A final blunder

[Keraunos]

A wrap up report on the last battle in a series set up using the 'Blundering into Battle' scenario generator.  It includes a link to download a copy of the generator for anyone who wants to reuse it.  I hope it will bring enjoyment.

[fred.]

I can't spot a link to the report? Am I being blind, or is it missing?

[Keraunos]

Apologies for omitting the link. 

Here it is.

The link to the 'Blunder' generator is at the end of the report but to save time I add a direct link here

A blunder indeed!

[fred.]

Thanks - another very complex game! Are the players finding these enjoyable games, with the very non-standard deployment?

I ask because sometimes I have found when we use a very different scenario for a game which normally has quite linear deployments, it can sometimes not work very well. 

[Keraunos]

Thanks - another very complex game! Are the players finding these enjoyable games, with the very non-standard deployment?

I ask because sometimes I have found when we use a very different scenario for a game which normally has quite linear deployments, it can sometimes not work very well.

The two experienced gamers who have tried this out have found it enjoyable - and have taken the mechanism to use with a Napoleonic game.  I have found it a good learning experience but rather testing.  Testing or trying would sum up the experience of the other player in the first and fourth games.  He would much have preferred a straight match up.

If I run it again I might well change the balance of deployment.  All the games played have had only 1/8th of each army already deployed, 3/4ths marching in and 1/8th as unpredictable reinforcements.  This confronts players with a lot of troops to try to sort out early on in the game.  I might try 1/4 ready deployed, 1/4 marching in, 3/8ths arriving in a known location after a number of turns and the remaining 1/8th as before.

[fred.]

From a quick read of the deployment rules, each formation picks two locations to deploy from, with a 50:50 chance of either. 

I assume players tend to pick two adjacent deployment zones (or perhaps the two flanks) for a formation. Which suggests rather less mix up than the photos seem to show. Perhaps it is the marching to contact that is the disruptive bit, as much as the somewhat randomised deployment locations?

Which is probably similar to your thinking of getting some more troops pre-deployed. 

[paulr]

Thanks Keraunos, looks to be very interesting and as Fred suggests challenging

[Keraunos]

From a quick read of the deployment rules, each formation picks two locations to deploy from, with a 50:50 chance of either.

I assume players tend to pick two adjacent deployment zones (or perhaps the two flanks) for a formation. Which suggests rather less mix up than the photos seem to show. Perhaps it is the marching to contact that is the disruptive bit, as much as the somewhat randomised deployment locations?

Which is probably similar to your thinking of getting some more troops pre-deployed.

On the first point, yes.  Each formation has a 50:50 chance of arriving at either of its two possible positions.

On the second point, it is not the players who choose what those possible positions are, but one person in capacity as game master - with the incentive towards even-handedness when the game-master was me and I was also a player coming from the fact that I would not know in advance which side I would be drawing.  It would be feasible for each side to make their own choices but you would need to be careful to require that the two positions be a fair distance apart and are not simple transpositions that would mean that whatever cards are drawn the player would end up with exactly the same deployment.

The point - in reply to PaulR as well - is that the players should face a challenge with managing their own troops as well as dealing with the enemy.  There are plenty of scenarios for historical refights and invented games that line you up in a known way against a known enemy.  I was aiming for something a bit different.

[Last Hussar]

As an aside... (sorry)

Every time this comes up on the "Unread Posts" my head goes "#bom bom bom bom.. it's the final blunnnnnndeeeeeer..."

[paulr]

...
The point - in reply to PaulR as well - is that the players should face a challenge with managing their own troops as well as dealing with the enemy.  There are plenty of scenarios for historical refights and invented games that line you up in a known way against a known enemy.  I was aiming for something a bit different.

I hope you realised I meant challenging in a good way

A bit different is good

[Keraunos]

PaulR, no worries but I don't think my last opponent would have wholeheartedly agreed with you that it was challenging in a good way!  Mind you, he has had a bad time at the office lately, so having to deal with recalcitrant cavalry commanders when he was looking for a relaxing evening was a bit of a blow.

[Last Hussar]

so having to deal with recalcitrant cavalry commanders when he was looking for a relaxing evening was a bit of a blow.

You want me to charge? At that rabble? I have a cup of tea unfinished, be off with you!

[Keraunos]

You want me to charge? At that rabble? I have a cup of tea unfinished, be off with you!

Precisely!