53

[martin goddard]

Hello

53 was a quick "out".
There are changes to the compulsory scenery and pikes.
Pikes mark the end on the "middle" period of rule development I feel?



How are players coping with the "wind up" gun mechanism?

[Nick]

I like the gun rules very much, the reloading provides a nice unpredictable element I enjoy.

Nick

[Nick]

Just reading through 53 before setting up a game.
Assaults - just checking, is there no longer a maximum to the number of dice?

Nick

[martin goddard]

Thanks for responce Nick. I have quietly dropped it because I liked it but most did not. It might re appear??? Making some modifiers into negatives has calmed it down a bit.

[Nick]

I like the changes to scenery selection and placement. Fewer woods/buildings to mess up the centre of the battlefield.
How are others depicting streams? I am used to streams/rivers running from one table edge to another, but unsure how to use them in a single grid zone and still look good on the table?

Nick

[Stewart 46A]

Martin, some thoughts
1.Cavalry - like the overall mechanics but would like to be able to use them at time during my turn not just at the beginning
2. I think a ward that is attacked from two directions in the same turn regardless of the 1st result shouldn't be able to reorder or fire at the second assault.?

Stewart

[martin goddard]

For the stream how about a proper stream piece in the relevant zone, then a thin "trickle" continuing it across the table?

[martin goddard]

Stewart
If cavalry could be at any time in the turn that would add complexity but not achieve much?
A ward needs to recover else a player would throw in a stupid assault just to spoil the target ward, which could then be swept away too easily.  Don't want to encourage such gamey things.  Actions should involve some risk otherwise  no decision is relevant.

[Nick]

Scenario section.
A. 3+ effect. Morale fails only on 5 or 6 - is this for the whole army or just the King's ward?
C. 2 effect. Turn numbers need reversing now defender gets first turn.

Nick

[martin goddard]

Thanks Nick

It is only for the King's ward. He is a man amongst men.

[Leslie BT]

Nick, I am sure there will be other inconsistencies, Martin tends to amend and play using the playsheet.
I'll get them resolved when the rules arrive for checking.

[Nick]

BB53 battle report. First time with cavalry and handgunners.

Yorkists: Cavalry 2 H, 1 R. Infantry 1 H, 5 R, 5 L. Guns 1 heavy 2 light. 3 bases of handgunners.
Lancastrians: No cav. Infantry 2 H, 6 R, 5 L. Guns 2 light.

Yorkists just win piggy chase so attacking. Lancastrians reach level 4.

Scenery.
Attacker's edge
-,             gentle hill,   -            ,    stream
-,             -,                -,                -
hedges,    -,               gentle hill,    marsh
rough hill, -,               wood,          -

Yorkist plan - attack through centre and right, just hold left flank

Defender depletions: 9 half bases lost, 2 units to reinforcements

Forward zones - Y: move up on right flank, L: move up to hill in defenders 2nd row

Early rounds - some casualties from shooting, nothing terrible. First Y assault in centre repulsed.
Mid game - Y Cavalry appear, successful assault in middle against L infantry, few casualties but push L back and then Y infantry successfully exploit the gap. Hill in centre changes hands a couple of times through assaults.
Later rounds - L try to take back zones in their second row but all assaults fail, and then Y infantry take advantage of depleted L forces to push through to final row.
End of game (4 rounds each) - Y win 35 points to 12.

Thoughts:
Cavalry was fun, but is pretty much a one shot weapon. I only used cavalry for one side, but if both sides had cavalry any thoughts on "counter-charging" as currently opposing cavalry can never meet.
Light guns - not sure on their movement restrictions. Only straight forward? Can't go beyond 2nd row? - rules confusing.
Assaults were more fun than previous games - Zones in 2nd defender row were hotly contested and changed hands a couple of times.
The gradual wearing down of the armies felt right as the game went on.

regards,
Nick

[martin goddard]

Thanks for play testing Nick.
The defendable gentle hill and hedge in defender second row will make the attacker's job harder in those. That -2 does hurt.
I think your battle sounds like a good game for both players. One of the BB aims is to make the game enjoyable for both players.

Some thoughts
Light guns can end up anywhere within the four faces of its start zone. This gives a 5 zone map of freedom. I have restricted guns in BB as they often did most of their work in the night before. Unlike in Europe the effect of guns was pretty poor in the BB battles.   How do you feel about  their overall effect in the game?

Cavalry are treated in a  most unusual way in BB I agree.  I think the rule is achieving the desired outcome though(?).   
ie
Cavalry are absent from most of the armies (this works because players do not like to have points not fully engaged)
Cavalry are not closely co-operating with the infantry.  BB armies were notorious for lack of co -operation. Deliberately frustrating for players who are used to cavalry on call.
There was not usually enough good space on BB battlefields for cavalry manoeuvres of charge and counter charge. This accounts for the rapid reduction in the use of stakes on the collision battlefield.

The only sort of cavalry action in BB was when Richard broke through at Bosworth but the target was mainly infantry with a mounted bodyguard formation being the target.

In most battles (agreed there are not really that many less than 20 significant)  the  mounted high quality troops dismounted to shore up the battle line. At Blore Heath (early war) the cavalry had to attack across a  stream/ditch which ended in tears. The less enthusiastic cavalry at Blore actually changed sides and fought their own army. After Bore Heath cavalry charges were very very rare. The active cavalry would be the less armoured (prickers) ones employed in ambush, pursuit and scouting.


The good thing about BB is that we can create rules specific to the period rather than a mash up of generalities.  The acid test would be "Do these rules cover Agincourt and Bosworth". If so they have lost the identity of  both of those wars in order to produce a product that will l sell lots. 

[Nick]

Hi Martin,
It certainly was the most enjoyable play test so far, mainly due to the ebb and flow of key zones changing hands.
Thought on guns - I generally like the way they work (especially the reloading) but perhaps feel they are a bit too effective than they ought to be. The no saving rolls hurt.

Nick

[martin goddard]

Thanks for the feedback Nick.
Only play testing brings these things up.
Don't we all wish that some cars wild be better "play tested" to avoid some  real problems.

Guns may need a look at. The question might  be  whether gamers all go for guns?  If they all do then guns are too good in terms of play balance/cost.