Slitherine

I have just finished reading "Blood Cries Afar: the Forgotten Invasion of England 1216-17" by Sean McGlynn and it covers this battle in some detail. The book is highly recommended.

Updated June 2016

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/154 ... 4%20v3.rar

You're really become a medieval scholar, stockwellpete. Thanks again for enriching our gaming experience with FoG. I was so relieved when I realized that I'd misread this scenario as the Battle of Bovines! Although cattle fighting each other is not a faulty simile to warfare, I think the figurines needed to make it happen are not included in the FoG graphic arsenal. Also, there would have to be special rules for "stepping on it." Lol.

Thanks very much, Zeabed, I'm glad that you are enjoying the scenarios. I think a "Battle of Bovines" would probably need units with gas masks as well!

stockwellpete wrote:Thanks very much, Zeabed, I'm glad that you are enjoying the scenarios. I think a "Battle of Bovines" would probably need units with gas masks as well!

No need. The first petard or pepperbox fired will probably ignite the methane gas and blow up both armies! BTW, I've played all the scenarios that you uploaded recently, and they're all great fun. That Bouvines and St. Albans are bit unbalanced play-wise is only due to the historical situation itself; those battles were tactically or numerically mismatched or both. But very engaging and immersive.

ZeaBed wrote: That Bouvines and St. Albans are bit unbalanced play-wise is only due to the historical situation itself; those battles were tactically or numerically mismatched or both.

Hello Zeabed. I am interested how your two games turned out. Did you play against the AI or was it against someone else? The Bouvines scenario is weighted towards the French and the St Albans battle towards the Lancastrians. Did they both win the games that you played? St Albans has had quite a bit of play-testing and it has been designed to be incorporated into my WOTR campaign game; but Bouvines has only had one play-test (and that was me playing against myself!) so it may need some more work.

Any info would be very helpful to me. Cheers.

stockwellpete wrote:

ZeaBed wrote: That Bouvines and St. Albans are bit unbalanced play-wise is only due to the historical situation itself; those battles were tactically or numerically mismatched or both.

Hello Zeabed. I am interested how your two games turned out. Did you play against the AI or was it against someone else? The Bouvines scenario is weighted towards the French and the St Albans battle towards the Lancastrians. Did they both win the games that you played? St Albans has had quite a bit of play-testing and it has been designed to be incorporated into my WOTR campaign game; but Bouvines has only had one play-test (and that was me playing against myself!) so it may need some more work.

Any info would be very helpful to me. Cheers.

Bouvines was exciting indeed. I played as the French against the AI and had no trouble winning. The main push came from the French right, not the center. It played logically and since the AI has trouble choosing a defensive strategy it was easy to win because of that. I have a 3G wireless connection which makes it ponderously and unreliable to play online. I plan to get a better broadband connection fairly soon and that may change though. In St. Albans I played the default human choice as the Lancastrians. The large number of bowmen proved devastating for the slow to react Yorkists, Kingmaker in their midst or no. The Lancastrian left wing enveloped the Yorkist right and the Lancastrian right was semi-refused until the left and center had done their job. Pretty convincing (decisive) Lancastrian victory. The AI did not implement any convincing defensive or delaying activity against the Lancastrians. But also a very good battle and it would be more interesting among two human opponenets. But I'm limited by having to play against the AI. I must said I enjoyed all very much. I may have confused the name of Ludford Bridge in an earlier post. It was also a solid scenario battle and again, rather easy for someone playing the Lancastrians against the AI. LB was the fantasy battle, the one that should have occurred before Northampton, I believe. Spent several enjoyable hours with each of them.

Thanks for that, Zeabed. All my scenarios are designed for two-player games so if you can upgrade your connection it would be good to play a few games with you in the future. The debacle for the Yorkists at Ludford Bridge occurred in 1459 so, yes, it was before Northampton 1460.

Thank you for the scenario.

I have done a major re-write of this scenario to give it a "big battle" atmosphere. The French army is 850pts, the Imperial army 825pts - so it is fairly evenly balanced. On my own reading of various articles and sections in books it is a battle that could have gone either way. The French have superiority in mounted soldiers but the Imperial army is stronger in the infantry department, and now their line up includes the fearless "Brabanzonen" mercenary spearmen.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/154 ... 20PWv3.rar

I am still testing this one At 850 to 825 army points the French have just lost twice in a paired game so I am trying 850 to 800 against the same player. The French have a considerable number of "poor" communal infantry which are a bit of a liability at times.

Army points are now French 850, Angevins 800. This is a really good battle now with chances for both sides.