Byzantines moving up past Mesymbria village |
As this was something of an encounter battle, a die roll decided who opened the ball; the Bulgars 'seizing the initiative'. And at once the activation roll was complete frost: a '1' on the die, and hence just 4 units stirring. The light troops on the east flank pushed forward beyond the Heos village. The Byzantine activation roll was equally dismal. The best they could do was to respond to the Bulgar moves. The right flank heavy horse (kavallarioi) moved forward to cover the right beyond the village of Mesymbria together with light horse prokoursatores.
Map of my table set up for the Battle of Potamos Creek |
Winning the initiative for Turn 2, the Bulgar activation roll was average, so were able at least to begin a general advance. Their light horse archers pushed up to about half way between Heos and Mesymbria, whilst the javelin light infantry entered the former village. The Byzantines responded sluggishly at first - another '1' on the die roll, but they were able at once to engage the enemy light horse with two units of heavies and their own lights.
First clashes - not a lot happening here |
Bulgar horse archers under the hammer... |
The javelins of the akontistai this time caused a stir among the Bulgars: the pair of twos forcing the Bulgars to retreat two hexes. This proved impossible, as the one possible escape route lay through the hex immediately behind, occupied by their recently defeated compatriots. Had the facing been the same, no doubt the forward unit could have passed through them and beyond, but as it was, no retreat was possible, and the forward light horse unit was destroyed.
(This was decided during the game, but I now think it would have been fairer to let the retreat happen. So this remains the first 'thought point' arising from this play test)
Forced retreat with nowhere to go... |
Now the Byzantines began pressing: the red cloak kavallarioi attacking the remaining horse archers. Again, the 'shooting before contact had no effect - this really was pretty dismal so far - and both sides fell back, the clash inconclusive.
Another Bulgar light horse unit holds its own against heavier opponents. |
Heavy horse stand-off |
Bulgars avenge their lost light horse! |
A blood letting among heavy horse. One SP lost by both sides |
Now the Byzantines were being served the same as they had earlier delivered. Weakened as they saw off a horse archer attack, but the Bulgar javelinmen emerging from Heos finally put the Byzantine heavies to rout.
A depleted kavallarios unit outnumbered 5 to 1. It can end but one way... |
So far, the Bulgars had gained more than their share of the honours: for the loss of one light horse unit, they had destroyed a heavy and a light, though one of their heavy cavalry units remained depleted. Four SP lost to the Byzantines; three to the Bulgars. That rather left the remaining Byzantine heavy cavalry isolated, and the akontistai light infantry exposed in the open in front of the Mesymbria village. By this time, Demetrios Psychopathes was leading the heavily armoured cataphracts up the east bank of the slight stream of the Potamos. He had at the same time, called one of the left flank cavalry from the far side, over the bridge, to follow the heavier unit.
In the distance, Demetrios leads his kataphraktoi past the woodland |
Very little was happening west of the creek. Bulgar light horse appeared to be manoeuvring towards the flanks of the Byzantine lines, but they were facing a formidable array of horse and foot.
Very little action on the other side of the river! |
The main action continued on the eastern flank, as the Bulgars made a determined effort against the Byzantines defending their village. Whilst the javelin light infantry tried to hold off some Byzantine cavalry from the spearmen's flanks, one unit attacked the akontistai whilst another, supported by light horse, made a trial of the skoutatoi on the hill.
Action at Mesymbria |
The results were as you see them. The akontistai held off the spearmen - neither side inflicting any harm upon the other. The battle for the hill was bloodier. The light horse archery was ineffective, but both sides' heavy foot lost a SP (the fives). But the Bulgars got the better of the struggle, and forced the Byzantines off the feature (the green four).
Note that, against 'protected bowmen', the spears would have got an extra die for close combat, but for the fact they were fighting close combat uphill.
Whilst I think of it, I'm also considering re-working of the whole close combat scheme between spearmen and the mixed skoutatoi units. Rather than adding 1 die to the spearmen, they simply get their 4SP worth of dice: four. But perhaps the skoutatoi ought to get 2 dice for their bowmen, and 2 for their spears. The action would go like this:Note that, against 'protected bowmen', the spears would have got an extra die for close combat, but for the fact they were fighting close combat uphill.
(a) At range shooting, the skoutatoi get 2 dice.
(b) If a close combat is brought on, the skoutatoi 'shoot before contact' - 2 dice only. This is regardless of which side brings on the close combat
(c) In the hand-to-hand phase, the spears get 4 dice (supposing all have survived the missilery) and the skoutatoi 2, again.
My Georgian army has some close-order bowmen. Now a 4-stand unit is a formidable volume of incoming for some poor wights. However, as they lack shields, and don't have the agility of light infantry, opposing skoutatoi would get an extra die for shooting and for close combat, i.e. 3 for each. That still leaves the bowmen with the 4-3 advantage in shooting and hand-to-hand. It seems reasonable to limit the bowmen hand-to-hand to 2 dice only.
As a stocktake indicates 6 Georgian bow stands, I'll probably make them into 2 units @ 3SP, getting 3SP for shooting, and 2 SP for hand-to-hand. Opposing spearmen would get 0 for shooting and 4+1 (shieldless) for close combat; opposing skoutatoi, 2+1 for shooting and 2+1 for close combat.
Following up this success, the weakened body of heavy horse attacked the akontistai. Having but one stand (SP) remaining it ought to have received just two dice instead of the three shown in the picture (one for the SP, one for the target being lights). Rather than reroll I just rolled for which of the dice to remove. Instead of being ridden down, the akontistai lost a stand.
The extra green die removed |
However, the akontistai showed at least they had teeth, the twos rolled causing the Bulgar horse to retreat two hexes.
The Bulgar advances around the village of Mesymbria were leading them into some danger unless they could reinforce their successes. The Byzantines were still, rather tenuously, holding the village, and were steeling themselves to counter-attack. But the real danger took the form of the powerful body of kataphraktoi, led by Demetrios himself, pushing forward between the wood and the stream.
Overview. Byzantine right flank under pressure. |
Shrugging aside a body of horse archers to be dealt with by the kavallarioi following behind, the super-heavies made straight for the nearest body of spearmen, hard by the riverbank. Quailing before the thundering oncoming mass, the spearmen failed in the test - not a single hit scored, as the four '5's' show (see below). With Demetrios wielding his sword, the kataphraktoi had 5 dice to roll, enough to knock off a SP from the spears, and force a retreat. Rather than retreat to incur yet another drubbing from lance, mace and sword, the spearmen took the extra SP loss.
Note: my comments regarding the mixed archer-spear skoutatoi ought possibly also to apply to the kataphraktoi. However, the 2 dice for shooting and 2 for close combat would put them on a par with the other horse, with the sole advantage of being the larger, 4SP, unit. It might be reasonable to add an extra dice for close combat against lighter horse. Yet another idea that will call for testing!
Demetrios Psychopathes and his kataphraktoi smash into Bulgar spearmen |
Meanwhile, the following kavallarioi sailed into the Bulgar horse archers hovering on Demetrios's flank. The picture immediately following tells the story...
Following kavallarioi go after some inconvenient horse archers... |
... as both sides vanished from the field. They had destroyed each other!
The tide of Bulgarian success now began to recede, as the left wing began to receive reinforcements from their second line.
Of course the Bulgar light infantry could not hold the heavier Byzantine horse for long, and they began to be forced back upon the Heos village. Shooting before combat (for a wonder!) knocked off one light infantry stand, for no loss to incoming...
Heavy horse versus light infantry |
... and the close combat forced the remainder of the enemy to retreat through the village to the hex beyond. The cavalry saw fit themselves to pull back a space.
Meanwhile, following up their charge, the kataphraktoi simply rode down the remaining spearmen facing them (three 6's!). The victorious kataphraktoi rallied back a short distance (the red 2 forcing a retreat). although they too thought it well to pull back slightly.
The tale of disasters to the Bulgar foot - two units destroyed and a ninth SP also lost - took the Bulgars well past their exhaustion point and very close, withal, to their rout point. They had lost a further 5SP from their horse, and one more from their light infantry - a total of 15SP lost. For their part, the Byzantine losses, though substantial, did not reach their exhaustion point. Nine SPs: three mounted units destroyed, two SP from one of the skoutatos units, and one from the javelinmen. For most of the battle the losses were tracking close together, until the disastrous finale the routed the Bulgar army...
The Bulgars never got close to the action beyond the river. |
There was plenty of food for thought arising from this action. I've noted a few here and there throughout this narrative, but there is one other I shall have to bear in mind. The 'shoot before contact' as a phase separate from the hand-to-hand battle itself, and hence a complication. But at the moment, it seems to be adding something to the game system, creating distinctions between the Byzantines and their disparate enemies...
Another play test will follow ... sometime!
Your adjustments will make the game work smoother. Nice to see sort of 'design notes ' as the story unfolds.
ReplyDeleteCheers, pancerni. Some of 'design notes' came to me as I was drafting this post, but I rather think they have been percolating in my thoughts for a while. We'll just have to give them a try. The next battle will probably involve the Georgians, with their charging cavalry and foot archers.
DeleteCheers,
Ion
Thanks for a very engaging battle report. The rules seem to give you an entertaining and very credible fight. As mentioned, your thoughts/comments in the text on the game mechanics are a handy extra.
ReplyDeleteMartin -
DeleteThere were some pretty unexpected and spectacular moments, that was for sure - especially the charge of the kataphraktoi - a very chancy proposition, even with the army commander in attendance.
Adding the game mechanics I really had to include that readers can see (more or less) what I'm talking about - and so can I! I hope in the next play test I can be even clearer with the exposition.
Cheers,
Ion
Exciting stuff Ion. The battle was a close run thing - like a boxing match, both sides were increasingly tired until, finally, one (the Byzantines in this case) somehow summoned up a final flurry which was too much for their opponents to withstand.
ReplyDeleteI always think of the skutatoi as being a strong unit of archers, protected by a smaller number of shielded spearmen. I agree with your thoughts - the arrows from the skutatoi bow may well be sufficient to cause any approaching enemy to think again but, if the enemy can withstand the arrow storm, they can fight the skutatoi spears in close combat.
I look forward to reading how you get on with further play tests.
Cheers,
Geoff
Geoff -
DeleteI admit the Byzantine heavy infantry comprise complicated units:
400 skoutatoi (spearmen), 300 toxotai (archers) - these 700 forming a close order body of infantry - 100 akontistai (javelinmen), 100 sphendonistai (slingers) and 100 menavlatoi (semi-light troops armed with heavy throwing weapon).
The archers were supplied with LOTS of arrows - I think they each carried 100 in their pairs of quivers, which suggested at first a 2xdouble-stand unit perhaps ought to equal in firepower a 4xsingle stand unit of close-order archers. However, the alternate method suggested itself as a promising line to explore, so I'll give that a try.
Somewhere east of Trebizond, the Georgians seem to be stirring...
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo,
ReplyDeleteThis is a wonderful battle report, and I particularly like the 'fire before contact' rule that you have included. It makes loads of sense as it reflects the style of fighting used by the Byzantines.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
DeleteI think, very gradually, we might be coming round to a PW set distinctively Mediaeval - or at least 'period specific' to 10th-11th Century Byzantium. Of course the 'fire before contact' will be available to horse archer types, such as the Bulgar, Pechenegs and other Turkic fellows, and to foot archers, slingers and such-like folk. Troops lacking missile weapons will have other advantages.
My one concern is that close combats running to two phases might get a bit tedious. That wasn't especially noticeable in that one battle, but that was just one battle. The option is available only at first contact anyhow, if the combat continues to another Turn, or if a winning unit is following up (whether against the same opponent retreating, or a new one).
My recent changes seem to scratch the niggling itch I had that the Byzantines had too much of an edge overall against an opponent of similar SP total.
Note to self: run over the table of troop types. It will probably need an extra column - possibly two.
Cheers,
Ion
It's more like a mini campaign than typical set piece battle...
ReplyDeleteThat hex board has had a lot of use!
Neil
Neil -
DeleteWhat an interesting comment! Owing to the fairish number of small terrain features, the thing didn't quite have the 'feel' of a single battle, yet not a 'mini-campaign' either. Somewhere in between, perhaps.
But now you have gone and put an idea into my head along the lines of a mini-campaign or operation. The table might be divided into 6 smaller fields, 6-hexes 'with the grain' wide at the base line, by 5 hexes deep. Units could be single stands, armies comprising 6 such stands. The work on 6-stand army composition has already been done!
https://archdukepiccolo.blogspot.com/2022/03/i-thought-here-i-would-redo-army-lists.html
They might require a few tweaks - we'll have a look.
I'll put that one on the back burner, but it looks like a goer - and may extend to other periods. Thanks for the idea!
Cheers,
Ion
Great battle report! Lots of ebb and flow and an Interesting game. Some thoughts on your possible rules adjustments. You could allow units to retreat through units behind them regardless of facing, but if both units aren't facing the same way both would become disordered with some sort of penalty. They would have to use an activation to reform and would not be allowed to move until they do.
ReplyDeleteFor the mixed shock/ archer units the bows could shoot prior to contact, and then add an extra die for the close combat for each two bases as support. Example: A unit with 2 spears and 2 archers would get to shoot first rolling 2 dice, then the unit would get 3 dice for the close combat, 2 for the spears and 1 more for the supporting bows.
Looking forward to the next installment!
Mark -
ReplyDeleteYou have offered plenty here to get my teeth into!
(a) interrupted retreats - I have been hovering between 'OK' and 'un-OK' rather than the 'sort of OK' you have suggested. In principle I like your idea, but a little concerned about a possible extra complication. One thing, though: a unit thus disordered is likely to be struck by a following through enemy, with the usual doleful consequences. An alternative to having the unit forced to spend a turn rallying, might be to make the disorder temporary, the reforming taking place at the end of the turn. But the rule in that form is one very likely forgotten in the heat of battle. We'll just have to suck it and see.
This could get interesting!
(b) Mixed spear/archer units. I have thought to give these units 2+1 for close combat against certain opponents, e.g. lighter troops, which would include unmixed close order archers (who are usually shieldless, and usually lack long pointy things anyhow). Come to think of it, protected bowmen ought to get a +1 for shooting at shieldless
opponents as well.
A four-stand unprotected bowman unit would get all four SPs shooting, but only 2SP (front rank) for H2H. In a duel with a skoutatos unit, the bowmen would get 4 vs 3 dice for shooting and 2 vs 3 dice for H2H. However, it is starting to look as though my 'barbarian' archer units will have just 3 stands. In the above duel it will be 3 vs 3 for shooting; 2 vs 3 for H2H.
The question arises as to what the factors ought to be against unmixed spearmen and axemen or heavy throwing weapons. Now, my proposed 2 shots then 2H2H vs 4H2H (we're talking full strength units, here) gives I think the former a faint whisker of an edge. We do have to ask ourselves, what if the former were down a SP. They being double based units, we might decide that, until the unit has lost 2SP, a single SP loss is marked (a red counter, say) but otherwise the unit shoots and fights at full strength (2SP each), OR the first SP comes off the bows, rather than the spears.
I quite like the notion that the mixed units with double based stands - in my 'Byzantiad' campaigns they are unique to the Byzantines - take an SP loss with no loss of fightability, and with 3SP still have 1SP available for shooting and H2H.
I don't 'do' the Thematic Byzantine army (pre-963AD), but were I to do so, the thematic kataphraktoi/kavallarioi would be formed into 2 double-stand units with conventions similar to the heavy foot.
There's plenty of ideas to play with here. I just hope that Pandora hasn't been leaving unopened amphorae lying about, just waiting for my inquisitive nose...
Cheers,
Ion
Lots of interesting ideas! Maybe in the case of a unit retreating through another unit, the retreating unit would need the activation to rally and reform, the unit passed through would be able to reform without an activation at the end of their next turn?
DeleteI always thought of units with thrown weapons like axes and pilums having a modifier instead of shooting due to the short range. I've experimented with having them roll to hit first in close combat with enemies not so armed and resolving the results first before rolling for the other unit.
As for support, I was thinking maybe it shouldn't be limited to mixed archer units but apply to all multi base units deployed one stand behind the other. I like your idea of the first hit not affecting the combat capabilities of large, deep units and will be using it for my Romans with my epic battles armies since their infantry stands are 3 ranks deep as opposed to 2 for all others.
I'm looking forward to seeing the next stage of your development of this idea.
Mark -
DeleteI agree that the heavy-throwing-weapon guys aren't really missile troops. A single heavy throwing thing per man, which ain't gonna travel far anyhow, doesn't a missile barrage make. It's the Ancient/Mediaeval equivalent, I think, of the Napoleonic British infantry's close range volley before introducing the French foot to Mlle Bayonette. Not really a firefight.
The only 'Byzantiad' troops that are the equivalent of DBA 'Blades' are the Rus (one unit only), the Varangian Guard when armed with axes, and the Byzantine menavlatai. The last of these being a special unit (and the only one with a real HtW) will probably have just 2SP, but get a big plus against charging cavalry. Not sure about those guys.
At the moment, the 4SP units' stands (spearmen and axemen) are arranged 2x2. All four stands count for combat. I was going to do the same with the skoutatoi, but that seemed to me excessive if they got 4SP for shooting AND for H2H. But then comes the problem with a 2x2 4-stand bow unit. Unprotected, they had certain disadvantages, and I figured that come the close combat stuff, depth is less help. Up close and personal, a bow is just a bent stick.
It so happens I have just 6 close-order bow stands, so in most of my barbarian armies, they will form 2 units of 2+1 stands - 3SP shooting, 2SP for H2H.
You can see I'm having to approach my combat mechanics from 2 ends - what seems reasonable historically, against what I have in my limited barbarian inventory. At that, I might be forced to get in a few extra figures to build my Lombard/Normans, and my Pechenegs, into 12-stand armies. Which indicates a need for a 'Levy/Horde' unit of dross...
Cheers,
Ion
I'm looking forward to seeing how you work it out.
Delete