Johansen Quijano (Tarrant County College)
The military histories of the Middle Ages are often ignored in favor of the more romantic conflicts of Ancient Greece and Rome (Di Placido, 2023) or the more exciting theaters of modern and contemporary history (Mignes, 2023; Karalis, 2024); however, the mechanics of war, diplomacy, and intrigue from the Middle Ages are more interesting systems to analyze in the context of games and simulations. The assumption that the Middle Ages were nothing more than banditry and religious fanatism as propagated by film and media (Knight, 2012) largely ignore the rich strategic thought and diversity of the war machinery of the time. Medieval wars were a vibrant dance of skirmishes and sieges where strategic alliances were made and broken at the drop of a hat (Cheyette & Keen, 2023; Ellis & Simms, 1989). They were systems that are mirrored in games like Dragon Force, where victory hinges on the way that troops are managed and the alliances made rather than by raw numbers, just like their historical counterparts. This presentation will address how the mechanics of war, diplomacy, and intrigue represented in Dragon Force mirror historical mechanics more succinctly and accurately than film and, perhaps, even literature.
In Dragon Force players takes control of one of eight kingdoms and attempts to conquer or unify the continent in preparation for the rebirth of the ancient demon Madruk. Like much of medieval literature (Flood, 2016), the narrative is spurred forth by prophecy. The player’s chosen monarch will either receive a revelation that they are to lead, or be a part of, the Dragon Force, or a visit from one of Madruk’s agents that they are to serve the dark lord. The player’s role is to command the armies of their chosen country and reach unification or conquest before Madruk revives. It’s a fairly straightforward fantasy plot, but where it gets complicated and mirrors medieval approaches to warfare is in the mechanics of conquest.
To win, it’s not enough to send soldiers to their deaths – doing so will lead to a game over. Instead, players will have to strategize based on the opponent’s units, which commanders reside in which castles, and the tools available. When players begins the game with Wein, the protagonist, they will mostly rely on two unit types: soldiers and cavalry. Players will look at the neighboring kingdoms’ troops. In Bozack to the west, beastmen are the primary unit. The northern kingdom of Palemoon is one of the two magic-based realms. Players will quickly realize that cavalries suffer massive losses against beastmen, making the annexation of Bozack difficult. Further complicating westward expansion, the castle Lightan is ruled by a powerful commander with an army larger than Wein’s. To maximize success, players would first want to subdue the local bandit armies and deal with the local corrupt lord Borgon before continuing to Palemoon.
Upon reaching Palemoon players will notice that they don’t even need to conquer through violence. Instead, maneuvering Wein to Palemoon castle will prompt a scene where the rulers enter negotiations to join forces. Palemoon’s mages and archers will allow players to easily conquer Junon’s harpies, and these will finally allow players to easily conquer Bozack – that is, unless the AI has made Bozack ally with the samurai or monks, in which case Wein might have a difficult time indeed.
Players can also equip generals with items to give them an advantage in battle, and through cleverly timed button prompts engage in pseudo-sieges. Players will also convene with their advisors to assess the situation, fortify their castles, interview prisoners, and decide the course of action. They will also have to make sure they treat their commanders well, least they decide to defect.
This dance of strategy, politics, and diplomacy – elements missing from most modern medieval-inspired media –mirror medieval warfare (Nardo, 2015). Councils of clergy, commanders, and nobles who would dictate the flow of battles, troops were a combination of infantry with pikes, cavalry, and archers, and discussions about fortifications were commonplace in history (Prestwich, 1999) and are mirrored in the game. Siege warfare highlighted the importance of stand-by strategies, one of the strongest formations in Dragon Force. All these elements of medieval warfare are mirrored in the game (Queller, 1980).
Works Cited
Cheyette, Fredric L., and M. H. Keen. “The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages.” The American Historical Review, vol. 71, no. 2, Jan. 1966, p. 538, https://doi.org/10.2307/1846377. Accessed 15 Mar. 2023.
Ellis, Steven G., and Katharine Simms. “From Kings to Warlords: The Changing Political Structure of Gaelic Ireland in the Later Middle Ages.” The American Historical Review, vol. 94, no. 2, Apr. 1989, p. 424, https://doi.org/10.2307/1866857.
Flood, Victoria. Prophecy, Politics and Place in Medieval England. Rochester, NY, Boydell & Brewer, 15 Dec. 2016.
Karalis, Magdalene . “Russia-Ukraine War through the Eyes of Social Media | GJIA.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Georgetown University, 2 Feb. 2024, gjia.georgetown.edu/2024/02/02/russia-ukraine-through-the-eyes-of-social-media/.
Knight, Sara McClendon. Serializing the Middle Ages: Television and the (Re)Production of Pop Culture Medievalisms. 2012, p. Dissertation.
Minges , Madison. “How Does the Media Impact Public Perception about War?” American University, 21 Nov. 2023, www.american.edu/sis/news/20231121-how-does-the-media-impact-public-perception-about-war.cfm.
Nardo, Don. Medieval Warfare. San Diego, Ca, Referencepoint Press, Inc, 2015.
Placido, Dani Di. “TikTok’s “Roman Empire” Meme, Explained.” Forbes, Forbes Media LLC, 21 Sept. 2023, www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2023/09/21/tiktoks-roman-empire-meme-explained/?sh=251a4f88765b. Accessed 27 May 2024.
Prestwich, Michael. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages. Yale University Press, 1 Jan. 1999.
Queller, Donald E. Medieval Diplomacy and the Fourth Crusade. London, Variorum Reprints, 1980.
Teschke, Benno. “Geopolitical Relations in the European Middle Ages: History and Theory.” International Organization, vol. 52, no. 2, 1998, pp. 325–358.
von Tunzelmann, Alex . “The Big Idea: Can Social Media Change the Course of War?” The Guardian, Guardian Media Group, 25 Apr. 2022, www.theguardian.com/books/2022/apr/25/the-big-idea-can-social-media-change-the-course-of-war.
Thanks for the paper! Not a game I know well but I really enjoyed this and it seems super interesting. This seems quite a Historical Problem Space sort of approach, focusing on the available choices from the player’s perspective and their utility. Have you used Jeremiah McCall’s theory work as an underpinning for how you’re thinking about this? I think there’s a good connection to be made there if not.
Apologies for the day-late reply, this week has been Murphy’s Law manifested. I haven’t applied the framework yet, at least not in a formal manner, but much of my work (and that’s certainly the case here) starts from a shared assumption that underpins the framework, specifically that it’s important to use a holistic approach to understanding games as systems to be understood on their own terms. Admittedly, I’m a bit more eclectic in my approach, and as I continue working on this I will draw from the MDA, rhetorical traditions, and other fields. Thank you for the feedback!
Thank you for your paper, Johansen! I hadn’t heard of Dragon Force before.
One topic that was discussed earlier today was the role of information. Fog of war is a crucial element in warfare; maybe more so in pre-modern warfare, due to the lack to fast and reliable communication.
Is lack/unreliability of information accounted for at all in Dragon Force?
Thank you for the comment! In terms of spatial information, no, there is no fog of war. Right from the beginning, players can see the whole map, troop movement, even which generals have specific types of troops in their armies. Uncertainty is manifested when:
1. At the beginning of the game players don’t know how certain troops perform against others, but they can look up guides online to demystify that information.
2. The temporal element. I’ve played games where a fort next to mine has 10 generals in the castle and 5 standing guard outside. Your armies can only deploy 5 generals at a time, so I would spend weeks waiting for them to attack my castle with their troops (defensive positions give an advantage) and they never do, but I’ve also played games where I find myself in a similar situation and they send two 5-general armies or several 3 general armies, etc.
3. The movement element. You can see the troops move, but the computer will change their destination contingent on your status. Earlier this week I was playing as Wein (knights) attacking Gongos (beastment) and I thought “I’m safe, the castle to the north is the only way of getting down here, it’s occupied by three wizard dudes and the samurai have an army going over. They can do their thing up there, samurai probably win, and while they recover I will have already conquered Gongos and recruit him when the week ends in domestic affairs.” Instead, the wizard dudes left the castle and headed south and the samurai followed suit, so I found myself with five generals with cavalry troops in the middle of a forest with the army of beastmen on one side and armies of wizards and samurai behind me, so even if I beat the beastment the wizards would come right after and sweep my tired troops, and if they didn’t succeed the samurai would. I got a game over.
4. The “Children of Darkness”, dragon kin, Scythe and Gaul, and other generals that appear out of nowhere in the most inconvenient moments close to your weakest castles and start killing / injuring your generals. They pulled a similar pincer attack on me on Tuesday.
What I find more interesting in this regard is that even though players can see the whole map and troop movement, much of that information is useless and only serves to make the player nervous (“Hey, that kingdom over there is getting fairly powerful, I need to move faster!”) which often leads to game over.
Thank you for the feedback! It gave me a lot to think about!
Thank you for the paper! It’s very interesting that the game highlights the limitations of medieval cavalry. Whereas many historians have likened the medieval warhorse to the battle tank (I am thinking here of what R. H. C Davis says in the introduction to “The medieval warhorse : origin, development and redevelopment”), more recent scholarship has highlighted the complexity of cavalry charges. Actually cavalry can only win against other cavalry but has no chance against well-trained infantry who will stand their ground (there are several publications by Jurg Gassmann on this subject, for instance, “East meets West: Mounted Encounters in Early and High Mediaeval Europe,” Acta Periodica Duellatorum, DOI 10.1515/apd-2017-0003).
Indeed! I’ve always found that comparison humorous. To me, if anything merits the title of “war tank of ancient warfare” it would be the Roman Testudo formation.
Admittedly the game gives cavalry type advantage against soldier infantry (the basic sword guys), but even a smaller infantry team (10 – 20% less, even) can still take down a larger cavalry force if they use stand-by (stand your ground) tactics.
Thanks for your paper! It was really interesting! It’s refreshing to see the complexities of military strategy being depicted in a video game rather than the stereotypes perpetuated so much in modern works. I was wondering if you know of any other games which you think depicted medieval military strategies well? My immediate thoughts are of the Crusader Kings series but often battle can be won there too by sheer numbers rather than strategy. And do you think these kinds of deep strategy games have gone out of fashion recently and, if so, do you have any thoughts on why?
Thanks for your comment! I’ll reply in reverse:
Sadly, they definitely have gone out of style. There are still audiences for these games, I think, and the deeper and more complex the game the more loyal the following, but I think it’s precisely because of the complexity of these games that they’ve gone out of fashion. I think Dragon Force is right there at the complexity border, likely being “the simplest of complex strategy games,” but the truth is that younger players have grown up with either simple mobile games where you tap or swipe, overly forgiving games that drop you in right where you lost, creative platforms like Roblox, auto-play games, or glorified casinos with anime themes (a subset of mobile games). I hate to sound like a Git Gut Gatekeeper, but a lot of younger players who grew up with screens have a hard time getting used to keyboard and mouse or joystick interfaces, have a hard time learning, get frustrated, and go back to what they know. Most recently, I tried to get my son who only plays Pokemon games and mobile Dragon Ball games into Fighters Z. I haven’t seen anyone get so frustrated and throw a tantrum since I was in Jr. High School and the kid who bought a Mortal Kombat arcade machine to practice for a local tournament lost in the first round. This bears out when I ask my students about the games they play and I try to introduce them to high-skill games. Feedback is, more often than not, some version of “didn’t like it, too difficult.”
That is super disappointing because Crisader Kings is a great game. Anything by Paradox is complex, though not all of their games are medieval-themed. Medieval Total War and Stronghold are also solid. I will admit I like Ages of Empires, but it feels kind of cookie-cutter. However, the one I’m most excited of playing is Unicorn Overlord. It looks like it has a Dragon Force vibe and seems to fit in the same “complex but not overwhelming” space Dragon Force occupies. Admittedly, with them being medieval fantasy I don’t think analyses would be as deep as one of the really deep simulations, there are several practices that can be read from them.
Thanks for your answer, I agree! I think sadly it seems to be a general trend where games are lowering the difficulty. Personally, I’ve found this with puzzle aspects of games where often if you don’t get it straight away the game will guide you to the answer rather than letting you figure it out.
Thanks for the recommendations, I hadn’t heard of Unicorn Overlord so I will definitely check that out!
It’s more on the tactical/operational, rather than strategic side of warfare, but Fields of Glory II: Medieval (whose creators are sponsoring this event, btw) is a fairly competent battle simulator. I particularly like how it deals with maneuvres. It takes a long time to turn and face the enemy; so initial positioning is super important. Also, if any portion of your battle line crumbles, it takes a huge deal of effort to move reinforcements (unless you have the farsight to keep enough units in reserve).
That sounds interesting! I wasn’t aware of that game but I’ll be sure to check it out this weekend!
Thanks for this paper! I’ve read about this game, and I thought its “who beats who” combat mechanic sounded interesting, but I didn’t expect it to also mirror the reality of medieval warfare. Though, I’m curious about the inclusion of samurai… do you think they merely serve as another unit, or do they represent something “eastern” with regards to medieval warfare?
I don’t think they mirror the whole reality of medieval warfare, but certainly enough tactical, strategic, and political practices that even in its fictional world (it also includes dragons and supernatural beings) it has a certain medieval ethos that many other games that claim to be more historically accurate lack (looking at Ages of Empire, which ultimately comes down to eco-maxing).
Sadly, the samurai are mostly just reskin of the soldier unit with a few changes – namely that they will decimate dragon units, which have an advantage against every other troop type. I once had a general with 30 samurai units and managed to run through 4 dragonkin generals each with an army of 60+ dragons. The other major difference is that more samurai generals have access to a “Piercing” formation than any other general type. In addition to the basic, offensive, and defensive formation, each general has a fourth formation. Knight generals often have a raid formation, soldiers a protect formation, etc. Samurai more often than not have one that’s reminiscent of the Hoshi formation from the Sengoku era, but it could also be one of any other “piercing” types of formations. In their case, sadly, their eastern ethos comes from the narrative and aesthetics.
Interesting! The game sounds like a masterclass in history-inspired game design: combining various aspects of reality into a coherent, accessible, engaging, and (unintentionally) educational whole. Would love to play it someday.
Yes, I kind of expected the samurai to be just another unit… but at least that piercing/Hoshi formation sounds intriguing.
[…] From History to Fantasy: Exploring the Dynamics of Medieval Warfare in Gaming – Johansen Quijano (Tarrant County […]