Tinkering with Three Ages of Rome

Several months ago I posted some reports of battles fought using Philip Garton's 'Three Ages of Rome' rules, together with comments on the rules arising from those games.  My son, who bought them for me, encouraged me to keep experimenting with them but other projects took over.  

A couple of weeks ago I noted from the Society of Ancients Forum that a Facebook page had been opened for those interested in exploring the rules further and I also found a report of a game played at the Cirencester Wargames Club and accompanying review of the rules by Keith Flint, who is the inspiration behind the Facebook page.  Nudged by these signs of interest - and by the opportunity to play a couple of games while my son is back over Christmas - I have dusted off the rule book, looked through the amendments that Keith has proposed and with the help of the QRS he has prepared will be running a few games to see whether I can be persuaded that these are a good addition to the repertoire of rules for ancient warfare.  

Before doing a battle report, let me set out what I find attractive in the rules as they stand, what seems problematic, and what changes have been proposed.

The first attraction is that the original rule book provides scenarios with army lists for 6 battles, two from each of the three ages - Expansion, Empire and Decline - together with another 23 free standing army lists that you can use to make up forces for your own games.  For the age of expansion, the army lists are early Republican and Marian Roman, Apulians, Carthaginians, Gauls, Numidians, Spaniards and Germanic.  Each list works in the same way.  There are a fixed set of units that each army must have, together with a pool of other units from which a player can select as they wish.  As the system is intended for use in balanced games, there is a points scheme which ensures that each side is able to field an army worth 30 points - 24 of these coming from the fixed set, 6 from the open selection - or from the core units of an allied army.  A standard massed infantry unit costs 2 points, pike blocks 3, light infantry 1.  Cavalry cost 3 points, light cavalry, chariots or elephants 2 points and Cataphracts 4 points.  An interesting feature is that some units are classified as adaptable, meaning that the player can chose to use them as a massed unit or to break them down into two light infantry units during play.  The lists indicate for each army how each category of troops can be equipped and how many can be veteran, trained or raw.  All told, combined with the flexibility of basing, allowing you easily to use your existing basing scheme, it is a simple way to set up a game with your friends.

Selecting units for a game.  Core set in the tray, assorted extras for selection outside.  Tokens in the tray are order markers for each command.  These are all 20mm figures.  The rules contain basing suggestions for various scales of figures - and associated ranges for movement, shooting and span of command 

Next is the terrain generating mechanism.  A simple table is used by both sides to roll D6s to find out how many terrain items of which kinds they can place.  Clear rules on the size of terrain pieces and how they can be placed are provided.  It is a model of clarity and two separate tables are provided, one for Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Battles, the other for Northern European conflicts.

A straightforward system for organising and directing armies for battle is provided.  Each army has a permitted number of commanders, usually 4 for armies with better command structures - Romans and Carthaginians, 3 for others.  The quality of these generals can be varied - again using a simple set of D6 rolls to decide these.  The key aspect of the generals is that they govern movement in the game.  Each has a card or token, the sequence in which these are drawn each turn determining the sequence of activation for movement.  Furthermore, at the start of each turn, for each general the player can decide and place a concealed marker indicating whether that section of the army is to attack, hold or withdraw in the current turn.  When the general's card or token is drawn, the marker is revealed and all units under his command have to act in conformity with the direction given.  How they may interpret the directions is clearly specified.  This gives the players important decisions to make at the start of each turn, combined with uncertainty about whether they will be able to act before their immediate opponent.

Once movement has been completed, missile shooting is dealt with, followed by any hand to hand combat.  Both use a similar mechanism, rolling 1 or more D6 and needing a 4+ to hit, modified by a simple list of factors - raw and disordered troops get negative modifiers, veterans get positive ones.  Both sides can try to save hits, again needing a 4+, with dice rolls being affected by a different set of modifiers.  The effect of hits in hand to hand combat differs from those from missile fire.  If hits to each side in hand to hand combat are equal, the melee is drawn and has no effect.  If one side gets more hits on the enemy, bad things happen to that enemy, increasing as the number of excess hits increases.  All this is clearly set out and easy to follow, as are rules for pursuit by victorious units.  Clear definition of flank and rear contact is provided.  All in all, it is very easy to pick up these rules for combat.

Each turn ends with a chance for players to rally units - called reforming.  Once again, a D6 roll with modifiers applied determines the outcome.  Each command that has lost its general or had a unit routed must take a confidence test.  Failure to pass the test makes the command fatigued and it may not attack in the coming turn.  A fatigued command that fails a test becomes exhausted and must use a withdraw order in the coming turn, an exhausted command that fails a test collapses in rout.  An army containing a fatigued or exhausted command must test to see if it stays in the field.  A helpful table provides quick reference to see whether an army in this situation is able to pass a test and what it needs to roll to do so.  Once again, this is all clearly laid out and easy to follow.

The only criticism of the way the rules are presented is that the lack of an index makes it imperative to have read through carefully before playing.  The terse QRS at the back of the book makes a half hearted attempt to address this by referring the player to chapter and page numbers, but this defeats the point of a QRS and leaves room for uncertainty during play as well as slowing things down.

This brings us on to how the rules work out in practice.  Here, I think that people will have different sets of concerns depending on whether their objective is to have an enjoyable game without getting hung up over historical accuracy, or to have an enjoyable game with a good sense of historical realism.  For the latter group, among whom I am usually to be found, there will be a number of problems that call for significant modifications.  Whether this can be done within the frame set by the rule system is the interesting question to which I will return when I have play tested all the changes that have been proposed by Keith Flint and his fellow gamers.

The main thing that I encountered that impinged on enjoyment of the game in itself was the behaviour of skirmishers.  These are not required to evade an attack by massed infantry.  If they stand their ground, they have a fair chance of drawing a combat, which can cause an enemy battle line to break up.  Indeed, as a skirmisher unit is recommended to have half the frontage of a massed unit, two can face off against one massed unit.  As each skirmisher gets one D6 in combat and the massed unit gets only 2 D6 - which it then has to divide between the two skirmishers - victory of skirmishers over massed troops in head to head engagement becomes a not improbable result.  The Cirencester group have not liked this any more than I do and have proposed two changes.  First, they require skirmishers to take an evasion test, only standing their ground if they fail the test.  Second, they have a rule that skirmish units have to be one base width apart, so cannot fight massed units on near equal terms.  I agree with the first change but have dealt with the second point differently.  My basing system for skirmishers is to have two figures on a 50mm base while massed infantry are 4 figures on a 60mm base - with 2 bases thus giving the 120mm frontage recommended for a 20mm massed unit under the rules.  Giving a skirmisher unit two bases as well and they have a 100mm frontage, leaving too little space for a second skirmish unit to front up to a massed unit.

Persian skirmishers - a single unit on a 60mm frontage - holding up a Macedonian phalanx under the original rules! 

Revised basing for skirmishers - a 2 base frontage of 100mm with 8 Gallic archers - face off against a 120 mm frontage of Samnite massed infantry.  They failed to evade but then lost the melee and have to retreat.

Another issue I encountered in the last of the games played at the beginning of the year and which has troubled the Cirencester group as well, is that it can be difficult to get to a result because combats between evenly matched units either end in draws or in narrow wins where the loser is able to recover easily from the limited penalties.   As the rules stand, in the final phase of the turn any unit that is disordered or disrupted can test to reform wherever it is situated.  Keith and his group make a simple change to address this, requiring the testing unit to be at least 15cm away from any enemy or for there to be a friendly unit between the testing unit and the nearest enemy.  I used this change in the test battle just concluded and it seemed to work quite well, giving the victor better opportunity to take advantage of success.

Gauls exploiting a combat success against Romans

A further modification has been proposed to the combat mechanism itself.  This is to allow a melee to continue through several rounds in the same turn until there is a result other than a draw.  I have not tried out this approach yet as I wanted to see if the new rule on reforming might be sufficient in itself and I do have some concern as to how allowing multiple combats in the same turn might affect the balance of the game, particularly where fought between Macedonian phalanx blocks and Roman Legions.  In the rules as they stand, the Romans need to be able to get a flank advantage to give themselves a reasonable chance of defeating the pikes.  If the pikes are able to keep pushing on the first turn of contact before the Romans can use their greater flexibility to attack a flank, it may be too much of a pushover for the pikes.  That is something to try out later.

There are several other changes being used by the Cirencester group that I will add into the mix for later tests.  For the moment, let me report on the first trial, a contest between Romans and Gauls on some forgotten field.

The forgotten field generated through the terrain module.  When placing terrain we did not know which side our armies would enter from.  The rotten Romans ended up slithering on from the left, our glorious Gauls raced on from the right

Deployment.  The Romans, at the lower half of the picture, have two commands in the centre.  On their right they have placed heavy and light cavalry, backed up by both veteran units of Triarii.  Deploying in a double line is not a good idea under the rules as a retreating unit can disorder those behind, but the wood and marsh provide little room for placement on this flank.  On their left (partly cut out of the picture) are more heavy cavalry together with allied massed infantry and skirmishers.  The Gauls have only three commands, massing all their heavy cavalry together with some light troops on the hill on their left flank.  Most of the war bands are in the centre.  Two light cavalry units (again out of shot) form the right wing with a couple of war bands and a couple of skirmish units.

Both sides advanced rapidly at the top of the picture (Roman Left, Gallic Right Wing). The Gallic light cavalry and skirmishers reached the stream in time to contest the crossing but the two war bands could not get up to support them immediately.  The Gallic centre advanced cautiously while the Romans facing them held their ground.  The cavalry facing each other at the bottom of the picture both advanced slowly, trying to work out how to gain advantage. 

In the clash at the stream, both Gallic light cavalry managed to get hits on the massed units facing them, causing disorder (corpse markers are being used for this rather than the yellow tokens suggested in the rules.  The 'R' markers indicate raw units).  Two Gallic skirmish units are ganged up against the one Roman skirmisher, including one attacking the flank, but they fail to get a hit.  Neither the Gallic war bands nor the Roman cavalry - all out of picture - have room to deploy so are hanging back.

In the next turn, both Roman massed units advance and the Gallic light cavalry are forced to fall back.  Hand to hand combat between the skirmishers sees the Romans forced to recoil in disorder.  The Roman cavalry are now advancing to cross the stream behind the infantry.

On the other flank, the Gauls sent forward their light cavalry to goad the Romans into reacting, which they did, charging with their heavy cavalry.  The Gallic light horse evaded but the Romans then failed their test to charge home against the second line of Gallic heavy cavalry, leaving them vulnerable to a flank attack.

The Roman equites are hit in front and flank by heavy Gallic horse.  Neither the triarii nor the Roman Light Horse have room to deploy to assist in this melee.  In the foreground, the Gallic light horse are moving out to the flank with the idea of turning and advancing through the marsh

The Equites are driven back disrupted (2 corpses) from their unequal fight with the Gauls.  This causes disorder on all the units they pass through to reach the rear!  The only possible advantage from this is that a unit of Triarii are in position to attack the flank of one of the Gallic heavy cavalry units, if they get to move first in the next turn.

The next turn sees the main mass of infantry crash together in the centre, except for one unit of Hastati that had been held back by having to cross the stream and had not caught up with the rest of the line.  The Roman skirmishers were not well positioned behind it.  At the other end of the line, however, Gallic archers had failed to evade and now faced combat with massed infantry.

On the flank, the Roman command gets to move before the Gauls.  It is able to send in the triarii against the flank of a heavy cavalry unit - although there are more lining up behind those!  The Roman light cavalry engage the other leading Gallic heavy cavalry unit head on!

The triarii win their fight, but only disorder their opponents, who fall back while their companions position themselves on the flank of the triarii.  The light cavalry lose their fight and fall back disrupted.

In the centre, the fight goes badly for the Romans.  On the left they drive back the Gallic archers, as expected, but the middle of their line is disordered by a unit having to fall back and the isolated Hastati on the right are attacked by two war bands together and routed.

Meanwhile, the Romans continued to try to push forward over the stream, driving back the Gallic light cavalry and turning their own heavy cavalry to try to work through a gap.  However, the Gauls were able to fill the gap by advancing one of their war bands on the left.  The Roman infantry would succeed in forcing the Gallic cavalry to evade the red Roman unit, allowing it to advance into the war band behind the cavalry, but the other Gallic cavalry unit failed to evade the blue Roman unit, then drew the melee, holding up its advance.

Any hope of a Roman break through on this flank was crushed by the red unit being disrupted by one Gallic war band while the other had advanced behind it to engage the Roman heavy cavalry while it was still in the stream.

At this point the Roman side decided to throw in the towel as they had no reserves with which to plug the gap in their centre and both flanks were looking shaky.

Our first impressions are that the modifications we used work well.  They do not complicate the mechanisms in the original rules and, at least in this battle, seem to give outcomes that are not wildly unexpected.  So, on to the next test when time allows.