Battle of Inverkeithing 1651 refought

[pierre the shy]

We played a refight of the Battle of Inverkeithing 1651 a couple of weeks ago now using FK&P that has taken a few days for me to write up (maybe I was too busy reading other stuff Sunjester  )

I put a fair amount of effort into putting the scenario together and writing up the batrep so I hope you will take the time to read it on my occassional blog at https://betweenthelines10mm.blogspot.com/2021/10/lambert-attacks-inverkeithing-july-20.html

Everything you need to know about the battle to make sense of the refight is outlined in the introduction of the batrep.

I won't tell you what happened other than to say it was an enjoyable night out, and there is talk of a rematch at some stage.....

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Looks good

[Techno II]

Excellent !!

Cheers - Phil.

[Norm]

very enjoyable, thanks for posting and including the O-o-B detail.

[paulr]

Thanks for a really interesting scenario and very enjoyable game

The congestion caused by the narrow peninsula between North Queensferry and Fifeshire made it very difficult for the Commonwealth to deploy

The Commonwealth cause was not helped by some fool overestimating the gap between the hills and the Inner Bay 
And therefore exposing our horse to devastating flanking fire

[mmcv]

Great looking game 

[DecemDave]

Excellent! 

That deserves to become an official scenario  for  FKIP (and indeed any other BCW ruleset)

[steve_holmes_11]

Lovely pictures, and good reading.

I must have another look at For King and Parliament.
I found it slightly less readable than To the Strongest, but the smaller variety of troop types may make for easier play.

[fred.]

Great scenario and game - thanks for writing them up.

I'll have a more detailed look, as I think its one my figures will stretch to playing. Will probably have to use all my Scots cavalry as lancers, but that's not going to be too much of a problem, as they are all lancers in this scenario.

[fred.]

I must have another look at For King and Parliament.
I found it slightly less readable than To the Strongest, but the smaller variety of troop types may make for easier play.

That's interesting and the opposite to me. I really struggled with TtS, but got FKaP pretty quickly, and was then able to go back to TtS and understand it!

[Westmarcher]

Looks terrific! 

[paulr]

Lovely pictures, and good reading.

I must have another look at For King and Parliament.
I found it slightly less readable than To the Strongest, but the smaller variety of troop types may make for easier play.

I can not recommend FK&P highly enough
The rules flow really smoothly and give a great period feel. The games are always interesting and a whole lot of fun

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Really great report

[Ithoriel]

Loved the report.

One point of dissention, as a Fifer. It is The Kingdom of Fife not Fifeshire, no matter what the Sassenachs think

[steve_holmes_11]

That's interesting and the opposite to me. I really struggled with TtS, but got FKaP pretty quickly, and was then able to go back to TtS and understand it!

That may depend on reading styles, and familiarity with the historic periods.

I found the King and Parliament extra layers of cavalry quality "Raw / veteran, well mounted / poorly mounted, Scottish, Untried" threw me into a ball of confusion.
I never do well when the effect of such things are squirrelled away in a paragraph of text.

Paradoxically, I coped reasonably well with the 20 plus troop types for the ancients rules.
Perhaps because I didn't expect to use more than four of them for any army.

I do find that an actual run-through any game solves a lot of problems.
Some (Neither King and Parliament or To the Strongest - I hasten to add) are just so Byzantine that even a trivial play through is almost impossible.


I also wonder whether it should really be "For King OR Parliament"..