A survey of recent ancient and medieval boardgames

The Ancient and Medieval periods are not common settings for boardgames,
the vast majority of which are set in World War 11, the American Civil
war and the Napoleonic Wars, in that order. It was therefore a very
pleasant surprise to see no less that eight titles in our periods
released by the two major game manufacturers, Simulations Publications
(SPI) and Avalon Hill (AH), in the past year or so.

These games divide into groups; those intended to simulate battles,
which are usually described as "tactical" games, and those intended to
simulate campaigns, usually known as "strategic" games. The two groups
correspond to wargame battles and campaigns respectively.

The tactical games released in the past year are SPl's PRESTAGS series
(it stands for Pre-Seventeenth Century Tactical Game System), which
comprises the games "Chariot", "Spartan", "Legion", "Viking" and
"Yeoman", and AH's "Alexander". The Prestags series is an attempt to
recast SPl's earlier games covering the period into a common set of
basic rules outlining special rules and scenarios for each game. This
has the advantage that once you've mastered one game you can probably
play the rest of the series without difficulty and the disadvantage that
the large common element inevitably reduces the ability of the
individual scenarios to reproduce the particular character of the
warfare of their periods; the special rules, which do not in general
change the basic package but add on details of special weapons,etc., can
only compensate for this to a limited extent. As might be expected, the
individual games have a great deal in common with their predecessors,
which were "Armageddon" for ''Chariot", "Phalanx" for "Spartan",
"Centurion" for "Legion", and "Dark Ages" for "Viking".

For reasons of space, it is obviously not possible to review all the
Prestags series individually, so I have decided to concentrate on
"Spartan" for the reason that it includes the battle of Arbela that is
the subject of "Alexander" from AH. "Spartan" is intended to simulate
tactical warfare in the Hellenistic Age, c.500BC - c.100BC, and
therefore covers the Greek, Macedonian and Punic Wars against each
other, the Persians and the Romans. Unlike "Phalanx", sufficient
counters are provided for both sides to have essentially similar armies,
thus allowing for internecine strife. The rules do not bear comparison
with wargame rules for the period, but are considerably less
complicated. The level of complexity can be varied by the use of
optional rules, which can raise the game from a simple slogging match to
a fairly good simulation of the capabilities of the armies involved.
However, the weakest aspect by far, and this tends to be true of most
boardgames, is the simulation of morale; this is only done through an
optional Panic Level, which corresponds to the WRG "Army Reaction Test",
and is effectively ignored as far as individual units are concerned.
Several changes have been made as compared with "Phalanx", the most
important being the fact that units can now move and fight without being
near a leader (a requirement that used to lead to a complete abandonment
of linear tactics in favour of the 'blob' advance). One regret table
omission from the new game is the requirement that cavalry should
"charge" a certain distance to get their full melee factor and an
equally regrettable carryover is the silly rule in "Phalanx" that the
vulnerability of a target of missile fire is determined solely by the
nature of the terrain it is in! One of the good features of the game is
the fairly realistic special rule covering Elephants, though it makes
them run amok rather too readily; it's a change from those stolid WRG
beasts! It is also a typical case of a good idea that has been
oversimplified to fit the boardgame format.

A defect which "Spartan" shares with "Viking" is the selection of the
scenarios and the armies to be used in them. "Spartan" lacks any
scenarios from the Graeco-Punic Wars in Sicily, and the only Successor
battles represented are those of Pyrrhus against the Romans and Ipsus;
these are surprising gaps. The selection of scenarios in "Viking" is
better, but of the armies much worse; it is all very well to say in the
"Designer's Notes" while acknowledging faults in the earlier games, that
"the scenarios have been checked for accuracy three times"; the response
can only be "but they are still wrong!". For example the Sassanids at
Qadisiya have no troops armed with bow at all, when in reality bows were
carried by a majority of the cavalry and light infantry. The Norman Army
at Hastings is two-thirds close-fighting infantry, when we know from the
sources that the bulk of it was cavalry, supported by archers, and that
the close fighting infantry, such as it was, ran away after the first
assault, which did not prevent the rest of the army fighting on all day
to win; in this scenario, the whole army would have panicked and run
away!

AH's "Alexander" is a much more restricted simulation, confined to the
battles of Arbela Its rules are thus better adapted to that particular
battle, and do reproduce the tactics quite well. They have the best army
morale system I have ever seen in a board game, which reduces the
effectiveness of the troops as it declines in stages. By setting the
initial levels of the Macedonian and Persian armies carefully, it is
possible to reproduce the advantage that the former obtained from their
higher morale. Unfortunately the game does not allow one to recreate
Alexander's battle-plan at all, or the Persian one for that matter This
is because of a series of flaws in design. The designer clearly decided
that the massed Persians levies could be represented by very few
counters, because of their comparatively low value. However, the
reduction in their number drastically reduces the frontage of the
Persian army, allowing the map-board to be scaled up and the whole
battle treated in more detail. Unfortunately, this resulted in the
Macedonian army, which was given comparatively more counters because of
its units greater effectiveness, also filling the board from
side-to-side. Persians cannot get round the Macedonian flanks, so their
centre does not become extended, so Alexander cannot charge at Darius
because of all the troops in the way. With no flanks to turn, the whole
simulation degenerates into a slogging match, which is a pity.

If the reader has deduced from the above that I think wargames simulate
battles better than boardgames, he is right. The wargame offers greater
realism, but in compensation the boardgames are simpler and less
expensive, especially when, as in the Prestags its counters can be used
for a whole range of battles that would require separate wargame armies.
Where the simplicity of the board game really scores, however, is in
simulating campaigns. What might take a month of Sundays (literally) to
wargame with model soldiers can be recreated fairly well in an evening
with a good strategic boardgame.

Two examples have been published recently. AH have bought Game
Designers' Work shop's game "Eagles", and republished a revamped version
covering five Roman campaigns in their first century on the Rhine
frontier, cal led "Caesar's Legions". SPI have taken the unusual step of
including a strategic game of the three Punic Wars as the game in the
January issue of "Strategy & Tactics" magazine (No.53).

"Caesar's Legions" is a very unusual board game that should appeal to
Ancient war gamers who are also Colonial enthusiasts. Essentially, it is
a campaign game of the Rhine (rather than North West) frontier. It
offers a series of five scenarios, consisting of Caesar against
Ariovistus' invasion of Gaul, Caesar's punitive raid across the Rhine
Arminius' revolt against Varus, Germanicus' campaign to recover the
three Eagles lost by Varus, and Civilis' revolt and its suppression by
Cerialis. All good "Colonial" stuff, set in the Ancient period.

The rules provide for raising the German tribes against the Romans,
German movement unknown to the Roman, and German ambushes, as well as
the usual rules for combat etc. The latter embody an interesting system
whereby before each engagement a battle plan is chosen by each side, and
the likely effect of the combination of the two plans fed into the
combat results table through a tactics factor affecting the die throw;
in the interests of play balance, the system is not slanted in favour of
the Romans, but it would be more realistic if it were, since their
tactical control was undoubtedly better. This is a good and unusual
game, well worthwhile for the wargamer or boardgamer who would like to
try some thing a little different; the later and more complicated
scenarios I found particularly enjoyable

SPl's "Punic Wars" game is of course on a much larger scale, and is
therefore less detailed. Though it does not cover the "Macedonian
connection" in the Second Punic war, this game otherwise covers all that
can be included. Combat is highly formalised, and therefore the tactical
superiority of Hannibal and Scipio Africanus over their fellows can only
be represented by an addition to the die throw, but colour is not
entirely forgotten; the Roman is obliged to elect Consuls each year,
which can play havoc with the level of generalship on his side! As of
course it did in reality. From a campaign point of view, the rules cover
sieges, attrition, supply, recruitment, revenue and diplomacy, with
special rules covering the somewhat ambivalent role played by Syracuse.
However, the rules do not distinguish between the mercenary army of
Carthage, which had to be paid, and the citizen army of Rome, which
would soldier on unpaid if things got tough. Loyalty to the general in
the Carthaginian army only went so far in the absence of pay, even in
the case of Hannibal. This is particularly surprising in view of some of
the designer's rather biased comments in favour of citizen armies; the
Punic citizens at Zama were definitely inferior to Hannibal's veteran
mercenaries. However, citizen armies are part of the American tradition,
and perhaps that had something to do with it.

Two rather irritating errors occur in the de of the counters, where the
soldiers of both sides are represented by a Roman legionary of a
somewhat later period and the ships are depicted by a distinctly
Medieval galley! Such minor complaints aside, this is a commendable
attempt to simulate the Punic Wars, and Republican Roman and
Carthaginian wargame generals should find it particularly interesting.

My thanks to Malcolm Watson of SPI(UK), Mike Hodge of AH(UK),and Jim
Powell of "HQ", who made the games available for review.

John Norris

Taken from March '76 Slingshot, The Society of Ancients magazine. Anyone
interested in obtaining Slingshot should write to. Malcolm Woolgar, 44
Shaftsbury Avenue, Worthing, Sussex.