New movement distances

Feedback and questions from the magnificent 7 Play test groups in Edinburgh, Dumfries, Sweden, Cheltenham, Arizona, Georgia and Florida.
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Post by flick40 » Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:09 pm

The wargamers veiw of perfect lines moving to the beat of a drum is fantasy, it never looks as good as on the movies.
Or on the table.

So again its a debate of realism vs playability which brings us back to the question, how do we want to represent reality on the table? I believe the the choices are clear, 4"- 5" or 6". Perhaps a poll.
SteveRCR
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada

Post by SteveRCR » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:47 pm

I think some of you are missing the point i'm trying to make, just because your going over farm fields and such, the pace can be respectable and reasonable controled by NCO's. Yet not moving at snails pace.

Just using rough data:

6lb culverin, flat lvl trajectory 240m
max 2400m

so in game terms,

36inch max range = 2400m
18inch = 1200m
9inch = 600m

So 4 and 1/2 inch is 300m.
now 15-30 min turn
at 30 mins thats 10m per minute based on a 4 1/2 inch move.

Like i said very rough numbers, but a bump up in move distance wouldn't hurt.
Shann1870
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:00 pm
Location: Wakefield

Post by Shann1870 » Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:04 pm

Hi All

Are we not in some danger of disappearing up our own derrieres on this one? With the greatest respect to Barry, Lily Banners are not an accurate in a drill book sense, representation of late 17th and early 18th century warfare (thank God in my view!). In my experience rules with such pretentions are often tedious to the n'th degree. What Lily Banners does achieve is to offer to the humble non specialist in the period (most definitely me) a very enjoyable game. This in itself is a not inconsiderable achievement. Rapid Fire! for WWII with which I have much greater experience, does the same. They are by no stretch of the imagination "realistic", but they are great fun to play, which for me trumps everything. My only reservation about the 4" movement for infantry is that it slows things down (beyond what I would personally prefer) in a wargaming sense.

Great debate though guys - keep it coming!!

Steve
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:55 pm

YES PLEASE DO KEEP IT COMING LADS AS I AM READING EVERYTHING!

Some thoughts to throw into the pot.

1. Shann1870 is 100% right on the logic behind not making groundscale a key feature. I adopted the opposite approach with R2E but in BLB I left it unspecified.

2. On rapid cavalry advances - surely chaps that is the wargamer's desire to get something into contact and rolling dice(why we play of course!) but it is not mandatory. Patience is a virtue that few wargamers possess.... The coordinated commander would hold his horse back until the infantry were close enough to engage. With little fighting in those first few turns they would pass very quickly! Just infantry moving at 4 inches... no shooting, no Horse melees and a few cannon popping off at each other. I would be very surprised if a turn including up to 25 units per side took more than 15 minutes to complete. The infantry are in action after 3-4 turns max, cavalry then thrown in as it should be... Just my twa' pennenth on how games in my experience run. We refought Malplaquet with about 80 battalions per side and the equivalent of 160 squadrons (80 BLB squadrons) per side recently. We had 12 players, the tables were reasonably complicated shapes but I think we still got about 30 turns done over about 10-11 hours of gaming which is roughly 3 turns per hour. We used unaltered move rates. Much of the 'moving up' was done in column, covered by cavalry to prevent a massacre of the columns.

3. None of you are wrong in your arguments and of course I as always, defer to you military gentlemen who have real experience of unit cohesion in the field whether in battledress or a re enactors outfit! Joe has it accurately summed up in the playability v realism argument. You just have to take a look at the so called discussion I tried to avoid having with the Pedant in Chief on TMP regarding movement rate versus time. In the end for me it is about painting minis, reading the history, getting the toys on the table, throwing some dice, having a chat with my pals and generally enjoying some human interaction. If I win it's a bonus, if I lose well, that's cool. My gaming philosophy sometimes does not sit too well with people but then again we are all different that's why I never try to defend a point unless I think the other party is simply being obtuse.

4. Another two ways to sort the problem: I introduce two levels of aggression in the orders with minimum move distances prescribed for each - works very well on the three level MOVE - ADVANCE -ATTACK principle of R2E.

OR

I allow players two different move tables... the 4 incher and the 6 incher :shock: Terribly British I know.. compromise and all that..

OK so let's see if I have stirred up the Hornet's Nest here!!
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Shann1870
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:00 pm
Location: Wakefield

Post by Shann1870 » Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:28 pm

Hornet's Nest - not at all; we are all Gentleman Wargamers here, I am sure. I will continue using the rules (which I very much like), whether it is 4", 6" or random. No slacking though Barry - I am sure you said BLB 2 would be available in the first quarter of 2010 - my stopwatch is running!!
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:47 pm

Just sitting here thinking..

me and my big mouth :lol:
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
SteveRCR
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Cornwall, Ontario, Canada

Post by SteveRCR » Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:57 pm

I'm a big fan of random dice for rough terrain

Ex. I march my brigade in line over a stream and marshy ground Blenhiem style, do i have my officiers hold the brigade line to the slowest Bn, or push through and steady the line on the far side.

with fixed rates it takes all the drama out of it.
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Post by flick40 » Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:18 am

Terribly British I know
Compromise should be a human trait. As for rules and styles, Angus and yourself write them more as a Gentlemanly Agreement (a guide) than as Prussian Doctrine. This confounds players who like it cut and dried.

I am one who doesn't care if we move 4" or 6" but the rules have to state one way or the other. Make it 4" and let house rules writers change them to fit in their own games. I'm sure Barry isn't some omnipresent deity watching over every BLB or RtoE game played quick with old testament judgement.

Movement is the least of my worries, whats the deal with Defend Orders? :)
Post Reply