500 AD/CE), are simply too varied. For example, at present, I have in mind several different solo wargaming projects, two of these being long-term efforts. (One is a scenario-based hypothetical using six different sets of rules; the other is a solo campaign game using a dice-controlled opponent.) If I were to translate these projects or ideas into actual metal or hard plastic along with the required paints, tools, model terrain and storage, I can only estimate the expense to say nothing of the time involved and shudder or perhaps nearly faint at the imagined and itemized total cost of these projects. 

Struggling to bring this post to a proper close, I grabbed three rulebooks from my small library of rulebooks. (I have a storage bin for those rules I use with some regularity and another storage bin for those rulebooks purchased and read, but seldom or never employed on the tabletop.) In the Game Preparation section of the Armati 2nd Edition rules (page 1), sub-point 4 reads: “Figures. To play the game, miniature replicas of actual soldiers are used. ARMATI works well with all figure scales.” Under Section 1.2 (Material Needed) of the IMPETVS rules (2008 Edition), it reads: “In order to play Impetus you’ll need some miniatures. These rules let you use any scale of miniatures that are normally used for wargames: 25/28mm, etc.” And in the second paragraph of the Overview page in the L’Art de la Guerre rulebook (3rd Edition, 2014), it reads: L’Art de la Guerre is a set of rules for miniatures that allows you to fight battles . . .” I have played many games using Armati. I have played more games using L’Art de la Guerre than I have using the IMPETVS rules. The common factor in all of these solo wargames has been the complete absence of miniatures (painted or not) on my tabletop. This alternative and definitely “nontraditional” approach (my sincere apologies Henry) has allowed me to focus more on other matters than what color the helmets, buttons, or pants of my “tiny men” should be, or what shade of grass I should use and how much of it I should apply to my 2 mm, 4 mm, or 6 mm thick and laser-cut MDF bases. 

Notes

1. The sizes of the opposing armies determined, the next steps were figuring out who would be the attacker and over what kind of terrain the battle would be waged. To keep things simple, if one side was smaller than the other, than that side (the smaller side) would be the defender. In cases where both sides had an equal number of points dedicated to an engagement, then a die roll would settle the issue, with the higher score getting to decide. Terrain was determined by rolling 2d6 and consulting the following table:

Die Result “Appearance” of the Battlefield

    2             Mantinea

    3             Chaeronea

    4             Granicus

    5             Issus

    6             Arsuf

    7             Cynoscephalae

    8             Pharsalus

    9             Idistaviso

    10     Watling Street

    11     Argentoratum

    12     Chalons

Nine of these landscapes were taken from the pages of Warfare in the Classical World, the remaining two field were borrowed from previous Battle Day reports published in Slingshot. The word appearance is in quotes because my table would be decorated to look like an approximation of the ancient terrain. It would not be an exact, true-to-scale replica.