![The Miniatures Page logo](tmpshead.jpg)
"Kassassin & Tel-el-Kebir (1882) as a single scenario" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Victorian Colonial Board Message Board Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
ChrisBBB2 ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 12 Oct 2023 5:40 a.m. PST |
Tel-el-Kebir is one of those famous battles that doesn't have much going for it as a game. However, Tel-el-Kebir combined with the prequel at Kassassin makes for a thoroughly entertaining scenario. See how well that worked here: link |
Nick Stern ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 12 Oct 2023 8:07 a.m. PST |
Excellent AAR for a rarely played campaign. Thank you for posting! |
Yellow Admiral ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 12 Oct 2023 8:33 p.m. PST |
I thought the same thing about the entire Anglo-Egyptian campaign – but mostly because I want a way to make the bombardment of Alexandria interesting. I have all the ironclads, and I want to use them. ![grin grin](boards/icons/grin.gif) |
ChrisBBB2 ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 13 Oct 2023 1:12 a.m. PST |
Thanks, gents. I value your opinions and appreciate your comments. Perhaps the bombardment becomes interesting if you make it a two-stage game, the second stage being the landing and fight to seize Alexandria? The first game could then entail some decisions for the Egyptian player beyond simply which ships to shoot at, eg: - whether to hold fire with some forts to save ammo for repelling the landing - where to shelter the garrison units (perhaps several barracks might be on the table as possible locations, but the actual locations of the troops would be concealed) - maybe the results of British fire could be kept secret from the British player? Thus a fort might fall silent pretending to be out of action … - Could the Egyptians be rewarded for damaging British ships? Eg, a certain threshold of damage could be considered as deterring the landing for a few days more, with the result that the Egyptians get to muster an extra unit or two of infantry to repel the landing? Anyway, I think combining the naval action with the subsequent land action could be an interesting way to go. |
Sydney Gamer | 13 Oct 2023 4:15 a.m. PST |
Each battle can give an interesting game. But combining them is a great idea for a third option! |
ChrisBBB2 ![Supporting Member of TMP Supporting Member of TMP](boards/icons/sp.gif) | 15 Oct 2023 1:25 a.m. PST |
Combining two or three limited, one-dimensional actions into a single scenario is a good recipe in general for producing a more interesting, three- (four- ?) -dimensional game. I've always thought that was particularly true of naval gaming, where the lack of terrain usually limits the interest to be had from an individual battle and it needs a campaign to bring it to life. Back on land (mostly), Dueppel/Dybbol and Als (Denmark 1864) is another example: link A third case in point would be Chorrillos & Miraflores (1881), the biggest actions of the War of the Pacific, both of which are essentially straight assaults on a line of fortifications. Combining them makes a good game: link |
|