From: Randall Favero Subject: Review: GDW's Raphia The Battle of Raphia, 217 B.C. ------------------------------ Published by Game Designers' Workshop, 1977. Designed by Marc Miller, developed by Marc Miller and Frank Chadwick. "Raphia" is a simulation of a battle between the Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt and the Seleucid kingdom of Antiochus the Great in 217 B.C. It is a "Series 120" game, containing 120 counters and designed to be played in 120 minutes. Components ---------- 120 counters, an 18 x 24 inch map, and a rule book consisting of four pages of rules, one page of charts, and a two-page historical summary. The counters are not especially good looking or elaborate (by current standards), but are uncluttered and easy to read. Unit types include cavalry, elephants, and three kinds of infantry (light, medium, and heavy), and are rated for combat strength, morale, and movement. There are also two leader counters, representing Ptolemy and Antiochus. The map is for the most part white and featureless (the battlefield was basically open desert), with a few sea dune and drifting knoll hexes (prohibited to all units). The setup lines for both sides are on the left side of the map, which means that Egyptian units, which rout to the left, will exit the map rather quickly, while the Seleucid player, whose units rout to the right, has more time to perform rallies. Almost half the map will most likely never be used (except by the aforementioned routing units). Two six-sided dice are used to resolve combat and morale checks. Rules ----- "Raphia" is a simple game, but there are some interesting and even innovative design concepts in those scant four pages of rules. Some of the features that the designer used to show the nature of warfare during this period are: 1. Stacks are created at setup, and while unstacking can occur voluntarily or as a result of combat, restacking is not allowed. This mechanism elegantly portrays the gradual disorganization and loss of cohesion an army experiences during combat. 2. Good differentiation between the various unit types. For example: Die roll modifications for combat between different types of units (e.g., elephants cannot attack heavy infantry from the front, but are +3 from the flank, and +5 versus cavalry); only light infantry may retreat before combat; heavy infantry (phalanxes) are vulnerable to flank attacks, while lighter units are not. 3. Heavy infantry are powerful but difficult to maneuver, as they were historically. 4. A stack of two or more units must leave a "rear guard" behind if they wish to move out of an enemy's ZOC. 5. Only the top unit in a stack may attack. Other units "support" the attack by adding one strength point. 6. Untried units. Some of the Egyptian phalanxes were inexperienced, and their morale level is determined only when they are first involved in combat. 7. Leaders give a morale boost to any combat units they are stacked with. Having your leader killed in combat or routed off the map incurs a significant negative modifier to any subsequent morale checks made by any unit in your army. 8. Personal combat is possible between Ptolemy and Antiochus: any time the two counters are adjacent, a die is rolled, with Antiochus killed on a roll of 1-2 and Ptolemy (the physically weaker of the two) killed on a 3-6. Overall, a good mix of new and "tried and true" design elements. Unfortunately, there are also a few problems and ambiguities (or at least they seem like problems to me; the designer may have had good reasons for doing it this way): 1. The rules state that no unit may be forced to defend more than once in a turn, and that a group of more than one stack may not combine to attack other units. Taken together, these rules would seem to indicate that you are not allowed to attack from more than one hex, and that when a stack is attacking, any of the attacker's other units adjacent to the defending stack must sit idly by, doing nothing (assuming there are no other adjacent units to attack). Markus Stumptner has expressed an opinion that this may be intended to prohibit unrealistic "ganging up" tactics. While this may be true, I still think that the rule is too restrictive. My understanding was that "pin them in front and then hit them from behind" was a favorite tactic of the day. The rules would seem to prohibit that strategy. 2. Attacks from the rear are still made against the top unit in a stack, even though supporting units (those at the bottom of the stack) are supposedly behind the front (top) unit. It seems to me that attacks through a rear hexside should be made against the bottom unit in a stack. 3. Rule organization could be improved. For example, the rule stating that units may not move through friendly-occupied hexes (except when routing) is given in the rout rule section only, and should have been listed in the movement rules as well. 4. Light infantry may retreat before combat, but may not move if the enemy unit does not attack (all attacks are voluntary), nor are they allowed to move out of enemy ZOC during their movement phase. If there is no attack, the light infantry are pinned in place. If they can avoid an enemy seeking combat, why can't they avoid one who isn't? 5. While individual units can rout, there is no rule for an army reaching a "breaking point". They can fight to the last man, long after the army would be expected to break and run. The game lasts only six turns, so they won't be fighting all day, but I don't know what the justification is for that limit. Nightfall? Everyone too tired by that point to continue? The actual battle concluded with a general retreat by the Seleucids when their center was threatened with encirclement (and their leader was nowhere in sight), but there are no rules to simulate this kind of occurrence in the game. 6. Only heavy infantry have flank hexes; all others have only front hexes (on all six sides). Some of the Seleucid light infantry were, according to Polybius, armed as phalangites, and should have either been classified as heavy infantry, or should have had at least some vulnerability to flank attacks. Game Play and Strategy ---------------------- The following observations are based on only one solo playing of the game! YMMV. There is not a lot of maneuvering, except by units on the flanks. Initial setup is crucial; vulnerabilities created when setting up are difficult, if not impossible, to rectify once play has begun, and can be quickly exploited by the opposing side. It is difficult (as it should be) to maneuver or disengage once contact with the enemy has been made. It is not unusual for only a few units (or even none) to be able to move during a player's movement phase; the rest are locked in combat. Antiochus needs his elephants and cavalry to do well on the flanks, as his infantry in the center is inferior in strength to the Egyptians and is spread too thin to win a war of attrition. Seleucid light infantry (only a few of which have a strength rating of greater than 3) are almost useless, except as support for the elephants or to slow down the opposition for a turn or two. Eliminating Ptolemy in personal combat was one of Antiochus' objectives in the actual battle, and is a good tactic in the game as well. Ptolemy, with some very strong infantry (a 25 to 12 advantage in number of units with a combat strength of 8 or more) to anchor his line, should try to make contact as soon as possible in the center. With the relatively low number of counters and short rules, play moves fairly quickly. Experienced players should be able to finish the game within the 120 minutes that was the designer's goal. Summary ------- A simple, but not simplistic look at ancient warfare. There are very few games on this battle (GMT's GBoH scenario is the only other one I'm aware of), and if you are at all interested in the period, GDW's "Raphia" is well worth picking up (if you can find it; it seems to be quite rare). Randall Favero faverorw@deltanet.com