Page 5 of 11
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2022 1:01 am
by Karvon
OK, here is the info for the next battles. We have a set of three to complete in this round.
I've attached the current campaign records at the bottom. The Yorkists have a 1 pt lead ATM. With this series, we exhausted our chits, so these have been reset to 2.
Please check the list of dead nobles before selecting your commanders. Please confer with your teams to avoid duplicate selection of nobles.
IMPORTANT: The outcomes of the battles of Wakefield, Mortimer’s Cross and second St Albans must all be considered together.
EPISODE SIX 1460: WAKEFIELD
A Yorkist army is sent to Sandal Castle in Yorkshire to confront Lancastrian forces gathering in the north.
Wakefield (December 1460)
Lancastrians – choose 3 commanders, one must be the royal character Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, if he is available, otherwise another royal character must be chosen.
Yorkists – choose 2 commanders, one must be the royal character Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York if he is still available, otherwise another royal character must be chosen.
Lancastrian Doyley50
Yorkist edb1815
EPISODE SEVEN 1461: MORTIMER'S CROSS
A Yorkist army is sent to the Welsh borders to oppose the Lancastrian forces there.
Mortimer’s Cross (February 1461).
Lancastrians – choose 2 commanders.
Yorkists – choose 2 commanders, one must be the royal character EdwardPlantagenet, Earl of March, if he is still available, otherwise another royal character must be chosen.
Lancastrian Karvon
Yorkist stockwellpete
EPISODE EIGHT 1461: ST ALBANS
A Lancastrian army, comprised of many Scottish troops, crosses into England and marches south towards London. The Yorkists give battle at St Albans.
2nd battle of St Albans (February 1461)
Lancastrians - choose 3 commanders, one of which must be Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, if he is available, otherwise another royal character must be chosen.
Yorkists – choose 3 commanders.
Lancastrian PeterThePainter
Yorkist angusosborne
Outcomes of Wakefield, Mortimer's Cross and 2nd St Albans
i) If the Lancastrians win all three battles then their army marches to London and is allowed entry into the city. The Yorkists flee abroad to Ireland and Calais. Succession event. Lancastrians re-capture Henry VI and re-install him on the throne. Go to episode 16.
ii) Any other combination of results – Go to episode 11.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2022 1:12 am
by Karvon
Actually, the Lancastrians have only a single royal commander available ATM, so I guess we'll have to hold off fighting 2nd Albion until Wakefield is completed.
Karvon
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:27 am
by Karvon
After some further thought, I think we should do Wakefield first, as it was in Dec., then do the other two in the same time frame, as they were both in Feb. Thus, nobles from Wakefield may be used by the battles in Feb, assuming they survive.
Karvon
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:32 pm
by edb1815
Wakefield, a tough one for the Yorkists I suspect.
Commanders:
CinC Richard the Duke of York
#2 William Herbert Earl of Pembroke
Tempted to put Rutland in there but we wouldn't want the historical result.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2022 8:14 pm
by Doyley50
Wakefield-Lancastrian commanders:
1. Henry Beaufort
2.Henry Holland
3.James Butler
Game set up,pwd 1234
PM sent.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2022 5:42 pm
by edb1815
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2022 6:07 pm
by Doyley50
Wakefield, a Lancastrian victory 35-60. The reinforcements saved the day as the Lancastrian line was getting very shaky.
Alas, Henry Beaufort fell just before the moment of victory.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2022 8:13 pm
by stockwellpete
This sounds like an excellent outcome for the Yorkists despite the actual defeat. No "pursuit" possible as the Lancastrians have lost 30%+ and yet another Lancastrian leader has fallen. Presumably the two Yorkist commanders survived, did they?
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 10:06 am
by Doyley50
As far as I recall they did, perhaps edb can confirm?
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:45 am
by PeterThePainter
Is the plan still to fight Mortimer's Cross and 2nd St Alban's simultaneously?
I think it will work but off course we will to ensure that we select different commanders for each battle, more of a problem for us Lancastrians as we are going through commanders quite quickly. I will need a "Royal" at St Alban's, I think we only have Edmund Beaufort at this point, plus two others; and two more will be required for Mortimer's Cross. I believe we only have four "non Royal" commanders at the moment.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:00 pm
by edb1815
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 8:13 pm
This sounds like an excellent outcome for the Yorkists despite the actual defeat. No "pursuit" possible as the Lancastrians have lost 30%+ and yet another Lancastrian leader has fallen. Presumably the two Yorkist commanders survived, did they?
Yes, they did survive the battle.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:39 pm
by stockwellpete
OK, so I have to play Karvon at Mortimer's Cross. My commanders are . . .
Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March - C-in-C
William Neville, Lord Fauconberg - Commander 2
William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke - Commander 3
I will put the challenge up now. Password is Karvon.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 8:22 pm
by PeterThePainter
PeterThePainter wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:45 am
Is the plan still to fight Mortimer's Cross and 2nd St Alban's simultaneously?
I think it will work but off course we will to ensure that we select different commanders for each battle, more of a problem for us Lancastrians as we are going through commanders quite quickly. I will need a "Royal" at St Alban's, I think we only have Edmund Beaufort at this point, plus two others; and two more will be required for Mortimer's Cross. I believe we only have four "non Royal" commanders at the moment.
I have just realised the Lancastrians need three commanders at Mortimer's Cross, not two, but we only have four not five available to use in the two battles at the moment. Shall we fight the battles consecutively and hopefully not lose too many commanders in the first battle.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:14 pm
by Karvon
PeterThePainter wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 8:22 pm
PeterThePainter wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:45 am
Is the plan still to fight Mortimer's Cross and 2nd St Alban's simultaneously?
I think it will work but off course we will to ensure that we select different commanders for each battle, more of a problem for us Lancastrians as we are going through commanders quite quickly. I will need a "Royal" at St Alban's, I think we only have Edmund Beaufort at this point, plus two others; and two more will be required for Mortimer's Cross. I believe we only have four "non Royal" commanders at the moment.
I have just realised the Lancastrians need three commanders at Mortimer's Cross, not two, but we only have four not five available to use in the two battles at the moment. Shall we fight the battles consecutively and hopefully not lose too many commanders in the first battle.
Yeah, I think that's what we'll have to do. I think Pete may need to revisit and expand the list of available nobles to avoid this problem in the future.
and I'll simply use the next two on the list for the upcoming battle...
5) Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter (1430-75) – available 1459 to 1487.
6) Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon (1432-61) – available 1459 to 1487.
Karvon
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:15 pm
by Karvon
And here's an update to the standings
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:28 am
by angusosborne
You Lancastrians might have to think a bit more carefully about sending your generals into combat!
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:33 am
by Karvon
angusosborne wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:28 am
You Lancastrians might have to think a bit more carefully about sending your generals into combat!
Yeah, especially in the case of the royals.
I needless used my general in the first battle; losing the melee I sent him into would not have impacted the outcome one way or another at that point, so it was a foolish move. Part of that was just old habit and part was not really thinking about the VP system in the campaign.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:19 am
by stockwellpete
Karvon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:14 pm
Yeah, I think that's what we'll have to do. I think Pete may need to revisit and expand the list of available nobles to avoid this problem in the future.
Well, it is an intended part of the campaign and not a "problem" as such. Rule
iv states . . .
"If a faction is unable to fill all the required commander slots in a battle then those unfilled commander units may not take part in the battle (they are moved to the baseline as soon as possible). It assumed that minor nobles have taken command of the remaining units in these circumstances."
The idea is to try and represent a faction in crisis as their commanders are killed. The Lancastrians really have lost a lot already in this campaign. They must certainly try and avoid pursuits in future battles where they lose, otherwise the above rule could become a reality.
Players have two basic strategies open to them in the campaign. Try to win on points by ransoming back captured leaders or try to win on knock out by decapitating the other faction.
I think the Doyley50 versus TomoeGozen campaign went to the end without running out of leaders, although the number of battles fought in that campaign was below average in the end.
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:53 am
by PeterThePainter
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:19 am
Karvon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:14 pm
Yeah, I think that's what we'll have to do. I think Pete may need to revisit and expand the list of available nobles to avoid this problem in the future.
Well, it is an intended part of the campaign and not a "problem" as such. Rule
iv states . . .
"If a faction is unable to fill all the required commander slots in a battle then those unfilled commander units may not take part in the battle (they are moved to the baseline as soon as possible). It assumed that minor nobles have taken command of the remaining units in these circumstances."
The idea is to try and represent a faction in crisis as their commanders are killed. The Lancastrians really have lost a lot already in this campaign. They must certainly try and avoid pursuits in future battles where they lose, otherwise the above rule could become a reality.
Players have two basic strategies open to them in the campaign. Try to win on points by ransoming back captured leaders or try to win on knock out by decapitating the other faction.
I think the Doyley50 versus TomoeGozen campaign went to the end without running out of leaders, although the number of battles fought in that campaign was below average in the end.
That is interesting. So running out of commanders is not a big problem as you still have the same number of generals on the battlefield with all the bonuses that brings but losing Royals is (something that the Lancastrians did suffer from after Towton in real life).
I think Kavron will require three commanders at Mortimer's Cross following the September amendment, not the two he has selected. But I could start 2nd St Alban's with a Royal (Edmund Beaufort) and the one remaining named commander. Alternatively we could wait and fight 2nd St Alban's after Mortimer's Cross using commanders who survive in both battles (not sure if that was feasible in real life). What do people think?
Re: Stockwellpete's War of the Roses Campaign
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2022 10:01 am
by stockwellpete
PeterThePainter wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:53 am
That is interesting. So running out of commanders is not a big problem as you still have the same number of generals on the battlefield with all the bonuses that brings but losing Royals is (something that the Lancastrians did suffer from after Towton in real life).
No. Read this bit again . . .
"If a faction is unable to fill all the required commander slots in a battle then those unfilled commander units may not take part in the battle (they are moved to the baseline as soon as possible). It assumed that minor nobles have taken command of the remaining units in these circumstances."
So you would usually fill your commander slots with nobles, unless the scenario states you have to field a royal. But sometimes you might voluntarily chose a royal if you feel you could win the battle and get a points bonus. But in a situation where you are losing commanders heavily you will have a difficult choice. Fill the leadership slots with eligible royals or be prepared to move your commander unit(s) to the baseline at the start of a battle. This would represent a crisis of leadership in the faction.
I think Kavron will require three commanders at Mortimer's Cross following the September amendment, not the two he has selected. But I could start 2nd St Alban's with a Royal (Edmund Beaufort) and the one remaining named commander. Alternatively we could wait and fight 2nd St Alban's after Mortimer's Cross using commanders who survive in both battles (not sure if that was feasible in real life). What do people think?
My view is we should wait, but it is up to Karvon.
