Rules:
Triumph!
Table Size:
Combined length of two separate tables was approximatley 15.5 feet. Depth varied between 3.75 and 2.5 feet. (The smaller 5-foot-long table was in another room.)
Terrain:
Something of a resemblance to the field of Raphia (217 BC), at least as described on page 157 of Lost Battles - Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World, by Professor Philip Sabin. To interrupt the reported lack of features a few gentle hills and patches of scrub were scattered about.
Opposing Forces:
Early New Kingdom Egyptians versus Mitanni and Syro-Canaanites.
Triple-size armies were drafted, and then these 148-points forces were multiplied by three. As a result, there were 9 commands/corps of Egyptians, 7 of Mitanni, and 2 of the Syro-Canaanites.
Scale:
The universal frontage of each deployed unit was 70mm, which meant that one MU was 35mm. Base depth varied, depending on the type of troops and formation. It seems that figures ranging from 6mm all the way to 28mm would be comfortable on movement trays of these size.
Setting:
For sake of some context, let us say late spring of 1471 BC (BCE), and somewhere in the Sinai . . .
Deployments:
Given the size of the opposing armies, there were troop bases lined up, essentially, from one short-edge to the other (even if it was in a different room). The Mitanni assigned their allies the right wing. The Canaanites placed their Chariots out on this flank, and their numerous Bow Levy units on the interior (closest to the larger table). On the main table, the Mitanni placed numerous Chariots on the flanks. Their Light Foot (supportable) were in the center, and a large formation of Horde was in reserve behind the right-center. The Egyptians positioned formations of "combined arms" against this large enemy force. The Pharaoh made sure to support sections of the long line of battle with reserve commands.
(Note: I watched - again - the 45 minutes Zoom wargame on the dedicated Triumph! channel wherein NKE and Sea Peoples fought. I made some mental notes about how I might consider deploying the Egyptian troop types so as to improve my chances.)
Summary:
First blood of the day was drawn by the Mitanni, or their allied contingent, when a unit of Egyptian Skirmishers was taken from the front and side. Looking back, it appeared that this initial and local victory was a harbinger of the kind of day it would be for Pharaoh and his colorful (at least in my mind) army. Contact was made way over on the other side of this fictional field, when the first command of Mitanni Chariots ran into and then over most of the defending Egyptian line. While this right flank command was being driven to demoralization, the Canaanite Bow Levy and Egyptians were engaged in a battle of attrition. Heavy losses were sustained by both sides in this particular sector. Back on the larger table, the situation slowly slipped away from the Egyptians as another command was pushed to its breaking point, and then another was, and then another. The Egyptian formations on the larger table were threatened with envelopment. The Canaanite Bow Levy continued to be whittled away by their foes, and this allied command was also demoralized. The Egyptian gods were not pleased for some reason or reasons, as Pharaoh and his men continued to suffer from better command and melee dice rolled by the various Mitanni leaders and engaged units. At the end of Turn 6, after approximately 4 hours and 15 minutes of actual play (and not typing of notes, etc.), the collected casualties were counted. The Egyptians had lost 206 points out of an original 415, or 49.6 percent, which was rounded up to 50 percent. The Mitanni and their hired/forced friends had lost 82 points worth of troops, or 19 percent. Instead of playing another turn or two, Pharaoh conceded the contest.
Assessment (by category):
Borrowing and perhaps building upon ideas originally espoused by Anthony Clipsom and then added to by David Kay, I offer the following:
Terrain -
Functional and satisfactory. Did not factor into the scenario at all really, which seems acceptable given the historical field that these tabletops were modeled to represent.
Deployments -
The allied contingent of the Mitanni could have been positioned on the opposite (the far left) flank. I suppose it could have been used as "cannon fodder" and placed in the center of the large table. Overall, and admitting to a comprehensive lack of reading on this point, I think the opposing arrangements of troops and commands were acceptable. (I do not think I am alone in having a table crowded with troops.)
Ambition -
Without question, the largest solo game of Triumph! that I have played. Using two tables, albeit separated by a very short walk, was also a first.
Aesthetics -
As per usual, rather lacking in several traditional respects. Even so, the imagination can fill in the gaps where talent and treasure are otherwise in short supply.
Authenticity -
Referencing the admission made under 'Deployments,' I would hazard to suggest that this fictional battle was fairly authentic or historical. To be certain, one can get into discussions or debates about how the rules handled various types of combat and other situations that occurred on a rather ancient field of battle.
Abstraction -
The simple representation of terrain and troop types falls under this category, in as much as visual depiction is related to the suspension of disbelief. Of course, the rules used also abstracted combat, movement, reaction to seeing friends destroyed and flee, etc. These mechanics were simpler and less dice-filled as well as record keeping than other rulesets.
Amusement -
Thinking back to the most recent blog post and comments about wargaming interest, a qualified some . . . The main intention was to see if a very large battle could be staged using the chosen rules. In this regard, I think the solo scenario could be deemed a success. Of course, I may be overlooking obvious blunders and errors that will result in an asterisk being placed next to the working title of this report. In other respects, I found it somewhat amusing that the Mitanni Light Foot (supportable) did not get a lot of opportunity to use those integrated archers. I also found it curious/slightly amusing that the 2-horse Mitanni Chariots were often too powerful for any Egyptian foot formation to stand up to. Then again, this observation may be better placed under the 'authenticity' or 'abstraction' label.
Other Notes that may or may not be of Interest:
> The respective orders of battle saw the following: Egyptians deploying 26 units of Chariots, 25 units of Heavy Foot, 22 units of Archer, 16 units of Raiders, 7 units of Light Foot, 9 units of Skirmishers, and 8 units of Rabble. For the Mitanni, there were: 51 units of Chariots, 28 units of Light Foot (supported), 20 units of Horde, and 4 units of Rabble. The Syro-Canaanites brought 11 units of Chariots, 16 units of Bow Levy, and 6 units of Light Foot. According to my sums, the total point values were as follows: Egyptians - 415, Mitanni - 336, and Syro-Canaanites - 94. So, the Mitanni and their friends outnumbered the Egyptians by 430 to 415.
> As points of reference, I looked at several other battle reports to see how these wargaming-authors presented their material. Cite names and dates, etc. It seems unnecessary to remark that my effort falls well to the left on this subjective spectrum.
The approximately 1,300 words and several lovely photos of the Hoplite Greeks
versus Early Achaemenid Persian Tactica II game, reported by Simon Watson
on 18 November of 2025. (I also read and enjoyed the Chariot-era reports he
submitted to Issues 346 and 347 of SLINGSHOT.)
An introduction and subsequent links to the 5 video reports of games played
using North African Berbers and the ADLG rules, by Madaxeman (aka Tim
Porter), posted on 28 October of 2025.
On 19 October of 2025, Martin Smith providing very brief summaries (Game 1
was 55 words; Game 2 was 59 words, and Game 3 for 53 words) of 5 played at the
English DBA Open. There was a picture placed with each contest.
Going back to 14 June of 2025, Atheling provided a link to his blog, wherein a
colorful game featuring Moors and El Cid could be read and enjoyed.
> The following blogs and or ancient wargaming subject board might satiate the reader's appetite for more traditional fare and or "eye-candy":
https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/202/12/18/chariots-at-war/
https://wargamingwithbarks.blogspot.com/2023/06/king-david-egyptian-chariot-wars.html
The "Can Chariot Wars be gamed historically?" Topic on TMP -
http://the miniaturespage.com/rules/boards/msg.mv?id=440
https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/2023/09/chariot-wars.html
https://bucellarii.blogspot.com/2023/07/hebrews-versus-philistines-chariots.html
https:// justaddwater-bedford.blogspot.com/2025/11/another-chariot-wars-game-adlg-art-de.html
> In as much as any research was done for this solo contest, I did peruse old articles from as old issues of SLINGSHOT.
"Megiddo!" - Ian Greenwood, in Issue 135
"Megiddo, Before and After" - Ian Russell Lowell, in Issue 136
"The Pharaoh's Breakfast" - Stephen Allen, in Issue 136
"Wargaming Kadesh using Warmaster Ancients" - Jeremy Giles, in Issue 277
"Kadesh with Giant DBA, Impetus, and Warmaster" - Martyn Simpson, in Issue
277