A very tricky scenario to do - Barnet 1471

[stockwellpete]

A very important WOTR battle. Here is the basic set-up. Because it is very foggy, the two armies are not aligned properly and both are overlapping the enemies' left flank.

Screen_00000005.jpg (539.72 KiB) Viewed 1028 times

There are a number of issues that I am considering for this one, some of which may, or may not, be possible with specific scenario scripts . . .

1) I quite like the Day Dawn lighting for the start of the battle. If I select it, does it stay like that for the whole battle, or can I adjust it for the later turns (maybe turns 13-18)?

2) The fog was very thick so all missile fire will be affected. I know that I can reduce the lethality of missile fire from 100 to 50 or 25, but can I make it variable between 0-100 so there could be a few lucky shots? Can I set different variables for longbows and light guns?

3) I don't want the Yorkist and Lancastrian centre teams to move until Turn 4 or 5 so that the initial action takes place on the flanks. I am fairly certain that this is easily scripted.

4) In the real battle, the Lancastrians really lost because when their victorious right flank returned they accidentally charged into the rear of their own army (because of the fog!). So, although, I am not trying to make an exact simulation, I feel that I need to represent this disaster in some way through a "treachery event" (some of the Lancastrians thought their right flank had changed sides). So, I am thinking along the lines of a special event happening just once in the middle of the battle (maybe between turns 8 and 10) where all of the Lancastrian units in the centre team ("battle") have to take a morale check, maybe with a minus 1 modifier for "panic". Is something like this possible please?

[fogman]

I'm a stickler for in situational scenario design so I was piqued. Not a criticism, just some observations.

There is no separation I can see between the wings and the centre. If the left wings are overwhelmed and the centres are static for a number of turns, how can you prevent the centres being destroyed in the process; in other words, how can you guarantee the right wings marched off in pursuit and not turn inwards and rolled up the line?

Lancastrian panic occurred when their returning victorious right mistook them for the Yorkists. This happened because the battle line had tilted 90 degree or more; in other words, for 'panic' to take hold of the Lancastrian army, two conditions had to be fulfilled: the Lancastrian right wing marched off and returned and there is a re-orientation of the battle line precipitated by the fighting. I don't see how the design accomplished that in the present form.

[stockwellpete]

There is no separation I can see between the wings and the centre. If the left wings are overwhelmed and the centres are static for a number of turns, how can you prevent the centres being destroyed in the process; in other words, how can you guarantee the right wings marched off in pursuit and not turn inwards and rolled up the line?

I am a bit pushed for space as I am designing these all for 32x32 maps so that the battles don't take too long in the context of the 2-player WOTR text campaign they are primarily intended for . . .

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=109655

I could possibly leave an empty row between the three "battles", although I think I will wait until I have the scenario scripts and can playtest this scenario again with them in operation. At the moment, the "battles" do have separate commanders and are grouped in "teams" as in the default game. I am not sure what will happen if the Yorkist left is destroyed very quickly before the Yorkist centre is activated, to be honest. I don't think it is very likely as the units do take quite a bit of wearing down before they rout, but it is possible that a unit from the Lancastrian right might mount an occasional attack on an element in the Yorkist centre before it becomes activated. I am not 100% certain what will happen, but I think it will just fight back normally. These are the sort of things I need to sort out when the script is being written.

Lancastrian panic occurred when their returning victorious right mistook them for the Yorkists. This happened because the battle line had tilted 90 degree or more; in other words, for 'panic' to take hold of the Lancastrian army, two conditions had to be fulfilled: the Lancastrian right wing marched off and returned and there is a re-orientation of the battle line precipitated by the fighting. I don't see how the design accomplished that in the present form.

I am not sure that I do want to accomplish it really. In terms of re-creating battles the continuum goes from - just setting the battle up as accurately as you can and saying to the 2 players "just get on with it" at one end - to doing a very precise simulation at the other end. I am somewhere in the middle of the continuum with this scenario, I guess. I am trying to represent "the fog" and I am trying to ensure that the initial fighting starts on the flanks so that it is very likely that the axis of the battle does shift (at the moment the Lancastrian right and Yorkist left will be active from the start; the Lancastrian left and Yorkist right will be active on Turn 3; and the centres will be active on Turn 5. This will have to be carefully play tested before being confirmed though.

So far, so good, I feel. But if I then go a step further and make it so the Lancastrian right is always successful in the first phase of the battle then I am getting away from making a historical game and getting much closer to providing a historical simulation. For me that is going to make the scenario too predictable and it will lose a lot of its replayability as a result, I believe.

So the question then is - is there a way for me to represent this catastrophe that really scuppered the Lancastrian chances at Barnet and caused Warwick to lose his life? To do absolutely nothing at all seems a bit lame, so I have come up with this idea of "a treachery event" (for want of a better name) that will at least be a nod in the direction of what actually happened. There are probably two or three ways in which to trigger this event in the game and there will probably be ways of varying the severity of the event as well. If I do this well, then the "let's play it again" factor of the scenario is rocketing upwards. I am quite happy trading off some historical veracity for increased replayabilty really.

The only way I can think of to do what you are hinting at is to have a script that says that whenever a Yorkist unit from the left flank "team" is routed then the unit that routed it must pursue it for a certain number of turns. I am not sure if anything like this is possible and I am not sure if it is even desirable, because "units" in the game rout individually, whereas in real life soldiers tended to rout collectively. Unless you were able to measure the collective morale of a whole "team" of units so that they all legged it after a certain degree of damage, I am not sure how to progress this idea. The game is just not set up in a way to do it.

[fogman]

What I am saying is that the Lancastrian ‘panic’ test you intend to implement is a direct consequence of the Lancastrian right wing being quickly successful. Absent that, that test doesn’t make sense because the conditions for it no longer exist. My opinion on the matter of the ‘continuum’ is that certain events are inevitable: the Lancastrians must be successful because the advantage of flanking is overwhelming, even more so in reality than in the game system. There must be pursuit because command and control was non existent and lateral movement exceedingly difficult in reality. I have commented in the past that allowing a side to win a battle when in reality it was a lopsided defeat is going against historical immersion.

Edit: of course, since this is part of a campaign where it can go either way, my last point is irrelevant.

[stockwellpete]

What I am saying is that the Lancastrian ‘panic’ test you intend to implement is a direct consequence of the Lancastrian right wing being quickly successful. Absent that, that test doesn’t make sense because the conditions for it no longer exist.

I only partly agree. In terms of the actual battle of Barnet itself then, yes, it was the rout of the Yorkist left and the pursuit and subsequent return of the Lancastrian right that led to the catastrophe in their centre. But, I feel that there is enough in the real historical situation anyway for me to introduce this event (or the possibility of this event happening on occasions). It is extremely foggy so soldiers cannot really see what is happening beyond their immediate vicinity and treachery (soldiers changing sides during a battle) was not unknown in the WOTR (e.g. Northampton 1460). So the general conditions for a perceived treachery event do exist anyway, even if the Lancastrian right is not as successful as it was in the real battle. This is where "artistic licence" comes in and it allows me to create something plausible associated with this battle, even though the exact sequence of events have not been replicated. I have done a couple of Hot Seat playtests of this flank attack and the Lancastrians have always been successful in 5-6 turns, as they can get a number of 2:1 attacks and their commander unit is very powerful in the very first melees. So the only thing I haven't actually got is the pursuit and return - although I do still have groups of Lancastrian soldiers looking for new targets. This is what gives me the room for the event in this scenario.

[stockwellpete]

Just to follow on from this, I have a different sort of problem in the Northampton 1460 scenario. In this battle, one entire section of the Lancastrian army deserted and helped the Yorkists cross the fortifications in front of them. The end result was a complete rout of the Lancastrian forces. With a scripted "treachery event", this would be quite easy to replicate, but if it happens every time the scenario is used then its replayability factor is very, very low.

So what I propose to do is to make this treachery event unpredictable. A very simple way to do it is to say it will only happen on Lancastrian Turn 1 50% of the time. If it doesn't happen then a normal battle will take place, which will be very different from what happened on the day. If I do this then really my scenario could be more loosely described as "based on the battle of Northampton 1460" (as could my Barnet 1471), a description that I am quite happy with based on the requirements of the overall campaign.

[Paul59]

Just to follow on from this, I have a different sort of problem in the Northampton 1460 scenario. In this battle, one entire section of the Lancastrian army deserted and helped the Yorkists cross the fortifications in front of them. The end result was a complete rout of the Lancastrian forces. With a scripted "treachery event", this would be quite easy to replicate, but if it happens every time the scenario is used then its replayability factor is very, very low.

So what I propose to do is to make this treachery event unpredictable. A very simple way to do it is to say it will only happen on Lancastrian Turn 1 50% of the time. If it doesn't happen then a normal battle will take place, which will be very different from what happened on the day. If I do this then really my scenario could be more loosely described as "based on the battle of Northampton 1460" (as could my Barnet 1471), a description that I am quite happy with based on the requirements of the overall campaign.

Yes, that is easily done. We could just adapt the Dittmarscher treachery scripts from the Bornhoved scenarios.

[stockwellpete]

Yes, that is easily done. We could just adapt the Dittmarscher treachery scripts from the Bornhoved scenarios.

Ok, thanks for that. That will be good. I have made a list of all the events I want in the first 10 scenarios for the WOTR series and I will send it to you and Richard tomorrow. Most of it I think has already been done more or less in previous scenarios. Just the Northampton and Barnet scenarios stand out as a bit more complicated. I will also check through my own scenarios to see which scripts I have been given in the past.

[Paul59]

1) I quite like the Day Dawn lighting for the start of the battle. If I select it, does it stay like that for the whole battle, or can I adjust it for the later turns (maybe turns 13-18)?

Yes, that is possible by changing the "Conditions" settings in the Editor. It is a bit clunky, but most things are possible by varying the turn length and/or the start time.

If you get stuck, just let me know these things:

1) the scenario turn limit?

2) how many turns of dawn lighting you want?

3) what lighting do you want for the last turns of the battle?