This week I have been trying out a different sequence of play rule mechanism for my English Civil War (ECW) games. The current rules use a IGO-UGO approach with a limit on the number of units that can take actions, determined by the number of units within 12 inches of the commander's position.
 |
| ECW game and horse attack underway amongst the fields |
It is a rule mechanism I am ok with, but was not really satisfied with, and I thought I would see if I could come up with a variation using the sequence approach used for the War of the Spanish Succession (WSS) rules. Where the order in which player’s perform their turn phases is determined by taking cards off the top of a card deck with 5 read and 5 black cards. Each time their colour card is revealed a player performs their next phase in the following order:
- Artillery Shooting - a player resolves all artillery shooting.
- Musketry Shooting - player resolves all musket shooting.
- Cavalry and Dragoon moves - a player can move all cavalry or dragoon units within a command range. This includes resoling charges where a unit moves into contact.
- Infantry and artillery moves - a player can move all infantry units within a command range.
- Commander moves and rallying - a player can move any commander and use them to rally a unit.
Once a player has performed their phase, take the next card from the top of the pack and a player performs another phase. This continues until both players have performed all their phases in order, then shuffle the card deck and start the next turn.
This sequencing approach is using ideas from the ruleset “The War of the Spanish Succession - Paperboys Rules”, and I really like the way it gives a clunky feel to the way a turn progresses. Very fitting for the WSS period where armies were organised but still ponderous in their movements.
I was tempted to just adopt the same approach, but after a bit a reading to refresh my memory the ECW armies and their organisation, where ECW armies are ponderous and lacked the same level of coordination between unit types. I can up with the following sequence of play which has no set order, rather order is driven by the cards drawn.
 |
| Some of my reading to refresh my memory |
After a bit of messing around with some card options, including separating out movement and shooting, but ended up with the four cards to represent the four major types of units involved in the ECW.
 |
| Sequence of play cards. I originally used playing cards, jacks for foot, queens for horse, etc, but found it easier to make my own cards. |
The order in which player’s activates their units is determined by taking cards off the top of a card deck. The deck has the following cards representing the key unit types in an ECW army and are shuffled together in one deck of cards:
- 4 Red cards: Horse Activation, Foot Activation, Artillery Bombardment, and Dragoon/Commanded Shot Activation.
- 4 Blue cards: Horse Activation, Foot Activation, Artillery Bombardment, and Dragoon/Commanded Shot Activation.
Each time a players colour (blue or red) card is revealed that army's player activates the unit types on the card. Once complete, take the next card from the top of the pack and a the army's player activates the specified unit types. This continues until both players have had the opportunity to activate all their unit types, then shuffle the card deck and start the next turn.
A few more games need to be played before I update my rules, but so far I am enjoying using cards to determine the sequence of play. I find the cards not only give a clunky feel to the game, they also make coordination between unit types quite unpredictable.
An interesting idea, which would adapt fairly easily to the Portable Wargame rules I use.
ReplyDeleteThe sequence rule mechanism is self contained and can be easily bolted on. So to speak.
DeleteThis is an interesting twist to the turn sequence. Looking forward to more of your experimentation.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I enjoy the unpredictability for solo gaming.
DeleteSome very nice idea there Peter. It might be a step too far, but maybe you could activate by Brigades (ie right wing, centre, left wing etc) as well, which could be fun. I like this unpredictability in games but for others it is a complete no-no.
ReplyDeleteThe brigade idea you mention is an interesting twist. As a solo gamer I do like the uncertainty of activation and agree its not for everyone.
DeleteLove both card systems - was thinking about Napoleonic / ACW where one side has the ECW style cards and the other has WSS style cards. You can have good generals on both side, but one side has a better C&C system
ReplyDeleteThank you. The card approach does present opportunities for stacking the deck to represent better organised armies.
DeleteAs a solo player Napoleonic Austrians with ECW cards vs French WSS cards would be interesting. And FPW with French with ECW cards vs Prussians with WSS would make the period interesting.
DeleteAs a solo player I do like the underdog side. Playing the two different card systems in one game, does favour the side but the one with WSS cards (but it is more robotic), while the ECW card side allows a more thoughtful approach. The two card style system allows the solo player to two armies that fight in "different" ways.
DeleteThx Mike
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteVery nice idea and very suitable I think for ECW. They had limited opportunities for clever phasing of activity.
Cheers
Jay
Hi Jay, Thanks, the mechanism does make phasing unlikely without stopping units from moving at some point in the turn. Regards, Peter
DeleteAs usual you are a font of interesting ideas.
ReplyDeleteI am enjoying trying a few card based approaches at the moment.
DeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteFrom 2017 to 2020 I got into ECW and trialled a variety of rules to determine sequence in ECW battles to develop some home-grown rules for hexes. Those trialled include:
Hordes and Heroes, Medieval
Victory Without Quarter
Portable Wargame: ECW
Wargames Research Group
1420 - 1700
De Bellis Renationis (DBR)
etc, etc
Toward the end of 2020, I came across Snaphance but have yet to spend time with these rules together with a wargame table.
Over that three year period, in an attempt to develop home-grown rules, I went around in a circle to find the optimum technique for game sequence. In 2020, I realised a key variable that I'd failed to tackle head-on was that of time-scale; ie, the duration of one bound. Clearly, this is closely coupled with ground scale, the space a unit occupies and move distances.
Also linked to sequence, is the autonomy considered appropriate to a unit; hence, what does a unit represent and more importantly the calibre of its commander. For example, if a unit represents a company of foote or troop of horse (commanded by a Captain), then less autonomy would be appropriate than for a Brigadier-General.
One approach that I found quite good fun is summarised below; although, my logic may be flawed:
Each unit is a battalion or squadron so commanded by a Colonel (for foote) or perhaps Major of horse; hence, fairly autonomous (and, I reasoned, written orders were unnecessary).
Each bound represents a relatively short duration so move distances are relatively short.
Simplistically, the purpose of movement is to gain advantage for combat; movement between periods of combat resolution is considered to be nearly simultaneous.
Once in close combat, movement of a unit is controlled by reaction to combat results; the wargamer loses control over movement of a unit until that unit has completed reaction to combat.
Bound sequence is controlled by a shuffled deck of cards; one card per unit, one card per General and one combat card for each force (Parliamentarian or Royalist)*; the sub-sequence for combat cards is:
The named force may move any of its light guns
Distant combat to include fire from guns that had not just moved but were controlled by the named force.
Reaction to distant combat.
Close combat.
Reaction to combat.
The uncertainty caused by the shuffled deck of cards replicated the:
Race to gain an advantageous position.
Marginal confusion and disorder.
In me, it encouraged an aggressive game; sometimes, a rash decisions would be made to take advantage of an opportunity. The unpredictability of precisely when combat should be resolved made it fun.
The game ceased to have bounds in the conventional sense and became periods of movement between combat resolution; this flowed nicely.
* The card based technique is a minor variation to that in 'Victory Without Quarter'. The main difference being that I dispensed with the 'End Bound' card because I felt Colonels sufficiently senior to make decisions in the context of pre-battle discussions and their own situational awareness so no unit with an obvious opportunity to exploit or threat to avoid, was left dithering. Obviously, a die role compared against a leadership parameter could be introduced to determine whether a commander was a ditherer.
In other iterations, cards have been at brigade level, rather than battalion level but these games were more controlled so less fun; maybe they were more realistic?
I intend one month to post on this subject at WargameWaffle.
Interested to know whether your experiments have included anything like this and if so, what you concluded.
Hi Dave, It is always interesting trying to find rules that fit our perception of a period and with rules mechanisms to make our games enjoyable. I do like the concept you mentioned, where once in combat a wargamer loses control or a unit. To answer your question, so far my experiments have been limited to the sequence of play. Thanks Peter
DeleteDiscovering English Civil Wargaming! What a blast from the past! My copy is pretty fragile now.
ReplyDeleteI've been using a combination of tweaked Command & Colours (for shooting, combat & morale - I like the pretty dice) and tweaked Victory Without Quarter (free online) for the activation sequence. This has cards (or counters) for each unit, generals, artillery fire, random events and a turn end card so not every unit will get a go each turn. The idea is you put your generals where it's important things happen so they can activate a unit instead of waiting for the unit card to appear (gives you two, or more, chances but no guarantees). Also been toying with extra cards for Forlorn Hopes, Commanded Shot and Dragoons to make them more active. Happy to share a Word document describing this, albeit badly in need of updating to catch up with changes I've made.
IMO it gives a very simple quick play game that is fun and suited to solo play.
I managed to get a secondhand copy and while intact has yellowing pages. The Victory Without Quarter rules sound interesting, thanks for the offer of your amendments/adjustments. I try and get a copy of the rules first. I will be revisiting the rules again and posting where I am up to.
DeleteVery interesting indeed. I do like the way the card mechanic operates in Field of Battle, but this does seem more akin to the style of battle in ECW.
ReplyDeleteCards also seem to be eminently more suitable to the period in comparison with orders given based on a dice roll...though I had tinkered with the idea of giving better commanders d8 or d10 vs a standard d6. Can get fiddly though; your card idea is much better.
I am increasingly enjoying the use of various cards in my wargaming as you can tailor cards or stack the deck to suit specific period and armies.
DeleteVictory Without Quarter uses cards which I like since I play solo, but this method could well work better. Watching with interest.
ReplyDeleteThanks. A few more test games are required and there are also a couple of modifications I want to try.
DeleteTruly the amateurs that were running the show in the ECW from 1642-44 were totally out of their element when combining ... anything. Even getting two regiments of foote to keep their own shotte was not possible (they would break them up on the battlefield into 'sleeves' attaching to the 'ordered' units as they arrived at the whim of the battalia command).
ReplyDeleteUtter madness to think they would co-operate even within a battalia, let alone across horse and foote.
Victory Without Quarter does simulate this somewhat - though a good player can still sometimes pull off combined arms.
What is needed is some 'internal friction' device to prevent players from simply adopting combined arms approaches that did not appear in the era, and really did not come into wider adoption until the 1700s.
Perhaps a 'confusion' modifier for all forces involved in a combined melee? Restrictions on 'multiple' fire engagements (especially from front and rear at the same time - since 1/2 of all shots from barely 'trained' troops go high and thus would be hitting friendly forces on the opposite side.
It is an interesting challenge to get the internal friction you mention without making the game too frustrating to play. I do like your confusion suggestion with units involved in a melee.
DeleteInteresting Peter. How do you keep track of which units have activated and which haven’t?
ReplyDeleteI possibly did not clarify in the post that when a unit type card is drawn, eg Foot units, all Foot units can be moved not just individual Foot units.
DeleteVery Piquet/Field of Battle like, which is a plus in my opinion! :-)
ReplyDeleteI am increasingly liking the use of cards to determine activation or units and the sequence of play.
Delete