Fighting in Towns

[Darkman]

I suspect that this has been asked before but I cannot find it on search.

How do you fight in a town. I am not talking about a large farm house, or small collection of building. I mean a town which would have a number of building templates to make it up.

Easiest example is a block of 4 templates 2 x 2. One side has 4 units in the town one in each template.

Now I know how to fight the melee that removes one of the defenders from a template and moves one of my units into the town. But then what. Do both units throw 2D6 in combat to move to another building template or is it best treated as a new attack 6D6 v 2D6.

I know that we could make up rules our selves to cover the situation, but just wondered if anyone else had tried something that seemed right.

Just one point. If a defending unit gets a retire and then become disordered, do they still become disordered but stay where they are.

Thanks

[HobbitMiles]

I recently played in a game with a very similar situation. In the initial "break in" the attacker had all of their h-t-h dice and the defender had 2 h-t-h dice per face. The defender basically ignored any result other than "break" - see page 77.
Where it became difficult was in subsequent fighting from one block to another. This was treated the same as the break-in attempt, the attacker had 6 dice but no cover bonus, the defender 2 dice with cover bonuses.

The reults didn't really feel right and it was agreed that perhaps a better plan should have been made and any special rules agreed before the game. I think if based on a historical president then you need to decide what effect you're going for and base special rules around that. If it is stubborn, bitter h-t-h that you want then maybe the rules as written will work OK, if you want to effctively crack open the crust of the defences perhaps you could subsequently reduce the defender's building bonus in combat resolution, or reduce both sides to 2 dice and/or allow both sides to have the morale bonus for cover - the latter would however result in a very protracted fight.

[Big Al]

That makes a lot of sense and is in keeping with the rules as being scenario driven. It isn't often that you have running street battles in Black Powder. Most of the time the battles are fought in open fields, with the odd house here and there.

How you could play it is to count the units in the buildings as they are and the attackers, once in the town, with some cover, say soft cover. Alternatively, you could add a -1 morale modifier to those occupying the buildings as they see each building captured. Another option could be that once an attacking unit has captured a building, the "Town Fighting" ignores shooting, because the amount of cover afforded both sides would make targeting and actual hits very difficult, and just revert to close combat attacks only. These are all scenario specific rules, don't know how well they'd work, but it's food for thought.

[HobbitMiles]

Again I only wrote down half of what I was actually thinking - the main point where the combat didn't feel right was where the defender lost a round of combat but wasn't destroyed - the rules weren't clear as to what to do - the defender continued to figth on just 2 dice without the benefit of their cover, but the attacker got all of their dice. This is where on reflection it was decided that something should have been planned in advance. Again the umpire was a certain Mr RP and he was a bit flummoxed by the situation.

[Cubster]

Tricky dilemma. Fighting in built up areas is slow, often indecisive, frustrating. It sucks in troops and ties them down in bloody and messy actions where the front line is hard to define and gains must be won the hard way, by the infantry, inch by inch, house by house. Do you try to replicate that situation on the battlefield for the sake of realism or do you try to simplify and speed up the process for the sake of easier gameplay?

If it was me I guess I would want to decide before the game what I wanted. If it was meant to be a mainly 'open' battle and the buildings are a side-action then I'd want to simplify the process to avoid getting bogged down and spoiling the fun.

However, there's much to be said for urban battles, but I think both players need to want that to happen before the battle in order for them both to enjoy it. I'd be tempted to think about having any in depth town fighting as a separate game altogether.

[Darkman]

We are fighting a number of big battles in WSS. Blenheim has the potential for 2 towns within the battle to be fought over. Ramilles is the same.

There would be a number of setups that would involve at least the layout (2 x 2) that I mentioned above.

Also I don't think that a unit in a town would fight until the last man especially if the town was not surrounded.

[CplJohn]

My Tuppence worth,

For Last Argument of Kings ( up to SYW ) I do the following:

I mark out built up areas as a square roughly one battalion wide on each face. I usually put walls or fences around this footprint so eveyone is clear where the built up area is. I then put the buildings etc inside this area.

When a battalion occupies the BUA, it can deploy along one edge. The defender can put up to four battalions in the BUA ( one on each face ) but never gets more than two dice firing from any one face as in the rules ( to digress, this represents the battalion firing from windows and rooftops and not in battalion volleys and so is deemed less effective: If you look at Blenheim as a good example, the French had a huge number of battalions in the town, but could only fire a certain number of muskets, the rest of the men loading and passing guns forward). If the BUA is attacked by an enemy in melee, then count all the battalions in the BUA as fighting and apply the melee result to them all. If the result calls for the defeated unit to retire then all the units are pushed out of the BUA and retire as described. You do not have to destroy them.

First, the reasoning: Units fighting to the last is meant to represent one band of troops holding out in a farmhouse or similar building such as at Rorkes Drift etc. It is not designed to reflect a good sized Brigade holding on to a town. If you impose the "ignore all results put break" then you can never get the ebb and flow of battle where a town may change hands two or three times during the course of the battle. You will also never take the towns in the time frame of the game. Black Powder plays quickly and is designed to play a game in an evening. If you stick to the must break rule, towns will never fall and people will ignore them in battles, making their inclusion on the table irrelevant.

Since a BUA can now hold up to a brigade ( four battalions- one on each face ) you will need to attack it with a brigade, either attacking with all battalions into the town or keeping some out to count as support. It does mean that BUA are still tough nuts to crack, but you can soften them up with artillery at close range ( which cancels the cover bonus ), use the rules for setting buildings on fire ( page 85 ), or for Grenadiers as assault troops ( LAOK ). Whilst the enemy still struggle to take towns, the conflict is over quickly and does not last all night! The only other point is that the defender, seeing that he can put a brigade or more in a town, often packs the towns with defenders and weakens his defence elsewhere.

I have used these rules for Fontenoy, Blenheim and, most recently, Dettingen, and they work OK. They have not been tested to destruction: comments?

cheers

[jacknischoless]

There would be a number of setup that will involve at least the layout (2x2) they've mentioned above,
also Don't think A unit in a town would fight until the last man Especially if the Metal town was not Surrounded.