Well, the final test game has been played. I'm not quite sure why the British lost the third game in a row, after all, its a simple encounter scenario, not favouring either side.
 |
| The French had a hard time deploying so once again they stalled not even half way through the gap, leaving their light troops isolated. |
Each game was close with the British gaining a superior tactical position by mid-game and then suddenly crumbling at the height of the fighting thanks to some of the worst dice rolling I've seen in a while. The French were using the same dice and managed to even out the distribution by rolling low early on and then handfuls of 5's and 6's vs the British 1's and 2's at critical moments to achieve a minor victory. That's fate, kharma or just plain luck.
 |
| The British fell for it and pressed forward with their right while unintentionally refusing their left even as they extended it to try and flank the shorter French line. |
The revived mutual melee rule didn't last even the first round, (I rather partly blame/credit the subconscious influence of Neil Thomas for that but the routine randomness of the mechanic also played its part.)
On the other hand, the old rally mechanism which I've been using since 2002 but which stems from my own MacDuff rules 10 years before that did confirm its place. So did the alternate 'move OR fire OR rally' sequence with more effective musketry at range 1 rather than a different mechanism. Since I can't think of any examples of opposing infantry crossing bayonets in an open field during the wars I'm covering, I have nothing to argue against the simplicity and apparent effectiveness of the method. When coupled with shifting initiative, an attacker is likely to suffer one or two close range volleys from the defender but if they wait until they go second they have a chance at getting in the first volley and if the enemy has been softened up by artillery or skirmishers before the attack goes in, well.....
So, once again, the online draft of rules has been adjusted to match how the game was actually played (see here). This is very close to the version I used for the 1812 game and the first of these Anglo-French games and that is how they will stay for the foreseeable future. Of course around here the future is veiled, but at least until the next game, probably an 1812 one, whenever it happens.
 |
| And so, having succeeding in throwing 8 units vs 5, the British were swiftly routed. (I think I'll paint up a new British General using one of the new cavalry officer moulds...) |
In the meantime, there is painting and basing to be done and that collection of Prince Valiant strips waiting to be read which will doubtless lead to more painting and maybe...
Well, the crystal ball is cloudy, we'll just have to wait and see.
Fascinating development process. Do you track what you have tried, what has worked/failed, what you liked/disliked, etc. all while factoring in (or out) the luck of the die and the tactical situation?
ReplyDeleteI blog anything significant but more than that, I do the writing in google docs and save signigicant versions or even save a file under a new name.
DeleteWhen I feel that a change is needed or desired, I look back at blogposts and past versions to remind myself of what worked or didn't and why. I also have a good store of relevant books, mostly old since there have not been many rules published this century that have appealed.
As for luck, I have faith in the randomness of my dice but do look at maximum and minimum possibilities as well as the average. But, since I don't really trust theory when applied to the real world, I have also been known to set up some figures and repeat an attack or firefight again and again to see what average or extreme results feel like in almost real life before getting to the test game phase.
Something I haven't had much chance to do over the last 10-15 years is to subject friends to testing new rules but a live test is a prerequisite to taking new rules to a con, even if its virtual but a live test is best.
There is great method to your madness! Thank you for the detailed explanation on how you approach version control.
DeleteWe aim to please.
DeleteSomehow your battles seem incredibly enticing. Apparently you have the touch ! Thank you for sharing with us.
ReplyDeleteMy pleasure. Thanks for stopping by and for the comment.
DeleteThe field of battle looks great! On the poor dice rolling I had a figure roll 4 “1s” on successive d6 rolls. Included snake eyes to jam my weapon then a one in melee where I got a retool and rolled a one.
ReplyDeleteDice! You just can't trust 'em.
DeleteThe dice were manufactured in France. Obviously!
ReplyDeleteGreat game report, look forward to more.
Could be. Looking back, those 4 1's that stalled the early French deployment might have actually saved them.
DeleteAwaille! I almost feel bad... and then I don't. Ultimately, it's a game. But there might be some gentle mocking afterwards... :-)
ReplyDeleteGlad to see the game posted.
Eric
I don't see any problem from France! 😊😊...Great looking battle anyway!
ReplyDeleteAnother great looking game! Better luck with the dice next time!
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the photos of your figures and table are well worth the price of entry! A joy to view.
ReplyDeleteI don't like it if the dice decide the day. Generally, despite a biased recall, one can identify mistakes in command that made the difference. Not the case here as you have a few units a side line 'em up and shoot playtest. Mind you, in a Plains of Abraham-style shoot out perhaps it is as simple as he who gets off the best volley?
Regards, James
The odd thing was that the bad dice evened out in the end with both sides taking turns rolling a string of high or a string of low. Over all game average was probably equal but rolling 5 or 6 1's and 2's in a row, several times in a game, especially in a turn where the enemy has just rolled as many 5's and 6's, just boggles the mind. Luckily, they took turns at it so in the end it was one or two poor/good decisions that mattered.
Delete