Not much of a battle report as such. Four Rejects gathered via Zoom, and a fifth spectated, to have a practice medieval game using Flower of Chivalry rules. These will be the rules used to fight any tabletop actions arising from the Imagi-Medieval campaign.
 |
| The Battle of Crecy, from an illuminated manuscript of Jean Froissart's Chronicles |
Jonathan and Ray were pitted against Steve and Dan. Meanwhile, Lee spectated.
For the campaign, I have given Flower of Chivalry units points values. For this game, I asked both sides to produce a 1000 point army.
Ray and Jonathan constructed the following:
1 unit of foot knights
1 unit of men at arms
1 unit of Longbow
1 unit of mounted knights
1 unit of foot knights
1 unit of men at arms
Steve and Dan had:
2 units of longbow
3 units of retainers
1 unit of longbow
4 units of men at arms
It looked like a situation of quality versus quantity.
Based on the number of units, the Army Morale Points for Ray/Jonathan is 6 and for Dan/Steve is 10.
The figures are 2mm Irregular miniatures.
The Battle
 |
| Jonathan's and Ray's smaller army look north across the table to Dan's and Steve's array. |
Both sides advanced towards each other. Dan's Battle showed unwelcome enthusiasm by racing forward. However, Dan's longbow units quickly starting finding their mark. It was important now for Ray to get his foot knights into contact.
 |
| Ray's foot knight charge into contact. Meanwhile, the rest of Ray's and Jonathan's troops continue a steady advance. The white labels are just my temporary fix to have at a glance unit stats... apologies. |
It would be true to say that Ray and Jonathan both cursed that they were not getting the number of actions that would help them most. All players also suffered the frustration of not having all of their orders come through.
 |
| Ray's foot knights and men at arms in melee with Dan's archers and retainers. On the right, Jonathan's mounted knights trample under foot a unit of men at arms. |
 |
| Ray's foot knights destroy a unit of longbow but are now stranded as his men at arms are forced to retreat. Jonathan's mounted and foot knights are annihilated by Steve's counterattack, and his men at arms forced to retreat. |
With army points reduced by one for every unit forced to retreat and two for each destroyed unit, Dan and Steve have their army morale reduced to 6. However, the game ends as Jonathan and Ray find their Army Morale Points have been reduced to zero.
Jonathan and Ray put up a good fight against a larger army. They didn't always enjoy the best of luck. I reckon that we could play this again and get a different outcome.
Afterthoughts
Army Morale Points were based on the number of units. On reflection this benefits the side that buys lots of cheap troops or tries to "game" the system. I am now reviewing this and may link the Army Morale more closely to the amount of points the army is worth.
I was really pleased with the game. It played out well, in my opinion, and provided the kind of uncertainty that perhaps ought to be in a medieval battle. Sometimes the troops don't want to move, sometimes they will charge forward when you would rather have a more controlled advance.
The rules are essentially IGOUGO. However, the uncertainty about orders and how many actions available from turn to turn prevents any advantage being derived from going first or second.
From my perspective the game was fun, but also very instructive for all. As well as the Army Morale, I'm going to look at tweaking the personal challenges.
Lastly, in my opinion, the result was plausible, and you can't ask too much more from a set of historical wargames rules.
That seemed to work well Richard. Nice to get some practice in before the real high-stakes combats begin.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Lawrence. You are quite right.
DeleteIf the outcome produced is plausible, that is sometimes the best that be asked. Ray and my action draws were really discouraging. With one action not much could be accomplished be bring our might to bear. Having to "burn" an action even with charging cavalry was a real nuisance. Looking at the original rules and your QRS, your QRS requires charging cavalry to burn one action when charging. The original rules only have this one-action burn for archers, crossbow, slingers. Why add a penalty for cavalry?
ReplyDeleteThere is no penalty for cavalry charging, Jonathan. The one-action burn is for missile cavalry (mounted archers/crossbow etc.) along with missile foot, who wish to shoot. I will amend the wording to make it clearer. Your cavalry did not burn an action in the game. Hope that helps.
DeleteIt does help! I was confused by the QRS.
DeleteApologies.
DeleteI had Flower of Chivalry back in the day .... to long to remember anything of how they played in terms of mechanics, but I do recall being very fond of the set as a whole. It sounds like leader challenge is a bit of a lottery.
ReplyDeleteThe personal challenge is a lottery. that is why I'm looking at how to make it less lottery more fun.
DeleteA good test game Richard to help iron out any kinks in the rules and get the players familiar with them. And as other commenters have said is a plausible result is a good result.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ben. Thankfully, not too many kinks, but good for familiarisation.
DeleteNice to get a test game to run through the rules and it all seemed to work out, gives you a good idea, well worth doing I would say.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Donnie. I like the rules. They are simple and challenging. Probably not to everyone's taste.
DeleteMedieval battles always seem to be challenging to write rules for that provide interesting player decisions.
ReplyDeleteThat's for sure, Peter. These are simple without removing the challenge and friction. Plus, as any good rules should, melee is a risky and uncertain thing.
DeleteA good first effort guys - I would like to know the details on how Ray contrived to kill his enemy in a personal challenge - and then be captured. LOL!
ReplyDeleteThe rationale, Keith, is that it is not just lone individuals but also their entourage. So, Ray could deal a death blow yet be captured in his own wounded state.
DeleteMe too Keith...lol!
DeleteA good first run out there and nice to have a chance to iron out any issues before going 'live' as it were. The challenges thing seems too much of a lottery to me and I'm not sure if this thing ever happened in real life, unless it's reflecting the leader's personal bodyguard going hammer and tongs at each other?
ReplyDeleteYour latter point is what could apply here. Consider Richard III and his entourage charging towards Henry Tudor at Bosworth.
DeleteNonetheless, it is a lottery and that is why I am in the process of amending the personal challenges.
Bosworth was what came to my mind too.
DeleteAn interesting battle report. Is a 1000 point force typical of your campaign battle sizes? Finding the whole campaign very intriguing.
ReplyDeleteThank you. The size depends on what resources the players are willing to use for armies. There is a maximum army size of 3000.
DeleteGreat looking game Richard!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Michal.
DeleteSounds like a good battle and like you said plausable , you can see why most medieval commanders wanted to avoid battle!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Cheers, Iain. Battles are risky business.
DeleteBattles are VERY risky business with these rules. I might do well to avoid them.
DeleteThe game looks great Richard
ReplyDeleteThank you, Neil.
DeleteIt was a learning curve that's for sure. I must remember "No Challenges unless you're in a dire position, and then think about it again"
ReplyDeleteI think we were all surprised at how random the whole battle turned out. We had the smaller but better army, but never really had the movement to use them as we wanted. The random either 1, 2 or 3 actiobs didn't come out in our favour, whete it did fir them. If I remember correctly they had two 3 actions to our none and we had 3 one actions to there none. Which was very frustrating for me and Jon and not a criticism of the rules, its somthing I quite like. Yes its frustrating at times but I bet Dan and Steve weren't getting that feeling. Its just the luck of the draw.
Great game Rich, this campiagn is gonna be a hell of a lot of fun.
I'm not that it was that random. Both sides more or less kept a line until movement into melee. What was less predictable were the number of actions that you could execute in a turn. I think it also gave the favour of some Battle commanders being gung-ho or more reticent. We can think of battles where sub-commanders were not so reliable - the same is true with Flower of Chivalry. I like it and I know that you like a bit of friction.
DeleteLove seeing those beautiful twos Richard! Even at that distance they look good. Can I put in a request for some close-ups for we in the 'cheap seats'?!
ReplyDeleteKniiiights ain't me thing, so have no informed input save for the general observation that the result is important, but is a low-level test of rules. The path to get there should be reasonable, sensible and edifying (even?) as well—which it may have been, of course.
Best wishes, James
Next time I will make sure that I do some close ups, though I fear that both the scale and my painting may disappoint on camera.
DeleteThank you for your comments.
Thanks Richard. You are being far too self-deprecating, I am sure. You can't to a lot with the blocks of foot, as I know from painting Napoleonic and WWI figs, but the horse leave a bit more scope. From the bit of zooming that I was able to do it looks like you have done a splendid job!
Delete