All is quiet on the battlefield of Montebello. In fact, the table has been dormant for the past two weeks with no activity at all. Well, besides figures and sorting projects piling up on it. That will soon change, though. Richard has agreed to a rematch from our earlier game (see No Duke of Montebello). For the next episode, we will swap sides and refight the battle from a different perspective.
 |
| Birdseye view of battlefield. |
Looking back at the battle report linked above, the game offered a tense battle as the French Army under Lannes scraped out a dramatic last‑minute victory.
Game Recap
Against the odds, Watrin’s French division assaults O’Reilly’s advanced position at Rivalta through the tall rye fields surrounding the village. Initial attacks are repulsed, but repeated assaults eventually break O’Reilly after brutal fighting south and north of the village. The Austrian jaegers are finally compelled to give up their defense of Rivalta. As the French push on to the west, Vogelsang brings up his reinforcements to Cascina il Giardina while Schellenberg reaches Montebello. Ott tries to form a defensive line as the Austrian army falls back toward Casteggio.
 |
| Attack on Rivalta. |
To the south of Rivalta, the 28th Line ejects Austrians from Cascina il Giardina after repeated attempts to take the strongpoint. Lannes then leads his hussars in a devastating charge that destroys an Austrian infantry battalion and overruns a retiring battery. Unfortunately, Lannes falls in the confusion. The Austrians are not done yet.
 |
| Lannes leads the charge! |
 |
| The destruction of Vogelsang. |
Montebello offers challenges to both players and scenario design. With both armies arriving piecemeal and a tight timeline to clear the highway, the French are forced into attacking at unfavorable odds. When Watrin first attacks Rivalta, the defenders hold about a two-to-one advantage. As the fighting builds with fresh reinforcements reaching the field, the battle emphasizes a measurable quality‑versus‑quantity dynamic as well as trading space for time. A situation that Ott and Lannes, themselves, faced. Players faced the same conundrum. That is, how best to utilize the forces at hand.
With Lannes' qualitative advantage and ability to pick and choose the place and timing of attacks, as Ott, I fell into a similar trap. When Watrin's initial attacks were repulsed, O'Reilly made the decision to stand and fight at Rivalta. Only as more French reached the battlefield did he realize his mistake. By the time Vogelsang approached from the west, it was too late for O'Reilly. His formation was wrecked and in retreat everywhere. Vogelsang tried to bring his division up and hold Cascina il Giardina but that stronghold could not be held after repeated attacks. In the vicious fighting around that stronghold, Vogelsang's Division was wrecked. With two of his three formations broken, Ott was forced to yield the field of battle.
The flow of the tabletop battle broadly followed the historical battle. While the fighting may have played out with variation, the end result was the same. That is, Ott's command was forced to retire from Montebello and head back to Alessandria to lick its wounds. Five days later fighting would resume at Marengo.
Now, scenario design and often rules' writing remain as works-in-progress. This refight offers similar thoughts on amending scenario details. Having realized the historical result in the first outing, how much really needs to be tweaked? While Victor/Chamberlhac played a role in turning the battle historically, in this playing Chamberlhac barely reached the field. Same can be said for Schellenberg on the Austrian side.
 |
| Schellenberg arrives. |
While providing a good-sized game for two players, Montebello presents a more difficult path for multiplayer games since reinforcements arrive throughout the game. This might lead to players not getting into the action right away. Meeting engagements offer unique challenges for multiplayer games. To steer the game toward this end, the next refight will see game duration lengthened from 8+ turns to 10+ turns while unit arrival times will see some compression. The caveat, here, is that reinforcement compression may alter the already finely balanced arrivals to match the historical situation. Do you come down on the side of history or player engagement? Should arrival times be adjusted based upon the number of players present? That is, keep historical times in a two or three player game but compress arrivals for larger multiplayer games so that everyone is involved within a turn or two?
Before I take command of the French Army in the next game, there is much to consider.
It sounds a very confusing and hard game to get right, Jon. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteScenario development can be a fine balancing act especially when refighting an historical battle or attempting to address play balance.
DeleteNo doubt you will spend a lot of effort trying to balance both history and participant engagement. Do have fun as the French it is a challenging post.
ReplyDeleteI plan to attack the Austrians with great gusto!
DeletePerhaps this is just a game not well suited for multiple players, Jon? Looking forward to seeing how you go leading the French 🇫🇷
ReplyDeleteMultiple players would be fine if some are willing to wait for their commands to arrive. Since reinforcements arrive in waves, the number of units is easily handled by a single player.
DeleteA great looking table, and an interesting introduction to the challenge of scenario design.
ReplyDeleteThanks! There are always many decisions to be made even before the first figure is moved and the first die tossed.
DeleteThe first game was amazing fun. I'm looking forward to the different challenge that being the Austrians represents.
ReplyDeleteA wargame of an historical encounter can only ever be a compromise between the actual events, the rules and the desire for it to be playable. That doesn't make the recreation less it just accepts that the art is how to marry those three things together and still be able to say that "I refought the the battle of X".
The first game was a good one, for sure. You will get to see the battle from a different perspective and face different opportunities and challenges than in Game #1. Should be interesting. "Interesting" in the American sense of the word.
DeleteLOL
DeleteI have to say that I am more on the side of history as I find that even if I am on the sidelines while I await the arrival of my troops I find I am still engaged, mainly because I know that the decisions made by others already in action will ultimately affect me anyway. If a game is based on an historical refight I like to gain as much appreciation for what went on as possible even if it is ultimately only an abstracted simulation of actual events.
ReplyDeleteLawrence, I tend toward your approach as well. One of the reasons to refight historical battles is to get a better understanding of the situation. If battle details are contrived to fit a game constraint, much can be lost in translation.
DeleteA good battle to refight and maybe suited to a multi player one so be very interested to see how it plays out.
ReplyDeleteThanks! I may attempt multiplayer but, for now, I am sticking to one-on-one play with this scenario.
DeleteInteresting thoughts there Jon, many of which remind me of Chris Pringle's musing when playtesting scenario for his BBB rules. Personally I would stick with what you have already, as it seemed to give a good representation of the actual battle. Tweaking it to suit a multi-player game may alter the fine balance too much. As I've said before, I have no problem watching a game develop and then come in with my reinforcements as it were.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts, Steve!
DeleteSince newly arriving reinforcements can take a turn or two to reach the "front line", the next game will see some reinforcements moving up one turn but that earlier arrival carries a decreased chance of actually arriving on that turn.
I wonder if being content to watch a game unfold without having a command is influenced by the type of game? That is F2F or remote? I had one multiplayer remote game where one fellow sat most of the session watching the game unfold since the game did not move along at the pace I expected. We all felt sorry for him! As it was, the game carried over to a second session, and he was in the thick of it in that second session. I should have asked if he would sit through an idle remote session again.
Could you have a multi-player game with the historical timings by spreading the game over several days? So day 1 you would have the players who are on the field from the start and stop play when the first reinforcements are due.
ReplyDeleteOn day 2 the first reinforcement players would join the original participants and the battle would continue from where it left off until the next set of reinforcements were due. On day 3 add in the next players and so forth until all the troops are on table and then fight to the finish.
The disadvantage would be that the game would take days to play. The advantages would be historical arrivals, all players present engaged, and new arrivals would have a real sense of arriving in the confusion of an action already progressing and so be thrown in at the deep end.
It would need willing players - perhaps especially the original commanders who are committed to several sessions of play - but could be a novel experience. It might also make some of the game days quite short but that might suit and certainly make space for plenty of chat. [Where the gap between one lot of reinforcements and the next is relatively short the later arrival might not mind sitting idle for a move or two to get onto the table and so reduce the total number of sessions needed]
Stephen
You raise some excellent points, Stephen, and offer much to consider. See my response to Steve, above, about just this situation arising in a remote game.
DeleteThere have been a few remote games that spanned more than one day (or session) in which some of the players could not attend Session #2 and new players filled their slots. As you suggest, this did provide some confusion among the players as they were suddenly thrust into a situation not of their choosing. It was good fun to see the new players deal with a battle already in progress. Something to keep in mind for future multiplayer games, for sure.
I do like Stephen's idea and building on that would it be possible to start the game and then let the reinforcing players go off and do something else (painting?) and just message them when they are required? So they are not hanging around looking at a screen and not able to participate.
DeleteThat way the game could still be finished in one session.
It is a difficult decision to balance the player engagement and the history, but if you are going to play a particular battle I think you may as well do it accurately as far as possible.
Anyway, I am sure you have a better grasp of it than me. Good luck with the French Jonathan.
Actually, during remote games with the Rejects, some of the players DO paint when it not their turn. Perhaps downtime to listen in and paint until called upon is not such a bad thing? I do prefer that players remain engaged during the game, though, but Rejects seem very adept at multitasking.
DeleteWith goal being to recreate an historical battle, I cannot zig too much from the historical path.
A ,lovely battle Jon 👍
ReplyDeleteThanks, Matt!
DeleteScenario design is always a difficult task to get a balanced game. Good luck in your outing as the French
ReplyDeleteThanks! I will try my best!
DeleteA challenge for the French, but all the more satisfying should you illicit a win.
ReplyDeleteA challenge for me, for sure! When I play and host, I rarely eke out a victory!
DeleteInteresting notes on scenario design and comments too! Good luck with your French command, I think youll probably need it! Id like to see Richard up against Mark Jolly broomman, I think that would be even?
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Yes, I will need some luck, no doubt. I am outnumbered and Richard is a wily opponent. If we are to discuss luck with dice, then I would pit Reject Steve up against JBM.
Delete