REBELS VS ROYALS
A Cousin (albeit twice removed) of Cunaxa
Inspiration:
This large solo scenario can be directly attributed to the recent unofficial announcement for Battle Day 2026 and the subsequent discussion Society of Ancients members and guests held on one thread within that multi-faceted Forum.
Rules: To The Strongest! (Version 1.1) - supplemented by Even Stronger V10
Table Size:
Long-sides = 29 squares; depth = 8 squares, so 232 squares in terms of total area.
At 4 inches per side, this meant a playing surface of 116 inches (9.6 feet) by 32 inches (2.6 feet).
Terrain:
A modified version of what the historical field of Cunaxa may have looked like. For my adaptation, there was a river (not named) along one short-edge, and then a fairly substantial ravine (reminiscent of those that bordered the field of Delium, 424 BC/BCE) on the other short-edge of the tabletop. In addition to several purely decorative pieces of terrain (these would have no impact on play), there were 3 gentle or low hills, 1 steep hill (i.e., rough terrain), and 2 patches of broken ground (1 was scrub, the other was rock-strewn). These actual terrain features occupied just 6 of the available squares, so the vast majority of the tabletop was classed as flat and open ground.
Opposing Armies:
Both forces were selected from the Late Achaemenid Persian army list found on page 14 of the Free Army Lists supplement updated 30/6/2020.
The Rebel Army, led by one Prince Myronicus, had a total value of 326 points and a morale tipping point of 26 VMs. The superior army of King Bartaxerxes IV added up to 378 points and 31 VMs. The Royal Army contained more cavalry, more deep units (though many were 'raw' in quality), more scythed chariots, as well as a small troop of elephants. The Rebel Army contained a small but superbly trained and experienced group of hired hoplites. The Rebels could also claim to have a bit of an attitude, which may or may not be helped by the chip draw as the engagement progressed.
For sake of comparison and contrast, the Seleucid OB in Simon Miller's excellent Raphia scenario (2018), added up to 291 points and were worth 25 VMs. The Ptolemaic OB listed 299 points and 26 VMs.
Deployments:
Both sides opted for traditional deployments, with cavalry on the flanks and infantry occupying the center. Both sides also chose to frame their respective lines of battle with the geographical features present on the model field. A diagram of how the armies deployed can inspected in the visual summary report of the scenario posted here: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Rebels%20vs%20Royals
Summary:
The Rebels were hampered if not hamstrung by poor draws of the numbered chips used instead of regular-size or smaller playing cards. The Royal formations did not do anything of note, save watch the Rebel formations advance and then struggle to gain any advantage in the various sectors and local combats. The Greek hoplites in the employ of the Rebel Prince did not have a good day. The Royal scythed chariots did surprisingly well. In one action, a unit of these dangerous vehicles was able to find a flank of a Rebel unit and well . . .
A surprisingly quick and decisive action, with the Royal army emerging triumphant and having 25 VMs (victory medals) on its table edge at the end or when the Rebels conceded the battle and the day, as they had but 2 VMs remaining.
Evaluation:
Initially, I was a little worried about the unequal numbers - both in terms of points and VMs. However, the Rebels' chips were consistently bad if not awful and well, this turned out to be one of those rare occasions (at least for me and as far as memory serves) where one side scored a decisive win.
On reflection, I suppose I could have increased the strength of the Greek hoplites in the employ of the Rebel Prince. I think that I handled the light cavalry contests fairly well. If they elect to stand off (just in the next box) and 'shoot' or if they dare to charge in against their counterparts, either way, they can only hit on an 8. There were quite a few arrow volleys during the short battle, as I had some Mardian archers as well as Sparabara formations on the table. The numerous scythed chariot 'squadrons' performed fairly well, I guess. I did wonder about the historical accuracy on this point, however. The rampage results table when they were lost impressed as fairly realistic and did have an impact on friendly formations. Double-checking the rules and the various amendments, I did not find anything (or perhaps just missed it) stating that these were one-use units or weapons. Perhaps I should draft my own house rule or two that would require the removal of these chariots after a round of melee, regardless of who is attacker/defender. On review of the turn notes, I did not see anything commenting on the 'invincibility' of the Royal scythed chariots, so these vehicles did not play a pivotal role in the fictional battle. They were simply another layer of the shellacking given to the Rebels.
There has already been some internal discussion about replaying this scenario (or something like it) with a different set of rules.
Yes Random Fate seemed to be the biggest factor. Were there alternatives or options for moderating its input? E.g. choose mid-value of 3 chips pulled from the bag?
Thanks for taking the time to read and remark, David. Sincere apologies for the eight-day delay. I suppose that one could draft some amendments or processes to attempt to affect 'random fate,' but I wonder if such ideas or mechanics would impact the system or design too much? Drawing 3 chips or markers from the bag could result in a 3, 4, and 4, which would, I guess, leave one with a 4 as the official result. A 4 is not very good when trying to hit in melee or with missile fire under these rules. Three chips at a draw might also impact the chances for other units that have not moved or engaged in melee yet. It appears that 'random fate' can be as much as a factor as 'poor luck' with the dice used in wargames that involve dice. Here I am thinking of the pip rolls for command and then the combat rolls when that stage of the turn is played.
Drawing three chips and selecting the best, returning the remainder to the stock, would be another variant and shouldn't deplete things any more than drawing a single chip.
I have not carried out a statistical analysis but when reading the "Last Game Played" thread fate in terms of dice rolls does seem to get a high frequency of mention, especially if you are playing against a certain society VP......
It seems to have been a decisive victory (or defeat, depending on one's sympathies).
And I think consistent with history - there were quite a few of them!
Looks like it was a fun project Chris and love the way you document the battle in annotated images.
Cheers,
Aaron
Quote from: Erpingham on May 12, 2025, 01:28 PMDrawing three chips and selecting the best, returning the remainder to the stock, would be another variant and shouldn't deplete things any more than drawing a single chip.
Agree to disagree . . .
If I were to roll three dice for some circumstance or situation, I would have to gather those three dice, then roll them (and there are quite a few variants on that - from dice towers to the weakest of rolls seen at some conventions or shows), make sure all rolls were legal (no wonky dice leaning against figures or terrain) and then consider which die was the one in the middle or whatever.
While drawing three chips might be a little easier, the number of chips is still increased by a factor of three, and so, it would appear that calculation time and other variables might also be increased by three.
This variation remains to be tested and assessed, but it seems to me that it would be an invitation for more time rather than less, and more process rather than less.
Quote from: Prufrock on May 14, 2025, 12:24 PMLooks like it was a fun project Chris and love the way you document the battle in annotated images.
With thanks and noted. Perhaps another suggestion that I should limit my tendency to type too much when producing battle reports.
On a somewhat related note, out of curiosity and perhaps some nostalgia (age related?), I looked up the first ancients battle report I completed and submitted. This took me back to July/August of 1996, so nearly 30 years ago. Brief consideration was made of replaying the battle and or maybe using a different set of rules as well as different size armies. Then again, it might prove interesting if not also embarrassing to go back over the report and rewrite it, simply to see if I could reduce the word count while making it more engaging. I would also redo the maps, as these were drawn by hand. Anyway.
Quote from: Chris on May 14, 2025, 01:21 PMThis variation remains to be tested and assessed, but it seems to me that it would be an invitation for more time rather than less, and more process rather than less.
I have clearly failed to understand your chip drawing routine. I had also misunderstood that the issue was time taken, whereas I'd assumed it was to do with evening out probability variations. My apologies.
Like the write-up Chris. Sometimes the luck element just makes it one-sided but that is how chance works. I have seen it many a time where what on-paper looks equally matched but a bunch of dice rolls are so one-sided that one side just collapses. Done it with games using D6, D8 and D10, but that's how wargames work and why we love them.
But, still, I think my 18 consecutive rolls of 1 in a game of DBM to lose 36 elements of infantry and the entire centre of my army (and the game in 3 turns) must stand as some kind of record? All I could say was a quick game is a good game!
Not sure that the rolling of multiple dice does slow the process down that much Chris.
For my melees / shooting calculations, I roll 3 dice (D12, D8 and D6) at a time and working out the result may add a second or two. But compared to the time spent moving figures, pondering the decision to be made by the e-character commanders (e.g. does he charge with that unit or not?) it is pretty insignificant.
Quote from: stevenneate on May 15, 2025, 12:46 AMBut, still, I think my 18 consecutive rolls of 1 in a game of DBM to lose 36 elements of infantry and the entire centre of my army (and the game in 3 turns) must stand as some kind of record?
Wow. I make the probability of that happening 1e-14 or 0.00000000000001 or about one in ten thousand billion. Quite the unlucky roll.
Quote from: stevenneate on May 15, 2025, 12:46 AM... but that's how wargames work and why we love them.
Is it though? Maybe a question for its own topic, but I'm increasingly coming to think that wild swings of fortune spoil wargames (as games).
I agree Rich
I think dice should add to unpredictability of games but not overpoweringly so
Average dice are your friend....
Quote from: Imperial Dave on May 15, 2025, 09:23 AMI think dice should add to unpredictability of games but not overpoweringly so
A good principle but a lot depends IMO in how you are using randomness, not just on the dice thrown or cards drawn. It also depends where the randomness is introduced. So random activation probably has a much bigger impact than randomising move distances in difficult terrain.
Quote from: Chris on May 14, 2025, 01:26 PMQuote from: Prufrock on May 14, 2025, 12:24 PMLooks like it was a fun project Chris and love the way you document the battle in annotated images.
With thanks and noted. Perhaps another suggestion that I should limit my tendency to type too much when producing battle reports.
On a somewhat related note, out of curiosity and perhaps some nostalgia (age related?), I looked up the first ancients battle report I completed and submitted. This took me back to July/August of 1996, so nearly 30 years ago. Brief consideration was made of replaying the battle and or maybe using a different set of rules as well as different size armies. Then again, it might prove interesting if not also embarrassing to go back over the report and rewrite it, simply to see if I could reduce the word count while making it more engaging. I would also redo the maps, as these were drawn by hand. Anyway.
Chris - sorry if you thought I was suggesting a reduction in word count; that is not at all what I meant. The way you did the report was inventive and engaging.
Keep doing what you do in any way that you want to do it. That IS our hobby!
Cheers!
Quote from: Erpingham on May 15, 2025, 10:12 AMQuote from: Imperial Dave on May 15, 2025, 09:23 AMI think dice should add to unpredictability of games but not overpoweringly so
A good principle but a lot depends IMO in how you are using randomness, not just on the dice thrown or cards drawn. It also depends where the randomness is introduced. So random activation probably has a much bigger impact than randomising move distances in difficult terrain.
Very astute observation...feels like a thread in itself...
Quote from: Imperial Dave on May 15, 2025, 12:22 PMfeels like a thread in itself.
Which is what Richard suggested too. Agree with both of you :)
:)
Quote from: Erpingham on May 14, 2025, 01:38 PMI have clearly failed to understand your chip drawing routine. I had also misunderstood that the issue was time taken, whereas I'd assumed it was to do with evening out probability variations. My apologies.
The fault is mine, good sir, as I have not clearly communicated how 'my process' was done, nor provided links and further explanation to how or even why I tinkered with the established rules put forth by Simon Miller.
You raise the potentially interesting question of 'evening out probability variations,' which may or may not be of special interest for some, as it seems to get into the morale topic as other variables of which one - as a player-general - might not have that much control over on a tabletop.
No offense taken, to be certain. But thank you.
Hmmm, I wonder if some kind of variant could be drafted wherein TtS! player-generals could 'buy' extra chances (whether card draws, chip selections, of rolls of a d10) by giving up a VM? Maybe 1 VM for 5 or 10 additional draws? Again, grounds for further testing . . .
Quote from: Prufrock on May 15, 2025, 11:02 AMChris - sorry if you thought I was suggesting a reduction in word count; that is not at all what I meant. The way you did the report was inventive and engaging.
Keep doing what you do in any way that you want to do it. That IS our hobby!
I recall reading somewhere or having a conversation or two about the difficulty, the subjectivity of deciphering tone in email communications. (Unless of course, the message is in ALL CAPS and followed by multiple exclamation points ::) :-[ :-\ :( )
As with the esteemed Anthony's clarification or follow up post, it is my fault for the misinterpretation (however minimally qualified by the 'perhaps'), though a critical and constructive eye is appreciated as well as needed.
Perhaps I am trying to - without really knowing that I am trying to - imitate the text-oriented reports written by the Charles Grant in that little black book of his that I have and have often read or referred to?
Good sir, you flatter me for saying that the report was 'inventive.' Many thanks, but I believe map-oriented reports (in one form or another) have been done before. The prolific work of David Kay springs immediately to mind, though his maps are vastly superior to anything I could produce.
On further reflection, it is interesting or perhaps even a challenge to try and convey what happened in a comparatively large scenario in as little space as possible. This might be a product of my decreasing attention span, or the cumulative decrease of attention span by the general population (especially the youngsters) thanks to social media and such. This makes me wonder what would happen if a 'task force' of 3 cohorts were sent on a foraging mission and encountered a larger number of warriors supported by some light chariots. I wonder if the subsequent battle report would be longer and contain more details even though far fewer troops, elements, and bases were involved?
As a final thought, it strikes me as rather ironic as well as a little funny that a simple battle report will often generate a completely different thread or threads that deal with topics larger than the actual wargame played. Adapting what you wrote: "this is the hobby."
100% Chris...more rabbit holes in historical wargaming than you can shake a pointy stick at :)
But the question is, do rabbit holes count as rough terrain for movement purposes?
Quote from: Keraunos on May 15, 2025, 06:09 PMBut the question is, do rabbit holes count as rough terrain for movement purposes?
Well clearly, so long as there is an ally general (F) in play, it is between the years 252-249, 217-45, or 11-19, and the action is not taking place during a full moon.
???
A bit late but I just spotted I'd taken this shot by mistake during my last battle, in respect of Chris' comment re dice gathering.
The rolling tray has the dice in use for the current battle and the box underneath all the spare dice of various types and colours.