Gauls vs Bosporans Friday Night in Toronto

[korvus]

Hey Folks,

Christian (Kineas1) and I got together on Friday night for a game:

- Pre-300 BC
- 650 Points
- 28mm
- 6'x8' table
- 1" MU

I was playing the Mycenae-Gauls with:

- 1x Inspired Commander
- 2x Troop Commander
- 3x4 Chariots
- 2x12 Heavy Foot Warriors
- 1x6 Soldurii
- 1x8 Javelinmen
- 1x6 Bowmen

Christian played Bosporans with:

- 1x Inspired Commander
- 2x Troop Commander
- 2x4 Lancers
- 2x6 Light Horse Archers
- 3x4 Light Horse Archers
- 8x Sindi Archers w/ Light Spear
- 8x Average Sindi Light Foot Archers
- 8x Poor Slingers
- 8x Average Light Foot Javelinmen

I won the approach roll, and chose woodlands for the terrain. I bisected the battlefield with a woods in my half at the midline, and there was some other scattered terrain around that board that would have little effect on the game other than to make it look pretty.

We set up with the Bosporan camp in a small woods, and my camp in a swamp just to make sure everyone who wasn't fighting was comfortable.

After Christian made his initial deployment on his far left, I concentrated on deploying on mine, seriously refusing the flank. He concentrated the rest of his army on his right to face me off. I moved in a solid line of warriors up the field, with the Soldurii and Chariots on the left.

On the left m plan was to push the line down the field, and bring his lancers up against my chariots (which were in line) and entice him to charge. The first turn he succeeded his CMT, but on the next Shock phase he failed a test, and his lancers hit the Soldurii, which was what I was hoping for. Unfortunately, they spent the next four turns losing a base a turn whether they won or lost. Fortunately the Chariots had come back around and managed to wipe out the other group of lancers quite handily. So that was a wash by game end.

On the right, I had hoped to be able to anchor my flank on the woods with my archers to deter his stranded battlegroups (a light horse, the Slingers, and Javelinmen). However, they moved up quickly under the guidance of the general, and I found the forest far less of a speedbump than I had expected (an unpleasant surprise!) and was sharply pressed.

But sometimes it pays to be just lucky. The chariots I had left to reinforce that flank caught the evading slingers, and demolished them when we called the game at 1am.

So it was 4-2 for me, but my position was fairly grim, and had we gone on, I suspect the Gauls would have had the worst.

Again I have to re-iterate what a pleasure it was to play the game. Every rules question we came up with was answered in black and white or a good diagram, and we had a great time (the game included breaking for dinner and desert, and the consumption of a bottle of red wine and the lion's share of a bottle of Port and Madeira).

It makes me think that tourney's would be far more relaxed if every game required the players to consume a bottle of wine ;)

Have fun!
Cole

[stecal]

Hey Cole! Great report.

Did you guys like the 1" MU on a 6x8 table? Bob & I played today with the 1" MU and I hated it! Back to 40mm (just need to work out how to fix deployment and terrain sizes)

My Biographer (Bob) will be posting an account of the latest German Warband defeat...someday I'll beat those rascally Romans.

Steve Callahan

[Blathergut]

I don't suppose you have a pic or two of the game? I would love to see how 650pts worked out on such a huge table. You must love having lots of empty table space! I don't mean that in a negative way...am just very curious what the allure is for such a huge table...gods know how you manage to reach!!!

I've found 650 pts on a 4 x 6 table still leaves room on both flanks for cavalry and lights to run around...

Dan T.

[korvus]

Blather: Sorry, no pics. Although, given the amount of alcohol consumed they probably would have been of our thumbs :)

Steve: I like the 1" MU on an 8x5, and I believe Christian concurs. The problem I have with 40mm MU is that it puts the armies on top of each other almost immediately, reducing initial maneuvering.

Consider that at 40mm MUs skirmishers are deployed 60 cm into the table, so only a foot will only separate the skirmisher lines at deployment. Bow or sling armed light foot can move and shoot at their counterparts on the first turn, so there's little pre-contact maneuvering or jockeying for position.

So, my take is that 1" MUs make for a better game of maneuver, which is part of what I like in a historicals game.

Have fun!
Cole

[Kineas1]

Huge table?
On a 6x4 table, nobody would need terrain. LH armies need as much maneuver room as they can get. The real world is pretty big...
At 650 points, my Bosphorons can cover as much table as they need. My clever Gaulish opponent used woods and tactics to shorten his front, but then discovered a subtle disadvantage when I started a tactic that old Rochester gamers call 'breaking the hinge." However, do to my own failure to put my general with the hinge-breakers early, I was a turn late all the way.
As the rules state, general placement is almost always the make/break part of the game. I love it. It was an excellent game (and I get to say that extra times, as I lost...). Also have to echo the "everything we disagreed about was in the rules" aspect.
Mind you, I suspect that multiple bottles of red wine and some port helped the shared experience

[Niceas]

for 25mm, 8x5 or similar is the way to go. I have an 4x8 table, and 650 points of Germans and Romans pretty much fills it. Even with multiple lines.

800 points would be packing them in.

now, with a 6x4 board and 15mm miniatures, you got lots of maneuver room.

[stecal]

Not really, that last 150 points is usually a better general and a small elite unit or 2.


I still think the armies deploy too far apart. Consider that most armies camped the night before battle very close together well into the 18th century. They are pandering to all those LH armies I tell you...

[Blathergut]

Really is a matter of how you like to play the game; how you interpret ancient battles. If you like the large table with lots of space for BGs to move around, then that's okay. It's just I prefer to fill the table, flank to flank, and have flank-centre-flank move forward, connect, and battle it out. If a flank force overcomes its opponents, then the manouevering starts. Maybe it depends on your historical interest/period as well. If you follow the Greek and Roman battles, they tended more often than not to line up and go at each other. I suppose other places/armies were more of the move around and try to position or shoot to advantage. A matter of taste.

I suppose it is nice to see the rules set capable of handling both situations to the enjoyment of all players. I have yet to see any real negative game replay comments.

Dan T.