The Loose Association of Wargamers

All british cavalry ever! Unless led by Sackville.

Yes, I realised that: neither exclusive, nor all-embracing for either side, unfortunately.

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:41 pm All british cavalry ever! Unless led by Sackville.

And Slade, who twice halted a charge in the Peninsula to have the length of his stirrup straps altered.

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:45 pm

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:41 pm All british cavalry ever! Unless led by Sackville.

And Slade, who twice halted a charge in the Peninsula to have the length of his stirrup straps altered.

At least he actually charged.

Peeler and I tried out our draft DBECW rules tonight and managed with only the normal level of swearing. The rules played well but still need more 'fleshing out' so to speak.
I played the righteous Parliamentarians and Peeler was the Royalist lackeys. Classic deployments were required. I had a little more artillery but crapper troops and a unit of dragoons. Peeler had better quality Cavalry. Even so my cavalry broke his on both flanks, but and it was a big but, my infantry (in the centre of course) under a 'Dubious' commander refused to attack and in fact did the opposite (I threw a 1) and started to march off the battlefield. I was in a bit of a dilemma I wanted to try and control my successful cavalry on both flanks and at the same time sort out my retreating infantry, I couldn't do everything. So I galloped across to my dodgy (Dubious)retreating infantry commander who still refused to listen to me and continued his retreat, the 'treacherous b*****d. In the mean time my cavalry had broke and destroyed their opponent cavalry and because I was unable to issue any orders to them (which they may well of ignored) they continued to gallop towards the edge of the battlefield. Fortunately for me Peelers moral broke, due to the amount of casualties he had suffered and one of his Leaders being 'hors de combat' and one of his 'Dubious' Leaders leaving the field with only a light wound. His army moral broke and I won the battle despite the fact that my entire army was all heading off the board in both directions. The infantry on both side never met, It was a near run thing but THE RIGHTEOUS WON!

Consider this: If you could replay the game half a dozen times (same armies/quality mix) and get half a dozen different narratives - including the same one, but the other way around - then I'd say your rules have pretty much nailed the ECW, because it is very rare to read about an historical ECW battle and think: "Well, that was only going to end one way!"

I agree, it sounded very ecw!

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:26 am I agree, it sounded very ecw!

So there was a lot of farting and swearing in the ECW then ?

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:50 am Consider this: If you could replay the game half a dozen times (same armies/quality mix) and get half a dozen different narratives - including the same one, but the other way around - then I'd say your rules have pretty much nailed the ECW, because it is very rare to read about an historical ECW battle and think: "Well, that was only going to end one way!"

That is exactly our Aim with the rules. Regiments of infantry and cavalry didn't 'do their own thing' back in the day, that would be very dangerous on many levels. Also many commanders had their own agendas. So we have come up with a rule system that looks and feels like a DB game but plays very different.

DBECW Concept
DBECW is a Supplement to DBN. The game is to be played in a grand tactical style, with the aim of achieving a ‘no nonsense’ game with big decisive clashes in multiple battle lines and with a high level of difficulty in the issuing of orders and controlling of troops. All conducted in a very gentlemanly manner.

I see the concept, but fil to see where Peeler fits in?