Camels, Nobles,

Kavallarioi, & Skutatoi

Choosing to participate in a different kind of Christmas rush as the calendar pages neared their collective endpoint, I scrambled to cobble together a third Tactica II solo wargame. Like the previous two engagements or experiments, this was a fictional battle featuring historical opponents. As the title of this last post of 2024 suggests, the Byzantine army list provided on page L17 of the spiral-bound rulebook was studied and referenced in conjunction with the Arab (Conquest) army list on page L18. With regard to the further establishment of a setting, it might be advanced that the encounter took place in the fourth or fifth month of 632 AD on ground that bore a strong resemblance to the landscape of Callinicum (531 CE). My tabletop was “decorated” to look like the map provided on page 28 of “Callinicum Using Big Battle DBA,” an informative collaboration written by Sue Laflin, Paul Glover, Ian Tanner, and David Latham, which was published in the July 2009 issue of Slingshot. In point of fact, it could be argued that the idea for this very large solo wargame originated after stumbling across, reading, and quite enjoying Dr. Paul Innes’ excellent article, “Callinicum 531 CE — Tactica II in Scotland,” which was discovered on pages 33-35 of that same issue.

Facts and Figures

As per usual, the terrain of my tabletop was functional and unremarkable. Along one short-edge or side (the reader could call it the north end of the battlefield), I marked the near bank of a wide river. This was not the Euphrates, but an anonymous watercourse that did serve as a sort of anchor for the Byzantine left, which should, hopefully, be readily visible in the accompanying diagram. Some six feet (or 183 centimeters) to the south of this wide river was the first elevation line, indicating a slight incline or gradual slope of approximately four meters. Approximately 20 inches (or 51 centimeters) further south was another gradual slope of approximately the same height. A third and final incline or slope, bringing the height of the ground at the far end of the tabletop to around 12 meters or approximately 36-40 feet above river bank level, was 15 inches (or 38 centimeters) beyond the second irregular line. 

The Byzantine left wing consisted of 11 units of Skutatoi, organized in three divisions and arranged in two lines. The main body of eight units of foot with integrated archers, was screened by several units of skirmishers armed with javelins or slings. Five divisions of heavy cavalry were drawn up in the center, and two divisions of light horse were deployed on the right wing. Again, there were two lines. The heavy cavalry contingents were represented by 25 units. Most of these formations were Kavallarioi. Four units of formed Hun light cavalry along with some skirmishers formed the first line on the far right. These veteran and feared horsemen were supported by several units of light cavalry drawn from Illyria. According to my calculations, the points value of this “miniature” force was 8,874. The number of Massed unit figures was 1,215. The army breakpoint then, was determined to be 607. In addition to the “marker” division commanders, there was an army general (valued at 24 figures) and two subordinates. These leaders were valued at 14 and 10 figures, respectively. 

Opposing the Huns, the Arabs deployed nine units of light horse in two lines on their far left. To the right of these javelin-wielding troopers there was squadron after squadron of Nobles. Four divisions containing 18 units were arranged in two lines. These elite warriors rode with a small division of camel-riding Bedouins, as well as an allied division of Persian heavy cavalry. The Arab right (resting on the aforementioned river bank) was assigned to the foot component of this large army. Two divisions of infantry, containing seven units of Tribesmen, four units of Ghazis, and two largish units of skirmisher bowmen, were placed here. The overall commander of this impressive host positioned himself and his entourage behind this wing. His excellency was accompanied by a small unit of favored Noble heavy cavalry. For the sake of comparison, the Arab (Conquest) army added up to 7,954 points and contained 1,249 Massed unit figures. Per the rules, this meant that the Arab formations would run away when (or if) they had lost 624 figures. Three generals were charged with command and control of this unusually large force. These officers had figure values of 30, 18, and 12, respectively. 

Opposing Intentions

Standing behind the deployed Byzantine army, I could not help but notice the decided advantage that I had with respect to bow-armed troops. Based on some quick math(s), it appeared that something in the region of 210 d6 could be rolled during the missile fire phase of a game turn. If I played my cards right, then perhaps this unusually high number of d6 could be doubled. Even though the majority of my army was mounted on fine horses, it appeared that my plan for battle required many of my units to stand their ground and wait for the enemy to come to them. Anyway, as my strength was in the center, it seemed that this was where much of the fighting would take place. It seemed that this was where the battle would be won or lost. 

Changing sides, I walked back and forth along the Arab long-edge of the fictional battlefield. With the exception of a small division of Persian heavy cavalry and a handful of skirmishers, I was dreadfully outmatched with regard to archery. As a result, speed and decisive action would have to be the orders of the day. My Nobles would have to limit the time they were the focus of enemy arrows. My infantry contingents would have to do the same. More walking back and forth did not produce any brilliant plans or ploys. It was decided to order a general and as rapid as possible advance. I would engage and occupy the enemy army on the wings while the contest was decided (hopefully in my favor) in the center.  

Description via Diagram

Stipulating to the fact that simple color maps go only so far, I thought I would include a couple of links to traditional battle reports featuring Byzantines. I understand the risk here, as the reader might be so distracted as to forget to continue with this post. Anyway, please see: https://onesidedminiaturewargamingdiscourse.blogspot.com/2024/09/maurikian-byzantine-versus-arab-conquest.html and https://onesidedminiaturewargamingdiscourse.blogspot.com/2018/10/nikephorian-byzantines-versus-early.html. 

Comments

Initially, I considered setting up a large battle involving Byzantines and Sassanids (Later) - sourced from page L19 - as I have something of a soft spot or preference for ancient armies containing elephants. On further study, it appeared that this proposed fictional but historical clash between Byzantines and Sassanids would see a great number of heavy cavalry units armed with bows on the tabletop. I wondered if this kind of contest would be more static than fluid, and be witness to a number of turns wherein volleys of arrows were exchanged as both sides tried to wear down the other, or perhaps upset command and control by inflicting ‘missile halts.’ On the other hand, I wondered if the integral bows would be used once or simply ignored in favor of getting to grips with the mounted enemy. Even though I decided to use a different historical pairing and so, not enjoy the figurative sights and sounds of representative pachyderms on my model battlefield, the resulting solo wargame was still quite engaging and enjoyable. 

To some degree, this positive experience can be attributed to the rather enormous if not admittedly unusual size of this fictional contest. It would be fair to remark that this third Tactica II experiment conducted in the last months of 2024 was the largest that I have ever attempted. (Based on the very small number of reviews pertaining  to previous Tactica II projects, I am fairly sure that I will be chastised for this “monstrosity,” as well as reminded that the vetted rules are oriented towards more reasonable games. Understanding that opinion/those opinions, I wonder if there is a document or evidence somewhere of the largest Tactica II game ever played?) This number of points was able to fit on my tabletop as I again reduced the listed dimensions given for 25/28mm figures. This simple adjustment was consistently applied. I do not think this tinkering adversely impacted the rules or the flow of the game. 

The massive size of each army did mean that almost the full length of my tabletop was utilized, but it seems that “wall to wall” or “edge to edge” deployments are not that unusual. The resulting lack of maneuver space did not seem to impact the progress of the wargame. (Based on my limited experience, it could be remarked that Tactica II wargames are not about maneuver.) It seems that here, too, some historical parallels can be drawn. For example, a brief review of the historical engagements selected for The Society of Ancients Battle Day suggests that - with the possible exception of Kadesh (1274 BC) - ancient or medieval battles were rather simple and straightforward affairs. 

The size of each army also meant that a second line of units had to be established. For the Byzantines at least, this deployment appeared to be historical. Reading the notes found in the Book 3 (476 AD to 1071 AD) of the DBM Army Lists, the Maurikian Byzantine army “fought in two lines separated in depth.” As with my other Tactica II wargames, I took some time with this third project to consider the options and possibilities had another ruleset and its supporting army lists been employed. It might prove interesting then, to stage a similarly large engagement with Hail Caesar, To The Strongest!, or TRIUMPH! Anyway. 

Turning to a brief review and or critique of the plans made by each army general, it seems that the Byzantine commander decided at the outset to be more reactive in the engagement. I do not think he was mistaken to rely on or hope for the best from his numerous archers. I also do not think that he was in error to gamble on success being achieved in the center of the field/tabletop. Looking back over the notes kept for each turn of play, the Byzantine leaders were disappointed by the poor shooting of their integrated archers. The cavalry units in the center put up a hard fight, but were eventually worn down by an enemy with more units of better quality (i.e., Elite versus Veteran). 

On the Arab side of the table, their various formations or commands followed orders and made that general advance. Fortunately, the Byzantines were not able to inflict a lot of damage or disrupt the advance with ‘missile halt’ markers. The ensuing close combats were prolonged and bloody, but the Arabs were eventually able to prevail. I confess to being somewhat surprised and then pleased by the performance of their infantry contingent. 

____________________________

More Facts & Figures

This quite large solo wargame took approximately six hours to complete. According to notes, the 11 turns required about 350 minutes. Of course, there was some variation as the early turns were spent moving quite a lot of units and checking ranges, while the latter turns went a little faster due to the fact that there were not as many viable formations left on the tabletop. I understand, from reading the various and excellent briefings offered by Simon Watson, that the wargames he enjoys with his colleagues are completed in about two or three hours. To be certain, had this very large fictional battle been attended by six player-generals (three commanders for each side), I believe that the time could have been reduced by as much as 30 or 40 percent. 

As is often the case with Tactica II wargames, quite a lot of dice were rolled during this “miniature” battle. For example, if I take 12 units of Byzantine heavy cavalry, and each unit has a strength of 27 figures, then this could mean that 108 dice (9 figures per front rank times 12 formations) would have to be rolled in a single melee phase. In combat against the Arab Nobles, 5s or 6s would result in casualties. How many times do 5s and 6s turn up when 108 dice are rolled? If an equal number of Arab units are struggling with the Byzantines, then there might be another ‘bushel basket’ of 108 dice rolled in the same melee phase. However, in this case, the Arabs would be looking for 4s, 5s, or 6s to produce losses in the Byzantine regiments.  

Reviewing the turn record notes, it was found that the Arabs won the move option roll seven times and were able to dictate the direction melees were resolved three times. 

The first unit to be destroyed/routed was a unit of Arab light cavalry. This happened on Turn 6 of the wargame. 

Investigating the casualties suffered by each side, it was determined that the Skutatoi accounted for 252 figures or 42 percent of the Byzantine losses, while the Kavallarioi accounted for 292 figures or 49 percent. On the Arab side of these bloody equations, the greatest damage was inflicted against the Nobles. Seven units were broken, which represented 189 figures or 30 percent of the army’s determined breaking point. 

____________________________

More Tinkering with a Toolbox

The following ‘bullet points’ are offered in no particular order. They are simply a collection of observations, thoughts, and questions that resulted from the recently completed solo wargame. To a degree, some of what follows echoes the ‘ideas’ and ‘work’ posted in late June of 2021, when I shared “Tactica II: Testing and Tinkering” with a small audience of followers and casual readers. To another degree, what follows might deserve further experimentation and investigation, as I can cite the ‘blanket’ or ‘common sense permission’ given by Dr. Paul Innes. In “Tactica II: A Ruleset Analysis,”  published in the May/June 2020 issue of Slingshot, the gentleman explained: “Another comment is worth making at this point: change things if you don’t like them. Tactica II is, as noted earlier, something of a toolbox. If you want to try out alternatives, swap out some of the components.”

— On a number of occasions, an Arab Noble unit would engage with a unit of Byzantine heavy cavalry. Each unit had a strength of 27 “figures” which allowed it to roll nine dice in the melee phase of the game turn. Typically, the Arabs were looking for results of 4-6, while the Byzantines needed scores of 5 or 6. I am certainly no probability expert, but recent experience showed that this kind of melee can take quite a while to resolve. I found myself thinking about the Fatigue rules and associated unit markers contained within Armati. I also found myself thinking about the writing of Charles Grant. On pages 111 and 113 of his excellent Wargame Tactics, this well known gentleman related: 

As with the infantry, the cavalry battle had been hard fought, and ended after two 

moves or melee had bought no result one way or the other, and both sides had to 

retire the prescribed two moves. (It will be noted that a cavalry fight is considered 

more exhausting than an infantry one, and lasts but two periods as opposed to 

three from infantry.) Both cavalry and infantry had now to rest and reorganize 

before again taking part in any fighting—four periods for infantry and six for 

cavalry.

A little more context is needed here. Mr. Grant was describing the turns in an English Civil War wargame. It seems reasonable to suggest that cavalry in the ancient eras would be just as susceptible to exhaustion. 

—Early on in the engagement and in a few instances, I found myself running into command and control issues. I wondered if I might or should develop some kind of process that would allow units outside of a determined command radius to take a control test. This might afford light cavalry and or light infantry formations a little more flexibility. 

—During the bloody contest between the opposing formations of infantry, I encountered what appeared to be something unusual, though I did recall having encountered this kind of situation before. Instead of a diagram, I will try to illustrate the episode with text and then some additional explanation. 

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB   HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

     KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

The line of Bs represents a regiment of Skutatoi. The line of Hs represents its neighboring unit. The line of Ks represents a unit of Arab Tribesmen. There is much more contact area between B and K than there is between H and K. However, according the the melee or melee area rules, the Byzantine regiment H is allowed to bring its full combat weight agains the enemy Arab unit. In this particular case, this amounted to 12 dice, which needed to score between 4 and 6 to inflict losses. The Arab unit would have to split its melee dice between the two enemy units. In resolving these melee areas, I could not help but think about the restrictions for massed units armed with bows. Their ability to score hits is rather constrained by the number of front-rank figures that are directly in line with an enemy formation. (This procedure brings up the separate issue or question of firing arcs and how or if they should be applied.) Anyway, the apparent imbalance just struck me as odd. How is it that the full combat ability of a unit can be used when less than 10 percent of that unit’s frontage is in contact with an enemy stand? 

—As the wargame progressed, there were a few occasions when severely depleted units managed to pass their ‘Fates Test’ and stay on the field for one or two more turns. In one melee, both units were driven past their determined unit breakpoint. The Byzantines had absorbed three kills. The Arabs had lost two figures. The Byzantines passed their ‘Fates Test.’ I proceeded to check on the Arab formation. Surprisingly, they were able to remain on the tabletop as well. The rules were consulted, as I worried about getting it wrong. It appeared that my interpretation was acceptable. (I await clarification or correction on this point from more experienced players.) On further review, I wondered about the efficacy of using the ‘Fates Test.’ In future games, I might take this additional process out or perhaps modify it by unit quality as well as use 3d6 or a 20-sided die instead of 2d6.

—Ideally, I should have liked to deploy some light infantry archers with the Tribesmen and Ghazi warbands. However, I was concerned about these units being caught in a ‘bad position’ by the advance and attack of enemy foot. I wondered if I could or should draft some house rule or amendment that would permit light infantry archers to withdraw behind friendly heavier foot troops. I wondered if I could modify the existing rules covering heavy cavalry as they retreated from danger. 

—Along the same line of allowing light infantry archers to withdraw through and behind friendly troops, I began to think about a broader application of interpenetration. In studying the notes of the Maurikian Byzantine list on page 17 of the aforementioned DBM book, I noted the following: “Infantry adopted 16-ranks deep formation only to allow the passage through the intervals of friendly cavalry.” 

—Due to an oversight on my part, I forgot to move an exposed Byzantine sub-general out of a potentially dangerous position. Unfortunately, a pursuing unit of Arab Nobles was able to capture or kill this leader, and more figures were added to the already high total on the Byzantine casualty list. Almost immediately, I started thinking about a control test or similar procedure that would provide exposed or threatened general officers a chance of escaping enemy formations that breakthrough the line or pursue. 

____________________________

Final Grade

Recycling the simple rubric employed when assessing the previous Egyptian vs Hittite contest, I think this seventh century struggle merits a score of 7.5 or possibly even an 8. There was a degree of spectacle to it, if only in terms of size. It was also fairly historical, in that the opposing forces were matched in both time frame and geographical region. The terrain, such as it was, also added a layer of historical appeal. Accepting the numerous instances when the temptation to tinker arose, this solo wargame helped to reinforce my familiarity and confidence with playing the rules as written. However, this is not to say that the recent contest was completely free of silly or small errors. It is simply to note that there were far fewer noticeable mistakes or periods of discomfort with regard to rule interpretations. As for battle plans and related abilities as a player-general (i.e., dice rolling), well, that is an entirely different matter, is it not?