1600 – Something: Dining at the Savoy

The second wargame in the Summer 1602 move was due to the Spanish invasion of Savoy. There were good reasons for the sudden breach of a neutral state’s sovereignty, mainly that the French had, as you may recall, just been repulsed from Franche-Comte, and the Spanish really needed to open a route from Milan to Franche-Comte and the north (the Spanish Road, of course).

To the end of grabbing Savoy, the Spanish deployed the army of Milan, supported by their victorious army from Franche-Comte and the navy in the Western Mediterranean. This gave, according to the current rules, one 12-base army and two 6-base supports, for 24 bases in all. Hm. Twice the size I am used to.

Inevitably, the Spanish failed their GOOS roll, and so the Savoyards mustered a 12-base army against them. The French made an initiative roll and sent support, in the shape of 2 armies, Burgundy and Languedoc. So the Franco-Savoyard force also consisted of 24 bases. Hm. Big battle, at least by my standards.

I confess I nearly chickened out. In previous campaigns, the first army contributed 6 bases, the second 3, and subsequent support 1 each. Thus, the maximum number of bases on the table would probably be about 24 a side. I think I might reinstate that rule, but for this wargame, rather than redraw the army lists, I stuck with the 24 base a side scenario. Still, no one in the campaign has started to deploy trains or siege trains yet, which would add another 6 bases to an army, albeit that 2 of them must be artillery. It is only a matter of time.

The Spanish had, in total, 6 demi-lancers, 8 pike, 8 shot and 2 light horse, with 2 generals and a united command. The Savoyards had 6 cavalry, 3 pike, 2 shot and a base of dragoons (these were randomly drawn), while the French had 4 cavalry, 4 shot, 3 pike and a light horse. The allies had separate dice for their tempo rolls, while the Spanish had 2 dice for the whole lot. The allies also had to deploy their armies separately, and could not ‘trade’ tempo.

The initial deployments are above, the Spanish to the left. As a Spanish commander, I was concerned about the allied cavalry and so refused both wings of cavalry. The near side ones are on a hill, commanded by the sub-general. I was also bothered by the Allied cavalry in the centre. While I had a heartening number of pike, the idea of enemy cavalry running amok among my infantry was not too pleasant. The Spanish plan was to let the enemy come to them; after all, we are deep in Savoy, and it is theirs to lose. I also hoped, strategically, to rout the Savoyard army, thus removing any opposition in the territory.

The allies, with their preponderance of cavalry, were up for the attack. The wings would go in, the infantry would move forward, and the Spanish invaders would be ground to a pulp. The idea was that the cavalry on the wings would charge forward, while the infantry, outnumbered but undaunted, would attack supported by the two central wings of horse.

The Allied plan was implemented fairly smoothly. The light troops clashed, and the Spanish were eventually forced back. On the far side, the Savoyard right is moving up to face their Spanish foe, while on the near side, the French Millers have discovered they are outnumbered and that the enemy is up a hill. Neither side is prepared to advance or charge. In the centre, the French infantry are showing elan and closing in, while the slightly delayed Savoyard centre and left have finally got moving. The no-trading tempo rule worked in that it prevented the French and Savoy armies from coordinating particularly well.

Things went, we might say, ‘crash’ in several areas of the field more or less at the same time. On the far side, the Spanish lancers got the drop on the Savoyard right and routed two bases, while they were bounced with the other. In the centre, the Savoyard right has taken the chance to charge some Spanish foot, but has been held. The French right, too, had a go but was rebuffed, while the French infantry went in and were counterattacked by the Spanish, causing the loss of two infantry bases. The stand-off on the Spanish right, nearest the camera, continues, although as a result of a poor morale throw, the French have just fallen back.

Things became ever more complicated, and both sides had to start watching their rear from rogue but victorious cavalry. On the far side, the remaining Spanish lancers have either rallied or been routed, leaving a Savoyard cavalry base in the rear of the Spanish army, and the rallying Spanish bases in the rear of the Savoyard. The Spanish have detached their light horse to deal with their problem, while the Savoyards have turned their remaining horse around to tackle theirs. In the centre, the Savoyards have lost the base of cavalry that charged due to it being flanked by some pike, while the rest of the infantry are getting into the start of a big fight. On the near side, the French cavalry has got moving again, albeit cautiously.

The above shows the end of the action. On the far side, the Spanish and remaining Savoyard horse are facing off against each other, just out of charge range. The Savoyard infantry is making some progress against the Spanish; however, they have taken losses. The remaining French cavalry attacked again and, despite some success, was routed. The French infantry is seeing some success in forcing back the Spanish. On the near side, the Spanish lancers finally charged, downhill, outnumbering the Millers and, after a struggle, prevailed.

However, the loss of the cavalry caused the French army to rout, and the cumulative casualties for the Savoyards meant their morale slumped to withdraw. In fact, they were lucky that they did not get a rout result on their morale throw.

That was a good game, I thought. The Spanish advantage of a cohesive command probably gave them the edge, although I should have pushed the allied infantry harder into the combat, and probably kept the allied cavalry on the wings where they could have been more useful. Strategically, the Spanish Road is now secure, and the French government is going to have an expensive autumn repairing the damage to its armies. I will also have to work out whether resistance in Savoy continues. At the moment, I am inclined to think not, but the dice might have other ideas….

1600 – Something: Wallachia Defensive

The Summer 1602 move became kind of interesting (to me, anyway; I’m not sure anyone else is really interested in these posts and this campaign). In the west, Spain got a move card and decided that the best way to secure the Spanish Road was to invade Savoy. They had a fleet and the army in Franche-Comte to support, but failed their GOOS roll, and so a Savoyard army opposed them. Not only that, but the French, smarting from their defeat in Spring, added two supporting armies to the resistance. I had to think about this a bit, but fortunately, my notes indicated that the defeated French army was the one in Champagne, not the other two. So a 24-base a side wargame was in the offing.

In the east, too, things were hotting up. The Muscovites made their initiative roll and drew a subvert card. A bit of perusing the diplomatic table suggested that detaching Poland from its friendly neutrality to the Ottomans was a good idea, and they had a 55% chance of doing so. The roll was made, and the Muscovite diplomats had scored a critical success! A bit more head-scratching ensued, and the Ottomans declared war on Poland.

There was just one snag for the Ottomans in the opening of the war. The Poles sent their army south, no problem. The Ottomans sent theirs north, into Wallachia. They failed their GOOS roll, and the Wallachians decided to resist. So now I have a wargame between the Wallachians on the defensive and the invading Ottomans, who are not really interested in invading Wallachia per se, but rather in attacking Poland.

The standard Ottoman army under the rules and army lists is 5 Cv, 3 LH, 2 Sh (Janissary), and 2 militia bases. The Wallachians, being an uncontrolled army, got a card pick which gave them 3 Cv, 4 LH, and 5 Bw bases. An interesting match-up, I thought.

The opening deployments are above. You’ll notice that the Ottoman infantry is deployed in a stream. This was a simple mistake on my part – it was treated as a road during the whole game. I made a mistake, but at least it was a consistent one. Anyway, the Wallachians are to the left, with their bows on a hill. The Ottoman plan was to move the central infantry and their cavalry up quickly (using the road, which was not) to engage the Wallachians, while the column of cavalry on the far side looped around the wood to take the Wallachians in flank.

A few moves in, and the light cavalry is engaged on both wings. In the foreground, the Wallachian lights are under pressure, and the Ottoman foot and cavalry are moving up. On the far side, however, the Wallachians have scored a minor success against the heavier Ottoman cavalry and forced them back a bit. At the time, I did not think much about this; they would soon recover.

A few moves later on again, and the Ottoman infantry have deployed against the Wallachians on the hill, while the Ottoman light cavalry, having gained a temporary advantage over their opponents, strayed a bit close to the massed Wallachian bows and have been forced back. The central Ottoman cavalry has deployed on the forward slope of the central hill, guarding against any naughty flank attacks from the Wallachian cavalry.

On the far side, however, a very strange situation has arisen. After their initial success, the left flank Wallachian lights have followed up with some remarkable combat rolls. The opposing spahi are now, in fact, only one bad roll away from breaking. Initially, they were recoiled, which meant that the front element went to the back of the column. No problem, really. Then the front element was recoiled and shaken. Problem: Shaken bases cannot pass through each other, so the whole column recoiled and was shaken. Then they were recoiled again, which meant that they are teetering on the edge, doubly shaken and recoiled.

The Wallachian’s luck held. Their light cavalry on their left made another recoil roll, and the Ottoman heavies fled. The Wallachians now turned across the Ottoman rear, while the Ottoman general frantically redeployed horse archers to deal with them. You can see one of the said horse archer bases fleeing above. Meanwhile, the Ottoman foot approached the hill and was met with devastating bow fire. Not only that, but the Wallachian general saw an opportunity and launched one base of his noble cavalry at the infantry flank. The first time, in fact, the cavalry refused to charge, but the second time they went home, and the Ottoman infantry collapsed.

That was, of course, too much for the Ottoman army, who routed. It has to be said that the real difference between the two was a very hot combat dice for the Wallachians. Those left flank light horse were truly devastating. The two bases routed four Ottoman cavalry bases. I have never seen such a successful skirmish in my games, I confess.

Aside from my errors, that was a remarkable game. The mistake over the stream did not really matter, as it benefited both sides. The Ottomans got their foot into the game quickly along it, while the Wallachians charged across it at the end, so it balanced out. The Wallachian infantry was solid on their hill, and had reserves so they could have defended it from a flank attack. But the day belonged to those Wallachian light cavalry, who doubtless will become the subject of song and poem.

Strategically, this means that the Ottoman army, which routed, will have dispersed. Thus, the Ottomans are trying to fight a war without any armed forces, which should be interesting. The Poles, on the other hand, have to decide whether to settle down in Little Poland supporting the Wallachians, in case the Ottomans return, or whether to take the offensive, move through Wallachia themselves (hopefully unopposed, but you never know) and attack the now wide open spaces of the Empire.

Still, the next action is in Western Europe, with two armies that are rather larger than I am used to dealing with. I will let you know how I get on in due course.

Campaigns and AI and Stuff…

There has been a bit of pondering around the blogs I follow about the implications for AI. Heretical Gaming picked up on a post from the Battlefields and Warriors blog, both about how well or otherwise AI generates scenarios for particular periods and gaming styles. Having read the posts and subjected the generated scenarios to a little consideration (but not too much, real life keeps intervening and I’ve only got so many brain-cells), I suppose the answer is ‘All right, but not particularly brilliantly’. Or, in school terms, B-, could do better (possibly).

My pondering was interrupted by, of all organizations, The Bank of England, warning that AI companies were going the way of the dot.com bubble, which we all knew and loved from the early noughties. I have heard this from other sources as well, that basically the bosses for these companies will walk away from the collapse with millions of dollars in their pockets, while the suddenly redundant staff do not even get their final month’s paycheck. Welcome to the world of capitalism.

Mind you, that is not to say that AI is not with us to stay. A number of companies, I believe, operate almost exclusively online to this day and seem to turn in a dime or two, even as they avoid paying taxes on the same. The dot.com thing was a bubble, but the idea of online business remains. That suggests that the AI bubble might pop, but AI itself will remain, albeit a bit chastened.

On the other hand, I do fear there is something of a moral panic setting in about AI. It is a pain, as I know from my former colleagues who are still wage slaves in Higher Education, but it still can be outmaneuvered. I am still waiting for the first AI product that can detect the use of AI in an undergraduate essay, as well. These things often become a battle of wits and resources, as warfare often does.

Still, attempting to head back into the area of wargaming, I also read a piece by theologian Janet Soskice this week (for reasons which have nothing at all to do with wargaming, but bear with me). In Chapter 8 of her The Kindness of God: Metaphor, gender, and religious language (OUP, Oxford, 2008), she discusses Bakhtin’s discussion of the novels of Dostoevsky. Bakhtin argues that Dostoevsky created a new form of novel where the characters are not voiceless slaves of the author, but stand up to him, disagree with him, and even rebel against him. This is remarkably like characters in Biblical texts where various Israelites argue with God (starting with Abraham, but perhaps most notably Job). The point here is that the characters are not objects but subjects, that is, they are quite capable of doing their own thing.

I was reflecting then (ah, some wargaming content) on my recent campaigns, from the Very Mogul Civil War, the War of Stuart Succession, and, most recently, the ongoing 1600 – Something campaign in Europe. In all of these, the outcomes and moves were determined by dice and cards – initiative rolls, card draws to determine moves, GOOS rolls for reactions, and so on, let alone the randomness engendered by the wargames of the ensuing encounters. This gives, in my totally unbiased view, of course, a rather rich background to what was going on and the narrative trajectory of the campaigns.

So, the questions posed are, I suppose, twofold. Would an AI be able to come up with something like the back story to any of these campaigns, and would it be able to create a viable next move in the game?

I am not about to rush off and pose the question to a passing AI bot thing. They have, after all, been raiding my blog for training content for the last month or so (although that seems to have suddenly stopped, or are they just terminally bored by my deathless prose?). I have a vague idea as to how these LLM pseudo-AIs work, and I doubt if they would do a very good job unless I fed in the campaign rules and the diplomatic table, as well as perhaps the army lists and means of generating the random armies.

That seems to add up to a significant quantity of data to be input to an AI in order for it to generate the next move in my campaign. A LLM, after all, has to start from somewhere. I doubt if one would come up with the idea of wargaming a fictitious struggle for the crown at the end of the Tudor period anyway. That idea came from my reading of the history and some of the options available to the various parties. Now, an AI bot could do that, but most of the histories finish with what the outcome was, historically.

I suppose the result of this is that while I could load the campaign into an AI and get the next move, I may as well keep going with my dice, cards, and so on. It also keeps me off the computer screen and gets my imagination wondering as to how something came about, or what to do with an unexpected move.

And that brings us back to Dostoevsky, I suppose. As the WsuS indicated, sometimes in a campaign, the characters do the unexpected. Who imagined when I started off that the Spanish would win the throne after an English army mutinied because they did not like the ally of the main contender? The characters, with only vague sketches of their natures, certainly felt like they were running the show. An AI might have managed it, but I am not entirely sure how, nor whether it could have come up with a convincing reason why it happened. Maybe it could; as I said, I’m not about to rush off and try.

As with the dot.com bubble, and, indeed, with the moral panic about the ‘Google generation’, I imagine that the frenzy about AI will slowly settle down. It already has its uses, as online companies did in the noughties, but I suspect that too many people who are prophesying doom for the human race as a result, as well as some of the overenthusiastic commentators, have simply been reading too much bad science fiction.