Battle of Sagrajas 1086 AD

[ZeaBed]

But that could be the straw that broke the camel's back and keep the almories too strong over the Christians. Wouldn't it be better to keep those units as LF?

[stockwellpete]

But that could be the straw that broke the camel's back and keep the almories too strong over the Christians. Wouldn't it be better to keep those units as LF?

Play-testing will show but you could always reduce the number of HF Berber units. As LF though they are fairly useless at the moment.

[ZeaBed]

I'm sorry that you found them useless in that format, but the information on which I'm relying (including some old DBA scenarios), has most of the Almories as LFs. Also, the original issue iirc is that the Christians were overmatched in the first versions I posted. But no problem, the only way to approximate an ideal configuration for this or any other scenario is playing it. Good fortune attend your endeavors!

[stockwellpete]

Right, my paired game with Sennacherib is completed. The games finished (with Berbers as LF) . . .

Almoravids 23/59 beat Castilians 45/43
Castilians 35/43 beat Almoravids 60/59

So a clear aggregate victory for the Almoravids. Some issues to consider . . .

i) depiction of Berber infantry. If they are LF then they need LF images not HF ones as this is confusing. Perhaps they were a mixture of HF, LF bows and LF?
ii) several categories of troops have the same image for "average" and "superior" - this is also confusing.
iii) Castilian knights are "superior" (correct) but Aragonese knights are only "average". Is this correct?
iv) the army points difference between the two armies is nearly 150pts (advantaging Almoravids). Is this too wide?

[ZeaBed]

Right, my paired game with Sennacherib is completed. The games finished (with Berbers as LF) . . .

Almoravids 23/59 beat Castilians 45/43
Castilians 35/43 beat Almoravids 60/59

So a clear aggregate victory for the Almoravids. Some issues to consider . . .

i) depiction of Berber infantry. If they are LF then they need LF images not HF ones as this is confusing. Perhaps they were a mixture of HF, LF bows and LF?
ii) several categories of troops have the same image for "average" and "superior" - this is also confusing.
iii) Castilian knights are "superior" (correct) but Aragonese knights are only "average". Is this correct?
iv) the army points difference between the two armies is nearly 150pts (advantaging Almoravids). Is this too wide?

There is an understable aggregate of victory for the Almoravids, as they outnumber the Castilians more than 2 to 1.
i) I did not know there was such a thing as a propietary HF image. My bad then. I will correct the FoG programming error that renders these HF Berbers as LFs.

ii) I was also not aware that units of the same type but with differing values (superior and average) were distinguishable on the basis of the image alone. I will vary these images to correct this confusion you cite.

iii) I believe that this disparity is in fact correct. In general, Aragonese knights were almost as effective as Castilian knights, but less flexible. Upon receiving Yusuf's challenge, King Alfonso made a last minute appeal to his ally Sancho of Aragon that would enable him to get some extra troops, all hastily assembled, for the appointment in Sagrajas which he had accepted. Alfonso's troop quality and number were sufficient to overcome the taifa of Toledo, but not a coalition of the other taifas under Almoravid leadership, newly arrrived. With more time, Alfonso could have relied on a more judiciously assembled contingent, at least numerically. This goes double for Sancho of Aragon, who had even less time at his disposal. That Alfonso had alienated Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, called El Cid, who was therefore not present at Sagrajas, was yet another minus factor for the Castilian effort. Here too, I will differentiate between the superior and the average in the choice of images.

iv) I will reduce the army points difference to about 100 points advantaging the Almoravids. I believe that this should be the bare minimum advantage.

I will therefore post another update here soon.

[ZeaBed]

All of the previous posts containing download links to this scenario have now been updated to v2.0. Whew.

[CATAFRACTO]

Thank you very much for this scenario!! Regards from Spain!

[ZeaBed]

Back at you Catafracto. "Albricias, Alvar Fanez, ca com mucha honra tornaremos a Castiella!" Excuse the lack of tilde over that n and my shaky twelfth century Castilian Spanish.

[ZeaBed]

Version 2.1 now available for downloading in the original post to this thread. Just correcting a minor detail in one of the units.

[stockwellpete]

As per the discussion with Zeabed in the Cerignola thread, I am putting this alternative version on as requested. I can't remember what was "alternative" about it at the moment though - probably some nit-picking minor detail!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/154 ... 20PWv1.rar

[ZeaBed]

My scenario in the original post updated today to version 3.1. Also corrected a small error: instead of Sagrajas the download link was Civitate. Can't figure out how that happened.