Pontics vs Romans

[Chris]

Marian Roman vs Mithridatic Pontic


Inspiration:
Taking a trip down memory lane, I was fortunate enough to find written evidence of my first "official" ancients wargame, otherwise I confess that I would be at a loss to provide even a general description of this "ancient" scenario. The first adjective is in quotes as it was not a sanctioned wargame, recognized by this or that governing or gatekeeping body, but the decidedly amateur report was submitted to an editor and was subsequently published. "SPRINGTIME IN PONTUS: An Ancients Wargame Report" appeared in the July/August 1996 issue (Number 82) of MWAN, the four-letter acronym for 'Midwest Wargamer's Association Newsletter.' After reading this nearly 30-year-old narrative (and cringing a little as well as rolling my eyes at this early example of my [ahem . . .  ] writing style), I thought it might be interesting or at least provide a distraction from much more serious issues - most of which I have no control over - to set up another version of the season-oriented scenario.

Rules: GRAND TRIUMPH! - with a few modifications.

Initially, consideration was given to Armati (2nd Edition), Hail Caesar, and Tactica II. The Armati scenario would have featured armies equivalent in size to those alliances employed by Mark Fry and his colleagues when Chalons was refought with Armati at Battle Day 2013. Draft orders of battle for a Hail Caesar scenario were produced while studying pages 72, 74 and 75 of the Army Lists: Biblical & Classical Supplement. For the Tactica II encounter, I toyed with the idea of 6,000 to 7,000 points per side, using the army lists provided on pages L16 and L14 of the spiral-bound rulebook.

Table Size:
As is often the case, I opted for a large if also fictional scenario, and so, set up my 10.5 feet by 3.75 feet tabletop. Admittedly,  these are odd dimensions, but I have been able to make the 39.375-square feet work in most cases. For this present project, the tabletop was divided into 12 'sectors,' each measuring 21 inches on its base/top and 22.5 inches its sides. 

Terrain:
Initially, I thought I might try to model some historical battlefield such as The Sambre, Plataea, or Second Mantinea, etc. Recalling Big Lee's video about the lack of hills on wargaming tabletops (please see, if you have not already: https://www.blmablog.com/2025/05/where-have-all-hills-gone.html), I thought about opting for 'Hilly' as the terrain template, as this is one of two 'Home Topographies' available to a Mithridatic army. After further review however, I decided upon 'Arable,' and then used 2d6 and the GRAND TRIUMPH! Terrain Card Booklet to settle on the landscape as well as look of the battlefield. Instead of following the usual procedures, I decided that there would be 10 pieces of terrain on my tabletop. These features were as follows: 1 village; 1 stream; 3 steep hills (2 of these being large); 1 large gentle hill; 2 woods (1 being large); 1 rough, and 2 plowed/ploughed fields. In broad summary, one-third of the tabletop contained the village, fields, stream, and large wood, while another third was dotted with hills, a rough patch, and a small wood. Rather conveniently, the center of the fictional field was flat and featureless.
 
Opposing Armies:
Typically, GRAND TRIUMPH! armies will add up to 144 points distributed across 3 commands. For this fictional but historical contest, I opted to prepare 336 points of Mithridatic units arranged in 7 commands. I studied this army list when making my choices: https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9dfe1af06001770973d/explore. In addition to the usual muster of cavalry types, pike, and Galatians, etc., I splurged by spending 18 points on scythed chariot markers (i.e., Battle Cards).

For the Romans, I thought 303 points deployed in 6 commands would be suitable. (Technically, this value should be 310 points, as I gave the Romans 8 'Hold the Line' Battle Cards, which set me back 7 points as the first Battle Card was free.) The following link takes the reader to the army list consulted when these figurative legions and supporting troops were assembled: https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9e1e1af06001770980d/explore.

Deployments:
Instead of following the detailed procedures regarding deployment in the rules or shown, very beneficially by Rod C. in a few of his excellent YouTube tutorials (just type 'Triumph wargame videos' into your preferred search engine, and you be pointed to this collection of approximately 50 videos), I opted for what I thought would be a historical as well as traditional arrangement of the opposing forces.

The Romans placed cavalry on the right and left wings. The Bad Horse stands were in the first line; the Javelin Cavalry formed the second line. Each mounted wing had some Light Foot as well. There were also a few Skirmisher units on the right. The Roman center was given over to the legions and their screening or supporting troops. Several commands contained Heavy Foot and Elite Foot or a majority of the one type. (Generals in this army can be either Javelin Cavalry or Elite Foot.) In addition, each legionary command had a stand of Artillery along with a smattering of Light Foot. The division of Heavy Foot on the left of the line was screened by a number of Skirmisher stands as well.

It could be fairly remarked that the Pontic deployment was almost a mirror image of the Roman dispositions. The Pontic army general placed cavalry on each wing. (The Horse Bow and Javelin Cavalry elements were positioned on the left wing, while the Knights and Elite Cavalry were stationed on the right.) Three blocks or commands of pike units were 'bookended' by Galatians and Bow Levy on the left, and Light Foot and Raiders (i.e., Thureophoroi) on the right. The phalanxes were screened and or supported by either Skirmishers or Light Foot. It could also be fairly remarked that the better or best infantry formations in each army were arranged opposite each other.

A tabletop distance of about 21.5 inches separated the Roman right wing cavalry from the Pontic left wing horse. This meant or strongly suggested that Horse Bow and Bad Horse would be engaging in a running battle/melee as soon as the second turn of the scenario. Approximately 25 inches separated the respective infantry commands in the center, so allowing for decent command pips and otherwise uninterrupted progress, contact and combats could be expected on or around the fourth turn, and certainly by the fifth. 

Summary:
At the risk of redundancy, at least with regard to the terrain and the respective deployments, I invite the reader to view the six diagrams or maps provided here: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Pontics%20vs%20Romans

For those not interested in trying to interpret my admittedly primitive attempts to map that action on the tabletop, I can report the following.

The Pontic cavalry won the contests on each wing. However, the division on the left was demoralized as a result, and proved of limited use for the rest of the engagement. The stronger formation of horse on the Pontic right played more of a role, though the ultimate defeat of the Romans was due to a coordinated effort all across the line of battle.

The 'bookends' of the Pontic phalanx blocks played more of a pivotal role in the contest, even though the Galatians were stymied in trying to push the Roman auxiliaries out of the small woods in one sector. Closer to the stream and fields, the Pontic Raiders and Light Foot were able to destroy their Roman counterparts.

Legion versus phalanx combats did take place, but these were but a fraction of the overall battle. Generally speaking, honors between these two strong troop types were even. The fact that twice as many pike stands were placed in the KIA pile was due to a 'combined arms' or troop type effort by the Romans. Anyway, Pontic command rolls and combat dice proved too much for the Romans, who were forced off the field after reaching their determined army breakpoint.

Evaluation:
Although I have not documented the various modifications made for the purposes of this scenario, they should be fairly evident. In broad overview, these 'adjustments' concerned how terrain was decided and positioned, as well as the appearance of the various features. Perhaps the greatest license was taken with the strength of the opposing armies and the composition of their component commands or groups. The largest Pontic division was valued at 60 points (so its breaking or demoralization point was 21 points lost), while the largest Roman command had 56 points worth of units (so a morale tipping point of 19). Other modifications were: giving the army generals twice the melee modifier as 'normal' generals, and reducing the footprints of units so that one MU (movement unit) was approximately 1 inch.

The focus on functionality of the terrain versus its aesthetic appeal has been remarked upon in a diagram caption provided in the blog post. Only one of the 10 chosen and placed terrain features played any part in this contest. This was the small wood on the Roman right, where the Galatians had some trouble making any real headway against the enemy auxiliaries hiding among the trees and undergrowth. Shifting to the other side of the tabletop, I found it curious that the field had such an impact of the course of the local action in this sector. Reviewing the pertinent section of the rules on this point or concern, it was found in 14.5.d that, "Any area covered by any other terrain piece is difficult terrain." Difficult terrain results in command and control challenges as well as provides a negative modifier to mounted units in melee. Fair enough, I suppose, but it seems rather severe to place a field of crops or one that is ready for planting in the same "difficult" category as a village, a wooded hill, or a stream. I think that model fields should be classed as open terrain as well, unless the scenario or historical refight specifically demands that this kind of feature be treated as something more than a simple agricultural plot.

I readily admit to tinkering (perhaps too much) with the army size recommendations and or limits for large battles. In my solo wargamer's defense, I would only offer that the basic mechanics of the rules (i.e., movement, missiles, melee, and morale) - no matter which title is being used - should be able to handle the increase in points or divisions or whatever parameter is being employed. However, a bigger battle does not always result in a larger degree of enjoyment or satisfaction.

As detailed in the deployment section of this digest narrative and in the deployment diagram, I arranged the opposing armies in what I thought was a fairly historical or traditional manner. There were cavalry formations on the flanks, heavy infantry in the center, and various screens of skirmishers and light troops between the legions and the phalanx. While the action on the wings struck me as historical and plausible, I struggled to accept how the action in the larger center sections of the tabletop played out. The unstated hope was that this solo scenario would provide for a decent contest between legionaries and pikemen. Unfortunately, due to deployment and comparatively quick demoralization of a number of commands, this heavy infantry vs heavy infantry contest never really developed. As remarked in one of the captions, it struck me as quite unusual to still have 31 units of legionary infantry and 22 units of pikemen on the tabletop at the end of a Pontics vs Romans wargame. As previously commented, this fictional battle was decided on the wings, between the various cavalry commands, and in the space between the opposing lines of heavy infantry, by the lighter troops of each army.

Given that these two historically matched armies were involved, it was disappointing that none of the Pontic scythed chariots were able to get into the fight. I reviewed the Battle Card information for the seventh of eighth time, to make sure I understood how these 'markers' and representative units were supposed to work. It appears that my problem with these vehicles was a direct result of how I deployed the Pontic commands. I should have positioned the King and his better cavalry opposite one of the legionary commands. This arrangement would have afforded me the opportunity to launch the scythed chariots against a 'long gray line,' and then follow up with heavy cavalry. On further reflection, it seems to me that scythed chariots in these rules are too abstract. I find myself drawn to how they are depicted and their respective offensive capabilities in rules such as Armati, Tactica II, and To The Strongest!

In summary, if I was to borrow the subjective as well as often hilarious scoring system used by Greg Davies in his made-for-him role as Taskmaster  , I think this latest solo effort would merit 2 points, maybe even 3, if I could spin a convincing enough tale in support of that assessment. 


Other Notes that may or may not be of Interest:

> Did not have any camps on the tabletop. If memory serves, these places of refuge and resources were not depicted in the video examples of Hastings or Hattin.

> The wargame was fought over the course of a few days, and according to the records kept, playing time (plus some administrative 'work') added up to 284 minutes. It seems reasonable to round this figure up to five hours.

> Since that first Pontics vs Romans solo wargame way back in 1996, I have set up and played two more. The second one was documented here: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Pikes%20vs%20Pila%20in%20Pontus
On review, it appears that the Eastern power taken its revenge on Rome and its citizen-soldiers, winning two of the three battles. I confess that I am tempted to try my hand at another Pontics vs Romans contest. If I do, I think I will use To The Strongest!

> My concerns and questions about the scythed chariot representation and rules led me to reread Professor Sabin's analysis of Magnesia in LOST BATTLES. I also looked for and found and then read again, the excellent report by Richard Andrews about wargaming the 89 BC/BCE battle of Amnias, which was published in Slingshot 312 (May/June 2017). At the risk of self-promotion, I also went back to take another look at my 'study' of these vehicles, presented in: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/A%20Cut%20Above%20and%20Below

[Imperial Dave]

Really good report and analysis Chris. I liked the presentation of the units on the diagrams with the highlighted ongoing actions

Was as surprised as you that so few losses and yet the Romans lost overall.

[dwkay57]

Was it a dropping morale caused by other factors than "base removal" that led to most of the Romans deciding to go home?

Why did the Roman general not hold his "bad cavalry" back and hit hard and fast with the legions?

[Chris]

Cheers Gents,

I hope my less-than-24 hours-later response is not suggestive of any 'need' for attention or anything like that . . . 

Thanks Dave. Counting Aaron's vote from the previous post/report, I may have stumbled on to something here, though not original by any means, just a 'new' way for me to communicate what's happening on my tabletop. Yes, I was somewhat taken aback by the Roman 'collapse' as well. I checked the victory conditions section in the GRAND TRIUMPH! rules and it appears that I read, interpreted and applied it correctly.
Apologies for not clarifying, though the legions were hardly affected, the other troop types 'took it on the chin' and so, this accumulation led to the morale dipping below its level.

Building on this reply for David's post: let us say that a group or command of troops adds up to 45 points (not the usual 48, but whatever). When 15 points (one-third of the total is the basic or general rule) are lost, then that command becomes demoralized, which impacts fighting ability as well as command and control.
Base, stand, or unit removal is the primary factor under these rules. The points eventually add up and inform the player-general that his model men (whatever form they are) do not want to fight anymore. About mid way through, with both Roman flanks gone, it could be argued that the game and or battle was up. Historically, this seems an almost impossible position to recover from, and one would certainly think twice about moving forward with his flanks under threat.
Yes, yes . . . I imagine that I will be mulling over and reflecting my deployments in this most recent scenario for a few days.   
I elected to use what I thought was a more historical or traditional deployment. With three or four changes, I could have made use of the Pontic scythed chariots; I could have formed a kind of square with the legions and kept the less-than cavalry in reserve, or I could have attempted a daring flanking move by sending an all-mounted force on the other side of the stream so as to keep at least some of the Pontic numbers occupied. Then again, I wonder what might have happened if I had formed a 'grand battery' with all the Roman artillery.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and reply. Appreciated. 

[dwkay57]

Thanks Chris. My own morale rules work in a similar manner but the starting "points" is variable depending upon the size of the command and the quality of troops in that command. So, with a higher starting point (or alternatively lower demoralization point) the legions might have fought resolutely onwards for a bit longer and changed the course of history.....

[Chris]

Cheers, David.
I have often considered but have yet to apply different morale rules or grades than those explained in the rules. For example, a command could have a 25% tipping point or perhaps a 40% or even 50% tipping point.
I would hesitate to tinker with the point values of certain troops types, but I suppose that this could be done for scenario play. This would be something similar to the non-massed units in Tactica II or the non-key units in Armati.
Related, but only tangentially so, it's difficult to represent the triplex acies of the Roman legion with these rules, so that may be another tick in the negative column for some.

[Erpingham]

In terms of break percentages, do the rules count in terms of points lost or elements removed?

[dwkay57]

I think trying to represent the triplex acies may depend upon the level of abstraction and whether the legion is your "entity" or the cohort. If the former then the replacement mechanism probably needs to be subsumed (if that's the right word) into the overall fighting factors. If the latter then some form of in melee replacement process needs to be in place, which is what I opted for.

Of course, getting to that level of precision for a Roman legion then begs the question: are you at the same level of organisational and tactical precision for other types in the army (e.g. cavalry) and the folks on the other side of the battlefield?

[Chris]

In terms of break percentages, do the rules count in terms of points lost or elements removed?

A typical TRIUMPH army will consist of 12-16 stands or elements or units, with each stand or unit having a value of 2, 3, or 4 points. The set morale value of a group or command is typically one-third its total, so 16 points for a 48-point army. If you had a lot of Bow Levy (each stand worth 2 points), then you could stand to lose 8 of these units before your army broke. So, points are linked to elements removed and elements lost cost points.

I think trying to represent the triplex acies may depend upon the level of abstraction and whether the legion is your "entity" or the cohort. If the former then the replacement mechanism probably needs to be subsumed (if that's the right word) into the overall fighting factors. If the latter then some form of in melee replacement process needs to be in place, which is what I opted for.

Quite so, and I have struggled with this abstraction and level of representation on numerous occasions, which may have affected my experience with the recent scenario. For what it's worth, I think Tactica II comes fairly close in this endeavor. I also think that Simon Miller's rules and supplements have tackled this rather well - in terms of game play, rules, and historical realism.

[Erpingham]

So, points are linked to elements removed and elements lost cost points.

Thanks Chris. I actually use the same system in my rules.  I think mine grew out of discussions about not all elements being worth the same in DBx, which would fit with Triumph's roots in DBA.