Alternative First Battle of Panipat 1526 AD

[ZeaBed]

Updated to version 1.2 on 31 December 2014.

For completeness sake, and to finally try to resolve some issues with the first Alternative version, I've decided to also update this formerly discarded scenario. The changes are explained in my customarily verbose scenario notes in the game itself.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/405 ... 20v1.2.zip

[stockwellpete]

I have just been comparing the two versions, Zeabed. There are a number of important differences in v1.4 including adding swordsmen+ and crossbows (?) to the bullock carts and making the "matchlockmen" MF. I certainly think from the brief description and sketch here . . .

http://greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Mys ... venson.htm

. . . that the "matchlockmen" should probably be MF. I am not sure about the "crossbow element" for the bullock carts though. Could you explain your thinking about this please?

Just as an aside really, while I was looking at v1.3 where you have the matchlockmen as HF, I came up with another version of their unit which may not be useful for Panipat now but may be for other early modern battles in India and other nearby countries . . .

use image icon from "Other", "Other" . . .
"misc mob a"
"Average"
"Unprotected"
"Drilled"
"Impact Foot"
"Swordsmen"
"Firearms"

Impact foot HF will be subject to "anarchy" but will not charge into terrain that disorders them. So in Panipat they would not "anarchy" into the ditch but would stand off and shoot. By making them "unprotected" it is really reducing them from HF towards MF, I suppose, but maybe the MF designation is best.

[ZeaBed]

This was a rather fanciful scenario. That is why I have it listed as an alternative and not v1.4. I simply found it more balanced in my own gaming experience with it. It was not historical.

Concerning v1.3, the carts are not even good as road bumps left by themselves. In v1.3 and earlier I simply conjectured that some light troops could have used the carts as cover during the battle not only the matchlock men, who are merely medieval handgunners afaik. Not too much of a stretch, imo, and Babur must have had some faith in the road-bumpiness of those carts to take the trouble of chaining them together. Even with the light troops in them, only one or two carts are left at the end of a game, even when won by the Mughals. At the same time, on the other side of the equation, the sound of guns do not seem to have any effect on elephants for example but it did in the historical battle.

There are some things the program cannot duplicate so I concluded that adopting a too doctrinaire approach (which I would normally prefer) would be too one sided in this particular battle using the current version of FoG. After all I had to use medieval troops for a 16th century battle. If I ever remake this scenario in a future FoG version, I would hope to be able to address those inaccuracies. In the meantime, scenarios like this show what could be expected in the future, if we're lucky. I believe that is the rationale for pushing the envelope now and then.

[stockwellpete]

OK thanks, Zeabed. I think you can term the "matchlockmen" as arquebusiers really rather than handgunners as having the matchlock available allowed the soldier to use both hands to aim the weapon rather than simply point it. I have played the scenario a number of times and the Mughals usually win; the artillery may not scare the elephants but it certainly makes a mess of cavalry and there are quite a few "disrupts" from artillery fire in the game. Hopefully the new scenario editor will make things easier for you to update this battle. Very good scenario, this one.

[ZeaBed]

OK thanks, Zeabed. I think you can term the "matchlockmen" as arquebusiers really rather than handgunners as having the matchlock available allowed the soldier to use both hands to aim the weapon rather than simply point it. I have played the scenario a number of times and the Mughals usually win; the artillery may not scare the elephants but it certainly makes a mess of cavalry and there are quite a few "disrupts" from artillery fire in the game. Hopefully the new scenario editor will make things easier for you to update this battle. Very good scenario, this one.

Thanks Pete. By handgunners I meant that the actual figures I used as "matchlockmen" in Panipat were actually crossbow models reassigned to bear 'firearms', which are not specifically defined in FoG but I suspect that they are modeled after medieval handguns. Or at any rate much earlier and cruder versions of this general type of field ordnance. So, as you wrote so well: let us hope that future scenario editors and new iterations of FoG eras allow us both to vindicate our envelope-pushing ventures, such as the one under discussion (and Qadesh too).

BTW, great blog that one. If we get our dream scenario editor with new troop models included, I'll insist on having some of those camel-riding rocketeers! If correctly (and imaginatively) modeled, can't you just see them and the elephants causing a maelstrom of confusion and chaos in the battlefield? Of course, Stevenson is focusing on a much later era (1685-1845), as per the suggested scenario OOB he includes at the bottom of the page. He does mention that at Panipat, Babur only had 12k troops while the Indians had 100k!! A victory greater than Gaugamela! Luckily, there are very good sources on this battle, such as the one I mentioned in the thread containing v1.3.

[ZeaBed]

Updated to version 1.1 in the original post.

[ZeaBed]

Updated to version 1.2 in the original post.

[stockwellpete]

Updated to version 1.2 in the original post.

Happy New year, Zeabed. I'm glad to see that you are still working on this one. I will have to use it in the FOG Digital League at some stage as it is one of my favourites of yours. Great news from Dan elsewhere on the forum today too. I wonder if the new version will throw up any balance issues for the scenarios that we have already done? Or whether it will offer us opportunities to improve them. For example, if we can set different rout directions for various contingents, then that would radically transform some scenarios, wouldn't it?

[ZeaBed]

Updated to version 1.2 in the original post.

Happy New year, Zeabed. I'm glad to see that you are still working on this one. I will have to use it in the FOG Digital League at some stage as it is one of my favourites of yours. Great news from Dan elsewhere on the forum today too. I wonder if the new version will throw up any balance issues for the scenarios that we have already done? Or whether it will offer us opportunities to improve them. For example, if we can set different rout directions for various contingents, then that would radically transform some scenarios, wouldn't it?

Happy New Year, Pete! I came to notice that I never uploaded this version as I had promised. Then I found two other scenarios in the same situation. I should've kept a to-do list.

Like you, I've been holding off on new scenarios (as opposed to new versions of old ones) until the new system is ready. I've researched three new Reconquista battles waiting for the new format. If there are balance issues or altering of the cardinal routing points I just hope that it can be fixed with editing once the old scenarios have been "poured" into the new wineskins. In the meantime, I will need a new computer soon and a better bandwith. So many things to fix right now, aside from the new format coming on.

Best luck to you in the new year.

By the way, Pete. If refashioning old scenarios will prove complicated in the new format then I wish you the best of luck with all those hundreds you've designed!

[stockwellpete]

Happy New Year, Pete! I came to notice that I never uploaded this version as I had promised. Then I found two other scenarios in the same situation. I should've kept a to-do list.

Like you, I've been holding off on new scenarios (as opposed to new versions of old ones) until the new system is ready. I've researched three new Reconquista battles waiting for the new format. If there are balance issues or altering of the cardinal routing points I just hope that it can be fixed with editing once the old scenarios have been "poured" into the new wineskins. In the meantime, I will need a new computer soon and a better bandwith. So many things to fix right now, aside from the new format coming on.

Best luck to you in the new year.

By the way, Pete. If refashioning old scenarios will prove complicated in the new format then I wish you the best of luck with all those hundreds you've designed!

From what Dan has said in the other thread it sounds like he can convert our old scenarios to the new format quite easily so we won't lose our work. I think we will have to check each one for any balance issues that might arise (maybe the maps are slightly different in size or maybe we will have extra terrain features that we can use?). Certainly if the rout direction facility is working then that might mean the starting position of some contingents in some battles can be adjusted. He is talking about "triggers" for scenarios (to make them more dynamic and interesting) and we will be able to use reinforcements to start some contingents off-map, so I think we will be able to do a lot more things than we can now. Also a weather system is in the pipeline. So I certainly think I am going to be very busy this year updating many of the scenarios that I have already made. There are still a few more later medieval battles that I want to do, but when the "Wolves From the Sea" and "Oath of Fealty" expansion packs come out I will mainly be writing scenarios from the early medieval period for the forseeable.

[ZeaBed]

Thanks for the detailed briefing Pete. All good news pertaining to new possibilities and flexibility (triggers!) for my more involved scenarios (I.e., most of them).

[ZeaBed]

No update this time. But I was checking all the links one last time to make sure they work and found an outdated entry for this scenario. I've corrected it and version 2.1 is now once again downloadable with the link in the first post.