ANOTHER MEETING OF MONGOLS
Being fairly familiar with TO THE STRONGEST! (I have read and annotated the rules as well as revisions; I have watched a number of YouTube videos wherein a variety of enthusiasts present friendly or tournament games as well as tutorials for viewing pleasure and education, and approximately every week or so I make a point of checking in on what Simon is doing or promoting on his exemplary and justifiably popular blog), but having logged very little time actually playing, it seemed an ill advised decision or was simply imprudent, perhaps even irresponsible on my part, to attempt a solo scenario wherein rather large armies of all-mounted commands or divisions would be involved. However, this is exactly what I did.
In keeping with an apparently new or at least different approach (likely just a phase as opposed to a permanent shift of format), this battle report is more map-oriented than text-heavy. The exception to this change in presentation being the comments, evaluation, remarks, or perhaps even Q & A section, wherein an attempt at analysis is made, wherein some constructive criticism, however subjective, is offered. That stipulation aside, Map 1 provides the interested reader with an “aerial” as well as decidedly geometric view of the tabletop along with a description of how the battlefield landscape was “designed.” Subsequent maps show how the opposing armies or factions (this was, essentially, another civil war scenario set in the first quarter of the thirteenth century, let us say the year 1217) were deployed in addition to recording selected stages and focal points of the fictional contest.
Q & A
The following “paragraphs” represent something of a departure for me. On further reflection, I suppose this could be called an experimental format. Ideally, I should have liked to engage a third party and have them prepare and email me a list of between 12 and 20 questions of varying degrees of complexity about my solo wargame featuring Mongols. Ideally or going forward, I should also like to be able to send drafts of my articles, reports, or posts to a third party so that this individual or group could do the editing and proofreading before the material is made available to the interested reader or visitor to this blog. Obviously, as there is no third party involved, the questions (some multi-part) and answers contained in this section are my own, and the responsibility for careful and competent proofreading remains all mine. With the exception of the first query, there really is no rhyme or reason to the order in which they appear. In truth, these questions were developed right around the time I was playing the third and fourth turns of the recently completed solo wargame. Without further explanation or preamble then . . .
What was the final result, and what were the final counts with regard to damage and losses?
Would it be cliché to suggest that it was a “nail-biting finish”? Would it be crossing a line to remark that I could not have scripted a closer contest? Perhaps I should just let the reader decide?
The White Mongols got off to a very good start in Turn 10, using arrow volleys and a few concentrated if also repeated charges to push their enemy to within one Victory Medal of having to quit the field. Unfortunately, the White Mongols did not manage to finish the job, at least at this point. In their turn, the Light Purple Mongols fought back stubbornly and or valiantly, coming so very close to pushing the morale of their enemy to its determined breaking point. Turn 11 saw the White Mongols draw chits for their contingent of Cuman auxiliaries. As luck would have it, these troops, who had spent the entire battle on the northern most edge of the field not doing very much, were able to break an opposing unit of light cavalry. This local win was the final straw for the Light Purple Mongols. Their once large pile of Victory Medals was exhausted. To be certain, it was an expensive contest for the White Mongols, as their Victory Medal account was very nearly bankrupt.
Following, please see a few notes regarding the costs of this fictional scenario:
—The Light Purple Faction lost 37 units of light cavalry and 1 unit of regular cavalry.
—The Light Purple Faction lost or spent 6 heroes in melees and 6 heroes in units that were broken by enemy arrows.
—The Light Purple Faction lost 4 generals, one of these being a heroic commander.
—The Light Purple Faction used 142 arrow volleys (i.e., ammunition markers) during the battle.
—The White Faction lost 29 units of light cavalry (2 of these were Cuman auxiliaries) and 3 units of regular cavalry.
—The White Faction lost or spent 5 heroes in melees and 6 heroes in units that were broken by enemy arrows.
—The White Faction lost 3 generals.
—The White Faction used 145 arrow volleys (i.e., ammunition markers) during the battle.
How long did it take to play this solo wargame?
The scenario began on the evening of 15 February and was concluded on the evening of 22 February, so seven days. The integrated weekend was the “busiest,” with several turns being completed. I am sorry to report that I did not keep a careful record of exactly how much time was spent preparing the tabletop, deploying the opposing armies, playing each turn, setting up the maps and captions, and then cleaning up the “mess.” (It has been remarked that I tend to be “particular” and or detail-oriented in some respects or regards, but in this case, that quality or aspersion was not in play.) A very approximate estimate would be something like 25-40 minutes per turn, so for 10 complete turns, this fictional exercise lasted between 4 and 6.5 hours. This estimated time frame could easily reach a total of 8 or even 10 or more hours when preparation, clean up, and then drafting and revising the report for posting are factored in.
Why prepare and deploy such large forces?
It’s a fair question. Coincidentally, I have just been looking over a DBA Tournament report/summary in an old (but not too old) issue of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients. The dozen participants had a very enjoyable day of gaming, playing with their 12-element armies against six opponents. (Interestingly, the assembled player-generals were only able to use their armies in the last match of the tournament.) I mention this, as my “armies” were larger than the product of six games times 12-elements in each game. Anyway, I think it’s fair to remark that I’ve always had an attraction to and so a preference for the larger scenarios. This is probably because my earliest introduction to the wonderful world of military history was based on reading about the more significant or well recorded and researched battles, such as Blenheim, Waterloo, Gettysburg, Verdun and the like. At the risk of appearing or sounding flippant, I prepared and deployed such large forces because I could. (There are, of course, benefits and drawbacks to being a solo wargamer.) Additionally, it often seems the case that I am interested in testing the capacity of rulesets. I am curious to see if the selected rulebook can handle a big or very big battle. At the same time, I recognize that this “pushing or testing of the envelope” is problematic and may well result in disappointment and frustration when a “gigantic” game does not come off. I do suppose that I might benefit from making a conscious effort to scale things down. In fact, it might prove interesting to set up another fictional scenario in the ancient/medieval world wherein I wargame a very large battle, and then repeat the exercise with much smaller or “normal size” armies. A comparison and contrast of these two wargames might be educational and worthwhile.
At the risk of extending this answer, when I was almost finished setting up this scenario, the long lines of battle created the impression of a field in the late 1700s or early 1800s. (Indeed, the adjective “Napoleonic” would not be inappropriate in this context.) Admittedly, there were no infantry columns or artillery batteries, but there were troops arranged from table edge to table edge. I might add that the single comment received on the TRIUMPH! Forum to my “original” meeting of Mongols read as follows: “LOL, nine commands per side, that’s crazy man.” I do not believe the gentleman was attacking my mental state. I think he was more gobsmacked by the triple-size armies employed for the scenario. (In games of GRAND TRIUMPH!, the opposing armies contain three commands and amount to 144 points.) The concept or idea was so outlandish that he had to laugh. I like to think that maybe, just maybe, he is considering trying something similar on his own tabletop.
Did you favor one side or the other during the engagement?
Given my comparative lack of experience with these rules, given the wall-to-wall deployment of “figures” which pretty much limited plans and tactics to a head-to-head contest, and given my student-level knowledge regarding historical tactics of Mongol forces and formations, I do not believe I played with a bias. To be certain, it is very difficult to play favorites when drawing numbered chits from a receptacle.
For each game turn, I would start with the White Mongols. A flank was chosen and then a command or division on that flank was selected for activation, and then I would work my way down the tabletop from that starting point. The process would be repeated for the other side. Having so many arrow ammunition markers, I guess it would be fair to suggest that I placed an emphasis on arrow volleys over moving into physical contact for melee resolution.
On further reflection, there were moments during the scenario where I think I did try to create or exploit a local advantage, but selecting a lower number chit or an Ace put a fairly quick stop to these “brilliant” tactical plans.
Did you consider using any ideas or procedures that would have taken a certain amount of command and control out of your hands?
As a matter of fact, I did. Instead of a random deployment and having no concrete battle plans other than advance into contact, I thought about using six-sided or maybe 10 or 12-sided dice to determine how the armies would deploy and then using another die roll to determine what kind of battle plan each side would have. Such procedures might have seen one faction having a weighted flank, and so, possibly an advantage. Then again, many of the boxes or squares on my tabletop were occupied (quite a few with 2 units of light cavalry), so a weighted flank, an advantage in numbers in one sector might have resulted in a “traffic jam” of Mongol light and heavy cavalry. Anyway, in the end, I decided against trying to develop a coherent set of procedures for pre-selecting the deployments and plans of both sides.
What is your opinion of the additional material and or markers required for a game when using these rules?
Given my functional if not sometimes primitive or “bare bones” approach, the employment of additional material and markers did not detract from the playing of or enjoyment of the fictional contest. That said, the preparation and set up did take a bit of time. Instead of using a pre-marked or pre-gridded battle mat, I had to measure and place the markers used to identify the boxes. This initial groundwork had to be adjusted once I placed the terrain, so an obvious lesson learned there. To be certain, there were quite a few ammunition markers in play. These colored and functional markers did not interfere with the aesthetic, as there was very little aesthetic involved. In looking around the Internet, I have seen many pictures of TtS! wargames where a variety of markers and such were utilized by the player-generals. As with everything in this hobby, the employment of a variety of battlefield markers has its supporters and detractors. I would imagine that there are a number of wargamers who would cast themselves as “independents” on this particular issue. Given the philosophy of the rules, or at least my understanding of that philosophy, the presence and use of heroes, lance markers, disorder markers, and victory medals (I used small playing cards to represent these) did not complicate the progress of the battle and did not “wreck” the appearance of my model battlefield. If anything, it was nice to be able to see how much ammunition certain units or commands had left; it was good to see where my heroes were and if they had been used effectively, and it was nice knowing where the lance-armed guard units were as well. I suppose that I could have employed small poker chips as plastic victory medals instead of the small playing cards, but I don’t think this nod to the rules adversely impacted the scenario.
How did this scenario compare to the previous wargame, the “original meeting” of Mongols?
Another fair as well as interesting question. I suppose it was inevitable as well.
With regard to size, I think both wargames were similar in that they were unusually large. As referenced above, the TRIUMPH! engagement, or perhaps my person, was described as “crazy.” Looking over the various entries/posts on Simon’s established and respected blog, there is a lot of evidence for large or mega-games. These appear to be multi-player and or demonstration games. However, I am not sure how large they are in terms of points used and victory medals provided to each side. Turning to the result, the Mongol faction occupying the right side of the tabletop won both engagements. In the first scenario, this was determined to be the case after six turns. It was judged a costly victory. The second engagement ran for approximately 11 turns and witnessed an even more costly win. Given the thinness of this margin, I think it would be fair to suggest that the second meeting of Mongols was a draw instead of an actual victory.
Moving on to a consideration of how each game played, I think it would be fair to remark that the second contest was more complex than the first but at the same time, it was as simple as the first. There appeared to be a few more types of cavalry in the second battle. Without question, the second engagement saw dozens of arrow volleys, as represented by expended ammunition markers. These missile exchanges were abstracted in the first meeting by moving opposing units into physical contact and then rolling a d6 for each side.
While I do not have a copy of Professor Harl’s excellent if also sometimes challenging book, EMPIRES OF THE STEPPES - A History of the Nomadic Tribes Who Shaped Civilization, sitting to my immediate right, I was able to look through an old paperback sitting on one of my shelves. In a chapter titled “THE DEATH THAT SAVED EUROPE - The Mongols Turn Back, 1242,” found within WHAT IF? The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, Cecelia Holland offers the following description:
The Mongol soldier carried a double curved bow of laminated horn, with a pull of 160 pounds,
which dispatched arrows accurately up to a distance of 300 meters as fast as he could pull them
out of his quiver. He wore no heavy clumsy armor, but padded leather to skid aside arrows, and
silk underwear to keep wounds clean. He seldom closed with an enemy hand to hand; he died at a
much lower rate than the opposition. (100)
Now then, reiterating my specific lack or level of knowledge about Mongol culture and warfare, despite recent reading, I wondered where to position this excerpt as well as wondered about the validity of it. The paperback came out in 1999, so this description is 25 years old. There has to be more research that either confirms or disputes this description. If I use this dated excerpt as a kind of benchmark against the two scenarios played out on my tabletop, then the pull weight and or estimated range of a Mongol arrow volley doesn’t really come into question. Ranged fire was not permitted by the Mongol Horse Bow in the first contest. Ranged fire was available to all the units on my table in the second scenario, but there was no firm ground or unit scale established. The only point of comparison appears to be the reticence to engage in melee. Again, this was abstracted in the first battle, but demonstrated again and again in the second, wherein both sides chose to launch arrows at each other until their quivers were literally empty.
Were alternate titles considered?
Perhaps an inconsequential question, but yes, I did have a number of other titles ready for this project. Those familiar with my “body of work” will recognize that I have a preference for alliteration. It could be remarked that I take after Phil and his numerous ADLG reports. (For just two examples, please see https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-hundredweight-of-huns.html and https://philonancients.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-meandering-of-medievals.html.) Anyway, here are the several alternate titles that were considered:
> A Second Meeting of Mongols
> A Massing of Mongols
> The March of the Mongols
> A Battle of Lightweights
(This last one was developed to refer to the multitude of light cavalry on the tabletop.)
Why stage another wargame featuring Mongols?
I admit that it is a rather rare occurrence for me to stage or play a wargame two or three times in a row. The exception to this “rule” is when I find the selection for the annual Society of Ancients Battle Day merits my attention. This attention, interest and resulting “work” may or may not see an article or report submitted to the current editor of that long-running publication. Anyway, it seems that this “double dipping” or “returning to the scene” is or may be the product of a few factors. In no particular order, there is the fairly recent reading of EMPIRES OF THE STEPPES. As I stated above, this is or was an interesting as well as challenging book written by Professor Kenneth W. Harl. For those readers who may have an interest in Nomadic culture and history, I strongly recommend it.
In the single comment “A Meeting Of Mongols” generated on my blog, a gentleman by the name of Anthony Clipsom commented on the “strangeness” of the rules used, then asked if I was “satisfied” with said rules and wondered if I thought they “gave a reasonable representation of Mongol warfare.” I can appreciate his subjective assessment regarding the nature of the rules. When I first started with TRIUMPH!, it did strike me as a bit odd that Horse Archers would not be able to engage in ranged combat. However, as I played more games and reviewed subjects and posts on the dedicated forum, I acclimated to the abstracted way Horse Bow combat and interactions with other troop types were addressed. However, I still missed not being able to “shoot” with units of Horse Archers. It seems fair to remark that I turned 180 degrees with the recently completed contest. Reviewing the attached orders of battle, there were close to 500 arrow ammunition markers on the tabletop. It would be an understatement to say that this amount of arrows provides for many, many opportunities to pin down if not make your opponent into a kind of pin-cushion. So, perhaps the single and more serious answer to this question is:
I staged another game featuring Mongols so that I could have a chance to employ units that could actually (well okay, figuratively) shoot arrows, and not in a completely abstract way.
Why stage a second battle over the same terrain?
Technically speaking, the terrain was not identical for both scenarios. That admitted, I do not think the differences were significant, and I do not believe the terrain features gave any advantage or interfered in the battle plans, such as they were, of either side. In summary, I recycled the terrain so that I could focus more on the troop types and the way the selected rules worked. I did not want to have to worry about terrain.
Was fun had?
Stipulating to the subjective nature or definition of the word, yes, I would say that fun was had during this second meeting. However, I would qualify my reaction or response and explain that I was more engaged than entertained. I was more interested in the experiment and experimenting than I was excited about how each turn played and how the game concluded. That said, I feel that I can relate more to the accounts I have read where other player-generals described how they felt when they drew an Ace at a critical point.
What were some problem areas during the battle?
This is another subjective question. However and ironically, it appears that the size of the contest presented its own challenge or challenges. Some units, indeed, some commands on both sides never loosed a volley and never crossed swords with the enemy. Referencing the unusual size of the battle, the perceived or understood fast-moving and fluid nature of Mongol warfare was not really evident on my tabletop. There was no instance of a feigned retreat which might have drawn a careless enemy into a trap.
The following was not really a problem, but this seems the appropriate place to make mention of it. As I understand the rules, a deck of 80 cards or something similar, is needed for each player-general. It seems that multi-player games can get along with one modified deck, or these can see two or three decks employed. For this solo scenario, I used small and numbered poker chips placed in a container. The chips were mixed a few times with my left or right hand prior to being drawn for activation, whether that activation was for movement, missile fire or engaging in melee. Instead of limiting myself to 80 “cards,” I fabricated 100. The receptacles for each side had 10 Aces, 10 threes, 10 eights, and so forth. This extra supply did not hamper my play, at least I did not think it did. In fact, in one memorable sequence of one of the later game turns, the White Mongols drew three Aces in a row. I’m not sure of the odds of that, but my guess is that they would be pretty small.
What are your thoughts on having rout rules replace the demoralization rules?
I rather like the demoralization rules provided in Version 1.1 of TO THE STRONGEST! That said, I can see how these would complicate things or potentially confuse players in a large scenario. In fact, I worried about trying to use them and how I would keep track of demoralized commands in such a large battle. The rout rules provided in Even Stronger - Version 10 (revised 26/4/2023) are well thought out and presented. It appears that they achieve the same end without over complicating procedures. At the same time, these revisions allow instances where units from a decimated command continue to fight without any penalties, which strikes me as somewhat inaccurate. It seems to me that the sole survivors of a command should, typically, be rather disheartened by recent events. Anyway, to keep things consistent and not to confuse myself, I employed the rule revisions found in the latest version/update. As the vast majority of units on my tabletop were light cavalry, there was not a lot of occasions when morale of neighboring units had to be checked.
I wonder, though, if some hybrid amendment pertaining to demoralization and rout/routing would have seen a quicker wargame, and one with decidedly more contrast in terms of victory medals won and lost?
How would you rate, or where would you place this wargame on a line, graph, or three-dimensional plane with wargames reported on the blogs of, for example, Aaron Bell, James Roach, Jon Freitag, and Simon Miller?
If I may attempt to get philosophical or at least a little thoughtful for a moment . . . In developing this particular question, I knew that I was opening myself up to a “comparison is the thief of joy” situation. Further thinking or attempts to make a connection to previous knowledge and experience brought me a line of dialogue from the TED LASSO series on Apple TV+, wherein Ted relates the story of seeing the following quote on a building: “Be curious, not judgmental.” My intention is not to trace the history and origin of these quotes, although in itself, that could be an interesting exercise. My purpose, at least in part, is in examining to what degree these sayings could be applied to the hobby. Then again, perhaps this tangential consideration is better reserved for another discussion.
Returning to the question at hand, obviously, there can be no real comparison of my effort to those selected examples of the several gentlemen named. For specific context, here are the links to the more advanced and much more aesthetically pleasing presentations made by experts or veterans of the hobby: https://prufrockian-gleanings.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-foraging-party-part-iii.html; https://olicanalad.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-battle-of-novara-6th-june-1513.html; https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/2023/11/battle-of-tel-nebi-mend-1274bce.html, and https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2015/07/athens-and-sparta-part-iii.html.
Pressed to place these five wargames in relation to each other, it seems safe to suggest that mine would be very far to the left on any two or three-dimensional representation. It appears that the only points of commonality are: 1) my effort was a wargame, 2) my project saw historical opponents face each other, and 3) my effort made use of a commercially available rulebook.
Normally, I think this would be the point where I would quote Simon Miller or maybe Rick Priestley about “having a different mindset” or “taking a different approach,” but I do not want to keep repeating myself. I do not want to keep reminding readers that my focus tends to be more on the game, functionality, and working within my available financial limits than any other factors or variables.
At the risk of starting a new topic and further distracting myself from the task at hand, I do wonder how or if the recently completed scenario would have played differently or if other questions might have arisen if painted and based miniatures (of any scale) or figures from the WoFun site had been employed.
What steps would you take, or what steps do you think need to be taken in order to make this recently completed scenario better?
Ironically, or perhaps obviously, if I call for a third meeting of Mongols, I think it will be more reasonable in terms of its size. Perhaps this “weight loss” would permit me to move and melee with the elite or guard units, the formations commanded by the senior general and inspired by the army banner. I’m also thinking that adding some foot units would have provided some additional “flavor” to the “recipe.” (There I go, using cooking/kitchen analogies again.) That admitted, given my relative lack of experience with these rules, this seems an ideal question for those who have played more games and so, have more experience.
I would certainly be interested to read any suggestions that these veterans would have to offer.
Based on this experience, are you planning to develop, play, and report on other TtS! wargames?
I will answer this question with a qualified yes. It might be interesting to set up a large Second or Third Punic War scenario. This would give me material to compare and contrast with a contest that was recently played using the Tactica II rules. Then again, it might be interesting to take a look at the history of Battle Day, and see if there is an engagement there that might be adapted for reconstruction with these rules.
So, yes, I should like to try another TtS! scenario or two.
Do you anticipate comments or questions from readers, and how timely or detailed will your responses be?
When the report has been edited to my satisfaction, it will be posted. An announcement will be made on three different forums or sites. The plan is to let members of The Society of Ancients know of the report’s existence. I am also going to provide a link to the members of the TRIUMPH! Forum, even though that rulebook was not used. (My thinking is that at least one reader/respondent might be interested in taking a look at the “minutes” of this second meeting.) In an attempt to generate more traffic, a link will also be placed on the Battle Reports Board over on the TtS! Forum.
Adding up the membership of these three groups, I arrive at a total of approximately 2,000. If I dare to presume that three to five percent of this combined membership clicks on the provided link and takes the time to read the post, then between 60 and 100 individuals will view my “work.” If I dare again and figure that as much as three to five percent of this number will take the time to type a comment or draft a question (perhaps even two questions), then I will need to prepare replies for between two and five ancient wargamers.
Based on previous experience and evidence, I do not think more than a comment or two will be made directly on my blog. There might (emphasis might) be more traffic and discussion on The Society of Ancients forum, but I cannot be certain of this. It seems more likely that the electronic conversation will take another or different route. The question mark is the newly joined group and its dedicated battle report forum. Based on previous experience and evidence, my hunch is that the number of readers or “readers” (i.e., those who click on the link but do not read, especially after seeing that there are no pictures of a traditional wargame) will be rather small, and the number of those who leave a comment or ask a question will be even smaller.
Checking on the status of the post within 24-48 hours of it going live seems a little over anxious. A more sensible and casual approach would see me logging back in to check after 5 or 6 days have passed. To be sure, I will make a point to acknowledge as well as thank all who comment and or remark. To be certain, I will dedicate more effort and time to answering any questions. The level of detail in my responses will depend on the nature of those inquiries.
_____________________________________
ORDERS OF BATTLE
Mongol Army (as represented by the White Rectangles)
Command 1
3 Divisions containing 15 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - all at Save 7+ and Cost of 6
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
3 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 98
Victory Medals: 21
Command 2
3 Divisions containing 15 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 10 at Save 7+ and Cost of 6; 5 at Save 6+ and Cost 7
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
3 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 113
Victory Medals: 21
Command 3
3 Divisions containing 15 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 10 at Save 7+ and Cost of 6; 5 at Save 6+ and Cost 7
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
3 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 113
Victory Medals: 21
Command 4
2 Divisions containing 10 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 10 at Save 7+ and Cost of 6
1 Division containing 5 units of cavalry, bow, veteran - 5 as Save 7+ and Cost of 11
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
3 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 133
Victory Medals: 26
Command 5
1 Division containing 5 units of Cuman auxiliaries / light cavalry, bow - all at Save 8+ and Cost of 5
1 attached mounted general
1 hero
Point Value: 31
Victory Medals: 7
Command 6
1 Division containing 4 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 4 at Save 6+ and Cost of 7
1 Division containing 5 units of cavalry, bow, veteran - 5 at Save 7+ and Cost of 11
1 Division containing 4 units of cavalry, lance, extra bow, veteran - 4 at Save 6+ and Cost of 13
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic & 1 of these being heroic and senior
1 Yak tail standard / Cost of 2
5 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 158
Victory Medals: 29
TOTALS
Point Value: 646
Victory Medals: 125 [equivalent morale breakpoint of 42]
Units: 78
Arrow “Volleys”: 234
Heroes: 18
Commanders/Generals: 16
Mongol Army (as represented by the Light Purple Rectangles)
Command A
3 Divisions containing 12 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - all at Save 7+ and Cost of 6
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
3 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 90
Victory Medals: 18
Command B
3 Divisions containing 14 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 9 at Save 7+ and Cost of 6; 5 at Save 6+ and Cost 7
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
4 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 108
Victory Medals: 20
Command C
3 Divisions containing 15 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 10 at Save 7+ and Cost of 6; 5 at Save 6+ and Cost 7
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
4 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 114
Victory Medals: 21
Command D
2 Divisions containing 10 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 10 at Save 7+ and Cost of 6
1 Division containing 5 units of cavalry, bow, veteran - 5 as Save 7+ and Cost of 11
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
4 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 134
Victory Medals: 26
Command E
2 Divisions containing 10 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 10 at Save 7+ and Cost of 6
1 Division containing 5 units of cavalry, bow, veteran - 5 as Save 7+ and Cost of 11
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic
4 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 134
Victory Medals: 26
Command F
1 Division containing 5 units of light cavalry, bow, veteran - 5 at Save 6+ and Cost of 7
1 Division containing 5 units of cavalry, bow, veteran - 5 at Save 7+ and Cost of 11
1 Division containing 4 units of cavalry, lance, extra bow, veteran - 4 at Save 6+ and Cost of 13
3 attached mounted generals, 1 of these being heroic & 1 of these being heroic and senior
1 Horse tail standard / Cost of 2
6 heroes distributed across the divisions
Point Value: 166
Victory Medals: 30
TOTALS
Point Value: 746
Victory Medals: 141 [equivalent morale breakpoint of 47]
Units: 85
Arrow “Volleys”: 255
Heroes: 25
Commanders/Generals: 18
