LORDS OF HISTORY, 4th edition

[fogman]

True.

[bloodphoenix]

I don't remember posting this yet, if its repetition please disregard.

Finished a brisk and exciting game of Gergovia with Mike Marchant.

I formed a defensive line on my left to keep the full weight of the Arvernii from deploying, while the best units from the area before the walls were thrown into the assault. In the meantime, I rushed the other Legions forward at best possible speed. Based on what I had seen in the past of the difficulty the Xth Legion's troops had breaking through the "gate" in front of them, I had them march south and around the line of the wall, to try to reinforce the troops engaging the Arvernii. None of them arrived in time to participate. The outcome of the fighting seemed to depend in large part on the fact that Mars was rolling weighted dice in the favor of the Romans. Elite units were held at bay by Average Roman cohorts.

Romans (bloodphoenix) 14/57 to Arvernii (MikeMarchant) 64/62

[JocaRamiro]

Hi,

I just accepted two from UlyssesG. Any more to think about?

Joca

[MikeMarchant]

Pool 2

I still have three challenges out:

Lake Trasimene for Brindlebane
Cannae for Stefano
Gergovia for Stefano

Passwords are your user names ans listed above.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Londo]

Cynoscephalae x 2

Londo (Macedonians) 52/81 vs Ian (Romans) 77/76

Londo (Romans) 72/76 vs Jonathan (Macedonians) 85/81

In the game with Ian, the Macedonian left ran for it, and formed a defensive line in front of the three objective hexes in the rear. I didn't like the way the troops were all strung out, with several being poor, and no leader in the vicinity.

In the game with Jonathan, the Macedonian left stood and fought. They were doing well for a while, and the Macedonian right under Philip was crushing all before it, so it looked like it might be a blow-out win for Team Macedonia. But their left flank crumpled suddenly, giving me just enough for a very narrow win.

Fogman, is the set-up meant to encourage Macedonians to run on the left?

Also, why is there so little cavalry, particularly on the Macedonian side? I realise they didn't have access to great numbers of horsemen like the Seleucids did, and I also realise there might be other cavalry skirmishing or doing other things off-board. But just 1 unit of lancers and 1 of Thessalians seems low in such a big army. Duncan Head gives Philip 16,000 in the phalanx, 7500 other infantry, and 2000 cavalry.

[fogman]

Cynoscephalae x 2

Londo (Macedonians) 52/81 vs Ian (Romans) 77/76

Londo (Romans) 72/76 vs Jonathan (Macedonians) 85/81

In the game with Ian, the Macedonian left ran for it, and formed a defensive line in front of the three objective hexes in the rear. I didn't like the way the troops were all strung out, with several being poor, and no leader in the vicinity.

In the game with Jonathan, the Macedonian left stood and fought. They were doing well for a while, and the Macedonian right under Philip was crushing all before it, so it looked like it might be a blow-out win for Team Macedonia. But their left flank crumpled suddenly, giving me just enough for a very narrow win.

Fogman, is the set-up meant to encourage Macedonians to run on the left?

Also, why is there so little cavalry, particularly on the Macedonian side? I realise they didn't have access to great numbers of horsemen like the Seleucids did, and I also realise there might be other cavalry skirmishing or doing other things off-board. But just 1 unit of lancers and 1 of Thessalians seems low in such a big army. Duncan Head gives Philip 16,000 in the phalanx, 7500 other infantry, and 2000 cavalry.

I don't think the Macedonian left can run because that would allow the Roman to turn against the Macedonian right too quickly. The Romans can just sit on the crest until they have crushed the Macedonian right. I suppose in your game, your opponent followed your retreating left right away instead of concentrating his forces. The idea is for the weaker Macedonian left to fight to gain enough time for the right; and it's clearly possible for the Macedonian left to inflict high casualties on the Romans in the process despite being weaker. The accounts talked of the unpreparedness of the Macedonians as they arrived on the crest and the absence of effective leadership.

the cavalry and light troops clashed before the battle and moved aside. they are designated as off-map (they are situated next to the 'positive points' on the edge of the map). The design does not take into consideration everything that was on the oob, only those units that were essential to the actual fighting. Historical plausibility depends on it.

[fogman]

I don't remember posting this yet, if its repetition please disregard.

Finished a brisk and exciting game of Gergovia with Mike Marchant.

I formed a defensive line on my left to keep the full weight of the Arvernii from deploying, while the best units from the area before the walls were thrown into the assault. In the meantime, I rushed the other Legions forward at best possible speed. Based on what I had seen in the past of the difficulty the Xth Legion's troops had breaking through the "gate" in front of them, I had them march south and around the line of the wall, to try to reinforce the troops engaging the Arvernii. None of them arrived in time to participate. The outcome of the fighting seemed to depend in large part on the fact that Mars was rolling weighted dice in the favor of the Romans. Elite units were held at bay by Average Roman cohorts.

Romans (bloodphoenix) 14/57 to Arvernii (MikeMarchant) 64/62

Hmmm. Thunder does strike twice. I need to make Gergovia fortifications stronger to completely deter this all-out assault tactic which is historically and tactically foolish. I'm still amazed it worked though because it has to beat rather overwhelming odds.

[bloodphoenix]

My Lake Trasimene game with JocaRamiro is nearing a conclusion, so I'm down to just two missing games:

Brindlebane still needs to pick up my Cannae challenge (PW=Brindlebane). I know, accepting the game when you're playing the Romans can produce a level of anticipation similar to going to the dentist for a root canal, but its interesting seeing whether you can manage a breakthrough in the center...

And I've yet to see any sign of the lost and forgotten Cynoscephalae challenge from Stephano.

If one of you gents could accept or post, I would appreciate it, as I'm about to have nothing to play!

[fogman]

Cynoscephalae

Romans (fogman) 56/76 vs Macedonians (batesmotel) 89/81

Pretty much historical flow: the macedonians were swept off the crest after fierce fighting while on the roman left the battle was fairly even until the end when the roman rear lines came up and troops from the right started to get behind the macedonians.

[fogman]

My Lake Trasimene game with JocaRamiro is nearing a conclusion, so I'm down to just two missing games:

Brindlebane still needs to pick up my Cannae challenge (PW=Brindlebane). I know, accepting the game when you're playing the Romans can produce a level of anticipation similar to going to the dentist for a root canal, but its interesting seeing whether you can manage a breakthrough in the center...

And I've yet to see any sign of the lost and forgotten Cynoscephalae challenge from Stephano.

If one of you gents could accept or post, I would appreciate it, as I'm about to have nothing to play!

they're kind of MIA as this point. personally i'm getting to the same point of no more games. time to look forward to the next lords edition.

i had penciled in Lords of the West c. 450 (the files have been ready for a long time) as the next bout but after the claustrophobic nature of heavy infantry battles, i long for something more wide open. I was thinking of Lords of the Steppes 3 or Lords of Khurasan 2 but instead i will probably offer another lords of history, this time with predominantly cavalry battles, some of which featured in lords of history 1:

Kalka River 1223: the Mongols at the gates of Russia (needs retooling).
Angora 1402: the showdown between the Ottoman and Timurid empires.
Tannenberg 1415: the twilight of the Teutonic Order.
Mohacs 1525: the last charge of medieval Hungary.
Moncontour 1569: the bloodiest battle of the French Wars of Religion.

I may abandon the regular lords altogether and focus on lords of history (which i enjoy more anyway) seeing that over at the digital league, they just came up the 'the new idea' (!) of asymmetrical pairings of preset match-ups and i don't like doing the same thing as other people. well they also came up with the, also new (!), idea of asymmetrical pairings of historical scenarios a few months ago but they can't replicate the scenarios... so i'm safe there!

[iandavidsmith]

I have played all of the Lords tournaments (think) , and by far i have enjoyed your scenarios in Lords of History over
matchups , but whatever you do i'll be there

Ian

[iandavidsmith]

Gergovia

Iandavidsmith (Arvernii) 46 / 62 win
vrs
Londo (Roman) 58 / 57 loss

The Romans legionnaires were a little late to make it into the
battle otherwise it could have gone the other way

Great Game ,
Ian

[Londo]

Magnesia

Londo (Romans) 66/74 vs batesmotel (Seleucids) 84/82

The Seleucid pikes stood and fought. Chris was doing very well in all sectors, but a series of anarchy charges by poor cataphracts and poor pikes put his left in a bad position, and I scored a lot of points at the end to snatch a narrow victory.

Interesting that no players have withdrawn to the camp as Seleucids. I was thinking about it when I was playing ricoual, and withdrew the poor pikes a bit, so that they could either move up to plug gaps in the front line or make a run for the camp, depending on the situation. But the front line held in that game, so I didn't have to make the choice.

[Londo]

Gergovia

Iandavidsmith (Arvernii) 46 / 62 win
vrs
Londo (Roman) 58 / 57 loss

The Romans legionnaires were a little late to make it into the
battle otherwise it could have gone the other way

Great Game ,
Ian

I puzzled over what to do as the Romans, and eventually decided that if I could keep the troops in good order on the plateau without charging into the Gergovia fortifications, I might be able to get a nice win. So I issued a "no retreat" Fuhrer order! I was careful with facing and positioning of units to avoid anarchy charges into the fortifications. A couple of units pursued Gauls into the fortifications and were destroyed, but I managed to set up two lines of Romans in mostly open ground.

And they did fine for a number of turns. Gauls came out piecemeal, and the legionaries held. But the Gauls kept coming, and the casualties mounted, and first the Romans on the left broke, and then the ones on the right, just as the lead cohorts of Legio X finally got there. A great game!

BTW I second Ian in demanding another Lords of History when this one concludes! A cavalry one would be perfect.

[Jonathan4290]

Lake Trasimene

Jonathan4290 (Carthaginians) 37/75 defeats Batesmotel (Romans) 79/75

[bloodphoenix]

When you say "asymmetrical pairings of preset match-ups"
I assume you're referring to the fact that we don't play first one side and then the other against the same opponent?

And not to be dense, but when you refer to "I may abandon the regular lords altogether and focus on lords of history"
I'm not sure I'm understanding the distinction between the two? I know I've enjoyed all of your scenarios. I do find your
system for introducing greater historical accuracy very interesting. Many of the scenarios that were released with the expansions to the game are more reminiscent of the Hollywood movies that purport to be "based on actual events".
Based. Loosely, and with ample poetic license. If I'm understanding correctly, "Lords of History" refers to the competitions focused on replaying specific historical battles, and "Lords of ________" are the match-ups like the "Lords of the Balkans" games, which are historical opponents in face-offs that could have happened, but didn't necessarily.

As much as I enjoy your recreations of historical battles, I did also enjoy those "speculative encounters" of potential battles between known forces. Your "Lords of the Balkans" competition was the first I played in, so I only have that one and "Lords of History 4" to base my opinion on. But I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the Balkans games, because your scenarios removed many of my pet peeves about random DAG battles. You were given a historically accurate force, not a min-maxed monster spawned by the army creator. You were fighting actual historic opponents. Both forces had a roughly equal chance of victory, even though sometimes this meant they did not have equal rout points. There were no swarms of Light Infantry Commandos.

Honestly, while I do enjoy your historical battle scenarios, and love the sound of a competition revolving around the cavalry battles you listed, I also hope that at some point you will be putting out more matched games of the type we used for the "Lords of the Balkans", because honestly, I will remember those as among my favorite FOG matches of all that I've played.

[bloodphoenix]

Battle result for Lake Trasimene between myself and JocaRamiro.
My Carthaginians 57/75 defeated his Romans 80/75, by a much less comfortable margin than I would have liked!

When I first played this scenario, I expected it to be extremely one-sided, as my understanding of the events of the historic battle caused me to see it in much the same light as Cannae...a brutal slaughter of the ambushed Romans, who were trapped against the lake with no way to escape. BUT...this scenario is actually much more competitive, and while I can't recall if anyone has won as the Romans, it doesn't seem impossible, only unlikely.

When I was the Romans, the head of my column was sharply checked at the stream by the Carthaginians, a cascade rout sending the whole line into retreat...but JocaRamiro's Romans burst through my Punic troops with ease, two of the Spear units becoming Fragmented on first contact. When the game ended, he was in the process of taking the Roman objectives in that area, while I was rushing forces from further to the right toward that flank. The streams tend to divide the battlefield into multiple separate fights, and my Carthaginians did not fare well in section number one or two. The head of the Roman's staged their successful breakout, and my Iberian troops in the next section smashed themselves to pieces against the solid Roman line.

[fogman]

When you say "asymmetrical pairings of preset match-ups"
I assume you're referring to the fact that we don't play first one side and then the other against the same opponent?

that's right. prior to it being introduced into the lords series last year, games were 'mirrored'.

And not to be dense, but when you refer to "I may abandon the regular lords altogether and focus on lords of history"
I'm not sure I'm understanding the distinction between the two? I know I've enjoyed all of your scenarios. I do find your
system for introducing greater historical accuracy very interesting. Many of the scenarios that were released with the expansions to the game are more reminiscent of the Hollywood movies that purport to be "based on actual events".
Based. Loosely, and with ample poetic license. If I'm understanding correctly, "Lords of History" refers to the competitions focused on replaying specific historical battles, and "Lords of ________" are the match-ups like the "Lords of the Balkans" games, which are historical opponents in face-offs that could have happened, but didn't necessarily.

that's correct.

As much as I enjoy your recreations of historical battles, I did also enjoy those "speculative encounters" of potential battles between known forces. Your "Lords of the Balkans" competition was the first I played in, so I only have that one and "Lords of History 4" to base my opinion on. But I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the Balkans games, because your scenarios removed many of my pet peeves about random DAG battles. You were given a historically accurate force, not a min-maxed monster spawned by the army creator. You were fighting actual historic opponents. Both forces had a roughly equal chance of victory, even though sometimes this meant they did not have equal rout points. There were no swarms of Light Infantry Commandos..

my interest is gravitating towards playing only historical battles. you can join the digital league next time for this kind of play since they're usually picking their ideas from here (passing it for 'new'). but they're still playing with light troops and fog of war and double moves.

Honestly, while I do enjoy your historical battle scenarios, and love the sound of a competition revolving around the cavalry battles you listed, I also hope that at some point you will be putting out more matched games of the type we used for the "Lords of the Balkans", because honestly, I will remember those as among my favorite FOG matches of all that I've played.

it's still possible for lords of the west 450 to run eventually. but I only play 5 fog games max at a time (I'm spending some time with pike and shot but I'm not liking it too much because of the square grid) and right now, lords of history 5 is the next in line.

[fogman]

Battle result for Lake Trasimene between myself and JocaRamiro.
My Carthaginians 57/75 defeated his Romans 80/75, by a much less comfortable margin than I would have liked!

When I first played this scenario, I expected it to be extremely one-sided, as my understanding of the events of the historic battle caused me to see it in much the same light as Cannae...a brutal slaughter of the ambushed Romans, who were trapped against the lake with no way to escape. BUT...this scenario is actually much more competitive, and while I can't recall if anyone has won as the Romans, it doesn't seem impossible, only unlikely.

When I was the Romans, the head of my column was sharply checked at the stream by the Carthaginians, a cascade rout sending the whole line into retreat...but JocaRamiro's Romans burst through my Punic troops with ease, two of the Spear units becoming Fragmented on first contact. When the game ended, he was in the process of taking the Roman objectives in that area, while I was rushing forces from further to the right toward that flank. The streams tend to divide the battlefield into multiple separate fights, and my Carthaginians did not fare well in section number one or two. The head of the Roman's staged their successful breakout, and my Iberian troops in the next section smashed themselves to pieces against the solid Roman line.

Usually if the head of their column gets through, the romans win. I did it that way. It's harder to win as romans although the mistake people make as romans is to try to move the legions. The rear and middle echelons just have to stay put and organize a defensive perimeter where they are; they have plenty of superior armoured units to bloody the Carthaginians.

[fogman]

on second thought, if you can line up like minded players, work your contacts, you can run a regular lords series yourself. it's either for 4 or 6 players, so it shouldn't be too hard. i'll provide the files: there are plenty of series to choose from:

lords of the steppes c. 1400
(lords of khurasan c. 1000)
(lords of western mediterranean c. 550)
(lords of italy c. 280 bc)
(lords of the holy land c. 1100)
(lords of asia c. 200 bc)
lords of the east c. 680
lords of the balkans c. 1305
lords of the west c. 450

the ones without brackets have ready made files. the rest needs a rebuild to the new standard of preset terrain and oobs.
i'd recommend the new lords of west 450, interesting encounters and well tested.