Scots Common put to the test.

Painting projects completed I took an opportunity to test the Scots Common army against the IV/21c Anglo Irish. The Scots were the attacker in all six games with the method of deployment changing after two games. The standard deployment, collision course variant and alternative deployment system offered the Scots some interesting tactical challenges.

To speed terrain setup, cards for each category were designed so each test game made use of a different board. The cards are a time saver, each have compulsory terrain with an assortment of other options, some lacked o road or waterway giving the attacker choice of base side before a terrain piece is placed.   

Standard Deployment

Scottish schiltrons faced the Anglo bow and bill leaving the highland archers and rabble to deal with the Irish kerns. The distance separating the Scottish wings was covered by the mounted elements of nobles and light horse. Casualties fell heavily on both sides with the Scots claiming a narrow victory.

Test two both sides formed contiguous lines, the Scots were less adventurous this time. The Scots launched both wings hoping for a quick victory. The Anglo-Irish right collapsed against the schiltrons as did the Highlanders supported by their nobles, leading to a crushing victory.  

Collision Course

Both sides needed four turns to deploy for battle and a further two to close the distance between. The schiltrons made short work of the Irish kerns on the Anglo right while the Highlanders occupied the Anglo bow and bill while covering the schiltron open flank to deliver another convincing victory.  

Test four, the Anglo Irish were quick to form a battle array and move on the less prepared Scots. The schiltrons losing half their number and the Highlanders broken brought the Anglo Irish their first victory.

Alternative Deployment  

Test five saw the alternate deployment of the army’s three battles. A portion of schiltrons formed the vanguard proving useful in negating the Anglo left flanking attempt. This left the remaining schiltrons together with the cavalry to overwhelm the Anglo centre giving the Scots another solid victory.    

In the final test, the Scots took time to align their vanguard and main battle into one group. This left the Highlanders the unenviable duty to occupy the Anglo advance. Losing its archers in short tempo, the Scots quickly compensated crushing the Anglo vanguard.

Observations

Our boards are 80cm x 80cm or 20BW x 20BW, a cavalry army’s dream field or a nightmare for a pike heavy army. To be effective, the schiltrons needed a supporting element, shortening their battle line. To compensate, the Scots opened the distance between groups. This is deceptive as supporting cavalry could cover the distance to foil the threat of flanking the pike; in theory at least.

The collision course games were useful to bring elements together to form useful groups, such as the Highland archers, rabble and skirmishers. Forming the rear guard, they would appear later but move quickly to engage the enemy. This left the vanguard of four pike and a second group of two pike and two knights (CinC) to form a strong battle line.

The final deployment method offered the defender some compensation in the placement of troops, the second or third placement of a group can counter an attacker’s positioning of his troops.

The next step is to test the Scots against the marcher lords of northern England.

A Late Roman Civil War

Both sided deployed in a similar manner, legions in centre flanked by auxilia and a strong cavalry wing on one flank. The East are on the right of the photo, recognisable by their cataphract cavalry and artillery.

The East advanced its right centre and cavalry wing against the Roman left flank.

The Roman left soon found itself engulfed by cataphracts support by light horse.

To counter the threat, led by the Roman sub-general, Roman reserve cavalry attempted to stem the tide.

To counter the threat to its left flank, Rome attacked the Eastern left in an attempt to stabilise the battle. Unfortunately, the Roman left collapsed forcing the West to flee the field.

A second battle

Exchanging deployment zones, both armies tightened their formations and prepared for a second clash of arms.

The West, employing a similar tactic hoped to overwhelm the East’s left flank while advancing infantry supported the effort. Meanwhile, a similar cavalry action was taking place on Rome’s left.

The initial cavalry battle on the East’s left, exhausted, no longer presented a threat. Rome’s hope of a victory was further diminished as Eastern cavalry crushed its left and prepared to do the same to Rome’s centre. Another victory for the East.

Deployment variation, Late Medieval era

We enjoy historical match-ups and found the Collision Course variant for deployment has become a welcome addition. The variant allows us to create encounter battles such as Montlhéry (1465) or Fornovo (1495). Players organise their armies in three equal size columns, of which one has marched on the board followed by the lead element of the second. Off table, the third column enters with the proper pip score, an uncertainty for which an opponent can exploit.

The late medieval period is our current interest and this past week we tested an alternative method to deploy our armies. The three columns organised for the collision course variant are now labelled the vanward, mainward and rearward. The three parts would no longer march on the table, but are placed within the deployment zone with players alternating the placement of their groups. The defender placed the vanward first, followed by the attacker placing his; the sequence continued until all groups and mobile baggage were on the board.   

 Alternative Deployment

This offered an interesting alternative to the two deployment systems. The defender placing his vanward anywhere in his deployment zone, this need not be placed on the traditional right of the army. The attacker can select a position opposite the enemy vanward or elsewhere within his deployment zone. The sequence continues until all three groups and mobile baggage are on the board. 

Two points, each element within the group must be in full edge contact with another, forming a column one element wide or a line four elements wide or any combination of the two. Secondly, groups may not be closer than 1BW at the start of the game. On a player’s first bound, further formation changes are done by expending pips.   

Allies form a separate group of three elements giving a player the option to increase one of his remaining groups. Depending on their quality, allies may form the vanward of the army 

Further thoughts.

Last year, I developed a dozen scenarios for the mid-17^th century that could be played randomly and outcomes would generate a rating for both players. The rating influenced subsequent encounters developing nicely into a campaign without the use of maps. Something similar can be designed for the mid-15^th century.

French Ordonnance L-R, vanward, mainward + mobile baggage, rearward.

Burgundian Ordonnance L-R, vanward, mainward + mobile baggage, rearward.

Burgundian vanward

French vanward

Burgundian mainward + mobile baggage.

French mainward + mobile baggage.

Burgundian rearward.

French rearward.

Ready for battle, Burgundy moves first.

Bohemia vs. Saxony

During the Hussite insurrection, some nobles profited from the chaos to seize territories to hold as their own. Diplomatic and judicial measures to recover lost domains failed prompting a number of houses to resolve their dispute by ‘force of arms’. Here follows a tale of one Bohemian coalition meeting a Saxon force on the field of battle.  

Taking a position between an enclosure and small wood, the Bohemians placed the city militia and war wagons on the left, mercenary pike and crossbowmen in centre and the cavalry on the right.

Mirroring the Bohemian deployment, the Saxon host were set for a long and hard-fought battle.  

Both sides advance their lines with Bohemia placing its effort on their left wing while Saxony directing its main thrust at the enemy centre.

As both sides closed the distance, the air filled with crossbow bolts and shot presaging the clash of pike on both sides.

In the exchange of fire, Saxon shooting proved accurate, decimating the Bohemian left and dangerously exposing their centre.

The push of pike in centre turned in Bohemia’s favour however and with the slight margin of success, Bohemia launched its cavalry wing.

The battle shifted to Bohemia’s advantage as Saxony could not exploit its advantage against a weakened Bohemian left, instead its efforts were spent to repel the surge of enemy troops in centre and the cavalry combat. At that moment, Bohemian crossbowmen caught sight of a lone Saxon commander to bring him down and signal the end of the conflict.

 

In a second test, the deployment areas were exchanged. This time Saxony defended and gathered its cavalry in centre with infantry positioned on either flank.

To counter the cavalry threat posed by Saxony, Bohemia placed its war wagons, artillery and crossbowmen in centre, essentially neutralising the enemy cavalry while opening an opportunity to crush the Saxon left.  

The Saxons were caught off balance as the Bohemians bowled over the Saxon left and in centre, the cavalry could make no impression in face of the line of wagons and artillery. Attempts to shift the battle to the Bohemian left were frustrated as the enemy retired to a new position.

The Saxon pike blocks and supporting troops were vanquished from the field, securing a second Bohemian victory..

Observations

The tests were a delight to play using two recently refurbished armies and new terrain items. The second test demonstrated the advantage of deploying last as the Bohemia amassed its firepower to decimate the Saxon cavalry.

By way of an experiment, the single command was organised in three divisions following the practice of the time. This would prove useful when playing the collision course option, but would offer players to use a modified deployment of alternating placement of a vanguard, followed by the main battle and rear guard. More to follow.

Late Imperial Rome – East vs. the West

Photos of the Late Imperial Roman army (western) were posted recently and between painting sessions decided to test them against their rivals, an eastern army. Troops of the western army can be seen on the left of photo and opposite, the East. Neither side made use of allies.

The battle opened with each side advancing their right wing; for the West, this attack consisted of cavalry supported by infantry while the East sent their infantry supported by artillery for their flanking maneuver.  

First to make contact, the West gained the upper hand. To support further gains, their light horse was repositioned to support the assault. The departure of the light horse opened a path for the equites Alani to launch their attack against the eastern cataphract.

Despite all their bravado, the equites Alani received a severe drubbing necessitating a rescue attempt by a unit of light horse.

As the battle lines closed, early gains by the West were overshadowed by events in centre and their right flank. The destruction of the Alani and light horse sent a tremor to the West’s centre as it collapsed under the weight of Eastern legionnaires and auxilia. Unable to recover, the West fled the field, 8-4.

Sides exchanged deployment zones and using the same terrain proceeded with a second test. The Eastern army, on the defense, placed cavalry on both flanks of their infantry centre. The West mirrored the opposition, but reinforced its right wing to place its main effort on that flank.

As the lines closed, the cavalry of the West were the first to engage in combat followed quickly by the infantry of right centre.

Both lines, locked in combat, could gain no perceptible advantage, the battle seemed destined to become a slogging match.  

For nearly an hour (4 turns), casualties mounted evenly bringing both sides to breaking point. In an act of desperation, the eastern magister charged down a unit of legionnaires to destroy it and seize a narrow victory, 8-7.

Observations.

The second test developed much as I had expected, a slogging match with casualties falling evenly on both sides. Both sides enjoyed good pip scores with both sides close to victory, presenting the Eastern magister with a do-or-die decision. 

Test one, however, exemplified the uncertain nature of the game with the collapse of the western army. The issue was not due to any shortage of pips, but how West utilised its advantage to make many tactical moves by single elements. The resulting combats did favour the West, but left them hopelessly out of position falling later to an enemy’s retribution. Scrambling to recover the survivors meant little or no pips were left to move the reserve line.