SoA Forums

I've been turning over in my mind a very typical medieval tactical problem and what games may be had with it.  That issue is the defended river crossing.  Rivers provided excellent choke points on strategic routes.  Even if a river was tactically fordable, getting the baggage and artillery across needed a sound crossing - a good ford or bridge.  Seize the bridge and you delay the enemy advance, divert it or stop it altogether.

The standard medieval attack doctrine was to seek out an alternative crossing to launch a flanking assault while pinning the bridge defenders with a direct assault.  A popular defending tactic was to draw up back from the river (beyond bowshot) then, when the attacker moves across the bridge, attack when his force is divided, though a straight holding of bridge and ford was also popular.

So, that's the historical background.  My other inspiration was the adventures of Jacques de Lalaing in the Ghent War. His war consisted largely of reconnaisance and probing attacks against villages and river and drainage crossings, to clear a route for the main army's advance.

To test the game, I therefore chose small forces of Burgundians and Flemish.  It could have been in the Ghent War, but my army is a bit earlier.

The next thing was the terrain.  Very simple. A river across the board, a bridge in the middle, a road top to bottom and a a second side to side, with a crossroads just behind the bridge on the defenders side.  No second ford was modelled - any ford party would be a flank march on the side-to-side road.

Next design element - the forces were not balanced.  The attacker has what should be a decisively superior force. But the mass of the force couldn't be brought to bear, at least initially, because the river was impassable except at the bridge and the off table ford.

Taking the ford next, this is a bit tricky for me in a solo game.  I know it exists and so can plan attack and defence accordingly.  In order to make life less certain, insert uncertainty as to when any flank force can arrive but also randomise which end of the road.  The defender shouldn't have sufficient force to cover all three potential attack routes effectively.

We've noted that the attacker should have overwhelming force.  So, really, the defender needs some time delay victory conditions.  So, we might say after a certain number of moves, the gallant defenders are heavily reinforced and the attacker must retire.  Or the defenders may be covering the retreat of their main force and after a certain number of moves, they have safely escaped.  Doesn't really matter, provided there is a time limit.  What that is will depend on typical number of game turns under your rules.

So, how did the test go?  The Burgundian force, as befits an advance guard, were all mounted but dismounted to assault the bridge. A mixed force of men-at-arms crossbowmen and archers tackled the bridge, the fording detachment consisted of mounted men-at-arms and gros varlets. The Flemish formed a big pikeblock behind the bridge with a flank detachment of crossbows.  The bridge assault party seized the bridge but the Flemings gave them no room to deploy and they were roughly handled.  Their commander went down in the fight and his household were broken. The crossbows and the rightmost unit longbows were engaged in a shoot out, which the longbows lost.  On the other flank, the Burgundian crossbows broke one of the pike units.  At this point, I cheated and brought on the ford party. If I hadn't, it would have been touch and go for the bridge assault.  I did use a random selection of sides though and the forders turned up behind the Flemish crossbows.  Suddenly the tables were turned.  The leading men-at-arms scattered a crossbow unit and pursued into the flank of the nearest pike unit.  This didn't break immediately and managed to turn to face but was then hit in the flank by a unit of varlets and it and the Flemish leader were lost.  Morale tests followed and the remaining pikes and crossbows beat a hasty retreat.

Learning points.  This is actually hard on the bridge assault if the enemy can face up a well-supported good infantry.  Hang back and counter charge, rather than holding the bridge on a one-against-one, was successful - the Burgundians were restricted but the Flemish could rely on support.  The flank attack is potentially devastating when it arrives if the defenders have no reserves, especially mobile ones like cavalry.

One last photo, to go with the earlier one in last game.  Just to prove there was a bridge 

Nice report

Great report, Anthony. Soloing stuff to try out a theory or explore options is a good way to go... + no-one's feeling het hurt when they lose! (No dice flung across the room as the flank force arrives eg 😁).
Do you solo game much?

Thanks for the write up a good report. Some thinking points there I might try myself.

Quote from: Martin Smith on July 27, 2024, 07:59:40 AMDo you solo game much?

Two part answer.  I don't game that much at all (a motivation/mood thing, rather than an available time thing).  But when I do, it is solo.

Quote from: Ian61 on July 27, 2024, 08:24:03 AMSome thinking points there I might try myself.

Good, because that's why I wrote it up.  This one wasn't a rule test but an scenario idea test.  I hoped to lay out a basic idea which folks might try variations of.

Good stuff, Anthony! Nice to see another photo from your game.
Contested river crossings pose difficult tactical problems for the attacker.  As you state, the defender has options as well.  Your discussion reminds me of the Japanese in WWII and "island hopping" in the Pacific.  At first, the Japanese contested the landings on the beaches and suffered horribly.  Well, the Americans suffered horribly too.  Later, the Japanese switched tactics.  They opted to defend farther inland and then counterattack vigorously once the attackers came ashore but before a solid beachhead could be established. 

Quote from: Erpingham on July 27, 2024, 09:17:50 AM

Quote from: Ian61 on July 27, 2024, 08:24:03 AMSome thinking points there I might try myself.

Good, because that's why I wrote it up.  This one wasn't a rule test but an scenario idea test.  I hoped to lay out a basic idea which folks might try variations of.

Indeed it was the scenario as part of a longer campaign that I found interesting but I was writing in haste so I am glad you picked up the drift.