Chapter 2

Ancient Wargaming

Any budding Ancient wargame designer instantly hits a snag when contemplating the period in question – specifically, just how wide a time span should his or her rules cover. Most rulesets do for example attempt to encapsulate warfare from 3000 BC to AD 1500; whilst feasible, the resultant rulebooks tend to have broad generalizations, somewhat unwieldy mechanics, and occasionally extreme complexity. I have accordingly focussed upon a shorter time span for the ruleset printed in the next chapter, allowing as it does for every simple and hence accessible gaming mechanics. My chosen period is 500 BC to AD 100, which encapsulates the zenith of the Classical Age. It covers both Greece and Rome, and includes such inspiring historical figures as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar.

The Classical period was noted for seeing the decline and fall of a purely aristocratic culture, both in political and military terms. For our epoch began with the dominance of the Achaemenid Persian empire, whose governance and operation was focussed upon a military aristocracy. This manned the ranks of the cavalry, which would deal with its rivalry by indulging in skirmishing with javelins at point blank range, and duelling with individual opponents using swords. Cavalry charges on the medieval model were rare, due primarily to the lack of stirrups and hence limited stability in the colossal impact resulting when the charge met the enemy. The Persian horsemen were ably supported by archers, whose volleys of arrows would easily account for the ill-equipped levies forming the ranks of the Persians’ Asiatic enemies.

The Achaemenid imperial model was however challenged by the Greeks, whose military culture developed according to the very different political structure of the city state. These small entities spent a lot of their time fighting each other, which led to a passionate belief in the virtues of independence. This in turn saw a successful challenge to the dominance of a narrow aristocratic elite, following the rise of a substantial group of prosperous farmers. The latter could not afford to equip themselves as horsemen, but instead developed the concept of the citizen army by becoming heavy infantrymen, or hoplites. They were well armoured, carried a large shield or hoplon (hence the derivation of ‘hoplite’), and a long thrusting spear. They created formidable units of deep formations, which became known as phalanxes; other troops such as skirmishers (equipped with javelins) and cavalry constituted a very small part of any Greek army, usually being assigned the task of protecting its flanks.

The Greek army provided the model for all successful classical rivals. The precise significance of the subordinate arms differed in each however, as did the exact variety of heavy infantry. Thus it was that barbarian Celtic armies specialized in foot soldiery which operated in loose formations which moved rapidly, and could launch a ferocious charge; they did however lack armoured protection, rendering them vulnerable in a sustained clash. Roman armies conversely operated in close order formation and were heavily armoured; but their equipment of a heavy short-ranged javelin and a short thrusting sword known as the gladius, made their army much more flexible than the Greek phalanx.

All this can be reflected in any simple wargame, and I have done so by allowing four major troop types to play a role on the wargames table.

1. INFANTRY

This class covers all heavy infantrymen, and always makes up at least fifty per cent of any wargames army. They operate in close order formation, resulting in them being rather slow. They are however very well armoured and shielded, and extremely potent in hand-to-hand combat.

2. ARCHERS

These troops are based upon the Persian model. They move in close order at the speed of Infantry, but rely upon their bows for impact on the battlefield. This makes them effective at a distance, but quite vulnerable in hand-to-hand combat, especially given their lack of heavy armour.

3. SKIRMISHERS

These men operated in open order and were unarmoured. This allows them to move rather more quickly than Infantry or Archers, and also enables them to operate effectively in dense terrain such as woods. They relied upon the nuisance value of skirmishing at a distance with javelins; their lack of protection and dispersal formation renders them very vulnerable in hand-to-hand combat.

4. CAVALRY

Mounted troops moved rapidly, allowing them to outflank more sedentary foes. They were quite well armoured, but the lack of protection for their horses means that Cavalry are effectively only as durable as Archers in the wargame. Horsemen relied upon skirmishing at point blank range with javelins, and individual duels with swords as mentioned earlier. This means that they are about as effective as Archers in hand-to-hand combat, but lack any long range missile capability.

This reduction of combat categories to just four types inevitably rules out some troop varieties such as horse archers, scythed chariots and elephants; it does however give some approximation of ancient battlefield activity, and allows for interesting challenges in the coordination of disparate troop types. I have simplified the depiction of units by keeping precise stipulations to a minimum; wargamers simply have to deploy each unit on a frontage of 4–6 inches. In particular, there is absolutely no prescription of how many figures should constitute a given unit – the wargamer should simply rely upon what looks right, according to the size of the figures in his or her collection. This serves to avoid pedantic and unnecessary edicts concerning unit frontage, and precisely how many figures should be crammed onto each base.

The game relies upon the use of alternate turns, with one player moving, shooting and engaging in close combat, followed by the second player. This is far more manageable than the option of having both players act simultaneously, and is somewhat surprisingly more realistic. For it is only superficially true that armies in historical battles acted simultaneously: what generally happened was that one side would act, and its opponent react – and this process can be reflected quite accurately with alternate turns.

Movement is depicted according to a simple model, whereby rapidity is reflected by faster movement rates rather than, for example, allowing some units to turn more rapidly than others. Turning is instead depicted in a simple manner, by pivoting units on their central point. This avoids the complexity of wheeling manoeuvres, where wargamers have to precisely measure the movement distance of a unit’s outer corner. The difficulties of turning are instead provided for by only allowing evolutions at the start and/or the end of a unit’s move, but not during it. This reproduces the historical effects, but makes the tabletop process much easier. The effects of terrain are also dealt with in a straightforward manner; so that only certain types of unit may enter a particular type of difficult terrain, but that these do not have their movement restricted after entry. This avoids the unfortunate situation of (for example) allowing all units to enter woods, but giving each different type specific movement penalties – a result that arouses all kinds of confusion in the heat of a wargames battle. My rules instead only allow skirmishers to enter woods, and not suffer any movement penalty in so doing. This is much easier to remember than the convoluted and distinctly unrealistic alternative – no sensible commander would ever have contemplated sending a hoplite phalanx into a wood, which is why I don’t allow any wargamer to do anything so daft either.

Most of the effects of terrain are predictable, but two do require some explanation. The lack of movement restrictions upon units entering towns, and the limited field of fire enjoyed by their occupants, appear particularly strange, for example. This is however due to the fact that ‘towns’ are in reality no more than tiny hamlets (conurbations seldom played any role in the average ancient battle), which can provide a degree of cover to units in the vicinity, but neither hinder movement nor offer the 360° field of fire that a more substantial strongpoint would provide. The effects of roads also require some explanation. These were usually dirt tracks, and were only usable if the unit operated in a marching column. This formation was scarcely suitable for entering combat; which is why units only enjoy a movement bonus for road travel, if they are not charging the enemy.

Skirmishers were noted for moving quite rapidly, and may also take advantage of their dispersed formation in order to pass through other units of all types – this is not something that close order units could achieve, which is why such interpenetration is only possible for Skirmishers. What may appear surprising is that Skirmishers are not permitted to combine movement with shooting – especially since they specialized in approaching the enemy, discharging their javelins, and then retiring to their original position. I have covered this in a slightly different but simpler way, by preventing moving and shooting, but by increasing the firing range of the Skirmishers’ javelins to equal that of Archers’ bows: the process may appear odd; the effect is accurate.

My combat rules work on the principle of having units acquire hits throughout the game, to be eliminated after garnering 15. They retain their full fighting ability until destroyed; this reflects a model whereby real casualties are at a fairly low level, but that the sustained experience of combat will steadily degrade a unit’s morale, at which point it routs. This is both simple and historically accurate: most casualties in any ancient battle (and those of most other periods too) were inflicted when the enemy fled, rather than the initial clash of arms. Essentially, loss of morale is reflected in elimination, rather than having to make frequent checks on a unit’s status, which tends to be a feature of complex wargames rules.

Hits are inflicted by having the attacking unit roll a die: the increased competence of Infantry is reflected by allowing them to add 2 to their combat scores, whereas the limited performance of Skirmishers is depicted by a die roll reduction of 2. Casualties can be reduced if the defending unit enjoys a terrain advantage, be that in the form of cover; occupying higher ground; or defending a river crossing (the latter two contingencies only apply in hand-tohand combat: standing on a hilltop has little effect if being shot at!). Defending Infantry units enjoy protection conferred by armour, which allows them to suffer casualties at a reduced rate too.

Players should note that hand-to-hand combat is one sided: you only inflict casualties in your own turn. This may appear strange, given that real life mêlées were simultaneous. I resorted to it because of simplicity; it prevents players losing track of turns, but also effectively rewards taking the initiative by charging the enemy – it will allow you to strike the first blow, and gain an advantage in so doing. Rewarding positive play is always a good thing, and serves to prevent inert tactics, which in turn avoids a tedious wargame.

Hand-to-hand combat is always a fight to the finish; rapid units can choose the time and place of engagement, but should always be very careful only to commit themselves when sure of an advantage. This can best be achieved by manoeuvring around the flank of an enemy unit, which results in doubling the number of hits inflicted on the victim. However, if a unit of Skirmishers is careless enough to get caught in a frontal engagement with an enemy Infantry unit, it is guaranteed to suffer. This is absolutely as it should be; carelessness was always fatal on the real battlefield, and the consequences must be equally sanguinary on its wargaming equivalent!