Some Games and Comments

A board for questions and discussion relating to Clarence Harrison's ECW focused rules which are growing in popularity. Please post here for questions and discussion relating to VWQ
Post Reply
User avatar
Bluebear
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Some Games and Comments

Post by Bluebear » Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:44 am

Gentlemen,

Back in '08 we played a couple of games of VWQ and Clarence was kind enough to comment on them (as Anonymous). However, not having any ECW troops, we used some earlier Pike & Shot armies that I had lying around unbased . . . so I based them for VWQ and we fought two battles.

The first was a "civil war" battle from the past of Murdock's fictional Imagi-Nation (Mieczyslaw). However, at his insistence, we misplayed the rules in that he felt that opponents MUST get to shoot back when fired upon.

I didn't agree . . . and the second game (against Pete) played much better when we played it as written. This second game, by the way was nominally a battle between Pete's Duchy of the North and my vile invading Stagonians.

As mentioned, Clarence's comments (as Anonymous) do to my mind help clarify some of the rules. So here are links to my blog accounts of these battles (click on photos for larger images):

First (incorrect rules) -- http://saxe-bearstein.blogspot.com/2008 ... tried.html

Second Fight -- http://saxe-bearstein.blogspot.com/2008 ... -well.html

Murdock (from battle #1) took lots of photos and wrote his account of the battle on his blog. The specific link is below (and, again, click on photo thumbs for larger photos):

http://mieczyslaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/ ... awice.html

I apologize for not having ECW troops, but I think that I made some reasonable substitutions . . . and I know that we had fun.


-- Jeff
bibio
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: uddingston

Post by bibio » Sat Aug 21, 2010 3:24 pm

Both good reportsthe one thing which came out was you had fun playing them.I like the idea of reinforcement cards and will definetly pinch it when the scenario is right.
Claences comments on shooting and moving were interesting up to now we have always played shoot or move which was one of the reasons tyhat we decided to let steady infantry charge steady infantryif it passed a morale check..On the continuing melee i do'nt see it being a real problemas i am not inclined towards the instant result that you get in whb..iain
User avatar
Bluebear
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Bluebear » Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:03 pm

Yes, we did have fun . . . the second game, which was more in line with the way Clarence plays. was more exciting and shifted back-and-forth quite a bit.

I found Clarence's comments (as Anonymous) to be fairly illuminating . . . which was my main reason for posting. It isn't often that we get to "see inside" a bit of a rule-writer's thought processes.

Anyway, I thank you for your comments.


-- Jeff
User avatar
Bluebear
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Bluebear » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:51 am

Murdock (my friend who doesn't like the rules), has posted photos and an account of our recent (September 19, 2010) game:

http://murdocksmarauders.blogspot.com/2 ... unday.html

His son, Alex, had a great time and liked the rules; but due to some poor choices on his part and an early run of unlucky card draws, he didn't do much (and it is VWQ's fault).

Due to some domestic crises I have not yet had a chance to post my own account . . . and Murdock's photos are much better than mine.


-- Jeff

PS, I'm the old guy in the blue shirt.
bibio
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: uddingston

Post by bibio » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:47 am

He definitely doe'nt like card driven rules.When we play we do'nt use the turn over card or the event card in the first round and we allow brigade movement on the brigadiers card,which means that everything gets to move up to twice in the first move.

iain
User avatar
quindia
General
General
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:51 am
Location: Chesapeake, VA USA
Contact:

Post by quindia » Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:03 am

If you HATE card systems, VWQ is NOT for you. The card system models the fog of war without complicated rules for orders, etc.

I decided to move the Right Wing Horse to the Left, sadly with this GAME rules what I decided means nothing since unless I get the cards to take action my units can do NOTHING, which they did for the next few turns.

Yeah, that never happened in war. A general's units always moved when and where he wanted them. Part of the the fun of the card system is coming up with why units dither around the table (or rise to levels of heroic action). Between unit and command cards, I've never found myself out for more than a turn or two... yes, this could be disastrous during a critical point in the game.

The problem with card driven games is you have to play them more than once... a hard sell if you lose the first one or two! If you play ten games, more than likely you will be on the winning end of the draw as often as you are not.

I will agree with the post... VWQ IS a game. The core rules are six or seven pages long. I have had more FUN fighting battles with these rules than all of the other ECW SIMULATION sets I've tried, but I don't worry about actually winning. VWQ certainly needs some mechanical tweaks - I haven't revisited the rules in three or four years - one page one they ask for suggestions, but outright changes won't be made from the results of one or two games!

Again, if you HATE card driven systems - VWQ is not for you!
bibio
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: uddingston

Post by bibio » Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:51 am

brings out an interesting point Clarence,there does'nt seem to be a lot of middle ground between those that like card driven games and those that do'nt, if anything the card players are probably more open to none card driven games than visa versa,
It would be interesting to see what sugestions you have had over the years,as there seems to be quite a lot of players out there.

iain
User avatar
Bluebear
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Bluebear » Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:24 pm

I should point out that I DO like card-driven games.

Part of Murdock's problem was that he had two commands, each of which was a mix of cavalry and infantry . . . and he had two fords to cross (halving his column movement). Rather than leaving them open to any unit, he blocked both fords with his initial deployment of infantry. If he had allowed his cavalry to cross first, he could have cleared both fords easily . . . they had enough movement to easily clear the fords . . . but they couldn't get past the infantry blocking them.

My biggest complaint with the day was the Event cards. We drew one in turn 1 that had no effect and didn't draw another until turn 12! . . . I like the Events and we just weren't getting them.

Oh, yes, the rest of us had fun (including Murdock's son).


-- Jeff
bibio
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: uddingston

Post by bibio » Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:05 pm

How many event cards were you playing?For multi player games its better to have more than one.
given what you say about his deployment there is'nt a set of rules which would not have given him problems at the fords ,the only thing would be that he would sort it out eventually.

iain
User avatar
Bluebear
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Bluebear » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:13 pm

There were a total of 24 cards in the deck. The "unit" cards each actually prompted two units (one for each player on same side):
  • 12 Unit cards
    8 Officer cards
    1 Artillery card
    1 Reload card
    1 Event card
    1 Turn Over / Take Photos card
-- Jeff
bibio
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: uddingston

Post by bibio » Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:34 am

I ' m suprised with eight officer cards movement was a problem, on hindsight you would maybe have been better doubling your unit cards and turnig two at a time more chance of keeping both sides happy or equally unhappy.I also think with that amount of units on the table you could have got away with doubling the supply/event cards .

iain
Post Reply