Rules

▼

Friday, 1 February 2019

ECW Campaign game 15

After the drawn battle of King's Sutton (game 14) both sides decided to withdraw and regroup. The Royalist force pulled back north to Banbury to reorganise and their command council deliberated their next move. With the colder days and nights illness was taking its toll on the Royalist army.

Meanwhile, Parliament forces recently resupplied decided to march and engage the Royalist forces.

A close up of the game in progress
As neither side wanted to continue with battle (game 14) on the following day and retired. From a rules perspective, both armies would be able to field their original unit numbers. Before doing so both drew another campaign card. Royalists drew badly and would have to remove one infantry or cavalry unit due to sickness, and Parliament could resupply one unit out of ammunition.

Campaign cards drawn before the game
Terrain cards were drawn, the terrain laid out, and units deployed. The Royalist forces stood at 11 units due to the loss of one unit due to illness. Therefore with the smaller force they were able to choose the tabletop edge to deploy.

Terrain cards drawn
Armies deployed ready for the game
Map of deployments
The battle began early morning with Parliament advancing in the centre through the fields and towards the Royalist centre...

Parliament units push forward in the centre
Royalists push forward taking the Parliament infantry by surprise
A unit of Royalist cavalry join the fray to great effect. Parliament's centre is in disarray
Parliament forces reorganise but are on the back foot.
The cavalry eventually engage on the flank
In the centre the fighting becomes fierce and confused as Parliament units try and hold their line
The Parliament centre collapses
This game produced an unexpected Royalist victory. Parliament forces made a mistake of pushing their centre forward without having their cavalry wing engage their Royalist counterparts. This mistake allowed Royalist cavalry to support their centre forces and gain the advantage.

at

6 comments:

  1. Jonathan Freitag2 February 2019 at 01:29

    Given the luck of the card draw, I figured the Royalists were at a severe disadvantage. Boy, was I wrong!

    Your battle looks fantastic, Peter, and your hand-drawn maps, as always, superb.

    Having waged 16 battles now in this campaign and 16 battles in our earlier FIW campaign, any thoughts on comparing the two? Do you prefer handling the strategic/operational aspects of the campaign AND fighting out the tactical battles or do you prefer the the higher level decisions being fed into your tactical battle matrix from afar?

    Great stuff!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter2 February 2019 at 11:56

      The FIW campaign from my tactical perspective provided a lot more depth. Your operational posts were like dispatches on the progress of the war along with the next set of orders. Both were games in their own right (or series of games from a tactical perspective) which influenced another game. Whereas, the operational aspects of the ECW campaign are designed very much to support the tactical battles with narrative and objectives. Which probably goes to answer the question on which aspects I prefer? Tactical games or more precisely the tabletop games with models (toy soldiers).
      Whenever I get to set up a Western Desert campaign. I expect to have more of a balance between tactical games and the operation aspects so supply, unit refits, and high command interference can be incorporated.

      Delete
  2. Phil2 February 2019 at 04:44

    Nice looking game Peter, especially for the Royalists!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter2 February 2019 at 11:57

      Thank you. It feels like it has been a while since the last Royalist victory.

      Delete
  3. Gonsalvo10 February 2019 at 07:24

    A surprising but perhaps overdue victory for His majesty! I am with Jon; I figured this battle might be the beginning of the end!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Peter10 February 2019 at 15:38

    Certainly a surprise and offset their earlier losses.

    ReplyDelete