PACHYDERMS & PIKEMEN APLENTY

With the exception of the regions bordering the short-edges of my extended tabletop, the fictional battlefield was essentially flat and featureless. It was not, however, completely bare. To break up the arid environment suggested by the desert-colored cloth, a variety of irregularly shaped pieces of specialty paper and or suitably colored felt were positioned on the 39.375 square-feet playing surface. There were a few gentle hills (cut from appropriately colored craft foam sheets) placed as well, but a very strong case could be made that these “features” were not real or representative terrain. These “gentle hills” were better described or classified as very slight changes in the overall elevation of the plain, which again, was rather flat and featureless. In summary, with the exceptions of the anonymous ridge line and unidentified river, the various decorative embellishments to the arid-patterned sheet were just that, decorative embellishments. They served to invite but certainly not impress the eye as opposed to impact the movement, missile fire, or melee ability of the assembled troop types. 

An Indian army was drawn from the list found on Page G of the Antiquity Section in the ARMATI 2nd Edition rulebook. Very generally described, its right wing contained quite a few heavy, 4-horse chariots, while its left wing was composed of a large number of cavalry. The strength of the Indian army was its center. Here, even larger numbers of foot archers were supported by war elephants. There was a smaller number of light infantry and skirmishers screening this impressively long line of battle. 

Their opponents for this fictional engagement were Later Seleucids. This fairly heterogenous host was drafted from the list found on Page J of the Age of Empires Section of the rules. Using the same broad brush strokes, the Seleucid army placed cavalry and or camel troops and light infantry on its flanks. The center of the army consisted of a variety of heavy infantry: Galatian warriors, phalangites. Argyraspides, and imitation legionaries. In addition, there were several packets of war elephants, some light infantry, as well as a cloud of skirmishers. The were also a few squadrons of scythed chariots. 

Map A provides a visual reinforcement of this general description. Appendix 1 provides fairly detailed orders of battle that will, perhaps, assist in the understanding of Map A. Figures 1 and 2 provide closer looks at selected portions of the larger tabletop, and may provide even more information regarding the arrangement of troop types for this sizable solo contest. 

Diagramming the Battle

Instead of typing and revising what might be called a traditional wargame narrative, which could, if previous efforts are any indication, run to a length of many thousands of words if not more, and contain numerous notes, I thought I would make an attempt to present the progress of this general engagement through a series of simple maps. The basic plan is to halt the tabletop action every three or four turns and visually document what is taking place or what has taken place. Hopefully, the following maps and captions will be sufficient for those followers/readers who have deigned to click on the provided link and were able to “stay awake and continue on.”

Reverting to form, a critical - if also subjective - assessment of the tabletop was made to determine if a ninth and tenth turn was warranted, if the solo wargame should be continued. Starting on the Indian right flank, it was noted that the large formation of heavy, 4-horse chariots was somewhat reduced and rather out of position. Three stands or squadrons were disordered after having dispatched the Seleucid light cavalry and were more than a few moves away from getting back into the action. Another “division” of three units had managed to recover from their fatigued state, but these sturdy vehicles carrying archers were also some moves away from having any impact on the general engagement. In fact, these chariots would have to perform a complex evolution, which would result in disorder, which would, in turn, impact their fighting ability. There was a reserve formation available, but these heavy chariots would have to clean up what was left of the Seleucid heavy horse and scare away the remaining peltasts. Viewed from the other side of the tabletop, it appeared that the Seleucid left wing was in tatters. Most of the camel units had been routed. The Seleucids had also lost half of their heavy cavalry. Including non-key units in this casualty count, the light horse and a few units of light infantry could be added. Expanding the perspective to include a portion of the main line of battle, the Galatian warbands were rather worse for wear, having lost half of their strength against the Indian elephants. In terms of numbers or viable units then, it seemed clear that the Indians had won on this flank. However, recovering from disorder and moving over the stretch of ground that existed between this sector and the center would require at least 4 turns if not more. 

Moving to the opposite side of this fictional field and inspecting the condition of the Seleucid right flank, it was noted that the Indian cavalry had been much reduced. Half of their original strength had been destroyed in various melees with Cataphracts and enemy foot. There was a formation of several units that had been able to get behind the far right of the enemy line, but like the heavy chariots on the Indian right, this formation was disordered and several full moves (if not farther) away from the action taking place in the middle of the plain. Their relative isolation was made more clear when it was observed that the Seleucid Cataphracts could wheel around and fall upon the open left flank of the Indian infantry before the aforementioned cavalry could ride to the rescue. The end of the Indian left became more apparent when two additional stands of cavalry fell to Seleucid attention, and obvious when the sub-general and his heavy chariots were eliminated as a viable unit. With a flank sector won by each army, it seemed that it would be a race between heavy chariots and Cataphracts to see which side would gain the deciding advantage in the center.  

As the comparatively cumbersome formations of disordered chariots, very heavy horse, and disordered cavalry strove to play a part in the numerous melees occurring in the center of the field, the “sub-units” and even “regular” units of Indian elephants started to panic as a result of the combat dice being thrown at them. Even though the imitation legionaries were roughly handled, they managed to force a pair of pachyderms back into and through friendly foot units. In this same area, the sub-general of this portion of the Indian line was skewered off his colorful elephant while the rest of his troop was slaughtered. Three more “sub-units” would either die or run away in chaotic melees with the Seleucid phalanxes. The most significant loss was the Indian Army General. His troop of elephants tried to bull their way through the pikemen who had the support or more ranks of men bearing 18-foot weapons. Men and beasts fell on both sides, but the deep ranks of serried pike points won out in this significant local contest. 

Tying these fast-forwarded “turns,” evaluations and predictions into one package, the decision was made to halt the battle. The Seleucids had won on their right, and it seemed that they would crack the Indian center before any heavy chariots could effectively intervene. To be certain, the Seleucids had lost many of their non-key units, but where it counted, they had managed to get the better of the enemy. Therefore, the awarding of a marginal or slightly more than marginal victory seemed appropriate as well as defensible. 

Critique

As there were approximately 1,600 points worth of units on my tabletop, it seems safe to remark that this was one of the largest if not the largest ARMATI scenario that I have prepared and played. While the terrific and unusual size of the wargame was appealing, the weight of the fictional battle was also, obviously, problematic. [1] As related in the brief summary, the conclusion of the contest was conjectured as opposed to carried through via the normal procedure of completed game turns. Perhaps I should have been more careful or thoughtful in the planning stages. Perhaps I should have adapted my scenario so that it better fit the framework utilized by Mark Fry and his friends when they refought Chalons using the same rules. These gentlemen had no difficulty in refighting the historical battle twice in one meeting (Battle Day 2013), while using three armies per side, and fielding a combined total of 500 points of bonus units. Perhaps I should have researched, purchased, and learned a new set of rules that was specifically written to cater to historical wargamers with an interest in staging very large tabletop battles. 

This technically incomplete scenario featured three armies per side. Both the Indians and Seleucids had a right, center, and left. Each sector was assigned to a certain number as well as type or types of troops. Each sector saw fighting, some more than others, obviously. In several respects then, this scenario was fairly historical. The notable lack of each victorious flank having an impact or influence on how things went in the center struck me as not all that historical. Then again, this inability to influence the tide of battle in the center seemed more the result of game mechanics and rules (how quickly certain troop types can wheel or change formation, and how far and fast certain troop types can move) than anything else. Again, it occurs to me that I should have taken more care in the design of this engagement Perhaps I should have worked more on the possible “what if” situations so that I would have been better able to address or at least anticipate them. On further reflection, it occurs to me that the Seleucid left and Indian left should have been forced to quit the field at a certain point instead of hanging on as long as they did. While this would have answered one question about smaller army or sector break point, it would not have answered the question about how far and fast certain troop types can move, especially if they are disorganized after conducting a move that is categorized as complex. 

Generally speaking, I think that the opposing deployments were historical. I also think the course of the battle was fairly historical. I will not go into great detail here, but it occurs to me that a survey of 10, 20 or 25 ancient battles will show that there were rights, centers, and lefts, and that engagements often devolved into separate contests between opposing rights, centers, and lefts. In reviewing memories and notes about the interaction between the opposing centers, I have some concerns about whether or not this particular battle was historical. First, it seemed that these opposing main bodies took a long time to come into contact. I understand that both were infantry and that one had supporting elephants, but to have the action on the flanks essentially resolved before the opposing main bodies came to grips impressed me as a little odd if not somewhat disappointing. After the fact, it occurs to me that I could have prevented this by moving the three large commands of the Seleucids forward at the same rate. I suppose I could have held the Indians back until the time to advance was judged to be advantageous. Second, the comparatively abysmal performance of the Indian foot archers struck me as unusual. With so many units (nearly 30) and so many figurative arrows being loosed, the relative lack of Seleucid casualties was surprising. One aspect of the Tactica II rules that I like is the “missile halt” effect. Briefly described, if a certain number of kills are inflicted on a unit by enemy missiles, then that unit has to stop moving for an entire turn. The targeted unit is not disordered per se, but is, I imagine, rather discomforted by the impact and effect of scores if not hundreds of javelins, sling stones, or arrow shafts. Perhaps I should have drafted some kind of scenario rule to cover this possibility. The mention of scenario rules provides a nice transition for a consideration of how these variants figured in the handful of turns that were played. 

Consulting the language of Appendix 2, considering them in the order that they were listed, and offering a “blanket assessment,” it appears that while it was nice or good to have these amendments at hand, it appears that they did not play a pivotal role in the course of the scenario. I do not recall any instances where the cavalry vs heavier cavalry break-off rule was used. In the figurative heat and confusion of battle, it appears that the Indian horsemen facing the Seleucid right could have used this option. The Seleucid cavalry facing the heavy chariots on the Indian right might have benefitted from this rule variant as well. The double-frontage for certain troop types certainly made the manipulation of and the marking of status on these troop types easier. Given that these are or were all non-key types for the engagement, their participation and or eventual loss did not have any notable impact. There were no instances of rear firing. The only approximation was when some Seleucid light cavalry evaded in the face of some chariots and turned to loose a volley of arrows over the backsides of their mounts. The Galatians never got a chance to use their warband 2d6 impetus ability. These stubborn warriors were too wrapped up trying to deal with the Indian elephants who charged through a solid line of archers. The expanded rout path caused more problems for the Indian army than it did for the Seleucids. On review, it appeared that the Indians had more trouble with reserve units being affected. The depth of the Seleucid phalanxes did not result in a tremendous loss of pikemen, fortunately. By and large (no pun intended), the elephant “sub-unit” rules borrowed from Matthew Bennett worked rather well. The dice rolled by the Indian generals did not work as well, however. Finally, the permitted interpenetration between LI, LHI and heavier foot formations also worked fairly well when it was needed or used. Then again, the lines of battle for both armies were stretched out across the length of the tabletop, so there was sufficient space for units to act and react to the enemy.

To the degree that an equation containing the variables of size, scenario specific rules and the perceived historical accuracy of the model engagement can be developed, did this improvised combination add up to fun? To be certain, math is not my strong suit, but I would extend the analogy and venture a positive and negative answer. 

The multiple preparations provided a welcomed distraction or diversion from the hustle, bustle and stress associated with the holiday season. However, as described in the single note for this post, the failure of three scenarios before the partial success of the fourth produced, as might be imagined, a certain level of disappointment, frustration and reflection. It appears quite evident that I continue to struggle with learning that big or very big wargames are not always better wargames. While using the ARMATI rules is a little like going home again (they were the rules used in my first ancients wargame way back when), I think it’s safe to say that I have yet to find that desired balance of amendments or variants. As remarked above, I have yet to solve that “mega-game puzzle” when using the ARMATI rules. In terms of format, drafting maps and figures to narrate the battle was different and enjoyable. Relying on these primitive graphics certainly reduces the amount of text, which, I think, benefits both reader and writer. (However, the exact percentage split has not been determined.) Going back to the main and secondary sources of inspiration for this latest effort or project, I had fun reading, studying and viewing the respective reports. In the course of this reading and studying, I stumbled across an “ancient” post to the ARMATI Yahoo Forum from the mind and desk of Stephen Phenow. In late December of 2008, the gentleman provided forum frequenters with a complete set of instructions for refighting “Into the Valley of Rephaim,” a historical scenario featuring Hebrews under King David and Philistines. While looking over this artifact (or artefact), I wondered if I should create my own Christmas or holiday season tradition of setting up, playing, and posting a report of a big ancient or medieval period wargame. While looking over this “document”(it was saved as a PDF and filed away in an electronic folder), I berated myself for not paying more attention to Stephen’s annual “presents” of prepared historical scenarios. (In addition to the “Rephaim” evidence, I have a fragment of an email or note that refers to his Paraetacene post, which, incidentally, was made a few years before this 317 BCE contest was selected for The Society of Ancients 2018 Battle Day.) Well, that was a bit of a digression. 

To return, indirectly, to the subjective if not loaded question about fun, I do think there is potential for fun in adapting Stephen’s idea(s) for my own holiday tradition. Unfortunately, the experience with “Pachyderms & Pikemen Aplenty” has not been an auspicious start. The timing is rather off, as Christmas is 19 days away as I type this line, and the initial scenarios were discontinued for one reason or another in addition to being or because they were quite large battles. The idea of developing and presenting a solo scenario to “ring out the old year” does appeal (no pun intended here either) and has promise, I think. From an individual as well as broader perspective, these are uncertain times, however and unfortunately, so it’s difficult if not impossible to say what December 2024 will bring, what it will look like, and what I will be doing as far as wargaming goes 12 months from now.  

Appendix 1 - Fairly Detailed Orders of Battle

Indian Army

Right Wing: 

14 stands of H4CH (heavy 4-horse chariots) organized into 4 groups or commands of 4, 4, 3, and 3 respectively. There was a subordinate commander integrated with one stand; there was a wing commander integrated with another stand. 

Center: 

28 stands of FT (archers) organized into 3 sections or 2 largish commands each. The center-right had 9 stands of FT, the center-left had 9 stands of FT, and the center had 10 stands of FT. Each section had a commander integrated with a full stand of EL (war elephants). This squadron or troop was screened by a stand of LI (light infantry), which might be seen as escorts. The Army General was in direct command of the center; 2 subordinates were in charge of the center-left and center-right. There was a screen of SI (Skirmishers) and LI arranged in front of this center formation. Several groups or commands contained 11 units. Finally, there were 26 half-stands of elephants attached to an equal number of FT stands. These packets of pachyderms were divided as follows: 8 to the center-left and center-right, and 10 to the archers in the center, under the command of the Indian General. 

Left: 

16 stands of HC (heavy cavalry) organized into 4 groups or commands of 4 “regiments” each. In the far left group, there was a subordinate leader riding with a stand of heavy cavalry. In the group second from the right, there was a wing commander, riding with a squadron of heavy 4-horse chariots.

An Accounting: 

Using the points cost provided in parentheses in the Bonus Units section of the Indian army list, the points strength of this fictional army was determined to be 802. The traditional separation of key units from non-key units showed that the Indian army contained 75 key units and 14 non-key units. This finding was subject to review, however, as in Matt Bennett’s thoughtful piece on refighting Hydaspes with ARMATI (please see Appendix 2), he and his colleagues determined that it would be better for the scenario to designate the Indian elephant as non-key units. 

Seleucid Army

Right Wing: 

6 stands of LI (light infantry / peltasts), 4 stands of LHI (light-heavy infantry / thorakitai), 6 stands of CAT (cataphract cavalry), and 3 stands of LC (light cavalry armed with various weapons). This formation divided into 8 groups or commands; 5 for the light troops and 3 for the heavy units. The Seleucid Army General was embedded with a unit of cataphracts.  

Center: 

Deployed in 6 sections, for lack of a better descriptive term. Starting on the right of the center, there were 4 stands of FT (imitation legionaries carrying pila and swords), fronted or screened by a unit of scythed chariots. To their left was a block of Argyraspides, 6 stands of PH (phalanx infantry, arranged in 2 ranks), screened by 4 stands of LI (peltasts). Shifting left again, there were 3 commands or divisions of PH, each composed of 8 stands (arranged in 2 ranks). The right and center formation had a unit of war elephants attached; the left-most formation was “bookended” by 2 units of elephants. A screen of 7 units of SI (skirmishers) was in front of the central pike block. On the far left of the center, there were 5 units of Galatian WB (warband). These warriors were screened by 2 units of scythed chariots. The sub-general of this large formation was with the Argyraspides. There were 2 subordinate officers located in the regular phalanx. 

Left: 

7 stands of LI (peltasts), 4 stands of HC (heavy cavalry - 2 stands slightly better than the other pair), 4 stands of CM (camel troops), and 2 stands of LC (light cavalry armed with bows). These units were distributed across 6 commands or groups. There was a wing commander with the better quality heavy cavalry, and there was a subordinate officer riding with one of the camel units. 

An Accounting: 

Taking a similar points-based approach to this imaginary force, it was determined that 58 key units and 35 non-key units combined for a total of 812 points. (Note: Cataphracts are not included in the Bonus Units of the Later Seleucid list, so the estimated cost of these units was equated to the Armenian Cataphracts found in the Bonus Units selection of the Marian/Caesarian Roman list on Page K.)

Appendix 2 - Adaptations & Amendments

1. Unit dimensions were 50 percent smaller than the figure scales listed on Page 1. Subsequently, a heavy infantry formation modeled using the ‘Epic Unit Sizes,’ had a frontage of 40mm and a depth of 22.5mm. Heavy cavalry units had a frontage of 40mm as well, but a depth of 30mm. Elephant and chariot stands shrunk from 80mm across by 40mm deep, to 40mm across by 20mm deep. 
2. To be consistent, I should have reduced the 15mm ruler for Optimal/Epic scenarios (one of three rulers provided on Page 36 of the rulebook) by the same percentage. However, I decided to employ a selection of reduced rulers already on hand. Some comparison measurements and calculations informed that my rulers were roughly 63 percent of the 15mm Optimal/Epic ruler. In simpler terms, the rulers I opted to use were just a smidge over 6 inches in length. 
3. An informal survey of the ARMATI rule variants (please see http://warflute.org/playtest_rules_en.php) resulted in the selection and incorporation of a number of these modifications produced by the very experienced and quite knowledgeable “hive mind” of ARMATI and ancients enthusiasts. In brief summary, these selections included the following: Cavalry vs Heavier Cavalry Break-Off; Double Frontage for SI, LI, and LHI; Rear Firing; Warband 2d6 Impetus Rolls, and the Morale Rout Test. This last variant was modified so that the rout path was increased to 6 scale inches. 
4. A few “scenario specific changes” were borrowed from Matthew Bennett’s engaging “Hydaspes Battle Report,” which appeared in the July/August 2015 issue of Slingshot. Elephant “sub-units” were attached to and placed behind the majority of the Indian FT units. These pachyderms were ‘out of control,’ meaning that they had not been assigned any divisional control points. However, when an enemy unit approached to within charge distance (9 scale inches as measured from the front of the Indian archers), the elephant “sub-unit” would trundle forward on a d6 roll of 4-6. If the roll was failed, the elephants could try again on the next turn, as long as they had a target, and as long as their parent infantry unit had not been engaged. If the Indian archer unit had been contacted by an enemy formation, then the integrated elephants would support the combat by adding a +1 to the die roll. This positive modifier would be applied until the point when the parent infantry unit had suffered 3 unit breakpoints. In addition, the Indian archer units could loose arrow volleys through any screen of friendly troops. This would be considered “indirect fire” and so, the missile die would be reduced by 1. 
5. Due to limited space and the corresponding sizes of the “model” armies involved, the Seleucid phalanx (the pikemen at least) were considered to be deployed in depth. Therefore, if attacked by an Indian elephant and outscored, the impetus of the elephant charge would not break/destroy the unit of pikemen, but it would result in 3 unit breakpoints as well as a fatigue marker. 
6. Adapting another “scenario specific rule,”this time from Mark Fry, as provided in his excellent “Chalons Battle Report,” which appeared in the July/August 2013 issue of Slingshot, LC and HC may interpenetrate each other, and LI and LHI may interpenetrate. Further, LI and LHI may withdraw through friendly heavier infantry types. These movements may occur during the evade phase or during the regular movement phase. However, if a friendly unit is not able to move completely move through another friendly unit, then the moving unit is halted in contact with but not overlapping the other unit, and both formations are marked disordered or undressed. 

Notes

1. The first attempt at this scenario saw the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules being used. The Early Seleucids, drawn from free army list available at https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home, was 475 points strong and consisted of 141 stands or units distributed across 8 commands. The opposing Indian army added up to 438 points and was composed of 155 stands or units organized in 9 commands. To provide some context for those ancient wargamers not familiar with the TRIUMPH! or GRAND TRIUMPH! rules, the standard size of any army using the basic rules is 48 points. For the bigger battles, three armies are employed (there’s the left, center and right again), so the point value on each side will be approximately 144. Essentially, I attempted a GRAND TRIUMPH! times 3 scenario. The second attempt featured the Tactica II rules and army lists. This was a super-sized version of the game played by Simon Watson and his UK colleagues. For some nice-looking pictures and a brief summary report, please see https://groups.io/g/Tactica/topic/97752498?p=%2C%2C%2C20%2C0%2C0%2C0%3A%3Arecentpostdate%2C%2C%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C0%2Cprevid%253D1696235235646728108%2Cnextid%253D1655863804848232809&previd=1696235235646728108&nextid=1655863804848232809&allview=1. Anyway, on my full tabletop, the Seleucids assembled 47 units into 9 divisions. If my sums are correct, they had 7,636 points and an army breakpoint of 616 “massed” figures. The Indians mustered 50 units in the same number of divisions. The addition informed their strength to be 7,998 points, with an army breakpoint of 621 “massed” figures. (Sidebar: Readers who have made it this far might also be interested in checking out the To The Strongest! YouTube report posted by ‘vonketteringham’ in May of 2022. This was a 15mm battle featuring Indians and Generic Successors. The video is 2 hours and 30 minutes long and ends due to a schedule conflict for one of the player-generals, but it is worth viewing in my estimation.) Hoping that the third time would prove the charm, I reset the fictional field for an ADLG (L’Art de la Guerre - 3rd Edition) game. In this eventually discontinued and then dismantled scenario, the Seleucids brought 980 points to the tabletop. Their calculated army demoralization point was 119. Their Indian opponents deployed 1,227 points. This very large army (there were 34 stands of elephants) had a demoralization point of 136.