possible ECW project using Baroque

[d_Guy]

Hi Paul,
Sounds like your crew enjoyed themselves with the rules and look forward to the culmination next week.

I can't add much to what Zippee has posted. As I invision the situation you describe with your Gallopers, the way you had it play out seems correct. Incidently, in my experience they often get a second melee' and occasional a third, a fourth would be exceedingly rare. What you describe is similar to my re-fight of Benburb, where the Anglo/Irish horse effectively turned the Irish flank with a chain pursuit.

Like Zippee I don't use the terrain placement rules, working from scenarios only.

The horse on both wings have clashed and both sides left wings are in trouble

This sort of thing is very common in battles of the period. At Nasby, I think, the same thing occurred and the battle pivoted counter clockwise.
If you can pick up a copy of Burne & Young's "The Great Civil War", it gives a quick overview with clear descriptions of the battles. It came out in the 1950's (I think) but still a great read.

...It seems to model the loss of control of Royalist horse but seems a little strange to those us used to one round of melee per turn

I agree, I think it models the period well. The pursuits completely change the complexion of the game so that the best laid plans quickly go out the window. Adding "friction" is want gamers now call it. I call it fun! Particularly in solo play where things can easily become boring. Incidently Irregular foot - Highlanders for example - can go off on these happy little excursions although usually harder for them to catch the fleeing enemy.

[Zippee]

The only problem with the GA pursuing into the sunset trope is that it doesn't happen in the game.

They pursue as long as an enemy unit is on the table but if the enemy withdraws or routs, they suddenly stop and wheel into the centre. . .

It really breaks the verisimilitude and requires some kind of pursue the baggage / race off the table house rule.

We are experimenting with something based off of withdraw but requiring success so stop pursuing. It's hard to find the middle ground between straitjacket and exploitable ability though, so I understand why it's not in the rules 

[d_Guy]

True, it was that very occurance that caused the aforementioned Anglo/Irish horse to pull up and threaten the Irish flank. Often, however, my pursuit gets checked by melee or fails to catch the fleeing unit.

In Mollinary's For King and Parliment rules, the horse fall into pursuit mode and have to be rally tested out of it. Failing this, unless stopped  by an enemy unit they will run right off the table top. Sounds like you are moving toward a similar implementation.

Had I had that condition at Benburb, the coalition horse would have continued until they reached the Irish Sea, the Irish would not have had to split their force to deal with the problem and the outcome may have been different.

[paulr]

Thanks for the feedback Zippee and d_Guy

I was pretty sure we got the cavalry interactions right, as I said felt strange compared to most rule sets that allow only one melee per turn, but gave a result with a sensible narrative

A couple of times we had to stop ourselves doing group moves as in DBX

I suspect we will use scenarios or 'preset' terrain most of the time and will have to get use to lower terrain density

[toxicpixie]

From the solo games I played it tended to be one biggish piece (usually a hill), a couple of smaller pieces off to a side, and... that was it. Seemed to match up with my limited knowledge of the periods battlefields!

I may be misremembering (haven't played for ages), but would an "easy" fix be a forced roll on the pursuit distance table? If it takes you off table you're off as if retired so VBU towards break point, if not it will probably stuff up an easy turn in to hit the flank of your opponents main line?

[paulr]

Another successful session saw a win to the forces of the King in our test game

All have enjoyed the rules so far but are keen to play another game before committing to them

We are back to the Solomons next week but the following week should see another Baroque test game, north of the border this time

If that goes well it will be time for me to place an order

[paulr]

After nearly a month we got a chance to have another successful test game of Baroque

Once again the time flew and much fun was had by all

Afterwards we had a very thoughtful conversation about how many different rule sets we regularly play

This has me wondering how many rule sets others regularly play, so I have created a poll http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,16698.msg244844.html#msg244844 and look forward to your feedback

I am now left pondering, do I add a new period that requires a new rule set, or do I look at a new 'sub-period' within an existing rule set

[Steve J]

I'm attempting to have one set of rules to cover a particular period. For example, Honours of War for the Seven Years War. But I can use these rules for the AWI with some tweaks, should I so wish, or for purely Imagi-Nations games. So for me sub-periods are the way to go it would seem.

[pierre the shy]

For the second test game "north of the border" scenario I used the existing bases I had from our initial Inverlochy refight and added cavalry wings to each side as I wanted to see how lancers and curiassiers (the somewhat mythical Duke of Argyll's bodyguard  ) worked. I set the timing of the encounter a week later than Inverlochy and some miles to the south near Dunstaffange castle on the road to Oban. For the actual cavalry I "borrowed" some units from DGuy's Fyvie scenario.  

The game itself went pretty well for the Covenant trotters, who managed to either hold or see off the dashing Royalist gallopers under the command of Nathanial Gordon and Sir Thomas Ogilvy respectively. The Duke's bodyguard was held in reserve to back up the inexperienced Covenant infantry who held the centre, though they were never called into action. Instead the large contingent of Argyll's own "regularly" armed foot regiment valiantly held off Montrose's main attack, seeing off two units of tough highland "warbands".

In the end the Royalists decided that they would retire, leaving the Duke and his followers in possession of the field.

As you can tell I am fairly keen on this period and would like to take it further but as Paul has pointed out we had a fairly long discussion after the game which identified that our band of 5 or 6 regulars already play around 9 set of rules on a fairly regular basis. Given that we do not play every week and that some games take more than an evening to complete the prospect of introducing yet another period was countered by some valid points. These were that we would not get to play any one period more than once or twice a year and as we use so many different rules that trying to remember how to use them all correctly was becoming a real issue.

So we all went off to have a bit of a rethink and Paul has put up a very interesting poll: http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,16698.msg244844.html#msg244844

From the results so far looks like we are at the top end of number of different periods played.

So stay tuned to see if its ECW (I follow DGuy's blog myself and am sorely tempted to follow his lead get some Scots ECW stuff even if it means playing small games on my table at home   ) or more AWI (French are being considered - another period that I always really enjoy playing with V&B wing scale).

[d_Guy]

I, obviously, enjoyed your report, Pierre. The more folks out on the Fringe the better! 

As it turns out, Argyll (who was still a Marquis at the time) had both a Lifeguard of Horse and Foot, so your conjecture Is dead on. Here’s the best part, just about everybody had some sort of retinue of factors, friends and clansmen so you are given a great deal of scope for your imagination. Like you, I rather like this time and place.

As much as I like Baroque, I would like it much better if I could play it in a group setting. It certainly works well enough solo but I am finding that For King and Parliament is a much better fit for me in that regard. As you have probably seen, it is grid based which allows it to easily scale up and down. I have become quite happy playing on a 3x4 foot battle mat.

One of the best things with FK&P for solo play is the playing card system that allows you to come and go with the game and easily “read” exactly what is going on by the spread of cards on the table, a real help when you don’t have an opponent to remind you.

I will stay tuned and hope to see you up north of the border.

[paulr]

Thanks again for organising an interesting and enjoyable game. The 'dashing Royalist gallopers' and 'tough highland "warbands"' weren't quite as strong as we expected

I think there were two issues discussed as we packed up after the game

The main issue was the number of rule sets and knowing the rules well enough not to be often searching in the rules or making 'beginner's mistakes' through not understanding them

The second issue was that with the various forces we have any new troops won't get to see the table that often

I've just done a rough count and between us we probably have about 60 different armies and navies across 11 periods

[pierre the shy]

I, obviously, enjoyed your report, Pierre. The more folks out on the Fringe the better!  

As it turns out, Argyll (who was still a Marquis at the time) had both a Lifeguard of Horse and Foot, so your conjecture Is dead on. Here's the best part, just about everybody had some sort of retinue of factors, friends and clansmen so you are given a great deal of scope for your imagination. Like you, I rather like this time and place.

As much as I like Baroque, I would like it much better if I could play it in a group setting. It certainly works well enough solo but I am finding that For King and Parliament is a much better fit for me in that regard. As you have probably seen, it is grid based which allows it to easily scale up and down. I have become quite happy playing on a 3x4 foot battle mat.

One of the best things with FK&P for solo play is the playing card system that allows you to come and go with the game and easily "read" exactly what is going on by the spread of cards on the table, a real help when you don't have an opponent to remind you.

I will stay tuned and hope to see you up north of the border.

I am probably beyond the fringe already DGuy I did take some pictures of the game so I will write up  a battle report when I get the chance.

I will acquire a copy of FK&P once they are published for sure. I like the card activation system you use - - Maybe not for everyone though we also use it the WW1 games we play and it gives good results there.  

Baroque works well but the combat outcomes can be a bit eyeopening sometimes.

Thanks for correcting Argyll's title, Maybe I watched Liam Neeson in Rob Roy once too often - I am pretty sure Argyll is portrayed a Duke in that film, but that's late C17 early C18?

Anyway we will see what a bit of further debate produces 

[d_Guy]

Looking forward to the report and pics! Glad you’re beyond the Fringe 

The title thing is perplexing, particularly for an American (and Leveller that I am  ). It’s hard enough tracking what’s going on without the bl**dy title and name changes. Very much liked “Rob Roy”. The Duke of Argyll was probably “our” Argyll’s son or possibly grandson since I think the movie was set sometime before the 1715 rising.

The random activation of brigades (or commands in Baroque) is excellent in solo play - people in multi-player games would likely not be to fond of it.

Good luck.

[paulr]

We quite enjoy the random activation of brigades, both in Baroque and If the Lord Spares Us for WW I

The active player is often interacting with a couple of players on the other side. The rest of us take the opportunity to offer 'helpful advice' and commentary on the outcomes