I am playing around with my Portable ECW rules a little more at the moment, looking at two things. The first is the co-location of artillery with other units, rather than it occupying a square on its own. I covered this in a post earlier this month. The second is a tweak to the way flank attacks work.
Flanking enemy units is basically very easy in most iterations of the Portable Wargame, but over time I've made the effects of being flanked deadlier, especially in how it affects the ability to retreat. For the past year I've been considering ways to help reduce this. I started by looking at making it harder to make a flank attack, but couldn't get that to work for me. But the other day I clicked that really I'd created my own problem by making it harder - nay, impossible - for flanked units to retreat. I went back to the basic Portable Wargame rules and in those a unit can simply retreat, so long as it's not blocked by terrain or other units. So if you are hit in the front and have an enemy on your flank as well, you can still retreat from the unit in front of you.
So for my own Portable ECW rules I have decided to try the following change: When testing for the effects of a hit a unit takes a -1 modifier to the roll if they are in the frontal zone of more than one unit. This makes it more likely that they will simply take a hit, but doesn't preclude a retreat. The rule that a unit cannot retreat if in the front squares of more than one unit is removed. All other retreat rules apply.
To test this I set up my refight of Newbury, which has become a default scenario for any testing, since it has a decent number of units, a relatively simple battlefield and roughly equal forces.
So here is everything set up and ready to go, with Parliament on the right and the Royalists on the left.
Glad to see the co-location rules are working well for you. That scenario works well for the linear tactics of the time. A real meat grinder of a battle.
ReplyDeleteYes, it has a nice set-up - an infantry slog in the centre, a flank with tricky terrain to fight in and a great big open flank suitable for a cavalry action.
DeleteYou need to play more games? No bad thing then 😉
ReplyDeleteThe colocation of artillery seems to work and you just need to test more to check the changes for flanking. That’s progress - and you get to play more games. That’s a win:win in my book.
Cheers,
Geoff
Oops. I got an error submitting my comment a minute ago. Let’s try again. What I said was:
ReplyDeleteYou need to play more games? No bad thing then 😉
The colocation of artillery seems to work and you just need to test more to check the changes for flanking. That’s progress - and you get to play more games. That’s a win:win in my book.
Cheers,
Geoff
Ps/ and, while I think about it, what changes or additions would you make for Thirty Years War games? Off the top of my head the main considerations I have would be to somehow represent the religious fervour of both sides and also the use of light cavalry such as the Croats.
I'm not really sure what the significant differences for the 30YW would be - it's not a conflict I know much about.
DeleteKaptain Kobold,
ReplyDeleteIt’s great to see you using your excellent ECW rules again, and your latest changes seem to be working well.
All the best,
Bob
Look good. Have you a summary of the changes you have made since the publication of the Portable ECW book in which your rules appear?
ReplyDeleteCheers Simon
The flanking change is covered above, and the artillery co-location in n earlier post on the Battle of Alton. They are both currently under development.
DeleteFinalised changes can be found here:
https://hordesofthethings.blogspot.com/2021/12/portable-ecw-changes.html
They include a change to the activation system, some changes to how damage is resolved and a change to the random events.
Thanks.
ReplyDelete