A SOLO WARGAMER’S 

“WORLD CUP”

Quite unexpectedly, a spark of renewed interest was generated for the hobby of ancient wargaming. [1] Even more surprisingly, the inspiration stemmed from listening to, watching, and reading post-match analyses and reports of the international women’s football (some still call it soccer) competition taking place in Australia and New Zealand. [2] In broad outline, I decided that I would attempt to stage my own tournament, wherein 16 teams, that is to say armies, would battle each other for the well-deserved honor and right to call themselves champions. In greater detail, the parameters of this impromptu as well as improvised solo tournament were as follows:

1. The rules used would be TRIUMPH! (Rules for Tabletop Battles - Ancient and Medieval, Version 1.1, November 2019) [3] 
2. The size of each competing army would be limited to 48 points (i.e., Standard size engagements as opposed to the larger forces employed in GRAND TRIUMPH! games). This determined number included units as well as Battle Cards and fortified camps, etc. The stand size for the various troop types would be 40 mm, which meant that the MU (movement unit) would be 20 mm. The playing surface (I almost typed “pitch”) dimensions would be 96 cm by 64 cm. 
3. The nature of the ground for each battle would be determined by rolling 2d6 (each one a different color) and consulting the pages of terrain in Appendix H of the TRIUMPH! rules.
4. There would be no Flank Marches permitted in this improvised competition.
5. In order to ensure a wide variety of forces, the tournament was designed as an “open competition,” which would allow armies from 3,000 BC or BCE to 1,500 AD or CE to participate.
6. Selection of the 16 armies was made by a number of die rolls, using a variety of dice. [4]
7. Simple results would be provided for the ‘knockout round’ of 16. For the quarter-finals, one tabletop battle would be chosen to be described in more detail, but the narrative length would be kept (hopefully) under 1,000 words. A diagram or map of the selected engagement might also be provided. One of the semi-final matches would receive a similar treatment. Here, however, there would be at least a deployment map included. The final game would also see a summary of between approximately 1,500 and 2,000 words. The final game would see two if not three maps of the battle prepared for the reader’s possible enjoyment, inspection, or critique. 
8. With regard to the calendar, unlike the football tournament, specifically the ‘knockout rounds’ as opposed to the group games, which ran from August 05 to August 20, this competition would see a wargame played every week. [5] If I was able to maintain this comparatively easy or slow pace, then a winner would emerge and be crowned by the time the US Thanksgiving holiday arrived.  

The Round of 16 and Results

Game 1         Sogdians vs Akkadian

Game 2 Later French Ordonnance vs California Coastal First Nations

Game 3 Early Swiss vs Emirate of Granada

Game 4         Early Bronze Age Highlanders vs Early Patrician Roman (East)

Game 5 Later Philistine vs Early Medieval Scandinavian

Game 6         Free Company vs Golden Horde & Successors

Game 7 Later Emishi vs Suren Indo-Parthian

Game 8         Early Ming Chinese vs Campanian

The armies advancing into the next round were: 

Akkadian: They simply slaughtered the Sogdians, inflicting 16 points of damage while losing none.

Later French Ordonnance: CCFN conceded when the score was 15-0 against them.

Early Swiss: The Swiss lost 12 points of Raiders (Halberdiers) on one flank, but managed to knock out 17 points of the enemy. Compared to the first two games, a more interesting as well as hard fought contest. 

Early Patrician Roman (East): Another rout. It took just 25 minutes for the Romans to run up a 16-0 score.

Later Philistine: Scandinavians submitted after falling behind 15-3 in six turns of play.

Free Company: The Knights and supporting troops were able to swat away the numerous Horse Bow of the Golden Horde in a 16-3 win for the Europeans.

Suren Indo-Parthian: A resounding win for the Indo-Parthians; inflicting 18 points of damage while taking no losses at all.

Campanian: The closest battle in this round. The Chinese artillery routed 6 points of Hoplites, and their Horse Bow irritated the left flank of the enemy line. The Campanian force persevered, however, winning by a score of 16-13.

Quarterfinals: A Report and Results

The advancing (or surviving) eight squares of paper were refolded and placed into the container for another round. The subsequent drawings determined which pairs of “armies” would do battle over the course of approximately several weeks. 

Quarterfinal Game 1 Suren Indo-Parthian vs Later Philistine

Quarterfinal Game 2 Later French Ordonnance vs Early Swiss

Quarterfinal Game 3 Early Patrician Roman (East) vs Akkadian

Quarterfinal Game 4 Campanian vs Free Company

“Summary Report” of Quarterfinal Game 1

Initially, I thought I would walk the reader through the step-by-step process of setting up a 48-point per side TRIUMPH! game.  I quickly realized that this was a fool’s errand and deleted the 800 words or so that had been typed in an attempt to explain the comparatively simple process. Obviously, the experienced TRIUMPH! player-generals do not need this information. For those who might be interested in trying out TRIUMPH! and for those curious about the way the rules work, I strongly recommend that you visit the TRIUMPH! YouTube channel and enjoy the fairly large library of video tutorials. With regard to setting up a battle, well, the “Setting up a Game” video explains it all. There is also the first part of a Later Crusader vs Mamluk Egyptians wargame that shows the setting up procedure in action, or prior to action. (Please see Triumph Setting up a Game and Triumph Later Crusader vs Mamluk Egyptians Part 1.) Anyway, following, please see the orders of battle for this first quarterfinal match.

For the Later Philistines, I had a 48-point force consisting of:

Battle Card ‘Pack Train and Herds’ / 1 point - this was their camp

03 units of Chariots / 12 points - 1 of these units contained the army general

01 unit of Spear / 4 points - battleline zone troops

07 units of Heavy Foot / 21 points - battleline zone troops

02 units of Light Foot / 6 points

02 units of Rabble / 4 points 

For the Suren Indo-Parthians, I had a 47-point force consisting of:

Battle Card ‘Pack Train and Herds’ / 1 point - this was their camp

03 units of Cataphracts / 12 points - 1 of these units contained the army general and these units were battleline zone troops

05 units of Horse Bow / 20 points

01 unit of Rabble / 2 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of Skirmishers / 3 points

01 unit of Light Spear / 3 points

01 unit of Horde / 2 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of Elephants / 4 points - battleline zone troops

Map 1 shows the nature of the ground for this first battle in the second round of contests. It also informs how the opposing armies deployed for the action. In order to make viewing the diagram a little easier (and production a little simpler for my aging eyes), I increased its size by a factor of three. This did not leave room for any caption box, so a brief explanation of troop type abbreviations and other notes will have to be included in the body of this summary. 

The Later Philistines are identified by the purple units and occupy the right side of the field or map. The Indo-Parthians are light blue in color and are arranged for battle on the left of the diagram. Two, three, or four-letter abbreviations identify the troop types. For several examples: Cat = Cataphracts; HB = Horse Bow; LtSp = Light Spear, and HF = Heavy Foot. The other units should be recognized by experience, inference, or the following narrative. 

As might be expected, both armies spent the first few turns of the game moving forward. Each side was careful in its approach, however. The Indo-Parthians decided to secure the village with some Skirmishers. These light troops would later be joined by some Rabble. It looked as if action would commence on the Philistine left wing, as their Chariots were facing large numbers of enemy Horse Bow. In the center, both sides seemed content to walk slowly forward, staring daggers at each other.

First blood was in fact spilled on the Philistine left wing when the Chariots and Horse Bow clashed. Half of the Chariots were routed, and the other squadron(s) were pushed back. In the next turn, the Parthian Horse Bow swarmed the surviving Chariots and destroyed them. Not much else happened in other parts of the field. Over by the village, two smaller lines of opposing units were lining up and staring more daggers. The Philistines did not particularly like the idea of making an urban assault, however. The sixth and seventh turns saw the centers of each army meet with something resembling a terrible crash. The Philistine foot units proved rather stubborn against the lumbering Parthian Cataphracts. A unit of Philistine Rabble proved especially capable as it fought off both a frontal and rear attack by those same swarming Horse Bow. The combat in the center grew more chaotic as the Philistine General moved his Chariots into the swirling action by charging the flank of an enemy unit of Light Spear. The Philistine Rabble earned their pay by repulsing another multi-directional attack from the Parthian Horse Bow. Unfortunately, the Cataphracts were finally able to punch a hole or two in the Philistine infantry line, and this spelled the end of the battle. 

It had been a hard fought affair, and it had been fairly enjoyable, but the final score was very lopsided: Indo-Parthians - 17, Later Philistines - 0. A review of the turn record informed that the Parthians had much better command dice or pips, earning 30 over seven turns of play against 15 command points or pips for the Philistines. Even though there were a number of units in and around the village, no actual fighting took place around in inside the buildings. In sum, the combination of Horse Bow and Cataphracts, as well as a turn of luck with the combat dice, secured a convincing win for the Indo-Parthians. 

Results of the Other Games

The Indo-Parthian would be joined by three other winning armies as they advanced to the semifinals. Those armies (and very short descriptions of their contests) are listed below.

Early Swiss: Their Bad Horse and Skirmishers frustrated the flank attacks on the right, while their Raiders (i.e., Halberdiers) were able, finally, to turn the Later French right flank. A fairly long and hard fought contest, wherein the French failed to make good use of their Archers and Artillery, and failed to roll good melee dice. The Early Swiss advanced to the semifinals with a score of 17 - 3. 

Early Patrician Roman (East): A hard, slow slog for the Legions and Foederati against the stubborn Akkadian militia pikemen. The Romans lost their Javelin Cavalry and Skirmishers on their left, but manage to finally envelope the interior right of the Akkadian line. Again, a hard-fought contest, with the Romans prevailing by a score of  16 - 7. 

Campanian: The advance of the Hoplites was repulsed, with no little embarrassment, by the Free Company Archers and Crossbowmen. Meanwhile, on the Free Company right flank, a group of Knights tangled with and overran some enemy Light Foot and Javelin Cavalry at the cost of one unit. (A Campanian distraction or forlorn hope?) Incensed, the Hoplites charged back in and punched holes in the Free Company line of battle; a unit of Light Foot finally came to grips with the offending Crossbowmen and cut them down. A hard won victory for the Campanian soldiery. The final score was 16 - 10. 

Semifinals: Another Report and Results

For this pre-championship round, only four squares of paper were refolded and placed into the container. The determined matches were as follows:

Semifinal Game 1 Campanian vs Suren Indo-Parthian

Semifinal Game 2 Early Swiss vs Early Patrician Roman (East)

“Summary Report” of Semifinal Game 1

This contest would be fought over arable ground, as the Campanian general rolled a lower score than the Parthian commander. The Parthians would enjoy the Tactical Advantage, however. To make more room for his Cataphracts and Horse Bow (and Javelin Cavalry), this insightful Indo-Parthian leader used that advantage so that there would be only two pieces of terrain on the battlefield. (There was a coast as well, but this did not figure prominently in the engagement.) 

The nature of the open, arable ground as well as opposing deployments are shown on Map 2. The Indo-Parthians on are the right of the diagram; their units are represented by the pink rectangles or squares. The Campanian formations are indicated by the yellow rectangles or squares. Following, please see the detailed orders of battle for both forces: 

For the Campanian army, I had a 48-point force consisting of:

Pack Train and Herds [per Battle Card - cost of 1]

02 units of Javelin Cavalry / 08 points - 1 of these units contained the army general

06 units of Heavy Foot (Hoplites) / 18 points - battleline zone troops

05 units of Light Foot / 15 points - battleline zone troops

03 units of Rabble / 06 points

For the Suren Indo-Parthians, I had a 48-point force consisting of:

Pack Train and Herds [per Battle Card - cost of 1]

03 units of Cataphracts/ 12 points - 1 of these units contained the army general; all had to deploy in the battleline zone

05 units of Horse Bow / 20 points

01 unit of Javelin Cavalry / 04 points

01 unit of Elephants/ 04 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of Horde / 02 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of Rabble / 02 points - battleline zone troops

01 unit of LIght Spear / 03 points

The status of the field at the end of Turn 4 is shown on Map 3. The Parthian general gambled on dividing his army into three separate commands. Additional money was wagered on drawing the attention of the enemy with his Elephant “combined arms” group, while pushing forward at speed with his numerous Horse Bow units. The Campanian leadership, in contrast, opted to advance with their Heavy Foot as well as wheel their Light Foot to counter the expected mounted threat. 

First blood was scored/shed in the third turn, when a unit of Light Foot was routed by some excellent shooting by the Parthian Horse Bow. (Note: These units do not actually engage in missile fire, but when they roll 6s and the attacked unit rolls a 1, well . . .) This situation turned from bad to worse on the Campanian right flank when three units were destroyed or routed from the attention of the Parthian light cavalry. 

While this chaotic melee was taking place, the opposing centers met in a resounding clash or arms. The Campanian Hoplites fought well, and stood up to the lumbering charges of the enemy Cataphracts and Elephants. On the Parthian right, the Hoplites were not able to deliver a knock-out blow to either the enemy Rabble or Horde, but did succeed in pushing them back. The pressure was on the main Campanian line of battle to do something, as their side trailed the Parthians by a score of 9 - 0. 

The Indo-Parthians continued chipping away at the Campanian right, “closing the door” on a unit of Light Foot and then winning the frontal melee. The struggle between the main lines continued without pause, but the Parthians were frustrated by poor dice even when they had tremendous positional advantage. For example, a unit of Campanian Hoplites was fighting against a unit of Cataphracts. The very heavy horse were assisted by a neighboring unit of Cataphracts. In addition, some Parthian Javelin Cavalry had the range, and cheekiness, to wheel about and fall on the rear of the hard-pressed and fighting desperately Hoplites. The melee dice indicated a draw, so kudos to the Hoplites! In another section of this line, two more units of Hoplites ganged up on the enemy elephants. Despite this advantage (attacking from front and flank), the Campanian Heavy Foot could not make the animals pack their trunks and leave the field. This misfortune was soon added to back over on the right of the line, where the Cataphracts were being fought. In this melee round, the Hoplites could not hold. The outnumbered unit collapsed. This local defeat increased the Parthian advantage to 15 - 0. Rather than fight on, the Campanian general read the writing on the wall and conceded the contest.

In the second semifinal match, the Patrician Romans decided the topography as well as secured the Tactical Advantage. Five pieces of terrain and a coastline decorated Terrain Card/Diagram 5 - 1, with the Romans having the coast on their right flank. The Roman line contained a mix of troop types, from Cataphracts to Heavy Foot to Archers, while the Early Swiss army was almost entirely infantry and included a large number of halberdiers (Elite Foot and Radiers). 

This was an especially hard-fought battle. Evidently, both armies decided to advance directly and engaged in a head-on collision or contest. The Heavy and Elite Foot of one side hacked and stabbed at the Raiders and Elite Foot of the other side and vice versa. The Swiss troops had some minor success in the edge of the large field on the Roman right, but it was an attritional affair in other parts of the field. The Romans experienced some difficulties with command and control, rolling three 1s in succession. At the end of Turn 6, the Early Swiss had lost 11 points, while the Patrician Romans had lost 10 points. The bloody tide finally turned in favor of the Romans when, in the next turn, the Swiss General and his battalion were overlapped on each flank and rolled a 1 in the melee. The final hole in the Swiss line was made by the Roman Cataphracts. Assisted by some Archers attacking from the flank, these armored horsemen just managed to outscore the Raiders, pushing the Swiss beyond their breaking point. The final score was: Romans - 19, Swiss - 13.

The “Championship” Game

For the final match of this improvised tournament, the Early Patrician Romans (East) would face off against the Suren Indo-Parthians. The pre-battle or set up rolls were quickly completed. The Parthians decided the topography of the contest, choosing Hilly terrain. The Romans just secured the Tactical Advantage and shifted the number of terrain pieces down a level so that there would be three instead of four along with a permitted coastline. A die roll determined the layout of the tabletop, and the terrain as well as deployments of the opposing armies can be seen/studied on Map 4. Having had some degree of success with it previously, the Parthian commander arranged his army into four separate divisions or groups. The Romans, in contrast, drew up their units in a single formation. 

The status of the field after four turns of play can be seen on Map 5. The Parthian plan for a rapid envelopment of both Roman wings was slow to start, as the Parthian general rolled just three command pips or points for the first two turns. This challenge was resolved on the next turn and the turn after, when a 5 and 6 were rolled for the Parthian formations. After moving up the group with the Elephant and poor quality foot, the Parthian Horse Bow launched a series of attacks. On their right, the Horse Bow faced enemy Horse Bow and Cataphracts. The contest went back and forth. Seeking to even things out a bit, the Roman commander ordered a stand of Elite Foot (Legionaries) to join the swirling melees. The addition of this capable and comparatively powerful unit had no immediate impact; the melees continued to swing back and forth. Over on the Roman right, the Archers saw a chance and moved up to let fly with a volley at the enemy Javelin Cavalry. Scores of shafts found their marks, and the Parthian unit of horse was no more. In exchange, a unit of Roman Javelin Cavalry was finally routed in another swirling melee in this sector. These troopers were destroyed after being attacked frontally and from the side by a swarm of Parthian Horse Bow. 

The fifth turn of play spelled the end for the Patrician Romans, as the dice gods abandoned them in two key melees. In the ongoing action on the Roman left, a stand of Elite Foot found itself double-overlapped by Horse Bow and a unit of Light Spear detached from the lumbering Elephant group. The modified combat factors were 2 for the Parthians and 1 for the Romans. The Parthians rolled a 3, while the Roman die turned up a 1. Scratch a unit of Elite Foot, advance the Horse Bow, and really start to worry about the chances of Moeius, Larrius, and Curlius surviving, along with their brothers in arms. Over on the Parthian left, an isolated unit of Cataphracts found itself sandwiched between flank attacks by a unit of Raiders and another of Light Foot. The infantry just managed to outscore the armored horsemen, thereby forcing them to flee the field. This temporary success was immediately countered, however. A melee in the center, between some Cataphracts and Raiders, saw a chance for the Romans to shatter the enemy very heavy horse disappear when another 1 was rolled on the Roman melee die. This hardy band of Auxilia Palatina was trampled under hoof and or scattered to the wind by the Parthian Cataphracts. This loss pushed the Patricians to their breaking point. The final score was Parthians - 16, Romans - 8. 

Evaluation & Remarks

Where to begin? Perhaps an attempt at analyzing the margins of victory in the 15 wargames staged and played. 

In the initial round of contests, six of the eight matches were what most would call, or agree to call, routs. The losing side managed to score a few points in two of the games, but failed to inflict any damage in the remaining four battles. There was no “middle ground” in this initial series of matches. On further reflection, it appears that there cannot be. Perhaps. In the two wargames that were battles of attrition, or pyrrhic victories, both armies managed to score in the double digits. The results in the quarterfinals were a little more varied, a little more spread across the figurative graph. Half of these contests were complete routs; one battle saw the losing side inflict seven points of damage, and another wargame saw the defeated army score 10 points against the winner. The semifinals reinforced the “all or nothing” nature of the previous decisions. The Indo-Parthians steamrolled the Campanian army, while the Early Swiss and Early Patrician Romans fought another battle of attrition. As just related, the final match witnessed the Parthians continue their apparent mastery of all fields and all opponents, defeating the Romans by a convincing margin. 

Looking over the armies competing in that initial round, I would have wagered (no money, just a friendly bet) or thought that there were a handful of armies that could have or should have done better than the Indo-Parthians. Just to name a few, I would have thought that Later French Ordonnance, Free Company, and the Golden Horde & Successors might have made it further in the tournament. Upon reflection and the perspective afforded by the passage of approximately 72 hours since the dust settled over that final field of battle, I wonder if the success of the Indo-Parthians was a result of my generalship, the luck of the dice, the random draw of pairings in each round, or a combination of these and other variables? 

Switching, admittedly abruptly, to a consideration of what went well and what could have gone better, playing 15 games with the TRIUMPH! rules certainly gave me that much more experience. I have no doubt that a few mistakes were made with regard to interpreting the rules, but I do not think this lack of mental acuity resulted in any unfair contests. The tournament also gave me experience in commanding (or attempting to command) a wide variety of armies. Prior to this experiment, I have never had reason to or interest in, honestly, deploying representative Sogdians, Later Emishi, or an army representing the California Coastal First Nations on my tabletop. Taking my usual functional approach, I was able to conduct and complete this improvised solo tournament without going into debt and without suffering additional carpal tunnel symptoms (prep and painting) or additional eye strain (prep and painting again). Broadly speaking, I think I stayed within the parameters established at the outset. In fact, I think I did rather well in meeting the report “restrictions” outlined in Number 7. With regard to the original calendar time frame, it appears quite evident that I grossly overestimated how long this tournament would take. I did not keep time records for every wargame, but I doubt that any battle took longer than 45 minutes once the tabletop was landscaped and the opposing armies deployed. 

As for what might have gone better, well, though the following idea is anathema to a solo wargame or tournament, it might have been beneficial to have the occasional opponent. This is not to suggest that I preferred one side over the other in any engagement. I have decades of experience playing solo and believe I strive to represent or command both armies equally well (or equally poorly). To be certain, I always know what the other side is thinking or planning to do. Then again, one could argue that, generally, ancient battles were typically very straight-forward affairs. Anyway, my belabored point is that an occasional opponent would have been good if only for that fact that it would have been a change; it would have been different. On further reflection, I wonder if this tournament would have been more engaging and enjoyable if I had taken some additional time to prepare a variety of “strategy cards” that would be employed by one or both forces. For a very rough example, one “strategy card” would have instructed: “Attack the enemy left, while holding your center and right.” The opposing army might have drawn a card that read: “Concentrate all units in the center deployment zone; play defense.” I guess this process, even though it was not completed and instituted, would count as a very basic kind of artificial intelligence or programmed opponent, thus removing the need for another player-general as well as removing any chance of playing favorites or being accused of playing favorites. 

I found it somewhat curious that not a single camp (fortified or just a collection of herd animals and pack trains) came under threat of enemy attention and attack. Had I known this would be the case in the 15 games played, I would have put those points elsewhere. (I have not done an exhaustive study of ancient battles to determine in what percentage an encampment was attacked and sacked during the engagement, but my guess is that this was a rare occurrence.) While the 48-point armies were simple and functional, I found myself missing the subjective spectacle of a larger battle. After the fact, I am thinking that 96-point armies might have made this tournament more exciting. This increase would have permitted bigger battlefields as well as afforded the opportunity for a portion of the army to become demoralized. This increase in size might also have allowed a camp or three to be attacked and taken. 

While I became more comfortable with the set-up process and the use of the terrain cards, there were times when I was scratching my head over how the battlefield for a particular match looked. Sometimes, the landscape did not appear suitable for either army. Many times, I found myself thinking about the impact terrain would or should have on moving, melee and missile exchanges. As with other sets of rules, terrain features have an abstract quality about them in TRIUMPH! If I attempt a second solo tournament, I think I might prepare 10 or 12 terrain cards based on historical battlefields and then roll dice to determine which battlefield is used. There would be a detailed explanation page attached to each card, describing the characteristics of the terrain features (if any were present) and what impact these features had on movement, melee, and missile exchanges. 

On a slightly related note, I think a narrower or better defined time window would have been beneficial. This might not have given me the opportunity to gain at least a little experience with armies never before used, but it would have, I think, reduced those occasions where one army was completely outmatched and so, failed to score any points against the army deployed against it.

On final review, I think this solo tournament, inspired by the recent World Cup, went fairly well. I gained some more experience with the selected rules; I had a chance to command armies that I have never put in the field before, and I was engaged and entertained. Though I have no prepared rubric, I think a grade of 82 out of 100 (a B minus), would be given for this project. The series of games, the overall experiment was by no means excellent or grand. Similarly, it was not awful or disappointing. In summary, it was pretty good. However, this assessment, like the grade, is completely subjective. If the next Women’s World Cup should find me revisiting this idea (and that is a fairly large if), there will certainly be some tinkering done. I have four years, or hope that I will. As one participant in the recent tournament stated, “four years is a long time.” Well, I guess it’s a matter of perspective. To be sure, a lot can happen in four years. Indeed, a lot can happen in a week, even in a day. I confess that I am a little bit curious to see if my previous level of interest and production in this varied and variously pursued hobby returns. At the risk of ending with almost clever word play, if my “mojo” does find its way back, I will be sure to keep you posted. 

Notes

1. On May 04, 2023, I posted “A Last Hurrah at LITTLE WARS” to No Painting Required (see, if you would like to, https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/). In the introduction to this photo-heavy post, I reported on the serious if almost nearly fatal condition of my interest in historical wargaming. In the last few paragraphs, I reiterated the point or explanation and estimated or gave a dark prognosis (to extend the medical analogy) that this post was “very likely a ‘last hurrah.’”
2. In the 2023 Great Wargaming Survey (please see The Great Wargaming Survey), there is a question about inspiration. It asks, “What inspires you most?” The are 11 choices, one of these being the broad category of “Other.” I would estimate that no respondent to this survey selected “Other” and then typed in a brief explanation of how he or they were inspired by watching highlights of the football matches online or reading reports about the various matches in a newspaper. On the other hand, it occurs to me that wargame tournaments, whatever their themes, have been done many, many times before and so, this is not an original idea on my part. I make no claim that it is. I merely point out the unusual or unexpected source of the inspiration.  
3. Please feel free to visit https://forum.wgcwar.com/.
4. There are 40 ‘Thematic Categories’ provided at Meshwesh. (Please see https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home.) These 40 categories were divided into groups of 5. A d6 was rolled for each group. Results of 6 were rerolled. This score gave me the category. Depending on the number of army lists within the category a d6, d12, or d20 was rolled. This result was matched to the corresponding list, which gave me one of the 16 armies. The category was removed from the initial group of 5, and the process was repeated until 16 army lists or potential armies were determined. Sufficed to say, this was a fairly simple if very unscientific process. It also produced some armies that, it would be fair to say, would find themselves heavily outmatched in the planned tournament. The pairings would be determined by writing the names of each army on a small square of paper, folding it twice, and placing it in a container. The container was then shaken, and two squares were drawn. This process was repeated eight times. As the competition continued, certain armies would be left out of the container. On the plus side, the fairly wide variety selected would give me experience in playing with/commanding armies that I do not usually if ever employ. The tournament would also add to my experience level with the TRIUMPH! rules. 
5. I confess that I am having trouble coming up with a good comparison to describe the almost glacial or pre-industrial revolution pace of this schedule against the advanced machine-like production of a respected and well-known blogger like Jonathan Freitag. Please see https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/. For a more specific example, see his efforts for the month of March 2023 at https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/2023/03/. Based on a number of viewings of the helpful videos found at https://www.youtube.com/@triumphancientandmedievalw3229/videos, I estimated that each tabletop battle would take between 90 and 150 minutes. Taking the larger number and not counting the time for set up, take down, or administrative tasks like preparing a new pair of opponents or writing up a brief report, then I would be spending around 37.5 hours on this solo “world cup” tournament.