Recently, Robert-Jan Maycock posed the following question on The Portable Wargame Facebook page:
'In the Ancients game, in the event of a Close Combat result making a unit retire, if the unit that has inflicted the hit follows them up and attacks again, does this attack count as being on the retreater's rear?'
Now, this is a very interesting question, the answer to which can be applied to almost any version of THE PORTABLE WARGAME. My reply was as follows:
'The unit has been pushed back, so I would assume that it is still facing its attacker.
However, one could argue that if it was on the verge of losing all its SPs (i.e. it only has 1 SP left) it might be on the verge of fleeing and could well have its back towards its attacker.'
The French Army retreating after the battle of Waterloo. Napoleon can be seen in the background surrounded by his immediate staff and bodyguard.
In reply to my suggestion, Alan Stewart (AKA Donjondo) replied:
'I've mulled this over in the past ... I've made some tweaks to my procedure since I wrote this ... but you may find it food for thought.'
He then included a link to the relevant page on his blog. The mechanism he suggests is as follows:
'Portable Wargame: Retreating
When a unit retreats, roll 1d6 to see if it’s conducted in good order.
- If the retreating unit makes its target number, then it retreats in good order and does so facing the enemy.
- If the retreating unit fails to make its target number, then the unit is routing and faces away from the enemy.
Target numbers:
- Elite: 3+
- Average: 4+
- Poor: 5+
Modifiers to the dice roll:
- Friendly Commander with the retreating unit: +1*
- For each friendly unit in good order that’s on the flanks of the retreating unit (within 2 hexes of the unit’s initial location): +1
- If the retreating unit has already lost half or more of its SP: -1
- If retreating from artillery fire: -1
* If using Commander ratings as described on p39 of The Portable Wargame, then you could use the following:
- Good Commander: +1
- Average Commander: +0
- Poor Commander: -1'
Alan Stewart's suggested mechanism has a great deal to commend it, and I think that it is one that I can see lots of players using ... including myself.
.jpg)
Thanks for posting this - very useful for Non-FB users!
ReplyDeleteMaudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteCheers! I’m glad that you found this blog post interesting.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, I like the suggested mechanism, apart from the target number being based on unit quality. I prefer that to be based on current SPs, but with a quality die roll modifier, among others.
ReplyDeleteI would also limit the total number of positive modifiers from friends to +2 with another possible from command/leadership for +1 and a final +1 for quality; the maximum number of positive modifiers being +4
As written in your post, it appears that average and elite units could easily be "gamed" to the point of rarely ever failing.
Justin Penwith,
DeleteThanks very much for your comment. I can see why relating the target number to the unit’s current SP might work better than a fixed one based on a unit’s grading. It’s certainly something I’ll be giving some thought to.
All the best,
Bob
These are great ideas! I shall be adapting them for my One Page/Big Battles Small Armies rules variant. ( As an aside, they really don't warrant separate status, I need to clean them up and present them as a coherent whole). I will simplify them though:
ReplyDeleteIf a unit retreats as a result of shooting or melee roll 1d6. Elite units are disordered on a roll of 1-2, regular units 1-3 and poor units 1-4. If the general is with the unit add +1 to the roll. If the unit lost a strength point and was also forced to retreat they are automatically disordered. To reform a unit costs 1 movement point. Disordered units are at -1 on all die rolls.
Mark Cordone,
DeleteThanks for sharing your ideas and outline rule mechanism.
Like all good ideas, it is simple and very effective. It adds a whole new layer of subtlety to the basic rules.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteIn my view the matter of being pushed back but still in action vs disintegrating in rout are already subsumed in the rule set. The Strength Pont (SP) system measures (so to speak) units' capacity for fighting.
It seems to me likely enough that one of the features of close quarter fighting is that the side getting the worse of it might well gradually be giving ground, losing cohesion the while, but managing to retain a front until finally it breaks. In my narratives I sometime mention units being scattered or routing - these are narrative circumlocutions for units reduced to 0SP.
The feature suggested is an interesting idea, but would it really add anything to the game? That I'm not sure about. I guess we'd have to enter 'suck it and see' country to find out.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteMy original thinking was very much along the lines you cover in your comment, but I’m always open to looking at new ideas and mechanisms. I can see this suggested change working well for solo wargamers as it removes the possibility of inadvertent bias when a player is deciding whether to give ground and risk their unit routing or let their unit see its SP reduced.
As you comment, I’m likely to ‘suck it and see’ and then make a decision to include it in any future versions of the rules.
All the best,
Bob
My personal opinion aligns pretty much with the Archduke, above, and your own reply (in italics), Bob. If results of action have another layer of granularity, then the elegant simplicity of the SP reduction system reducing a unit to non-effectiveness (rout, dispersal, whatever…) at SP0 becomes unnecessarily complicated, with minimal or increase in ‘realism’. Maybe we just need to adopt an internal narrative approach, to explain what we see - SP4: confident and effective, SP1: struggling/clinging on, SP0: broken, scattered, lost the will to continue.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always envisaged the retreat from shooting/combat as retirement under pressure. Falling back in rout is the SP0 state….and broken units remain broken.
Martin S.,
DeleteI think that you have summed it up very nicely. I can see that some players would like the idea that they can see even good units sometimes turning their backs and running, but as you argue, that does add another layer of complication that might not be necessary.
I suspect that most solo players like me do have an internal narrative running in their heads, and that this does affect our decision at to whether or not a unit will take a lose of SP or fall back to keep from doing so.
This has been a most interesting discussion, and thank you for your contribution to it.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
DeleteFirst, thanks for publishing this very interesting set of ideas for amending the PW rules. I like the possibility of reflecting both unit quality and the deterioration in fighting effectiveness (casualties, exhaustion and loss of morale) when determining how a unit reacts. The aspect of the original PW system that I have always found rather odd is the idea that the player can choose whether to suffer an SP loss or to fall back, as it seems to give the player too much control over an individual unit - unless his commander figure has attached himself to that unit - and perhaps confuses a decision to retire, made by the unit/formation's officers when things are not going well with the morale reactions of the troops, which are outside their control. For example, the commander of a battalion advancing upon the enemy and coming under heavy fire might decide to halt outside close musketry range and order his men to open fire, rather than attempt to close with the bayonet and suffer heavy losses, or he might encourage them to press on and hope that a determined advance would cause the enemy to break.
But the men themselves might either refuse to advance further and start firing of their own accord, or become so disorganised and demoralised when they come under close range fire that they break and run.
I wonder whether the term 'push back' is inappropriate for periods when troops are not fighting hand to hand. In the Reisswitz 1824 Kriegsspiel, for example, there are three possible outcomes of close combat:
'Repulsed. They have turned back, but they remain in good order as they retire, without significant losses. They need two moves before they can defend themselves, and three before they can resume the offensive.
'Defeated. The beaten troops turn back. Only some of them retain their order and the rest begin to scatter. Losses are significant...Defeated troops need three moves before they can defend and six moves before they can resume the attack.
'Totally Defeated [troops] go back in disorder in full flight. They need five moves before they can rally for defence, and ten before they can assume the offensive.' [from Von Reisswitz Kriegsspiel 1824, translated and published by Bill Leeson, 1989]
Best wishes, Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI had a feeling that you would enjoy this discussion and the suggested changes to the Close Combat aspects of the PW rules that it has generated.
I had forgotten von Reisswitz’s three possible outcomes. As they are based on observations of real life troop reactions, they are certainly worth keeping in mind when writing rules. Of the top of my head, I think that it might be possible to adapt the PW Close Combat outcomes to produce three results. It’s something that I’ll look into over the next few days if I can.
All the best,
Bob