Battle of Bosworth Field 1485

[stockwellpete]

EDIT 7/5/2011

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15461007/Boswor ... 20PWv5.rar

I have just started making up some scenarios and I had thought that this pivotal battle would have been included in "Storm of Arrows". But when I started to read some accounts of the battle I realised why it wasn't - basically up to half the troops that turned up on that day may not have been really committed to fighting for either Richard III or Henry Tudor. At least, you can find historians who will argue that that was the case.

I have done some research and constructed a battlefield (there is still some controversy over its location despite recent archaeological discoveries) and I have researched the make-up of each contingent as far as possible. I am still looking for more information.

So far, I have the forces represented at Bosworth Field as follows . . .

Yorkists (definitely 6,000, maybe 10,000)

Duke of Norfolk - 3,000 including 1,200 archers and culverins
Richard III - 3,000 with upto 800 cavalry, mostly shire and city militia foot

and then the Earl of Northumberland - 4,000 including many mounted troops (his troops did not actually take part in the battle)

Lancastrians (definitely 5,000, maybe 11,000)

Earl of Oxford - 5,000 including French and Scottish pikemen and Welsh foot, a few English foot, plus Henry Tudor and his mounted bodyguard

and then the two Stanley contingents, Sir William with 3,000 mounted troops and Lord Thomas Stanley with another 3,000 men (presumably a mixture of archers, billmen and mounted troops)

It seems to me that the key to the scenario is how you might decide the behaviour of the Earl of Northumberland's contingent (Yorkist) and the two Stanley contingents (Lancastrian?) on the day. The most obvious way, it seems to me, is to decide that Northumberland was loyal to Richard III and his forces were prepared to fight for him (Northumberland was imprisoned after the battle) - and that the Stanley's were more pre-disposed to fight for Henry (historically this is quite doubtful, Stanley's son was held hostage by Richard III). If you do this then you have a reasonably balanced scenario - 10,000 versus 11,000 with Richard's forces having the higher ground.

The question remaining then is - how do you decide if or when these forces intervene in the battle? One way that I have thought of (and it has to be a transparent mechanism to work in an online game) is to say that these forces will stay stationary (and will not be attacked or shot at) UNLESS at the end of any players' turn the number of break points totals 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40 (or multiples of 3 or 4 between 20 and 40/41: this needs to be tested). Only if this happens will these contingents be activated starting in the next players' turn.

In this way you would re-create the "waiting period" where no-one knew if these forces would intervene or not; you would re-create the difficulties faced by commanders (in terms of their movement and tactics etc) not knowing whether other enemy troops were going to intervene at some point - and you would re-create the possibility that these forces might still have a decisive say in the final outcome of the battle.

I know that it is not perfect, by any means, but I would be interested to hear the thoughts of other scenario builders who make have faced these sorts of issues in other scenarios, or from anyone with a detailed knowledge of what happened on 22/8/1485. Thanks.

[neil123]

You could make the basic scenario as described (call it the balanced one) and then copy the files and make 2 or 3 variants exploring the possibilities (noting which side should be played by the "best player".) I did this when I made Medway - I spent alot of time editing unit names etc and it seemed a shame to waste the work, so I made a follow up when the same armies met again a few days later on the Thames- only needing to redo the map and change a few of the units.

Its so long ago I cannot remember exactly what to do but you need to copy the file and change a couple of field names to match the new name (or maybe you can copy scenarios now without editing files ?) - I am sure one of the experts will chime in if you cant guess what to do.

good luck with your project

[maximvs]

Copy your original game folder.

Rename the new folder as required.

Then open the new folder and then look in the data folder.

In the data folder, use EDIT on the scenarioO.fogsg file and change the bit near the beginning from "old file name" to your new file name. Save it.

Do the same with scenario1.fogsg

All should work OK

If it doesn't, you've made a typo ...

OK?

[stockwellpete]

OK, thanks very much for those two posts. The idea of different variations for this scenario is one I will certainly investigate now.

To share the completed scenario with everyone else do I have to create a RAR file? Is that straightforward? Or are there other ways to proceed?

[TheGrayMouser]

OK, thanks very much for those two posts. The idea of different variations for this scenario is one I will certainly investigate now.

To share the completed scenario with everyone else do I have to create a RAR file? Is that straightforward? Or are there other ways to proceed?

Your definately want to "zip" up the file , ie compress it somehow, whether you use RAR or winzip or some such utility doesnt matter. Then of course you need to upload the file somewhere with a link so players can download...

Look fwrd to the completed scenario when you get it up!

[stockwellpete]

Just an update - Bosworth Field is being play-tested at the moment. Basically there will be two variations, I think. The first one will assume that all forces present at the battle will participate from the outset i.e. the Stanley contingents will fight for Henry Tudor. This will make for quite a balanced wargame - 10,000 for Richard III on the hilly gound versus 11,000 for Henry Tudor.

The second variation will be a bit more complex, but will begin with just 6,000 Yorkists against 5,000 for Henry Tudor - the mechanism for triggering the intervention of other forces will be the total number of break points registered in the game at the start of any player turn. The numbers used for the starting point, and the frequency thereafter, can be agreed by the two players beforehand, but in testing so far a total of twenty break points as the first trigger, followed by multiples of four thereafter (so 20, 24, 28, 32 with a final cut off point at 36 break points) seems to work OK. The archers will not be able to plant stakes either (there is no evidence I have seen so far for this happening in the real battle). If either Richard III or Henry Tudor is killed then the other side is immediately declared the victor.

[Gersen]

Best of luck. Its a superb battle to to try to recreate. I tried to build it, but gave up on the core problem of having half the combatants standing around, particulalry in a single player game. The solution that I worked on was a bit of a kludge - placing the two idle armies on broken ground and manually changing the MP impact for broken to such that it would take a few turns to crawl out of it and become effective. It did not really work for me during playtesting, so I gave up. Just a thought.

[stockwellpete]

Best of luck. Its a superb battle to to try to recreate. I tried to build it, but gave up on the core problem of having half the combatants standing around, particulalry in a single player game. The solution that I worked on was a bit of a kludge - placing the two idle armies on broken ground and manually changing the MP impact for broken to such that it would take a few turns to crawl out of it and become effective. It did not really work for me during playtesting, so I gave up. Just a thought.

Thanks for this, Gersen. What do you think of my idea of using the total number of break points of both armies at the start of any player move as the trigger? It seems to work OK so far - it is transparent to both players and it creates much of the uncertainty of the real battle. Players can also tinker with the trigger points to suit themselves e.g. using a sequence of 5, 10, 15 etc or saying that the other contingents will enter the battle when total break points reaches 24 or 28, or whatever.

I have a couple more play-tests arranged for this week and then I will put the game on here for people to try. Again, all feedback, suggestions etc will be most welcome. Many thanks to Bryant (Bmacster) and Frank (frankiepowerful) for their help with the play-testing.

[Gersen]

Best of luck. Its a superb battle to to try to recreate. I tried to build it, but gave up on the core problem of having half the combatants standing around, particulalry in a single player game. The solution that I worked on was a bit of a kludge - placing the two idle armies on broken ground and manually changing the MP impact for broken to such that it would take a few turns to crawl out of it and become effective. It did not really work for me during playtesting, so I gave up. Just a thought.

Thanks for this, Gersen. What do you think of my idea of using the total number of break points of both armies at the start of any player move as the trigger? It seems to work OK so far - it is transparent to both players and it creates much of the uncertainty of the real battle. Players can also tinker with the trigger points to suit themselves e.g. using a sequence of 5, 10, 15 etc or saying that the other contingents will enter the battle when total break points reaches 24 or 28, or whatever.

Could work for multi-player, but not single player. Also, not sure if the game has the messaging ready to get those discussions sorted ahead of the game.

[stockwellpete]

Could work for multi-player, but not single player. Also, not sure if the game has the messaging ready to get those discussions sorted ahead of the game.

No, it wouldn't work against the AI, you would have to set both sides to "human" in a single player game to use the historical variation of the game. But the trigger mechanism can be explained very simply in the introductory text to the scenario, so that should not be a problem.

[stockwellpete]

The scenario is ready. Please read the notes section before proceeding. Feedback would be most appreciated as I would like this to be included in a patch at some point (I know that I will have to re-write it to a 40x30 map first) . . .

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15461007/Battle ... 201485.rar

[cothyso]

Please update (put the link to the file) to your first post of this thread too, and each time you're updating the file, also edit and update that post (beside adding a new post to the thread to rise it to the top of the forum).

[stockwellpete]

Please update (put the link to the file) to your first post of this thread too, and each time you're updating the file, also edit and update that post (beside adding a new post to the thread to rise it to the top of the forum).

OK, link added to top of thread - and I will post any further updates here too.

[cothyso]

Thank you.

[maximvs]

A most enjoyable scenario, well done!

[stockwellpete]

A most enjoyable scenario, well done!

Thanks very much. Were there any "issues" at all?

I see that other people are trying it out - any feedback is very helpful.

[maximvs]

'Issues', hum, not really.

It seems to be well balanced, in that I won against the AI with each side, but certainly not what I'd call easily.

Ah, maybe the briefing could explain that Richard III was the Yorkist side and that Henry was the house of Lancaster - a fact that I knew many years ago but have long since forgotten!
I had to inspect the counters to remind myself. I probably wouldn't make a very good mercenary soldier as I like to know who's side I'm fighting for (or commanding in this case).

[stockwellpete]

'Issues', hum, not really.

It seems to be well balanced, in that I won against the AI with each side, but certainly not what I'd call easily.

Ah, maybe the briefing could explain that Richard III was the Yorkist side and that Henry was the house of Lancaster - a fact that I knew many years ago but have long since forgotten!
I had to inspect the counters to remind myself. I probably wouldn't make a very good mercenary soldier as I like to know who's side I'm fighting for (or commanding in this case).

Briefing updated in case you forget again.

Do you want to play a game against me? If so, which side would you like? and what is our password going to be?

[maximvs]

Yes! We could play it twice, once as each side?

I'll PM you once I've finished reading the forum and other stuff I'm looking through at the moment ...

OK

Max

[stockwellpete]

Updated to version 5. Definitive it is now! Honest!