Battle of Inverkeithing 1651 refought

[Raider4]

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

I asked that a while ago - apparently it is based on a response given by someone at the time to the question.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Initally the Parliamentry armies did not want to remove Charlie, so their standards had the slogan "For King and Parliament" on them, at least for some regiments.

[steve_holmes_11]

Initally the Parliamentry armies did not want to remove Charlie, so their standards had the slogan "For King and Parliament" on them, at least for some regiments.

Jolly sneaky, those members of parliament!!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Jolly sneaky, those members of parliament!!

Still are !

[paulr]

...
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.
...

You'll typically only use 2-3 types of cavalry in a game and most of the special quality factors alter the starting values for standard factors; e.g. well mounted gives a unit one more dash

[steve_holmes_11]

Still are !

That was implied.

[steve_holmes_11]

You'll typically only use 2-3 types of cavalry in a game and most of the special quality factors alter the starting values for standard factors; e.g. well mounted gives a unit one more dash

This thread has inspired me to take another look, and I'm pleased with what I'm seeing.

I suppose much of this fits into "I wouldn't have written it like that".
A paragraph of text and a game of "find the number", where there could be a stat-line or a list of "Well mounted +1 dash".

But ploughing through the fluff  is part of the fun.

At least it isn't Dungeons and Dragons with 7 supplementary spltbooks.
Nor is it written in Barkerese, eh readers.

[fred.]

Glad you are having another look at FKaP - those cavalry factors are fairly unimportant within the game as a whole, and are essentially part of force creation rather than something heavily reference when playing the game.

The main cavalry types are the distinction between Dutch and Swedish horse, which are much more significant.

[steve_holmes_11]

Glad you are having another look at FKaP - those cavalry factors are fairly unimportant within the game as a whole, and are essentially part of force creation rather than something heavily reference when playing the game.

The main cavalry types are the distinction between Dutch and Swedish horse, which are much more significant.

Thanks for the advice.

It's an important distinction for any budding rule writers.

Force creation can be arranged outside playing hours, so that part of your product is more tolerant of fiddly bits, design notes and other fluff.
The execution of the game (for most of us) happens during "premium time", and we generally want clearly written and easily implemented mechanisms.

"+1 for for firing in line". Acceptable.

"Doughty red-coated chaps, drawing a bead from linear formations will enjoy a bonus as described in our list of modifiers (elsewhere)". This book is going under the cloth to serve as a terrain feature.

[paulr]

...
A paragraph of text and a game of "find the number", where there could be a stat-line or a list of "Well mounted +1 dash".
...

The list you are looking for is Figure VII Unit properties which begins on p66
The Well mounted stat-line is the third on p67

And as Fred says this is part of force creation and will be on your roster or unit labels