AETIUS vs ATTILA: PART 2

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, a search of the TRIUMPH! Forum (please see https://forum.wgcwar.com/) informed that Châlons had been refought or staged many times and apparently, with great success. In a post made on December 17 of 2016, David Kuijt reported that Châlons had been presented at a number of conventions along the East Coast during the previous five months. Another David, this one having the last name of Schlanger, posted on July 19 of 2017 about the success of TRIUMPH! at Historicon. Châlons was refought (perhaps more than once, though I am not entirely sure), and the tabletop was well attended by player-generals. Evidently, the rules were well received. Unfortunately, a search of the ‘Campaigns and Battle Scenarios’ section of the Forum did not result in the discovery of any files or suggestions about how one might reconstruct Châlons with these rules. Disappointed but not dissuaded, I decided that I would attempt to put together my own scenario. I figured that I could make use of the free Army Lists found on https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home. I also figured that I could make use of the detailed if also necessarily estimated orders of battle and other gaming notes provided by Simon MacDowall in his September 2010 Slingshot article. 

Orders of Battle - An Interpretation

In “The Battle of Châlons,” Simon guesses that there were around 40,000 men on each side of the Catalaunian Plains, with a slight advantage going to Aetius. Further, he suggests a unit scale which provides varying numbers or strengths depending on the troop type. Even though the TRIUMPH! rules do not describe, recognize, or set a traditional figure or unit scale, I decided, after some tinkering, to establish an approximate scale of one unit, regardless of type, would represent 600 cavalry or infantry. Being a fan of larger actions, I opted for the higher numbers provided in Simon’s orders of battle. To be certain, translating the language of Comitatus into the language of TRIUMPH! did present a bit of a challenge. Additionally, some of the free army lists found on  https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home did not include the exact types of troops or units that one might expect for that particular force. 

Simon started with the Army of Aetius, taking a look at the Visigoths first. This is where I started as well. To model the Visigoths under the command of King Theodoric, I prepared the following formations/units:

01 x Knights

01 x Javelin Cavalry

03 x Elite Warriors

11 x Warriors

03 x Bow Levy

Notes: 

1. Elite Warriors are not an established/recognized troop type in the TRIUMPH! “dictionary” of troop types. I was trying to depict Simon’s listing of “shieldwall infantry with exceptional morale.” I figured this new troop type would be worth 4 points, just like Elite Foot, and because of their fighting ability and spirit, have a +1 melee die modifier. 
2. King Theodoric would be riding with his Knights, of course, and confer a +1 melee modifier to this unit. The points value of his command added up to 59 points, which is 11 over the normal size/strength for a typical TRIUMPH! army. Theodoric’s men would become demoralized on losing 20 points worth of stands/units.

For the much smaller contingent under Thorismund, I fabricated the following formations/units:

04 x Javelin Cavalry

02 x Skirmishers

Notes: 

1. Thorismund would accompany a stand of Javelin Cavalry, adding a +1 melee modifier when engaging in combat. 
2. His contingent would become demoralized when it had lost 8 points worth of stands/units.

Using the established as well as approximate unit scale, there would be 15,000 Visigoths on my tabletop. 

Moving on to the Alans under King Sangiban, I built the following units (i.e., counters):

03 x Knights

05 x Horse Bow

Notes: 

1. King Sangiban would ride with a unit of Knights. Based on my reading, he and his troops were not all that capable or confident, apparently, so I decided that he would not get the usual +1 melee modifier for commanders. 
2. The Alan contingent would become demoralized when it had lost 25 percent of its strength, which translated into 8 points worth of stands/units.

Using the same unit scale, there would be 4,800 Alan cavalry present on my tabletop.

Turning to the Romans (and others) under the overall command of Aetius, I decided to prepare the following formations/units:

02 x Knights

03 x Javelin Cavalry

Notes: 

1. Flavius Aetius would be integrated into a unit of Knights. I went back and forth about his ability, finally deciding to award him a +2 melee modifier. 
2. His small contingent would have a demoralization level of 10 points, or 50 percent of its total strength. 

These approximately 3,000 horsemen would be under the direct control of Aetius.

For the Roman infantry (and other foot) under Avitus, the following counters were made:

01 x Javelin Cavalry

04 x Heavy Foot

04 x Warriors

08 x Heavy Foot

06 x Elite Foot

04 x Archers

Notes: 

1. Avitus would be attached to the unit of Javelin Cavalry and add a +1 melee modifier to its fighting ability. He would command half of the listed formations, so the strength of his contingent would be 48 points, the usual size of a typical TRIUMPH! army. As such, his command would become demoralized when it had lost 16 points worth of stands/units. 
2. His anonymous co-commander would lead an identical formation. It would also “lose heart” when it had suffered 16 points of casualties. Unlike Avitus or Aetius, this nameless commander would not have a melee modifier.                                                                                    

This would give Avitus (and another subordinate officer) just over 16,000 men to command and control.

For the approximately 4,800 Franks under King Merovech, I assembled the following formations/units:

01 x Elite Warriors

07 x Warriors

Notes: 

1. King Merovech would place himself with his Elite Warriors, obviously. He would confer a +1 melee modifier when those men were engaged. 
2. At 25 points of value, the Franks would become demoralized when they had lost 9 points worth of stands/units.

Aetius and his co-commanders would have roughly 44,000 men on the field. These would be represented by a mix of 73 units. 

Looking across the tabletop at Attila and his “alliance,” I started with the Ostrogoths. 

Instead of dividing the three brothers into distinct commands or contingents, I decided to combine Vidimir’s formations with his older and more experienced brother, Valamir. Their command was depicted in the following manner: 

02 x Knights

08 x Warriors

Notes: 

1. Valamir would ride with one unit of Knights; Vidimir would ride with the other. Only Valamir would provide a melee modifier of +1 to his troopers, however. 
2. This contingent would “lose heart” when 11 of their 32 points had been destroyed/routed.

Theodimir’s command consisted of the following:

05 x Knights

04 x Bow Levy

Notes: 

1. Theodimir would ride with a unit of Knights. As with his brother, Valamir, Theodimir would provide a melee modifier of +1 to his troopers. 
2. This contingent would become demoralized when 10 of their 28 points had been lost.

There would be roughly 11,000 Ostrogoths on my tabletop, then. 

Turning my attention to Attila and his formations, I prepared the following stands or units:

05 x Knights

16 x Horse Bow

This would place about 12,500 Huns on the table.

Notes: 

1. Attila would command 3 units of Knights and 4 units of Horse Bow. His melee modifier would be equal to that of his Roman counterpart, a +2. Attila’s men would become demoralized when they had suffered 50 percent casualites (i.e., 14 points). 
2. The other commands would each contain a unit of Knights and 6 units of Horse Bow. Perhaps one of these formations would be led by Ellac, but either way, each leader of these groups would confer a +1 melee modifier to his men. These formations would also “lose heart” after leaving half of their men dead or wounded on the field.  

Considering the Gepid contingent under King Ardaric and his subordinate Sigurd, the following formations or units were developed:

03 x Knights

01 x Javelin Cavalry

03 x Bow Levy

03 x Elite Warriors

16 x Warriors

Notes: 

1. King Ardaric would provide a +1 melee modifier. He would command all the Knights, the Javelin Cavalry, 1 Bow Levy, 1 Elite Warrior, and 4 Warrior units. His contingent would be valued at 34 points, so it would become demoralized when it had taken 12 points of casualties.  
2. Sigurd would be embedded with a unit of Elite Warriors. His formation would include 2 Elite Warriors, 2 Bow Levy, and 12 Warriors, giving it a strength of 48 points. This command would “lose heart” when 16 points had been removed from the tabletop.                                                                                                                                                                               

Almost 16,000 Gepids would join forces with Attila and his other allies. This would give the ‘Scourge of God’ an army with a total strength of around 40,000. In terms of actual formations on the tabletop, Attila would deploy 65 units. 

Terrain & Deployments

Before setting out the various contingents as depicted in the simple diagram provided on page 9 of that September 2010 issue of Slingshot, I made sure to breakup the “immense” stretch of dark green flatness that constituted my playing surface or battlefield. I arranged a dozen pieces of irregularly shaped/cut speciality paper, arts & crafts material, and colored cloth to represent different types of grass or slight variations in the nature of the plains. None of these inexpensive additions or decorations was classified as “proper terrain.” Again, these were simply used to provide some additional color to the larger battlefield. The only “real” terrain feature was the hill positioned to the left of the Ostrogoths. 

Early on a warm September evening, the reduced-in-scale opposing armies or alliances were deployed on my large (at least in some circles) tabletop. Horse Bow and Javelin Cavalry are the two fastest troop types in these rules, with a movement rate of 8 MU. (One MU is the equivalent of half of the frontage of a troop base or stand, so if you are fortunate or smart enough to be using painted and based 25/28mm miniatures, then the stand would be 80 mm wide, so one MU would be 40 mm. With this scale, Horse Bow could move 320 mm or 32 cm in a turn.) I was employing units with a universal frontage of 30 mm, so one MU for this present project was 15 mm or 1.5 cm. Units of Horse Bow and Javelin Cavalry, then, could gallop up to 12 cm each turn. 

The “terrain” arranged and “troops” arrayed for a full-scale refight of Châlons. This photo taken above the Roman & Allied right, showing the Visigoths at the bottom, the Alans (in purple) in the center, and then the Franks and the rest of the Romans going left or toward the top. The large and variously colored d6 are the command dice. The smaller blue dice are the combat dice, and the white dice are to mark the melee modifiers. 

A view from the Gepids sector, showing the size of Sigurd’s command. There are Huns to his left and the foot element of King Ardaric’s contingent is to his right. The “rulers” mark the approximate distance between the opposing lines. 

The final arrangement of the opposing armies or alliances was a poor facsimile of the diagram provided by Simon MacDowall in his 2010 Slingshot article. Starting way over on the Roman left, I placed Aetius and his small cavalry command. Next in line was an anonymous officer leading half of the Roman infantry as well as a few Saxon warriors. To the right of this formation was Avitus, commanding a duplicate body of troops. Continuing right down this “model” line, there were the Franks under King Merovech, the Alans under King Sangiban, and then the Visigoths under the King Theodoric. Thorismund and his detachment was further to the right, angled toward the single terrain feature of the battlefield. 

Shifting to a brief survey of Attila’s dispositions, King Ardaric and the Gepids held the right. The king and his horsemen were farthest to the right; his foot component was deployed to his left. Next was Sigurd’s command, a larger formation by comparison. Two commands of Huns were stretched across the center of the line. These fierce veterans were facing the Franks and a portion of the Alans. Theodimir’s command was next, followed by the contingent led by his two brothers. These formations would have to deal with Alans and Visigoths. A third unit of Huns was rather isolated, far out on the left flank of Attila’s army. These cavalry were tasked to counter Thorismund if not attack the right flank of the enemy line of battle.

A close up of the Roman left flank, showing the mounted formations under Aetius as well as part of the “long blue line” commanded by an anonymous officer. 

Across from Aetius rides King Ardaric and his Gepid cavalry. To his left, there are warriors and a unit of bow levy. 

How It Played

The first three turns of the battle saw both sides making a series of march moves as the command dice were very good all around. The Roman contingent advanced with some speed, choosing, evidently, to take the fight to the Gepids rather than wait for the enemy cavalry, warriors and bow levy units to approach. Over on the far left of the Hun line, the Visigoths under Thorismund “arrived the fastest but not with the mostest” (if I may adapt a nineteenth century military quote), and were able to wreck no little havoc on the larger numbers of Hun cavalry. The terrain advantage and excellent die rolls (compared to the abysmal rolls made by the Huns) saw the Huns forced back and then whittled away. Indeed, it seemed only a matter of minutes before the Hun commander in this sector found his unit assailed from the front and flank. Once again, the dice were not kind. He was mortally wounded and his men were routed. Sufficed to say, this negative development on Attila’s left flank was not appreciated. The luck of Aetius and his allies seemed omnipresent, as the first combat in the center of the broad field went to a couple of units of Alan light cavalry that managed to gain the flank of some Huns. 

In the interest of brevity and retaining the reader’s attention (hopefully), it seems prudent to describe or summarize the action of the next several turns by looking at the various sectors of the field. I will start on the far right of Attila’s line, with the cavalry command of King Ardaric of the Gepids.

The first melees of the refight happen on the Visigoth right/Hun left. The Hun horse bow come in second in the race to the crest and are forced to fight at a terrain disadvantage. It was hoped that their numbers would tell, would turn back the Visigoth tide. The first die rolls dash that hope into several pieces. Here, the white die behind each engaged unit is their melee factor or modifier and the color die is the melee roll. A score of 8 will always beat a score of 5. After double-checking the combat results tables, the Hun horse bow were moved back the depth of their stand/counter. 

The rapid advance of the Roman horse was met by the Gepid cavalry and a wild as well as back-and-forth melee developed. King Ardaric was in the thick of it, while Aetius and his unit stayed out of the melee until they could find an enemy flank upon which to fall. The Roman troopers proved quite stubborn, resisting the heroic efforts of the Gepid horsemen to overthrow them. Eventually, however, the balance tilted in favor of the Gepids and the surviving cavalry under Aetius were demoralized. While this intense cavalry contest was taking place, the Roman foot commands and the Gepid foot under Sigurd finally came to blows. 

With the advantage of fighting downslope and the more significant advantage of much better die rolling, the Visigoths under Thorismund have pushed the Huns back. Adding injury to insult, they have also managed to rout a unit of horse bow. 

The struggle between the opposing lines of legionaries and other heavy foot versus warriors and bow levy was slower to develop. The legions and other elements in the Roman formations proved their mettle though, as they either pushed back or routed units in the Gepid line. However, there were points in the general melee where the supported warriors were able to push back the Roman foot. To be certain, it would take much longer to reach a decision here than it did between Ardaric and Aetius.

Another photo of the initial contest for the hill . . . The Huns are in trouble, having lost another unit to a charge from the Visigoths. The Hun commander of this contingent is also threatened from the front as well as the flank. Again, the dice tell the tragic story. (Note: Javelin Cavalry shatter Knights if/when they outscore them in melee.)

In the center of the field, Attila and his Huns were facing a portion of the infantry under Avitus, the Franks under King Merovech, and the Alans under King Sangiban. The Hun cavalry, as might be expected due to their tactics, had some trouble contending with the solid formations of warriors. More often than not, the cavalry was pushed back or forced to evade from the various walls of shields and spears. Even when the light horse were able to attack the front and flanks of isolated units of enemy foot, success was not always guaranteed. This local action seemed to be turning into a battle of attrition. Shifting left a little, Attila and his heavier Hun cavalry had their hands full with King Sangiban’s Alans. This contest was back-and-forth just like the fight between King Ardaric and Aetius; this contest was even harder fought than that action on the flank. The Alans proved surprisingly tough in round after round of close combat. At one point in the chaotic ballet of fighting, Attila’s men nearly succeeded in cutting down King Sangiban, but the leader of the Alans escaped capture or injury. Fortunately, Attila’s men were soon reinforced by a number of Ostrogoth cavalry led by Theodimir. These horsemen were held up by some Alan horse archers, however.

An aerial view of a large portion of the field showing the general progress being made by both sides. The Romans have been jogging forward for some time, which made me wonder about drafting some kind of fatigue rule. The Gepids under Sigurd are slowed by the bow levy units in the formation. 

The Visigoths under Thorismund are striving to rout the Huns in this sector, but a terrible command roll is not helping their cause/effort. 

The “big red 1” hampers King Theodoric and his massed warriors. 

Unfortunately, the bad luck with the command dice continued with King Sangiban. Fortunately, the dice gods took pity on the rest of the commands and contingents under the overall leadership of Aetius. 

Over on the other side of the battlefield, in the area of the hill, not much was happening between the Visigoths under King Theodoric and Thorismund and the smaller force of Ostrogoths led by Vidimir and Valamir. Thorismund was still reorganizing his command after routing the Hun detachment, and King Theodoric was moving slowly or carefully towards the shorter line of Ostrogoth warriors.

Over the course of the next almost three turns, the battle was decided. This engagement would not be a stunning or sweeping victory for one alliance over the other, however. Instead, it would be a “win” based on one side doing more damage to the other but unable to fully take advantage of the occasion due to the setting sun which resulted in growing shadows and then darkness blanketing the field. 

King Sangiban makes a daring attack on Attila and his cavalry. The Alans succeed in “isolating” the Hun commander, but the dice fall in favor of Attila and King Sangiban and his men are pushed back in the swirling melee. (The white dice indicate the melee modifier. Attila had a +2 in addition to the KN value, but he was overlapped twice. The colored dice indicate the melee rolls made.) Note: The large purple die is the command pip die for the Alans.

Chaotic fighting continues near the hill on the Roman right and Hun left. Thorismund is finally able to catch a unit of Hun horse archers and deliver a knock out punch with the help of a flank attack. 

The Huns in the approximate center of the field have a tough time, initially, versus the various units of warriors. On occasion, however, their tactics of riding across the front of the enemy formation and raining arrows down on them produces a local victory. 

The contest between the Gepids with King Ardaric and the Roman cavalry commanded by Aetius is a “doozy.” Perhaps I should type “donnybrook”? The Gepids take an early lead by routing a unit of Roman horse, but the Romans prove very stubborn or is it lucky? In this photo, King Ardaric has the enemy Javelin Cavalry between a rock and a hard place, but the Romans managed to “flip” the die roll and the melee is a draw. 

The Hun horsemen continue to have trouble with the Franks and Saxons in the approximate center of the field. In this photo, a unit of Saxon warriors is attacked on three sides by a swarm of Hun light cavalry and still manages to prevail. 

A view of the Gepid sector, showing how far the Roman infantry have advanced. The command led by Avitus can be seen at the top of the photo; an anonymous officer leads the formation in front of the white die showing a 3. 

While Aetius continued to retreat with the skeletal remains of his cavalry command, his subordinate leaders continued to encourage their men in their contests against the Gepid warriors and Hun cavalry. Sigurd’s large contingent was battered and bruised by the attention of the legions and other Roman foot. Before King Ardaric could effectively intervene, Sigurd’s men were demoralized. 

A similar situation developed on the other side of the field, when King Theodoric and his warriors launched themselves into the thin line of Ostrogoths led by Vidimir and his brother. The melees raged back and forth, but the Ostrogoths could not stop the impetuous charges; they could not stand firm against the fierce attacks. Shortly after the morale of Sigurd’s command faltered, the men still standing with Vidimir became demoralized. This meant that half of the contingents fighting for or with Attila were now in a sorry state. To continue fighting against more numerous enemy formations with better morale would mean inviting certain defeat if not disaster. Even though he had participated in the savage combats versus King Sangiban and his men and had seen the leader of the Alans fall from his saddle (finally!), Attila knew that he could not turn the tide of the general battle with this localized victory. Orders were issued to couriers who galloped off in various directions to convey them to various commanders. Under the confusion of the ongoing struggle and with the assistance of the approaching darkness, the Huns and their allies broke off the engagement and retreated to their large and fortified encampment. 

Attila and his bodyguard are engaged in an extended melee with King Sangiban and his bodyguard. This was a back-and-forth battle. Here, Attila almost succeeds in routing the Alan cavalry and capturing or killing King Sangiban.

“Crunch time” between the Gepid warriors and Roman heavy foot elements. The Gepids did not fare well in the initial round of melees. 

After a few hard-fought turns, the cavalry contest between Aetius and King Ardaric is decided. With this successful flank attack (finally!), the cavalry contingent under Aetius is demoralized. 

After putting up a stubborn fight against Attila and his Huns. King Sangiban finally meets his end when some Ostrogoths from Theodimir’s contingent join in the wild melees taking place in the approximate center of the field. A unit of Ostrogoth cavalry is blocking the fall back area or space of the Alan cavalry. This is how King Sangiban is lost; this is how the Alans become demoralized and effectively open up a rather large hole in the center of the Roman position. 

Shortly after the Alans are demoralized, the Ostrogoths under Vidimir and Valamir suffer a sharp decline in their morale after being pummeled and pushed back by the greater numbers of Visigoths commanded by King Theodoric. Indeed, their position was threatened by Thorismund’s horsemen, who were beginning to envelop the left flank and potentially rear of Vidimir’s and Valamir’s line. 

Comments

The decision to end the game before an official decision was reached was based on a survey of the state of the tabletop conducted in the middle of the tenth turn. On Attila’s side of the field, one command had been routed and three were demoralized. His army had suffered the loss of 25 units (nearly 40 percent), which amounted to approximately 86 points by my calculations. The majority of casualties occurred in Horse Bow and Warrior troop types. In rather sharp contrast, Aetius and his alliance lost just 10 units and only had a single contingent demoralized when the contest was called. The Alans had effectively been broken, and their king had been lost. No major leaders in Attila’s army had been captured, wounded, or killed. Most of the losses for Aetius were concentrated in the Frankish and Saxon warriors. The legions and other Roman foot, while heavily engaged, carried themselves well. The total damage to the alliance forged by Aetius amounted to 36 points or roughly 13 percent of his total strength. Setting aside the basic math and numbers, I should like to move to a brief consideration of what did not go so well and those things that went okay. 

With the reflection that is afforded by 24 hours after cleaning up the tabletop, it seems to me that  melees involving knights depend more on luck than any other factor. Commanding small formations of knights, Attila and King Sangiban went after each other for several turns. The dice favored one side and then the other, often during the same phase. Enemy bodies of knights were forced to fall back and immediately pursued as that is what knights do under these rules. Given my long experience with another set of rules, it struck me as a bit odd or at least unusual that knights and especially the horses they rode on would not grow tired after successive rounds of close combat. I was also given to wonder why there was no degradation in unit effectiveness. After three or four turns of back-and-forth melee, one would think that there had been casualties, that a unit would not be as fresh or strong as it was when it first charged into a fight. Again, there seemed to be a fair degree of luck involved. On the other hand, it appeared that one could only assure an enemy unit’s destruction by moving a friendly unit behind it and thereby block its avenue of retreat. This, combined with an effective frontal attack, guaranteed the destruction of the targeted enemy unit. 

In a similar vein, I found it curious that an attack made upon the flank of a unit of Roman Archers was not very powerful. In this specific situation, a unit of Gepid Javelin Cavalry was able to fall upon the left flank of a unit of Roman Archers. According to my reading of the QRS, Archers have a +4 factor against Mounted while Cavalry have a +3 factor against Foot. As they were taken on the flank, the modifier for the Archers was reduced to +3. Given that the cavalry was coming at them from the flank, it seemed to me curious/odd that the factors would be even in the melee. Yes, archers have the ability to loose a volley or volleys at distance, but even when attacked by cavalry on their flank? The balance of factors did not seem quite right to me. 

While I was satisfied with the fact that I was able to fit this comparatively large battle on my full tabletop, I was still slightly disappointed with the fiddly sizes of the heavy foot (or HF) troop types. With the addition of the unit identification tag, I found the manipulation of these various units (Heavy Foot, Elite Foot, Warriors, etc.) to be a little problematic. To be sure, the small sizes employed did not significantly impact the wargame or my ability to play it for approximately 11 turns. The small sizes of many of the units/counters did result in a little frustration with keeping lines straight and commands intact. On further reflection, it occurs to me that I should have built my units/counters with a universal frontage of 40 mm. 

Turning from the negative or “needs some work” to the positive, the recently completed refight of Châlons gave me a little more confidence in my ability to use and understand the TRIUMPH! rules. Even though it was a derivative effort (based on the original work of others) and even though it was largely lacking in aesthetic appeal, this reconstruction of Châlons gave me another chance to revisit a place in the historical record and gain a little more understanding of what it may have been like, of how the actual battle might have gone if this or that variable had been slightly different. Additionally, focusing my attention on playing a turn or two a day or every other day and then taking some pictures and typing some notes, provided me with a break or an escape from daily concerns, stresses, and worries. Perhaps I am “scraping the bottom of the barrel” here, but with my counter-based approach, I was able to refight this historical battle at minimal cost. Thinking more about this topic, I find it interesting that in terms of identifying negatives and positives, it seems easier to list specific examples of the former while the positive aspects tend to be more general in nature. [1] 

Evaluation

The rules employed for these two refights are quite different, obviously. Painting with a very broad brush, the Armati rules are rather strict with respect to movement and combat resolution is based on unit breakpoint. Further, units engaged in melees will earn fatigue markers or points until they become exhausted. This condition or status will adversely affect their ability to fight. In contrast, the TRIUMPH! rules are less strict when it comes to movement. Resolving combat is more “black & white” than it is with Armati. Units do not track breakpoints or fatigue; they are either forced to fall back, evade, are destroyed, etc. Accepting these differences between the employed sets of rules, I thought the Armati set more realistic. Given my long history with these rules, this assessment might be indicative of a certain level of bias. 

As the first refight involved only two-thirds of each opposing alliance and the second refight employed entire orders of battle, an argument could be made that one would be comparing apples and oranges when judging the two tabletop contests. It’s a fair point. Perhaps I should have tried harder to figure out how to fit all of Châlons on my extended table with Armati. Perhaps I should have mirrored the Armati effort with TRIUMPH! and used just the Huns, Gepids, Romans, and Alans. At least in this way, I would have been able to prepare and play with slightly larger counters and thereby avoided the aforementioned fiddly characteristics of the smaller units.  

Looking at the results of each experiment, these were slightly different as well. The first modified exercise of Châlons using the Armati rules resulted in a Pyrrhic victory for Attila and his forces. The second refight resulted in a more historical result, I think, in that Attila’s army was rather damaged, essentially demoralized, and forced to quit the field. Both contests saw a lot of casualties suffered by the Huns and their friends, but the first was judged a win while the second was considered a loss. 

Looking back at the experience of refighting this historical battle with two different sets of rules, I would have to say that I enjoyed using the TRIUMPH! system(s) a little more than Armati. Some 48 hours after hostilities ended and the tabletop was cleaned up, I found myself thinking about ways—or if was even possible—to combine aspects of each set into a “new” set of rules. For example, I am wondering if it might be possible to combine the unit breakpoint and fatigue rules of Armati with the “outcome moves” listed in the latter pages of TRIUMPH! It’s something to think about and perhaps experiment with, I suppose.

In Part 1 of this report, I gave myself a grade of 79 or 80 out of a possible score of 100. As for Part 2, I think I did better, so I believe a score of 85, or perhaps even 86, would be justified. This gives me an average grade of 82-83, which is not that bad. (Would that I had done as well years ago on quizzes and tests in my Geometry and French classes! Mon Dieu!) Of course, that finite group appreciated and industrious readers who have taken the time to read and think about both installments of Aetius vs Attila may well have a different opinion and may even be moved to offer a comment or two. 

Notes

1. In the process of proofreading this second installment, I was reading a couple of library books for fun. One of these was, THINKING 101 - How to Reason Better to Live Better, by Professor Woo-Kyoung Ahn. Chapter 5 is titled ‘Negativity Bias,’ and it proved an interesting if sometimes uncomfortably too-close-to-the-truth read.