Pondering Permutations of Paraetacene

Unless I am very much mistaken, the first issue of Slingshot (The Journal of the Society of Ancients) to include an article about the 317 BCE battle of Paraetacene (or Paraitakene if you prefer), was the March 2004 issue - Number 233. Starting on page 13 and continuing to page 21, a learned fellow by the name of Scott Robertson provided readers with “The Campaign and Battle of Paraetacene 317 BC.” (The drawings accompanying this well-written piece were done by one Leroy Simpson.) Anyway, in search of a bit of redemption after a disappointing solo scenario was discontinued and dismantled after just four turns of play (more about this frustrating experience and perceived if not actual failure later .  . . maybe), I remained focused on or preoccupied with staging some sort of Successor contest on my tabletop. Given the unfortunate turn of recent events, the thinking was to produce a generalized or multi-subject blog post instead of one of my usual wargame reports. This approach would save me the embarrassment as well as associated “trauma” of a possible second disaster. Out of curiosity, I decided to compare and contrast Scott’s order of battle interpretation, specifically the left wing of Eumenes’ line, with the interpretation provided by the prolific and well-established Society member Duncan Head. In the July/August 2018 issue of Slingshot (Number 319), this veteran ancients wargamer offered readers an engaging narrative titled, “Paraetacene Writ Large with DBMM.”

To my slight surprise but also measurable sense of relief, it was found that the two orders of battle (the former drafted for use with Warhammer Ancient Battles and the latter drawn up for use with DBMM - obviously) were essentially identical. Scott’s list was heavily footnoted, which was helpful. Duncan’s list did not contain footnotes, but specified what troop type and number of elements should be used to represent the various contingents on this wing. The only difference and possible point of contention was with regard to the number of pachyderms deployed as an angled or curved screen for this particular flank. As my intention was not to refight the historical battle but merely to contemplate using the excellent work of others as a kind of foundational template, I was not worried about finding the correct answer to the weighty question of how many elephants were in the sector or with preparing an argument to defend my position on the subject. What I was more interested in, was how I might use the excellent information gathered and produced by Scott and Duncan (as well as others) to develop ideas and orders of battle for tabletop scenarios that would be comparable to Paraetacene. For example, how would I go about developing an ARMATI (2nd Edition) scenario based on this historical engagement? For another example, what would a Hail Caesar treatment of this contest look like, and how would it play? For a third and final example, as the list of rulebooks available for wargaming in this extensive period is quite long (and this is objectively a good thing, even if the variety can be a little overwhelming to those new to the hobby), how would the TRIUMPH! rules and associated free army lists handle a similar struggle of this size or even larger between competing Successor generals?  

Before proceeding, I should like to acknowledge that Paraetacene was the historical engagement selected for Battle Day 2018, the annual event (debuting in 2004) hosted by The Society of Ancients. In the “rush to research” this blog post, I read or at least scanned multiple Battle Day reports submitted by those who were fortunate to be in attendance. I read and then read again, the Battle Pack provided by the inestimable Richard Lockwood in the January/February 2018 issue of Slingshot. I also reviewed the recap or round up offered by Adam Hayes in a discussion thread on the Society’s Forum. I studied the analysis and remarks provided by Professor Philip Sabin in his engaging book, LOST BATTLES - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World. I spent quite a bit of time poring over the text and pictures of Mark Fry’s blog post about the day. (Please see https://despertaferres.com/2018/04/13/society-of-ancients-batteday-2018-paraetacene-317b-c/) In a perfect world, I should very much have liked to either participate in the refights that employed ARMATI, or Hail Caesar, or L’Art de la Guerre (ADLG), and would have very much appreciated as well as enjoyed reading the detailed reports resulting from these reconstructions. How did these game organizers depict the left wing of the army of Eumenes anyway? For that matter, how did these game organizers assemble and deploy the other contingents that were present on that so-very-long-ago day? Having some time on my hands, and again, trying to replace or simply erase the memory of that unsatisfactory scenario, I thought I might make an attempt or two (or even three) at drafting my own orders of battle for a contest that was comparable to Paraetacene. 

______________________________

Unpacking the Pachyderms 

For the sake of experimentation, I decided to increase the reported (and debated) number of elephants covering the Eumenid left wing by a factor of 1.5. This would give me approximately 60 animals. (If one accepts the excerpt from Tactics 9, then it is possible that there would be a phalanx-commander (phalangarches) in charge of these elephants. See page 33 of Professor Brian Campbell’s Greek and Roman Military Writers - Selected Readings.) This multiplication presented something of a challenge, as none of the rulebooks mentioned contains or establishes a model or number of models equals actual elephant(s) scale. As a test (not verified by actual wargaming or corroborated by others), I thought I might determine that elephant stands in the ARMATI rules represented 12 of these wrinkly-skinned and floppy-eared animals. To depict the increased number of 60 pachyderms then, I would have to prepare five stands or units. Rather liking what I read in the May 2010 issue of Slingshot (Number 270), I thought I would borrow the excellent ideas of Phil Halewood and Martin Charlesworth. These experienced ARMATI player-generals and rule tamperers combined an elephant stand or unit with a skirmishers or light infantry stand or unit, which represented the “protective cloud or screen” of light troops that work in tandem with a group of elephants. On a related point or points, I also found the changes pertaining to ‘elephants vs phalanxes’ and ‘elephants vs cavalry’ intriguing. In fact, I confess to being rather tempted to set up a fictional battle featuring double-size armies (Epic Unit Sizes of course), and try out these various elephant amendments. I also think it would be interesting to try out their ideas about command and control. (‘Moderate sigh’ - Add yet another “task” to my figurative, long, and ever-changing wargaming list . . .) 

To be certain, it has been some time since I last staged a Hail Caesar scenario on my non-traditional tabletop. That admitted, and after reviewing the ‘useful rules’ regarding elephants, phalanxes, as well as pikes, and after looking over the appropriate army lists in the Biblical & Classical Supplement, I am thinking that four models or stands of elephants (so a scale of 1:15) might be workable for the screen covering the left wing of Eumenes’ deployment. I have not decided if these elephants should be organized into a divisional command, assigned to other divisions, or treated as their own commands. There are, I allow, decent arguments to be made for each position. 

While I have some experience with the TRIUMPH! rules, I do not have very much when it comes to employing the ‘Elephant Screen’ Battle Card. Based on a quick review of that particular Battle Card, it seems that an amendment could be drafted that permitted friendly elephants to work with cavalry. Then again, there could be an argument established for preparing four or five bases/stands (either a 1:15 or 1:12 representative scale), and then “smothering” these animals with additional stands of skirmishers. (However, there might be a small problem with indicating the commander of these mixed troop types.) In my limited opinion, this particular set of rules presents a number of interesting challenges of problems when it comes to staging and refighting historical battles. In the past, Rod Cain has been very active with regard to producing YouTube shorts and tutorials about these rules. He has refought Hastings and Hattin on impressive tables, and posted educational and well-received videos of these wargames. I wonder as well as hope, if at some point in the not-too-distant future, the knowledgeable gentleman and staunch advocate/champion for TRIUMPH! will post a video about Paraetacene, or perhaps Raphia, or perhaps Magnesia, or maybe even Cunaxa, which is the historical contest to be refought at Battle Day 2026. 

Here Comes the Cavalry

Deferring to Duncan’s material, it was noted that approximately 1,700 horse on this left wing were categorized or classed as LH (light horse). A group of around 1,550 were classed as Cv (cavalry), and a sub-set of about 150 men were categorized as Kn (knights).  There were additional characteristics or qualities listed, such as (O) for “ordinary” or Irregular and Regular, but none of this “chrome” is all that helpful when deciding how to represent these formations or regiments with the TRIUMPH! rules and lists. A quick check of https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home (these were then copied and pasted for possible future reference or use) informed that I would have just two cavalry troop types to choose from if or when assuming the role of Eumenes. The first type was Knights, further identified or described as “xystophoroi.” The second type was Javelin Cavalry, which were “Persian or Thracian horsemen armed with javelins.” Operating under this army list constraint, it would appear that a prospective player-general could prepare and deploy one to three bases of Knights. My apologies, I should have prefaced this paragraph be explaining that TRIUMPH! does not have a representative figure or ground scale. (Rod has posted a brief video explaining this decision or approach.) The remainder of the mounted contingents on this wing would be Javelin Cavalry. At this point in the project or thinking, I confess that I am not sure exactly how many bases or stands there should be to represent the Arachosians. Then again, as stated previously, my intention here is not to refight the historical battle. My general aim is to figure out how I might set up and play a better Successor scenario, and which set of rules would help me accomplish that desired end. Although this troop type is not included on either the Antigonid or Eumenes list, I am toying with the idea of allowing Elite Cavalry, Horse Bow, and even Bad Horse to be a part of this scenario, that is, if the final decision is made to use the TRIUMPH! rules.

Moving to the ARMATI rules, a review of the Eumenid army list on page H of the spiral-bound booklet informed that there were two types of HC or heavy cavalry available, along with a generic type of LC or light cavalry. Unlike TRIUMPH!, the ARMATI rules provide an approximate figure or unit scale. For as much as I have thought about it, it occurs to me that I could depict the cavalry on this wing with six or seven units, stands or bases. On further review, I might be able to double that number, so that the cavalry from East Iran would be depicted with three stands or units of heavy cavalry. The representation of Eudamos and his agema is another one of those challenges to be overcome or problems to be solved. The ARMATI rules do allow for the designation of veteran units, so maybe the agema and the advance bodyguard could be integrated with a line unit. It is something to think about. Again, as I am not planning a traditional refight of this battle, it would be quite simple to inflate the listed strength of the various contingents to somewhere in the region of 1,000 to 1,500 men each. 

With its three unit sizes of Standard, Large, and Small, the Hail Caesar rules appear to be a better fit for addressing the questions of how to represent the cavalry contingents on the left wing of the army under the overall command of Eumenes. At first read-through, I think Stasander’s formation could easily be depicted as a Large unit, while the majority of the other units would be of Standard size. The agema and its advance guard could be combined into a Standard unit, or both formations could be depicted as Small units. Without a doubt, the Hail Caesar ‘useful rules’ offer the most opportunity to dress up the otherwise basic or bland units found in the TRIUMPH! and ARMATI books.

The Silver Shields, and Other Poor, Bloody Pikemen & Hoplites

As my point of reference for a possible adaptation to my own tabletop, I looked at the center of the army of Eumenes, at least as interpreted by Scott in early 2004 and then by Duncan some 14 years later. For all intents and purposes, these provided orders of battle were identical. The difference was that the first was developed for use with the Alexander the Great Supplement for WAB, while Duncan’s commands were designed for DBMM. In addition to a fair number of skirmishers and a similar number of elephants to troops of pachyderms positioned as a screen on the left, it appears that the Eumenid center was composed of approximately 17,000 heavy infantry (pikemen and hoplites), divided into four distinct contingents or divisions. Again, it is not my intention to stage a refight of this historical battle. This has been done previously and to great effect by traditional wargamers possessed of a lot more talent and experience than yours truly. Anyway, if I were to increase the strength of each identified contingent by 2,000 men, then the strength of the center of this revised army under Eumenes would add up to around 25,000 heavy infantry. Establishing a basic unit strength of 1,000 allows one to depict this center with 25 units or formations. While an unusual number, preparing these for either an ARMATI scenario or a Hail Caesar scenario would present no real challenge or difficulty. At the risk of revealing which way I am leaning (at least in the idea stage, it remains to be seen if these developing ideas will be executed), I find that there is a certain appeal to having characterful units as well as commanders of various abilities when employing the Hail Caesar rules. For example, a mental list for the ‘special rules’ pertaining to the Silver Shields has at least four and perhaps as many as seven characteristics. That is certainly a lot of character and color/colour. At the same time, however, I feel that it should be noted that I am not a big fan of rolling a handful of six-sided dice to hit in a melee round and then rolling another handful or partial handful to save. That admitted, my general point is that recreating a version of the Eumenid center would be a relatively simple and quick task if using ARMATI or Hail Caesar. 

In studying the order of battle established by Duncan, it was noted that there were three classes or types of pikemen fighting for Eumenes. From worst to best, these were Inferior, Ordinary, and Superior. Reviewing the Antigonid and Eumenes army lists for possible use in a TRIUMPH! treatment of this battle or one rather like it, it was noted that while the description of the units or stands of Pikes was different, their combat factors and rear support bonus in certain situations remained the same. This seems like an opportunity for a scenario special rule or two. A TRIUMPH! contest would also, as I believe I have mentioned, require the establishment of a temporary unit scale or something similar. If I elect to proceed with the idea of there being 25,000 heavy infantry in my center when or if I set up a version of this battle, how many bases or units of Pikes will I prepare and deploy? Would 25 be sufficient? Would 50 be too many? This latter number would allow all the Pikes to receive support in melee. Then again, I could substitute 8 or 16 stands of Spears (i.e., Hoplites), so the number of Pikes would be revised to 17 or 34. Much to think about here. If I followed the same approach when putting together the center of the Antigonid army, then its adjusted strength would be in the neighborhood of 36,000 men. This would require 36 bases or stands at one representative scale, 48 at another, and 72 at a third ratio.   

Distracted by Asclepiodotus

Studying the diagrams, drawings, and explanatory text at the top of pages 72-73 in the 1980 Salamander book Warfare in the Classical World, it occurred to me that it would be possible to model a syntagma on my tabletop with a square piece of colored poster board measuring 16 centimeters - or approximately 6 inches - on a side. This counter or playing piece would represent the 256 men in this basic unit of a pike phalanx arranged in 16 ranks of 16, with each solider occupying a frontage of approximately 1.8 meters and a similar depth. If I adapt and apply the 3 “A’s” originally promoted by the respected and prolific Society of Ancients member Anthony Clipsom (with regard to terrain) to this specific representation, then it is rather evident that a colored piece of poster board is much more of an abstraction than a painted and based unit of, let us say, of 24 or 36 pikemen in 25/28mm scale. Obviously, there can be no real comparison of the aesthetic value of these two depictions. The three-dimensional representation, complete with flocking, perhaps a casualty or two, and maybe an identification tag attached to its 4mm-thick base, would win every time. At first, the heavier and correspondingly much more expensive to produce model would appear to be the more authentic of the two. The casual passerby and or the invested player-general could readily see that this was a formation or unit of pikemen, arranged in a certain way on that aforementioned movement tray. However, what is the figure-to-man ratio being utilized in this depiction? Also, what is the ground scale? Is there a plausible historical match between the two? Is this relationship even possible when using traditional miniatures? Returning to the wargamer-friendly (and perhaps a little bit frustrating) information found on pages 72-73 of Warfare, it appears that the inexpensive, functional, and simple representation of the syntagma is the more authentic one. In fact, it would not require that much more time, effort, or financial investment to fabricate a second model of this basic unit. This representative counter would show the syntagma and its 256 men in battle formation, that is, in close order. This model would also be a square, but its dimensions would be 8 centimeters by 8 centimeters, representing a formation with a footprint of 14.4 meters by 14.4 meters.  

I think it is fair to suggest that many if not most ancient wargamers would agree that this method of representation is more accurate, and so more historical. However, this historical accuracy is achieved at the cost of appearance and so, offers little to no subjective appeal. It does not need to be stated that many, if not most, ancient wargamers prefer to play with toys of various scales, and would hesitate if not turn their collective noses up at the very idea of playing with more accurate but significantly less attractive colored pieces of poster board. 

Seeking a possible compromise, I shifted my focus from strict adherence to ground scale to how many real men or ancient soldiers might be represented by a single figure or model. To be certain, 256 is a very specific and therefore potentially difficult number to work with, but if one were to establish or suggest a representative scale of 1:16, then it would be possible to build a model syntagma with 16 figures, arranged in 4 ranks of 4. (Each of these miniatures would represent a group of pikemen in a 4-by-4 formation.) On the afternoon of 02 August, I visited the WoFun site and discovered that the Armoured Phalangites v1 were on sale for 19 US dollars per pack. For this price (shipping and the cost of bases not included), I could secure 42 figurines “at the 28mm scale” or 84 figurines “at the 18mm scale.” Opting for the smaller figurines, it was determined that I could assemble five syntagmata of pikemen for use on my tabletop. Now then, these 16-figure syntagmata would have to be perfectly square units, and the dimensions of their four sides would be the equivalent of the ground scale or footprint for each pikeman described in the explanatory text. Just for the sake of example, let us say that one side of this square base or stand measures 2.5 inches. Figuring that these 18mm pikemen would be deployed in close order, then the 2.5 inches represents 14.4 meters, approximately. This would mean that our actual ground scale, or the ground scale for any tabletop battle that might feature this syntagma and its friends, would be 1 inch represents 5.76 meters. While this ground scale might be historically accurate, it is also very problematic because it is so specific. My hunch is that this scale or standard raises more questions than it provides answers. For instance, how will other troop types such as light infantry, elephants, and cavalry be depicted with this ground scale? Adding to these inescapable challenges, how will other troop types be depicted using that figure scale of 1:16? Can that established figure scale be applied, with satisfactory results, to formations of Roman legionaries, Greek peltasts, Persian cavalry, and Gallic warriors? And then, there are the numerous decisions to be made and tested with regard to movement rates, missile ranges, command reach, and so forth.  

Turning my attention to the five formations or battle deployments illustrated on page 73, the “straight” and “oblique” were familiar. (The “oblique” was at a much sharper angle than I have seen on a tabletop, however, but fine.) In my fairly long experience as an ancients wargamer, I have neither employed nor have I seen reports of 6mm, 15mm, or 25/28mm pike phalanxes in “squares,” “crescents,” or “wedges” being used on a tabletop. Are we missing something by not employing these formations? Or, is it a case of the rules we play at war with not being capable of handling these kinds of formations, of the rule designers deciding to focus on the more commonly employed “straight” lines of battle and occasional “oblique” deployment? 

While typing and revising this section, I spent an interesting 10-15 minutes figuring out how much it would cost, approximately, to build at a 1-to-1 scale, a model of the ancient author’s ideal phalanx, said formation being composed of 64 syntagmata. My math produced a number very close to 3,700 US dollars, assuming the sale price was still valid. If not, then the cost of this ideal phalanx would rise to around 4,500 US dollars. To be clear, these basic calculations were made using the referenced WoFun product. 

I have no doubt that the initial or final price tag for a traditional 15mm model of this ideal phalanx at a 1-to-1 scale would make one’s jaw drop, eyes bulge, and breath catch. However, it would make for a truly impressive sight. (Simon Miller comes close to such a representation here: https://bigredbat.blogspot.com/2018/11/magnesia-phalanx.html)

On a more serious and less “sticker shock” note, while revising this section, I recalled reading something in one of my preferred hobby texts. In Chapter 2 of Wargame Tactics, Charles Grant announces in the first sentence, “If we are to achieve anything like realism in wargame tactics one factor which is clearly of paramount importance is the matter of scale.” While this early and well-regarded ambassador of the hobby was concerned with terrain, the intent or principle can also be applied to representational figure scale, which the gentleman proceeded to consider and discuss on page 14 and for the rest of the chapter. In so far as I have been able to (or remember to), I try to emulate this respected figure by ‘working backwards’ from the “starting point of a constant ground scale.” Admittedly, as I tried to convey above, this can prove challenging. To reiterate: While a ground scale of 1 centimeter equals .9 meters might solve the problem of depicting an accurate model of a syntagma, this ground scale has a ripple or tsunami effect on other aspects of the rules, regardless of the number of amendments that might be made. 

What’s Next? 

Courtesy of the indefatigable, prolific, and near-to-celebrity-status Simon Miller, I am in possession of a detailed scenario packet which explains how an interested individual or group might go about refighting the monumental contest of Raphia, 217 BCE. Counting the squares on the provided map, it was noted that this playing surface measured 18 by 8. (The bordering high ground, dunes and escarpments, were not used in my calculation.) If I set up my larger tabletop, I can stage a To The Strongest! scenario on a fictional or quasi-historical field measuring 29 by 8 squares. In other words, I have plenty of room and could, if desired, refight or attempt to refight the battle of Raphia. Given my attention and repeated reference to the earlier contest of Paraetacene, I do not think it would pose too much of a problem to stage a refight of this engagement on my tabletop, in my usual albeit unconventional way. However, as stated repeatedly, that is not my ultimate goal. 

Digging through an assortment of electronic folders and files going way back to 2016, it occurs to me that I could draft opposing orders of battles using the ‘Generic Successor’ list contained within the Kingdoms of the East catalog. Then again, I could also try something with the standard Ptolemaic and Seleucid match up. Having recently secured the latest version of the QRS for these rules and another update of corrections and notes, I confess that I am tempted to try and put together a large if also fictional solo scenario. The main advantage over employing other sets of rules, such as ARMATI, Hail Caesar, or even TRIUMPH! would be that I would not have to roll any dice. Additionally, I would not have to use any rulers of similar measuring sticks, or worry about wheeling angles and similar miscellanea. 

Remarks

For about an hour early on a recent Sunday morning, I seriously considered filing this draft of an unplanned blog post into a “previous drafts folder” and starting over again. For this newest version (it would be number 16 if we are keeping track and or being transparent, at least in this specific regard), I was thinking about beginning with a focused look at the Argyraspides at Paraetacene, and contemplating how this contingent might be depicted and or represented with six or seven different sets of rules and their associated army lists. From that exercise, I would transition into the section or discussion of my “findings” or thoughts about the syntagma, at least as provided on pages 72-73 of Warfare. After that, well . . . I had not gotten beyond that point in my mental outline. However and fortunately, instead of taking that figurative fork in the road, I decided to take another look at the current draft. I revised as I went over each paragraph, section and page, and somehow managed to convince myself that this version was “good enough” for my next blog post. 

Although I have wargamed parts of Paraetacene before, in working on this “paper,” I confess that I find myself attracted to the idea of refighting the historical battle again, or at least an interpretation of it. For example, it would be a very simple matter to copy the excellent work done by Simon Watson and his colleagues, and reported on in the pages of Slingshot. (Please see, if you are able, “Paraitakene with Tactica 2,” in the September/October 2018 issue, Number 320.) And although I estimate that it would require as many dice or die rolls, I also find myself drawn to some kind of Hail Caesar adaptation of this engagement. If further evidence of my sometimes indecisive mindset is needed, then I offer the following: I have also been toying with the idea of staging a fictional, large, and perhaps if not probably played-with-scenario-special-rules Successor battle using TRIUMPH! or GRAND TRIUMPH!  

In going back over the content and format of this blog post, it occurs to me that the “analysis” of a particular wing of the historical battle, and consideration of how to portray the elephants, cavalry, and heavy infantry present could be seen as distractions to my main interest or focus, the information provided by Asclepiodotus with regard to the composition and performance of the syntagma and its larger parent formation. On further reflection and review, it occurs to me that I may have spent too much time on this concern or these concerns, as it seems rather unlikely if not improbable that we would be able to achieve general agreement on this subject matter let alone agreement on the best or most efficient and effective way(s) to recreate and represent this particular formation on a tabletop. 

At the end of his engaging report, Simon offered this summary assessment of his time spent at two shows with his chums, presenting an interpretation of Paraetacene: “It had good playability with an historical ‘feel’ and was fun to play.” Before I admit to being somewhat envious of the gentleman in this particular regard, I am given to wonder if these three benchmarks are sufficient for evaluating a wargame, or if additional categories are required for what would have to be an admittedly subjective rubric. Referencing the three sets of rules considered in this post, I have varying levels of experience with all three, and can therefore comment on the “playability and fun” of each. However, the “historical ‘feel’” presents - perhaps - something resembling a minefield or maybe a fog-shrouded moor. Maybe I am just too preoccupied with the syntagma as explained by Asclepiodotus? Anyway, conveniently and or ironically enough, Simon’s brief assessment serves as a nice transition to a very brief description of that disappointing and dismantled scenario mentioned in the introductory paragraph. For the sake of expediency, it was copied and pasted from one of the earlier drafts of this improvised post, and then edited. Here is the revised and shortened “analysis”:

Once again (one would think that the lesson would eventually sink in, that I 

would learn or remember - but no), I had bitten off more than I could chew. The 

first clue should have been the orders of battle. Each “model” army added up to 

approximately 8,000 points. The second hint should have been the number of 

rule amendments, of which there were 10. The third “red flag” should have been 

the deployments. Instead of placing light troops next to the opposing phalanxes, 

these peltasts and similar types had to be positioned behind the cavalry wings, as 

I had run out of table space, even though I was using unit dimensions that had 

been reduced by 50 percent. I suppose I could take an optimistic view and remark 

that I was able to play four turns before the solo project collapsed under its own 

weight, but that strikes me as a hollow kind of spin. I should have seen these 

problems. I should have known. After all, these rules - at least in my inexpert 

opinion - do require a lot of dice rolling and have certain other qualities that I 

have not been able to fully embrace.

Working backwards from Simon’s evaluation then, this scenario was not fun. (To be fair, I did rather enjoy the “research” and preparation for it.) I suppose there was a degree of “historical feel” in that the opposing armies and their respective compositions were correct for the general setting, but this suggestion or interpretation collapsed, at least for me, under the weight of the various problems I had with regard to playability. For as much as I have thought about this, and I stipulate that an amount of time has been spent mulling it over and trying to figure out where things went wrong, it is rather discouraging to note that the rules in question have been thoroughly play-tested, were written by an accomplished and respected rules designer, and have, as one might expect, a small but dedicated following. 

If or when I make another attempt at a large and fictional contest between two armies, I hope the shadow of this particular experience does not have any effect or influence on that new project.