Having both a newly fostered interest in gaming the War of the Roses through play tests of Battle Commander and knowing Peter (Blunders on the Danube) for years, I jumped at the chance to participate with him in a remote game of the recently published Test of Resolve (ToR) at Virtual Huzzah in May.
The battle on display for this day's contest was the Battle of Towton. Armed with OB, QRS, and battlefield dispositions, I was ready for the challenge. I would be fighting for the Lancs having been given command of Somerset's Battle on the right. To my front, I was opposed by Warwick.
 |
Somerset's command
|
The first notion to strike me was the difference in which the rules I have been playtesting and ToR depict a commander's Battle. In Battle Commander, each Battle is depicted as a series of melee lines each having a distinct type (archers in the front line, bills in the second line, and MAA in the third line). ToR, on the other hand, models each Battle as a series of company formations all abreast with an archer screen deployed forward. Interesting. Do both methods model the same fighting formation?
 |
| Initial dispositions |
Anyway, after David presented an introduction to the battle and rules, and the battle lines drawn, we began.
 |
| David providing an overview |
 |
| Lanc battle line |
The Battle for the Lancastrian Right.
 |
| While Percy and Dacre step off, Somerset lingers. |
 |
| Somerset snaps into action and advances. |
 |
| Warwick's archers launch their volleys. |
 |
Almost immediately, Somerset's archers
lose their nerve falling back. |
 |
Rather than being shot to pieces,
Somerset charges into Warwick. |
 |
| An ambush laying in wait. |
 |
| The two Battles clash in vicious hand to hand melee. |
 |
| The ambush is sprung! |
 |
| Oh! There is fighting elsewhere? |
 |
| Casualties are mounting. |
 |
"If you lead with this unit,
you do not get a flanking attack." |
 |
| Some companies see success, others failure. |
 |
A big shoving match on the Lanc right.
Notice the ambush was dispatched quickly. Sigh. |
 |
| Peter's command is heavily engaged in the center |
 |
One company of Somerset's archers breaks for the rear
rather than remain in combat. |
 |
Somerset and Warwick have fought themselves
into near exhaustion.
Both Battles are at Morale Level 0.
Next to take a Battle Morale Test is likely to be done for. |
 |
and that would be...Somerset.
Warwick turns his Battle inward toward the center.
|
After Somerset broke and headed toward safety, couriers caught up with the column to inform Somerset that the battle was lost. Both Dacre and Percy broke when the Lanc right collapsed.  |
The author (Tim) summarizes the battle
and thanks all for their participation. |
Even in defeat, that was a very good gaming session. I learned a little about the rules and enjoyed the remote battle. Tim and David performed splendidly as GMs in setting up the game for remote viewing, pushing troops around, adjudicating combat, and educating many of the players on the play of the rules. Chapeau to you all and thank you!
Looks like a great adventure.
ReplyDeleteIt was!
DeleteLooks like a great game
ReplyDeleteThe game was very enjoyable, Neil. Great fun gaming with an entirely new group of gamers from all over the world.
DeleteThanks very much for the write up
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome! Thank you for the enjoyable game. You and Tim were model remote GMs.
DeleteI hope you dont mind me posting a link to our facebook page where there are more battle reports and other information https://www.facebook.com/groups/748158095970079
ReplyDeleteI don’t mind at all. I am not a FB user so will be unable to view all of your ToM info.
DeleteFWIW The acronym for Test of Resolve is actually "ToR" .. not any old ToM (or Dick or Harry) :-) Great write up!!
ReplyDeleteSorry! I was thinking “Test or Morale”…
DeleteVery cool intro to these rules, Jonathan. Nice screen captures too.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dean!
DeleteGreat looking game Jonathan and strangely Dave and I have gamed a few times locally pre-COVID...
ReplyDeleteSmall world
Cheers, Ross
Hopefully we can game again at some point😀
DeleteWe are a small band of brothers, Ross!
DeleteThe game looked well from here and matched my limited understanding of the period.
ReplyDeleteThe few reviews/test game blogposts on The Battle Commander system don't match my limited knowledge/understanding which doesn't mean much except that this test of resolve sounds like the one I would prefer if I got a sudden mad resolve to refight the Wars of the Roses beyond the Battle of Shoreby. (in RLS's "The Black Arrow", one of my favourite books).
Hi Ross! THe game looked very good from the perspective of a remote viewer thousands of miles away. The game was played in the UK and I tuned-in from the West Coast USA.
DeleteWell, if you get a sudden mad resolve to play WotR, give this a try!
A tremendous game - a great story and rules look very smart.
ReplyDeleteI may be looking at another period :)
Thank you, Darren! Have fun with your new project.
DeleteDarren, it won't surprise you that ToR started as a variant of Field of Battle. Ultimately, the path diverged from FoB, but most of the things you like about FoB are present in ToR. albeit all somewhat different. See my detailed playtghrough:
Deletehttps://blundersonthedanube.blogspot.com/2021/05/test-of-resolve-playthrough-stoke-field.html
Peter, I read your play-through before our Huzzah match and it helped a lot. Thank you.
DeleteGreat looking game Jonathan!
ReplyDeleteThe game presentation all the work of my hosts, Tim and David.
DeleteNice that the lines broke down into a confused melee, with each individual ‘company’ getting a chance to tell their own story. Visually, I found each company grouping being deeper than wide, gave a sort of column look, rather than a line look, not sure whether that bothers me or not.
ReplyDeleteNorm, thanks for your comments. The column vs line depiction on the gaming table may be the beginning of a long debate. Are we talking about Napoleonics? No! Medieval warfare. I mentioned this conundrum as a curious note in how different author's tackle modelling a Battle. Comforting to see that I am not alone in giving this some critical thought. Let me know your conclusion.
DeleteA good-looking game Jonathan, and slightly unusual in that it was a remote game where you weren't on the winning side for once.
ReplyDeleteI experience my share of defeats. Perhaps losses are not as well publicized? If so, my PR Team should be pleased!
DeleteSounds like a good time and a nice read. There certainly is a lot of WoTR going on in wargaming these days. So much that I’ve been rereading my book on the conflict. But I don’t think I’ll be getting into the miniatures….yet. 😀
ReplyDeleteIt is kinda fun to how different rules handle the same stuff. It’s why we collect rule books.
Stew,this was a very enjoyable game, well hosted and joined by a friendly set of players. WotR certainly seems at the fore of gaming at present. How l one with this enthusiasm last? Probably until I have painted up an army.
DeleteGood to see that these games have sparked an interest in the period. Even if you don’t build your own armies, the world of remote gaming awaits.
I am a rules junky too and, like you, enjoy seeing how others tackle a particular problem.
Looks nice, very nice!
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteSounds like you had fun!
ReplyDeleteI did!
DeleteI don't get the deployment styles. Are they saying the archers are separate from the rest of their battle? Is the deployment of the melee infantry with a mix of MAA/Other in the front line? If so, is that a statement of belief in how units are deployed, or a game mechanism designed to drive certain outcomes?
ReplyDeleteGraham, see David's response below.
DeleteFrom what I gathered from the game and rules' explanation before and during the game, archers seem to represent a missile screen that must remain a prescribed distance from the enemy lines. This distance is termed "standoff distance." They may not close closer than this. When the archers fall back, they drop their bows and take up positions in the back of the formation and draw their melee weapons. Archers are no match to regular MAA in melee.
As the rules explain the archer companies are still part of the Battle just deployed ahead of it initially to shoot at the advancing enemy troops before falling back behind the Melee troops who form the Core of the Battle and whose efforts will determine the outcome.
DeleteThe term Men at Arms embraces a range of troop types whose focus is melee combat, it’s not confined to those in full harness as do some rules. The Melee Companies represent a mixture of troop types and armour levels, the bulk being the Retinue troops traditionally armed with bills and similar pole arms and potentially containing a scattering of better armoured fighters in full harness. Each Battle Commander will usually be accompanied by his best armed and fully armoured Household troops in a company which can deploy in the centre of the Battle supported by the Retinue Companies or held as a reserve to their rear depending on how the Commander chooses to deploy his troops.
The Company structure is a game mechanic which works well as a mechanism in the chaos of close combat and a Battle which keeps its constituent companies within support distance (2”) will generally weather the storm better.
They are fun rules and easy to pick up.
Thanks for the added clarifications, Sir. I do not recall anything mentioned of support distances in out battle. Perhaps it did not apply? You ought to identify yourself so that we know who is offering up this advice.
Delete@Unknown: Thanks. Now I get it. Makes sense.
DeleteGenerally we are saying that archers deployed in front of melee troops both as a statement of our understanding of how they deployed and because it works as a game mechanism
ReplyDeleteThanks for a glimpse into your design philosophy.
DeleteIt was a fun game despite sharing in the loss with Jon, if i recall. I've played a lot of what became ToR remotely the past year, probably including every scenario at least once, and several 3or 4 times. The scenario books (1st already available, 2nd one due by the end of the summer) are a big oplus for the rules as well.
ReplyDeleteYes, Peter, we shared in the loss. Nothing better than going down swinging with a friend by your side. Well, maybe winning is better!
DeleteWould you say the scenario books would be useful even if you play another set of rules?
I have taken the lead on writing the scenario books so can perhaps answer that one. The historic setting and outcome are not at all rule specific. The orders of battle are but will give a general indication of who was there and where, as do the maps. The scenario specific rules could probably be adapted to other rule sets, it just depends how far away from your favourite rule mechanisms you are prepared to stay. The infiltration from Warwicks battle into St Albans and Richard lll's final charge at Bosworth happen reasonably frequently under our scenarios for instance but are not easy to replicate under other systems.
DeleteThank you, David! Good information, straight from the author. With the basic details of the battle laid out in scenario, I find that this info can be contorted to fit most rules. At least your scenarios can provide a foundation for customized scenario development. I will give them a look.
DeleteLovely looking game, I can't believe you're on the losing side for once! I've got a WOTR battle to write up( I was also on the losing side!)
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Yep. On the losing end in this one. It was very close as to which side would break first. Warwick and somerset were both at zero morale so whoever tested first would like break. Unfortunately, that was me.
DeleteInteresting game and nicely looking screenshots, Jonathan. Your remote game activities are developing rapidly :)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dmitry. Remote gaming has opened up a world of new possibilities.
DeleteLooks like another fun game Jon, despite the atypical result!
ReplyDeleteFun game, for sure. Especially satisfying playing with a new group learning new rules. Atypical result? I always perform better in a second attempt.
DeleteThat's looking very nice. Thanks!
ReplyDelete