An issue or so ago, I described the superb historical re-enactment of the fall of the Qa'amian empire, circa 3000 BC. That battle was fought on a gridded field set out on my ping pong table... 2-inch squares were used, and with my 15mm ancients army, only one stand was permitted per square.
I liked the set-up ... using the squares resulted in what I term a "clean game", in that all the parameters of the encounter were well defined. Facing of the stands, movement distances, firing zones, lines of contact between stands ... all these parameters were clearly set out in terms of the grid structure. There was, for example, no room for argument when the question is that unit within bow range?" arose. Either the target was within the required number of squares or it wasn't.
Having done so well with the gridded field, it was time to press on. This time, I drew up a field of 'nodes" or junctions. This is the type of field set out in the board-game A HOUSE DIVIDED. I forget the stacking rules employed by A HOUSE DIVIDED, but I defined the stacking limit as 4 stands per node.
Thus a force of 4 stands could move from junction to junction. A portion of the set-up is sketched below ... there are a total of 7 entrance roads leading on to the field; each of the roads leads to a junction, which could be either an 'open field' junction or a "fortress".
The entire field was owned by the defending Qa'amians ... they had 12 fortresses, plus the capital city. The objective of the attacking force was to break through to the capital. Once the walls were breached, and the city occupied, the game was over.
The three Pashas running the Qa1amian force were Bob Hurst, Tony Figlia, and Jeff Wiltrout. According to Pasha Bob, after the battle was over, the initial Qa'amian strategy was defective... they spread their units out all over the map, instead of concentrating near the capital.
In part, this was due to the fact that the scenario setter-upper, who shall remain nameless, didn't give the defenders enough troops to hold.
The bulk of the attacking force set out on the most direct path to Qa'am. The attackers had 15 stands of heavy infantry, as compared with 8 defending heavy infantry. The key restriction, of course, was the stacking limit of 4 stands per node ... this meant that the attackers would come on in waves, instead of one huge mass of troops.
Each side was given 15 medium infantry stands. A combat bonus was given for stands defending a fortress; I thought this bonus - which essentially brought a medium infantry stand up to the level of a heavy infantry stand - would even things out.
The relative combat values of the assigned stands were:
| Heavy Cavalry Heavy Infantry Medium Cavalry Medium Infantry |
7 Combat Points per stand 6 5 4 |
when a force moved into a node occupied by the enemy, combat would take place, and each side grabbed its Battle Board ... which looked like this:
| HVY CAV | HVY INF | MED CAV | MED INF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 6 5 4 |
6 5 4 3 |
5 4 3 2 |
4 3 2 1 |
Along the top are noted the four types of troops. Combat was fought in rounds, in each of which two opposing stands were paired off. The combat sequence, per round, used the steps outlined below. When stands were matched, each always started with 50%; bonuses given to one side were deducted from the other. This meant that as one side's total went up, the other's went down, and the sum of the points on both sides always remained at 100%.
- Assume the attacker selected a heavy cavalry stand to engage. This was worth 7 points.
Next the defender selected an opposing stand. Assume he selected one of medium infantry, worth 4 points.
The difference in the point values is 3; each point difference gives the higher player a +5% increment, hence the heavy cavalry add 15% to their initial 50%, while the medium infantry deduct 15% from their 50%.
Each player consulted the following chart, the heavy cavalry with a total of 65 points, and the medium infantry with a total of 35 points.
-
-------------------------------------------
No effect
Total -------------------------------------------
Score 1 marker
1/2 Total -------------------------------------------
Score 2 markers
-------------------------------------------
Both players collect their markers. The heavy cavalry stand is moved down to the "6" box, and the medium infantry is moved to the "3" box. If these stands engage in this melee again, their values are accordingly downgraded.
On the second round, the defender selected a stand first. The attacker selected his stand, again the difference in values used as a modifier, and both sides refer to the chart.
Melees last for about 4 or 5 rounds, at the end of which each side has accumulated markers. The number of these markers plus the number of engaged stands is used to determine the winner.
Note in the melee procedure that one could toss his heavy cavalry into several consecutive rounds, but on each successive round, the cavalry would get weaker and weaker, going from 7 to 6 to 5, etc. The Battle Board thus serves as a step-reduction tracking sheet. When the melee is finished, the heavy cavalry would, for its next melee, return to an initial value of 7 points. Decreases in strength were only applicable to one melee.
On the melee chart shown above, note that you "score' markers on the opposition. These markers are not turned back after combat, but go into your side's inventory.
Other sources of markers occur (a) when a unit on the opposing side fails a morale test; here, too, you get a marker for your inventory, and (b) when your missile troops fire and hit the target. At the end of each half bound, the accumulated markers of each side are used to destroy enemy stands. The number of markers required to eliminate an enemy stand is its Combat Value, given on the second page of this article. Thus to destroy one enemy heavy cavalry stand, you'd need 7 markers.
Alternatively, you could take 6 markers and gamble. Having only 6 of the required 7 gives a percentage chance of 6/7, or 86% (approx) to knock off one enemy heavy cavalry stand. If successful, the owning player would select which particular heavy cavalry stand on the field would go.
With a preponderance of both heavy cavalry and heavy infantry, the attackers slowly wore down the defenders.
There was no chance for either side to bring in reinforcements ... what you started with was what you had for the battle.
One of the procedures in the game involved the use of Command Points (CP). Each turn, the sides collected CP in proportion to the number of fortresses they owned. In the initial stages of the battle, therefore, the majority of CP were collected by the defender, who occupied all fortresses on the field.
In melee, the losing side placed half of his engaged force in an off-table Rally Zone. The only way a side could get these stands back on the field again was to use the CP ... 1.CP permitted one stand to return to the field.
In retrospect, what I should have done was to permit the sides to purchase reinforcements with their CP's. This would have permitted the Qa'amian defenders to re-equip themselves to counter their losses in battle. As it was, the only use for the CP's was to recycle stands from the Rally Zone to the field.
Another aspect in the game which needs more reconsideration is the use of generals. I gave each side 4 or 5 generals, and while these fellows could help out in melee, their prime purpose was for use in the morale test which a unit took after it was hit by missile fire.
Here, each unit started out with a base of 80 percent. A key parameter, however, was a deduction of 5% for every node between the unit under test and the general. If a unit failed a morale test, the opposition, i.e., the side causing the morale test, received a marker.
Despite the size of the field, the number of generals proved too many. The generals seemed to be all over the place too much of the time.
Note that this battle employed an unusual method of casualty assessment. The sides could focus on the particular type of enemy stand to be removed.
- When a side fired at the enemy and hit, it earned markers. The hits themselves did nothing directly in removing enemy stands.
In melee, the melee outcome chart scored the result in terms of markers earned ; there were no direct casualties resulting from melee.
only at the end of each half bound, could the sides use their accumulated combat markers to actually eliminate enemy stands, choosing the type to be destroyed.
When we added up casualties, we found that the defenders had focussed on smashing the attacker's heavy infantry; the attackers had lost 9 heavy infantry stands of their original 15; the defenders had lost 4 of their original 8. In terms of total points, the attacker lost 86 points, while the defender lost 85. The difference here, of course, is that the defender started with fewer points than the attacker and so could less afford to be attritted.
Back to PW Review January 1996 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1996 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