My copies of these two books arrived yesterday. 'Twilight of Divine Right' is an adaptation of 'Twilight of the Sun King', but pitched at the 30 Years War and English Civil War. It's a self-contained set of rules; the core mechanisms are the same as Sun-King, but it has its own chrome and troop-types. I've skimmed through the book, and it looks like the authors have made some attempt to clarify some of the areas of Sun-King that weren't that well explained. A surprisingly useful change is that the morale test factors are grouped by troop type, so there are fewer multi-clause modifiers involving cavalry and infantry exceptions to untangle. There are some odd layout errors though; in one case a short rules-section seems to have been inserted into the text for a longer section, making for a confusing flow. And I've found a few typos as well, the most serious of which is that the text for the -2 factor for having an enemy in the rear is simply a copy of the flank factor text.
The rules include two scenarios, for the 1622 Battle of Fleurus (a 30YW scenario featuring 'conventional' pike & shot units against experienced Spanish tercios), and the 1644 Battle of Cheriton. They also include a system for randomly generating ECW armies, which look adaptable to other rules and does a nice job of reflecting changing unit quality, equipment, experience and fighting styles.
The second book, 'By The Sword Divided' is a volume of ten scenarios for Twilight of Divine Right. It features the battles you'd expect - Naseby, Edgehill, Marston Moor and both Newburys - as well as a few later ones from Ireland and Scotland - Knocknanoss, Winwick Pass and Dunbar. I've read through them and the setups seem clear and the terrain achievable on even the most modest tabletop (a bugbear of mine is scenarios with terrain so complicated you'd pretty much need to create specific game-board for it). They also look easily adaptable to other rules.
If you've read this blog you'll know that I kind of have a love-hate relationship with the Twilight rules. They are a clever set with some great ideas, let down but not being half as clear as they could, and should, be. However even if I never get around to playing the actual game, these booklets are useful to me in their own right though, both in terms of the scenarios and simply because it's helpful to see how elements of a conflict are translated into actual rules.
I fully intended to play TotSK but never got round to it, partly because of all the rules queries. I have also ordered ToDR hoping for better!
ReplyDelete'ordered ToDR hoping for better' Sorry Doc (and Kaptain), I think you may be disappointed. I bought a copy from the P&SS stand at Fiasco in Leeds a few weeks ago with exactly the same hope but they're definitely (at least)the same Curate's egg. To be positive (first), my regular oppo and I have taken the rules out for a short playtest and there were lots of positives: (a) we both enjoyed the game; (b) on the whole we were more than happy with the way the rules played; (c) the game looked good; (d) we definitely want to continue with the rules. On the other hand, the playtest and the prior reading threw up a lot of queries and exposed a fair body of errata and (apparent) inconsistencies. And that's a real shame. There are very few good, army level TYW rules about (none, maybe) so these will really fill a gap. But there's a lot of work to do on them to get them right. However the author seems very keen to do just that, so I'm definitely minded to try and help out by giving as much feedback and constructive criticism as possible. (Which I've done.) An unlike some writers he's very open to it. I'll be interested to hear how you fare with them, if and when you try them out. I'm a pretty regular visitor to your blog (and this one), so I'm bound to see it if you post it. All the best, Chris
ReplyDeleteHi Chris and thanks for that discouragement!
DeleteRules should be play-tested by totally unrelated people who don't necessarily share the author's assumptions, and they should be proof-read by somebody with good English, a logical mind and a sense of consistency/continuity.
Kind regards
Richard
That's a very prompt response Richard! And I agree entirely. But it occurs to me that I may well be judging the rules too harshly (cos I'm a geek, so I'm a bit prone to that). So when you've read them I'd be really interested to get your views, offline if you prefer. Yours too, oh Kaptain. (And sorry for clogging up your blog with these asides.) Regards, Chris
ReplyDeleteChris, They arrived today. I’m a long way off from trying them but I like the unit definitions and variations, and there are some clever ideas like the treatment of Swedish Brigades. I’m plannng to post some initial thoughts (on my own blog). I’d also like to hear more from the Kaptain.
DeleteYes, I confess I'm worried that if I set up a game and start playing I'm going to find myself falling down the rabbit-hole of trying to male sense of the rules again. The scenario book is great though; I've already adapted a couple for the Portable Wargame.
ReplyDeletemale = make.
Delete