ALONE AGAINST ROME

Part 1

In his engaging and enjoyable (as I could very much relate) article, “Solo Wargaming,” which appeared in the July/August 2021 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients, John Hastings offered the following “argument” or explanation:

It is a simple matter to set up two armies on a wargames table and fight out a battle but it is more 

satisfying to have a reason for the conflict. Every army, or at least their general, has a reason for 

being in that place at that time. Hence a scenario-based game is more satisfying. A campaign is a 

way of generating scenarios for battles—and for sieges and skirmishes, if you are so inclined. 

Personally, sieges have never particularly interested me and I have never invested in even a small 

number of 28mm figures that one needs for a skirmish.

Like the esteemed gentleman and comparatively prolific contributor to the long-running and read-around-the-world publication (his name is on approximately 30 articles, reviews, or letters found the aforementioned journal), I have no burning interest to wargame sieges on my tabletop. However, I do not mind reading books or academic papers about historical sieges. As I do not wargame with traditional miniatures, the purchase and preparation of three or four dozen 28mm models for a skirmish-level game is a moot point. Skipping to the first part of the transcribed paragraph, I was tempted to remark upon the cost as well as the time and talent required for the “simple matter of setting up two armies on a table,” but will reserve those comments for another post . . . perhaps. To be certain, I was more interested, albeit very late to this particular party, in John’s “argument” or conclusion about the “satisfaction level” of scenario-based or campaign-generated engagements. The following paragraphs, pages, and subsequent posts (a total of three are intended) represent my attempt or attempts to test the gentleman’s hypothesis or opinion.

As more than 20 years have passed since I last went on campaign, I borrowed and modified the ideas and work presented by the accomplished and well-known wargaming blogger Aaron Bell. [1] Approximately four years before “Solo Wargaming” was published, Aaron presented Slingshot readers with a brief and in my opinion brilliant explanation of how he and an associate fought a pseudo-Successor-themed war of three linked battles in a single day. (Please see, if you can manage, “Lost Battles Successor Campaign,” on pages 27-28 in the March/April 2017 issue.) Anyway, instead of trying to reinvent the campaign wheel or wheels, I figured that I would simply borrow and modify the excellent ideas and work provided by Aaron.

General Orders of Battle

Instead of using the Strategos/Lost Battles rules employed by Aaron and his colleague, my work-in-progress plan and often vaguely-defined goal was to use the TRIUMPH! and GRAND TRIUMPH! rules. As I have always had an interest in wargaming larger contests, I gave each side an “army account” of 2,016 points. (Sidebar: This number seems more appropriate for each army in a friendly game using the Tactica II rules.) This figure was determined by taking the strength found in Section 4.1 of the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules, multiplying the 144 points (including battle cards and camps) by 7, and then doubling that result. Described another way, each commanding general would have, potentially, an impressive if not unheard of total of 42 Standard armies (as described in Section 5.1 of the TRIUMPH! rules) under their control and direction. 

After considering a number of combinations (the Meshwesh site contains 655 army lists - please see https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home), I decided that this second solo campaign would feature Early Sassanid Persians (see https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9e2e1af060017709948/explore) and Severan Middle Imperial Romans (see https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9e1e1af06001770987e/explore). As indicated by the title of this present and medium-length in terms of estimated time effort, I would be leading the Sassanids. Of course, I would be hoping for a glorious victory, based on my (ahem) excellent campaign strategy and brilliant (cough, cough) tabletop tactics. 

The Campaign Begins

Reviewing the information contained in the opposing army lists, I decided that the war would begin in the sixth month of 224 AD (CE). The first battle (a total of seven were planned, as this seemed like a manageable and reasonable number) would take place in what was called or labeled the “disputed border region” on the adapted and modified campaign board. The winning army would gain 50 victory points in addition to those points accumulated in the battle. That sentence provides an opportunity to briefly discuss victory points and their very important role in this solo campaign game. 

The winner in this campaign would be the side that collected the most victory points. The degree or level of victory would be determined by the difference in those respective amounts. For example, the Sassanids might secure a Marginal Victory, a Tactical Victory, a Decisive Victory, or even a Complete Victory against the Romans. Admittedly, this degree of victory would be somewhat subjective. Anyway, as the overall commander of the Sassanid Persians, I could guarantee an initial and large number of victory points by taking a portion of my 2,016 point “army account” and placing it in reserve. At the end of campaign, after the seventh battle had been fought and the bodies of men, animals and other detritus had been burnt, buried, or cleared away, every point placed in reserve would be worth five times as much. For example, if I took 300 points and placed it in reserve, at the end of the campaign, I would have 1,500 victory points in addition to however many else I had secured by fighting, destroying enemy units, winning battles and taking Roman territory. If, however, I found myself in a situation where I had to dip into that reserve for additional points, each point would be worth ten times its original value, and this total would be subtracted from my victory point amount. To use the same example, if I had to borrow 300 points from my reserve, then this withdrawal would cost me 3,000 victory points. In summary, what I had to do, what I had to figure out was how many points I thought I would need to fight the seven battles, and how many points I could designate for the reserve “account.” 

After doing some scribbling, figuring, estimating and guessing, I decided to place 600 of the allotted 2,016 points in reserve. This would leave me with 1,416 points of troops with which to fight the fictional war. After more scribbling, figuring, guessing, and hoping, for the first engagement of this campaign, it was decided that I would take the field with an army that was 192 points strong. 

Battle Procedures

The following sequence is a work-in-progress and so, may be revised or tinkered with throughout the length of the campaign. The goal or intention is to follow the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Seriously).

1. Sassanid Persian army strength is decided.
2. Middle Imperial Roman army strength is determined. 
3. Is battle accepted? If Yes, proceed to Step 4. If No, see Note A.
4. The general composition of the Roman army is determined.
5. Determine the nature of the ground for the engagement.
6. The larger army has its choice of long-edges on which it will deploy.
7. The general deployment of the Roman army is determined.
8. The smaller army deploys first.
9. Wargame the battle.
10. Calculate the victory points for each side. 
11. Determine when the next battle takes place. 

If the reader will permit me to offer an extended example of a practice turn, this will allow me to go through each step and explain, hopefully clearly enough, what happens. 

Step 1 - I decide to deploy an army worth 192 points on the tabletop. Referencing the army list, I can prepare several 48-point commands. I could also, if desired, build three 48-point commands and then have a couple of 24-point commands. (I toyed briefly with the idea of 16-point sub-commands.) Each division or corps would be led by a general. The army would be commanded by me, one of my alter-egos, or a trusted subordinate. 

Step 2 - The point strength of the Severan Middle Imperial Roman army is determined by rolling a d6 and checking the following table:

Die Roll Result

1 72 points LESS than the Persians, so 120 points

2 48 points LESS than the Persians, so 144 points

3 24 points LESS than the Persians, so 168 points

4 24 points MORE than the Persians, so 216 points

5 48 points MORE than the Persians, so 240 points

6 72 points MORE than the Persians, so 264 points

The enemy strength would be a “sliding scale.” If, for instance, I were to decide to bring an army worth 240 points to a battlefield and the Roman commanders rolled 6, then their army would have a strength of 312 points. This disparity would cause me concern and worry, obviously. 

Step 3 - If battle is accepted; if both sides choose to fight, then proceed to Step 4 and determine the nature of the landscape for the action. For declined battles, see Note A, which follows immediately.

Note A:  If, as the Sassanid supreme commander, I find my army outnumbered by 48 or 72 points, I might want to reconsider engaging in battle. The decision is mine and mine alone, of course. However, if I do decline the offer of battle, then not only do I give up the region or territory being fought in/over, but I also give the enemy force a chance to collect some very easy victory points. 

If an army decides that it does not want to fight, then the enemy army rolls six d6 and multiplies the result by 10. The product is the number of victory points automatically added to that army’s victory point total. For example, if the six d6 are rolled and add up to 21, then 210 victory points will be won without having to engage in battle. This number of victory points is separate and distinct from the victory points for taking the region or territory. The army declining the invitation, refusing to fight for the time being, does not receive any victory points. 

If the Middle Imperial Romans are outnumbered by 48 or 72 points, then their anonymous commanding general will roll a d6. On a score of 1 or 2, the Romans will elect not to fight. 

Declining a battle does not count as one of the seven planned engagements for this campaign. Seven wargames will be played before a winner is declared.

Step 4 - To determine the general composition of the Roman army, a d6 is rolled and the following table is consulted:

Die Roll Composition

1 72 points MORE of cavalry units

2 24 points MORE of cavalry units

3 Approximately balanced between units of cavalry and infantry/artillery

4 24 points MORE of infantry units

5 48 points MORE of infantry (may include artillery in this amount)

6 72 points MORE of infantry (must include artillery in this amount)

Step 5 - The terrain for the battle is determined by rolling a d20 and consulting the following table:

d20 result Ideally, the tabletop should be decorated/landscaped to look like . . .

1         Gaugamela

2         2nd Mantinea

3         The Sambre

4         Bosworth

5         Dorylaeum

6         Adrianople

7         Cynoscephalae

8         Telamon

9         Poitiers

10         Arsuf

11         Callinicum

12         Paraetacene

13         Zama

14         Pharsalus

15         Kadesh

16         The Hydaspes

17         Plataea

18         Montaperti

19         Chalons

20         Ilipa

Notes: 

This list was compiled from The Society of Ancients Battle Day History (see https://www.soa.org.uk/joomla/battle-day). I have had the pleasure of participating (albeit from a great distance) and submitting several accounts of how my interpretations and stagings went. This project gives me the chance to revisit some of those familiar battlefields as well as visit others that I have never been to. With regard to the modeling of my tabletop, obviously, some of these landscapes will be simpler to recreate than others. For example, Zama, Ilipa, Pharsalus, and Gaugamela were, according to what I’ve read and understand, large expanses of rather flat and featureless ground. With regard to the potentially more complicated battlefields, like those of Telamon and Poitiers for instance, I will try to create an impression of the historic landscape and may have to draft some scenario specific rules for this “complicated” terrain. By no means am I attempting to emulate the award-winning tabletops of Mark Craddock (he won the Best Terrain prize at Battle Day on a number of occasions), or the exemplary and stunning appearance of the table owned by James Roach. (For just one example, although admittedly out of period, please see http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2021/12/what-if-vimeiro-1808-battle-report-part.html.) To ensure a variety of battlefields, if the first battle of the campaign is fought over ground that looks a little like the historical field of 2nd Mantinea and the die roll for the fifth battle indicates that it is to take place on ground that looks a lot like 2nd Mantinea, then the terrain die is rerolled until an unused battlefield is determined. 

Step 6 - This is fairly self-explanatory. If the Romans number 192 points and I have brought only 114 points to the field, and the field bears a resemblance to Chalons, then the Romans get to choose the side on which they will deploy their formations.  

Step 7 - Once again, using a d6 as a kind of AI, the general deployment of the Romans is determined by rolling and checking the result on the following table:

Die Roll General Deployment

1 2/3rds of Cavalry on their right flank/wing; otherwise traditional

2 Cavalry-Infantry-Cavalry-Infantry type of deployment along the line

3 Traditional deployment (cavalry on flanks, and infantry in center)

4 Infantry units concentrated in center; cavalry on flanks, so a shorter line overall

5 Atypical deployment - infantry on the flanks and cavalry in the center for example, or as 

indicated by terrain of battlefield

6 2/3rds of their Cavalry on their left flank/wing; otherwise traditional

Step 8 - This is also fairly self-explanatory. If the Romans number 192 points and I have brought only 114 points to the field, and the field bears a resemblance to Chalons, then, if I decide to fight, I will have to deploy my army on the long-edge of the table not already chosen by the Romans. 

Step 9 - Wargame the battle. 

Administrative Note: In terms of the real calendar, I am estimating about three weeks for each contest, so 21 weeks to fight all seven battles. This three-week window should allow plenty of time for me to set up the battle, play the wargame, type some notes during the turns, record the victory points, and clean up the tabletop. Allowing four to six more weeks for revising notes, drafting reports, preparing maps and captioning photos (not sure if there will be visual aids included at this point), and the necessary but time-consuming proofreading process, the project should be finished in about six months. This first part should “go to press” (i.e., be on the blog) much sooner. 

Step 10 - The calculation of victory points will involve a little bit of record keeping and so, require a little bit of math.

As stated above, prior to the breakdown of what can be called a campaign turn, the number of Sassanid Persian army points that would be placed in reserve was decided. The Roman command would not know how many points they had placed in reserve until the end of the campaign. Their process was a reverse one, as their armies for the seven planned engagements would be determined by die rolls. It seemed to make sense that their reserve points should also be determined by these die rolls. 

In battle situations, an army receives victory points for each enemy unit destroyed. Enemy units that flee off the battle field as the result of an evade, panic, or rout move are not counted toward this destroyed enemy unit total. Victory points are awarded based on troop type. So, for example, a unit of Rabble is worth 2 victory points when destroyed, while a unit of Elite Cavalry is worth 4 victory points when destroyed. 

Subordinate generals are worth twice the value of the base or stand they are embedded with. If a subordinate general is riding with a unit of Cataphracts and the Cataphracts meet their end on the field of battle, then that unit is worth 8 victory points to the other side. In a similar fashion, army generals have a value four times the value of the troop type they have attached themselves to. Staying with the example of the Cataphracts, if the army general meets his demise while fighting alongside those Cataphracts, that base or stand is worth 16 victory points. 

Winners of a battle will roll six d6 and multiply the combined result by 10 to determine how many victory points are gained for being victorious on the field. This amount is separate and distinct from the number of victory points gained by taking the region or territory away from the enemy. (Note: A region or territory may change hands a few times during the campaign. In each case, its victory point value goes to the side winning the battle in that region.) The losing army receives what might be considered consolation victory points. The losing army rolls three d6 and multiplies the combined score by five to determine how many victory points they can add to their cumulative score. 

Victory points are calculated and recorded after each battle has been fought. 

Step 11 - In the first paragraph of this necessarily long section, it was explained that this campaign would start in the sixth month of 224 AD (CE). After each battle has been “done and dusted,” two six-sided dice are rolled. The first die informs if it will be weeks or months between each engagement. The second die roll determines how many weeks or months will pass before the opposing armies meet again. 

1st d6 Result

1-3         Weeks

4-6         Months

2nd d6 Result

1         1 week or month

2         2 weeks or months

3         3 weeks or months

4         4 weeks or months

5         5 weeks or months

6         6 weeks or months

Just as a very hypothetical example, let us say that the Romans somehow manage to win the first battle. After the victory points are calculated and recorded, and after the tabletop is cleared, Step 11 is completed. The first d6 comes up a 4, which means that it will be at least a month until the next engagement is fought. The second die shows a 3, which means that approximately 3 months will have passed before the armies meet for the second battle of the campaign. This completed step moves the campaign calendar forward to the ninth month of 224 AD (CE). 

The Campaign Continues . . .

In Part 2 of Alone Against Rome, the plan (such as it currently is) calls for providing reports and remarks on several engagements of this solo campaign. I would hope to have this second installment posted in a few months. The current deadline or goal is the end of December if not before. In addition to dealing with other campaign concerns as well as more pressing and stressful non-wargaming matters, I am thinking about what kind of reports should be prepared. I have been reviewing Bell’s Taxonomy for ideas. (Please see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-taxonomy-of-battle-reports.html.)  If time permits, space allows, and it is deemed important enough, Part 2 might also include comments on what is working or not working, and how these problem areas are being addressed. I do imagine, however, that this kind of critique or evaluation will be saved for Part 3. 

A Very Partial List of Sources 

In addition to the excellent and thought-provoking material provided by Mssrs Bell and Hastings, I would be remiss if I did not make an attempt to direct interested readers (those stalwarts who have made it this far) to some additional source material that might encourage or inspire them to take that first step on a the track, road, or highway to a campaign. In no particular order then, I would strongly recommend the following:

> John Hastings’ two-part article “Agricola Against the Ordovices,” which appeared in Issues 299 and 300 of Slingshot. 

> Indeed, there is a treasure trove of campaign-related articles under the ‘Campaign Systems’ sub heading in the Slingshot Index, which covers a few hundred issues of the journal. Please see pages 66 and 67 of http://soa.org.uk/joomla/images/Documents/SlingshotIndex1964-2010-1.pdf. 

> The TRIUMPH! rules forum has a discussion thread dedicated to Campaigns and Battle Scenarios. Please do visit https://forum.wgcwar.com/viewforum.php?f=16&sid=9ace9c3b3c74088bbba6addb1b2b6f38, and check out: https://forum.wgcwar.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1112, https://forum.wgcwar.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=45, and https://forum.wgcwar.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1017. The last site will take you here https://miniatureaddiction.info/sicily-campaign-for-triumph/, which I believe will capture and hold your interest. 

> As always, one can type “wargaming campaigns” or “solo wargame campaigns” into a search engine and then take the time to sift and separate the hundreds if not thousands of returned results. In so doing, I imagine you will come across Henry Hyde’s treatise on the subject. You will probably also see a video review of John Graham-Leigh’s booklet on ancient campaigning or simple campaigns. (For comments by Aaron Bell - that name seems very familiar - see https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2015/11/simple-campaigning-by-john-graham-leigh.html.) Deeper digging in the internet mines may see you uncover TMP discussions or even unearth the spectacular narrative and visual record of the Punic War campaign game developed by the inestimable James Roach. Please see http://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2012/03/punic-war-campaign-map-moves-mid-217-bc.html.

In summary, it seems fair to remark that the number of ways one could approach a campaign is approximately equal to the number of wargamers in the general population, or at least roughly equal to the number of approaches wargamers have with regard to their participation in and or pursuit of the hobby. 

Notes

1. “ ‘It’s the Supply Situation, Stupid.’—The Third and Final Act in the Civil War between Prince John and Queen Polivka,” was published in the June/August 2002 issue, Number 118, of MWAN (Midwest Wargamer’s Association Newsletter). This was the fifth installment of a solo project which began, evidently, in 1998, as “FOR GOD, QUEEN, AND COUNTRY (Part 1): Being a set of rules - with much room for improvement - for the conduct of an ECW Campaign,” was published in Issue 125, January-March 1999, of LONE WARRIOR (The Journal of The Solo Wargamer’s Association).