[Mike]

The Sea Peoples Hail Ceasar Warlord Supplement Biblical and Classical armies provides for Baggage Wagons with a base profile of 3/3/1/0/4+/6 and Special Stubborn rule.  I think that is a good starting point.

I don’t see them “attacking”.  So, you may opt not to let them attack and move at the wagon rate (same as infantry).  Now, you have to decide what their purpose was… if they were used as firing platforms, I would substitute a small missile Range profile onto the profile above (use the missile unit’s Short-Range and Long-Range profile).  Consider the unit in cover plus stubborn for morale purposes which combined with wagon 6 stamina makes it hard to destroy.

That produces a profile for a missile manned war wagon of…

3/3/2/0 or 2 (depending on weapon)/4+/6 plus the unit is always considered in cover and gets the Stubborn special rule.  Also, the unit cannot initiate an attack or countercharge.

[Mike]

While I don’t game, Epic scale, I have gamed with different base configurations.  You and your opponent need to agree what constitutes the way to display a given formation.  In the past, three “stand” units displayed a square formation as a “triange”, while two “stand” units displayed it with one stand facing forward and one backward.  Given the importance of frontage in Black Powder, I would have the triangle face oriented so the enemy most like to strike it, would contact one of its faces, not its “points”.

[Mike]

Like Big Al says, Hail Ceasar is pretty agnostic when comes to basing or castings, the most important thing is a consistent unit “footprint” (with frontage being more important than depth), since the rules work off of tiny, small, standard and large size units largely based on the “unit’s frontage”.  But with that in mind, while I prefer painting 28s, one of the advantages of smaller scale miniatures is that things can be scaled down to play larger games on smaller surfaces.  So, if that is your goal, then doing what you suggest makes sense.  Al’s suggestion of simply converting every to centimeters would work well as would your thoughts about halving everything.

I have also seen 15mm games played where each unit is a single base, with standard units being 8 castings (4 across and 2 deep) and small units a single base of 4 castings (2 by 2) and large units a single based of 12 castings (6 by 2) with pike units and warbands having a third rank.  Looks great when trying to do really big battles.  Since I watched and did not play in the game, I am not sure how they modified distances, but I think it was somehow done to keep it proportional.  All you would have to do is create a modified QRS as Al suggested.

If you don’t mind painting lots and lots of little men, you could play full size Hail Ceasar with just a lot more figures on a base.  Quite visually spectacular, but while I love painting, I find big units to repetitive.  Even if you don’t maintain proportionality with Hail Ceasar’s recommended basing system relative to movement and fire ranges, the rules can still work pretty well.

[Mike]

As I remember it, a unit can only make one charge response per turn.  So since forming square is the unit’s response, it cannot respond a second time when charged by the French Infantry in hand-to-hand combat.

[Mike]

Yes and no.  You can play a small unit game using the Black Powder game engine.  In the French and Indian War supplement in some scenarios a standard unit is a company of 100-150 men.  The Black Powder game engine is extremely flexible and with a few tweaks (which is what supplements do), you can emulate almost any sized engagement.

But it will provide a very different game than say rules designed for skirmish games like Muskets and Tomahawks or Sharpe’s Rifle.  All three sets of rules work and all three can be loads of fun.

[Mike]

First, any unit with a 3+ morale save, that gets buffed up to 2+ is going to be tough to beat.  In essence, it would take on average 24 hits to produce the 4 unsaved hits needed for it reach shaken. Historically, I am unaware that the Old Guard was every defeated in a close combat melee.  But it is not invulnerable.

A more effective tactic would be to use artillery, since saves against artillery since saves from artillery fire, suffer a -1 to -2 negative modifier and units in attack column don’t get the +1 positive modifier when hit be artillery.

So, ideally, you inflict one hit at long range, then bring in a battery of RHA at medium range, 2 D6 hitting on a 3+ since you are firing on column, the Old Guard saves on a 5+, so you have a good chance of getting a hit.  Even if you don’t disorder, the Old Guard and it charges, next you get 3D6 hit on a 2+, saving on 5+ producing 1-2 hits and a 50% chance of disordering the Old Guard.  The break test has a good chance of being suffering -1 to -3 on the Break Test table.  Remember the Break Test occurs on the Hand-to-Hand table.

My point is simple.  The Old Guard is a deadly infantry unit, but like all infantry, it is vulnerable to artillery. Ideally, you have some cavalry around to further impede the Old Guard’s advance by forcing it into square, where the artillery can have a field day.

[Mike]

To get really nitpicky, you orders are “intentions” not charge moves.  Even if you order a “charge”, from a technical perspective, it does not become a “charge” move unless you can contact the enemy.  Instead, it is simply an intent to contact the enemy.  You can technically declare an intent to “charge” an enemy you have no chance of reaching.  All the declaration does is determine the path along which your unit will move.

Then you roll to determine how many “moves”, you get.  If you come up short for whatever reason, you unit is not executing a “charge move”, it is simply moving and so your opponent will not be able to react to it.

If you roll enough moves to make contract, then the last move becomes the “charge” move.  The “charge” move triggers the opponent’s right to “react” to the charge (closing fire, countercharge, etc.).  So, if you don’t get close enough to do a “charge” move, your opponent does not get a “charge” reaction.

[Mike]

We don’t like the use of the word “skirmish” since that represents a combined formation and tactical doctrine.  We prefer the word open order.  We also display the formations differently.  For us skirmishing is a more linear formation with supports in the rear.  So, we show it that way.  Open order is units maintaining the same formation but with greater space between the files and ranks to allow the unit to navigate the woods.  With this as background, we play the unit continues its movement (but at half speed through the woods), but we separate the bases to show open order.  However, when it exits the woods, it must spend a turn “reforming” its ranks.

[Mike]

As Garry noted, there are new rules for forming square on pages 98-100 in the Clash of Eagles supplement. It provides bonuses to the Order test depending on how far the cavalry starts its charge.  I like this rule, though as Garry notes above others don’t.

Part of the intent, I think of the rule was to force infantry in go into square when cavalry was nearby rather than as a “response to a charge”.  I like the way it works.

[Mike]

Yes, but it must pass a command order or be in initiative range of an enemy and is limited to one move per turn.

 

[Mike]

I have found with Black Powder, when something “rare” happens to consider what might have happened rather than the “optics” of what happened.

Using your example, it is clear that the infantry battalion’s colonel saw the cavalry charging his flank and ordered his unit to face the enemy cavalry and issue fire.  Before the cavalry closed the infantry got off a devasting round of fire causing the charge to disintegrate and the cavalry to recoil.  In other words, think of the outcome as occurring in the course of the turn and not at the end of the turn.  Things are more dynamic than the “I move, you move” format of the game and part of that is captured in the combat resolution.  As you suggest such outcomes are rare, but nothing in battle is certain.

[Mike]

In Clash of Eagles there are some special rules regarding skirmishers, that provide a more granular feel to mixed formations based on infantry type and nationality.

Specific to your question:

The mixed formation requires a formation change.  The formation change represents the “parent” battalion dispatching skirmishers to screen their front “quarter”.

The mixed formation only gets 1 shooting die symbolizing the fact that most of the unit is unable to fire due to friendly skirmishers in front of the unit screening them from the enemy… and not just screening the enemy from them…

Just as it takes a formation change to enter mixed formation, it takes a formation change to exit it.  The exception is when charging or being charged the mixed formation automatically reverts to the formation of the parent unit (either attack column or line).

[Mike]

Shrapnel… not to be to nerdy… but yes but 3D6 hitting on 5s and @D6 hitting on 4s have the same expected value… “1 hit”.  But they have very different outcome distributions including upper ranges.  So with 2D6 you are more likely to have more 0 hits and 2hits.  With 3D6, you are less likely to miss and can even inflict as many as 3 hits.  So, while over a long period of time both average out to the same, on an individual shot, the range of outcomes is far greater with shrapnel suggesting a direct hit is more “punishing” but likewise it is also more likely to inflict minor damage.

[Mike]

The answer to your question is provided by Garry and Big Al.  The only thing I would add is to better understand Black Powder keep in mind “hits” do not equate to casualties per se, but rather the morale state of the unit.

So as Al noted, by winning the combat, your unit is feeling “euphoric” and so no “Break Test” is required.  But it also exhausted and worn and fragile, hence its current Shaken status.

In subsequent turns, the unit could be rallied and its morale status improved (up to one hit only on the unit… that last hit reflects that the unit has suffered some morale impairment that no amount of encouragement by their general can overcome).  So the casualties the unit suffered are not suddenly being risen from the dead, but rather the remaining men have recovered their morale after the carnage.

I don’t know if this helps, but it took awhile for me to separate the concept of casualties (not a factor in Black Powder, from morale status which can move up and down).

[Mike]

When you get into special terrain, you need special rules.

The Clash of Eagles Supplement does have some rules for Earthworks and Entrenchments.  Mostly, they suggest defining them as light cover or heavy cover and require you establish the capacity of said features… like one artillery unit and one standard infantry unit, etc.

I think the formation should be “irregular” formed line.  So the unit fires with the proportion of the line facing the enemy but H-t-H with the entire unit.  You can decide whether the unit has flanks or a rear quarter, my sense is any quarter the unit can fire out of would be a “front quarter” and any quarter the unit can’t fire out from would be a flank or rear quarter.

For a combat result modifier, the value should be defined like buildings using a value of 1-3.  Be careful against making them to powerful.

[Author]

Posts