Common Scots vs Mongols

[Moggy]

Yes, someone must have gotten lost on their way to the field of battle but.......

Another playtest with John playing his second game (first was at Weymouth so no idea what version of the rules it was then) and me on my (lost track of how many game but only my second with an opponent).

We decided not to use V30 rules due to the issues raised in a seperate thread.

Mongol Army

Cav   elite   Bow Sh   1
Cav   Vet   arm Bow Sh   2
Cav   Vet   Bow Sh   2
Cav   Trd   Bow Sh   3
Cav sk         10
aux   levy   sh           4

I will let John post his list when he can.

The piggy chase went as expected as I started with the maximum bonus and ended up about 14 ahead. This left John to defend.

Only 1 rough hill, a couple of woods, a couple of rough ground and an obstructed were laid and moved around the table a little but John was left with his baseline central squares holding both a wood and the obstructed zones. This restricted his deployment as his artillery only had 1 space to deploy that had a filed of view due to the other terrain.

As the terrain in my corners had moved well into the table middle I decided not to leave my levy just blocking from flanking attacks and made use of them. They made up my left flank only supported by a couple of cav skirmishers. The raminder of these formed a large block facing the rough hill on Johns right that was in row 2. I predicted John would move his foot troops onto this hill and stay put. My plan was for 5 Sk bases to rush, shoot and rush out again. over and over.

On my right I made 2 large blocks of 4 cav supported by enough Cav skirmishers to provide rear support. but able to rush out to the flanks.

John made a descision to remain on his baseline where he had some terrain. After a couple of turns of being pin-cushioned by skirmishers cavalry he moved forward. HWen my 2 large blocks of cav pounced and caused wailing and crying of the womenfolk.

We didn't get much further than this as time in the club was starting to press and it would have been a forgone conclusion on the result.

Some conclusions we arrived at:

A foot infantry non-shooty army will have some serious problems facing any cav heavy shooty army. I think we both felt that skirmishers are too effective when mounted. Yes they are doing what they should be doing but doing it too well. Block of 5 bases=10 dice. Probably 3-4 hits. probably 1-2 casualties. In case I got 6 hits and Johns saves were not the best that day!

As for the cavalry going in it went pretty much as expected and although close in terms of number of hits John came out lighter in number. This combined with remaining on the baseline pretty well mulched his centre and left flank.

Overall I think it was a fun game and John i stoic enough to know this was a play-test of completely different types of forces. Most other play tests I have noticed have been with similar Armies in the same period and general geography. I suppose this influences the fact that similar Armies from the same area had similar armies.

Final positions on the table were:



Items with the rules we spotted in v29 (I dont think they have been corrected in V30) were:

Artillery -

P6 (Occupancy of zones) shows that the first artillery piece in not counted towards occupancy. P24 (Artillery) shows that Artillery does not count towards occupancy.  In Johns case he had 3 pieces he wished to deploy in the same zone?

P7 - (definititions) - Unit - A group of....or an artillery base. P24 (Artillery) states  Artillery does not form units.

P45 - How many dice when shooting chart. Artillery are not mentioned in any of the top 4 lines so would be included in the anything else group which would mean 4 dice. P24 (artillery) shows only 1 dice.

P32 - (Depletions table). Both John and me both feel this table is backwards. It would seem that the larger the difference in scores on the piggy chase the easier it is on the other player.  In the case of out game we had a 14 point difference. Me choosing attacker means that Johns rolls for his depletions would be 1 better than the dice. If I only beat his chase score by 5 they would have been 1 worse.  The same effect happens if the winner chooses to be the defender. The higher the score the worse it is on him.  Net result of this is that a clever player would wish to lose the chse by a big score knowing this will favour him.

Reinforcement - If troops leave the table following a combat are they able to return the same turn in the reinforcement phase. I couldn't find this anywhere but would guess at no.

We both felt that skirmish cavalry should be liable to some form of reaction shooting from a defending zone.  I dont think this should be at full dice value as this could be overwhelming. It is just not fair that one type of troops can attack with impunity.

Apart from that an instructive and fun (at least for me) game. I think John still enjoyed it regardless.


Cheers

Derek

[martin goddard]

Thnaks for doing the game. Hope John is not too shellshocked?
As an aside. Did John's  lost RUB box turn up?

As always a good set of useful comments.
Playtesting is good at  revealing what needs to be looked at.

Couple of notes.
The piggy chase result is based upon the loser's score rather than the difference. The difference was often a bit tricky for players to work out, so just the loser's score counts (we know what the winner's score is).

The mounted skirmisher move shoot move was brought in because it was suggested by play tester that it be there. Might be best to revert to original move , move shoot. Then the opponent can get a shot during their own turn. Makes the game simpler too. Ideas do need a try out even if they then get deleted.

I need to do some more work on artillery. I see them as a small part of games and want to get the main game working well before tackling peripheral items. I will put some time into artillery though, no problem.

Units that leave the table can come back in the same turn. The game only gives  each player about 5 turns anyway.

In the next version of CK I have simplified the "destroy units" rule and reduced the effect of pursuit.

The music continues. Don't sit down yet Derek.

martin

[Moggy]

Hi Martin

No John's box didn't appear

Glad you clarified that on the depletions. Makes sence now.

ON the Cav Skirmisher The concept I think is correct. That was the usual tactic for a horse shooty type. The issue is that there is no risk for them. Maybe give a notional 2 dice per shooty base back would be fairer. If it is left with these light cav having to end a turn next to normal troops which would probably charge them the next turn forcing them to avoid combat and take a pursuit roll. Highly unrealistic to think that fast moving light cavalry would get reached by slowly moving foot soldiers.  I think the only 2 options would be a notional reaction shot (possibly blocking them from shooting in their own turn so a choice would have to be made like in AK) or to allow light cav to avoid combat from foot troops without the pursuit roll.


With pushing aside aside you say there is no pursuit so somehow a unit of foot skirmish can avoid and run away without risk of being contacted but the same 2 guys on horses can't run away fast enough so do have a pursuit roll.  To me avoiding a combat by withdrawing is should have the same pursuit applied as pushed away. It is the same thing. That skirmish unit is NOT going to stand still and take it!

Dislike the ability to come back the saem turn. Bear in mind this can be in any zone on the base edge. How would they get from one end to the other! I agree that each side probably get a max of 5 turn but units not on the table are not counted as lost so do not impact the final tally.  These units that have been pushed off the table will probably have lost bases due to combat and then more bases from pursuit so would need re-organising/reforming/any other re word you can think of to fit before coming back. In fact I would even go so far as to say that Levy units pushed of the table would probably have lost any integrity historically (not that they would have been pushed off a table literally).

Already for V31. Hopefully with all the stuff I mentioned from my read though looked at and either clarified, amended or I just get told that's how it is - like it or go play FOG   Just kidding. I know you wouldn't do that so maybe just justified.

I guessed that artillery was really a stop gap at the moment and needs some serious love given to it or possibly removed. After all, just how many armies would use it in the field (apart from the Bloody Romans). I was under the impression this was more a siege type thing due to reload time, accuracy, effort, availability of ammo, etc. I am ready to be corrected on this by anyone knowledgable on the subject  Personally I would say remove for now and possibly reintroduce it at a later date. One less complication to have to think about.

As for armies having points left over. Just add to the general army list rules that any army can have unlimited Aux unshielded levy at 1 point up subject to the maximum unit total limit. Problem solved. Lets face it any army could drag peasant from fields and tell them to stand there! Always unlimited peasants. I do field these in one army list I have used. They are great for adding rear support which adds more than if they are in the front zone hehehe

Have fun


Derek

[John Watson]

My RUB box has not turned up yet so I am hoping I left it at Miles' or I have secreted it away somewhere really safe.
My army was Scots Common 7 units of spear (2 levy, 5 trained)
                                          4 units of aux spear (2 vet, 2 trained)
                                          4 units of highlanders (2 vet, 2 trained)
                                          3 units of foot skirmishers
                                          3 artillery
                                          1 unit armoured cavalry (elite)
Note that this army has no missile option, which I think is historically incorrect.
To stand up to Derek's bow armed cavalry I thought it would be sensible to get as much of my army in terrain, even if it was on the baseline. However it made hardly any difference as he was able to shoot away at me with impunity. I was unable to reply as I had no missiles, I could not chase him as he out paced my troops and I could not concentrate my forces enough to get any advantage in a fight.
As far as I was concerned the game was as good as over by the end of turn 2. I liked the battle tactics. Unfortunately We both forgot about using the generals' attributes, not that it would have made much difference.
V30 takes away the attack dice for the bow armed cavalry on rough hills. If we had played this version I could have had 2 of them which might have helped a bit, but in that case the bow armed cavalry could have stood off and shot around 2 casualties per turn of each box. I would also suggest that if that is used then the close order troops should be similarly penalised as close order troops struggle to drill on rough terrain.
If cavalry are gong to move, shoot, move then I think they should either have to run the risk of being caught or their shooting should be much less effective.
John

[John Watson]

You could make skirmishing bow armed horse move, opportunity shoot, move. So they move 1 box, roll a d6 per base and shoot if they get a 5 or 6, and then move back 1 box.
At the moment, against non missile armies, they are all but invincible.
John

[Moggy]

How about make the shooting the same as every other game. If you move and then shoot you get -1 to the dice. This would mean hits on 6's only.   This should also apply to foot moving and shooting. I think that would be fair. and balanced.

Another thing I would like to see is a bonus to cavalry charging. Cavalry in this game are treated like more mobile foot troops rather than a thing unto themselves.  Just about every other ruleset takes impact into account.  Yes there are some options for "shock" but I feel this is a different thing.

If you have wall to wall horse charging you then this will cause damage beyond that of foot soldiers charging.  From what little I know foot troops did not take kindly to being charged by horse unless protected by something. Can anyone confirm how shield walls fared against a charge by heavy horse historicaly?   Or how a charge against troops behind a wall, hedge, rows of spikes or best yet some other poor unit to take the impact effected things? 

This Bonus could be either in the form of extra dice or a bonus to the score needed. IN a way I would like to see a similar bonus to the assaulting foot units anyway who also should gain something for the charge. This could then lend itself to ferocious charges by warbands by possibly allowing a greater bonus or allowing more assaulting units to get the bonus.

Possibly +1 dice for foot charging and + 2 for horse charging (not sk cav) (Max of twice per assault). The assaulter already has to exceed the hit dice of the defender to win the fight. How about giving him something to make up for this.

Derek

[martin goddard]

Lots of great points there Derek and John.
I will look at them all.
Here are some thoughts put out for discussion.

Obviously I must strike a  balance between playability and  detailing.

There is a danger in players comparing CK to more established competition rule sets and the things they do.
CK takes no influence from those sets.

The competition rule sets are often more concerned with weapons than tactics. e.g the famous double handed swordsmen getting a nice  fight bonus. No evidence of armies armed solely with double handed weapons winning or existing.

They also often mix up low level events with bigger events.  e.g wedge. A wedge was made up of about 140 men whereas a CK fight represents about 3000 per zone.

Although a CK game is divided into turns the action is considered as continuous.
Simultaneous movement, as in WRG is not very practical or popular in todays wargaming .
Alternate moves does not mean that one side is motionless whilst the other moves.
Thus, if cavalry charge it is assumed that the opposing cavalry also charge, rather than just standing about and waiting. Competition sets often have charge and countercharge mechanisms. Far too slow and unnecessary.

There are no "1 point levy" in CK. Levy can do a good job given the right support and deployment.
Ancient armies rarely, if ever used rabble in open battle. There might be a rabble if a camp was attacked or a town looted. The Britons who got beaten by the Romans (Boudica) brought their families along to watch the battle.  Those families just got slaughtered once the main fighting was over. They contributed nothing to the battle.

There are no recorded instances of such a thing (rabble) in history.
At the siege of Constantinople the Ottomans pushed poor quality troops in first so that the defending Byzantines got tired. They were not unarmed or rabble as in Roman town riots.
Rabble  "troops" would be a drain on supplies, logistics and planning. Captured civilians became slaves or victims not soldiers.

Cavalry in the ancient era were not as scary/effective as medieval knights.
For much of the ancient period cavalry did not have stirrups. This makes impact much less effective. The couched lance was a medieval invention. Parthian cataphracts would usually "walk" into combat and use their lances (kontos) over head.

The ancient horseman was mounted on a smallish horse. Not a large 1815 cavalry mount.
1815 cavalry mounts were fed on quality forage. This partially accounts for Napoleon's cavalry problems whilst deep in Russia. No  quality forage.
Most ancient armies had horses fed on a very ordinary diet. Those same horse had to be rugged enough for campaigning. Ancient horses are far smaller than modern ones. Hun and mongol mounts are usually referred to as ponies.

In the biblical period cavalry are rare and not a shock  force.
In the Greek (Hellenistic) period the cavalry could deliver devastating flank attacks or attack weak points. Apart from that they got slaughtered by close order infantry.
In the Republican Roman period cavalry got slaughtered by close infantry.
The Roman army moved toward big cavalry in the 2nd, 3rd century plus, as their army needed more mobility to tackle the multiple border threats.
Border immigrants such as huns, gepids, Alans etc could field good cavalry (stirrups, bows).
The roman cavalry was often outnumbered and out manoeuvred due to the border length.
Match for match the romans would usually smash Huns etc.

As the destrier type cavalry start to appear CK ends. Normans are just in CK as players like them but maybe they should not be there?  CK might stop at 1000 AD?


martin

[Moggy]

I take your points Martin and thank you for the history lesson. I believe it was the Franks that invented the stirrup but may be wrong or have read a different version of history. We both know there are many different versions of this.

Perhaps you are correct and are trying to cover too long a period of history in one ruleset. I am not sure where other systems cover up to and from but, as you said, you are trying hard to to follow what everyone else has done which makes your rules generally stand on their own merits.

Perhaps the Norman invasion should be the opening period to use BB for. In this case I would agree, remove the Normans, and Mongols and keep this a biblical to dark ages ruleset. It would probably be more manageable as the author.

However, the comments made are primarily based upon what has been written in the rules moderated by prior knowledge (true of false) of how things "used to be". A lot of items commented on are due to inconsistancies between different sections.

Both John and I are both experienced gamers. We have both played a wide range of rules, as you have yourself, and have all fallen foul of the rule lawyer, lose rules and other detriments to the enjoyment of the game and hobby. I don't believe either of us are in the "uniform and tactics Gestapo" and merely offer advise.

In don't wish to sound petulant or knit picking and apologise if I have come across that way.

Oh, and BTW look at the Parthian army list. Aux levy unarmoured. (13-7 for levy and -5 for no shield) works out at 1 point aux levy to me. There may be others in the lists.


Derek

[martin goddard]

Good notes Derek.
Keep up the good work, appreciated.

Thanks.

There is  minimum cost of 5 points  per unit to cover those eventualities.
Pikes now cost an extra 3 points per unit as they seem to do too well for the standard points value.

martin

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

It was the Asiatic peoples who invented the stirrup. There are archaeological examples of wooden ones and some central asian riders still use wooden stirrups in emergencies. Stirrups allow the rider to stand/squat briefly when firing a bow from horseback which has the same effect as the gyroscopic controls on tank turrets allowing far greater accuracy. They are thought to have come west with the Alans etc. and thence to the Franks who discovered you could use a pointy stick on horseback much better.

[Moggy]

Ah, but who invented the pointy stick?

:@)

Derek

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

Ah that's easy! We all know it was Ug Mammothbane from Chipping Ongar...

[John Watson]

Yeh, but push of pike sounds better than push of carrot.
John

[Moggy]

all depends on how hungry you are!

[Moggy]

Is that a Juliene carrot Julian

Derek