In Off The Post (3)

A torn muscle in my shoulder prevents any painting at the moment. Luckily it doesn't stop me clicking the "Buy It Now" button on eBay. I got these from Keep Wargaming (amazing to think the Bailey's are still on the go - it seems like thirty years since I first started buying from them, probably because it is...). The rules look very fine indeed and not only include gladiator counters and an arena but also instructions on how to convert Britains Redskins into Samnites. Super.

In Off The Post (2)

As a teenager I agonised over sending off for these Ian Beck rules to use with my S range gladiators, only to be distracted away from them at the last minute by something even more exciting such as Peter Laing turcomans with Bactrain camels.. Now at last they are mine...

As you can see they are fantastically retro with colour represented by "hatching" and typeface so small it is practically microfilm.

 I have just sent off for some of the correct sized hexagonal bases and paper and look forward to getting my percentage dice out again some time very soon.

(S range Gladiators)

Figment - Some After Thoughts

The Battle of Figment Gap was a brisk affair, lasting just six moves in total. I had based the scenario on one of Charles S Grant's, but suspect I probably overloaded it in favour of the Egyptians. Certainly the Assyrians would have done better if they'd had something approaching parity in missile troops.

 The bite-size units worked effectively, largely because using a dice to record hits instead of removing casulaties means the number of figures in a unit is more or less irrelevant. Certainly they made for a faster game - the whole thing was over in little more than an hour.

The Army Funk Revelator - which I shall from now on refer to by the all-too-sensible name of the Victory Chart, worked pretty well, recording morale simply and easily without the need for repeated testing. The Assyrians disintegrated in a pleasing manner (well to a biased Egyptian general's eyes, anyway) though they were unlucky in suffering the loss of their general so early. Certainly it is something I feel it is worth persisting with.

One point that arises from the use of the Victory Chart:

First turn. This becomes much more important when the VC is in use. I would therefore say that first should be decided at the start of each move. Card draw is the obvious way, but I think using dice might be better, because then you could give the army with greater cohesion/discipline an advantage - Macedonians, for example, might roll a D10 while Persians rolled a D6 and so forth. Had the Assyrian Lancers had first move on the turn in which their destruction irrevocably tilted the battle in the Pharaoh's favour, then they would have created all sorts of havoc in the Egyptian lines and the battle might have ended differently.

I'm all for introducing more tension into games, and crucial dice throws are one obvious means of doing so.

Figment Gap

(S range Assyrian slingers go through their warm-ups)

The Scene

Falling back before the victorious forces of King Horemhabib, the army of Assyria have left a rearguard of heaily armoured infantry at that vital pass in the rocky Hills of Bogi,  Figment Gap. Commanded by King Pelmanesar's trusted lieutenant, Sha'ol Shalmaniser, their mission is a simple one: to delay the enemy from sunrise to sunset.

The Pharaoh's army is commanded by the great and victorious Tuckekahmen and comprises some elements he commanded at the Apocryphal Well. His task is to force the pass by nightfall. To win he must get at least one of his close order infantry or two mounted units off the northern table edge via the Figment Gap by the end of the day.

Based on what happened in the previous battle, and the smaller table, a day will last for 12 turns.

Tuckekahmen's inspiring victory has earned him an upgrade to a "two pip" general. He will add two dice to the combat dice of any unit he is attached to, and two to the dice score needed to hit them. He remains as vulnerable to being killed as any other general, however.

Rule Ammendments

From now on skirmishers in melee will battle with just one dice instead of two.
The Longuelade Army Funk Revelator will be used as per description in the post headed "To Paraphrase Napoleon".

(S Range Assyrian heavy infantry with officer. There's supposed to be a standrad bearer too, but neither I nor anybody I know has ever seen one...)
Assyrian Army

Commander: Sha'ol Shalmaniser

Close Order Infantry
(Bite-size units of ten figures)

More heavily armoured than  the Egyptians they have a "to hit" number of 14 and fight with 5 dice

Nimrud Infantry
Margash Infantry
Karkar Infantry
Sippar Infantry

Close Order Missile Troops
(In fives)

All wearing mail armour they have a "to hit" number of 14 and fight with 4 dice when firing and 2 when in melee.

Calah Archers
Arvad Archers
Gozan Slingers
Kish Slingers

Skirmishers
(In threes)

To hit score of 12. Battle with two dice when firing, 1 in melee.

Subartu Javelins
Lullubi Javelins

Cavalry
(In fours)

To hit score of 15, fight with six dice.

Arbela Lancers.

( S range Assyrian heavy cavalry screened by javelinmen)
The Egyptians

Commander: Tuckekahmen

Chariot Squadrons
(one vehicle)/ To hit score of 16, battle with four dice when firing, 2 in melee.

Osiris
Isis
Amun
Anubis

Horse Archers of Koth

Very lightly armoured and mounted on small ponies. A to hit score of 12. They battle with 3 dice when firing, 1 in melee.

Close Order Infantry

To hit figure of 13, battle with 5 dice

Senekht Spearmen
Kuk Infantry
Geb Infantry
Bes Infantry
Mut Infantry
Set Infantry

Close Order Archers

To hit figure of 13. battle with 4 dice when firing and 2 in melee

Sobek Archers
Tetnut Archers
Hathor Archers
Anuket Archers

Skirmishers

To hit figure of 12. Battle with 2 dice when firing, 1 in melee

Nubian archers
Ethiopian archers
Kush archers
Damot archers
Malkaht slingers

(S range Egyptian infantry bought from John T Tuckey, flanked by Tuckekahmen the great Egyptian commander).

An Assyrian Writes...

The thoughts of the Assyrian commander at the Apocryphal Well:

"I've been following your reflections on Parum Pugna and those who have left comments on our battle. As I've not joined any of the means of leaving a comment on the site I thought I'd share a few thoughts in response which you can post or not as you think.

The issue seems to centre around the total destruction/disintegration of the Assyrian Army and Pyrrhic losses of the Egyptians and whether a halt should have been called before that point perhaps by some form of Army Morale system.

The rules deal with morale, I think successfully, differently to some others.

Let me give some examples:

At the beginning of the battle the Assyrian Horse Archers suffered 3 hits from one round of firing. Knowing that all units cease to exist [as an active unit: they go back into the box but in reality men don't just disappear] on 7 hits this felt to me as commander that they had suffered 50% casualties though this represents effectiveness not deaths. Many rules call for a morale test at this level of casualties while others call for a test for heavy casualties from one round of fire. Parum Pugna rules don't - they don't have to because their commander either uses them more carefully or risks losing them altogether. This key unit wasn't withdrawn from danger successfully and soon was gone.

In the first stage of the battle the Egyptians were to some extent wrong footed and their left wing became their vanguard and it was crushed by Assyrian cavalry aided by light troops. Many rules would have called for an Army morale test at this point and the Egyptians may well have either withdrawn as a whole or found several units running away. With Parum Pugna the morale effect was on you the Egyptian Commander, I guess it was the low point of your game, some players might have given up at that point without morale rules forcing their hand. You chose to try and pull the game around and reorganise and this you did in effective fashion among other things making it a far better gaming experience..

During the fighting with the Assyrian heavy cavalry the Assyrian commander was killed. Many rules would have called for an Army morale test at that point. Parum Pugna didn't. If I'd had lost a morale test at what was the highwater mark for the Assyrians I could have felt cheated of my success. Instead under Parum Pugna it just made it that harder to win because the general's bonuses which are a key factor in bolstering units aggression and defence were lost while the Egyptian general helped keep the vital chariot formations in being.

Now to the Assyrian fight to the death and whether this is more a wargamery [ugly word] thing or not. The battle was very close and so until the last couple of moves it did seem worth continuing but I think there is a more telling point. The argument seems to be that the surviving Assyrians at some point would have left the field to save their skins. My argument is would they?

First they were armoured infantry so how were they going to run away from light missile troops and more especially the chariots? There are no rules to say the chariot horses were more exhausted than the infantrymen. They faced death or slavery so had little to lose in going forwards rather than backwards.

Second the battle was for a vital water supply. Without access to water how far could they have got through the desert if they had opted to march away and were not pursued?

Third, we are the Assyrians one of the cruelest races of history. If we had returned successfully to the main army and our king and reported our defeat how many of us do you think would have met with welcome smiles and cups of wine and how many of us would have been impaled to encourage the rest of the army to march against the terrifying Egyptians?

Fourth we were Northerners, the Egyptians soft Southerners would we really run away?

So in conclusion, I think you should leave the rules alone. The inclusion of morale in the pips and the morale swings of the players works well enough. It was a cracking game in all respects where both players probably think - I'd like to fight that again only this time I'd do this instead. Parum Pugna is too elegant a system to need an Army morale mechanism superglued onto the side."

Borg Again - More Quasi-Philosophical Ramblings

(Samurai Battles - Photo by Dan Eleden posted on Boardgamegeek)

Are Samurai ancient? I'm not really sure myself, but they feature in the original WRG ancient armies list, so I'm taking it that they must be.

Whatever, I am rather excited about the new Samurai Battles game by Zvedza. It features the latest outing for Richard Borg's Commands and Colors system, and unlike the GMT Napoleonic and Ancient versions comes with figures not wooden blocks.

Memoir '44 - C&C's WW2 incarnation - was one of the major influences behind Parum Pugna, not in terms of mechanisms, but in the matter of style. Borg's system is elegant, simple and streamlined. He has integrated, rather than bolted on, and never made the mistake of confusing complexity with depth. M'44 is easy to learn and fun to play. You make decisions, you gamble on the dice, you curse the fact you have no command cards for the right flank, but try not to let your opponent find that out.

Recently a couple of  trendy rules designers dismissed Memoir '44 as " a game". This was apparently meant as an insult. I'm not sure why. Memoir '44 is a game - and a very good one. Chess is also "a game", so is poker. Both enjoy a popularity no figure wargame will ever match. Chess and poker are deep games with simple rules.

In a PS at the bottom of a letter to a friend, George Bernard Shaw wrote: "I am sorry this letter is so long. I did not have the time to make it shorter". Lucidity and concision require work.

Time to shut up, then.

From Bauhaus to My House

A major UK retrospective on the didactic European art group that coagulated around Walter Gropius in Berlin at the end of the Great War may at first sight seem to have little to do with Ancient wargaming. However, one of the major figures in the group was painter and instructor Johannes Itten, an eccentric Swiss who as well as forcing his students to eat vast quantities of raw garlic also lectured them on the importance of play, insisting that at least a month each year be spent designing games (Paul Klee spent his time making puppets out of beef bones and old electrical plugs - a system later copied by Dixon Miniatures for their ACW range. Allegedly).

Itten believed that all creative activity stemmed from play and that when adults lost sight of that they stopped producing original or interesting work. We might apply that to our hobby too. It seems to me that too many people shy away from the game element of wargaming - fearful no doubt of being accused of "playing with toy soldiers" - and that when they do stagnation inevitably follows.

Gaugamela Two - Special Rules For The Battle

(A Garrison 20mm Philotas leads forward Garrison 20mm Companions, as the phalanx crunches into Darius' Greek mercenaries)

General

Macedonians move first

Individual command figures add plus one to all charge morale throws and 1D20 to combat dice roles. Alexander adds 2. This may be combined with other Macedonian leaders (for example with Kleitos and Alexander attached the Royal Companions would add 3D20 in melee)

Persian unit movement. All close order cavalry units can move each turn. Other Persian and allied units must throw above the number of hits they have suffered on a D6 in order to move.

Macedonian Baggage

Alexander had to detail some of his force to guard the baggage, this seems to have fallen to the Thracian peltasts who later fought off an incursion by Persian cavalry intent on rescuing the female members of the royal household who had been captured at Issus. Should the Persians get amongst the baggage and remain there for one full turn then all Macedonian units suffer 1 hit (this represents the damage to their morale of seeing all their hard won plunder being ransacked)

(Garrison 20mm figure of Mazaros leads forward some Garrison 20mm Egyptian heavy cavalry, the latter are figures converted and cast by Rob - and very nice they are too)

Darius

Alexander was determined to capture or kill the Persian king. If he succeeds the battle ends at the conclusion of any current melees in a Macedonian victory. If Darius flees the table to avoid Alexander then all Persian units suffer 2 hits immediately.

(Chariots breaking through a unit of Pbs Agrianes)

Scythed Chariots

The tactics with these seems to have been for the charioteer to gallop towards the enemy and then jump off at the last minute. To simulate this:

Move charging chariot to within 4cm of the enemy unit it is charging.

Throw a D6

Score 1 = Chariot halts short of enemy lines. Remove model

Score 2, 3 = Chariot turns 90 degrees to the left

Score 4, 5 = Chariot turns 90 degrees to the right

Score 6 = Chariot continues straight ahead

If a chariot does not halt throw 4 x D6 to see how far it moves. If the chariot makes contact with any close order unit, foe or friend, throw a D20 for hit. Light units simply part to let it pass through.

Normal additions apply, i.e. a chariot charging into a units flank will add 2 x D20

A chariot cuts straight through any unit it contacts and carries on for its full move distance throwing for any other units it contacts as before. Once it completes its move the model is removed.

Any unit contacted by a chariot must halt for one turn whether it has suffered casualties or not.

Chariots may be eliminated by missile fire in the usual way. A score of 10 or more is required to hit. If attacked or charged chariots will countercharge as above.

(Scythed - well you have to imagine the scythes - chariots have passed through the PBs Cretans and approach the phalanx, which is menaced on the flank by S range Assyrian lancers. A mix of metal and plastic vehicles painted by Ray McGarry)

Tomorrow - Action!

Thighs of an Elephant! A brief thought on the pachyderm

(A distinctly Grantian elephant picked up on eBay. Airfix elephant (from the Tarzan set?) with balsa howdah, card shields and Airfix Roman archers. The anklet is made of what seems to be blotting paper.)

In the Hannibal in the Alps scenario the Gauls, fearful of the never before seen elephants, were not allowed to come within  six-inches of them. This lead Hannibal to the conclusion that the best way to force the pass was to form elephant square and barge his way through. The result was effective, but, from a gaming perspective, slightly underwhelming. To reverse Bosquet's famous words: It was wargame, but it wasn't magnificent.

(The splendid Minifigs S range amoured elephant, probably based on the Funcken illustration of Pyrrhus, though it lacks the scale armour trunk protection.)

In future I'd be tempted to allow troops who aren't used to elephants to engage them in hand-to-hand combat but at half effectiveness. I imagine that nervous troops would approach the elephants tentatively (cavalrymen would be expending energy controlling their nervous horses that would normally have been used for fighting) attempting to poke at the target from a distance, possibly with their eyes closed - a tactic I often used when batting against the fast bowlers.

 (Minifigs PBs range Sassanid elephant, bought on eBay. The claret and blue paintwork suggests a Persian affinity with Aston Villa or West Ham United. I have often adopted a similar football-kit lead approach when working out colour schemes, though obviously I draw the line at that 1980s brown Coventry City shirt)

Generals Without Armies Are Naked Indeed - More Thoughts on C&C

(More from the Great King's Jubilee: S Range Persian Infantry with the PBs Darius in front)
Back in the 1960s the ever feisty Don Featherstone lead a bellicose campaign against what he dismissed as "the command and control boys" he believed were hijacking "his hobby". His feelings about such matters ran so high he broke away from co-editing Jack Scruby's original wargames magazine, War Game Digest and set up his own. Unlike Scruby's publication The Don's Wargamer's Newsletter would vehemently resist the encroachment of fancy " military simulation" talk from the likes of the London Wargames Section and WRG. While contemptuously swotting aside comments about "playing with toy soldiers", Featherstone made no bones about the fact that he regarded the pursuit of "realism" in wargames as both ludicrous and pointless. Though, of course, if he had really believed that he would simply have played chess or bridge or l'attaque.

The fact that Don took particular exception to "command and control" rules is interesting and strikes at the heart of things. In Featherstone's battles the wargamer is less like a general than an omnipotent being, hovering over the battlefield and communicating with his officers by telepathy. Currently this is how things stand in Parum Pugna. I am certain this situation is not ideal, but rectifying it satisfactorily is another matter.

Unity! Remember That Terrible Word...Some Thoughts on Command & Control

(Minifigs Pbs Alexander the Great - Maybe he needs a more dynamic looking horse?)

On his Gathering of Hosts blog Ross speculated as to why the Persian commanders in Grant's refight of Plataea didn't use their cavalry to exploit the space on the tabletop to their advantage - a tactic so obvious even I adopted it. One possibility Ross mentions is a command and control issue. Since Grant offers no explanation for the Persian tactics we can't be sure, but Ross' question raises the vexed point of how far in front of the main body of the army units should really be allowed to operate. In our refight the Persian cavalry galloped merrily about between Greek lines, often cut off from all sight and sound of their commanders. Would they, could they, have done that?

In the excellent Russo-Polish board-wargame Strike of Eagles at the end of each turn units are assessed to see if they are cut off from their supply lines. Those that are suffer a degree of disintegration. Might we introduce something similar in Parum Pugna? We might say that units that are more than 90cm (36 inches to the Imperialists) from the main body (we would have to define what that is, of course), or cut off from it by the enemy or terrain features, must test morale in the usual manner - those that fail such a test suffering a hit.

(Garrison 20mm Macedonian officer. Rather more dashing than the Minifigs Alexander)

I have long tinkered with the idea of a rule ammendment along these lines. And while Longuelade's Law states that "Rules improve until they are unusable", it is still worth thinking about.

You can read what Ross had to say on Grant's Plataea and much more good and wise stuff at:
http://gatheringofhosts.blogspot.ca/search/label/Plateas

Plataea - Action!

(Persian Cavalry - Greek lights from Garrsion 20mm- supported by Sudanese archers - Minifigs PBs Blemye - outflanks the Spartan position)

This was the first of what have become regular Christmas occasions – big battles fought on a big table, with the regular “generals” often supplemented by visiting commanders. In many ways this was the type of game that Parum Pugna was designed for – close to a thousand figures in action and a battle fought from start to finish in around four hours.

Discussing the Grant/Dover Coven’s Plataea re-fight on his blog, Ross poses the question of why the Persians didn’t exploit the open spaces and gaps in the Greek lines to surround their enemies. It is a real good question, though not one that could be asked of our version, since the Persian commanders opted for just that tactic – despatching all their cavalry to gallop off beyond the Asopus Ridge. Some were tasked with delaying the supporting Spartans and Athenian troops as best they could, while the horse archers were ordered to peck away at the phalanxes on the ridge. The bulk of the Persian infantry meanwhile was detailed to make a frontal assault up the slopes of the Asopus in the hope that sheer weight of numbers combined with the chipping effect of the light cavalry would eventually wear down the powerful Spartans.

The Greeks had little option but to follow the historic order of events, hoping that the Spartans could hang on until help arrived. Heavily armoured and well-disciplined they proved less vulnerable to cavalry than the Persians had hoped, aided greatly by their light troops who performed wonders in protecting their flanks.

One rule that had an effect on the outcome was using "command points" for the Persians. At the start of their turn the Persians threw 1 AvD for every five units in their command, the resulting score being the number of units that could move that turn. We had used a similar system for Marathon as a means of reflecting the greater cohesion and better command and control of the Greeks. At Plataea the Greeks were clearly not as co-ordinated and decisive as they'd been in that earlier encounter. However, I still felt that their more compact and better trained army gave them an advantage over the polyglot Persians.

Sadly no detailed account of the action survives, but I have the following scraps from Stephen Caddy – commander of the Greeks - and myself – who, along with Clive Norman, commanded the “never victorious” Persians.

(Athenian support begins to arrive as the Persian infantry struggles to get to grips with the Spartans. Figures are mainly Garrison 20mm, though the caped foot commander waving his sword in the far distance is from Phoenix Model Developments. His cast on sword fell off and had been replaced with a pin, making him quite a dangerous little chap to handle)

Stephen: Today at Harry's we re-fought a very bloody game of Plataea with 360
Greeks opposed by a whopping 596 Persians. Even the generals were dying on
the field. The exhausted Greeks retook the Asopus ridge but lost all
their lights while 7 out of 12 phalanxes were too battered to continue. Of the three
reinforcement phalanx units one arrived on the first throw of the
dice - the other two did not appear at all. The Persians and their allies were
reduced by the end to a handful of mounted and light infantry units. The
Immortals fought magnificently but proved mortal, the horsemen kept
getting behind the Greek lines, the Helots manfully kept the heavier
troops protected at huge cost and the commanders risked all and paid
the price.

Me: This certainly was a bloody encounter with four hours of more or less
continuous violence broken only by a brief pause to munch on some ginger nuts. After much bloodshed and some spectacularly lucky dice throwing by a unit of Assyrian spearmen, the Spartans were driven from the Asopus, before the advancing relief could arrive. Alas for the Persians the vast number of units they had at their disposal and poor command and control (how many 2s can you throw on an AvD?) slowed down all movement and they were unable to reinforce this success, before the Athenians arrived and hammered the depleted units on the ridge. A second wave of Persian troops proved less effective than the first. The toll amongst the generals was fearsome. Mardonius died while attempting to rally some Mede Infantry, Pausanius was cut down by Persian lancers and Aristedes of the Athenians was killed just as the Greeks claimed victory by a stray arrow from some marauding Dahae horsemen.

 (The Athenians have arrived on the ridge and now face assault by Indians, Phrygians, Greek mercenary cavalry and Sudanese archers - now there's multiculturalism for you)

This was a really exciting game that hung in the balance for much of the day but was eventually decided by Stephen's decisive use of his hoplites. Any hesitation on his part – even for a move – would have allowed the Persians to use their superior firepower to better effect and the outcome might have been different. That at least is the spin Artebazos will put on things when he gets back to Persepolis....

(And for those of you who missed it - here's an action replay....)

Chariots - Power To Weight Ratio

(Minifig PBs Indian chariot with converted PBs standard bearer and S range Assyrian spearman converted for charioteer duties by Roger Moores of Colchester)

At the Battle of Barca the Persian chariots proved highly effective. On reflection, too effective. In the rules used for that battle chariots were treated as individual units. This gave each model the power of a dozen foot skirmishers. Even allowing for the fact that chariot crews were a highly trained elite that is clearly too much. In future I intend to group 2-horse chariots in units of four and 4-horse chariots in units of two, giving each the same fire power as the individual models in the original rules. Even with this reduction the chariots will still be of high value - they occupy a smaller frontage than light cavalry units, making them easier to maneouvre through gaps in the lines, while higher morale status make them more difficult to destroy.

While chariots used in Asia seem to have been predominantly as mobile fire-platforms - I find it hard not to imagine them riding into battle to the music of Wagner with Robert Duval cackling madly in the lead vehicle while unleashing volleys of fire arrows (though I have drunk three espressos this morning) - in Europe the Celts seem to have adopted a different approach pulling to a halt in front of the enemy and then jumping out to engage in combat. This is altogether harder to simulate and needs some consideration.

Those Pesky Skirmishers - Further Thoughts On Parum Pugna

(Peltasts persecute ponderous pachyderms. Greeks are Garrison 20mm, Elephants Minifig PBs with Numidian crews)

Skirmishers always present a bit of a problem in wargames. On the one hand you want them to serve some useful purpose, on the other not to turn them into superheroes (such as The X Men, or Don Featherstone's Napoleonic British Rifle Brigade). In Parum Pugna the skirmishers can fire at any point during movement, alowing them to scamper into close range of a slower moving enemy and then run away again. Their impact in one off attacks is limited, but it mounts up over time and, as we saw during the Korepsis Pass refight, will eventually wear down even a well-equipped and disciplined foe (good historical examples would be the actions at Pylos and Lechaeum). One thing I wanted to avoid was allowing skirmishers to be deployed as kamikaze squads, hurled into close combat with massed enemy units with no chance of winning, but with every possibility of delaying the enemy for at least a round of melee. In Parum Pugna skirmishing troops are simply not allowed to initiate hand-to-hand combat. This is slightly Draconian, I know and there is reason to suggest that some feistier skirmishers - such as Alexander's Agrianes - should be allowed to wade into a weakened opponent, or to charge into their flanks or rear. I should add that in the rules heavier peltast types such as the Thracians are dealt with seperately, based in larger groups and able to skirmish and fight at close quarters.

Rules Download

Working on this..... And incredibly despite being the computer-equivalent of those monkeys armed with bones at the start of 2001 A Space Odyssey it seems - finally - to have worked.

https://www.opendrive.com/files?OF8xNDc0ODU5X2FDMUhU

Hannibal In The Alps

A scenario mentioned in a previous post. The number of Gauls is not mentioned and historic sources seem to have been misplaced, though as the victorious Carthaginian

commander I should- in the style of the Ancients - estimate them at 200,000. In truth I think it was something like 250 infantry and 32 cavalry


In the late-summer of 218BC Hannibal and his Carthaginian army began the ascent into the Alps. Passing along the valley of the Drome he came into the Gorge des Gaz at the base of the Col de Grimone. Here he found his way blocked by hostile Gauls of the Allobroge tribe who hurled rocks down onto the convoy as it passed by until Hannibal and his cavalry descended on them from higher ground and drove them off. Later Hannibal was attacked again – probably by Quariates, a Ligurian tribe – in the gorge of the Guil. Here the tribesmen showered rocks down on the Carthaginians before charging into the rearguard, which held firm.

This scenario is an amalgam of both these events.


Hannibal’s army will consist of:

Hannibal
Marhabal

2 x 40 figure Carthaginian spearmen
1 x 40 fig Libyan spearmen
(All close order)

3 x 30 fig Spanish Scutari (Based, like the Gauls, six figs to an 8 fig base to give looser order than above)

2 x 12 Balearic slingers
2 x 12 Spanish caetrati javelins
1 x 12 Libyan javelins
(All above are skirmish order)

1 x 16 Carthaginian close order cavalry
1 x 16 Spanish close order cavalry

2 x 16 Numidian light cavalry
1 x 16 Spanish light cavalry

6 Elephants

Baggage mules/oxen/horses.


The terrain: a narrow valley between lofty peaks with a river crossing the table to provide added problems. Vegetation is minimal but he slopes are dotted with rocks that can be rolled down on the enemy by any unit in base-to-base contact with them.

Objective: Carthaginians have to get their baggage from one end of the table to the other (I’d suggest we play length ways on a 9 foot by 6 foot table). The Gauls must stop them.

Special rules:
The mountain slopes (that is any elevated area above the valley) do not affect the movement rates of light troops or troops in loose order (Scutari and Gauls).
Light cavalry may move on the slopes at reduced rate of 25cms per move.
Heavy cavalry may move at 20cms per move, 25cms if charging.
Heavy infantry moves at 10cms, 12cms when charging.
Ascending from one level to another reduces all troop movement by 25%.

Elephants and baggage may not leave the valley.

Rock rolling. Rocks travel downwards in a straight line 3xD6cms throwing 1xd20 if they hit skirmishers, 2 x D20 for loose order troops and close order troops, cavalry and baggage. An additional D20 is thrown if the unit struck is more than 2 ranks deep. Rocks will travel the full length of their move rolling for hits against any units the pass through on the way.

Elephants effect on Gauls: The Gauls had never seen elephants and seem to have been sent into a panic by them. Gauls cannot come with 20cms of an elephant and must move out of that range if one approaches.

Stephen Caddy povides this brief summary of the action:
It was an unusual encounter with no real winners. Hannibal Harry managed
to get most of his heavy troops, elephants and all his baggage
through the badlands of the Alpine passes. Celtic Caddy [it is a
Cornish surname afterall] managed to inflict terrible losses on the
Carthaginians and Hannibal's life was in danger several times but his
life was charmed [after he hid among the elephants].

We concluded that Hannibal would probably have to spend his treasure
from the baggage train recruiting the very men who had denuded his
force of so many Spaniards and Numidians.

It was a Hollywood epic complete with triggering rockslides which did
a little damage.

It was the first time these Celts had seen elephants [hard to imagine
their reaction at the time] and so they could not remain within 20cm
of the beasts which with a 15cm javelin range made life interesting.
Getting away [or not!] when the elephants moved quicker was exciting
too.

Pips For Hits. More Thoughts on Parum Pugna

Once I decided that "hits" on a unit caused by combat would represent the effect on morale as well as just casualties, then it was easier to settle on a system that did not require the removal of figures. Instead I would record casualties using a six-sided dice placed behind the unit. This to me had two major advantages. Firstly figures could be arranged on large multiple bases (my Macedonian phalanxes consist of forty figures in 5 rows of 8 mounted on one large base), which speeded up movement and kept everything neat and tidy. Secondly the system was more flexible because it allowed the number of hits go down as well as up. How come? Well, because the hits represent morale and certain events will improve a unit's morale - winning a melee for example.

The photo above shows action from a refight of Plataea in which Immortals, Mede Infantry, Persian Lancers and Spartan hoplites are locked in hand-to-hand combat. The Immortals and Spatans have both suffered horribly - six hits to each, one more and they will be destroyed.

Thoughts on Parum Pugna (One)

The main inspiration behind Parum Pugna came from playing boardgames. Modern European games in particular have streamlined rules that are easily taught to a groups of players in 10-15 minutes. The rules of these games attempt to integrate as much as possible. They are clear and simple. Players learn them quickly and, because they are not bogged down with clauses, sub-clauses, multiple factors, exceptions, exemptions and the like, they are free to concentrate on strategy, tactics and enjoying themselves. They are, in short, able to play the game, not the rules.

When I first began ancient wargaming I thought that - since I was using old figures - I should use old rules.I got hold of a set of WRG Ancients 3rd edition and - through a chap named Ray McGarry - "the Dover Ammendments", the clarifications and changes made to that edition by Charles Grant's wargame group. I used them twice. Next I went to the opposite extreme and bought the then freshly published Warhammer Ancient Battles. I didn't use them at all. Both sets of rules, though radically different in appearance, offer the same hefty lists of plus and minus factors for combat, the same multiple morale checks that make every charge and subsequent melee an excercise in book-keeping. I didn't want to fight battles like that. I didn't want to add, subtract and work out percentages until I had a headache. There were other things I didn't want: Units being reduced to piddling size by the removal of casualties, for example, and those tedious multiple attempts to rally shattered units before they disappeared off the table edge.

What I did want was something lucid. A set of rules that would allow me to fight large battles - with 300-500 figures per side in 4-5 hours without anybody going down with a migraine.

Around this time I came across an old article by Stuart Asquith that had appeared in Wargamers' Newsletter in the mid-1970s. The headline caught my attention: "Is Morale Necessary?" It demanded. This was a radical question and one I can't say I had ever considered before. After all morale is the key to military victory - Napoleon said so. I can't now recall the sustance of Stuart's article, but it set me thinking. And what I thought was this - when we calculate the casualties from ranged or close combat what if we not only work out the number of figures killed or wounded, but also the effect the missile or melee fighting has on the morale of its target. What if we merge the physical and mental effects of combat? What if casualties are not just individual soldiers, but the spirit of the unit as a whole?

An Introduction

This site is dedicated to the fighting of ancient battles using veteran 25mm figures from the 1960s and 70s with a homegrown set of rules, Parum Pugna, which first appeared publicly - along with a Marathon scenario - in issue one of Battle Games. Since then many more tabletop encounters featuring Greeks, Persians, Macedonians, Celts and Carthaginians have been fought using the rules. It is my intention to post scenarios, battle accounts and photos of these games here. The photo at the top of the page shows a refight of Gaugamela from December 2008 which featured sufficient Persian cavalry to stretch the complete length of a 13 foot table. They still lost. Stephen Caddy, Kevin White (pictured l to r) and Paul Jackson commanded the Macedonians. The role of the Great King and his nobles was taken by myself and Clive Norman, who also took the pictures.