Posted by Ochoin on 26 Nov 2018, 08:10
Your comments on what was, I believe, your first wargame are very interesting.
The game was, as you know, a "what-if" rather than the re-creation of an actual battle. In most wars there are so few historical battles that unless you like fighting a battle over & over again, most games are based on such historical fiction.
My definition of a good set of rules is that it encourages you to fight using the tactics of the period and the army lists give you soldiers who use resemble those of the time.
The problem becomes the "game" side of the activity. If the game only produces outcomes that are historical, then the Covenanters need to lose comprehensively every battle. This would become tiresome. So that's where the "what-if" steps in.
How about a battle in terrain that favours the Covenanters? How about giving them an extra 20% of troops? Can we allow an ambush, an outflanking march, random unfortunate occurrences (through Event Cards)?
Of course, if you go too far, then the English have no hope of winning & tiresome sets in again.
The "what-if" also has to apply to re-creation of historical battles. Waterloo is only worth the effort if the French have a reasonable chance of winning.
I'm glad you liked the game. We will see you again, I hope, over the wargames' table.
donald
