AAR ECW (FK&P) 24Jun18

I managed to give the new ECW rules “For King and Parliament (FK&P)” (Simon Miller & Andrew Brentnall, 2018) a try in an opposed game. I prepared army lists for a Waller versus Hopton battle set in 1643. Ian randomly got the Parliamentarians, and I got the Royalists. We decided the terrain features and alternated in placing them on table, resulting in a fairly congested layout. Then cards were used to determine their final positions or removal, which de-cluttered the battlefield. The result was a fairly open table on one flank, whilst the other flank was obstructed by woods, enclosures and a church.

Royalist at bottom

Right from the start I realised that the dice-gods (or chit-gods) were not with me! My flashy cavalier ‘Swedish’ horse on the open flank failed to brush aside the outnumbered ‘Dutch’ style roundheads, and in the next couple of turns were eliminated. The Parliamentary pursuit was controlled by Ian successfully activating and making saving throws. The second brigade of Royalist horse were in a position to launch a devastating flank counter-attack, but it failed to materialise due to repeated drawing of ‘1’ chits by myself. The Parliament horse was able to recover and face down the now depleted Royalist threat.

Royalists at bottom (view from right flank)

On the other flank, my militia brigade moved very slowly forward and then was held for many turns by a single Parliament dragoon regiment behind some hedges. Only in the dying stages of the battle did I manage to eliminate these pesky dragoons, and this was to be my only success in the whole battle!

The Royalist centre starts to collapse

In the centre the match up looked evenly balanced but again the dice-gods intervened and I was not able to resist the roundhead onslaught. A couple of my Royalist regiments broke and a resounding victory was achieved by Ian’s Parliament forces.

In this game both sides had some artillery and this was largely ineffective. I found out that ‘Dutch’ horse were more resilient than I expected, and that ‘Swedish’ horse became brittle after their first charge. They could have been more effective if only I was able to roll reasonable (or even ‘average’) dice. I don’t know how or why I have transgressed against the dice/chit-gods, but on the evidence of this game, I must have done something very wrong! I think Ian enjoyed playing using these rules (not just because he easily won) and the game progressed at a good pace. After a few turns both of us were able to play without much recourse to either the rule book or my QRS sheets. I continue to be impressed by the simplicity of the rules, and I especially like the terrain generation mechanism which provides a varied battlefield. I still prefer Regt of Foote (1^st edition, RFCM 2002) as my go to ECW rules, but as an interesting alternative, FK&P provide a fun game. The gridded tabletop makes movement etc. clear, and the activation mechanism stimulates thoughtful decision making.

Review of For King & Parliament ECW rules

I bought a copy of the new ECW rules “For King and Parliament (FK&P)” (Simon Miller & Andrew Brentnall, 2018) at Salute this year. I had heard good reports of their sister rules covering Ancient conflict, “To the Strongest”, and was further encouraged by an excellent demo game put on at the show. In addition, the rules were reported to be good for solo play and, due to diary constraints, my opposed gaming opportunities are restricted at the moment. After reading through the rules, I decided to try the game as a solo experience using the Battle of Montgomery, 1644 scenario provided at the back of the rule book.

Before discussing the rules, I will briefly outline the outcome of the game I played. The battlefield is fairly open and splits into a clash of foot on one flank and cavalry on the other. The infantry fight was fairly even. The dragoons and forlorn hope units were cleared fairly quickly due to their single hit strengths. The clash of the main units of foot was more prolonged with neither side dominating. The cavalry fight was more fluid. Initially Parliament was ahead, routing units of Col Trevor’s brigade, but the impact of pursuit became apparent, which opened up a gap in the Parliament formation. The remaining un-brigaded Royalist horse moved around the open Parliament flank looking for a decisive blow. At this point the returning Parliament foraging horse returned arriving in a compact block directly behind the now exposed rear of the untried Royalist horse. Fairfax’s veteran regiment charged Vaughn’s regiment in the rear; they had a large number of to-hit chances and missed them all! In contrast the Royalist regiment passed its untried test and promptly scored 2 return hits, killing the Parliament commander (Col. Brereton), and routing the shocked veterans! This action had bottled up the Parliament re-enforcements and allowed the other Royalist cavalry to attack and destroy the exposed Myddleton’s regiment and kill/capture the attached Parliament C-in-C (Sir John Meldrum). This ended the battle and gave the Royalists victory.

Regarding the rules themselves:

1. The authors use adjusted decks of playing cards to resolve all actions and combat, although they do suggest alternatives such as chits and dice. In my game I used D10 dice instead of cards and this worked OK, but they are not ideal when working out activations. There is a slight impact on the distribution of probability by using dice but this is minimal. I think in future I will move to a hybrid system of chits and dice. I think chits would simply ‘feel’ better for activations, and dice ‘feel’ more satisfying when resolving combat. I think playing cards would just clutter the table un-necessarily, and I dislike having to shuffle repeatedly, so I would avoid using cards.

2. The tabletop is gridded. Personally I’m fine with this (I play and like many games from RFCM, which often use a grid system), but other gamers may not enjoy such a mechanism. On the plus side, the grids allow rule mechanisms to be clear and simple and, significantly, allow players to use any basing conventions they are happy with. On the negative side, gridded games severely limit the movement and manoeuvre options, and can feel a bit like a boardgame rather than a conventional wargame. The appeal of a gridded wargame is purely down to a player’s personal preference, but I have noticed a marked increase in the number of gridded games produced recently.

3. The activation mechanism is the defining feature of these rules. The first activation of a unit will usually be successful, but there is always a chance of failure. The beauty is in the ‘Push Your Luck’ element of deciding further actions, where failure becomes more likely, and which can prematurely end brigade activations. Prioritising activations becomes a key decision, and placement of commanders can be vital to mitigate against failure. Essentially, this ‘Push Your Luck’ element is at the core of these rules, and if the card/chit/dice Gods are against you, then your plans can quickly disintegrate. This mechanism creates the fun and tension within the game, but players have to accept a high degree of luck and swing within the outcomes. I like the uncertainty and change of fortune produced, particularly in a solo experience. I know many gamers, especially those who like to plan meticulously, who would hate the system. So again, it comes down to personal preference.

4. Combat resolution is very simple to calculate and there is little need to refer to the rule book. I like the differentiation between firing tactics (single/double/salve), and the ammo rules work well. I would like to try artillery and see how these perform on the tabletop. The game I played lacked ‘Dutch’ horse, so again I would be interested to see how these work on the table. The use of ‘dash’ to reflect the freshness of horse units is a nice mechanism and fills an omission in other rule systems. Cavalry pursuit is important and can really muck-up your plans (as Parliament found out in my game). Rallying was not used as much as I expected because, once forces are locked in combat, they don’t have opportunities to recover.

5. The ancillary rules covering battlefield set up (terrain choices and placement, scouting, points etc.) all appear fine. I liked the ‘untried’ status of units in my game, and I particularly like the variable personality rules for generals, and the variable strategy options. One criticism of the rules is the lack of a QRS. Most of the rules are very simple and easy to remember, but a QRS would help to reinforce turn structure and remind players of modifiers to things like activations.

Overall, I like For King and Parliament. They give a quick, fast paced game with many important decisions to be made. There is a high level of luck which can engender significant swings of fortune, which could put some players off. I think they are eminently suitable for solo play. I don’t think FK&P will replace my favourite rules for ECW i.e. Regiment of Foote v1 (RFCM, 2002). Interestingly I rejected the second version of Regiment of Foote (RFCM, 2016) because it was gridded and was too much like Square Bashing (see an earlier blog post). With FK&P, the gridded mechanism worked well, but the core of the rules lies in the activation mechanism.

Review of Pikeman’s Lament

Review of Pikeman’s Lament by Daniel Mersey & Michael Leck (Osprey Publishing #19, 2017).

As to be expected from Osprey, these rules are both well written and beautifully presented. The core mechanic is the same as that which was successfully used in the popular Lion/Dragon Rampant rules (also by Daniel Mersey and published by Osprey). I reviewed Lion Rampant a couple of years ago (June 2015) and, essentially, all my comments there can be applied here. This is my major gripe with Pikeman’s Lament; the rules are basically just Lion Rampant with the text/pictures altered to fit the new historic period. Working from a Lion Rampant document file, I think the author could easily modify it into Pikeman’s Lament in a matter of days. Altering the photo images would again be simple, so much so, the layout of the final publication is a good match to the previous rule set. I imagine the most time consuming aspect for the publication would have been getting the cover art commissioned. There are some tweaks to the unit stat’s, and a few special rules, but these are minor alterations/additions around the edges, which I’m sure resulted from playtesting for the final version. So, although I like the rule mechanisms a lot, I feel the author has been a bit ‘lazy’. I would have liked to ‘feel’ that the author had thought more about unique aspects of the period to distinguish it from the Medieval setting covered in the previous rules. I would have liked more “Oh! That’s different!” moments when reading them; more period flavour maybe? The main ameliorating factor with Pikeman’s Lament is the low price. Paying only £10-12 for a set of rules that does the job of modifying Lion Rampant into a Pike/Shot setting is fine with me. If I had paid £20-30 for this ‘new’ rule set (considering I already have Lion Rampant), then I would have felt miffed and ripped-off!

So, in conclusion, I’m sure Pikeman’s Lament will generate practical, enjoyable games that work on the tabletop. The couple of solo games I have played so far bear this out. But, I’m disappointed because I don’t think a lot of thought has gone into these rules. It is possible that the core mechanics from Lion Rampant are so good they can be transferred across historical/military ages unaltered, but I’m not convinced this is the case. I can fully understand the author’s motivation; you have a ‘winning’ mechanism which you can easily apply to a widening range of periods – so, just do it! Many rule writers have followed this path (e.g. the DBX series, or the Black Powder series etc.), but this can be a cul-de-sac and is a ‘sterile’ approach to game design. When playing large scale skirmish games of the Pike/Shot period, I don’t want to feel that it is just the Medieval Lion Rampant with different figures! The rules might work well but I want to ‘feel’ that I’m playing a different game, a different period, with different mechanics; otherwise where will it all end?

Grump over! I am actually looking forward to trialling Pikeman’s Lament in opposed games and getting my ECW skirmish figures on the table after a long absence. After a few games I will probably write a comparison with other rule sets which aim to cover a similar period at this scale (e.g. Donnybrook, Once Upon a Time in the West Country etc.). I might even get my Highlanders and/or pirates on the table as well!

Off the Painting Table (Sept 2016)

I am currently between projects and therefore at a bit of a loss about what to paint next. Searching my ‘horde’ of unpainted/assembled figures there was a couple of sprues of ECW figures. This was a quick and simple choice which would add to my collection of figures for skirmish games. I think the figures are from Warlord, and I choose red coats to fit with my existing under-strength units.

I also painted a couple of figures a grey-coated Scots, and I found a sprue of riderless horses which are always useful on the battlefield. I find it strange that in skirmish games, casualties to cavalry involve removal of both horse and rider; units just disappear. Where possible I like to place the odd riderless horse and casualty figure to at least remind players that some action has occurred.

The addition of these figures has encouraged me to get some of my ECW skirmish rules from the shelf. Maybe it is time to have another go at Donnybrook?

After Action Report; Solo ECW game (Regt of Foote v1 rules) 13 July 2016

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!

Review of Donnybrook rules

I have reached that point in life when suggesting suitable Christmas presents from members of my family becomes difficult. There is very little I actually want! Of course wargame related items are the exception to this general statement. So, I suggested that my wife might buy me a copy of Donnybrook (Clarence Harrison & Barry Hilton; Wordtwister Publishing 2013), a set of rules that I have been aware of but had not yet taken the plunge to purchase. The reason for my hesitation was probably the price (£27) which is a lot for a product I have no experience of, and which may only cover a niche area of my gaming interests (possible use with pirates, and some Jacobite Highlanders that have been lying idle on my shelves for years!). A few comments on TMP and a discussion on the Meeples & Miniatures podcast did spark my interest though. So what do you get for your money?  The rule book is a beautifully presented set of rules, lists, scenarios, game play and thumbnail descriptions of conflicts covered during the 1660-1760 timeframe. The photos of figures are excellent quality, and many show games in progress (with a ‘comic-strip’ style of commentary, which may not be to everyone’s taste). The authors forward explains that these rules have been extensively played and derive from rules comprising 2 sides of A4 paper, so how come they are now part of a 112 page rule book?

The basic rules only occupy 12 pages and are fairly simple. The central mechanic revolves around a card activation system where each unit/character has an individual card in the deck, plus there are ‘reload’ and ‘turn end’ cards. Unlike other similar rule sets (e.g. Muskets & Tomahawks) no cards are supplied with the rules; you have to produce your own. I have initially opted to use standard playing cards but I can foresee future projects designing and producing my own conflict specific cards. I must admit to liking the card activation mechanic in games, particularly solo games but it can work well in opposed games with opponents who have a ‘relaxed’ attitude to winning/losing.

The second, key mechanic is the ‘Ability’ dice used by units; Recruits use D6, Regulars D8 and Elites D10 (note to self – must buy some more D8’s!). For shooting, close combat and rallying the unit rolls using their Ability dice type, generally requiring 6+ for success. The quality difference between troops is clear in the probabilities of success due to the dice scores achievable. There are few modifiers and saving throws are made for cover etc.

Whilst these two mechanics drive the game, the other rules are very basic and easily understood. For example, there are rules differentiating close order troops in comparison to loose order troops (they move slower, have improved ‘volley’ fire and have restricted attack zones etc.). There are rules related to specific weapons (pikes, halberds, bayonets etc.) and effects of armour etc. There are also optional rules for additional extraordinary events which can add extra chrome and uncertainty. So, if the basic rules are simple and short, what else do you get for your buck?

The next section covers 8 different factions. I can see myself using 4 of these factions: Army, Civilian Mob, Highlanders, and Outlaws (i.e. Pirates). There other factions that are less appealing to me: Covenanters, Rapparees, Tribal, and the bizarre Cultists. Each faction is structured differently, mainly in relation to the special characters or effects that can be included. I think a bit more imagination could have been used in this section of the rules (e.g. the authors like using hunting dogs, repeating this character in multiple factions), but I feel it becomes clear that these basic factions can be used as a foundation for players own designs. Donnybrook can easily be adapted and used as a ‘toolbox’ for players wishing to recreate any conflict of the period (or even slightly outside the period).

The first half of the rule book covers rules and faction lists, and does the job very well, so what is covered by the last half of the book? Scenarios, this seems to an obligatory section for any published rulebook. The scenarios included are fairly standard (Convoy, Raid etc.) and do not excite me because there is nothing original here. I don’t know why authors include this section unless they have something new to say. Next, the rules show a game ‘in play’ in a comic book style. This is very pretty but does not really demonstrate rule mechanisms. I really cannot see what this AAR adds to the publication. Finally there are historical thumbnail sketches of conflicts that could be played using Donnybrook. Again this section is fairly basic and seems to me to be more unnecessary ‘padding’.

I have played three solo games using Donnybrook, and the next club game arranged will be an opposed game using my Jacobite highlanders (an AAR report will be published at a later date). The first solo game was ECW (slightly out of period, but Donnybrook worked well) using two Army factions. The game was fast and fun. Most action was seen by the musketeers, but the decisive combat was surprisingly a push by the Parlimentary pikes, greatly aided by the attachment of a very energetic drummer and ensign. The Royalist cavalry activation card rarely came up, so they stood about and were shot to pieces (I therefore have not tested how well cavalry work). I expected Sergeant characters to be more influential aiding musketeers to reload, but again activation card order did not work in their favour.

My next game was the 1745 Jacobite rebellion pitting Highlanders against the Government Army.

 This game ended in a bloody draw. A unit of government militia was deployed forward (aided by a scout character) and successfully shot one highlander unit to pieces (but the militia lost 3 figures to misfires!). A second highlander unit (aided by a bard character) then charged the government militia and routed them. This highlander unit proceeded to charge the government horse, who were standing around (their activation card never appeared in time) and slaughtered them. So, yet again, I was not able to test the effectiveness of cavalry in the game. Meanwhile the government regulars were using volleys to inflict significant casualties on the remaining advancing highlanders.

Both sides had lost 50% casualties and were not in a position to force the issue, so I decided the game to be a draw. In this game, sergeants did help the government troops to reload and close order volley fire was effective. The highlanders were particularly aided by having the bard and piper characters.

 

My final game was using two Pirate factions (I forgot to take photos of the game). This game had more close combat than firing, because the unit composition was more varied i.e. each unit had a random mix of muskets, pistols and swords; rather than dedicated units of muskets etc. The firing of  pistols prior to charging was highly effective. I think that the defenders should equally get to fire their pistols prior to close combat (I may make this a house rule). Due to the ‘mixed’ nature of the units, I introduced a random selection of which figures were casualties, which slowed the game down a bit. I also found it more difficult to keep track of the composition of units. There were no mounted troops involved, so I still don’t have a clue about how effective they may be. The pirate game worked fine, but lacked a distinct piratical feel that I was hoping for. I think I need to design additional elements to address this and the beauty of Donnybrook is that this is easily achieved.

So finally, what do I think of Donnybrook? Overall the rules are beautifully produced, fast, fun and easy to play. They are particularly suitable for solo games. They should be treated as a toolbox and players can (and should) modify them to suit their needs. I do feel there is too much padding in the rules, which adds little to the package and has, presumably, added significantly to the £27 price tag. I do feel the price is too high for a set of rules that are essentially so very basic. I would not mind if the padding encouraged me to undertake new projects, but on the whole it left me feeling rather flat. I can see myself using these rules for Jacobite rebellion, and possibly ECW. Regarding pirates, I will need to think a bit more on how much additional chrome needs adding to get the flavour I require. I think the authors should develop an online resource for period specific cards, and a downloadable QRS would be most useful.