A Heaping Helping 

of Horse Bow

Staying inside my comfort zone of solo wargaming within the extensive ancient and or medieval periods of military history (3,000 BC/BCE to 1500 AD/CE), but opting to step outside of this zone with regard to the choice and then preparation of armies, I decided, after a series of discouraging developments in my so-called laboratory, to set up a large as well as fictional scenario wherein Suren Indo-Parthians would do battle with Kushans. Without further preamble, I present for the reader’s consideration several diagrams of how this large, and it must be stated, fictional contest was set up and played. Following the simple visuals (I suppose that one could generously call them ‘slides’), I present a section containing a variety of assessments, remarks and other thoughts. 

Thanks in advance for taking the time to visit this blog, and for reading this particular entry. It is appreciated. 

_________________________________

Commentary

As I have often found the drafting of the final sections of wargame reports and reports in general to be challenging if not frustrating, I thought I would ‘punt’ or start this difficult and laborious process by describing an event that occurred during one of the turns of the recently completed solo wargame. 

The Kushans were the active side, and in one sector of the field they were interested in further depleting the number of Indo-Parthian units on the tabletop. Using a decent command die, they managed to engage a unit of demoralized Indo-Parthian Horse Bow with a unit of Light Foot. These infantry were assisted by a troop of Elephants, who were arranged on the right flank of the Light Foot, thus supporting the assault. As if that were not enough, the Kushan local commander managed to move a unit of Horse Bow onto the flank of the engaged enemy stand. Now then, typically, Horse Bow bases have a combat factor of+3 versus enemy Foot. However, this unit of Horse Bow was demoralized, and it was also flanked as well as bothered by some supporting Elephants. By my figuring, the Horse Bow combat factor was zero. The Kushan Light Foot had a factor of +2 versus enemy Mounted. A kill seemed practically guaranteed, as the flanking unit would prevent the Indo-Parthian horse archers from making their escape. The dice gods or just plain luck thought differently, however. The Kushan unit rolled a 1 for a total of 3. The demoralized and flanked Indo-Parthians rolled a 6. The Kushan Light Foot was broken and removed. The flanking unit of Horse Bow was forced to recoil 1 MU per the new rules amendment list, and the demoralized but victorious Horse Bow was required to advance (i.e., pursue) 1 MU, as they had doubled the score of their opponent. To be certain, an unlikely development, but one that was mathematically possible with these rules. (It might be interesting to try and model this situation with other sets of rules and see what happens.) To be sure, this kind of reversal of fortune did not happen with any great frequency during the recently completed battle, but when similar events did take place, it did give me pause for thought in addition to brief moments of enjoyment that would probably be increased by a factor of four or more in friendly or competition games. 

Anyway, still struggling to develop the content for this final section, I thought I might try to incorporate the writings of two eminent members of The Society of Ancients. First, I should like to evaluate this latest effort by using the criteria listed by Simon Watson in “Tactica II: A Personal Perspective,” which appeared in Slingshot 329 (March/April 2020). I apologize in advance if I misinterpret or misunderstand any part of the respected gentleman’s writing. In his engaging article, Simon discussed the criteria by which he judged a set of ancient wargaming rules. The first ‘hoop’ or benchmark was playability. Simon was interested in a “fun game, sub-3 hours, with record keeping and other rule reference kept to a minimum.” Understanding that “fun” is a completely subjective term, I believe I can say that my solo contest wherein Tactica II was not used, provided for a fun game. If anything, it allowed me a chance to be distracted, to escape for a total of a little over 4 hours over the course of three consecutive days. The time required for my fictional battle can be attributed to the size of the armies that were involved and to the fact that I was playing solo. Essentially, this doubles the workload for any project. Record keeping and other admin matters might also be fairly described as subjective qualities. In my case, I did not have to refer to the QRS or the new rule amendments all that often. Given the freedom of choice with respect to choosing which melees to resolve, I did make use of colored chips to mark completed melees. I also had command tags on the tabletop, which identified the various formations (there were 17 in total) and informed or reminded me of when each would be considered demoralized. In my opinion, these playing aids and markers were not major detractors to the experience. Others may well disagree, as is their right. 

The second ‘hoop’ to jump through was “historical ‘feel’.” Again, there is a healthy level of subjectivity here with regard to understanding how ancient battles were fought. Simon and I might very well reach similar conclusions if we studied a section of narrative written by Polybius or Tacitus or another well known historian. We might also agree, generally, on the analysis done by a modern historian, such as Adrian Goldsworthy or Victor Davis Hanson. The interpretation of these writings and analyses to our respective tabletops is where we might differ. In some subject areas it might be by just a little; on other topics, it might be by quite a distance. Thinking about the recently completed wargame, I think it is hard to say - definitively - if the scenario was a representation of actual ancient warfare. To take one point as an example: I know that in Tactica II, horse archers are able to shoot arrows at enemy formations 15 inches away. There is a specific phase within the turn for this, and there are specific rules for determining how many arrows are loosed and how many might land on target. In stark contrast, horse archers in TRIUMPH! have a combat factor against enemy Foot and Mounted units. There is no separate sub-phase of a turn wherein these mounted warriors can ‘knock, extend, let fly,’ and repeat. At the risk of adding to the word count of this section as well as to the post, permit me to transcribe the entry for Horse Bow from the rules so that those unfamiliar with how this troop type is depicted can learn:

> Horse Bow [open order; 4 points]

Cavalry fighting with bows from horseback, usually with large ammunition 

supplies. Effective against other horse; less effective against close order foot but 

at little risk of them because of their ability to engage from beyond thrown-

weapon range. Examples are Skythians, Huns, Magyars, most Mongols, and 

many more. 

A mental review of other rules (Armati, Hail Caesar, IMPETVS, L’Art de la Guerre, and To The Strongest!) suggests that units of horse archers are usually given the ability to ‘reach out and touch some enemy’ from a distance. 

Simon’s third criteria is decision making. Here, the gentleman asks for or wants to be able to make “tactical decisions as well as develop general battle plans.” In essence, he wants to assume the role of army commander as opposed to sub-general, legate, chieftain, prince, or nameless officer in charge of this phalanx, etc. The TRIUMPH! rules certainly provide plenty of opportunity for decision making, as each command is led by a ‘general’ who gets to roll a d6 and then issue that many orders per turn. Elephants and other troop types are harder to manage, so they require 2 pips to move each turn. (This caused a few problems in the recently completed contest.) I suppose there was a degree of realism obtained or imagined during the later stages of the contest, as when a command became spread out due to various combats and their results, a roll of 2 on the command die would mean that the local commander would have to prioritize what needed to be done first or the ‘fastest with the mostest.’ This decision making would be under the larger umbrella of the overall army commander. Admittedly, there was not all that much of a formalized or carefully thought out plan (by either side) in this recent solo contest. My primary goals were to set up another largish battle, conduct more testing of the recently released rule amendments, and fight with two armies that I did not have very much experience with using on my tabletop. While I have commanded elephants, cataphracts, and horse archers before, it is rather a different matter when one  is leading armies containing quite a few of these types against an army of similar composition. 

With regard to Simon’s fourth and fifth criteria - aesthetics and character - I suppose the sensible thing to do is plead nolo contendere, and move on from there. Then again, it might prove interesting, at least in a comparison/contrast kind of way, to research and then estimate how much it would cost to produce 417 points of Indo-Parthians in 15mm scale and then in 25/28mm scale. As a third option, I wonder what the price tag would be for the same number of Indo-Parthians using WoFun models. (See https://wofungames.com/.) 

The second venerable Society member from whom I will draw upon in reviewing the relative strengths and weaknesses of my latest ‘case’ is an erudite gentleman by the name of Anthony Clipsom. By happy accident, I happened across (again) his thought-provoking “Game Mechanics and Realism” piece which was published in Slingshot 337 (July/August 2021). At the end of this engaging and admittedly personal article, Anthony offers a 4-point “fuzzy subjective rubric.” (Sidebar: Given that this ‘grading scale’ is several years old as of this typing, it might be interesting to see if there has been any change made to it and what the reason or reasons were.) If I understand the basics of this much discussed general topic correctly, then a scenario or tabletop battle should be: 1) “moderately gamey - having good mechanics that are connected”; 2) “fairly realistic - producing plausible outcomes and historically reconcilable narratives”; 3) “very playable - requiring little maintenance and a reasonable time frame to reach a conclusion,” and 4) “pretty permissive - meaning that its modifiable and flexible.” 

Taking each of these in order and striving to be brief, it appears that my large TRIUMPH! scenario ticked all the boxes. Granted the force by which the pencil or marker was used in ticking these boxes might vary, but even so. For as much as my opinion is relevant, the mechanics in these rules are decent and are connected. However, I maintain that it is odd to use Horse Bow units without having to resolve arrow volleys, no matter how disjointed these flights of projectiles might be. On ‘Count 2,’ it seems arguably realistic that a rather large contest involving elephants, cataphracts, and horse archers is going to see lots of ‘to-ing and fro-ing’ as well as lots of trampling and scampering, etc. Interestingly or ironically, in the recently played solo wargame, the battle did not go to the ‘bigger battalions’ - which is what one might think, but went to the army that rolled better dice on the day or days that turns were completed. The example reported at the start of this final section was not very plausible, but it was possible. It just remains how to blend this exception into the story of the battle. Had there been four or five player-generals participating, it seems safe to suggest that there would have been four or five stories as to what transpired in that particular area of the tabletop. I think I have pretty much covered the third point with my ‘analysis’ of Simon’s piece and through the distribution of accounts of the engagement. If the scenario was not playable, then there would not be a report. Instead, there might be a ‘paper’ examining the reasons why it was found to be so. With regard to the last point raised by Anthony, the rules have been officially amended by those with the power to do so. As to other modifications, well, it appears that these same individuals can take on the helmeted, masked, and sometime baton-wielding appearance of gatekeepers. During the recently staged contest, I found myself considering additional house rules and or variations on some themes. A short, work-in-progress list would include the following: a) varying the ability of commanders of generals [both in terms of melee modifier and command radius]; b) varying the demoralization point of commands [25 percent, 35 percent, 40 percent, etc.]; c) varying the points value of commands [the rules permit a 24-point command or group; what would happen if a 60-point command was deployed?], and d) further experimenting with what else happens when a command of group becomes demoralized. This last tinkering would, I think, have to be supported by at least six historical examples. 

In summation, it was a decent solo wargame. It provided several hours of distraction, as well as more food for thought. Is it foolish to hope that this post provides 20 minutes or so of distraction to a reader, as well as some inspiration for a related project? In fact, having mentally listed a handful of different rules during the drafting of this section, I cannot help but consider trying a similar contest using a few of those rules. It might be interesting to compare and contrast how they did when these particular armies faced off against each other. Then again, it might prove as interesting to stay with the same rules, but test out the ideas for some ‘house amendments.’ However, knowing my attention span when it comes to solo wargaming, I would not be at all surprised to find that my next interest or project has nothing at all to do with elephants, cataphracts, or horse archers.

_________________________________

Orders of Battle (for those who may be interested)

 

Suren Indo-Parthians

Command A - Scythian allies

10 x Horse Bow, 02 x Knights (1 being the sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command B - 

01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation), 02 x Elephants, 02 x Horde, 02 x Skirmishers, 02 x Rabble, 02 x Light Spear, 02 x Bow Levy

Command C - 

11 x Horse Bow, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command D - 

11 x Horse Bow, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command E - 

03 x Javelin Cavalry, 03 x Cataphracts (1 being the sub-general or command stand of formation), 03 x Horse Bow, 03 x Elephants

Command F - 

12 x Cataphracts (1 being the Army General as well as command stand of formation)

Command G - 

01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation), 03 x Elephants, 03 x Horde, 03 x Skirmishers, 02 x Rabble, 02 x Light Spear, 02 x Bow Levy

Command H -

11 x Horse Bow, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command I - 

11 x Horse Bow, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)

Kushans

Command 1 - 

01 x Horse Bow, 05 x Elephants (1 being the sub-general or command stand of formation), 06 x Light Foot

Command 2 - 

11 x Horse Bow, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command 3 - 

11 x Horse Bow, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command 4 - 

05 x Horse Bow, 07 x Elephants (1 being the Army General and command stand of formation)

Command 5 - The Subject Indians contingent

06 x Heavy Foot, 06 x Bow Levy, 03 x Javelin Cavalry, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command 6 - 

12 x Cataphracts (1 being the sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command 7 - 

11 x Horse Bow, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)

Command 8 - 

11 x Horse Bow, 01 x Cataphracts (sub-general or command stand of formation)