Encouraged by my previous two WoR solo games I decided to
try another RFCM set of rules; Regiment of Foote (RoFv1). I played the first
version of the rules and used 500 point early war ECW armies; a lot of
conscripts and pistolier cavalry, with a few veteran Royalist charger cavalry.
The terrain was randomly chosen and resulted in a remarkably symmetrical battlefield.
One of the most pleasing aspects of the rules is the
pre-game mini-campaign set-up. Each army undertakes a range of activities;
marching, camp etc. and suffers or benefits from random events; lost
stands/units, improvements in quality etc. This introduces a random element in
the final army composition resulting in a degree of imbalance between the
armies. The army who marches most is the attacker, and the bigger the
difference the greater the imbalance. In my game both sides completed the same
number of marches, so the attacker was the Royalists because their final score
was closest to zero. The defending Parlimentarian army lost one of their better
infantry units plus a medium gun, and 3 other units would arrive late for the
battle.
Deployment for both sides was fairly standard; infantry and
artillery in the centre and cavalry on each flank. Even with the reductions to
the Parlimentarian army, they still out-numbered the Royalists, but the
Royalists enjoyed superiority in cavalry particularly having some good quality
chargers. On the first Royalist turn they threw well for motivation and action
points. On the Right flank the Royalist charger cavalry swept forward into
immediate combat with the opposing Parlimentarian pistolier cavalry, and
destroyed them swiftly. The Royalist attack on the other flank was more
gradual, but the outcome was the same. On no occasion was the pistol fire by
the Parlimentarian cavalry sufficient to stop or disrupt the charging
Royalists. In the centre the Parlimentarian infantry advanced and this should
have proved a problem for their Royalist opponents, but at the crucial time the
central Parlimentarian general rolled badly for motivation, and things just ground
to a halt. The Parlimentarian ‘late’ units did arrive promptly, but the
distance from their generals meant that getting them up to the battleline
proved difficult. A similar command problem afflicted the Royalist flank generals,
which resulted in them leaving some of their command behind as the assault units
charged forwards. This is a common occurance in most RoF games I have played. I
think I should try a more patient approach, moving a force as a coherent body,
rather than rushing in with just a few units. The game clock reached zero and
it was time to calculate the victory points. The result was a clear Royalist
victory.
 |
| Royalist on right. Red counters denote veteran, yellow denote trained and green denote conscript. |
I think RoFv1 is possibly my favourite RFCM set of rules.
The mini-campaign is excellent and adds character to the games. The deployment
rules generate historical set-ups; the flanks have to be cavalry heavy compared
to the centre, which will contain most of the infantry. The battle rules are
clear, simple and play fast. There is a good balance between shooting and melee.
It can be annoying when a general fails his first motivation (ending his
attempts for the turn), or a unit throws a low score for activation. If a force
becomes spread out then this happens quite frequently. My main criticism is
that reinforcement/late units tend to sit, un-activated, on the baseline
because of the distance from the already deployed generals.
Finally, RFCM have published RoF version 2 (2016).
I have not purchased a copy myself but have read copies bought by others. I am
not impressed. The rules are not a development of version 1 but use a radically
different game mechanic and, in my opinion, should therefore have a different
title from RoF. It appears to me that the authors have simply transposed their
Square Bashing mechanic (which I like for a WW1 setting) on to the ECW period.
The battlefield in now divided into square grids and units move in a horizontal/vertical
basis. Individual unit sizes are smaller and standardised. Maybe others find
this OK, but I was very disappointed when I saw what the authors had done. I
was hoping for an improved edition based on version 1, which has many great
features, and not a totally changed game mechanic. I should stress that I have
not played using the second edition but I cannot see this happening in the near
future (sorry). I will be sticking to version 1!
No comments:
Post a Comment