Summary: Although the Royalists invaded Wales, the Parliamentarians had a larger army on the day and attacked. The “Battle of Colby Moor” was a Royalist victory.
Summary: After losing a general in the preliminary bombardment, Parliament fought well but could not break the Royalists within the game limit. Royalist victory at the “Battle of Chalgrove Field”.
In Populous, Rich and Rebellious, the first year of the Campaign ends with a “Consolidation Round”. This is the English Civil War and the idea is, after a few battles, every region declares for either King or Parliament. In our campaign the two sides started the consolidation round even, with 3 regions each, but finished with Parliament significantly ahead.
All four of us played the fourth game of Populous, Rich and Rebellious, our Campaign using Tilly’s Very Bad Day, and set in the English Civil War. I was commander-in-chief for the Royalists, with Adam as the dashing cavalry commander. Jamie commanded for Parliament with Chris leading the infantry.
Summary: At the “Battle of Colchester”, in East Anglia, the Royalists smashed Parliament in 3 game turns. For the first time we saw the use of campaign cards on table and they were pivotal, although in a subtle way.
Chris suggested I overlay the historical battles of the English Civil War on the campaign map for Populous, Rich and Rebellious, our English Civil War Campaign. So I did, although only for the the period covered by the campaign, i.e. the first civil war (1642-1646).
Adam, Chris and Jamie agreed to play Populous, Rich and Rebellious. As I hope you recall this is a Campaign set in the English Civil War. Chris, representing Parliament, invaded the East Midlands from London. The Royalists rose to the challenge and Adam tried to take it for the King.
Summary: At the “Battle of Ely”, the heavily outnumbered Parliamentarians defeated the Royalists in seven game turns.
Recently we play tested my S12 Fighting Across the River scenario for Tilly’s Very Bad Day (which I’ll post about soon). After the game Adam and I got to talking about the premise of the scenario and Adam encouraged me to take a closer look at some 17th century battles that feature a river crossing. In this post I look at four such battles and look for patterns in four factors: (1) crossing points; (2) forces present; (3) forces engaged; and (4) the battle result. The nature of the river crossings includes whether the river was fordable and how many crossings there were. A lot of men might have been nearby but only a minority were actively engaged, which suggests whether these battles were ‘nasty fights’ or ‘grand battles’. The result of battle is on the list because the defenders of a river crossings had a habit of ‘retreating once things get serious’.
I was just reading Michael Fredholm von Essen’s latest book on the Swedish army of the Thirty Years War (Von Essen, 2000), and it seems the Swedes sometimes had unmounted cavalrymen. Not dismounted, unmounted, i.e. they were horsemen without horses. Naturally I started pondering how to simulate these men in Tilly’s Very Bad Day.