Field(s) of Honour

[Chris]

Taking a brief break from Roman Civil War concerns, I put together a 500 points per side 100 Years War scenario using IMPETVS.

The opposing armies were drafted from page 49 of the spiral-bound rule book (2008) and were fabricated using the recommended base sizes for 15mm figures.

The French army was organized into a single command (the paragraph under section 2.1 Army Building on page 9, permits this), had a Poor Command Structure (worth 0 points) and contained the following formations:
01 Fair General (attached to a unit of Nobles) valued at 20 points
04 units of Nobles (impetuous heavy cavalry) valued at 160 points
02 units of Men at Arms (impetuous heavy cavalry) valued at 058 points
04 units of Dismounted Men at Arms valued at 080 points
04 units of Infantry (heavy foot) valued at 72 points
02 units of Genoese Crossbowmen (upgraded to VBU 4) valued at 52 points
05 units of French Crossbowmen (skirmishers) valued at 60 points

The total value of this fictional force was 502 points, so it was actually 2 points over the stated limit. I debated building 3 units of Peasants or attaching a piece of heavy artillery  to the army, but decided to go over the cut-off point value by just a little, instead. With a Total Demoralization Value of 45 points, this army would be broken when units worth 23 points had been destroyed and or routed.

The English army was also organized into a single command but was blessed with an Average Command Structure. This cost 12 points. The English army contained the following formations:
01 Expert General
(attached to the King and Household unit of heavy cavalry) valued at 030 points
01 unit of heavy cavalry (King and Household) valued at 036 points
02 units of heavy cavalry (Men at Arms) valued at 056 points
01 unit of medium cavalry (Hobilars) valued at 018 points
03 units of Dismounted Men at Arms valued at 075 points
04 units of heavy infantry valued at 072 points
07 units of archers (longbowmen with stakes) valued at 182 points
01 unit of heavy artillery valued at 020 points

The total value of this fictional force was 501 points, so it was over the stated limit as well but just by a single point. The Total Demoralization Value of this force was 43 points, so it would be defeated when 22 points worth of units had been destroyed on or routed from the tabletop.

As might be expected, the English were labeled as the defenders. Instead of a simple die roll, I permitted their king to choose 6 terrain pieces/features. His majesty selected a gently sloping hill, an abbey (difficult ground), a patch of woods (difficult ground), a road, and two cultivated fields (broken ground). The French royal personage could move or remove up to 2 of these pieces, so after a moment of thought, he took away the wooded area and the gently sloping hill.

Deployments
The English army deployed on the near long edge of the table, parallel to the road running across the front of their selected position. The grounds of the abbey were to their far left. Two cultivated but open fields were about half a bow shot further to their front. The main defensive line consisted of all 7 units of longbow archers reinforced by a few heavy pieces of artillery. The archers were not in a uniform line; their were small gaps between each formation, and each unit of archers had toiled to place a warren of sharp stakes before their position. The camp was behind the artillery "battery." Two units of heavy infantry were posted to the right of the baggage. The king, his retinue, and two units of Men at Arms took up station on the left side of the encampment. The right flank of the entire line was held by 2 more units of heavy foot. These well armed and armored men were stationed about 50 paces back from the line held by the archers. The opposite flank was guarded by 3 units of dismounted Men at Arms. They were joined by a single unit of Hobilars. This formation of medium cavalry was partially obscured from view by the abbey and its grounds.

Having reconnoitered the English defenses, the French king arranged his army in the following manner. Four units of Nobles arranged themselves on the far left of the line. Three separated units were in the first line. The king rode with the fourth unit, held in reserve behind the middle formation of first rank. A screen of skirmishing crossbowmen protected the long line of 8 units of heavy infantry and dismounted Men at Arms that formed the center of the French host. The Genoese were stationed in a group on the right flank. Further to the right but behind the crossbow units was a 2-unit formation of mounted Men at Arms. The plan of attack was simple. The skirmishers would harass the English archers and keep their attention fixed to the front. The Genoese would advance and shoot to pieces any enemy in their path, while the Men at Arms would walk their mounts forward until they prepare for a charge against the exposed left of the English position. A similar attack would take place over on the left against the English right. The Nobles would advance at a trot, however, and by their elan and experience, wreck havoc on the English line. Once behind the hated longbow archers, the French heavy cavalry would have a choice of raiding the enemy camp, slaughtering the exposed archers, or both. 

How it Played
The first four turns played rather rapidly as the main concern - at least by the French - was movement. Their infantry plodded forward at a slow pace, screened by the crossbow-armed skirmishers. The cavalry on the flanks walked forward as well, just a few paces faster than the foot contingent. Sensing that his right flank was in danger (or perhaps seeing it - it's hard to tell what he could actually see - but as the player-general, I could plainly see what was developing) the English king ordered his household and other cavalry formations to start moving over to the threatened sector. These orders and subsequent movement produced a Python-like comedy of errors as the three units of cavalry tried to figure out how to wheel and get going without bumping into each other or into the line of archers to their front. Eventually and fortunately, however, this  unintended traffic jam of Men at Arms sorted itself out and slow progress started to be made. In the fifth turn, the French skirmishers crossed the long range line of the English archers. Some good (lucky) volleys scored a point of damage on one unit, disordering it, and disordered two other groups of crossbowmen. The following turn witnessed the elimination of one unit of skirmishers as the lucky volleys continued. The French got revenge, however. On their right, some Genoese crossbowmen fired bolts at a unit of  Hobilars that wandered within range. Most of the English medium cavalry were pinned to their mounts in Turn 6; the rest were knocked off their horses in the next turn. The Genoese crossbowmen could not repeat their performance when they switched their attention to the waiting line of enemy dismounted Men at Arms. Seeing that his effort was more than hopeless, the commander of the French skirmishers decided to pull them back. The surviving companies were withdrawn behind the solid line of heavy infantry and dismounted Men at Arms. These well armed and armored foot soldiers stayed just outside of the long range band of the English archers. The "battery" of heavy pieces fired and succeeded in disordering its targeted unit, but did nothing else for the rest of the engagement. Even though there weren't any arrows flying from the English line, there were plenty of shouted insults and less-than-polite gestures with arms, hands, and fingers.

After making glacially slow progress, the French Nobles charged the enemy heavy infantry on the English right flank. The results of these two close in proximity melees were mixed. In one, the French Nobles trampled the English; in the other, the English heavy infantry stood their ground and forced the French Nobles to retreat, licking their  wounds. On the opposite flank, a similar situation developed.

The Genoese crossbow units had apparently forgotten their training as they could not  hit anything - even with 4 discharges of bolts. The French Men at Arms trotted through these formations and transitioned into a slow gallop against the English dismounted  Men at Arms. Just as on the French left, the resulting melees were even with regard to results. In the one on the far flank of the English line, the French were rather  successful; in the second action, the French were foiled and forced to withdraw.

Back over on the English far right, the formation containing the English king was engaged by a unit of French Nobles. This contest would develop into an extended draw as each side inflicted a single point of loss on the other. In other contests on this flank, the French Nobles proved more successful or perhaps just lucky. A unit of English cavalry was caught in the flank and routed. A reinforcing unit was also engaged - this time by the French Nobles riding with their king, and the French beat them back, pursued, inflicted more damage, forced a retreat, pursued again, and finally rode down the remaining survivors. At one point during this confused contest on the English right, a unit of archers was able to loose a volley into a nearby  enemy unit. Six dice were rolled and all six missed!

Driven to distraction by the French foot not advancing to within range of their longbows, the English archers moved out of their  protected positions and fired a volley at the afraid-to-advance French. Not a single arrow struck home. As this gamble was not paying off, another round of melee was fought between the English king, his household troop, and the stubborn unit of French Nobles. At last, the tie was broken. The English unit was destroyed and the king was captured. (An initial roll indicated the death of the king and the rout of his command, but expert leaders are permitted a re-roll on the leader casualty table, and the second roll produced a captured king with no other impact on his  army - whew.)

In the middle of Game Turn 14, I took stock of the two-dimensional battlefield. The English archers were in front of their stakes and their flanks were not at all secure. Indeed, French cavalry - albeit wounded and disordered - controlled the right and left of the English line. The English camp was in danger of being overrun. An accounting of the   morale points lost revealed a huge advantage for the French. The English had lost 18 points out of a possible 22, while the French had suffered just 1 point (a unit of skirmishers) out of a possible 23. Though the English had not reached their official break point, it seemed a forgone conclusion; it seemed rather pointless to continue the game. 

Evaluation
Due to a lack of familiarity with the rules (the result of not having played a sufficient number of games to become well versed in their mechanics and procedures - what is that magic number anyway: 100? 200? - and how can this many games be played before a 2nd Edition is produced?), there were mistakes made. I incorrectly deferred to the French side when I  won the initiative as the English king. Evidently, only Genius leaders are able to do this. Experts are not permitted to hand over activation to the other side. In working out the modifiers when firing the Genoese crossbows against the English heavy foot, the targeted infantry wound up with a testing number of 7. It would appear then, that the worst result would be a disorder, but I think a roll of 6 also results in a VBU loss. With these same Genoese missile men, I was not sure if they would fire  first or if the impetuous Men at Arms behind them would take the first move and push their mounts through the formation in order to come to grips with the English. I decided to let the crossbow bolts fly before the cavalry made their advance. In the confused melees on the English right, I was surprised to find that the unit of cavalry that was flanked by the French Nobles was able to roll their full VBU value - at least as it stood with a disorder marker and one damage point. It struck me as odd that they would get all those dice when attacked from the flank. Per the rules, a unit attacked in the flank is immediately marked as disordered. Seeing as this unit was already disordered (it had  been marked as such when a unit of friendly infantry routed into it), the additional disorder was interpreted as an automatic loss of another VBU point. This damage, in conjunction with the loss in the subsequent melee, was deemed enough to produce a loss in the contest which resulted in the rout of the charged unit. LIke I said, there were mistakes made. However, despite these admitted rough spots, I don't think enough errors or errors of a significant nature were made to affect the outcome. This IMPETVS interlude proved an enjoyable intermission from refighting a large Roman Civil War battle. 

[Jim Webster]

With 500 points in Impetus I would split the army into two commands and probably three (I tend to use three commands at 400 points never mind five hundred)

As an aside, in our 100 years war games we've always found that the traditional English deployment of MAA in the middle and archers on their wings works well. (If there are three commands, I tend to deploy each of them like that.)
The bow fire from your longbows does help cover the flanks and you still have missile fire from your army centre as well

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

As an aside, in our 100 years war games we've always found that the traditional English deployment of MAA in the middle and archers on their wings works well. (If there are three commands, I tend to deploy each of them like that.)
The bow fire from your longbows does help cover the flanks and you still have missile fire from your army centre as well.

It is a good deployment (and worked historically), so may be worth trying out in a refight.

[Chris]

Thanks for reading and remarking upon the non-historical deployments made for this scenario.

Jim, I take your point (no play on words intended) re the command organization. The rules regarding this do allow players to  organize their tiny armies into 1 single or as many as 4 commands. There is no mandatory rule re number of commands.

Perhaps I favored the French? (Je ne sais pas . . .) Would not élan and noble rank demand that their knights charge against the staked archers?

A refight? Perhaps . . .

Thanks again.

Regards,

Chris

p.s. Curious to note that the report has not been read a lot  on the IMPETVS site and that none of  the readers have remarked upon same.

[Patrick Waterson]

If refighting, one way to deploy the English would be (from right to left):

Right Wing ('Van')

1 unit archers
1 unit dismounted men-at-arms
1 unit archers

Reserve: 1 unit heavy infantry and 1 unit heavy cavalry

Centre (Main Battle)

1 unit archers
1 unit dismounted men-at-arms
artillery
1 unit heavy infantry
1 unit archers

Reserve (army reserve): 1 unit heavy infantry, 1 unit royal heavy cavalry, 1 unit hobilars, 1 unit archers

Left Wing ('Rear')

1 unit archers
1 unit dismounted men-at-arms
1 unit archers

Reserve: 1 unit heavy infantry and 1 unit heavy cavalry


The task of the reserve in the Van and Rear (left and right) is to a) blitz outflankers, although ideally the army should set up in terrain which does not permit outflanking (belt and braces cover on the flanks so that even if one bit of terrain gets removed there is another one or even two giving cover or impeding the opponent) and b) relieve/assist embattled units one way or another.

The Centre reserve's role is to use infantry to stop up gaps which appear in the centre (probably where the artillery is; replace with the spare longbowmen once the French have been thrown out again) and also to provide a mounted force which can be shifted to sort out a bad situation elsewhere.  Ensuring adequate manoeuvring space is recommended.

The whole line should form a coherent linkage with no gaps.

Ideally from the English point of view, the French should charge themselves to exhaustion against dismounted men-at-arms and stake-guarded archers while the English hold back their cavalry for eventual pursuit or maybe sneak a mounted unit round each flank while the French are busy to deliver a crippling flank charge and then pursue.

Would not élan and noble rank demand that their knights charge against the staked archers?

If anything, it would probably demand a charge against the dismounted men-at-arms, where opponents of worth (and large ransoms) are to be found.  True knights fight against knights, not peasants, if they have the option.  Of course if the archers are the only target within reach, the French knights will just have to go for the archers ... c'est la vie.

[Chris]

Thanks Patrick. As always, an educated, experienced, and thought-provoking response.

Good thing I'm a solo wargamer, as it seems evident that as the English commander in this scenario, I would have been soundly thrashed in a typical contest! 

If  playing the French against a true Englishman, I imagine I would have looked like a pin cushion after 6 or 7 turns as a result of the longbow units!

[Patrick Waterson]

One of the advantages the English usually enjoyed, at least up to 1429-1430 or so, was vastly superior battlefield command arrangements.  At Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt the French attacked seemingly without rhyme, reason or effective coordination while the English ran what was virtually a solo player battle: sometimes a close-run thing, but the result was the same: French command came apart part-way through the battle, not least because the ranking commanders tended to charge in early and get killed or captured, and the French army came apart thereafter.  The French did marginally better at Verneuil in 1424, but continued to get thrashed in the open field until they fielded armies under good leadership, e.g. the mercenary generals Poiton de Xantrailles and La Hire.  Things became more even after that, but the English continued to show a marked superiority until in the 1440s the French introduced their Ordonnance army, a regular force to replace the previous mismash of mercenaries and feudal levies.  This evened things out to the point where your game result would not have been out of place, although the English would not have deployed quite so poorly.

Mostly it came down to command: relatively sensible French commanders like Bertrand du Guesclin recognised the superiority of English command, discipline and technique in open battle and tended to avoid stand-up fights which were not in their favour: as a low-born upstart du Guesclin could dispense with many of the attitudes of French chivalry and arrange fights which were more in his favour.  The majority of French commanders were less hard-headed or had the handicap of going into battle with the king as C-in-C: French kings tended to lack both control and military acumen compared with their English counterparts.  Even in smaller engagements, English forces often had dramatically superior leadership.

For much of the period, English forces also had superior technique: they fought as a combined-arms army whereas the French had a tendency to fight as an uncoordinated collection of contingents.  Longbow volleys slowed and disrupted attackers, and also herded them towards the dismounted men-at-arms, who would receive the onset of a disordered and weary opponent while themselves fresh.  A French tendency to go through this mill and fight on English terms rather than hold off and avoid an unfavourable battle contributed to French defeats - command again.