More Dominion of the Spear - battle reports, 6x6 grid proposal and ramblings

Introduction

I played some Dominion of the Spear back in /January and got sidetracked in playing the Battle of Megiddo a few times.  But Dominion of the Spear continues to intrigue and so I play some more games.  This post is a scatter of notes, a couple of battle reports, optional rules, possible unit changes and general rambling.

Background

Two things have led to this post:

My fascination with Dominion of the Spear as fast play rules for ancient battles to resolve campaign battles and historical battles.

My ongoing playing of Peter Sides’ ancient historical battles using my own rules.

I wanted to see if the rules could be played on a larger grid, e.g. 6x6 and replace my own rules if replaying the historical battles.  I am more interested in the battle research and a high-level playthrough of them rather than a detailed long game.  The reason I wrote my own rules, ABC, in the first place was to have rules that played quickly – DotS plays even more quickly and gives similar high-level results.  I also wanted to minimise changes to DotS to those that best reflected my own view of how units in the historical battles performed.

Notes on Nomenclature

I converted my own rules Ancient Battlelines Clash (ABC) unit types into those of DotS.  They all translated fairly easily into DotS. I do this as it is easier shorthand for referring to the units. The only exception is Light infantry is the same as Light Archers.  I can feel a house rule coming...

Ancient Battlelines Clash (ABC) unit conversion

LI        Light Infantry, Infantry Missile

LA       Light Archers (Bowmen), Infantry Missile

MI       Medium Infantry, Infantry Melee

WB      Warbands, Infantry Melee Ferocious

HA      Heavy Archers, Infantry Missile Elite

HI        Heavy Infantry, Infantry Melee Elite (blades) or Armoured (spearmen)

PK       Pike Phalanx, Infantry Melee Armoured Elite

LC       Light Cavalry, Mounted Missile

MC      Medium Cavalry, Mounted Melee

HC      Shock/Heavy Cavalry, Mounted Melee Elite or Ferocious

CAT    Cataphracts, Mounted Melee Armoured (bow armed are Missile)

KN      Knights, Mounted Melee Armoured Elite

CH      Chariots, Mounted Missile Elite

ELE     Elephants, Mounted Melee Armoured Elite

Leader: Elite to unit

Of course there will be exceptions I am sure :-)

 

Battle of Heraclea

Converting from ABC to DotS and 12 points gives the following:

Epirote Pyrrhus

1x Agema, HC, Mounted Melee Ferocious

1x EL, Elephant

1x PK, Pike Phalanxes

1x LC, Light Cavalry

Rome

2x MC, Medium Cavalry

2x HI, Legions (blades)

1x LC, Light Cavalry

Setup

Pyrrhus (Attacker)

Reserve: EL

HC PK LC

---------------

MC HI LC

Reserve: MC, HI

Rome

I played the game with it RAW and then played it about a dozen times to test out some potential optional rules.  Note when I saw RAW I did add the optional activation rule from the 36 ancient battle expansion – when each side only activates one sector per turn. 

What I do like about these games it most are quite close with only a unit or two difference and both sides have a goo chance of winning.  Although I did find that my version of Marathon (below) was mostly won by the Greeks and only one of 6 games won by the Persians.

Heraclea game (rules as written)

Setup

Companions Vs Roman Cavalry – Companions routed and Elephants replace them

The Legions attack the Phalanx in the centre for no result

The Elephants attack the Roman Cavalry and the cavalry is routed, the other Roman Cavalry replaces them

The Legions attack the Phalanx in the centre and rout the Phalanx

The Elephants attack the remaining Roman Cavalry and rout them, a legion replaces the cavalry

The legion outflanks the Elephants in attack but fails

The Elephants attack the opposing Legions and the Legions rout

The legion outflanks the Elephants in attack but fails

The Pyrrhic Light Cavalry attack the Roman Light Cavalry but the Pyrrhic Light Cavalry rout under a haul of missiles

The Pyrrhic army is down to one unit and flees the field

Intermission (optional rules and grids)

I did play around with some optional rules, with an aim to have rules that would be able to be used on a 3x3 and 6x6 grid.  I did think 3x3 may be useful but found it does not add much in tactical decisions.  But I have a plan to use the rules on 6x6 or 8x8 grids.  A larger grid will make the battle seem a bit more like an ancient battleline and will be trivial to translate the historical scenarios into a game.  I like the combat and activation mechanism and thin it would work fine on a larger grid.

The optional rules I tested and now play with all the time are these two:

1. Reserve units are pre-allocated to a sector (max one reserve unit per sector)

When a sector is activated, as well as combat a reserve unit can be moved to an adjacent sector with no reserve.  Also, when all a sector’s units are destroyed, it can be immediately replaced with an adjacent reserve unit. This is to just add a little structure to reserve units to better mirror ancient battlelines and what units were actually on the flanks/centre.  Does make you think a little more on what sector to deploy reserves.  It does greatly reduce reserve decisions during the game a lot, but increases it at deployment. 

2. Melee Infantry Vs Melee Infantry no mutual destruction

If in combat between two Melee Infantry would result in both being destroyed, then neither is destroyed, unless at least one is Ferocious.  I can rationalise Missile units forcing each other to rout.  Also, Mounted both being destroyed can be rationalised as one pursues the other and so is no longer available for combat.  Ditto for Mounted in combat with melee infantry (the mounted unit pursues the routed infantry).  Just found it hard to rationalise battleline infantry both being destroyed/routed/no longer both being in battle at the same time.  I could imagine warbands pursuing though and no longer being in the battle.  This will also play better I think on larger gridded battles.  For some matchups, the chance to hit are similar when I do it in my head, but I have not done a complete breakdown of the different melee infantry combat result chances using base rules compared to my changes.

The optional rules I also playtested but ended up not thinking they were that useful:

1. Differentiate Elite from Ferocious

Only Elite Vs non-elite gets the +1 modifier. Ferocious always gets the +1 modifier.  The rationale is simply to make combats between elites last just as long as those between non-elites (instead of faster is both getting +1), and also differentiates Elite from Ferocious.  I find the difference what not that great and I kept forgetting it.  I do differentiate on the grid with Ferocious forced to advance if defeat the enemy.

2. Speed up Armoured Vs Armoured combat

Armoured units only receive the -1 if being attacked by non-armoured units.   These speeds up armoured Vs armoured conflict, particularly Armoured Melee Infantry where I had games where the last 2 units are both these and waiting for one to roll a 6.  Do not really need this as use the 4+ to hit in melee with Melee Infantry, and also the 6 to hit between armoured unit did not come up very much. 

More games

I did play some more games to playtest the optional rules but realised later I took no pictures!

Marathon (about 6 times)

Persian:2xHA, 3xLA

Greek: 2xSpearmen, 2xMI (to represent thinning the line) 

Callinicum (about 3 times)

Persian: 1xCAT (elite), 2xCAT, 1xLC

Byzantine: 1xHC,2xMC,1xHA,1xLC

Hydaspes (twice)

Macedonian: 1xHC,1xPK,1xSpearmen (other pikes),1xLI

Indian: 1xEL, 1xHA, 1xCH,1xMC

3x3

Can I make simple 3x3 variant with the same 12 point armies?  And is it worth playing anyway?

Here is the 3x3 rules extensions I used.  I played about 3-4 games with it and they worked fine, but really wanted to try out 6x6 so have not playtested them further.  No terrain rules yet but no hard to incorporate e.g. units on a hill/in a wood count as armoured in not already.

All DotS rules apply unless superseded here. 2 units max in a square.  All units may move in any direction 1 square horizontally or vertically if square selected.  May change facing after move.  May only face a square edge.  If an enemy unit in facing square may attack.  If enemy unit already under attack then attack the enemy reserve first (if exists).  Once being attacked or attacking, cannot move until no enemy in other square. If defeat an enemy in melee and they are not replaced with a reserve, then may (ferocious must, missile cannot) move into that square, not changing face.

6x6 rules and example with Heraclea

If it works for 3x3, why not a 6x6 square grid with 12 point armies with 1 unit in one square?  I played a few games with them, using the melee infantry Vs Melee infantry 4+ and no mutual destruction.  They have promise and I am considering replacing my Ancient Battlelines Clash rules with these ones (with only a few extra rules I may need and maybe expand to 8x8) to continue replaying the Peter Sides historical battle scenarios. e.g. units on a hill/in a wood count as armoured in not already.

All DotS rules apply unless superseded here.

1 unit max in a square.  All units may move in any direction horizontally or vertically if square selected.  Elephants move 1 square, other mounted move 2 (and may change direction after 1^st square).  All infantry move 1. May change facing after move. May only face a square edge.  If an enemy unit in facing square may attack.  Once being attacked or attacking, cannot move until no enemy in other square.

If attacked in flank and no unit in front, may immediately turn to face flanking unit before combat.  Replace outflanking bonus with a +1 if attacking the flank of an enemy unit.

A unit lost may be replaced with another adjacent unit facing same direction and is not in combat.

If defeat an enemy in melee and they are not replaced with another enemy unit then may (ferocious must, missile cannot) move into that square, not changing face.

Yes, only one square activation on each side’s turn.  I was thinking about maybe 2 activations per side but must be in different sectors.  For 8x8 I think this would be fine, not sure with 6x6 – there are 4-6 units a side and so one activation seemed to work ok.  No need to coordinate group moves (aka DBx type groups) either – with one activation and enemy units fairly close, it is easy to react to an enemy move by moving one of your own up.  I thought doing a single unit activation per turn would bother me but it did not at all.  

Some simple extensions I am thinking about is missiles fire 2 directly ahead but the target can advance one square and then melee (so ends up like the RAW rules) but of course if the target is not facing the right way they cannot advance.  Maybe also if mounted ferocious wins Vs mounted then pursue 1-3 squares (not just one)?

Battle of Heraclea

Same 12 point armies as previous battle. 

Setup

Companions move and attack the Roman Cavalry. The Romans flee and the Companions pursue them off the field of battle.

Roman right flank legions advance

Elephants advance

Roman right flank legions advance again

Elephants advance and attack the Roman cavalry, the cavalry flee

The Roman legions move to attack the Pike phalanx but they remain locked in melee

The Elephants attack the other legions (that turn to face the Elephants).  The Elephants shatter the legions but the Elephants are so disordered they are no longer an effective fighting force.

The Roman light cavalry attack the Pyrrhic light cavalry but the Romans flee.

Pyrrhus has won the day!

Unit changes I am thinking about

These following unit changes came about as I wanted to better represent these units as I think they were.  It does complicate the rules and does break the elegant mirroring in the combat system but then, it is only for these units.  And really only thinking about using them in the larger gridded games and have not really tested them much – although I plan to do so sometime.

Possible Warband representation

Warbands as Melee Infantry Ferocious are quite good against Mounted and historically did not seem to that special against Mounted.  I am thinking of making Warband as Melee Infantry Fierce, 3 points, where Fierce is +1 Vs any infantry, and also count as Armoured Vs all melee infantry.  The latter on the assumption the Warband units are huge and so can take a bit of damage, and also to justify why they are 3 points.

Possible Elephant representation

I like to think of Elephants as Melee Mounted Elite Ferocious.  But I also have Knights classed the same.  To differentiate Elephants I am thinking of make them still 4 points and still Melee Mounted Elite Ferocious but some minor hit chance changes: Missile Mounted base to hit Elephants is 4+ (not 5+) and Elephants are base 4+ (not 3+) to hit Missile Mounted. Also, Elephants ignore the armour of a target in combat.  Hopefully these changes better align to how Elephants operated.

Possible Light Infantry representation

ABC, and other rules, have Light infantry (peltasts) differentiated from Light Archers (bowmen).  Some rules (for examples Rally Round the King) do not. In DotS I have made these both Infantry Missile.  While it is probably not needed as at a high level they were a bit similar, I am thinking of changing Light Infantry to 4+ in attacked by Melee Infantry (currently 5+) to represent the ability to evade/flee from the infantry that Light Archers do not have. For balance, Missile Mounted would be 4+ Vs Light Infantry (rather than 5+) to represent the greater range and speed of Mounted Vs Infantry. 

Verdict

Well, after all these changes I am in the middle of playing the 36 Ancient battles in the expansion.  I am using the two optional rules of allocating reserves to a sector and melee infantry hit on a 4+ with no mutual destruction Vs other melee infantry.  So that post (or posts) will come along soon.  And then I am 90% certain I will expand the 6x6 rules a little and play some Peter Sides scenarios on an 8x8 gridded battle.  More on why I would replace my own rules with these ones will get discussed in its own blog post, but basically I went in my rules with 1d6 to avoid opposed rolls with 2d6 (not that fond).  But happy for each side to roll 1d6 +/- some mods without any comparison. Another ruleset that does this (each side simultaneously does missile fire, 1 die each side, then simultaneous melee, 1 die each side) that I really like and keep meaning to play again is the Irregular Miniatures Ancient Rules.

Battle of Megiddo 1479BC – battle report with 1d6 DBSA

Introduction

After playing some replays of this battle with Dominion of the Spear, I realised how interesting I find this battle.  I decided to play it with the latest iteration of my Ancient Battlelines Clash rules. And then I played it using a small variation on DSBA, the forerunner to DBA.   Being a bit of a 1d6 resolution fanatic, I converted DBSA to 1d6 and gave Megiddo a go.

Rules

To convert DBSA to 1d6 it is roll 1d6 for combat +/- combat factors:  <1 Attacker destroyed, 1-3 Attacker recoils, 4-6 Defender recoils, 7+ Defender Destroyed.  A unit is destroyed on a recoil if up against a “quick kill” (i.e. a less than half result is a destroyed).  I also went with variable activation: roll a 3+ to activate a unit/group, rather than PIP rolls, and then do move, shoot, combat ith each unit/group. Lastly all units armed with missiles may fire 1 basewidth, Light archers still fire 2 basewidth.  If both units have missiles, this is revolved with the single d6 roll.  I may streamline the quick kills and also add in some reactions but I may not need much of the latter as the recoil mechanism takes care of it.  It is also slanted towards DBA and may incorporate movement rates from ABC (ABC is Bill Bank’s Ancients combat with an Armati II riff).  And these rules lend themselves  to gridding and so may look to do that too.

Battle of Megiddo 1479BC  

The Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III defeats a Canaanite coalition before the walls of the city of Megiddo.

Sources

See this previous Megiddo battle report for sources I used.

Troops

Egyptians

3 CH Chariots (one with the general Thutmose III)

1 HI Heavy infantry (Blades)

2 MI Medium Infantry

2 LA Light Archers

1 CP Camp

Breakpoint: 3

Coalition of Syrians under the prince of Kadesh

2 CH Chariots (one with leader)

2 MI Medium Infantry

2 LI Light Infantry

1 LA Light Archer

1 CP Camp

Breakpoint: 3

Scenario & Deployment

Special rules: A draw is a rebel victory.

I have gone with a deployment loosely based on the Peter Sides scenario.

Deployment (Egyptians on the left)

Game

Note: Frustratingly I thought I had taken about 3 more photos of the action during the game but did not; the report is not illustrated by as many images as I expected.  Ah well.

Egyptian right flank advances to the river bank.  The Chariots advance into missile range of the Canaanite Chariots.  Two Egyptian Chariots are forced to retreat, while the Canaanite Chariot (+general) retreats.

The Centre chariot missile exchange

The Egyptian left flank moves into light archer range (so the Canaanite LI with javelins cannot return fire.  The Canaanite archers rout (a 6 was rolled) and the Light Infantry recoil.

First blood – Canaanite archers rout on the Egyptian left flank

Still on the Egyptian left flank, the LI  advances and forces the Egyptian archers to retire.  The Li was tempted to move and form a group with the Medium infantry but decided to give missile fire a chance.   It paid off.

After not missing any activation rolls, the Egyptians failed to activate most unit for two turns.  Back in action though and the centre Canaanite chariots retreat and the Canaanite light infantry is routed by missile fire on the left flank.

Canaanite chariots forced back, and an Canaanite light infantry lost

The Egyptian right flank contacts the Canaanites on the hill.  The Blades manage to force the light infantry back, but the clash of the medium infantry sees the Egyptian recoil.

Egyptian right flank clash on the hill

In the centre, the Canaanite chariots continue to be forced back, on the left the Egyptians advance to pin down the lone Canaanite light infantry unit. 

On the Egyptian right flank the light infantry managed to recoil the blades but then later is forced to flee.  On the left flank the Egyptian missile fire is ineffective.  In the centre, the Egyptian chariot manages to loot the camp.  This brings the Canaanites to their breakpoint and they retreat into Megiddo.

End 

Verdict

That was a fun game.  And at least the Egyptians won this refight.  I will continue to tinker with the rules as am not that fond of lots of recoils.  I understand why they are there but I am used to using a disorder marker for deteriorating positions.   After the game I remembered I thought I had done a version of my own rules, ABC on a grid with no markers required.  Looking through the files I did do so, back in 2019! It has some good points that I was thinking of applying to these rules.  It seems I am at least consistent it what I like in rules.  I will continue to see if these are worth playing but in the meantime with move onto other rules to use with Megiddo.   But before that, I have gone back to playing a lot of Dominion of the Spear – so simple, so fast!

 

Battle of Megiddo 1479BC – battle report with DBSA (sort of)

Introduction

After playing some replays of this battle with Dominion of the Spear, I realised how interesting I find this battle.  I decided to play it with the latest iteration of my Ancient Battlelines Clash rules.

And then I have always wanted to use DSBA, the forerunner to DBA.  Megiddo has a lot of archers and DBSA has no ranged combat so I added to DBSA the Bows troop type able to fire at 200p. I made a few very minor modifications to the combat results.  But very minor (I amazingly resisted doing a lot more). DBSA also has Chariots as a distinctive troop type, which I like.  I have never really been enamoured with the opposed dice and compare to less that or greater than half but we shall see.  If I am ok with it I may play it more.  Of course, in the past I have always said that and then played a game of DBA and then moved on :-)

Post battle spoiler: opposed 2d6 and comparing half/greater than half I found I am ok with but not greatly inspired. So I worked on a 1d6 variant that is good enough for me.  Nuances are lost compared to the 2d6 but I am fine with that for less calculation.

Battle of Megiddo 1479BC  

The Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III defeats a Canaanite coalition before the walls of the city of Megiddo.

Sources

See this previous Megiddo battle report for sources I used.

Troops

Egyptians

3 CH Chariots (one with the general Thutmose III, 1 Swordsmen/Blade/HI Heavy infantry, 2 Auxilia/MI Medium Infantry, 2 Bows/LA Light Archers, 1 CP Camp.

Breakpoint: 3

Coalition of Syrians under the prince of Kadesh

2 CH Chariots (one with leader), 2 Auxilia/MI Medium Infantry, 2 Psiloi/LI Light Infantry, 1 Bows/LA Light Archer, 1 CP Camp.

Breakpoint: 3

Scenario & Deployment

Special rules: A draw is a rebel victory.

I have gone with a deployment loosely based on the Peter Sides scenario.

Deployment (Egyptians on the left)

Game

Egyptians go first and all advance towards the opposing Canaanites.  The Egyptians fire, as do the Canaanites in return.  This breaks up the opposing lines on the Egyptian left flank.  The next turn sees the Canaanite archer destroy their opposing Egyptian archer.

Egyptian left flank battlelines are now broken up due to missile fire

The Egyptian chariots charge into the Canaanite chariots, all the Egyptian chariots recoil (expect the support one).

Egyptian chariots charge and are repulsed

The Egyptian right flank charges up the hill and manages to force a Canaanite Medium infantry further up the hill.  Next turn the light infantry is also forced back and then the turn after flees

Egyptian right flank charging up the hill

Across the line the Egyptians are slowly forcing the Canaanites back.  On the left they are recoiling from bowfire, in the centre both Chariots are forced to retreat and on the right flank a medium infantry is forced back into the cliff and so routs.

Canaanite chariots in retreat

Egyptian right flank forces a medium infantry to retreat

But then disaster for the Egyptians!  On their left flank the Canaanite bowfire is so great the other Egyptian archer unit routs.  There is only an Egyptian medium infantry for defence.

Egyptian left flank down to one unit

And then even more tragedy!  In the centre an Egyptian chariot is lost. 

Egyptians lost a chariot

The Egyptians have lost 3 units from starting with 8 units so flee the battlefield.  They have lost.

End

Verdict

The Egyptians rolled ok when it was not critical but rolled badly when it was important and so lost the three units.  If they had just rolled well at the right times it could have easily ended up as an Egyptian victory.  Alas it was not the historical result due to hot Canaanite dice.  As noted at the start of the post, the whole roll 2d6 and compare for half/greater than half I think is a great mechanism but I think I would have to play a few more games for the calculations to just easily flow.  Rather than do that, I have a 1d6 variant that is not as nuanced but works ok.

I did not mind the flow of the game but the game took longer than with my own rules. There was a lot of interactions between units (missile fire or combat) that did nothing interesting e.g. caused a recoil to one side but next turn the unit was moved back in line. But then my rules are designed for really quick results, at least compared to DBA. 

Battle of Megiddo 1479BC – battle report with Ancient Battlelines Clash

 Introduction

After playing some replays of this battle with Dominion of the Spear, I realised how interesting I find this battle.  I decided to play it with the latest iteration of my Ancient Battlelines Clash rules.  Previous outings with previous rules versions are with an early copy of my own rules (2012) and a few times with a major rules revision in 2021.  ABC is designed to finish in around 30 minutes on a 2’x2’ or smaller table; I am currently using a 40cmx40cm table, although for Megiddo I used a 2'x2' due to the wide width of the battlefield, even with only 8 bases a side.

Battle of Megiddo 1479BC  

The Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III defeats a Canaanite coalition before the walls of the city of Megiddo.

Sources

Scenario source: Bill Banks Ancients (originally).

Link(s):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(15th_century_BC)

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1101/thutmose-iii-at-the-battle-of-megiddo/

https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/Ancient/BattleOfMegiddo

https://www.donsmaps.com/egypt2cb.html  (a good summary of Nelson, see below)

Society of Ancients Slingshot articles:

• The Battle of Megiddo (43/6-11, Alan Buttery)
• The Battle of Kadesh (55/6-13, rp.92a/16-20, Alan Buttery)
• Megiddo! (135/15-18, Ian Greenwood; comments 136/18-19, Ian Russell Lowell; 137/11-12, Karl Heinz Ranitzsch & Noel McGlinchey)
• The Pharaoh‟s Breakfast [Megiddo] (136/16-18, Stephen Allen)

Other:

• Harold Haydon Nelson Battle of Megiddo (1913) is an interesting read on the battle

Troops

Egyptians

1 LDR Leader (Thutmose III), 3 CH Chariots, 1 HI Heavy infantry, 2 MI Medium Infantry, 2 LA Light Archers, 1 CP Camp.

Breakpoint: 2.5

Coalition of Syrians under the prince of Kadesh

1 LDR, 2 CH Chariots, 2 MI Medium Infantry, 2 LI Light Infantry, 1 LA Light Archer, 1 CP Camp.

Breakpoint: 2.5

Scenario & Deployment

Special rules: A draw is a rebel victory.

I have gone with a deployment loosely based on the Peter Sides scenario.

Deployment (Egyptians on the left)

Game

The two Egyptian flanks move (the right to gin the riverbank, the left to get closer to be able to use the light archers).  The centre decides to pause and wait for the flanks to get into position (in reality failed to activate).

The Canaanite right flank fails to move but their light archers do exchange some missile fire with the opposing Egyptian archers (for no effect).

Exchanging missile fire on the Egyptian left flank

The Canaanite chariots move slightly off the hill, just to put a little more distance between the Egyptian chariots and the Camp.

The Egyptian’s may be able to win their right flank and so advance to the river bank.  Inn range of the Canaanite Light infantry that fire and disorder the opposing heavy infantry

Canaanite light infantry disorders the Egyptian Heavy infantry

The Egyptian chariots charge in.  The Canaanites fire at them on them as they approach, forcing one to slow their advance. Disorders all round, except Thutmose’s Royal Guard.

Egyptian chariots charge, one falters due to incoming arrows

The Egyptian left flank fires missiles and disorder the Light infantry.  The Canaanite archers return fire and the rest of the flank moves off the hill as they need to rout the Egyptian archers.

Canaanite right flank advancing

The Chariots melee and one of the Egyptian Chariots is routed.

An Egyptian chariot routed

On the Canaanite left flank, the light infantry routs the heavy infantry (two 6’s in a row).  That was unexpected.

Heavy infantry routed

Thutmose charges his chariots in but are repulsed again.  On the left flank the infantry clash and are both disordered, archers fire at the other archers on the hill and the latter are disordered, the far left archers fire at the light infantry who return fire with javelins and disorder the Egyptian archers.

The Egyptian left flank is still in contention

But then it all goes pear shaped for the Egyptians.  On the left flank, the Canaanites rout the archers and the medium infantry, the remaining chariot in the centre routs the opposing chariot.

Collapse of the Egyptian left and centre

This well and truly breaks the morale of the Egyptian side that abandon the battle.

End

Verdict

Wow.  The collapse at the end was the Canaanites rolling a string of 5s and 6s Vs the 1s and 2s of the Egyptians.   I was not expecting the Egyptians to lose.  They rolled so bad throughout the game, and the Canaanites rolled so well.  No changes to the rules, still happy with them.  Of course, this is after 3 games with the revised rules so that can easily change :-)