PROPOSITIONS of HOUSERULES

[davidsharpe]

Hello


I am beginning a série of House rules propositions.
They can be criticised of course, (i need your analyses about them) and alternatives or addenda and corrections are welcome.
The purpose is to have fun and get these wonderful RTE rules becoming even better.

PROPOSITION N°1

CAVALRY CHARGING SQUARES

1/ There are no more CLOSE COMBAT between Cavalry and squares.

2/ When a cavalry charges a square throw 2D6 on a double 6, we get some blunders !
we need to test on a table

2D6 again +modifiers

From 2 to 8 NO EFFECT (the square survive the blunders)

From 9 to 12 (anyway a non modified double 6)
SQUARE is BROKEN and batallion is DISORDERED !


Modifiers :

Light cavalry –2

Battle cavalry (dragoons etc) no modifiers

Heavy cavalry (cuirassiers , carabiniers, some british dragoons like KGL Heavies ) + french and polish lancers: +2

Hasty formed square +3 (when you just have tested to form square facing a cavalry charge)

Veterans and guard cavalry +1
Recruit cavalry –3
Irregular cavalry-4

Veterans –1
British veterans and all Guards units -2
Recruit infantry +3

3/ If the square is broken we do a Close Combat with an infantry Not in square.

If the square survived , it fires two dice on the cavalry
The cavalry breaks off (fall back a charge distance and is disordered)

4/ FATIGUE POINTS
Horses get tired more and more they are engaged

Initiating a charge 1 fatigue point
Breaking off 1 fatigue point

Our regiment would have gotten 2 fatigue points.
For each TWO fatigue points unit gets a –1 resolve modifier
Half of them (up) are forever (in the time of battle), the others can be recovered (the same as you recover from disorder)
Exemple 2 fatigue points, one is forever we circled it on the paper, the other one can be recovered (giving time to rest and reorganise the horses)

If you have 3 fatigue points, 2 are forever, only one can be recovered., etc
More later

Friendly yours

[CoffinDodger]

Hi David,

You have obviously given a lot to these House Rules and it is to be commended. The beauty of your House Rules, like mine, is that we can use them at home. I've always said that whatever a gentleman gets up to in the privacy of his own house is sacrosanct.

I would love to see an after action report using these.

Regards,

Jim

[davidsharpe]

Hello Jim

One day, i hope, i ll have a blog Where i could give some AAR with photos and story telling of the battle or skirmish, with house rules and scenarios.

But i have many things to learn before and a camera to buy.

Friendly yours

D

[18th Century Guy]

Can someone tell me what an 'AAR' is?

[obriendavid]

It's an After Action Report of which we have quite a few on this site.
Cheers
Dave

[davidsharpe]

PROPOSITION 2

The TO HIT DICE
Normally it s a HIT on a 4+

1 Now there are three possibilities
Poor Shots (P) 5+
Normal Shots (N) 4+
Good shots (G) 3+

TO FIRE DICE
and CLOSE COMBAT DICE

for example a Drilled british batallion 69th foot in 1815 would be G/N
The first letter (G) is the TO FIRE to hit 3+
the second letter (N) is the CLOSE COMBAT to hit 4+

52nd light infantry would be G/G

2 there is no more D3 for veteran and recruit, new to hit do.

3 the * means tactical advantage (because of arms or way to use it)
exemple to understand what i mean:
at Waterloo a british heavy dragoon regiment is -/G
it charges a Cuirrassier regiment -/G* which countercharges it
The cuirrassier has an advantage technically (long straight swords used to thrust against Short swords used to cut, and the moral audacity given by the cuirrasse) so it uses Good shots 3+, but the heavy dragoons uses Normal shots 4+.

If the Heavy dragoons close combat with french infantry it uses Good shots 3+.

So when we tailor our scenarios we have more possibilities to express different units and capacities changing sometimes according to tactical situation, in an easy and playable way.

[davidsharpe]

PROPOSITION 3

CAVALRY DIFFERENCIATION

Three types of cavalry

LIGHT cavalry type (multiplied by 2 when charging in line or column of squadrons)
Maximum 12 dice (numbers of combat group then multiplied for
Charging)

BATTLE cavalry type (Heavy dragoons, lancers, dragons, some hussars units like 1st KGL
Or paticularly very efficient other hussars)
(multiplied by 3 when charging in the said formations)
Maximum 14 dice (N° of CG multiplied )

HEAVY cavalry type (Cuirrassiers, carabiniers, grenadiers à cheval, some british or KGL
Heavy dragoons)
(multiplied by 4 when charging in the said formations)
Maximum 16 dice (N° of CG multiplied)

Cuirrassier +2 dice is erased

But French and polish lancers +4 dice is maintained.
(i don t think Prussians Uhlans, nor Brunswick lancers should get it, because using lance in an efficient way was difficult, Polish should get a +6)


RATIONALE about this proposition
If you cross Proposition 2 and Prop 3 you get two dimensions to tailor Cavalry units.
It gets more complexity in rules and scenarion design but it s not less playable.

I did it because i was frustrate to not “feel” really the cavalry differences.
And because NUMBERS were a factor too important.
A 24 models Drilled elite Light Dragoons regiment would walk over a 12 models drilled elite cuirrassier regiment (12 dice against only eight)
Even a veteran cuirrassier could be in danger.
In the real battle, the light dragoons would avoid a frontal confrontation with cuirrassiers, and be ridden down if they dare, even Two to one, they waited the Cuirrassiers were blown after charge to repulse them.

So my purpose is to make the “big men on big horses” a real menace even when in small number (there were some 250 strong cuirrassiers regiments, the 11th and the 12elve )
During waterloo battle, single cuirrassiers squadrons were like cruisers on the sea,
Keeping the allied infantry in square, and the allied cavalry in a cautious attitude.
With the only +2 advantage, a small regiment wouldn t be a menace.

I made a maximum dice to prevent excess, with multipliers of 3 and 4, of an Uber regiment being too strong.
The heavy cavalry keeps hitting power in spite of weak or weakening numbers.
Lighter ones loses it quickly if numbers get lower.
Yes there is the –3 light cavalry after close combat round modifier, but i m going to propose another procedure of Close Combat soon.
I had to simulate the cavalry differences in a different way.

[groslau]

Cher DavidSharpe,

All along your posts it seems that many aspects of RtE do not suit you.
I have the feeling that you do not understand well the "esprit" of this rule.
So I am wondering if it wouldn't be easier for you to completely write a new Napoleonic ruleset of your own ?
Then create a Blog to support it and we will be abble to compare the two "visions" ?

I would finally add that the RtE French blog is on the web since 2 days :
Here > http://blogrte.blog4ever.com/blog/index-476019.html
Cordialement,

GrosLau.

[davidsharpe]

Groslau
Cool, man !

Nous avons un ami commun.
Je suis d autant plus étonné de cette saillie.
En quoi ces House rules peuvent bien vous gêner ?
Car manifestement c est le cas
Pourtant personne n est obligé de les utiliser, vous non plus.
Quant à « ne pas comprendre l esprit de RTE » c est une inférence bien audacieuse de votre part, vous devez être bien au courant de mes pensées.

Vous me demandez de prouver que « ma vision » est meilleure que celle des concepteurs de RTE, mieux , vous me mettez au défi.
A se demander si vous avez bien lu mes textes sur ce forum.
Mes changements n entament en rien la structure de RTE,
que je trouve excellente, il eut été intéressant que vous fissiez une critique argumentée des changements que je propose.

Je lisais récemment les règles « Black powder », où les auteurs recommandaient textuellement
aux futurs joueur de changer à volonté ce qu ils jugeraient utile.
Je sens chez certains de nos amis anglo saxons une certaine réticence à faire de même, mais de la part du seul français à part moi (probablement) sur ce forum, que je connais (un peu) par ami interposé, et de telle façon, cela me surprend.

Votre blog est en place, j en suis ravi.
Mais j ai comme impression que mes « houserules » n y auront pas droit de cité.
Me tromperais je ?

Friendly yours.

[Scruff]

Sayyyyyyyyy what?????????

cheers

[davidsharpe]

Sorry Scruff

I didn t master english enough to answer properly such a nice message from Groslau (who is french like me).

Then it had none interest to be shared by all of us.

My wargaming philosophy is liberty:
liberty to discuss about the rules
liberty to change some éléments of rules
liberty to tell and propose it
And accept the others ' liberty to critics them

Friendly yours

D

[groslau]

David,

I think posting a French message is not a good idea... Not on an English Forum !
Please write in English.

Groslau.

[davidsharpe]

Groslau

It was a personnal answer, just for you.
Now, having said what i need to say,
i ll write exclusively in english.

Friendly yours.

[obriendavid]

I don't see there being a problem with people posting in their own language, it's easy enough to stick through Babelfish for a translation. I would hate to think we put off people posting interesting info just because they can't write English very well, my French and German is appalling! My English isn't so great either.
Cheers
Dave

[Duke of Plaza-Toro]

Language should be no barrier to some sort of discussion.

Let's face it, some people on this forum already post in Scottish




(...and worse still - Australian...)