Mark Strachan | 28 Feb 2016 12:59 a.m. PST |
Today we played a Wars of the Roses game, a report of which can be found here link |
gavandjosh02 | 28 Feb 2016 3:21 a.m. PST |
|
MajorB | 28 Feb 2016 6:22 a.m. PST |
An interesting idea, albeit a VERY stylised view of the WOTR. It is true that a noble changed sides on more than one occasion, but there was never more than one such occurrence in any one battle. Is "Henry" meant to be Henry VI or Henry Twdyr? I assume Twdyr siince his opponent in "Richard" – I assume you mean Richard III. So this is based on Bosworth? In that case the only forces of doubtful allegiance at Bosworth were the Stanleys, and there were only two of them. Also all the mercenaries present fought for Twdyr. |
davbenbak | 28 Feb 2016 7:02 a.m. PST |
Thread seems to be double posted and I commented on the other thread. |
normsmith | 28 Feb 2016 7:30 a.m. PST |
Nice looking game – thanks. |
Piquet Rules | 28 Feb 2016 7:58 a.m. PST |
Geez MajorB – do you have a button count on tunics that you can also give us? Nice lecture. For the life of me, I don't understand TMP. |
Temporary like Achilles | 28 Feb 2016 9:44 a.m. PST |
Cool idea for a game. Piquet Rules: MajorB is actually a very supportive and interested chap for all things Ancient and Medieval, so I don't think a lecture was being given, just some observations being made and info shared :) Cheers, Aaron |
Gone Fishing | 28 Feb 2016 10:30 a.m. PST |
That was a very enjoyable report and great fun to read--thank you! Sounds like a lot of fun. As regards the comments above, what some posters routinely forget is that it depends how "help" is phrased, just as in any other situation in life. I agree with PR that the general tone came across as excruciatingly pedantic and mean-spirited. Don't let such behaviour drive you away, Mark! |
wrgmr1 | 28 Feb 2016 10:42 a.m. PST |
Good looking game and figures. Nice AAR. The scenario sounds a lot more fun than lining them up and having at it! |
Mark Strachan | 28 Feb 2016 12:03 p.m. PST |
Sorry about the double post – I posted it right on the time that TMP goes down for maintenance and I got a lock file error, so pressed submit again! For those who asked on the post, the rules were homegrown. Major B is quite right in that the game did take a LOT of liberties with history. The idea was to let players establish the setting by selecting who they were going to support (and the choice of Richard and Henry had no relevance other than the fact that those were the two leaders I had on hand). If we play it again I would probably change two things: have some sort of bidding system for the mercenaries before the game starts and remove treachery, but allow a noble to remain neutral, with the ability to declare loyalty later. Nonetheless it was a good start to the year's gaming – six gamers had five hours of talking trash and playing with toy soldiers on a hot summer's day! |
Great War Ace | 28 Feb 2016 12:42 p.m. PST |
I like. MajorB: Northumberland was apparently just as guilty of "changing sides" as the Stanleys at Bosworth. He just didn't act on it. |