Epic Battles: discussion, reviews, reports

[Kerait]

I have noticed that the Epic Battles attract far more criticism than praise in the forum, no doubt because when players enjoy an Epic Battle, they feel no need to comment about it. I’m in the process of attempting to win every Epic Battle online with both sides and thought I’d comment on each battle I have covered so far so as to start a discussion on the topic.

This first set I played many, many months ago.

Monte Maggiore (1041)
This is a well-designed and distinct Epic Battle. I’d compare it to Hastings, except that the dynamic where the Norman player must achieve a decisive advantage before his or her knights have been decimated is multiplied tenfold. The Byzantines have a huge numbers advantage, but the Normans have a small but elite iron fist of knights. The outcome of the battle is decided early and fast. If the Norman knights succeed in carrying out a successful, epic initial charge, they can win. Otherwise, they will inevitably be enveloped and destroyed. The Varangians on the Byzantine side represent a real threat, given that these elites won’t crack as easily as their fellow soldiers. It must be said that the course of this battle has more to do with fortune than others, but that’s not avoidable given the design, and not necessarily a negative. Took me a couple of tries to win as the Normans.

Civitate (1053)
The closest experience you’ll get in Field of Glory II to that scene in Lord of the Rings where the Rohirrim charge the orc armies arrayed around Minas Tirith, except here the Norman cavalry is cutting through raw spearmen. I think this is a great example of a well-designed asymmetrical battle. The Norman player’s role is quite straightforward: rampage as lethally through the Papal ranks as possible. The Papal-German player’s is more nuanced. On one hand, she must consolidate her forces so as to mount an actual defence against the Normans. On the other hand, she must make sure not to compound inevitable losses to Norman knights by avoiding, where possible, morale shocks rippling through adjacent raw units or having pursuing knights crash into further units down the line. She must also make optimal use of the few elite troops she does have available, the knights, mounted and dismounted.

Hastings (1066)
Fun battle, well-balanced and feels like you’re playing real history. The Normans must hope to crack the English lines with repeated frontal cavalry charges and exploit any weakness they open up. The English need to hold the line and resist the temptation to descend from their hill on any vulnerable Norman units too early, lest they expose themselves. The onus is on the Normans to win before nightfall (and before their knights have been ground down and weakened). This Epic Battle toes the ideal line between historicity and tactical flexibility for players, although I don’t know what it’s like to play after the knights buff.

Manzikert (1071)
Interesting one. A large Byzantine army on the march back home is being assailed by swarms of Turkish horse archers. The Turkish player’s challenge is to destroy the Byzantine forces before they can regroup and bring their superior numbers to bear. That means being disciplined and deliberate, keeping the Turks as a cohesive force that can win decisive skirmishes around the map rather than splitting everyone up too much and losing local force superiority. The Byzantine player, on the other hand, must regroup under the arrow hail and try to strike back. The problem with the battle is that there is a script that keeps the Byzantine lines retreating into the game, and I still haven’t worked out what the mechanism is behind how Byzantine lines cede control to the player. I’ve played a game where the Byzantine troops at the front just keep marching away without ever turning to aid their beleaguered comrades at the rear.

Many many more to come...

[Paul59]

I have noticed that the Epic Battles attract far more criticism than praise in the forum, no doubt because when players enjoy an Epic Battle, they feel no need to comment about it. I’m in the process of attempting to win every Epic Battle online with both sides and thought I’d comment on each battle I have covered so far so as to start a discussion on the topic.

Manzikert (1071)
The problem with the battle is that there is a script that keeps the Byzantine lines retreating into the game, and I still haven’t worked out what the mechanism is behind how Byzantine lines cede control to the player. I’ve played a game where the Byzantine troops at the front just keep marching away without ever turning to aid their beleaguered comrades at the rear.

Thanks Kerait,

The Byzantine lines are controlled by some complex scripting, but there is no mystery to it. On the second turn the player can control the first line. The reserve lines continue to retreat until they reach the map edge, they then test to see if they continue to retreat off the map (as happened historically) or return to player control. It is a random event, but the percentage chance is determined by the difficulty level, so if you are playing on a higher level it is more likely that they will leave the map.

[gribol]

Civitate (1053)
(...) On one hand, she must consolidate her forces so as to mount an actual defence against the Normans. On the other hand, she must make sure (...)

Did the Amazons fight there?

BTW, nice compilation

[VideogameghisKhan]

Civitate (1053)
(...) On one hand, she must consolidate her forces so as to mount an actual defence against the Normans. On the other hand, she must make sure (...)

Did the Amazons fight there?

BTW, nice compilation

The pronouns refer to the player, not the historical participants. Though it might be wishful thinking that a game in this genre would attract many women players.

[Kerait]

The Byzantine lines are controlled by some complex scripting, but there is no mystery to it. On the second turn the player can control the first line. The reserve lines continue to retreat until they reach the map edge, they then test to see if they continue to retreat off the map (as happened historically) or return to player control. It is a random event, but the percentage chance is determined by the difficulty level, so if you are playing on a higher level it is more likely that they will leave the map.

Interesting. I only played Mantzikert against another player, so I suppose difficulty wouldn't play a part.

Cabra (1079)
Fairly straightforward symmetrical battle. The key feature of the battle is the initial formations. El Cid's Sevilians deploy their cavalry at the front, infantry behind, whereas the cowardly García Ordóñez leading the Granadines has put his infantry ahead of the cavalry. I don't remember the way my battles went on Cabra very well, but I will say that the battle is a worthy showcase of medieval Iberian warfare, characterised by large numbers of light troops and fluid cavalry warfare. The charge of the knights and the footmen's bashing of shield against shield is still central, but the threat of flanks from Andalusian cavalry and light horse complicates matters nicely.

Sagrajas (1086)
In my experience, this was both a very asymmetrical and well-balanced scenario, which is evidence of a good design. The Castilians have knights, armoured lancers and a rearguard of infantry, whereas the Murabits have a preponderance of light horse, light spear cavalry, a few highly important camel lancers, and a rearguard of notoriously bad 'Abid al-Shira. All but the first of the Murabit lines cannot receive orders for the first several turns, inviting the Castilian player to chase the Andalusian cavalry fruitlessly to the place where the main melee typically takes place, the slope of the hill. The Andalusians' challenge is using light spear cavalry to destroy lancers and knights, a creative task that involves getting as many flanks in as possible (ideally through an elegant envelopment). The mere four camel lancers are highly valuable, for they disorder nearby enemy cavalry (and friendly cavalry, but less so) and can hold their own even against the knights, especially on elevation. The 'Abid al-Shira can do little more than thicken the ranks. The Castilians have their own difficulties. They must catch the enemy, but in doing so, they must maintain some degree of cohesion where possible, lest they scatter themselves in all directions and get cut up. The principle that expensive units shouldn't be thrown after cheap units because that represents a points shortfall elsewhere on the battlefield is an important principle to keep in mind here. Regardless of which side I played, victory was very narrow and the battle was delightfully chaotic.

[loki100]

we played a mirror match on Manzikert and found it fun, but potentially very unbalanced. When my opponent was the Byzantines almost none of the second line turned around while I got them all back. Maybe we got unlucky but some constraints on the variability would have been better. Agree about the advice that its the side that keeps the best structure tends to win but when I was the Byzantines by the mid game I controlled the entire battlefield

Had great fun with Hastings, we both won with the Normans as we both made the same mistake with the Saxons.

Bornhoved, ended being 2 easy Danish wins

The Standard is brilliant, a real hack and slash with some interesting choices, both ended with Northumbria being incorporated into Scotland

Legnano, a bit wierd, an all Knight Imperialist army vs a mixed, not high class, Lombard League. I lost as the Lombards spectacularly with only 6% in my favour, won as the Imperialists something like 63-61. So its clearly a bit off for balance but its quite intriguing.

In general, they are fun, done as mirror matches makes it interesting but seems a bit hit and miss as to how they are in practice - we really thought that Bornhoved would be a close match.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I played Towton recently vs Lennard, and partially my fault for not testing it during the beta but I did not find it enjoyable.

Lennard, playing as the Yorkists, had no reason whatsoever to advance off his hill to engage in a shootout. I had no compelling reason to advance off of my hill to engage in a (losing with less ammo) shootout. Sure, I'd beat his reinforcements to the field, but I'd be charging uphill - bad idea. So we both just sat there until his reinforcements arrived however many turns later, then he advanced.

At this point I made the mistake of trying to engage in archery at all, which broke up my line and opened it to midline flanks. Shoulda just formed a solid wall of melee and marched forward once he was at the bottom of the hill. An hour and forty minute slog.
https://youtu.be/X9IlQ3p4GwE
------------------------
Also played Brunkeberg as the Swedes. This was also a slog, though more enjoyable. That said, I can't imagine that it is actually balanced. I won narrowly, but only because Zawz got bored and came out of his fortifications. He kept forces in reserve that just slaughtered my reinforcements as they arrived. Had he simply waited behind his fortifications, I fail to see what the Swedes are supposed to do.
https://youtu.be/hJ7DhvsdQ1g
------------------------
Kutna Hora

This was great, nothing bad to say. Go play it.
https://youtu.be/Ygq3JnXG8oU

I've played all the rest at least once, albeit only from one side, will post more thoughts later...

[stockwellpete]

I played Towton recently vs Lennard, and partially my fault for not testing it during the beta but I did not find it enjoyable.

Lennard, playing as the Yorkists, had no reason whatsoever to advance off his hill to engage in a shootout. I had no compelling reason to advance off of my hill to engage in a (losing with less ammo) shootout. Sure, I'd beat his reinforcements to the field, but I'd be charging uphill - bad idea. So we both just sat there until his reinforcements arrived however many turns later, then he advanced.

At this point I made the mistake of trying to engage in archery at all, which broke up my line and opened it to midline flanks. Shoulda just formed a solid wall of melee and marched forward once he was at the bottom of the hill. An hour and forty minute slog.
https://youtu.be/X9IlQ3p4GwE

Yes, Towton definitely needs some "oomph" at the beginning to liven it up. Currently, it is no fun at all for the Lancastrian player who is paralysed for half a dozen turns or so. The replayability factor is not very high either.

Towton stands out among the WOTR series as one in which archery fire was actually quite significant. In most of the others the archers on both sides tended to cancel each other out, but at Towton the Yorkist archers definitely got the upper hand. How to represent this is the question. I think maybe having the Yorkist archers being able to shoot twice in the same turn might be worth investigating. Also, restrict the Lancastrian archers to just 2 shots as they were completely ineffectual in the battle. As soon as their quivers are empty, units in the first Lancastrian line should be able to advance.

In addition, to avoid the very tedious three or four turn period whereby the Yorkists have to turn their archers around and then leg it back to the safety of their own lines, why not do away with separate longbow units altogether and have the front lines of each army comprised of mixed units of billmen and longbowmen? That would solve this problem, I feel.

The other thing I noticed was there was far too much archery shooting going on in the later stages of the battle when units had run out of ammo. At that point, exhausted soldiers would just be desperately trying to bludgeon each other. There would hardly be any arrows being shot. To replicate this, mixed billmen/longbow units should not be able to shoot once their ammo is gone. I think a variation in the standard game like this is valid in an official scenario which is part of the DLC.

[Kerait]

we played a mirror match on Manzikert and found it fun, but potentially very unbalanced. When my opponent was the Byzantines almost none of the second line turned around while I got them all back. Maybe we got unlucky but some constraints on the variability would have been better. Agree about the advice that its the side that keeps the best structure tends to win but when I was the Byzantines by the mid game I controlled the entire battlefield

Yeah, to my recollection I had one match where I played as the Turks and most of the Byzantine army simply strolled off the map. Not particularly satisfying for either player.

Had great fun with Hastings, we both won with the Normans as we both made the same mistake with the Saxons.

What was the mistake? Descending from the hill, as in history?

Bornhoved, ended being 2 easy Danish wins

In my experience, Bornhoved can go either way really easily. Especially given that the Dithmarschen units can join the Germans. Even if they don't have time to get stuck into the melee, it can affect the rout percentage. That said, I think the Germans may be a bit more difficult to handle, because you have to leverage a mix of crossbowmen, armoured spearmen and medium swordsmen foot on their left wing, as opposed to the Danish mass of cheap and cheerful offensive spearmen.

The Standard is brilliant, a real hack and slash with some interesting choices, both ended with Northumbria being incorporated into Scotland

Interesting, I thought the Scots have the harder job. Scots spearmen are not the most cost-effective.

Legnano, a bit wierd, an all Knight Imperialist army vs a mixed, not high class, Lombard League. I lost as the Lombards spectacularly with only 6% in my favour, won as the Imperialists something like 63-61. So its clearly a bit off for balance but its quite intriguing.

I seem to remember that the battle is quite difficult for the Lombard League, yes. When I played as the Imperials, I faced a huge disruption when Emperor Frederick Barbarossa fell. Many German knights perished, yet in the end, I still prevailed. And there appears to be relatively little room for tactical creativity to improve the Lombard position. They must simply hold on and pray for good dice until reinforcements come.

Lennard, playing as the Yorkists, had no reason whatsoever to advance off his hill to engage in a shootout. I had no compelling reason to advance off of my hill to engage in a (losing with less ammo) shootout. Sure, I'd beat his reinforcements to the field, but I'd be charging uphill - bad idea. So we both just sat there until his reinforcements arrived however many turns later, then he advanced.

I watched this one. Your lack of enjoyment was palpable.

My human Lancastrian opponent had a different approach. Seeing the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Lancastrians and the Yorkists as yet unreinforced, it took very little prodding for him to descend from his hill in full might. I could barely get my longbowmen turned around before the Lancastrians crashed into me. By the time the Duke of Norfolk arrived my army was irreparably shattered, indeed outflanked (how much the latter is my fault I don't know).

It seems quite strange to me that the Yorkist player is encouraged to lure the Lancastrians to advance when the Yorkist should really pray for as many turns of peace as he can get, buying time for the reinforcements to come. I suppose it does mean that the Lancastrians have to fight uphill, but this seems quite doable.

Also played Brunkeberg as the Swedes. This was also a slog, though more enjoyable. That said, I can't imagine that it is actually balanced. I won narrowly, but only because Zawz got bored and came out of his fortifications. He kept forces in reserve that just slaughtered my reinforcements as they arrived. Had he simply waited behind his fortifications, I fail to see what the Swedes are supposed to do.

As the Kalmar Union, I simply stayed behind my fortifications and let the Swedes destroy themselves trying to crack them. The flanking reinforcements for the Swedes never arrived--going by the description, they seem to arrive at a random time or never at all. Even if they had, I imagine that the ample reserves the Kalmar Union has available behind the lines could deal with them. This scenario has to be rebalanced.

In addition, to avoid the very tedious three or four turn period whereby the Yorkists have to turn their archers around and then leg it back to the safety of their own lines, why not do away with separate longbow units altogether and have the front lines of each army comprised of mixed units of billmen and longbowmen? That would solve this problem, I feel.

Hmmm, I feel that increased homogeneity in troop type would not add to the scenario's enjoyability. In any case, it would not change the fact that the Yorkist units at the bottom of the hill would still have to turn and run to have any chance of surviving should the Lancastrians advance against them.

As for mixed foot being unable to shoot after using their ammo, I don't think that would make a huge difference as low-ammunition shooting with these mixed units is pretty ineffectual anyway, unless it's heavily concentrated on individual cavalry units, which I think is fair.

For what it's worth, I think Towton is pretty fun. I will have to play it as Lancastrians before I judge it completely.

[SnuggleBunnies]

My human Lancastrian opponent had a different approach. Seeing the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Lancastrians and the Yorkists as yet unreinforced, it took very little prodding for him to descend from his hill in full might. I could barely get my longbowmen turned around before the Lancastrians crashed into me. By the time the Duke of Norfolk arrived my army was irreparably shattered, indeed outflanked (how much the latter is my fault I don't know).

It seems quite strange to me that the Yorkist player is encouraged to lure the Lancastrians to advance when the Yorkist should really pray for as many turns of peace as he can get, buying time for the reinforcements to come. I suppose it does mean that the Lancastrians have to fight uphill, but this seems quite doable.

Fair enough, I've promised gribol a match with him as the Lancastrians as he is also convinced an aggressive approach is possible. Wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong.

What I'm not wrong about though, is that even after rebalancing Arsuf is damned near impossible for Saladin's army. The Pavisiers & Crossbowmen are such a hard counter to everything in the Muslim army. I played against Lennard, who is formidable, and I purposefully asked him to play Saladin, as I didn't want to record a video where I complained that it was impossible and then proved myself right, and Lennard has beaten me many times. I really think the Muslims need their Irregular trash to at least be Bedouin Foot with full swords, and their dismounted Ghilman to be full sized, and maybe more help than that.
https://youtu.be/ff6nKipo-pg

[gribol]

Fair enough, I've promised gribol a match with him as the Lancastrians as he is also convinced an aggressive approach is possible. Wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong.

I only think, that you must take a bet to have a chance to win. No risk, no fun ...

[stockwellpete]

Hmmm, I feel that increased homogeneity in troop type would not add to the scenario's enjoyability. In any case, it would not change the fact that the Yorkist units at the bottom of the hill would still have to turn and run to have any chance of surviving should the Lancastrians advance against them.

I have designed a version of Towton to be used in my WOTR campaign. Just the front lines of both armies have mixed billmen/longbowmen units. There are no other missile units just billmen, men-at-arms and currours. The slope for Towton Vale that runs between the two armies is not very steep, alternating between 25 and 50 on the Yorkist side. The Yorkists have no need to run anywhere, they can just feed more units into the melee as required. My last play test was all over in 11 turns. I will be adding a scenario script to increase the power of Yorkist archery fire as they had the wind very much in their favour. Ammo will be reduced for both sides, but particularly for the Lancastrians. There will not be mixed units wandering about in the later stages of the battle shooting at their opponents.

Screen_00000001.jpg (610.6 KiB) Viewed 1949 times

As for mixed foot being unable to shoot after using their ammo, I don't think that would make a huge difference as low-ammunition shooting with these mixed units is pretty ineffectual anyway, unless it's heavily concentrated on individual cavalry units, which I think is fair.

I don't think there was much shooting going on at all once the two armies had started the melee. A few "snipers" here and there trying to pick off vulnerable targets, that's all. One major change to the game that I would make is that units cannot shoot at all when their ammo reaches zero. It would force players to think more carefully about how they use their missile units. It would make the game harder.

[loki100]

...

Had great fun with Hastings, we both won with the Normans as we both made the same mistake with the Saxons.

What was the mistake? Descending from the hill, as in history?
...

The Standard is brilliant, a real hack and slash with some interesting choices, both ended with Northumbria being incorporated into Scotland

Interesting, I thought the Scots have the harder job. Scots spearmen are not the most cost-effective.
....

re Hastings, yep we both made the same mistake, got lured in by the apparent chance to win some of the early matches

re Standard, its the naked mad weegies that does the difference, while in the end they die off they can really cut up the Norman centre leaving a load of disrupted units just as the pretty good Scots knights arrive. Also on the Scottish left its possible to either set up an overload if the Normans advance or bring enough firepower that they disrupt readily if they stay protected by the river. The Scots right collapses

[Kerait]

Dorylaeum (1097)
Certainly an interesting battle, essentially revolving around the defence of the Crusader wagon laager. The question is whether the Crusaders can hold out long enough against the horde of Turkish horse archers for reinforcements of knights to save them.
In my experience, unless some recent update has changed this, it is highly challenging for the Crusaders to prevail here. It doesn’t help that their dismounted knights start the battle outside of the wagon laager. Retreating behind cover is likely the only sensible option, yet this involves cohesion checks. Being half-strength dismounted units, they are also liable to auto-break under sustained shooting. Furthermore, by my count, the Crusaders only have two archer and one crossbowman unit, along with a number of light horse archers. This means the Crusaders can do little to strike back against the Turks until their reinforcements arrive, besides committing their mounted knights to a romantic but suicidal charge.
A possible sneaky tactic the Crusaders could employ that I haven’t tried is fleeing into the ‘Flowery Meadow’ swamp. While most of the marshy squares surrounding the wagon laager are impassable, there is a gap through which the Crusaders could attempt to flee. Any troops that would make it into the marsh would essentially be untouchable for the Turks on their mounts, allowing them to survive until the reinforcements arrive. But the withdrawal would be painful and uncertain in outcome.
The Seljuq player should aim to break the Crusaders as swiftly as possible. That involves concentrating shooting, taking advantage of the stationary shooting mechanic and judiciously charging units that are about to break so as to make gaps in the Crusader lines and destroy their defences utterly. This should not be overly challenging.
I don’t necessarily recommend this scenario for multiplayer play.

Ascalon (1099)
I found Ascalon a fun scenario with a satisfyingly asymmetrical set-up. The Crusaders are outnumbered but steady, whereas the Fatimid Egyptians, caught unprepared, are all disrupted. What is otherwise a straightforward pitched battle on open ground assumes an engaging dynamic where the Crusaders are on a timer to exploit their enemies’ disruption as much as possible, while the Fatimids hope that their units steady themselves before the melee. The battle seems balanced to me, given that in my mirror match both the Crusaders and the Fatimids scored a victory. My strategy with the Fatimids was to turn around and march towards the walls of Ascalon, heading directly away from the Crusaders, until more units steadied themselves, at which point I wheeled around and did battle on an advantageous basis. My strategy for the Crusaders was one of aggression, but one must be careful not to expose the missile units too much—while they are useful for whittling down the Fatimid cavalry they are very vulnerable to the same, and there aren’t all too many spearmen or knights to cover them.

Tinchebrai (1106)
I take the fact that I was thoroughly trounced playing both the Normans and Anglo-Normans by the same player as evidence that this battle is fairly balanced, although it is more than possible that I am simply so incompetent a player that my opponent (was it melm?) overcame any imbalance native to the scenarios through sheer overwhelming superiority over me. Since I am traumatised from this experience and don’t remember my eventual victories in other games at all, I won’t comment too much on this epic battle. The Normans have the advantage of the high ground in many places, and their foot is more numerous, but raw. The Anglo-Normans have a flanking force of non-knightly lancers hidden behind a curtain of woods, but effectively surprising the enemy with this seems challenging, given their distance from the action.

Trutina (1110)
The Poles are retreating through the forest, but to their dismay a menacing army of Bohemians attack them from behind. And their dismay is justified! It is hard for the Poles to win this. Their light spear cavalry, superior or not, flees from the Bohemian knights. Using them to flank effectively appears difficult without anything to pin down the enemy knights—you may have the hammer, but not the anvil. The Polish foot, halfway into the forest, will struggle to array itself sensibly before the Bohemian advance. It is doubtworthy whether returning to the open fields is advisable, but even the ancient forests of Eastern Europe are not necessarily the sanctuary the Poles are looking for. Although their archers can take pot-shots at the Bohemians from the treeline, the Czech-Moravian Slav foot can ruin a Polish day when they arrive soon thereafter. The Bohemian strategy seems simpler. Keep the light spear nobles at bay, mercilessly crush any Pole left out in the open and cut the remaining ones in the wood up with fierce Slav foot to edge out a victory. I’m curious to hear reports from other players on this one.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Dorylaeum (1097)

I played this as Crusaders and found it quite impossible due to the lack of missile power, I was massacred before my reinforcements could accomplish anything.

Ascalon (1099)

Played this as the Egyptians, at the time it felt too easy? But then I haven't mirrored it. I feel like maybe the Crusaders could start just a little bit closer to the Egyptians.

Tinchebrai (1106)

Agreed, this scenario felt well balanced.

Trutina (1110)

And, good analysis again, I concur that this is very tough for the poor sap trying to use Light Spear cavalry against Knights...

[AKvGoeben]

I'd love to know how the Poles won Trutina because I got absolutely rolled.

[Kerait]

I'd love to know how the Poles won Trutina because I got absolutely rolled.

Oh yeah, didn't actually manage winning as the Poles against a human player as far as I remember. It was probably almost a year ago since I played this, but I think this was officially a failure.

[Paul59]

I hate to tell you this guys, but with the current points system the Poles have a 194 point advantage, and 3 more units (in total) than the Bohemians in the MP scenario.

[AKvGoeben]

To be fair, I've not tried it in MP and not in SP for a while but Im not sure how to take on all those Bohemian knights with what you get-not complaining btw, it's fun having a challenging scenario

[Paul59]

To be fair, I've not tried it in MP and not in SP for a while but Im not sure how to take on all those Bohemian knights with what you get-not complaining btw, it's fun having a challenging scenario

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the MP scenario is easy for the Poles. I am just giving you the facts, make of it what you will.