Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign

[Karvon]

I haven't checked in for a few days sorry and it looks like I have a battle to fight. Have you set up the challenge Karvon?

No, was waiting for you to post your picks for generals. I'll do it in the next couple of hours.

[Karvon]

game's up.

pw karvon

[angusosborne]

I haven't checked in for a few days sorry and it looks like I have a battle to fight. Have you set up the challenge Karvon?

No, was waiting for you to post your picks for generals. I'll do it in the next couple of hours.

Oh right:
Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March
William Hastings
William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke

[PeterThePainter]

A few things for this morning . . .

Firstly,...

Secondly,...

Thirdly, as we are getting near the end now, I would appreciate any feedback from you all. How have you found the battles? Towton has already been re-balanced, but are there any others that I need to look at? How did you find the pursuit rules? Did they add an interesting extra ingredient to the game? Is the text campaign clear enough? Is there any way that it might be improved? Once I have updated everything, I will be available for a single player contest if anyone is interested.

Please note none of the comments below complaints, just observations, I have thoroughly enjoyed the campaign and it is very well thought out.

Blore Heath: Immediately after this battle in the campaign I thought that it favoured the Lancastrians, however, having since played it PBEM as the Yorkists, I consider it favours the Yorkists; but can be won by either side.

Second St Alban’s: I think this favours the Lancastrians, who won the historical battle, so the designer’s objective is achieved. I have played it twice as the Lancastrians and won once and lost once, so it is appears possible for either side to win.

Towton: I did give some comments after the campaign battle but I have not played it since it has subsequently been rebalanced.

Barnet: In my limited experience this is a very close battle. The Lancastrians have a numerical advantage at the start but the cohesion check on their centre is a disadvantage, whether it fully neutralises the original numerical advantage I suspect only repeated playing will confirm. Playing with limited visibility, to reflect the foggy conditions in the real battle, gives this battle a very different feel from the other battles in the campaign.

Pursuit Rules:
I never got to use them, something to do with the number of casualties my armies suffered! I do think they are a good idea and add to the campaign flavour with events in one battle potentially influencing a later battle.

Is the text campaign clear enough?
One thing you could add is explicitly stating the consequences of one side withdrawing, as at Ludford Bridge or Ferrybridge. It is perfectly logical but if you state it in the text it avoids any doubt as to the consequences (at least I wasn’t sure until it was explained).

Another potential area for confusion is over the names; two Edmund Beauforts, two Richard Nevilles and two Richard Plantagenets (I blame the parents). Perhaps you could refer to them as Richard Neville (Warwick) and Richard Neville (Salisbury) for example, which might help people less familiar with the characters of this period. When I read your summary of where we were in our “alternative” history I had to think hard about which Richard Plantagenet you were referring to. My mind couldn’t quite grasp the concept that the Duke of York was still alive in our campaign and this was not Richard III (as I think of him).
Peter

[stockwellpete]

Barnet: In my limited experience this is a very close battle. The Lancastrians have a numerical advantage at the start but the cohesion check on their centre is a disadvantage, whether it fully neutralises the original numerical advantage I suspect only repeated playing will confirm. Playing with limited visibility, to reflect the foggy conditions in the real battle, gives this battle a very different feel from the other battles in the campaign.

I have been testing this again this week. It has been a query for a while and I now think it needs tipping towards the Yorkists just a little bit more. I don't think I will touch the troop numbers, but what I could do is extend the "wave of panic" for an extra turn. This was why the Yorkists prevailed in the historical battle so I think it makes the most sense as a solution.

Is the text campaign clear enough?
One thing you could add is explicitly stating the consequences of one side withdrawing, as at Ludford Bridge or Ferrybridge. It is perfectly logical but if you state it in the text it avoids any doubt as to the consequences (at least I wasn’t sure until it was explained).

Another potential area for confusion is over the names; two Edmund Beauforts, two Richard Nevilles and two Richard Plantagenets (I blame the parents). Perhaps you could refer to them as Richard Neville (Warwick) and Richard Neville (Salisbury) for example, which might help people less familiar with the characters of this period. When I read your summary of where we were in our “alternative” history I had to think hard about which Richard Plantagenet you were referring to. My mind couldn’t quite grasp the concept that the Duke of York was still alive in our campaign and this was not Richard III (as I think of him).

Yes, OK. I will address both these issues before I release the updated version.

[stockwellpete]

The plan for the updated version of Barnet 1471 is to extend the Lancastrian "wave of panic" to a second turn. However, there will be a 75% chance of this happening, so the Yorkists will not always get this benefit. It is with Paul59 at the moment.

[edb1815]

The plan for the updated version of Barnet 1471 is to extend the Lancastrian "wave of panic" to a second turn. However, there will be a 75% chance of this happening, so the Yorkists will not always get this benefit. It is with Paul59 at the moment.

As the Yorkist player I agree with this change!

From my side I saw a few disordered units that subsequently returned to good order. But we should see the effects over several games really.

[stockwellpete]

As the Yorkist player I agree with this change!

From my side I saw a few disordered units that subsequently returned to good order. But we should see the effects over several games really.

I had Barnet flagged as a query before we started the campaign as SP HotSeat testing had resulted in more Lancastrian wins than Yorkist ones. So after your narrow defeat I have tested it again myself twice and both tests resulted in narrow Lancastrian wins. So that seems to be par at the moment. I think the issue is that the Lancastrians get to launch their overlapping flank attack first and are always a couple of turns ahead of the overlapping Yorkist attack on the other flank. Plus the Lancastrian army is a bit bigger than the Yorkists. So extending the panic event for a second turn (75% of the time) should negate that couple of turns advantage and it might allow the Yorkists to destroy a few more Lancastrian units if some of then suffer a cohesion drop in both turns of the panic. If 75% is too much I can alter it to 50%, or 33% quite easily.

[angusosborne]

What are the consequences of withdrawing in the battle of Fernybridge?

[angusosborne]

In the battle of Tewkesbury York is close to breaking Lancaster - they're over 40% losses, and the gap is 24 points. But it's not settled yet!

[stockwellpete]

What are the consequences of withdrawing in the battle of Fernybridge?

Nothing. You just move straight on to Towton. I will make this clearer when I issue v2 of the text campaign once we have finished.

[stockwellpete]

Apologies, I have noticed another error in the text campaign. In "Outcomes" for this battle at Tewkesbury, number 2 should say . . .

2) If the Lancastrians win Barnet only then the Yorkists retain control of the Crown. Go to episode 23.

And not go to episode 24. This is because the Yorkists will keep control of the crown if they win Tewkesbury.

[angusosborne]

What are the consequences of withdrawing in the battle of Fernybridge?

Nothing. You just move straight on to Towton. I will make this clearer when I issue v2 of the text campaign once we have finished.

I mean is there a mechanism for withdrawal in the scenario? Something other than the usual win/draw/loss

[angusosborne]

And now we return to normal programming:

York defeats Lancaster in the battle of Tewkesbury 47:19

Seeing as I have exactly two steady units of prickers I can capture and ransom the enemy generals I believe.

Lancaster sprang their surprise from the hillock on the left of York's line while the entire rest of the army did an about face and attempted to redeploy to their right.

While giving pursuit York sprang their surprise with mounted men-at-arms coming out of a forest into the rear of Lancaster's attack, but Lancaster managed to survive their charge long enough to rout the men-at-arms and send their prickers around York's left flank.

In the centre York's artillery and longbowmen got in a couple of effective volleys before their infantry charged in and had much the better of the battle, breaking open a large hole and routing one of the generals (don't know which one). York's left was in a bit of trouble, but held on until the Lancastrian army broke.

All six generals were heavily involved in fighting, but none died. I managed to charge two of mine into the flank of two of his, and then got some counter-charges into my flanks later, but York's generals are made of stern stuff and none broke.

[Karvon]

Just want to confirm: Are you ransoming or executing the captured Lancastrians? Ransoming will net you 8 VP, executing them will lose you VP for the royal and decrease the Lancastrian command options. I suppose you could mix your options as well.

Karvon

[stockwellpete]

What are the consequences of withdrawing in the battle of Fernybridge?

Nothing. You just move straight on to Towton. I will make this clearer when I issue v2 of the text campaign once we have finished.

I mean is there a mechanism for withdrawal in the scenario? Something other than the usual win/draw/loss

No. If you commit to the scenario then you must play it to a conclusion.

[stockwellpete]

York defeats Lancaster in the battle of Tewkesbury 47:19

Seeing as I have exactly two steady units of prickers I can capture and ransom the enemy generals I believe.

That is an excellent win, Mr Angus. Ransoming would be good as we are well behind on points at the moment.

[angusosborne]

I will ransom all of the Lancastrian generals

[Karvon]

EPISODE TWENTY-THREE 1485: BOSWORTH FIELD

Bosworth Field (August 1485)

Tudor Rebels – choose 2 commanders. Commander 2 must be the royal character Henry Tudor. Yorkists – choose 3 commanders. The C-in-C must be the royal character Richard Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester, if he is available, otherwise another royal character must be chosen.

Lancastrian Commander Doyley50

Yorkist Commander stockwellpete

Outcomes
1) Draw/Yorkist victory – Yorkists secure the Crown. End of campaign.

2) Lancastrian/Tudor victory – Lancastrians/Tudor control the Crown. Succession event. Go to episode 24.

With the last victory, the combo of ransom, crown credit and victory credit has pushed the Yorkist into the lead.

Current stat's:

[stockwellpete]

Yorkist commanders for Bosworth Field are . . .

C-in-C - Richard, Duke of Gloucester
2- John Howard, Duke of Norfolk
3- Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland

Challenge is up, password is Doyley50