Ideas for scenarios / army deployment methods / etc ?

[Charlie_]

I've been thinking about new methods of army deployment for games, and scenarios that could dictate how this is done. I'd like to hear ideas and preferred methods from other people, either methods of your own devising or ones from rulesets you use!

My games are 28mm late medieval 'mass battle'.... Though technically they aren't supposed to represent huge engagements. Though they have ranked up units, it's for small-scale warfare really. If there are one or two hundred models on the table per side, it's only really supposed to represent a few more than this, 1,000 men a side at the most, not tens of thousands.

So I'm less interested in small-scale skirmishes and 'adventure' gaming, more actual battles, albeit they don't have to be huge ones.

In particular I'd like to share ideas with how armies are deployed on the battlefield.

[Hu Rhu]

Large scale battles tend not to have complicated deployment rules which leads large battles, especially medieval ones, so be very samey. There are a number of ways to spice things up a little espcially if you have players who are comfortable with a little mayhem.

There are plenty of examples where one wing or element of an army arrived later on the battlefield that the rest.  In medieval armies each battle can be allocated an arrival time in game turns that can vary from, a simple dice roll, a command roll (i.e. use the battle commanders command status to determine if he can enter the table or never) or a fixed time limit.

One we have used successfully for ECW is to play out the infantry fight as if the two cavalry wings have already fought and won/lost a la Edgehill, Marston Moor and Naseby.  We have a simple table that allows mutiple combinations of returning cavalry troops.  These might be from ones own side or the enemy's representing rallied troops that reurn to the battlefied.  We also allocate a certain status of morale etc representing spent or weary troops.  It always makes for a fun game not knowing if your cavalry are going to return and if they do from which direction.  It also makes for some interesting choices on maintaining a reserve or not.  Can you win quickly by committig all your infantry but suffer badly if you have nothing left to counter returning cavalry.

Finally there is the old one for WotR of disaffected troops changing sides.  We use the Perfect Captain's - A Coat of Steel wargame rules which caters specifically for wavering magnates and disaffected allies who, depending on the circumstances, might decide not to advance or in the worst case, change sides.

These are just a couple of examples that change a straightforward game into something a little more interesting. 

I could also recommend the mechanisms in the Too Fat Lardies rules such as Chain of Command or Dux Brittanarium, and Peter Pigs Bloody Barons, all of which have a pre-game mechanism that provides for some interesting deployment and morale changes.  All three allow some subtle differences in the morale and deployment of troops that can be adapted for other periods.

Hope that helps start the ball rolling.

[Charlie_]

Yes, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about!

One thing I might experiment with more is the attacking side entering the table rather than deploying on it before the game begins. I love reading the reports of the Perry brothers amazing games on their facebook page, and that seems to be way they usually do things. Or at least have the defenders deployed on the board, with the attackers entering from turn one, or more often than not in separate waves / divisions. I guess even if the army is arrayed for battle just off-table in view of the defenders, this can represent them moving forward into 'combat range', and can work well if certain divisions are reluctant to commit, or perhaps too enthusiastic.
Though one thing that has me scratching my head a bit about this method, is what how much freedom should the attacker have in where he places his units? Should he perhaps have to sketch out a rough map on a piece of paper beforehand, and stick to roughly that layout? As in, he can't conveniently switch his cavalry to the other end of the table. Any thoughts?

It's interesting you mentioned Chain of Command, as I was watching a really good youtube video of a game, and I really liked the interesting deployment method, with the jump-off points and stuff. Admittedly it's one much more suited to modern skirmish warfare rather than what I play, but it did get me thinking about new ways of doing things.

Another thing I plan to try out is having the actual army compositions unpredictable or indeed completely random. As in, both players choose a starting core force (or roll off to see who gets the first choice), and take turns to choose additional units from what's available, or have them randomly selected. It helps that all the units for this project are my own, and aren't restricted to any particular faction (it's sort of 'generic' late 15th century warfare). So the two players won't know what forces they'll have available right up until the start of the game. And frequently they will have to make do with units pushed into roles they are really not suited for.

[robh]

Unpredictable forces is something used in the Peter Pig RFCM rule sets. You build your force as per the OOBs/points lists etc and then dice for unit types to see if they actually make it to the battle or not. Has a definite moderating effect on players opting for "uber build" lists when your min-maxed elite veteran guard unit decides to stay home that day.

As for deployment the 2 systems that I liked for early warfare are; to use "blinds" to deploy with all units plus some dummies being blank card rectangles until all forces are on the table. Or secondly the old WRG "scouting points" system where light infantry and cavalry units in the force generate scouting points and the side with fewest points deploys full units on the table and the higher scoring side initially only deploys visible troops.

[N.C.S.E]

The deployment systems of the Lardies Rulesets (particularly Chain of Command), have made it impossible for me to return to the old system of: "deploy units within twelve inches of the table edge where you like). Blinds in a similar manner. I would suggest that it is suitable for any scale of warfare. Presumably your army's/formations light forces (light cavalry, skirmishers or whatever) have staked out the battlefield prior to the big day, and/or when battle is joined your patrol markers are the furthest extent that your units reach the enemy before they are spotted.

Furthermore, as compared to the banality of the traditional model, the patrol system makes the game interesting from the get-go, with competition for significant locations on the map and an altogether more organic feel to how the action will play out. At least that's my two cents on the matter. If I move on from CoC then I believe I shall still be using the patrol phase bolted on to whatever system I might play.

[SteveBurt]

You might want to try to get hold of 'Programmed wargame scenarios' by C S Grant, which has some nice ideas for semi-randomised deployment and scenario generation.
Also his other books 'Scenarios for Wargames' and 'Scenarios for all Ages' (with S Asquith) are a rich source of wargame ideas.

[Hu Rhu]

The CoC pre-deployment rules still have utility in medieval battles. Think of the jump off points as a result of some commanders being more forward in their deployment or urge to get to grips with the enemy than more cautious commanders.  They could also be used to represent bad weather such as fog affecting where troops are deployed, believing they are in the right place when they are not.

Another old method recommended by Donald Featherstone, is to suspend a sheet across the centre of the board so that the players get no view of the other side's deplyment.  If you could arrange it it might also prevent the players from seeing the ground on the enemy's side of the battle and have to deploy blind in both senses.

[Red Orc]

I missed this a couple of weeks ago somehow, but was thinking about exactly this the other day, in relation to unreliable cavalry units, and how one could structure deployment to use cavalry that, with the best will in the world, could be off the table in a fraction of the time the infantry could manage it, and then come back, or nor, at a random point, or instead be an enemy cavalry unit that just ran your cavalry off over the hills somewhere. I really like the semi-random system that Hu Rhu talks about.

There are all sorts of reasons that any unit might not make it to the battlefield. The wagons got stuck crossing the river. The pikemen tried to take a shortcut through the forest and got lost. The ground was boggier than expected and everyone was a bit floundery. Maybe even Lord Soandso didn't really want to be at the battle anyway, because his wife's cousin is on the other side. Alternatively, some people got there ahead of time (and this might include the enemy) so the engagement might start with everyone taken by surprise, perhaps not even on the desired battlefield, and with lots of people out of position.

A pretty simple way of simulating a ragged deployment is roll a d6 for each unit. On a '1' they start on the field. On a '2-5' they move onto the table at the beginning of the next turn. On a '6' they have to wait and roll again at the end of the second turn. If they keep rolling '6' they don't turn up at all. Alternatively, if you want to have a 'vanguard - centre - rearguard' approach, maybe the vanguard turn up on a 1-5, centre units turn up on 1-4, rearguard units turn up on 1-3: at the beginning of turn 2, you add 1 to the number needed (ie all vanguard units automatically turn up, centre on 1-5 and rearguard on 1-4) and so on.

There's loads of ways you can play with deployment: scouting, initiative, order of battle, blips (which I guess for medieval battles could be better regarded as 'rumours'), maps - loads of potential ways to mix it up and add uncertainty (on either side).

[v_lazy_dragon]

Not sure it adds too much for medieval, but some rules (can't remember which) recommended only deploying the unit leaders on the battlefield at the start of the game, and then not revealing the full size/type of unit until they have been appropriately spotted in game or have opened fire of their own accord. At that point, the rest of the unit is added to the table within x" of the leader (and usually no closer to the enemy than the leader).

It has its pros and cons - I quite like the way it works to show 'part identified' troop movement (There's blokes on horseback over there, and that chap looks like he should be leading a unit of so-and-sos), but that also works both ways as it's likely the the British Grenadier officer will be leading a unit of British Grenadiers, and there is only one unit of grenadiers sat on the side table awaiting deployment....
It's quite nifty if the system has indepent characters wandering around to - is that captain by himself, or is he leading a unit of veterans etc

[fred]

Some really interesting ideas. A couple of thoughts.

1) Practicality; the games we play always involve at least 1, if not several of the players travelling to the game location, and bringing their army with them. Any complicated deployment system can end up taking a lot of time, as the player's unpack their armies, then arrange them for deployment, then potentially remove them from the table. If you do this a lot I suppose you will provide trays (or pieces of wood) to allow figures to be unloaded on to. The simple 12" in, does at least allow figures to be unpacked broadly into where they are deploying.

2) Game vs Simulation. Some rules, such as KoW have alternating unit deployment. This is very much part of the game, as it lets you try to place your units to counter enemy units. The more units you have the more flexibility you have in deployment choices. This is very much a game mechanic. It perhaps has some representation of scouting, but not much, when you can deploy your slowest units last.

3) A nice example of mixing up deployments is Irregular Wars. Not only do you dice for the number of units of a type you manage to recruit on the day. You also roll for each unit at deployment, they may end up deploying forward in their eagerness, being deployed back, or even not turn up at all. Units can also suffer a wound from illness or disease pre-game.
This all works well on a small game with 10 or so units. But becomes very time consuming with big games with 40+ units.

Which perhaps brings me back to the practicality point, what you choose needs to be the right level of detail and involvement for the number of units involved in your game. If you only have 4 units and one isn't available for the game, its likely to feel unfair and be a big disadvantage. If you have 15 units and one isn't available then you its not so significant. If you have 40+ units then checking for availability of them all is likely to be very tedious.

[jon_1066]

I don't think you would want to play a game with 40 separate manouevre elements.  The usual rule of thumb is between 5 and 15 for an interesting game that won't bog down.

There are some nice scenarios in Lion Rampant and it's brethren.  The deployment ideas from the lardy games are also interesting (the fore mentioned Chain of Command being just one).  Deployment points would allow you to fight a meeting engagement - additional reserve units can be deployed from particular points on the board edge.

If you have a medieval game perhaps set up the first battle on the table, the second battle can deploy from deployment points as the game develops and you have to dice to see if the third battle turns up at all. 

[fred]

I don't think you would want to play a game with 40 separate manouevre elements.  The usual rule of thumb is between 5 and 15 for an interesting game that won't bog down.

We normally play with 30-40 units a player, with 2-3 players a side, and still get through in a night. We do brigade units together for movement, but these are flexible brigades and can change size during the game.

This is one flank of a big game



But my main point was make sure that what you use works for the scale of the game. This is probably the most important thing to bear in mind when adding mechanisms from one game to another. We have found many times that a mechanism that is great in its source game can really struggle in a different style of game.