In my last posting, I presented several army lists , but provided no information ('stats') then upon strength points or weapons or fighting capability. At that point I had not yet determined 'labels' identifying troop types. I'll do that in this posting, and then later present the Army Lists again with the appropriate 'stats'. The following 'stats' are designed specifically for use with the FP3x3PW rule set.
In the centre, Byzantine cataphracts making life miserable for Bulgar spearmen |
Those types that have a shooting range listed may shoot at any target in the adjacent square (Range 1). They may also shoot before close combat, whether contacting or making contact. However they can shoot only once in their own turn, counting as 'shooting before contact' if they are then moved into close combat.
Some troops are permitted under this regime to shoot before close combat only, when contacted or making contact. They may not shoot in any other circumstance (it's a shooting range thing).
'Shooting before contact' takes place only at the beginning - i.e at the moment of first contact - of a close combat that lasts over more than one turn. If contact is broken off, then shooting before contact can apply to a subsequent close combat.
Byzantine skoutatoi: 'protected bowmen' as I have styled them, on account of the leading rank(s) of spears. |
Note that opposing forces in adjacent squares are not necessarily in close combat. Who initiates a close combat moves the combatant unit to overlap slightly the edge of the square containing the enemy. Any supporting unit must be in front to rear (or possibly flank to flank) contact with the attacking unit. Supporting units do not add to shooting before contact.
I'm thinking of permitting light horse to retreat 2 spaces if forced to retreat. However, it is an option that might not very often be realisable.
I have finally abandoned my suggested reduction of light troops to SP=1 as being unnecessary as well as impractical.
Abasgian 'charging cavalry'. |
Commanders -
Owing to the way my armies have been assembled, I am considering attaching generals/ commanders/ rulers permanently to their units, rather than as separate stands. This will have the following effect:Such units add 1 to their standard SP. This will make a Rus axemen command unit - the Druzhina - a formidable unit indeed at 4SP; unique in this campaign.
The commander's unit will always have the extra +1 to close combat, and to shooting, if applicable.
If the commander's unit is supporting a close combat, rather than being directly engaged, the combatant unit will receive +1 bonuses for the supporting unit and the general, both.
If the commanded unit takes a hit that reduces its SP, the fate of the command is rolled for, a '6' indicating the loss of the commander, and hence an extra loss of SP. It will also lose bonuses for the commander's presence.
For the rest, the rule set to be followed will be the FP3x3PW modification of the DPW rule set for 'Ancients' warfare.
To be continued -
- The modified army lists. units identified by 'type'
- The Byzantiad Begins
Spoiler alert:
Barbarian raids in the north and southeast
Provincial disaffection in much of the Empire's Mediterranean littoral
Lots of interesting material. I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
ReplyDeleteHi Mark -
DeleteAt some point I will collate the whole thing into something more coherent and compact. I already have some doubts about what I've included in the previous posting. The campaign itself will just be a beginning with a couple of 'political situation moves', and the battles in between.
One thing I can see that will call for explanation is that there is to be no map movement as such.
Cheers,
Ion
I do that ( no map movement) all the time. Campaigns take place in a province with the ultimate victor taking control. Sometimes the Capitol will hold out and be besieged maybe leading to a relief operation next season. This works very well for solo games and produces fine narratives. I'm very interested in seeing what your system will be.
DeleteYou’re certainly pressing ahead and making real progress there Ion. Well done.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I’m much more easily distracted - this time by organising and basing some Irregular Miniatures 2mm armies…
I believe the Byzantine kataphractoi units were “big”, often seemingly forming wedges with extremely heavily armoured mace-men at the sharp end, supported by others equally well armoured but carrying lances and both supported by less heavily armoured archers. I get the impression that shock was the main tactic, so whether you feel there are sufficient archers to qualify the unit (in games terms) as having a “shooting” ability I don’t know. I reckon the unit would be simply too busy “charging”. Still, it’s your campaign so you can just go with whatever you feel is right.
Your “spoiler alert” shows that the Emperor’s lot is never, ever an easy one. It’s a surprise then that so many people seem to want the job. 😀
Cheers,
Geoff
Geoff -
DeleteThose kataphraktoi (or klibanophoroi) were big units, all right, when up to establishment strength. They formed a trapezoid formation of 20 men in the first rank, increasing by 4 in each rank. the theoretical 12-rank formation comprised maces in the first four ranks (I think) lances on the flanks and 150 horse archers enclosed in the middle rear ranks somewhere.
Usually there was just the one unit, but apparently there were two at the battle of Silistria there were two, each of 384 (according to Osprey, though I make it 380) - i.e. 10 ranks. These smaller units had just 80 archers.
These fellows charged I believe at the walk, maybe raising the speed over the last few yards. They were pretty armed and armed all right, and even rode the Normans down in Italy. I make them pretty tough.
Even during his successful 49-year reign in his own (and his brother's) right, Basil II had to deal with at least two serious revolts that took years to put down (and required help from the Rus even then).
When I built my first kataphraktos unit, I thought they were all lancers, and so organised them. When I found out different, I replaced the lance with the mace for the leading 2 figures, lancers flanking the rear rank, and horse archers in the middle. That is actually fairly reasonable a representation with just 6 figures.
The other cavalry formed I think 300-man units, 180 lancers and 120 horse archers, formed into 5 ranks (lance, lance, bow, bow, lance). My units are single stands with 2 lancers and a bowman, made for DBA or DBM games.
The infantry were 1000-man units, with 400 spearmen and 300 archers, and 100 each of slingers, javelinmen and 'menavlatoi' - dudes with sharp pointy fence posts they threw at people.
This campaign, concentric as it is, is designed to reflect the intrigues and pressures that surrounded the imperium.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
ReplyDeleteAlthough it’s not a period I know much about, I found this blog post very enlightening. I enjoyed the way you explained the thinking behind your decisions regarding troop types, and they were an example of clarity that others would be well advised to follow.
All the best,
Bob
Thanks Bob -
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your feedback the more, as clarity is what I strive for. I have had to go back and edit a previous posting when I've discovered mistakes. At the same time, for a number of reasons I wanted to avoid using DB* nomenclature.
As to the period, although far from anything approaching expertise, I know a deal more about it than I wargame!
Cheers,
Ion