First 6.0 game. Burgundian Ordonnance vs Thematic Byzantine

[jre]

It has been a long time since I last wrote one of these, so it has gone too long. We played yesterday our 6.0 game. I used the changes posted on the forum from 5, and we did some rule checking in a few cases. I hope this will help some of the new playtesters. I will comment some tactical decisions for the same reason. This was my twenty-something game, and somewhere in the fifteen-twenties for Francisco.

The biggest advantage, for us, is that nothing seems to have changed with the new version, besides it being clearer and neater. When we changed from 4 to 5, or the changes in 5.1 to 5.4, the games felt slightly different (or a lot, for archers or MF in general). This time it felt more as if some dark points had been cleared. Abandoning the move by elements in rout and evade felt smooth, and it did not bring any big arguments. Other changes felt more like clarifications of the way we already played. And even without a TOC some doubts were easier to find than in 5.4 with a TOC. Or maybe we are used to checking the glossary first... This checking the differences was one of the reasons why the game is one that we have done before. He still thinks that all armies have a chance against any other army.

The game itself was one more example of Francisco trying to find a way to beat with a Cavalry army a Knight and Bow army. I wanted to check the mixed Burgundian Ordonnance, and at least against cavalry armies it works, though I think the main reason I will use them is because I already have so many figures mounted in double bases...

All the left-right references are from my (Burgundian) PoV.

800 points, Thematic Byzantine vs Burgundian Ordonnance.

Byzantines (from memory)

3TC, 1 IC
2 Cat, El, Dril, Hvy Arm, 1L, 1 Bw, Sw
6 Cv, Sup, Dril, Arm, L, Bw*, Sw
2x6 Cv, Av, Dril, Arm, 1/2L, 1/2 Bw, Sw
4 Cv, Av, Dril, Prot, Bw, Sw
4 LH, Av, Und, Unp, Bw, Sw
2x6 HF, Av, Dril, Prot, Def Sp + 2 LF, Av, Dril, Unp, Bw
8 MF, Av, Dril, Unp, Bw
4 LF, Av, Und, Unp, Sling
6 LF, Av, Und, Unp, Jav, L. Sp

Burgundians

4TC
3x4 Kn, Av, Dril, Hvy Arm, L, Sw
4 LH, Av, Dril, Unp, XB
12 HF, Po, Dril, Prot, Pk
2x3 HF, Av, Dril, Prot, Def. Sp + 3 MF, Av, Dril, Prot, LB, Sw
6 MF, Av, Dril, Prot, LB, Sw
8 MF, Av, Dril, Prot, LB, Sw
4 MF, Av, Dril, Prot, XB
4 LF, Av, Dril, Prot, HG
2x2 L. Art Und

As expected, the Byzantines get initiative (that interests me because I prefer to move first).

The Byzantine tried to get a clear table, but the left flank had two fields (enclosed on my side, open in the Byzantine's) covering most of it. In the Byzantine corner there was a gentle slope. The other terrain was in the rear areas and had no effect in the battle.

I set up my LF hidden in the enclosed field, not because I expected it to be of use, but to hide my strength in BGs by deploying 3 BGs the first segment rather than 4. The Byzantine set up two ambush markers behind the gentle slope.

The most critical units for me, so the ones that deploy last (with a knight BG) are the longbowmen. Although there were (supposedly) two Byzantine cavalry units undeployed when it was their turn, it was quite clear from the battle line where they would go, so I sent the bows to seize first my field and then the Byzantines’, with the LH and the ambushing LF covering their flank. The center saw a mixed Ordonnance/knights line. The knights were there to keep the Byzantine spearmen from overrunning my weaker melee Mixed BGs. Then two knight BGs to watch and aim for the Byzantine cavalry and covering the right flank the slow Artillery-Pikes block, with the crossbowmen extending their flank to stop any skirmishers from enveloping them.

The Byzantines had on the left the archers, one of the Thematic Lance Bow BGs covering the fields and the slingers covering the cavalry. That felt a bit understrength so I supposed there was something hidden behind that slope. The centre had the two spearmen BGs and then a big block of cavalry (two BGs and the cataphracts). Covering the right flank were the LH and the LF javelinmen.

My objectives were to keep the byzantine cavalry away from my artillery, to engage them frontally where my longer effective frontage would give me extra dice at advantage. Seize the terrain with the longbowmen, shooting up anything that got in range, and use one of the mixed Ordonnance BGs to press the cavalry into charging (or fleeing).

The Byzantines did not like their odds against a big pike block, even if they were poor, so they tried to catch my knights unbalanced before they deployed correctly, as initially they were in two blocks, one behind the other. The LH tried to hamper my movement, so I sent the crossbows to chase them off, which brought the javelinmen to shoot my crossbows flank. The artillery plodded forward, and one got close enough to shoot the javelinmen... That flank would stay more or less like that the whole battle with lots of shooting, many CTs, some disruptions, and one TC per side bolstering those wavering so there were no conclusive effects.

The drilled knights surprised Francisco once again with their flexibility. The knights approached the battle two deep to reduce the shooting profile. An expansion followed by a contraction let them creep 2 bases sideways, even with the LH close by disallowing shifting.

The Byzantine spearmen aimed for the Mixed Ordonnance, as they had the best possibilities against them. The Burgundian centre split, however, with one mixed BG going for the Byzantine cavalry, the knights menacing interception charges against both spearmen and cavalry, while the other mixed group covered the flank of the much faster moving longbowmen.

The longbows shooted up the Byzantine slingers that tried to delay them, but had to stop at the edge of the field because one of the Byzantine spearmen BGs had swung to menace their flank if they kept marching forward and all the Byzantines were over 6 MUs from the field edge. I did not like the odds against the lancers (who had spread to single line while the slingers recovered behind them).

The Byzantine cavalry shooting was ineffective, the Mixed Ordonnance's as well, and both had shock troops in charge range but were still waiting for a BG to deploy (the cataphracts for the Byzantine, the second knight BG for me). A strange moment of calm. All kept their nerve in a stalemate throughout most of the line. My turn only the out of place knights and the mixed ordonnance rushing to fix the Byzantine spearmen moved.

Unnerved by the possibility of spontaneous charges, and trying to get a knight BG out before the other got ready to charge, the Byzantines (in my opinion) jumped the gun and charged with only a cavalry BG (the Thematic) against the ready knights. The cataphracts did not reach to engage that turn but got ready to countercharge the other knight BG. Meanwhile the interception charge stalemate between a knight BG and the tagmata and spearmen held (the knights menaced the Tagmata if they charged and the spearmen menaced the knights if they charged the Tagmata, with a big numeric advantage if nothing else).

Disadvantaged on all phases the Thematic troops kept their morale but lost a base in each combat phase. I benefitted from the change allowing an element expansion to compensate the cavalry overlap, even in my opponents turn. One more reason to use deep knight formations. In my turn, rather than charge I joined on overlaps with both the pikes and the other knights, with the aim of killing one more base and autobreaking the BG. The ten dice were enough. In pursuit the knights crashed on the cataphracts, as the lines were not perfectly aligned. A 2-1 victory on two dice in impact made the cataphracts disappear when Francisco rolled a 2 in the Death roll. Quite a waste of points and attrition points, but we have already gone through that. The loss did not unnerve the tagmata, but they were more and more isolated.

Although the situation was clearly good, I have seen quite a few times when rash attacks after an initial advantage ended up badly with a few dice rolls. So rather than charge along the line I kept my nerve and the knights did too and did not charge. That allowed my victorious drilled knights to advance forward and turn 90º, right besides the flank of the Tagmata. The longbow fire also finally disrupted them (that menaced flank modifier) but they rallied the following turn. That is to be expected with an IC around.

Meanwhile the LH went up the slope to see what was hidden there, the handgunners were in support, and the bows advanced to engage with fire the unprotected Byzantine archers. The hidden unit was revealed as a small bow cavalry BG, waiting for exactly this opportunity, and the balance of power in that flank shifted in the Byzantines favour.

The Light Horse weathered the fire of the cavalry, and ran back while the handgunners courageously advanced to shoot the cavalry, disrupting them. The Byzantine had two generals in the flank, so they did not stay disrupted long (and the Byzantine archers weathered well the longbow fire). The remaining cavalry moved into charge range of the longbowmen, survived the fire (losing a base) and charged home. The Byzantine bows charged too, having passed their CMT. The battle would rage inconclusive but with many casualties for the rest of the game. The cavalry had better advantage but less numbers than the archers in their section of the line. The inverse was true between the Byzantine and Burgundian archers.

The Byzantine bow cavalry charged the skirmishers but did not catch them. In my turn however they were disrupted and lost a base so they did not dare to charge again. That was shown not to have been a good idea when despite the presence of a general they were fragmented by fire. Now it was me who hesitated to charge with the LH, the cavalry weathered more shots and rallied to disrupted, only to fall again back to fragmented the next shooting phase. The power of gunpowder. This second time I did charge, and although they weathered the CT, decided to evade and failed. The impact phase broke them but they were “lucky” enough to outdistance the LH.

In the center the three knight BGs charged, two (front and flank) the tagmata with the IC and the other to keep the spearmen on the tagmata flank busy. The tagmata rolled well but disrupted and fighting in two directions against knights the odds were very bad. They managed to win a couple of partial combats but without effect and though they passed the CTs the base losses were unavoidable (10 dice on 3+ are a lot of hits) till the autobreak limit. The knights were lucky in melee against the spears and disrupted them, and that was the end.

30 minutes deployment and 3 hours and 30 minutes play. 8-0 for the Burgundians. Once again knights (and handgunners!) prevail over cavalry.

We were a bit lucky with CTs, and tried to maximize rear support opportunities (one of the advantages of an all average army) so many combats were going to the autobreak limit. By game end there were two Burgundian and two Byzantine BGs one base away from autobreaking, and three of the four Byzantine losses were due to casualties rather than cohesion. A big difference with our first games, when you could suffer a decisive defeat having lost only three bases.

Jose

[rbodleyscott]

I set up my LF hidden in the enclosed field, not because I expected it to be of use, but to hide my strength in BGs by deploying 3 BGs the first segment rather than 4.

It does not work this way. You must deploy the 4. If the fourth BG on your list is in ambush, you must deploy the 5th instead.

The most critical units for me, so the ones that deploy last (with a knight BG) are the longbowmen.

I agree. Always deploy longbowmen last!

[jre]

So, with 13 BGs it would be 4, 3, 3, 2 + 1 ambush? That will teach me to read rather than invent my own rules. That means that dummies are of interest only if there is at least a real BG in ambush/flanking, unless you have one of the "magical" BG numbers (15, 11, 7) as the opponent will know how many ambushers and or flankers there are. Unless you want to disguise a flank march as ambush.

Changes our philosophy of smoke and mirrors...

José