Saturday 18 May 2024

Sienese Disaster

It was all going so nicely. I decided to, in the Estimable Mrs P’s words ‘have a battle’. It took a while to organise because I decided to revisit the Italian Wars campaign and see how Siena was getting on at taking over central Italy. The answer was ‘rather well’. I started with a few moves where not much happened except that I captured, took over, or negotiated suzerainty with a number of cities.

It was all trundling along rather nicely, and my personal rating was increasing steadily. There were a few hiccoughs, such as a rebellion in Siens itself, with external aid, but the rebels submitted readily enough when I appeared with my army outside the walls. No problems, I thought, this will land up with me being practically canonized in Siena.

Well, the system is not set up to give the solo wargamer an easy ride, of course. The next random event was an external enemy appearing on the scene, and the dice roll indicated that they were the French. I was not too worried by this, as the French are a small army (12 bases) and I was at full strength. All that is needed is to be aware of their Swiss pike, who are very destructive, and to meet their gendarmes with gendarmes, which I could do.

Then I rolled for allies for the French. A heart was drawn, and then a 3 rolled on the dice. Ouch. Three allies. These turned out to be three bases each of crossbow skirmishers, crossbows and, cripplingly, gendarmes. Who on earth would loan the French that many gendarmes?

Anyway, now I had a problem, and I pondered long as to what to do about it. I could stand on the defensive (obviously) or I could call in allies. The problem is, even calling on allies might not guarantee a win, and I would not be able to call on them again for 3 years anyway. I had a fair potential for allies, of course, having taken over eight cities, but something suggested that I shouldn’t.

The terrain rolling might have suggested that this was reasonable, as I was partially defending a stream. That seemed to give good scope for being able to ignore or avoid some of the French hordes. The other side of the table was a bit cramped by enclosures, and hopefully, the French cavalry advantage would be negated, especially as I had an advantage in mounted crossbows.



A few moves in and you can see the situation developing. My mounted crossbows are in the middle of the shot, skirmishing, while the French left gendarmes have crossed the stream and are in disorder (brown markers). On the far side, you can see the French right making progress. On reflection, I think this was a mistake on my part. The French gendarmes were probably unnecessary over there, at least in such strength, and could usefully have been employed on the left, infiltrating on the far left side (nearest the camera) behind the fields and then swinging onto my right flank. As it was, four French bases were tied up by two of mine at the stream.

Moving on, the next picture shows the critical point, in my view, of the battle.


The French infantry are crossing the stream, covered by their skirmishing crossbows. This has worked well for them, although you can see that the skirmishers have mainly been disposed of or dispensed with. On the far side, the stand-off between the French gendarmes (4 bases) and my gendarmes (2 bases) is continuing. The French simply cannot afford to risk crossing the stream with the accompanying disorder and being exposed to a charge as they struggle up the bank.

The action, such as it is, is on the near flank. As predicted the terrain has caused the French cavalry to reduce their width, and my mounted crossbowmen will, this move, recoil theirs, exposing the gendarmes. After a bit of hesitation, I charged them with my right flank cavalry. It was, I thought, a gamble, but worthwhile. I could crack open their left and I might get their main general (the French, learning from the defeat of a large Spanish army, had a sub-general with the infantry).

In theory, that could have worked. My troops gamely charged home. But then the dice deserted them. While one enemy base was recoiled, the other actually recoiled my gendarmes, followed up and put them to rout. At the end of the turn I rolled for my army morale – only one base down. Then I rolled a 6:1 on the morale dice and my brave troops fell back a move. Except the gendarmes on the left who were in combat, and whom the dastardly French managed to gang up upon and rout the next turn.

That was not quite it. I threw my mounted crossbows out on my right to delay the gendarmes and the infantry started to get stuck in, my sword and buckler men magnificently holding the Swiss pike on my centre left. However, the dastardly French gendarmes, who, recall, had not charged so were still in hand and accompanied by the army commander, simply ignored my skirmishers and turned in on my centre right foot, charging downhill onto their flank. Naturally, this was successful and my other sword and buckler men, a base of shot, and a base of crossbowmen, were routed.


The charge of the French gendarmes was halted by the rough ground in my centre, but the French centre left, with the sub-general, was about to turn to take my centre left in the flank. As it was, my army decided it had had enough and withdrew.

*

There is a certain fascination, not to mention a thrill, in designing a system that can defeat you. As it is all is not lost for Siena. Granted, I am 5 bases down in the army and that will take 5 years to make good, but I might manage on allies. The French, however, might go after some more of my cities. On the other hand, my personal rating, while having taken quite a knock, is still fairly high.

On the other hand, I might surrender and spend the rest of my days drinking Bordeaux at the French court.









4 comments:

  1. Solitaire-play systems which provide genuine surprise and challenge without roll-a-1-and-go-directly-to-jail mechanics are always great!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. This is actually a modified version of the Aztec game from a while ago which not only defeated me, but also killed my general / emperor. There is a good feeling about it; it is certainly not biased....

      Delete
  2. Recently, I realized that many strategic conflicts aren't best simulated as traditional zero-sum games like Risk, where it's F2F, H2H, 1-to-1, or many-to-many. Often, it's just as valid to simulate some conflicts using rules-based reactions, randomly generated behaviors, or a mix of both. This approach can sometimes better capture the complexities and unpredictabilities of real-world strategic scenarios. I have felt this about WW2/Modern tactical scenarios for ages, but appreciating that it has somewaht wider scope than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it depends on the scope and view that you want to take. For the Machiavelli campaign I was the omniscient observer, all seeing and all knowing, trying to be fair all around. Here I am the leader of Siena and stuff happens outside my view - hence the French suddenly arriving. Both work, so long as you stick to the relevant world-view and don't try to second guess what is 'really' going on. Stuff happens, and it sometimes feels random. There may be reasons, but often, especially in warfare, they are hidden from us.

      Delete