Some years ago, I purchased an old, old collection of what I initially thought were Renaissance-type people, but which turned out to be a mixture of all sorts of spearmen and knights and swordsmen and so on. The figures measure 1 inch from head to toe… I think they originally were termed ‘25mm’ figures, but today, 25mm figures are at least a quarter of an inch taller.
Due to their size, the teeny weenies didn’t fit in with any of my other figures, and so I mounted them separately on bases measuring 2-inches by 2-inches and on occasion, take them out to test a rules set. Recently, since I didn’t have too much to do during the week, they appeared on my table as I set up a game to be played in solo fashion.
I initially labeled the rules as ‘renaissance rules’… and, in the middle of the solo game, Jeff Wiltrout appeared and said the figures didn’t look ‘renaissancish’ to him… they seemed to be ‘dark ages’.
Okay, said I… ‘dark ages’ it is, and I changed the name of the rules to Dark Ages. I’m a fairly agreeable person, and the type of little people running around on the table wasn’t affected… they stayed the same… they still wielded the same axes and swords and spears and so on.
Each side had around 12 units, with a unit consisting of either 2 or 3 stands. I defined 5 types of units, each with an Attack Value (AV) and a Defensive Value (DV):
| Unit | Attack (AV) | Defense (DV) |
|---|---|---|
| Heavy cavalry | 5 | -4 |
| Medium cavalry | 4 | -3 |
| Heavy infantry | 4 | -2 |
| Medium infantry | 3 | -1 |
| Archers | 2 | 0 |
Note that, to me, only the type of troop was significant… I didn’t care if the unit weapon was a sword or spear or whatever… only the ‘weight’ of the unit was considered to be a pertinent factor. Secondly, in terms of ‘hitting power’, i.e., the AV of the unit, I classified medium cavalry and heavy infantry together.
As this was a solo effort, the sequence was kept quite simple; 4 basic phases were employed:
- 1. Side A moves all his troops
2. Side B fires
3. Side B’s cavalry gets additional movement
4. Melee is resolved
For the third phase, cavalry movement for Side B, I dug out a very old ploy which I had used years ago in several ancients games, that of a cavalry ‘interdiction’.
Here, after Side A had moved its troops in Phase 1, Side A could have contacted one or two of Side B’s units. Phase 3 enabled Side B to ‘rescue’ whichever of its troops had been caught at a disadvantage. If, for example, a cavalry unit of Side A had contacted an infantry unit of Side B, still in column of march, Side B could attempt to interdict, or ‘soak off’, the Side A cavalry, with a cavalry unit of its own.
Interdiction was not automatic. The chance to interdict was a basic 70 percent. The 70 percent was, in turn, modified, by two factors:
- First, subtract the distance of the interdicting cavalry to its own commander. Here, my thought was that the further the interdicting cavalry was from its own commander, the less the probability of its receiving the order to go to the rescue.
Second, subtract the distance of the interdicting cavalry to the unit it wanted to charge. The greater the distance, the less the probability that it would arrive in time.
Another restriction was that an interdicting unit couldn’t do so from more than 25 inches from its desired target. When I had initially instituted the interdicting rule, there was no limit to the distance moved… cavalry could whiz across the entire field to help out… I received lots of nasty comments about the ploy.
Around Bound 3, in my battle, Sorg the Bloody, as a commander of Side A, sent one of his heavy cavalry units to slam into a medium infantry unit of Knull the Obnoxious. Unfortunately for Knull, his infantry unit, the one being charged, was still in column of march and so he attempted to send help. He called on his own heavy cavalry. This particular heavy unit was 13 inches from Jehk, and 10 inches from Sorg’s heavy cavalry.
- Chance to interdict = 70 - (13 inches from Knull + 10 inches from its target)
This gave Knull’s cavalry a 47 percent chance to dash over and save the medium infantry. A low dice toss and Knull’s cavalry successfully zipped over to the rescue and ‘soaked off’ Sorg’s charging cavalry, while the infantry stood by and cheered.
Most of the time, due to the low percentages involved, attempts to interdict were not successful.
Each side had 2 commanders, who played significant roles in the battle. Each commander had two key values, one for combat, and one for morale. The combat value started at 20, the morale value at 30.
- 1. When a unit engaged in combat, its commander automatically added a +2 to its AV (as given in the listing on Page 1). Since he added 2 to his unit’s AV, he subtracted 2 from his own combat value. And if his unit lost the melee, he subtracted an additional 2 points from his combat value. Throughout the battle, therefore, the commanders’ combat values were consistently decreasing.
2. When a unit took a morale test, it added its own Morale Level (ML) to that of its commander. All units started with an ML of 55… when that was added to the commander’s 30 point level, it totaled 85 percent. But from this number, I deducted the distance to the commander, so that the full 85 was rarely used.
There was an interaction between a commander’s combat value and his morale value. When the commander’s combat value went negative, not only could he not contribute his 2 points to his unit, but he began to deduct points from his own morale value. This, in turn, reduced the ML of his units.
The commander hardest hit by the above was Knull the Obnoxious. His units lost melee after melee, and in each melee, he lost a total of 4 points from his combat value. The result was that, after his combat value reached zero, his morale value then began to drop. At battle’s end, Knull’s morale value was down to 16 points from its original 30. His half of the field couldn’t hold its own… he had no combat points to contribute, and when his units took a morale test, their lowered MLs resulted in more and more fall backs… and his units began to retreat.
In retrospect, two commanders for each side weren’t enough. The distances to be covered on the field, i.e., the entire ping pong table, were too great. Three, perhaps four, commanders would have been adequate. The two commanders that were present were being “used up” too fast. In a sense, that made the solo battle easier for me… it was fairly easy to see which side had to give up the field.
The combination of Sorg the Bloody and Jehk the Serpent was unstoppable. Especially when one of their opponents, Knull, went negative.
As I stated before, each unit started with a Morale Level (ML) of 55. It also started with a combat value of 60 points. When fired at and when engaged in melee, both of these values decreased. If either one reached zero, the unit was finished.
When two units engaged in melee, I used a quick tally of points. For example, when Sorg’s 2-stands of heavy cavalry charged Knull’s 3-stand medium infantry, we had the following:
| Hvy Cav | Tally | Med Inf |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | AV (from listing on first page) | 3 |
| -1 | DV of opponent from first page | -4 |
| 2 | Commander’s contribution | 2 |
| 4 | Each stand will contribute 2 pts | 6 |
| 8 | 10-sided die roll | 4 |
From the above, the cavalry total 18, while the infantry total 11. These numbers are used in three ways.
- 1. Since Sorg’s heavy cavalry had the higher total, they won, while Knull’s unit lost, and Knull takes another 2 points off his own combat value.
2. The ‘delta’ between the two totals, 18-11, or 7, is deducted from the ML of the losing unit. Thus Knull’s infantry’s ML of 55 goes down to 48.
3. Every point over 10 is deducted from the opponent’s combat value. Here, the heavy cavalry lose 1 point, and their combat value goes from 60 to 59. The medium infantry lose 8 points, and their combat value of 60 goes down to 52.
What the above produces is a continual degradation of all units and all commanders on the field, perfect for a solo encounter. After the battle, despite his defeat, Knull rode up to me and said he liked the rules… it just doesn’t get any better than that.
Back to PW Review September 2000 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 Wally Simon
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