• Home
  • Webstore
  • News Archive
  • Events Calendar
  • Contact Us
  • Forum
Warlord Games Statement
Back to homepage

Advanced search
  • Board index ‹ Hail Caesar! ‹ Hail Caesar Army Lists, Scenarios & Battle Reports
  • Change font size
  • Print view
  • FAQ
  • Register
  • Login

HC game in flames of war format

Expanding published lists or additional new armies…
Post a reply
Previous topic • Next topic • 3 posts • Page 1 of 1

HC game in flames of war format

Postby jwboots » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:55 am

On a Monday evening Robert and I setup a HC game: Ottomans versus Tamerlane.

The battlefield was set somewhere in Syria with fearful local mameluks sitting tight into their castle with the door firmly shut (a castle and tower on the table were denoted as impassable terrain). We decided to use a Flames of War scenario and dice for it as described in FoW. This resulted in the cauldron with the Ottomans being surrounded by Tamerlane and friends. Both parties start with at least halve of their units off table, in the case of Tamerlane as reserves and in the case of the Ottomans as delayed reserves. Three objective markers were placed by the Ottomans within 30 cm of the table centre (a 180x120 “classic” wargame table) and one was then removed by Tamerlane. We agreed to use the FoW conditions for determining control of an objective and played at 2/3 speed using our old DBM based armies with 4 elements in a 2x2 setup per unit.

Image

The Ottomans deployed their artillery right at one of the objectives which was on top of a small rise. The rest of their on table units (1 x jannisary, 1 x vojnuks, 2 x azab medium infantry archers & 2 x azab light infantry archers) deployed around the other objective which was located in an area of rough terrain. This left a considerable gap between the lonely artillery and the rest of the Ottomans. Tamerlane’s troops then deployed according to the random deployment rule and we decided to dice per two units because our armies were about twice the size of typical FoW armies. This resulted in three units (1 division) behind the mameluk castle on the timurid right flank, at the Ottoman’s table edge and nearly at striking distance of the Ottoman artillery, two on the opposite timurid table edge and 2 all the way out to the left and at the Ottoman table edge. The last two units were well out of reach of their generals.

Image

The game that followed was a close call at several times. First the timurid troops behind the mameluk castle did manage to charge the Ottoman artillery; which made a deep impression in the right flank timurids when they opened fire. However, the janissary and vojnuks were just in time to prevent the timurids from capturing the objective. Their presence made the timurid general decide to go for the sweeping charge into the vojnuks but it bounced. In the mean time Tamerlane directed his right flank behind a wood in order to prevent the artillery from doing more damage and head towards the other objective. This was more or less being abandoned by the Ottomans in order to save the other objective as well as start dumping large numbers of arrows of the lonely two timurid units out on the left and behind them. Although the move by Tamerlane did take some time it seemed to work out. A single unit of medium azab archers were charged head on and swiped aside allowing Tamerlane to take the objective. Again however, the Ottomans reserves arrived in the form of no less than four units of sipahis. These were able to move in a headlong advance straight on to the timurid unit at the objective and shower it with arrows; the timurids never stood a chance. In his next turn finally the first units of Tamerlane’s reserves arrived at the table, the badly mauled unit at the objective was ordered to charge the sipahis in order to gain time. Again however, all was done without haste, focus and zeal. Even a ‘follow me’ from Tamerlane himself failed to move a unit into support of the charge on the sipahis. And thus ended the game.

Image

This was truly a great game with two important lessons: 1) Flames of War scenarios work great in HC and 2) old DBM armies at 2/3 speed and on a “classic” 180x120 wargame table is fantastic.
jwboots
Raw Recruit
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:21 pm
Top

Re: HC game in flames of war format

Postby Onurbm » Sat Sep 17, 2011 6:03 pm

Likewise using 15mm, DBM / FOG based armies. much appreciated the report.
I may only confirm mr Boots conclusions : Hail Caesar works well using Flame of War scenarios with DBM based 15mm figs.
Todate we played three of the scenario quite successfully : the standard "free for all" ... but more interesting "Road block" and "fighting retreat".
The games were played with Ottomans versus Hungarians. Maybe we were slightly at a handicap in playing on a standard WG table (180x120) with standard units ( 3x2, frontage 120mm ) and standard moves.

Reading above report I am now very eager to play with 2/3 distance and 2x2 units. I see two distinct advantages:
=> More space to manoeuver on table
=> The number of bases usefull for a game comes under the size of a"standard" DBM/FOG army making it more accessible to players who own such armies.
:mrgreen:
Onurbm
Slave
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:43 pm
Top

Re: HC game in flames of war format

Postby jwboots » Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:21 pm

Hungarians... Interesting. I also have plenty of medieval knights and considered hungarians but went for timurids in the end. Still, I am thinking how to rate those knights and frankly would use them as heavy cavalry with lance and that's it. How do you rate them?
jwboots
Raw Recruit
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:21 pm
Top


Post a reply
3 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to Hail Caesar Army Lists, Scenarios & Battle Reports

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

  • Board index
  • The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group