Fire Modifiers

[martin terroni]

Sorry in advance Barry for another question, the firing modifier "-2 if losses equal to/greater than 50% of a stand." Should this not be stands or unit? I only ask as we thought it referred to the unit, it seemed the modifier was a bit harsh for receiving only just under 17% casualties on a 18 man unit. Even before you roll the dice this reduces your fire effectiveness by 33%, plus modifers of course !

Just seems a bit harsh, thats all

I did check for amendments, but nothing in reference to this.

Sorry for another millionth question

[barr7430]

Not at all Martin
Probably not as harsh as it first seems. You are of course still counting the 'stand' as a firing stand although it has got more than 50% casualties. That in itself improves fire effectiveness. The -2 is to impact on the overall effectiveness of the units firing.

Eg.. 3 stands fire(although one of these has more than 50% losses). It has some positive fire modifiers perhaps.. and maybe soime minuses... it rolls a D6 scores 4 and subtracts two from this score. The modified die score is added to the factors already totalled.

I guess it's about perspectives... The first volley is the real 'killer' in this period. It has to be timed well. Fire gets very raggedy after casualties are taken or the unit is SHAKEN.

Interesting, I've never heard that mechanism described as harsh before but there you go!

[Mark Wightman]

I think this is an interesting mechanism. I'm not sure if harsh is the correct way to describe it, but the -2 modifier can frequently be worse than firing with one less stand.

For example: If the final fire modifier = 9 (before the -2). Then -

2 stands @ 9 = 3 hits
3 stands @ 7 = 2 hits

It's interesting to note that if you could choose to fire with less stands and ignore the -2 modifier then it would never be worse to do so, unless the final fire score is 1 or 2.

This seems a little odd to me.

[barr7430]

Perhaps the main point is actually being missed here folks...What is not being taken into account in this discussion so far is what is actually being represented by the die score... it is a randomiser which in itself is attempting in some small way to simulate the vagaries of battle:
1. Smoke
2. General target visibility
3. Weather
4. Officer fire control
5. Enemy behaviour
6. Fatigue, motivation or tiredness of individuals
7. Luck, fate ir whatever you want to call it

this list goes on..

Shooting is not an exact science. I know that analysts like Frederick Lanchester have put forward mathematical theories for winning battles based on weapon type x troop training x numbers = X. I study these for a living believe it or not
I don't subscribe to the view that odd results are a bad thing, history is full of odd results.
We can't boil wargaming down to a series of equations, well we can actually but it would be a bloody dull saturday afternoon
Unpredictability is the essence of battle :

All action takes place, so to speak, in a kind of twilight, which like a fog or moonlight, often tends to make things seem grotesque and larger than they really are von Clausewitz...

Principles and rules are intended to provide a thinking man with a frame of reference. von Clausewitz

No plan survives contact with the enemy and all that...

The above are the principles upon which BLB is built not formulae.
Hope this perhaps clarifies a little my thinking (or perceived lack of it )

[Mark Wightman]

I understand where you are coming, from Barry. It's just hard to figure how, when all other factors are equal (including luck), that more people firing could result in less casualties.

For example: A drilled unit at short range (+3) will do the following casualties:

Die Roll 2 Stands 3 Stands (-2)
...... 1 ........ 1 ........ 1
...... 2 ........ 1 ........ 1
...... 3 ........ 2 ........ 1
...... 4 ........ 2 ........ 2
...... 5 ........ 2 ........ 2
...... 6 ........ 3 ........ 2

The die roll should be the random factor covering all the "fog of war" aspects, which it does, but in my opinion the above shows an anomaly.

However, that said - I don't think this is an issue - not for me at least. I hadn't even noticed it during several games until the original poster started this thread.

I guess if it really bothered somebody they could reduce the modifier to -1, that way 2 stands can't out score 3 stands with the modifier. Not sure it's worth the effort though.

[barr7430]

We'll blame him then Mark!..

Mr Terroni.. STAND UP PLEASE!!

[martin terroni]

OK OK ! I seemed to have started a bit of a conversation on this one!
Cards on the table, the games we have played, the -2 to applied to the unit and not the stand. This as mentioned previously was a mis-interpretation of the rules, BUT !
This was taken on the basis that as Barry states in the rules and we /historical agree with as casualties are taken, you fill the front rank/unit to continue to maximise firepower. This I feel is a natural reaction, you group around others of the same elk. Whether this increases firepower or not is another matter.

Regards the modifiers gaming wise apart from the +4 there is a lot of minus figures that will apply than pluses so you will be plugging at each other for along time . e.g -4, shaken, moved this turn.
On the other hand, historical, I think the modifiers fit the period .Units that hold their nerve and take around of fire at medium /long range, gamble they do not take a - 2 in casualties. But on the other hand you do get a -2 if you moved.

Bottom Line - gamey wise /maths its a bit harsh. Period wise, I think Barry has got the modifers pretty much on the button. Overall opinion taking into condsideration everything - neutral. I would be happy to apply -2 to the stand or the Unit, Sorry if I am setting on the fence a bit , but I am one gamer who will always be happy to tinker a wee bit with the rules , but only a wee bit

P.S Did I mention I am an analyst.