Battle of Alarcos 1195 AD

[ZeaBed]

Another runny-shooty scenario, as someone called them. This is runny-shooty from one end of the screen to the other. A major battle in the centuries-long Wars of Reconquest in the Iberian peninsula. Al v. Al: Alfonso VIII against Almohad Sultan Al-Mansur.
I hope someone finds a Reconquest battle in which the Castilian king is not named Alfonso for a change. Alfonso learned in this battle that he should wait for friends to arrive.

I've included a Word document in the scenario folder that lists some interesting links.

02 May 2015 UPDATE: Version 3.0 is now linked below.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/405 ... 20v3.0.zip

[Micha63]

Thanks.

[ZeaBed]

Thanks.

Thank you Micha. I appreciate your interest.

[Micha63]

Unfortunatelly i have no time for the moment to play all your scenarios. Still 5 scenarios for the Peg Amerikan war of
independence to do.
But time will come i play them all.

[ZeaBed]

Unfortunatelly i have no time for the moment to play all your scenarios. Still 5 scenarios for the Peg Amerikan war of
independence to do.
But time will come i play them all.

If you have a lot of interesting and entertaining choices, Micha, it's all good. Enjoy it!

[amenofi64]

Another great scenario of Reconquista...Thanks.

[ZeaBed]

Another great scenario of Reconquista...Thanks.

Thanks amenofi. Hope you enjoy it. Remember to look at the Word document.

[ZeaBed]

Alarcos is now v1.1 in the original post. I got a better fix on the map, I hope, and more source information on a more complete and accurate description of the two main components of the Castilian forces. Mainly I'm referring to the 8,000 charging knights on the plain and the rest of the army, including but not limited to the reserves, which temporarily remained on the hill with King Alfonso. I also changed some figures for both sides.

[ZeaBed]

The scenarios dealing with the Wars of the Reconquista seem to have their own logic, for a variety of reasons, either historical or purely game-related. I thought it would be a good idea to provide a graphical description of one of the games I've played with version 1.1 of Alarcos.

The link below is for downloading a Word document that lists an ordered sequence of screen capture snippets from a recent game, with captions describing the action and the tactical situation as the game progressed. Not a blow-by-blow presentation by any means, just eight or nine snippets representing what I thought were the pertinent aspects of the game in question.

I decided to present the document as a download and not a regular post as it is a bit jpeg-heavy and easier to format as a standalone document. The download is not a zip file, just a 'naked' Word document with embedded jpegs. It may take longer to download for those who might be interested. I hope it provides a bit of an illustration of how this scenario 'feels' while playing it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/405 ... %20v1.docx

[ZeaBed]

Version 1.2 is now linked in the first post. Corrected some minor details, including imprecisions in the battle map that could be improved a little, considering the FoG mapping geometry.

[massina_nz]

Thanks for the scenario - really enjoyed it - have posted a review on the FOG wiki site - http://fog-pc-wiki.wikispaces.com/User+ ... +Scenarios

[ZeaBed]

Thank you very much indeed for your feedback. I've got yet another version under wraps courtesy of my OCD condition. But I've been play testing the current one overtime, just to make sure. In most games the Almohads win but the Christians always have a good chance if they avoid Alfonso's mistake in sending the knights alone. The Christians must be fast to the punch.

[massina_nz]

Thank you very much indeed for your feedback. I've got yet another version under wraps courtesy of my OCD condition. But I've been play testing the current one overtime, just to make sure. In most games the Almohads win but the Christians always have a good chance if they avoid Alfonso's mistake in sending the knights alone. The Christians must be fast to the punch.

Yes I think your assertion above is correct. However I suspect (since I've only played this scenario once on each side) that this is a battle for the Almohads to lose if they are impatient. I've played many battles with horsey-shooty battles and patience is a key discipline, and therefore horsey shooty armies are a very acquired taste.

[ZeaBed]

Thank you very much indeed for your feedback. I've got yet another version under wraps courtesy of my OCD condition. But I've been play testing the current one overtime, just to make sure. In most games the Almohads win but the Christians always have a good chance if they avoid Alfonso's mistake in sending the knights alone. The Christians must be fast to the punch.

Yes I think your assertion above is correct. However I suspect (since I've only played this scenario once on each side) that this is a battle for the Almohads to lose if they are impatient. I've played many battles with horsey-shooty battles and patience is a key discipline, and therefore horsey shooty armies are a very acquired taste.

I like that term, horsey-shooty. With the Almohads it would be probably more like horsey-runny-shooty-runny, etc. With me too, this type of encounter was a taste I slowly acquired. But for my personal taste, I'd do anything to avoid the usual battle setup with just two sets of parallel lines facing off against each other and barely any room to maneuver. Even with Dandanaquan, I tried to give it some possibility of clear tactical choices. The scenarios I really like are a mix of positional values and skilful movement. But there are precious few historical battles that are ideal exponents of that concept. I do push the envelope, and enjoy doing so, but I believe that eventually FoG will be able to encompass all historical scenarios with the different setup possibilities and timed entrances of units, etc.

[massina_nz]

The scenarios dealing with the Wars of the Reconquista seem to have their own logic, for a variety of reasons, either historical or purely game-related. I thought it would be a good idea to provide a graphical description of one of the games I've played with version 1.1 of Alarcos.

The link below is for downloading a Word document that lists an ordered sequence of screen capture snippets from a recent game, with captions describing the action and the tactical situation as the game progressed. Not a blow-by-blow presentation by any means, just eight or nine snippets representing what I thought were the pertinent aspects of the game in question.

I decided to present the document as a download and not a regular post as it is a bit jpeg-heavy and easier to format as a standalone document. The download is not a zip file, just a 'naked' Word document with embedded jpegs. It may take longer to download for those who might be interested. I hope it provides a bit of an illustration of how this scenario 'feels' while playing it.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/405 ... %20v1.docx

Just a tactics note here. Don't be too afraid of sending in Knights against average spearmen It's even odds on Impact (the knights supeior morale counters the Spearmen POA+) if the knights lose they will normally break-off, if they win they will normally win the melee combats (better morale, better armour). In fact Poor Spearmen are great targets for most lance armed cavalry, they are poor for a reason!

[ZeaBed]

Yes. But the Defensive spear at the base of the hill have frequently exacted a heavy toll on knights. The knights eventually win but then they have to deal with the units on the hill itself while minding both flanks. This point in the scenario I've found to be the crucial challenge for the knights in the game. Flanking could prove too time consuming but frontal attacks in this point could erode precious resources for the outnumbered Castilians. Then again no two games with this scenario have been similar yet. Too many possibilities and unpredictable long term results for a given decision that seemed good at the time. As you wrote - a lot of tension here.

[ZeaBed]

Version 2.0 now downloadable from link at the first post.

[ZeaBed]

I was giving this scenario one last look recently and found that I'd reversed the ranks of the Maghrib Zenata cavalry, with the general represented by a regular icon and the rest represented with a general icon. Also, the Christian camp was missing. This latest version is only a fix for those two oversights, plus a couple more details.

Version 2.1 is now available in the top post.

[ZeaBed]

An in-depth, well-written and overall excellent book on this battle has just been published this year. It contains, among many other details, additional information derived from primary sources and analysis by modern scholars on the composition and order of the Castilian-led forces. It contains fine illustrations and photographs. I highly recommended it to those who can read Spanish.

La Batalla de Alarcos 1195, Preludio de las Navas de Tolosa, Guerreros y Batallas series, Manuel Jesus Ruiz Moreno, Almena Ediciones, Madrid, 2015.

Almena Ediciones' Guerreros y Batallas (Warriors and Battles) series is generally excellent. It would be nice to have some of them translated and published in English.

The download link to Version 3.0 is available in the original post to this thread.

[emilianojimenez]

Congratulations for your successful explanation of the batalla de Alarcos.