Page 1 of 1

Warfare 2007 FOG Report (1) - vs Serbian [w/pictures]

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:56 pm
by neilhammond
Despatches from Warfare (Introduction)

As ordered, your humble servant has penetrated the highly secret world of Field of Glory (FoG) and is dutifully and truthfully reporting on the performance of the Imperial Russian army’s progress at the recent Warfare 2007 clash, on a cold and wet English weekend in Reading. The army was lead by Prince Dimitry (pictured below). Unfortunately Prince Dimitry was unavailable for comment about his less than zealous performance as he is currently overseas awaiting treatment for a medical condition.

Image
All figures painted by Matt Hayward

As you will know, the Russian Imperial Army, also known as the Post-Mongol Russian Army, historically operates against fast steppe nomad horse archers to the east and south, and against heavily armoured knight armies to the west. Its cavalry is better armed that the horse nomads and fully capable of engaging in archery duels or close combat, as circumstance dictates. It is more lightly armed than the iron-encased men-at-arms of the west, and therefore must use nomad tactics to evade and harass until the enemy weakens.

Fortunately the FoG rules recognise this and allow both tactics for the cavalry on the battlefield, unlike the predecessor DBM. It is not clear what DBMM allows as the priests are still trying to decipher and agree on the meaning of the rules.

The Russian army consisted of:

4 x Boyar cavalry – 4 bases armoured Cv, bow, sword, superior
1 x Boyar cavalry –as above but average
2 x Cossack light horse – 6 bases unprotected LH, bow, sword, average
2 x Spearmen – 6 bases protected HF, defensive spear, average
1 x Bowmen – 8 bases unprotected MF, bow, average
1 x Cossack light foot – 8 bases unprotected LF, bow, average
1 x Handgunners – 6 bases unprotected LF, handgun, average
4 x General officers

The Boyars are back in town:
Image

Prince Dimitry had reported to his staff that he was worried about facing armoured knights as they were very difficult to beat. Fortunately they hadn’t proved very popular in preceding completions so what were the chances of meeting more that one knight army at Reading?

Game 1 vs Later Serbians

The Serbians were commanded by Lance Flint, a recent defector from the world of DBR. The layout was as follows:
Image

The mercenary Serbs are on the left, the heroic Russians on the right. Lance had decided to maximise on knights (in the centre of Lance's line) but brought enough Cuman cavalry and light horse to ensure that an army such as mine couldn’t evade the knights without some risk of being caught during the evade. In addition he scoured his country for every peasant and country yokel he could find to fill out his army with light foot archers. The military capability was laughable but their numbers were alarming and they successfully screened the knights from harassing fire.

Prince Dimitry’s plan was to use the spearmen as a defensive strong point, forcing the knights to split, some chasing evading boyars whilst some faced off the spears. The spearmen can be seen in the photo near the blue pen, which is (hopefully) prodding them onto victory. The boyars and light horse in the centre and left would retire before the knights and cumans, whilst the right would attack and try and a right hand sweep across the field.

That was the plan. This is a closer look at the hard-as-nails Serbs, carefully screened by their light foot:
Image

Meanwhile, on my far left Lance had skilfully used a combination of Cuman cavalry and light foot to extend his line and force back the Cossasks...
Image

In the centre, the knights were closing with the Boyars:
Image

Eventually the lines clashed:
Image

The Boyars in the foreground were deployed in combat formation, and despite numerous orders to deploy into skirmish order, refused to do. Under cross-examination they claimed that the documentation they received wasn’t correct. Eventually the right documentation was found and they agreed to deploy out correctly just as the Serbian knights lowered their lances for the charge.

The Boyars evaded, but somewhat tardily. As a result of this unpatriotic behaviour two groups of knights tore into the Boyars, swiftly routing them and creating a huge hole in the Russian centre. The loot-hungry Serbians then turned on the baggage and looted the camp.

Image

Prince Dimitry, to add to Mother Russia's dishonour, had not deployed his spearmen correctly and the knights had largely managed to by-pass them. The only success on the field that morning was by these patriotic working-class spearmen and archers, who eventually did pin one unit of knights and Cuman cavalry and overwhelm them. This was in sad contrast to the petty-bourgeois behaviour of the Boyars who left the field as fast as their horses could carry them.

The Russian infantry can be seen ready for action, supported by more Boyars:
Image

Eventually the heroic spearmen start to surround some Serbian knights, who are too stupid to realise that they are badly outnumbered and continue to win their combats:
Image

Finally, close to total Russian collapse, time was called. The end result was 25-7 in BHGS currency, to Lance. His knights had been hard to counter, and the light foot had been successful in screening them until the decisive charge arrived. Lance also skilfully withdrew his lighter troops facing my right wing attack to give the Russians little to fight against whilst the game was decided by the knights.

Game 2 report can be found by clicking here: viewtopic.php?p=35904#35904

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:24 pm
by jdm
Awsome Neil

The pictures really help tell the story

Regards
JDM

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:27 am
by nicofig
Great, great, great, thank you very much :shock: :D

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:01 am
by carlos
Thanks a lot. I too suffered at the hands of those nearly invincible knights.

Interesting to see that Boyars come with the same specs as Ghilman cavalry and Timurid cavalry. Is that what the authors intended?

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:30 am
by nikgaukroger
Probably 8)

What would you expect them to be?

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:21 am
by carlos
I'm fine with the classification overall, but probably some of these Cavalry, armoured, drilled, bow, swordsmen could also have the light spear POA (or something that reflects their status as "light" lancers).

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:31 am
by rbodleyscott
carlos wrote:I'm fine with the classification overall, but probably some of these Cavalry, armoured, drilled, bow, swordsmen could also have the light spear POA (or something that reflects their status as "light" lancers).
In our view they were primarily horse archers - so get so classified even if they have lances too. I think the evidence is that not that high a propotion carried lances anyway. Certainly there is no reason to suppose that they would be more likely to carry lances than ghilman would. However, the issue of whether they carried lances or not is not relevant - they were primarily horse archers and not specialist lancers. As you know, despite the names of the combat capabilities, FoG is function based, not weapon based. Only specialist lancers get the "lancers" capability.

The only cavalry classified as bow,light spear have their bow capability downgraded to Bow* (shoot with less dice) because we only classify troops thus if they were not primarily horse archers, but more evenly split their tactics between use of bow and light lance. (e.g. Lithuanians)

We want to avoid "double-capability" troops because (a) the rules are function based, not equipment based, and the historical evidence suggests that it wasn't usually possible to train troops to be equally good at shooting and "lancering" (b) it would result in a sub-set of "super" armies, (c) it would result in the usual ludicrous wargamers' search for "evidence" to justify weapon inflation - and the resulting special pleading.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:04 pm
by carlos
I'm perfectly fine with that. It's still miles better than the huge clump of different historical troops that got dumped into the single CV(S) classification.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:45 pm
by warpaintjj
liked the report, very informative, falling in love with this game the more I see of it. Thanks alot, I look forward to reading more.

The photos really help to tell a story, picture/thousand words etc. My only gripe is that we still have to endure the appalling scenery, bits of subuteo cloth hacked into oblongs, I suppose the one or two trees on display are an improvement on the not so "good old days" of DBM etc. The Russains are nicely painted so get some decent scenery, you guys are the public face of this game, it looks like you've got the rules licked into shape, make it LOOK good as well, am I wrong? Maybe I've been spoiled by Flames of War and GW (spit) production. Love it or hate it, high production values and envious scenery will do this game a whole world of good, that includes competitions.

That said I can't wait until you post game 2,3,4 etc,

cheers

JJ

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:06 pm
by hammy
One of the issues with FoG at pressent is that most of the terrain is still the stuff that everyone used for DBM. In DBM you have to use bits of cloth with mobile trees as the precise location of every element matters. FoG is far more forgiving and one of the things on my to do list is to make some nicer terrain for FoG. So far I have not actually managed to get round to it and I suspect a lot of other people are in the same boat.

Here's looking forward to better terrain in the future....

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:00 pm
by neilhammond
warpaintjj wrote:...My only gripe is that we still have to endure the appalling scenery, bits of subuteo cloth hacked into oblongs, I suppose the one or two trees on display are an improvement on the not so "good old days" of DBM etc. The Russains are nicely painted so get some decent scenery, ...JJ
Mea culpa. In defense there are several issues with terrain:

1. you have to carry it to the comp, so heavy/bulky terrain is a hassle
2. this is especially a problem when flying to comps as it's usually polite to bring some spare clothes rather than a complete wardrobe of terrain
3. you may bring good terrain but your opponent may not, so you get 50% scruffy, 50% not.

But overall you point is very valid.

Neil

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:09 am
by carlos
warpaintjj wrote:The Russains are nicely painted so get some decent scenery, you guys are the public face of this game, it looks like you've got the rules licked into shape, make it LOOK good as well, am I wrong?
Warpaint, I agree with you in all aspects except this one. Not all of the users of this forum are "the public face of the game". Most of us are just gamers and not affiliated with Slitherine. What you have got right though, is that Slitherine might want to produce their own glitzy battle reports. These would help no end on spreading FoG to gamers who are not interested in this period or even to non-gamers.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:09 am
by neilhammond
carlos wrote:... It's still miles better than the huge clump of different historical troops that got dumped into the single CV(S) classification.
I used Ilkhanid Mongols at Britcon and have found that there is a subtle but important difference between drilled and undrilled horse archer Cv armies. The drilled Mongols were able to do a few manouevers (eg expand out) without dice rolls whereas the undrilled Russian cavalry were forced to dice. In DBM there is very little difference between Reg and Irreg Cv.