Friday, August 30, 2024

Revisiting Byzantium - A Play Test

Earlier in the week, knocked together a 'pickup' solo game to play test some of the ideas I had expressed in a blog posting just over a week ago. I had it mind to try out the 'half-hex' idea I had discussed earlier, but I rather think it were better suited to a smaller set-up than my usual hex table.

The Bulgar left.
The action purported to be yet another clash between the rival empires of Byzantium and Bulgaria, fought somewhere in the Balkans. The terrain I set up using Bob Cordery's method, but even though I 'thinned out' my usual adaptation for this table, ended up with a rather more cluttered battlefield than one usually finds with the 'Ancients' genre of war gaming. I decided the country was hilly, so plenty of hill, not too thickly populated, a few tracts of wooded country dotted about, and a creek running through the area.  I think another time, though, I will examine ways to thin out the battlefield a little more, but with larger tracts of interestingness.

The Byzantine left. Lacking light troops, they have left 
the flank 'unguarded'. See below on 'deployment'.
Now, the question was, who was the invader? That role was assigned by that capricious Muse, Hexahedra, to the Bulgarians, led by the Kavkhan Attaboi. How was the table to be oriented? I rather figured on the action being 'against the grain' of the hexagons, with the invaders having to cross the creek, or the defenders lining it. However, I decided the direction from which the invaders came by once more invoking the the Goddess of the Dotted Dice, assigning the rolls:
1, 2 from the wall end (i.e. west);
3 from the north side;
4,5 from the outer end;
6 from the south side. 

The roll of '3' meant we could look northwards towards the tell-tale smoke of burning villages for the imminent arrival of the bellicose Bulgars. 
Part of the Bulgar army marching by the small
villages. On the far right flank, two light horse archer 
units advance...

Bulgar Army:

Commander Kavkhan Attaboi with personal retainers: Heavy Cavalry = 1SP. 
3 units Heavy Cavalry @ 2SP = 6SP
4 units Light Horse archers @2SP = 8SP
4 units Spearmen @ 4SP = 16SP
1 unit Light Infantry javelins = 2SP

12 units: activation range 4-8 units per turn.
33 Strength Points: Exhausted at minus 11SP; Rout at minus 17SP
Byzantine deployment, split by the creek.

To face the barbarous Bulgar horde, the Count Demetrios Psychopathes brought with him:

Byzantine Army:

Commander Demetrios Psychopathes: Heavy Cavalry = 1SP
1 unit kataphraktoi Cataphracts = 4SP
5 units kavallarioi Heavy cavalry @2SP = 10SP
1 unit prokoursatores Light Horse @ 2SP
4 units skoutatoi Protected Bowmen @4SP = 16SP
1 unit akontistai light infantry javelins = 2SP

12 units: activation range 4-8 units per turn.
35 Strength Points: Exhausted at minus 12SP; Rout at minus 18SP.

Notes:

1. Each unit's stand counts as a Strength Point, to be removed as SPs are lost. The double stands of the skoutatoi and kataphraktoi have to be marked, and are removed only when 2 or 4 SPs are lost.

2. The commander's single stand is the type upon which he his mounted. It does not count as a unit as such, but may be combined with other units, adding 1 (temporary) SP and 1 extra die to the combat dice. 

3. Combined with another unit, the commander's single stand may move with it at no extra cost to the movement allocation.

4. On its own, the commander's stand requires an activation point drawn from the activation point roll.

5. The commander's stand on its own counts as 1SP only (see list).

6. Omitting the 'standard' 6SP for the commander seemed at the time a reasonable thing to do, as his loss (if lost) deprived his army of his support in crucial combats.
 
7. The activation allocation at each turn is determined by a die roll with this result:
  1. = median - 2 units (4 units)
  2. = median -1 units (5 units)
  3. = median units (6 units)
  4. = median units (6 units) 
  5. = median + 1 units (7 units)
  6. = median + 2 units (8 units)
This system seemed to work OK, leading to a fairly volatile sort of action, but nothing to complain of. The Byzantine (moving second) threw miserable activation dice in the first two turns, but then 'won' the initiative at Turn Three, with a huge activation roll into the bargain!

8. I was working to a 'standard' army size of 12 units plus commander - quite an arbitrary decision, but one suggested by the size of the table. Possibly the army sizes could be greater with this size (in grid terms)  of table, but I don't reckon to go past 15.

9. I almost forgot: in deployment, the flanking two hexes on either may hold only light infantry or light horse. As oriented, that meant the heavy troops could deploy only in the 11 'centre' hexes. The Byzantines had one each of light horse and foot that might have been deployed in the flanking 'zones'. The Bulgarians in this respect could deploy more flexibly, having 1 foot but 4 light horse that could so deploy. I think some such convention would 'fit' the smaller table, even down to the 6x6 squares, with heavy units restricted at deployment to the centre 4 squares. Note that no such restriction need apply to a 'reserve' zone behind the main battlefield.

An account of the action follows... 
 

8 comments:

  1. Archduke Piccolo,

    I like the thinking behind your rule modifications, and wholeheartedly support the idea that the outer hexes occupied by an army would be the preserve of the lighter troops. I don’t know a great deal about this period, but I feels right.

    I look forward to reading your battle report.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob -
      I think I got the 'outer hexes' idea from another rule set - don't recall which. But it does comport with some armies having light horse units thrown out some distance from the wings as flank guards. The Turks did this, and that was the role of the Byzantine prokoursatores and hyperkerastai as I recall.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  2. Looking forward to the battle report. I especially like the name of the Byzantine commander and will be rooting for him! 😁

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark -
      Our Demetrios was obviously a (near) contemporary of George Maniaces (who really existed, though treated rather contemptuously - probably unfairly - in the saga of Harald Hardrada).
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  3. Also looking forward to the battle report. Interesting to see the rules adjudication.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pancerni -
      It was an interesting experiment. A few small question markes were raised, but overall I was fairly pleased about how the action played out.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  4. Thanks Ion - you've clarified a number of points and explained what/why. I eagerly await the arrival of news from the battlefield ⚔️⚔️ - let’s hope the despatch rider has a fast horse.
    My own Byzantine armies are rather “non-specific” - I love the Nikephorians, especially the cataphracts but I also want to include Norman knights and various Asiatic horse archers of later Byzantine armies. As I primarily game solo then my “opponent” luckily doesn’t grumble too much 😉
    For information - I see Ilkka Syvanne has a forthcoming book about Nikephoros. Details are Pen & Sword publishers (30 March 2025) “Nikephoros II Phokas, 912-969: The White Death of the Saracens”.
    Cheers,
    Geoff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geoff -
      Thanks for your feedback. My battle narrative will follow pretty much Bob Cordery's usual practice, with a deal more of the blow-by-blow account showing many of the die rolls. It won't show everything, but I hope enough to get the picture (so to speak).

      My Byzantines are probably nearer the Constantinian (in DBM-speak) though I think quite OK for the second half of the 10th century. I do have a very small contingent of Norman knights, and a larger one of Pechenegs. The latter has enough for a DBA game, or for a single element per unit battle. Enough, though, only for a slightly smaller battle than the one shown here.

      Otherwise, my 'barbarian army' started out as Bulgars, but the record as a DBM army was so miserable, I had to switch them to Early Georgians (the figures being more or less compatible). They seemed to like being Georgian far more than being Bulgar; there win-loss ratio being well into the plus zone. In many respects the Georgians were more fun to handle, as well, with a more eclectic mix of mounted and unmounted soldiery.

      In many ways, the setting of my 'Byzantiad' campaign offers quite a variety of enemies, which I'll probably have to 'do' by proxy, as I did the prototype 3x3 campaign early last year. The range goes from the foot army of the Rus, to the predominantly light horse and war wagon army of the Pechenegs. By hook or by crook, I simply HAVE to get hold of a couple of 15mm war wagons for the Pechenegs!

      I'll keep a weather eye out for that book.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete