Horrible Medieval Wars

Agincourt, 25 October 1415. 

The primacy of the Second Estate in the Middle Ages was based both in theory and practice on military superiority. The First Estate prayed for all, the Second Estate fought for all, and the Third Estate toiled so that all may eat. This we have said before.

So it was of vital importance both theoretically and practically for wars to flare up, churn here and there, and then die out over the course of time. However without central planning, discipline, long-term goals and advanced infrastructure, it was very rare for a war to actually accomplish any long-term change. Usually one side would loot and pillage the other, a few "important" people would die, and within months or years everything would return to the way it was before the war.

Later that day

In the Welsh Marches setting I'm working up, the Marcher Lords are the transplanted families of Norman warlords who supported William against Harold in 1066. They owe feudal allegiance to the Crown of England but are otherwise free to do what they want. Their nominal enemies are the warlords and chieftains of Wales. In reality, each territory is free to ally with or war against any of the others. In the real world, the barons and chieftains regularly did ally with or turn against their countrymen when each saw his chance to improve his own standing.

The main thing to remember is medieval wars are muddled, bloody-minded, intermittent and fairly pointless.

This is not to say a clever general or great warrior can't turn the tide of battle and win a day! Knights and even companies of commoners regularly performed great martial feats and won glory and valor (and plunder.) While this is true in a key battle or even a war, the sweep of history usually regresses to the mean.

(This is also not to say nothing ever changes. Diplomacy, technology, and disease are the big three drivers of real change.)

Based on this assessment of actual medieval warfare, I have decided we need two different subsystems for wars.

The first is for "the war" churning in the background. Skerples of the Coins and Scrolls blog has pretty much got that squared away with his exceptional Medieval Stalemate Simulator. Rather than go over the whole thing, I'm going to nick his diagram and just link to the post where he lays it out. Coupling his system with a system for choosing belligerents and causes means you can create infinite numbers of unique, yet identically pointless wars. PERFECT! These wars between benighted noble ninnies are more like a force of nature. You can no more fight The War than you can fight light drizzle. No matter who you are, the chances of making a difference in the war are slim.

This is a far cry from the medieval-fantasy set piece battles for the fate of the Realm like we see in the Five Armies or Return of the King, for instance. Those are cinematic and decisive. Individuals of great destiny turn the tides of history in the heart of a deluge of blood and iron. We want that too! Again: this second part is for a battle, not for a war. Battles are awesome even if most wars are stupid and pointless.

So, the second system we need is a system for actually running one individual battle. Forget all that garbage about wars being boring and stupid. A battle - one you actually play at the table - those should be really cool and fun! I'm not a wargamer so I really need some help deciding on this system. I wrote one for Treasure Hunters Prolix. It works fine but it's kind of complicated. Since this whole war thing is adding two big subsystems to the game already, I'm looking for something simpler. Something like RISK, but where you can make a reasonably large difference with your PCs and his henchmen. Fast, reasonably representative, and satisfyingly personal as well.

Has anyone got any good ideas about a battle simulation game like this? Something like CHAINMAIL I suppose, but actually playable without Mike Perrin or Michael Mornard actually sitting at your elbow.