GAUGAMELA 331 BC

[fogman]

Fm Gaugamela 331 BC.zip

(6.55 KiB) Downloaded 320 times

Two years had elapsed since the battle of Issus. While Alexander rendered himself master of the entire Western half of the Persian empire, Darius had used the time to rebuild his shattered army. As Alexander resumed his march east through northern Mesopotamia, Darius was ready and spoiling for a fight. They found each other near Gaugamela.

Designer's notes:

Outnumbered and fearing encirclement by the numerous Persian cavalry, the Macedonians advanced obliquely from left to right, with strong wing units in echelon and a large reserve force. The Persian's left under Bessus engaged and trying to turn the enemy moved inexorably away from the Persian centre. Into the gap went Alexander with the companion cavalry and the Agrianian light infantry. Similar attacks by the Persian right resulted in three distinct zones of combat. The scenario starts at this point.

Historically, once Darius fled the field after the collapse of his centre, his largely undefeated wings retreated. For the Macedonian player it is thus a race against time to reach Darius before his flanks are overwhelmed.

A note on the map: i have used a green map because northern Mesopotamia is fairly well watered and in late medieval times was the home base of large turkoman confederations (the "White and Black Sheep").

The game has 12 turns and 87 moving BGs.

[Micha63]

Thank you.

[alzado_77]

Just curious where you got the idea for such a weird map with so much impassable terrain!?

When I was researching the battle the map came up more or less the same from different sources... a huge plain, levelled in the middle for the chariots with a natural bowl of higher ground to the outside. When the battle broke up into parts, my impression is that it was caused by the small size of the Macedonian force relative to the vast battlefield.

I also think we'd have to agree to disagree about the quality of the Persian cavalry, which IMO was generally good!

[fogman]

*they're not impassible terrain per se, they're a map overlay to channel the action. it's akin to an extended use of out of map boxes in old board wargames.

i have stated my design philosophy many times in the past. it is events-based, which means the action has to conform to broad historical lines. restrictive terrain, immobile units and other accessory devices are all there to remedy the biggest problem in FOG, namely the complete lack of Command and Control. placing the two armies at either end of the map with no restrictions on their actions and movements would result in a what-if battle, which is what a DAG game is. the way i look at it, it is not a precise order of battle or map that makes a battle, it's its events. it's not the presence of exactly 10 cuirassiers regiments that makes a battle waterloo, it is the cuirassiers charge against the british squares that conjures up waterloo in my mind. Stock scenarios of iconic battles like cannae are an example of what non restrictive design can do to completely fail in reproducing the battle.

some people want to refight a historical battle on their own terms without restrictions; i want mine to follow history's terms and restrictions. whatever makes you happy.

*better persian cavalry would result in a crushing macedonian defeat. as it is now their sheer weight of numbers are enough to potentially overwhelm the macedonian wings at about the same time as the persian centre should collapse, particularly on Parmenion's side, which was the reason Alexander called off his pursuit of Darius.

[alzado_77]

Thanks for the explanation. It does give me a better idea of why you are trying to force players to confront specific issues within the battle - or your view of them! Whether those issues are truly historical I don't know, but it makes for an interesting alternative. Cheers

[fogman]

my views on battle dynamics are hardly idiosyncratic. a couple of people have questioned them before. see threads of Mantineia and Verneuil. let's just say i'm pretty comfortable with the standard of my research

[alzado_77]

my views on battle dynamics are hardly idiosyncratic. a couple of people have questioned them before. see threads of Mantineia and Verneuil. let's just say i'm pretty comfortable with the standard of my research

It's all just a bit of fun ultimately isn't it? The more alternative views on battles with very little background info [like Gaugamela], the better. A bit of research, a bit of good judgment, and hey presto - hopefully a playable scenario...!