Final Comments
Somehow the game just doesn't feel done without me getting to pontificate a bit.
My first thought: PHEW! Who knew that such a small scenario would take two years nearly to the day? At times we ran in bursts that helped rocket the game along, but then a player (or the ref) would disappear for a week or two the game would come to a crashing halt. One of the appeals to me of the one player, one commander format was that we'd avoid this type of delay. Guess not.
At least the format was less work for the moderator than the public voting scheme used in Heraclea. I never had to come up with any fair method to reconcile conflicting -- or worse, near but not exactly matching -- orders. On the other hand, I did have to send back a surprising number of moves containing illegal orders, which also held up the game (whereas in Heraclea I just ignored 'em). Turn 10 was memorable in that nearly every player made at least one boo-boo that needed some touching up. Not that the ref was immune to this problem, either.
Comments from non-players during the game were mostly non-existant. To me, this resulted in rather less of a "community" feel than there was with Heraclea. But I don't know how important that is to You the Reader. So if you have an opinion on the game format, and what you might like to see in another online replay, I'd like to hear it.
I thought the players overall did a fine job, and I appreciate their volunteering for a pretty big gaming commitment, so I hope that no one takes it amiss if I comment on a few game situations.
Once the battle had begun, communication between players was strictly forbidden except at the cost of IOs, meaning that you couldn't ask for or pass instructions until it was your activation. Sharp-eyed observers will notice several activations where the leader didn't use his full amount of initiative for orders. The "missing" initiative generally was used to send an order.
So before the game I gave each side a chance to exchange messages more or less freely, representing the council around the campfire on the eve of the battle. Perhaps it was the rush to get the game going, but it didn't seem to me that the players took enough advantage of this capability to make serious plans.
I think that on defense you can make a case that "let's see what happens" is a reasonable (or at least pragmatic) plan, but a little more work is needed on the attack. As an example of the kind of problems that insufficient planning can cause, look at how many times the Persian leaders changed flanks. Barasames and Pitames ended up switching places, Barasames having gone back and forth several times. Granted, with 52 units and only three leaders the Persians must expect to command from the saddle. But moving a bit is one thing; taking two activations to move across the map, just to have to take two more to come back again, is something else. (I realize that some of this was due to Barasames' "personality change" when we substituted players, but I think the point holds regardless.)
During play, there was one point at which a serious opportunity for victory developed that I don't think many of the players saw. Take a look at the situation just after the initial Persian attack in the south. See how the Persian HC that crossed the trench line has a clear shot to the gates of Dara? A scenario-specific rule says breaking into the city lowers the Byzantine RP level by 50%. Assuming the rest of the game continued as it did that would have resulted in Persian victory on Turn 9 rather than a Byzantine Victory on Turn 10! Had Perozes got Momentum right then there was nothing that the Byzantines could do. Fortunately for them Perozes failed; even so the situation lasted through Belisarius' and Simmias' activations. But the overlooking was not entirely on the Byzantine side, as when Perozes had to decide which Persian 5 leader to activate, he chose Barasames instead of himself, forgoing the chance to make the move. Belisarius finally chased off the unit at the end of the turn.
Nevertheless, the Persians almost drove the Byzantines over their RP level for a draw. I think that their greater luck with command dice certainly helped, but much credit must be given for clever moves as well. I especially credit the Persians because my take is that the Byzantines are clearly favored in this scenario. (Anyone disagree?)
As the defenders the Byzantines had a bit easier time of it but they also had many well-conceived counterattacks. It's hard to fault them much when they did win, after all!
As moderator, I found the thrust-and-riposte on the northen end of the battlefield particularly exciting. I haven't seen that kind of action in a GBoH game before. It seemed like one side was completely on the ropes when they'd launch a vicious counterattack and retake the ground, only the have the tables turned an activation or two later. I don't know how realistic it was, but it made for a fun game.
I was asked at one point whether I was "cooking" dierolls to make the game more interesting. The answer: No, it wouldn't be fair to the players to do so.
Finally, Barasames II provided some thoughts about the replay:
"If I had to do it again as the Persians, I think I would have focused entirely on the south flank. Firstly, that blankity-blank hill makes turning the Byzantine left very difficult. Secondly, the Persian objective is the city gates.
"First I would have set up the infantry to refuse the Persian right, and have the right-wing LN move back to a central reserve position. If the Byzantines decide to advance on that flank, it's good for the Persians. We get them away from their defensive terrain, and spread out their line so Belisarius has a harder time being everywhere at once.
"The right-wing LC would move to the right flank along with all the leaders. Send in the LC, wave after wave, to disorder the Byzantines with long range archery. The Persians should be able to rout a unit or two by disrupting them faster than the Byzantines are able to remove all the hits. This is a game with no fixed number of turns, so time is on the Persian side. Eventually the Byzantines will either start losing units to rout (even Belasarius can't rally them every time) or they will be goaded into leaving their defensive lines and attacking.
"I don't know if this is a crazy strategy or not, but it would be interesting to try it out. A lot might depend on the temperament of the Byzantine player. I, for one, would find it very difficult to just sit there, turn after turn, doing nothing but recovering hits!"
Innocent bystander Jeff Christensen wrote:
[as the Byzantines:]
- The over all strategy is to maintain a flexible defense. If the Persians put any single part of their force within 1 move of the front that is not backed up by another force the cataphracts should blitz out and then withdraw.
- Keep the cataphracts monuted. While they are great on the defense the dismounted cataphracts will not be able to attack forward of the trench line and get back
- Keep the central reserve together and keep it in the center. The Persians can't (or shouldn't) attack across the whole front. Move the reserves only when you know what front he is attacking.
[as the Persians:]
- The over all strategy is to reorganize the lines far away from the Byzantines and then hit one flank with several waves of cavalry while the center is being swamped by the infantry. I prefer doing this on the left flank with the HC.
- On both flanks the four LC should be moved to the front forming a screen of archers.
- Have the MI move over the LI. Spend several turns removing the cohesion hits.
- Slowly wiggle one flank of cavalry up to within 1.5 moves of the Byzantines. Don't give any line commands that could result in uncontrolled advance.
- Keep the other cavalry flank back.
- Start giving the MI line commands until either they hit the Byzantines or go uncontrolled.
- Once the MI goes uncontrolled or they hit the line move two leaders to the attacking cavalry's flank and have them give orders to the same line. This should have them hit the Byzantines before the Byzantines can respond.
Other players, you can get your comments posted too: just write me.