Second Battle and some questions

[Pickedon]

Played a club game last night on a 6 by 10 table using moves as in the book. A Napoleonic fight with 4 small forces (3 people playing plus myself playing and umpire) 2 French 2 British, one force coming on from each side of the table, the objective to capture the bridge in the middle.

We played 5 turns in under 3 hours while teaching the rules. Every body grasped the core ideas within the first turn. Getting people to state clearly which general was ordering which units to do what was more of a problem, there was a tendency to not clarify when formation changes would happen. By turn 5 that had been cleared up and people were beginning to see possibilities for the large moves. Small forces have problems securing their flanks when cavalry can move 54 inches.

On the moves distances, they were not a problem most of the players indicated lines they wanted there brigades to move to and then deploy to line or mixed. This made it important to get them to clearly state which pulse of the move they would change formation.

We will finish the game next week.

Questions

A small unit of rifles were holding a farm (8" square). It was attacked by 2 assault columns on one face. it was argued that as only one standard unit could occupy the farm how could 2 units attack it? We allowed the attack but only one unit followed up and occupied the farm. Correct?

A unit of cavalry charged a gun taking 2 casualties. The gun was destroyed and the cavalry halted on the spot ready to charge next turn. The British ordered a unit of infantry to advance against the face, that is within the charge arc, to within 3" of the cavalry and deliver a volley. This caused 2 casualties and the cavalry failed their morale test for shaken badly and were a 'pick up'. This caused much discussion about the rightness of such a maneuver (not historic to the period) Nothing I can find in the rules stops this . Opinion?

The general feeling for the rules was good, but I think I was wrong to use my Napoleonic collection to demonstrate them. Wargamers have very clear ideas on Napoleonic warfare and a break in the historical play caused much muttering of 'there good rules but...'

[Guest]

Glad you have had fun with your first game of BP.

the large moves are of course horribly attractive to do ...but are fraught with peril as your other brigades fail to move to support a dramatic attack...But when the gamble pays off... fab stuff.

on you q and a.. I think you are quite right to have only allowed the one unit to attack,, the other should count as support only, your logic is good here.

As for the line advancing and volleying the stalled cavalry, I also take your point , that would be rare indeed, Alma thin red line stuff really.

Could the cavalry, having slaughtered the gun crew not gone on to do a sweeping charge ?Its in the rules.. did you chaps just miss that rule or did something prevent them?

I also agree that most of us have some quite fixed and set minds about Napoleonics,, when we play tested the rules, we all "knew facts" about Napoleonic battles , that sometimes directly contradicted each other , but we were still sure we were "right".

Oh the joys of gaming... Let us know how the rest of the game goes....

john s

[zedeyejoe]

The rules on p60 should answer your first question.

Second one, silly cavalry. Perhaps they should have Fallen Back or made a Sweeping Advance (see p68).

[Pickedon]

Centurion

p60 does not answer the question as the dender was in a buildings. They could fight out with 2 die for the face. If you treate the full width of the farm as its frontage both units had room to be in contact. But in a building is the effective frontage reduced (doors, windows etc)

On the Cavalry question the 'forced to square' rule applies with the same chance if your 18" or 1" away its a 1 in 18 chance of failing to make square. In terms of the game the British lost nothing by advancing to close range and firing. If they had killed none of the cavalry and it charged the next turn he had the same chance of forming square.

I am trying to frame up a House rule that allows an option for the Cavalry to charge or evade if threatened by infantry deliberatly moving within there charge arc and within 12 ins.

[zedeyejoe]

Makes no difference if the target being charged is in a building or open. The same rules apply. Now the question is, how big was the building? You said 1 battalion size but big enough for two battalions to charge it!

Silly cavalry, as you said no disadvantage for the infantry to come up and shoot them down. So the cavalry would have been better off falling back or going forward.

The odds of failing to form square entirely are 1 in 36 (a double 1, p75) but the cavalry can still charge a disordered square (formed if a double 6 is rolled).

House rules, OK but IMHO see how the standard rules work before leaping to make changes. If the cavalry had fallen back, would they have been endangered.

[Pickedon]

Thanks for the reply John.

A sweeping advance was not possible in that the Gun was against the river so having wiped out the crew there was only river in the front 90 degree arc. So change facing or fall back. The infantry that moved against the cavalry came from 24" away the British reserve battalion. If they had charged me I could have countercharged. Instead they moved to 6" and fired at close range thus no option but to stand there. Historically infantry could drive cavalry away with fire if the cavalry did not face their chances. The rules allow for a unit to fire at a crossing unit that is charging somebody else. I think an option to evade or charge for cavalry threatened by infantry fire is a reasonable response.

On the building attack we allowed the 2 units to attack but the consensus amoung the group was in future to go with a single unit through a building face and other units as supports

I am setting up my Marlburian armies on my home table for a game. Any thoughts on special rules to reflect that period?

Thanks

[Rich Jones]

Buildings - so far we have got around the scale to battalion size difference by saying that anything up to 12" (or standard unit frontage size) can only be attacked by one unit on each face without bringing in the other sides of the building - so therefore the first column in has to maximise frontage which leaves little room for another BUT if the player has pushed one in then the 'other side of the building is 'engaged' and they get to fight to. Don't know if that was the intention of the rules but seemed fair to us :-)

Cavalry wise I am sure some one will be able to find more than one example of what happened in the game as happening in reality - very uncommon I would have thought but then again they must have passed 3 moves to get there. In those situations we see it as the cavalry are taking a chance, the infantry probably wouldn't get there most of the time but then again they could have fallen back, regrouped and still probably have been in charge range with good command rolls the next go. If it happened to me I'd see it as the cav being more blown or distracted than it seems and the infantry seeing this and taking a chance! I suspect everyone would have thought it was fine if they had only managed to move once, not really effected the horse with fire and then rolled badly to form square getting mullered for it ... which was almost as possible a result - we are loving this sort of stuff in our games :)

Rich J

[Pickedon]

Thanks for your response Rich. I like the idea of the attaching unit mushrooming out to fill the face of the building it is attacking. That feels right .

The cavalry problem is more difficult. It comes from the game turn system and the possibe length of a move.

The rules allow for cavalry to countercharge in the other sides turn if they are charged themselves. Also units crossing the front of an enemy unit are allowed a fire response. Both of these are provisions to cover actions that would happen in real life that are precluded by the game turn structure.

Imagine you have moved your cavalry unit to a position 15" from an enemy infantry unit. Open ground between you. You plan to charge next turn. From the rules the enemy can:

1. Stand where he is, fire at you at long range and have a 1 in 18 chance that you will not be able to contact him with your charge as he forms square.

2. Pass a command test and advance in line 12" towards you fire at close range and have the same chance of avoiding your charge.

The rules acknowledge the threat of cavalry to infantry by the must form square rule. But there is no jepardy in advancing directly in line toward cavalry in line, just because its your turn. If the infantry announce a charge on the cavalry they can countercharge

The Black Powder logic of there is no rule to stop you using infantry to charge cavalry, but its very dangerous, should be applied. Either:

1. If charging cavalry move less than 6" before contacting infantry the infantry get no chance to form square.

or

2. Infantry moving more than 6" within the valid charge arc of a cavalry unit that is able to charge ie not disordered or shaken, may be subject to an oppertunity charge as if the infantry had charged the cavalry. Or the cavalry my evade 1 move to the rear.

This lets the infantry act as they wish but it comes with an increased risk.

I am realy enjoying the rules. The spectical of lots of figures on a table. the game moving rapidly to the fun bits all are excellent. The cavalry thing was just one event that made 4 gray haired gamers go "Thats not right"

Kevin

[Rich Jones]

I know what you are saying and I suspect the thing is that would be an ideal time for you and your mates to house rule - make it harder to form square from closer for example like you said at under 12″ (infantry move they have to roll another dice giving more chance for the doubles to happen maybe) or just say 'you can't do that' … BP is never going to get those 'it doesn't say you can't do …' players many games I suspect

Come to think of it the 12" range makes sense as it is initiative move distance.

[Coyote]

Questions

A small unit of rifles were holding a farm (8″ square). It was attacked by 2 assault columns on one face. it was argued that as only one standard unit could occupy the farm how could 2 units attack it? We allowed the attack but only one unit followed up and occupied the farm. Correct?

I think this is correct. Treat the farm as a battalion with the same frontages. Sure, if you hit a single battalion from front, flanks and rear there's no way all your troops can occupy the ground the battalion used to, but the attack is still file. It's all about how many units could you bring into physical contact with the structure. It's best not to focus on how your units would overlap if they attack in line. If this happened I imagine those troops would actually lap around the edges, but not in great enough numbers to warrant any special rules. The rest should be poring in on one side.