Men of Bronze: Greeks vs. Carthage- The Sicilian Wars

Greeks vs. Carthage- The Sicilian Wars 480 BCE to 306 BCE

Sicily proved to be the battleground between two of the premiere civilizations in the Mediterranean.  The Doric Greeks and the Phoenician Carthaginians battled for control over the island as a vital crossing point and stronghold for trade.  Whoever controlled the island could control North/South and East/West sea lanes.  Therefore, the competition between the Greek allied city-states often led by Syracuse and the North African city of Carthage raged for decades.

The Osprey Wargames Series book number 24;  Men ofBronze details the battles between the Greek city-states on the mainland.  However, it fails to touch on the battles in Sicily between the Carthaginians and the Greeks.  Here, we are going to take a closer look at this conflict and how to use the Men ofBronze rules to play out these conflicts.  In addition, many of the campaigns were land and sea affairs offering the chance to link games of Osprey’s Posiedon’sWarriors and Men of Bronze.  

 

The Sicilian Wars

The conflict for Sicily was a series of seven individual wars between various Greek city-states and Carthaginian troops.  To control Sicily was to have control over vital trade routes.  It has been suggested that Carthage was primarily interested in keeping the trade routes to Sardinia open, and hence needed a secure western Sicily to accomplish that goal.  However, the Doric Greeks were aggressive in expanding their sphere of influence by ejecting the Ionians, removing Carthage, and dominating that trade for themselves.  Thus, the seven Sicilian Wars.  To put it in perspective, the famous failed siege of Syracuse by Athens took place during the second Sicilian War.  

The specific details of the Sicilian Wars are not relevant, except that they are a fertile backdrop for battles between Greek City-State armies and those of Carthage.  Suffice to say that various Greek Tyrants of Doric and Ionian origin allied or quarreled and that often led to intervention by Carthage.  Various cities were sacked, armies defeated, and booty taken.  Sometimes the Greeks lost, and sometimes the Carthaginians lost.  In the end, neither side ever really gained control over Sicily until Rome eventually ended the squabbling decisively.

For further reading, I recommend you take a look at the following battles of note during the seven Sicilian Wars:

·         Battle of Himera 480 B.C. E.

·         Second Battle of Himera

·         Battle of Selinus

·         Battle of Catana (Naval)

·         Battle of Cronium

·         Battle of Crimissus

·         Battle of the Himera River

·         Battle of White Tunis

You can use your preferred rule sets for campaigns in this era.  However, I will be focusing on Osprey’s Men of Bronze rules.  I like these rules as they are scale and model agnostic by using base widths and focal points for movement.  In addition, they are Unit-versus-Unit rules with no casualty removal.  I find the mechanics straight forward and the method to build armies simple and easy.  Plus, you do not need a huge number of units per side, about 5-8.  Of course, I am biased since I wrote them!

With a little tweaking these army lists and scenarios can be used with any Ancients rule systems. 

The Carthaginian Army

Details about the early Carthaginian Army are scarce.  Diodorus of Sicily (Siculus) is our main written source.  There are snippets in Polybius, Herodotus and Livius, but as always with the Ancients; written sources go only so far and you need to turn to archaeology.  Even then, the details for this period can easily become intermixed and confused with the details of the later Pyrrhic and Punic Wars.

The Carthaginian army re-organized and reformed along Hellenic lines into a Hoplite phalanx somewhere during the 4^th century.  It is believed that this may have occurred after the First Sicilian War ended with a Greek victory at the Battle of Himera.  Legend has it that the Carthaginians were impressed by the valor of Greek hoplite troops during Himera that they decided to adopt the Greek formation.  Of course, this is probably Greek propaganda.  For simplicity, our army lists will consider that the Carthaginians were using the Hoplite Phalanx through-out the Sicilian Wars. 

At this early stage of the Carthaginian military power, much of the manpower for the army was still citizen militia and levy troops.  Much of the core infantry was from the cities of North African and Libyan coasts.  The heavy use of mercenaries and subject people occurred after the losses suffered in Sicily fighting the Greeks. 

The citizen militia appears to have been a typical Hoplite force.  Linen breastplates with large round shields and spears were the common equipment.  Carthaginian citizen forces would fight in the typical phalanx formation of the Greeks.  In addition, light infantry forces supplemented the citizen phalanx.  These were armed like the Peltasts common on mainland Greece and came from various sources.

There are references to a “Sacred Band” that has obvious roots with the Sacred Bands from the Greek mainland.  These were the sons of well-bred Carthaginian nobles.  These troops had the best wargear and personalized shield emblems.  They were trained from a young age to fight in the Phalanx.  However, their service record is not as illustrious; as they were wiped out on three separate occasions during the Sicilian Wars.  They took the field as an elite phalanx formation, often at the center of the battle line.           

As the Sicilian Wars dragged on, more and more mercenaries were integrated into the army.  These were drawn from sources across the western Mediterranean including Gauls, Iberians, Sicels, Sardinians, Corsicans, and of course the famous Balearic slingers.  Cavalry forces were frequently drawn from the subject peoples and focused more on impact than typical Greek or Persian forces.     

The early Carthaginian forces in Sicily also made use of the Chariot.  They were typically the four horse variety and supplied by Libyan subjects. There is evidence of these Chariots being used through out the conflicts in Sicily despite them going out of favor elsewhere.  These appear to be in operation within the army until the 3^rd century BCE.  These can be represented by the Heavy Cavalry options in the Men of Bronze list.     

Elephants are considered a well known feature of Carthaginian armies.  However, there is no evidence that they were in use during the Sicilian Wars.  The war elephant first came to Europe with Pyrrhus of Epirus.  The Pyrrhic Wars post-date these conflicts.   Therefore, there are no War Elephants in this list.

Below is the Army List for Carthaginians during the Sicilian Wars:

Carthaginians

·         0-1Elite Hoplites

·         1+ Militia Phalanx

·         0+ Peltasts

·         0+ Drilled Infantry

·         0-4 Warband Infantry

·         0-4 Archers/Slingers

·         0-2 Light Cavalry

·         0-1 Heavy Cavalry

·         0-2 Psiloi

In the Men of Bronze rules, there are a number of sample army lists presented to allow you to quickly sort out and play a game.  They are built for a standard size game of 38 points.  Below will be a sample army for the Carthaginians in Sicily.

Carthaginian- Sample Army List- 38 Points

·         Elite Infantry- Sacred Band

·         Militia Phalanx - Citizens

·         Heavy Cavalry- Chariots

·         Slingers- Balearic Slingers

·         Psiloi- Mercenaries

This list includes all of the “signature” Carthaginian Units in one army.  It may not be well rounded or versatile, but it is distinctively Carthaginian.  A more balanced list looks like the following:

 Carthaginian- Sample Army List- 38 points

·         Militia Phalanx- Citizens

·         Militia Phalanx- Citizens

·         Warband Infantry- Mercenaries

·         Slingers- Balearic

·         Heavy Cavalry- Chariots

This still has Carthaginian flavor, but is a well-rounded force better fit for dealing with those pesky Sicilian Greeks.

From the Victrix Limited Website- Warriors of Carthage Box

Syracuse and the Sicilian Greeks

The island of Sicily was colonized by two factions of Greeks: the Ionians and the Doric Greeks.  Both had established themselves and developed the standard Polis city-state common on the Greek mainland.  These cities often displaced natives such as the Sicel tribe.  The city-states soon fell under the control of various tyrants who ran them.  In addition, factional in-fighting between the Ionian and Doric Greeks often inflamed tension between the various city-states.  Like their mainland neighbors, the Sicilian Greeks were often divided by factionalism and politics.  

The largest Greek city-state on Sicily was the city of Syracuse.  It was on the eastern shores and was founded by Corinth.  During this time period, it could be argued that Syracuse had the largest army in Greece.  The city was expansionist in nature and would eventually control much of Sicily and southern Italy.  However, Syracuse was not the only Greek founded city-state on Sicily.  They all generally followed the military model of mainland Greece as well.  These various city-states were frequently feuding or at war with each other. 

For Syracuse or the Sicilian Greek City-States you could use the army list found in the main Men of Bronze rules.  After all, the bulk of the armies were hoplite phalanxes.  However, the city of Syracuse probably had larger access to cavalry than those of mainland Greece.  For example, Athens was well known for having a large cavalry force of up to 1,000 horseman.  Supposedly, Gelon the Tyrant of Syracuse was able to field 5,000 cavalry before the battle of Himera!  In addition, Syracuse may have had a larger access to Archers/Slingers than most mainland Greek city-states.  One of the descriptions of the Battle of Himera makes specific mention to the commander of Archers for the Greeks. 

If players prefer, they can choose to use the following Syracusan/Sicilian Greek City-State list instead of the Greek City-State list found in the core rulebook for Men ofBronze.

Syracuse/Sicilian Greek City-State

·         0-2 Drilled Hoplites

·         1+ Militia Hoplites

·         0-3 Peltasts/Psiloi

·         0-4 Archers/Slingers

·         0-4 Cavalry

This could provide a sample army for 38 points as follows:

·         2 Militia Hoplites

·         1 Cavalry

·         2 Archer

·         1 Peltast

Historical Scenario- Battle of Himera 480 B.C.E.- The First Sicilian War

Greek legend has it that there was a vast world-wide conspiracy hatched by their enemies to destroy all of Greece and subjugate it to barbarian rule.  The Persian invasions of Xerxes was one front in this conspiracy.  The second flank was in Sicily, as the barbarian Carthaginians closed in on Greek Sicily. 

Herodotus and Diodorus Sicilus both describe the campaign and the battle.  However, the numbers involved are suspect and some of the details are questionable.  Despite this, having the details from two sources helps us understand the battle more than other ancient battles.  The outcome has been corroborated by recent archeological finds in the area of mass soldier graves for the period.

We know that prior to the battle, Carthage mobilized a large force including chariots, cavalry and much of their citizen soldiers to the campaign.  Many mercenaries were also recruit from Gaul, Spain, and Italy.  They sailed to Sicily, but some of the ships with the cavalry and horses were lost.  This would prove to be a challenge for the Carthaginians and their allied city-states. 

On the Greek side, the Tyrant Gelon of Syracuse and Theron of Arkagas aligned their forces together.  The force supposedly had a wealth of cavalry compared to their Carthaginian foes.  In addition, the Greeks main body was their hoplite soldiers.  The Greeks claimed that the performance of their citizen-soldiers in Sicily is what influenced the Carthaginians to use the same model.  These hoplites were undoubtedly supported by Sicilian Peltasts and light troops.      

After the difficulty in crossing, the Carthaginians had some early success on land against Theron’s forces.  However, Gelon soon came to his aid.  The Cavalry advantage of the Greeks paid off as they were able to rout various Carthaginian ravagers. 

At this point, there are three different stories of how the battle unfolded.  Heordotus gives us little detail about the battlefield, so our main source is Diodorus Siculus.  He claims that Greek cavalry infiltrated the Carthaginian naval camp and killed Hamilcar.  The Carthaginian and Greek army then met on the field of battle.  Eventually, the arrival of the Greek cavalry and the news of Hamilcar’s death caused the Carthaginian troops to retreat to a hillside.  As the Greeks began to loot the camp, Iberian troops attacked and almost scattered the Greek’s until Theron’s troops from Himera flanked the Iberian troops.  This led to the end of the battle. 

All versions of the tale had the Carthaginian commander, Hamilcar die away from the main battle.  Then the rest of his troops broke and fled.  Some stories have the Greeks fighting uphill, while others have the Carthaginians fall back to a hill before eventually surrendering.  No matter which version of the story you read, the Carthaginians lose decisively.  The entire expedition is lost.  How much we can believe from the histories that remain is up for debate, but we do know that Carthaginian influence and power waned on Sicily for the next 70 some years. 

Forces

Like most ancient battles, we have very little detail about what each army consisted of.  We have a few hints.  The first is that the Carthaginians had lost their cavalry and Chariot forces in transit.  We also know they were using Citizen Militia and Mercenaries.  On the Greek side, we know that the Cavalry played a large role in the battle.  One of the versions of the Carthaginian defeat calls out the role of Greek archers.  From these hints, we can put together some ancient lines of battle for our game.

Carthaginians

Drilled Phalanx- Sacred Band 

Militia Phalanx- Citizens

Drilled Infantry- Mercenaries

Slingers- Balaeric

Peltasts- Mercenaries

Peltasts- Mercenaries

The Carthaginians will have no Strategoi to lead their force, and therefore will not generate an extra Arete Point from his unit.  However, the Sacred Band will be considered the command unit for purposes of Collapse tests.  For this scenario, I have rated the Sacred Band of Carthage as only Drilled Infantry instead of elite.   

In one version of the story, Iberian mercenaries counter-attack the Greeks looting the Carthaginian camp and almost break them.  However, Theron’s forces leave the city of Himera and reinforce the Greeks  and defeat the Iberians.  In the list above, these Iberian troops are represented by Peltasts.  Alternatively, the Carthaginian commander could replace them with Warband Infnatry.   

Greeks

Cavalry- Gelon

Cavalry

Militia Phalanx

Militia Phalanx

Militia Phalanx- Theron

Psiloi

Psiloi   

Gelon will be the Strategoi of the Greek forces.  The Greeks have a points advantage in this scenario.  In this force, the Psiloi could be mixed missile troops such as archers and javelin men.  In one of the reports of the battle, archers play a key role in killing Hamilcar.  Alternatively, the Greek player could replace the 2 Psiloi units with 1 Archer unit.    

Victrix Limited- Greek Light Cavalry

Set-up

We know the battle took place in site of the coast near the city of Himera, but the exact details are unclear.  Recently, mass graves were discovered in the area of the old city of Himera where some of the bodies were dated back to the 5^th century.  However the location of the graves does not help us truly nail down the details of the topography of the Battle of Himera. 

                                                                                                                                                          

We know that a hill took part in the battle.  In one story, the Greeks fought uphill against the Carthaginians.  In another, the Carthaginians retreated to a waterless hill before surrendering.       

Therefore, our scenario will posit the following based on Diodorus’ account.  The battlefield itself will be 72 base widths by 48 base widths wide.  The table should be bisected length-wise by a hill.  This can be books under the cloth, actual hills across the board, or some other technique to provide one side of the board as a raised area.  Other scatter terrain can be placed as the players wish.  However, transitioning from the low side to the high side of the board should count as difficult terrain. 

The Carthaginian forces control the “top of the hill” and can deploy anywhere between their long board edge and the center line.  The Greeks deploy on the long side of the opposite “low” board edge.  They can be up to 4 base widths in from their edge. 

The Greek player must deploy 1 cavalry unit in reserve, and Theron’s Militia Phalanx in reserve.  The Cavalry will make a discipline check beginning in Turn 2 and the beginning of Turn 3 for Theron’s men.  If passed, the Greek units can deploy on a table edge specified below.  The cavalry (without Gelon) can deploy touching the Carthaginian long board edge.  Theron’s men can deploy touching the short board edge on the Greek right. 

Complications

The scenario rules have outline two complications all ready.  The first is the lack of Strategoi in the Carthaginian force.  The second is the reserve deployments of the Greek forces. 

The final complication is, during the End Phase of turn 3 each unit in the Carthaginian army must make a complication test for being Hungry and Thirsty.  The details can be found in the Men of Bronze rulebook.  However, it is essentially a discipline check.  If failed, the unit has more difficult target numbers for future rout tests. 

Winning

The Greeks have a literal “uphill battle” while the Carthaginians have their own challenges in this battle.  Each force must overcome the frictions they are faced with.  The winner of the battle is the force that manages to rout or collapse the other force.  There are no other complicated victory conditions.         

Final Thoughts

You can see the beginning outlines for a fun campaign between the Carthaginians and Greeks in Sicily.  There are a number of fun battles and scenarios between these two antagonists for a plucky wargamer to draw inspiration.  A war games club or small group of gamers could easily put together a fun Con game, a themed night or two at the club, or a more involved campaign using a map of Sicily!  You can even integrate it with other game systems for a land and sea effort.  Overall, the Sicilian Wars could form a fun, unique, and interesting opportunity to have a lot of fun as a gamer.  I encourage you to give it a try.          

You can get all of the updated materials including a FAQ, Campaign rules, and Lines-of-Battle in the Men of Bronze Supplement: Hercules Abroad.

Men of Bronze: Pre-Reform Macedonia

Men of Bronze focuses on Greek Warfare in the ancient world, and ends with Philip II of Macedon's victory at the battle of Charonae. In some reviews, I was properly criticized for not looking beyond the traditional, classical battlefields into the edges of the Greek world. Nicat the Irregular Warfare blog was right to point out this mistake, as I missed such important areas as Sicily, Thessaly, and Macedonia. I cover Macedonia in the book, but only after Philip's reforms. Therefore, I am trying to fill in the gaps here on my blog. I started with Thessaly and am now moving on to Macedonia.

Prior to Philip, Macedonia was considered a backwater place at the edge of the Greek world. However, they did participate in the Olympic Games and the ancestry of their kingdom was traced back to Thebes, and therefore Heracles and even Zeus himself. They were considered semi-barbarous. During the Greco-Persian wars, the Macedonians had sided with the Persians. They even had foot soldiers in the Persian army at the battle of Platea. Therefore, the rest of the Greek world did not take them seriously and consequently little is written about them by the typical sources. However, with the arrival of Philip II and then Alexander on the scene, the Macedonians exploded onto the world stage!

A Brief History

Not much is documented about the military history of Macedonia for this time period. Our sources are rather limited and I don't believe any of them are contemporary. The interest in this period was more of an after effect of Alexander's success. Therefore, putting together the details of this army can be sketchy at best.

Central Macedonian was good land for raising livestock, much like its neighbor Thessaly. This region was dominated by a landed aristocracy. However, there was also a mountainous highlands region farmed by peasants. Their traditional enemies were the nearby Thracians, Illyrians, and Paeonians.

They had a checkered history with their neighboring Greeks. During the Greco-Persian Wars the Macedonians were allied to the Persians. Later, during the Peloponnesian Wars they changed sides between the Spartans and the Athenians regularly. Parts of Macedon itself were traded between the two powers. Afterwards, the Macedonians were focused on internal politics and local matters between them, the Thracians, Illyrians, and the neighboring Thessaly.

The Macedonian military at the time was very different. It was composed of a couple of primary elements. The first component was the hetairoi, or the famous Companion Cavalry. They were composed of heavy cavalry with muscled cuirass. The horseman were composed of the nobles of the land.

Next, were the Pezhetairoi of the Foot Companions. These were the backbone of the infantry for the Macedonian army. However, they were relatively few in number compared to the majority of the infantry. There is some debate about how these early foot companions were armed. It is unclear if they were early pikeman, traditional hoplites, or something more like Iphikrates' hoplites. There is some reason for me to favor the Iphikrate's style as during the Peloponnesian Wars the Macedonians were exposed to this style of fighting.

The third and final component of the early Macedonian army was the citizen militia. These were conscripted farmers and peasants from the Macedonian Highlands. These were poorly armed and equipped troops with little or no training. Indeed, in campaigns in Thrace the Macedonian kings were reluctant to use the Militia at all. They were frequently replaced by local mercenaries in the Macedonian army.

The Pre-reform Macedonian Army

The primary fighting arm of the early Macedonian army circulated around the mobility of their cavalry forces. The Macedonian nobility used heavy armored cuirass to protect themselves in battle, and some sort of thrusting spear. However, at this point in time, the Heavy Cavalry did not make use of the famous wedge formation. This seems to have been one of Philip's innovations. However, even now they were the primary arm of decision in the battle. The rest of the army were there to support the cavalry.

The Foot Companions were the primary fighting arm of the infantry. They would provide a steady center for the rest of the force. The Cavalry could sally out from around these troops. Then, after a successful or failed charge they could return behind this bulwark and re-group for a second charge. In addition, they could be counted on to hold on in a fight against Illyrian or Thracian light troops.

The militia would bulk out the armies numbers. They could hold a position if needed or force an enemy army to spread out across a wider front. This would provide weak points for a cavalry charge to exploit.

Pre-Reform Macedonian Line of Battle

Use the following lists to build your historical forces for Thessaly. The Lines of Battle help to choose the appropriate units for your historical forces. These are sample lists and there to provide a flavor of potential forces. Players can always modify these lists as they see fit

Each Line of Battle will have an entry with a number. The number indicates the limit of that Unit you can take in the army. If an entry says 1+ your army must have at least one of these units in it. If it is 0+ any number of that unit may be taken. If a Unit is not on the list, it can not be chosen

Pre-Reform Macedonian Army

1-2 Heavy Cavalry

0-3 Light Hoplites

0+ Warband Infantry

0-2 Psiloi

0-2 Drilled Infantry (Mercenaries)

0-2 Peltasts (Mercenaries)

Sample Armies

Below you can see Sample Armies built from the Lines of Battle provided. They give you an idea of what your force could look like. They are all built to a 38 point force. They range from 5 to 10 Units each.

1 Heavy Cavalry

1 Light Hoplite

2 Warband Infantry

2 Mercenary Peltasts

Battle of Therma

Just prior to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, Macedonia was fragmented between two rival kings, Philip and Perdiccas. The pretender Philip was allied with the Athenians. In response, Perdiccas stirred up revolt and rebellion in the Athenian tribute city of Potidaea.

This displeased the Athenians and they sent Hoplites and ships to attack. They took over the city of Therma. Then, they marched on Pydna to try and besiege it. However, they decided to leave the area on the news that Corinth was moving on Potidaea. The Athenians promptly made peace with Perdiccas and decided to align with him going forward. This allowed Perdicccas to regain control of Macedonia.

We know nothing about how the Athenians took control of Therma. All we know is that a force of 1,000 Hoplites were sent via 20 ships to attack the city. We know nothing about the Macedonian defenders or if a battle even occurred. Therefore, the scenario listed below will need to take considerable liberties and assume that a defense was even raised at all.

Forces

We know very little about the forces involved at Therma so this list will be taking some liberties.

Athenians

1 Drilled Hoplites

2 Militia Hoplites

3 Peltasts

Macedonians

1 Heavy Cavalry- Companions and Nobles

1 Light Hoplites- Foot Companions

3 Warband Infantry- Citizen Levy

1 Psiloi- Citizen Levy

1 Mercenary Peltast

This scenario uses the a scenario from the Men of Bronze rulebook as the basis for the battle. Since we know the battle around Therma was probably a siege, it makes sense to use the Ravage the Countryside scenario with the Athenians as the attackers and the Macedonians as the defenders.

Set-up

This scenario is played on a 48 by 48 Base width board. Follow the deployment rules found in the Men of Bronze rulebook for the scenario. However, since Therma is a Macedonian city to start with, we will let the Macedonian player deploy all the terrain. However, instead of the normal 4 pieces of terrain with one in each 12 base width by 12 basewidth grid; only deploy one piece in each grid space on the Athenian side of the board. Place the terrain to be ravaged as normal.

Special Rules

You can choose to play this scenario with no complications, roll for them as normal, or choose them as you and your opponent wish. This scenario does not use any special complications.

Victory

Use the normal victory conditions for Ravage the Countryside found in the Men of Bronze rule book.

Conclusion

Now we can add another Northern territory of Greece into your Greek combat with Men of Bronze. This list along with the list for Thessaly on the blog will help round out your period options. I also have a blog post coming up soon about Sicily, Syracuse,a nd Carthage; so keep your eyes open. This period had a few more secondary sources thanks to the Macedonian campaigns with/against the Persians, during the Peloponnesian War, and in campaigns against the Thracians. However, these sources were not all aligned about the pre-reform structure of the Macedonian military and the Foot Companions especially required some judgment on my part to fit the troops types available.

A shout out to Nic at the Irregular Warfare Blog and Ingtaer on Dakka Dakka for their help and information. Thank you for all the support and help.

You can get all of the updated materials including a FAQ, Campaign rules, and Lines-of-Battle in the Men of Bronze Supplement: Hercules Abroad.

I look forward to seeing your games with these lists. Feel free to share them with me in the comments, on the message board, or send me an Email through my website.

Review: Land of the Free- Osprey Games

As long time readers of the blog know, I have been interested in someday doing a series of games for the War of 1812 focused in Wisconsin or other parts of the frontier for the period.  The Battle of Prairie Du Chien has been of particular interest to me as well as various “fictional” encounters in the wilderness.  To this end I have purchased a few rulesets such as Rebels andPatriots, Chosen Men, and The Men Who Would Be Kings; all from the Osprey Wargaming Series. 

To help facilitate this project and my desire to buy, own, and read far more rulesets than I can actually play with; I decided to pick up Land of the Free by Joe Krone.  This one is a hard back from Osprey Games and was one of their early hardback games. 

This one took me a long time to get through and I read it in starts and stops.  Therefore, I apologize ahead of time if my review gets a bit disjointed.  Despite the starts and stops in the rules reading, I think I have a good grasp on the games basic concepts. 

Things I Liked

Over half of this book is scenarios to play in various wars from the period.  These cover scenarios in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the French-Indian War, and more.  For a player new to the period, it provide plenty of historical scenarios of various sizes and scopes.  Mr. Krone took this part very seriously as he includes board lay-outs, army lists, synopsis of the battle, and all the great details you need to re-fight the game itself.  With many games focusing more on competitive, organized play it was nice to see something with a strong scenario bend to it.  The books is worth it just for the scenarios alone. 

On a related note, there are also nicely done army lists and orders of battle to help newbies like me get a handle on the period.  This will not be needed for veterans of the period, but helped me out as a newbie to it. 

The game was also base and scale agnostic.  You could just as easily play a game with a handful of 25-60 28mm figures, as you could with bases of 6mm, 10mm, or 15mm figures.  Indeed, the game uses generic unit “sizes” to help a player understand the capabilities of a unit.  These range from Tiny to Large units which allows for a wide variety of unit and troop types to be represented.  In addition, this game does not use figure removal and instead has hits that degrade a units ability to pass morale tests. 

Scout elements allow your officers to access more Command Points.  Frequently, these types of units are ignored or have little additional value to a game.  However, additional Command Points allow you to give more orders to the rest of your troops.  This allows you to essentially, act on your improved intelligence gathering capabilities. 

Each unit has a number of action dice.  The more dice, the more success they can get.  Frequently, the number of Action Dice a unit has is related to their size or skill.  The more dice you roll, the more potential hits you can generate in melee or shooting.  You are trying to hit a target number defined by the type of unit you are using such as Grenadiers, Line infantry, skirmishers, etc.  This is a simple and elegant way to resolve key actions, and allow some differentiation between units. 

Things I Do Not Like

Like all linear warfare games, there is a bit of “IfThis/Then That” to the rules as how artillery interacts with infantry interacts with cavalry leads to some strange situations.  For the most part, modifiers are sufficient to handle these situations.  In addition, Interpenetration rules exist because it was a thing on the actual linear battlefield.  However, most of these are more down to the period rather than the rules themselves. 

Units that are routed stay on the board and withdraw until they leave the board.  Therefore, a player must spend time dealing with a unit that is no longer viable instead of just removing it from the field as an abstraction for routing.  I am not a fan of this approach.   

This game essentially uses the I-GO-U-GO method.  This is notinherently bad, but I do not think it helps the immersion for the players.  I can forsee long periods where the inactive player basically watches the active player move troops and roll dice.  The game would benefit from some sort of method to exchange the initiative.   

Meh and Other Uncertainties

The game uses individual based officers which then generate a command radius.  This is a pretty common and straight forward approach to the period.  However, I am not convinced this is the best way to model some of the limitations of command, control, and the leadership challenge on the table. 

In addition, each officer has Command Points that they expend to have units act.  Once gone, they can not give more orders.  This acts as a resource limitation.  Therefore, an officer has two limitations on getting troops to act, the first is distance and the second is the number of Command Points.  I like the resource management this implies BUT I like the idea that a unit can always defend itself with fire or melee based on the local officers acting in their unit’s own best interests similar to The Men Who Would Be Kings.  In practice, this means units always being able to perform some actions based on training.   However, my impression is that such freedom of action was/could often be curtailed by discipline in Linear Warfare.  I am waffling here but only to sketch out some of the challenges a game designer must face and then make decisions about.

Unlike other Osprey Games hardback books, this one does not have a lot of white space.  In fact, every page is full of text.  For an old guy like me, some of the text was even a bit too small!  However, it still had great images of armies, color plates, and solid maps.  I imagine it was not cheap for Osprey to put it together and it looks great!   

Conclusion
This is a very tidy and serviceable set of rules.  It’s main strength is that allows new players easy access to the period.  It has a great selection of Historical re-fights and scenarios of various scales.  It also provides a good basis for army lists.  Finally, the game scales really well from small skirmishes with a handful of figures up to large battles.  Gamers can therefore scale their games along with their armies.  This will be important for a player like me.  In my mind, it is the games strongest selling point.    

On the other hand, the rules are rather “by the numbers”.  There is not a strong hook that really differentiates these rules from a game like Honours of War or Blackpowder.  The mechanics align pretty closely to these systems, and other Linear warfare systems I have read elsewhere.  It is unclear to me why I would use these rules over the more ubiquitous Blackpowder system?  In a sense, the game plays it a bit too safe and conservatively with its mechanics.  If you are going to tackle Linear warfare you really needs some strong hook to make your rules stand out in a crowded field.  Spit-balling, I feel it could benefit from some sort of Fog-of-War deck, a different activation mechanic, or something a bit different with the Command and Control features of the game.  I am afraid Land of the Free just does not have the hook it needs to make this a must play game.             

Wargame Design: How Do You Become a Wargame Designer?

The most common question I get asked about wargame design has nothing to do with mechanics, morale, resolution, or probability.  The most common question is much more basic. 

“How do you become a wargame designer?”

The answer is even more basic.  In our modern world, life is so much simpler.  If you want to be a wargame designer, than anyone can do it.  I have written about how I got started here.  In that blog post, you find the seeds of the answer to the question. 

If you want me to be more explicit, here are the two things you MUST do to be a game designer:

1.       You must create a game

2.       You must make it available for people to play

Today, we have access to a variety of tools to help us both create our games.  I myself have helped by creating a series of Wargame Design related blog posts that walk you through the basic process. Books, articles, and blogs exist across the internet to help guide the way.  In addition, self-publishing tools have progressed to a point that even basic computers have Publisher, PowerPoint, or even Word. 

There are a variety of distribution methods to get the games to the people.  The internet has made it   much easier.  You can distribute via message boards, your own website, other websites like the Wargames Vault, and Social Media.  You can easily reach the world-wide marketplace of ideas from the comfort of your home.    

That’s it.  Pretty simple stuff.  If it is so simple to do, how come more people do not do it?  Becoming a wargame designer is simple, but it is not easy.

I suspect there are a few different reasons why more people do not make the jump to being a designer:

1.       They are afraid

2.       They do not create a process for Creation

3.       They let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good

Fear is the Mind-Killer

I have read plenty of internet comments that are not very helpful and just mean about games and the people who designed them.  I can totally understand why a person would shy away from opening their creative labor of love to the world only to be attack, shredded and left for dead on the proverbial floor of the internet.  No matter what you try to do in life there is a line around the block of people who want to psychologically kick you in the junk, laugh about it, and then wander off to kick someone else in the psychological junk.  It is not fun to get kicked in the junk, physically or psychologically.

As a designer, there are two things that get me over this fear hurdle:

1.       I MUST create games.  I can not help myself.  It is a compulsion.

2.       I design games for a very niche target audience.  I design them for myself and no one else.

True designers or creators MUST create.  They can not help it.  I can not help it.  I watched the Matrix and immediately started writing out ideas for making it into a board game.  I couldn’t stop myself!  I had no intention of ever making a Matrix board game, but I wrote out the ideas anyway and put them in my concept folder.

If I did not create games, I would simply stop being who I am.  I would be dead. 

Secondly, I design for an audience of one.  I make games I want to play because I want to play them.  I do not try to make games for other people.  I am 100% convinced I have no idea what other people want to play.  I watch game reviews, play various games, and talk to lots of gamers.  Even with all of that research, what some people enjoy and others do not is still a mystery to me.  I don’t create for them, I create for me.      

Now, just because I create games I want to play doesn’t mean that other people won’t want to play too.  I leave that up to them.  I will still pitch ideas to publishers, self-publish games, and market them like crazy.  However, if someone else doesn’t like the way a game plays, I don’t mind.  It wasn’t for them anyway.  I can guarantee my games will always have at least 1 local player…. Me!  Any players above 1 is a great success.  Sometimes, other people even like my games!

These two factors help me get beyond the “Fear Factor” of becoming a wargame designer in the public eye. 

Creation is a Process

No game is like Athena and just springs from the mind of the creator.  To create is a process.  It can be a harsh mistress, but I have always believed in planning your work, and working your plan.  Then be flexible enough to change your plan....

To create a game requires time.  Time does not come easy.  The time you design games is always being taken by things like family, work, friends, and other choices.  You are always confronted with choices.  You have to prioritize the choices you make in a day.  I try to set about 1-2 hours a week to write.  Some weeks I do more, but I almost never do less.  Writing is a routine and you MUST get into the routine. 

However, creating a game is more than just writing.  It is re-writing, editing, testing, playing, etc.  All of which requires time and effort.  You must budget your time the same way you budget your money.  It is even more important than money.

Once you have a routine, the Creation process is much easier as well.  The more you do it the easier it becomes.  If nothing gets written down, then you won’t have a game.  Without a game, you are not a game designer.    

The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good

This impacts a number of wargame designers that I work with, collaborate with, and partner with.  I have fallen into the trap myself.  Sometimes, we get really hung up on making a perfect mechanic orsituation.  We will scrap something that works, because a one-off or edge case gets in the way.  Then, we go back to the drawing board, find nothing better and then get frustrated and walk away.  The game never gets done. 

To be a game designer, you need to actually produce games.  If you let the pursuit of perfection stop a workable game from hitting the table or playtesting phase, then you are getting in your own way.

This will be an unpopular opinion.  Of course you want to make the best game you can right out of the gate.  However, that is not typically how it works.  The more you play test, massage an idea, etc. the closer to perfection your mechanics and processes will get.  However, there is no such thing as perfection.  Instead, you want to get your current processes and mechanics as smooth, clean, and clear as you can.  Therefore, using this theory there is always one more step or modification to get your even better.  This is a trap!  If the mechanic and process works, then it is ready for playtesting. 

Conclusion

Being a game designer is very easy.  All you need to do is make a game.  Then play the game you made.  Bam!  You are now a game designer.  There is no special secret or magic to it.  It is simply a matter of sitting down and doing it.  Take those ideas, put them on paper (real or electronic) and keep adding on until you have a full game.  Then, play the game and see what happens.  The more you do it, the easier it becomes. 

The longest journey begins with a single step…. but more importantly it also ends with a single step.  Now, just go out and put the steps together in between and you are done. 

If you want to be a game designer, then make a game and make it available for people to play!