My English Civil War themed posts continue, hopefully I am not boring with these posts as I gradually muddle and stumble my way through the large battle ECW rules one bit at a time. This weekend, my focus has shifted to the game’s combat mechanics, and I've also begun looking at including victory points to determine the game’s winner. Part of this idea behind victory points is to encourage cavalry units to charge off the enemy’s side of the tabletop after they have defeated their opposition, which they had a tendency to do so until later in the war.
A game in progress testing the rules. |
So where did I end up with the combat mechanisms? Firstly, I pulled out artillery bombardment into a separate section from all other combat as it uses a different mechanism.
Artillery are not very effective but can be a nuisance and prompt an enemy to act.
Secondly, I went with an opposing dice mechanism for all other combat. There were a a few of reasons behind this approach. These were to avoid the first strike situation particularly with the IGOUGO sequence of play I am using and to simplify combat by combining both musketry and melee. Given this game is geared towards the larger battle and the effective distance for musketry was between 80 to 100 yards a combat distance of 3” seemed suitable. With charge of pike, units would charge and once exhausted retire a short distance still within musket range. They did not remain continuously locked in combat.
Draft - Combat Rules.
A couple of combat examples…
Initially, I used a rule from Neil Thomas’s Introduction to Wargaming, where a unit exiting over the enemy tabletop edge would be eliminated and also two enemy units would be eliminated. This penalty can be quite severe. So I have opted to try a victory points approach instead. I still want to encourage, and reward, advancing cavalry units off the tabletop once their foe’s have been routed. The battle ends, when one side has been reduced to less than half of their starting units. Then each player calculates their victory points. Point are awarded as follows:
- 1 point for each routed enemy unit.
- 2 points for each cavalry unit exiting the enemy’s side of the tabletop.
- 2 points for each enemy commander lost in action.
- 5 points if the enemy units are reduced by half, including any enemy cavalry exiting the tabletop.
Should the cavalry exiting off the enemy's table edge not have to have defeated / destroyed an enemy unit first? If not, you could have all one side's cavalry charging off the table edge without fighting and winning the battle. I know that's unlikely but...
ReplyDeleteI suspect I will either: 1) add a rule that cavalry cannot exit the table if there are enemy cavalry within 12 inches; or 2) restrict the exit area to be half or a third of the tabletop edge. I think I prefer the second option as it encourages a meaningful reserve.
DeleteHi Peter - hope all is well. I still dip into your blog as it’s just so interesting! Anyway, the table exiting role Thomas uses applies to close order infantry (or period equivalent) only, not cavalry. Any 2 units (apart from artillery, from memory) may be removed as a consequence. No need for more rules because if you are in this situation then it’s all pretty much falling apart (or you’ve seriously messed up your deployment). Hope that helps.
DeleteAlong the way I had flipped it to cavalry, and forgot it was infantry. I am hoping approach 2 above will help encourage cavalry to attempt to charge off.
DeleteBoth meddling and muddling conjure up all sorts of thinking and decision-making. I never bore of seeing your design evolutions.
ReplyDeleteThere is probably another week of ECW, then I will need a break myself.
DeletePeter - not boring at all! Please continue these posts! Really enjoying seeing your thoughts on boardgame miniatures " cross over". Keep them coming!
ReplyDeleteHopefully I am explaining things well enough. The posts help me to give the ideas a bit more thought as I write about them.
DeletePeter, it is very interesting to watch the evolution of the rules. Thanks for taking the time to post them.
ReplyDeleteThanks Ben. Writing the blog posts also helps me get my thoughts in order.
DeleteIt all looks very good Peter and I like the combined "combat" idea - I think Norm mentioned something similar is his recent review of an ACW boardgame - and I thought then, it's a good mechanism.
ReplyDeleteThe rules my mate Andrew has created (based I think, on the ASL boardgame) have both sides firing- so, if it's my activation and I fire at an enemy unit, it automatically returns fire - often, the "defender" causes more damage to the attacker - and why not? As you say, the IGOUGO "first strike" standard way of doing things can result in very one-sided fire fights which are not particularly realistic.
I am increasingly liking the combined combat approach, particularly as I read through more of the SPI Quad game rules. The return fire mechanism you mention sounds interesting.
DeleteIt is always thought provoking to read your pondering over rules. Very enjoyable... never think of it as boring.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I suspect the ECW rules theme will be continuing over the next week or so.
DeleteAlways interesting to seeing peoples thoughts and decisions on rules, I find it always well worth a read.
ReplyDeleteIt has been interesting posting the design reasons and thinking. Previously I worked most of it out in the background and just posted up the rules.
DeleteAlways interesting to see other people's ideas and thoughts put down in black and white. I lie the simple combat mechanism.
ReplyDeleteI'll be watching for updates with interest.
Thanks. The increased number of units on the tabletop has driven the approach to keeping combat as simple as possible.
Delete