Sunday, February 19, 2023

Battle for the Ridge: Day 2

Having pulled themselves together over the night, and the Scarlet Pimpernal having switched the rules without the French realizing it, the British were back on Saturday morning.

The French must have been celebrating through the night as the reinforcements were slow in moving from the town in the morning. This took a little bit of pressure off the Brits. 


A prolonged close range firefight ensued with the opposing cavalry shouting insults and taunts at their counterparts without either being willing to risking leaving a hole in the line. 


For what seemed an eternity, the two lines stood and traded point blank fire. Casualties were heavy on both sides but neither would give ground or risk a charge.


At last as the sun began to sink towards the horizon, the Debrouiller Regiment wavered. The General rushed over waving his hat to encourage them but a cannister round found him and the emigres broke. The situation was desperate! Col Grey took command and putting himself at the head of the 42nd and with the pipes urging them on, led them forward with the bayonet. Their battered French opponents broke and fled.

The hill was solidly in British hands and the French in full retreat.
  

__________________

The main difference between this version of the rules and the one used in the first game, was that instead of a stand being removed for every 4 hits, the hits were accumulated until the unit had 8 or 12 hits depending on the troop types. That not only kept more figures on the table but it meant there was room to take a pounding and come back. 

There are still some minor tweaking to do but the biggest thing is to reconsider for the 100th time whether I can stick to the original idea in Morschauser's rules that had inspired the earliest versions of Hearts of Tin, and lump pointblank shooting with charges with cold steel into one type of potentially deadly combat called "melee" while all shooting at effective ranges is "shooting" or divide combat into 3 zones: long range shooting that has  minimal effect but can slowly weaken units, effective close range shooting that can break units, and charges with cold steel which are largely about opposed will but can also be bloody. 

My brain tells me that the long range shooting can be safely "factored in" (ie ignored) and close range shooting and cold steel lumped together. After all, that's what I've been doing for the last 2 decades since  Rob handed me a copy of Morschauser at a used book stand at a Cold Wars convention, but from the back of my brain, my older British wargaming roots occasionally urge a return to long range, short range and melee. In theory, its a mere matter of a modifier here or there but in practice, the whole thing seems to shift players' attitudes and choices in ways that often negatively affect the games, even if only dragging them on beyond the time available. 

There's also the variance between Morschauser's "every stand is a unit" and the traditional the battalion or higher is the unit unless its a man-to-man "skirmish" (in the gaming rather than historical sense). 

I'll have another quick consult with me and myself but I'm pretty sure we'll eventually back Morschauser in most of these questions if we can't find a compromise.


20 comments:

  1. Ross -
    The sort of questions you raise here is probably what keeps me using all sorts of different rule sets (some very similar), but for my own, I still go with figure removal for casualties and everyone else leaving the colours. It has its inconveniences of course, and single-figure stands aren't always very stable (so I compromise on double or triple stands, with a few individuals.

    There's something to be said for the 'Fire and Fury' approach I think, in which the erosion of a formation's stands leads to units becoming worn and then spent, still with maybe a third of their stands still on the board. Perhaps the fresh/warn/spent notion would go with your 3-stand units, the loss of a stand signifying their state. Cavalry, of course, being a somewhat fragile arm, might go straight from fresh to spent. Then of course one has to decide what would cause the unit to lose a stand. A stand Strength Point system comes to mind, but if you don't like that system (however you do it, it has its problems), then maybe an accumulation of knocks (represented by casualty figures - ew - or small stones, say). I suppose these are really equivalent, come to think of it.

    That's the problem with compromise between two contending imperatives. Often the 'solution' doesn't quite solve either imperative.
    Cheers,
    Ion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ion, I used to play a lot of F&F in 15mm!

      Years ago I had a 6'x8' table and mounted 4 figures to a base, 5 bases to a battalion and stand removal worked OK. My 1/72nd ACW with 6 stand units and lots of time are also good with stand removal.

      The real problem for me now is that I only have a 4'x5' table to practice on, but I'm planning convention games for 6 players on a 5'x8' table with a 4 hour window to set up, play and take down. I need speedy mechanics and as good a visual display as I can manage at the same time as having quick play!
      But with only 2 or 3 60mm wide stands in a unit , even taking 1 off leaves a HUGE gap and an instant 1/3 of the unit.

      A decade ago I tried firring

      Delete
  2. For a convention game I think tracking casualties by the use of dice behind a unit is a reasonable compromise. I quite like Ion's suggestion that stand removal would then show reduced effectiveness. There's nothing that says it's x hits to remove a stand so a 3 stand unit could take, say, 12 hits and you'd remove a stand after 6 then a second when down to 3 hits remaining.
    I differeniate between firing - which won't break units) - and charging by resolving the charge on morale rolls. In the open field melees seem extremely rare with either the defenders giving way or the chargers faltering. Neither outcome seems to have led to high casualties so I don't work out any casualties. Quick and easy and some tension with simultaneous morale rolls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the age of smoothbore muskets, I include shooting at effective ranges as part of "melee" or "decisive combat". Shooting at longer ranges is supposed to represent either mass firing beyond effective range or else by unseen unit skirmish lines depending on the war etc.

      I have been, and still am really, having an internal debate over just following the original Kriegspiel and venerable Charge! and halving for cover and again for long range rather than having modifiers since it averages out the effect of some players' strings of good or bad luck.

      Delete
  3. A very interesting battle Ross- well thought out- good to see the British victorious. Regards. KEV.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not sure of how the current rules work; could you "simulate" long range fire by slowing opposing units' movement within long range and front arc to reflect the disruption of said fire? Or more difficult activation? Or add an activation rule for said units? [e.g. Units within long range roll a d6 on a 1-no movement; close range/firefight 1 or 2 no move plus casualties].

    Just my two cents. (that's practically three cents Canadian)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the suggestions, I did have all sorts of additional bits but over the last decade, I've slowly been forced to accept that when players only have about 5 minutes to learn a new set of rules, absolutely as simple as possible works best if the game is going to get finished in the time slotted (and with fewer negative headslaps as people realize that they should have done this or that.

      Delete
  5. Wonderful look. Love those firing lines!
    Regards, James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, something I've been missing for all but the 20mm guys.

      Delete
  6. I can't help but root for the lads in the red white and blue striped pants holding the French right (our left). Huzzah!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just to clarify, when you are talking about Morschauser's rules, are you talking about his book "How to Play War Games in Miniature" published by Walker and Company, New York in 1962 ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, thats the one. I first encountered it c2002. A very different approach compared to Featherstone and Lawford and Young.

      Delete
  8. What size are the bases (width and depth) for inf, cav, and art that you are using?

    ReplyDelete
  9. 60mm wide for everyone. My infantry and cavalry for this as also on 60mm depth, the artillery on what fits, Lt inf on shallower bases with fewer figures but the depths vary based on what I can scrounge ro cut up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I pulled out my copy and read through it again today. I don't know if I have ever played a game using the rules as written. I am working on a Napoleonic project, and I think I will give it a go and then tinker from there. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete