Slitherine

I could not resist having a go at making a version of this very famous battle. My main idea was to try and create a real "Storm of Arrows", because I do feel that the longbow is a bit underpowered in FOG.

In this version the English and Welsh longbowmen are rated "superior" and there is an important scenario rule that should be followed to get the real effect that I was after - the rule is that French units may not enter any wooded hex unless it is to melee with an enemy unit (that is also in a wooded hex) on that turn. Any French unit that fulfills that rule may subsequently move without restriction (that is, it may move in any other wooded hex without having to melee for a second time). You may also switch "double moves" off if you want to make it even harder for the French.

EDIT: Version 4 now available

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15461007/Battle ... 20PWv4.rar

I hope that you enjoy it - I really enjoyed doing the play-tests I can tell you - and any feedback and suggestions for improvement are most welcome.

Hi Pete,

The other day I watch on History Channel a documentary abouth Genghis Khan. They made live trials shooting with their
kind of Bow versus the English Longbow. The Asian Bow resulted to have more penetration.
That brought my attention. As Im no expert....what do you think?

Back to topic. Let me know if you want to try the scenario.

Fedem wrote:Hi Pete,

The other day I watch on History Channel a documentary abouth Genghis Khan. They made live trials shooting with their
kind of Bow versus the English Longbow. The Asian Bow resulted to have more penetration.
That brought my attention. As Im no expert....what do you think?

Back to topic. Let me know if you want to try the scenario.

Yes, I have no reason to disbelieve that, Fedem. I think that military comparisons between different time periods or different parts of the world can be quite difficult. You can only really judge a weapon in its own historical context. What we can say about the longbow is that it was very effective against the Scots (because they were mainly on foot and did not wear much armour) and the French (particularly against their mounted knights and cavalry provided the longbowmen were in well-prepared defensive positions) for more than a couple of hundred years, say 1200-1450 approximately.

I will put a paired challenge on the system shortly, password "fedem".

Good call for a scenario crafting choice. The Agincourt that came with SoA needs revision. And yes, based on my newbie experience gaming Crecy I would say that the English longbows are indeed underpowered, as they have the same (unchangeable) range as the Genoese crossbows, even when the latter units are rated Poor. That can't be right, I think.

We are really appreciating these, BTW. Thanks

ZeaBed wrote:Good call for a scenario crafting choice. The Agincourt that came with SoA needs revision. And yes, based on my newbie experience gaming Crecy I would say that the English longbows are indeed underpowered, as they have the same (unchangeable) range as the Genoese crossbows, even when the latter units are rated Poor. That can't be right, I think.

Thanks Zeabed. There are still a few minor issues for me to ponder with this scenario. The French had a few bombards but they were ineffective. Different accounts put the French mounted troops and knights either all at the front/flanks or all at the rear/flanks. Some of the French crossbowmen could be "average" instead of "poor". I shall wait and see how the first few multi-player play-tests work out to see if it needs any re-adjustment.

Plus there are a few more troop labelling issues to sort out - if I can avoid units just being called "Men-at-arms" then I will do, I much prefer to have a named historical characters instead.

I have just read a very clear account of the battle by Juliet Barker in "Agincourt: the King; the Campaign; the Battle" (2005) and I have decided to use it as the basis for this scenario.

So there will be some changes and I will put the new version up on Sunday. What she says happened at the beginning is that only about 400 French horsemen charged the English lines because most of the French horse was to the rear. This attack was easily broken up and then the great blocks of armoured French infantry moved forward. So there were no mounted knights in the French centre at all.

The other important point she makes is that the French nobility were jostling with each other to be the first to get to grips with the English - they were expecting an easy victory - so a lot of the leading commanders came in with the first wave. The French archers and crossbowmen were quite ineffective because they were often bundled out of the way by the foot soldiers and they didn't have a clear field of fire. Of course, the armoured French got bogged down in the mud and everything was very congested. They became sitting ducks for the English and Welsh archers.

The second version is nearly ready - just a couple of play-tests on the go to make sure it is reasonably balanced. The French army now weighs in at a whopping 1,000pts!. I have also made some minor adjustments to the terrain and the English army is more tightly packed than it was before. The key thing is still the prohibition against the French troops going into the woods unless it is to melee on that turn. I think if you introduced this rule into the version of Agincourt that FOG already has then that would improve it a lot (although Henry V fought on foot, not on horseback).

For those of you who are avid readers of medieval history, I have already mentioned the Juliet Barker book from 2005, which is highly recommended. There is a bit of an academic dispute currently raging over the numbers at Agincourt. Anne Curry has also written a book (2005) in which she argues that the French army was nowhere as big as has been suggested by other writers. Some of these historians have refuted her arguments. I have not read the book yet, but you might find this interesting as a "starter" . . .

http://www.soton.ac.uk/research/southam ... court.html

Another interesting article . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world ... gewanted=1

The point about knights in the woods is very well taken. FoG should have a terrain category for dense woods that is impenetrable or at least slower slogging for mounted knights.

ZeaBed wrote:The point about knights in the woods is very well taken. FoG should have a terrain category for dense woods that is impenetrable or at least slower slogging for mounted knights.

Yes, that would be good. The current impassable terrain looks like a moonscape and it makes the battlefields look ugly.

Good one - moonscape... The terrain is so ugly no one wants to go over it anyway.

Version 2 now available at the top of the thread. The French army is at 1,000pts, the English army is at 600pts. I have modified the terrain somewhat to address some of the issues that became apparent in version 1. The French also have less missile units now so that it is much harder to use these as a screen. I would be interested to hear the results of any games that you play, particularly in multi-player. Thanks.

Version 3 now available at the top of the thread. Just a few minor terrain amendments and the introduction of an optional historical rule - the mounted French units on the baseline and the line of mostly French levies just two rows of hexes from the baseline cannot move until turn 5. This is to follow Juliet Barker's suggestion in her book that much of the French horse was waiting for reinforcements to arrive and well away from the English when the fighting started. Play-testing for this scenario is finished now.

An enforced change here. It seems the French are too powerful at 1,000pts once a player has worked out the scenario a bit, so they have been reduced to 900pts - the English have stayed at 600pts. All French units are now "undrilled" in an effort to simulate the very muddy and congested conditions in which they fought the battle. Version 4 is at the top of the thread.