Battle The First
Fred Hubig showed up one Saturday... it had been about a year or so since his last appearance, and so, to keep the lad happy, I set up what I call a L'il Tankie Battle (LTB). At each HMGS convention, I usually purchase a number of science fiction/fantasy tanks... little things, slightly larger than micro-armor, used with 6mm figures. I'm not sure of their make, but they're painted, ready to go, and that's good enough for me.
I had enough of these l'il tankies for my LTB to set out seven 'divisions' on each side. A division contained from 6 to 12 tanks, and each one had a command vehicle (an identifier), and a data sheet on which were listed its Survivability (S) factors, starting with 80, and going down to around 50. When a unit was hit, you tried to toss percentage dice under its current S factor. If you couldn't, then one or two tanks were removed and 2 additional S factors were crossed out, further reducing the unit's survivability capability.
Digression. Now here's some food for thought. Bob Hurst, some time ago, recommended that in a wargame, the dice throws should employ some consistency, i.e., either all high tosses were good, or all high tosses were bad. In this manner, the player would 'know' what type of toss he was looking for... if the high throws were bad, and he tossed high, he'd instantaneously know he was in for trouble.
I mention this because in previous armor games, I had a variable called 'Vulnerability', V, which started at a low percentage and ran higher and higher as the armored unit took losses. For example, when a unit took one hit, its V was, say, 10 percent, and the owning player's toss of 10 or under caused one vehicle in the unit to blow up. Two more hits, and the V factor was up to 20... a toss of 20 or less and a vehicle blew up. Note that here, low dice tosses were bad for the player tossing the dice.
I decided that, in my games, I'd try to have all low tosses as 'good tosses'... i.e., by tossing low, the player could expect good things to happen.
The result was that the Vulnerability factor, V, exited, and the Survivability factor, S, came in. This S factor started high, and as the unit took hits, it became lower and lower. If the initial S factor was 80 percent, then a toss below 80 indicated no damage, i.e., a low toss produced a good effect. But note that to have a vehicle blow up, a toss of over 80 was required, and the chance of this occurring was 20 percent. In other words, the chance of a vehicle destroyed was the same as for the original Vulnerability factor of 20 percent.
And so, in the LTB described in this article, and my other rules sets, you'll read about a Survivability factor, which starts high and works its way down.
End of digression. <>Back to LTB
Back to the LTB. Of the seven divisions on each side, three were Long Range Missile (LRM) divisions. All other armored units had a firing range of 20 inches, whereas the LRM divisions could fire anywhere on the table. If firing beyond the line-of-sight, the LRM unit used a template to determine the impact area of the barrage, and we diced to see if the barrage actually landed on the target of interest. This template dicing proved to be a bother, and we gave it up after awhile, simply letting a dice throw determine if the target was hit.
All firing results, short range weapons or LRM's, followed the same procedure. Each division was assigned a Combat factor, ranging from 20 to 30. Modifying this were:
- Add +5 for every vehicle firing above a minimum of 4
Subtract -10 if the target was in cover.
Note the requirement of 'more than 4' vehicles firing. Thus a 12 tank unit, with a Combat factor of 30, had 8 tanks over the minimum level of 4, and would add 5 x 8, or 40 percent, to the Combat factor of 30. This gave a Probability-of-Hit (POH) for the unit of 70 percent.
Toss below half the POH, and you'd hit two tanks, and so on. I actually used two charts:
- a. The first chart was used by the firing player... he tossed percentage dice and used his POH to determine the number of hits, translated into Survivability factors which were crossed off the target's data sheet.
b. The second chart was used by the target player. With his reduced Survivability factor, he determined how many, if any, of his tanks were removed.
On the west side of the field, my right flank, one of Fred's divisions poked its nose over a ridge - only two of the tanks in the unit made it to the top of the hill - and fired. Since only two tankies were firing, Fred didn't have the requisite number of 'more than 4 vehicles' to augment his Combat factor (which was 25). And so his POH remained at 25 percent. He tossed his dice and missed.
On the next bound, the rest of Fred's division appeared on the hill, all 11 tanks. This time, when he fired, with 7 vehicles over the minimum of 4, he added 7 x 5, or 35, to his Combat factor of 25, giving him a POH of 60 percent. He didn't miss.
The targeted unit was my 2nd Division, and Fred showed it no mercy. After some 5 bounds, pummeled by several attacking enemy divisions, my vaunted 2nd was no more. It had run out of Survivability factors and tanks.
When a unit was hit, there were three possible results. One, of course, was to reduce its Survivability factor. Next was to actually destroy a tank or two. And third, one or two tanks could be sent to the 'Repair Zone'. Here, at the end of the bound, each side tried to recover the vehicles undergoing repair. Each vehicle was diced for... there was a 50 percent chance it recovered, otherwise it was destroyed.
Destroyed tanks yielded victory points to the opposition. We played some 6 bounds, at which time it was evident that my tankie forces weren't going anywhere. Fred's units had essentially broken through on my right flank, caused heavy losses to three of my divisions, and tallied some 40 victory points. Enough is enough.
Battle The Second
Next on the field of battle were my 25mm ancients troops. Fred and I both had two 'divisions' of troops, each with some 5 or 6 units in them. Each division had a commanding officer, and his figure, as in so many of my rules, was used as a reference when a unit took a morale test.
If, for example, a unit's basic moralel level (ML) was 80 percent, and the commander was 12 inches away, we reduced the ML by the distance of 12, to 80-12, or 68 percent.
At the end of each half of the bound, there was a final phase for reorganizing front lines. During the bound, due to units falling back because of firing effects, or losses due to melees, or units charging out to contact the enemy, or units failing morale tests, there were gaps in the front lines. On this phase, therefore, one was permitted to realign his front lines, filling the gaps. Units could move backwards or to the side to realign, but could not move forward to do so.
At the end of Bound 6, Fred's cavalry had been eliminated, as with his heavy infantry. On the bound-ending 'reorganize your front lines' phase, he didn't have too many units to realign, and the battle was over.
The sequence was one with which I had been toying for some time. I've mentioned it before in previous articles, and the item of interest is the way missile units (archers, slingers and javelineers) are treated. Over the years, I've observed many, many ancients games, and been unimpressed with the way these lighter units are dealt with.
Usually, they move out with the rest of the troops on the movement phases, and then, when it's time to fire, we discover they're out of range or out of their arc of fire, or pointing the wrong way, or "something".
One would think these little missile warriors, having fought in battle after battle, would learn what to do, and where to go, and how to set up to be most effective when they fired. At least, that's my theory, based on years of study at the Centre For Provocative Wargaming Analysis.
And so, to implement Simon's Light Troop Hypothesis (SLTH), there's a phase in the sequence for each side wherein all light troops, foot and mounted, are permitted to dash forward and set themselves up before the enemy front lines, and load their bows (does one 'load' a bow?) and sharpen their javelins, and so on, getting ready to fire.
According to the SLTH, these fearless little missile guys run out and arrange themselves directly in front of the enemy... archers within 10 inches of their intended targets, and javelineers within 2 inches of theirs. The distance they move is inconsequential... 20 inches, or 30 inches, or 50 inches... all we know is that the missile guys are trained to appear at the right place at the right time.
Having moved into position, the question remaining is: do they fire?
Again referring to the SLTH, we note that the defending side, seeing the opposing missile men all lined up and about to give them what-for, should certainly attempt to drive the missileers off.
This is done with the defender's cavalry units. These mounted troopers will attempt to dash out, each assigned to a particular enemy missile unit, and drive it back beyond missile range.
For this purpose, each side is assigned a Control Factor (CF), dicing for either 70, or 75 or 80 percent. The CF has other uses, but here, this is the probability that the assigned cavalry unit drives back its target missile unit.
When I first started to implement the SLTH, I restricted the cavalry movement to some 30 inches, and physically moved them out to intercept the missileers... and then I said: "Why? Why can't they, like the missile guys, dash all over the field to do their job?"
And the result was that I eliminated the cavalry movement altogether. Simply designate a cavalry unit, designate the missile unit it is to drive back, toss the dice, and quick like a bunny, faster than the eye can see, the horsemen will zip out, engage the missileers, and race back to their original position. It's all done in the wink of an eyeball... and so there's no need to move any of the cavalry units. <>CF
Whether the cavalry are successful or not depends upon the CF dice throw. A toss below the CF, and the missile unit is driven back behind its front lines, out its range and unable to fire, and with certain losses. On the other hand, a toss above the CF, and the cavalry is unhappy... in its approach to the missile unit, it's been deluged with arrows or javelins, it's taken losses, it's been driven off, it returns to its original position in its lines, while the laughing missileers remain in place. Note here, low throws for the cavalry are good, high throws are bad.
After the cavalry's "drive off the missile men" phase, the enemy archers and javelin units, those which still remain in place before the enemy lines, will fire.
And now comes the final phase of the SLTH firing sequence. All those missile guys, who ran out in front of the enemy lines to fire, now take a test to see if they can retire. Each unit uses its own Control number (70?, 75? 80?), and if it tosses under its number, the unit gracefully retires behind its own lines to safety. Those that fail the test will remain in place, and on the enemy's movement phase, will simply be run over by the enemy as it advances.
When the enemy's line moves up, the stationary lights are not eliminated... instead, they retreat behind their own lines, taking considerable losses. They had their chance to fall back... hard cheese!
Thus endeth the SLTH. It's highly symbolic, and it eliminates the necessity to (a) inch forward your archers to hopefully get them within range, and (b) actually test to see if targets are within range during the fire phase. Targets are always within range as the missile units move forward.
Now we came to the important question... does the SLTH truly incorporate the manner in which ancient battles were fought? And I immediately shout: "Yes! Yes! Yes!".
Look at the way in which the WRG ancients rules treated lights. These bold little fellows didn't retreat... they actually engaged heavier units in battle. And look at the way that the most historically-correct set of rules, DBM, treats lights... the psiloi don't retreat or evade, they actually engage heavier units. And look at the way TACTICA treats lights... these little fellows simply don't have the smarts to evade oncoming heavier units... they get eaten up.
Can the SLTH be any less historic than these superior rules sets? I doubt it.
One thing I've noticed with the SLTH is that the battle concentrates more on encounters between heavier units. The firing phases are much less time consuming... they're quick and dirty as light troop movement takes place rapidly... and the players, therefore, can focus on the movement of their heavy cavalry and infantry, instead of pushing around archers to ensure they're in position for the next turn.
Back to PW Review April 1998 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1998 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