"Is Hundred Years’ War boring to game ?" Topic

Story For the controversial tile. I've just spent my lockdown painting up some French for hyw wargames, and rebasing my English. We've now Played 3 games and they have all gone the same way. French charge, get shot with arrows and are basically wiped out by the time to get to hand to hand, then they lose. Now to be fair one game was agincourt where we set it up to happen like that, but the other 2 have gone the same way. Do all hyw battle go like this . ( it might be accurate but it's dull). Now to be fair I'm using home brew rules based on rank and file (napolionic rules) but I don't think that's the issue. (Swordpoint is also basically a copy of rank and file too) it's the English have 50% archers and they shoot everyone. So how do you make a hyw game more interesting ? Less archers ?

Artillery for the French tends to make things a bit more equal – as it did in history.

You may want to try other types of encounters than the set battles like Poitiers and Agincourt. Try sieges, chevauchees, meeting engagements between march columns, and even planned encounters between equally matched groups of knights( like the famous combat of the thirty). Also, in some combats the English did not have massed archers set up. There is certainly room for variety in this period. Towards the end, the French began to employ artillery and small arms to good effect as in the battle of Castillon. Your HYW collection has lots of room for action.

We loved warmaster ancients ; then we played warmaster medieval when that came out a few years later . However , the ensuing boredom from medievals led to us never playing the game system again .

Fletcher Pratt's _Battles that Changed History_* has a chapter on Joan of Arc and the siege of Orleans. Best short 'why it happened like it did' summary. Worth reading, may inspire game scenarios.

*Think it's downloadable online somewhere.

Cut the English forces in half. Play a game and see how it goes. If outcome is extremely lopsided in favor of the French ad some more elements to the English and give it another go.

Maybe, but the figures can be so beautiful ;)

Make the battle happen on a rainy and/or windy day or make a scenario where the English have to attack. England lost her wars in France and Scotland, so look into how that happened.

The French tended to win the battles at the end of the HYW. Have a look at those battles and set up accordingly. See this Wiki entry

link

thanks for the link, a good list of battles. Looks like the french won by not having clear open frontal attacks. We'll have to vary the senarios more i think. I've not finished painting the artillery so we havent used any yet, I'll see if that makes a differnece once they get paited up.

Any game can be made more interesting by not just simply try to recreate some battle but make a for the period interesting scenario. Like Legionarius already wrote. Perhaps some important man escaped from the battle with a group of bodyguards and tries to reach a monastery. The other side wants him for his ransom but must get him before he reaches the savety of the monks. Thinking out of the box results in lots of interesting possibilities. I remember one suggestion for the ACW (also here, IIRC), where after Gettysburg Jeb Stuart had to protect a wagon train of Confederate wounded back to Sharpsburg.

Some rules use a mechanism whereby the defender has to pay points for advantageous position so reduducing their army size.

Try (as suggested) different scenarios rather than allowing the English to auto defend
- a meeting engagement so the English will have to deploy and set stakes
- forcing a river crossing like Henry repeatedly at the Somme.
- ambush of an English Chevauchee force

Does your table allow potential flanking?
Do you allow flank march?

I think there are a lot of ways of changing it up – essentially look at the various different battles during the campaigns aside from the famous "Big battles".

Battle like Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt are the outliers in favour of the English. I'm afraid that this has a tendency to create the idea that the longbow will always defeat the mounted knight, and rules are written accordingly.

Yet when we look at other battles, especially those where both cavalry and longbows were present, the longbows rarely affect the battle at all.

Equipment and tactics changed to mitigate the effect of the longbows in combat.

In reality a force of knights that can get close enough to archers can cover the ground fast enough with low casualties and then sweep the archers from the field. Even when the French faced similar conditions as Agincourt like the battle of Patay, a rapid attack overwhelmed the archers.

Agincourt was not lost because of a French force charging blindly into a hail of arrows cutting them down, it was a disorganized force that fell apart due to difficult terrain, lack of coordination and a brutal counterattack when the French tried to regroup.

From the late 14th century onward it was unlikely that a knight would be killed outright by a longbow arrow. And if you look carefully the great English victories still conform to this by having knights in inferior gear and vulnerable or some other condition that allows the knight to be defeated, if not killed.

To add to the good advice above, asymmetrical scenario objectives will do the trick. The French must win in a certain number of turns, or must control two crossroads on opposite sides of the table. The English get the random possibility of reinforcements. The English get to roll once per game for the chance for a wing of the French to delay their advance due to internal bickering, etc.

Our group used "Kings of War Historical" for a HYW game and it was very exciting.

Lots of sieges too, which would/could nullify English archer superiority.

Those can be evened up a bit with having the French crossbowmen get more range as they fire from the castle/city walls. They'll have a slower ROF of course, but will also have protection from the battlements they can take cover behind.

If it were boring it would have been called something like,"The not so thrilling 24 days war".But it went so long, there had to be quite a bit of excitement.

I'd agree completely that if it's approached as just french knights advancing into english archers it can be… not the most exciting of wargaming periods.

But as everyone has said, there are all sorts of other scenarios possible.

Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt are admittedly the most boring of the many battles you could re-create.

Look at the last phase of the war, from 1429 to 1453, for some good examples of battles where English archery did not win the day.

And in general, I think if just want to recreate historical battles exactly as they happened, you're really going to limit your enjoyment. In my opinion. I've never really understood it completely – if the Agincourt game happens exactly like it did in history, is that considered a successful game? If it happens differently, is that considered a failure? Why not just take inspiration from some lesser known battles, or create your own fictional small-scale encounters!

And I think the 'superpower' of the English archers should only really be a possibility in the ideal conditions – a strong defensive position, with stakes, ditches, etc, protected flanks, uneven ground to hinder the enemy advance… allowing them to maximise their firepower. And the enemy doing exactly what you want them to. In smaller skirmishes and such, I don't think longbowmen should be any more powerful than crossbowmen in gaming terms.

Try some meeting engagements where the English do not have time to prepare/dig in.

Happy Hiker,

If you just want to keep replaying the same three battle English history celebrates then I'm not surprised you get similar results. The Wiki link to that list of Hundred Years War battles should give you a lot more to think about. It really depends on how we want to set our battles up and timing is everything. A cursory read through a lot of the French victories in the early to mid period give examples of when the English were caught without affording them the time to prepare field defences – important for the archers. Terrain often provided for shorter exposure when charging. There's at least one example when the archers were low on ammunition – if a battle can last up to 12 turns (for example) the English or allied player could roll 2d6 to see how many rounds of shooting they have. Few battles had evenly matched forces also if we want to match ORBATs and starting dispositions didn't always allow for a fully formed array for either the attacking or defending general. At least one victory was secured after a feigned flight provoked a 'battle' from the defensive line to break ranks and pursue.
I'm not a fan of two sides lining up either end of an oblong table and moving to meet. It depends on how much room any of us have to play with but I like a table-top which allows for maneuver – if appropriate. Random events are always a giggle.
Hundred Years War shouldn't be any less interesting than any other period of military history and wargaming.

Thanks for the replies. We'll vary the battle scenarios more, and once I finish painting everything we'll have artillery and more troop types. Did crossbow men skirmish cos a skirmish line would help draw longbow fire? I've not read any battle descriptions mentioning that but I assume they would. I think I'll have to come up with some storm the castle rules too, 6 to blow a hole in the wall right…

Another option, which I can't take credit for since it was in Wargames Illustrated magazine, was to have the French army split between several players with the English essentially just run by an Umpire. Victory points are handed out to the French players on the basis of Chivalric behaviour and precedence as much for military success. Obviously aimed squarely at the stages of the war when England was wining nearly all the time.

What issue of WI?

I am attracted to the period for the color but it is basically just a replacement from when I used to play Normans vs Vikings etc. Dark ages skirmish. So it's mini-sieges, raids, skirmishes, convoy guarding, rescues and occasionally, when I get around to it they'll face off against the forces of darkness.

Or it might have MW – now I'm second guessing myself. Will see if I can find it.

One thing to keep in mind that is that the "English" and "French" forces could be actually from a variety of origins, which affects the army composition.

For example, depending on time period in question, an English force could include contingents of Gascons, Normans, Paris urban militia, Burgundians etc. which could also affect the choice of tactics.

Apologies gone through both boxes of magazines and can't find the article. Which is bugging me no end now!

Just an update, Played another game this time with crossbow skirmishes screening the French, this went much better and the French won.

The HYW is not really one period and should be divided into several periods.
Period 1) is the high chivalric period and really covers Sluys, Crecy and Poitiers.

Period 2) is post-Poitiers and covers a more guerrilla type of war with English chevauchees (mounted looting raids) into the French interior and French raids against the English coastal towns such as Winchelsea and Rye.

Period 3) is Agincourt and the English re-conquest of Normandy with some battles and some sieges. In this period both sides begin to introduce gunpowder artillery. The French had guns at Agincourt. English behaviour at Agincourt is less chivalric.

Period 4) is the Joan-of-Arc led renaissance of the French cause but could be held to end when she dies. During this period French morale should be high when she is on the table but likely to collapse if she is killed on the tabletop.

Period 5) is the final French re-conquest of Normandy and Gascony and ends with Castillon. This period features much use of artillery by the French under Jean Bureau and an apparent French refusal to take the offensive in battles but to defend with artillery. See Castillon.
link

It is also characterised by a very divided English leadership (Somerset and York not helping each other) under a weak English king Henry VI.
This divided English leadership was one of the catalysts for the so-called Wars of the Roses.

Barry

Wikipedia's scheme divide the war into "Edwardian" and "Caroline" phases corresponding to Barry's periods 1 and 2 respectively, and a "Lancastrian" phase combining his 3-5. I think it makes a lot of sense.

I don't think Castillon involved any particular refusal to attack on the part of the French; Talbot attacked and their options were defending or running away. They were more aggressive at Formigny.

As is often the way I found the errant article it while looking for something else.

A ride in the country by Anthony Clipsom Wargames Illustrated #126 March 1998.

"I don't think longbowmen should be any more powerful than crossbowmen in gaming terms".

I and/or we'll have to just disagree on that, since a longbowman could apparently fire off as many as 17 arrows in a minute, compared to 1 – 2 from a crossbowman.

I suspect even with a much lower 12 arrows a minute, vs. 1 – 2 from his opponent, you can see the problem here. Rather like fighting a six-shooting revolver with a muzzle-loading pistol – not a good idea, especially if you fail to hit on the very first shot with the older weapon.

Also, IIRC, the longbow's arrow will usually outrange the shorter quarrels from a regular crossbow.

Only the much larger, and more difficult to use windlass crossbows would outrange the longbow's arrows.

Yeah, Thresher, but other than those nit-picking details, longbows and crossbows are pretty much the same, right? :)

Well, they do launch long, pointy sticks, with arrows at the back, so, I guess………

That should be "feathers" at the back, not "arrows".

I really need to get more sleep, I guess.