Another ECW game

[ochoin]

With the loosening of restrictions I'm allowed up to 5 people in the house from next weekend!

So another game is in the offing for next Saturday. Once again, Dave's feisty Scots-Irish & this time my no doubt drunken English Royalist army will contest a Field of Glory: Renaissance game.

Scenario: There’s a Mousse Loose in the Hoose.
Preamble:
The late King Charles unwisely entrusted his most prized possessions to the Marquess of Montrose & his Scottish-Irish army. These possessions included barrels of his finest whisky, many sacks of coin & the crown jewels: chief of which is the Orb of the Crown featuring a large, brownish-hued diamond affectionately known as the ‘King’s Mousse’.
Montrose had given his oath not to relinquish these treasures to anyone but King Charles. Montrose must keep the treasure until Charles asked for it in person. As the King is now unfortunately dead, it seemed an unlikely occurrence. The English Royalist army, under Prince Rupert, thought they could use the riches to good purpose so………
The Game:
Montrose can deploy his army first, lengthways down the table, starting in the second quarter.
The English can deploy in the first quarter, no closer to Montrose than outside charge distance.
The wagons, loaded with treasure, are placed at the half way mark & must exit safely for Montrose to win.
The Scots get to deploy 6 ambush markers anywhere on their 75% of the table, any of which can hide a unit that can only be discovered when the enemy are within 6MUs.
The English may deploy an outflanking force of 3 units & a general whose arrival will be determined by being higher than % dice, thrown at the start of each game turn. Their number starts at 90 & goes down by 10 each turn. If they get the needed score, they deploy according to the FoG rules on flanking forces.
The game should go for 9 Turns. Montrose’s army must remain as a “force in being” and may not simply become a stampeding rabble, intent on escape (see Minor Victory as an incentive).

Terrain: to be mutually planned by both sides. A road will run the length of the table. At some point, a river needing fording (ie any unit must halt before crossing. If a riverbank is defended, it will count as an obstacle). Two BUAS will also feature.

Victory Conditions:
Total Victory rests on capturing or getting the wagons away. Minor victory will be gained by having fewer fragmented , broken & routed units than the enemy (as per the rules).

Should be a hoot.

donald

[ochoin]

After further discussion, some more "add-on" rules for the game:

In FoG, once you begin any hand to hand stuff, it lasts until one side is destroyed. This is not ideal for a force attempting to delay an enemy. So.....
1. Any unit can disengage at the end of melee & move directly away from their opponent using the Variable roll table but end up facing their enemy. Their opponent can either choose to halt or to pursue, also using the variable roll table. If further contact ensues, an Impact & a Melee phases would be immediately run.
NB this would give Montrose's forces the possibility of disengaging.

According to the rules only Foot can enter villages. So to maximise this great source of cover....
2. BUAs can hold only one unit but this may be Horse. A mounted unit cannot defend the village but can ride out, as an evade move, on any side, if an enemy Horse or Foot unit tried to enter.
NB this would allow Montrose to use a BUA as cover for your Horse. IE they can’t be attacked whilst inside. If I was to move a unit (Foot or Horse) inside, you’d get one clear move to escape. Very "moss trooper" like.

donald

[BaronVonWreckedoften]

In FoG, once you begin any hand to hand stuff, it lasts until one side is destroyed. This is not ideal for a force attempting to delay an enemy. So.....
1. Any unit can disengage at the end of melee & move directly away from their opponent using the Variable roll table but end up facing their enemy. Their opponent can either choose to halt or to pursue, also using the variable roll table. If further contact ensues, an Impact & a Melee phases would be immediately run.
NB this would give Montrose's forces the possibility of disengaging.

Nothing to add on rule #2, but some units can withdraw voluntarily from combat anyway. I'd need to check the rules on which ones, but I think horse - except cavaliers or gensdarmes - can. I would suggest requiring Highlanders to take a test (a simple die roll, needing a 1 or 2 to disengage, 3-6 and they keep on fighting) as such an action would require a level of discipline and control (hence you can't do it if you are disrupted or fragmented) that one would not normally associate with such troops; this would at least force the Montrose player to think twice before committing them to melee. Ditto Cavaliers, who were also not terribly disciplined.

[Shahbahraz]

Were McColla's men that much more disciplined? Disengaging from combat was one of the hardest things to achieve.

[ochoin]

Gentlemen, I really appreciate your input & I'm certainly open to changing my mind.
I have two reasons for this contentious 'tweak": one practical & one historical.

Firstly, this is meant as a type of rear guard action. Montrose can stay & fight if he chooses (& frankly, my wily opponents may well decide to do this, with some or all of their army). But if Montrose actually wants to fight a delaying action, he must be able to disengage with some chance of success. Keep in mind the Variable Move thing, which may end up with the Dis-engagers being caught & the fact I will try to position additional units to take care of any Scots disengaging. So it is not necessarily an unalloyed advantage.
But, as I know full well from previous FoG games, a melee is fought to the bitter end & is concluded in defeat or victory. So, Montrose will either not allow his units to be caught & the game will be an uninteresting chase or he should forget the scenario & just fight a standard battle because without this tweak, anything else is impractical. There are existing 'Break Off' moves in the rules but they mostly involve more or less destroyed units. who are, to be accurate, merely trying to delay the inevitable.

Secondly, I should add that historically, an ordered retreat is something Montrose pulled off a few times. I think Highlanders in general & MacColla's rather excellent command in particular weren't idiots & that a respected leader could explain previous to the encounter, that this tactic must be followed & the encounter is not a battle to the death. I would imagine my opponents positioning their Highlanders in particular to allow the English Cavaliers to attack them but with broken ground behind that will allow them to disengage successfully. This seems quite historically accurate to me.

I certainly will take on board the idea of dicing to see if these Break Offs can happen & run it past my pals.

regards, donald

[ochoin]

We've been talking about the proposed tweak to allow units to allow units in melee to disengage. After some thought, I wonder if you chaps are right & we shouldn’t allow this happen without a test?

There is, actually, an existing Complex Move Test in the rules.

It requires a modified 8+ on 2 X D6 to pass. Commanders in range add a +1 and commanders attached another, Quality re-rolls also allowed. There’s –1 and -2 if the unit is disrupted/fragmented. This might be used to see if a disengagement after a round of melee can occur.

donald