What the last rules set you played in 2022

Started by pierre the shy, 15 January 2022, 10:03:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Gwydion

I haven't played Irregular Wars in ages (want to play again now) but I had to dig them out and have a look through to see. You're right (sorry this is no help at all) I can't find any other victory conditions for a straight up fight than in the description: 'two foes whose sole aim is to drive their opponent from the battlefield'.
So I guess that's it, although just below this he does encourage players to devise their own scenarios, and I guess by extension, victory conditions, if you don't want to be slogging it out to the last musket/club.

I'd not noticed before - probably because we always devised scenarios with set objectives - relieve the fort, capture the supply wagons sort of thing.
Thanks for reminding me of a great set of rules though!
Sorry I couldn't find anything either.

Steve J

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Shadow of the Eagles
2) What armies were confronted? - British vs French 1815
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Very, even though a while since I last played them.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo.
6) What went well? - The first game I forgot a few things, but the second game pretty much everything worked fine. These are playtest games to get au fait with the rules in advance of a Waterloo game next week.
7) What could have been improved? - Not a lot really as I was trying out various situations to get to know the rules. The second game was a convincing win for the Brits as the French tried to force a ridgeline and were bloodily repulsed.

paulr

Isn't practicing considered akin to cheating in some circles ;)

A couple of games to get refamiliar with the rules makes a lot of sense to me :)

I look forward to hearing about the Waterloo game
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2023 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Steve J

As I will be taking on the role of Wellington, I need to be au fait with the rules as some of the other players will never have played them before. Or you could just say I'm cheating ;)  ;D .

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

Quote from: paulr on 30 June 2022, 08:26:18 PMIsn't practicing considered akin to cheating in some circles ;)

A couple of games to get refamiliar with the rules makes a lot of sense to me :)

I look forward to hearing about the Waterloo game

And it ruins the fun  :P
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

Ithoriel

"I wouldn't give tuppence for all the rest" :)
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

Westmarcher

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Honours of War
2) What armies were confronted? - Prussia vs Austria (Seven Years War)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, even though a while since we last played them.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Two. Steve Holmes (Prussians) and me (Austrians)
6) What went well? - The whole scenario went quite well (see below)
7) What could have been improved? - Other than perhaps refine the supply wagon rule that we added, not a lot really.

We played C S Grant's "Bridge Demolition" Table Top Teaser. The background was that the Austrians had caught the Prussians off balance and were advancing down two roads towards a vital bridge with the aim of capturing it intact. Meanwhile, a Prussian rear guard with engineer support had arrived with orders to demolish it.

At the start of the game, every Prussian unit was on the field. The only Austrian units were 4 scouting squadrons of hussars.  Austrian reinforcements were expected to arrive at two entry points over the course of the first 6 turns - but, because of the confusion of marching overnight, which units will arrive where, and when, is unknown. This was covered by writing the names of each unit down, shoving them in an envelope and then throwing two D6; one D6 determined the Turn number and the other (odd or even) which entry point. It was like the oscars as we opened the envelopes on each turn.

In our game, the engineers expected to be ready to destroy the bridge by the end of Turn 12. However, to add to the excitement the Prussians had a supply wagon which, if it could arrive with more powder before this, they might be able to destroy the bridge sooner. In another extra rule, we decreed that if the engineers were hit by small arms fire on the bridge, a D6 would be thrown to see if a stray shot would set the charges off!

As host and organiser, I was concerned that the scenario might prove to be a damp squib because, as C S Grant pointed out, the game would have little purpose if it is too easy for either side to achieve their aim so the number of turns chosen to prepare the bridge for demolition was obviously going to be critical. Fortunately, thanks to the author's suggestions, it all worked out well and we had a thoroughly enjoyable game, even though I was beaten yet again by Steve.
[Not fair! They're my toys and I should be allowed to win at least once!  :'(  :P  ]

P.s. If you're a member of the Honours of War forum, a full report with photos has been posted (if you're not a member, why not join just to see some SYW eye-candy in various scales?)

Honours of War Forum
 
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

T13A

Hi

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Age of Honor (Age of Eagles (AoE) derivative) SYW.
2) What armies were confronted? - Prussia vs Austria/Saxons
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Three
6) What went well? - Flowed pretty well, fortunately the others were familiar with the Fire and Fury rules which these are based on.
7) What could have been improved? Takes quite along time to work through the hand-to-hand die roll modifiers but will come with practice.

A couple of photos:





Cheers Paul
T13A Out!

FierceKitty

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Iacta Alea Est! with mini-campaign supplement
2) What armies were confronted? - Persian Civil War (Anabasis)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Two. Not quite a standard game, however; I deliberately made mistakes to help the game resemble the battle of Cunuxa, and shall be controlling various forces in the next few linked battles.
6) What went well? - Things turned out pretty authentically. If Cyrus had won and become king, it would have been a very brief campaign.
7) What could have been improved? - There was no chocolate cake!
I don't drink coffee to wake up. I wake up to drink coffee.

T13A

Hi

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Twilight of the Soldier King SYW.
2) What armies were confronted? - Hanoverians/Hessians/Prussians v French (Battle of Krefeld)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - No. First trial game for all of us.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - yes
5) How many players were in the game? - Four
6) What went well? - Well, I did like the fact that it was harder to unlimber artillery than limber it up.
7) What could have been improved? To be honest these rules were not my cup of tea, I thought several of the game mechanics 'fiddly' and some simply not right. That said we are giving them another go next week.

A couple of photos:





Cheers Paul
T13A Out!

steve_holmes_11

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Irregular Wars
2) What armies were confronted? - Hollanders (Myself) attacking and East Indies Sultanate (Westmarcher)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, but got confused with a couple of minor interpretations - next time will be perfect.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Two.
6) What went well? - The East Indies infantry were handled superbly.
7) What could have been improved? - Slow setup (Mainly my poor logistics) and the "Sodden ground" chance card really slowing the action.

It's been a very busy couple of weeks since the game, the summary is therefore extremely brief.

A naval landing party pushed inland, while the locals waited in ambush.
The naval guns could not keep up with the advance, so were left with an escort of sailors.
Local elephant forces harried the advance guard with light artillery, while their infantry crouched behind terrain in ambush.

Then the rain came leaving the ground sodden and all terrain rough.

Combat continued, through very slowly.
A flanking move by the Sultan's horse and some tribal scouts eliminated the cannon, their guard and captured the preacher.
The Hollanders defeated the elephants, and the ambushing native infantry won a tough battle against the Hollanders musketeers.

With mobility limited, and both sides badly reduced, the Hollanders marched back to their ships without pursuit.

An attritional draw, rather spoiled by the effects of the sodden ground card.

Raider4


Quote. . . next time will be perfect . . .

A bold claim!  ;)

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

Hwiccee

Quote from: T13A on 21 September 2022, 10:21:56 AMTo be honest these rules were not my cup of tea, I thought several of the game mechanics 'fiddly' and some simply not right. That said we are giving them another go next week.


Paul can I ask which mechanics you found 'fiddly'? Also which were not right?

T13A

Hi Hwiccee

I hope this can give you an idea of where I am coming from.

Units can be Standard, large, small or tiny each representing approximately 3000 men for a large unit, to 1250 for a tiny unit, but they all have the same 'footprint' on the table. That seems odd to me.

Our 10mm SYW units (Pendraken of course!) have a frontage of approximately 10cms which meant that a 'base width' was 5cms. As a normal infantry move in line is one base width (within 'tactical' distance) that meant a normal move was just 5cms, and that is just moving straight forward. Pretty much any other move including wheeling requires a successful 'action test' (i.e. a die roll and on occasion several, one after the other). Moving in any sort of 'bad going' is half a base width i.e. 2.5cms in our case. There are occasions after combat where units are required to move a quarter of a base width i.e. 12.5mm in our case. There is an example in the rules of a unit with 'standard' mobility having to take 3 separate moves and two action tests to 'oblique' forward one move. I see from the rules that they recommend (kind of) a 'base width' of 6cms, but even if we had used that I do not think it would have made any material difference, to me that all felt 'fiddly'.

When moving into contact with an enemy unit the move can only be in a straight line (no wheeling etc.) and an 'action test' is required. Units are then moved so that they align exactly with the unit they are opposing (which unit actually moves to align depends on whether it is infantry or cavalry). Any units in 'rear support' from either side can also be moved to align with the unit they are supporting (and as far as I can see this can be any number of units in line one behind the other). The above means that you can easily have the situation that a unit moving forward into contact with an enemy unit that just 'clips' the very end of the opposing unit, successfully contacts it, and then either they or their opponents are moved bodily to conform/align with each other, moving a considerable distance from where the initial contact was made. That just does not feel right to me.

When a 'wing' (i.e. left, centre, right, reserve etc.) loses half or more of its units it has to take a morale test. Fair enough, but as far as I can see in the rules the strength of a 'wing' cannot change during a game. I can understand that the units in a 'corps' in the Napoleonic period (for example) might not change during a battle but I'm pretty sure that there were times in the Seven Years War period when a 'wing' was sent reinforcements of a number of battalions and or squadrons from another part of the field and thereby changing the original strength of the wing. Doesn't feel very Seven Years War 'ish' to me.

The above are the main issues I personally had with the rules as written, and as I mentioned we are planning on giving them another go next week. As this was our first outing with the rules I am sure we got some things wrong and I would be happily corrected if any of the above is wrong.

Cheers Paul
T13A Out!