Timidity in the Face of the Enemy Recently, I supervised a game of DBM between the Later Seleucids of Clay Smith and the Later Samurai of Gene Hosey. Clay had the usual powerful array of troops; a large pike block in the center, with elephants and imitation legionaries on the left, and cataphracts and peltasts on the right, along with some Galatians for good measure. Gene had s large number of samurai, with a dozen ashigaru on each flank and some archers deployed forward of his center. The few cavalry were arrayed in the rear with the generals. Armies were 325 points. Clay threw defender dice and arranged terrain to protect his flanks. Gene made his first mistske in leaving it as Clay wished. The Japanese had fifty-four elements to the Seleucids forty-three. Difficult terrain would just make ranking harder for the ashigeru, but not prohibitively so. Both sides advanced, the Seleucids moving down the corridor between difficult terrain, the Japanese sending columns of ashigaru through the woods to flank them on either side. While Clay advanced steadily, Gene inextricably stopped and attempted to deploy his troops so that the Seleucid army would walk into an outflanked position (as if they would). It was this action at this moment that Gene lost the battle. The Seleucids continued their advance. Sending s few elements into each flanking group to tie them up, Clay's steamroller moved on the Japanese. Gene's surrendering of the initiative left him facing an opponent that was more powerful frontally than his own. By being intimidated and not surging forward to sweep around their flanks, Gene yielded his advantage in numbers and funneled his troops onto the pike's, warband's, and peltast's spearpoints. Clay lost not a single element. When Boldness Lacks Security, It's Called Rash (Or: please powder my bottom) There is one thing I've noticed that seems to be prevalent amongst wsrgamers. It's that there is a large percentage who are so afrsid of losing that they hesitate to take action. I took a trip up to Oklahoma City where I tabled my Byzantine Thematics against Jonathan Keeper's Mongols, using five hundred points each. We each had two other players assist us as sub-ordinate generals. (All subordinates shall remain nameless as I can't remember their names.) While our assissants moved elements and rolled dice, the plans, tactics, and mistakes were our own. The Mongols invaded the Empire under the leadership of the dreaded Mongol Chieftain Genghis Jon. Dispatched by the Emperor to expel him was his best commander, Strategos Dustinian, undefeated in ten major battles with Normans, Arabs, and sundry foreigners. On the fields near Dara they arrayed for battle. The Byzantines were in standard formation with skoutatoi in the center flanked by archers, cavalry on the flanks with the Tagma and light horse supporting. The left had an additional group of Armenian javelinmen, some in ambuscade in woods on the enemy's right. The Strategos' commend on the right wing had a wedge of klibanophoroi and some Georgian nobles. (Yes, I use the 'old' name for the Byzantinc superheavies. Don't ask me why Phil is using the names kataphraktoi for them, and the name kovallarioi (greco-ized cavalry') for the others when the history book says otherwise. Some new dung-head would-be historian obviously convinced Phil that his version of history was the correct one. Give me a break. (And yes, I still say Haley's Comet, not Halley's )) Their camp was fortified and guarded by artillery and fire-siphoneers. The Mongols deployed with a small center of cavalry around their chieftain, two wings of heavy cavalry and light horse, and a detachment of light borse on a flank march. The Byzantines outnumbered the Mongols on the field by a considerable margin, and began their game. With typical Mongol efficiency (and die rolling that was to plague the Byzantines all day) the march force arrived immediately. Not dismayed, Dustinian ordered a rapid advance, thinking to overwhelm the smaller commands ahead while the flanking force made the mistake of heading for the baggage camp (which, in DBA is much more valuable than in DBM), which it did. But he neglected to take the prudent precaution of throwing back a delaying force, so they closed on the camp at very hgh speed (Jonathan rolled another six) and assaulted it as the main bodies clashed. The center command did quite well, breaking the small elite units, wounding the Chieftain Genghis Jon in the process. The wing commands' however, performed atrociously Having heard so much of Mongol prowess and ferocity on horseback, they met their foes half- heartedly (we rolled tons of little numbers against big numbers, several times losing advantage rolls that would have destroyed two or more elements). The left command lost golden opportunities which turned against them till they were broken. The right command suffered likewise with the klibanophoroi being crushed at first contact, and the rest quickly falling apart against the smaller Mongol force. Before the center could move to retrieve the situation (which they could have had Dustinian delayed the flank force) that very group smashed into the rear of the right wing and routed them. Strategos Dustinian was forced to huddle in the center of the field in a square of skoutatoi and archers, holding off the Mongols, when they retired to their intact camp and thence scurried off to the fortress of Dara. The Mongols won a decisive victory and penetrated the heart of the Byzantine Empire. Tactics and Luck I'd rather be lucky than good, anyday. But if you can't be lucky, then you'd better be good! Moving with alacrity, Dustinian gathered up another force and intercepted the Mongols at the battle of the Halys. There they clashed again. This time, as fate would have it, the subordinates of the Chieftain commanded the army as he was still laid up with his wounds (Jonathan had to go to an HMCS meeting). Dustinian deployed in more constrictive terrain with the river on his right flank. The skoutatoi held this area while the center and left were made up of groups of cavalry, archers and javelinmen mixed and arrayed to cover the terrain. The ailing Mongol Chieftain directed his commanders to form an even larger flank command, and three small field commands. By judicious use of terrain, and thanks to mistakes made by the sub-chieftains, Dustinian had 20 percent of his forces tie up 60 percent of the Mongols on the left flank while a large force sent after the Mongol right wing. Though the tactics were much more sound, things still became very dicey for the Byzantines as they continued to roll low against the Mongols disproportionally and the Mongol right wing held its own. Luckily, the sub-chieftains again erred. They allowed the flank commander to expose himself to some archers who stampeded some light horsemen into his flank, causing him to he trampled and his command become demoralized with the loss of only a few elemems. The result was a marginal Byzantine victory, each side having lost almost the same number of elements. So the Mongol advance into Byzantium was halted. Both sides now maneuver for position in this life and death struggle. The Mongols seek vulnerable territories to control while their chieftain recovers. The Byzantines bide their time, waiting for the decisive moment to strike again. Don't touch that dial! We'll be back after this important dissertation. Discretion is the better psrt of Valor Aggression is the better part of Tactics "The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by rapid and audacious ATTACK!- - Napoleon Bonaparte. If there is one general in all of history to whom the miniatures gamers should pay attention, it is the Master of Tactics. While Napoleon may not have been one of the greatest strategists in history, he was master of the battlefield. With Hannibal and R.E. Lee. he demonstrated tactical mastery which has been wurpassed. Only the lack of strategic skill amongst these three caused their wars to fail, though they regularly destroyed forces larger than their own. Since there is no strategy involved in bringing tabletop armies to task, tactics is all that need concern miniatures gamers. Each of these battles is an example of basic tactical actions. I'm not talking about tactical maneuvers, but the action of commanders in the face of their enemy. They are three fold; Boldness, Rashness, and Timidity. If I were to judge commanders in the field, about half would he timid, a third bold, and the remainder rash in action. Historically in this century, half to two-thirds of generals has been relieved of commund because timidity, and sometimes for being rash and expending lives wastefully (Though the latter can sometimes have a place if they have a superior who knows how to use them.) In both my battles with Jonathan, neither of us was afraid to commit our troops to battle. Fine games were decided on tactics and die rolls. Despite our rolling badly (my left wing commander's opponent told me that in ten rolls he dropped five ones, three twos, a three and a four, while himself never rolling under three - sheesh, this should happen to me!) we still should have won this battle. Once the Mongol center was broken, the infantry could have moved against the victorious Mongol right, and come to bear against the left before the flanking force became a factor. But my failure to provide security and hold back a few elements to delay them, allowed Jonathan to bring these troops into position at just the nght moment to be decisive. He made excellent use of his maneuver groups and stomped my impertinent butt. This was rashness born of over confidence, something you should never be in battle when you cannot KNOW how your troops will react (or how the dice will roll -- both are FACTS of LIFE!). In the second game, I played the tacties right. He still got in trouble with die rolling, but that didn't matter. Jonathan had left some key terrain in an advantageous place for me and the mistake which led to the loss of the enemy flank commander was a bonus which ended the battle quickly. Even with the tactical advantages, losses were equal (showing just how bad the die rolling was that day. Had Jonathan been there to explain his tactical thinking. it may have gone badly yet again for the Empire. I hadn't had such good games since playing Bill McCampbell and Jack Young) The Seleucid/Japanese battle is a prime example of what NOT to do! With three commands at hs disposal, Gene took up defensive positions wtth all of them. In tactics, there is a simple dichotomy which exists and must be utilized to be successful. You must both defend and attack! What? Whether you have one command or ten, if you do not attack with something, you have failed and yielded all initiative to the enemy. He can then deal with you at his leisure You should always be attacking with a portion of your forces, and defending with another, regardless of your situation. When you find yourself defending in all quarters, you have lost. Even the Crusaders learned the hard way that in battle you have the sword and the sheld, the cavalry and the infantry, the maneuver element and the static element. If you have only one or the other, you hve no chance of gaining or holding the initiative. An ermy of all knights or all spears can easily be defeated by an army of both applying just a modicum of tactics. Next time you plan your battle, make certain you include these elements. Have a defensive group(s) which will hold off enemy forces. These provide the security required for your offensive group(s) to succeed. Situate terrain to enable your groups to acheve their missions. If your opponent sets up terrain, use it to suit your own plans. If you leave it as is, you are fighting on his ground on his terms. Make your attack group maneuverable. Use either regulars, high quality troops, or a narrow front, but don't leave them vulnerable to distraction. Inferior end irregular troops are difficult to maneuver except to move directly into the enemy. Combined arms armies were the most successful historically for a reason. They are able to adapt to a wide variety of circumstances. Armies which over specialize may have a more weighty sword to wield, but proper planning and execution can turn that sword away and leave him wide open to a counter-stroke. Some of the best tactical masterpieces are Defensive-Offensive operations where one side waits until the other commits his first assault, turns it aside, then counter-attacks. That doesn't mean to wait on your side of the table for your opponent to come to you. You must force him to act as you wish. Move forward to a position in which he must attack at the time and place you want. Otherwise, you give him the opportwnity to choose his own. Using these ideas in mind, you will have a better chance of being master of the battlefield at the end of the day. ROLL 6s! Back to Saga #50 Table of Contents Back to Saga List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1995 by Terry Gore 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