|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2020 14:07:42 GMT
And should you be a good commander when playing a friendly one-off what-if random battle, and you cleverly use the terrain to your advantage, should you not also be allowed the same advantages that the Black Prince and Henry V had? But as you have so well argued regarding Rivers, there is nothing to force the French of marching to their doom. This is setting up as another stalemate is it not? Or at best, a battle of attrition on the flanks but not historical. Why would you in a one-off game? Cheers Jim I have two answers to that Jim me laddie.  1) Bows have a range of 3 BW, so can deal death at a distance (indeed, this is exactly what happened at Agincourt...both sides sat for hours looking at each other until Henry V told his men to up-stakes and advance into bowshot. The French then had three choices... ...withdraw and lose face, attack the English, or stand there and get shot to pieces). 2) I’d change the aggression factors, so the English have an aggression of 2 while the French have an aggression of 3 (after all, it was the English that mostly chose the field of battle, not the French. And if using the “Sun Clock” or the “Time of Day Display”, it will be up to the French to make rash attacks, like they did at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt (are three historical examples not enough?) or the defending English will be the winners by nightfall. As Phil Barker himself says on page 14: “A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory”). Regarding that second item above, I’d also change the II/32a Later Carthaginian aggression to 2. Again it was clever old Hannibal that chose the fields of battle, not the Romans, leading to the rash Roman attacks at the River Trebia in 216 BC, at Lake Trasimene in 217 BC, and of course at Cannae In 218 BC (are three historical examples not enough?). How’s that for a bit more realism (I do like simple solutions that fix multiple problems).The way the army lists have it, it’s the French and the Romans that usually get to place the terrain... ...so much for historical accuracy. Oh, and just because the French are the ‘attackers’, that does not mean they have invaded England. It just means the French have invaded English held territory in France (and the English owned at lot of it). Likewise, just because the Romans are the ‘attackers’, that does not mean they have invaded Africa. It just means they are invading a lost province in Italy (and it didn’t take Hannibal long to own much of it.). |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 19, 2020 14:14:51 GMT
That's one of the quirks of refighting HYW battles. Due in no small part to English fighting styles, as well as exploiting general lack of unified French command in many encounters, the English fought on the tactical defensive ( even carefully choosing where they gave battle)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2020 14:28:24 GMT
See Roland, simple little changes to make DBA both more playbalanced AND more realistic.
Without making it complicated, or breaking any of the existing game mechanics.
Yes, I too love DBA...but it would be so much better if it was based on history instead of fantasy...
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 19, 2020 14:56:01 GMT
Oh I think DBA does an admirable job of being informed by history. Its just a game, though. One of the tells ( besides no one ending up actually dead at the conclusion of the evenings festivities) is that both parties start with exactly 12 stands. Sun Tzu would've probably had a thought or two about giving battle in such situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 19, 2020 19:50:12 GMT
When I played DBA campaigns solo I tried always having 12 elements, but filling the line in a battle with fast Hd, or Ps if regular troops were unavailable.
It was promising. The 12-12 line up is key in a game in which hard flanking is such a powerful battle decider.
I think another way to do it is to use the excess "dead" elements as usual in the next battle, but all such elements fight as if from a broken command, to reflect losses? Or maybe they fight at TF -1?
Anyway, that's an aside. I vehemently disagree that 12 elements a side is somehow "rubbish" as history. Very few of the battle diagrams in any of the books I have read, show a lot more than 5 or 6 "blocks" of troops, at least for the classical period. More granularity just claims historical certainty that simply isn't backed up by the accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2020 20:58:34 GMT
Here are ones I have been using... Aux recoil 1BW from Bd, Pk Pike Win ties vs non-Pike +1 Pip for Foot to contact Bows Elephants flee from Artillery if beaten Elephants flee from Bow on a tie "Solid" Bd QK Kn on a tie "Fast" Bd QK 4Kn on a tie Lh First move of first bound is free Ps "Must" interpenetrate on a recoil Joe Collins
Joe,
I like these.
But would like the recoil for 3/4Ax to be an optional choice of ½ or 1BW.
LH first move of first bound is interesting, but LH first move of the game would spring more surprises.
Robert
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 20, 2020 7:26:08 GMT
But as you have so well argued regarding Rivers, there is nothing to force the French of marching to their doom. This is setting up as another stalemate is it not? Or at best, a battle of attrition on the flanks but not historical. Why would you in a one-off game? Cheers Jim I have two answers to that Jim me laddie. 1) Bows have a range of 3 BW, so can deal death at a distance (indeed, this is exactly what happened at Agincourt...both sides sat for hours looking at each other until Henry V told his men to up-stakes and advance into bowshot. The French then had three choices... ...withdraw and lose face, attack the English, or stand there and get shot to pieces). 2) I’d change the aggression factors, so the English have an aggression of 2 while the French have an aggression of 3 (after all, it was the English that mostly chose the field of battle, not the French. And if using the “Sun Clock” or the “Time of Day Display”, it will be up to the French to make rash attacks, like they did at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt (are three historical examples not enough?) or the defending English will be the winners by nightfall. As Phil Barker himself says on page 14: “A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory”). Regarding that second item above, I’d also change the II/32a Later Carthaginian aggression to 2. Again it was clever old Hannibal that chose the fields of battle, not the Romans, leading to the rash Roman attacks at the River Trebia in 216 BC, at Lake Trasimene in 217 BC, and of course at Cannae In 218 BC (are three historical examples not enough?). How’s that for a bit more realism (I do like simple solutions that fix multiple problems).The way the army lists have it, it’s the French and the Romans that usually get to place the terrain... ...so much for historical accuracy. Oh, and just because the French are the ‘attackers’, that does not mean they have invaded England. It just means the French have invaded English held territory in France (and the English owned at lot of it). Likewise, just because the Romans are the ‘attackers’, that does not mean they have invaded Africa. It just means they are invading a lost province in Italy (and it didn’t take Hannibal long to own much of it.). But stevie, if you won't charge your Spears over a River, why would you charge your French (or Romans) to certain doom? Unless you change the CF of Bows/Aux AND the Army lists AND the terrain placements AND use a countdown clock. These little changes are adding up. But perhaps you can avoid giving the attacker choice of board as this may hamper the terrain placement strategy by giving more manoeuvre room.  As you know, I think some tinkering is required. Historically successful armies that fail on the game board need help! But not to the point where you can look at the board before deployment and know the result. Even if history wasn't 50/50, I would like my games to be thereabouts as this makes all armies playable, which is better for the hobby. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 20, 2020 8:01:03 GMT
Would the following be enough to recreate Agincourt:
+1 CF to Bows vs Hvy Foot, AND -1 in CC to all but Ax, Bw, Wb and Ps in Rough Going.
So the French Bd would face shooting CF3 (plus the penalties of combined shooting against them) as they cross the mud, then those who make it across to engage the English do so at -1 for CC in the mud vs CF 4 (Bw with Bd side-support)and 5 (English Bd), with potential overlaps against them as well.
A further option: Extend the -1 for Bd (all but Ax, Bw, Wb and Ps) in Rough Going vs Distant Shooting, and not just CC. This suggests that the boggy ground lowers the defensive ability of the Bd crossing it in the face of enemy shooting, not just slowing them down. This would put the Bd at CF4 (plus penalties of combined shooting against them) vs CF3 shooting as they cross the mud.
Surely one or both of these combinations would hamstring the Bd sufficiently.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Apr 20, 2020 12:08:22 GMT
Have to disagree with you again stevie. At Agincourt the the French were not going to be shot to pieces if they had not either withdrawn or attacked. The men-at-arms ere dismounted and their armor was reasonably proof against arrows at that range. The archery was a nuisance that could cause some casualties but was more of an assault on the French pride - to stand and ignore it was not to be.
After all they marched to the English line under that arrow storm and suffered the bulk of their casualties when they reached the line and engaged in close combat.
With that, snowcat, it is the melee, not the advance under the arrow storm that needs to see a modifier.
Perhaps DBA needs to give the HYW English a modifier (as in other rulesets) - a modifier for 'stakes.' +1 if the LB have been in position (or have not yet moved) for a turn.
Having just gone through the battles as listed in Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages, he notes that when the English archers didn't get their stakes set, they tended to get run over.
In fact, in several of the battles the English prepared their position with a ditch or pot holes to disrupt the French advance.
DBA may just need a modifier for prepared defenses in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 20, 2020 12:50:16 GMT
Yes, having just re-read Heath's account of the battle, it sounds like a complete confused disorder of the French forces that largely led to their downfall. Firstly by the cavalry wings of knights galloping back into the first line of dismounted men at arms, then by the overcrowding of the French men at arms in melee with the English foot. The French lines were already a confused jumble caused by all the French lords wanting to be in the first battalion.
The English arrow storm only seems to have hurt the French mounted; their dismounted men at arms advanced in wedges and met the English in melee...whereupon their own crammed masses proved counterproductive. In Heath's account, he does not mention the effect of the mud here, but I have read it in several others.
Re stakes - the use of stakes was against the enemy mounted, esp their knights. Don't think they were of as much use against foot, but feel free to correct me on this. Stakes could count as Bad Going for mounted?
The Wikipedia account of the battle is pretty decent. Even it includes the combination of weight of heavy armour, poor visibility and breathing wearing such armour with the effect of the mud:
"In any case, to protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows, the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face, as the eye- and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour. This head-lowered position restricted their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards (metres) through thick mud and a press of comrades while wearing armour weighing 50–60 pounds (23–27 kg), gathering sticky clay all the way. Increasingly, they had to walk around or over fallen comrades."
"The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point-blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows, they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and difficulty breathing in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line."
So I still believe the idea of -1 in CC to all but Ax, Bw, Wb and Ps in Rough Going has merit.
However, it's pretty clear that the French were their own worst enemies in this battle, at least as it has been recorded, and in a standard game of DBA such issues are not usually represented.
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Apr 20, 2020 12:55:31 GMT
Agincourt: Just use difficult hills. Station the English LBw less than 2cm from the edge so they can shoot. French dismounted MAA can assault, at 3/3, but with a stack of minor disadvantages. Not hopeless, but not particularly desirable. Can go either way, but more likely to end up an English win. Poitiers: Just use T-shape thin woods (less than 2cm) as ditch/stakes/prepared positions to defend. These provide a -2 to the assailants, and pip drains. Again, English win more likely, but no certainty. (something similar to that) It's already there, in the rules.
Main issue is that the aggression system is not sophisticated enough, as indeed, the HYW English should be able to pick terrain more often than they do (not to mention the Mongols with their crippling Agg4 ...).
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Apr 20, 2020 13:03:20 GMT
In the Osprey 'Armies of Agincourt' account it also notes that many of the French casualties arose when the men-at-arm fell and either suffocated under others ho fell on them or droned in the mud...
I do agree, stevie, with the reversal of the AG factors for the French and English in the HYW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 20, 2020 13:06:42 GMT
Insane amount of conjecture from military historians over the years concerning key details of the English order of battle for Agincourt including the exact nature of the term "herse" as a military formation. The battle line frontage at Agincourt was very narrow. In essence it was a muddy funnel which not only prevented the french from taking advantage of their numerical superiority, it probably made their numbers a liability. Latest reading I have done on Agincourt ( I used to read this period a lot but I'm admittedly a bit rusty) postulates that the archers were primarily stationed on the wings of the battle line leaving a thin line of MAAs to hold the center of the English line while yeomen poured missile fire into the french ranks which further herded the french MAAs together. Once battle was joined the archers were able to aid the English MAAs by moving along the french battleline dispatching immobilized and disoriented french knights.
Its also worth mentioning that Henry's battle plan depended upon the french falling upon English prepared position in a frontal assault. As the morning wore on this was not a sure thing. Henry actually advanced his line slightly to goad the french into attacking his position rather than wait for his sickened men to lose vigor wasting the day in a waiting game.
So one can see pretty straight away how much situational specificity was involved in the English triumph. Trying to fold that degree of specificity into the core rules of such a generic system just to show off the English prowess on their very best day seems, to me, a stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 20, 2020 15:28:11 GMT
Bingo. By the way, Medieval Martial Arts fighters (it's a big sport in Russia, I hear) seem to say the armour really doesn't weigh all that much - not enough to render you sluggish and slow and have a major impact on your fighting ability. (Remember these guys fight team combat with dulled edged weapons and concussive weapons, with the aim of KOing your opponent, or injuring a limb. Kinda like playing rugby in Wales.) So whilst not deadly combat, it is enough to show one weather the weight was a factor in combat. It did not appear to have been a decisive factor. Sounds to me like an after the fact French excuse.
It does however restrict your vision. And if you were wearing it, and attacked by swarms of dagger-armed men, your face and throat would take a beating!
I think the French fell victim to classic Sun Tzu: "cast the army into fatal terrain ... with no escape" and the men will fight desparately, to the death.
The lightly armed English had more skin in the game than the French. All the French had to do was not lose. They seemed to have been a bit half-hearted perhaps? I mean in that deep down spot in your psyche that houses your inner savage. Pure speculation on my part though.
I think the entire point of the muddy terrain was (a) to nullify the French horse, and (b) to turn it from a planned, orderly fight into a barroom brawl, thet the English knew the French would suck at, being highly fancily-dressed Glory Boys, rather than savage thugs!
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 20, 2020 18:02:08 GMT
A few points about the much debated Agincout:
First bear in mind that the battlefield has recently been relocated to its correct area - which is more open then the "tradtional" site.
The battle has a large catalouge of primary sources collected by Ann Curry and available in paperback. There is no need to rely on shakey secondary accounts in Ospery or Wikipidia.
The English (maybe 7k strong) deployed in their traditional formation of intermixed blocks of Men at Arms and archers with wings of mostly archers. The French stood on the defensive having blocked the English escape route to Calais. Due to the narrowness of the field the large French army (maybe 15K) had to deploy in three lines. After waiting for hours Henry decided the only hope was to attack the large French army or starve. The attack was conducted in the English manner by advancing to extreme bow range and unleashing an arrow storm on the waiting French. At that range it was the mounted French who suffered the most and as they had been charged with flanking and attacking the archers they now advanced. Unfortunately for the French the English flanks were protected by woods and this forced them to attack head on. Only a handful of the 800-1000 men tasked to attack on each flank reached the English lines - a few falling victim to stakes which some archers had taken with them and replanted though many were abandoned in the original position. The bulk of the French mounted routed and crashed into the dismounted men at arms who now advanced to support them. The advancing French line was further slowed by encountering some muddy fields further churned up by the forlorn mounted assault. Racked by English arrows both French flanks collapsed without ever reaching the English lines. Archers now short of arrows charged the retreating French turning a defeat into a rout. In the center though the French continued to doggedly advance against the three groups of English men at arms where their was far less shooting. The French managed to reach at least the retinue of the Duke of York who along with some 90 of his men were killed holding this section of the line. The French certainly also managed to reach Henry's center force driving his men back a spear length and reputedly knocking off part of his crown. At this moment of crises though the English archers having routed the forces deployed against them fell upon the flanks of the French engaged by the English men at arms. English numbers soon prevailed since while the French had started across the field with more men by the time they reached the English lines they were considerably out numbered by the English.
The remnants French first line then collapsed routing back through their second line of mostly town militia. Surprisingly this line held together and the English had some hard fighting to break it. English archers exchanged shooting with French crossbow men supported by pavised spearmen but most of the archers were either now out of arrows or had thrown down their bows to fight in the melee. One source says Henry had to commit his own personal guard to finally break this line. In short the French gave a decent account of themselves anywhere they were not first lacerated by arrows.
This left only the final French "battle" an apparently formidable all mounted force. In fact it was a paper tiger composed mostly of pages riding their master's horses as a pursuit force. Buttressed by a few late arrivals and what could be rallied from the first two lines this force appeared to be about to mount an attack which lead Henry to order the slaughter of prisoners for fear they would rejoin the fight. In the end the attack proved feeble and the prisoner massacre unneeded.
English losses were in the hundreds; French losses in the thousands.
The battle can be well simulated using DBX mechanics. Like most historical battles it cannot be simulated by the weird 12 element restriction. This restriction exists to create a chess like even match up for tournaments; it serves no simulation purpose. As to rules you need only have English archers count +3 v. Foot and French crossbows likewise count +3 but shoot only in their own bound. The normal terrine rules work reasonable well (just assume all fields are muddy). Stakes played only a minor role at Agincourt and were not even used at Poiters or Crecy; their effect is often exaggerated in wargame rules but I think DBA 3.0 gets it about right.
If you have a copy of the Olde World Expansion of Knights & Knaves there is a full Agincourt scenario included suitable for any DBX style game. I think I have an old pure DBA 3.0 version with correct OBs somewhere which we used for playtesting DBA 3.0 against known historical results. It always failed when using +2 bow (but did much better than under 2.2) but works reasonable well with +3 longbows. You won't get the blow out historical victory that the English achieved but they at least stand an equal chance of success. See also my Verneuil scenario in Great Battles of History for DBA 3.0 which I think you can still get from Lulu.
I'm always curious when people mention battles where the French defeated English archers - as no one ever mentions the names of these battle (I know of a few French victories but they never involve frontal attacks on English archers).
|
|
