Slitherine

The dynastic struggle between the Plantagenets and the Valois over the throne of France (Edward III had a better claim than his Valois rival but his derived from a female line), that would later turn into something more national in character, resumed in the mid 1350s after the devastating interlude of the Black Death. In late summer of 1356, Edward, the prince of Wales, later known as the 'Black Prince', with his small army departed from his appanage of Aquitaine (or Gascony), the vast land holdings that the famed Eleonore brought into the Plantagenet patrimony as a dowry two centuries earlier. His destination: Capetian France. His objective: its ravaging. The French, under king Jean II 'the Good', superior in numbers and rashness but inferior in most other aspects were soon in hot pursuit. Near Poitiers, in september, they caught up with the Anglo-Gascon army, resulting in a momentous battle that saw a king captured and a prince immortalized.

Designer's notes:

Like most seemingly one-sided affairs, this was not an easy battle to simulate. By this time, i have eschewed the traditional way of doing a historical scenario: find out the order of battle, the starting positions, the lay of the land, and just line up the armies, because doing so gives rise to unrecognizable, unhistorical maneuvers and developments, that is no different from a DAG battle. Coaxing the flow of the game into historical events has become the guiding principle. Creating a scenario now has as precondition the structural analysis of the battle in question in order to delineate its main patterns and identify its obligatory way points.

At Poitiers, the French attacked in distinct waves. There were 4 battle groups: the advance guard, followed by the forces respectively of the dauphin's, the duke of orleans', and the king's. The advance guard came on first, most went right with the constable into the Anglo-Gascon van, some (Clermont's troopers) straight ahead. Then came the attack of the dauphin's command against the Anglo-Gascon centre. Although the two actions were not really simultaneous, it is possible to portray them here as such because they occurred at different locations. It is a compromise since there is no way to force a player to attack in two waves as his preference would be to attack with one single overwhelming one. This is where I chose to start the scenario. The third line, the duke of orlean's, did not fight. most of it left the field (among the notables who remained were Guichard d'Angles who later would become the tutor to the future Richard II, the Black Prince's son!). By the time the king's division went into action, the previous waves had been broken. The key design decision here is to start with the dauphin already engaged and the king still far away so they can't combine.

The English player should be able to destroy the first 2 waves. The key is to minimize the losses to be able to counter the last French push when the king arrives. If he is wildly successful, as it is possible, the French may not attack and adopt a defensive posture. then the English player should have the strength to take the offensive, which happened historically. Beware of the immobile units. they are so to prevent the English player from entertaining maneuvers that would disrupt the historical flow.

a note on the french crossbow unit: i have not used the mf crossbow counter but a hf pavoisier crossbow counter because 1) there was one pavoisier (shield carrier) for 3-4 crossbowmen. 2) that would keep those units more or less static and not engaging in some DAG type flanking maneuvers.

Indeed, fogman, a very difficult battle to scenario. I look forward to playing it. Thank you for all your recent contributions.

I think the computer can be quite competent as the english player although i design mine to play solitaire or mp.

Bouvines is a very good one to play against the computer on either side.

I first play it solitaire, to check it out, thereafter with another player. You've been so admirably prolific lately that I haven't had time to play it, but I'll get to it soon. Thanks again.

I've just played this scenario and really enjoyed it. You've been able to simplify the battle yet keep it historically viable. I particularly like your "cut to the chase" setup. I don't know why the Gascon archers on the Anglo-Gascon wings were rendered immobile, they can't even pivot in place, but it didn't affect the game much.

Thanks for the scenario.

ZeaBed wrote:I've just played this scenario and really enjoyed it. You've been able to simplify the battle yet keep it historically viable. I particularly like your "cut to the chase" setup. I don't know why the Gascon archers on the Anglo-Gascon wings were rendered immobile, they can't even pivot in place, but it didn't affect the game much.

like i said in the notes, it's important to look at it structurally to deduce its different flows; in the same way a historian has to take a jumble of events and reduce it, or simplify it as you say, to a coherent narrative. Once that's done, find a way to restrict players from straying from that flow. if you just line up two armies far from each other, you get a DAG game, where any narrative becomes possible, most of it improbable from a historical standpoint.

the fact that immobile units can't pivot is a hindrance. hopefully, that will be changed. but sometimes it works in your favour since one of the powerful game tactics is to turn a unit by attacking it from one side (or attacking an adjacent unit in certain situations), making it turn towards that attack, thus presenting its rear to another attacker in the following turn. an immobile unit will be immune to that trick.

some archers are immobile so they can't outflank the french. because of their speed and location relative to their adversaries they can be used for all sort of blitzkrieg manoeuvres. not part of their tactical doctrine. archers mostly stayed in one place, shot and maybe would come out to their front to finish off someone, or pursue a fleeing enemy, but that would be it. Paying attention to proper historical use of troops and factoring in restrictions to prevent players from straying keep the game flowing like it should historically. Winning comes down not to some clever but unrealistic manoeuvres but to manipulating combat odds, sequence of attacks, leader positioning, simple luck. if i wanted to play a wild game, i can play a mp DAG game. It's fun and i'm good at it but i'm not going to pretend it bears any resemblance to a real historical battle. it's probably why i don't find it fun anymore.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply to my brief comment. It's good we all have a variety of preferences regarding scenario making. Like you, I am not a fan of two parallel lines of opponents facing off. Not that it's not historical for many of these battles, obviously, but I'm interested in other historical scenarios. I see your point and I guess we can all agree to disagree about some opportunity for maneuvering as being historically valid or not, or indeed whether immobile archers can reflect a historical reality. Differences such as these are to be welcome, IMO, as they keep the FoG scenario-making process vital and interesting. And makes the world go round. You make a persuasive case for your principled views.

ZeaBed wrote:...I see your point and I guess we can all agree to disagree about some opportunity for maneuvering as being historically valid or not, or indeed whether immobile archers can reflect a historical reality...

Most of the archers are not immobile in the scenario, only those who are in a certain position relative to the french position. infantry battles involving an assault on a defensive position should be fairly static.