League Of Augsburg - Fighting Talk

This is a bit of a brain storming post.
Can better trained units hold their fire until they are nearer.

The idea is that once you reach musket range would raw units stop and start firing as soon as possible or could they hold their fire and approach nearer. And if their opponents come closer before firing would they suffer morale wise.

Example a drilled unit moves to 11" from a elite unit. Both units test, The drilled unit fails and so starts to fire. The elite passes and so can move closer if it wants to. If the drilled unit does not stop the elite unit by fire then it will suffer a morale minus. Every time the elite unit wants to move forward it must pass a test. Once it fails then it cannot advance any further but can fire from this point.

Also if the firing was made easier could this firefight be resolved in one turn the same as combat.

It is just something that is rolling around in my head at the moment

Thanks

Interesting concept Steve but it is rather going down the direction that you have continually been advising me to avoid!... more detail.

I don't think it will add anything and slow play down somewhat

cheers

Hi Barry
Just something that I was thinking about. Your own fault really Had you not decided to resolve Combats within one turn (which having played it now seems ok) the idea might not have occured. And you are right it might be complicated, But then again so might a number of other ideas until a number of people think about it and start putting forward suggestions.

Maybe not for this set of rules now but sometime in the future and another set who knows.

Still interested in what people think.

Just in the interest of 'what people think', I'm not in total favor of it though I see where you are coming from. Raw troops might be inclined to start shooting before others. It might be a good optional or scenario specific rule.

Another couple things I recently found interesting in the rules were foot not being able to charge other non shaken foot and platoon firing bonus in relation to historical doctrine. I have no issue with the +1 for platoon firing troops because thats how they were trained and what they believed won fights, firepower. On the flip side the French in particular fired by rank but they also felt cold steel carried the day vs firepower. Using averages the French will usually lose in a firefight. French doctrine was to close and carry the day with steel. Not allowing French the option to charge other non shaken foot (and possibly a first round bonus in hand to hand) doesnt allow a player to use the French how they fought. They are forced into a fire fight they will most likely lose.

I'm not advocating changing the rules as there probably isn't enough evidence to change them except in unique situations. There is evidence to allow certain troop types the ability to charge other non shaken foot and with a bonus in the first round. Scots, Danes and Irish troops in any army for example. But also probably an optional or scenario specific rule.

Like you Darkman I'm just thinking outloud

Flick. I was going to write in about the same point. I've been doing a bit more research into this and fully agree. the French in particular wanted their infantry to gain close combat as quickly as possible to use the arme blanche to settle the issue.
This was such a big thing that the French advanced with unlit matches on many occasions. They held their muskets almost at present arms and tried to gain contact as soon as possible.
Firefights were entered into when they were on the defensive.

I would only include the point a unit opens fire as part of a charge sequence. I think adding in more complex rules is also fine for the individual gamer or group providing everyone knows the 'house' rules.

I suppose an optional rules section could be included with the 2nd edition too, if Barry felt thus inclined.

In the 30 years war amendments for Warhammer English Civil war there was a test exactly for this. Once your troops got into musket range they made a test which if failed forced them to fire. If you advanced or stayed in range you took the test each turn.
It actually simulated the Swedes way of attack very well as they liked to hold off their volleys to less than 10 paces if they could!

Hi all,

Steve(Darkman) after reading this thread I wondered what would be the point??? If as you say the Elite unit passed it's test allowing it to move closer to the Drilled unit would not this just mean that both units next turn fire at a closer range and so the Elite unit has no advantage.
As for the French wanting to get into combat rather than a firefight if everyone thinks they warrant it, Barry could give the French Infantry a +1 in hand to hand combat.
The Special Rule would be that French Infantry Regiments must advance as quick as possible, orders permitting!!! and if not in a defensive position.
Both sides firefight once in range, if casualties are sustained tests are made, if the French fail then they must halt and continue the firefight, but if they pass they will advance closer to their target and charge when in reach.They still test to charge home, and once in contact get the +1 in hand to hand.
Cause as Corporal Jones used to always say "They don't like it up um"

Regards.............Ray.

I think this is a good idea, perhaps not for the basic rules but definitely for an optional rules section. I think you could skip the morale test for advancing and just use it for the firing, this way units that are not as trained might give away their "first fire bonus" a little too quick.

As for the discussion about some armies getting in to hand-to-hand combat instead of shooting: Perhaps you could make a similar differing as with cavalry. You would have BAYONET infantry (instead of BLADE horse) and BULLET infantry (instead of...well, BULLET horse), with the appropriate differences?

The concept is this.
Let say the drilled unit failed its test at long range and stopped to start firing but the elite unit continued to advance. Would that not start to unnerve the drilled unit. Therefore they would have to take a test with a negative modifer. If they did not stop the elite unit by the time it had reached close range I imagine that when the elite unit made ready to fire the drilled unit would not be far from breaking.

This in the context of the above posts would mean that the French would continue to advance to contact. Actual contact was probably as rare as it was 100 years later and in fact the other unit by now was more than likly to be running away.

All sounds a bit napoleonic really. I can see how once a unit started to fire it would be difficult to start them moving forward again. Especially when being fired upon. Then it would come down to the stubborness of the units and their fire training.

the important part of the test and the reality was sort of russian roulette to get your opponent to fire the all important FIRST volley at longer range whilst you held on to yours as long as possible.
I'd agree, actual contact seems to be rare.
all you really need to do is drop the rule that you can only charge shaken units. we usually play this way. Speeds things up in infantry combat.

This discussion is getting more and more interesting as it develops..

Steve, my initial reaction was a reflex and somewhat coloured by a comment from my old pal Tam Nish when I met him at Dumfries Albannich Show playing a BLB game... he said... when you publish BLB2, knock FAST PLAY off the cover! Now, I think his tongue was placed pretty firmly in his cheek but the comment lodged.

I think your own observation in the previous post is a tidy link to the FIGHT or FLIGHT test in R2E for infantry. This is one of the mechanisms I am most pleased with. It doesn't cover precisely the same sequence/situation you are describing here but it is in the 'zone'. iI actually rejected its inclusion in BLB2 for the Tam Nish reason.

I wouldn't feel inclined to offer a +1 melee bonus to the French but the idea of 'Bullet/Bayonet' infantry is interesting and it may be that Bayonet types get the option to charge non SHAKEN opponents..

Please keep it coming chaps.. this is how ideas become mechanisms!!


Incidentally, bot sure about the Scots/Irish thing. Most Scots regiments were Lowlanders of the dour Presbytarian vintage and not Gaelic Highland types. I would imagine that they would behave rather like their English counterparts... we are not all baby eating, semi naked savages up here you know........ but as for the Irish !:roll:

Aww Barry so if I met you I wouldn't cower away in fear of my babies being eaten in one fell swoop? Oh wait, I'm 3rd Gen Irish, we would probably have a pint, then eat babies

but as for the Irish

They were my inital thought especially when English are in the equation. The Danes were also known as shock troops during the period.

All of this 'national characteristic' stuff I always find really interesting. I spend my entire working life travelling the world and meeting different cultures. I am particularly interested in 'identifiable national collective psychologies' if such things exist.. you know the stuff...

Americans... eternally optimisitic
English... universally uptight and repressed
Finns.. collectively depressed etc etc..

Is there smoke... hmmm yes of course but I always get twitchy with it too. I Have Bruce Quarrie's Napoleon's Campaign's in Miniature and I am sure there is a patronising section of that ilk included there... thinking it is one thing.. committing it to print is another!

Anyway.. the Scots (as everyone knows) are

fun loving, generous to a fault, even tempered, abstemious, polite, deferential, unassuming, passive, compliant, supportive, uncritical and of course loving....

But the IRISH.....

But the IRISH....

Thems fightin' words