ALONE AGAINST ROME

Part 2

As I explained at the end of Part 1, in this second installment of this solo campaign project, my intention is to provide several battle reports as well as remarks. I mentioned reviewing the 19 categories identified by Aaron Bell in his much admired September 2018 Taxonomy. Initially, I thought it might be an interesting experiment to try and write four different battle reports, using categories that I have not attempted before. After going over the Taxonomy again and eliminating those report types that would not work — for example, as a solo wargamer, it would not be possible to draft a ‘got the band back together’ narrative — I decided that I would place this random idea on a high shelf and try something else. After days (well, it felt like it) of internal debate and experimentation wherein dozens of initiated drafts were dragged, sometimes with too much force, to the trashcan on my computer’s menubar, it was decided to try what might be described as a “scientific journal entry-like format.” Anyway, as I understand that it is sometimes said: Here’s goes nothing. 

____________________________________________

Battle: Number 1

Date: Sixth month (approximate middle of the summer season) of 224 AD (CE)

Location: Disputed Border Region (worth 50 victory points)

Name: Yomlaedur (i.e., Dorylaeum, with the letters rearranged)

Recon Report: The Persians move 192 points worth of troops into the disputed territory. Theirs is a cavlary-heavy force, with 34 bases or stands of horsemen. The responding Roman army has a strength of  144 points, roughly evenly split between infantry and cavalry. The Roman commander sends word back to his superior officers (they are some distance from the border) and prepares for battle by arranging his formations in a traditional deployment. The Persians, being greater in number and more mobile, plan on enveloping and destroying the enemy forces. 

Summary of the Engagement: The Romans deployed with the marshy ground in front of and between their left and center. Their left was predominantly mounted, a mix of Cataphracts, Javelin, Cavalry, Horse Bow, and Bad Horse. Their center was composed of Elite Foot and Artillery, accompanied by Raiders and Light Foot. The Roman right was arranged across the several drumlins. Units of Light Foot and Archers occupied the gentle mounds closest to the center, while units of Javelin Cavalry and Horse Bow took up station on the other rises. On reviewing the Roman deployment, the Sassanid general deployed in a similar manner. His left consisted of a large number of Horse Bow reinforced by a small group of Cataphracts. His center was eclectic, as there were Elephants, Heavy Foot, Bow Levy, Skirmishers and Horde present. The Persian right was assigned to a small division of Horse Bow. The link between the center and right was occupied by a strong corps of Elite Cavalry assisted by a couple of units of Horse Bow. 

This first engagement was a fairly quick one. The Sassanid plan worked quite well, with the Roman left being dismantled and their right becoming demoralized as well. The surviving units on both flanks suffered from poor command dice. The Roman left was especially challenged, as their commander was rendered hors de combat. A formation of Sassanid Horse Bow on the left wing made the foolish and costly mistake of challenging a group of Roman archers on one of the drumlins. The fighting in this sector of the field was more attritional. The Roman morale collapsed a turn before the Persian morale faltered. The Sassanids had a strong force of Cataphracts in reserve, however, while the Romans had no additional troops. In fact, the Cataphracts had wheeled a bit toward the Roman center and were slowly making their way in that direction. Over on the opposite flank, the Sassanid Horse Bow, having no enemy units in their way and being lighter and faster, were beginning to seriously threaten the left side and rear of the Roman center. The Sassanid center, a heterogenous formation containing Bow Levy, Elephants, and almost everything in between, never made contact with their counterpart. This varied line did, however, hold the attention of the Roman center, thereby allowing the cavalry on the flanks to carry out the battle plan. Anyway, with their flanks in tatters and their center having to peel off units to prevent an envelopment, the Roman commander wisely sounded the retreat and saved what was left of his army. 

Victory Points: The Persians gained 50 points for securing the disputed border, 56 points for destroyed enemy units (they managed to bag a subordinate general on the Roman left), and 230 points in the post-battle dice roll, for a grand total of 336 victory points. The Romans, in stark contrast, were only able to collect 20 points for the handful of Sassanid Horse Bow units that were defeated and 45 points in the post-battle roll. This poor initial performance earned just 65 victory points for the Roman cause. 

Comments: The tabletop for this first contest was decorated with a marsh as well as several drumlins, which, according to The Battle Pack prepared by Richard Lockwood for the 2006 event, were “small, gentle-sloped, rounded hills - but they were tall enough to hide the Crusader flanking attack.” There were other pieces scattered about, but these were not “true terrain features.” Instead, their simple purpose was to break up an otherwise flat, featureless, a fairly monochromatic playing surface. To identify the various commands, small colored dots were placed on the various units so that they could be identified as belonging to this or that command. I thought this worked rather well. It helped in checking command distances as well as in knowing which units were part of a demoralized command. Somewhat surprisingly, there was no ‘Shower Shooting’ used in this contest. On immediate reflection, it appears that the majority of the work was done by the Sassanid Horse Bow. These light cavalry can move at a very good rate and make for a deadly weapon when they attack isolated or end-of-a-line units frontally and from the flank. I recall one instance when a unit of Roman Cataphracts was engaged by a unit of Persian Elite Cavalry (with a sub general) on its front, and then two units of Horse Bow, one on its flank and the other against its rear. Sufficed to say, the Cataphracts went down under a hail of arrows. Over on the Roman left wing, I did wonder about the impact of their Bad Horse or camel troops. According to my review of the battle card notes, camels are only effective against Knights, Elephants and Cataphracts. This struck me as curious. If it is a matter of smell, then all enemy cavalry should have a negative modifier. Thinking about this topic and how some other sets of rules address it brought up the age old question about camels vs elephants and other mounted. I am not sure if I am going to take the time to research this further with the intention of revising the battle card or drafting a house rule. While the Romans do have camel troops in their army, they do not have thousands of them.  

Battle: Number 2

Date: Eighth month (end of summer season, start of the fall season) of 224 AD (CE)

Location: Roman Territory I (victory point value of 100)

Name: Sheyat-Desph (i.e., The Hydaspes, with the letters rearranged)

Recon Report: Seeking to capitalize on the advantage of an initial victory, the Sassanids reinforce their army, bringing its strength up to 216 points. The force remains cavalry-heavy and most of the units are blooded so the whole force is pretty confident of another win. The Roman command, faltering and fumbling (at least it appears so), scrambles to assemble a new army for the defense of the threatened region. This cobbled together force has a strength of 144 points, of which 84 points are infantry and or artillery, and 60 points are cavalry. 

Summary of the Engagement: What could be called the Roman “blocking force” was arranged in three commands. Its left-most division was deployed approximately one foot from the banks of the wide and fast moving river. A combination of Cataphracts, Javelin Cavalry, Bad Horse, and Horse Bow secured the left and right flanks of the comparatively short Roman battle line. The auxiliary foot and artillery units of the wings were posted near the center of the position. The center of the Roman line consisted of Elite Foot supported by Artillery. There was also a reserve formation of more Elite Foot as well as a unit of Raiders. The more numerous and more mobile Sassanid force extended its own line of battle until the enemy flanks were overlapped from the start. Persian Horse Bow units were positioned on the extreme flanks. Those on the right were much closer to the river bank. Those on the left faced no opponent as again, the Roman line of battle was quite short or condensed. Two strong lines of Sassanid infantry were deployed in the center. The first group consisted of Bow Levy, Heavy Foot, and Elephants screened by Skirmishers. The second group contained Rabble, a couple formations of Heavy Foot, and five units of Horde. 

With respect to plans, the Romans hoped to repulse the inevitable advance(s) of the Sassanids. They hoped to wreck their infantry center while holding on to the flanks. For the Persians, it would be another attempt at enveloping the Roman position from both sides. This time, it was hoped that they could get around behind them and “close the box” or “seal the bag.” 

By the end of Turn 3, the Roman left had been virtually destroyed. A veritable tsunami of Sassanid Horse Bow had engaged and overwhelmed the outnumbered Roman cavalry in this sector. As they did in the first engagement, the Roman camel troops performed poorly. Due to their movement rate and ability to get on the flank of isolated or exposed Roman units, the Persians quickly demoralized the enemy left. Insult was added to injury when the Roman sub-general rolled a 1 for his command points the following turn. This abysmal roll saw several Roman units rout off the field. The Sassanids suffered no losses, although the “batteries” of Roman artillery did annoy a few units. There was no comparable action in the center of the field. The Sassanids were focused on moving their slow foot and lumbering Elephants forward. The assorted Rabble and Horde formations followed. The Roman center was forced to designate some units and more Artillery to guard their recently torn-apart left. Nothing was happening on the flank farthest from the river. The Sassanids pushed their Cataphracts forward, and their left wing Horse Bow began to wheel, angling toward the now even smaller Roman line. The situation looked quite dark for the Romans in this sector, as they were outnumbered in cavalry 2 to 1. To make things worse, almost half of the Sassanid units were Cataphracts. 

In the middle of Turn 5, the situation did not look at all good for the Roman cause. A sub-general’s unit and a formation of Archers had been ganged up on and ridden down on the left. This freed other Sassanid units to start putting pressure on the Roman center. This was done by engaging a small force of Elite Foot and Artillery. At the end of a round of melee, one of the Elite Foot units had been pushed back and the Artillery crews had been shot to pieces and or hacked down by the attacking Horse Bow. Over on the Roman right, more Horse Bow swarmed enemy cavalry, resulting in the destruction of 3 units. The Cataphracts were bearing down on the Roman foot in this sector. A volley by some Roman Archers proved completely ineffectual. This lack of success was interpreted as the final sentence of the weak Roman writing in this lopsided engagement. The Romans had not managed to defeat or rout a single unit of Persians. The Roman general gave the order to retreat, which his outnumbered men were only to glad and ready to obey. 

Victory Points: For securing this region under Roman control, the Sassanids earned 100 victory points. They gained an additional 51 points for destroying the Roman left wing in addition to other enemy units. For winning the battle, the Persians secured 240 points. All together, this second contest of a seven-battle campaign netted the Sassanids 391 victory points. Added to the previous amount, this gave the Persians a total of 727 victory points. The Romans were able to double their previous total, giving them a paltry sum of just 130 victory points when compared to the enemy. 

Comments: Well . . . that wargame was over rather quickly. If memory serves, this was one of those rare occasions when the losing side failed to inflict any damage during the battle. 

The Roman Bad Horse (i.e., camel troops) certainly lived up to the adjective describing the noun as these units could not hold off the swarm of Persian Horse Bow. Again, I wondered about the effect camels might have on enemy horse, or horses in general, during the brief melee rounds taking place on this flank. As the actual combat is abstracted by means of combat factors and die rolls, as it is in many other rule sets, I pictured the Horse Bow units riding to within 40 or 50 paces of the Roman Bad Horse and letting fly with arrows. The Roman units had nothing to offer in answer, save for very bad melee dice. When these several Roman units were eliminated, the Persian formations were free to swarm the rest of the Roman wing. Needless to say, it’s very difficult for a unit of Javelin Cavalry to stand up to an attack by 3 units of enemy Horse Bow when engaged from the front, when overlapped on that front, and then flanked on the other side. It appears, based on these first two contests, that the Romans do not have an answer to the Persian Horse Bow problem. 

On a somewhat related line of thinking, during this one-sided wargame, I wondered why Horse Bow were not allowed to have command stands. According to the army list, only Elite Cavalry or Cataphract stands/units can be labeled as having generals within them. This restriction tends to slow down the faster Horse Bow. To be sure, I can separate the Horse Bow line or group from the physical command stand of Elite Cavalry, but then I need to roll a 2 or better to ensure that all units in that division can move. 

Shifting to the Roman side of this recently cleaned up field, I cannot help but wonder if I should have permitted the Romans to prepare some kind of fieldworks like trenches or improvised barricades. I reviewed the army list and saw that there were no suitable battle card allowances for these kinds of defenses. After the fact, I wonder if I should have drafted a table of some sort and given the Romans a chance to roll a die or two and so, be able to set up some kind of anti-cavalry defense. Given that the Romans, though outnumbered, have twice elected to fight and have been thrashed on both occasions, I am wondering if I need to revise the tables presented under Steps 2 and 4, and if I need to amend the “will the Romans fight” procedure as well. 

For example, here is what I am considering as the new version of the “what is the point strength of the Roman army” table:

Die Roll Result

1 48 points LESS than the Persians

2 32 points LESS than the Persians

3 16 points LESS than the Persians

4 16 points MORE than the Persians

5 32 points MORE than the Persians

6 48 points MORE than the Persians

Moving on to the sub-process of checking to see if an outnumbered Roman army will still stand and fight, here is a draft of the revised process:

Outnumbered by 48 points will stay and fight on a roll of 1

Outnumbered by 32 points will stay and fight on a roll or 1 or 2

Outnumbered by 16 points will decline to stay and fight if double 1s are rolled

To my chagrin, I discovered some potential problems with the Roman composition of force table. For example, if a 6 was rolled and the Roman army had a strength of 144 points, then the army could not be evenly divided between infantry and cavalry. There would have to be 72 points MORE of infantry and or artillery units in the order of battle. Phrased another way, if a 6 was rolled on the old composition of force table, then if I had a unit of Javelin Cavalry (worth 4 points), then I would have to have 76 points worth of infantry and or artillery, which would add up to 80 points, which would leave 64 points for additional units. Even so, the majority of 72 points MORE of infantry would have to be maintained. So, as an experimental fix, I decided on the following modification to that initial table: 

Die Roll Composition

1 32 points MORE of cavalry units

2 16 points MORE of cavalry units

3 Approximately balanced between units of cavalry and infantry/artillery

4 16 points MORE of infantry units

5 32 points MORE of infantry (may include artillery in this amount)

6 48 points MORE of infantry (must include artillery in this amount)

Battle: Number 3

Date: Just 2 weeks after previous engagement, so the ninth month of 224 AD (CE)

Location: Roman Territory III (victory point value of 300)

Name: Omlanet (i.e., Telamon, with the letters rearranged)

Recon Report: Having rested and reorganized after their second victory, the Sassanids decide to create an all-mounted force and conduct a kind of “blitzkrieg” deeper into Roman territory. This fast-moving army, 192 points strong, runs into, on two separate occasions, hastily assembled Roman blocking forces. However, both enemy armies are smaller than the swift-moving Sassanids and with their morale at a low point, the Romans decline the invitation to engage in battle. These pair of refusals added more victory points into the Persian bank and caused more than one Roman senator to pull his hair out or rip his toga in frustration when the news was delivered to that august body.  

After 11 days or marching and moving, the Sassanid cavalry army finds a large concentration of Romans willing to fight. Although the sandal is on the other foot, as it is the Persians who are outnumbered this time, the confidence level remains high, and the squadrons of Horse Bow are eager to fall, again, upon the flanks of the slower-moving Romans. 

Summary of the Engagement: From the right edge of the wide defile to the left edge, the Persians arranged a division of Horse Bow, a division of Cataphracts, and then another division of Horse Bow. Due to the bordering hills and difficult ground, a small column of light cavalry was positioned on the far left of the Sassanid line. The general of this army arranged his strong division of Elite Cavalry (all with the Shower Shooting ability) behind the right wing Horse Bow formation. Well forward of this Persian deployment, there was a gentle hill and two patches of prickly desert scrub. The impressive Roman line of battle was drawn up beyond these terrain features. The Roman commander (i.e., a pre-battle die roll) determined that two-thirds of the available Roman horse would be placed on the left. As a result, the first line of this larger formation contained Bad Horse, Horse Bow, and a largish group of Cataphracts. The army general and many units of Javelin Cavalry formed a reserve. On the right flank, there was a single division of Javelin Cavalry. In between the various groups of quadrupeds, the Romans arranged a few lines of infantry. Two of the divisions were a mix of Light Foot, Raiders, and Archers. There was also a small formation of Elite Foot. These legionaries were deployed behind the Cataphracts. 

After just 3 turns of play, the Roman right had been very roughly handled. In fact, only 2 bases/stands of Javelin Cavlary remained of the original 6 bases/stands. These units were, of course, marked as demoralized. (The command had been labeled as such the turn prior, such was the havoc being done by the Sassanid Horse Bow.) In the center of the field, the Romans had moved up their Cataphracts and an infantry formation to the edge of the patches of rough ground. The Persians replied in kind, moving a wall of Cataphracts closer to these terrain features, but not so close as to fall within range of Roman Archers. It appeared that a staring contest was going to take place in this sector of the tabletop. On the Roman left flank, somewhat surprisingly, their Bad Horse (i.e., camel troops) and hired Horse Bow held their own against repeated attacks by the Persian light cavalry. This contest went back and forth; each side managing to eliminate just one enemy stand after a couple of periods of chaotic melee. 

Several more turns witnessed the final destruction of the Roman camel troops (i.e., the handful of Bad Horse units) along with their commander. Friendly reinforcements engaged the Sassanids and after a few more rounds of back and forth melees, the Persian Horse Bow on this flank were demoralized. A poor command roll saw half of the surviving stands making a rout move towards the friendly long-edge of the tabletop. The Sassanid Elite Cavalry, under the direction of the army commander, were next in line. It looked like these troopers would face off against enemy Javelin Cavalry. Over on the opposite flank of the dusty and noisy field of battle, the Roman right had been wiped out by another division of Persian Horse Bow. The Sassanids had suffered only a single stand of casualties, but were plagued by poor command rolls, which made reordering their jumbled and scattered ranks rather problematic. They were unable to exploit the temporary advantage. Units of Roman foot were jogging over to re-establish a presence on this flank. 

In the center of the table, the Sassanid Cataphracts finally took the plunge and moved forward against the enemy line. The attacks were local and impacted by the terrain features located between both armies. The Roman Archers proved especially effective and or stubborn, loosing volley after volley into the ranks of the armored horsemen and mounts. After a few turns of confused fighting, the Cataphracts had made some progress. In fact, the Roman infantry formation opposing their advance was at its morale tipping point, though the Sassanid sub-general could not see that. A quick survey of the “dead pile” for the entire battlefield informed that the Sassanids had broken 19 Roman units at the cost of just 4 of their own. Even though outnumbered, it appeared that the Persians were doing very well. It appeared that this might be their third consecutive victory. 

At the end of 11 turns of play, the field was an attritional mess, to put it mildly. On the Sassanid side of the affair, their left and center commands were demoralized. Roman luck and stubbornness had pushed both the Horse Bow and Cataphracts to their morale breaking point. The Elite Cavalry on the right wing, under the army general, was still in fighting condition. In fact, these units were cleaning up what remained of the Roman Javelin Cavalry division and were putting pressure on the enemy Horse Bow as well. In terms of losses, the Persians had seen 15 units destroyed in combat and 6 more routed from the field. 

The Roman army was a shell of its former self. Of the 4 commands still present on the table, half were demoralized. These were the Javelin Cavalry (what was left, anyway) on their left, and the Cataphracts with Horse Bow in the center. The infantry division on the right flank was still in good condition, and the small group of Elite Foot held in reserve had not had to throw missiles or draw swords. That said, the count of casualties taken far exceeded the number that had been inflicted. An impressive or sickening total of 35 Roman units had been destroyed; 3 of these formations were accompanied by a sub-general. To their credit, only 3 Roman stands had routed away during the fighting. 

Taking stock of the tabletop, it was decided to halt the action and award a minor victory to the Persians. What was left of both armies would withdraw to bind their wounds, rest, reorganize, and reinforce.  

Victory Points: Having decided that both armies would retreat in order to refit after a large and costly engagement, the victory points for the contested territory were not awarded to the Sassanids. The rest of the usual post-battle procedures would be followed. Adding up the Roman dead, the Sassanids earned 155 points. Having managed to secure a minor victory, they rolled the winner’s dice and as a result, earned 130 more victory points. (Interestingly, four of the six dice rolled came up 1, testament perhaps, to the perceived narrowness of the victory.) An additional 277 points were recorded in the Sassanid campaign chart. On the Roman side, their post-battle die roll netted them 40 points, while the destroyed Persian units added 60 points. An even 100 victory points was typed into the Roman campaign chart. 

Comments: The holes, some larger than others to be sure, that were not immediately apparent in the first draft and proofs of this idea, are starting to be noticed. As a result, I have taken a bit of solo wargamer’s license to attempt to address these flaws. For example, this third engagement took place only after the Romans had refused to do battle twice. Did this refusal mean that the Persians had pushed the Romans out of two regions or territories? If so, then 700 victory points would have gone to the Sassanids simply because the Romans, quite sensibly, decided not to take on a larger enemy force. Instead of awarding these essentially automatic points to the Persians and moving the campaign deeper into the Roman territory, I “developed” the idea that all this movement was taking place in the next area after the second contest. The third action then, would take place in Roman Territory III, and be worth 300 victory points. As related above, given the close outcome of the engagement, I decided that this area would be disputed and so, not under complete control of either side. 

The selection or determination of Telamon as the historical field of battle gave me some pause as well. For a few days, I went back and forth about how to landscape my tabletop and how to stage the scenario. I reviewed some material on Telamon, including my own meager efforts, and considered, briefly, staging a version of the historic battle. But then, it occurred to me very unlikely that a highly mobile Persian force would find itself caught (i.e., sandwiched) between two slower moving Roman forces. In the end, as I hope I explained or narrated, the campaign battle was fought over similar ground. The rough ground or scrub that was mentioned in the ancient sources played an interesting part in this contest. Both armies had placed their Cataphract commands in the center. Cataphracts and rough terrain don’t really go together, so more than a few turns of this recently completed action saw opposing units of Cataphracts staring at each other. When action was finally joined in the center of the tabletop, it was done in a piecemeal fashion. 

Staying with the topic of terrain for a little bit, while not much fighting took place between mounted and foot elements in these patches of scrub, I found myself wondering about the melee modifiers contained on the QRS. According to this playing aid/reference chart, mounted units fighting in difficult terrain have a minus 1 modifier. In that same terrain, close order infantry versus any other foot have a minus 2 modifier. It appears then, that open order and close order cavalry have the same ability if engaged in melee while traversing difficult terrain. It also appears that the category of difficult terrain is rather inclusive or extensive. While it is unusual to see cavalry moving through and fighting inside woods, it would seem that open order horse would have less of a problem with this terrain than close order horse. If the terrain feature is scrub or rocky ground, evidently this is difficult terrain and so, produces a negative melee modifier for mounted units. I can see this applying more to battle carts/taxis, war wagons, and chariots than I can to cavalry units, especially those that are classed as open order. 

Shifting from terrain considerations and questions to the topic of morale, I wondered about the life-span of demoralized commands. In the recently fought battle, there were a handful of commands on the tabletop that were marked as demoralized when the game was called. One of these formations was on the Persian side of the field and it contained a single base/stand. All the other pieces of this command had been destroyed by enemy action or had routed off the field. It just so happened that this stand was the sub-general’s stand, so there were no problems with reduced command distance and so forth. But I was given to wonder how long or how much of a demoralized command would stay on the field and near the enemy when they were in that state. For example, on the Roman left, their formation of Javelin Cavalry, under the overall commander, had become demoralized by the loss of a third of its points. The remaining stands were marked so I would know about reduced combat ability and command distance, etc. Over the next two turns, the command dice for this demoralized formation turned up 6 and then 5. Sufficed to say, this permitted the army general enough points to order his Javelin Cavalry to hold in place or to move up and attack the enemy, albeit at a disadvantage. 

Expanding the morale conversation to a “big picture” discussion, it appears, on almost immediate review, that I allowed this battle to go on for a little too long. While most of the Sassanid commands were demoralized, their army had not suffered as much as the Romans had. The casualty count at the end of Turn 10 informed that 35 Roman units had been destroyed. This number out of an apparent total of 62 units in their large army. Per the rules, I should have called the game for the Sassanids when the Romans lost unit number 31, as this would represent half of their strength and again, the Persians had suffered less damage. While this error of miscalculation has not greatly impacted the course of this fictional campaign, it does argue against my inexperience with the rules for bigger battles. On further reflection, it seems probable that I may have made some errors with the rules while umpiring the action, but again, I do not think these mental gaffes swayed the result one way or another. 

Speaking of results, a quick check of the victory point totals so far shows the Persians with a comfortable lead. The Sassanids have collected 1,352 points over 3 tabletop battles and 2 refusals by the Romans. The Sassanids have taken control of the border as well as 2 Roman territories. In contrast, the Romans have managed to secure just 230 points. They have not gained any territory and they have not won any battles, although they did give the Persians a slight bloody nose in this last encounter.

____________________________________________

It is with an appropriate level of disappointment, embarrassment and regret that I must inform readers that there will not be fourth battle report. It is with a greater measure of regret that I must inform readers that there will not be an ALONE AGAINST ROME - Part 3. Once again, despite repeated attempts at better planning and time management, Life has gotten in the way. Consequently, I will not be able to dedicate the time and resources needed to prove or disprove the hypothesis promulgated by John Hastings. I think it would be “bad form” to make an attempt with a “data” sample of only three wargames. 

Let me take this opportunity to thank you for investing your valuable time in reading Part 1 as well as this hastily drafted and barely edited version of Part 2. In the Kansas-accented words of TED LASSO: “I appreciate you.” 

I should like to believe that, perhaps, these two posts inspired a few enthusiasts to visit or revisit campaigning on the tabletop. Along that same line of wishful thinking, I should like to believe that maybe a handful of individuals have decided to conduct their own testing (or tinkering) with John’s clearly stated position. If or when Life gets out of the way, I am quite sure that I would enjoy reading posts, written by more capable as well as experienced and traditional wargamers, about these campaigns and or experiments. 

Thanks again for stopping by NO PAINTING REQUIRED.