League Of Augsburg - Fighting Talk

I've been giving this some thought, it is a factor in almost every Napolenoic miniatures rules I've ever seen. I have read the effects on the battlefield, or some of the suppositions that were written down.

Was this a consideration during the design/playtesting?

My thoughts. Purchase troops as groups of 12 figures. 12/24/36/48 Each group of 12 will give you 2 bases of 6 figures. Shooting dice will stay the same per base, but you can absorb more casualties before losing dice. You have less shooting dice to start with. Standard basing with a skirmish stand behind it would represent a 3 rank stand, as some armies used both, due to training or situation.

Thanks,

Henry,

There was not much difference in getting shot at by troops in three ranks rather than by troops in two ranks otherwise, everyone would have deployed in two ranks if they considered that that gave an overwhelming advantage in firepower so, I prefer to leave things as they are rather than unnecessarily complicate the rules. I'd like to hear what others think though.

A similar discussion goes on in BtLB where it does have an impact using platoon rather than rank firing.

Regards,

Jim

Don't quite understand the question

Barry,
Was there any consideration of the difference between 2 rank troops and 3 rank troops?

Was anything tried in either devlopement or playtesting?

2 Rank Troops have every musket on the firing line and have a wider formation. 3 rank troops have only 2/3rds of their muskets on the firing line and have a narrower formation, but have a built in reserve to replace casualties and can keep up their initial firing line.

Chaps,

I won't be so smug as to say I have considered EVERY possible configuration and mechanism but I have spent a fair bit of time thinking through possible mechanisms.
Volume of fire is of course one way to look at it, the same effect can be achieved by providing Modifier factors for certain troop types or considering certain troops under certain circumstances as superior.
R2E classes British in line as VETERAN for shooting purposes which gives them between +1 and +3 extra shooting dice before applying punitive modifiers.
We also need to be a little careful about the 'efficacy' of musketry in general. Most casualties in the Napoleonic Wars were caused by artillery.

Don't quite know what you want to hear from me.. did I consider? YES


Whilst I would like to think that any set of rules I offer up is somewhat grounded in logic and history.. it is all to play games with models. TMoE was written to give a fast, fun, entry level Naps game for brigade level action with some crossover mechanics introducing character figures. An easy way to build a bridge to fantasy players or youngsters overfaced by the'BIG PERIOD'.

Hope this helps...

Anyway, I have NEVER been a subscriber to the 'uber' quality of the British infantry which makes them invincible under all circumstances in the way that some people also view the Imperial Guard. They were beaten and that is no disgrace just fact. Circumstances usually dictate outcomes. Wargaming has long been very Anglo centric and so this reputation of the British has been layered over several generations. I think we need to get the Brits in proportion.. they rarely were the 'sole' component of any army but often through our own biased history grab disproportionate amounts of the collective glory... it all started way back with the cult of Marlborough I believe...

barr7430 wrote:
Anyway, I have NEVER been a subscriber to the 'uber' quality of the British infantry which makes them invincible under all circumstances in the way that some people also view the Imperial Guard. They were beaten and that is no disgrace just fact. Circumstances usually dictate outcomes. Wargaming has long been very Anglo centric and so this reputation of the British has been layered over several generations. I think we need to get the Brits in proportion.. they rarely were the 'sole' component of any army but often through our own biased history grab disproportionate amounts of the collective glory... it all started way back with the cult of Marlborough I believe...

Well spoken,Barry


Its allways the winners who write the history.

Cheers

Günter
Alltime player of the (historical) loosing country in the history of warfare.

barr7430 wrote: ...it all started way back with the cult of Marlborough I believe...

Earl Strongbow even?

Jim

No problems! I wasn't clear in my previous posts.

In the reading I have done, it seemed that the difference between 2 and 3 ranks were significant. At the level that TMoE was written for. "Firepower" went into several battles in Spain, but spent quite a bit of time with the brigade/battalion. So, it seemed to me that rules in this scale should reflect that, no reflection on you or anyone else. Just what I think.

But before I went off and tinkered with a perfectly fine set of rules, I should ask if what I'm looking for has been tried and discarded. If so, why was it discarded? Why re-invent the wheel, particulary if it is broken. Thus the question. I would rather have your thoughts on why you didn't put this in the rules, rather than think you are some doddard who doesn't 'know' as much as I 'do'. Or if somethings are being left to the full blown set of rules, rather than overcopmlicating the freebie.

Now I'm no genius of the Naps period, I've read up on the Penisular campaign, and a broad overview of the rest. I really like this period, and don't know enough of it as I'd like. And I like a fast game like everyone else, but I'd like a game to have some meat on it, not all bone. I don't mind a bit of reality added in, even if it slowed the game down a little. But not so much that it would bog everything down and become Empire.

This is something I 'feel' should be reflected. This is just my opinion, I know you can't satisfy everybody. Even if they are half-baked as I may be. Well, I hope this helps clear things up a bit.