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.....
Looks good
Excellent !! :-bd
Cheers - Phil. :)
very enjoyable, thanks for posting and including the O-o-B detail.
Thanks for a really interesting scenario and very enjoyable game :-bd =D> :-bd =D>
The congestion caused by the narrow peninsula between North Queensferry and Fifeshire made it very difficult for the Commonwealth to deploy ~X( ~X( ~X(
The Commonwealth cause was not helped by some fool overestimating the gap between the hills and the Inner Bay :-[ :-[ #-o
And therefore exposing our horse to devastating flanking fire X_X X_X X_X
Great looking game :D
Excellent! =D> =D>
That deserves to become an official scenario for FKIP (and indeed any other BCW ruleset)
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.
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.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 26 October 2021, 10:10:00 AM
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!
Looks terrific! :-bd
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 26 October 2021, 10:10:00 AM
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
Really great report
Loved the report.
One point of dissention, as a Fifer. It is The Kingdom of Fife not Fifeshire, no matter what the Sassenachs think :)
Quote from: fred. on 26 October 2021, 11:58:50 AM
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"..
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 28 October 2021, 11:30:05 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 28 October 2021, 12:55:54 PM
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!!
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 28 October 2021, 11:30:05 AM
...
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
Quote from: paulr on 30 October 2021, 01:22:39 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: fred. on 30 October 2021, 11:44:53 AM
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.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 30 October 2021, 09:18:27 AM
...
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