BretwaldaBretwaldaby Mike Demana (article originally appeared in The Herald #33)
After five and a half years of warfare, the battlefields of Britain were silent. Tattooed Pict and mailed Briton no longer raided each other incessantly, Vikings halted their harrying of Britain's windswept shores, and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms ceased their strife for preeminence. Who had lost?
In the Bretwalda campaign, all the players were losers, of a sort, for our longest-running campaign had finally drawn to a close. Some players had been lured away, but my productivity as GM had slackened to proces-sing turns every three or four months instead of bimonthly, at its height. Over the next couple issues, I will recount each kingdom's successes and woes, and analyze their strategies.
Wessex
In the history books, Wessex "won" the struggle for domination of Britain. Wessex was as close to a winner as Bretwalda produced. Wessex began strong, though -- controlling 6 provinces producing 23 income points each year and possessing an army of 18 detachments (The largest permitted army, for example, a "Great Host" was composed of seven detachments). Wessex's forces managed to retain control of all its original provinces and nab two new ones from Mercia (Hwicce and Elmet). Wessex finished the campaign controlling 8 provinces producing 32 income points. Its army boasted 26 detachments.
King Egbert, played by Larry Connor, adopted a policy of slow, steady growth. Along with its allies Kent/Sussex and Essex, Wessex formed the "Saxon Alliance," which lasted almost until the campaign's end. Wessex wielded its large army in a few "big fists," preferring to sacrifice territory covered for security. The fists were used mainly to pummel northern neighbor Mercia into extinction. Later in the campaign, Wessex's armies were kept hopping to fend off frequent Viking incursions, and to come to the aid of its ally Kent/Sussex, which it did loyally.
King Egbert's slow and steady growth strategy was a success. Wessex finished the campaign in excellent shape for future expansion.
Picts
Historically, the Pictish kingdom was a "loser," being absorbed by the Scots. In Bretwalda, it was far different. The Picts quickly conquered their historical nemesis, Dal Riata, then went on to drive Strathclyde to within one battle of extinction. They began in control of 4provinces producing 18 income points per year. Their army size was 14 detachments. The Picts used this force aggressively to hold, by the end, three new provinces (Dal Riatan Hebrides and Lochalsh, and Galloway from Strath-clyde), losing only one of its originals (Orcades, to the Norse). These 6 provinces generated 30 income points and were guarded by an army of 18 detachments.
King Circinn, played by Jason Mirosavich, was a clever, aggressive campaigner. He frequently orchestrated traps for his opponents, the most famous being the complete encirclement of Strathclyde's sole army at the final Battle of Dumbarton Rock. Unfortunately, Jason lost the tabletop fight. Strathclyde slipped the noose and went on to become a thorn in King Circinn's side, defeating several Pictish armies and besieging one of his home provinces. It is Strathclyde's resurgence, along with nagging Viking incursions, that keep me from declaring the Picts the undisputed "winner." King Circinn's clever machinations and frequent sea moves meant he stayed a dangerous enemy for the other nations of northern Britain.
Essex
In number of provinces, Essex's doubling from two to four was the largest percentage increase. History saw Essex, locked in by strong neighbors, dwindle in importance. In Bretwalda, Essex was on its way to becoming a major power. Essex began with 2 provinces producing 12 income points. Its army totaled 8 detachments (less than half the size of Wessex). By the end, though, Essex's 4 provinces produced 19 points, with an army of 15 detachments.
Essex was controlled by three different people over the course of the campaign. It began under the rule of Dave Perry. When he had to drop out, as GM, I took over for awhile. The kingdom finished under the reign of Dean Veneziano. Essex was also the lucky beneficiary of the "Mercian Retirement." When that kingdom was reduced to one province (Lindsey), I secretly ruled that it would merge with the first kingdom to march on the capital. Essex was the first to do so, and King Coenwulf retired to a monastery, handing over the province and its meager remaining forces.
Under Dave, Essex fought a protracted war with Mercia, conquering the province of Saeten. Under me, it struggled with the Vikings, losing Londinium to them. Under Dean's more vigorous leadership, Essex retook Londinium, absorbed Lindsey, and cast off its allies of the Saxon Coalition. As the campaign drew to a close, war had broken out with Wessex and Kent/Sussex.
Under its various kings, Essex was an aggressive nation, steadily (if slowly) pressuring its opponents. It ended the campaign much more powerful, but at war with a stronger enemy. Perhaps with allies or good fortune on the battlefield, it could have prevailed. If not, then struggles would be ahead for this upstart kingdom.
Northumbria
Another nation that saw several players at its reins, Northumbria rode a rocky course during the campaign. Historically, Northumbria rose to dominate Britain for a century or so. In Bretwalda, it never saw that moment in the sun. Northumbria began the campaign with four provinces producing 20 income points, while its army totaled 16 detachments. After grievous losses early, Northumbria battled back to regain all four of its originals. It army numbered 13 detachments.
Northumbria began under the control of Floridian Russell Piper, then when he lost interest, was taken over by the GM. Finally, Great Lakes member Tim Donovan assumed control. Under Russell, Northumbria warred with its historical enemy, Strathclyde, losing the province of Dumfries and a huge portion of its army in battle. Then, the Norsemen seized the city of York and its province of Deira. Under my direction, Northumbria slowly battled back, retaking both lost provinces. And finally, under Tim, Northumbria was content to play the political game, avoiding being embroiled in the war raging in the north between the Picts and Strathclyde, and in the south between Essex and Wessex, while rebuilding its strength.
Northumbria blundered early, but recouped its losses to end the campaign in a strong position. Its army was still undersized from its early defeats, but was numerous enough to prove a tough foe or good ally were it to commit to one side or the other in the battles raging around it. Because of its command changes, Northumbria was a bit of an underachiever in Bretwalda, and failed to strengthen its position.
Wales
If status quo is a victory for some, then Wales should be well satisfied with its performance. Historically, the Welsh fought many wars with the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, sometimes on the attack, other times struggling to retain control of its land.
In Bretwalda, it was a similar story. Divided into many subkingdoms, Wales began with nine provinces that produced 17 income points each year. Its armies totaled 17 detachments. Wales lost no provinces to invaders over the course of the campaign, nor did it take any. Its ending army size was 18 detachments.
Columbus native Joel Sams played the role of Owein, ruler of Gwynedd and High King of Wales. Early on, Joel was embroiled in a war with Mercia, both taking turns invading the other's territory. Eventually, Mercia was forced to sue for peace after losses to the Saxon Alliance became too great. After that, Welsh forces pretty much disappeared from the campaign. A special rule for the kingdom reflected its divided state at the time. Each winter, one of its provinces revolted. King Owein occupied himself with putting down these revolts. At the end of the campaign, a Welsh army did burst across Offa's Dyke, bypass Wessex-held Elmet, and march northwards. Unfortunately, the campaign ended before this army showed its intentions, though. It remains a mystery who it intended to attack, although the GM's suspicions are it intended to involve itself in the Pictish-Strathclyde war.
Wales' isolationist strategy throughout most of the campaign meant it passed up the opportunity to strengthen its position. However, this also kept it strength from being depleted, and a potentially difficult foe. And in light of history, a free Wales is a victory of sorts for its people.
Kent/Sussex
One thing can be said of Kent/Sussex's story in the campaign -- it was definitely not boring. Historically, the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex were small players in the politics of 9th Century Britain. Not so in Bretwalda, though. Kent began the campaign in control of three provinces producing 12 income points, while its army totaled only eight detachments. It seized one province from Mercia (Chiltern), but lost two of its original three to the Vikings (North Kent, Sussex). Its finished the campaign controlling two provinces worth 8 income points. Its troops numbered 10 detachments.
King Baldred, played by DBA enthusiast Terry Hollern, had an impact on the campaign far greater than the size of his kingdom. Terry was the architect of the Saxon Alliance -- West Saxons (Wessex), East Saxons (Essex), and South Saxons (Sussex). He plotted the timing and direction of its three-pronged assault on Mercia, which saw the elimination of that kingdom. Baldred also suffered the most from the Viking raids, though, attacked by both the Danes and Norse. The king fought again and again for his provinces, rarely losing a battle. With only one major field army, its survival was at stake every time Terry faced the Vikings on the tabletop. He repeatedly came away a winner, losing provinces only because of the enemy's superior number of armies. He also invoked the Saxon Alliance to wield Wessex's greater might against his attackers.
In numbers of troops and provincial income, Kent/Sussex appears to belong with the "losers" of the campaign. However, considering the forces arrayed against it, to end the campaign with the same number of provinces and more troops is a clear victory for King Baldred. The dramatic story of Kent/Sussex is one of the reasons that many feel campaigns are gaming at its best.
The Vikings
One of the historical "nudges" I did in Bretwalda, was to push forward slightly the time of the Viking invasions (as opposed to merely raids -- I wanted the Vikings to be looking for land to settle upon). Historically, the Vikings dominated Britain for a time. With the forces I gave them, though, the Viking players were not dominant, but quite successful in making inroads upon the island. The Viking players began with no territory, having a random reinforcement table to fall back upon if they failed to seize provinces.
There were two Viking "kingdoms" over the course of the campaign, the Norse and the Danes. The Norse began with 10 detachments and were played by my longtime gaming friend, Allen Sams. The Danes arrived seven turns into the campaign when the kingdom of Dal Riata was conquered, and its player, Arizona native Craig Jacobsen, was given a new kingdom. I increased the initial size of the Danes to 12 detachments.
Allen's Norse were true raiders at heart. Allen specialized in hit and run raids across the breadth of Britain. At one time or another, the Norse warred with Strathclyde, the Picts, Northumbria, Essex, Kent/Sussex, and Wessex. By campaign's end, the Norse controlled Orcades (taken from the Picts) and Sussex (from Kent/Sussex). He ruled other provinces, from time to time, including Deira, with its great capital of York.
The Danes, on the other hand, were fairly straight-forward settlers. They invaded the southeast of England, taking Essex's capital and North Kent. They fought many battles for control of these areas, winning some, losing others. More than halfway through the campaign, Craig dropped out, due to other commitments. I decided to merge the two Viking kingdoms, giving Allen control of both. Although this allowed the armies of the two rival Viking nations to cooperate, I ruled they could not combine, and must be treated as separate kingdoms. At the end of the campaign, the Danes had lost Essex, but still controlled North Kent.
I purposely did not give Allen or Craig enough troops to repeat the Viking takeover of Britain. I wanted them to be a threat, but not so great that it would take multi-kingdom cooperation to stave off their conquest. As such, the Vikings played the role I foresaw for them. Allen's across the map strikes made all players nervous of them, while Craig's determined invasion put fear of being their next victim into their hearts. I would rate the Viking performance as good, but not overwhelmingly so. Their inability to defeat Kent/Sussex probably kept them from being one of the obvious winners of the campaign.
Dal Riata
Pity, poor Dal Riata. One of my mistakes of the campaign -- I did not make them strong enough to resist their historical enemy, the Picts. If history repeated itself, they were supposed to eventually take over the Picts, forming the kingdom of Alba (which would become Scotland). Instead, in Bretwalda, they did not last six months. Dal Riata began the campaign with two provinces producing 11 income points, guarded by an army of 12 detachments.
Craig Jacobsen controlled Dal Riata. He made the initial mistake in trusting the Picts, forming a pact with them to invade their southern neighbor, Strathclyde. When the Scots marched across the border against the Britons, the Picts back stabbed them with an invasion of Dal Riata. The kingdom never recovered, losing the two tabletop battles that could have salvaged their hopes.
Dal Riata was an obvious loser in the campaign -- at no fault to its player, Craig. He was simply overwhelmed by a stronger nation. With no allies, the only way to reverse this, was victory on the tabletop. As a "long distance" player, he did not command in either of their battlefield defeats. Foreseeing this, I had made a rule that players whose kingdoms were conquered could return as a fresh Viking invasion. Thus, Craig returned, and saw some success in Bretwalda as the Danes.
Mercia
The players showed no mercy on the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia. Centrally located, it was at war with five of its neighbors over the course of its existence. Historically, Mercia had its "moment in the sun" -- being the dominant kingdom for a time in Britain. In Bretwalda, it never was never able to savor that moment. Slowly, but surely, the kingdom's provinces were gobbled up by various members of the Saxon Alliance.
King Coenwulf Mercia was played long-distance by Scott Stahle (while he was attending med school -- so you can understand his distractions!). The kingdom began with five provinces worth 20 income points and an army composed of 17 detachments. It was eliminated campaign when I merged the last remaining province and its three detachments with Essex.
It is never easy to be the "middle kingdom" in any wargame. Scott's problems were compounded by his inability to take a pragmatic approach to his wars. His first border war began when he invaded Wales. It sputtered on for awhile, each side having its successes. However, when the Saxon Alliance invaded with its overwhelming numbers of troops, Merica would have been best served by making peace with Wales, and concentrating on the deadlier foe. However, Scott refused to withdraw, while steadily losing all three of his southern tier of provinces. It was only when down to Elmet and Lindsey (too late, really), that he patched things up with King Owein and concentrated his depleted forces. At that point, though, it was only a matter of time before he succumbed.
Perhaps Mercia could have held on by battlefield victories much as Strathclyde did against the Picts. But being a long-distance player, he did not have the opportunity to fight those battles. His surrogate generals (myself included) were unable to stem the tide -- especially as he made the decision to fight when outnumbered several times rather than retreat.
With Mercia being eliminated from the campaign, the only way to rate the kingdom's performance is poor. Not all could be laid at the feet of its king, though. Even the best of players would have had a hard time dealing with the Saxon Alliance all along its southern border. However, many decisions made turned out to be for the worse, and Mercia was unable to escape its fate.
Conclusions
There were only a limited number of rules that I changed over the course of Bretwalda's nearly six years. All "tweaks" and adjustments were to bring my rules even more in line with the "Keep It Simple" philosophy. In my opinion, campaigns that die an early death do so chiefly because they do not abide by that rule. GMs try to do too much, or expect too much from their players. Our gaming group has attempted numerous campaigns over the years, and it seems the simplest ones are the ones that last.
My biggest rules change was to simplify Bretwalda's scouting system. Originally, I had a chart that took all kinds of factors in to account to ascertain whether the scout's report was correct or off by several size levels. As it turned out, resolving the scouting became too much of a chore, and I was starting to dread processing the turns. At that point, knowing myself, I knew burnout could not be far away. So, I made all scout reports accurate. This reduced the processing time to a fraction, and I was a happier GM.
Bretwalda utilized a concept called "size levels" rather than forcing players to keep track of every element lost. They ranged in size from Detachment (no battlefield capability, but could garrison fortifications), increasing at six DBA elements steps from Cohort (6 elements) all the way up to Great Host (36 elements). In hindsight, I feel that the steps should have been at 3 element increments. In Big Battle DBA, six elements is a major difference. I do not believe an outnumbered force ever won a battle in Bretwalda. So, in future campaigns, I will set the size differences at 3 elements steps.
The campaign map for Bretwalda was a "point-to-point" style of map. Each dot was a settlement -- whether a village, town or fortification. Armies moved along routes that connected the points. This allowed me to create "choke points" and strategic towns, as well as simulate the effects of terrain like rivers and mountains. In hindsight, I'd seriously consider abandoning this style of map for future campaigns. The amount of time I invested in the creating the initial map was huge. Point-to-point DID give more strategic richness as opposed to an area map, but I'm not sure it was worth the trouble in the long run. The "fun" of a campaign is in fighting the battles that MEAN something, the "who is invading who" aspect of them, and just the sheer enjoyment of watching the rise and fall of various kingdoms. All of these can be recreated equally with an area-style map.
One thing that proved popular with the players, and I will continue to do in subsequent campaigns, is a several paragraph narrative at t he beginning of the players' reports,describing the course of events for that turn. It read like a chronicler proclaiming the mighty doings of kings and the movement of armies upon the land. This bit of color seemed to help get the players's "in the mood." (Or at least I hope it did!).
Finally, I cannot recommend strongly enough using De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) rules in your campaigns! It is simply an excellent set, able to handle small, 12-elements per side battles, or much larger ones produced by the clash of major forces over the course of your campaign. The pre-set army lists eliminate the worry about players being able to tailor their armies too much from encounter to encounter. The games proceed quickly, with just enough elements of luck that the more experienced player does not always win. The rules are simple enough for novices to pick them up and start beating the "veterans" before they know it.
So, for those of you considering running an Ancient or Medieval campaign, I urge you to give a try. Bretwalda was an unqualified success in my opinion, and provides for many great gaming memories.