Can Lion Rampant be used for Agincourt?

[Captain Gideon]

I have heard about some Agincourt games where the French did win but it was very close in those games although I don't know anything about the games except for the results.

The bottom line is this I want to have the French at 3 to 1 or so in odds in numbers of men with roughly a third or slightly less in Mounted troops I'll have the muddy conditions and the Longbow stuff in there as well,but I truly believe it'll come down to who has the better dice rolls.

Over the years I've taken part in several Historical Battles(both land and sea)where the loser turned out winning like Waterloo for example because I think that once everything is set up on the table and once you start moving the figures things will be different.

And partly that's why I play wargames to see if I could do better than the historical counterparts like Nelson,Napoleon for example.

Agincourt has always been a battle that I wanted to try and do if I was able to obtain figures at some point and now is my chance to see if the French can do better than what they did.

[Cubs]

That sounds like you're approaching things from a strong and sensible gaming perspective, which I applaud and wish you well with. Like you say, the only thing you can really alter without drastically changing the battle itself is the decision making of the French. The one thing that leaps out at me is that LR, being a skirmish game, doesn't really replicate that lack of control that a larger scale system usually does. Thus the French commander will be able to execute the plan perfectly and victory will be almost assured ... UNLESS you have several, competing French players all jostling for the victory points and getting in each other's way. But getting that balance right could be the key. 

Let us know how it turns out won't you?

[Captain Gideon]

Cubs you're so right about the balance because I really want to make it look good on the table but not go crazy.

Time is on my side since it's taking time to paint the remaining French and some English.

And I'm still not set on which ruleset to use I mean right now it's between Lion Rampant and Medieval Tactica but something else could come up and I might find another set of rules between now and then.

And whatever set of rules I choose I have to fully understand it because if I don't understand it then how can I run a game at a convention.

The other thing I'm trying to do is paint up some French Knights as named Knights with their banner and with some help I know that Citidel Six makes decals that helps me out a lot.

And whenever I do the game I'll try and take many pictures.

[levied troop]

That aside a strong defensive position, desperation and mud, probably did more for the English than the longbow. Certainly with those conditions taken away, the English never repeated that success.

I think the point is that the English usually managed to get some/all of those factors in place by the addition of 1 more factor - organisation.  Agincourt seems to have been the epitome of such battles and compared to other HYW battles as such is a little hard to ‘game’.  Does look good though 

I had a couple of goes at it, potentially the most usable idea was to treat the English as umpire-controlled and let the players act as French nobles competing with each other to see who could reach the English lines.

It may be language, but surely LR isn’t a skirmish game?  I always associate that with man to man combat whereas LR uses units.  It’s aimed at a mid-level type of engagement but can easily be scaled up for the bigger actions.

[jon_1066]

You could definitely do a re-fight of Agincourt with Lion Rampant.

One way would be to give the French 3 retinues to the English one.  ie the three battles.  The kicker is they can only fight one at a time.  So set up the first on the table then once this is defeated set up the next then the final one. 

Perhaps enlarge the English retinue to 36 points.  That would give 4 units of longbows and 2 units of men at arms for the English which is 72 models.  Make the going rough ground, give the English stakes (defending an obstacle) then have at it.

If you wanted to give the French a chance to win allow them to choose the order the retinues go in (crossbows first anyone?)  Otherwise it is as per history - noblest units first.

Add one extra rule.  The final French battle suffers -1 to courage tests.

[Arlequín]

Thus the French commander will be able to execute the plan perfectly and victory will be almost assured ... UNLESS you have several, competing French players all jostling for the victory points and getting in each other's way. But getting that balance right could be the key. 

I had a couple of goes at it, potentially the most usable idea was to treat the English as umpire-controlled and let the players act as French nobles competing with each other to see who could reach the English lines.

That there is joined up thinking; precisely the way to recreate the battle as a wargame to my mind. 'Un-cooperative play'  

I think the point is that the English usually managed to get some/all of those factors in place by the addition of 1 more factor - organisation.  

Indeed and both that and those factors had far more impact on the end result, but wargames typically achieve it by just 'buffing' the longbow. Contrary to the myth, the English lost a lot of battles in the HYW when they couldn't pull some or all of those things together. The last part of the 14th Century and the second quarter of the 15th Century in particular.

Move on to the Wars of the Roses and there should be some kind of mutually assured destruction evident with so many archers on both sides. Yet most casualties, by a large margin, appear to be inflicted on the losers in the rout and after prolonged melees.

It may be language, but surely LR isn’t a skirmish game?  I always associate that with man to man combat whereas LR uses units.  It’s aimed at a mid-level type of engagement but can easily be scaled up for the bigger actions.

Depends on your definition of skirmish, but even small groups of men usually form units and operate together. I like them because they strip away most of the 'faffing about' of those rule sets that claim to be 'also suitable' for medieval battles. Medieval warfare was not complex and neither should the rules we use for it.

[Mark]

I have thought that the best way to even up the battle is to set up with the English in their original position, rather than the second position after the advance.

This means that the English have to successfully advance and plant stakes in full view of the French, rather than having a turkey shoot already set up for them. If they do not manage to pull this off, then they have the problem of unsecured flanks, and potentially no cavalry defeating stakes. There would need to be some ruling around the activation of the French to simulate the c&c difficulties that were experienced, but it should be possible for the French to reverse history through decisive action rather than sitting around watching! 

[janner]

I'd question slightly the idea that medieval warfare was not complex, Najéra (1367) as described by the Chandos Herald being a prime example of a medieval army's capacity for manoeuvre.

Here we have a night approach, through dead ground to dismount within a few hundred metres of the enemy. Their supports then enveloping the enemy counter move. Flanking longbow advancing to attack the open flank of enemy heavy horse with an arrow storm, and the Black Prince delivering the coup de grace with another flank attack - this time by his reserve against the uncommitted Castillian foot.

[levied troop]

I have thought that the best way to even up the battle is to set up with the English in their original position, rather than the second position after the advance.

Good point.   LR’s activation system would probably help replicate the French c&c issues and could be amended to give the English the advantage they’d need.

Dammit!  Now I want to move my HYW armies further up the painting schedule.  These threads are dangerous 

[Arlequín]

I'd question slightly the idea that medieval warfare was not complex...

I wasn't suggesting that they just lined up opposite each other and had at it, but most Ancient rule sets have a whole host of unnecessary detail included. I'm inclined to say that their chief focus is to equalise armies from across several thousand years, while a dedicated Medieval rule set, that is largely focused on Western Europe, doesn't have that baggage on board.

Flank attacks, surprise attacks, forced marches and ambushes are pretty basic stuff in warfare and do appear across the Medieval Era. Formation-dancing Roman legionaries, magic missiles and other Classical Era evolutionists are not really needed until the 16th Century though. 

[janner]

They only seem basic if you've never tried them yourself and High Medieval Byzantines, for example, were no slouches when it came to combat square dancing

However, I agree with you overall point even if I'm no fan of the military revolutions mumbo jumbo.

[Captain Gideon]

Levied troop I plan to do just that with Myself and my friend as Gamemasters/Umpires we'll be controlling the English.

Mark your suggestion sounds good too but when we do some playtests we'll try it out and see what happens.

The other comments here have been very good as well so please keep the ideas coming.