Tours 732 AD : play testers needed

[Hoplite1963]

My Tours 732 AD scenario is now ready for playtesting. Also inside the scenario folder is the new style “Notes, OOB & Sources” file which is set up in landscape format for easy viewing and reference purposes.

This is the first scenario in which I have tried out the use of an off map movement track to give the Franks (but not the Arabs) the option of making a flank march on their left flank to attack the Arab camp, The scenario can be downloaded from a link inside today’s blog on my website, which is here

http://snapupwargames.weebly.com/

I would be grateful for any comments feedback or AAR’s you might wish to make particularly on the “flank march” simulation method I have used and the way that I have used an MS Word file to provide extra scenario information. You can comment either here or using the comment facility attached to my blog.

I hope you enjoy the scenario.

[Micha63]

Hi,
you should put a direct downloadlink to your scenarios, i can"t found your scenarios.

Best regards

Micha

[Hoplite1963]

Hi
If you don’t want to visit the website to get the scenario, here is a link direct for it

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/54384751/Tours% ... %20IDL.zip

Regards
Ian

[Micha63]

Hi thank you, first impress of the scenario is good.

[ZeaBed]

Thank you hoplite. I've just downloaded it. Good choice of historical battle for a scenario, btw.

[Old_Warrior]

Just posted a Paired-game challenge on the MP queue for this one. One of the most important victories in history.

Do you have a list of how the armies are using the various graphics which would be published in Wolves from the Sea? Or were you just guessing on which images are used for the units?

I would like to build scenarios for this upcoming module before it is released. So far there is no official list but does anyone here have an idea of what the associations between unit and image would be?

Armies I will be building for include (from the book lists):

Anglo-Danish
Viking
Norman
Magyar
Early Medieval German

Looking to do the Battle of Augsburg and Pressburg as well as Stamford Bridge and Hastings if it will be available.

I would do more if I had the image->unit relationship list before the beta testing begins.

[Hoplite1963]

Hi
When working out the images to use for a scenario (weather or not its for a time period covered by an upcoming or existing module I first decide from book (WRG & Osprey series) or internet sources (the “explore armies” feature on the DBA Online website is a very good (and free) resource for doing this) what the various troops on each side should look like and then match these up with the best images currently available.

If I am working on a battle for inclusion in an upcoming module then I incorporate any more suitable new unit graphics that I become aware of as part of the beta testing process once I get conformation from Slitherine that they are going to use my scenario. I also revise my existing scenarios to incorporate new unit images as and when they become available. It’s a good idea not to get to hung up about only choosing your images from the obvious folders, for example one of the Kurdish Cavalry battlegroups in the “Arab Early” folder makes a very good Gothic, Lombard or Vandal armoured cavalry one.

Various people including myself have also posted (window-shopping scenarios) on this site showing which images come with various modules. On the likely contents of “Wolves From the Sea” is unlikely that many new image folders (as opposed to battlegroups) are likely to be added to the game with the module. I suspect that the line up of nationality folders in the module will stack up something like this.

Arab Crusades. Arab early, British Ancient, Celtic, Celts, Feudal Foot, Frank, Hun, Norman, Other, Russian, Saxon, Sarmatian, Steps & Viking,

My guess is that we might see some extra Vikings and Russians and perhaps a few late Anglo-Saxon figures added to these existing folders. If you have “Legions Triumphant”, “Swords & Scimitars” and “Decline & Fall” you will already have all of these folders and there is nothing to stop you working on your scenarios for “Wolves From the Sea” right now. I am currently working on a Stamford Bridge scenario myself so it will be interesting to see how it compares with yours.

As regards which folders to use for which army I would suggest the following

Anglo-Danish = “Feudal Foot” (has the best armoured axmen figures) “Saxon”, and “Frank”
Viking = “Russian”, “Feudal Foot” “Saxon”, & “Viking”.
Norman = “Norman”, “Crusader” & “Feudal Foot”
Magyar = “Arab Crusades”, “Hun”, “Sarmatian,” & “Steps”.
Early Medieval German = “Franks” & “Feudal Foot”

I hope this is helpful.

Best of luck
Ian

[Old_Warrior]

Ian - if you are working on Stamford Bridge then I will not as my research time is valuable to me. Press on with yours. There are literally hundreds of battles to choose from.

I am hoping that some sort of coordination on which battles are being worked on will be listed.

Keith Martin-Smith told me to stick with what the DAC used so that is how I have been doing it. You may disagree with this format but I prefer to stick to the DAC army lists.

I can get 3-4 scenarios done during the beta time. I will research the OBs now. I have already listed several battles which I honestly hope I can expect to have for inclusion in the module. Me hating to have to backtrack and work on something different.

[Hoplite1963]

Hi

Thanks for the prompt reply. I have no desire to tred on anybody’s toes and am very happy to leave Augsburg, Pressburg and Hastings for you to work on. I have already put forward Degsastan 603 AD, and Brunanburh 937 AD for inclusion in “Wolves from the Sea” and plan to submit Tours 732 AD (which as you know is in playtesting) along with Stamford Bridge” when its finished and perhaps one other such as Fontenoy 841 AD, Jengland 851 AD or Montfaucon En Argonne 888 AD.

For my Stanford Bridge scenario I have been doing some research on 11th Century Norwegian provincial government structure to enable me to give plausible unit names to the various territorial units of the half levy national army raised under the leidang system which King Harald Hardrada took to England in 1066. I think that one of the strong points of “Field Of Glory Digital” is that when it comes to scenario construction there are many different right ways of doing things. There is also the opportunity to try out the arguments and reconstructions put forward by the contending schools of thought of different military historians on its virtual wargames table.

For example my version of Stamford Bridge draws heavily on Professor Kelly DeVries book “The Norwegian Invasion Of England in 1066” which based of a reading of the Norwegian sagas puts the case for the Saxons fielding a strong cavalry force at Stanford Bridge and for its use for repeated attacks on the Viking shield wall.

Kind regards
Ian

[Old_Warrior]

I am going to post a Scenario Designers note on this forum and also over at the Beta forum. Basically it will be for anyone that is going to work on the scenarios. Hastings is a high profile scenario and if someone with better historical ability wants to take it I will bow to their superior ability. On the other hand I would be glad to collaborate with someone on that project.

[stockwellpete]

I am going to post a Scenario Designers note on this forum and also over at the Beta forum. Basically it will be for anyone that is going to work on the scenarios. Hastings is a high profile scenario and if someone with better historical ability wants to take it I will bow to their superior ability. On the other hand I would be glad to collaborate with someone on that project.

Frank (omarquatar) has done a very good version of Hastings already that I have played a number of times. I am not sure if he has submitted it to Slitherine, or whether he intends to do so in future. But it is definitely much, much better than some of the scenarios that are currently included in the FOG roster.

I am not intending to produce anything now with the specific intention of trying to get it included in "Wolves From the Sea", but I will start thinking about some scenarios for "Oath of Fealty" shortly. At the moment I am looking at the medieval battles currently in FOG and seeing whether they might be improved upon. So far I have done new versions of Otterburn, Agincourt, 2nd St Albans, Towton and Tewkesbury. I have not been involved with beta-testing up to this point.

[omarquatar]

thanks for the kind words pete
i'm not going to submit hastings to slitherine, because it is basically a revamped version of someone else's scenario, therefore i use it in friendly games only...happy you appreciated it though.
also, i'm not working on new FOG scenarios anymore, as i was heavily disappointed by:
1. Decline and Fall being really nothing new
2. no change in scenario design mechanics
3. no change in questionable game mechanics.
i think i'll wait until FOG 2 is released, if any.
anyway, i'm happy to play the occasional historical scenario against you or similar minded gamers.

[stockwellpete]

I would be grateful for any comments feedback or AAR’s you might wish to make particularly on the “flank march” simulation method I have used and the way that I have used an MS Word file to provide extra scenario information. You can comment either here or using the comment facility attached to my blog.

Sorry, not for me this one, Ian. I think all your other ones are superb but the "flank march" simulation means that there is a large area of "concrete" on one side of the map - and there are also the wretched "Player Probity Guardians" patrolling the woods - well, it is just all too much for my aesthetic tastes, I'm afraid. In fact, my lot decided to attack the Guardians for having such a pompous title!

I think instead of having "concrete" there you could have a wooded or hilly area that is declared "out of bounds" to the players (I have done something like this in my recent Agincourt scenario) or maybe there is no need for such a large "out of bounds" area at all. Maybe the troops from Aquitaine could start right out on a flank and they would need to wait for a "trigger" to join the battle (I use break points in the game for this effect e.g. you might stipulate that the Aquitaine forces may only move if total break points in the game equal a multiple of 5 at the start of any of their turns; something like this anyway, it would need play-testing). Then, once "triggered", they could choose to move towards the camp or join the main battle. I just think the "concrete" and the "Player Probity Guardians" really spoil the atmosphere of the scenario.

The MS Word file idea is excellent though.

[Hoplite1963]

Thanks for this, its helpful. I think there may be ways round the issues you have raised here. With regard to the large block of concrete I see in the scenario editor that there is also a blocked hexside option which you can draw in like roads and streams. So yes an area of woods surrounded by these might well do the same job and would look a lot better.

With regard to the "Player Probity Guardians" as you know they are a device to stop the Arabs using the flank march route. Another way round this would be to make the infantry units in the camp immobile like the camp followers, double their numbers and reduce their strength by half. The reserve cavalry units could also be moved into the main battle area behind the centre.

As a result of other feedback I have had from an ongoing play test I am going to do a major revision of the Arab order of battle when my current paired game is finished so I will try and change the terrain and remove the "Player Probity Guardians" at that time.

However I do think that I may well have to use them or something similar in the Stamford Bridge scenario that I am currently working on. Computer games designed by HPS (for whom I have done some work in the past) get round this problem by setting game parameters in such a way that units approaching within a certain distance of their enemies reinforcement entry points automatically become routed, something I am not sure that Slitherine would be prepared to implement.

As an aside in one of my play test games I have come a cropper because my Frankish opponent had chosen not to carry out the flank march with the Aquitaine contingent but had kept them under wraps for a surprise counterattack on my right flank, a move that was all the more damaging because I had withdrawn a couple of light cavalry units from that very flank to reinforce the camp defences.

Please keep the comments coming.

Kind regards
Ian

[stockwellpete]

I just think if you state in the scenario rules something like, "wooded area by the camp out of bounds to Arab forces" or "Arab forces may not enter road on right edge of the map" then 99 out of 100 players will abide by that. I am fairly sure that most people who play scenaros regularly are very interested in the history and want to try out interesting historical variations. I don't think they want to try and pull a fast one really - of course, there is the occasional rogue about but I don't see that we need to worry too much about them. The "trigger" idea seems to work OK. I have it in Bosworth Field 1485 and now Tinchebray 1106 - it is very simple and transparent and does not affect the aesthetic qualities of the scenario.

[Micha63]

Hi Hoplite 1963,

here my playtest for this scenario, but i have the fear you will not like my coments.
viewtopic.php?f=96&t=32650&p=306487#p306487

[Hoplite1963]

Hi
Thanks for all of this. I am working on revising the scenario and beefing up the effectiveness of the Arab side. Its worth noting that I had a similar problem rebalancing my Las Navas De Tolosa scenario which Like this one drew heavily on the OOB from a scenario published in the French Vae Victis wargames magazine. It’s a useful source but reworking its scenarios into “Field Of Glory Digital” ones is clearly not as straightforward as it first appears.

Regards
Ian

[Sabratha]

Hi
Thanks for all of this. I am working on revising the scenario and beefing up the effectiveness of the Arab side. Its worth noting that I had a similar problem rebalancing my Las Navas De Tolosa scenario which Like this one drew heavily on the OOB from a scenario published in the French Vae Victis wargames magazine. It’s a useful source but reworking its scenarios into “Field Of Glory Digital” ones is clearly not as straightforward as it first appears.

Well, FoG many times needs some special tweaks to make historical data work as a scenario. The most obvious is making some average units as superior or vice versa, it can help greatly to balance out a scenario without becoming unhistorical. Another issue is short melee weapons - heavy weapons, swordsmen, swordsmen+ etc.