Empire Time - Turn Three (330-320 BC)

Situation in 330 BC

The revolt dice land 1-2, meaning more bad news for Andy's Persians as double-scoring AEGYPTUS expels its Persian garrison.

This is the second turn in which Richard's Macedonians have Alexander as a great captain.

He first attacks the Persian homeland, Parthia, but a roll of 2 is not enough, despite his +2 modifier, as there is a -1 modifier for attacking a homeland. He fails a second time, but conquers it at the third attempt. He then conquers newly-independent AEGYPTUS, and Persian Pontus, both times rolling a 6.

Andy is drawn to go next, and he tries to provoke rebellion in his conquered homeland, but comes nowhere close to rolling the required 6.

My Romans invade Magna Graecia, but are decisively thrown back (I rolled a 1).

Finally, Reg's Carthaginians successfully cross the sea to Sicilia, and conquer it with a 6.

Despite Rome's early consolidation of ITALIA, it is Carthage that is taking the lead in the West

Empire Time - Turn Two (340-330 BC)

Situation in 340 BC

The revolt dice land 3-1, meaning 'Asia' throws off Persian rule.

This is the first turn in which Richard's Macedonians are led by Alexander. As a great captain, he conducts five campaigns in a turn, rather than the usual one, receives a +2 modifier for each campaign, and does not suffer a -1 modifier for attacking a controlled province that is not a homeland (in Alexander's case, the last bonus only applies if the Macedonians occupy Graecia, which is one reason why it made sense for him to attack Graecia last turn).

What all this adds up to is that Richard will conquer five provinces this turn, provided he does not roll a 1, and he duly takes Thracia, 'Asia', Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia (the last is not the Persians' homeland - that is adjacent Parthia).

Richard is apparently following my strategy in our last game, when, as the leader of Macedonia, I decided to eliminate the Persian player by capturing his homeland, and only then going after other provinces, such as double-scoring AEGYPTUS. Richard obviously thinks the strategy is sound, even though I finished fourth!

Andy's Persians are drawn next, and he tries to retake Persia, but fails with a 1.

Reg switches his attentions from Gallia to Sicilia, but the naval crossing ends in disaster (he rolls a 2, one less than the minimum required).

Finally, I consolidate Roman control of ITALIA by rolling a 1 (I needed to roll less than the turn number).

Both the Romans and Macedonians have got off to what are probably their best possible starts

Empire Time - Turn One (350-340 BC)

Map at the start

The revolt dice land 6-2, but that pinpoints Gallia, which is independent.

My Romans are drawn first, but there is nothing I can do as Rome first has to consolidate its control of ITALIA, and that can only be achieved by rolling a die lower than the turn number.

Andy's Persians are next, and he successfully invades double-scoring AEGYPTUS by rolling a 5 (4+ is needed).

Richard's Macedonians conquer Graecia, also by rolling a 5.

Reg, in his role as ruler of Carthage, takes the interesting decision to attack Gallia, rather than attempt a naval crossing and invasion of Sicilia. There are two -1 modifiers (one for attacking outside of the original Carthaginian empire, the other because Gallia is in tribal ferment), but they prove irrelevant as Reg rolls a 3.

A good start for the Macedonians and the Persians

Empire Time

TIME for another game of Philip Sabin's Empire, which covers 200 years of warfare around the Mediterranean, featuring four main peoples: Carthaginians, Romans, Macedonians and Persians/Parthians.

The players are again myself, my regular wargaming opponent ('Reg'), security consultant Richard Johnson, and Andy, a serving officer in Britain's armed forces.

We have played Empire eight previous times, with each of us having each of the people twice.  

Here are the standings (four points for a win, three for coming second, etc).

ANDY
Game One: 4pts (Macedonians)
Game Two: 3.5pts (Persians/Parthians)
Game Three: 3pts (Romans)
Game Four: 2.5pts (Carthaginians)

Game Five: 2pts (Romans)

Game Six: 4pts (Persians)

Game Seven: 1pt (Macedonians)

Game Eight: 3pts (Carthaginians)
Total: 23pts

ME

Game One: 3pts (Carthaginians)
Game Two: 3.5pts (Romans)
Game Three: 4pts (Persians)
Game Four: 1pt (Macedonians)

Game Five: 4pts (Persians/Parthians)

Game Six: 2pts (Carthaginians)

Game Seven: 3pts (Romans)

Game Eight: 1pt (Macedonians)
Total: 21.5pts

REG

Game One: 1pt (Persians/Parthians)
Game Two: 2pts (Carthaginians)
Game Three: 1pt (Macedonians)
Game Four: 4pts (Romans)

Game Five: 3pts (Carthaginians)

Game Six: 1pt (Macedonians)

Game Seven: 4pts (Persians)

Game Eight: 2pts (Romans)
Total: 18pts

RICHARD JOHNSON
Game One: 2pts (Romans)
Game Two: 1pt (Macedonians)
Game Three: 2pts (Carthaginians)
Game Four: 2.5pts (Persians/Parthians)

Game Five: 1pt (Macedonians)

Game Six: 3pts (Romans)

Game Seven: 2pts (Carthaginians)

Game Eight: 4pts (Persians/Parthians)
Total: 17.5pts

SCORES BY PEOPLES
Persians/Parthians: 27pts

Romans:22.5pts
Carthaginians: 19.5pts
Macedonians: 11pts

Since we have all had each of the peoples twice, we will make a completely random draw for our ninth game.

The result is Andy gets the Persians/Parthians, Reg the Carthaginians, Richard the Macedonians, and I get the Romans.

The map at the start in 350 BC

As usual I will write up the game as it goes along.

All About Those Light Cavalry

My three units of open-order cavalry have been rebased as six units

I have 24 further figures from Newline Designs to paint, so I am well and truly covered for any javelin-armed light-cavalry requirements in biblical times.

Still, that is better than not having enough ...

All About Those Hebrews

REBASING my open-order Hebrews means I now have three units of javelinmen and three of slingers, instead of two of each (as well as six units of auxiliaries and five squadrons of chariots).

Javelinmen

Slingers

An early Hebrew army under Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming has three-to-six units of auxiliaries, two of which can be elite, one or two units of javelinmen, and one or two units of slingers, so I have more than I need.

Solomon's army draws from the same list, but with the addition of one-to-three squadrons of light chariots, while later Hebrew armies draw from a list used by Canaanites and Philistines.

That list has two-to-four units each of light chariots, biblical infantry (close-order spearmen) and javelinmen, and an optional unit of open-order archers.

Their Camels Were Without Number

I HAVE rebased my Midianites, in line with my post about making open-order troops look more, well, open order.

Two units of slingers have become three

Three units of archers have become four-and-a-half

Four-and-a-half units of camelry have become nine

The heading for this post is a quote from chapter seven of Judges, where verse 12 reads: The Midianites, Amalekites and all the other peoples of the East moved into the valley, thick as locusts, and their camels were without number.

My Midianite camelry are not without number, but nine units should be plenty for any plausible wargaming contingency.

In Neil Thomas's biblical rules from Ancient & Medieval Wargaming, a Midianite Arab army (2000-700 BC) is drawn from the following list (all units are open-order, and have light protection or armour).

Camelry: bow, average morale, 2-4 units

Slingers: sling, levy, 2-4 units

Javelinmen: javelin, levy, 2-4 units

Archers: bow, levy, 0-2 units

I am therefore fairly well-placed to field a Midianite army, at least with the addition of generic javelinmen.

All About Those Bases

NEIL Thomas's rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming are primarily designed for 15mm-scale figures, although with some manufacturers the height of such figures is more like 18mm or even 20mm.

Each unit in the biblical section of A&MW, and, indeed, nearly all units in the other three sections (classical, dark age and medieval), consists of four bases, with each base having a 40mm frontage and a 20mm depth, arranged in two rows of two.

He recommends that close-order foot, which he labels as heavy infantry, biblical infantry or heavy archers, should be represented by four figures per base.

Auxiliary infantry, who are a looser form of close-order foot, and can be thought of as warband, have three figures per base, as do close-order cavalry, which Thomas, a little confusingly, calls heavy cavalry (whether they have armour or not).

Open-order foot and cavalry have two figures per base, and a chariot squadron consists of four chariots, which have to be fitted on bases with a 20mm frontage and 40mm depth, although diagrams in the book show them having the same frontage and depth as other units.

I am using the same-size bases, but with 10mm-scale figures.

Accordingly, I increased the number of close-order foot per base from four to six, the auxiliaries/warband from three to four, and open-order foot from two to three, while keeping close-order cavalry at three and open-order cavalry at two (and chariots at one).

Here is how they look, with (left to right): open-order foot (slingers, in this case). open-order cavalry with, behind them, open-order camelry, close-order foot with, behind them close-order archers, auxiliaries/warband (Sherden), a chariot and close-order cavalry

I think that, on the whole, they look reasonable.

However, loath as I am to get involved in rebasing figures, I have decided to reduce the open-order units by one figure a base.

This means open-order foot will have two figures, rather than three, and open-order mounted troops one figure, instead of two.

A bonus of doing this is that I will create extra units, without having to paint more figures. However, that is very much a bonus, rather than a reason.

First Hittites

Have painted my first Hittites - two squadrons of 10mm chariots from Newline Designs, configured on 40x20mm bases for Neil Thomas's biblical rules in Ancient & Medieval Wargaming  

Summing Up Our Refight Of The Battle Of The Apocryphal Well

ANOTHER great war game, and a reversal of 'history', as the Egyptians won Charles Grant's original battle in The Ancient War Game.

That encounter, fought under Wargames Research Group rules, ended with three of the seven (not eight, as the book has it) Assyrian regiments "in flight and two others retreating."

The Egyptians lost 38 figures of their original 229 (including chariot crews). The Assyrians lost 58 of their original 178 figures, "although to the latter total can be added the fleeing regiments who, should the result have been decided by a tally of viable points, would not have counted, being in flight."

In our battle, fought with my modified version of Neil Thomas's biblical rules from Ancient & Medieval Wargaming, the Egyptians lost four of eight units, the Assyrians two of seven.

I conceded as my Egyptians were on the verge of losing a fifth unit, which had already been reduced to one base, and was confronted with units of cavalry, close-order archers and professional infantry.

That would have put the army below 50% of its starting strength, and therefore defeated.

Both my opponent and I felt the battle flowed well, and was over in a relatively short nine turns.

This was helped by the scenario starting with both armies drawn up in battle-order at the start of the fateful day, within a few moves of each other, and on a battlefield that was uncluttered with scenery, apart from three low hills, which affected line-of-sight, but not movement.

We have agreed to give the rules another outing in the near future.