I thought I would be fun to have a quick Punic War ancients game as a quick reminder of the rules using One Hour Wargames (OHW) scenario 21 (twin objectives). I opted to use six units per side as per the scenario but selected the units myself rather than have them generated. This is so I could use a unit of elephants.
OHW scenarios are normally for a tabletop size of 3 by 3 foot, and I would normally have slightly increased the size and played the game on a 4 by 4 foot tabletop. However, I though it would be interesting to try and stretch the scenario to fit a 6 by 4 foot tabletop. While at the same time increasing unit base sizes from the OHW suggested 4-6 inch width to a width of 12 inches.
The rules remained the same when it came to movement with 6, 9 ad 12 inches for heavy infantry, light infantry, and cavalry.
Order of battle...
Romans:
- 1 x Light infantry
- 3 x Heavy infantry
Carthaginians:
- 1 x Light infantry
- 1 x Elephants
- 1 x Light cavalry
- 3 x Heavy infantry
Elephants - move 9 inches, hits equal a D6 with no reductions for armour. When eliminated roll D6:
- 1-2 they go berserk and attack nearest friendly unit within 9 inches and are then removed from play.
- 3-4 they are removed from play immediately.
- 5-6 they go berserk and attack nearest enemy unit within 9 inches and are then removed from play.
Opening moves of the game with Roman forces defending the town and wooded hill and Carthaginian forces having to wheel around to engage. |
My figures are based on 4 by 3 inch bases. I used three of them to make a unit with a 12 inch width. This made for some largish looking units and also helped with the tracking of hits. For each 5 hits one based was removed.
Carthaginians split their attack while the elephants engage the Roman centre. |
The town defenders are drawn out to support the defence against the elephants. The Carthaginian light cavalry were now unable to join any attack and waited in reserve for an opportunity. |
Romans did enough in the end to win by holding the town and denying control of the hill. One more turn and the Carthaginians would have controlled the hill and gained a draw. |
I enjoyed playing the scenario and using the larger unit sizes. As for the reasons I liked the larger units, they are:
- They are visually more appealing and I get to see more of the figures I have spent time and effort painting, which is always a good thing.
- The ability to manoeuvre units is restricted as they can easily get the way of each other. I definitely started to think more in terms of my army's centre and flanks, and what was in my first line and second line for support.
- The benefits of a front line of light infantry who can pass through the lines behind heavy infantry became a lot more apparent to me. The larger units stopped light infantry from moving sideways out of any trouble.
- The constraints of movement places more importance on how an army is deployed. As any deployment mistakes are not easily undone with some quick manoeuvres before engaging the enemy.
Further thoughts:
- I am really tempted to increase the size of units for my Punic War campaign and reduce to number of units to 6-8 rather than the intended 10-12 units.
- Rather than removing one base from a unit for every 5 hits, have one base removed after 7 hits. A unit would then be eliminated upon taking 14 hits (one less than OHW's 15 hits for elimination). That way units will always have a minimum of 2 bases.
- Having read Lost Battles by P. Sabin I definitely want to see what deployment rules can be added.
An interesting tweak to the OHW. The bigger unit with a base loss as part of the deterioration is a good idea. Also going with wide units doesn't really effect depth of the battlefield, so units are still traversing the table from one side to the other at the same old rate, preserving the integrity of the scenarios, which often have the fighting over that distance as part of their victory conditions.
ReplyDeleteI am hoping most of the scenarios still hold true. It is the breath of the tabletop that has the limiting factor. If a unit is placed on the flank it tends to stay on the flank or at best moves to support the centre. So far I am liking this limitation.
DeleteIt certainly looks great but it also seems to give a simple, effective approach to focus on the overall deployments and battleplan rather than on minor details.
ReplyDeleteIt is good in these games to focus on the areas of deployment and the battle plan, and it is quite tempting to introduce written orders which would be very old school.
DeleteFascinating stuff and the big units look really good!
ReplyDeleteThanks. I had better decide if I am going to have fewer but bigger units quickly as the land campaign is soon to start.
DeleteThose big uinits look really nice and with their staying power make melees more important to overall battle outcome. I doubt they could wheel like that - none of the ancient drill manuals show it.
ReplyDeleteLost Battles uses LOTS of units so I'm not sure if it will work as well with a small number of big units.
Thanks, the bigger units certainly improve the look. As for movement, I may end up with units pivoting or moving, but not both, after a few test games and seeing what movement constraints fit best.
DeleteWorked out the reason why I like them - they remind me of the photos in Charles Grant's 'The Ancient War Game' and 'Ancient Battles for Wargamers'. Fewer bigger units also make for a simpler narrative in the AAR that's easier to follow as each combat matters more. Also, I'm a sucker for old-school.
DeleteI do remember getting the first book out from the local library many years ago, but remember little of it now other than the cover with a building/temple and troops passing by. As you say the larger units will certainly help with the game reports and I have noticed in the few games I have played they tend to complete within 12-15 turns.
DeleteThe game looks good with those unit sizes, and if you use forces similar to or slightly larger to OHW, you probably have everything you need , or nearly so!
ReplyDeleteI certainly like the look of larger units, particularly with the 20mm scale. A few more figures will be required to beef up a couple of units.
DeleteThe larger units look great and really give the feel of an ancient battle. The base removal sounds like a great idea too, should give a greater indication of which units are struggling and allow for troops to punch holes in the enemy's lines.
ReplyDeleteThanks. There are advantages to base removal as you mention. I need to play a few more test games me thinks.
DeleteGreat looking game Peter. The larger bases look excellent, I reckon and work well for the bizarre concept of ancient battles that is 'units'. I came to them via Impetus but, having now 'found' Lost Battles (coming to it late), they will be perfect for that.
ReplyDeleteRegards, James
Thank you. I have been reading Solo Battles recently too. A fascinating book.
DeleteLooks excellent Peter.
ReplyDeleteI do love your campaign play, and look forward to how it pans out for this period/
Thank you. The campaign is now underway and the first land battle is waiting on the tabletop for later this week.
DeleteThat's a great looking game Peter and the post game thoughts are very interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I will definitely be trying out some simple deployment rules in my next game.
Delete