All at Sea - Salamis ad Actium play test

The next rule set up in our play test is 'Salamis ad Actium' by David Manley, published in 2003 by A & A Game Engineering. An inspection of the A & A website reveals that there is a version 1.1 (2015) but this just appears to tidy up a few things, presentation wise, and doesn't make any significant changes to the rules.
Before the play test, it is worth mentioning that the rules are rather dense, in both style and formatting, with many tables which are often repeated in different places. Also there is no play sheet. Despite this, the rules are actually fairly straight forward and worth persevering with.
Once again, the rules are designed with 1/1200th ship models in mind but suggests using inches instead of centimetres as the measurement units if using 1/600th or similar models.
The scale of the game seems a bit confused with one model representing one ship. However, the rules do go on to say that because of the ground scale this is more like 5 ships and for larger battles may need to be bigger still.
The expected game size is a bit vague and no table size is given. However, fleets are divided into squadrons of up to 10 vessels.

For consistency, I used the same scenario as the previous Naumachiae test. I attempted to classify the ships as close as possible to those of the original scenario but in this version it works out that the Carthaginians have a points advantage.
The deployment area uses the same 15cm deep area as the Naumachiae rules and squadron formations are similar; line abreast, astern or echelon. Off table forces are also catered for.
This time around I used a smaller 30 inch square playing area (the kitchen table) so the fleets started a bit closer together. Also, unlike the Naumachiae game, which took 5 turns for the fleets to come close, Salamis ad Actium uses a faster movement rate to speed up the initial stages of the game. Hence the opposing fleets closed within the first two turns.
Both squadrons approached in line abreast but the Carthaginians switched to echelon in an attempt to outflank the Romans. However, a good run of initiative cards meant the Romans were able to gain several consecutive moves, striking the Carthaginians in the flank.

Carthaginians begin flanking manoeuvre

Romans surge forward

Romans execute ram attack

In the following moves the Romans deployed the corvus and attempted to board. As boarding actions are carried out in the intermediate phase (one of the seven cards), the Carthaginians were able to use their archers to fend of the Roman marines before the boarding action was adjudicated. In the end the Roman boarders were repulsed and  the Carthaginian ships managed to break free.

Carthage breaks free

I stopped the game at this point as I had tested most of the aspects I needed.

So how do they fit my criteria?


1) Small scale actions involving a handful of ships.
Although, not as mechanistic and slightly more abstract than Naumachiae I think these may be a good set for solo games of just a couple of ships per side. The level of detail is similar to Naumachiae but handled more abstractly. I think these would give a quicker game but the former have more character. In terms of solo play the card system of Salamis ad Actium is definitely a winner.

2) Small fleets of several squadrons, each of a handful of ships (multi-player club gaming)
These are certainly a possibility but I'm not sure why I was dissatisfied the last time around. I seem to recall that there was too much shooting for my taste but that may be down to the personalities of the players. Appropriate scenario design should fix that so I think this is definitely worth another go.

3) Large fleet actions of hundreds of ships (solo gaming)
Large fleets are certainly possible, as seen by my campaign reports, but is this representative of the hundreds of vessels seen in historic encounters? I don't think so. The problem here is that a base of models, representing 10 or so vessels, shouldn't act the same as a single ship. I have trouble imagining that all ships of a squadron are rammed or raked a the same time etc.

All at Sea - Salamis ad Actium background

The next rule set that I want to examine is 'Salamis ad Actium' and once again I found an old battle report from my solo campaign.

1st Illyrian War – second year

Encouraged by the success of the previous year’s reconnaissance in strength, Gaius Quilpius Aquaticus planned a second invasion of Illyria. Having experienced, at first hand, not only the strengths of the Illyrian pirates but also the weaknesses of the Roman fleet, Quilpius planned well. The Socii Navales were pressed to provide more ships to replace those lost the previous year and an intensive training schedule implemented. The fleet was also equipped with ballistae and towers for all the quinqueremes. Thus strengthened Quilpius felt confidant enough to face the Illyrian fleet once again.

After an uneventful crossing Quilpius took care to land the fleet’s sails and other unnecessary equipment before offering battle. Fearing the Illyrians superiority in numbers, Quilpius took shelter amongst a number of small islands, deploying in 2 squadrons in line ahead. The approaching Illyrians stood out to sea, where they hoped to use their greater numbers to outmanoeuvre the Roman fleet They deployed in 3 squadrons, each in line abreast, with a central squadron of quadriremes and triremes flanked by 2 lighter squadrons of mixed biremes and liburnians.

Roman Deployment

Illyrian Deployment

Quilpius planned to offer battle close to the islands and draw the Illyrians into the restricted waters, where he hoped the heavier Roman ships would be at an advantage. However, the inexperienced crews had some difficulty negotiating the shallow waters and the Illyrian Admiral chose this moment to strike. Hoping to catch the Romans as they debouched from the straits the Illyrians struck fast.

The Roman Fleet Struggles Through the Straits

The Illyrians advanced at full speed on the wings, whilst holding the centre squadron back, in an attempt to envelop the Roman fleet. The Roman right flank failed to clear the straits before the Illyrians were among them with many of the quinqueremes being rammed by the more manoeuvrable Illyrian vessels.

The Illyrian Attack

The Roman left fared better and fought off the Illyrians on 2 fronts. Half the squadron faced off the Illyrian centre whilst the remaining vessels attempted to form a flank guard. The battle in the centre went well with the Illyrians suffering badly from the massed ballistae fire of the Roman ships, although they did inflict some casualties in return as their quadriremes were similarly equipped. The Illyrian centre, realising they could not make any headway against the massed ballistae shot, decided to back water and draw the Romans into the open. Meanwhile, on the flank the Romans were struggling to prevent the Illyrian periplous. Initial attempts to stop the outflanking move were successful but Quilpius soon discovered the shallow draught of the Illyrian vessels allowed them to outflank his own ships by passing through the shallows.

General Action

The Illyrians Pass Through the Shallows

Whilst the Roman left was struggling to fend off the Illyrian attack the Romans began to gain the upper hand on the right flank. Although the right flank squadron initially suffered, as the smaller enemy ships infiltrated their line, the battle began to turn in favour of the heavier ships. The stoutly built quinquremes were able to absorb more damage than the lighter enemy ships. Once the enemy vessels had rammed the Roman ships the Roman marines were often able to board their attacker’s vessel before the ram could be extricated. Many Illyrian vessels were captured in this manner. Eventually the Illyrian’s morale broke and their right flank squadron fled. Shortly after the Roman centre once again attacked, clearing the Illyrian decks with their ballistae fire. This was too much for the beleaguered Illyrians and they broke off the action and fled.

The Illyrian Right Flank Breaks

So it does look like I managed a relatively large solo battle using these rules, but how easy was this to play and how was the experience? Luckily,it seems that, at the time, I did make some notes.

This game was fought using Salamis ad Actium and was generally more successful than the previous attempt using Naumachiae. The fleets were identical, in terms of both number and type, to the fleets used in the previous battle. This time, however, the heavier ships (quadriremes and quinqueremes) were all armed with ballistae. No ships carried a mainsail and consequently none were overburdened. The Romans defended their vessels with heavy marines whilst I chose to use one third archers and two thirds normal marines for the Illyrians.


The fleets were designed as equal points forces, without taking into account crew quality etc. The rules have a table for randomly generating these attributes which works quite well. Hence, the fleets may differ slightly in points value due to the affect of the crew and command qualities. Generating the crew and command qualities in this way can give rise to some interesting combinations. In this battle the best crew (veteran) were in the Illyrian centre squadron but were led by the fleet Admiral who was inept!

The rules use a card activation system, which is excellent for solo games. There are 7 cards in the deck – 6 action phase cards (3 per side) and 1 intermediate phase card. Ships move, carry out ram attacks and rakes and archers shoot during the action phase. Ships also attempt to separate after rams during the action phases. Ballistae fire and boarding actions are carried out, for both sides, during the intermediate phase.

This can lead to some exciting action as for instance a ship ramming in its side’s first action phase then has 2 possible action phases left to attempt to extricate its ram and separate the vessels. However, the intermediate phase may occur first in which case the enemy can attempt to board. Similarly, ballistae fire is potentially quite powerful and a draw giving 2 consecutive intermediate phases can make ballistae fire truly devastating.

There is some bookkeeping involved, as record is kept of the ship’s current damage levels (light, medium, heavy, severe, sinking). Damage / casualties can also occur in a variety of ways and record must be kept of the ships maximum speed, oar factors, marines, archers and equipment. Nevertheless, a ship’s data can be kept to a single line and I was able to keep record of 47 ships using only 2 A4 sheets of paper.

All in all these are an excellent set of rules and work well for solo play.

A very favourable result I would say. However, there is a curious postscript to this. Not too long ago (we're talking years not decades!) I recall putting on a multi-player game at the club and coming away quite dissatisfied. Maybe these work better solo? Hopefully, the next play test may shed some light on this nautical conundrum.