Why do I bring this up today?
Well, I have been preparing to host the 1744 WAS Battle of Madonna dell'Olmo. The battle is interesting and setting victory conditions complicated. The Austro-Piedmontese Army under King Emmanuele III lost the battle but secured a strategic victory.
Let me provide a brief background summary from my battle briefing.
 |
| Madonna dell'Olmo deployments |
Background
After much disagreement in campaign aims, the Gallispan Army (France under Conti and Spain under La Mina) agreed to take the war into Piedmont. Having crossed the Alps and descending into Piedmont, the Gallipans won some victories on the approach to Cuneo. Taking Cuneo was crucial in that the city offered a place to spend the winter before the Spring campaign of 1745 began. Standing in their way was the Piedmontese Army under King Emmanuele III.
The Gallispans laid siege to Cuneo on the night of the 12-13 September. With Cuneo now besieged, the King must act to relieve the siege. The King came up with a multi-faceted plan. His plan focused on drawing the Gallispans into pitched battle in order to send supplies into Cuneo and evacuate wounded. MG Leutrum was in command of the Cuneo garrison. He would sortie from the fortress to destroy the enemy’s siege works across the Gesso River when the besiegers took to the field. While the Gallispans were engaged outside of Cuneo fighting a pitched battle, Bourbon outposts and lines of communication would be attacked.
As long as the Gallispans could be engaged in pitched battle without knowledge of the other goals (and without destroying his own army), the King could snatch a strategic victory without needing to win the pitched battle. With LOC cut, Cuneo reinforced, and winter approaching, the Gallispan Army would be compelled to break off the siege and retire back into France to winter. Emmaneule needed to buy time.
Historical Outcome
The battle began around noon with probing attacks upon Madonna dell’Olmo escalating into a pitched battle. With the battle lines separated by a sunken road over about half of the ground, each commander continued to shift forces toward the center and Madonna dell’Olmo in order to come to grips with the enemy and hopefully break through. After heavy fighting throughout the afternoon with little headway made, the King called off the attack and retired. Still, the day’s action allowed the Gallispan’s siege works to be destroyed, Cuneo reinforced and resupplied, and Gallispan’s LOC cut. The Gallispan Army was forced to lift the siege and retire back across the Alps.
The Gallispans laid siege to Cuneo on the night of the 12-13 September. With Cuneo now besieged, the King must act to relieve the siege. The King came up with a multi-faceted plan. His plan focused on drawing the Gallispans into pitched battle in order to send supplies into Cuneo and evacuate wounded. MG Leutrum was in command of the Cuneo garrison. He would sortie from the fortress to destroy the enemy’s siege works across the Gesso River when the besiegers took to the field. While the Gallispans were engaged outside of Cuneo fighting a pitched battle, Bourbon outposts and lines of communication would be attacked.
As long as the Gallispans could be engaged in pitched battle without knowledge of the other goals (and without destroying his own army), the King could snatch a strategic victory without needing to win the pitched battle. With LOC cut, Cuneo reinforced, and winter approaching, the Gallispan Army would be compelled to break off the siege and retire back into France to winter. Emmaneule needed to buy time.
Historical Outcome
The battle began around noon with probing attacks upon Madonna dell’Olmo escalating into a pitched battle. With the battle lines separated by a sunken road over about half of the ground, each commander continued to shift forces toward the center and Madonna dell’Olmo in order to come to grips with the enemy and hopefully break through. After heavy fighting throughout the afternoon with little headway made, the King called off the attack and retired. Still, the day’s action allowed the Gallispan’s siege works to be destroyed, Cuneo reinforced and resupplied, and Gallispan’s LOC cut. The Gallispan Army was forced to lift the siege and retire back across the Alps.
See the challenge for the gaming table?
Both armies need to be coerced (well, encouraged) into going onto the attack for very different reasons. Conti needs to attack in order to destroy the Piedmontese relief force so that he can turn back to the task of reducing Cuneo. Although outnumbered, King Emmanuele needs to attack in order to allow time to accomplish his strategic aims. Without, of course, seeing his army destroyed.
What did I come up with for victory conditions?
Currently, the criteria for victory are set as,
Sudden Death:
Army Breakpoint Reached.
OR
At end of any turn,
- Franco-Spanish Army: Hold Madonna dell’Olmo, Cascina Pasquale or Tetto San Giacoma, Valentino, and have at least four units east of the road on the Piedmontese start line.
- Austro-Piedmontese Army: Hold Madonna dell’Olmo, Cascina Pasquale or Tetto San Giacoma, Valentino, and have at least four units west of the road on the Franco-Spanish start line.
Hold Madonna dell’Olmo at end of game and have fewer broken brigades than opponent.
Will these conditions effectively drive the narrative and direction of the tabletop battle to reflect the historical battle? Time will tell.
Of course, having given some thought to the situation after reading this brief overview, how would you modify victory conditions to better reflect the situation and stated goals?
Fascinating scenario, I suppose another way would be to assign victory points to the various criteria that would be different for each side and then total them at the end? I look forward with interest to the resulting battle!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Thanks, Iain! I considered allocating VPs to objectives, units lost, etc., but wanted to have more generalized and easy to grasp criteria. With points, sometimes, play is focused on VP optimization rather than the intended direction of battle narrative. There is definitely an art to assigning VPs. Besides, I can miscalculate VPs throughout the game.
DeleteIt's an interesting thing trying to somehow influence the outcome of a game based on a historical battle; lots of people don't bother or suggest it's not worth attempting, especially where there's no obvious terrain to influence matters.
ReplyDeleteMany, many years ago I refought Cunaxa using what Greeks and Persians I had and WRG 6th edition. I set out the armies in their historical deployments. The only change was to make the scythed chariots irregular "D" rather than "A" fanatics. Most of Cyrus' army were also D class apart from the Greeks and his bodyguard.
I offered my opponent (childhood and teenage gaming opponent) choice of sides; he had no knowledge of the battle and chose King Artaxeres.
I advanced the Greeks as rapidly as possible; a scythed chariot was caught at the halt and caused 1 casualty (as per Xenophon!) The fight against the Egyptians and whicker shield infantry was harder than in the real battle but was going in favour of the Greeks....
I had not anticipated my opponent becoming so worried he would change the formation of the 30 strong cavalry unit covering King Artaxeres and expose their flank to Cyrus' tiny EHC bodyguard (6 figures?).....
One charge routed them and the pursuit carried away the bodyguard leaving Cyrus and Artaxeres in his chariot opposite each other! Queue personal combat leaving Cyrus dead and Artaxeres wounded....
A scythed chariot impetiously charged the rest of Cyrus' army which ran away!
It left the Greeks isolated in the middle of the Persian empire without friends or employer.
None of it was planned, but it spookily turned out much like Xenophon!
Neil
Very interesting, Neil! You have a very good memory to recall the details of this battle from long ago. Much like Xenophon, himself!
DeleteJonathan, only because I was so surprised at the outcome; the 1 Greek casualty from the scythed chariots especially!
DeleteNeil
Those are the game situations that we carry with us forever, aren't they?
DeleteAn interesting scenario Jonathan and I like your objectives. I tend to go for a set number of turns for a game in which to achieve said objectives, representing available daylight for battle. Sometimes I can add a small random number of turns. Obviously army break points would offer a challenge as instead of ending a game, a player then has to try and rescue what they can of their army in the time available, critical if playing in a campaign or linked games
ReplyDeleteNeil, this battle has a set number of turns too (8) but a chance at continuing on for an extra turn or two. The variable end prevents last-minute, all or nothing charges.
DeleteAgree, very interesting scenario Jonathan.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteI quite like 3 or 5 VP etc type games, the odd number ensuring a winner.
ReplyDeleteThe game conveniently has three narrative elements (1) can the city be resupplied (possibly based on loss / cut road or number of turns) (2) can the siege works be destroyed (3) are the Gallispans forced to abandon the siege - likely based on losses alone, as the siege works are already a VP contributor.
Possible example;
If city is resupplied, Piedmont get 2 VP’s, if not the Gallispans get 2 VP’s
If Siege Works are destroyed, Piedmont get 1 VP, if not Gallispans get 1 VP.
If Gallispans army are forced to break off the Siege (losses), then Piedmont gets 2 VP’s, if not Gallispans get 2 VP’s.
By making (1) and (3) worth 2 VP’s each and (2) worth 1 VP to whichever side get favour, there should be a clear winner from the 5 VP’s up for grabs and both sides should be encouraged to attack.
Based on the maths, the Piedmont are coimpelled to attack, though the Gallispans could initially defend with a plan to simply sit on their hands and not take losses (i.e. ultimately survive and continue besieging) and to defiantly defend the siege works, but if the siege works fall, Gallispans will be obliged to also go onto the attack.
The suggestion is the same as Iain’s really, just with some clothes on! (Badly dressed perhaps :-) )
Good thoughts, Norm. Suggestions that require a good think. The Gallipans, having already drawn up from battle, have abandoned the primary siegeworks that are on the other side of the river. Having done so, the Gallipans are really forced onto the attack to defeat the King. If they sit on their hands, content to defend their position, then they lose since they find themselves between a rock (Cuneo) and a hard place (Piedmontese Army). At this point, Leutrum would have sallied forth and destroyed the siege works on the opposite bank of the Gesso.
DeleteResupply, cutting LOC, and destruction of siegeworks are a result of Conti taking to the field. For Conti to return to besieging Cuneo, the King's Army must be destroyed in battle.
I suppose that is the thing that is always appealing about campaigns as you have an eye to the overall strategic situation. If this were a campaign the Gallispan army could simply withdraw from the table in the first turn and claim a strategic victory.
ReplyDeleteI remember an 1812 Napoleonic game which should have really have been part of a campaign but which we played in isolation. The game was played on the table lengthways and pursuing Russians had to bring their units on one brigade at a time, but the person designing the scenario did not assign the French with any deployment limitations other than telling them they were withdrawing. The French players simply lined up their artillery from one side of the table to the other and blew apart each Russian brigade as they entered the game. As a scenario though I think your victory conditions are well thought out and will make for a fun game.
You are right in that campaigns can put all of these factors into their proper context. Falling back to the siege works is not a strategic victory for the Gallipans. They would still be outside of a city in which they need for winter quarters and enemy would be in their rear.
DeleteYour Napoleonic games sounds like bad design. I have seen scenarios where an army is tasked with marching across the table for victory. The problem was, that even with no resistance and marching at full rate, there were not enough turns to actually reach the objective!
Thanks for your comment, Lawrence!
Victory conditions: not only essential for a good scenario but a way in which the designer/umpire can 'mess' with the players, haha!!
ReplyDeleteLike the comments made by Iain and Norm, I like to use the same total number of victory points for each side, but weighted differently for each side and with a combination of geographic objectives and broken enemy formations. This was an idea that I/we gleaned as the only useful thing to come from a terrible set of 'Napoleonic' rules called "Grand Battery".
Regards, James
Thanks, James. I don’t recall “Grand Battery” rules.
DeleteYou missed nothing.
DeleteI would agree with Norm and Iain as to somehow showing the difference in value of the same objectives between foes. Even in our Imagination campaign, the potential for success via tricks makes a good scenario important. Otherwise, Fabian tactics or an indirect approach won't work as a bull rush is quicker and often rides to victory on the back of a couple good die rolls.
ReplyDeleteYour list is good in that major/minor status can be given to various categories and then listed as awarded in a post game report.
Thanks for your feedback, Joe! Sometimes I count VPs through objectives taken/lost, units/leaders lost, and formations broken. Relying upon these metrics can seem artificial at times. This time, I set victory conditions in a less artificial and mechanical manner. We will see if players agree or not after playing the scenario a time or two.
DeleteBy the way, spiffy effects on the photo as map! Gotta love the various village names as well.
ReplyDeleteThank you! I find it much easier to use a photo of the game table as map. The place names are all historical.
DeleteMy thoughts/suggestions would tend to align with the first comment from Iain - and also, don't let the players know what the other sides motivations/victory conditions are.....oh, wait....!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Keith! I run the spectrum of no information to limited information to full information depending upon the player group and battle. This time, I chose to allow all players to know the VPs and OBs for all. I thought it important that all players understand the tactical as well as strategic situation.
DeleteYour victory conditions are looking so interesting. I hope that you would not be dissapointed if I would copy some of them. Great work! And I'm so excited to see all your Spanish regiments.
ReplyDeleteAndré, I am happy to see that the victory conditions are interesting enough that you want to adopt some of the ideas yourself. Your work was the inspiration for me tackling this battle so use whatever you wish. The Spanish (and Piedmontese) will be out on the table soon.
DeleteGreat to read it. I love your Spaniards and Piedmont troops.
DeleteI don't put half as many games on as Postie and Richard, but I know its very difficult getting victory conditions that work for both sides and still make an interesting and fun game. Saying that, your suggestions seem to be pretty solid Jon.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ray! Some battles lend themselves to easier and more straightforward victory conditions than others. This battle needs to consider both tactical and strategic situations and the different aims that each introduces.
DeleteYou make great points about players being challenged to make decisions on the scenario and victory conditions. I think this is especially important with more seasoned gamers.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dean! Good to see that my thoughts were coherent. Setting the stage for refighting an historical battle is important.
DeleteHi Jon, as you know I was working through your rationale for the victory conditions offline. I have to say you have achieved a great balance here.
ReplyDeleteTo address Keith’s point about the two sides being ignorant of the other side’s objectives, I think the overall strategic situation meant that there were no surprises, other than maybe timing.
If (no WHEN) this one is a success, do you fancy doing Turin 1706? 😉
Chris
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Chris!
DeleteI am unfamiliar with Turin 1706. It might be interesting to turn the clock (and rules) back to an earlier period. I have been looking at some of the War of Polish Succession battles.
A fascinating post and discussion Jonathan. Nothing to add other than I would make a similar suggestion as Iain.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Richard! This could be coming to a remote table near you in the New Year if interested.
DeleteI certainly hope so.
DeleteImpressive work Jon a great looking scenario.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Matt! Tempted to add WAS armies to your SYW collection?
DeleteI like the outcome based conditions far better than assigning point values. The allure of historical gaming to me is to do be able to simulate complex victory conditions based on external forces rather than simple "destroy or hold" outcomes. The problem always seems to be a combination of our perfect knowledge of the battlefield as well as our perfect knowledge of historical outcomes. That allows us to fudge our tactics a little to play the rules or victory conditions rather than the enemy to our front.
ReplyDeleteThe only other way to generate more realistic outcomes I have found is to try a campaign system where decisions/outcomes affect the next battle. This tends to make players value their elite forces more and see the value in maintaining an operational reserve.
Well said, Jake, and great to see you back!
DeletePoints’ counting works well for some types of games. When refighting historical battles, victory conditions ought to work toward channeling players into the historical situation so that they face a similar decision matrix. Having points can drive a min-max optimization solution and necessarily a historically contextual one.
Does this battle interest you?
Of course, this game is the type of puzzle I enjoy.
DeleteAs always an interesting piece to read Jon. I've played many a one off game where it made no sense for either side to actually attack, whether it be say the SYW or WWII. Assigning victory conditions helps overcome this. These days setting a game in context of a campaign etc helps players get into the spirit of things, ditto understanding the victory conditions. This is why I like BBB as the scenario context is set out at the start, deployments etc as well as some plausible 'what if's?'.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Steve. One of the pieces I almost always try to provide for historical battles is a Battle Briefing. This provides historical background, context, motivation for battle, victory conditions, etc. hopefully, this helps to put players into the correct frame of mind.
DeleteI'm afraid it seems to me that you've got the Gallispan victory conditions wrong. They either need to win big quickly, [break enemy force within 4 turns] or they need to quickly [within 4 turns] withdraw a significant force [50% of units] from the field to return to defend the siege works.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'd play the two actions as a mini campaign of separate games, thus letting the Gallispan commander divide his forces as he chooses. Fight the battle above first and the Gallispans may withdraw units from the table towards Cuneo if they wish, bringing them onto the second game [where the siege troops defend the works] after a delay [looks like about an hour to me].
Mark, I appreciate you coming back to reignite this old post and weigh-in with your thoughts. The notion of a mini-campaign is an interesting suggestion.
DeleteDid I calibrate the victory conditions improperly here? I am not so sure. In all of the replays of this battle, the battle was decided roughly around Turn 4 with one of the armies reaching a breaking point. Turns are an abstraction anyway and assigning a collection of terrain objectives in situations in which neither army breaks seems appropriate.
Even if I did set the victory conditions incorrectly, every game was close, challenging, and good fun for the players.
Jonathon, if the players enjoy it then it's a good game, but the systems analyst in me says if the historical result was a draw and the games all came to a more decisive conclusion, the rules probably need attention.
DeleteP.S. I only fonud the p0ost today as it was recently linked on 'The Miniatures Pages'
Mark, good to see you back!
DeleteWas the historical result a draw? How is a draw determined historically? Strategically, the Piedmontese won the battle of Cuneo because the Gallispans were forced to break off the Cuneo siege and cross back over the aps for winter. At least one of these four games was a draw. I would have to go back and check to make sure.
As a systems analyst you know that the historical result was but one data point out of many possible results. Was the historical result the most likely? Who knows? That is why we play the games.
Hope to see you back to discuss other battles and scenarios.
In tactical terms the historical result was a draw and when we play a game I'd argue that we come up with a tactical result. From my reading most horse and musket battles of roughly even forces meeting head on are draws, despite the history books concentrating on the few that aren't, but you are quite right that it is only one data point, but also the only real, as opposed to simulated, data point.
DeleteI shall certainly continue to read your contributions.
Thanks, Mark! You may want to look away for the next battle report at Bassignana since the Austro-Piedmontese overturn history.
Delete