Strength & Honour

Strength and Honour is a new set of ancient battles written by Mark Backhouse and published by the Two Fat Lardies' Reisswitz Press. The rules recreate the battles from the Late Republic to Early Empire, i.e., from the Marian reforms 105BC to about 200AD. In this era, the protagonists fielded massive armies, 20,000 men a side was not unusual. Therefore, while the rules are scale agnostic, they are aimed at a 2mm scale where a base represents a whole Roman legion, some 4,000 to 6,000 men. Conversely, a Celtic or German Warband could account for 8,000 warriors. Using this small scale, the player might lose the majesty of a painted cohort on the march but gains a virtually stunning battlefield.

Army Lists

The army lists provided not only cover Rome, Gauls and German, but lists are also provided for the Numidians, Spanish, Ancient Britons and the armies of Mithridates. These lists give the gamer a wide range of tactical approaches to the period's warfare. The Mithridatic phalanx in 2mm looks particularly stunning, so I am hoping for a supplement to cover the Early Republic and the Successor States. Mark has also provided scenarios for ten historical battles, including Chaeronea (86BC), Bagradas River (49BC), Watling Street (60/61AD), and 2nd Cremona (69AD) during the civil wars that brought Vespasian to power. Other battles can be found on the Facebook page dedicated to the rules.

Most of these scenarios involved 6 Roman legions and a slightly larger number of war bands. This means the painting requirement is small, and the cost of entry is low. Reisswitz has produced paper armies that can be stuck to the bases for those who want to play immediately so they are ready for battle.

The Rules

I will not provide a detailed games review, but four mechanisms give this rule a unique feel.

1. Grid movement coupled with some randomness to the distance covered makes movement easy but keeps a level of uncertainty. 
2. The idea of a reversal of futures when a command action fails, and the initiative passes to the opponent. This makes the length of a turn variable, something found in other Fat Lardies games and makes the commander plan carefully the order he moves his troops. The mechanism reflects, IMO, that manoeuvring huge blocks of men around with only the use of messengers and signals is fraught with difficulty.
3. The Command Board is another device that sets the game apart. This board reflects the general’s influence over the battle. The number of tokens available is based on the army, the general and by Consulting the Auguries, the random element. The tokens, some great-looking coins available from Warbases, are then placed on the Command Board, reflecting the general's strategy. Playing these tokens allows the general to influence manoeuvre, attack, defence or rally his men. However, these valuable resources must be used carefully, as I found to my cost.The last game mechanic is the Setback and Disaster cards. These cards are printed with a number on their reverse that remains hidden. A setback in the battle leads to the player drawing a card which remains invisible to both sides. When the general thinks his opponent has passed his breakpoint, he declares ‘Homunculus Est’. The cards are then revealed and counted. If the cards exceed the breakpoint, the battle is lost. However, if the commander has called too earlier, the surviving player can discard a card.

My First Battle

My starter game was the Cicilian Gates (39BC), a small action during the Caesar and Pompey Civil Wars. Wikipedia provides a summary of the historical battle - Battle_of_the_Cilician_Gates. The sides are relatively small for Strength & Honour, two legions aside with supporting skirmishers and cavalry.

The Parthians/Pompeians had the advantage in cavalry, plenty of light horses and the dreaded cataphracts, but their infantry needed to be more experienced than the Caesarians. For me, the troop types set the strategy. The Pompeian light horse would harass the Caesarian wings while the centre held its position. The aim was to weaken the flanks making Bassus’s (the Caesarian commander) legions vulnerable on the flank. The Ceasarians had two options: to remain on the high ground and draw the Parthians and Pompeians to their defensive position or smash through the enemy’s centre. I went for the latter because of the threat of the light horse in trying to maintain this static position, and it seemed more Roman.

The battle started well for the Romans. After consulting the auguries, they rolled double six, which gave them an impressive Command Board that could maintain their attacking strategy.
The battle started with the light horse moving forward as the Caesarian legions moved down the hill. Skirmishers and the Parthian light horse exchanged fire on the right, with the skirmishers getting the better of the Parthians. Some terrible dice rolls here. On the left wing, the Parthians were more successful, as the Caesarian horse were harassed with bow fire but too scared to move forward because of the threat of the cataphracts.

The Pompeian's legions decided to hold their position across the road a let the cavalry for their job. The Parthian light horse on the right continued to be unlucky and eventually decided to call it a day. Here was my big error. I should have used the resources on the Command board better to give the Parthian light horse more support. However, with the Parthian/Pompeian left flank collapsing, the weaker legion became fodder for the better Caesarian legions. Finally, ‘Homunculus Est’ was called, and what remained of the Parthian/Pompeians fled.

An enjoyable game.

Since then, I have played Caesar v Ariovistus’ Germans. The game involved 6 Roman legions and eight tribal warbands, each with their supporting cavalry. This one was a close call but Caeser triumphs but only just.