Game Report Version 6.00 Principate Romans versus Pontic

[malekithau]

Hi,

Played a 500 pt game against my new local opponent Mark. Mark has not received his rules yet so he had only been able to skim through my rules a couple of times so I was explaining rules as we went a generally acting as a game master.

Armies were only 500 points with mine based on the proposed Pontic starter army of -
1 BG 4 Pontic Cav - sup, armd, lt spr, swordsmen
1 BG 4 Pontic LH - ave, unprot, jav, lt spr
1 BG 4 Sarmatain Cav - sup, armd, lancers, swordsmen
3 BG ea 6 Mock Legio - ave, protected, impact foot, swordsmen (would've liked to use pikes but don't have enough)
1 BG 6 Thureophoroi - MF, ave, prot, offensive spear
1 BG 6 Bastarane - MF, sup, unprot, hvy wpn
1 BG 6 LF - jav
1 BG 6 LF - bow
1 BG 2 Scythed Chariots

Mark used a Principate army
3 BG 6 Leg - Sup Armd, Imp Ft, SSwd
1 BG 6 Cav - Sup, armd, lt spr, sword
1 BG 6 LH - Ave, unprot, jav, lt spr
1 BG 6 LF - bow
1 BG 6 LF - sling
1 BG 6 LF - Jav

We both deployed using fairly generic cav on the flanks, heavy infantry in the centre, LF in front. The large units of cavalry caused me some concern even though I had an edge in mounted. I decided to face the LH with my Pontic cav and his heavy cav with my LH and Sarmatians. My LF were outnumbered too although Mark made a deployment error and placed the javelinmen behind his slingers. My main line was, from left to right- thureophoroi, 3 legio in battle line (CinC attached) and scythed chariots. My sarmatians and LH were on my left with my Pontic Nobles on my right. The Bastarnae followed behind the rightmost legion and scythed chariots ready to fill the gap sure to be left there later. My 2 TC were attached to both my heavy cav.

Mark placed the heavy cav (Tc attached) on his right with the LF archers next to them followed by a battleline of 3 legio (attached FC/CiC) with the 2 other LF placed opposite my scythed chariots and in front of the leftmost legio and finally the LH with attached TC.

Terrain was left open as we jsut wanted to push around tin and see the mechanics at work.

The opening moves flowed quite well with the battle lines moving forward quite rapidly and within half an hour the opposing sides were arrayed for the climactic actions. The Roman heavy cav charged the Pontic LH who only just managed to get away (rolled low on the VMD) but in so doing actually saved the Sarmatians from a disordering interpenetration. On the other flank the Roman L moved into jav range and managed to kill a base of the Pontic nobles though they kept their cohesion. All the LF were within range and took potshots at enemy units but managed no results at all. The Roman slingers were now within charge range of the scythed chariots and the right hand Legio BG. My Sarmatians contracted into 2 ranks while everyone else moved forward. And I forgot to charge mny javelinmen into the LF archers, d'oh!

Next turn (about turn 4 or 5 I think) Mark made several errors which cost him heavily. he charged the LH again and this time they were able to outrun him easily and bypass the now shortened line of Sarmatians. This left his flank open to the Sarmatians. On the right my Nobles charged the LH who decided to stand (tested and passed). In the centre my Scythed chariots and legio charged the slingers who also stood (tested and passed). In the impact phase the Nobles smacked the LH dropping them to disrupted and killing a base. The slingers also dropped to fragmented and lost 2 bases. Manuevre was stright forward with legio pushing forward with the archers also getting into the face of the Roman legio (1 Mu away). The Sarmatians improved their flank charge position and the Thureophoroi moved up to support the javelinmen 1 MU from the archers. In the melee phase the LH dropped to fragmented adn lost another base and the slingers evaporated. This meant the scythed chariots survived into the next turn and nowe they were on the legio flank.

Next turn saw charges across the table as the Sarmatians charged the Roman cav who evaded 9they were in one long line), thureophoroi/jav the archers, scythed chariots into the javelinmen and both lines of legio into each other (well after the intervening LF bolted anyway). The Roman cav rolled down and got caught evading as did the Roman archers.
The Roman legio were now in contact across their front but because of the advanced position of the right hand Pontic legio they were now stepped forward with only corners touching in the central legio. One Roman legio faced 2 Pontic legio while the centre BG faced 2 Pontic while the Lh Roman Legio faced only one though the scythed chariots were now free on their flank and the LH was in deep trouble. The impact phase was kind to the Pontics with all three beating tehir opposing Roman BGs with one now being disrupted. The Roman HC meanwhile dropped to disrupted and was fighting to its rear with one base only. The Roman archers lost a base and dropped to fragmented. manuevre was just the chariot trundling forward to place itself in the flank of the Roman line. The Bastarnae moved forward to cover the legio line. Melee phase was a complete reverse of the impact pahes where the superior skills and armour of the Romans gave them a huge edge. All three BGs won their combats, killed a base and disrupted or fragmented their opponents.

At this point we had to call a halt to the game after 2 hours play.

We both believe that the final outcome would be a Pontic victory due to the flanks being won by cavalry superiority. the centre of the Pontic army would have imploded over the following turns but due to the still healthy Bastarnae, chariots, thureophoroi and cavalry they would eventually go down. It looked a lot like a Cannae towards the end.
With more experience I and possibly different army choices (MF for the Romans) the Romans could've won by holding the flanks and forcing the issue in the centre - in other words using historical tactics.

Mark and I will be playing more games over the next week and I have several lined up for the weekend against players with virtually no knowledge of the rules so it will be interesting to see hwo well I can explain as I play. Given my experiences so far though I'd say that the game is defintely getting there though there is still work to be done. 6.00 is a lot easier to read then the earlier version though as many have said it needs a contents and index badly.

One point that did come out of the game was that it doesn't say what happens to caught evaders in the evades section. It does state in another section of the rules but I would like to see it added to the evade rules section.

Thanks
John

[rbodleyscott]

One point that did come out of the game was that it doesn't say what happens to caught evaders in the evades section. It does state in another section of the rules but I would like to see it added to the evade rules section.

" Evaders who are contacted by chargers always count as having been charged in flank/rear. " is insufficient?

[malekithau]

Sorry Richard again I am not clear enough probably because I posted at work. Naughty me.

What I woudl like to see is a reference to the section which states the consequences of being caught. ie immediately drop one cohesion level. It only came up as this is the first time I have had evaders caught, both in the same turn as well! In the midst of the game it was not easy to find and we wasted some time trying to find it before we gave up.

"Evaders who are caught always count as being charged in flank or rear as per page 27" or similar which is where I come to another issue/improvement. I believe that all sections should be numbered ie Impact Phase might be chapter 4 and charging a flank or rear is section seven with the required rule in subsection 6. So reference is 4.7.6 or similar. Not as pretty but much easier to find to refer to and also to update. Updating the playtest rules with the changes as per your sticky is a pain without exact references. If the rules are to be presented ala Warhammer or Flames of War then this will be out of place but as the rules are more detailed then either of these I'm sure the players will benefit.

In general I believe more cross referencing is required.