This may be a better place to respond to GHs query in the sign-up thread:
Well, as the dying Boromir said to Aragorn: "You did what I could not." That was a really well administered tabletop battle.I jumped ship because I just could not find the time to pull it off, so I understand how much went into overseeing it. I am glad you got the "tabletop" system to work as I really like the system of giving orders, allowing for breakdowns in communication and fog of war etc. I suspect it simulates the problem of command better than electronic Total War battles (MP or SP). But it is so time consuming it may be best reserved for the truly climactic engagements. Not only does the umpire have to devote a couple of weeks worth of evenings/weekends etc to it, the rest of the game has to be frozen for one battle that would be resolved in a couple of hours if it were vs the AI.
As for the battle itself, I think it was Lothar who put it best: it was an execution, not a battle.Hats off to Rameses for that shocking twist. Indeed, my general impression with the tabletop battles is that they are decided before the first shot is fired - by numbers. The method of combat resolution tends to emphasise attrition rather than tactical brilliance (with FHs turn 4 at Bern being a jaw dropping exception), so that the battle is determined by who turns up with the better army. I am not sure we came up with good, well understood mechanics for resolving that in WotS or KotR, since civil war was not part of the initial game design, but may be the successor game has cracked that. Personally, I am looking forward to getting into character (hopefully one with lots of vices n virtues) and writing some stories in this new game rather than engaging in open civil war, but then again contemplative peace-loving nobility probably did not thrive in the middle ages...
Bookmarks