Setup. Royalists at the top and Parliamentarians at the bottom.
Or left and right.
Parliament starts with some of its cavalry off-table, so the Royalists had an early advantage.
When Parliament's remaining cavalry turned up the Royalists found the fight a little harder.
The Royalists attacked with their foot so that the Parliamentarian foot wasn't free to support their horse.
Parliament's horse turned the tide in their side's favour, routing a number of their Royalist foes.
The Royalist foot, although more numerous than their opponent's, failed to make any headway. With most of their horse scattered, their army's momentum ground to a halt, and I called the action for Parliament.
The locking of units in front of enemy units worked OK for movement. However, as with any changes to a game, there were unintended consequences. or, at least, things I hadn't thought of. I have to consider what to do about involuntary movement. That is, can a unit retreat if it would not otherwise be able to leave a square in front of enemy units? And, in a similar vein, can a unit pursue from in front of an enemy? I need to ponder the pros and cons.
Look forward to see how you progress with these amendments. Have you considered negating the zone of control if the unit is engaged in melee.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but I'm trying to keep things simple without too many exceptions. Retreats in the Portable Wargame are voluntary, so I may forbid them - it makes being flanked nicely dangerous, since you can't fall back to offset taking a hit. And most pursuits are voluntary as well, so I may forbid voluntary pursuits, but keep the one compulsory one (Gallopers)
Delete