Anyone tried a house rule to shoot only in enemy's turn?

[Pijlie]

Not sure why you think artillery is so defenceless?

Despite your calculations you are actually saying that, if the gunners are lucky (i.e. make their Saves) they get to maul the infantry. But IMO they should not have to be lucky to do that to infantry that walked straight into the barrels of the guns... In any case, I saw my unlikely scenario happen several times.

There´s another weird scenario as well that you get with the standard rules. My opponent walks his infantry unit within range of my infantry unit. He then shoots at me. I can´t do anything since he does not traverse my front. Then it´s my turn and I charge him. He then shoots me again with Closing fire. So despite the fact that he is covering the greater distance, he gets to shoot at me twice and I don´t get off a shot. I just think that this is odd.

With my version, he would walk up to me and get shot by me. I would then move and Charge. He would get to shoot at me (regardless of a Charge, actually) and in case of a Charge we would engage in HtH combat. Sounds more realistic to me and you lose all the discussions about traversing fire, which you do not need anymore.

But, as I said before, I need not make any converts here. It is just the way I like the game better. Feel free to disagree or apply your own preferences. This is, after all, in the flavour of the game.

[Alan Charlesworth]

Perhaps you didn't understand my point? The maths show the gunners don't have to be lucky. On average they win. Its all about mathematical probability. It sounds as though you don't want the infantry to have any chance to win?

In any case I am all for you doing what you want with the rules to make them suit the game you want

[Big Al]

The OP asked if anyone had tried a different method to those in the rules. Pijlie has tried them a different way and stated his preference as well as how he works out Disorder, which was the bit I couldn't get my head around. The Maths doesn't really matter, only what the player finds and prefers. I prefer the original rules because they work for me and my group. We also tend not to leave guns isolated, so I haven't had the same experience that Piljie has had. In our games, infantry rarely manage to contact the guns without hitting a unit of infantry as well. Some serious firepower to withstand then!

[Pijlie]

Pijlie has tried them a different way and stated his preference

Yep. Just answering the questions with the how´s and the why´s .

[Matt Dower]

Coming to this one late!

I also favour I move / you shoot.

I tried many different periods and found that for most we felt the need to experiment with the stats and unit specific rules and tweek the rules to give the right period feel.

My most developed developments were for ACW. There I opted for I move / you shoot as well as other changes, such as not allowing charges on initiative.

The next period I'm getting my teeth into will be Zulu wars. Fairly certain that I move / you shoot will be right for this too.

Cheers
Matt

[CplJohn]

Hi,

Just my tuppence worth. The rule of "move more than once and you cant fire" in LAOK was suggested to slow down eighteenth century armies, encouraging them to wait for their artillery and plod forward. Racing three moves and then firing might work OK in periods such as ACW, but the LAOK rule seemed to encourage players to slow down, reflecting a more eighteenth century approach.

It was not suggested because we had a problem with moving and firing per se.

I would say that different periods will need different amendments. Moving and firing may well be different at Blenheim than it is in Franco-Prussian battles. Tweak the rules until it feels right.

cheers

[Darkwing Duck]

Interesting debate. I tried what Rapid Fire refer to as reserve fire. If I dont fire in my turn I can fire at an enemy once he comes into range during his movement. Long range or short range is the firers choice.