As you probably already know, it is not the policy of this blog to present eye-candy. Mind wrenching applications of philosophy to wargaming, yes, but a feast for the eyes, no.
However, the fact is that this blog was originally intended
to help me record ideas for writing a set of wargame rules for the Classical
Greeks. Having just finished painting two 20 base armies of Greek hoplites and
reading the Landmark edition of Xenophon’s Hellenika, I decided to have a wargame
bash.
Now it has to be said that there was nothing complex about
this. The two armies formed up, charged, fought, one side lost and the other
won. Mind you, that sums up most hoplite battles, so far as I can see,
particularly in the earlier period.
So, here are the initial dispositions:
A bit of a gloomy shot, but the Alphons are double ranked on
the left, while the Omegons are 4 deep in the centre and single ranked on their
flanks.
The Alphon plan was to do a Marathon, hold the centre while
winning the flanks, while the Omegrons were hoping to crash through the centre
and win big enough there.
This being a Polemos playtest, Tempo die were rolled and the
Alphons won, and advanced along the line (I’ve not worked out any blocking
rules yet to stop this, not do I particularly think this is needed).
The next turn the Omegrons won the tempo and closed in, and at
the start of the third turn whoever won the tempo was going to get the initial
advantage in contact. The die rolled, the head craned, the tempo bids were
entered and Omega got the nod.
Starting with the leftmost (to him) hoplite block, the
Omegron player proceeded to lose the first roll so spectacularly that the first
four deep column was recoiled. Subsequent rolls went more to expectation, and
the three other central Alphon blocks recoiled shaken. On the flanks, the two
deep Alphons repelled the Omegron flank guards.
The small bases, incidentally, are shaken markers, indicating that the Alphron centre is in some disarray.
In the centre, the Omegrons followed up their successes. If
the Alphrons could sieze the initiative now, then they may well defeat the
flank guards and turn on in the enemy main phalanx. Alas, fortune was against
them. The Omegrons kept the initiative and, this turn routed two of the shaken
Alphron blocks. Alphron morale stayed good, however, as they expected fortune
to change.
Tempo rolling the next turn was very close, but the Omegrons held on to it and the bidding meant that the Alphrons had no tempo points to do anything. Inevitably the Omegron phalanx exploited its success further, and another column of the hard pressed Alphron centre fled.
Morale still just about
held up, however, but the next turn the last of the Alphron centre joined their
colleagues in heading for home, leaving Alphron morale at ‘hopeless’ and ending
the game.
As a rule writer, what did I learn?
Firstly, there were no generals and so no extra general
tempo points. The initial plans had to be stuck to, as there were never enough
points to change anything. The result of this was that the Alphron flanks and
the recoiled Omegron leftmost centre column did very little after the initial
clash.
Secondly, the battle was fast and furious, and took just
over 40 minutes to complete. Of course, it was a very simple and solo affair,
but hoplite battles are supposed to be so.
Finally, according to this result, the Theban general
Epaminodas was entirely right. Depth is important to these clashes. The 4 base deep
Omegron phalanx cut through their two base deep opponents like the proverbial
knife through butter.
On the other hand, perhaps I had better finish painting
those peltasts.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is necessary to vindicate whether Epaminondas was using the right tactics. Real life proved he was right. It is the best vindication ever.
I also do not think it is possible to vindicate real life tactics with a wargame. In this case we can only check whether our rule mechanism gives results we wanted. I suppose the rules give some advantage for having superior depth of formation, so the mechanism works as expected, that is all. It is, however, a question, whether more important part of Epaminondas tactics was depth of formation or oblique front. I suppose that both were necessary.
Of course, professionals use wargames for anticipation of result of future conflicts, but this is different from hobby games. They try to predict conflict relatively close in time from relatively close past experiences. They have a thousand times more data than we have about Epaminondas for example. And they know the problem much better than a layman. Concerning tactics, professionals can even make real life exercises, not being real combat, but close as can be. Even though, they can only get convincing results and real life is the only true vindication. Models are inherently imperfect, as you have written before.
Best regards,
Adam
Well, I didn't mean the comment about Epaminondas to be entirely serious.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that the problem of simulation, as opposed to wargame, is raised by this. A simulation is supposed to have some predictive power, and is validated as a model by comparison with real outcomes. However, those outcomes are used to construct the simulation model. This is, therefore, a vicious circle of (il)logic, even if those who create them are aware of that fact.
As for the Greeks, yes, the rules give an extra bonus for depth, as most do. In fact, the problem is the wargame depth of the formation. If a single base is eight deep, then 32 deep would still fit onto the same base.
But then I'd have to paint a load more figures to make it look right.
Thanks.