David Bickley's Wargames Blog

The occassional ramblings of an average gamer, journeyman painter, indifferent modeller, games designer, sometime writer for Wargames Illustrated and host of games in GHQ.

Friday, 8 June 2012

By the Dice Divided?

I've been beavering away at the first draft of my new rule set for the English Civil War, taking on board several suggestions from my play testers, as you do. Jon and I have also tried out several games of varying sizes to see how things were developing. Yesterday was the latest of our trial runs, playing for about two and a half hours and getting in a dozen game turns. The game was very close, with my Parliamentary Horse, supported by the Dragoons, sweeping the Royalist Horse from my right wing, while Jon's Royalist Horse smashed my left wing and drove all the horse off the table.


Parliamentary Blue Dragoons line a hedgerow.
It must have been very thick and high,
as we hardly scored a hit til the end of the game!








Royalist Horse smashing their way through
my left wing.








In the centre the Foote slugged it out in a protracted firefight. Although the Royalist field artillery was neutralised early in the game, my firing dice deserted me with a vengeance as Jon's Royalist foote ponderously bore down on my centre.
The Oxford Foote proved a particular thorn in my side, easily passing Fighting Effectiveness checks when their casualties mounted!





The game ended, as so often they do, when the left of my centre saw two regiments of foote fail their tests and flee from the enemy. Hardly surprising really as Jon's returning Royalist Horse smashed into their unprotected flanks on the way to loot the baggage!
All in all a promising run through for the embrionic rules, despite the rather disappointing result for yours truly! Back to the rules now I think...

3 comments:

  1. Nice gaming pictures !

    Best regards Michael

    ReplyDelete
  2. Coming a long nicely it seems.

    Ye goode Lord Rawnfley fhall look forward to another encounter ufing said rulef.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the comment, Michael!
    As for you, Rawnsley you reprobate, we shall see err long...

    ReplyDelete