During the after game analysis we identified several areas where we could improve the battle of Garigliano both in terms of getting a more historical result and improving the enjoyment for the players. We plan to play the game again within the next few months at our local club’s games day (Tristate Gamers Society) near Philadelphia. We will adopt many of these changes for the replay and hopefully I will do another blog post on the game. For now, here are the ways we would change the game.
1. Initial deployment of troops.
a) The Spanish forces.
The Papal knights were deployed on the far right of the Spanish forces, near Sujo. The Spanish Jinetes were deployed on the left of the main Spanish forces closer to Castleforte.
This meant that the heaviest of the cavalry was deployed a long way from the bulk of the fighting. Coupled with some poor command rolling, it meant that the Papal knights were out of the game until the very end of the battle when the outcome was almost decided.
It also meant that the Jinetes took the brunt of the early fighting and were quickly routed off the table.
It was decided that if the Spanish and Papal forces in the Castleforte/Sujo area were switched, it would allow the Papal knights to have more of an impact and it would also allow the lighter Jinetes to benefit from the more open terrain on the flank.
b) The French forces.
Due to the large number of Gendarmes and Archers, the French cavalry were deployed along the edge of the board from the road to Trajetto all the way to the French camp. Ideally I would have liked them all closer to where the road from Trajetto enters the table (on the far left of the photo below), but there simply was not enough space.
The aim was to control how quickly the French cavalry could “wake up” and enter the action by using the Command rating system (more on this system later). With some incredible dice rolling, the French cavalry managed to all activate straight away and they were then able to quickly destroy the Spanish Jinetes and Spanish knights.
In hindsight it would be better to keep the French Gendarmes away from the initial action for longer. Rather than control the activation of the cavalry and leave things to chance, I would now allow the French cavalry to enter from the road to Trajetto. I would allow one unit of Gendarmes and one unit of Archers to enter from this road for each of the first four turns. This entry of cavalry would mean there is a more controlled deployment rather than all eight units of knights possibly being available in turn one if the activation rolling is good. It would also mean that they are not immediately in the face of the advancing Spanish, which would leave more room for the Spanish to maneuver and deploy.
2. Troops used the Battle of Garigliano.
The initial order of battle can be found in this blog post.
a) Spanish Pike blocks.
The two standard Spanish Pike blocks were quickly overwhelmed in the centre by the two large Swiss Pike blocks (the third Swiss pike block deployed against the Papal pikes) and the two large Black Band pike blocks. In hindsight, this mismatch is not surprising.
The difficulty in this scenario is at the Battle of Garigliano, the French actually had more forces than the Spanish. Given this ratio of troops, I had not wanted to have a large Spanish force out numbering a French force just to get a historical result. Using the Pike and Shot points system (which I do not really use), I already had 1278 Spanish points versus 1312 French points.
However, I think to balance out the scenario, I would add two more Spanish pike blocks and supporting arqubusiers to the Spanish side. I am now desperately painting two more pike blocks.
b) Spanish forces near the bridge.
The Spanish forces never really attacked the bridge. They seemed to be worried by the artillery and French crossbows.
The Spanish had two units of eight figures of Landschnekt shot in skirmish order. The feeling was that if there were another two units of shot, it would probably have provided enough cover from the artillery for the two Landschnekt pike blocks to give it a go. I would probably also increase the number of Italian sword units from one to two.
Encouraging a Spanish attack near the bridge would have the added effect of drawing French forces from the main battle near Castleforte.
3. Number of Players
We had two players per side, plus myself moderating the game. It was felt that we could easily increase this number to three players per side. If we had used a third player devoted to the Spanish forces near the bridge, it was felt that this would have probably led to more action near the bridge.
Two people per side was great for the play test, but for a club games day match up, the more the merrier. The Battle of Garigliano can be a larger affair.
4. Activation
I had given the Spanish overall command stand a rating of 10. The Spanish cavalry and infantry command stands had either an 8 or a 9 rating depending on the unit.
For the French the overall command stand rating was an 8. All of the cavalry and infantry command stands started at a 7. They then increased to either an 8 or 9 as the game progressed. This was meant to simulate the French being caught in their beds and provide a delayed response to the Spanish attack.
However, my clever scenario design back-fired. All of the French units passed their command activation dice rolls and sprang into immediate action. At the same time, the crack Papal knights fell asleep on their horses and refused to budge.
I do make one modification to the Pike and Shot activation rules which helps a little bit. If a player fails their first activation roll, they can still move one unit one move. This prevents players just sitting there turn after turn if they fail activation rolls.
In hindsight I plan to control the French response by controlling the turn that the Gendarmes and Archers enter the table as already discussed. I still think that I will keep the variable activation (a concept taken from Olicanalad’s blog on the Italian wars), but taking out some of the effect of dice by controlling deployment of the French Gendarmes will help.
5. Victory conditions.
During the playtest of the Battle of Garigliano, the Spanish decided not to push an attack on the bridge seeing little chance of success. As I have already discussed, adding a few more troops near the bridge may change their perception. However, to encourage an attack it was felt that a victory point system may benefit the game. I have not fully thought this out, but something like:
- 25 points for the side holding the bridge
- 10 points for the side holding Castleforte
- 10 points for the side holding the French camp
- 5 points for the side holding Sujo
6. Artillery ranging
The game was very specifically set up with the French artillery covering the bridge being immobile and having a maximum range just short of the Spanish field defenses. One suggestion was that starting turn three or four, the French artillery range could increase 12 inches to allow units behind the Spanish defenses to come into range. This would remove the incentive for the Spanish to not attack the bridge and would simulate the effect of the French guns ranging in.
Conclusion
Many of the changes that have been suggested for the Battle of Garigliano have the effect of slowing down the French response and increasing the ability of the Spanish. I am unsure whether adding all of these changes will change the balance too much towards the Spanish. Only another battle will truly tell. I just have to paint a couple more pike blocks and then we can test them out when we replay the Battle of Garigliano. The aim is to maintain the fun that we had during the first game, but subtly adjust the balance.