Friday, June 14, 2024

Portable White Mountain (3)

 

We left the action last time with Confederation spoiling attacks along most of the Imperialist front stalling their advance. The cavalry thrust on the Imperialist right had been met, contained and defeated; two Confederation tercios were being assailed by horse and guns around Remy; the cavalry attack to the left of the woods, though overrunning a gun battery, was being defeated; and close by Ruzyne reinforcements have sustained the embattled Imperialist cavalry. 

As the victorious Confederation horse rally, the Imperialists push a tercio far out to the right. An artillery battery covers the resulting gap in the line, to bring the milling Confederation horse under fire. It will take time for the reserve infantry to firm up the line, though there is probably little enough that three depleted cavalry units can achieve here.


In fact, gunfire soon scatters one of those units. At about this point, Turn 6, with yet another unimpressive activation die roll, the Confederation gives thought (well, I did) to breaking off the spoiling attacks. The Imperialists are beginning to establish an ascendancy, losses are mounting, and there seems to be a need to consolidate the main line.

And then the Imperialists go and make an even dismaller activation roll. Gunfire, useful as it is in knocking holes in enemy troops (especially tercios) is taking up a good deal of Imperialist time. Three batteries in action leaves just 5 units doing anything.



Priority is given to the situation on the Imperialist left wing. The harquebusiers in the centre having seen off the enemy attack, they now swing over to catch an already depleted cavalry unit in the flank.
The decision already having been made to break off the action, the freshest cavalry unit is already in the process of withdrawing close by the walled park.

This leaves the two - now reduced to one - depleted units holding off for as long as possible the concerted attacks by three Imperialist units. Destroying one unit by fire action, there is no follow-up onto the last remaining.

For a wonder, the Imperialists win the initiative for Turn Seven, and promptly cast a truly horrible activation roll. Tilly and Co are finding it really hard to chivvy forward the unengaged parts of the army. Its front cleared, the tercio between the wood and the river ought to be advancing, but too much is happening elsewhere.  

The Confederation response is equally sluggish. Much of their effort, apart from pockets of close action, is being spent firming up their main battle line.

It seems' however, that the Confederation commanders are starting to get a better grip upon events, and win back the initiative. Having formed the plan to consolidate their line, they begin to pull back the most forward units, apart from what remains of the tercio embattled near Remy. That formation is doing a fine job stopping up the bottleneck between that village and the copse. Considering the single gun battery in action, a middle-range activation roll (10) is pretty useful!


And, of course, the Imperialist response remains as lackadaisical as ever. There's three tercio there behind Remy, and a unit of harquebusiers as well, and none of them have stirred all day. There are others out of the picture no more energetic. 'They are robbing me of my victory!' raves Graf Tilly, shedding fistsful of hair...

The Confederation has at last formed something of a flank on their left, the intent gradually to pull back and in towards the flank gun emplacement. The depleted remnants of the forward tercio continues to fight what has become something of a covering action whilst the Confederation consolidates. Nearer Ruzyne, an Imperialist tercio has begun pushing forward in the face of enemy gunfire. Close by that village, the Confederation cavalry having been driven off or routed, two harquebusier units close upon the right-flank enemy tercio and begin shooting it up.

This is probably the last action of the day, as gunfire and pistolry cuts the grey tercio to ribbons (2SP left from 6). Although the Confederation army has reformed their line, very little of their cavalry remain, and losses have somewhat demoralised (exhausted) the army as a whole. 

The remaining pictures show the overall situation as the battle sputters to close. Although the Imperialists retain, and have increased, the edge they began with, their sluggishness has deprived them of a decisive victory.


Readers will no doubt be disappointed at the anticlimactic outcome. Most of the cavalry on both sides were in action, but there was no 'push of pike and dint of butt'. Three of the six Confederation tercios saw action, and two of them took 9SP hits between them. One Imperialist tercio got to shoot its muskets, advanced towards the enemy, and took losses to incoming. One only. I suppose that might indicate to what extent the Imperialists did in fact get the better of the fighting.


Thirty-four Strength Points the Confederation lost: ten from the infantry, the remainder from the horse - the equivalent of 8 out of 13 units destroyed. The Imperialist losses were not far short of that: 32SP overall - surprisiongly many in that last Turn.  Take three from the guns and one from the infantry: the Imperialist horse lost 28SP. Wow.


Both sides, then, had reached their exhaustion points, the Confederation on Turn 7, the Imperialists on Turn 8. The temptation is that, one side having reached its exhaustion point, the other gets some extension upon theirs in order that a decisive result might be achieved. On the other hand, although this battle amounted to a lot of costly skirmishing, the overall narrative struck me as altogether plausible. Not all battles end decisively. Have to admit though, it was exciting while it lasted!


'History' would probably record this as a tactical Imperialist victory, but one indecisive and barren of material or moral fruits.  






21 comments:

  1. Cracking report and a very interesting result, as you say not all battles ended decisively and this one ran pretty true to that. I have enjoyed the instalments it' been a real treat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donnie -
      Thank you for your comment. This was one of those actions in which, after second thoughts, I found gave a satisfactory result. I'll admit right here that I didn't think at the time of the Confederation attacks as skirmishing, or spoiling attacks, but that is what they were. There was never really any prospect of a general assault upon the Imperialist line.

      Had the activation rolls been more on the plus side, who knows how the thing might have gone? The Imperialist tercios would have stirred a lot sooner!
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  2. When the result of the battle is that the Wargamer had a lot of fun, it's a victory - very enjoyable report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maudlin Jack -
      Yeah, I reckon I'll take that kind of victory. This battle would have made a fine beginning to a campaign, methinks!
      Thanks,
      Ion

      Delete
  3. That was a very enjoyable account, and a spectacular number of troops deployed. In some ways, the armies reaching their exhaustion points so early reminded me of those Command and Colours games where both sides throw all their cavalry into action early on and are then surprised when the game is over very quickly! White Mountain is an interesting engagement, with an unusual deployment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin -
      Of course, with precisely the same number of units and strength points one might have had far fewer figures! Probably would have done had my armies not taken the DBR route (much to my regret). But I do like the spectacle, and these Revell figures mass very nicely!

      The deployment, by the way, derives from an internet source. Google 'Battle of White Mountain, 1618'.
      Cheers,
      Ion
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  4. Reminds me of many of my own games, sometimes that’s how it plays out, but worth the play as gave a great story

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Demitri -
      Not only a great story in itself - but methinks might have formed a fine part of a larger story. I have two 'Imagi-Nations' in mind: the Empire of Austeria and the Kingdom of Severia, at war over differences of ... opinion.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  5. My initial thought was that the battle outcome was rather reminiscent of a boxing match.
    The bell has rung for the end of the final round. The fight is over. Both boxers go back to their corner - beaten, bloodied and pretty much exhausted.
    And, very much like wargames, the result would be determined by “points”.
    Thanks for the comprehensive, well illustrated write-up Ion. It’s always good to see pics of lotsa nicely painted toy soldiers 👏👏
    Cheers,
    Geoff ⚔️⚔️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geoff -
      Considering that both sides had several 'unbloodied' units at the end of the action (8 Confederation and 10 Imperialist), the 'exhaustion' thing might have seemed odd. But the losses amongst the cavalry of both sides were huge, and two of the six Confederation tercios were seriously depleted. Sometimes, I think, one has to judge the outcome by the condition of what remains, and what the likely sequel would be.

      Would the Confederation, with the smaller army and having got slightly the worse of the action, stay to await an Imperialist assault? Unlikely, it seems to me. Did they stay, though, would the Imperialists attack? Well, that was what they were here for, so I'd give that as a 'very likely'.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  6. Ion, as per our previous discussion, perhaps too much friction was at play? Not an unreasonable outcome from the narrative. My only concern would be if every battle turned out the same - then clearly the mechanics may be awry....
    Another comment you made grabbed my attention; "The temptation is that, one side having reached its exhaustion point, the other gets some extension upon theirs in order that a decisive result might be achieved."
    Interestingly, it's a mechanic that is becoming more common; that is an arbitrary point at which to call a result, be it C&C's counter for every enemy destroyed (as Martin alludes to in comments something that can skew results where cav or LI are destroyed before main battle engages) or to the Strongest surrender of victory tokens.
    The question here is what are we modelling, apart from a neat mechanism to decide winner and loser? It seems less tangible than simply losses, "will to fight" perhaps?
    Better than those old "fight to the last figure" bloodbaths of old or an arbitrary 50% loss rule, but not exactly well thought through. Another option is to give commands "break points" and once a certain number of commands are so broken, call the game? Care is necessary, otherwise you have gigantic commands that can absorb losses v lots of fragile small ones but if you have to break multiple commands, likely to be as attritional as less polished mechanisms.
    Perhaps, when a command breaks, the army test for "army morale" to continue fighting , with modifiers for commander and % of losses?
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neil -
      There was too much friction at play, but I think that was simply the way the cookie chose to crumble. Quite a lot of my battles end with both sides having reached their exhaustion points, but is it usually pretty clear who was the victor. The most frequent end of the battle comes when one side reached its exhaustion point at least one Turn before the other. The winning side, according to (my) historical accounts, was 'too exhausted to pursue'.

      Such was the case in this battle. Looking back at my notes, the Confederation might have reached its exhaustion point as early as Turn 6 - or at least was on the brink. Certainly it was 7SP past that by the end of T8. The Imperialists lost quite a lot of SPs in Turn 8, which carried it over its exhaustion point. By that time the Confederation was halfway between exhaustion and routing.

      Although I have toyed with the 'extension beyond exhaustion point' for the army yet to reach it, I have been reluctant to formalise it. I would certainly not exempt it from exhaustion until its 'Rout Point' (50% SP loss).

      Maybe half way (rounded down). The Imperialists' EP was -30SP, RP -45. Halfway point would make it 37 or 38 SP. At the end of the battle, the Imperialists were closer (by 1 or 2SP) closer to their extended EP than the Confederation to their RP.

      Well, it's a thought.

      The Command 'break point' system is a feature of the DBM/DBR game systems, and there they seem work. Probably this is because a broken command can at least try to hold, and the commander's own retinue can offer a (feeble) counter-attack. Once the majority of the army is broken, the whole army is defeated.

      Although I had 3 commanders on both sides, I didn't divide the armies into formal commands. That is something that has crossed my mind (beginning with my Sengoku battles) but on the whole the thing seems to work without.

      There's plenty to discuss, here, that seems to call for a separate posting.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  7. Archduke Piccolo (Ion),

    This has been a very interesting series of battle reports and shows just how flexible the rules system can be.

    I look forward to reading more of your excellent battle reports in the near future.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers, Bob -
      I do have a Byzantine vs Bulgar battle to record. This one a whole different proposition from what we have encountered here!

      I reckon I owe a debt of gratitude for your development of the Portable Wargame system. I don't reckon I would ever otherwise have drawn up my gridded boards, and it has proved the inspiration to put a deal more 'finish' to my collection of armies.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  8. Another engrossing battle report and fine looking game. Indecisive results were not that uncommon historically, and even though I designed my Portable Wargames variants with an eye towards decisive results it still happens from time to time. The side which seemed to me to have gotten slightly the better of it would claim possession of the field and the victory, but both sides would pause to lick their wounds and then the campaign would continue. It would be interesting to see a follow on battle with the results of this one as the baseline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark -
      The thought did occur that the Confederation side might have held their ground overnight, to resume the battle the following day. Seemed reasonable. So how would we do it?

      Some of the lost Strength Points will be regained overnight by rest, recovering morale, and the return of slightly injured or strayed people. Call it half, pro rata by loss to arms.

      The Confederation lost 10 infantry and 24 cavalry SPs, some units destroyed altogether. Two tercios were very badly mauled; 3 came off unengaged.
      I'd bring back the tercio SPs to 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6SPs = 31SP;
      the cavalry to 9 units @ 3SP each (4 units 'disbanded') = 27SP.
      With the 3 batteries (unhurt) = 6SP The totals become
      18 units with 64SP

      The Imperialists are a bit more complicated on account of the two cavalry types. They lost 1 infantry, 3 gunners, 28 cavalry. So we'll return 1 infantry, 1 gunner (losing 1 battery outright), and 14 horse.
      On Day 2, the Imperialists would field
      2 Cuirassier units @ 4SP (2 disbanded) = 8SP
      6 Harquebusier units @ 3SP (2 disbanded) = 18SP
      7 Tercios @ 6SP = 42
      3 Batteries @ 2SP = 6
      Total: 18 units, with 74SP

      I could instead have gone with keeping the cavalry unit count with much weaker SP values, of course. But on the whole I think I would prefer the method outlined here.

      Perhaps some time I'll fight out this 'what-if' sequel.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
    2. Sounds very reasonable. For a second day I would keep the unit count the same. For a second battle several days later it might be feasible to allow some consolidation of weak units as the armies may have had time to re organize.

      Delete
    3. Mark -
      Let's explore that option, then.
      Artillery: The Imperialists keep 4 batteries, but two are at 1SP.
      No change to Confederation.
      Cavalry:
      Confederation has 27SPs to distribute among 13 units. 1 @ 3SP, the rest at 2SP. OR as 5 cavalry units still had 3SPs at the end of the action, then of the 9 others, 5 are at 2SP and 4 at 1SP.
      Imperialists have 26SPs to distribute among 12 units. 2 Cuirassiers get 3SP, 2 @2SP, and all the harquebusiers have 2SP.

      That's doable. But there is a third - in-between - possibility worth examining. The destroyed units stay destroyed, so the returned SPs are distributed among the surviving. Turns out that won't work! Just 6 of 12 Imperialist cavalry units remained on the table at the end of the action; the Confederation but 5 of 13! (all 5 still with their 3SPs).

      What, then, to do with the 'surplus' SPs? Something Neil suggested comes to mind: bring back (up to) half the vanished units, and distribute the SPs according. Let's look at that:
      Confederation have 12SPs to distribute. They can recover 4 of the 8 units lost and give them 3SPs each. Perhaps reclassify them 'poor'.
      Imperialists have 1 (depleted) cuirassier and 5 (1 depleted) harquebusier units on table. They have 26SPs to distribute.
      We may return 3 horsed units, call it 1 cuirassier and 2 harquebusier. So we have now 2 cuirassier and 7 harquebusier
      with 26SPs to distribute. Give the cuirassiers 4SPs (rate 1 'poor') , 3 of the harquebusiers keep their 3SPs, 1 of the remaining 4 get 3SPs (rated 'poor') and the last 3 get 2SP.

      As a result, The Confederation would field 18 units (pretty much as at first suggested), but the Imperialists with 7 foot, 4 guns and 9 horse have 20 units. This would advantage the latter slightly, as the moment the Confederation lost a unit, down would go their activation dice to 5 (this reduction, by the way, goes some distance towards explaining the low activation dice late in the action). The Imperialists would have a little more wiggle room.

      Although a more complicated proceeding, I quite like this last option.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
    4. Very interesting. I would enjoy seeing that last option played out in mini campaign.

      Delete
  9. A plausible outcome for sure, with both sides battered and bruised, unable to deliver that final telling blow to win the battle. Not all battles were decisive wins and it reminds me of the SYW, were after 2 years of hard campaigning and fighting, the resultant years had fewer battles as both sides had lost so many men they simply didn't have enough for many more battles!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve -
      Yes, that war did peter out, rather, didn't it? The American Civil went much the same way. Outnumbered generally as they were, the Confederacy never did manage to make their victories truly decisive in the same way that the Union succeeded in doing in the last few months of the war. Half-victories that resulted in strategic defeats were battles like Pea Ridge, Shiloh, Perryville, Murfreesboro, and even Chickamauga; or the Seven Days, and Second Manassas. The attacks would peter out with the Union army battered and beaten, but still in being, and still in the fight.
      At Chickamauga, not all the Union army routed, and the bit that didn't hurt the Army of Tennessee very badly.

      There is a another consideration, one Carl von Clausewitz mentioned: there are occasions in which a victory is achieved at a price so heavy as to compel a retreat. Such was the fate of General Townshend's campaign in Iraq in 1915, and of the Emperor Julian on campaign against Persia. One might argue that also was the fate of Feldmarschall von Manstein's half of Operation Zitadelle in 1943.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete