"A lesson in the psychology of Generals " Topic

This is from tonights game, which although a Wars of the Roses game, is a salutary lesson for all the grognards, armchair generals, and amateurs who inhabit wargaming.

Sunjester and I have an ongoing WotR campaign. Briefly we have identical 1100 point armies (about 12 units for WarMaster), distributed amoung 6 lords. The lords are identical to their opponent, and occupy the same counties in a linear map. Each lord has so many points of troops, and the armies are distributed by ourselves, and fixed for the campaign. There is a little slack in the total split between the lords- so that we have the armies set up different.

The higher ranking the lord, the more points he can have. However, the higher ranking the lord, the less loyal he is, and easier to bribe. Plus the command values do not follow precedence, but you have to use the three highest ranked lords present at the start of the battle (and as the #1 lord has a command of only 7, we are actually happy if the fifth of the army he commands turns up a turn late, as #2 and 3 have better command values!, and WM players prefer a General with 8, subordinate value 7- the #5 lord- rather than the other way round!).

We have a linear 'map' of six little known counties (Trumptonshire!) and use the maps from the Perfect General to pick a location- each one assigned a county. As the generals move along the 'map' they events may happen. Thee either help (extra combat dice, rerolls etc) or hinder (get lost so come late, men get ill etc). You then get to try and bribe Lords to join you.

So tonight we did all that. Both number 1 generals have stayed in bed (his because I bribed him, mine because he just wasn't feeling loyal today!), and we each have 1 late unit. In addition I have one unit coming on on the right hand edge- he got lost on the march! The terrain is balanced- a cross roads centred on the middle, woods in corners; only difference is he has a bigger hill more central on his base line. The armies are relatively balanced- different units are assigned to the respective #1s, so he is missing guns and heavy cav, I have no light cav and bill/bow (2 WM units that combine). He has done better on the mercenaries- he has mounted long bow + organ gun, I have 2x Irish peasants- but by and large equal armies.

So why did I feel outnumbered? I don't mean points wise- he just to seemed to be so much wider and deeper. I actually said "I know the armies are equal, why do you seem to have more?" AND WE ACTUALLY COUNTED UP THE UNITS, despite what we both knew.

I felt outnumbered and outgunned- I had a sense of forboding all the way through. The two units on the extreme right tied up 3 of his, yet he still seemed to be wider than my centre/left.

My Currours were on my left, but I became so concerned for them, I attempted to move them behind the infantry to the other flank to attack his left, thus opening up my left to his right. Sunjester reckons that was my biggest mistake, I think about the only one I made. I just felt that if they charged the stood no chance- even if they won one fight, they would be caught by a second unit when weakened.

Perhaps I should have gone forward, and could have engaged equally, but when you feel outnumbered, you don't! Instead I let him take the initiative, and ended up reacting to him, instead of trying to force the opposite. His levy effectively forced my men at arms to retreat on the left- they had to keep refusing the flank to avoid being outflanked. He was able to maneuver at will to take advantage of my retirment.

From the very start I felt on the back foot.

So why relay this tale of woe (and making Richard of York puppet master if Henry VI)?

To quote "I guess I just stopped believing in Joe Hooker".

We sit here and bitch about various failures of real generals- how they acted out of character and lost a battle. I had perfect 100 ft general vision, knew exactly what I faced, and toy soldier not sons, brothers, husbands and fathers under my command.

And I bottled it. And I don't know why. So before bitching about McClelland, Grouchy, Harold, Ney, or whoever, remember, they were human, and had the fate of nations on their soldiers. They didn't have perfect vision, or the chance to try again next week. Before disparaging a professional, and sneering at their decisions, perhaps we should remember we have the luxury that with our toys no one gets hurt*

*violently hurled dice not withstanding.

Visiting Chancelorsville I got exactly the same feeling. The woods pretty much suck, his men just had their asses handed to them big time, Jackson came out of nowhere a few days ago, who says he couldn't do it again. He probably knows he outnumbers Lee but might not be so sure of his own numbers anymore and he is responsible for the last army between Lee and Lincoln.

I find it difficult to totally blame commanders when they have ed up. I wasn't there and don't know what they knew or didn't know at the time.

There are some rare instances of blatant stupidity in history or neglect but they are tough to pin down exactly. I've never really felt the same on the gaming table but my life and the lives of others, were not in the balance.

The other factor in this particular situation was that the levy on my right, who carried out the "tacticly brilliant" outflanking maneuver, were not really under my control. In the campaign set-up their lord was feuding with the Earl of Oxford and they had to try to contact Oxford's troops, who happened to be the Currours. The levy were in fact trying to chase the cavalry and rather than fight they way through the guys in all the shiney armour, they were attempting to move around the men-at-arms.

The destruction of Last Hussar's right flank was caused by deliberate actions, but that was so far removed from the main action as to be a seperate battle.

For the rest of the battle I was just trying to keep up with the blood-thirsty levy and found myself moving into the spaces vacated by Last Hussar as he kept refusing his flank. My only real decision was whether to halt and consolodate my front line, leaving the levy to do their own thing and probably get massacred, or the press forward piecemeal and just hope all my troops hit his front rank about the same time (which they did).

I said afterwards I didn't feel I did anything right, I just didn't do anything wrong!

another important question, especially for premodern armies, but to some degree also later on, is whether the performance of an army really depends on its general so much.

And I bottled it.

Phew! For a minute I thought you were going to say Sunjester was a tactical genius!! :D

Steve P

I sympathise – I have had several outbreaks of 'Percival Syndrome' in my time.

Pat

Heh, given the wide ranging period comments, and nature of the OP, I have to wonder why Bill took this thread off the other period boards.

In context with the OP: I have found that psychology ("psyching" your opponent) is often a function of experience. In this case, perhaps sunjester is the bogieman from many won games? I've seen good chess players turned to feckless mush because they went up against someone who had a reputation. Often we can defeat ourselves even before the first move….

Thanks Doug- I'm not completely loopy for the cross-threads! Perhaps I put too much in re the campaign.

Sunjester is a bogieman of many above average die rolls (It was his Irish peasants in a previous WotR that stomped my men at arms- as mentioned on other threads). This is the reason he believes my delayed resolution rules are my attempt to cheat- The target rolls the to hit dice, and low is good (for them).

Other than that I wouldn't say so- I felt all evening that I had fewer troops. I knew I didn't, it just felt so much less.