One Bridge, Two Fords, Three Battles, and about 2,500 Years  

Within the pages of the May 1991 issue of Miniature Wargames (Number 96), there is an excellent, in my opinion, little (i.e., two-page) piece written by one Jason Monaghan. The title of this submission is, “VAPNARTAK: Dark Ages scenarios with a difference!” The engaging article started on an ironic and slightly humorous note, as the gentleman - in his own words, “no great fan of wargames competitions” - was tasked with organizing just such an event. Fortunately, Jason rose to the occasion, developing, as the title informs, a number of “Dark Ages scenarios with a difference.” A good portion of the short article was given to three clear and simple sketches of the tabletops used for the tournament. (His team won by the way, which also qualifies as a type of irony. The gentleman was subsequently subjected to some friendly ribbing because of this outcome. Anyway.) My interest was in the first predetermined tabletop, the one featuring a symmetrical landscape graced by a river, a bridge, two other crossing points, and essentially identical pairs of wooded areas as well as two smallish gentle hills. Instead of purchasing and then learning the WRG 6th Edition rules and then building suitable Dark Age armies (in my mind, quite the Herculean as well as potentially costly task), I thought I would see how the TRIUMPH! rules performed within this adopted setting. Instead of forces that were limited to the several centuries of this focused historical period, I thought it might prove entertaining to open up the time frame a little (actually, quite a lot), as long as the opposing armies remained historically matched. For an extended example, my tabletop would see no colorful albeit fantastical clash between New Kingdom Egyptians and Samurai (as Jason also referenced), but could possibly bear witness to a much more plausible contest, such as one between Philistines and Early Hebrews. 

Preparations

To the extent that my limited talents permitted, I fabricated a replica of ‘The Crossings’ (this was the name given to the terrain set up by Jason) on my smaller tabletop. The unnatural but interesting symmetrical design was completed fairly quickly and with function foremost in mind. The finished landscape was made more suspect by the right angles of the river as it flowed away from the patches of woods. This comparatively low aesthetic appeal would probably be judged as significantly lacking if not insulting by a substantial majority of ancient wargamers.  

Rather than tinker with the depiction of troop types, I decided to utilize the 40mm-wide bases explained in the rules. (The other two scales or options are 60mm and 80mm.) This would mean each movement unit or MU would be 20mm, which would mean that Horse Bow and similar types could gallop up to 160mm (approximately 6.3 inches) in a turn, if they had the command points to do so. As there were three crossings in total, it seemed appropriate if not logical to draft armies that were approximately 144 points strong (i.e., three roughly equal commands of around 48 points each). 

Deciding on which pairs of armies to use for these scenarios took a little more time, as there were quite a number of them (in the neighborhood of 600) to consider. After a suitable period of back and forth, of making changes, or being distracted by a new and even shinier army, the following matched pairs were selected: A) Sea Peoples vs Hittites - circa 1180 BCE, B) Gauls vs Samnites - circa 215 BCE, and C) Teutonic Order vs Mongols - circa 1310 CE. These pairings were chosen from the extensive but also compact army lists provided in the De Bellis Antiquitatis rules (Version 1.1, March 1995). The TRIUMPH! versions of these six armies were then found on http://meshwesh.wgcwar.com.

After these decisions were made, an additional period of time was spent debating how best to approach these planned contests as a solo wargamer. On the one end of the scenario design spectrum, it occurred to me that I could simply set up the matched pairs and play. Way over on the other side of that multifaceted spectrum, I thought about creating a few tables that would essentially take effective control out of my hands, especially with regard to deployment and where the main as well as secondary effort (if there even was one) would be made. While an interesting process, I worried that some odd die rolls might result in unusual scenarios wherein an army concentrated its strength in one sector but then launched an all-out attack against an objective that was quite distant. Then again, depending on the detail of the table(s) and the scores of the various die rolls, there might be scenarios wherein both sides were content to sit and wait on the other, or secure the nearest objective and then go on the defensive, refusing to attack any enemy unit or formation. On thinking about it further, I wondered if there was a middle ground. What if a d6 was rolled and this result determined how many objectives needed to be captured by each army? I thought that the simple procedure (no table needed, really) would basically guarantee movement and engagement for each scenario. Someone once said or wrote, “The proof is in the pudding.” (Distracted, I briefly researched this phrase. Evidently, it originated in early seventeenth century England.) Anyway, with the added goal of confirming or rejecting this taste-oriented idiom, I set up the first of three planned scenarios. 

The First Battle 

As this engagement will set the tone - more or less - for the other two pieces in this simple and figurative puzzle of a blog post, it seems prudent to explain or at least introduce the format I intend to employ in communicating what transpired on my niche-within-a-niche tabletop. From what I have been able to gather, it appears that diagrams or maps with captions are easier to digest (and to produce) than page after page of text which sometimes results in slings and arrows being directed my way by critics as well as pedants of various stature. So I am going to, or try to describe what happened during each battle with two or perhaps three maps and their captions. Some additional non-caption text may be included, if it is deemed necessary for providing more color, details, or further explanation. Anyway, without further ado, let us part the waters as it were, and get to the biblical period contest wherein Hittites met Sea Peoples on an unusually symmetrical field of battle. 

As indicated (at least I hope so) by these comparatively basic visuals, this first scenario was a rather drawn out as well as back and forth affair. The Hittite left collapsed quickly, especially after the unfortunate loss of their commander. In the center of the field, they were able to secure the bridge with their Chariot squadrons, although not without some cost. The Hittites were also able to demoralize the enemy center and then push some reinforcing foot units over that same bridge. The contest on the Hittite right was a “near run thing” as the familiar saying goes. This attritional engagement finally saw the demoralization of the Sea Peoples contingent when a unit of Raiders was shattered by the supported charge of the leader of the Hittites’ right wing. With two commands demoralized and in full retreat, the battlefield and the day was awarded to the Hittites. 

Brief Remarks 

On immediate reflection, I should like to reiterate my deployment mistake(s). I should have copied Jason’s directions or narrative better and permitted the opposing armies to arrange their respective commands within the established deployment zones. This approach would have lessened the total time of the contest from approximately 195 minutes to somewhere in the neighborhood of 160 minutes. Then again, drafting a ‘house rule’ that permitted three of four uses of a march move would have speeded up the movement portion of this first engagement and lessened the time required by a certain amount. 

The three distinct commands available in GRAND TRIUMPH! games would seem to lend themselves very well to a scenario such as this, where there are three sectors and each has an objective. However, based on my experience and again, upon immediate reflection and review, it appears that this large battle devolved into three smaller contests almost from the start. If rate of movement was a problem because of the composition of the various commands and the often poor command die rolls, then offering support to a neighboring command would have proven just as challenging. To be sure, it is very probable that I erred in planning for this battle. Perhaps I should have let the more distant ford alone and focused more on the bridge in the center. Perhaps I should have taken more care with the composition of my respective commands. For example, an all-Chariot contingent could have made much better time, crossed the bridge quicker, and with their mobility, would have likely proven very tough against the Raider formations of the Sea Peoples. Perhaps a reader or two will weigh in with their own thoughts or constructive criticisms regarding both my strategy and tactics. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I find myself questioning the choice of rules and indeed scenario design already. I am wondering if this kind of symmetrical field of battle is too oriented to the Dark Ages or some other, slightly more modern period, say the ECW or even the SYW and the AWI. However, the original idea was to play three games, so I think this goal needs to be met before I can confirm these early concerns or seriously consider experimenting, and contemplate the making of some changes. On the positive side, this most recent game has given me a little more experience with the TRIUMPH! rules and the latest amendments/updates. It has also produced a situation or two which I took to the ‘grand high council’ of the WGC Forum for advice and clarification. The turn around time has always been impressive, and their experience and knowledge of the rules has always been extensive and appreciated. 

The Second Battle 

Shortly after the morale collapse of the Gallic right, the barbarian formations on the left of the symmetrical battlefield suffered a sequence of reverses (6 vs 1 or 6 vs 2 melee rolls) which saw their numbers reduced, their lines penetrated, and their determination to continue the fight very much impacted. Recognizing that the loss of another unit would result in both flanks being demoralized, the Gallic commander decided to concede the contest. On brief review, it appeared that the only positive he could take back to his tribal council was that they had not allowed the Samnites to capture the bridge (well - during the contest anyway), or allowed the enemy formations to occupy any ground on the Gallic side of this crossing point. Then again, not a single Gaul managed to set foot on the Samnite side of this structure. 

Brief Remarks 

In this scenario, the Samnites occupied the same table edge as the Hittites. While the Samnites also emerged as victorious by demoralizing two enemy commands, the way in which they achieved this was a little different. In no particular order, the Samnite left was not quickly demoralized while most of its units were still in column. Instead, the Gauls in this sector were slowly ground down and then made victims by two very bad command rolls when they were demoralized. On the other side of the field, the contest was more back and forth until, surprisingly, the Samnites decided to come off the slight advantage of the gentle hill and attack. This boldness or foolishness resulted in the destruction of three enemy formations, which pushed the Gallic contingent in this region very near its demoralization tipping point. Ironically, for all the fighting on the bridge, for all the pushing and being pushed back, neither side suffered any unit casualties. If play had been continued for six or seven more turns, I imagine that the Samnite left would have eventually put a lot of pressure on the Gallic center, which may have given the Samnites struggling to get across the bridge an opportunity or two. 

The non-result of the contest in the center gave me pause on a few occasions to consider the melee values of the troops involved and the terrain classification of the bridge. Without question, given that the manmade structure is something of a ‘chokepoint’ and can only permit the passage of one unit at a time, or a column of troops, it presents quite a challenge to force the enemy back in order to gain a toehold and then expand the bridgehead so that supporting units can come across. Technically, I suppose I should have penalized the Gallic Warriors for being close order foot and engaged with Samnite Raiders (open order foot) on or immediately around the bridge. Typically, in this kind of situation, a minus 2 is applied to the combat factor, which would have given Warriors with rear support a combat factor of 2 (3 plus 1 minus 2) versus 4 for the Raiders. Given the presumed narrow width of the bridge, and presuming that the first and maybe second or third ranks of these figurative formations would be involved in the melee, this rather severe penalty seemed unwarranted, if not unfair. On further reflection, I have very little experience when it comes to fighting on or over bridges in my ancient and or medieval scenarios. Additionally, I confess to not being aware of any ancient or medieval battle that was centered around the possession of a bridge. (I shall have to attempt to rectify this lack of knowledge.) 

In summary, as with the first engagement, this second scenario saw victory gained through the demoralization of the enemy rather than won by the possession of the identified crossing points. This second scenario also saw similar plans being used by the involved armies. Having three commands or “divisions,” each side assigned one to a particular objective and the battle, or three smaller but related battles, developed as a result. Would this prospective pattern repeat itself in the final contest? 

The Third Battle 

Over the course of the next three turns (7 through 9), the Mongols continued to exert pressure on the cramped and crowded foothold the Order had on the far ford, or the one nearest to them - on their left. The contest in the center also continued to be a back and forth affair, with small gains being made by each side and then erased by the enemy in their turn. The right wing of the Teutonic army was left alone, aside from a single or rogue unit of Horse Bow that ate up many of the command points for this particular group. Nothing came of this minor threat, however. The local commander of the Order pushed his foot and Knights forward. His aim was the far ford, held by two units of Mongols. 

Making judicious use of command rolls, making sure to “close the door on” (i.e., flank) frontally engaged enemy formations, and benefitting from a little bit of luck, the Knights around the bridge were able to disperse another unit of Horse Bow, which took the Mongol center to its determined demoralization point. Almost at the same time, the right wing of the Mongol army was demoralized when a unit of Light Foot was able to fall on the flank of an occupied unit of Horse Bow. 

Even though one ford was in their possession and they had two units on the other side of the bridge and two units crossing the structure, the Mongol general sensed that the battle was lost. Two of his commands were not in the right frame of mind to continue the fight. Rather than risk adding injury to insult, he ordered his men to retreat, leaving the field and the three crossing points in the hands of the Europeans. 

Brief Remarks 

In stark contrast to the pervious scenarios, this contest featured plenty of mounted troops. To that end, one side fielded much heavier and more “close and engage” troopers, while the other side deployed much lighter and more suited to “shoot and scoot” troopers. Given the higher movement rates of these kinds of cavalry, it was not at all surprising to see that battle was joined sooner and that the wargame lasted approximately 132 minutes. Another difference between this contest and the earlier battles, was the plan drawn up by the Mongols. Instead of arranging their three commands to contest and or control the three crossing points, a small detachment was assigned to the near ford on their left. The group of four Horse Bow units occupied the attention of three-times as many enemy units. Ironically, there was not a lot of fighting in this sector. 

Like the other scenarios, this engagement was also decided when one side reached that tipping point of having two commands demoralized by losses. There was a bit of irony here as well, for it seemed that a more mobile force would have had the advantage. This almost proved to be the case at the distant ford, when the fast-moving Mongols essentially caught the Order negotiating the river crossing. However, as related, a number of variables conspired to prevent the Mongols from destroying every enemy unit that made it across the ford, or forcing the enemy column to rapidly retrace its steps in the face of so many horse archer types. 

As with the earlier engagements, the center of the tabletop proved to be the main attraction. However, rather than wrestling for control of the bridge while actually on the bridge, the Mongols and the Teutonic Order fought on the westerners’ side of the structure. Though outclassed, the Mongol cavalry were almost able to ride rings around the lumbering Teutonic Knights. But almost does not make a significant difference in many things, especially with regard to wargames. 

Commentary & Critique 

These solo engagements mark my second visit to the specific if also symmetrical landscape originally designed by Jason. In the first half of 2004, I set up a Vis Bellica wargame featuring Normans and Saxons. The subsequent report (approximately 7,000 words and 2 maps) was submitted to MWAN Magazine, and was published in the May/June issue (Number 129). Technically, I suppose this most recent trip should be labeled my third tour of Jason’s rather clever idea, as I employed the ARMATI rules to see if Saxons or Vikings would capture more plunder. This contest was held on a different fictional battlefield - one dotted with herds of animals, wagons, and houses that were subject to looting and being put to the torch. The reader will probably not be surprised to find that the narrative of this experiment and experience appeared in the pages of the March/April 2004 issue of MWAN Magazine. 

In summary, there are chronological gaps between these wargaming events or periods of particular interest. From 1991 to 2004 is 13 years, and there are a little more than two decades between 2004 and the present day. It occurs to me, turning to what little I know about actuarial tables and such, that this may very well be the last time I conduct a figurative walking tour of ‘The Crossings.’ Retreating from thoughts heavily tinted with the color palette espoused by Kübler-Ross, it also occurred to me during the selection of this old magazine article and development of the inspired-by-project, that I appear to look back more than I look forward with regard to my wargaming projects and pursuits. I suppose this might simply be a result of my age, as there are more years behind me than there are in front of me. Adjusting the tone to something a bit lighter than the topic of mortality, it occurs to me that my return to and reuse of Jason’s scenario suggests a certain lack of originality on my part. On further review, it does appear that the majority of my wargaming projects are derived from the work of others. Then again, I wonder how many ancient wargamers have employed TRIUMPH! or another set of rules to do friendly battle on terrain very similar to that designed by Jason?

In the January/February 2015 issue of Slingshot (Number 298), Steven Neate treated readers to “The Battle of Dunnichen 685 - using Dux Bellorum Rules.” In the introductory paragraph, the accomplished gentleman admitted to a “weird and whacky” approach to rulebooks. (Rest assured, nothing like Michael Palin dressed as a wig and suspender-wearing parliamentary candidate in a Python sketch from way back when.) Steven stated the following: “I believe a rule set is only tested when you attempt to stretch it, even to break it.” Now then, there is a wargaming camp where I believe that I would or could feel very much at home. Anyway, based on my subjective assessment, I think the TRIUMPH! rules did a fair job of handling these three scenarios played over the same terrain. Therefore, I can correct my first impression and confirm that there does appear to be some kind of “proof within the pudding.” This is a qualified statement, however. While the three games were completed, and while I appeared to become more adept with each scenario, it seems that there is still room for improvement. For example, securing a crossing point does not really matter if the usual victory conditions are applied. That is to explain, a demoralized and retreating force cannot hold on to a bridgehead or a ford located deep on an enemy’s flank sector. For another and perhaps more obvious example, a set of rules oriented on linear formations and evidence-based examples of ancient or medieval battles, cannot “shine” as brightly as when its melee or missile phases are confined to single unit contests or local battles that are slightly larger. 

With the perspective of about 30 hours since the table was cleared and things were put away, I find myself wondering how pike armies would have fared but also rather glad that I did not attempt to discover how they might have performed. In fact, since those first seeds of doubt started to grow in the latter stages of the first contest, I have been thinking that Hail Caesar or some other set of rules might be worth a trial on this terrain. Overall, and referring to that figurative rubric I sometimes use, it seems that this cumulative effort might merit a B-minus or high-C. Harsh grading policies aside, I am walking away from this tabletop with a little more experience at playing TRIUMPH!; I am getting used to the recent amendments and how they affect the game, and I am thinking - though not yet entirely convinced - that I might have given an idea (albeit borrowed) to a reader or two for their next tabletop battle.