Monday, December 12, 2022

Cropredy Bridge Redux

Action returns to the fields of Cropredy as Steve and Chris face-off in a Monday rematch of the battle two weeks passed (see Battle of Cropredy Bridge BatRep).  That earlier battle resulted in a sound Royalist beating at the hands of Waller and his army.  In a head-to-head match-up, both players reprised their roles in command of the same armies as they held in the first game.  Without co-generals on the field, Steve and Chris would be solely responsible for the results of battle.  Steve stepped into the boots of Wilmot while Chris represented Waller on the field.
Opening positions
After having seen how the rules performed in their first game, I wondered if the approach to battle would remain similar to the previous contest.  Certainly, with Waller coming out the victor, Parliamentarian strategy and tactics may remain similar, but I expected a different approach from the vanquished Royalists.  From the opening maneuvers, it became clear this battle would not yield a repeat of that first engagement on the banks of the River Cherwell.
Waller's Army strung out along the River Cherwell.
Wilmot's Division on the high road.
Dragoons protecting Hays Bridge.
Astley's foote marching north.
Let's see how the battle unfolded.

Unlike the first game in which the combatants went at one another straightaway with repeated charges and counter-charges on both flanks, army positioning is more deliberate as each jockeys for an advantage.  These deliberations did not last long on the south end of the battlefield. 

Northampton's left-most horse regiment charges down the slope with sights set on Waller's right flank.  Seeing Royalist horse coming forward, Waller's horse counter-charges.  In the initial clash, Waller's horse is driven back with heavy casualties.  Northampton pursues.  As Waller's horse loses cohesion, it is caught in the rear by Northampton.  The Parliamentarian regiment scatters and splashes back across Slat Ford in rout.  Northampton's horse pulls up short of the river, exhausted.     
Initial maneuvers lead to cavalry charges
on the southern end of the battle line.
One of Waller's horse regiments breaks
 and flees across the River Cherwell.
Northampton's horse pulls up short of the ford. 
Seeing the destruction of the Parliamentarian horse to its right, Waller's second regiment of horse spins around to catch its companion's pursuers in the rear.  Surprised by this sudden and unexpected contact in its rear, Royalist horse wheels to its left in an attempt to extricate itself from this unfortunate predicament.  As Northampton's horse makes its wheel to head back toward friendly lines, it is caught again by its pursuers.  This Royalist horse can take no more.  It breaks and routs.  In the confusion of battle, Waller is wounded.
The pursuer becomes the pursued!
Royalist horse has seen enough!
It breaks for the rear.
Situation at southern end of battlefield.
In the center, Waller and Vandruske bring their infantry forward.  To counter these moves, Astley deploys his infantry on the heights overlooking the valley below.  Rather than driving on Hays Bridge with his cavalry, Middleton swings his cavalry wing toward the center moving behind the protective screen of the infantry.
Parliamentarian infantry advance toward
Royalist positions on the heights
while Middleton redeploys his entire cavalry wing.
Back on the Royalist left, Northampton leads his second horse regiment down into the valley in an attempt to cover his first regiment's retreat.  Thinking the mounted dragoons are an easy target, he charges headlong toward his enemy.  The dragoons discharge their weapons into the face of the Royalist horse and Northampton's horse is put to flight.
Northampton in flight!
To remove the threat of the dragoons, Wilmot sends one of his cavalry regiments into the dragoons.  This time, Waller's dragoons do not fare well.  The dragoons are sent reeling back toward the river.  In hot pursuit, Wilmot chases the dragoons back to Slat Ford as the dragoons scatter.  As the dragoons splash across the ford, they disorder one of the auxiliary regiments preparing to cross to the east bank.  The confusion is great among Waller's wing.        
Dragoons rout across the river.
Not many troops left on the southern flank.
Mayhem at the ford.
Back in the center of the battlefield, Middleton passes his cavalry wing behind Vandruske's foote as he makes his way to shore up the Parliamentarian right.  As Middleton is in motion, Astley strikes.  Advancing down from the heights, Astley hits Vandruske's infantry.  Shots ring out as the Royalists attack but their attacks go in.  
Middleton redeploys to the right.
Astley attacks!
Astley's yellow coats attack first.  The enemy is driven back in retreat but the yellow coats do not follow up.  With success on the left, Astley's white coats go in against Vandruske's remaining infantry.  Vandruske's foote are badly mauled and the foote break for the river.  In the confusion, half of Middleton's command is caught up in the retreat.  The horse panic and fall back toward the river.     
Chaos reigns
as foote and horse become entangled in the retreat.
Parliamentarian foote stream toward
Cropredy Bridge as Middleton falls back to the river.
Waller's Army is in flight!
With the sudden collapse of the Parliamentarian center, Waller orders his army to seek safety on the west back of the River Cherwell before all is lost.

The battle is over.  

The King's Army is victorious on this day and the historical accounts need not be rewritten.

Thanks to both players for an exciting rematch.  There were times when both players thought they had lost.  Often within the same turn.

Great fun to watch unfold!  

47 comments:

  1. Wow - that was a completely different battle from the previous incarnation - well done to Steve but I find it hard to treat a Royalist victory with equanimity!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This battle was fought completely differently with, as you see, a completely different result. Great game with a number of unexpected twists to the plot.

      Delete
  2. A goodly amount of believable and exciting narrative falls from this second playing and most certainly examples the benefit of returning to games a second and third time before taking them down from the table, to benefit greater familiarity of the players with the subject / system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norm, the battle flowed in a reasonable trajectory. The result was an outcome not too dissimilar from the historical result.

      Given that the historical event represents only a single data point, repeated playings offer up the possibilities of exploring alternative outcomes. It helps that the players still had the rules and battlefield situation in mind. They both adjusted their strategy from the earlier contest.

      Delete
  3. Nice to see a different outcome and proves the uncertainty of wargames…if only…. Pity Parliament cannot be routed in real life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes....well......with the current lot, I am not surprised you feel that way, George!

      Delete
    2. This battle result reinforces the notion that in warfare few outcomes are certain. Your thoughts on government irresponsibility are not wholly contained to your island.

      Delete
  4. Lovely stuff Jon showing that changes to tactics and the element of change will bring different results.👍

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Matt! A small change in tactics and chance can affect a battle's outcome greatly. In this case, we brought the result back toward the historical account.

      Delete
  5. Great AAR , the replay certainly came with a different tale. With all the cavalry and pikes, a real spectacular look.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, Joe! An army of pike and shot is a thing of beauty to my eye. A much different result, this time, no doubt. Post-game player comments were interesting on command structure in a game.

      Delete
  6. Engaging and entertaining, as per usual. One cannot help but admire (or envy) your ability to produce report after report - each containing sufficient analysis, a "you were there" element, along with brilliant pictures. One cannot help but wonder about how the selected battle might play with different sets of rules . . . Thanks for posting, and "thanks" for enticing me to try something a little more "gunpowdery" than my usual fare of peltasts, pikemen, and pachyderms. Perhaps something in the Italian Wars genre before dipping a toe into ECW? Cheers, Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, first, it is terrific seeing you make a more regular appearance in the commentary box. Excellent!

      Second, your comments are most kind and very encouraging. With a steady parade of games, it is difficult to chronicle every game but I managed to pound out reports on three of the most recent battles.

      Nudging your toward more "modern" wargaming periods is an accomplishment. Perhaps, i ought ot dust off my Italian Wars armies and stage a refight to entice you even more?

      Thanks for your comments!

      Delete
  7. Well that was a different dynamic and an equally enjoyable read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep! Much different game this time around. Glad you enjoyed it!

      Delete
  8. Great report Jon. And a great game. I was truly trounced by Steve. He spotted and seized on some errors and exploited them to the full. And then I learned the lesson of not leaving enough space between units/lines when the foot collapsed.
    Time to re-group and blame Essex for heading off on an adventure to Cornwall!
    Chris/Nundanket

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Chris!

      The game was quite fun to watch you two battle it out. Waller would have had a tough time recovering from the collapse in the center once the foote retreated into and through Middleton's cavalry. A valuable lesson to learn.

      Delete
  9. This seems like quite an even scenario, which means it ultimately comes down to skill and a bit a of luck. I'll have to remember this one for the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you count solid victories by each even, then this is an even scenario. I think luck may have been evenly distributed in this fight with both armies facing calamity at times. The Royalists may have applied a bit more skill this time to capitalize on advantage when opportunities arose.

      Either way, the game was great fun.

      Delete
  10. Superb game and a different outcome this time. I wonder if a 3rd encounter is planned to decide the victor?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Neil! For now, we have seen enough of Cropredy Bridge. The table has been cleared and something new is in work. When I say “new”, I mean something new to the gaming table. Next out is a period not seen in action for at least 20 years.

      Delete
  11. Excellent game. I enjoyed seeing the different approach by the players for this rematch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard, good to see you enjoyed the battle recap. One big advantage to replaying a scenario is to watch players' approaches change as the information set expands. Steve took lessons learned from the first game and it paid dividends.

      Delete
  12. Another cracking game there Jon and both sides seem ot have had their moments of trepidation. With honours even, a 3rd playing would have been nice but I'm intrigued to see what you've got planned next, given it hasn't been played for 20 years!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank, Steve! Glad you enjoyed the battle account. It was a cracking game, for sure. Plenty of high drama and challenges with which both players had to contend.

      Actually, twenty years since last outing for the collection under consideration may be an understatement. It is likely closer to 25 years or more. For a light-hearted, holiday game, think Hollywood.

      Delete
  13. Man, you have become the international leader in the running and presentation of remote wargames Jonathan! Others have praised you already, but I'd like to add my own. Your reports, always beautifully produced and interesting, are getting better and better with each game—and those come out at a cracking pace!
    Regards, James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I do not know about international leader in remote gaming but I am getting lots of practice and making many, many friends.

      Thank you very much for your comments. You are really too kind.

      Delete
  14. Excellent report. I do like more the uniforms etc. of the 1620s (for example English expedition to the Palatinate or to La Rochelle). It's nice to see you interested in that period. I will upload new postings about the 1620s on our blog because we will have Bavarian and Württemberg troops in Wackershofen next year. Maybe we will play a refight of the battle of Stadtlohn too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, André! I will read your posts on the 1620s from your part of the world.

      Delete
  15. Reads very much like friction took over in this one, with a series of stand alone clashes happening serial fashion between commands or even individual across the field without ever having the chance to develop into something more cohesive/coordinated. Which I supposed could be said of many actual engagements: the after-narrative makes more sense than the experience. Regardless, the look of the game is splendid!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Ed!

      Too much friction? Perhaps. It could be in the telling of the story too. It could also be in the nature of the game, itself since brigades (or wings) activate serially (and randomly) as command chits are pulled from a tin. Typically, when a command chit is drawn, the most critical command is selected to activate. This works for both sides. There is an art to developing a cohesive or coordinated plan when friction intervenes.

      Delete
    2. Didn't intend to suggest a value statement ("too much")--just an observation of how this game seems to have developed, not necessarily because of the game system (I've seen plenty of games where aggressive play causes the same effect, which seems to have contributed here).

      Delete
  16. Very enjoyable to see this battle played out again and end in a result so differently from the prior outing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! This battle generated a much different game, for sure.

      Delete
  17. Very entertaining and a good illustration of tha variable fortunes of war. Although I tend more towards a neutral and "objective" stance on the ECW these days, when I was young I did tend towards Royalist sympathies (more on account of characters like Falkland and Clarendon than the King) so I confess to a certain pleasurable frisson to see the Royalists win this one. :-) As others have said, Jon, your game reporting is most impressive as is the wide range of wargaming periods you cover.

    Cheers,

    David.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, David! We will get you back to the table again.

      Delete
  18. Splendid looking game, well both Cropredy's and a nice range of results, yes please to the Italian wars!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Iain! Yes, I would enjoy getting the Italian Wars armies to the table.

      Delete
  19. A splendid looking and sounding game ( well both games actually )Jonathan…
    I have fond memories of being at a reenactment at Cropredy Bridge… I was helping man an artillery piece and I was of course on the losing side 😁.

    All the best. Aly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Aly!

      One of the UK gamers I game with remotely mentioned that he once danced upon Cropredy Bridge during some festival.

      Delete
    2. Well I've certainly camped on the battlefield more than a dozen times at the annual folk festival so that's probably me!
      Best Iain

      Delete