I have just uploaded the latest draft of my PORTABLE WARGAME rules to THE PORTABLE WARGAME WEBSITE.
I have also added another entry to the 'Additional Rules' webpage, and the webpage now includes two additional rules that have been devised by other people. These included Ross Mac and Ron Porter's rule regarding 'Elite Units' and littlejohn's rule about 'Forming Squares'.
These 'Additional Rules' are fully compatible with the existing draft of the late nineteenth century version of the rules, and are included so that players who wish to use them may do so should they so desire.
These 'Additional Rules' are fully compatible with the existing draft of the late nineteenth century version of the rules, and are included so that players who wish to use them may do so should they so desire.
Bob,
ReplyDeletelittlejohn's additional rules about forming squares seem, IMHO, to penalise the infantry too heavily: not only are they unable to fire, but their Close Combat power is reduced to half that of the cavalry.
This appears to make forming square a pretty bad idea!
I would suggest merely reducing the infantry fire effect, so that the cavalry unit cannot be destroyed, to reflect the reduction in the number of men firing - although, one could argue that cavalry flowing sround a square they had charged but failed to break might receive almost as much musketry as if advancing against a line - and is less likely to be pinned.
I would modify the infantry Close Combat value upwards when in square: if both sides make their number, the cavalry charge home, but is repulsed; if the cavalry pass but the infantry fail, the square is broken and the defenceless infantry may be pursued, and if the cavalry fail but the infantry pass, the cavalry has refused to charge home, but is hovering waiting for support or the infantry to waste its fire.
I am, of course, basing this on my familiarity with Napoleonic squares; but I don't see that late 19th century infantry with better small arms had much to fear from cavalry if they kept their nerve.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteJust realised I forgot to add that a square should be a good target for artillery and musketry - so I'd increase the likelihood of hits/severity of damage.
Arthur
Arthur1815,
ReplyDeleteI will work your suggestions into a separate rule, and add it to the 'Additional Rules' webpage.
The idea of having this webpage was to allow the development of different rules that people may or may not want to use, and this seems to be happening!
Thanks for your suggestions ... and keep them coming!
All the best,
Bob
How are you today? Hopefully moving forward...
ReplyDeleteAlan
Tradgardmastare,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind enquiry about how I am feeling today.
I felt a bit better this morning, which was just as well as I was scheduled to spend most of the day clearing stuff from my father's house so that it can be sold.
In fact the physical effort seemed to help 'burn' or sweat the bug out of me, and although I got home at 6.00pm feeling very tired (and in need of a long, hot shower), the nausea has gone even thought the muscle ache and headache remain. Hopefully a good night's rest after an active day will leave me feeling 100% tomorrow.
All the best,
Bob
PS. I hope that you have enjoyed the long weekend, and have made further progress on your various wargames projects.