Hi Phil, Glad you enjoyed the game and am very pleased that you have taken the time to write up the review. Another review does exists by Christopher Hall, he placed that at the Grognards web site (Under 'S').
Firstly missiles - the evidence tends to suggest that a substantial volley of hand held missiles were thrown by the Saxons against the initial advance and caused the Normans to hesitate- but then that was it was all over - So I wanted the Saxons to have a once only defensive fire. These were stones rocks axes spears etc so could not be represented by archers. Also to have given the Saxons any more firepower would have made their position too strong.
In practice, the Norman archers will normally cause 2 - 3 disorder results in their initial turn, it is very likely that these will be the only points at which they can launch there initial attacks, the limited defensive fire of the Saxons allows them to target against these units.
I had some discussion on the Consim folders about overhead fire. We can generally accept that the front line held the Housecarls but we cannot be certain if the saxon defensive fire came from skirmishers in front of them or from behind, I have fudged this a bit with fire coming 'from' the line.
My main concern about the game was that by turn 2 or 3, many players may have thought the system too heavily favored the defenders and given up play, it is important to see the game through to the end. This was a tough position to take historically and the game reflects that, also you have some of the best infantry in Europe on top of this hill.
I don't know whether you know, but I did a sister game covering Stamford Bridge. This is a very bloody affair with both armies having very high concentrations of elite troops. (details, incl. map, on my web page)
I think the system could go to the crusades to properly explore those simple but effective cavalry rules. Also it could go to Bosworth. The armies would have a smaller number of elites, so holding the high ground would be harder but the archery would have to have more importance.
I used the lull mechanic to reflect the historical lulls of the battles and to reflect how, when the battle resumed, armies had re-ordered with archers to the front. Also getting rid of archer on a 1 or 2 did account for 'out of ammo' but importantly, stopped the archer units being used inappropriately as melee type troops. It's very rewarding to discover when people have liked the look of the game enough to bother mounting counters and playing it - more so, when they feel moved to write about it - thank you. I have had quite a few e-mails about the game, mostly they are based around the fact that 'it's nice to see something in the Dark Age for a change'.
I do not know if you visit Consimworld at all http://talk.consimworld.com but there is a Senlac Hill folder there (under pre-gunpowder games) where you can post any observations and read others.
Back to Perfidious Albion #104 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com