Now, we have fought Neerwinden before, albeit with some simplified 'bits' vs this version of the battle, but that was done with Field of Battle rules.
This time, we used 'Field of Battle Evolved' (not its real title), otherwise known as 'Battle Command 1700-1900'.
In terms of melee and shooting mechanics, movement dynamics and accounting for unit 'decay', it's the same game, however...the card deck is smaller and allows more options based upon the command dice roll - whether it is odd, even and the difference vs a D6.
That sounds simple, but the differences it makes in the game are quite epic. Eight cards rather than 25 or so , with card options and command choices, makes for a very different game. You are still working with the luck you are dealt, however the scale of that luck is largely up to your choice now (albeit maximised by great dice rolls).
Both setsshare the Piquet family DNA, randomized turn sequences via custom decks that create fog of war, fluid activation where both players act frequently, and opposed dice rolls for movement/combat, but Battle Command emphasizes deeper command-level decisions more aggressively.
The periods covered are a little tighter, but already there is also an ancient / medieval version, with a massive ww2 game to follow (with multiple scales of play).
Perhaps, this version is more conducive to command play (hence the title), over tactical play, which makes for very different decisions.
There is less chaos, and therefore a very different style of epic game-play. For instance, the army morale card in 'Field of Battle' can end a game very quickly, and randomly, whereas if it comes up here since your morale is gone, and you pass the roll, you have potentially a lot of time before it comes up again, to win the battle through good choices and sensible calls against the card choices.
 |
| '...the pub's that way Maam' |
We had some changes for 1693 - but these were simple. 'Pikes forward' could seal flanks, and the French used the 'La Gloire' principle and could immediate melee. This is diluted by the start of the Marlburian period.
 |
| The French left, Berwick on the flank with the Wild Geese |
 |
| French cavalry is historically posted in the centre, awaiting a breakthrough |
 |
| The new card design - the leadership roll, and whether odd or even, and the difference rolled, dictates the command choices. A very different approach to the game |
 |
| Attack on the French right - French and Swiss guards |
 |
| The French right masses for attack |
 |
| The French centre and right - French infantry prepares to smash at centre left |
 |
| The French assault on Rumsdorf |
 |
| French cavalry waits patiently, in the centre |
 |
| Allied counter-attack on the right |
 |
| As Rumsdorp falls to the French, the allied line hunkers down in its defences |
 |
| Berwick's troops head toward the allied defences at Laer |
 |
| French attack on their left, the Allied flank is under severe pressure now |
 |
| 'Steady lads!' |
 |
| 'Hold zee line!' |
 |
| Incredibly...a French breakthrough at Laer, as the Allies fall back... |
 |
| French infantry pour through the hole in the defences at Laer |
 |
| But...the French have suffered terrible losses in order to break through; their morale chips running out - BUT they pass their first morale roll...narrowly. |
 |
| French cavalry, which has waited for so long, thunders through the gap on the Allied right... |
 |
| ...thundering into the Allied lines, who counter-attack |
 |
| The French break the Allied line, however, they fail another morale check and wiithdraw, literally one card draw from the Allies having to make a roll - a VERY close game. |
 |
| "Sorry ladies..you'll have to go to another pub..." |
Another excellent example of how small units en masse can be visually stunning. I’ve taken the leap and bought two 9YW armies from Lancashire Games and told Allan I would paint them up over Christmas. I now doubt I’ll manage a single unit and can’t help thinking “what the F have I done?” !
ReplyDeleteMany thanks Jeffers. Ahh excellent. take solace in the fact, that you are now only the 7th person in the world, who is into this period. That keeps me going at any rate.
DeleteIt is the true 'Game of Thrones'; everyone is related, and yet they all hate each other; it is the soap opera of the most dysfunctional family in Europe 'avin a go' at each other, and still has endless fascination.
It also makes Britain great again... (though MBGA is a bit of a moutful)...the Irish are still pissed about it, actually the Scots might be too...the Welsh got over it a long time ago.
And Mark Allen! It was an article on Steenkirk years ago by Wally Hearl (I think in MW) that whetted my appetite and I’ve always skirted around it because it gets lost between the ECW and WSS. It’s a fascinating halfway house as dynastic matters get woven more into national interests and religion is being squeezed out but still relevant. So you can pick a side based on any of those!
DeleteOh yes! I have those old articles separated and filed with a lot of my old Boyne notes. Now...I am going to try and find that file again. In fact, some of the flags may be colour photocopies. Absolutely, a fascinating transitionary period for warfare too. Check out Brent Nosworthy's work for changes in pike, shot, command, cavalry...and John Childs' stuff on the British Army in the Netherlands in the 1690s. All fascinating stuff.
DeleteAn obscure war no one has heard of or games? Now that sounds like a challenge. Watch this space! Thanks for the inspiration, the three figure close order bases look very good indeed.
ReplyDeleteThanks Martin. It is one of those periods which seems to come and go, yet for me, it always has something new to offer.
DeleteBattle Command is almost identical to FOB in combat/move systems but the Command System via new reduced deck and order matrix is a different beast. Am torn as to which I prefer as both offer exciting gameplay. Bat Cmd has feel of having more control (if you can manage to roll even) but I do like ability to add/remove cards to FOB decks for Army tweaks
ReplyDeleteYep. That's what I noted above. I prefer Battle Command for greater leeway in terms of orders, and 'probably' therefore, the commander has a greater part to play - a bit like V&B, where the commander has no 'pretend' rating and his judgement of the rules and his forces' potential are ALL down to him - not the bloke he plays. There are obviously dice chaos factors to consider in BC, so it's not all down to the player though - so a little different, for the better.
DeleteThe only thing I noted, is that in FoB, there is tension once your morale runs out, pending the turn of another 'Army Morale' card, which could come at any time, it gets nailbiting.
In this BC game, the first Army Morale card for the French came really early after they hit bottom of the morale deck - with 6 cards still to turn (bar an low probability for a re-shuffle), so they were practically guaranteed a lot of activity before it come up again. That makes a huge difference. They chose to move up reserves before forcing through a charge. In FoB, they would have forced through the charge.
That's no bad thing, though reduces the chaos a little, which is fine for some periods. I think BC works better for ACW, maybe 7YW - whilst FoB is more chaotic ECW.9YW - smaller battles and more organised chaos, which aren't set pieces, and aren't huge.
What a fabulous looking bash!
ReplyDelete