Back in October of last year, I attended one of Georgetown University Wargame Society's ongoing lecture series. On tap for the October lecture was Robert W. Jones' talk on The Challenges and Pitfalls of an "Authentic" Medieval Wargame. Dr. Jones, the author of the Medieval wargame rules Blood and Horse Droppings, brought up a number of interesting topics and points to ponder when creating a set of Medieval rules. While I had planned on offering up a summary of the discussion much sooner, my motivation to re-address the presentation was triggered by a challenge to bring my yet unblooded Wars of the Roses collection to the gaming table. With what I want in a Medieval wargame and rules of engagement still in the formative stage, I returned to my notes from Dr. Jones' presentation for inspiration and clarity.
Given the title of the talk, I was not surprised or disappointed in seeing Dr. Jones present a list of challenges and pitfalls to designing a Medieval wargame and how to address those challenges in game design. The central theme of the lecture should not be foreign to any wargame designer. That theme focused on the tug-of-war between playability and historical simulation. Let's briefly reconsider the salient points on what Dr. Jones had to say on the topic of Medieval wargame challenges.
Medieval wargaming, like Ancients wargaming, often encompasses large chronological periods. Medieval rules can cover nearly a millennium of military history from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Great Italian Wars. Universal rules, using a common game engine, tend to categorize troops according to common criteria across several periods. Players use the same mechanisms and nomenclature regardless of historical context. Standardization allows players to switch between periods more readily but at the loss historical specificity over convenience and playability.
Having such breadth in Medieval rules suggests a lack of understanding regarding the technological and tactical evolution present throughout the period. There is no equivalent descriptive label such as "Horse & Musket" or "Pike & Shot" to describe Medieval warfare's dominant military technologies.The limited and unreliable historical sources available pose problems as well. Medieval chronicles lack tactical detail, exaggerate numbers, and prioritize political or religious narratives over complete and accurate battle accounting. Administrative records focus on logistics, not battlefield behavior. Troop types often reflect national myths ("rash" French knights or "unstoppable" English archers) rather than historical nuance. Rules often impose 18th/19th-century concepts such as drilled units or hierarchical command onto Medieval armies. Medieval armies often lacked standardized training and the leadership structure was primarily flat.
Finally, the most significant challenge for medieval wargaming is that historically accurate Medieval battles make for tedious games. Medieval battles were static and chaotic by modern standards, making them less "fun" as games. The limited command and control, lack of tactical flexibility, and inability to disengage and redeploy units means Medieval battles involve minimal maneuver once lines are engaged. Commanders had few tactical decisions once battle was joined since they were often fighting in the front lines. An historically accurate simulation would essentially line up armies, advance to contact, and watch the clash unfold with little player input.
Are these foreseen challenges to designing a Medieval ruleset correct? Are there other considerations? Do answers to these challenges depend upon level of abstraction modeled or the player’s role in the game? Is designing/developing a "fun" set of Medieval rules even possible given these constraints? Many reckon it is including Dr. Jones!
With the challenges as seen through Dr. Jones' eyes laid out, next I consider solutions and rules. Something to dive into another time.
The continuum between game and simulation (and all that involves). Thought provoking stuff.
ReplyDeleteIt seems always a trade-off, doesn't it?
DeleteJonathan. A thought provoking topic. Just downloaded the rules and they look very interesting. Thanks for posting the link.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome, MJT!
DeleteI'll follow this with interest Jonathan. All good stuff.
ReplyDeleteExcellent!
DeleteJonathan, I'd argue all of that applies to ALL wargames rules, not just medieval......
ReplyDeleteThere will always be interactive dilemma between "simulation" and " game"; I use "simulation" rather than "realism" as pushing toy soldiers around is unconnected with the unpleasant business of real life conflict.
The choice of balance between the two has been around since recreational wargames began, and represent the designer's choice. Both extremes fall down IMHO as dull and predictable or random and unrealistic, so the simulation of France 1940 where the Germans almost always win (because they did in real life) is as unsatisfying as a Nappy game where one side fails to move all game and the other moves, stops and runs away simply due the influence of dice....
In my opinion, you have to construct rules that not only give the "right" result most of the time, but are also " fun" to play. Satisfying those criteria are frequently down to personal choice....
Neil
Thanks for your feedback, Neil. Yes, there is always a trade-off between playability and simulation no matter the period or rules. Getting that balance right relies a lot on personal choice.
DeleteQuite a challenge to write an "authentic" rule set, no matter what the period. As I'm more of a painter than a gamer, I do prefer simple, fast-play rules when I do game - much to chagrin to some of my buddies who like the opposite sometimes.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dean! You seem to fall primarily toward the "game" end of the spectrum.
DeleteVery interesting Jon, I think medieval battles are akin to many dark age and potentially Ancient Greek battles. In essence it comes down to groups/blocks of men pushing and striking against each other until one sides morale cracks and then turn and run. Fighting for much of this period wasn’t ‘fancy’ tactics. Our rules of choice for all three of these periods is now Kings of War Historical, which in my view provide that rather unglamorous slugfest of infantry battles. Skirmishers are an annoyance rather than decisive. The key we have found is to have quite a lot of troops on each side otherwise the game can be very static. Three large blocks on each side would be a real challenge to make into a ‘fun’ battle ? Interesting to see where you go with this ?
ReplyDeleteYou summarize gaming the period quite well. Having only three large blocks of troops in each army to fight it out over the table is a challenge. I have a number of rules for the period. It will be interesting to see in which direction I go.
DeleteInteresting read Jon, I don't game medieval but can see the problems in getting a good rule set to get an accurate game but as always it can be a trade off between accuracy and getting a rule set to work, looking forward to seeing how this works out.
ReplyDeleteGlad you found this topic of interests, Donnie. I wonder how this all works out too!
DeleteCurrently using billhooks, which does create more of an interesting battle than you’d expect.
ReplyDeleteI have a copy of Billhooks around somewhere. I ought to pull it out and see what it offers.
DeleteA very interesting post Jonathan. Certainly my experience over the years with medieval wargames has been of the "line them up and move to contact" type. Entertaining but not often very challenging. But then medieval battlefield communication, technology and period prejudices and rights all, perhaps, limited tactical finesse. I remember reading some War of the Roses rules in a very old and forgotten issue of Wargames Illustrated where the author described late medieval battles as scrums where everyone just piled in and wrote his rules as such. Is this right? I don't know. I look forward to your next instalment.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Richard. You will likely get to experience my impression of translating Medieval combat to the table soon. Hopefully, the game will provide you with enough challenge and some entertainment.
DeleteDoes "entertaining but not often very challenging" fit into the mold of Lee's recent Bosworth games?
Quite a challenge. It will be interesting to see how you build a “medieval flavour” into the rules you come up with.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see what develops, indeed!
DeleteI agree with the line them up and roll forward description. Knights are not particularly maneuverable under DBMM so just tend to roll forwards. Where troops are initially deployed seems to decide many of our games from the outset.
ReplyDeleteSo, how do you impart some excitement, drama, challenge, and nuance into a Medieval game?
DeleteNot to anticipate your next post, but I should think that in medieval gaming, the deployment would be paramount: what troops are where, and where are your command "nodes" (and how many). After that, the scrum starts, but then there would be some limited capability of command "node" to either enhance unit combat, help them sustain losses better, or allow some form of reaction, disengagement, or maneuver.
DeleteOnce the fighting starts, I agree that the leader may be unable to be everywhere and see everything at once. I lean toward the notion that a leader may have some influence on one of the three (or four) lines in his Battle. Deployment is tricky when armies tended to array in their three Battles of Left, Center and Right with the enemy often squared off opposite.
DeleteI quite like the DBMM approach. It can feel a little geometric at times and the rules are notoriously difficult to read in places, but in a 500 point per side game armies are normally organised into three commands. It is possible to have more than three, but that soaks up additional command points while two provides less flexibility in terms of one less command dice.
DeleteDeployment consists of writing down where these commands are relative to each other, rather than in relation to the terrain. The defender deploys first and the attacker can then deploy, so there is some flexibility for the attacker in being able to slide units along the face of the enemy although you must retain the relativity between commands and have to be careful putting troops up against terrain which is difficult for their type.
Commanders in combat receive an additional factor, and if they destroy the element in front then the friendly element either side receives an additional factor. However, units whose commanders are engaged in combat must expend an additional initiative point to move. If the armies are roughly evenly matched this usually makes for a good game over three to four hours with plenty of excitement and nuance.
Lawrence, thank you for providing an enlightening recap of how DBMM handles these complexities. This lecture also highlighted the importance of pre-battle activities to set the stage as you show DBMM does similarly.
DeleteI would agree that the deployment is key. Once deployed the lack of unit discipline, organisation, command and control and proximity mean the facing blocks/Battles must face off against each other.
DeleteYes, we all seem to agree with the basic premise, Jon. Frederick Forsyth put it quite well in his narration of the BBC series "Soldiers" ....For two thousand years, although battles involved thousands of men, they were basically a series of individual fights, with damage limited to the reach of a man's sword arm.
ReplyDeleteI do find a lot of Ancient and Medieval games exactly as described, but they ARE reasonable simulations, to use Neil's distinction...and I agree it's not much fun playing early war Poles or French.... or late war Germans, if the other side has all the advantages they had in reality....same can apply in most periods, I imagine....how many times do the Austrians ever win in the 18th or 19th centuries?!
Well, at least in the WotR, I expect combatants to be more or less equal in combat effectiveness and weaponry. On my table, Austrians often win 18th and 19th Century battles especially when I am commanding their adversaries!
DeleteInteresting as always Jonathan. As someone who is happy gaming rather than simulating I will happily swap out "Authentic" and replace it with "Hollywood". 😁
ReplyDeleteNonetheless I always find these topics fascinating as even though I would not play the rules the concepts used to create or add authenticity are interesting.
Thank you, Ben! If "Authentic" does not work, we can always fall back to "Hollywood", right?
DeleteAbsolutely!
DeleteEarly on, ( late 1960's ) I was told you couldn't write rules for armies that had Knights, no one would play them . Watching over the years of new rules, I would agree. Not that you might not want to act like a medieval knight pushing his peasants, I mean retinue, it just wouldn't be very heroic. Line em up and join where leadership is needed and hope for a good roll of the dice.
ReplyDeleteJoe, you paint a bleak picture for designing a Medieval wargame. How do we change that stereotype?
DeleteI am not suggesting we change away from the picture painted. Consider no marching in step means no close order drill. Literally by hand, one by one. Lacking drill, change in facing or to another formation would require leaders to physically move troops .
DeleteNo game will be fun and
reflect the world of the levy. Anything that has been done in the 700 years of practical experience or theory to change the brutally simple scheme of tactics simply doesn't exist. Gamers are not going to try the game that makes it difficult/impossible to do things they " know" would work. Clever mechanics will cover certain aspects of movement or melee but the effect is not a game of Medieval Warfare most
,would play.
With so many restrictions and constraints on what can’t be done and slim chance for fun, why fight Medieval battles at all? I think I’m losing interest already…
DeleteThought provoking stuff . Thanks for the link to Dr Jones’s rules and other info, most interesting. Lots to think about …
ReplyDeleteAlan Tradgardland
You are welcome, Alan! Report back on your impressions of Dr. Jones’ rules.
DeleteFor the medieval game, part of our problem is that there is as much that we don’t know as there is that we do know about tactics.
ReplyDeleteObviously what you have and where you arrive on the battlefield with it, is important in terms of overall opening advantage, so the pre-battle march is important and interesting, but most commonly in wargames this is ignored and we begin the game in battlefield positions.
So who gets the advantageous ground, who gets the wind behind them (Towton), who can place themselves so that their allegiance is not clear and they could join either side (the Stanleys at Bosworth). But accepting that we generally lose that, we typically end up with 3 to 4 blocks on the table with their various descriptions … centre / wings / reserve/ vanward / forward / rearward etc.
The question becomes how do we handle those blocks so that they have an identity and bring a fun and nuanced game each time on the table. If we take the Wars of the Roses as an example, we don’t really know whether weapon types were separated out into separate independent bodies such as archers to the front under a singular command and dismounted men-at-arms fighting as the core or whether contingents of mixed arms fought together under their natural local commander i.e. their Lord / captain / sergeant / knight etc and their life long buddies beside them.
I have the boardgame series Men of Iron by GMT and that goes for units fighting by type i.e. archers, infantry, levy infantry and dismounted men-at-arms etc. They fight within the command span of the ‘block’ leader and their weapon type establishes a fighting modifier using a matrix, such as M.A.A. against archers get a +2 etc. So you get the nuance of the unit, but it is by type.
For figure games, I am presently sitting with Hail Caesar by Warlord Game. The second edition has a new section covering Wars of the Roses and their approach is to also highlight individual contingents within the ‘block’, but these rules have moved towards weighting the army lists towards those contingents being mixed arms, such as bill/bow in the same unit, so the unit has a missile capability and a close combat capability.
What seems essential to both approaches is that there is the flexibility for the units within the block to do their own thing albeit within a command range of the block and losses to the units feed in to the overall morale / stability of the block itself, which will break up and run once the enough single units start taking too many casualties.
It gives us interesting games in what are essentially ‘line them up against each other’ type battles and you can have some units working their way through hedges or advancing through back gardens (St. Albans), but whether this in reality is giving the block too much flexibility is the area that we simply can’t be sure about ….. but we do want a good game :-)
I tend to view most wargames simply as ‘themed’. The stronger the theming the better (for me), but at the end of the day I can accept game play and enjoyment at the table as being the prime reason (for me) to do this stuff.
Looking forward to your Part Two.
Very good, Norm, and welcome back!
DeleteDr. Jones brings up the importance of per-battle activities as well. Once the armies come to grips, each game designer must make choices on how to approach modeling and resolving conflict. Did the Battles/Wards fight in homogeneous lines or intermixed. Some designers choose the former (like GMT's Men at Arms) while others stick to the latter (DR. Jones' rules). Whatever the path taken, the result must offer interesting decision points with a dash of fun.
As for "themed" games, if the theme is strong enough such that I learn something about the period and the game produces an interesting narrative, that is enough for me.
A great post Jon and with plenty of excellent comments, so not sure what I can add to the above, bit I'll give it a go:
ReplyDelete- The paucity of reliable information as outlined in your post makes everything there after a 'best guess' I would venture to argue. I remember Bernard Cornwell at the end of his first Warlord Chronicles novel saying that we simply do not know for how long actual battles lasted once the fighting began. Even with training, a man cannot keep swinging his weapon indefinitely!
- C&C is always a challenge for this period, again due to the fact we do not know how leaders acted, other than probably being in the thick of it. IIRC Henry V was relatively detached at Agincourt and so able to sort of see what was happening, sending in his son (?) with retainers at a crucial point in the battle.
- A year or so ago I read a good history of the WotR and was surprised at how few 'big battles' there were. It seems like the preceding 100 Years War period that it was lots of local conflicts on a small scale, to much more suited to 'Never Mind The Billhooks' type games.
- Making an Ancients or Medieval game historically accurate, interesting, playable and fun is always going to be a challenge. There needs to be a trade off between all of these, with my personal preference being the fun side coming out on top!
- Norm makes a good point about the pre-battle part being an important consideration, whether it be for this period or others. Ditto the St Albans type game which to my mind is more challenging and fun.
- Finally Jonathan Sumption in his superb 100 Years War books makes the point many a time that aside from the few large battles of the period, most of the action was about land grabbing or taking hostages, which became the main 'business' of the Lords etc who were involved.
Steve! You add plenty! All of your bullet points are important considerations whether designing and developing a set of rules or playing a game.
DeleteI forgot to add that when Dan Mersey's Dux Bellorum rules first came out, we got all excited, painted up our armies and then started playing. Our interest very quickly waned as they were simply not fun, but a dice rolling fest to see who would break first. Historically plausible yes, fun no:(. No fault of the rules but possibly a reflection of the types of battles themselves?
DeleteExactly as I expected and have seen time and time again at new rules’ launch. Will Midgard follow a similar path?
DeleteWell I bought a copy of Midgard and other than a very cursory flcik through, have actually yet to read it! Maybe it will go the way of Dux Bellorum and many other rulesets that have had their 5 minutes of fame in the glossy magazines...
DeleteTime will tell but that is the way I would place my bet.
DeleteCan I suggest the following solution?
ReplyDelete1. Set up the terrain.
2. Set up the two armies already in contact.
3. Take lots of photos.
4. Go and have a leisurely breakfast or lunch
5. Toss a coin to decide who won while you were away
6. Pack up well satisfied that the troops had got on the table
7. Write up a brief history of your personal brave exploits with the proof in the pictures you took.
Stephen
Well, the breakfast/lunch may be satisfying and fulfilling but I am not sure the game would be! Good suggestion, though. I have done similarly before with hex-and-counter wargames. After spending all of the time setting up, I can run out of enthusiasm to actually move the pieces on the map.
DeleteDarn, some of my best games used those rules!
DeleteJoe, you’re funny!
DeleteSteve J is, I believe, thinking of Edward III at Crecy, rather than Henry V at Agincourt. The latter was very much in the fighting, having part of the crown on his helmet cut away in the melee.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested to see which direction you take Jon. While there is an authenticity to the big blocks of men hacking away at each other, this is partly an artefact of limited detailed description of combat in WotR battles. Battles like Blore Heath or Tewksbury suggest some variation was possible.
One of the interesting balancing acts will be what you do with the masses of longbowmen available. Too effective and they dominate, too weak and they are pointless.
Thanks, Anthony! Yes, seeing in which direction I forge may be of interest to some. Point noted on longbowmen effectiveness. It is a fine balancing act, indeed.
DeleteThanks for correcting my horrendous medieval historical faux pas Anthony!
DeleteAnthony is The Oracle for all things Medieval.
DeleteA very interesting exercise. A missing element is the crisis of command, such as William needing to convince his army he is not dead at Hastings, or Henry making the decision to execute the prisoners at Agincourt. There are obvious pauses in most battles. Troops still fight in waves, not exclusively in a pair of Battles fighting in one giant scrum. When it comes to war people are really good at it, always finding new innovations.
ReplyDeleteGames are about decision points, so finding the interesting ones is the games key. My own approach to command and control, generally what we are modeling, is resource management, this being you always want to do more than you can. Concept like do I motivate my troops to fight better offensively, defensively, rally them to retain organization, or inspired them to stay in the fight and not run away? Do I get to make one or two choices and which are the best to use?
Very much looking forward to seeing where you go with this, and also to seeing your figures on the table.
Glad you found this interesting!
DeleteC&C is an important aspect of most battles but as Dr. Jones points out, once battle begins, C&C is difficult due to the nature of combat. I agree that C&C and resource management are important to include in a wargame. How one does this is the trick. I favor offering players a number of meaningful decision points throughout the game. Without choices, the game can become boring, a chore, and an exercise in throwing dice.
Thanks for your feedback!
While agreeing C&C in medieval warfare was pretty basic, there were points where it came into play, particularly if you consider actions potentially being sub-divided. For example, the commitment of divisions and the timing thereof.
DeleteAnother related point was personal leadership. In the WotR, armies depended a lot on seeing their leaders front and centre, not skulking at the rear where they could easily do a runner. It was expected that a commander would be brave and physically capable. The English seemed to think a real commander should be in the thick of the press, laying about him with a pollaxe, for example.
Anthony, I agree that commanders were typically in the front lines leading the fight. No standing back and directing battle from afar.
DeleteThe difficulty to reflect the Medieval warfare correctly on the table made me to not start the period on the table top. On one side from the earlier centuries of the Medieval timeperiod we have little information about the events of the battle itself. Sources are difficult to handle - sometimes it's better to use very old simplifying books. On top we have a very complicated use of troops until the second halve of the 14th century. I normaly supposed that in the 13th century for example the armies were a mix of infantry and horse with heavy cavalry in small numbers. Meanwhile I heard some experts about the period, reenactors and historians as well. Their impression is, that the infantry in most battles played no role at all. The foot followed the army but the cavalry fought alone - which made the troops from towns such as Vienna to be just spectators. They had a crucial role for sieges, but no role for open field battles but stayed in their camps. Some books made me confused because of the "Heerschildordnung". That means that the lords and their subcommanders stood one behind the other followed by their subjects. I thought that we had a first line of the most important persons, a second of common knights etc. and behind them the peasants and all which were called to arms lined up by their status in the Medieval society. But it seems that this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteGreat blogpost by the way.
Very interesting thoughts, André! You make a good point making a decision to start or not start a period. I wonder how many, having started a period, later decide that the period or rules are just not for them? For me? I rarely find a period I do not want to field on the table.
DeleteIf I revisited my abandoned WotR project in favour of the early Italian Wars I would probably go for Midgard rules as a starting point for smaller scale actions.
ReplyDeleteMidgard has certainly garnered a lot of attention. Why did you abandon your WotR project?
DeleteCombination of painting virtually two mirrored forces combined with them both facing each other on the table I imagined pretty samey games.
DeletePretty samey gamey…you may be right.
DeleteI do believe that Medieval (and Ancients, but Medieval is way cooler) games have a unique challenge and is one that I struggle with. Well struggle is not the right word because it's not hard, but I've said before that I've never been really happy with any rules I've used for my big Dark Ages armies. Hail Casaer is alright, but I don't love it. It works fine but there not a lot of choices to make. And it's making choices that makes games fun.
ReplyDeleteI think its easier to insert choices into other games / genres.
I have had great fun using Basic Impetvs, Commands & Colors, and To The Strongest for Ancients. Actually Basic Impetvs worked well for Reconquista battles too. Perhaps giving these rules a try with WotR battles might work? Games need decision points to introduce both challenge and fun.
DeleteThis is a very interesting and thought provoking topic.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason skirmish scale games become more popular is because of the difficulties you describe above. For example - were I to start a Medieval project, I'd probably use the Lion Rampant or The Baron's War rules sets.
(Makes the prospect of painting a skirmish-sized force more palatable too)
Good! Happy you approve!
DeleteBesides the reduced painting required with skirmish games, perhaps, there is more dynamism in refighting smaller sized Medieval battles? For me, skirmish rules like LR offer similar feelings of sameness as fighting larger battles with blocks of troops.
Always problematic, not matter the period, but particularly with this one. I remember following along with “The Rather Large Towton Project” back in 2011, and the disappointment some felt that it ended up looking like two large blobs colliding on the board. I painted up a rather sizable collection of 6mm WOTR during that time period that never really hit the table, as I couldn’t find any rules that inspired me. I was hoping for some inspiration from Command & Colours: Medieval when it was released, but that took the somewhat controversial decision to focus on the Byzantine wars with the Sassanids. I believe there is a Crusades version forthcoming, so it may be worth a re-visit.
ReplyDeleteI tend to favor the C&C approach now as it provides enough abstraction to maintain an enjoyable and engaging game. The majority of the successful attempts I have seen for this time period tend to focus on skirmish level gaming as it is more dynamic in terms of play.
Jake! Long time, no hear!
DeleteI agree with you on CC: Medieval. I reckon starting off with Byzantines was a mistake. That has been corrected in Crusades but is it too late given that Medieval must be owned to play Crusades?
The stable of Commands & Colors games offers a n easy entry into wargaming. Putting figures on the table to replace the blocks makes the game even better. I have had many, many great games playing CCA especially whether using Scott's 28mm Ancients or my 6mm Ancients. CCA always provides an entertaining game. Fast too!
With large 6mm WotR armies languishing in their storage boxes, have you given much thought on creating enjoyable and "authentic" rules to bring these armies back to the table?
I've tried, but often they fall into the same issue of the "boring blob" for me. I just like C&C as it incorporates the command and control issues into the game which is where I think it works best. it is less a simulation, but a more dynamic and enjoyable experience for me.
DeleteI am suffering similar writer's block with my SYW collection. I want to capture the unique feel for Pike& Shotte in the era, and find a way to reflect the tactical differences between the 3 element Swedish brigades and the more monolithic Tercio blocks. What troubles me is the tendency to treat these units as combined arms formations, while similar formations (Japanese Sengoku Jidai era, or the later Wars of Religion) have Pike, Missiles and Mixed Infantry acting as discrete and independent units.
Getting back to the issue you raised in this post, I guess the key is to figure out what aspect you want to model. I see this period as the transition from the more personal leadership of the 9-14th century and the organizational leadership of the later periods. Part of reflecting that may be using scenarios where you start with uneven forces and/or pre-determined deployments that the player needs to fight through. Most of my wargaming is of the solo variety so I tend to focus on creating tactical dilemmas to work out with a fairly simple mechanism to guide the OPFOR.
Figuring out exactly at what level you want to model combat is definitely a prime consideration. Once that piece is in place, hopefully, the remaining pieces fall into place.
DeleteI have seen at least one Feudal Japan ruleset that treats the combat model much like that seen in the WotR. That is, a Battle or "blob" with troops with mixed weapon type all within the same formation. Since Basic Impetvs seems to work well (for me, at least), maybe I should consider the BI model for WotR battles? Presently, I am leaning toward a different combat model similar to what you have seen in our ECW games.
I'm very interested in what you come up with and decide to do, Jon. I've played loads of Medieval games and Dark Age games, most are just line them up and attack, and hope for the best.
ReplyDeleteExcellent! A volunteer?
DeleteTop post (comme d'habitude) and resulting discussion Jon. Despite my total lack of interest, I read it all and the majority of the comments. Lots of men (and a few women) with poor personal hygiene lining up to hit one another with pointed sticks is the reason that I am not enticed by European mediaeval. To me that is good as we *need* periods that we *do not* do. It's beaut to see other people's figures and games though, and I know already that I will enjoy yours (unless you have been put off by the discussion?).
ReplyDeleteI was gonna say how lucky you are to have something like the Georgetown University Wargaming Society close by, but then I saw that it is the wrong Washington! I presume that you 'attended' the lecture on line? I see that they have an 'ammunition belt' of videos available to watch. Beaut, they can be incorporated into my paintertainment.
All the best with the pointed sticks, James
I forgot: Robert Jones' website, what a bloody ripper. It is a shame that he is only into European mediaeval, hahaha!
DeleteJames, you show great determination to wade through both post and commentary having no interest in the topic. Congratulations and thank you!
DeleteYes the GU Wargaming Society is across the country in the other Washington 3,000 miles away. Most lectures are posted to YouTube after the fact. There are some good ones in the back catalog.
As other's have pointed out, there is much that is 'universal' in the discussion.
DeleteAbsorbing post - I'll watch out for further developments. I have had an interesting growing experience over the last few years. I spent much of lockdown developing a set of "playable" Louis XIV-period rules from scratch, and one prime objective was to capture the tactical and manoeuvre challenges which were key to battlefields of the times. A lot of friends very kindly gave me prompts along the lines of "it's important that you give due weight in the rules to this [or that or the other]", and I had a great time pondering things and doing background reading.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the experience, and eventually produced a game which sort of worked, but it was tedious, man. Tedious. War is Hell. I did a quick calculation of loss vs profit and started again with a game derived from Commands & Colors, which has been vastly more enjoyable. The time-and-motion approach is obviously scientifically interesting, but I fear my brain is getting too old, and I tend to forget why I started this.
Thank you, Tony! Good to see you put the spade in your gardening work to read and weigh in here.
DeleteCommands & Colors has much to offer and provides a smooth and slick game engine. Card play is challenging in remote gaming but you have tackled that issue admirably.
You sell yourself short! Just like Commands & Colors, your old brain still has much to offer. Don’t give up yet!
Last night I dug out Feathersone's Wargames Through The Ages book that covers the WotR, just to see what he said. Admittedly a very old book now, but many salient points that need to be considered, such as treachery, limited ability to manouevre, even pre-battle and the fact that the common mad was spared, the noble killed.
ReplyDeleteSo whilst the period is without doubt very attractive and a la mode at present, at what scale does a game become interesting enough for the gamers to engage in? After all if you play the period, I would venture there is not much for the gamer, other than a dice rolling exercise, unless you go small scale as per Billhooks of Lion Rampant and play it as part of a campaign. Norm Smith's excellent Piggy Longton Chronicles naturally spring to mind.
Steve, it is good practice to go back and re-read the old classics. I did the same with my copy of Featherstone. Many of the points that Jones surfaces comes up in Featherstone as well. As for treachery, I lean toward a small possibility of switching sides and when fighting historical battles limit this trait only to certain historical figures. Too frequent, treachery would frustrate players and likely ruin the game. Still, having a small possibility provides some drama and tension. Skirmishes and small actions don’t interest me as much as larger battles especially since an entire battle is often composed of three or four wards at most.
DeleteThanks again for your continued input!
Treachery is an interesting one for WotR games and can be overdone. Actual battlefield treachery was rare but fear of it was pervasive. How best to capture that without it becoming dominant is a challenge.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, see my response to Steve above. I agree with you completely!
DeleteInteresting talk and yes its an old issue. For me still the best balance I've seen is still the DBMM/ADLG systems from the broad DBX family of games. You end up with a centre and two wings, which crash into each other as you commit them. Yes you can lead smaller detachments on the odd useful maneuver (e.g. some light troops to contest some terrain, or redirecting a reserve of cavalry etc), but in general to get best results you still need to have a cohesive line and simple solid plan of attack. You need to outclass and outlast the enemy in the scrum somehow in more places than they do, based upon your deployment and the limited maneuver possible as you advance. Once lines hit generals are mainly there to inspire and join the scrum, and help with breakthroughs and their exploitation if they can.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post, and comments Jon. I can’t add much - not my field and most of what I’d say has already been said. However, something which has always stuck with me (albeit early Medieval) appeared in WI or MW many years ago. The Dark Age Infantry Slog System. That concentrated on things like how the leader keeps his lads geed up, and keeps the integrity of the shield wall.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing as Hoplomachia by the Perfect Captain (too complex in my opinion) but again concentrates on what they think leaders of the period had to think about. Obviously WotR is different, but using that type of philosophy would be my starting point.
I read the Jones rules (again v thought provoking). Have you tried them?
Chris/Nundanket