San Miniato (1494) - Charles VIII's Italian War campaign game #3

On the heels of the victory at Volterra, the Italians move to press their advantage and harangue the French army.  Near San Miniato the two met again.  Using the random forces table, the Italians (the attackers) had 3 men at arms and a stradiot, 2 landsknect pike units, and 2 crossbowmen and an arquebusier unit. The French rolled poorly and had 2 gendarmes and a mounted crossbowmen unit, two Swiss pike units, and two crossbows. Short five SP, the French purchased five 6" segments of earthworks, which could be placed 18" (3 squares) from the French board edge. The French commander was cagey, and placed his fieldworks so they straddled both of his quarters of the board.  

Initial randomized setup after the free French redeployment move.

Another error for the eagle-eyed: I completely neglected to fetch the Italians their third Men at Arms unit. This may or may not have been a big deal. 

Initial deployments viewed from the French side.

The Italians advanced, thinking to soften up the sconce with crossbow and arquebus fire. The stradiots hoped to harass and perhaps weaken the French gendarmes before the Italian men at arms charged home.  The French moved into their positions in the fieldwork, with the cavalry protecting the flanks.

Italians advance upon the ensconced French.

Both sides exchanged missile fire with little effect. Italian landsknects charged the sconce but became stalled in front the earthwork.  Then the French scored a hit on Italian rightmost crossbowmen and the arquebusiers. 

Situation before the charge of the French gendarmes.

Since crossbows only have 2 SP, the French gendarmes plunged into the gap square between the crossbows and the Italian men arms, and attacked the crossbowmen in the flank, and destroyed them. They then continued on and attacked the arquebusiers in the flank, and destroyed them.

French gendarmes in front of the fieldwork, after dispatching Italian crossbowmen and arquebusiers.

The Italian infantry was now underpowered for its attack on the fieldwork. The other French gendarme unit on the French left took 2 SP in melee with the Italian men at arms and fell back. But the French mounted crossbows attacked the leftmost Italian landsknechts in the flank and the Swiss pikes sallied out from the sconce to destroy them. This ended the game in short order.

End of game. Swiss pikes have counterattacked from the sconce. French gendarmes now in extreme back of Italian positions.

The French won this game handily, 4-1 (the Italians scored a point for occupying a quarter of the board).  As noted above, the Italians were inadvertently shorted an extra men at arms unit - with three they may have been more aggressive in charging early on, which could have pinned down the French gendarmes and prevented the sweeping away of the Italian missile troops in the center.

Victorious French.

Allowing the defender to buy field works if outnumbered seemed to work well and allow these kind of attack-on-a-fortified position games into the mix in a balanced way.  I'm increasingly thinking missile troops need to have their SP increased to represent that these are large companies in close order, and not skirmish-y troops which can easily swept away.  In the Portable Wargame ancient rules, close order archers have a SP of 4, but do not count as heavy infantry. An easy trade off would be for them to be SP 4 but ranked as poor quality for combat results (so they would lose a SP on a 1-4 and have the retreat option only on a 5-6), but I fear forgetting to apply this rule. 

Italian men at arms who never really had a chance to even charge.

This is the last of the "small battles" on the campaign board, so perhaps the "medium battles" can have higher SP values for missile troops? Light cavalry at 2 SP but a movement of 4 seems about right, and I'm mostly okay with gendarmes/men at arms at 3 SP but with cataphract attack bonuses from the ancients rules, although this might make them too efficient in flank attacks against pikes, so maybe just try them as straight heavy cavalry next game?

I really liked that gap that the Italian lines that the French gendarmes exploited to win the game. This encourages players to keep solid, continuous lines of troops so as to protect flanks, which is easy to do on a grid, and will look great as well.

On the campaign board, the French roll a six, and pass the narrative point of having passed by Rome on the way to Naples. The Italians roll a five (in the photo, they are on wrong square), and then the French roll and 2 and advance as attackers to the next battle square (and into the new year) - a "medium battle" in the vicinity of Naples in February 1495.

Volterra (1494) - Charles VIII's Italian War campaign game #2

Continuing the pseudo-historical French descent into Italy under command of king Charles VIII, the French press on into the Tuscany region after having brushed aside the Italians at Sarzana in the Genoa region.  However, Italians in Tuscany have been inspired by the brave defense made by their northern neighbors against the French invaders, and outside of Volterra, several French companies find themselves confronted by a larger Italian force.

Initial, randomized deployments: French to right, Italians to left.

The battle maker generated the pictured terrain, and gave the French two gendarmes and a mounted crossbowmen unit (again, I did this wrong - it should have been three gendarmes), a single Swiss pike unit and two crossbowmen units and no artillery.  

The outnumbered French.

The outnumbered French.

The Tuscans received 2 men at arms, two pike and a double-pay men unit, and two crossbowmen.  What's key here is that the two pikes and single doppelsoldner units: this is three heavy infantry units to the single Swiss pike unit opposing them. Since crossbowmen are rated at 2SP, the French have very little to impede the advance of the Italian infantry.  If the French were defending, they would have 10 "edges" of earthworks to deploy two squares in front of their forwardmost infantry unit to make up for the deficiency in SPs.  But the French are attacking so I was not sure what "equalizer" they should receive.  My only thought (to be tried when the occasion next occurs) continues to be the assignment of "captains" at 4 SP a pop, equal to the difference in SP vs the defender (rounded up - so if the defender has 9 SP more in troops the attacker gets 12 SP of captains (so 3 captains)).  Captains are exactly the same as a general but only count as 4 SP for calculating Exhaustion Point and do not count as victory points.    

The Italians used their non-attacking free move to bunch their spread-out lines closer together, and advanced crossbowmen into the central villa's walls.

After the first French move.

Italians crossbows in the villa.

The French devised a way to be cautiously aggressive, and dispatched their gendarmes to the left to dispose of a single stradiot unit.

French on the advance.

The French crossbows and the Swiss were then able to destroy the Italian crossbows in the villa, while the gendarmes hooked back to the center.  The orientation of the battle had now rotated, with the French moving thier line roughly from the north to the east and the Italians from the south to the west.

The realigned battle.

However, the French exhaustion point was so much lower than the Italians (8 vs 11) and the Swiss had piled up 3 lost SP and one of the gendarmes 2 (out of 3), so the French capability to keep fighting had faded fast.  Sure enough, the Italian gendarmes, uninjured at full SP, were able to dispatch both the Swiss and the near-exhausted gendarme unit, then sweep away a French crossbow unit, then chase and pin the last crossbow unit against the edge of the woods when, at last, the Italians hit thier 11th SP lost and ended the game.

End of game - the Italians have practically swept the field.

The Italians handily won this game 4-2 in victory points (3 for destroyed French unit and one for occupying the "SW" quarter of the board).  It could have been worse if the French had not positioned their remaining units in such a way as to deny the Italians two more points for being sole occupiers of a quarter of the board. 

This game certainly affirmed the need for something like the above proposed "captains" rule should the attacker be outnumbered.  3 captains at 12 points would have lifted the French exhaustion point to 11, allowing a smaller force to fight longer than it should.  The three figures could also have all been teamed with the various ranged units, adding +1 to hit on shooting and close combat.  More accurate shooting may have dampened the Italian edge in heavy infantry and the game may have been a more close run thing.  Although even without help, the French looked like they were working on upset early on, which I take as a compliment to the rules, in that the French were able to make a tactical decision, carry it out, and almost tip the game in their favor. 

On the campaign board, the Italians roll a 3 but stop immediately on the "battle near Florence" square - this means a second battle (and third overall) will be fought in Tuscany but with the Italians as attackers and French as defenders.  It will also be the last of the "small" battles.

Sarzana (1494) - Charles VIII's Italian War campaign game #1

Using the Italian War battle generator, the below terrain and initial deployments were acquired.  The French rolled up 2 gendarme heavy cavalry, 2 swiss pike heavy infantry units, 3 missile units (2 crossbow + 1 arquebusier) and no artillery.  The Italians rolled up 3 cavalry (2 men at arms and 1 stradiot light cavalry), a single pike unit, and 3 missile units (2 crossbow + 1 arquebusier) and 1 heavy artillery piece.  I did this wrong, per my own chart: light cav and arquebusiers are only supposed to be supplied 1 for every 3 (not 2) heavy cav or crossbow units, respectively.  

Initial, randomized set-up.

Since the Italians were defending they received a free, non-attacking move to adjust their deployments. Although defending, the Italians, however, actually had the greater number in strength points.  If a defender is outnumbered, they may buy earthworks at 1 SP per square edge until SP are equal with the attacker. This doesn't make sense for the attacker and I need a "equalizing" adjustment for an outnumbered attacker, although I'm not sure what, at this point. I'm contemplating that they can buy "heroes" or "notable officers" at 3 or 4 SP each (up til both sides are equal SP), which are effectively extra generals, but which do not count for victory points. Another option would be to deem an attack by a numerically inferior force to involve a strategy of some sort, such as a cavalry flank march.  Or perhaps the attacker gets the free re-deployment move and the defender does not?

Starting positions after defender's (Italian) free move.

Given that the forces were small, and that this was played with The Portable Wargame, the game was played in less than 30 minutes. 

Swiss advance.

The French pikes and crossbows in the center created a line between the villa to their left and the woods to their right and sortied against the landsknechts to no avail. 

Swiss pikes in the center have attacked the landsknecht pikes and bounced back.

The Italian men at arms swept towards the center and attacked the French line in unison with the landknechts.  On the far French right, the stradiots attempted to harass alone French crossbow unit, but were ultimately destroyed.

Italian pike and men at arms attack the French center.

The French then attacked the landsknect in the flank, won, and pushed through and attacked the men at arms in the flank as well. Both the landsknecht and men at arms fell back.

Swiss pikes use a flank attack to repel the landsknecht pike.

Meanwhile the French gendarmes on the French left made short order of the Italian crossbowmen, and pushed the Italians quickly towards their exhaustion point.

After the Italian attack in the center. Gendarmes on French left scatter Italian crossbowmen. 

Crossbowmen are classed as light infantry with an SP of 2, and I'm thinking these need to be classed up to "close order" missile troops with an SP of 4. "Crossbowmen" can be a blanket term in this era for non-pike infantry, and such units might be expected to fight reasonably well in close combat - I was not aiming for these to be skirmish-type units easily swept from the field.

French gendarmes attacking Italian crossbows.

The leftmost Swiss pikes then received a volley from the Italian crossbowmen, and errant bolt struck the French commander dead! However the French gendarmes, having cleared the left flank completely, came across and dealt the another SP of damage to the landsknechts, ending the game.

End of game, with French gendarmes have moved to the center and are attacking Landsknecht pike in flank.

Even though it was a mess of a game, it was a victory for the French (3 VP for 3 destroyed) over the Italians (1 VP for killing French commander), with no victory points for controlling quarters of the board.

Italian men at arms, who perhaps should have been more aggressive.

The game ending attack by the gendarmes into the flank of the landsknecht pikes.

Rolled for the next game. The French slide on the victory arrow. The Italians roll a 1 and skip up a level for "high optimism" - despite the defeat, the Italian cause has been buoyed by this display of resistance!

The French roll a 4 and advance to next battle square in the Tuscany/Florence region. Consulting the 1799 map leads to the designation of the Volterra locale as the next battle field!

I count this campaign/battle generator as a success.  I think the deployment randomizer is my favorite feature - the head-to-head deployment sequences (I place a unit, you place a unit) leads to rather phony and unrealistic deployments, I think.  There's a certain challenge in your units not being where you would prefer them at the beginning of the game.

Italian Wars Battle Maker

My last Italian Wars game (Fornovo) left me wishing there were more set piece battles in the Italians Wars.  Historically, many of the battles of this period involved asymmetrical deployments, uneven forces, or one side behind substantial defenses. Additionally, unlike the English Civil War or the Barbarian West, it was more typical than not for there to be a single field battle in a whole campaign (with sieges making up the bulk of the campaign's activity), which means there are just not that many battles to recreate in the first place.  I love Peter Sides' Renaissance Battles 1494-1700 Vol. 1, but I've played almost all the scenarios therein for which I have troops (there are several Swabian War scenarios I could still use).

All of this led me to start thinking seriously about generating scenarios using a campaign system of some sort.  As tempting as a full blown map-and-chit system was, it also seemed unreliable for creating good tactical tabletop games.  Since I've been playing The Portable Wargame lately, I ended up seeing this post about a "snakes and ladders" campaign, devised mainly for solo play, which simply tells you when to set up a tabletop battle and links these games together insofar as they culminate in a final battle.  Using this as an example, I created the following snakes-and-ladders game board for the Italian War of 1494-1495.

The French and Italians each get a chit. The French go first and roll a d6, and move along the board, following red and green slides and ladders as indicated. When either side lands on a "battle" rectangle at the ends, they stop there, and a tabletop game is played.  The winner of that game slides on the yellow arrow immediately.  The chit that lands on a battle rectangle is the attacker. 

The tabletop is then set up using these terrain cards I made.  These are based on terrain I have available.  For the time being I skipped including river terrain.

You draw four and this determines terrain features in each quarter of the table, like such:

As you see on the campaign board, the first battle would be in the vicinity of Genoa.  I referred to this 1799 map (this 1902 map of Italy in the 1450s is also useful) to choose a more specific location to name my battle ("Massa," for example).  It is presumed that the first two battle squares (or maybe first four, I'm still pondering this) generate a "small" battle, the next two a "medium," and of course the final generates a big battle.  Each side rolls on the following tables to generate the forces for the game.

SMALL BATTLE:

French: 
1d3+1 cavalry (One light cav after every 2 heavy)
1d3 infantry (One double pay after every two pikes)
1d3+1 crossbow (1 arquebus after every 3 crossbow)
1d3-2 artillery (1 light piece after every 2 heavy)

Italians:
1d3+1 cavalry (One light cav after every 2 heavy)
1d3 infantry (One double pay after every two pikes)
1d3+1 crossbow (1 arquebus after every 3 crossbow)
1d3-2 artillery (1 light piece after every 2 heavy)

MEDIUM BATTLE:

French: 
1d3+2 1d3+1 cavalry (One light cav after every 2 heavy)
1d3+2 1d3+1 infantry (One double pay after every two pikes)
1d3+2 1d3+1 crossbow (1 arquebus after every 3 crossbow)
1d3-1 artillery (1 light piece after every 2 heavy)

Italians:
1d3+2 1d3+1 cavalry (One light cav after every 2 heavy)
1d3+2 1d3+1 infantry (One double pay after every two pikes)
1d3+2 1d3+1 crossbow (1 arquebus after every 3 crossbow)
1d3-1 artillery (1 light piece after every 2 heavy)

LARGE/FINAL BATTLE:

French: 
2d3+2 1d3+2 cavalry (One light cav after every 2 heavy)
2d3+2 1d3+2 infantry (One double pay after every two pikes)
2d3+2 1d3+2 crossbow (1 arquebus after every 3 crossbow)
1d3+1 1d3 artillery (1 light piece after every 2 heavy)

Italians:
2d3+2 1d3+2 cavalry (One light cav after every 2 heavy)
2d3+2 1d3+2 pikes (One double pay after every two pikes)
2d3+2 1d3+2 crossbow (1 arquebus after every 3 crossbow)
1d3+1 1d3 artillery (1 light piece after every 2 heavy)

Once both sides have their forces, roll on the following chart to determine how the army is deployed:

I considered making rectangular cards for these, where you flip them over facing each other (since they would be rectangles, the long sides would face each other).  The idea is that each deployment is actually two deployments, depending on which way the illustration would be facing (towards the top or the bottom of the page, in the case of the illustrate table).

After both sides have been set up according to their random deployment, the defender gets one free round of movement prior to start of game to reposition or move forward in response to attacker's deployment. [Optional: Smaller force may buy earthworks to make up difference in SP values (1 grid face @ 1 SP per)]  Attacker then moves first as the game truly begins.

I would propose using the following victory conditions once play has stopped (in Portable Wargame, when both sides have reached exhaustion point):

For each enemy unit completely removed from the table: 1 Victory Point for each SP of the removed unit (so 4 SP unit equals 4 victory points).

For each table quarter occupied only by your troops: 1 victory point.

For each enemy general slain or removed from table: 1 victory point.

What I like about this snakes-and-ladders scheme is you can map it onto a historical context, and even have the overall narrative still mostly stick to the historical one.  All you add is more tabletop games to be played.  In this War of 1494-95 board, the basic arc is still the French through Italy to Naples, and then come back, and fight a big battle with the League (i.e. the campaign culminating in Fornovo).  The fun is in devising a funhouse-mirror version of these same events, where the French will be contested at multiple points to and from Naples (unlike reality).

I had to make new hills in order for my terrain card draw-system to work, which I need to flock before they are table ready. Then I will give this a try (I also need to figure out Italian Wars unit profiles for The Portable Wargame).  

EDIT: Random forces lists for Medium and Large/Final Battles changed 2-24-2021

Jovinus at Chalons (366)

Next up in the Alamannic Invasion of 366 was the decisive battle between Jovinus and the Alamanni near Chalons in 366 (not to be confused with another battle in same area in 451).  The Romans were outnumbered here, but Jovinus deployed across the valley in such a way to trick the Alamanni into thinking the forces were more evenly matched. The Alamanni eventually realized the deception and advanced.  After a long day of hard fighting, the Romans emerged victorious.  I used the same force compositions from the previous game but added to the Alamanni the three Gothic cavalry units I had just finished painting a few days before.  

Freshly recruited Gothic cavalry supporting the Alamanni.

This pitched 13 Alamanni units against 10 Roman ones. I meant to class all the Roman heavy infantry as Elite (which in The Portable Wargame only increases likelihood that they will have the option of falling back and not losing a SP) but I completely forgot to implement this, although I don't know if it would have made a difference.  I did use the card-draw method of activation suggested The Portable Wargame.  You divide the number of units in each army by two and round up, then take all the cards in one color equal to that number, plus all the cards one higher and one lower, and put them in a stack. So for the Romans, they had 10 units, so their activation deck had two each of red 4, 5, and 6.  The Alamanni (decisively, perhaps) had two each of 6, 7, and 8.  A joker is also in the deck which will reshuffle the deck. I should have bumped all the Roman cards up at least one (so, 5, 6, and 7) to represent Jovinus' good generalship during the campaign (and perhaps one more so as to be even with the Alamanni, to reflect high morale at the end of a successful campaign).

Late Roman heavy infantry and close-order archers.

Starting positions, Romans at bottom. Bits of rock from paver base are used to mark the grid.

As things played out, the Alamanni had 4 of the first 5 activations (6, 6, 8, 7 respectively) and were able to bring a mass of six heavy infantry (in two lines of three) across the table in quick order.  The front line softened up the Romans with short-range missile fire (throwing axes and javelins and such), and the second line then charged through the first line and engaged in melee.

The Alamanni are able to occupy the middle of the field quickly... while the Roman line has only barely advanced from its starting positions...

Romans brace for the charge...

There is a gap in the Roman center, and lost SP markers accumulating along the rest of the Roman line, while almost the entirety of the Alamanni host advances.

The Alamanni attack along the entirety of the Roman lines.

Laying out casualties across the Roman line and creating a gap in the center, the rest of the Alamanni host advanced, including the cavalry.  As the Alamanni infantry attacked, the Roman heavy cavalry attacked the Alamanni's Gothic cavalry. This cavalry battle went back and forth, but in the end the Romans took the worse of it.  The Romans did not fare much better in the infantry fight, and the Romans suddenly found themselves on the brink of their exhaustion point (I like how this moment creeps up on you in The Portable Wargame).

And most of the Roman lines are pushed back.

Roman lines fall back to their starting positions, with exception of some flank units.

After an army hits its exhaustion point, it cannot take offensive actions anymore, nor move towards the enemy.  Anticipating a defensive battle, the Romans attempt to dress their lines by aligning roughly at their original starting positions. 

Romans have hit their exhaustion point. Roman right flank falls back in line with the rest. Roman left flank is attacked by Alamanni foot and cavalry in turn. In the bottom right is extremely beat up Roman cavalry.

The Alamanni, meanwhile, are just shy of their exhaustion point. They have clearly won control of the field. They exchange short range missile fire, move the rest of their foot up the field, and launch a flank attack on an isolated Roman unit stuck out by itself.

Isolated Roman infantry on the left under attack.

Jovinus holding the Roman line.

Cavalry engaged with isolated Roman infantry on the left.

Isolated Roman infantry on the left under attack. I've recently started snipping off dracos, replacing the pole with steel wire and then drilling out and mounting the metal windsock on that. Much more durable and you can get an extra mm or 2 of height on the pole which looks smart.

In the end, the Romans get a round of decent shooting attacks off from one end of the line to the other, and trip the Alamanni over their exhaustion point. The game is now over. 

Endgame. Both sides have reached exhaustion points. 

I was going to award victory points for control of the field, which the Alamanni easily won in terms of having moved their entire army across the half-way point of the field. However, both sides had only lost a single unit, and the Romans still securely held their original positions.  If the fighting had stopped for the day, one could imagine either or both of the armies slipping away under cover of night. Probably a draw then. 

I don't know if I'll use the card draw system again. The higher number of activations possible for the Alamanni, combined with a strong run of draws at the very beginning of the game, gave them a big head start at the beginning of the game - the Alamanni were able to attack in depth (cool to see that actually work, though) and the Romans were on their heels the whole game.

What is clear is that I need some better defined victory conditions or scenario goals for games using The Portable Wargame, which itself only tells you when a game ends (when both sides have reached their Exhaustion Points, which is 1/3rd of their total SP).  Personally I prefer abstracted VP which reward players for being in control of the field strategically, and less so causing more casualties (although I use that metric as well). Flipping through many of my other rulebooks, winning a game is heavily dependent on removal of units, which does not fit well for The Portable Wargame, where unit removal seems to be rare (in two games played, only one unit per side been actually destroyed each time).  

I am still enjoying the abstraction and speed of play with these rules.  And I think most wargamers would agree that its more fun when almost all units tend to stay on the table for the entire game!