 |
| Plain side of the boards now have squares on |
So what's all this, Foy?
Well, in common with a lot of other chaps I
have been looking at the For King and
Parliament rules, which are a recent ECW extension of the popular To the Strongest Ancient/Medieval game,
and I have to say I am very impressed.
I am pretty comfortable with my own current
C&CN-based ECW game, which
handles very large games splendidly, but there are a few characteristic
subtleties of pike & shot warfare which I have struggled to build into such
a high-level rule set. Having received good reports of To the Strongest, I purchased the FK&P rules, and am currently on my 4th read-through. They look
good. They seem to offer a very entertaining game, not too complex, the
philosophy of which is very much in the spirit of how I like wargames to be,
and they handle some of these aforementioned subtleties rather nicely. Hmmm.
I have reached the point where it would
make sense to try the game out. My two overriding concerns are whether it really
would handle what I regard as a large battle, and - to be frank - I am a bit
alarmed by the amount of clutter associated with it. I don't care for roster
systems, so having all necessary information on the table, with the units, is
very acceptable. On the other hand, this game involves copious use of playing
cards (it is a dice-free system, though there are dice-based alternatives),
ammunition chits of three varieties (pistol, musket and artillery - why three varieties? - is this because
infantry may have light artillery attached?), "dash" chits for cavalry,
"untried" markers, pursuit pointers, victory "medals",
disorganisation chits (= losses in the terminology of most other games) and
assorted information about specific leaders and units. I have obtained some
half-sized playing cards, but I am concerned that all this stuff might reduce
the tabletop (especially if the tabletop has me attached) to a state that in a
less correct age would have been termed as like a tart's handbag.
I'm working on it - I have consulted the
Jolly Broom Man, who is also looking to adopt these rules, and he has some
constructive thoughts on how it may be possible to reduce the depth of
laser-printed MDF counters so that one may see over the top.
First practical issue for me is that the
game uses a square grid. I have no problem with this at all - I am very much in
favour of grids - except that I do not have such a thing handy. Well, I didn't
- I do now. I gave some thought to tweaking the game so it would work with
hexes (I have boards, scenery, all sorts for a hex-based game). The Northumbrian Wargamer's excellent blog
explains the adaptation to hexes, and it seems to work OK. I decided against
that, to give the game a fair trial in its intended form.
I came up with a simple way of adding a
square grid to the reverse (plain) side of my existing warboards - a solution
which could be quickly and easily painted over if I lose interest in the idea,
which understates the square pattern in the interests of avoiding dizzy turns,
and is subtle enough to be ignored if an un-gridded field is needed. The
picture makes it clear what I have done - this is one of the table sections,
freshly marked out on the reverse side. To allow room for the 60mm square bases
I use with my ECW troops, I settled on 7½ inch
squares. This may seem like an odd size, but it works OK with my unit sizes,
and it very conveniently divides into a 5-foot table width to give 8 squares
deep. I have marked out the boards so that I can have a 12 x 8 cell standard
table, or 15 x 8 if I add in the (5th) extension board
. That's all fine - I haven't tried it yet, but it seems workable. I will have
a problem to solve for roads (which run through the centres of cells, but I
don't have any suitable bits for 8" squares) and streams (which run around
the edges of squares, a system which seems more intuitively comfortable than
the C&CN arrangement, but - again
- I will need to set something up). Most of the other scenic bits I can
probably hash together from what I already have.
Despite my (predictable?) carping,
nit-picking approach, I am enthusiastic. If the rules really do allow very big
games to be fought then I am ready to make FK&P
my ECW rules of choice. If they work well, but don't handle anything as big as
Marston Moor (etc), then I can still turn my boards over to the hex side and
use the C&CN-based game for
special whoppers. A lot will depend on how comfortable I am with the amount of
clutter involved.
From being the only wargamer in the known
universe who uses 7-inch hexes, I have moved on to be the only one to use 7½-inch squares. Whether or not this is progress will reflect how the
test games go.
FK&P will handle big battles just fine... if you have several players a side. It will be slower for 2 players or solo, but not bad. The thing about the cards is that they play a lot faster than rolling dice. You have to try it to see, but it really is true. No amount of dice juju, etc is going to change what the next card in the deck is, so you as well just play it! :-)
ReplyDeleteJust because Sim,on suggests (or makes!) 3 different types of ammo markers is nor reason that you need to. They all save exactly the same purpose. You could use small D6's as ammo markers (or dials, like I do), or various barnyard animals, as I do for Disorder for some rules. I have a bunch of ECW casualty figures on the painting table to do for use with FK&P (they will serve as "hit' (Disorder) markers.
The 7.5" squares aren't really that odd for FK&P; my TtS! grid is made with 150 cm/6" squarer, but I have considered doing one with 8" squares, as it would fit my Pike and shot units better. Indeed, Simon himself uses an 8" grid for FK&P with his big units.
Good luck with your trial!
Thanks very much for this, Peter - very much appreciated - helpful and reassuring! I watched a couple of YouTube films about FK&P, and was struck by the very attractive nature of Simon's 28mm games - the painting and the flags and the scenery are all beautiful - really lovely - and the clever wavy-edge bases all help to maximise this visual effect, but the cards are a major culture shock for me (not so much the cards themselves, but certainly the appearance of full-sized cards played on the table next to the troops) and it is clear from a quick glance behind these sumptuous units that they are trailing a remarkable amount of crud around the table, compared with what I am used to. As I say, work to rationalise this is in hand (I am not easily put off!), but I need to cut it down a good bit - if at any point I feel I'm forced to use off-table rosters to compensate then that will be disappointing.
DeleteThe game looks like fun - I have not yet developed a feel for the exact division of duties in a multi-player game - presumably the use of a single deck of cards for each side and the way the activation works mean that the multiple players spend a fair amount of time watching. This will become clear, I'm sure. [Digression: one of the things I really like about FoB is that different areas of the battlefield can all progress independently, with the various generals getting on with their own jobs, and the play of the sequence cards provides a checkpoint which ties everything back together.]
One of Simon's throwaway comments during one clip was to the effect that the cards get tidied away at the end of each turn, so it is still possible to take photos etc. I'm not sure that was encouraging, but I'll take it all at face value!
Again - thanks.
Interesting. Always glad to see someone else experimenting with rules mechanisms, play aids, grid sizes & shapes. So much easier than doing it myself or else a reassurance that I'm not that crazy when I find myself test drawing test 5" hexes on my board and contemplating ways to improve a game and then finding myself desperately trying to convince myself that complete reorganization and re-basing is NOT required.
ReplyDeleteThis particular game is backed up by a pretty heavy-duty omline shop selling playmats, chits and so on. I enjoyed looking around the products - the quality seems very good, but (for example) the victory medals (one of the options for the ECW period is a pack of cast pewter, plated Charles I sixpences, which is pretty cool) come i at about £15 for a pack of 10 or 12 - an army at a very large battle might requite 60 or more of these, so this is a major investment - I think I'd have to be really sure I was going to use the game a lot before I got involved with that amount of infrastructure. For one thing, I'd be far cheaper using real coins - even moderately exotic ones! Classy though.
DeleteI've taken the easy way out and ordered one of master Millers battle mats. Like you I still have to revisit the whole terrain thing though. I shall enjoy muddling through these new rules alongside you.
ReplyDeleteMy first efforts - probably kicking off this evening - are going to use the half-size patience cards (I bought in a lot of cheap Chinese packs) and assorted colours of tiddlywinks - just to get me started, you understand. Problem with tiddlywinks is they won't stack without falling over and spreading about the place. If your miniature Lego buttons are redundant, I may ask you about them in a day or two!
DeleteI was trying to think of some cute device or dioramic element which would work for the various chits. For ammo I'd thought about little barrels, but realised that isn't too clever for cavalry. Working on it...
DeletePistols need powder too!
DeleteThey certainly do, but the idea of little barrels of powder hopping along behind the cavalry was not conducive to serious military application. I'll keep thinking!
DeleteHmm, I'll watch this with interest and see what your conclusions are. (If that's ok with you.) I have no problem with grids or with card based systems, but I am easily put off by a trail of counters, markers, dice, etc, following in a unit's wake. Entertaining and not too complex sounds the very thing though.
ReplyDeleteIn the necessary role of Devil's Advocate (briefly), I have to say that there is something [pleasingly businesslike about the stacked ammo chits in the promotional videos - makes it very much a professionally produced game - Waddington-style. The problem for me is that my flat old-school battleboard and sabots are not going to show off such items to advantage. I even got as far as thinking about setting up a magnetic whiteboard to carry the rosters, and then I slapped myself. Whiteboards are OK for quick-ref highlights and important bulletins everyone has to know, but not for keeping score - I get very tired and pissed off very quickly fumbling for the glasses and trying to remember which bit of the battlefield the latest table-look-up was connected with. Action has to be kept right where the soldiers are - it's good for immediacy and maintaining excitement and just plain ergonomics - that's the chief reason I dropped the use of computers in wargames, by the way.
DeleteHmm, wise move. White boards should remain the stuff of training courses.
DeleteI was watching a game of L'art de Guerre at our local club the other week and it seemed to involve a profusion of gaily coloured plastic tiddlywinks among the troops. Very distracting. Tart's handbag is a good description - I wish I'd thought of it.
The MDF chits might not be so bad, I suppose. At least the colour wouldn't be so obtrusive.
I agree about the cards, I use the small MDF chits that Simon produces and this makes for a much tidier game. I really love 'To the Strongest' and I am sure that this game will also be excellent.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it's going to be a good game - I just need to fine-tune the equipment so that it suits me. Thanks, Jason - best regards - Tony
Deletewhat you write like great but I didn't understand.
ReplyDeleteCheating Playing Cards Device in India
I get a constant trickle of excrement to this blog - mostly from the Indian subcontinent, as it happens - trying to sell viagra, or promoting some wacky political cause. I liked this contributor's style, but the ad behind the link is as dismal as ever. They will enable you to cheat at poker, apparently - in fact I'm not sure what it will enable you to do - what they write I like great but I didn't understand.
DeleteI find this doubly depressing - I had a fleeting involvement in joint business projects in the finance world involving the Indian government, and I know that Indians are hardworking, ethical people, and the proportion of them who assume that Westerners are so dumb and worthless as to fall for computer support scams or telephone scams or anything-else scams is really very small. The impression given is unfortunate. Also, the number of residents of Kolkata who are really called Henry Smith is almost zero, apparently. India is one of the great, fast-growing economies - sometime after Brexit, I am confident that Indian-based multinationals will be exploiting low British labour costs by putting their phone helpdesks here. Don't shout at me - I bet you a euro it turns out to be true.
Hi Tony, I'll be interested to see how things go with these rules. Rob - who bought my Hinchliffe ECW's - is currently rebasing them all for these rules and generally tarting them up a bit. The pictures of Simons large units looks most impressive but rather spoilt (in my opinion) by the playing cards laid down behind them. I can't really claim to be a wargamer these days, but I know I would struggle with that. I like the idea of half size cards though, rather like the half size C&C cards I used with 6mm figures, far less intrusive so that might well work better. Good luck with them, look forward to reading more.
ReplyDeleteHi Lee - hoping to get started with some trial games this weekend. I'm pleased to read that your old ECW army is alive and well - very good. If Rob chooses to rebase everything then good for him - more power to his elbow - but I am surprised that he is doing it for FK&P. For one thing, I thought your basing was among the best I've ever seen, but also the square grid in FK&P is supposed to make the basing standards immaterial - you can fight Warhammer figures against WRG - anything goes. Just a minute - Rob hasn't bought a mat with small cells, has he? Ah - that would explain it.
DeleteHi Tony, Rob is reducing the frontage slightly, placing the command groups at the front of each unit as opposed to at the rear where they were. He is also giving each unit hand painted flags to match the few that were there, mostly among the horse. My basing was intentionally 'old school' to match the figures but Rob is giving them the more durable grit/grass finish, some of the filler was prone to cracking. Finally, the Royalist command group has a fine hand painted Royal Banner by none other than Wellington Man himself :) Look forward to reading the results of your trial games.
DeleteOK - Rob seems to be doing a good job - wouldn't have expected anything else, of course. Not even Charles I had a Royal Banner by WM, so that is indeed prestigious! Am working on some test situations with FK&P tonight - rules are fine, but some apparent fixes seem to get mentioned once in a dark corner as an important exception - I'll get the hang of this, I'm sure.
DeleteI've got For King and Parliament, I've tried and enjoyed to the strongest,I have to say I didn't find the playing cards all that distracting,they go down and are cleared up each go, so they don't mess the table up too much and it moves at a fair clip (even with a certain amount of fumbling with the rules) we got by with bits and bobs that we had to hand,I was thinking of basing some stones on pennies and finishing the pennies in my base colours so they wouldn't be too intrusive,overall I have to say I was enthusiastic about it.
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Thanks very much Iain - that's reassuring! I've got my newly-squared table set up for a few test situations this evening. The place is awash with coloured tiddlies, but I'll come up with some creative (!) replacements.
DeleteRegards - Tony