Battle Report: Later Medieval Germans vs Mongols

Forum for anyone to post reports of their battles and pictures, otherwise known as After Action Reports.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

Post Reply
ssean13
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Battle Report: Later Medieval Germans vs Mongols

Post by ssean13 »

Well my Later Medieval German Army attempted to vend off the Mongol horde and for their pains were throughly defeated.

My plan had been to try and put the Mongols in between a rock and hard place. My forces would be too strong for him to attack. However, if his light horse attempted to do the shoot and evade tactic he would risk his light horse being caught in the rear by my light horse and cavalry if they attempted to evade. Well that was the plan anyway.

On my left flank there was a large piece of uneven ground (the battle wagons where next to it). On my right flank (next to where his flank march arrived) was a steep hill.

The short story of how it came unstuck was I allowed my army to become divided and he was able to deal with it piece meal.

The longer story is I shouldn't of left my crossbow to stand up to charge from his knights. His breaking of this battle group, and a battle group of my mercenary knights, smashed open my centre. On my right flank my mounted crossbow went to far ahead in their pursuit of his light horse and found themselves shoot to pieces by his cavalry and light horse. He then finish me off when his flank march came on (his flank march hand two battle groups of cavalry and a battle group of bow). I had expected it, but with battle groups need to fill gaps else where I did not have the forces necesary to deal with it.

Does any one have suggestions how to deal with Mongols with a foot army? I know I made mistakes, but boy those Mongols are tough!

My army list

Image

Deployment

Image

Initial Movement 1st picture

Image

Initial Movement 2nd picture

Image

The flank match arrives.

You see the two remaining knights of routing battle group by the light horse. My lighter men-at-arms are facing the gap in my centre lefy by the breaking of the battle group of crossbowmen and knights.

Image

Reaction to the flank march

Image

My halberdiers and battle wagons take on the knights that routed my battegroup of crossbowmen in back and forth battle, which resulted in his knights losing two bases (they were superior) and becoming disrupt, but then breaking my battle wagons.

Image

My lighter men-at-arms taking on his heavy cavalry in the centre and routed them!

Image

My mounted crossbow withdraw after being shoot to pieces.

Image

My light horse and knights insuccessfully attempt to fend off his flank march. The flank march included to battle groups of cavalry and a battle group of bow. One battle group of cavalry pinned and evaded my knights. Then shoot up the knights with the assistance of bow. His other battle group of cavalry forced my light cavalry back and sacked my camp.

Image



Image

End of the battle

My camp is sacked and the pike are charged in the rear

Image
neilhammond
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:51 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK

Re: Battle Report: Later Medieval Germans vs Mongols

Post by neilhammond »

ssean13 wrote:Does any one have suggestions how to deal with Mongols with a foot army? I know I made mistakes, but boy those Mongols are tough!
Have a look at my Later Russian (essentially irregular Mongols) vs Scots report viewtopic.php?t=4612. Alan beat me by swinging the game around 90 degrees. Which gave me the choice of either attaching him and trying to force a win, or skirmishing for a draw. I now need to figure a strategy to deal with the 90 degree tactics.
carlos
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:27 am

Post by carlos »

Sean, I think you need more BGs. 10 in a sub 800 point game is not enough to give you the kind of flexibility you need to counter a very mobile army. You say your army is an infantry army but it really isn't: you have 50% mounted and 50% infantry. You also made a few mistakes in the game which might help explain why you lost:
Fighting w/ your BWgs head on instead of sideways (and gain overlaps)
Sending your LH to stop the flank march and not evading w/ then when threatened
Allowing your mounted x-bowman to be isolated

BTW, where did you get the Mongol list? :)
stevoid
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by stevoid »

Hi Carlos,

Actually the army is Ilkhanid.

My take on the game was that if Sean wanted to use Knights he should have them as superior and therefore no Pike but he prefers to have both. IMHO it is best to focus on one main attacking threat as I don't think Sean's army is suited for the 'toolkit' approach. The game didn't all go my way but you (and Sean realises this) are correct in that he allowed parts of his army to become isolated which allowed me to get more shots in and also to pick my fights.

In the game Sean did fall back in front of the flank march but did not have much room to do so before the camp was threatened and also the flankers shot pretty well. In the picture you can see one BG from the FM evading from his knights while my foot try and get in position to shoot.

As an aside, what do you think a 'good number' of BGs is?

Steve
ssean13
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Tactical Advice

Post by ssean13 »

Hi All

Thank you for the feedback. Below are my comments on three suggestions I received.

Niel Harmond's suggestion of the sweep and 90 degree turn is very good idea, but you need more infantry to implement it, and I do want change the composition of my army significantly. So thank you Niel, but I don't think it is a goer for my army.

I appreciate Carlos's suggestion about increasing the number of battle groups in my army. However, I think increasing the number of battle groups just replaces one problem with another. I will have more battle groups, but they will be either have the same number of bases but each will be weaker hand to hand combat or I will have lesser number of bases per battle group, both of which will make my battle groups easier of my opponent to break.

Finally my opponent, Steve Hodgson's, suggested I take only superior knights and drop the pikes, It is a nice idea, but I don't the figures. Also I want to have a balanced army that is suitable for non-themed conventions, which we have in New Zealand. I have found the combination of pikes and knights very effective against other armies.

Since I have rejected significant changes in composition of my army the only way to address the issue is by changing my tactics.

Reflecting back on the battle I took an inspired commander to give me the maximum chance of winning initiative and
thereby getting to pick the terrain. If this had occurred I would have obviously picked as much terrain as possible to reduce the open terrain force Steve's army to face my battle groups head on.

The problem therefore only arises when I do not win initiative and the opposing horse army chooses open terrain, as occurred in my battle against Steve's army

When this occurs I have to have a formation that prevents my opponent from pinning most of my army with his light horse allowing his knights and cavalry to pick on a small section of my army, which I am unable to assist because of pinning by his light horse. It also should prevent opposing horse armies from breaking up by army because I maintain such a strong and wide front line that I have no reserves to deal with flank marches or if the opposing army manages to get battle groups around my flank.

Examining the strengths of my army one on one it had more combat hand to hand prowess than Steve's and a similar number of bases to his army. Steven army traded manvourability and fire power for lower hand to hand combat prowess.

I therefore I need a formation which makes it difficult for his light horse to pin my army and do the shoot and evade tactic. It also has to have plenty reserves to deal flank marches and if opposing battle groups attempt get around my flanks.

I think the best formation is pike, and possibly the halberdiers as well, in the centre with my lighter men-at-arms one of side of the pike and the mounted crossbowmen on the other. My knights, Hungarian light horse and crossbowmen in reserve. My light foot can occupy difficult terrain and shoot at enemy from it. I found in the last battle there were enough of bases of pike to absorb shooting from his light horse, they don't need the light foot in front of therm. The battle wagons (if I don't trade them for 4 more halberdiers) are good at helping protect a flank.

If any opposing army puts light horse in front of my mounted crossbow he will be out shot. If puts light horse in front of lighter men-at-arms he risks the light horse being caught in the rear by lighter men-at-arms when his light horse evade to avoid charges by y lighter men-at-arms. If opposing army brings up knights up to attack my lighter men-at-arms and mounted crossbow I can bring up my knights up from reserve. If any opposing brings up heavy cavalry I will be more than happy to take them on with lighter men-at-arms and mounted crossbowmen.

I will protect my armies from flanks from attack, and from flank marches, by having a large reserve. If the opposing attempts to get around my flanks it is likely to be with light horse or cavalry, both of which my battle wagons and crossbowmen can deal with the assistance of the knights or cavalry, depending what he puts in front of my army.

Well that is the plan. I will be interested to hear your critiques of it.
"Democracy is a horrible system of government. The only thing going for it is every other system of government is even worse." Winston Churchill.
bahdahbum
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:40 pm

Post by bahdahbum »

Sean, I think you need more BGs. 10 in a sub 800 point game is not enough to give you the kind of flexibility you need to counter a very mobile army
Are there really many med armies with realy more than 10 BG ? I think not

I tried for some armies but the usual is 9-11 BG except romans, seleucid or gauls and so, not the right period :roll: [/quote]
neilhammond
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:51 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK

Post by neilhammond »

bahdahbum wrote:Are there really many med armies with realy more than 10 BG ? I think not

I tried for some armies but the usual is 9-11 BG except romans, seleucid or gauls and so, not the right period
Yes, Lance Flint's Serbians at the Warfare 2007 comp had 15 BGs in reasonable sized blocks at 800AP. And very nasty they were too.
carlos
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:27 am

Post by carlos »

I was just about to mention Lance's Serbians! Pete's Ottomans also had 13 plus BGs IIRC. If you see Tim's reports from Britcon he mentions his army as being too small at 11 BGs...
terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4237
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Post by terrys »

I will protect my armies from flanks from attack, and from flank marches, by having a large reserve. If the opposing attempts to get around my flanks it is likely to be with light horse or cavalry, both of which my battle wagons and crossbowmen can deal with the assistance of the knights or cavalry, depending what he puts in front of my army.

Well that is the plan. I will be interested to hear your critiques of it.
If you paid the 24pts for fortified baggage you wouldn't need to worry about your flanks/rear so much.
Protect one flank with the BWg and the other with lighter men at arms/mounted crossbowmen and don't bother with such a large reserve. With fortified baggage you can pretty much ignore LH riding round your flank/rear.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory AAR's”