AAR: Teutonic v Pagan (Saga) 25Nov18

I bought the Saga v2 Crusader Army book recently and this was the first outing for my 28mm Teutonics and Prussian Pagans that I previously used with Lion Rampant rules. Ian and I played the basic ‘Clash of Warlords’ scenario with Ian randomly getting control of the Teutonic knights. I use a randomised method to generate 6 point armies. Ian had 3 points of Knights and 3 points of Sergeant Spearmen and Crossbowmen, significantly he had no Levy. I had a single unit of Hearthguard, 4 points of Warriors and 1 of Levy.

The terrain set-up for the scenario seems to me to be a bit restrictive; the Pagans want a densely packed table with lots of woods etc. whereas the Teutonics want an open battlefield. As a result Ian ‘passed’ a.s.a.p., so the maximum number of difficult terrain pieces I could place was 3! Anyway, the game proceeded and the Teutonics massacred my poor Pagans (Ian won by 6 points).

The main points of note were: Ian organised an 8 strong unit of Knights which were a worry to me throughout the game, but actually only destroyed a small unit of my Levy bowmen. Ian’s lack of Levy troops meant his ability to ‘sacrifice’ troops to enhance his more valuable units was not a major factor, but when he did use this, it cost him a valuable sergeant figures. I repeatedly used my ability to force one of Ian’s units to either move towards a base edge or take a fatigue (very useful). The Teutonic crossbows proved effective, especially because I did not have the terrain cover to shelter me. The lack of terrain also prevented me ‘shifting’ my small units around the battlefield. I did manage to kill the Teutonic Warlord when he moved in to finish off my sole Hearthguard unit (the highlight of the game for the Pagans). I found using small 6-man units to be effective early in the game but they wear-down quickly, losing valuable Saga dice and costing victory points.

Overall, the game played fast (~ 2 hours) and with little reference to the main rulebook. The tough decision making aspect revolved around allocation of Saga dice and ‘understanding’ the special abilities of each faction. We liked the differentiation these abilities introduce but the lack of Teutonic Levy and lack of dense Pagan terrain meant that neither side could fully utilise their ability boards. We look forward to repeating the conflict using different faction make-up’s and different scenario structures.

AAR: Teutonics (Lion Rampant); 28Sept2016

I have previously reviewed and played Lion Rampant (Daniel Mersey; Osprey Publishing #8, 2014), and decided to dust them off for another game using my Teutonic forces. We played the ‘Fugitive’ scenario, with me using the Baltic Pagans and attempting to rescue the hidden fugitive. The terrain was fairly wooded, with a central hamlet located on a stream (rough going).

Both sides got off to a stuttering start, but I managed to move my small unit of Bidets forward to check the three possible locations for the fugitive that lay on my side of the table. If I had found him (>50% probability) then an easy win would have resulted because the Teutonics had hardly moved forward at this stage. But no, he must be hiding further away and I would have to cross the stream and engage the Teutonic knights who had finally managed to advance! On the right flank the Teutonic sergeants (mounted crossbows) shot at my lead unit of ferocious foot, killing 3 figures. I took the courage test (with a -3 modifier) and inevitably threw snake eyes! The first unit of Pagans took to the hills. In the centre I moved my Bidets into the hamlet gardens to check the next fugitive location, but I mis-measured and left them with reach of some Teutonic knights, who promptly charged in. Knights fighting in rough going is not good for their health; I killed 3 of the enemy but lost 4 of my bidets, who routed. Two Pagan units down and my army was now faced with the prospect of battling forward. On my left flank my horse archers were facing the second unit of Teutonic knights on the other side of the stream.

I was feeling the game to be lost at this point, but all changed, not because of my skill but instead due the Wild Charge rule. On my right flank, my second, supporting unit of ferocious foot charged the mounted crossbows and drove them back, battered. On my left flank, the second unit of Teutonic knights charged my horse archers (who failed to evade) and were defending the stream bank. The rough terrain again helped me, and I killed 2 opponents while only losing 1 figure myself, driving him back. I then shot a figure in my turn, before the knights were forced (by the Wild Charge characteristic) to try charging again. As the knights now only had 6 dice, I did not attempt to evade but instead fought back, doing further damage and forcing them back again! In the centre, my third unit of ferocious foot were sitting in a patch of marshy, rough ground and each time I diced for them to Wild Charge out against the Teutonic (requiring only 5+ on 2D6), they failed to budge. In contrast, the weak Teutonic knights (plus leader) in front of them decided (even after their bad experience versus the Bidets) to repeatedly Wild Charge into the marsh! It did not end well. They were all destroyed, including the leader, and effectively the game was lost.  Only 2 Teutonic foot units remained, and I quickly located the fugitive in some woods using my victorious horse archers to escort him back to my baseline. As a sideline, it was not a 5:0 victory for the Pagans because the Teutonics did fulfil one of their ‘boasts’ by forcing my lead unit of foot to fail the first Courage test of the game.

A strange game, but enjoyable. If I had found the fugitive in the first locations, then no game would have resulted and victory would have been too easy. The real problem concerns the Wild Charge, which I commented on previously in my earlier blog posts. As a player you feel a real lack of control; I didn’t choose to repeatedly hold my foot unit in the marsh, and equally the knights didn’t choose to charge over the stream, or into the hamlet gardens, or into the marsh. All these actions were decided by the ‘dice gods’ and the events just happened; was there any need for players? I suspect the root of the problem lies in the pair of forces used; both are heavily influenced by the Wild Charge characteristic. Maybe next time I will suggest trying the game without this characteristic and see how it goes. Or maybe I will play using a house rule that mounted troops do no test to Wild Charge foot in rough terrain, whilst foot will not Wild Charge mounted troops in the open.

AAR; Wargame Weekend 17/18 Sept 2016

My friend, Graham, who I’ve known and gamed against for over 50 years, and currently lives in Brussels, visited for the weekend. He is an excellent wargamer (i.e. mainly wins) and frequently plays competitively. He used to play ancients (DBM, then FoG) but has dropped the period and now plays predominately WW2 FoW. I therefore decided to show him the ‘Sword and Spear’ rules (S&S) to maybe rekindle his interest and get his 15mm armies out of their boxes. Unfortunately I forgot to use my camera, so there are no photos with this post.

Our first game involved Medieval Hungarian (me) versus Ottoman Turk (Graham). My first mistake was not to allocate enough dice to scouting, so ended up deploying first. The terrain was fairly open, but there was a big forest on Graham’s side of the table opposite my left flank, which I thought would restrict both his deployment and movement of cavalry on this flank. I therefore made my right flank strong (most of my knights), with only a couple of mounted units covering my left flank. Graham promptly deployed heavily against my weak left flank, accepting the forest impediment! Could my outnumbered left flank cavalry hold long enough to allow my right flank troops to move across the army front and intervene? My left-hand cavalry did OK but were eventually overwhelmed, and the Turk cavalry went on to pick off various Hungarian foot and threaten my camp. My potentially decisive right-hand knights did move across but were hindered by being ‘undrilled’ and slow (heavily armoured). Just as they began to close with the Turks, I was reminded by another trait Graham often employs i.e. he will avoid any clash where he has a disadvantage. Rather than face my knights, his heavy cavalry simply retired and surrendered ground, leaving me punching air, desperately trying to pin down his illusive cavalry, and pointlessly moving around the back of the forest. The final result was a decisive win for Graham and the Turks!

Next we had a game using my Greek hoplites for the Peloponnese War, with Graham taking the Athenian/Thessalian army versus my Spartan Alliance force. Terrain placement went well for me until Graham fortuitously placed a marsh in right front of my nicely placed gentle hill on which I planned to centre my army. In this game I was determined not to be outscouted and devoted a lot of dice to ensure this (and still only just beat Graham by one point!). Luckily in the first turns I threw good dice and was able to move my hoplite line forward quickly. I was concerned that my lack of cavalry compared to Graham’s Thessalians would result in me defending threatened flanks against envelopment, but the rapid movement of my hoplites largely removed this option. The clash of the hoplite lines was fairly balanced; my superior Spartans fighting against Athenian hoplites defending another gentle hill. For many rule systems a clash of hoplites can be a very boring situation with little thought as the conflict unfolds, but the dice allocation mechanism of S&S forces players to constantly think, assess the situation and carefully consider where to place available dice. The game remained close and Graham eventually broke the Spartan army, but I was within 2 points (i.e. a single unit of the Athenians, even Psiloi) of victory. We immediately ended the game at this point (lunch was ready) but with hindsight we should have concluded the turn because there was a chance that the end of turn army morale test could have resulted in the loss of one more unit from the Athenians, therefore converting the marginal win in to a draw.

I think Graham enjoyed both the games and the S&S rules. He thought the S&S rules worked well and cleanly, giving a fast, clear result and forcing the player to constantly think about actions/reactions. He did find the mechanism rather abstract i.e. is the game simply a dice allocation game rather than a tactical military simulation? I can see his point, but would counter that this happens with most rule sets (e.g. DBM PIP allocation), and the ‘cheesy’ moves that seem to happen using FoG that are far from ‘historical’. I hope that the two games we played may inspire Graham to buy a copy of the rules and get his 15mm armies on the table again, at least for ‘friendly’ games.

The next day we played a couple of SAGA games. In the first game Graham’s Anglo-Danish force rapidly beat my Vikings. I learnt not to allow your Warlord to become isolated, because he will quickly become dead meat! For the next game I changed my army to Normans. I intended to shoot Graham’s forces, but he quickly scuttled out of line of sight. He then skilfully used his dice to take out my crossbows and damage my peasants. My knights, lead by my warlord, charged a unit of hirdmen, which Graham bolstered with his warlord. The result was the death of both warlords and a drawn game.

Again, this was Graham’s first use of SAGA, but equally I’ve only played one or two games over two years ago, so we were both inexperienced! The games were fast and furious, and we both felt the skill revolved around usage of the special abilities of armies. I think game play would improve with more experience and improved familiarity with the force being used. I therefore resolve to get in more opposed games using SAGA. I don’t think SAGA would work solo because you need the uncertainty provided by an opponent when allocating dice.

AAR; Solo Wars of the Roses games (Bloody Barons) Early July 2016

Because of a full diary I have not been able to get to a club game for the past month or so, but instead I have played a couple of solo games featuring the Wars of the Roses using Bloody Barons rules by RFCM, 2005. The choice of period was inspired simply by stumbling across my 15mm armies and thinking they looked pretty and had not been out of the box for over a year.

St Albans; set-up (York on the right)

Rather than fight a regular stand-up game, I decided to use the historical scenarios listed at the back of the rules, starting with the 1^st battle of St Albans (1455). The game matched the historical outcome fairly well; the Yorkist centre (Earl of Warwick) broke through the Lancastrian centre in the streets of St Albans and went on to capture the isolated Lancastrian King Henry VI. The Lancastrian left (Earl of Northumberland) and centre (Duke of Somerset) did recover and attacked (and killed) Richard of York! On the other flank both sides matched each other in a draw (Earl of Salisbury versus Clifford). The final victory points score was a draw, but the Yorkists did hold Henry VI, and now Edward Earl of March would take over as the prime York contender for the throne, five years earlier than historically correct.

St Albans; York break through the centre

The game played quicker than I anticipated, so I decided to undertake the second scenario; the battle of Blore Heath (1459). This scenario has a couple of unusual features; the Yorkists have defences and artillery (3 light guns), whilst the Lancastrian right flank is all mounted. The Lancastrian centre (Lord Dudley) and right (Lord Audley) rapidly advanced, but the left flank (Sir Thomas Dutton) remained stationary for almost all the game. The Yorkist guns did well, halting and damaging the leading Lancastrian household unit. The key to the game was the mounted charge by the Lancastrian knights on their right flank. They smashed into the Yorkist command (Sir Thomas Parr); the defences helped the Yorkists to achieve more ‘hits’ but these could not be converted into ‘kills’, whereas the fewer Lancastrian ‘hits’ were all converted into ‘kills’. As a result the Yorkist flank was routed and turned. The Yorkist centre under Earl of Salisbury could not adjust in time because they were under attack from the Lancastrian centre (Lord Dudley), and so the Yorkist line was rolled up! The result was a good win for the Lancastrians, which could have been more decisive if only their left command had managed to move forward!

Blore Heath; set-up (York on the left)

The first game, St Albans, was fairly standard fair; the weakness of the Lancastrian centre and isolation of King Henry VI made the result favour York, but the success of the Lancastrian counter-attack on their left wing forced a drawn result. The second game, Blore Heath, largely turned on a single round of combat as the Lancastrian knights charged in. The result could have gone either way; if the York ‘hits’ were converted into ‘kills’ and/or the Lancastrian ‘hits’ failed to ‘kill’, then the charge would have been repulsed and a Yorkist win may have happened. The York army was saved from an absolute disaster by a combination of a short game length and the failure of the Lancastrian left to advance.

Blore Heath; Lancs knights (top) turn the York line

I like these rules, they play fast and give clear results. I sometimes feel they favour shooting over combat, and many times it feels too hard to convert your ‘hits’ into meaningful ‘kills’. If using cavalry, then combat is the only meaningful choice and it seemed to be devastating. I would be interested to see how mounted knights work in a more ‘open’ battlefield, but they worked (with good dice) even when charging field defences uphill! Artillery was also a surprise and worthwhile, especially when used against good quality troops (don’t waste it firing at Levy troops).

I plan to continue my journey through the historical scenarios at sometime in the future, and the next is the Rout of Ludlow (1459). But it is week until the Attack show at Devizes, where I plan to spend some money, so where I go next in terms of gaming is in the air!

After Action Report: Crusades (Sword & Spear) 12 July 2015

Both armies in this game were supplied by Ian and comprised 500 points using 15mm figures. The rules used were Sword and Spear (Mark Lewis; Polkovnik Productions, 2014). This was a new rule set for myself, so Ian explained/taught the rules as we went along. I commanded the Seljuks, whilst Ian commanded the Crusaders. The 6’x4’ table was fairly open with a river limiting one flank, and a village on the other flank.

I decided to keep my poor quality infantry away from the action areas, protecting my camp, and to focus on my cavalry forces. I hoped my bow-armed light horse would weaken Ian’s Crusaders, then I would hit him with my heavier cavalry. Ian also kept his pilgrim hordes back, and advanced with 2 blocks of spear/crossbows supported by knights and turcopoles. In the photo below the Seljuks are at the bottom, with Ian’s Crusaders at the top.

I think I quickly got the gist of the rules. I’m not going to attempt to explain or review them here, but the essence is to prioritise dice from a limited dice pool to allow units (or groups) to undertake actions. The higher you roll, the more chance you have of carrying out the desired actions, and 6’s (or multiples of high scores) yield bonuses. Combat is simple ordered dice comparison (the number of dice rolled per side varies), which results in automatic casualties or discipline dicing for casualties. Results can be modified due to armour etc. Units are destroyed if they take more casualties than their discipline rating.

I started the game according to plan and took some fairly ineffectual pot-shots at the enemy. I then threw a good set of activation dice which encouraged me to hurl my heavier cavalry at Ian, who counter-attacked with his knights. A couple of turns of combat occurred with little damage to either side, especially when generals could rally off the hits we managed to achieve. I began to realise how hard a nut fresh, heavy spearmen could be. Ian bemoaned the rigidity of his crossbow units (unable to move and fire, unable to exploit bonus dice rolls). Eventually I managed to crack a unit of spearmen and opened up a wide gap in the Crusader line through which I moved some cavalry to threaten Ian’s fortified camp and pilgrims. Things were looking good, but then next couple of turns were disastrous. Ian’s knights finally broke a couple of my units of heavy cavalry, and then they caught some horse archers who failed to evade. This badly shook up my Arab infantry. A unit of Crusader crossbows then about turned and shot my best unit of break-through cavalry in the back, causing 3 casualties with one shot, destroying the unit and killing my C-in-C. This tipped my army over the edge and victory was awarded to Ian. The photo below shows the end-game with the open area in the centre being where my army died!

This was a thoroughly enjoyable game. The rules really worked, and I ordered a set for myself as soon as I got home. Our next game will use them again, this time featuring Greek hoplite armies. I will write a more complete review once I have my own copy and have played a few more games.