Is Tony Bath right in suggesting that ancient miniature battles involving mostly heavy infantry tend to make a somewhat boring war game? I suppose I must concur because of his qualifiers"tend" and "somewhat." It seems to me that the root of the problem might actually lie in the issue of excessive symmetry. For example, in the classic old Avalon Hill board game Stalingrad, there was a totally imbalanced situation: the Germans had to attack and gain lots of ground (probably destroying much of the Russian army just in order to gain that ground) whereas the Russians had to hold. It was certainly not a good recreation of operation Barbarossa, but it was an excellent game. An earlier effort by Avalon Hill, Tactics II, had a perfectly balanced situation- -a theoretical conflict where the two sides had matching terrain and perfectly balanced forces. It was not a good game.

The basic ingredients of variety in most war games are morale, movement, missile power and melee ability. In an ancients battle set in the classical period the light troops are likely to have all the (probably limited) missile power and the mounted troops the generous movement (and little shock), leaving the real power in the relatively clumsy and slow moving (and missile-less) but hard hitting heavy infantry. Not only do these factors impose severe tactical limits on such troops, if the Done system includes command and control mechanisms that simulate the commander being lost somewhere in the ranks on the right wing and thus unable to issue tactical orders to respond to a developing situation, the game becomes very much what one player said of Tactica: "Wind 'em up and let 'em go." All of this tends to increase the symmetry and it can be a problem.

Too great an asymmetry can also be a problem. I have never wanted to simulate the Romans and Parthians at Carrhae and the early battles between the English and French in the Hundred Years War can also become tiresome after a while. Nevertheless, it seems to me that battles between Imperial "tercios" and Swedish lines during the Thirty Years War can be far more interesting than battles of the English Civil War where the same weapons were used but there were no significant differences between the tactical systems of the opposing sides.

Many hobbyists have considered the battles of the early 18th century through the mid-19th century those most suitable for the "classic" war game with the sort of rules pioneered by Young and Lawford, Grant and Featherstone. One of the arguments presented by Young and Lawford in favor of battles between fictitious foes is to avoid the complications of partisanship ("Princess Primrose's Fuscia Fusiliers would neverfall back") and to allow for perfected equalized unit types on both sides. The balanced forces of the era (especially with the flexibility of bayonet armed infantry) means that each type of unit has its capabilities and even slight differences in the force mix can lead to games with interest and variety. Yet even here one has seen the appreciation of asymmetry. In rules for the War of the Spanish Succession the British (and one hopes the Dutch as well, since the British adopted the Dutch system of platoon fire) generally have better infantry firepower, Frederick the Great's Prussians are always better all around than their opponents, American Revolutionary War British generally have high morale and melee capability while their American opponents are saddled with numerous reluctant militia and a few far shooting riflemen. Napoleonic rules are traditionally spiced by "national differences" while the American Civil War usually sees superior Confederate infantry opposed to better Union artillery. All of these variations seem quite as justifiable as a Young-Lawford assumption that the fusiliers of Bad-Middle-Dwarf are identical to the musketeers of Gross-Hemmed-Fart, but the point is that such diversity increases the asymmetry and thus the probable interest level of the game.

I am told that Donald Featherstone has said, "Never let history get in the way of a good game," and I heartily concur. Perhaps the most innovative way to deal with the peculiarities of the ancient hoplite battle is to develop an entirely different approach to the mechanics of the table top battle. I think that a melding of the description of hoplite battle in Victor W. Hanson's The Western Way of War: Infancy Battle in Classical Greece with something like Chris Engle's matrix game concepts might be very fruitful indeed. Nevertheless, this would be something far from the norms that players are accustomed to. Something that is frequently lost sight of is that players, both new and experienced, can follow a sequence that involves familiar concepts even if the resulting play is far more complex than a more abstract system. For example, when I introduced one of the novices to the hobby, I used the Battle of Chrysler's Farm from the War of 1812. It might seem a workable candidatefor the Napoleonic rules that I presented a few issues ago and I am sure that those rules would serve admirably, but I did not use them to initiates newcomer. Instead I used a set of rules based on a set for the French and Indian War written some decades ago by Tony Bath. The basic concepts of movement, fire, melee, casualty removal and morale checks might seem extremely unsophisticated by modern standards, but they were easy to understand.

My approach to dealing with the dilemma of replicating ancient battles of the classical period is likewise more mundane than trying to develop some mysterious new technique--the fact is that I like the traditional type of rules and what players do with them on the table top. Having an interest in the Peloponnesian War, I hoped that there would be enough subtle differences between Spartans and Thebans and other hoplites to make things interesting. Unfortunately, it appeared that the differences proved too subtle.

Going back to the drawing board, I looked again at the Tactica rules. Although I have never actually played a real game of Tactica and some friends who have done so have been quite critical (they now much preferring Almati), there has always been something about those rules that has tugged at me, though I hard pressed to say exactly what. The army sizes required were far beyond my means. My force of ISmm ancients originated as crews for balsa wood galleys, gradually being eked out by small numbers of cavalry and barbarians.

Still, the system of Tactica would be my starting point, trying to scale things down to a level that would allow my meager forces to represent an army and to try to avoid those aspects of the rules that my friends had found unsatisfactory (though it is worth pointing out that just because one hobbyist dislikes a particular set of rules, that does not mean that another will not find them suberb--there is great variety here, as well).

Another part of my inspiration came from Tony's Bath's "Rome versus Macedon" notion that the most the best possible classical battle would be one between a sophisticated "successor" army (with elephants, of course) against a Caesarian legion. There is the historical difficulty that this could not have happened--the successor kingdoms (well past their military prime and each too small to stand against the might of expanding Rome) were put under by the old style "Camillan" legions (according to many historians, Rome's success owed more to the presence of the allied Greek cavalry than to the abilities of the Roman legions). Perhaps the Pontic kingdom of Mithradates might be considered a successor state, but, whatever strength Mithradates was able to muster (and I don't believe a single word about the size of the Pontic armies--logistical impossibilities), his forces were clearly no match for the legions of Sulla and Pompey. But, "Never let history get in the way of a good game." My opponents would be a Roman army of with its main strength in its javelin tossing swordsmen and a "Greek" army armed with pikes and having a small force of auxiliary elephants.

Exactly such forces were the adversaries described in Paul Hague's delightful book, Sea Battles in Miniature (a work to which I am sure I have earlier referred). My theoretical foes would by the Roman forces based in Sic Transit Gloria Mundi in their invasion of the Euphoric League. Map movement would be kept simple, detailed maps and map maneuvers being anachronistic and not being what I wanted to emphasize in this game, anyway.

A now fairly well known system (originating, I think, with Wally Simon) was used for strategic movement--forces moved from meeting place to meeting place (city, crossroads Ioften the same], plain, ford, mountain pass, etc.) a week's march along a track. Once an encounter occurred, each side would declare its forces and decide whether to withdraw or proceed to battle, the defender (almost always the Greek player) sets up first but is allowed to "hide" detachments when terrain allows it. Generally the deployment would be rather free, according to the already prepared table top map for the area where the encounter took place. Rather than relying on an army "bleak point" (the armies would vary greatly in size), an army could fight until it was broken unit by unit, or one side could simply concede. This last annoys some players, but we are looking at a campaign here--each individual battle is not the only thing going. Since the victor (possessor of the field) replaced 2/3 of his losses and the loser only 1/3, there is incentive not to concede a battle too casually.

The Roman invasion force was a theoretical 250 figures, but (because of the small size of my annies) I reduced the actual invasion force to 218 figures, with a reserve baggage guard of 32 figures (for simplicity I omit references to the naval forces of both sides). The types of figures in the reserve were unspecified so that the Roman player could replace whatever type of figures might be lost. The invasion force proper was as follows:

4 units Barbarians with javelins (24) (treat as special Medium Infantry)
2 units Allied Greek Heavy Infantry with pikes (24)
6 units Roman Heavy Infantry with javelins (72)
4 units Medium Infantry with javelins (24)
4 units Skirmish Infantry with javelins (24)
4 units Skirmish Infantry with bows or slings (24)
1 unit Heavy Cavalry (8)
1 unit Light Cavalry (8)

The Greek defenders had a somewhat different situation. The Euphoric League was a typical Greek alliance of one major city (Paulopolis--named for the book's author) which was the major belligerent and the only city whose forces were already mobilized. The other cities in the league (Grachos, Thistria, Calthis, Partha, Tardis and Granicus) were not yet active. If the Roman force could occupy the city before it mobilized (a toss of 6), it would not join the fight. Each of the allied cities fielded smaller forces than Paulopolis and I treated them as I did the Roman reserve, allowing the Greek player to designate types after mobilization so that he could replace losses. There were 118 figures in the Paulopian Army:

4 units Greek Heavy Infantry with pikes (48) 3 units Medium Infantry with javelins ( 18) 3 units Skirmish Infantry with javelins ( 18) 3 units Skirmish Infantry with bows or slings (18) 1 unit Heavy Cavalry (8) 1 unit Light Cavalry (8) 7 figures in reserve for use as immediatereplacements.

The Roman strategy was clear--to occupy the cities as quickly as possible. The Greek strategy was less so--should one try to defend an undeclared city, hoping that it would activate and talking the risk of a catastrophic defeat or should one simply avoid contact with the invaders until a sufficient force had been assembled? That, obviously, is part of the game.

No siege rules were provided as there seemed no reason for the Romans to engage in a siege --they either took the city before it mobilized or had its forces added to the enemy army.

The following rules are a refinement of the rules used for a trial run--again thanks to a visit from Francis Lynch.

I set up two armies of comparable strength scaled down from a confrontation between Tactica Republican Romans and Late Macedonians (obviously the invaders have already taken some losses and the Paulopolans have been reinforced--though not by elephants). Francis elected to take the Romans, leaving me to plan my battle.

The skirmishers would skirmish (nothing significant expected there) and the phalanx would roll forward, hoping for the best. I had the advantage in cavalry and the right flank Heavy Cavalry (supported by Medium Infantry) were to be my battle winners. They ought to be able to overcome the opposition while the left flank Light Cavalry held on and if they could manage to get in the enemy rear it should be all over. The phalanx would have to hold on.

Francis's plan was more in the Varro tradition--he deployed his skirmishers in front of his Heavy Infantry, his Medium Infantry (equivalent to the triarri) in support, the cavalry to the flanks and marched forward.

You might think that I had the advantage, seeing as I had a plan, but I must say that the Roman army (at least the interpretation of it that appeared on my table top) is very forgiving. The skirmishers sort of got crushed out of the way and the Heavy Infantry started killing each other in a fairly even exchange. The cavalry went through (eventually--those Gaulishallies fought hard for their Roman masters) and there I was, ready to pounce. A Roman Medium Infantry unit faced and moved in front of me--they didn't close (too far to do that) but they did move far enough that I couldn't wheel. I had to charge them or just stand there (as I recall, with the actual Tactica rules I wouldn't have been able to charge at all). Well, I couldn't just stand there--l didn't have any other plan but for these guys to win the battle, but if I charged I might lose and even if I won, the cavalry might not have enough strength left to be decisive in the infantry melee (which kept grinding away). I charged, of course and it was gruesome since with his rank bonus we were tossing equal numbers of dice. We broke at the same time.

However, at this time one Roman Heavy Infantry broke and a domino effect took over. With the enemy's army in disarray I had only to ask the phalanx for one more step forward and it was over. My plan hadn't worked but the Greeks had beaten the Romans anyway. And we had fun (much more fun than I had when my Spartans had been routed from the field at Mantinea--what will I tell the shade of Leonidas?).

So how did we craft the rules? I like large movement distances (I have limited time and a whole pingpong table) so, in spite of the fact that my army is made up of 1 5mm figures, the 25mm distances from Tactica were used. The old Minifigs had come in packs of 8 cavalry and 24 infantry, so the basic cavalry unit was 8 (2 ranks of 4 files), Medium Infantry units were 6 strong (2 ranks by 3 files) and Heavy Infantry units 12 (allowing Romans to deploy in 2 ranks by 6 files and Greeks in 3 ranks by 4 files). This allowed units of sufficient size for deployment to be indicated by the position of the units. Units with the ability to skirmish could either start formed or as skirmishers and would have to stick with that choice. Unlike Tactica not only Roman infantry, but all units could stay in column (3 across for infantry, 2 across for cavalry) until they decided to deploy. This would give them greater flexibility at the risk of being caught in a non-fighting formation. Cavalry would have the option to charge infantry frontally, but was likely to lose. Morale would be simple (no tables like Tactica) but potentially decisive.

comments may be addressed to:
The Very Rev'd. Mired Glidden, O.S.B.
St. Gregory's Abbey
56500 Abbey Road
Three Rivers, MI, 49093