I played turns 3 and 4 of the programmed solo game.
The orders and responses didn't change, so these two turns were continuation of the previous plans. So far, the situation:
Red (Union), attacking:
- Mission: "Seize the broken ground dominating the roads to the north"
- Units (rolled for): 10 infantry, 2 light infantry, 5 cavalry, 3 artillery. I multiplied the units in the book by 1.5 to get a good troop density on the table. I gave Red 4 commanders.
- Execution (rolled for after Blue's deployment): "Attack centre after feinting to weak flank". The weak flank was determined at random, and resulted in the left flank.
- Response rolled after Blue's attack from the woods on the left flank: "After defeating the surprise attack the woods must be cleared and all further woods must be cleared insofar Blue's forces in those woods could surprise Red."
Blue (Confederate), defending:
- "Hold the broken ground to the north of the table"
- Units (rolled for): 6 Infantry, 3 light infantry, 3 cavalry, 3 artillery. I gave Blue 3 commanders.
- Deployment (rolled for): 60% centre, 20% left flan, 20% right flank. Light troops must be divided evenly between the flanks. All troops other than cavalry must be deployed in woods or on hills; reserve of 15% must be maintained in the centre and not in the front rank.
I decided to deploy as follows: - right: 1 inf, 1 cav, 2 light
- centre: 1 cav as reserve, 4 infantry, 3 artillery
- left: 1 cav, 1 infantry, 1 light
- Execution (rolled for): You will hold the central section and not give up ground., nor will you counterattack or follow up with the main body. You may give up ground on the flanks although you should aim to hold them to protect the position. You may counterattack off the flanks or counterattack with your reserve to retake them. You should use cavalry and light troops boldly on the flanks to harass the enemy.
- Response rolled for after Red developed its attack on left: Steady ... work out sensible but limited counterplans.
Turn 3, Red: Further development of the attack on the left flank, but gradually launching the main centre attack as well. Since I use command rolls, and a failed one stops the turn, Red didn;t get far this turn. The remaining half of the centre (not in the image) didn't move, nor did anything happen on the right flank.
Turn 3, Blue: On Blue's right flank (upper left in the picture below), firing actions to contain the enemy. Also the centre starts firing heavily. The commander there has a +3 on firing, meaning units only needs a 4+ to be able to fire. Perhaps a bit too generous ...
Turn 4, Red: Again a limited Red turn. I decided to start launching the attack in the centre, so infantry units start to move up. Artillery also limbered up to position elsewhere.
Turn 4, Blue: Blue again had some successful infantry and battery fire and managed to rout completely one of the cavalry units on its right flank (Red's left). Picture below is from behind Blue's lines.
I guess Red's attack on the left flank has been "feinted" long enough, so time to press forwards with Red's attack in the centre.
Ruleswise, I have encountered a slight problem. I use an ativation mechanic. Units activate on a 7+ (with possible bonuses from commanders), and a failed roll ends the turn. But, that means each side on average will activate the same number of units, which favours the side with the lesser number of units, as is often the case in an attack/defence scenario. Perhaps I should switch back to my former system in which I have commanders issue order (and hence, more commanders means more orders on average).
Another problem in my ruleset (although I am aware of it), is that it's a move or fire ruleset, meaning the defender has the edge if he doesn;t have to move. I usually counterbalance this by giving more units to the attacker, but combined with my unit-based activation system (instead of commander-based activation), it doesn't work that well for the attacker.
The ‘more commanders = more orders’ seems like a good and easy fix and probably puts greater emphasis on the importance of command within the battle. Another way might be to use a Black Powder type system with your commanders being responsible for their brigade and then it is the commanders that roll for activation / orders of units within their, with a fail then closing down just that commanders brigade for the turn, rather than the whole force being affected by an ‘end of turn’ result on a fail.
ReplyDeleteMove or Fire is a problem, especially if an attacker forces a defender to fall back, rather than punishing the defender, this usually helps them because space has now opened up against the attacker, who are now forced to carry on moving, rather than firing to close. I have just been playing a game in which a side can either move once and fire once OR fire twice and it is quite probable that this mechanic fell out of the situation you describe as the rules developed ........ but that can be an awful lot of fire!
Norm,
ReplyDeleteYes, we use Black Powder for our Nap and Great Northern War games, so I'm familiar with that system. We like it a lot, ever since we first used in games such (IIRC) Blitzkrieg Commander. I've also used it for many years in my ACW rules, and indeed it is a nice solution for an imbalance in the number of units. More units simply means more commanders that can issue orders.
However, one of the problems I saw was that the BP system makes it difficult to order a unit that is operating a large distance away from the commander. I wanted to counter that by saying that you activate units by themselves - but you get a bonus if a commander is nearby. But that leaves you with a single string of die rolls, one fail meaning the turn is over. One solution is that you could "restart" the chain several times, but that feels ... gimmicky.
I borrowed this unit activation (instead of activation through commanders) from recent sets such as Dragon Rampant or Oathmark which use a similar system. But I guess the underlying assumption is that both sides have roughly an equal amount of units.
Move or Fire: an ancient problem in many rulesets that use it ... it works well if both sides are "mobile" but if the scenario calls for one side digging in, it is a problem in some setups.
I guess both issues show that any given ruleset also inherently makes a number of assumptions about the type of game or scenario that can be played using that set of rules.
Indeed, it is too easy to have a new favourite set of rules every six months :-)
ReplyDeleteI have just been reading through scenario 2 (I know I shouldn’t), just for some added insight into your post and the book - enjoying it, thanks.
Phil and Norm: You both bring up interesting comments regarding the MOVE or FIRE actions. I have not found this a problem in my own rules that use a single, either/or activation mechanism. I need to give this some more thought as to why I am not experiencing this issue. This may become a topic for my own blog...
ReplyDeleteJonathan,
DeleteMove OR fire is independent from activation systems ... although they can sometimes interfere and influence each other.
The problem with move or fire in scenarios with a static defender is always that the attacker needs to move AND fire, but cannot do both. This can be addressed by giving the attacker more units, such that e.g. he can match firepower and moving by alternating his units in a move and fire sequence - just as an modern infantry platoon would do :-)
However, if one uses an activation system that on average activates the same number of units per turn, irrespective of how many units you have in your force, then that model breaks down. In this case, the attacker will activate as many units per turn as the defender on average, but the defender can use them all to fire, while the attacker has to move forwards as well (and thus can never match the firepower of the defender in a given turn).
Thus, when using unit activation, one has to guarantee that you can activae a number of units proportional to the total number of units you have available. One way to do that is by using commanders to activate orders - and give more commanders if you have more units, e.g. as is done in Black Powder.
See also my blog on the Lanchester model - but you can skip to the end for the part on unit activation: https://snv-ttm.blogspot.com/2011/07/the-lanchester-model-for-combat_4930.html
Delete