Classical Indians vs Imperial Seleucids
Inspiration:
The recent reporting (01 and 05 August) of Simon Watson's 'Indians vs Seleucids' Tactica II games, posted to the dedicated sub-forum on The Society of Ancients Forum.
An interest in a bit of redemption after a large scenario featuring Ptolemaics and Seleucids was discontinued and then dismantled.
Rules:
To The Strongest! (Version 1.1) -
supplemented by Even Stronger V13 (revised 28/07/25)
Table Size:
Long-side of 29 squares and short-side of 8 squares, so 232 squares in terms of total area. At 4 inches per side, this meant a playing surface of 116 inches by 32 inches. Unusual dimensions, admittedly, but there you are.
Terrain:
As more than 50 percent of the inspiration for this solo scenario stemmed from Simon's reports, it would follow that the terrain on my tabletop resembled - to a subjective extent - that employed by the gentleman and his colleagues. Therefore, the vast majority of this fictional battlefield was flat and featureless. There were various decorative pieces scattered about to break up the featureless aspect and provide a hint of aesthetic value (if you closed your eyes and imagined something completely different). There were also a few small "hills" randomly placed. The word in quotation marks as these "features" represented more a slight change in the elevation of the ground than actual block-the-line-of-sight or confer-a-melee-advantage-to-the-defender pieces of terrain.
For lack of a more sufficient description, think about the landscapes of Raphia, the Hydaspes, Pharsalus, and Ilipa.
Opposing Armies:
The Classical Indians were drawn from page 41 of Free Army Lists - Updated 30/6/2020. Including an off-table reserve of two commands, this force added up to 689 points and had a victory medal count of 51. For the formations on the table, the victory medals numbered 35.
The Imperial Seleucids were assembled from 'The Kingdoms of the East' catalog or supplement - which is a rather old version or list. This various-contingent and or multiple troop type army was valued at 540 points. The victory medal total for the commanding general/king was 44.
Deployments:
The Indian army deployed with its cavalry on the right and chariot formations on the left. The center, as might be expected, was loaded with infantry armed with longbows as well as 2HCCW (i.e., two-handed cutting weapons). The Indian foot were screened by a fair number of escorted elephants, these squadrons or troops having more friendly skirmishers in the gaps between. The Indian general or king held a small reserve off table. This consisted of a division of veteran archers and division of veteran elephant units.
The Seleucids also deployed with cavalry on the wings and infantry in the center. The better horseflesh was on the right flank; the light cavalry and some Galatian troopers were stationed on the left. The Silver Shields were on the right-center. They were the starting point of a long line of pikemen which was interrupted by a few concentrations of elephants. The foot component on the Seleucid left was a mix of Galatians, Arab levy, and Thureophoroi. The line of battle was screened by a variety of scythed chariots, skirmishers, and penny-packets of elephants surrounded by more light troops.
Summary:
The Seleucids scored first blood on the day over on their right flank when a unit of cavalry routed a unit of chariots. This single contest and local victory soon turned into a rather chaotic and see-saw affair as both sides threw more cavalry and chariots into the action, and both sides witnessed temporary advantages as well as set backs. The Indians appeared to be well in control of this sector when, in a matter of a few minutes, the Seleucid horse had rebounded and secured 8 VMs from the Indian account. This shift in fortune was short-lived however. The Indian heavy chariots were able to turn the tide back in their favor, wiping out all the xystophoroi as well as some unlucky Companions.
On the other side of the fictional battlefield, the comparatively poor quality Indian horsemen were able to hold their own versus their counterparts. Initially bothered by the annoying behavior of enemy light cavalry, the Indians pressed forward and either forced the opposing units to evade or caught and broke them. (A terrible series of morale checks helped out, too.) Though it cost half their starting strength, the Indian cavalry was able to hold the attention of sufficient Seleucid formations in this region of the field.
Given the numbers and variety of skirmishers and elephants in the center, the action in this larger part of the tabletop was - what's the word? - ah yes, messy. Numerous local contests erupted all along the line, with numerous types of missiles flying hither and yon. Scythed chariots rumbled forward, but were not able to build up enough speed to have the intended impact. Most of these squadrons would be broken up and panicked, which caused some disorder in friendly ranks. The Seleucid phalanx and supporting troops such as Galatians, tried to keep a measured advance, but found this problematic given the frequent poor command chits and the action of the enemy. Indeed, it was not until relatively late in the contest when the Indian archers had clear fields of fire, or their elephant groups had a direct line of approach into a phalanx. For all the arrows that were nocked and loosed, the majority did little damage. The elephants did a little more, but it was the spirit and stamina of other types that made the Seleucid advance a struggle.
On review, the Indians - at some cost - won the flanks, so the action in the center part of the field was not given that much attention. Having only a single VM remaining when the agema unit went down after a desperate charge against a disordered elephant unit, the Seleucid general conceded the engagement and the day to his Indian counterpart - a veteran commander who never stepped foot (technically and figuratively, he was riding a splendid elephant) on the battlefield.
Evaluation:
As with other scenarios, this "battle in miniature" was more abstract than it was aesthetically appealing. That admitted (again), the representation of units, heroes, and commanders, was functional and did not detract, in my opinion, from the "game of war." To be certain, the terrain features were also more abstract than anything else. This was stipulated prior to setting down any troops of either side. The so-called features did not sway the battle or the plans one way or another. Again, what figurative representation there was, was used to break up the otherwise featureless playing surface. On further reflection, it makes a good deal of sense to have decent (i.e., relatively flat) ground when one is deploying large numbers of elephants as well as phalanx formations. Considering authenticity for a minute or two, it appears that this scenario was historically authentic in that Indians faced off against Seleucids on an arid and scrub-dotted field somewhere, and a long, long time ago.
Looking back to one of Simon's comments about one of his group's trifecta of games featuring Seleucids and Indians, it was remarked that "five units of Indian archers had the ability to roll 60 six-sided dice during the missile phase of the game turn." This is not an exact quote, but the general (arrow) point is made, I think. At some interval during the recently completed scenario, I did a quick count of the number of arrows possessed by the Indian foot units. According to my sums, they had around 117 ammo markers. To be sure, only a fraction of these were actually used during the engagement. More often than not, the Indian regimental commander would order two volleys to be loosed at the enemy target. More often than not, these arrow volleys were ineffective. (Aside: I think the probability of pulling or drawing an 8 or better from a card deck of 80 cards is less than the probability of rolling a 6 with a six-sided die.)
Anyway, there was a slight degree of worry at the start of the battle. This was due to the imbalance in points and victory medals, which was the product of the Indians having a fairly powerful reserve located off table. As it turned out, the Indian king did not need these reserves. The worrisome imbalance then, went the other way, with the Seleucids having 44 victory medals against 35 for the Indians. When the Seleucid general decided to concede the battle, he had a single VM remaining. The Indians had 10 VMs left on their side of the tabletop.
Aside from this initial concern, I think the wargame went fairly well, generally speaking. Though not a perfect game (there were a few rule mistakes made and probably more tactical errors), I think I can draw a line through that former scenario that could rightly be described as a "hot mess." The solo contest was played over several days, and the total playing time added up to about 3.5 hours. As the Indian commander, it appears that I stuck with my plan, essentially, and this mindset (along with some luck) helped to secure a win. In contrast, it seems that in the role of the Seleucid leader, my plan "went out the window" shortly after battle commenced. Playing the Seleucid side of the tabletop, I found myself more involved in the local contests than the bigger picture, and as a result, experienced a kind of roller coaster of morale. This was especially the case when I was fighting against those darn chariots and their heavy supports. I thought my lance-armed cavalry would do much better. I was encouraged when, in the matter of five minutes or so, I managed to capture 8 victory medals in a string of successful combats. However and unfortunately, I could not expand that brief local success into greater success or even better luck across the battlefield.
On additional reflection, I suppose a case could be made that I may have taxed my abilities (cough! ahem . . .) with such a large scenario that featured light infantry elephant screens, escorted elephants, pike phalanxes, scythed chariots, and more types of troops. While the latest version of amendments and updates was greatly appreciated and helpful, at times, I found it could be a lot to digest. The latest version of the QRS was also helpful, but larger type might be nice, and I think including the rampage chart would be beneficial as opposed to the long list of troop types. Then again, it seems that these rules are more capable and flexible when handling larger actions than other sets of rules appear to be. Admittedly, that is my opinion, and I would need to do quite a bit of testing to establish evidence in support of that claim.
Working without a formal or universally accepted rubric, I am giving this solo wargamer a final grade of a B-minus with a hand-written note in red: "room for improvement!"
Other Notes that may or may not be of Interest:
> Did not use regular-size or smaller playing cards. Did not employ 10-sided dice. Instead, drew from two containers, each having 100 small poker chips of a dedicated color. There were 10 Aces, 10 "2s," 10 "3s," 10 "4s," etc. [Referencing the previous comment about probability, with a full container of chips, I believe there would be a 1 in 10 chance of drawing an 8. I believe there would be a 3 in 10 chance of drawing an 8, 9 or 10. With a d6, there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6.]
> No stratagems were employed.
> There were not any camps on the tabletop. My focus and interest was on the battle. By way of explanation, I figured that the respective camps were about 2 to 3 miles behind the lines.
> Referencing the introduction to the army lists catalog, "The lists are designed to produce armies in the 100-160 point range." It was decided, as explained above, to field forces with a strength of 689 and 540 points, respectively. These totals have to be double-checked given the latest amendments made to elephants, but not yet reflected in the numerous army lists.
> For those readers who have not taken a look at Simon's excellent Raphia scenario (available for free), his work on or interpretation of the orders of battles informs that the Seleucids had 291 points and 24 victory medals, while the Ptolemaics had 299 points and 26 victory medals. In terms of miniatures, at a 1:100 scale, approximately 1,600 are needed to play Simon's scenario.
> The scenario could be compared to the small picture on bottom right of page 6 of Version 1.1 of the rules, which shows "improvised armies" and a few pieces of simple, representative terrain. It could also be severely contrasted to this more acceptable, admired, and traditional display of the hobby. See, for a really nice example: https://despertaferres.com/2025/03/01/battles-for-wargamers-issus-333bc/