Codsticker's Historicals: Fun With Plastic!(and now metal)

[Codsticker]

Never ever a bad thing.

Yes sir.. WIP:

The figures at the back are finished and awaiting a coat of sealer; then they will get fixed to their bases and another coat before basing.

[Kisanis]

Nice work! Do you spray sealer on them after basing at all?

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

[Codsticker]

Yes, I seal spray seal them; glue them to bases; paint the bases; spray seal them again and then flock etc.

[Codsticker]

We played a another ECW game using the Warr Without An Enemie rules. The core of the rules is the use of Command Points and the acquisition of Disruption Points; there never seemed to be enough CP's but DP's were quite easy to come by. Units are formed of bases, figures per base is not important and base size is also not that big a factor as long as both armies are based the same. Infantry and Cavalry are allocated a rating depending on their type. For cavalry, ratings range from C2 for Pistoliers to C4 for Gallopers; the higher number indicating the proficiency in melee the lower proficiency in shooting; it is also a factor in the Resolve Charges phase. Infantry range from I1 to I7 with 1 being entirely shooting focused and 7 having no firearms.

Generals have randomly determined CP's each turn which they can spend during any phase to move themselves as well as issue new orders to a unit, rally routing units or inspire the troops in combat. For example, one of the orders you can issue is "Advance to Fire Combat" and the unit so ordered will advance every turn until it is withing range and the proceed to shoot or it's order is changed.

Disruption Points, are like I said easily accumulated, through movement, crossing obstacles, taking hits, etc. For example, if a unit attempts to change formation it will acquire a DP; if it rolls a one for movement (which is random- between 1 and 4 D6 depending on the type of unit) it will acquire a DP. Once a unit reaches 5 DP's, any subsequent DP's received from combat or shooting results in the loss of a base. DP's can be reduced by "resting" a unit or the expenditure of CP's.

The rules are not professionally written; I found some of the wording a little awkward sometimes and unclear at others however the examples often cleared up any uncertainty. Having said that, the rules play much better than they read if that makes any sense. One of the interesting facets of the rules was the amount of attention paid to charging. Many factors are involved in just sorting out the affects of a charge yet by comparison melee and shooting were quite straight forward, perhaps even a little sparse. Another unusual aspect of the rules, one that I believe speeds play up, is that both players perform their actions simultaneously. There is about 12 phases to to a turn but since both players are doing each phase at the same time the turns pass quicker than you would think looking at them on paper.

Probably most importantly, despite a few small factors I found odd, the rules gave a very believable result based on our understanding of warfare in the period.

Deployment. This is a suggested scenario from the Warr Without An Enemie website, based on a specific battle during the ECW- the battle of Southam. Royalist in the foreground , Parliamentarian attackers in the distance.

Turn 1, the Royalist cavalry advance hard on the left flank. Leading with a Raw Elite unit may have turned out to be a mistake:

Turn 2. This angle shows the Parliamentarian Cavalry fleeing as a result of the Royalist charge. We initially played this wrong (I think); we had them fleeing at the end of the resolve Charges Phase when in fact we should have waited until the Combat phase. It did not matter though- when I we re-played it the result was the same.

Turn 3. On the other flank, I attempt to do the same thing. However I have to wheel my cavalry around to get them out of the cannons fire and acquired some DP's which would dampen my charge a few turns later.

Turn 4. Again from the royalist right flank you can see the little DP markers my opponent made which were very handy. The Parliamentary cavalry in column facing the Royalist cavlary. In the distance you can see my Raw Gallopers pursuing their defeated enemy, never to return. The Veteran Cavalry behind them would have had a much better chance of reigning in their enthusiasm and returning to the battle.

[Codsticker]

Turn 5. The cavaliers charge into the Parliamentarian pistoliers. The Pistoliers chose to counter-charge which they would not normally be able to do (one of the downsides of being C2) however as the Royalist had suffered so many DP's due to their constant wheeling and moving they would be allowed..except, we shouldn't have allowed it as units in column may not counter-charge. Oddly enough, that is the only downside to being charged when in column. On the far side, the Veteran Royalist Cavalry have cleared out a unit of Infantry which had also been suffering at the hands of the dragoons (blue coats, green flag).

Turn 6. Another unit of Parliamentarian Infantry has been wiped out on the far side, however the Pistoliers defeated the first unit of severely disrupted Royalist Cavalry and were now in melee with the second with a good chance to destroy them as well.


At this point it was time to check Army Morale as both sides had lost sufficient units to trigger the check. The Royalists would retire if they rolled a 1 and Parliament would retire if they rolled a 3 or less. Both sides rolled 1's, the game ending in a draw.

[Codsticker]

Another AAR in one week?!?! It's true; this time a quick game of a Lion Rampant variation for the ECW, Lion Passant from this blog, thanks to Ubique Matt on the Dux Rampant forum. I used the "A Leisurely Stroll" scenario from the rule book. A Parliamentarian foot company is on it's way to join it's regiment and some patrolling Royalist cavalry have decided to interfere. 24 points aside, the forces looked like this:

Foot Company:
1 Colour Guard
1 Pikemen
1 trainee Pikemen
2 Musketeers
1 Trainee Musketeers

Royalist Cavalry:
1 Cavaliers, Coronet, Drilled
1 Cavaliers
1 Dragoons (dismounted), Expert
1 Dragoons (dismounted)

I had an extra couple of points left over for the Royalists; I should have given one unit the Pistols upgrade.

Deployment:
Here the Parliamentarians are deployed in the NW corner, exiting the woods (recently mauled by an enormous cat) via a road. A unit of musketeers lead the way, followed by the Colour guard and then a unit Pike. Behind them are the Trainee Pike and Musketeers;

The Royalist Dragoon deploy in the SW corner and the Cavaliers in the NE corner.


Turn 1:
In Lion Rampant units must test to activate for actions; once a test is failed the player's turn ends (except ina couple of specific circumstances). As the Royalists were the attacker in this scenario, they were to go first but were foiled by a failed test on their very first activation. The Parliamentarians were able to activate the three units at the head of the column and moved them out of the forest. You can see the stalled Trainee Pikemen back in the trees holding up the musketeers.


Turn 2
... starts the same way for the Royalists: the first test is failed. The Parliamentarians get the coulmn moving again and bring on the last unit of Musketeers in the trees; you can see them on the left edge of the photo. In the foreground the Dragoons try to get the nerve up to move and in the distance the trainee Pike and Musketeers advance along the road.


Turn 3
Finally the Cavaliers, lead by their Captain , pass an activation test and advance towards the enemy.

[Codsticker]

One unit of dragoons take a few shots at the newly arrived musketeers and the other at the colour guard but inflict no casualties. The Parliamentarian musketeers at the fore of the column take a few shots at the oncoming cavaliers but also fail to inflict harm.


Turn 4
Things get a bit sharp in the 4th turn as the lead unit of cavaliers is able to charge through cover and contact the Parliamentarian musketeers. They win the combat, pushing the musketeers back, causing them to take a" battered" marker, but losing one of their own.

I the defender's turn, the Colour Guard charge into the Cavaliers...


Turn 5
By the end of turn 5, the other unit of cavaliers has charged into the retiring musketeers, thrashed them in melee and then watched the remainder melt back into the forest ( a result of less than zero on a courage test). The lead unit of Cavaliers had similar success against the colour guard , pushing them back but taking two casualities in return. You can see the Parliamentarian pikemen have moved up to take the place of the fleeing musketeers and the Dragoons in the foreground have advanced towards the melee.


Turn 6 The Cavaliers attack the newly arrived pikemen; big mistake as you can imagine and after taking luckily avoiding taking a casualty from the dragoons, the colour guard charge into the dragoons after receiving an ineffective round of fire from them. Both Parliamentarian units are successful, pushing their opponents back.

[Codsticker]

Turn 7 and 8
The second unit of Cavaliers makes the same mistake as the Commander's and attacks the pikemen, losing horribly. Reduced to a single, model the sole Cavalier somehow passes a courage test. The Commander's unit fails it's activation test. The picture shows where the units were between the Attacker's turn and the Defender's turn.


Final Turns
Desparate charges by commanders on both sides in turn 9 saw each of them the sole remaining models from their units. Both of which failed their subsequent courage tests and fled the field. The trainee Pikemen managed to pass a couple of activation tests and attack one unit of dragoons whilst the other unit of pikemen attacked the other. Both were successful even though not many casualties were inflicted. Failed courage tests by the dragoons meant they were now 'battered" and the writing was on the wall; the red die mark the battered units.

[sigur]

Two very, very interesting AARs, thanks for sharing!

So Warre without an Enemie does sound interesting. So you issue an order to a unit and they carry it out each turn unless you pay command points to change said orders? I like the disruption points thing. To be honest the disruption/disorder mechanic in Pike&Shotte is a bit too "all or nothing" for my tastes. Disruption points accumulated like that makes for an interesting mix of disruption and fatique (which is a thing which is modelled surprisingly rarely). The table looks great.

Lion Passant, eh? Interesting, interesting. What do you think of the Lion Rampant rules? I really love the look of the table here. The scattered grit and vegetation look amazing and make the whole table look so much more realistic. Good stuff.

Seems like you're getting to play a whole lot these days, and interesting rule sets to boot! Huzzah!

[Codsticker]

So Warre without an Enemie does sound interesting. So you issue an order to a unit and they carry it out each turn unless you pay command points to change said orders? I like the disruption points thing. To be honest the disruption/disorder mechanic in Pike&Shotte is a bit too "all or nothing" for my tastes. Disruption points accumulated like that makes for an interesting mix of disruption and fatique (which is a thing which is modelled surprisingly rarely).

Yeah, the Disruption mechanic in WWaE works really well and combines all sorts of factors such as fatigue, confusion and casualties until it gets too much for the unit and then it starts to fall apart. It doesn't matter how many bases are in the unit, the thresh hold is 5 points; after that, the unit stops acquiring DP's and will go straight to losing bases if it takes hits from shooting or combat so a large unit will still have some benefit to having more bases.

The table looks great.

That is Jeff's table. He is a regular over on TMP; that's where I "met" him.

Lion Passant, eh? Interesting, interesting. What do you think of the Lion Rampant rules?

Well, as with just about every game I play there are things I would do differently. It's a fun game. Things are quite streamlined and there are a couple of good mechanics in there. Dan Mersey's take on dark ages/early medieval warfare is that a dude with a spear is a dude with a spear regardless of whether he is German, Welsh or Andalusian; it's the troop type that counts, not where he is from, and that is reflected in his rule sets such a Lion Rampant and Dux Bellorum. I do not mind that; it is different than say SAGA (which I also like) where the battle boards reflect "national" tendencies (real or imagined). I think the two things I will do differently when playing this game is regarding leaders. You have the option (Dan says use it or not- whichever you like) to roll for Leader characteristics. They can range from really bad (no command radius for Courage tests) to over the top good (Leader's unit automatically pass all activation tests). I will forego the Leader characteristics or make my own table where you roll for a positive and a negative personality trait for your leader. The other thing I would do differently is add a re-roll option for the Leader's unit's Activations. The way the rules stand now, the leader has no more control over the unit he is a part of than he does a unit of lowly spearmen at the other end of the table. Not much of a leader.

Another weird quirk, which I assume is for balance, is one of the most aggressive units in the game- Mounted Men At Arms- can be activated for movement on a 7+; by comparison, Yeomen Foot (basic nobody spear men) can be activated for movement on a 5+; Serfs on a 6+. This means these units are more likely to move towards the enemy than your Mounted Men At Arms. It doesn't really make sense.

[Vazalaar]

Two great AARs! The second table is marvelous!

I also recently bought the Lion Rampant pdf rules, You can't go wrong with a rulebook for less than 14 euro. It seems enjoyable, but very streamlined. I haven't played a game. I bought it more so I have a painting goal to finish a English HYW (Plastic Perrys) warband.

[Codsticker]

Two great AARs! The second table is marvelous!

I also recently bought the Lion Rampant pdf rules, You can't go wrong with a rulebook for less than 14 euro. It seems enjoyable, but very streamlined. I haven't played a game. I bought it more so I have a painting goal to finish a English HYW (Plastic Perrys) warband.

Lion Rampant, like SAGA, Dux Brittaniarum and a couple of other games, hits what seems to be that sweet spot for gamers: 30-80 models aside, and a mix of familiar rules and a few clever mechanics.

[Codsticker]

The scattered grit and vegetation look amazing and make the whole table look so much more realistic. Good stuff.

I forgot to respond to this bit. I used to love the idea of purpose built tables with built in features but I have come around to what this guy is doing. My goal is to play on tables more like his, so that is what I am working towards.

[Kisanis]

Dear god thats a nice table! I still see that as purpose built... or am I missing something?

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

[Codsticker]

Well.. I suppose you are right: it's purpose built, but not with fixed, permanent features which is actually what I meant by "purpose built".

[Kisanis]

Gotcha.

Looking back I see what you mean. Its got a lit of dedicated terrain, but the board isn't carved foam etc...

Still, I badly need to up my terrain game

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

[sigur]

I agree with you with most you said about Lion Rampant. The fact that Mounted Men-at-Arms are hard to move I think is adressed in the rules somewhere. Something that they don't want to be told to go "Over there" and rather decide for themselves or something (hence the Wild Charge). But it may just as well be a balancing thing, because mounted men at arms just chew through enemy units. I think that Lion Rampant is, as you said, a fun game, but a bit bare-bones. I think that what it needs is to disallow disallow interpenetration (except for Bidowers maybe), less leeway for missile troops for firing, some sort of flanks rules or something. It's a fun game, but I think it lacks something. I'm completely down with the leader characteristics, just because I like stuff like that in games. This, just like the boasts (which I think are a brilliant idea), is something people can use or just forego, depending on what they like to play. I didn't even notice the lack of command roll bonus, but you're right, there should be something like that in the game, especially as it's kinda hard to get your dudes to do something in this game anyway. So while it's not perfect by a long shot, I just can't bring myself to not liking a game for which the pictures in the rulebook feature gloss-varnished minis photographed by Henry Hyde and which have rules suggestions for smelly peasants and bonus points for people who use minis from the 70s and 80s in their fantasy armies.

Lion Rampant, like SAGA, Dux Brittaniarum and a couple of other games, hits what seems to be that sweet spot for gamers: 30-80 models aside, and a mix of familiar rules and a few clever mechanics.

Yeah, I mean with this weird obsession with 28mm figures, everybody being short on time all the time anyway ([insert cultural pessimist bit]) this seems to be very popular. I mean it's 40k's scale too after all. The problem is that you just don't get the grandness of proper battles with that which is a spectacle of a whole different level.

I'm pretty sure that everybody has to up their terrain game. (thanks for the link btw, codsticker. Really cool stuff).

[Codsticker]

I think that Lion Rampant is, as you said, a fun game, but a bit bare-bones. I think that what it needs is to disallow disallow interpenetration (except for Bidowers maybe), less leeway for missile troops for firing, some sort of flanks rules or something. It's a fun game, but I think it lacks something.

Yeah, those would all be good additions. I think the problems of the game come down to balancing abstraction with detail in what is essentially a 1:1 scale skirmish game. It just misses the mark there.

I'm completely down with the leader characteristics, just because I like stuff like that in games. This, just like the boasts (which I think are a brilliant idea), is something people can use or just forego, depending on what they like to play.

I think I will give the personality traits a shot the next couple of games; reading on other forums has suggested to me that they can greatly unbalance the game which is fine if people are OK with those kind of challenges. I didn't do the boasts but, yes, that is a great idea.

Yeah, I mean with this weird obsession with 28mm figures, everybody being short on time all the time anyway ([insert cultural pessimist bit]) this seems to be very popular. I mean it's 40k's scale too after all. The problem is that you just don't get the grandness of proper battles with that which is a spectacle of a whole different level.

I think 28mm (much like the games I mentioned), hits that sweet spot for gamers: large enough to be easy to paint but small enough that it looks like a battle when they are all on the table. I don;t know if I would call it an obsession, it just hits that middle ground. It would require a lot more room to play games with 1/35 or 54mm toy soldiers and for a lot of people if you are going to play with 6mm or 2mm you might as well use paper markers.

An experiment I would like to do is paint up a bunch of 15mm stuff (I just got started) and play a game on a 6x4 or bigger table with 28mm distances, just to see how it plays.

[sigur]

Probably a lot more realistic, at least from looking at the table. I think that 28mm figures just sell well because they look nice in pictures. In that they hit a sweet spot I guess. They aren't any easier or harder to paint than 15mm, 6mm or any others, it's just different kinds of painting.

Yeah, those would all be good additions. I think the problems of the game come down to balancing abstraction with detail in what is essentially a 1:1 scale skirmish game. It just misses the mark there.

I feel silly for banging on about this, but have you seen that post by the author of the game in which he adresses most of these things, but they were kicked out of the final version of the rules because he thought it would be simpler that way?

Here it is:

"This rule was dropped part way through development, so this is very much a work in progress, should you wish to add an extra tactical level to the game. It is not something that I’ve followed up on, so the rules added here are more of a curiousity or a jumping off point should you wish to consider flank and rear attacks.

With the rules as written, the direction a unit is facing does not make any difference to the direction in which it can see, move, shoot, or even charge its enemies. Some players might enjoy the added tactical challenge of introducing complications of flank and rear facing in small unit miniatures games. If both you and your opponent agree, use the following rules:

Models may move in any direction without penalty, but at the end of the unit’s movement, ensure that all models are facing in one direction.
To change the direction a unit is facing requires a Move activation, even if the models just turn on the spot.
Units may only Shoot at targets across the 180° arc to their front, measured from the unit’s forward-most model. At least one model from the target unit must be fully within this arc.
Units may only Attack units within that same arc; the same applies for Wild Charges (they may not be made against units outside of the arc).
Units shot at or Attacked by a unit beginning its move or shooting from behind its front arc count their Armour as 1 lower than normal (so Armour 2 becomes Armour 1). This is pretty deadly so don’t get flanked!
Schiltrons cannot be flanked. "

It surely doesn't solve all the problems, but it's an interesting starting point.

The thing about problems with too much abstraction in a skirmish game is exactly one of the points I hold against Saga. Word for word.

[Codsticker]

Yeah, I have read that before. He is right: the game is simpler without them. As a game designer you could easily end up in a situation where stuffs come up: "Oh what about this?" and then an extra rule is added, then another and before you know it, what was intended as a nice simple, streamlined set of rules starts to lose that focus. It's interesting to read different game designers work and see what they deem is important for a game, whether it is a matter of realism or game-play, and the preference for one at the expense of another.

As I said earlier, I always seem to find something that doesn't work for me in every set of rules. For me, the best rules only have one or two situations like that; any more and I lose interest in them.