Ancient/Mediaeval: Playtesting Paul Liddle's Rule Set (Part 2)

 

Second battle between Byzantines and Bulgars.
Playtesting Paul Liddle's rule set.

I confess this posting is by way of a filler, really.  It was a second playtest of Paul Liddle's Ancient/Mediaeval War Games Rule set, featuring those deadliest of enemies, the Bulgars and the Byzantines.  I will provide just the sparest of narratives, and let the pictures tell most of the story. But it ought to said here that in this battle, the goddess Hexahedrona favoured the Byzantines more than rather, at least until it was too late for their enemy to hope for an eleventh hour victory.

Both sides massed their foot in the centre with horsed troops
on the wings.

To recap the armies:
Bulgar, 14 units:
4 light horse archer units,
3 heavy horse archer units.
4 heavy spear units,
2 medium bow units,
1 light javelin unit.

Early disaster for the barbarians: left wing heavy cavalry
shot to pieces by Byzantine kavallarios archers.  The two
counters are there for pictorial purposes prior to the unit being
removed from play.

Byzantine, 12 units:
1 elite 'super' heavy horse unit (kataphraktoi),
2 heavy horse units (Tagmatic kavallarioi),
2 medium horse units (Thematic kavallarioi),
1 light horse unit (prokoursatores),
1 elite heavy spear unit (Varangian Guard),
3 heavy foot units (skutatoi),
1 medium spear unit (peltastoi),
1 light sling unit (sphendonistai).

The foot close in the centre,  The elite Varangians have taken a knock from
Bulgar archery.

The horse on the Bulgar right have closed.  The Bulgars have
extra light horse in hand.  This could spell trouble... 

The unengaged horse archers envelop the flank of the prokoursatores...
Despite being attacked in front and flank, the Byzantine light
horse refused to budge all day (these guys had a remarkably
successful record in DBM battles, and all - often against huge odds!)

Bulgars close in rather piecemeal, considering their heavies
lack fire power, and their bowmen lack heft.  Sensibly, though,
the archers keep their distance from the Varangians!

The Bulgar left flank looking a little vulnerable, with just
two light horse units to deal with 2 heavies and a 'super' heavy...

.......

Collapse of the Bulgar left flank?  Not quite as events turned out.
But one light horse unit gets caught by pursuing kavallarioi.

 In the above picture, the Bulgar light horse archers evade the Byzantine heavies.  I had missed the 'waver' token that ought to have been placed against the evading units, but allowed the Byzantines a rear attack.  Having been shot up the previous turn, the Byzantines could add only one to their roll, which turned out to be insufficient.  Accompanied by a general, possibly this light horse unit ought not to have evaded anyway...

The situation on the Bulgar right is deadlocked.  Two Byzantine foot
units hasten there in anticipation of the prokoursatores defeat.

The charge of the kataphraktoi into their flank scatters an
archer unit (two counters there to signal that the unit be removed).

Tough fighting in the centre; the Byzantines getting the better of it.

Bows removed.

Inconclusive action on the wing.  The dice rolling here was
woeful for both sides

Bulgar left wing being bent back.

The view along the line.

Byzantines pressing; two more Bulgar units destroyed.

Bulgar left wing facing dissolution.

In quick succession the Bulgars lose from left to right, a bow
and a spear unit (out of picture to the left), the second bow unit,
and the Tsar's heavy cavalry unit.

Bulgars taking heavy damage.

Even the prokoursatores, assailed from front and flank,
are giving better than they are getting!

At last, a Bulgar success! The  Boili Attaboi's light horse
fling back the enemy heavy cavalry.

Suddenly the kataphraktoi have an open flank!

Far in the Bulgar rear, the Thematic kataphraktoi at last
ride down the fleeing horse archers.  

The above picture, arising from flight and pursuit based on something I had overlooked in the rules, ought not to have taken place - at least, not there.  But maybe it is something that needs to be revisited.

The overall situation late in the day.

Byzantines pressing in the centre, but that open flank is a worry...

Byzantines enveloping the Bulgar centre  right.

The prokoursatores still hanging tough!  The peltastoi 
are just about to lend a hand.

Led by Attaboi, the light horse change into the flank of the kataphraktoi...
Meanwhile, the Byzantine psiloi, and the Varangians have also broken.

The final result lent some respectability to Bulgar performance, but it was still a heavy defeat:

Byzantine losses: 3 units: Varangian elite spearmen, Thematic cavalry unit, the slingers.

Bulgar losses: 9 units: two light horse archer units, all three heavy horse archer units, both bow units, one spear unit, the javelin light foot.

The final action, as the Bulgar army finally collapses.  

Ancient/Mediaeval war Games: Playtesting Paul Little's rule set.

Byzantine vs Bulgars.  Bulgars (on the right) seize the initiative
and advance rapidly into action.

Lately I have been trying out Paul Liddle's simple rules for Ancient/Mediaeval battles.  Not having seen action for a long, long time, my Byzantines and Bulgars were keen to 'have at it'.  I thought I'd make it a fairly sizeable action.  In the photos to come you will observe that some of my Bulgars are lacking in 'finish'.  My apologies for that.

Scene from behind the Byzantines, facing southwest.

The armies were;

Early Bulgar (c.1000AD):

Commanders Tsar Attila, Boili Atalik and Boili Attaboi:

3 units heavy horse archers
4 units light horse archers
4 units spear heavy infantry
2 units archer medium infantry
1 unit javelin light infantry

14 units total; Byzantine objective: destroy at least 7.

Bulgar horse on their right flank.

Byzantine (c.1000AD)

Commanders: Emperor Dementius, George Maniakes, Dimetrios Psychopathes.

1 unit lance/bow kataphraktoi (elite Cataphracts)
2 units lance/bow Tagmatic kavallarioi (Heavy Cavalry)
2 units lance/bow Thematic kavallarioi (Medium Cavalry)
1 unit lance/bow prokoursatores (Light Cavalry)
1 unit Varangians (elite spear Heavy Infantry)
3 units skutatoi (spear/bow Heavy Infantry)
1 unit peltastoi (spear Medium Infantry)
1 unit sphendonistai (slinger Light Infantry)

12 units total; Bulgar objective: destroy at least 6.

Byzantine centre and left.  The Varangians and peltastoi
have been kept in reserve.

The observant reader will see that most of the units on both sides are armed with bows.  The only other missiles are the slings and javelins of the respective light infantry.  The Byzantines had two and the Bulgars four units not so armed, all of them foot.

Looking down the Byzantine
line from left to right(south to north)

Action:

Without going into a lengthy narrative, the action went like this. The Bulgars seized the early initiative (i.e. won the die roll to see who moved first), and scored some damaging hits on the Byzantine horse on the left flank, including on the cataphracts.  

The exchange of horse archery has disordered both sides...

As the picture below indicates, the Bulgar advance was somewhat impetuous, but I was figuring to get in a few blows with the faster moving archers, so that the spears could eventually close against some damaged opposition.

Bulgars hurrying into action hoping to get in the first strikes.

The village of Marsople anchored the Byzantine right flank.  The slingers advanced through it, whilst a medium cavalry unit passed by on the north side (i.e. to the left of it from the Bulgar (camera) point of view).

Slingers have seized the village, which will serve
to anchor the Byzantine right flank.

The pictures below show that as the horse closed on the southern flank, the Byzantines had already taken some damage.  The Emperor probably should have stayed with the cataphracts, for they succumbed fairly soon.  Neither side seems able to rally their wavering units (I think the Bulgars had one and the Byzantines no successful rallying rolls all day).  Worse for the Byzantines was that their flanking Prokoursatores were being enveloped by the enemy light horse.

The Byzantine cavalry are getting the worse of their
scrap with their Bulgar counterparts. The nearest Bulgar
unit seems to have recovered its morale, before
Attaboi moved to help against the cataphracts.

On the other hand, in the centre, although the plan was for the Bulgar bowmen to inflict some damage before the 'push of pike', they were getting decidedly the worst of it.

General view.  The Byzantine foot have outshot the
Bulgar archers, and the Tagmatic horse damaged
one of the spear units as well.  Not looking
 so good for the Bulgars in the centre, then.

As the battle seemed to be shaping, so it continued.  Once the cataphracts disappeared, the Byzantine left flank horse gradually crumbled away, and only the intervention of the Varangian spearmen from the reserve line kept up a semblance of a line in that sector.  In the centre, though, it was the Byzantines who gained the upper hand, and in favour of whom the balance tilted more and more until the Bulgarian foot collapsed 

So close was the fighting overall, that the issue remained in doubt until the very end, when the destruction of two units in one turn decided the battle in Byzantine favour: 8 Bulgar units destroyed for 5 Byzantine.  

Now you see 'em...

Comment:

...now you don't:  the cataphracts overwhelmed...

One of the things I had to get used to was the 'conkers' IGoUGo system.  I have run across it before in some of the Games Workshop's games (specifically, Space Crusade) .  Such a system takes a little getting used to, especially in the type of open ended war games such as this.  

The system favours aggression, that's for sure: get stuck in, and get in your first licks.  That's the caper.

...followed by a Bulgar heavy and a light horse unit, the latter
despite the flank attack striking into the prokoursatores' flank.

Let me illustrate by oversimplifying a bit.  Forget about the 'wavering' rule for a minute, and imagine that a hit immediately eliminated the enemy.  Imagine, too, two equally matched units, RED and BLUE, facing off.  

Byzantines close in for melee action.  There was probably no real
to do this, as distant shooting seems equally effective.

For no better reason than I mentioned it first, RED moves into close combat and strikes the first blow.
It has to roll 9 with 2D6 - a 28% chance of immediate victory.  But if it misses, then BLUE will get to strike in his turn, with the same probability.  So it will continue until one or the other is eliminated, or something terminates the action.

General view.  Byzantine left flank crumbling -
not looking too good!

Now, let us go back to the beginning: who has the advantage?  Obviously it is RED, who gets the first strike, and if necessary, the third, fifth and so on.  Blue gets the right of reply only if he survives each time.   

Given a fight to the finish, the probability that RED will win works out at a whisker over 58% (odds of 29:21 in RED's favour).  That is a significant margin.  This imbalance does not necessarily invalidate the combat system.  Rather it encourages aggression for one thing, places a premium on missilery for another, and, I suspect, might also place a premium on tactical manoeuvre. That last will have to be tried.

Prokoursatores struck, front and flank.

A couple of points might be worth looking into.

1. Breaking off.

There are no rules that might allow a faster moving opponent to break off a close action. Whether this is desirable I'm not sure, but during the course if this, and a subsequent, battle, it occurred to me that lighter troops that get themselves into trouble might want to try a break clear.  The jury is still out on this one.

General melee in the Bulgar right-centre.  Whilst engaged to
its front with heavy Byzantine horse, Tsar Atila's horse has been
hit in the flank by a unit of skutatoi led by George Maniakes.
To the rescue comes Attaboi's horse, striking the skutatoi in
the flank.

2. Retrograde moves.

This goes to evades and, if it is deemed a good idea, breaking off moves.  Now, units are permitted a 'free' turning/pivot/swivel move at the end of their standard move.  Evading units probably ought to be allowed this turn at the beginning of their move, ending their evasive move facing away from the danger being evaded.  In fact, light troops should probably be allowed to make this pivot at any time during their move.  The impact on the mobility of light troops would make them formidable opponents.

I am wondering what their facing should be at the end of the evade move: towards the enemy, or in the direction of movement.  I assumed the latter, which went rather badly for a couple of Bulgar light horse units in a second battle (of which, more in another posting).  One evaded at a crawl, and the Byzantines had enough movement remaining promptly to catch them, hack their rear, and ride them down.  The other ended up being chivvied and chased to the table edge, and was also eventually caught and eliminated. 

Having survived the flank attack, in its turn
 the skutatoi turn to face Ataboi's cavalry.

Peltastoi about to intervene in the indecisive action on
the Bulgar right.

3.  Missilery vs Melee.

During this action, I allowed bow armed units to close to hand to hand without really considering the desirability to do so. Byzantine skutatoi don't really need to close: their best tactic is to stand off and let the non-bow-armed enemy come to them.

Where it got tricky was with bow armed horse on both sides.  I could equally well have had one or both sides stand off and shoot it out. The question is whether there ought to be some differential in the effect of shooting and melee. One possibility that crosses my mind is that instead of destroying a 'wavering' mounted unit, a second 'waver' result from shooting causes it to flee, if it can.  This 'fleeing move' might be adjudicated in the same way as an evade move.

Kavallarioi charge Bulgar light horse, whilst the light infantry stand off.
I forgot the Bulgar 'psiloi were javelin armed, to that
the slingers should not be carrying a 'waver' marker.

4. Ordinary movement.

One thing I didn't really pick up on was just how flexible, or proscribed, the system of movement is supposed to be. I tended to allow wheels and whatnot, simply measuring the outside of the wheel.  It did occur to me that the author intended that all movement be in the direction faced, with a pivot at the end, if desired. Your comments, Paul?

Bulgar centre begins to crumble...

5. Turning to face.

In a few instances, melees developed into a kind of 'staircase' arrangement when successive flank attacks and counter-attacks failed to achieve a decisive result.  I assumed that in such circumstances, a unit, in its own turn, could - possibly should - abandon its flank attack, and face the enemy to its own flank.  If so, ought this move be optional or mandatory?

... whilst the Bulgar light horse begin to envelop the Byzantine left.
I could have handled this a lot better, with the horse
archers fetching a much deeper sweep into the Byzantine rear.

I also assumed that in the even of a frontal attack combined with a flank attack, both attacks were adjudicated separately, which seemed to me reasonable. Two bites of the cherry.  The chances of scoring at least one 'waver' result in such circumstances is about 70%, and there is about a 16% chance of wiping out the target unit in one go.  Oddly enough, both sides proved on the day to be a lot more resilient than these probabilities would indicate.

Bulgar reserve spearmen enter the fray.

Bulgar javelinmen in trouble - left in the lurch be evading
horse archers...

Bulgar centre showing signs of cracking.

Byzantine left has practically vanished, with the Varangians
holding the place formerly held by four horsed units.

Varangians see off Bulgar heavy horse, just as they
are hit in flank by the lights.  One Bulgar
unit stands ready for a rear attack.

Thinks looking bleak for the Bulgar spearmen.

Peltastoi victorious!

Spear unit destroyed before the flank attack can come in...

Bulgar javelinmen shrug off attack from front and flank...

End of the action.  Bulgar centre collapses altogether, before
the same could happen to the Byzantine left.  Close call
 for the Byzantines, who win, 8-5.

That was my first play test, and it has to be said, the thing went with a swing.

Holding Action (2) - Conclusion

CSA forces being edged back from the creek.

As Union pressure mounted, the Confederate defenders found themselves being edged back from the creek edge.  26 S.C. and 6 Ala had already retired and were heading towards Torkville and the road north.  18th S.C. also fell back into the village itself and begin lining the fences and out-buildings along the outskirts.  They were able to prepare some kind of defence before the 15th Ky could follow up.

126 N.Y. fording the river to the north bank.  

Meanwhile, the 126 N.Y. was wading the Dolenz river to support the Pennsylvania cavalry already nearing the road.

General action along the creek front.  66th Ohio clinging
 under heavy fire to its bridgehead position.

66th Ohio having forced a crossing at the east bridge were finding it difficult, despite musket and gunfire support from across the creek, to maintain its bridgehead position.  Opposing them, the relatively fresh 11th Alabama and the 20pr Parrotts of the Columbia Artillery were exacting a heavy toll.

Cobb's Georgia Legion in action.

General overview of the battlefield.  

Much depended upon what could be achieved by 27th Penna Cav.  Could they sweep aside the Confederate horse facing them?  Given the narrowness of the valley floor on the north bank of the river ('edge of the world' explained by steep wooded slopes just off the north table edge), Colonel Scoones had split his troops in two. Retaining just less than half under command for mounted action, he ordered the remainder to line the south bank and dismount. As the New Yorkers swept into the attack, they had to endure a popping flanking fire that emptied several saddles. But it was not enough to equalise the mounted contest.

Outnumbered though they were, the Confederates rose magnificently to the occasion. Counter-charging vigorously they brusquely flung back the Union horse, who 'stood not upon the order of their going' but hastily made off.  Surprisingly, perhaps, given the drubbing they had received, the latter's withdrawal from the fray was far from the rout of a demoralised foe, but remained well in hand until they reformed behind the New York infantry.

(What happened was one of those low-probability outcomes that makes war games such fun... and just a little crazy.  The situation was in fact very dangerous for the Confederates.  Had they lost this action, the rest of Zebedee's command might well have become trapped on the 'island'.  In the close combat the 13 Union figures surviving the flanking fire received 3 combat dice at a Die Range of 4 [they ought to have got a fourth at a DR=1 for the odd figure, but I was running a convention that ignored the odd figure remaining from the 4-man volley groups - not that in the event it would have made any difference!]. 

The Confederates' ten figures got two dice at DR=4, and a remainder at DR=2.  Rolled the Union first: three sixes!  In my games, sixes aren't always good rolls (I like to mix things up a bit). Confederates' turn: the 4-man volley groups each rolled the maximum: fours!  The part-volley-group... another six... and a miss.  Astonishing.  And then what happened?  The 8 hits translated into a mere 3 casualties - not rare, but a fairly uncommon result.  All the same it was enough to send the Union horse packing. 

The subsequent morale check by the Union, having lost over 30% of their strength was a 50-50 proposition, but they passed (I think they rolled another 6 actually).  So, although their withdrawal was forced, they could do so in good order. 

15th Kentucky attempts to carry Torkville by storm.

By this time 15th Kentucky had organised themselves into a column, and stormed across the west bridge and into the village.  The mutual close range mauling there finished the Kentuckians in this battle, but the South Carolinians also decided they had had enough.  The Union infantry fled back across the bridge, holding up its supporting artillery and the 29th Ohio in the process.

CSA reduced to a shortened perimeter.  But there is some respite: the attacks upon
the village and the north bridge have been repulsed ... for now.

As the action drew to a close, it was becoming a race to bring off as much of Zebedee's command as may be extracted via the bottleneck of the north bridge, before the pressure from the advancing Union caused a traffic jam, or 126 N.Y. infantry sealed off the exit.  

29th Ohio following up the only partially successful attack
by 15th Kentucky.  The US Regular cavalry has crossed
 the east bridge.

The Confederates gained more time by throwing 66th Ohio back across the east bridge, whereat Zebedee ordered a general withdrawal.   He pulled 11th Alabama close by the village by way of a rearguard, and reversed the dismounted cavalry's front to assist. Meanwhile, the approaching New York infantry had formed line and were preparing to push aside the cavalry facing them.  

General withdrawal across the sole escape route.

It would be a near thing.

At this point, I called the game, though it could have been played out.  Most of the CSA would certainly have escaped, but it might have been touch and go if either - let alone both - 11th Alabama or the dismounted cavalry could have escaped.  

But the reason for calling the game was that the action was already shaping as a clear cut victory for the Union.

11th Alabama still holding the village, assisted
by dismounted cavalry.

The reason is this.  My rule set, based upon my ground and consequent time scales (TS = square root of GS) calls for 24 turns to represent a 12 hour period of daylight.  Even if I supposed the action did not open until mid-morning, eighteen moves was proving more than sufficient for the Union to complete its task.  At the point the game was called, barely half that - certainly no more than ten moves - had elapsed.  The Union would not have required a further 8 turns to fulfil their mission of clearing the road and advancing north.  So although the Federals had received a bloody nose in this action, the Confederates had taken an even worse knock (relatively speaking: both sides lost exactly  49 figures (counting, on the Union side, General Cayce as one of them)).  

both bridges across the Nesmith Creek are now in Union hands
and victory is assured.

The Union had won a fine victory: cleared the road north, and could resume its close pursuit of the retreating Confederate Army.