Number of Points.

Feedback and questions from the magnificent 7 Play test groups in Edinburgh, Dumfries, Sweden, Cheltenham, Arizona, Georgia and Florida.
Post Reply
Darkman
Major
Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:10 am
Location: Gloucester UK

Number of Points.

Post by Darkman » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:45 am

Hi played a small game yesterday and these are some of the items that came up.

Disorder requiring a Form order. Is the disorder lost at the end of the move phase or otherwise?
Disorder in combat. Is it applied before the first round test is taken or afterwards.

Shaken unit receives a shooting casualty and throws better than shaken result. Is it still shaken or has it now rallied?

Threading, we thought that it added nothing to the game. In fact when the two units turn round to face each other they seem to ignore any enemy reserves and present their backs to them. Would it mean that any reinforcements would charge into the rear of the enemy unit?

All or nothing pursuit. When an AoN breaks or destroys an enemy in the first round of combat does only the first squadron pursue or all the squadrons. Appreciate that only the first squadron may fight but it seemed strange that the other squadrons would stop and let the first ride off.

Close combat results. This happened twice. Unit 1 charges Unit A. Unit 1 already has 2 casualties. Unit 1 beats Unit A by a difference of 1. Unit 1 now has 4 casualties and Unit A has 3. Unit A as the losers test and throw a 4, -1 for disorder -1 for 1/3 casualties. This means they will break of combat. Unit 1 tests due to 50% casualties -1 for disorder -2 for 2/3 casualties. This means that they will rout as they can not throw enough to not rout.
The combat results seemed to be the wrong way round. Losing a combat should have a worse result than winning a combat. Would suggest that winners do not have to test.

If an Infantry unit is destroyed is that the same as a rout. (it happened in combat)

Foot units being shot at. We could not see that any unit engaged in a fire fight with another unit would be able to retreat with its back to an enemy unit who is still firing and not rout. We thought that Infantry units engaged in a small arms firefight should only have shaken or rout results. Units assaulting BUA should be able to retire.

Defend order. Ok now I understand Barrys ideas behind the order but do not understand the reason for reinforcing it every turn. The Unit/units have been told what is required of them, they have made preparations, found the best positions and are now up for the job at hand. Or are they? Because every turn you have to keep reminding them of what the job is. Plus you have to do that as a priority.
In the game we played I had a brigade of foot, 4 battalions and a gun on a hill on my left flank. It was good defensive position so I gave them defend orders. Now my total army had 24 units and I was an average commander. This meant that if I threw a 2 or 3 I only had 1 unit to move. If a 4, 5, or 6 I had 7 units to move. Good job I was not a poor commander.
Suggestion to this is this. Units on defend orders do not contribute to the total number of units when deciding the % you can move. But they are always on defend orders. In the above example I have 24 units. 5 are on defend, therefore I have 19 units for order allocation. So 25% is now 5 units and 50% is now 10. (assuming you round up)

Oh and can we have a mocked up QRS please.

Aside from the above, thought that if people liked to see all the gun models they have on the table then they could halve the number of dice thrown per model. Would this make any problems.
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 » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:50 pm

QRS

I made one myself by photo copying all charts and placing relevant charts on the same page. So I have Two 2 sided QRS sheets, anything that didnt fit can be referenced in the rules. Send me your email and I can give you what I have. It isnt anything spetacular. Hope that helps.

Joe
Darkman
Major
Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:10 am
Location: Gloucester UK

Post by Darkman » Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:53 am

So anyone had these problems or see any solutions?

As an aside, if combat is supposed to be finished in a 20min turn can the same be done for shooting? thinking of firefights.
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:54 pm

SEE below for my comments

Disorder requiring a Form order. Is the disorder lost at the end of the move phase or otherwise?
Yes because the unit spent the move phase restoring order
Disorder in combat. Is it applied before the first round test is taken or afterwards.
The combat round is the specified activity of that turn therefore the unit IS disordered by the time any test is due.

Shaken unit receives a shooting casualty and throws better than shaken result. Is it still shaken or has it now rallied?
It has lost its SHAKEN This should be clear both in the text descriptions and from the tables

Threading, we thought that it added nothing to the game. In fact when the two units turn round to face each other they seem to ignore any enemy reserves and present their backs to them. Would it mean that any reinforcements would charge into the rear of the enemy unit?
Wrong - it does add something quite significant - it effectively gives each player a 'second chance at the first round of combat with all associated factors' ie a second chance at a decisive result.. a major change.
To not wish to proceed with such a historical activity simply because it presents a player with a disadvantageuos gaming situation is far too gamey a reason not to do it. Units got out of position and got clobbered.. that's life. If there are associated melee disadvantages that can be considered the fortunes of war


All or nothing pursuit. When an AoN breaks or destroys an enemy in the first round of combat does only the first squadron pursue or all the squadrons. Appreciate that only the first squadron may fight but it seemed strange that the other squadrons would stop and let the first ride off.
The AoN is done by a whole regiment. It is not the first squadron that fights

If the regiment passes the test to Charge home or charges home without casualties, all models are eligible to fight in the first bound of close combat. This means a 3 squadron regiment at full strength could fight with 3 stands in the first round of combat against a Foot regiment, gun model or enemy squadron
.

So pursuit is by the whole regiment


Close combat results. This happened twice. Unit 1 charges Unit A. Unit 1 already has 2 casualties. Unit 1 beats Unit A by a difference of 1. Unit 1 now has 4 casualties and Unit A has 3. Unit A as the losers test and throw a 4, -1 for disorder -1 for 1/3 casualties. This means they will break of combat. Unit 1 tests due to 50% casualties -1 for disorder -2 for 2/3 casualties. This means that they will rout as they can not throw enough to not rout.
The combat results seemed to be the wrong way round. Losing a combat should have a worse result than winning a combat. Would suggest that winners do not have to test.

Disagree, the unit is now so written down that it can fight no more..that is realistic. They have done their duty, seen off the enemy but in the process have given all they had and 'leave the game'. No Schwarznegger;s in these rules Steve I'm afraid. I am not into Uber units.


If an Infantry unit is destroyed is that the same as a rout. (it happened in combat)
Yes

Foot units being shot at. We could not see that any unit engaged in a fire fight with another unit would be able to retreat with its back to an enemy unit who is still firing and not rout. We thought that Infantry units engaged in a small arms firefight should only have shaken or rout results. Units assaulting BUA should be able to retire.

Don't understand this. Why would mean under pressure not quickly move away from a danger the have had a bellyful of facing? It is a psychological deterioration. We've all backed away from a situation at some point without 'fleeing for our lives'. There is still some semblance of cohesion in the unit albeit greatly disrupted.

Defend order. Ok now I understand Barrys ideas behind the order but do not understand the reason for reinforcing it every turn. The Unit/units have been told what is required of them, they have made preparations, found the best positions and are now up for the job at hand. Or are they? Because every turn you have to keep reminding them of what the job is. Plus you have to do that as a priority.

Some of the playtest groups have had a bit of fixation about this order! I walked through it with Jim and the Dumfries lads on saturday. They were totally ok with the whole concept. I MAY make the modification you suggest Steve but I still feel it is a bit of a concession to make 'gaming life easier' rather than reflect the reality of the situation I am trying to simulate.

In the abstract, what I am talking about here is 'command effort expenditure'. ie the amount of active effort the officer corps must expend in order to maintain the wishes of the commander. It is nothing to do with physical actions of the men. It is a management issue pure and simple.

In the game we played I had a brigade of foot, 4 battalions and a gun on a hill on my left flank. It was good defensive position so I gave them defend orders. Now my total army had 24 units and I was an average commander. This meant that if I threw a 2 or 3 I only had 1 unit to move. If a 4, 5, or 6 I had 7 units to move. Good job I was not a poor commander.

Suggestion to this is this. Units on defend orders do not contribute to the total number of units when deciding the % you can move. But they are always on defend orders. In the above example I have 24 units. 5 are on defend, therefore I have 19 units for order allocation. So 25% is now 5 units and 50% is now 10. (assuming you round up)

will consider this, quite interesting

Oh and can we have a mocked up QRS please.

Aside from the above, thought that if people liked to see all the gun models they have on the table then they could halve the number of dice thrown per model. Would this make any problems.

Steve, don't understand this one.. could you explain a little more pls
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Darkman
Major
Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:10 am
Location: Gloucester UK

Post by Darkman » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:23 am

Thanks for the replies Barry
Thoughts in Blue

Threading, we thought that it added nothing to the game. In fact when the two units turn round to face each other they seem to ignore any enemy reserves and present their backs to them. Would it mean that any reinforcements would charge into the rear of the enemy unit?
Wrong - it does add something quite significant - it effectively gives each player a 'second chance at the first round of combat with all associated factors' ie a second chance at a decisive result.. a major change.
To not wish to proceed with such a historical activity simply because it presents a player with a disadvantageuos gaming situation is far too gamey a reason not to do it. Units got out of position and got clobbered.. that's life. If there are associated melee disadvantages that can be considered the fortunes of war


Nothing wrong with the idea of threading in the way it gives another chance of a decisive result, It was just the mechanics. 2 Regiments of two squadrons charge each other. At the time they charge they had another regiment of 2 squadrons behind them. The result is a draw so they thread through. Now we thought that rather than about turn to face the original enemy they would be more likley to continue into the squadrons they now faced and leave the original enemy to their supports. Following the idea though they both about face and recontact the original enemy. Now the question is if the combat is reinforced by the supporting squadrons. Are the reinforcing units fresh units (if bullet adding an extra 4D6 at contact)? do the squadrons charged in the rear have time to turn to face? If this does not make sense I will try to do some diagrams

Foot units being shot at. We could not see that any unit engaged in a fire fight with another unit would be able to retreat with its back to an enemy unit who is still firing and not rout. We thought that Infantry units engaged in a small arms firefight should only have shaken or rout results. Units assaulting BUA should be able to retire.
Don't understand this. Why would mean under pressure not quickly move away from a danger the have had a bellyful of facing? It is a psychological deterioration. We've all backed away from a situation at some point without 'fleeing for our lives'. There is still some semblance of cohesion in the unit albeit greatly disrupted.

Can understand a unit backing away from an enemy due to casualties from fire and also a determined enemy. It was just the turning around presenting their backs and moving away. I think we were thinking of something like retire shaken. This would be say a 2-4" move back still facing the enemy but with appropriate negitive modifiers. Does that make more sense

Aside from the above, thought that if people liked to see all the gun models they have on the table then they could halve the number of dice thrown per model. Would this make any problems.
Steve, don't understand this one.. could you explain a little more pls

Oh this was more for those people (me included :oops: ) that have an excessive number of gun models and would like to get them on the table, If you had 1 light gun model to say about 10 units. Then you would now have 2 gun models, but each gun would only throw 1D10, field guns 2D10 etc. I know you could just put 2 models down instead of 1 but that seems a bit odd in this period. Just an idea but could not decide what it would do to game balance. Not anything that you need to include
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 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:49 pm

Now the question is if the combat is reinforced by the supporting squadrons. Are the reinforcing units fresh units (if bullet adding an extra 4D6 at contact)? do the squadrons charged in the rear have time to turn to face
The only thing threading affects are the 2 original squadrons in contact being allowed to keep their original modifiers. Additional troops sent in are treated as reinforcing squadrons giving the bonus' in the combat chart. They shouldn't be treated as a new charge, though they must test to reinforce. Turning to face isn't required as casualties are spread across all combatants. And the Horse v Horse combat sheet has no modifier for being contacted in the rear or flank.

/edit
Threading could be in the rules but it doesn't need to be reflected on the table. To avoid messy situations on the table there should be no need to physically have the units swap position but merely let them fight the second round with the same modifiers.
Last edited by flick40 on Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Redmist1122
Major General
Major General
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:43 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by Redmist1122 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:59 am

Barry,
Sounds good on paper, and we played last night with a similar case of the enemy in the rear of the unit that turned around. More to follow...

Our group here in Tucson will be sending another "mega" feedback shortly. 8)
Greg P.
Tucson, AZ, USA
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 29, 2010 9:21 pm

Since the THREADING thread :oops: originated from an idea hatched in Tuscon,Arizona I will look forward with interest to the musings of you Gentlemen of the West!
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Post Reply