Stewart versus martin and Chris.
A really good game.
We were a bit rusty on the rules but at the game end all seemed well remembered(?)
I think it is an easy game to learn for most potential players.
Chris and martin defended and Stewart attacked.
The game began with Stewart launching a crashing cavalry charge all the way across the wing. His cavlry swept away martin's heavy guns and accompanying units on the hill.
On the other flan Chris pushed forward and battered Stewart's flank. Chris had the king in play.
Fair bit of pushing and shoving in the table centre.
Stewart killed a multitude of generals (4?). Very bloody.
The game ended in draw as both sides pushed far ahead with their left wings.
Stewart lost more units but Chris and martin had mire shredded units.
Notes
1. Stewarts' cavalry were crushing but the busy scenery left them only 1 viable column of attack.
2. martin's heavy guns did really good work, but for only 1 turn as they got swept away.
3.There were a couple of wild fights as the D6 were equally very high or equally very low.
4. Plenty of intense shooting exchanges.
5. The game flowed wonderfully using the unmarked zones. A great balance of aesthetic and easiness. Great. I would like to use this concept again but it only works with fewer zones?
martin :)
martin :)
Ah cheeky - getting in a little practice before tomorrow, I see...
Simon
martin forgot to mention he got the KING killed, very careless of him.
Stewart
How completely out of character for Martin. :D
Surely not a mad yet heroic headlong charge against questionable odds, for which he only needed 4 sixes on three dice to win the day?
Simon
I do believe I am right in that only headlong charges are acceptable military tactics?
There may be other tactics but I have not heard of them Simon.
Surely better to go out on a pointless charge than dig in and win?
It's not about the winning it's about futile gestures of military pomp.
Think my position is quite correct although I usually lose.
Apart from that Stewart's blood was up and he could have spared our many generals?
martin :)
Maybe the next set of rules (C&K?) to come out could include a short appendix on player traits (e.g. on a match-your-play-to-the-historic-general basis)?
We could list a few key attributes of well-known RFCM players, and try to match them accordingly?
E.g. "are you feeling in a Martin mood today, or more of a Stewart, or perhaps a Big Mike or a Miles when it comes to army composition, set-up and tactics"?
Simon