ARGENTORATUM 357

[fogman]

Update: placement of the Alamanic host changed.

Fm Argentoratum 357.zip

(5.01 KiB) Downloaded 266 times

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLD

Argentoratum 357.zip

(4.94 KiB) Downloaded 204 times

Otherwise known as the Battle of Strasbourg.

The costly civil war in the early 350's had collapsed the Rhine frontier. The Emperor's last surviving male relative, Julian, had been sent to Gaul as Caesar (deputy emperor) to deal with the Alamanni who had established themselves west of the Rhine and used it as a base to raid far and wide. After a flanking army, 25,000 strong, had to retreat back to Italy, Julian was left with only 15,000 men as the Alamanni called out their entire tribal army supplemented by other Germanic allies, a force in excess of 30,000. But eager to deal the enemy a decisive blow, Julian put his faith in his superior infantry and marched out to meet the Alamannic host head-on in August of 357 near Argentoratum, present day Strasbourg.

Had time to really work on finishing a couple of scenarii this week end. Not as huge as Guinegatte but still quite a bit of work. This one gives a very good feel of a late empire battle. Very different from what you would get from DAG. The Alamanni will have to throw in waves after waves of spearmen against the Roman shield wall. Their best shot remain the superior retainers bands who historically broke through the centre of the Roman first line.

Fogman

[Micha63]

Thank you for this .

[frankpowerful]

well, i'm currently playing this one in MP mode and find that giving defensive spears to the roman HF makes the battle rather static. Also, i was convinced that the auxilia could be better represented by superior MF, but i could obviously be wrong.

[fogman]

by that time, the 'auxilia' and 'legio' designations were vestigial. both legio and auxilia units recruited from the same pool and i see no evidence they had different tactical uses. the roman first line was given defensive spears so that they don't anarchy out of their defensive wall. the roman second line has offensive spears for counter attack. Historically the alamanni broke through the centre and they were pushed back by the second line.

I don't design my scenarios for maneuver. they don't play at all like a normal FOG game. they are static in that respect because players are chanelled into attacking or defending according to the historical context. it's mostly two lines going at each other and whoever best manages leaders and support wins. it's best played as a paired game anyway.

Edit: furthermore, I should add that I endeavour to recreate recognizable events from the battle (but not necessarily outcomes). at verneuil, the milanese cavalry will be busy attacking the English baggage and will not be a factor, and the french will collapse before the scots who should be able to fight their opposite number to a standstill until, depending on how many units of the french arriere ban get away, they are crushed between two english lines. this should happen between players of comparable ability. at Argentorum, there should be waves of alamanni attackers crashing against the roman defensive positions until one side or the other cracks. It does take away from players the maneuvering, which can only happen because of the unrealistic command and control system afforded by the game anyway, so this is a good thing in my book. Once armies are lined-up, there is very little generals can do in terms of grand sweeping moves. As players the interest is in micro managing the little tactical details that will maximize the impact and melee odds. A lot of the stock scenarios are more of the 'loosely based on' types rather than precise historical recreations, and will play out in a very unrecognizable way when compared to what happened. it's a design philosophy, and there's nothing wrong with doing it in other ways. I only cater to like minded people.

[stockwellpete]

by that time, the 'auxilia' and 'legio' designations were vestigial. both legio and auxilia units recruited from the same pool and i see no evidence they had different tactical uses. the roman first line was given defensive spears so that they don't anarchy out of their defensive wall. the roman second line has offensive spears for counter attack. Historically the alamanni broke through the centre and they were pushed back by the second line.

I don't design my scenarios for maneuver. they don't play at all like a normal FOG game. they are static in that respect because players are chanelled into attacking or defending according to the historical context. it's mostly two lines going at each other and whoever best manages leaders and support wins. it's best played as a paired game anyway.

Edit: furthermore, I should add that I endeavour to recreate recognizable events from the battle (but not necessarily outcomes). at verneuil, the milanese cavalry will be busy attacking the English baggage and will not be a factor, and the french will collapse before the scots who should be able to fight their opposite number to a standstill until, depending on how many units of the french arriere ban get away, they are crushed between two english lines. this should happen between players of comparable ability. at Argentorum, there should be waves of alamanni attackers crashing against the roman defensive positions until one side or the other cracks. It does take away from players the maneuvering, which can only happen because of the unrealistic command and control system afforded by the game anyway, so this is a good thing in my book. Once armies are lined-up, there is very little generals can do in terms of grand sweeping moves. As players the interest is in micro managing the little tactical details that will maximize the impact and melee odds. A lot of the stock scenarios are more of the 'loosely based on' types rather than precise historical recreations, and will play out in a very unrecognizable way when compared to what happened. it's a design philosophy, and there's nothing wrong with doing it in other ways. I only cater to like minded people.

Very interesting, fogman. I understand more where you are coming from now. I think the "command and control" issue is the big one for FOG to crack (see my thread "Medieval Warfare, not even close . . .) but the problem is that any changes introduced into the PC game have to fit into the overall design philosophy of FOG i.e. the table-top version takes precedence. Or it has done up to now anyway. A lot of my stuff is best described as "loosely based on" so and so battle, often because there is no real consensus on what actually happened. One of my favourite scenarios is Bosworth Field 1485 and it was one of the first that I did. I think it is great as a wargame on the PC but it may be incorrect in many of its details, particularly the initial deployment. The book I had (Seymour's "Battles in Britain", I think it was) showed the deployment in a certain way which I then copied. But this book is over 30 years old now and there have been very recent discussions about the battle that suggest that its location is different from what was accepted in Seymour's time. The same could be true of Barnet 1471 although the jury is still out on that one.

[fogman]

there are issues with verneuil in that the milanese cavalry could be on the wings or in the middle. i chose the middle. but what is constant is that they went through the english lines and attacked the english baggage train, not coming back until it was too late. and that was a major factor. now, wherever i put them initially they will never leave the main battlefield and ride to the rear. therefore i had to start the scenario after they had ridden through the english lines.

at dreux, the distance between the left and right wings of the catholic army had to be considerable because the main factor here was the vulnerability of the catholic left wing that had to confront the bulk of the huguenot army at the start of the battle on its own. this is why the battlefield looks sparse and double moves shouldn't be used. also, to prevent the catholics from peeling away towards the centre, the hughenots had to be positioned very close the the catholic lines at the beginning. that way contact is assured and the battle will follow the historical narrative.

[fogman]

updated.