AZINCOURT 1415

[fogman]

Fm Azincourt 1415.zip

(5.59 KiB) Downloaded 274 times

The truce of 1389 between France and England, made durable by internal crisis in both countries, held up until a new vigorous king, Henry V of England, landed in Normandy in August 1415. After taking Harfleur following a costly siege Henry decided to march to the English enclave of Calais to re-embark, putting a premature end to his invasion. The Armagnac and Burgundian factions, whose violent rivalry, left unchecked by the madness of king Charles VI, had France on the verge of civil war, put aside their differences momentarily to stop him. Their combined host, numerous but fractious, intercepted the English near the hamlet of Azincourt (French spelling). What followed, on 25 October 1415, was a national myth in the making.

Designer's note;

A mass of men, half-blinded by showers of arrows, weighed down by armour, advanced slowly across a muddy field. Those in front, their visors closed, were relentlessly pushed on by the mass of men behind them. Those behind, seeing nothing more than the men around them, advanced blindly. The result was a complete absence of tactical awareness.

the problems to be solved are:
1. how to force the french to advance into the meat grinder.
2. how to represent the crush of men (many would have been killed by being trampled)
3. how to represent the attritionnal effects of the longbows on the marching mass.
4. how to make the scenario winnable for the french player.

the problems associated with the 'themed dag game' scenario as illustrated by the stock scenario.
1. if the english is too weak or the french too strong, like in the stock scenario, the french win easily.
2. if the english are made to strong or the french too weak, the french will not bother attacking. even if the french was to attack he would try to pull outflanking manoeuvres and other dag specific moves that have no relation to historical accuracy.
Either way it's not really Agincourt.

the design here uses 'negative points' counters to tackle problems 3 and 4 and introduces 'forward push' and 'counter push' counters to solve 1 and 2.

this is a design templates for similar battles (taginae, crecy, aljubarrota for example spring to mind and there are many more)

Sources: the main controversy in the last few years revolves around numbers involved (Anne Curry using administrative documents argue for much smaller french army than commonly thought, which is based on the chronicles). I'd say since only a fraction of the french army engaged, the debate over the overall numbers present is no real importance, except for chauvinists. It is commonly agreed now that the french attacked on foot and that the main killer was not the longbow but the close combat weapons (and maybe crowd dynamics).

[Micha63]

Thanks for the new scenario.

[Turk1964]

Ok I've down loaded this scenario and I am very puzzled by the English skirmishers between the French battle lines . The terrain you have presented is good and allows slow movement forward by the French forces whilst under English bow fire. I just don't get all those English skirmishers between the advancing French .If I can have an answer which is both logical and pleasant that would be really appreciated.

[fogman]

If I can have an answer which is both logical and pleasant that would be really appreciated.

hehe

There are 3 different accessory counters used in the scenario: the 'negative english points' counter, the 'forward push' counter, the 'counter push' counter. All three use the skirmisher image, but are not representative of skirmishers (like in the Bosworth scenario, the baggage image is used for the objective counter, not representative of baggage).

*Negative counter: meant to represent the effect of the showers of arrows. french units fighting through them accumulate losses and may even get disrupted and held up. as the french destroy them, the english army break points are also depleted (hence the name 'negative english points'), which is important for the french player to have a chance to win the scenario.

*Forward push counter: meant to represent the push of the the french masses towards the english line. without this, the french have no incentive to advance into the meat grinder. they are rated elite to compel the french to push forward because it is safer to attack the english line than to face them. crowd dynamics played a large role in the huge casualties suffered as the rear ranks kept pushing forwards while the front ranks were getting slaughtered.

*counter-push counter: as the french reach the english line, their forward momentum must necessarily stop. the 'counter push' counters are there to momentarily stop the 'forward push' counters, lest they slam into the rear of the french mass. they are designed to stop the stronger 'forward push' counters long enough for the french to break the english line and win the scenario or be crushed.

[Turk1964]

Ok I understand what you have those "counters" there for. The only problem is they take up 48bps of the English army of 58. Once these counters are dealt with then the English force has very little to fight back with. Yes they have their firepower but using A1 to control the English it will do stupid things ,like attack the French. This would have to be played against another player to have any benefit. I will set up a game for another player to take on the English and report back.

[fogman]

there are only 16 negative counters. the 9 forward push counters are virtually invulnerable. the counter push counters are french. so only 32 bps are taken up.

play hot seat solitaire, who plays against the AI anymore, that thing's an embarrassment.

[Cataphract88]

there are only 16 negative counters. the 9 forward push counters are virtually invulnerable. the counter push counters are french. so only 32 bps are taken up.

play hot seat solitaire, who plays against the AI anymore, that thing's an embarrassment.

Fogman,

You should try playing the DYSERT O' DEA scenario against the AI, as the English, it's not such a pushover then!

[fogman]

O'dear. you swing to the right, take out O'rible while the rest of the idiots mostly stand around. By the time they move in, you're ready to slap them silly too.

[ZeaBed]

I recently fought the IA French in this game and I must say it was an unique experience. The counters, the push-units and the longbows gave the French a damnable mauling before they could even come close to the English men-at-arms. One question, however. If you recommend a hot seat game instead of fighting the IA, why are the push-counters even necessary to move the French forward? This has got me mildly puzzled.

[fogman]

I recently fought the IA French in this game and I must say it was an unique experience. The counters, the push-units and the longbows gave the French a damnable mauling before they could even come close to the English men-at-arms. One question, however. If you recommend a hot seat game instead of fighting the IA, why are the push-counters even necessary to move the French forward? This has got me mildly puzzled.

Without them, the french can take their time, waiting for the disrupted units to recover for instance, or swapping stronger units in the second line for weakened units in the first line before moving into close combat. That shouldn't happen. There was a irresistible forward momentum that the counter simulates. It also adds URGENCY to the attack.

[ZeaBed]

I recently fought the IA French in this game and I must say it was an unique experience. The counters, the push-units and the longbows gave the French a damnable mauling before they could even come close to the English men-at-arms. One question, however. If you recommend a hot seat game instead of fighting the IA, why are the push-counters even necessary to move the French forward? This has got me mildly puzzled.

Without them, the french can take their time, waiting for the disrupted units to recover for instance, or swapping stronger units in the second line for weakened units in the first line before moving into close combat. That shouldn't happen. There was a irresistible forward momentum that the counter simulates. It also adds URGENCY to the attack.

But that wouldn't happen if the French side used a less propulsive tactic. I see the counters as a meta-game, rule-in-action designed to force the player, even a hot seat player, to move the French forward whether they think it tactically wise to do so at a given time or not. This, regardless of whether the suicidal tactics (or lack thereof) of the historical French are palatable to the French player in the game. The restrictions in total, which include rendering some units immobile, retain something close to the purely historical 'flow' of the battle, but do not necessarily provide a gaming option in certain aspects of this scenario that are crucial to what some would regard as playability. If that was your purpose, or something close to it, then I think that i understand your concept and can see your point, alien as it is to my own preferences. Maybe mine are very alien to you. We rejoice in diversity do we not?

[fogman]

actually if the players have full control, it would merely be a themed dag game, in my view not a historical simulation which comes with its own sets of circumstances, without which there is no distinction between say 'agincourt' and 'encounter in 1415 between french and english armies'. in a dag game this is what i would do as the french player: i would not attack, i would let the english come out. is that 'playability' or even remotely close to something called agincourt? no it's not 'agincourt' it's 'encounter between french and english in 1415'. any design that allows the french to just stand around and bring up all their forces and even attempt flanking moves through the woods is a what-if scenario.

and i think you set up a fallacious dichotomy between restriction and playability. in basketball they have the shot clock that forces teams to attempt a field goal within 24 seconds, in volleyball a team can only have 3 consecutive touches. in soccer the goalie cannot picks the ball up after a back pass: all games have restrictions, and those restrictions do not make the game worse, in fact they were introduced to make the game better. restrictions in scenarios are designed to make them more historical, and historicity is the measuring stick for historical scenarios; the more extraordinary the battle, the more severe the restrictions.

unless of course you think the stock agincourt scenario, with its dag freedom of action, gives you a better agincourt experience.

[ZeaBed]

actually if the players have full control, it would merely be a themed dag game, in my view not a historical simulation which comes with its own sets of circumstances, without which there is no distinction between say 'agincourt' and 'encounter in 1415 between french and english armies'. in a dag game this is what i would do as the french player: i would not attack, i would let the english come out. is that 'playability' or even remotely close to something called agincourt? no it's not 'agincourt' it's 'encounter between french and english in 1415'. any design that allows the french to just stand around and bring up all their forces and even attempt flanking moves through the woods is a what-if scenario.

and i think you set up a fallacious dichotomy between restriction and playability. in basketball they have the shot clock that forces teams to attempt a field goal within 24 seconds, in volleyball a team can only have 3 consecutive touches. in soccer the goalie cannot picks the ball up after a back pass: all games have restrictions, and those restrictions do not make the game worse, in fact they were introduced to make the game better. restrictions in scenarios are designed to make them more historical, and historicity is the measuring stick for historical scenarios; the more extraordinary the battle, the more severe the restrictions.

unless of course you think the stock agincourt scenario, with its dag freedom of action, gives you a better agincourt experience.

I wasn't comparing the shortcomings of a given stock scenarios vs. an ideally improved custom scenario. But restrictions beyond the ones confronted by the historical scenario itself do not seem to me an improvement over the stock limitations. Some restrictions seem to me artificial, including the addition of non-existent impassable terrain in what was an open, marshy or wooded field, together with unexplainably immobile units. Some substitutions can be made, of course, if certain historical features are not available in the FoG arsenal, such as certain troops, mantelets, breastwork graphics, etc.

Envelope-pushing in custom scenarios means to me providing house rules for triggers and reasonable approximations, along with other admittedly makeshift techniques that could actually be developed and included in future editions of FoG. That, I believe, would help improve the gaming experience in the long run.

As for the rest, I do consider Agincourt to be 'an encounter in 1415 between French and English armies', which is what it was. The point of the game, for me, is to use the historical OOBs and positions to see if the battle can be duplicated, on its own merits, or whether history can be changed, at least within the rational limits of a digital game. As I mentioned before, I do see your point. We must agree to disagree.

[fogman]

you realize of course that 'impassible terrain', in my usual usage of it, is a map overlay, not representative of actual impassible terrain. the stunning part in your comment is that in your latest version of crecy you had added impassible terrain where there was none before.



needless to say i'm not aware of actual impassible terrain at crecy. thanks for the laugh.

i can explain the immobile units, but it clearly would fall on deaf ears.

[ZeaBed]

Well, I must express my disappointment that civility did not last very long in this exchange. I thought you once wrote elsewhere that such matters could be discussed constructively, without acrimony. You must have changed your mind apparently.

Impassable terrain was to be found in my original version of Crecy as well, iirc, as it stands for 1. the actual impassable slope/ridge that forced the French to take the narrow path to the English. Steep slopes and rough terrain simply could not duplicate this factor, and, 2. the town of Crecy, for which I used an Impassable terrain outline to simulate the town, since we lack town and city graphics. I think I explained that somewhere. Sorry you missed it.

I would explain the difference between such uses and the insertion of Impassable terrain into an area where the terrain was not remotely impassable or even difficult to negotiate, but I'm afraid that would fall on deaf ears. Btw, I also used Impassable terrain in Dandanaquan, because in the mountain setting in that scenario there is a peripheral area of scarpment.

Oh, I do agree that there is such a thing as Impassable terrain and it has its uses. Yours simply differ from mine, which has been my main point. I was merely trying to understand your rationale. Now I understand that point and have confirmed others.

And yes, your explanation of immobile units will probably fall on deaf ears. Why should I be different from so many others?

I wish you a Happy Holiday Season.

[fogman]

i fail to see the purpose of the whole discussion. i explain something. you say i see but it's no good. rinse and repeat. but merry christmas anyways.

[ZeaBed]

I didn't say it was no good. I simply wrote very clearly that our views are different, that I understood your explanation but we should agree to disagree. That seems reasonable enough. And merry Christmas to you too.