Blundering into Battle

[Keraunos]

Over the last week have had two trial runs with a system to generate random initial deployment of armies for 30 Years War battles, leaving the players to try to gather their forces into effective battle lines.  Some pictures and a link to a photo report on both battles below.









Report is here.

[Glorfindel]

Great battle report with some very nice terrain.   I like the 'blunder into battle' concept and might inflict something similar on my own band of merry men.   I think we are too used to regular across the table games which start with all forces deployed as per the player's wishes ready for the starting gun.   Definitely needs a bit of 'fog of war' chaos and uncertainty to shake things up a bit.    Phil

[sultanbev]

In the sample map on your Jan 23rd post
https://d6onod6.blogspot.com/2025/01/on-and-off-workbench.html

you mark all the entry roads 1-8, and give each part of each side 2 possible entry points, by draw of cards. Can you elaborate on this.
Is it the case that each side can still only come on one side of the table, eg Army A has possible entry points 5, 6, 7, Army B has possible entry points 1, 2, 3, with some elements of either possibly coming down 4 or 8 ?
Or did you intend that it is possible for parts of each army to come onto the same table edge?

It looks like the idea might be adaptable for the ACW.

[fred.]

Good looking games, with loads of figures 

The deployment mechanism seems to work - but as you note it makes the games longer, which is good if you have the time available to complete the game. 

There seem to be a lot of action tests failed, which again seems to slow things down. Was this bad dice, the too big towns, or is this typical of the rules?

I like rules with some friction in them, but find it has to be at the right level, if units fail to move 50% or so of the time, it gets tedious, if they fail to move 20% of the time, then it can still create interesting situations. 

[Keraunos]

In the sample map on your Jan 23rd post
https://d6onod6.blogspot.com/2025/01/on-and-off-workbench.html

you mark all the entry roads 1-8, and give each part of each side 2 possible entry points, by draw of cards. Can you elaborate on this.
Is it the case that each side can still only come on one side of the table, eg Army A has possible entry points 5, 6, 7, Army B has possible entry points 1, 2, 3, with some elements of either possibly coming down 4 or 8 ?
Or did you intend that it is possible for parts of each army to come onto the same table edge?

It looks like the idea might be adaptable for the ACW.

At the moment I don't allow opposing forces to enter from the same long side of the table.  While they can enter from the same short side, entry points are kept apart.

The mechanics are that Infantry divisions enter in column of march along one of the three roads that lead from their baseline.  Cavalry may enter on a road or in the intervals between roads, including the intervals on the short sides of the table.  They can deploy in column or line.  Cards for the rearguards determine both location of arrival and the minimum delay before entry, but they have to roll to confirm entry and may be delayed further or even get lost and turn up even later at a different entry point.  The mechanics are very simple.  Have a pack of cards and draw one for each formation.  A black card gives one location, red another (and for the rearguard high value cards indicate a later arrival than low value cards).  If one side draws only red cards and the other only black cards, both armies will end up facing each other around one of the two settlements.  If they draw cards all of the same colour, they will be towards the other side of the table from each other, one in front of each settlement. 

It should be easy to adjust the mechanism to any period and to have a different table layout.  Enjoy.

[paulr]

As others have said great looking games    

Also, as others have said an interesting approach that could be applied to a wide range of periods    

I don't quite understand your explanation above so would appreciate a bit more info. I particularly like the way different parts of the army can come on in different areas.

[Keraunos]

Good looking games, with loads of figures 

The deployment mechanism seems to work - but as you note it makes the games longer, which is good if you have the time available to complete the game.

There seem to be a lot of action tests failed, which again seems to slow things down. Was this bad dice, the too big towns, or is this typical of the rules?

I like rules with some friction in them, but find it has to be at the right level, if units fail to move 50% or so of the time, it gets tedious, if they fail to move 20% of the time, then it can still create interesting situations.

Thanks.  On the action tests, there were several reasons for this :
a) The large  built up areas which were designated as bad going.  Any unit that got inside was guaranteed having to take two tests if it tried to manoeuvre.  In future games I will make built up areas much smaller and not designate them as bad going;
b) A lot of the Catholic troops were Harquebusier, Cuirassier or Tercio units which get an automatic -1 on action test rolls;
c) Because each side began with 5 contingents on the table but had only 4 generals, one of whom had no ability to give units under his command re-rolls of failed action tests, both sides had two contingents that were particularly vulnerable to failing.  I will give an extra general or raise the rating of the dud in future games;
d) because of the set up, both sides had to do a lot of manoeuvring - hence needing lots of action tests - from the start, rather than being able to march straight forward from the off without having to take action tests; and
e) in both games, both sides seemed to have turns in which they rolled unusually poorly.

Usually with Twilight of Divine Right the action tests do give the right level of friction for battles of this period.  Units were not that easy to manoeuvre.  Even without the bouts of poor rolling, my scenario had made the frequency and often the difficulty of action tests much higher than in a normal game.  This is the main area for adjustment to give a more enjoyable game.

[Keraunos]

As others have said great looking games    

Also, as others have said an interesting approach that could be applied to a wide range of periods    

I don't quite understand your explanation above so would appreciate a bit more info. I particularly like the way different parts of the army can come on in different areas.

Thank you.  I am running another outing with the game tomorrow, with adjustments to reflect experience with the first two games.  When that is done I will put together a clearer explanation of the mechanics for you.  It will probably be best to do a drawing rather than just use words.

[paulr]

That will be much appreciated

We'll let you know how it goes when we 'borrow' your idea

[Steve J]

A great game there and with some very interesting mechanics, so looking forward to the next one with tweaks applied .

[fred.]

Thanks.  On the action tests, there were several reasons for this :
a) The large  built up areas which were designated as bad going.  Any unit that got inside was guaranteed having to take two tests if it tried to manoeuvre.  In future games I will make built up areas much smaller and not designate them as bad going;
b) A lot of the Catholic troops were Harquebusier, Cuirassier or Tercio units which get an automatic -1 on action test rolls;
c) Because each side began with 5 contingents on the table but had only 4 generals, one of whom had no ability to give units under his command re-rolls of failed action tests, both sides had two contingents that were particularly vulnerable to failing.  I will give an extra general or raise the rating of the dud in future games;
d) because of the set up, both sides had to do a lot of manoeuvring - hence needing lots of action tests - from the start, rather than being able to march straight forward from the off without having to take action tests; and
e) in both games, both sides seemed to have turns in which they rolled unusually poorly.

Usually with Twilight of Divine Right the action tests do give the right level of friction for battles of this period.  Units were not that easy to manoeuvre.  Even without the bouts of poor rolling, my scenario had made the frequency and often the difficulty of action tests much higher than in a normal game.  This is the main area for adjustment to give a more enjoyable game.

Thank you for that detailed explanation - feels a mix of scenario conditions and almost that you are starting the battle a bit earlier in the day, than the normal everyone is lined up.


One thought is perhaps to give units a +1 on an action test if they are more and 2' or so from the enemy? As the big units of the period where not manoeuvrable in the face of the enemy, but they where probably more manoeuvrable when getting into battle line, when they could relax the formations a bit more.

[Keraunos]

One thought is perhaps to give units a +1 on an action test if they are more and 2' or so from the enemy? As the big units of the period where not manoeuvrable in the face of the enemy, but they where probably more manoeuvrable when getting into battle line, when they could relax the formations a bit more.

That is a good idea.  Thank you.  I will try that if the tweaks already made don't seem to level things out enough.