Poitiers, for as such shall it be titled, is an interesting exercise in designing a simpler game than is perhaps typical in the tactical sector of the hobby. The stunning complexity and considerable demands of the player of (for example) the Napoleonic tactical hobby (Les Batailles for example) have been accompanied by simpler yet still very strong, historical, games like the GamesUSA series and that of Azure Wish (of which see more below). The pre-gunpowder era after a brief flirtation with simplistic games (the S&T Zama type game springs to mind) has now been lost to the inelegance of the computer looping GboH games. Games in which the players seem to concerned to ensure a gradual degradation of their strength that one might be forgiven for thinking armies slogged away for many hours before one side concluded the jig was up. [And we'll overlook the dorky trumping system]. It is as if Hastings was the model, rather than the exception, for the era. Poitiers works on a much simpler basis (although it has not cleared away all the detritus) than GboH but is (from what little I have seen of the latter) no lesser a historical game for that. It still stays within the traditions of boardgaming (sadly for historical feel) but does not inflict the worst of these upon the gamer. A game with less than twenty counters a side can afford to be a little inefficient. The game has two scenarios, and therefore each gets half a map. Poitiers sees a large French army arranged in successive lines driving towards an English line straight out of Crecy (alternating archers and men-at-arms) with a reserve under the Black Prince. The French are on foot except for some mounted units under the Marshal and the Master of the King's Crossbows. They are preceded by a rabble of crossbows. Because of the succession of lines any rout can be most destructive, players thus tend towards forming in line abreast with a reserve. (Which prompts one to wonder why the experienced French command went for this). The English have a large force of mounted men (much larger than in the real thing) under the Gascon noble the Captal de Buch who is misnamed for his sins. The Formigny scenario sees an English army sitting behind its stakes rather than attacking a smaller French army that awaits the arrival of a flanking French force while firing its cannon. The cannon are small but very effective and they have range, so they shoot the English lads down at their leisure. Despite the French only having two cannon the English must, in my view, close for action. They will need to feed some flank guards out to face the French reinforcements which (this being a boardgame) they know are coming. Many other battles could have been chosen but these at least balance matters with a win for both sides, and both were winnable by both sides. Atmosphere Let's start with the atmosphere. The maps are rather fussy, far too large (a lot of dead ground) and the hexes too small. In addition the battle lines have not been aligned on the terrain so that they straggle off, wiggling across the terrain in echelon and look messy. A moment's thought could have corrected these matters even Formigny would fit such an approach. The counters however are excellent, each having an illustration of the type of warrior in the unit and these are all different. Furthermore you really can tell the difference between a 1350s longbowman and a 1450s longbowman. Each counter has the blason of its commander so that linking up men and leaders is easy. The effect is very good and had the battle-lines looked less scruffy it would be very very good. In general a Flowers of the Forest approach would have helped here, that is multi-hex units for the map with the pretty units on a roster or array. This sort of finish acts as a very great incentive to get into the game, the bottle is clearly marked "Play Me". Each unit has two statuses for stamina (names rather cleverly as Valiant and Fatigued) and three stages of organisation, Valiant, Discouraged and Routed. A variety of counter flipping and markers indicate these. This means GboH fans need not completely despair of the game. The units have strength based on numbers (one strength point per 100 men) and a quality rating ranging around 3 to 7. This pretty much ties through to the Rivoli system, and it is not the only similarity. Leaders are required if you are to use units well, and there are a lot of them. Typically they command two to five units. Each leader has a combat bonus, a command range, and an Initiative rating. Activation of leaders (when it occurs, we will come to sequence in a moment) is done with lowest level leader first. Where both sides have leaders of the same quality they alternate activation, but each level is completely activated before moving on to the highest. In the Poitiers scenario this can leave the Black Prince (rating 5) and the Captal de Buch (rating 4) able to pitch in and roll up the flank or reinforce the collapsing centre. An initiative die roll gives the exception to this basic system. Each side totals 2d6 and the leader bonus. If the score is greater by up to 3 then the winner may immediately activate any of his leaders (allowing the opportunity, possibly, to pre-empt an attack). If the score exceeds by up to 7 then the winner may also select an enemy leader which must activate after the friendly leader. A score in excess of 7 also permits one of the loser's leaders to be rendered inactive (unable to activate) and very useful this can be too. The English army with its small number of units per leader can find attacking difficult because of the number of leaders one needs to get moving. This is by no means incorrect (oh dear me no). The fixed order does have the strange effect that the superior leader sits supinely by while something terrible unfolds. Trumping is too gamey, this solution is not completely perfect but workable, and if you want to trump, why you can! The sequence opens with checking command radii. Naughty units out of command must either do nothing or move towards their leader (no radio-controlled flank movement please). Archers and longbows then fire a volley. Crossbows are not permitted into this sacred band. Each weapon has a range chart with two numbers, one to discourage (read disorganise) and the other to rout. The individual factors mean that a longbow unit will not inflict damage (without modifiers) half of the time. This is not the hail of the grey goose wing that one might expect from Robert Hardy or Froissart. Now I do not know whether Crecy etcetera were exceptions, but I am bound to say this system does not quite fit in with the commonly held view. Where the archers do score (literally) is that they keep firing throughout the rounds of combat. Unlike in Flowers of the Forest where archers once in melee can only use swords. This means that the initial approach march is less dangerous for the French, but that they continue to suffer from extra losses compared to the English. The archers are minefields rather than machineguns. As soon as you get lucky an attack can be turned into rout (which in turn can rout other units behind the Excitable Boys). The initiative rules are now used to decide whether any exceptional changes to the activation order (and any inactive leaders) occur. Play then moves into a movement and combat phase for each leader and his units. This runs move – defensive fire – offensive fire – melee. If you choose to attack when adjacent you must attack all adjacent enemy units and the opportunity for fire to jigger up combat is most effective. Finally in this phase out of command units perform their limited movement. A Rally Phase completes matters. Combat The combat process consists of altering odds to a modifier (just like in The King's War or Flowers of the Forest) and modifying for unit type, leadership facing and charges. The result (plus 1d10) gives a mixture of advances, fatigues, discouragements and routs. Units can be revived from fatigued by being rested, but getting them out of the line is usually only achieved after they run away. Discouragement and routs are rallied for, and it can take quite a few turns (thirty minutes a turn) for a rallied unit to halt and recover its composure – just as it should be. The unit type modifier looks really odd. Knights attacking men-at-arms appear to get +1 but men-at-arms attacking men-at-arms get +3. Most strange, I wonder if I am reading it correctly. This suspicion arises because the effect of such large modifiers is not only to encourage attacking but the massively deform the relative strengths of each side. Unable to understand its basis at all I could not even guess what other interpretations it might have. There are lots of rules for the capturing, wounding or killing or leaders (and very atmospheric they are too). Captured leaders being carried away by the enemy unit. A unit (doctrine permitting) can mount or dismount. This allows the Captal de Buch to form a foot line if he wishes. Charges are simply handled, although the usual after-charge confusion does not seem to attend them. Charging is just a bully thing to do, although I doubt its historical users thought it of in quite this way. The optional and special rules are neat. The French can be mounted for Poitiers (and will, I suspect, do much better). If things are looking bad King John can send his heir the Duke of Normandy from the field (at a smaller cost in VPs than his loss would cause) and replace him with the Duke of Bourbon. The English at Formigny can attack early, and the arrival of the Comte de Richemont can be delayed or never occur. This all adds to the replay value. In play we found despite (or perhaps because of) the small number of counters there was a lot of thought going into each game. The order of activation was important, and the choice of activating the commander (which also permits all other units within range to activate for free) is one that needs to be pondered. This "super-activation" is pretty questionable historically. We felt the rallying was probably a bit generous, but equally it took a long time to recover the unit fully (at least an hour). The charges felt odd with no disadvantage (say fatigue) to charging. Indeed the error of the French at Poitiers was to dismount. I doubt it would be possible to simulate Crecy using this system. In our playing of Formigny on one occasion the entire English foot line advanced but without charging. This meant the French cavalry could not counter-charge (you have to have a charge – not just movement – to generate the counter-charge) and so sat supinely awaiting the arrival of the English foot. Finally, the units still seem to be connected by radio to the command AWACS, and some spectacular oblique flank marches occurred. All of this can be easily adjusted and to be frank is found just as often in larger more complex and more repetitive games. This game may not be the Middle Ages but it has a lot of what passes for the Middle Ages in boardgames. Conclusion And that (as they say) is that. An army with better leaders can fight better and keep the initiative. An army with poorer leaders will be constantly suffering from having to make attacks in a less than optimum fashion. Combat can be rather slow as fatigue sets in and units eventually crumble, or they can collapse suddenly, sweeping off an entire reserve line. The use of quality modifiers gives a very historical feel to the combat. In fact, apart from the aesthetics of the line, this is a strong and quick system. Especially in battles between 6,000 to 9,000 men (say 15 units). I very much hope we will see other games in this atmospheric series, and perhaps a few twiddlings with the rules? Back to Perfidious Albion #99 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 by Charles and Teresa Vasey. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com