Anyway, one learns to cope but the process often involves "do overs" and I've learned not to judge rules in particular without at least three games with analysis in between. Two games is however, enough to report on.
PNW Game 1. Not having a ground scale to work with, I used the frontages of the armies as a basis for scaling map to table. For the 1st game I decided (against my better judgement) to use the single deck activation option.
The US had 7 infantry units, the 2 small regiments in the 1st Brigade being amalgamated for game purposes, a unit of light cavalry and an artillery unit not yet on table. The army counted 33 SP's if you leave out the Commander which I did since I was not allowing him to use any of the commander bonuses as previously mentioned. This gave them an exhaustion point of 11.
The British had 2 infantry battalions and a bunch of detachments which is where it got tricky. I ended up putting 2 Elite rifle units for the Voltigeurs and Mohawks and another for the combined flank companies and Canadians in the gully and a 3 SP infantry unit for the detachment from the 89th Foot. They also had a gun and an off table gunboat. In retrospect I should probably have reduced the SP's of the detachments and Voltigeurs 1 more each. I also should have counted the offtable gunboat as firing indirect unless the target was right on the riverbank. At any rate that gave the British 22 SP's and an EP of 8. (I didn't count the gunboat)
I then proceeded to deploy the troops historically and follow the original plans as long as possible.
This was the point where I discovered that I was having trouble remembering all the details of the rules (as simple as they are, the rules are still more complicated, or at least detailed, than any I've played in ages). In particular, after all these years I have trouble remembering that units roll to hit themselves in melee. (Ok that's a deliberately contrary way of putting it.) I decided to rename the melee roll as a Saving Throw and that made enough sense that I was able to remember.
What surprised me though was that I hadn't really appreciated how deadly shooting was. A stationary infantry line has a roughly 85% chance of scoring a hit against a target in the open. Even in woods it has a 2/3 chance of hitting dispersed riflemen who have a 1/6 chance to reply effectively. It took me to the last turn to realize that the riflemen could form line in the woods and thus shoot better with no lose in manoeuvrability in the woods. This seemed superficially wrong so I rationalized it as the line representing a unit with a proportion of men skirmishing with the rest in support to the rear.
Since the US forces historically seem to have begun in column with a screen of skirmishers I deployed them in column. In game terms this was as slow as the line but less effective. Even when the columns charged the faux riflemen, the charge bonus was only against line not dispersed. In the ensuing melees the Americans rolled low and suffered heavy SP losses as they pushed the Voltigeurs back. These latter, being Elite, usually rolled up and happily gave ground to avoid losses. So far the result was reasonably historical if a bit too deadly.
In the plain, the US infantry was suffering from deadly artillery fire and struggling to cross the gullies under fire (I treated crossing the gullies as fording a river). By the time they struggled into small arms range of the main British line it was all over. They had lost their 11 SP's. Since the British had no strategic need to drive the Americans back, the battle was over. The US had drawn 80% of the activation cards and suffered 80% of the casualties.
I stopped to review the game then decided to shrink the battlefield slightly, add the extra SPs for the general, change the activation method to rolling for initiative and replay the game with a better understanding of the rules.
I'd like to try out the Corps game using fictional armies but those troops are still out of service and I have other things I want to do so it'll have to wait.
Ross Mac,
ReplyDeleteI'm very interested in your feedback.
Your comment about firepower is very true. It can be very deadly, but that was because the rules were written to be used on an 8 x 8/9 x 8 grid, with action being fast and furious from the off.
My knowledge of the War of 1812 is a bit sparse, and I suspect that the rules will need quite a few modifications to suit it to the particular circumstances of that conflict.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, thinking about it, I don't have a problem with the effectiveness of the firepower. It was the shortness of the battles.
DeleteUpon further reflection, I think the issue is that armies in America were so small that they almost never had reserves and they were stubborn. The result was some fights that were both severe and prolonged. To recreate some of the historic fights, I think I'd have to either increase the SP's per unit or else increase the exhaustion point to 1 per 2 SP's.
The rest is about how one interprets what a rule represents rather than changing it.
Ros Mac,
DeleteI did experiment with giving infantry 6 SPs, cavalry 4 SPs, and artillery 2SPs for smaller actions (i.e. 1 SP for each figure), and the battles lasted longer but tended to end up as just long sessions of Close Combat. Also, I've used a 50% Exhaustion Point for battles where both sides historically tended to be 'stickers' (i.e. more likely to fight to a conclusion), and again, the battles were longer.
If I was using a larger grid, I'd certainly look at using one of both of the above.
Again, thanks for your feedback (and I will be mentioning your blog entry on my blog sometime soon).
All the best,
Bob
Your 1812 war game was very informative to read, and I followed your input and observations with interest. Robs rules give good results (our club has used them many times). For me, the simpler the rules the better.. almost "One bran Cell" approach work best for me, and I fill in the unwritten details using a sort of "Mythic" approach, only I use my own version of this called "INRADIC" or "IGRADIC".
ReplyDeleteThe game set up itself looks really atmospheric I must say.
Both simple and straightforward is my preferred style these days.
DeleteInteresting report. I look forward to the next game to see how things proceed.
ReplyDeleteMight take me a while to get to trying the corps rules.
DeleteI was very interested to read your observations, Ross, and Bob's reply concerning the grid sizes. On the whole I would expect brigade sized battles to be fairly brief, their being little scope to keep a reserve. The time scale I would suppose to be roughly 1 turn to half and hour. A brigade sized action I would not anticipate taking longer than maybe two or three hours, if so long.
ReplyDeleteI have a little bit of a project in mind based on Davout's III Corps in Poland. The idea is to begin with a brigade action, then Division, and finally the whole Army Corps. WHEN I eventually get around to adding to my blog, I'll expand on that...
Time scales are tricky. The US forces were present in roughly Division strength. (Technically 3 brigades of infantry plus cavalry and arty though 1 brigade was down to roughly battalion strength). However, the serious fighting did only last roughly 2 hours. Comparing movement to musket range and comparing what was done on table vs the actual battle, I would say the turns were closer to 10 minutes leaving the US forces exhausted after an hour with one of the main British units not yet engaged. In part that was due to the Americans not bundling ahead with the bayonet like they did in the 1st game where they drove in the enemy skirmishers but exhausted themselves in doing so. If I were to try it again I would weaken the British skirmish line. I would also come up with a victory condition that forces the British to counter attack.
DeleteFirstly Ross it's the usual visual treat, lovely collection on model soldiers. It's also an interesting test of Bob's rules and they seem to work well overall.
ReplyDeleteThey do indeed deliver what they say they will.
Delete