Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Back to Napoleonics!

Our group played a real nail biting game this past Saturday - 1809, Austrians on defense vs. French.  The Austrians had established a position on a ridge, leaving a sizeable town to their front undefended.  The Austrians had elected to not garrison the town, as they thought it was too exposed and would allow the French to concentrate against any troops posted there.

The Austrians were on the ridge to the right, the French beginning along the vertical baseline on the left.

The French begin to advance, poised for their assault on the Austrians on the ridge.

The French assault was aimed at the apex of the ridge, in the diagonal square behind the town.  Unfortunately for the French, this position of honor was held by a unit of Austrian Grenadiers - and a stout group they proved to be!   On the French left, the French basically held in place, staring down a few more Austrians to their front.   The battle turned into an assault on both sides of the town and on the southern edge of the ridge.  Eventually the French punched a hole in the Austrian line at the corner of the ridge, and their cavalry brigade poured through, decimating the Austrians (both infantry and cavalry).  At the end of the game, both sides had 0 or 1 Morale Points remaining, and gave points back and forth.  Finally, the French were at 1 point, the Austrians were at 0.....and an Army Morale card was drawn for the Austrians!  Unfortunately for them, they failed (rolling a 1).   What a game!

A variety of photos from the game:










I should mention that the rules used were Field of Battle, 2nd Edition, with a few house rules.  The ridge was a Class I hill, meaning that it didn't hinder movement, but provided elevation advantages and line of sight protection.  Also, no Maneuver cards were in the deck.  Units could maneuver or change formation on Move cards for the price of 1 move segment.  On Move cards with won even rolls, the maneuver/formation change was free.  Finally, and most significantly, ordered cavalry could melee on Move cards.  Disordered/out of command cavalry still required either a Melee or won even roll on a Move card.  These all worked fantastically well.  In particular, I really liked allowing cavalry to melee on a Move card.  It made them much more dangerous, and not a thing to be trifled with.

Thanks to Greg C, Greg R, Eric, Terry, Chris, John, and Rodney for playing!








12 comments:

  1. I see you didn't use your new unit labels with the battalion names on them...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While the unit name labels were colorful, aging eyes had a harder time seeing the unit values. I experimented with a variety of styles (much to the chagrin of the group as I bombarded them with emails showing options), and finally settled on a shaded brown label. They are unobtrusive, and match the base edges well. I modified my ACW units to include a 2nd label for each unit - which is the unit name label (same brown label style).

      Delete
  2. I think the minor changes you made as House (author) rules make sense; the change in FoB2 that only WINNING even LD rolls allows change in facing or formation was a real blow to armies with worse leadership, who also ordinarily tend to have fewer Maneuver Cards. This way there is still an advantage to better leadership, but not as marked (and less issues with sometimes waiting forever for a Maneuver card to respond to a threat)

    The Cavalry change definitely favors Cavalry in good order (very reasonable) over OOC (such as after a charge) Cavalry, and it does increase their threat potential as well.

    Are you getting ready to test out some FoB campaign rules, Brent; Barry and I are definitely ready to start such a project now ourselves as testers if you are/will be!

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It only seemed to make sense to give cavalry more combat opportunities. As written, they're a bit under threatening, if that makes sense. I am still doing the campaign rules, but have been nearly 100% tied up with massive home rennovation projects. We're nearing the end - the kitchen remains, and that starts this weekend.

      Delete
  3. Another question - would you use this new "cavalry can melee on a move card" across all periods or just for periods when there was "real" battle cavalry. I'm thinking of ACW - would you allow ACW cav to melee on a move card?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - for battle cavalry, loosely defined as cavalry whose combat intent is melee rather than fire. So, ACW cavalry (dragoons) wouldn't get it.

      Delete
  4. Really like the house rules - speeds the game up and does make cavalry seriously dangerous!! Will adopt these immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like 'em. We found that the Maneuver card was the most under used card in the deck. The change still has limits (number of move segments), but now there is more choice involved for the players rather than waiting for the Maneuver card.

    ReplyDelete
  6. On a WON Even roll, a cavalry unit could then change facing, MOVE (up to three segments depending upon the pip differential), and then engage in Melee? Ouch!

    Or MOVE (up to three segments, depending upon pipdifferential) and then change facing as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. I forgot 2 bits to the house rule - there's only 1 free action on the won even move roll (either a change of face or formation). You can still do another but it would cost a move segment. The bigger rule is a house rule we have used for years - to get a flank modifier in combat (fire or melee), the unit has to START its move behind the flank. It can't magically start from someplace and end up on the flank and get a flank attack modifier. We do that to prevent the tactic of waiting for a big move roll and magically ending up with a flank attack. It somewhat represents defensive reaction and awareness of the target unit to not sit defenseless with an approaching attacker threatening their flank.

      Delete
  7. Hi Brent all sounds interesting any chance of PDF/Doc so we can all use these options ?

    Cheers
    Gary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will publish them, in some manner. I'd like to do some period specific FoB rules (ECW, Plains Indian Wars,...). Maybe some type of combined pdf product.

      Delete