Despite being very busy on the Masonic front and having a heavy cold that I just cannot seem to shrug off, I have been doing some work on THE PORTABLE NAPOLEONIC WARGAME book. Thanks to some very good feedback from Arthur Harman, one or two cosmetic changes have been made to the text as it currently stands in order to improve a reader's understanding of the exemplar battle reports. More importantly, the Close Combat mechanism has been altered to make it less counter-intuitive to use.
In the original mechanism, which I have used in my previous PORTABLE WARGAME rules, getting a high score was bad and a low score was good, and the bonuses and penalties were written to take this into account. However, as players throw for their own unit in the Close Combat, it has been pointed out that it was possible (even probable!) for them to misunderstand the way the mechanism worked. I have therefore turned the whole thing on its head so that getting a high score means that a unit is less likely to be affected by the Close Combat and getting a low score means that they are increasingly likely to suffer an adverse effect.
The current mechanism for the BRIGADE rules reads as follows:
Close Combat Rules
In the original mechanism, which I have used in my previous PORTABLE WARGAME rules, getting a high score was bad and a low score was good, and the bonuses and penalties were written to take this into account. However, as players throw for their own unit in the Close Combat, it has been pointed out that it was possible (even probable!) for them to misunderstand the way the mechanism worked. I have therefore turned the whole thing on its head so that getting a high score means that a unit is less likely to be affected by the Close Combat and getting a low score means that they are increasingly likely to suffer an adverse effect.
The current mechanism for the BRIGADE rules reads as follows:
Close Combat Rules
- Both sides roll a D6 die for their unit involved in a Close Combat and add or subtract any relevant modifiers.
- Increase the D6 die roll score of the unit initiating the Close Combat by 2 if it is a cavalry unit in line attacking an infantry unit in line.
- Increase the D6 die roll score of the unit initiating the Close Combat by 1 if it is an infantry unit or cavalry unit in column attacking an infantry unit in line or an artillery unit.
- Increase the D6 die roll score by 1 if a friendly commander is in the same grid area as the unit for which the D6 die is being rolled.
- Increase the D6 die roll score of the unit initiating the Close Combat by 1 if the attack is being made against the flank or rear of an enemy unit.
- Reduce the D6 die roll score by 1 if the unit is being attacked in the flank or rear by an enemy unit.
- Reduce the D6 die roll score by 1 if the enemy unit is uphill, in cover or in fortifications.
- Reduce the D6 die roll score of the unit initiating the Close Combat by 2 if it is a cavalry unit in line or column attacking an infantry unit in square.
- Results:
- Modified D6 die score = 2 or less: The unit is hit.
- Modified D6 die score = 3 or more: The unit is unaffected.
Both sides threw a D6 die. The British – who initiated this round of close combat – threw 1 and the American threw 2. Because the British were uphill of the Americans, the American D6 die score was reduced by 1. As a result, they both had to resolve the effect the close combat had upon them.
The 3rd Foot Regiment threw a D6 to resolve what happened and a D6 die score of 1 meant that the unit lost 1 SP.
The 4th US Infantry Regiment threw a D6 to resolve what happened and a D6 die score of 3 meant that the unit lost 1 SP. As the unit had already lost 3 SPs, it was destroyed, and the survivors fled the field of battle.
On the face of it, the change is not drastic, but with luck it will make the mechanism easier to understand and to use.The 3rd Regiment are engaged in close combat by the 4th US Infantry Regiment.
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteA couple of questions for you. Should the first bullet point also apply to cavalry in line attacking artillery? The fourth and fifth bullet points: a unit initiating an attack on the flank or rear of a unit will in effect have a modifier of plus 2 - positive for the attacker and negative for the defender. Is this intentional?
The picture looks pretty good and it is a welcome sight seeing the Del Prado collection in action!
All the best,
DC
David Crook,
DeleteThanks for your questions. My answers are:
* Cavalry in line attacking artillery do not increase their die scores.
* The unit initiating the flank or rear attack get a bonus whilst the unit they are attacking receives a penalty.
Because the die scores for both units are thrown separately this does not equate to a difference of 2. Let me explain using examples:
Example 1: Unit 1 attacks the rear of Unit 2 in close combat. Unit 1 throws 1 and gets a bonus of 1; its aggregate score is 2. At the same time Unit 2 throws a 6 and gets a penalty of 1; its aggregated score is 5. In this instance Unit 1 (the attacker) has been hit but Unit 2 (the object of the attack) is not.
Example 2: Unit 1 attacks the rear of Unit 2 in close combat. Unit 1 throws 3 and gets a bonus of 1; its aggregate score is 4. At the same time Unit 2 throws a 3 and gets a penalty of 1; its aggregated score is 2. In this instance Unit 1 (the attacker) has been unaffected but Unit 2 (the object of the attack) is hit.
Example 3: Unit 1 attacks the rear of Unit 2 in close combat. Unit 1 throws 6 and gets a bonus of 1; its aggregate score is 6. At the same time Unit 2 throws a 1 and gets a penalty of 1; its aggregated score is 0. In this instance Unit 1 (the attacker) has been unaffected but Unit 2 (the object of the attack) is hit.
As you will see, the results are different because the bonus and penalty affect different die scores.
It isn’t obvious when you read the rules, but it works in practice.
All the best,
Bob
David Crook,
DeleteThinking about it, the second point should probably read as follows:
Increase the D6 die roll score of the unit initiating the Close Combat by 2 if it is a cavalry unit in line attacking an infantry unit in line or an artillery unit.
Thanks for raising this. It is a change that I think that I need to make.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob,
DeleteMy mistake - I should have read that more carefully. At first glance I was thinking about overall effect being the same as plus 2 for the attacker and did not take into account that the overall outcome is in fact shared.
Makes a lot more sense now!
DC
Makes sense Bob. I look forward to reading how the rules will handle infantry forming square when attacked by cavalry, will it be an automatic response choice (as in Commands & Colors) or will there be a chance that infantry may not be able to form square in time due to being of a lower training class etc. I like C&C method personally, elegantly simple and workable.
ReplyDelete'Lee,
DeleteAt present I have left it to the relevant commander to decided if or when an infantry unit forms square. Anyone who leaves it too late to do so could easily find their infantry unit being knocked about as a result.
Having an automatic response is certainly something for me to think about, and I will give it due consideration as the rules develop or possibly leave it as an option for players who want to use it.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteLee raises a good point, not already dealt with in the rules: what happens if an infantry unit that has not already formed square is approached by cavalry that charges into Close Combat?
One simple solution would be to regard a unit that did not suffer a hit from the cavalry in the Close Combat roll (without applying the square modifier) as having formed square successfully, so it could claim the square modifier in a subsequent turn. It would be good, however, to have a bonus for Elite and a reduction for Poor troops to reflect their ability to react quickly in a hazardous situation.
Units that get a 'Must Retreat' result are regarded as having been broken without being able to form square and are destroyed; others just managed to form and may claim the square modifier next turn.
That seems quite simple to add in, if you approve.
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteAs currently written, cavalry in line attacking an infantry unit in line that has not formed square gets a +2 bonus but the infantry suffers no penalty.
If the cavalry manage to attack the Infantry in the flank or rear as well, the cavalry gets an additional bonus of +1 and the infantry is penalised with -1.
This might appear to result in cavalry in line only being effective against infantry in line that has already lost SPs ... which is what I originally intended. That said, I think that there is a case for a introducing a penalty for the infantry unit in these circumstances.
Something for me to think about.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteWhere infantry in line are being attacked by cavalry, I do think that the quality of the troops must affect their ability to stand fast/form square quickly.Hence my suggestion of a modifier for Elite and Poor troops to the 'to hit' die.
My other object was to use the rules to create a narrative of what has happened to the infantry, rather than simply leaving it to the players' imagination to supply an 'explanation' of events on the table. This might be helpful for younger players with not much knowledge of the period.
The cavalry/square issue is also one that perhaps should be addressed in the Division Rules...
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI think the modifiers for Elite and Poor infantry if attacked by Cavalry makes sense, and I am looking at how that can be incorporated into the rules. I'm also looking at how it might affect the results table, with the possibility that troops who are hit either standing or running.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
DeleteI received your email this morning and composed a reply, but there was an error when I tried to send it, and now I am having problems accessing my yahoo mail. I will try again later.
Regards,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteNo problems and no rush. I hope you get your problems sorted out as soon as you can. I'm up to my eyes with non-wargaming stuff today and it will give me something to look forward to when you are able to sent your email.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
DeleteI am now able to access my yahoo mail via Firefox, and it seems to have been sent at 0957, so you should have received it.
Regards,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteIt was in my inbox when I got home from having yet another set of keys cut ... which I've just discovered don't work!
I'll read your email as soon as my temper is in a slightly more even keel!
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteTHe initial example is not completely clear as I was slightly confused if the die you roll is for the effect on your own unit or on the enemy - e.g. is it a roll to attack or a roll to save? Most people would expect a roll to attack as that is the normal in most rules
We already ignore the double jeopardy rule (as per Neil Thomas's thoughts) on flanks in the existing portable wargame and only apply a -1 to the unit being attacked in the flank rather than also adding +1 to the unit attacking.
Mike Lewis,
DeletePlayers throw for the effect on their unit. This is somewhat different from most sets of rules but I felt that it helped to involve both players in the Close Combat process.
I have no problem with players adjusting or ignoring the various bonuses and penalties. I want players to tailor the rules to suit their needs, requirements, and thoughts about warfare. Unlike some wargame designers, I don't think that my work is sacrosanct and incapable of being improved.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
DeleteAn excellent philosophy - perhaps it should be displayed prominently in your Introduction (if it isn't already?)
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteAfter reflection, I'll be incorporating these sentiments into my introduction.
All the best,
Bob
Effectively both units are making a 'saving roll' not to be hit, rather than a roll to hit their opponent.
ReplyDeleteKaptain Kobold,
DeleteI'd not looked at it like that before, but I suppose that it could be viewed that way.
All the best,
Bob
Was there a reason that you have reverted to the old method of the unit avoiding being hit? In the previous two PW books, a unit rolls to hit its opponent, and the modifiers reflect that (+1 for attacking flank, -1 for attacking cover and so on). Given that's how shooting works, it seems the most obvious and intuitive way to do things.
DeleteKaptain Kobold,
DeleteI made that change because of feedback I got. I had a number of complaints that the old method was counter-intuitive and was confusing players, hence the change.
All the best,
Bob
I am genuinely surprised. Given that shooting is a roll to hit the opponent, I find the idea that close combat is a roll *not* to be hit to be counter-intuitive.
Delete'Twilight of the Sun-king' is the only set I know of that does something similar. In that there is no shooting or close combat - at the start of your side's turn you take a morale test is you are in the arc of fire of enemy units, or if one is in contact with you. So in both cases you are testing to save against attacks that (for practical purposes) automatically hit.
Kaptain Kobold,
DeleteHaving made the change because of the feedback I received, I am going to leave it 'as is' ... for the present. I have to undertake some more play-tests, and will then make the final decision.
All the best,
Bob
Hey, no worries. I was surprised more than anything else. As you say, the rules aren't set in stone, and I'd dump that mechanism straight away, but it sounds like others are happy with it so all power to them :)
ReplyDelete