I was raised (wargaming-wise) to believe that resolution of close combat (aka melee in OS terms) should have a mechanism that involves both sides and have a win/lose/draw result. I think Battlecry was the first game I played that did not have a mutual melee/charge resolution mechanism and the absence bothered me. At least an attack on an adjacent enemy was more deadly than long range shooting unlike some rules. Anyway, to shorten the story, I decided I should try incorporating some variation of the idea in my new hex based rules for the Conquest of Acadia and Canada, and the War of 1812 and test them.
The scenario is a simple encounter between equal forces with a slightly different force make up. I'll report on it when its done.
Anyone curious about the rules can find the rough draft here. (Updated 8 Mar)
Interesting Ross, I enjoyed reading the rough draft.
ReplyDeleteA report on the first game and tweaks should be up by tomorrow.
DeleteHad a quick look at the draft: I have a half-written set of rules that I've been working on (don't we all?) and some of the concepts here are worth stealing--er...adapting ;) At the very least, a bit of inspiration to get over the hump and complete the project. Thanks for posting.
ReplyDeleteYou're very welcome, thanks for having a look. Relying on observation of Political norms, I will be happy to take credit for what works and deny responsibility for what doesn't :)
DeleteThe test game this morning reminded me of how much I hate haling and quartering, especially when there are small numbers of dice so I've now switched it to dropping dice. A system that has its own issues.
Interesting. I recently bought some Rock-Paper-Scissors dice to change up how I do melee results. Looking forward to seeing how your rules develop and how the game goes.
ReplyDeleteEric
I think I'll stay traditional :)
DeleteInteresting.. I am having slightly heretical thoughts, as follows (1) effective musket range seems to have been no more than about 100 yards, ( although inexperienced/panicky troops might loose off at longer ranges), which makes me puzzle over rules with musket ranges longer than say, one infantry move distance; and (2) just reading Mr Duffy on 18th Century combats, who points out that small-arms wounds were far the most common, and bayonet wounds only a small fraction, and 'all the evidence suggests that the clash of steel among infantry was almost unknown'. So for infantry, unless your move distance represents less than 100 yards, should all combat be 'close combat' but actaully represent short-range firefights? The exception Duffy does admit is of course the assault on defended obstacles or buildings where cold steel would more likely be used. Obviously cavalry are the exact opposite, charge and melee being their main way of fighting. hmm... Thanks for showing your rules!
ReplyDeletesorry if this is out of order - I get these funny turns, the red mist comes down etc. Then the nurse usually comes along with the nice pills and all is OK again :)
DeleteNope, completely in order.
DeleteIn this case, the French seem to have opened fire at longer ranges and advanced stopping to fire then resuming the advance while the British in the old Marleboroughian tactic of point blank fire. Hmm I might need that OS first volley bonus now that I think about it.
For these types of activities, I'm always torn between "letting 'er rip!" vs "theoretical gaming." That is, using the theoretical average results without any dice involved. One has to be sensible at either end of these goalposts....unfortunately.
ReplyDelete:(
One also needs a ton of detailed information to properly calculate what the theoretical average is for the particular situation.
DeleteI like the rules so far, Ross. I may lift, if not wholesale, at least conceptually, your activation rules. One question, where does "3" fall on that activation table? I assume with the 4-5? Which maybe should be 3-4 with 5,6 being the top level?
ReplyDelete