Friday, March 21, 2025

Trial by Fire (and Melee)

After writing about my take-aways from Dr. Jones' presentation on The Challenges and Pitfalls of an "Authentic" Medieval Wargame and the robust commentary that the post generated, I wondered why I began my Wars of the Roses (WotR) project in the first place.  With the compelling challenges laid before me, did I second guess my decision a little bit?  I did.  While the period may offer challenges and pitfalls to the wargamer, Medieval combat offers a style of combat not seen in exactly the same form in other periods.  Besides, I enjoyed building up moderately-sized armies of Perry's handsome 28mm plastic figures.  Despite any reservations and with armies already built, it would be a shame to scrap the project without even giving the period a reasonable effort.
Armies arrayed for battle.
With that, I created a (hopefully) working version of rules to put to the test.  Given the reservations brought up in the discussion in the link above, I wanted to see if the period could be gamed with enough decision points to make for interesting and challenging contests.  Richard (My Wargaming Habit) graciously accepted an invitation to put the rules through the paces in a first trial run.  Richard has posted a battle account of our test game and offered his First Impressions.  Richard's account is a good one.  I recommend visiting his blog to check out his thoughts on the game.  I appreciate Richard's feedback and insights.  Our post-game discussion will filter its way back into my thought process for consideration and possible rules' amendments.
 

In this trial run, each army comprised three equal Battles/Wards but leadership was variable.  Before the battle began, we rolled for leader attributes for each command.  Richard chose to command the Yorkists (red dice).  Richard's Yorkists wound up having Inspiring, Brave, and Cautious commanders.  My Lancastrians (blue dice) ended up with Inspiring, Brave, and Timid commanders.
Battle deployment
Let's see how the battle played out.

The Yorkists begin battle all on Reserve orders.  As the Lancastrians advance, the Yorkists hurriedly change orders to meet the Lancastrians.  After an exchange of arrows from the longbowmen, the Yorkist Right attacks.  Passing through their own bowmen, the Yorkists push forward.  The Lancastrian bowmen, now opposite a thick body of enemy, fail to stand in the face of such imposing might.  They fall back behind their melee lines.
After an archery duel, the Yorkist right advances...
and the Lancastrians are pushed back.
The Yorkist melee line crashes into the Lancastrian melee line in close combat.  Lancastrians are driven back with loss, uncovering their own bowmen.  Caught a second time, the bowmen are forced back again.  Stopping their pursuit, the Yorkists hold firm control over the enemy's left having pushed the enemy back quite a distance.
In pursuit, Lancastrian archers fall back
 in the face of the enemy. 
In the middle of the battle lines, the Yorkist Center Battle wins the archery exchange.  Lancastrian archers are compelled to retire behind their melee line.  Without hesitation, the Yorkist commander leads his melee line of MAA and bill through his archers and into the enemy.  Fighting is vicious and many men fall.  Still, the fighting continues until the Lancastrians can take no more.  The Lancastrians fall back but the Yorkists do not pursue.

While the Lancastrian Center is being driven back, an extended archery duel opens on the Lancastrian Right.  With casualties mounting in both bodies of archers, a point quickly comes where Yorkist bowmen have had enough.  They withdraw back through their melee lines. 
Clash of MAA in the center.
Lancastrian Center falls back
 as an archery duel on the right begins.
Current state of the armies.
Now the time has come for the two melee lines to close.  In the initial clash, losses are heavy to both but the Lancastrians are the ones to fall back.  Seems the Lancastrians are being pushed back all across the battlefield!  After a brief respite to regroup, the Lancastrian Right advances back into the fray.  Again, the Lancastrians recoil with the Yorkists in hot pursuit.  The Lancastrian body of MAA breaks for the rear leaving the billmen isolated.  The body of Lancastrian bill holds its ground putting up a terrible fight.  The Yorkist MAA are destroyed before the Lancastrians fall back.  
Melee lines clash in the center...
and on the right.
The Lancastrians fall back.
Lancastrian MAA fall back after suffering heavily.
Lancastrian billmen stand alone.
The Yorkists do not let up.  Forward they come on again.  This time, the Yorkist Left pushes the archers forward to attack the Lancastrian bow.  Discarding their bows, the archers struggle for supremacy.  Finally, the Lancastrians gain the upper hand and the Yorkist archers scatter.  The Yorkist Left breaks!
Yorkist archers attack in an attempt to destroy the enemy.
Yorkist Left Breaks!
Back in the center of the battlefield, the Yorkist melee line goes in against enemy archers positioned in the front line.  Having taken heavy losses earlier, Lancastrian bowmen are trampled.  The bowmen rout but the fatigued Yorkists do not pursue.
Lancastrian archers vanish in the center.
With the Lancastrian Army pushed nearly off the battlefield on both wings and army cohesion showing great stress, the Lancastrian Left attacks!  Fortunately, the Yorkist Right has been roughly handled as well.  In the initial clash, the Yorkist Right loses its lead melee line of MAA.  In a follow-on attack, the Yorkists lose the billmen as well.  The Yorkist Right breaks!  As the Right breaks away from combat and with the Left already broken and disengaging, this battle is over.  The Lancastrians pull off an unexpected victory!  
Lancastrian Left goes in again!
Breaking the Yorkist Right!
Now, looking at the battlefield once the dust settles, we see just how close the Lancastrian Army was to breaking itself.  Had two of the three Lancastrian Wings taken only one hit more, the Lancastrian Army would be the army retreating from the field.
Lancastrians on the verge of collapse.
Wow!  This was a tight game that I figured the Lancastrians were going to lose after seeing initial Yorkist successes everywhere.

Richard's Yorkist Army pushed my Lancastrians around like they had no weight.  With heavy fighting, each encounter weakened us both.  At the end, both armies were teetering on the brink.  Luckily, my Lancastrians managed to get in the final and decisive blow to send the Yorkists reeling.

That was really tense and exciting fun.  Thanks to Richard for his thoughtful play and helpful suggestions along the way.  Game took about two-and-a-half hours with discussion throughout.

Did this feel like a Medieval battle?  Did the rules achieve my goals set out?  I will save those thoughts for a follow up retrospective on the rules, themselves, and the lessons learned from this initial trial by fire.  Foremost, the rules survived First Contact, and I enjoyed the game.  Another test is on deck for next week.

39 comments:

  1. I enjoyed Dr Jones' talk immensely too. Of systems I've played recently for WotR the one that has had the best "feel" has been Andrew Naylor's "Blood Red Roses", now published by the Society of Ancients.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recently swapped Adrian two copies of his BRR for a copy of Maurice and card decks.

      Delete
  2. Interesting first results Jon. An effect quite like Adrian Naylor's rules but with a less formal zoning system, I thought. I think the risk here is just to model a fog-free Barnet. Despite our woeful lack of sources, we do know that other things happened that could make for a more challenging game. For example, late troop arrivals, or use of field fortifications. But I'm sure such things are in your test schedule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is "interesting" good or not so good?

      Yes, this first trial was simply a "line up and let him go" fight to see how the parts interact without a lot of nuance or differentiation between Battle composition. There are also a number of tactical and leadership decisions to make within each battle that Adrian abstracts. While abstraction is good for this level of battle, some decisions need to be explicitly brought into the model to keep players engaged. No specific card decks needed either. I should give Adrian's rules a go but for remote games, the card decks present some obstacles.

      Delete
  3. I'll leave discussions of authenticty to others, but it certainly looked to be an exciting game! And of course the armies are very colourful in this period, which is good in itself..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, David! Pretty armies can mask a number of imperfections.

      Delete
  4. Great report Jonathan of a thoroughly enjoyable game. I would agree with what Anthony writes but feel that these are scenario writing issues. Rules can be good, but the scenario makes for a great game in which the rules can operate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Richard! I agree that much of the nuance and distinction in a game is designed and developed in the scenario briefing.

      Delete
    2. Agreed, Richard. Scenarios are important if you are going to do refights and I know Jon favours these. However, you do need to have left the space in the design to bring those out, which Jon will do, 'cos he's quite good at rules tinkering (before you ask Jon, the "quite" there is British understatement ) . I think they will also make for more fun decisions for Jon's play testers (again, a key element of Freitagian rules philosophy).

      Delete
    3. “Freitagian rules philosophy”; I like that.

      Delete
  5. Seems you and Richard gave the rules a thorough testing. It certainly had the feel of a medieval encounter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For what this scenario offered, we put the rules through a solid exercise.

      Delete
  6. A good start for your rule set and they certainly worked well by the look of it, nice looking miniatures on show as well. Looking forward to seeing more of your playtesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Donnie! There might be something useful herein. I will expand the audience and collect feedback.

      Delete
  7. Everything seemed to work well and provided an exciting game so mission accomplished on your initial aim I would say Jon. I did wonder about Richard's decision to attack with his archers near the end of the game....would he not have been better to use them as missile troops at that point....or do you rules include limited arrows??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much appreciated, Keith! The rules produced an interesting fight. Richard’s archers were quite worn down as were mine. Getting a hit from a weak volley of arrows seemed less productive than going in with about a 50/50 chance of driving Lancastrian archers off in close combat. You pay your money and take your chances.

      Delete
    2. Fair enough....so as hits mount on the archers, their offensive capabilities are reduced, have I got that right?

      Delete
    3. That’s correct. As hits increase, combat effectiveness decreases.

      Delete
  8. A fine initial outing for the rules and toys, it appears to give a good impression of how one imagines these encounters would pan out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cracking looking game Jonathan and your rules seem to be working well for you.

    Christopher

    ReplyDelete
  10. After reading both accounts the thing that comes across is that it was an enjoyable game, and the pushing, shoving and grinding away seemed representative of the period. I'll look forward to your retrospective on the rules themselves, and any tweaks you are thinking of introducing as a result of this playtest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lawrence, this was a fun and useful first game. There will one tweak, for sure, possibly even one more. On balance, the game worked mostly as expected although I did not foresee coming away with a last minute victory.

      Delete
  11. The more you read about the battles the more daunting coming up with a rule set is. Many commercial sets seem to focus on skirmish and large skirmish games.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, the game certainly looks the part (all mini periods have their aesthetic attraction, and the high medieval of the War of the Roses certainly has that plus a certain "romance' value, what with knights in armor and the lore of the WOTR). And if the game "played" (ie, players were engaged) and was enjoyable, then you've arrived (the rest is mere detail).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate the endorsement and shot of encouragement!

      Delete
  13. Great looking game Jonathan and since you and Richard both had fun a successful set of rules.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A reversal of expectation is always "fun" especially if it goes in your favour. I appreciate the link to your friend's site and look forward to your further reflections.
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An unexpected reversal in your favor IS fun! Happy to see that you visited Richard’s blog. His battle reports and thoughts on Wargaming are always worth reading.

      Delete
  15. As leadership (cf generalship) seems to be such an important part of medieval battles I'm wondering whether you could pose a risk based challenge, ie a player could chose to expose a leader to more risk in the hope of giving the troops around him a boost as against the possible disaster if he is wounded/killed? It would be worth thinking then whether it is worth the risk at an early stage to 'get ahead of the game' or leave it until you need a 'come back' when the going is against you. With a number of leaders there are then real decisions that would influence the fighting. And in a campaign contexxt you need to keep leaders alive. Even if it's just the impact on a following linked game it would add to the the importance of making the decision ayt the right time. Years ago I took part in 3 WotR games in aone day (probably 4 or 5 hours). I was the Yorkist contender and ended up legging it from the first two games as my thought was that you can only try to gain the throne if you're still alive. Justified when I won the thrid game having killed the (obviously false) Lancastrian king! Deciding when a battle is lost and thus getting out it is then important. It'll be interesting to see where you go with this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian, thanks for your thoughts!

      Leadership and risk to leadership are accounted for and integrated into the rules in and abstract and (hopefully) reasonable way. Leaders may confer bonuses to units under their command but doing so increases their risk to harm. As for personal goals (say, desire to survive battle, personal glory, kill and opposing leader, etc.), those attributes are factored directly into leadership ratings as well as scenario specifics. In your example, with your desire to survive the battle, your commander may have been classified as "Timid" and unlikely to personally put himself at risk.

      Delete
  16. Another great looking game Jonathan!

    ReplyDelete