1600 – Something: Luxembourg

 As my loyal reader may recall, the Autumn 1605 campaign turn is drawing to a close. The final action is the French invasion of Luxembourg. As the French failed their GOOS roll, they have to face a host of the Luxembourg’s finest, drawn at random.

The final Luxembourg army consisted of 4 bases of cavalry, 1 light horse, 5 shot and 2 pikes. Quite a handy little army, I thought. The French were a single army themselves, consisting of their regulars: 4 cavalry, 1 light horse, 4 shot and 3 pike. Interestingly evenly matched, I thought, with the Luxembourgers being slightly shot heavy, and the French with the pike.

The terrain rolling favoured the defenders, with a handy hill in the centre of their line to defend. Above, the Luxembourgers are to the left, the dark-coated infantry on the hill with half the cavalry behind. The rest of the cavalry is refused on their left with only the light horse forward, while the rest of the infantry is on the right, nearest the camera.

I confess, I was a little concerned about the position, mostly because the infantry on the hill is a newly painted bunch who have never been in action before. Still, the idea was to have a cavalry trap on the left of the hill, so any advancing French horse could be charged in flank and downhill by the central cavalry. The idea was similar on the right, with the hope of trapping the French infantry in a hail of musketry.

The plans developed, somewhat slowly, admittedly. As you can see above, the French right was delayed by a lack of tempo points. The left did get going, and the main French infantry force ran into the predicted musketry barrage, so much so that the general brought up some cavalry to support them. On the far side, you can see the light horse has been exchanging shots as well.

I should mention that before this game, the tactical rules were subject to some minor revisions, which revealed that in the previous version, the move of light horse had been increased to 3 base widths, so they can tank around the battlefield more quickly, and, crucially, get out of trouble a bit faster. We shall see how it works out.

There was a fair bit of cagey manoeuvring. As you can see above, the French got their right wing moving eventually, but their left has fallen back a bit to avoid being trapped. On the Luxembourg side, their right-wing infantry advanced to try to trap the left, but will now fall back a bit to try to avoid a clobbering by the pike-heavy French.

In the event, the French decided to bite the various bullets on offer. On their right, the first line of cavalry stuck their heads in the noose, while on the left, the infantry got moving again, aiming at the Luxembourg right. It all looked a bit risky, particularly for the cavalry with a juicy open flank begging.

In the event, the Luxembourg general took over and charged in with his left flank cavalry. His own base has, as you can see, severely damaged the French, but the other has, remarkably, been bounced. On the right, the infantry are near to clashing. In the centre, the French second line cavalry are in the firing line, while their second line infantry are arriving in support.

It got a bit busy. On the French right, the damaged cavalry fled, pursued by the Luxembourg general and base. On the near side, the Luxembourgers attacked, securing victory on one flank with the musketeers, but not on the rest. Nevertheless, French morale was starting to look wobbly, although they survived. The bounced Luxembourg cavalry, by the way, has been withdrawn in front of their camp on the left of the picture to recover.

In the foreground, you can see that the French right has emerged victorious in the infantry battle. Two Luxembourg bases are fleeting, while the other has retired to a hill for safety. On the French right, the cavalry has been charged by the rallied Luxembourgers and is coming off second best. The remaining Luxembourg cavalry is creeping forward, looking for a target.

The French general, however, was not going to lose another cavalry base if he could help it, and led a base of musketeers into the flank of the Luxembourg general’s horse. The horse fled, but the general survived. This really is the point where the French began to scent victory.

The Luxembourgers fought on, however, thinking that their temporary cavalry superiority might count. But the French soon organised an infantry attack on the front and flank of the hill. In spite of fierce resistance and the reserve musketeers moving across to prop the flank up, the game was pretty well up for the defenders.

The coup de grace came on the French left with the flanking attack up the hill. While the pike in the centre were driving back their opponents, down the hill, the loss of another base pushed the Luxembourg morale to fall back. This led to their cavalry and light horse retiring from the field, so at that point, they decided that further resistance was futile.

That was, as a wargame, a lot of fun and intriguing. The French had a tough nut to crack, I think, and managed to do it by not over-committing. I did toy, for example, with charging the French cavalry up the hill at the infantry there. It might have worked, particularly with the large numbers of musketeers stationed there. After all, the Muscovites managed a few games ago. But discretion, and the fact that the Luxembourgers gained the tempo and moved back, suggested otherwise. Patience told, in the end.

As for the wider picture, the French are now in possession of Luxembourg, which means that the Spanish Road is in peril. I am not sure how the Spanish will respond. They are fairly thinly spread along the frontier. But the next campaign move is winter 1605, so I will have to wait until spring to find out.

1600 – Something: The Unlucky Lucky Muscovites

As my loyal reader will know, I am currently wargaming my way through the Autumn 1605 move of the\ campaign. This has now rolled around (moving east to west) to the Muscovites defending Courland against a Danish Expeditionary Force. As you might recall, if you were really concentrating, there is a bit of history here, the Muscovites having routed a previous Danish force supporting the Courlanders.

The Danes have control of the Baltic, and so, with a move card, it was a simple matter for the army from Jutland to be switched to Courland, and a few dice rolls indicated that the landing was unopposed, but the Courlanders did not rally to the cause of the Danes. Presumably, they wanted to wait and see what happened next. After all, the Danish force sent to support them did not cover itself in glory.

The Muscovites may well have been happier with the terrain rolled for this encounter. Above, they are to the left, Cossacks and cavalry to the fore. The remaining foot is on the lower slopes of a hill in front of the camp, with a reserve of streltsi in the rear. The Danes had some more head scratching to do. While the ford would minimise disruption crossing the stream, doing so in the face of the Muscovite cavalry would be difficult.

A few moves in, and the Danes are crossing the stream in numbers. The infantry on the road is across, and getting organised and deployed. On the far side, the cavalry is mostly across and rallying. The only fly in the ointment so far is that the second regiment of foot has been mostly delayed at the stream. On the other hand, the Muscovites are too far away to really bother about at present.

A few moves later, and things are heating up. On the near side, the Danish second infantry regiment is reluctantly crossing the stream, while the first is deployed. The cavalry which crossed the ford is now aiming for the Danish right wing, and has become a significant cavalry combat. The two bases of Danish cavalry which had crossed the stream (the third is still rallying), decided to charge, rather than be charged, even though they were outnumbered. Initially, they had great success, pushing back and shaking the Muscovites, but, just as I thought that the Muscovite baggage was in peril, both bases were bounced. Hence, the disorganisation of both sides.

As you can also see, I had decided that the Muscovite foot on the hill would be more useful on their right, and they were moving towards it. In retrospect, this was probably a mistake on my part, as staying put on the hill might have been a better bet. The other thing to note is a misfortune for the Muscovites after their fluky combat dice rolls. I had to make a general’s risk roll, as the general’s base had been recoiled and shaken. He needed 1-4 on a d6 to survive. Of course, I rolled a 5. Oops.

Surprisingly, the Muscovites did not fall apart. On their right, nearest the camera, the cavalry charged. While one base was halted on the road by musket fire, the other base of muskets was destroyed, and the pike sent reeling back. On the far side, the Danish general is attempting to take some advantage from the cavalry melee, but the Muscovites have started to rally as well, so he might be a little late.

It got a bit complicated, and I think I missed a photograph. As you can see above, things have changed quite a bit. The third Muscovite cavalry base on their left charged the Danish cavalry by the stream and routed them, only to fall victim to the Danish general and his base who were relishing having just routed another of the Muscovite bases, seen fleeing top left. On the right, the hitherto successful Muscovite cavalry fighting the Danish pike has been routed by a flank charge by Danish cavalry sent from the other flank, who are pursuing at the bottom of the picture. Meanwhile, the Muscovite foot have deployed, just at the foot of the hill.

Both sides had to make morale rolls at this point. The Danes were three bases down and were deemed to be at the ‘waver’ level. The Muscovites, two bases and a general down, rolled a fallback result, which is why there is a big gap between them and the Danes. Another charge disposed of another Muscovite cavalry base, if you look closely, the Muscovite camp is now under threat from marauding Danish cavalry. Muscovite morale went to withdraw, and discretion was the better part of valour.

Strategically, the Muscovites will have to withdraw from Courland, and I suspect that the losses will cause the state to plunge even deeper into debt. The Danes, with the customs revenue from the Sound, are better off financially. And so will probably hold Courland, along with their enclave on the Baltic coast of Poland.

In the game, I think the Muscovites were both lucky and unlucky (hence the title). They were unlucky to lose the general (again) but fortunate to beat off the Danish cavalry. I really was having visions of the Danes looting the camp before the game was half-finished. The Muscovites continued to roll well, in fact, nearly overwhelming a base of pike with a frontal attack, which is no mean feat. In fact, they would have succeeded had the Danish cavalry not intervened.

For the Danes, the stream was a problem, obviously, but the ford certainly helped them get across with minimal disruption. The second line cavalry and infantry, crossing directly, did not fare as well. Perhaps I should simply have fed more troops, particularly the second infantry regiment, across the ford.

Still, while this goes down as another Muscovite defeat, it was a close-run thing. Mind you, the Muscovites are now looking for net another general. What do you think of the job advert: ‘Wanted, a general. Short-term contract’?

The Score

I have been reading, very slowly (due to other commitments), The Score, by C Thi Nguyen. It is certainly worthy of attention as a wargamer, let alone as a citizen of the 21st-century world. If you would like a bit of an introduction, Nguyen was on BBC Radio 4’s Start the Week program a bit ago, and you can still listen to it here.

Wargaming is not Nguyen’s main point in writing the book, of course. The main aim is how our lives are taken over and, ultimately, controlled by numbers, usually imposed upon us by parties beyond our control. Our values, he maintains, are captured by these. For example, Facebook is dominated by how many ‘likes’ you get, and how many ‘followers’ you can claim. Instead of using it as a medium for communicating with other people, you slowly become captured by the numbers, and start writing posts which will maximise your number of likes, keep and grow your camp of followers, and so on.

This value capture works more seriously (perhaps) in other areas of life. For example, the assessment of schools is (still) given by a single word or phrase in England, despite its devastating potential. As Nyugren observes, this sort of thing makes, in principle, it easy to compare schools. Thus, as a parent, you choose the school for your child that comes with the highest rank. The rank, of course, abstracts from all the context of a particular school. It might, for example, be a wonderful school for a certain sort of urban child who, simply, would not fit into a normal academic environment. But that context is ignored.

Nguyen uses a lot of examples from games. He observes that games hold a sort of middle ground in our lives. They have rules, scores, and assessments, but they also allow us to be creative. A simple example is of soccer. The rule is (among others, of course) that you cannot touch the ball. This forces you to do other things, to get creative with feet and head. The rules force creativity.

Nguyen does not specifically address wargaming, but he does say some things about role-playing games. He observes, for example, that actually, role-playing games, or rather the players, need rules of some description. Apparently, if the players are left rule-less, the stories become staid and repetitive. It is the dice rolling, the attempt to make a score, which leads to the storytelling. The failure to achieve something forces us into creativity, by making account for the unexpected.

I do not think it is too much of a stretch to apply this to historical wargaming. We can, if we so desire, re-fight Waterloo every week, but probably, most of us would eventually find that a bit boring. That might be so even if the results, as a consequence of dice rolling, would be different each time, at least slightly. But we can start imagining the what-ifs. ‘What if Ney had not gone so far?’ ‘What if Hougomont had held out less long?’ ‘What if the Prussians were delayed?’ Some of these things might give us greater insight into the outcome, but would we still be re-fighting Waterloo?

By giving us different outcomes within an overall envelope of possibility, our imagination and creativity are put to the test. Perhaps it is this that we risk outsourcing to artificial intelligence if we start using it to create our scenarios and campaigns. Nguyen observes, as do other commentators, that we are heading in a direction that leads to us outsourcing almost all our decision-making. This is done by reducing our choices, essentially, to numbers, even if they are probabilities in a large language model, and relying on the computer to decide for us.

Of course, this is what we do when we write rules. In my case, I can ponder how many points in combat a charging cavalry unit should get compared to, for example, a base of dispersed skirmishers. We abstract away the details of all the encounters we are aware of between such troops and come up with an answer. Then, through various factors,, such as terrain, training, and morale, we add context back in. That is pretty much how the wargaming world works, I think, whatever rules and mechanisms we might use.

The scoring system in a game is, however, important. Nguyen observes that a lot of game designers start with the scoring system. This conditions the players, and what they can and choose to do in order to win, whatever winning might mean (he has some interesting examples). I have encountered this in the difference between one-off and campaign games. In the latter, keeping your force in being might be more important, a bigger win, than dying gloriously but vainly on the battlefield. Sometimes, in my campaign games, it is simply better to march away. What it means to ‘win’ has changed.

Incidentally, on that matter, I have just been reading an interesting article in History Today on the run-up to the disaster (for the Crusaders) of the Horns of Hattin. A few years earlier, they had gathered a large force and seen Saladin off without a battle. But this was regarded as cowardice. So in a similar situation, an advance to battle was ordered. We know how well that worked, but the point here is that in real life, the goal was altered, and not being thought a coward was placed above winning.

The above might be a little less than coherent as an argument. My excuse is that it is a very rich book and I am only halfway through it. But it has made me think about what sort of goals we set in wargames, and how these affect the ways that we might play the game. Indeed, the nations in 1600-Something do have strategic aims which, on occasion, do suggest courses of action. So the French, for example, want to break the Spanish Road, and are piling up forces on the frontier to that end. But each individual battle is directed to attempting to obtain that strategic outcome, rather than just destroying the enemy.

A fair bit to ponder then, even leaving aside the complaints about how big businesses and government go about evaluating everything and controlling outcomes. I shall, quite probably, return to the subject.