Battle of Morat 1476 AD

[ZeaBed]

I'm deleting this link to avoid further endless bickering and trouble that this thread has become. I apologize to the FOGrs who may have been drawn to this thread for wasting their time.

[Micha63]

Thanks.

[fogman]

aha. you did this one on the cheap by editing my murten scenario, changing the underlying map and adding pikes for burgundians but pretty much keeping the entire oob as is, down to the use of mf support for swiss and scale (500 halberds per 700 pikes) and the very characteristic modeling of the town of morat.

[ZeaBed]

I had to. Couldn't watch those sheep pens and open rabbit burrows any longer. Action was needed. Action now. They say you can't retro-engineer hamburger back into cow, but it's worth trying. And if you allow your fixation to waver a bit, you will see many other improvements as well, even in the derivative elements. Therefore the cool factor....

[fogman]

i understand your viewpoint. but credit it in the scenario description next time. kilroy clearly states it when he adapts gboh scenarios. i hate working for free.

[ZeaBed]

i understand your viewpoint. but credit it in the scenario description next time. kilroy clearly states it when he adapts gboh scenarios. i hate working for free.

Well, I did write that it was my version of the scenario but I understand your viewpoint too. Btw, I also borrowed quite a bit for this scenario from the historical one supplied with the game. I don't know who designed that one. It amuses me to retroengineer some scenarios for my own gaming purposes, as I understand other playes do with mine. They are normally circumscribed to my computer. This one is the only one of those that I couldn't resist uploading here.

I intend to make full and honorable amends: you can post this scenario in your own list and elsewhere and claim full credit. 'Alternative Murten', if you will. And I'll give you credit for it right here, in the fervent hope that you receive payment in full for your efforts.

Btw, I noted that you placed the second line of Murten defenders on a #1 terrain elevation, like I did in several of my earlier scenarios (cf Thymbra, Panipat, etc). Good choice that.

[fogman]

Well, I did write that it was my version of the scenario

what i meant was that it should be noted that it was a modified version of murten and uses someone else's oob research and unit design. otherwise there's a p word for it.

Btw, I noted that you placed the second line of Murten defenders on a #1 terrain elevation, like I did in several of my earlier scenarios (cf Thymbra, Panipat, etc). Good choice that.

i did not.

[ZeaBed]

The oob is similar but I also did some research as you can read in my description of the battle. And the unit design belongs to slitherine so if that is the case the p word applies to all of us. If you take time you will see significant differences among the units I chose. Aside from that a Burgundian knight unit is a Burgundian knight unit and there is not much to choose from in such categories. As usual you overstate your case.

And yes, you did.

[fogman]

obviously we don't speak the same language (or have the same vision sense), and furthermore i'm not interested in a dialogue of the deaf. i made my point, the evidence is there for all to see, and will leave it as that.

[ZeaBed]

Indeed it's there for all to see that there is only a superficial resemblance between these two scenarios of the same battle. Let them be compared side by side and not on the basis of cherry picked observations. Funny how you accuse others of the faults that characterize you best. Ignore arguments and then claim the other is deaf to yours. Spin,cycle and repeat - as someone said once. Welcome to the ignore list. Go and upbraid and hector someone else.

[fogman]

Burgundian forward position

Slitherine's stock scenario

forward position slitherine.JPG (133.67 KiB) Viewed 7103 times

Fogman's

forward position fogman.JPG (234.01 KiB) Viewed 7103 times

Zeabed's

forward position zeabed.JPG (212.74 KiB) Viewed 7103 times

[fogman]

Modelling of the town of Morat

Slitherine's

town of morat slitherine.JPG (23.38 KiB) Viewed 7103 times

Fogman's

town of morat fogman.JPG (48.89 KiB) Viewed 7103 times

Zeabed's

town of morat zeabed.JPG (62.91 KiB) Viewed 7103 times

[Yuknoom]

Wow.
Seeing these threads I guess I got off easy by just getting my head ripped off for the audacity of suggesting another take on this battle.
Which, incidentally, particularly having seen the 'official' version, I still prefer.
There do appear to be surprisingly belligerent territorial/dominance issues regarding this affair.

[Yuknoom]

In seeing these 4 interpretations I would argue - what do we know about the battle of Morat and how do we represent the commanders' situations?

Topography - On the Left side of the battlefield, viewed from the Burgundian side, there is the lake. On the shore is the town of Morat. Then there is an open area, large enough that this where the Burgundians expected the Swiss to attack, then, on the right center toward the Swiss side, the wooded hill of the Bois de Domigne.
The palisaded defensive line, near Chapelle, was lined by the longbows and artillery , facing the Bois.


Deployment and course- The Burgundian army deployed between the palisaded line and the lake, facing the gap and the town, and waited assuming the Swiss would appear in that gap and advance. However, as they would later do at Nancy and Novara, the Swiss had no intention of marching straight into the enemy, and did a surprise march over the wooded hill. Oddly for a surprise attack, half way over they stopped to say some prayers, hand out some honors and such. It was raining, the day wore on, and Charles returned his army to camp as the Swiss apparently had not appeared.
The Swiss then charged out off the hill, swept by the palisades, and Charles' army came up piecemeal and was cut down in detail as he tried to organize a cohesive front, both by the Swiss on his right and the garrison sallying out.

Anyone argue that this is not the main gist of the historical situation?

Now, how we interpret and choose to represent this is the subjective part. I would argue that the correct approach, the critical moment, is to begin with a disorganized Burgundian mob, mostly back at camp, (we know that even Charles had uncharacteristically removed some of his armor), first becoming aware of what the Swiss are doing, desperately trying to delay the Swiss emergence from the difficult terrain before they could sort themselves out, while the Burgundians bring their troops up.

Not trying to stir up the ashes of the firefight here, I gave up argumentation by bluster and bullying many many years ago. Just objectively stating my case. -Tom

[fogman]

let's go back to the basics of scenario making.

1. you read a more or less precise account of a battle you want to recreate. question: where did you read it? a specialized study, a wiki entry, a few pages in a more general study...?
2. you can probably find a map of the battle from the above resources.
3. unless it is a specialized study, the order of battle will not be known, except for the probable numbers involved on each side.
4. here comes the difficult part: the oob. how to figure it out. there are a few options:
a. you use DAG to produce a generic oob of the armies in question by deciding on the points involved for each side according to the historical numbers or whom you think you have the advantage. what you have is a themed DAG game, not a historical scenario.
b. you fish around for a more precise order of battle by scouring the internet for someone who has done a tabletop game on the battle. how do you know it wasn't done using method a.? well you don't. back to square one. ok may be you get lucky and someone looks to have posted something legitimate, but don't count on it.
c. you actually go out to the local university library and sit down and do research to get the most specialized study you can find, using inter-library loan if necessary. you research the battle as exhaustively as possible as if you are to write a paper on it.
5. after you have gotten an oob from a legitimate source, you now have to decide how to interpret it in fog terms. for example: should norman cavalry at hastings be rated light spear or lance? again you may have to do some additional research on weaponry. sometimes you base your decision on the relative strength of each side and the of the peculiarities of the program (ie anarchy rule).
6. then you decide on when to start the simulation. here comes the actual design. i always favour events-based design and have used numerous techniques that are very unique among scenario designers: cut to the chase set-up, map overlays, positive/negative points and many other accessory counters.

Parts 4 and 5 are the meat of the matter. so many decisions have to be made and so many things have to be researched that 2 designers will probably not come up with the same unit attributes and scale (what i termed unit design). it is possible for well known armies like the macedonians but for something as ill understood and studied as the burgundian ordonnance army, it is impossible.

so yes i am 'territorial' about my oob research. it's an enormous investment of time and i do take exception to people reusing it without due acknowledgement. in my line of work that's a cardinal sin that will not go unchallenged.

[Yuknoom]

Incidentally, for those interested in a more positive spin, more light and less heat on the subject and less chest pounding, the latest issue of Medieval Warfare has the Burgundian Wars as its theme with articles on Grandson and Nancy. There are several good sources cited for those who wish to investigate more deeply.