Battle Report:  Phil v. TomT

French HYW (Tom) v. English HYW (Phil)

Historicon 2009

Playtest of DBMM 1.1

 

This battle report covers an historical match up between armies of the Hundred Years War roughly similar to those of the John Duke of Bedford facing an idealized French army of the 1450´s.

Phil Barker took the role of John Duke of Bedford while Tom Thomas played the befuddled French high command.

Phil´s army consisted of three battles all with a core of 4 MAA (Kn(I)/Bl(S)) supported by 8-10 elements of archers.  The right wing battle had 6 Welsh Spear (Pike(F)) while the left wing battle had a few Irish (Ps(I)).  Generals were Kn(O) with the exception of the center CIC Kn(S) (while Bedford was not in fact a "king", it seemed only fitting that Mr. Barker should receive Kn(S) status).

The opposing French likewise had three battles:

The center having the CIC (Kn(S)) with a front row of 4 Ireg Sp(O) and 8 Ireg Bw(O) backed by a second row of 4 Kn(O) and an additional Kn(S).  (It also had the cheering Hordes - well to the rear).

The left (opposing the English right) was all Regular (except for the Kn(S) sub) with a front row of 4 Bl(O) supported by 8 Bw(O) - the Genoese.  A second row had the Sub plus 4 Reg Kn(S) - the Milanese.  A flanking force had 3 Reg Aux(S).  This was to be the French strike force - but instead became the army´s downfall..  (It was also a deliberate attempt to test out the "new" troops available to the French).

The right had a front row of 4 Ireg Sp(O) and 2 Blade(S) (dismounted Kn), with a second row consisting of the Ireg Kn(S) sub and 4 Kn(O) with a few Ribalds (Aux(I)) and 4 Ps(O).

Both sides had 6 elements of conventional army baggage (Bg(O)) as the idea was to test the two armies using historical command structures without Baggage and command monkey business.

Surprisingly the French invaded despite lower aggression and Phil got to set up terrain.  He managed to get a bog and a wood on his end of the board and set up between them.  He had to, in some cases, employ the archers only one rank deep to cover the ground but had enough troops to keep the 6 elements of Welsh in reserve behind a bog.  He assigned his high command die to the right wing and lowest to the left wing.  The right wing was set forward of the center wing with the left recessed back.

The French matched the English across the line but formed one continuous line of the three battles front rows of foot.  The mounted Knights remained behind in small blocks of 4.  This chronicler knows not the plan of the English but has it on reliable authority that the French planned to advance the foot line forward and where the English archers blasted holes in the line have the French Knights ride through for death or glory.

 

The French advanced until the French left (with the strike force of Regs)reached the forward placed English right first.  In nearly the first archery exchange, the English promptly 6-1´d a French Blade(O), killing it.  Before the French commander could even complete his whine on this matter, it happened a second time with the next door neighbor Blade(O) also killed on a 6-1.  The next French Pip die for this command was also a "1" and somehow the French commander convinced himself it costs two Pips to move a single element Reg and so did not plug the hole with the extra Blade elements specifically waiting behind the Genoese for this very purpose.

The English surged forward to exploit this unexpected hole in the French line and soon had pinned and killed several Genoese eventually pushing the Reg French command to be Disinheartened.  Lack of PiPs and Impetuosity meant the Reg Kn(S) were very slow to come into action to plug the ever widening hole.

Meanwhile the French center battle at last arrived and here all went according to the French plan.  The English archers had created a few gaps in the French Ireg Crossbows (the new +2 for winning S shooting helping) through which the French Kn CIC and Kn(S) buddy surged.  Soon piles of dead yeoman began to appear, eventually the French Spears also got fully in to action (because the French commander began remembering to Press Forward) and this added to the carnage.  King Phil (still mounted) attempted to intervene but the holes were too big and too many for a single Kn(S) to plug.

This only slowed when the French left finally Demoralized causing the center to get two additional "temp" loses and Disenhearten.  In addition the chronic lack of French PIPs caused the one French Kn(S) to charge off after the English camp (and when he contacted to be ingloriously repulsed! - I blame Sue for this who was sitting right behind the English camp "observing" but in fact rooting for the desperate camp followers).

 

Finally the French right also reached the English lines and again punched a hole with Knights supported by Spears.  The hole alas was small enough to plug with the English Sub who managed to dispatch the one French Kn that broke through.  Mediocre French dice and less time to ply the English with lance and spear prevented any decisive result on this wing.

 

Eventually though the English center broke and even the now Demoralized French left wing Sub Kn(S) managed to kill a Bw element and punch a hole through even the victorious English right.  It seemed an appropriate time to call the game as it was now well after lunch.  (The game was often delayed by Phil fans wanting his autograph or a photo - as his agent I attempted to collect a fee for the privilege to defray travel costs).

It was assessed a 14-11 English victory primarily because one French command had broken and thereby Disheartened another command.  (Rather different than the DBM result which would have been a 7 - 3 French victory or in US scoring a 10 - 4).

 

 

Commentary:

It really came down to losing two Blades in a row to shooting on freak rolls and getting rattled afterwards into miss-counting PIPs (don´t you always mange to throw a "1" for PIPs when you´re rattled?).  Everything else went according to plan though the Ireg Kn were much easier to get into action than the new Reg Kn(S) the French can get and so the "strike force" struck out. 

Phil on the other hand was an excellent opponent even using a strange (to him) army.  He was imperturbable and patiently explained each rule quirk as it arose.

System Commentary:

When I remembered to Press Forward it was a tremendous advantage, often getting me into overlap or even contact when I would have been otherwise unable.  I was only able to use the squirrelly EMTLU once to get an overlap where I should not have (possibly because I forget to look for ways to use/abuse the rule).

 

I would get rid of Press Forward as complex and a bit micro managy.  In compensation perhaps all aiding Bow element would add only a +1 (like the rear rank) for simplicity.

 

I would make Bw +3 for shooting even against other Bws as it´s a nuisance to have to make the alternative calculation.  (We got it wrong several times.)  Sure Bw should shoot each other up but its just to many rules with too small an effect.

Phil´s more active (it had high PIPs) command on his right was the only victorious one so may be there is something to the PiP die allocation stuff.  On the other hand the left wing took the fewest loses by not moving much and being the furthest away so I couldn´t reach it till late in the game.

It would be nice if all foot were mounted on the same size bases.  Trying to keep recoils straight with so much heavy foot and medium foot mixed together was a nuisance.  A stop gap would be to make all foot recoil 20 paces all mounted 40 paces (same for pursuit of course).

1.1   Stuff

I´m not sure how much of 1.1 Phil wants in public right now so I will confine myself to some general remarks.  Winning (S) foot now have more offensive power than (S) mounted, I don´t agree, but Phil is struggling with Agincourt and won´t adopt the simpler solution.  This had some effect on shooting but not much on Close Combat as the over matched English yeoman rarely won.

 

Spears have gotten an offensive boost but Phil forget to use it (he had the written rules) so my second rank of Spear did nothing against Bw despite the new rule.  The Spear won any way but it would have been quicker with the new rule.

 

The wording of ETMLU has been improved though the basic concept appears unchanged (you still get to move in your opponent´s bound - if you remember.)

 

Overall:

 

An excellent and much enjoyed battle.  We had a steady stream of spectators and did as much evangelizing as we could and still get a game in.  Maybe next year we will have a quorum for a tournament.

 

Phils Version of Events

The most important part of the Historicon trip for this group was the first 1.1

game in America, Tom Thomas with his 100 YW French v me with his 100 YW English.

This was a very long and closely fought battle lasting from 10 in the morning to

nearly 3 in the afternoon, so I flagged at times, and my memory of the details

is certainly imperfect.

I was defending, and failed to position either of my two bits of boggy flat to

my front, but got a wood to rest my left flank on (in which I tucked 2 elements

of Irish Ps) and a boggy bit to rest the right flank on (the gap behind it

guarded by 2 columns of Welsh spears). I formed up in 3 battles, each of 4

dismounted men at arms flanked by longbows, vaward on the right with high PIPs

slightly advanced, then main battle under the C-in-C with second PIPs, then

rearward with low PIPs.

Only the C-in-C and rearward general stayed mounted. In some places I had

men-at-arms behind archers, but they were mostly on the flanks of each group.

For some reason, Tom did not want to replicate Crecy, so he broke with French

tradition by using a sensible deployment, with mixed infantry in front and

mounted knights held back in 3 groups in a second line. I'm a bit hazy as to

what and where the infantry were, but there were a lot of Genoese crossbows, a

body of Parisian militia pavisiers, dismounted men-at-arms and a lot of ribalds

that threatened the wood but progressively died of arrows while approaching it -

which was probably their intended function...

The non-combat rule changes of 1.1 did not affect the game, being mainly

intended to clear up possible wording confusion and us not being confused. I

completely forgot the Sp support changes, to the probable disadvantage of the

pavisiers after they made contact. The important changes were to (S) and

(I)gradings, which were those trailed here, namely

(S) in distant combat:

+2 if more when shooting, +1 if less when shot at (except by Arty or Shot),

(S) in close combat:

+2 if foot or train and more in own bound against foot.

+1 if mounted or naval and more in own bound.

+1 if equal in own bound and mounted v mounted or foot v foot.

+1 if foot and less in enemy bound.

(I):

-1 if less.

These worked well, but I'm not sure if mounted should get +1 if equal against

mounted in own bound. In its favour, it does encourage charging in. Arguments on

that are welcome.

The early part of the game was one sided as regards casualties. The Genoese

fulfilled their natural function of dying in heaps (though survivors did better

when they got to close quarters and started hitting people over the head with

their crossbows). The pavisiers and men-at-arms were tough targets (though a

couple of the latter surprised me by dying of an excess of 1s) and the main

effect of the archery was to break up their formation, enabling the longbows to

counterattack with good effect.

Opportunities to do this reduced in the second part of the game, partly due to a

dearth of PIP dice, and archer casualties started to mount. The French mounted

knights tried to break through their own foot but found interpenetration

difficult, and it settled down to a dogged killing match with the honours

slightly going to the French. My vaward disheartened their opponents quite early

and later broke them, and the rearward managed to dishearten theirs latter in

the game. However, the French king finally ground through the centre, breaking

my C-in-C's command. This may be partly attributed to the evil omen before the

game when my gross carelessness brushed the English C-in-C off the table edge

and trampled him, necessitating glue repairs, for which I apologise

unreservedly...

At the end, we were still nowhere near a conclusive victory for either side, and

a count-up gave a 14-11 in my favour.

My requirements of a game that it should look like a battle and feel like a

battle were amply satisfied - I was exhausted at the end.