Rules

Thursday, 13 April 2023

Solo ECW Decision Cards

An English Civil War game underway. Recent games have doubled the number of units in the games.

Last week I reworked my solo English Civil War (ECW) decision cards so they are all of the same size and stuck them to cardboard. The cards are still structured with the Army Stance card that determines at the start of each player’s turn whether an army is attacking, holding a position, or retiring. The tactical cards cover combat tactics depending upon the Army Stance chosen and prioritise unit movement.

The updated cards have been stuck onto card. A closer look shows a few scribbles as I continue to refine the cards.

So far, the decision cards seem to be working well when both armies are directed using the cards, decision tables versus decision tables so to speak. This approach helped to speed up the testing of the decision cards. The next stage involves playing a few more games in which I, as the solo wargamer, will be playing against an army directed by the decision tables.

A game in progress where movement for both sides is being determined by the decision cards. 

Initially, I when began experimenting with using decision cards it was with smaller armies consisting of 6 to 8 units, where the number of units allowed to move was based on a D3 dice score. My aim is to be able to use decision cards with armies of any size, an ideal size for me being 12-15 units. To achieve this, I have used an approach that permits up to half of the army to move, ignoring artillery units and rounding down any fractions, rather than relying on a variable number determined by the dice.

The Army Stance decision card now includes some variables based upon the commanders characteristics.

After reading through the suggestions and ideas in the comments from my last post on decision cards, another modification was made. This involved the inclusion of variables in the "army stance" decision table to represent the commander's nature, whether it be aggressive, passive, or balanced. If someone can come up with a better term that “average” or “balanced” in the comments that would be most useful.

The Attack tactical card has the most instructions.

A added a few pictures of the period to the cards to help jazz them a bit.

There are still a few adjustments to most cards.

As I play a few more games using these cards my focus will be to try and make the instructions as clear and simple as possible. I also plan to make another couple of additional cards. The first will be one covering the decisions on the prioritisation of targets for shooting and melee. This will allow me to do priority by unit type and remove the target prioritisation from the rules. The other card, Deployment, will be used at the start of the game and will determine the deployment of troops to the centre and flanks.

This sketch shows how the deployment and shooting/melee priority cards will fit in.

Finally another photo of the game towards the end.



26 comments:

  1. The only term that springs to mind is "prudent" (with "vigorous" and "diliatory" ) .
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the alternative words, I will give them some thought and look one up in the dictionary :-)

      Delete
  2. New "stance" selection rules misses very interesting point comparing to previous version: before, army composition (condition of infantry core of the army and cavalry advantage) had influence on army stance, now only overall units total matters.

    Slightly more complicated, but it should be worth to keep some modifiers to army aggressiveness depending on availability of fresh reserves and still operable cavalry wings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will have to review that. I cannot fully remember why I removed that, but I think I arrived at a situation where both sides were stuck in a hold stance.

      Delete
  3. Another interesting and inspiring instalment in your development of ECW solo rules that I have kept for further study. Thanks for posting such useful and inspiring material!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There will certainly be another post, or two, as I progress through a few more games.

      Delete
  4. Pretty sure it should be '+1' and not '-1' for aggressive commanders in 'Amry Stance' part 1. That said the battle in progress looked great. The photo of the closing stages looked like the battle should perhaps have been decided earlier as I felt it looked wrong being so artillery heavy at the end.
    Going with half the uints moving seems a good idea as the armies can do less as they get attrited and it saves rolling dice.
    A couple of questions:
    1. When it says ignore artillery, I assume that means the artillery uints still do their thing but don't count to the limiting number of units that can move?
    2. Sort of following on from above. What determines the sequence of units? The action types are in a clear sequence but if you don't have enough unit moves left for all to perform a given action who takes precedence? Not a problem for players, but if one or more sides are entirely driven by the cards?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I missed the plus on my hand written update, but will have to go over the text. On the questions:
      1) artillery are ignored when calculating the number of units to move as they are static,
      2) moving through the priority list in you stop when the allowed number of moves is reached. The precedence is based on the listed order.
      I hope that helps. In one of the next post I should provide some examples.

      Delete
    2. In point '2' I was asking what happens if you have, say two cavalry units that can/must charge (this being the next action on the list) but only one move left. Which cavalry unit gets the last move and which has to sit on their hands and watch? A player presumably chooses but what does the 'AI' do?

      Delete
    3. I would let the dice decide, and need to add a note. Thanks.

      Delete
  5. Peter, continued interesting design and development work here. Your approach offers much for the solo wargamer in a pre-programmed line of decision-making. Your ECW armies look terrific out on the table. On your commander traits request, perhaps, "Average/Balanced" commanders need no separate naming convention. A commander is either aggressive, passive, or forgettable?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Jon. The forgettable made me laugh.

      Delete
  6. I would suggest Level Headed as the average commander. Yet more great things from you. I have enjoyed following your games for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the commander characteristic suggestion. I am pleased the posts are of interest.

      Delete
  7. This looks very interesting and workable, Peter! Thanks for the detailed images if the cards, I may very well "borrow" your ideas and try them out myself. I recently found a Beneath the Lilly Banners scenario a friend put me onto, where you can refight small parts of battles using two to four units on a two by two table, which I am tempted to give a try, and your decision making cards may be just what I need to operate the"other side".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck with your games, hopefully a level of idea reuse, or reworking, is possible.

      Delete
  8. Enjoying this decision process, Peter….interesting read 👍🏼

    Average commander might be termed ‘steadfast’ or ‘steady’, perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks, and “steadfast” sounds good.

      Delete
  9. ...or maybe "cautious"?

    So "aggressive" (or "impetuous") for commanders looking for fast clash, "cautious" for those who rely on defence and "timid" for "unmotivated" once.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Some things to consider. I like “impetuous”.

      Delete
  10. All good stuff here Peter and some excellent suggestions in the comments section too:).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Yes, lots of useful comments to consider.

      Delete
  11. I really like the ideas here- great for solo games or can be used in multi-player for co-operative play having players on the same side!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice idea on multi-player co-operation play. At the moment I am trying to make them at bit more rules agnostic.

      Delete
  12. Very interesting Peter and it has prompted a great discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The decision cards are progressing well and various comments are helping to improve them.

      Delete