From: Dave Townsend Subject: Flowers of the Forest, Review/Playthrough (LONG) Flowers of the Forest finally came to the top of my play stack. I didn't see any comments on Grognards, nor remember much list discussion, so I thought I'd jot down my experience. FF is a design by Charles Vasey (available from Boulder as well as Charles himself) covering the battle of Flodden, England vs Scotland, 1513. COMPONENTS We're definitely in DTP-land here: single color, iconic counters (unmounted, and pink and blue -- shades of early AH); a nice-looking but pretty featureless colored-pencil map; adequate but not professionally laid out charts and play-aids. Curiously the counters are *not* laid out adjacent to one another. Instead, there's a 1/4" bleed area around each unit, so you have to cut out each counter individually. In essence you have to make twice as many cuts are you should have to. This was particularly irritating for the miniscule "Leader Killed/Taken" markers. Since I mounted the counters on fairly stiff cardboard and my knife was a bit dull, it took a long time to assemble. Probably one of the reasons why I only recently got around to playing it. I said that the counters were monochrome, but I lied a little bit. There are four multi-color banner counters included. The rules say to deploy the Royal Scotland and St. Andrew banners with the Scots, and the St. Cuthbert's and Tudor banners with the English, but as the banners aren't labeled and I'm a colonial, I just ignored them. Other than looks, they have no effect on gameplay anyway. PLAY I'd never heard of Flodden, but then I live on the left side of the pond. Most Brits probably haven't heard of the battle of Chantilly, either. The historical battle was a blowout, in favor of the English, and the rules are very straight-up that players should expect the same result. Competitive players are suggested to play in matches of two games and compare results. So, we've got a strange title for a DTP game on an obscure battle that's highly unbalanced. Why would you actually want to play this thing? The hook here are the "tactical arrays." Only a dozen-odd units are actually deployed on the map; the rest ("bands", differentiated by weapon type, melee strength, and morale) are lined up on the tactical arrays. Now, lots of games have "leader holding boxes" or something similar, but the tactical arrays actually represent battlefield deployment. It matters -- in fact, it's one of the most important game decisions to make -- whether you put archers or pikeman at the front of the tactical array, because the guys at the top are going to be the guys actually rubbing noses with the enemy when the units on the map get adjacent. And if they get eliminated, the next in line steps up to the plate, and so on. Conversely, if you want to use firepower instead of hand-to-hand combat, you really need those longbowmen up front, where they are much more deadly than when they are in the rear ranks. Since many of the on-map units are two (or even three) hexes wide, the corresponding tactical array has width (one column for each hex width) as well as depth. The width affects maneuvering -- those multi-hex units are pretty awkward -- but in combat it's mostly every column for itself. And although only the first unit (normally) participates in hand-to-hand combat, any morale check results mean you roll a single die and apply it vs the morale of each band in the *entire* column. No gradual buildup of panic, a la SPI's old Agincourt; units tend to act as a mass. Of course, units do have different morale levels, so it's possible to scare away the low-morale archers in the back while the men-at-arms in front are continuing to do their duty. This all-or-nothing approach has been the subject of some recent debate on John Kranz's VWHQ. I'm on the slightly-doubting side myself, but it does have the nice side effect of limiting the amount of time that you spend with the die. There is no "two-failed-morale-checks-and-yer-out" rule, and no rallying rule, either. The sole effects of broken bands are to count towards the rout of the parent unit, and have much reduced melee strength. Strangely, missile fire is a casualties-only affair. No morale checks, ever, even if you score multiple casualties. And artillery seems very short-ranged: two hexes, the same as the longbowmen. Movement is regulated by a written orders system. There are explicit rules for playing without it, but the rules make it clear that you're a wimp if you do so. The orders are about as easy as can be and need to be written down: Advance, Stand, Hold [until signalled], etc. but I found the Orders section of the rulebook to be the least- felicitously organized. Pivoting requires a dieroll vs a leader-dependent range, so movement in any direction other than straight ahead is difficult. This lends a nice, appropriately-clunky feel to the on-map units. Overlaid on the orders system is the propensity for leaders to do their own thing -- at the beginning of each turn you roll to see whether leaders advance on their own, hold on their own, or actually do what you tell them to do. The Scots are irritatingly prone to follow their own muse, making any sort of grand tactics hard to implement. Conversely, the English will sometimes get a "choice" result, which lets them implement any order they want! So they can sometimes instantly react to events on the field. MY EXPERIENCE I managed to play through a solo game in a few hours. For a game with an A3 map (roughly 11x17") it takes a reasonable amount of table space, because you have two A3 tactical arrays as well as the separate quick-reference guide (and chips and drinks). Since I was trying to get a feel for play, I deployed the Scots in a more-or-less historical deployment, west-to-east: Home|Huntley Errol/Montrose Gunnes King Gunnes Argyle with Bothwell in the reserve. (The sketch-map on the rulebook cover show Bothwell in the line, but the scenario setup forces him to the back.) The English entered (west-to-east) Howard, Constable, Gunnes, Admiral. More English units enter on turn 2 and turn 3. Looking at the missile fire table as well as the hand-to-hand weapons modifiers, I put all the heavily-armed guys in the front of each tactical arrays, with the archers in the back. (Some units are stuck with archers only, however.) The Scots had been ordered to Hold, but almost immediately Home|Huntley took their own initiative and advanced. Huntley ran into the Constable, but highlanders [archers] vs men-at-arms is ugly, and Huntley got knocked off quickly. Home continues on to be mopped up by Howard (who did at least suffer a few broken bands in the process). The Constable and Admiral finally hit the Scots line (it takes a while at 2 MPs/turn!) and chased the gunnes away. The English gunnes remained two hexes away (artillery requires no orders and is just effective at two hexes as it is at one) to pound the Scots line. The Constable vs Errol battle saw the Constable himself killed and his unit routed, in spite of the brutal artillery fire which itself brought Errol to the point of rout. But the Admiral made pretty quick work of the Scots King, aided greatly by good dierolls for shock and bad Scots morale checks. Argyle did nothing until the remaining English units came up. Surrey took some extra time going through swamps and ridges, but when he got close Argyle charged. Surrey's longbowmen routed him through missile fire (good dierolls again) before shock could occur. The battle then took a bizarre twist as Errol advanced, taking out the English gunnes, but the Admiral and Howard (on either side of him) failed their pivot rolls and had to continue forward. The Admiral finally contacted the Scots reserve, Bothwell, but could only get one of his three columns adjacent, meaning it took a long time to finally get Bothwell to rout. Dacre, leading the mosstroopers [cavalry] was finally up by this time, and tried to charge Errol's exposed flank, but failed his morale check, so the cavalry just stood there. Then time ran out, darkness settled on the field, and the English tallied up their victory. The dead? "None of note, save the Constable, along with his unit." The Scots lost many leaders, including the king, and had all their units routed except Errol, who was one point away. While I certainly didn't play optimally -- I didn't do enough with pikes, and haven't really figured out how to use the cavalry -- it's a shame that Bothwell is required to set up in the Scots reserve, as he's a pretty decent unit. Especially since the Scots seems to have it tough anyway. The English rolled very well, once getting three hits from a single fire of their gunnes, a 1/1000 chance, but even without the luck they do indeed clearly have the advantage in this battle. Maneuver in general is difficult, and while the overall feel is pretty good, I wonder about the "Red rover, red rover, sends Errol right over" development that occurred in my game. SUMMARY While obviously the kind of thing that isn't for everyone, if you're a fan of pre-WW2 games or interested in unusual game mechanics, you should check out this game. I had a good time, and look forward to trying it out a few more times.