PONTICS vs ROMANS
Revisiting my first published ancients wargame report
Absent the written record, I readily confess that I would be at a complete loss to recall the generalities and especially any details regarding the first ancients wargame I set up, played, typed a report about, and then sent the finished product in for consideration by the editor of a hobby publication. Fortunately, I have the July/August 1996 issue (Number 82) of MWAN, the Midwest Wargamer’s Association Newsletter, wherein Hal Thinglum was kind enough to include my very first and admittedly or embarrassingly amateur effort, which was titled, “SPRINGTIME IN PONTUS: An Ancients Wargame Report.”
To be certain, the simplest course of action would have been to repeat the battle as described. Well, not as an exercise, but to set up a similar field and armies, and then see how much (or how little) my tabletop generalship had improved over the course of almost three decades. Various other courses of action could have been considered as well. For example, I could refight the scenario using a different set of rules. For another example, I could refight the scenario using larger forces containing various additional troop types, at least according to the rules selected and the respective army lists attached to those rules. Anyway.
The following maps and their captions provide a basic narrative of how this return to the early stage of my ancients wargaming ‘career’ was conducted. Acknowledging that the following introduction is redundant, this fictional but historical scenario was played using the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules. For further context and or to establish a kind of setting, let us say that it is late spring of 96 BC/BCE, and a sizable Roman army has been sent to deal with the problem that is Pontus.
Great battle. It is interesting to see that the legionaries took so few losses and yet the Romans collapsed.
ReplyDeleteG -
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for taking the time to investigate and offer remarks.
I suppose it was a 'great' battle in terms of points and table size, but as I commented, it was not such a 'great' battle in terms of emotional satisfaction.
The evaluation section was a bit rushed and so I regret that a bit. I agree that it was and is odd - under these rules - that Romans would suffer so few losses to their proven legions and yet experience a morale crisis.
While sufficient if not lauded for tournaments and other play/scenarios, one cannot easily depict the three-line deployment of legions with these rules. It should also be noted that with other rules, the auxiliaries and light troops do not have as much weight with regard to fighting ability and morale. Tactica II for instance, does not count light troops as important to the overall morale state. Armati does not consider light troops and similar 'key' units in the majority of cases. Anyway, thanks again for weighing in. Appreciated.
Hmmm, interesting. As G says, and you hint at, it seems a bit odd (and/or dissatisfying!) that the Romans could be over their breakpoint despite having lost fewer troops. Like you, I enjoy seeing the three Roman lines on the tabletop, even if they are somewhat abstracted.
ReplyDeleteI think I do have a copy of Triumph around somewhere. Perhaps I should look at it and see if there is any explanation, but I expect it is a carry-over from its DBx roots.
Cheers,
Aaron
Cheers Aaron and quite so. Given my comparative lack of experience (hours played and games played, etc.) with these particular rules, it occurs to me that I have yet to develop an appreciation for them and their design approach, philosophy and so forth. Again, it was rather unusual and a little disappointing that the Roman legions would 'quit the field' before a majority of them were able to wield their collective gladii. (I hope I have that plural right - it's been a while since high school Latin!) On the contrary, the Romans suffered more unit losses. The vast majority of these casualties were not legionaries.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, there is something inherently satisfying about the presence and look (accepting that the modeling may be very different depending on the tabletop) of a proper Roman legion.
Given your recent painting accomplishments and ongoing campaign (and other duties), I would guess that you have more than enough on your plate at the moment. My guess is that the DBx family of rules does not provide for or require a three-line Roman legion either. This formation or its ability is factored in, is abstracted as well.
Thanks for taking the time to follow up and comment. Appreciated.
(I'm not certain why my first comment lists my username as G...)
ReplyDeleteI do not think that your evaluation is wrong, but I wonder if the criteria for the game's end could be modified. Perhaps more weight on battleline troops and less on the others?
Cheers Greg,
ReplyDeleteNeither am I. Technology can be a funny thing some times . . . and a bit scary too!
Zounds! That is quite the alphabetical list of blogs you follow. I did not count (unfortunate that the list cannot be numbered), but my guess is that there is a blog for every day of the year. Or it seems to be enough.
Being a tinkerer of sorts, I do suppose I could have easily modified the demoralization rules or other aspects as well. (For example and on a tangential note, I am presently engaged with an Italian Wars scenario, but the skirmishers armed with handguns (arquebusiers - sp?) do not shoot. Instead, they have a simple combat factor versus enemy foot or mounted. Anyway.)
Yes indeed. If another Romans vs Pontics game is set up using these rules, I shall take a few days to draft scenario-specific rules which will likely give more weight to the legionaries, and hopefully generate more of the classical or expected contest between phalanx and legion.
Good gaming El Grego.