Some days ago I promised that I would try to devise alternative Close Combat mechanisms for my PORTABLE WARGAME rules ... and I managed to do so today.
I will not bore you with why this has taken me so long, but I will admit that the actual task of writing alternative Close Combat mechanisms for both of the two historical periods (Modern and 19th Century) and the two grid systems (Squared and Hexed) was not as easy as I had thought it would be.
The alternative Close Combat mechanisms can be downloaded from the Downloads page of the PORTABLE WARGAME website or via the following links:
I will not be using these alternate Close Combat mechanisms in my own battles, but I have made them available for those players who might wish to use them.
I will not bore you with why this has taken me so long, but I will admit that the actual task of writing alternative Close Combat mechanisms for both of the two historical periods (Modern and 19th Century) and the two grid systems (Squared and Hexed) was not as easy as I had thought it would be.
The alternative Close Combat mechanisms can be downloaded from the Downloads page of the PORTABLE WARGAME website or via the following links:
I will not be using these alternate Close Combat mechanisms in my own battles, but I have made them available for those players who might wish to use them.
.jpg)
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteIMO, this needs to be made clearer. After all, they are all units, but the distinction between firer and target is critical. I suggest each column contain the words "firer" (or "firing") or "target". Also all the modifiers should contain one of those words. Then no misinterpretation should be possible (theoretically).
Just my two-tenths of a penny.
Regards,
John
Thanks for doing this Bob.
ReplyDeleteIn the two 19th century tables there is an error in the cavalry line - the flank rolls are still listed as 1,2,3 (should be 4,5,6).
Out of interest, why are cavalry harder to 'hit' in close combat than infantry?
The Ferryman (John),
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback and your suggestions.
I will try to make the mechanisms clearer when I manage to get around to revising them. This might be possible tomorrow ... as long as the heavy cold from which I have been suffering for the past few days begins to abate somewhat. (You should NEVER, EVER try to write wargames rules when you are not feeling well!)
All the best,
Bob
Kaptain Kobold,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback ... and for spotting that mistake. I will correct it as soon as I can.
I made Mounted Cavalry harder to hit because they should be able to use their mobility to avoid the worst of the impact of a Close Combat. That is the theory anyway!
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteI have some doubts about the right use of the "comander".
Should I consider it as another normal unit with the same size or as small unit capable to stay in the same square than other?
I am a littel bit confused about it. Could you clarify the best use and its capabilities?
Thank you very much
Carles
Carles,
ReplyDeleteThe commander represents your altar ego on the battlefield and should be used to reinforce units that you want to use to mount attacks OR to support units that are countering possible enemy breakthroughs.
The commander is not intended to act as a combat unit except when there is no alternative. Think of it more as your ability to add a bonus or boost to specific units.
I hope that this makes things a bit clearer.
All the best,
Bob