ARMATI is another rule set by Arty Conliffe covering ancient warfare. Much like TACTICA, Arty sets severe limits on the maneuverability of units. For example, a heavy infantry unit can either move forward 6" or wheel 2". However ARMATI is a totally different game with a different feel. This game does make you think ahead and plan your overall strategy. One WRG opponent was greatly distressed over his supposed lack of control of his troops. He spent the first two turns angling his line to the left. Then he wanted a quick reverse to go to the right. Arty does not let you do that.
My opponent began to complain about how unrealistic this set of rules was and how he will never spend a cent on it. From what I have read of the Hellenistic Age (that is the time period of the battle we fought), units did not juke one way, then cut the other. They lined up in one direction and then went with little or no adiustments to facing, the Romans and Carthaginians under Hannibal being the possible exceptions to this observation. What seems more realistic to this gamer (the lack of control) is totally unrealistic to one of the WRG ilk.
Arty's overall movement scheme reminds me of the DBM system. Each group in DBM (or division in ARMATI) is composed of various elements (or units) that must remain in contact while being moved. In DBM you can form or break the formations at the beginning of each move, but not during it. DBM's movement is based on a die throw. Throw a number--move that many units. You are allowed one dice (I never say die) per general.
ARMATI works an a similar principle except that ARMATI predetermines your dice throw. Alexander the Great throws a nine and can thus move that many number of divisions; an Indian opponent only throws a seven. (The Byzantines are really hot with the dice, throwing an eleven, whereas the unlucky Saxons were beaten by William the Conqueror and can only manage to throw a four.) The kicker is that once a division is formed, it is for the most part unchangeable. If Alexander were to form ten divisions, then one of them could never be moved for the entire game. (Alexander has too many other things on his mind to bother with that extra group of separatists.)
In DBM the number and compositions of the groups can be constantly changing but it is only the dice that determine the ability of the army to change. The only way to change the composition of an Armati division is to get the division into combat. If only one unit of the division is in combat with the enemy, the rest of the division is permitted to continue on. There is a price for, in effect, creating an extra division. You lose two points off of your initiative rating. Winning the initiative lets you seize the opportunity you need, or wait to see how your enemy moves and lets you react. It also lets you choose the all important melee direction.
In the article in last month's review Wally raised some points about Armati that are important and need to be looked at in more depth. The Arty Conliffe Inch (ACI) is, surprisingly enough, unique to Arty's rules. It is based on the premise that 15's are based on a 2:3 ratio to 25's in the WRG world. So the movement rate of 15's should be 2/3 that of his big brother instead of just half. It makes sense but it also makes for confusing movement without the ACI ruler.
Being allowed to wheel 1 and 1/3 inches is not the easiest to determine without the aid of the ACI ruler. In the 15 mm Intro, the ACI corresponds to 1/3 of an inch. Thus light cavalry moves 5", light infantry moves 3" and heavy infantry moves only 2". Any WRG gamer will tell you that these are the true numbers of 15mm movement as established by Mr. Barker himself. The only complaint about movement distances would be that heavy cavalry moves 5" instead of the more realistic 4". Wheeling only 2/3" is the big complaint that most gamers would have.
Wally mentions that one of his "peeves" about ARMATI is the continuing melee. I say, let Wally be peeved by it if he wants. It is what happened historically. When two phalanxes met in battle they would stay locked until the victorious flanking units of one side came back to help the main battle line. It was at this point the other side would break or even surrender, possibly joining the victorious general. (I am speaking of Macedonian style phalanxes simply because that is the period of history in which I'm best versed.)
Arty allows for a short melee with cavalry or warbands. These units are impetuous and can break their opponents on the first round if they win. A warband enters combat with a combat factor of five and the phalanx has a value of seven. The warband can win and possibly break the phalanx but odds are against it. (I almost had a phalanx broken by impetuous troops in one of the games.) If the impetuous unit does not win the first round then it becomes a normal melee. I think that "lose the round, fall back 12 inches (18 ACI), and form column," is a not a good way to represent ancient combat. Give phalanxes fighting phalanxes a break point of 12, sez I. That way the only way to break them is to hit them in the flank or rear.
Speaking of hitting them in the flank or rear, you must be able to wheel, and as Wally points out, that is not the easiest thing to do. I looked at Wally's math and aside from the fact that it would take only 22 turns to turn his 3 unit heavy cavalry division a complete 180 , his math seems fine. Twenty-two turns to turn around a division seems way too long, especially considering that the side with the higher initiative has to win in 15 turns.
My first question is why does he want to turn his troops toward home?? The enemy is to the front. Forward, onward and all that. I know that the Lion is a master at the art of maneuver, and one as young as I should have no reason to question him. However, I think that he should only have to turn at most 90 degrees, thus cutting in half the amount of time it takes turn. If the Lion were to win a melee (I know that the odds do not favor this).
There is a bonus move which can be used for a wheel, thus shortening the number of turns to wheel by one more. Add in support charges and he could actually wheel three times in one turn. One thing that Wally does not state is that any unit other than heavy infantry can both wheel and move. Light troops can do an about face, wheel then move. (one of the reasons that Wally might complain about no maneuverability is that he tried chasing a unit of light cavalry with some chariots.) Getting back to the matter at hand, instead of doing a 22 turn wheel in place, you can ride behind the enemy and be in position to charge on turn 23. That is still a considerably long time to formulate your attack. That is why a large heavy cavalry unit lines up and charges forward--the more men, the less maneuverable.
The inverse also applies--the fewer men, the more maneuverable. With a one unit division, it would take considerably less time to perform your wheel and flank the opponent line. That is why I use 3,4 and 5 unit divisions to pin the enemy, while my one unit divisions run around and hit the bad guys on the flank. The smaller the divisions are, the more able they became to adjust to the enemy. That is why the Byzantines should be able to run rings around an opponent with 11 divisions, and why the Saxons stand on a hill with just 4.
The Macedonians are allowed 4 heavy divisions. I arrange them with all of the phalanx units in one division, leaving the three remaining heavy units to make up the last three divisions. The Indian forces of Poros have the same number of heavy divisions and they have four types of troops (elephants, chariots, cavalry, and infantry), so some people just put them into divisions on that basis. That makes a relatively easy opponent to beat.
I have played in a couple of games of ARMATI, each time against a different opponent. Each of these games pitted Alexander against Poros. In the first game I fought against the WRG player mentioned in the first paragraph. This game was at Historicon and so Arty loaded down each side with four players a side. Too many, way too many.
The WRG player had but one division and an extremely large one at that. He had the same frustration that Wally experienced in his game against Tom. He couldn't turn his troops fast enough. My job was to pin his division to let the phalanx advance and beat the weak Indian infantry. I was given three one unit divisions. They were literally able to run rings around his troops. He saw what was going to happen and was unable to do anything about it. With only one division, and a quite unwieldy one at that, his frustration was understandable.
My peltasts caught and beat his elephants, and my light cav got around his flank and hit his cavalry in the rear. My heavy cavalry overran his neighboring skirmishers and then came in on the flank of the Indian line. When a unit is hit on the flank it fights with a much lower number, and I had a plus three to my dice against him. If caught in the flank, a unit has a break point of only one. You can guess that I just rolled down the line till the requisite number of units were broken and the Inians were deemed the losers.
The second time i tried this set it was against Tom Ellsworth and Wally Simon. I offered them their choice of army and they chose the Indians. Tom tried a new ploy in that he left his infantry in an uncontrolled state. This meant that they would not move for the entire game. He figured that they would not beat the Macedonian line so why even advance to contact. He put the elephants in the middle of the line, and left them uncontrolled as well. They are subject to a mandatory charge when the enemy comes within a certain number of ACIs, so would retain their impetuous capability. It almost worked.
They almost won the _ first round of combat and would have broken the phalanx to their front. Wally had the Indian left flank and his chariots ran down the Macedonian cavalry but then joined his heavy cavalry and light infantry in a pursuit of my light cavalry. With the 2 ACI wheels they were unable to either catch my cavalry or return to the battle. Tom fared a little better on the Indian right but still lost his chariots to the Companions and his lights to the peltasts. He did manage to overrun the peltasts with his cavalry and beat the light cavalry that hit him in the back. All their flank units were occupied, and when the main battle lines met the Macedonians rolled over the Indians rather easily.
The next time these units came out of the box it was at John Shirey's house. John, being a man from the Dark Ages (7), thought that the elephants were too neat to pass up. He also chose the Indians. (He had never seen one before in Saxon England, let alone commanded them.) One small item that worked in his favor was the size of the table. It was 18" (that is, REAL inches, not ACIs) shorter than the size recommended by Arty. His army was deployed from sideline to sideline. My one man divisions did not have the room to maneuver around flanks; there were none. My light cavalry tried to get out of the way and run over Indian skirmishers, but were caught by the Indian cavalry.
They put up a good fight and almost defeated the Indians. Even though my light cav was boxed in, the prodromoi still managed to win the battle. They did this by positioning themselves to fall on the flank of John's chariots. John kept trying to get his chariots to wheel around to hit the flank of the phalanx, but my light cav was always in the way. On the other flank John led a glorious elephant charge with Poros himself in the van.
The elephants managed to skewer themselves on the pikes of the phalanx, once again with Poros in the van. The phalanx closed with the Indian line, but when the elephants and the general were defeated the Indians had had enough. I think that John hurt himself by always breaking up his divisions whenever he had a chance. This quickly reduced his initiative to zero, and let me dictate the rest of the battle.
In the three games briefly described above, I organized the Macedonians the same for each contest and set them up relatively identically. Each Indian player organized his forces differently, and a quite different battle resulted each time. The first game was won by a charge on the right flank, while for the second one, victory was determined in the middle of the ' field. During the last game it was the left flank that proved to be the decisive one. Next time i fight, I will fight with the Indians to try to see if Alexander can be stopped.
All in all, ARMATI is a different game than those that have been tried before. I believe that the majority of the game hinges on what happens before the first move. Dividing your troops into divisions is the most important part of the game. Poor decisions here hamper the possibilities of any maneuverability or adaptability to your opponent. Deployment can help, but will not overcome major deficiencies with your organization. You really have to plan your game before the battle starts because of the lack of total control over your troops.
Unlike WRG, you cannot adapt your forces very much once the game has begun. Tom Ellsworth was quite impressed with the rules and stated that there was a lot of subtlety involved. I think the subtlety he is talking about refers to the creation of divisions, but there is more to the game than just that. Tom feels that there is a much better chance for ARMATI to catch on with the chaps in England than TACTICA ever did. I have enjoyed playing ARMATI and am looking forward to playing it in the future.
Back to PW Review September 1994 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1994 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