The Wargame Research Group's ancient rules have made a massive impact on miniature wargaming. all historical periods have been affected. The creative talent that produced these rules is admirable. Observing the evolution of WRG's ancient rules over the past twelve years has been facinating. Published comments in THE COURIER and the SLINGSHOT by the author(s) gives interesting insights into this evolution. The present rules are, essentially, the same as the 2nd edition published in 1969. The general format and philosophy remains. There has been, however, a constant revision of detail as new information has been incorporated and opinions have been modified. the subject of this article will be the recent revisions contained in the 6th edition, and how these will affect play. It seems that the 5th edition was insufficiently playtested before being published. This required two later supplemental sheets and innumberable letters of explanation from the author. Several shadows were cast upon rule understanding by over elaborate sentence structure and loose subject organization. For example, one important sentence in the 5th was a long eighty six words long. "Movement" and "Reaction" rules were scattered throughout the rulebook and not entirely contained within the entitled sub-section. To the Author's credit much effort has been expended in trying to remedy this. In my opinion, the 6th edition is superior to the 5th, being more clearly worded and a general improvement. TERRAIN An offensively inclined player generally prefers open terrain. At least, he likes open terrain at the point of the main attack. Previously a player intent on attacking could anticipate that one half of the generated terrain could be tucked into,corners or other harmless areas. The attacker, now, has very little control over terrain placement. The string is mostly a smokescreen that gives its user an interesting game of Twix, but cannot prevent a player from blocking avenues of approach with terrain. The attacker is facing non-linear terrain pieces up to 50 percent larger in size. These features include defensive gems like palisaded villages and hills that reduce attack factors by a minimum of two. The best linear terrain featureÄthe gullyÄis equal in length to previous terrain features, and combines impassable terrain for cavalry with a linear obstacle and an upslope advantage for the defender. Terrain modifications favor the defense. Unless the attacker is fortunate with the random factor, the offense will often have to resign itself to either crossing a defended obstacle, or having the advance channelized onto a narrow front. If a defender is facing a cavalry army he could do worse than place gullies around the enemy deployment, thus forcing the cavalry to dismount or flank march. An army with many long range missile troops can place gullies around its own deployment area and dare the enemy to close. COST EFFECTIVENESS Previously the most cost effective troop types were elephants and irregular light cavalry armed with bow, lance and shield. Elephant models now cost double, have their disordering range almost halved and suffer more casualties from enemy infantry. As ample compensation an elephant model's melee effectiveness has been increased between 100 to 500 percent. The Sassanid tactic of using a thin chain of elephants behind the main battle line is now less effective. The Indian practice of using large battering ram units is more effective. It may even be possible to duplicate the Hellenistic/Punic tactic of using a thin chain of elephants in front of the main battle line, if the enemy is weak in missile troops. Overall, the elephants seem more realistic than before. Elephants are still a good buy, and probably are still the most cost effective troop type around. While elephants are still cost effective, the need for this troop type has diminished since cavalry has greatly declined in power. When the kontos was king, multiple armed light cavalry could move, maneuver, melee, shoot and skirmish with equal facility. All this for a bargain seven points. Things are decidedly different now. The cutting up of the battlefield with terrain hinders movement. Evade restrictions and reductions makes close-in skirmishing less attractive. Combine this with the grave morale difficulty in getting mounted archers to charge at all, the increased melee factors against light cavalry, and dismounted horse archers retaining mounted missile range, it is seen that light cavalry has been downgraded from "all purpose" to "specialist". An extra little light cavalry killer is the provision that regular troops can halt on a skirmisher's original position. Since a unit only becomes disordered when it exceeds its normal move distance, when failing to contact an enemy while charging, the charging unit can avoid the requirement to rally. The greatest increase in cost effectiveness, at no added cost, has been with foot missile troops. Regular close and loose order infantry archers can now melee in one and one half ranks, the archers can inflict a melee casualty rate up to 300 percent higher than previously. While there are some extra restrictions in missile fire, such restrictions as or formation changes prohibiting overhead fire have been removed. The effect of missile fire has increased in both relative and absolute terms. The morale negative on the enemy is expecially nice since it increases with the intensity of fire. Archers in general, and double armed archers in particular, are very effective. If the 4th edition was the "year of the pike", and the 5th edition was the "year of the horse", I predict that the 6th edition will be the "year of the foot archer". The ability of the foot archer to take care of himself was brought home in the first 6th edition game I played. A unit of medium infantry, Regular "D" archers, assisted by some carefully sited enfilade fire, was able to rout an impetuous Thracian peltast unit in melee. The same battle saw two similar archer units, defending a gully, repeatedly recoil their medium infantry pike opponents. COMMAND CONTROL One of the more charming, and originally the most revolutionary, aspect of WRG's ancient rules is the fre~ quent loss of unit control an army commander would suffer. It has always been amusing to see a warband "bomb" out into the blue at an inopportune time. Also, traps could be set for the enemy. The enemy commander would see these traps but would be helpless since his units were locked into their orders. This served to reduce the "telepathic" communications between a player and his figures, and encouraged the formulation of "reasonable battleplans". A self defeating loophole in the 5th was the so-called "standing orders", which restored a degree of "telephathy". In practice it was not usually difficult to present the standing orders with an unforseen situation, but this required an umpire to force the opponent to follow his standing orders. The 6th reduces the action options,overall, of a unit. Zones and speeds of movement are established for the first three turns. This is fine, but after three turns units can be moved as a commander desires. Although a commander "officially" cannot see beyond the enemy skirmish screen, he will be able to either avoid or concentrate against the unseen enemy. This is an unfortunate move back towards "telepathy". Essentially, if you can not surprise an enemy beyond repair by turn four, you will be unlikely to surprise him at all. The reaction test has been streamlined and tests are not as frequent as before. This will serve to speed up play. Generally, an individual unit's behavior is somewhat more cautious. The effect of the reaction table will be to reduce, delay or eliminate charges and countercharges. Other things being equal (which they seldom are), a standard "C" class unit needs a low average dice roll to charge and a high average dice roll to countercharge, where previously a low dice roll was sufficient. There are fewer morale positives, prior to contact, and more morale negatives. If a player works on the assumption that morale starts out marginal and declines thereafter, he will not be far from the truth. "B" class troops were always nice, but they now approach being required. Failing the high morale troops then Ishtar's girdle or St. John's thigh bone must accompany a main attack to reduce the chance of things stalling. The morale "perks" are necessary for the army not having an abundance of high morale troops. SKIRMISH ARMIES Possibly because the English like to play 1500 point 25mm armies on coffee tables, the rules were kind to horse archers for a decade or so. In less congested circumstances horse archers were very effective. The 6th will greatly reduce the effectiveness of steppe swarm tactics, for reasons previously discussed. Armies intended exclusively, or primarily, for skirmishing will suffer serious reverses. Even the to-be-announced Sel juks, with their supercharged light cavalry and regular heavy cavalry can not expect to frighten many opponents. All is not negative. Skirmishing specialists still have a place in the game. It is actually easier, now, to screen a main battle line with horse archers. Mounted archers still provide mobile missile fire and, if handled properly and not facing numerous foot missiles,can be used to mass missile fire at a selected point. Changes in missile ranging and the skythian formation will help horse archers to engage in prolonged missile exchanges with foot archers, under optimum conditions. At first glance the skythian formation appears quite useful since it can move up to 90 paces in any direction. But, there is a caveat that requires this formation to be parallel with the enemy. So, if the target unit wheels, etc, the skythian formation must conform to this movement. Troop dispositions, terrain and whatnot will often render this inconvient and so will limit the use of this formation. It is easier for light cavalry to pin and slow down an enemy's advance. Upon intersection of moves the involved units halt 30 paces apart. The faster unit can increase this to up to 60 paces. Should the light cavalry increase this to, say 35 paces then the enemy must creep along or declare a charge. "Breaking away" has been made easier, but luring an enemy out of position via this tactic is harder since standing troops and regular close order troops must become impetuous to pursue. Light cavalry is the fastest troop type for a "breakaway", but melee rule changes will often convert an attempted feigned flight into a real one. Light-heavy infantry are now the optimum "breakaway" troops. A host of rules still discriminate against irregular armies. One of the more important is the 15 point command cost differential. Presumably the rules Author desires that irregular armies be formed up in unweildy masses, even if a particular irregular army was not organized in that manner and even though unweildyness is already simulated by wheeling, facing and formation restrictions. Another example is provided by fortified camps costing irregulars double. There is no economic rationale for this since logs from a barbarian forest costs as much as logs from a civilized wood. The wagons for a wagon laager, no matter who is using them, are produced by similar cottage industries. Possibly the rules author wants regular armies to fortify their camps while irregulars do not. Never mind that Vegetius says that Sassanid armies carried empty sandbags to fortify their camps, while contemporary Romans did not fortify theirs. CAVALRY ARMIES The previous WRG ancient set had a pike/pile balance with everything else being in a "scissor, paper, rock" situation. Almost every unit in your army could get the better of some unit in the opposition's army. This being the case, tactics often consisted of units being jockeyed around trying to avoid, or pin, units that could beat you while concentrating against enemy units you could beat. This sort of combat put a premium on speed, manuever and flexibility. Cavalry armies like Ghazinavids, Huns and Sassanids tended to do well under the 5th edition. The revolution has come and now more emphasis will be on skillfully reinforcing the main battle line. Gone are the days when cavalry could charge infantry with impunity. At the worst the cavalry would "bounce off". At least the infantry would be pinned and at best broken. If it took several charges to break a stubborn unit, that would be alright since casualties to the cavalry were fairly low and it was unlikely that the cavalry would rout. It was not unknown for Goths, Vandals, etc.,. to line up their trash cavalry and bowl over Rome's finest from the front. Cavalry now has every reason to fear infantry. Formations, missiles and factors favor the infantry. There is a real chance that the cavalry will suffer double the casualties that they inflict, and so rout. Unsupported frontal charges on unshaken, or non-disordered foot is very risky business for heavy cavalry and lesser quality. Various minor rules hurt an entirely cavalry army. One is the restrictions on rallying routed units, which just about ensures that the cavalry must rally off table. Another is the "C" class cavalry needs a high average morale result to charge close order foot. Infantry can now, often, advance against charging cavalry and still receive the charge at a halt. The foot can provoke charges, but there is no corresponding "feigned attack" in the cavalry bag. The 6th has reverted to the 4th's practice in dropping the overriding five casualties per figure in contact. In the 4th a reliance on the one casualty per figure rule often caused infantry to contract to narrow columns when charged. This would convert frontal cavalry charges into enfilade charges, with the cavalry not having enough figures in contact to obtain the C.P.F. Doubtless, we will see more of this in the future. The "shaken" provision for receiving five times as many casualties does not help the cavalry much, since the big charge is stopped and the cavalry's sword will just be upgraded back to lance- and the lance was unable to do the job the first time. Cavalry will pose some danger to infantry that is shaken or disordered, if the cavalry is supported by missile fire. In most instances, it will have to be something other than cavalry that reduces the enemy infantry to that state. Clearly, the Author intends for cavalry to be used either in a supporting role for infantry, or to be heavily supported themselves by missile fire. Again, all is not negative. Dart and bow armed regular cavalry, such as Byzantines, have received a nice plus at no extra cost. With luck, their incoming missiles will obtain a half-casualty per figure on a small enemy unit that is being charged. The conclusion here is that cavalry armies will have to wait patiently for the 7th edition. Of the cavalry armies, currently popular, only the Byzantines stand a chance to hold their heads up. If the Byzantines can pin the bulk of the enemy army, pour missile fire into a selected point, and subject the point of effort to multiple Extra Heavy cavalry charges the Byzantines might win. The commander who can do this will certainly earn my admiration. WARBAND ARMIES The rules profess that the 6th edition will enhance barbarian armies. This is cerainly true with Dark Age armies that had close order and multiple armed infantry. this is not the case when dealing with ancient barbarians such as Gauls, Brits, Picts and Dacians. A warband commander seldom anticipated winning melees with his warbands, but with the low casualty rates of the 5th he could reasonably expect to survive a melee if his formations were deep enough. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that warband commanders frequently treated their line infantry as blocks of moving, but impassable terrain. The higher casualty rate of the 6th, plus an automatic rout when suffering twice as many casualties, will make a harsh battlefield reality for light- medium warbands. Mass is not so important anymore and the warband can not count on riding out the odd recoil, or expect to reduce a melee into a prolonged attrition filled shoving match. Ceasar would, no doubt, approve. The fact that the offensive power of Gaul, etc., infantry has been increased only serves to obscure that many other troops, notably Romans and double armed infantry, have greatly increased in power. Since mass is less important, it follows that a lightmedium warband commander must increase the depth of his formations, beyond the standard four or five figures, to reach previous levels of security. The automatic rout upon receiving twice as many casualties serves to reduce the effectiveness of a valuable barbarian unit. This is the "A" class fanatic. This type of troop could be depended upon to hold the bridge while the main army fought elsewhere. A favorite tactic was to pin an opposing pike/pile center with the fanatics. Considering approach, pursuit and rally time this "economy of force" unit could tie up the bulk of the enemy army for 2/3rds of a game. A lucky uproll might allow the fanatics to last the entire game. This tactic is still useful, and can still be done. However, it is much more chancy and not the sure thing it was. The higher casualty rates will also bring the "economy of force" unit into a shaken state much sooner than previously. A curious wrinkle in the 6th edition only permits irregular long spear units to fight in one and one-half ranks if they receive the charges at a halt, and do not subsequently follow up. This will hurt Picts, Dark Age Scots and others. Logically, there are four possibilities: 1. Barbarians have a hard first charge and fight well while in contact. 2. Barbarians have a hard charge but do not fight well once they get there. 3. Barbarians do not have a hard charge but they fight well. 4. Barbarians neither fight nor charge well. The 5th edition pretty well went with choice #4. The 6th assumes choice #1 for everyone except irregular long spears which are reduced to #3. All this seems pretty drastic when what we are dealing with is the difference between a six foot and eight foot spear shaft. Gone are the days when Celtic chariots could count on sweeping away enemy cavalry, and stood a chance to deal grief to infantry. Small support units of chariots still have an important role, but they will need careful handling since they are extremely vulnerable to missiles. Terrain comes to the Celt's aid. On the small or moderate size tables envisoned by the Author, the Celts can clog up the entire center of the table with woods, from board edge to board edge. Since the Celts will have a light- medium superiority they can operate in this environment with good effect. Time of year and weather becomes important since the enemy might smoke them out. Overall, ancient warband armies will be attractive to those persons who enjoy a challenge. Vikings and 10th century Rus are on top of the heap when it comes to barbarians. The Vikings are short on good cavalry, but this can be compensated through skillful use of mounted infantry. The Rus are a little short on missile fire but have a good variety of cavalry to support the warbands. Both are very attractive and they can stand up in melee to anything except Romans and dismounted Knights. In those circumstances, where the Vikings and Rus are out-meleed, the enemy can be largely neutralized using light-heavy skirmishers or breakaway troops. Agreed, the sight of triple armed, "B" class heavy troops skirmishing will take some getting use to. LATE MEDIEVAL ARMIES The 6th edition was expanded to include the "High Middle Ages". New troop types and weapons were added to cover this expansion. A purist might quibble since gunpowder now rears its ugly head and it is embarrassing to be stomped by effette Burgundians. This expansion is very nice for those persons who dabble in both the ancient and renaissance periods. All those Italian/Scots/Swiss armies that get shot to pieces by Parliamentarians can now descend upon the hapless Seleucids. While cavalry has generally decreased in effectiveness, Knights are a counter trend. Armor and morale will allow Knights to operate in the old grand manner. Knights are fine cavalry indeed. I fully expect Byzantines and Sassanids to start insisting that their Tagmatic and Noble cavalry meet "Knightly" qualifications. In any event, many of the old favorite cavalry tactics are still workable, but they now require Knights instead of light/medium javelin cavalry. When the Knights hit the table all other cavalry, except fully armored cataphracts, had better head for the nearest friendly infantry square. Knights can also operate with good effect against infantry. Super Heavy Knights, either mounted or dismounted, might well make the Romans say "Sir". Super Heavy Knights would even be able to attack pikes frontally, if it was not for the afterthought of giving standing pikes a plus one for facing impetuous cavalry. The Late Medievals have the vest "pike busters" around. Dismounted Super Heavy Knights can beat a unit of heavy pikes that is of equal points. Extra Heavy infantry, with cut and thrust weapons, are as good as pikes and considerably cheaper than a heavy phalanx. Ancient pikes will have to contend with the SwissScots practice of putting extra heavy infantry in the first rank of their pike formations. The common Medieval practice of mixing pole arms with the pike formations means that, if those units recoil, the enemy will have to contend with the choppers instead of contemptible recoiling pikemen. The sight of a medieval unit, the first rank of extra heavy infantry with pikes, the next three being medium infantry with pikes and the fifth of cut and thrust weapons should inspire terror in an Ancient's heart. Some medieval troops carried heavy throwing weapons, and there is nothing wrong with this weapon. The French/Burgundian Lance team concept will prove very effective. This could be simulated to be a front line of SHK with a second line of HC or MC Coustilliers armed with light spears or javelins. In the dismounted mode, the second line can melee on the first round. This extra bit of push can obtain a C.P.F. on a pike unit without the need to become impetuous. Potting away at elephants with engines has always been practiced in ancient games. But armies like the Scots and Burgundians, who used numerous bombards on the battlefield, will make the Late Romans envious. A well sited artillery unit can not only kill its own points, and more, of elephants but can force an army with many elephants (like Indians) into the offensive mode since the Medieval army can obtain a ten percent edge with no risk at all. Clever use of gunpowder weapons will allow a Medieval army to disorder opposing animals, but the rules Author has been careful to limit this effect. Foot crossbows are, it seems, still using the ancient bellybow. While foot crossbows still can not shoot while making normal moves they can shoot while evading, which upgrades their use somewhat. Mounted crossbows can shoot while moving. This movement combined with their long range makes them an excellent skirmishing choice and they enhance many Late Medieval armies. The longbow is treated as a sort of upgunned crossbow. I am not sure that this is the correct interpretation of Agincourt et al. The English commanders had ample reason to assume a static defense, whatever their weapons were. Burgundian eyewitness accounts of the battle of Brouwershaven (January 13, 1426) certainly imply that the English fired while they advanced against the disembarking Burgundians. I suppose that some sort of leapfrog advance could have been used by the English, but the English are discribed as marching in step in a steady advance. All in all, the Late Medieval period produces several fine armies and they will be hard to handle. I look forward to seeing the Teutonic Knights and the rest on the battlefield. PIKES AND PILAS Macedonian and Roman armies are the most numerous of the ancient armies. These armies are especially popular with persons just entering the period, since it is easy to be smitten with the glories of Alexander and Ceasar. The number of Macedonian and Roman players makes them a vocal lobby, and they do not hesitate to put pressure on the rules' Author. This ink spilling, by Macedonians and Romans, is usually directed at each other, since they are intent on defeating each other in frontal melee. In practice, both groups experienced problems with bow, horse or two handed sword armies when they strayed outside their own period. Records of army effectiveness, kept by the Society of Ancients and published in 1977, 78 and 79, show that Macedonian and similar armies were slightly above "average". The 6th edition upgrades the pikes slightly on the offense and downgrades them slightly on the defense. Recoiling pikes are treated better than previously, but the pikes now lose the perpetual minus one when not recoiling. Pike effectiveness remains roughly the same at a time when other types of infantry are being upgraded. The Hoplite auxiliaries are slightly downgraded since they also lose the minus one in standfast and follow-up situations. Peltasts are more useful now, and terrain modifications will probably convert them into the major attack arm. Peltasts, however, do not tip the balance far. The prediction here is that Macedonians and similar will remain about "average" in army effectiveness. Changes in the shieldless factor makes medium infantry pikes more attractive now. I suspect that the big killers on the battlefield will be two handed, cut and thrust and pila. This will make medium pikes more cost effective than heavy pikes and the proportion of Alexandrian and Pontic armies should increase while the proportion of Seleucids declines. Romans had a pretty thin time of it when they left the wargaming Western Mediterranean. They tend to get shot to pieces by Huns, smashed by Indians, chopped by Vikings and overrun by shock cavalry. Republican Romans did better than most. Thanks to the elephants and long thrusting spears Republicans could fend off cavalry better, and were far superior to Imperials outside the confines of Italy. Imperial Romans and Ceasarians had a difficult time and fared poorly because of several defects: 1. An inability to protect themselves from cavalry. 2. Poor quality auxiliaries. 3. A hard first push which could not be maintained. The 6th has been kind to Romans, with a general upgrading of the pila's weapon factors combined with new melee rules. The infantry can handle cavalry much better. Using one and one-half ranks of swordsmen, after the first contact, will help the Romans to keep the recoiling enemy moving back. The Romans have been increased in effectiveness at no cost. Ceasarians and Imperials still have poor quality auxiliaries, but there is nothing wrong with those of Servian/Aurelianic armies. Late Roman armies were always the most flexible fo the Romans. It now appears that their line infantry will be triple armed. The shooting rules have been worded in such a manner as to only allow Legionary and Skutatoi archers to shoot while their units are engaged in melee. I expect to see some Arab and Viking armies in unusual formations as a result of the shooting rules. The Late roman auxiliaries are excellent, being balanced and of good variety. The Late Romans are the favorite of the rules Author and there should be a message in this. I, CLAUDIUS The 6th edition states that it the intention of the rules to encourage aggressive and active play. To my mind many forces are being exerted in the opposite direction. The enhanced defensive aspects of terrain, morale difficulties for offensive average troops, telepathic communication with the reseve to plug holes and shift to the point of danger, increased effect of missiles and the general downgrading of cavalry will only serve to make the defense stronger than it was. This is not bad, only different. The rules, however, will make battles more linear than they were before - which is probably the true objective. In my opinion the ideal army, under the new rules, will have a strong core of hard fighting infantry backed by an ample missile force. This army will require some good quality auxiliary cavalry and a specialist unit or two. Several armies fall under this umbrella, but the ones to watch would be Early Achaemenid, Indian, Servian/Aurelianic/Late Roman, Viking and Medieval English. Since their introduction, many years ago, the WRG's ancient rules have been the best on the market. They are fun to play with. An "ancient" can travel from Miami to Seattle confident in the knowledge that when he gets to where he is going he will find someone who is familiar with the rules. The Author loves the hobby and the period, and he has made great contributions to ancient wargaming and to the study of ancient military history. The rules are not hidebound, they are evolving and flexible enough to be adapted to meet local tastes. If you are not using these rules, and you are interested in the period, then try them. Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 2 #5 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1981 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com