ANTIOCHUS vs PORUS
Estimating that I was setting myself up for a solo wargame lasting at least six hours if not longer, an Indian army worth 300 points and a Seleucid army of equal value was drafted from the free lists available at http://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home. [1] The unusually (some might remark ridiculously) large armies were fabricated as I have an affinity—or is it weakness—for staging fairly big battles on my tabletop. The selection of the opposing forces was inspired by Martin Smith’s recent post to the ‘What was the last game you played?’ discussion thread in The Society of Ancients forums. [2] The justification for this very large scenario was two-fold. First, it would give me more experience and practice with the TRIUMPH! rules. Second, it would give me an excuse to take a break from “work” on two long-term solo projects, one being a hypothetical experiment involving Spartans and Vikings, the other being a historical campaign game between Rome and Carthage.
Orders of Battle
I started with the Indians. (Please see http://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9e0e1af06001770979e/explore.) I started by building as many stands or units of war elephants that were permitted in a force six-times the usual size employed in a standard game of TRIUMPH! The following list details the troop types and number of stands or units that were prepared for the planned fictional engagement:
Troop Type / description Number Point Value
Elephants / war elephants 18 units 072
Chariots / 4-horse chariots with 3 crew 10 units 040
Horsemen / bad horse 12 units 036
Bow Levy / hereditary or mercenary archers 36 units 072
Heavy Foot / hereditary or
mercenary javelinmen 18 units 054
Horde / poor quality infantry 13 units 026
107 units 300 points
After studying the Seleucid (280 BC to 167 BC) army list (see http://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9dfe1af060017709702/explore) for a while, I decided to forgo the cataphracts and camels (even though the latter are not a dedicated or separate troop type under these rules) and assemble an army for the summer of 221 BC, so I could at least deploy a contingent of Galatian cavalry and infantry.
Troop Type / description Number Point Value
Knights / Companions 04 units 016
Knights / Agema 02 units 008
Knights / Xystophoroi 06 units 024
Javelin Cavalry / Tarentines, etc. 04 units 016
Horse Bow / Medians, Skythians, etc. 05 units 020
Pikes / phalanx 30 units 090
Raiders / mercenary thureophoroi 06 units 024
Skirmishers / Cretans, Asiatics, etc. 08 units 024
Light Foot / Anatolians, Thracians, etc. 05 units 015
Elephants / war elephants 04 units 016
Javelin Cavalry / Galatians 04 units 016
Warriors / Galatians 09 units 027
Scythed Chariots / Battle Card 004
87 units 300 points
While both armies would have an equal number of points, the Indian generals would have 20 more units than their foes. The Seleucids would have an advantage with regard to heavy horse and pike-armed foot, but this would very likely be countered by a large number of war elephants as well as heavy chariots. To be certain, there was also the impact of a deluge of arrows delivered by massed ranks of archers to be considered.
Terrain & Deployments
Initially, I thought I might landscape my tabletop so that it looked something like the spectacular battlefield pictured in Simon Watson’s thought-provoking article “Tactica II: A Personal Perspective,” which appeared in the March/April 2020 issue of Slingshot. (The photos on pages 22-23 are very impressive, in my opinion. I was surprised that the table could hold the combined weight of so many model pachyderms!) Then I started thinking about making my fictional battlefield look like the ancient field of Magnesia. (See https://www.thewargamespot.com/magnesia-190bc-super-field-of-glory-aar/ for an example.) After mulling over some other options, I decided to borrow the terrain used in “A Return to Ancients,” a battle report written by Chris Tofalos and published in the October 1990 issue of Miniature Wargames. An otherwise featureless and verdant plain would be bordered or “bookended” by several patches of woods. The Indians would line up on one long-edge of the fictional battlefield; the Seleucids would occupy the other long-edge.
Assuming the role of Porus, I placed my cavalry (Bad Horse) on the right and my chariot corps on the left. The space between these line of battle “bookends” was filled with archers (Bow Levy) interrupted every few units by a stand of elephants. Misjudging the length of table needed to field all of these troops (what else is new?), the Indian army had to deploy a second line. On the left, the combined archers and elephant “division” was split; half was forward and the remainder was in reserve. In the approximate center of the second line, a line of infantry (Heavy Foot) screened a mass of levy troops (Horde). The right of the line was reinforced by a strong corps of Heavy Foot, reinforced by 4 elephant units. These colorful pachyderms were grouped into a dedicated formation and positioned to the right of the foot, in support of the left end of the cavalry line.
Picture 1
Taken from above the Indian left and Seleucid right, looking down the length of the tabletop. One of the four patches of woods (difficult terrain) is visible. The orderliness of the opposing battle lines is clearly evident. The Indians have deployed many stands of Bow Levy “anchored” by troops of elephants. They also have reserves. The Seleucids have deployed a rather impressive looking/imposing phalanx. This was later adjusted/corrected, as an error was made with respect to supported units counting as 2 stands. However, even with this mistake, the overall look of the battlefield was not changed significantly.
Antiochus (played by the author as well) assigned his cavalry to the wings and trusted his center to the phalanx. Starting on the left and working toward the right, Javelin Cavalry screened a small force of Companions. The Galatian contingent was next, with more Javelin Cavalry poised on the left of a line of Warriors. The center was held by what might be described as a slight stair-step of phalanx formations. The pikemen were deployed in depth or with supporting stands so that they would be rather powerful in melee. These bristling-with-pike-points formations were accompanied by skirmishers, a handful of light infantry (Light Foot) as well as a troop of elephants. The “division” on the right side of this composite formation contained several units of veteran pikemen, commonly known as the Silver Shields. To the right of these experienced heavy foot were some Thureophoroi (Raiders) and some light infantry, skirmishers, and another troop of pachyderms. The right wing was held by several units of Horse Bow and a fairly potent force of Xystophoroi. The commander of the Seleucid army led a small force of two units of Agema. These proud and veteran horsemen were positioned a short distance behind the Silver Shields. As for the scythed chariots, half of these “guided missiles of the ancient period” were deployed in front of the veteran pikemen and the other half were arranged in front of the Thureophoroi.
Picture 2
An aerial view of the line of heavy chariots arranged on the Indian left wing. While primitive, at least when compared to three-dimensional 28 mm figures, these bases are functional and assist in the “suspension of disbelief” for the personal theatre of solo wargaming.
Picture 3
A close up of the command group of Antiochus. The individual leader is not represented; he is assumed to be integrated within the squadrons of Agema. During the course of the battle, this small group of powerful cavalry did quite a bit of moving but never crossed spears or swords with any enemy formation.
Picture 4
Taken from behind one of the corrected “divisions” of the Seleucid phalanx, this command or corps shows 5 units of supported pikemen (10 units total), a troop of elephants, and some skirmishers and light foot as a screen. As the pachyderms were included in this formation, a command roll of 2 or more was needed to make a tactical move. As seen by the die, this formation had command and control issues throughout the course of the engagement.
Scenario Rules
- For this scenario, I adjusted the listed dimensions for the various types of troops. My units would have a width of 50 mm or 5 cm. Their depth would be modified accordingly. For example, Bow Levy units would have a depth of 35 mm while Heavy Foot would have a depth of 17.5 mm. The various cavalry formations would have a depth of 35 mm, while the Indian chariots would have a depth of 50 mm, just like the elephant stands employed by both armies. This adjustment would give me an MU of 25 mm or approximately 1 inch. This revision would make measuring movement, missile ranges, and command distances a little easier.
- According to the Indian army list, the “General’s Troop Type” is elephants. Finding this a bit restrictive, I created a couple of other “command stands” for this fictional engagement. There was an Indian sub-general riding in a 4-horse chariot over on the left wing. There was another Indian sub-general on horseback over on the right wing. These leaders would benefit from the +1 melee modifier even though they were not perched on top of a pachyderm.
- Reviewing Battle Card Number 15 (Scythed Chariots and Stampedes), I decided to allow Scythed Chariots to be directed at or played against any enemy formation or troop type, not just “close order foot stands.” The exception would be elephants or elephant-screened stands. The close combat process would remain unchanged. As a “wrinkle,” when the Scythed Chariots had been let loose and the combat resolved, another die roll would be made by the Seleucid player. Two six-sided dice would be rolled and on a result of 2 or 3, panicked or routing Scythed Chariots would impact a friendly unit or units. The unit or units in the way of the fleeing Scythed Chariots would receive a minus 1 modifier in its next combat phase. (This amendment or tinkering was inspired by two articles about refighting Magnesia which appeared in Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients, written by Mark Grindlay and S. J. Randles, respectively.)
- Four stands or units of Seleucid pikemen were classed as Veterans or (Argyraspides - the Silver Shields) and so, were given a +1 melee modifier.
- To reflect the possibility of elephants panicking after being defeated in combat or being “pin cushioned” by a missile barrage, I am going to try and incorporate the elephant rampage rules found on page 61 of the L’Art de la Guerre rulebook. Instead of inflicting a step-loss on the strength of the impacted unit, a minus 1 melee modifier will be placed to represent the disorder caused by a maddened animal running amok through the ranks.
- As an experiment, instead of granting the Army Generals the usual +1 melee modifier (this puts them on an equal footing with all other commanders), I thought I might try permitting Army Commanders and ONLY Army Commanders to throw two six-sided dice when engaged in melee and take or use the better score.
Summary of the Engagement
As might be expected, the first contacts and clashes occurred on the wings of each army. The faster moving cavalry and chariots were able to engage for several turns before the slower moving infantry of one side advanced far enough to reach the maximum arrow range of the waiting lines of Indian archers. As might also be expected, the nature of the terrain on the flanks of the battlefield did not allow either side to employ their full strength. The ensuing melees were piecemeal and confused to say the least. Initially, the Indians gained the upper hand by rolling really good dice. However, as often happens both in real life and on the wargaming table, things turned, and rather quickly too. In chaotic combat between the trees and among the undergrowth, two units of chariots were destroyed on the Indian left by some Xystophoroi formations. Over on the other wing, three units of Indian horse fell victim to three units of enemy cavalry who rolled much better combat dice. In another couple of turns, the Indian luck continued to run cold on the flanks and both commands on the wings found themselves demoralized. A few units continued to fight on, bravely or foolishly, but it could be remarked that by this point, with the Indian wings in tatters, the day belonged to the Seleucids.
Picture 5
Taken above the Indian left wing, showing the confused combat between the chariots and Seleucid cavalry (a mix of Horse Bow and Knights) among the crowded terrain on this flank. (The yellow dice were used by the Indian formations; the blue dice were used by the Seleucids.)
Picture 6
Another and later view above the Indian left, showing the approach of the Seleucid line. The formation forward of the green d6 (command die for this corps or division) consists of Thureophoroi (Raiders) and light infantry. They also have a troop of elephants to their right, supported by skirmishers. The Indian formations waited for the enemy troops to come to them rather than make any offensive move.
To cross the t’s and dot the i’s however, Antiochus needed to decide the issue in the center with his phalanx and supporting troops. Once again, during the initial round of fighting, the Indian melee dice were superior and many a Seleucid unit found itself forced to fall back or, in rare circumstances, eliminated by a heavy barrage of arrows. The impact of the Seleucid scythed chariots was negligible. The Indian infantry turned most of these vehicles and their horses and riders into pin cushions. In one unfortunate case, some panicked scythed chariots turned and fled directly back into a formation of friendly troops.
Picture 7
Taken above the left flank of the Indian foot and elephant line of battle. The Seleucid mercenaries (Thureophoroi) have engaged but have been thrown back by a combination of poor melee dice and effective arrow volleys. The Indians have several units in a second line, whereas the Seleucids do not have any immediately available reserve. However, it should be noted that by this time, the Indian left wing was essentially gone, its chariots being destroyed or routed in a series of sharp melees taking place next to or within some woods.
Picture 8
Taken above the Indian right wing, showing the demoralized (indicated by red markers) units of cavalry (Bad Horse) facing numerous bases of Seleucid Knights, Javelin Cavalry, and a few units of Galatian cavalry. Like the opposite wing, the cavalry contests here were confused as a result of the nature of the terrain.
Picture 9
The Galatian warriors and one of the Seleucid phalanx “divisions” have engaged the Indian line. The supported pike units have done better than the Warriors. In another turn or two, the Galatian contingent would become demoralized after “bouncing off” the units of archers or suffering from their repeated volleys or arrows. The Indian reserve (Heavy Foot) played no part in the fighting in this sector of the field.
Orderly formations of archers anchored at intervals by colorful elephants really could not stand in the face of concentrated attacks by supported units of pikemen, however. On the flanks of the main Seleucid thrust, Thureophoroi and Galatians did solid work as well. In these sectors, the elephants and arrow volleys did more damage. In fact, by the seventh turn, the Galatian warriors and their mounted brothers (those that remained, anyway) were demoralized. Around this same time, the right and left wings of the Indian army collapsed completely. Additional pressure was applied to the main Indian battle line and though the Silver Shields did not have an excellent day, their advances combined with other phalanxes produced enough kills or routs to tip the scales all the way in Antiochus’ favor.
Picture 10
After stumbling during the initial phases of the combat, the Silver Shields (units with a purple marker) performed better, managing to break apart an otherwise solid line of Indian archers and elephants. The battle was halted before the veteran pikemen could make contact with the reserve formations of Porus, however.
Remarks
With the reader’s permission, I should like to start with a consideration of the rule “tweaks.” From there, I want to look at the larger points of the just completed wargame scenario, commenting on and critiquing plans and tactics. When that’s done, I would like to try assessing this solo wargame in terms of a discussion recently held over on The Society of Ancients Forums. Specifically, the conversation revolved around a 06 March 2022 post by Steven Thomas about game design, in which he and a friend considered the following attributes: simulation, playability, and abstraction. In a final paragraph, I should like to offer an overall summary judgment. Here, I will speak to the perennial questions of engagement and enjoyment. In the same paragraph, I should also like to assign myself a grade for this latest non-traditional effort.
In general, I thought the rule amendments or tinkering worked fairly well. I understand and accept that traditional historical miniature wargamers will/will continue to “turn their noses up” at my approach, but that subjective judgment aside, I think the revised dimensions of the participating units worked just fine. It was convenient and simple to use inches instead of MUs measured in groups of centimeters. While the aesthetic appeal of my tabletop cannot begin to compare with (fill in the name of any of a hundred blogs here), the overall impression of a large contest between Indians and Seleucids was achieved, even if it was done in two-dimensions instead of three.
At the risk of being corrected (and part of me hopes that I am [including sources or links in the respectfully critical comments or replies would be appreciated]), it made more sense to me to have the sub-general in command of the chariot corps riding in a chariot as opposed to the howdah of a brightly painted pachyderm. The same thinking applied to the Indian cavalry wing. Elephants cost more command points to move, so saddling a chariot corps and a “division” of horse with a lumbering command and control center, does not make a lot of sense to me.
While the scythed chariots struck home in three out of four cases, their effect on the targeted formations was negligible. As stated above, most of these chariots were “shot to pieces.” I think this “tweak” might need a little more “tweaking.” At the risk of getting ahead of myself, modeling these chariots and their ability was more abstracted than any other aspect of the contest.
I confess that I was a little surprised at the comparatively poor performance of the Silver Shields. On a number of occasions they were forced to fall back when receiving arrow volleys. They were also driven back when these formations butted heads with troops of enemy elephants. That said, I think the additional +1 modifier was reasonable and realistic.
The irony is not lost on me that I forgot to apply the elephant rule amendment during the course of the tabletop battle. There were a few occasions when pachyderms were destroyed or routed and I wondered why they would not have an effect on neighboring units. It is rather embarrassing but also human or entirely within the character of a historical wargamer to draw up a scenario rule and then completely blank on it during the scenario.
Antiochus moved more than his counterpart during this fictional engagement. However, the Seleucid king never engaged in combat with any enemy formation. For the majority of the battle, Antiochus stayed behind the phalanx formation on the right of the line. (The Thureophoroi [aka Raiders] were over to his right-front.) Though I did not have a chance to test this amendment or “tweak,” I think it would have worked well enough.
On reflection, it appears that I was not aggressive or dynamic enough with the Indian formations under my command. I played a passive role for most of the engagement. I let the Seleucids choose the music: I let them come to me. Given my limited understanding of ancient military history, I suppose it was a given that the chariots and cavalry wings would implode. The terrain in these sectors of the battlefield was not really ideal for mounted troops and, well, it seems quite apparent that the Indian horse, especially, as well as the chariots were outclassed by their Seleucid counterparts. I held out some hope that my massed archers and anchoring elephants would give the Seleucids pause. I confess that resolving missile fire is quite different in these rules. In some sense, I felt a little cheated by not being able to “range in” on the advancing phalanxes like I have done before when using Armati or other rules. When the battle was decided, I had two formations containing Heavy Foot, Horde, and several groups of elephants, that were untouched. Given that melees were going on to my front, I could not simply “pile” these units into the general combat. Too late, I am wondering if I should have revised my deployment. Perhaps these better troops would have done well in the first line or even assigned to a flank/wing. But then, this kind of arrangement did not impress me as very historical.
In playing the role of Antiochus, I had no “brilliant” battle plan other than to advance, engage, and hope that my pike phalanx did its best. To be sure, I was hoping to achieve a victory on one wing and then roll up the Indian army. While I did eventually destroy both wings belonging to Porus, I was not able to take advantage of this and wipe out his army. I was disappointed that my auxiliary troops and Galatian warriors did not do better. I would have thought that against “bow levy” or Bow Levy, my better close-in fighters would have bowled them over. I was also disappointed by the apparent inability of my pike phalanxes to slice through the opposition. It occurs to me that my lack of die rolling skill or luck during critical moments of a turn played more of a role in this scenario then did my lack of a cohesive and comprehensive plan of battle. I neglected to mention in the brief battle report narrative that there was one section of my infantry line that threw a “1” nearly every turn for its command die. As the formation included a base of elephants, the minimum die roll needed was a “2.” To say that this was frustrating is stating the obvious. Anyway.
For an admitted novice with these rules, I thought the game flowed fairly smoothly. I was able to play a turn without stopping every 30 seconds or so to consult this page of the rules or that table on the QRS. To be certain, I carry baggage and bias from other rulesets. For example, instead of picking and choosing my melees for resolution, I simply went from one end of the table to the other. In some respects, I still find it odd or interesting that a friendly unit in corner-to-corner contact with an enemy will count as support or an overlap. This strikes me as a curious way to simulate combat on an ancient battlefield. To that end, abstracting combat ability by assigning various modifiers based on fighting foot or mounted troops is also interesting and curious. By no means do I make these remarks as a form of complaint. Like I remarked above, I have a certain amount of experience and recognize that this experience has, for good or ill, ‘informed’ my opinions about ancient warfare and ancient wargaming.
Without employing painted and based figures, I staged a battle between Indians and Seleucids. This tabletop contest lasted nine turns, when victory was declared for Antiochus and his men. (Exact time was not kept for each turn and the typing of notes regarding each. However, I would estimate that the total time spent was around 4 hours, quite a bit less than my original estimate.) I guess that this simulation of an ancient battle was fairly realistic, though there are some caveats that need to be mentioned. First, how realistic is it to have cavalry and chariots “mix it up” inside of wooded terrain? Other rulesets that I have employed and enjoyed forbid chariots to move into let alone through this type of terrain. Certain types of cavalry can, but are penalized in terms of movement and melee ability. Also, why isn’t fatigue in some form or another represented? Again, I refer to previous experience with other rules. However, based on the reading that I’ve done, it seems evident that close combat in the ancient world was a very trying experience—and that’s putting it mildly. Mental exhaustion had to accompany the physical, so it would seem that my “colored cardboard men” or someone else’s traditional miniatures would have to pull back and take a break; pull back to reform and rest. It seems that this aspect of ancient combat is not factored into the TRIUMPH! rules, or it is, but abstracted to the point that I didn’t notice. It seems that something similar is going on with respect to morale and the condition of the battle line. In the recently completed scenario, for example, there were more than several instances when a unit would be doubled (i.e., destroyed or shattered) and removed, accordingly. Strangely enough, there was no apparent morale impact to adjacent friends, unless one counts the overlap rule and subsequent melee disadvantage.
In summary and on further reflection, perhaps the trinity of simulation, playability, and abstraction is too complicated a subject matter to thoroughly and thoughtfully consider in a simple battle report. Then again, it may simply be a case of my not having the higher-level thinking required to sufficiently address and consider these critical components of game design and wargaming.
In this fictional contest pitting Antiochus against Porus, I was engaged but I cannot say that I enjoyed it as much as I have other solo scenarios. Was this because of the size of the battle and my comparative inexperience with the rules? I don’t know. It goes without saying that some rule mistakes were made. I would be foolish to claim otherwise. For example, I did not mark the Galatians as a demoralized contingent until a turn after it happened. Did this gaffe upset the balance of the wargame? I think not. Did the other mistakes, small ones and likely consistent, tilt things too far in favor of the Seleucids? Again, I think the answer is no. Was this lack of enjoyment a product of carrying around that baggage and bias mentioned above? Perhaps. Was there not so much fun in it as I was feeling some pressure to get something new up on my blog? Maybe. Then again, it could very well be that I was thinking ahead to other projects and did not focus as much as I should have one the scenario at hand.
To continue an apparent trend or practice, after reviewing the pictures, typed notes, and the initial draft of this report, I would give myself a grade of B-minus (perhaps an 82 on a 100 point scale) for this recently completely solo wargame. However, this “poor” performance does not mean that I will stop studying TRIUMPH! Ideally, I should like to secure a slot in a large or even mega-TRIUMPH! game at a local convention, either this year or next. That way, I can get a proper education by playing with and against those player-generals who have truckloads more experience. With that additional knowledge, I can look forward to staging more TRIUMPH! battles on my tabletop as well as writing more reports.
Notes
- There are three Battle of Hastings videos to be found at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIMiqEZjn1w43ZN1ox_JXWw/videos. Viewing each episode in succession, one would have to set aside roughly 3.5 hours of time. This historical refight was played by two individuals, assisted by an umpire/commentator. As my planned battle is twice the size of this traditional and rather aesthetically pleasing wargame, I figure that it will take me at least twice as long to complete as I am commanding both sides in addition to acting as umpire.
- Please see Reply #1943, posted on February 22. Martin played a comparatively small but enjoyable solo game employing a modified version of “Bob Cordery’s ancients rules from ‘Developing the Portable Wargame.’” In a hard-fought contest, the Seleucids pulled out a win after the morale of the Indian army collapsed.
