I set up refight of the 1643 battle of Hopton Heath yesterday, based on a scenario posted on the Portable Wargame Facebook Group by Leeson Paul.
I did make a couple of modifcations; some to fit the OOB with my rules and one because I didn't have enough dragoon units to field the three per side that the scenario calls for. I also made a couple of mistakes in replicating his terrain and set-up; an additional hedge and putting the Parliamentarian shot in the wrong place.
Anyway, on with the OOB
Royalists
Commander - Lord Northampton - 1SP
Northampton's Horse - 3SP
Prince of Wales Horse - 4SP
Loughborough's Horse - 3SP
Lane's Horse Regiment - 2SP
Loughborough's Dragoons - 2 x 3SP
Bagot's Foot - 3SP
A Very Big Gun - 2SP
Total 24SP (Break Point 12)
Parliament
Commander - Sir John Gell - 1SP
Gell's Horse - 2SP
Brereton's Horse - 2SP
Brereton's Dragoons - 2 x 3SP
Gell's Foot - 4SP
Brooke's Foot - 4SP
Brereton's Foot - 4SP*
Gell's Musketeers - 3SP
Guns - 2 x 2SP
Total 30SP (Break Point 15)
*Roll a D6 at the start of each turn. On a '6' this unit arrives on the road.
Here's the setup, with the Royalists to the left and Parliament to the right.
So a short engagement in which the Royalists never really got going. I tried it again this morning, and the Royalists did a little better. The swept away Parliament's horse, but couldn't finish off the dragoons in the centre. Their own dragoons failed to oust Gell's Musketeers from the hedges on Parliament's left and Brereton's Foot turned up to drive them off and break the Royalist army again.
In both games (and the others I played this week) I used the experimental diagonal proximity rule I'd come up with last year to make flank attacks harder. I'm beginning to think it doesn't really work and now restricts movement just a little too much, so I'm going to consider something else to limit flank attacks.
I also tried out allowing units to co-locate with guns, since it's always irked me that artillery takes up a whole square. I currently only have scribbled notes, but this is what they say:
"Gun Co-Location
A unit may share a square with a gun.
Both must be activated individually.
The unit always counts as the primary occupant in terms of being a target or initiating combat.
The gun may fire normally if the unit doesn't have a target within range.
Otherwise the unit fires and the gun gives it a +1
A gun in a square gives a defending unit a +1 in close combat if the combat is taking place in the direction the gun is pointing.
If the unit is forced to retreat from close combat and the attacker can pursue, the gun is lost. Otherwise it takes a hit if the unit with it retreats."
There's still a few things to iron out, such as what happens if the gun and the unit aren't facing the same direction, but I'll wing that for now.
Good stuff. When allowing guns and infantry to stack (which I generally do, artillery on their own are just silly and hideously vulnerable) I assume the guns are part of the infantry unit, which saves worrying about facing. Wrt flank attacks, I usually forbid them unless the unit starts the move behind the front of the target unit. The idea of Pike and Shot or even Napoleonic infantry spinning on a sixpence to magically swing 90 degrees at the end of their move and pull off a flank attack which even Pattons armoured divisions would have struggled with, strikes me as silly.
ReplyDeleteHi, fame at last!!! It is not any easy battle to refight, I found the out flanking rules essential to give the Royalist Horse the 'Shock' effect of their charge tactics as opposed to Parliaments static and fire tactics. Your Gun Co-location rules look interesting and will work for the support that infantry guns were meant to give the infantry. Arthur Harman's combat mechanisms from his 3x3 rules in the Compendium, also help as there are more options than just -1SP or Retreat. Paul [Leeson].
ReplyDeleteI don't differentiate cavalry types in my rules, which is probably some kind of heresy, but there we go. I decided that the PW isn't granular enough for it to be an issue and that the different tactics are kind of lost in the scheme of things.
DeleteOf course it also saves having to work out what the tactics of a particular cavalry unit were for any given era or battle are :)
As long as the rules give a plausible outcome then it’s a success. Hopefully your experimentation with modifications will at least give you an idea what works/what doesn’t. It’s always worthwhile having specific rules/modifications for some battles or circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI recently won some 25/28mm English Civil War figures from eBay, but they’re only for generic ECW/30YW skirmishing.
Cheers,
Geoff
Another great report, Kaptain. The ECW games always get my attention…I have a feeling the integrated guns may give a more realistic feel, as they were, it seems, more a nuisance than an asset in the field (as against in sieges, where they were vital). Would love to hear any further ideas re the flank attacks in PW (a part of gridded PW which can be exploited too easily, and feels less ‘realistic’ than much of the otherwise excellent concepts of the game).
ReplyDelete