IMPOSSIBLE HISTORY WITH IMPETVS: CHAPTER TWO OF A PLANNED FOUR
CLASSICAL INDIANS VERSUS 100 YEARS WAR ENGLISH
I did not expect to have this battle completed and summarized so quickly after the first. It appears that IMPETVS, despite a non-traditional game move sequence, lends itself pretty well to quick battles as well as to solo play.
For this second pseudo-historical battle, the terrain die determined that Battlefield Four would be used. This landscape contained two gentle hills (20 cm x 12 cm and 15 cm x 9 cm respectively) and a very small patch of woods (7 cm x 7 cm). The defender was determined as per the rule book and not through comparison of exploration points as described in Advanced IMPETVS (Version 1.4 of June 22, 2013).
The English, under an anonymous king, were determined to be the defender for the engagement. This army opted to take the bottom edge of the tabletop. Their deployment dice required the king to form up his force with a majority of units on the right flank. The king along with his heavy cavalry and two units of mounted men-at-arms would lead the right wing. Just behind and to the left of this powerful formation were two units of heavy infantry. A short distance behind these foot soldiers was a single unit of heavy infantry. And behind these melee troops, stationed just to the left of the English camp, were two units of archers armed with longbows. The English center was held by a group (four units) of archers. The lone unit on the left of the English deployment was a "regiment" of men-at-arms.
The Indians were required to deploy with most of their strength arranged in the center sector. The first line was composed of six units of archers. These were armed with the longbow as well, but of a slightly inferior model compared to that carried by the English troops.) Four units of heavy infantry waited in the second rank. To the right and left of the centrally located Indian camp, there were two units of medium cavalry. The elephants of the Indian army were split equally between the left and right sectors. The Indian general, along with his personal guard, rode in the small group of pachyderms on the army's left flank.
The Indians outnumbered the English 18 units to 13 units, but both armies had the same morale breakpoint. Each force would be considered broken/defeated when the value of routed units added up to 15.
The action began tentatively as both sides advanced toward each other. Arrow shafts were soon flying back and forth between the lines or archers. As expected, the English did better in the exchange, causing a number of casualties on the Indian bowmen and producing a number of disorder markers.
There was a command "shake-up" early on in the battle, as on one turn, the English king suddenly decreased in ability (from Expert to Fair) while on the very next turn, the Indian commander increased in ability (from Fair to Expert). The leaders never came to blows, however, even though their respective formations did pass by each other during the course of the engagement.
Surprisingly, the English mounted men-at-arms did rather well against the trumpeting and terrible-smelling elephants. In almost no time at all, the Indians had lost half of their elephants. The victorious English cavalry on the left received their karmic payment when they tried to ride over a unit of stubborn enemy heavy infantry. The English squadrons on the right wing fared much better. In addition to knocking off a unit of elephants, they defeated every unit of enemy horse sent against them. By the end of the battle, only one unit of Indian medium cavalry survived, and that unit was bruised and disordered.
The elephants under the direct command of the Indian general had the most success against and dare I say impact upon the English. Two units of heavy infantry were trampled under foot by the charging animals. Surprisingly, a unit of English archers prevented a tabletop hat-trick. These English longbow men slowed down and then stopped the enemy general's elephants and escort. In point of fact, the melee between these two formations continued until the end of the contest.
In the center of the field, the archery contest continued as both sides edged closer to one another. Some lucky shooting (excellent dice) and one instance of charging into melee wrecked the left half of the English line. The two remaining units were joined by the archers near the camp, and these four units rained arrows on enemy units near and not so near. At one point, a unit of longbows loosed a volley into the exposed flank of some Indian medium cavalry who had their attention focused on the English king and his accompanying heavy horse.
After 12 turns of play, the axis of the battlefield had basically shifted. Originally, the English were lined up on a 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. deployment. After much moving and fighting, the line (such as it was) was oriented from 7 a.m. to about 2:30 p.m. Generally speaking, the Indian formations matched this shift.
The very hard fought and bloody battle was decided on the 13th turn when two units of archers rolled 1 melee die each. (These units had been going at each other for a number of turns, but rolling the required 6 to score a hit and make the enemy unit take a cohesion test is sometimes difficult.) As the dice would have it, both sides rolled the required number! Unfortunately, the Indian unit failed their cohesion test and the rout of this unit broke the morale of the army. The English test came up a 1, which produced another damage point to the affected unit. With this defeat, 15 points worth of Indian units had been broken. A check was made of the English points lost. It was found that the king's army had suffered 14 points of losses, just 1 point away from defeat and dishonor!
Fewer mistakes (with the rules, I should clarify) were made in this battle compared to the first imaginary engagement. I hope this trend continues. As to mistakes on the field, committed in the role of general for both sides, well . . . As the English king, I believe I was lucky defeating the elephants with my heavy horse. I should not have moved my archers. I should have just stayed in place and shot up the Indians as they tried to close the distance. I also should have taken more care with a cavalry on the right wing. Instead of chasing inferior units or trying to maneuver into position to attack the enemy foot from behind, I should have ridden into the enemy camp. Had I done this, the battle would have been won sooner and at less cost. As the Indian general, I think my mistake was with deployment. I should have kept my elephants together and used them to steamroll the English line. If I would have moved my mediocre medium horse behind the four-footed tanks, I could have caused problems for the English king. As the Indian general, I should have mixed my heavy foot with my archers. Then I should have held these melee and missile combinations back from the actual fighting until my elephants and cavalry had won or lost the day.
I am tempted to re-set the table and have another game with these armies but I am more tempted by the prospect of seeing how Early Imperial Romans do against Normans.
is after something that has presence, that actually looks like a small stand of tropical bushes, and is cheap, tough and portable.
