I cannot put my finger on it!!

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

I cannot put my finger on it!!

Post by Darkman » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:39 am

Now as much as that might sound like a line from a carry on film, it is something that has been niggling me for the last 36 hours.

When we played our game on Sunday we had various discussions on aspects of the new rules and how they had changed from BLB1.

Here is the problem as I see it. We are playtesting a set of rules using BLB1 as a yardstick. However people will buy BLB2 never having played BLB1. So we should play BLB2 as if BLB1 did not exsist.

Do BLB2 give a period feel to the game. To be honest I do not really know, I was not there. Is the perception that it does. At the moment I have to say yes. However there are just those little niggles that something is missing.

My first one is what size of game are the rules aimed at. Now we play our games over about 5-6 hours and usually 30-40% of our figures never see action. To us that is ok because they offer support to the other units and it looks good :D

Is this still sutible for people with only 3-4 Battalions and 4-6 squadrons? Not to sure about that.
I have said that horse are fragile, but when you have 20 squadrons to play with that is not a worry, if I throw a 3 Squadron AoN in and it fails then I will try again next turn. If I only had 3 squadrons on that flank and they rout then that is different.

Horse charging now are less inclined to do so, BLB1 87% chance with no supports down to 50% chance BLB2, with supports BLB2 67%.

Now having had time to think about it and do some numbers I have found that horse are in taking casualties just the same in both versions, It is the extra morale tests that make them more fragile.

Foot on the other hand have increased their effectiveness against horse such that now horse would have to do an AoN in order to stand a chance of breaking them. This is not a bad thing as it means that you have to reduce the foot by another means first in order to make your horse do what you perceived they did at the time. This sounds correct by what can be read of battles of the time.

I have to say that something else that feels wrong is the aftermath of massed cavalry combats. Especially if the winning principle unit routs due to the 50% rule. The first squadron routs the others behind stand disordered (we are doing this right?) The enemy units retire and to be honest it looks bitty. (not sure how to explain this)

Just something for now, back to do work
bibio
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: uddingston

Post by bibio » Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:25 pm

As far as rules go my criteria has changed over the years at one time I was looking for rules which gave a realistic historicakfeel to the game, which usually meant they were fairly complicated with lots of charts etc now i'm looking for simple ,fun and uncomplicated rules, something which gives a result and does'nt leave you with a headache at the end of the game blb 1 met that and i would'nt like to think that blb 2 becomes too historically accurate as to lose the fun element if I wanted a serious game i would take up chess.
So i would make this appeal to the playtesters do not let the search for historical accuracy blunten the fun element.
iain
Captain of Dragoons
Major General
Major General
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Trenton, Ontario, Canada

Post by Captain of Dragoons » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:48 pm

Is this still sutible for people with only 3-4 Battalions and 4-6 squadrons? Not to sure about that.
now i'm looking for simple ,fun and uncomplicated rules, something which gives a result and does'nt leave you with a headache at the end of the game blb 1 met that and i would'nt like to think that blb 2 becomes too historically accurate as to lose the fun element if I wanted a serious game i would take up chess.
Those are a couple of good points Iain

When I first discovered Barry's site in 2005 :) I knew about Marlborough but nothing about the Nine Years War (except maybe the Boyne). In an old Gallery Barry told a story of a Advance Guard / Rear Guard Action 1689 fought between and a friend. The Confederates and French both had two brigades of Infantry and Horse (Allies had a bit more Infantry, French had a bit more Cavalry). Anyway it captured my interest and ethusiasaim for the period.

Is BLB turning into a tournament / big game type of ruleset? The rules - Under the Lilly Banners - were fast play and period fun.

cheers
Edward
Captain of Dragoons
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:21 am

Let me alay the fears of Ian, Edward and others...

BLB2 will definitely retain the same feel as it had before. I wouldn't want to lose that. As I mentioned to Dave O'B today.. when BLB sold out I had several choices:

1. Reprint

2. Correct the bits I wasn't happy with in the first book and reprint

3. Explore some of the ideas and concepts that had been discussed since publication, do some modification and reprint.

I have chosen option 3. Nothing is yet cast in stone and of course, everyone who has BLB can still play BLB.. ther is no mandatory requirement to buy BLB2. I never moved past WRG 6th Edition Ancients!

I sincerely believe that the fine tuning being done right now will add lots without slowing the game down or making it more complex.
Actually, melees are quicker now!

Will a game with a small number of units still be viable - yes. Most smaller games means proportionately fewer threats therefore units will probably last as long. Remember we also now have a consolidation option for understrength squadrons .. this means all those 2-3 model units that lurked at the back of the table can now(if part of the same parent unit) combine and fight again.

So chaps, fear not.. remember I am a lazy bastard when it comes to games.. I like easy, no argy-bargy type experiences not brain melting sub clauses!

Have a little faith! :wink:
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
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 Feb 10, 2010 12:38 am

I never moved past WRG 6th Edition Ancients!
Here, Hear! :)
Captain of Dragoons
Major General
Major General
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Trenton, Ontario, Canada

Post by Captain of Dragoons » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:22 am

My first one is what size of game are the rules aimed at. Now we play our games over about 5-6 hours and usually 30-40% of our figures never see action. To us that is ok because they offer support to the other units and it looks good
That may capture realism for the earlier part of the period.

Whether it was generalship, terrian or that slow movement issue at Walcourt, Fleurus and Steenkerque only part of the armies were able to get to grips with each other.

As I was talking about the Advance Guard /Rear Guard Action game above IIRC the bulk of the French Infantry didn't get to grips with the Alliance forces. The French Cavalry did all the work.

cheers
Edward
Captain of Dragoons
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:17 am

This issue occurs time and time again and needs an airing!

An almost Pavlovian series of responses occur when the League of Gentlemen Wargamers set up a big weekend set piece. I can remember it happening with
Dresden
2 Leipzig Campaign battles
Waterloo
Ligny
After Waterloo
Rioja
Malplaquet

Here is the sequence:

We prepare accurate orbats for weeks before the game
We take 2-3 hours deploying troops on the night before
We complete set up, stand back and say 'That looks ASTONISHING'
scroll on 2 days gaming...
We finish the game and say.. we could have fought this with less than half the models! I only got 40% of my units into action. I personally remember fighting Ligny for 2 days and using only 5 battalions having been in action from Turn 2 of 30!

So the point is...

Most armies NEVER get all their troops into action on the table or on the real field of battle. Because we spend so much time painting we want tales of glory for every unit but it is not a realistic aspiration.
We could cite a hundred examples in real life but the one that I always think about is Borodino. Most of the fighting was done by a few Divisions.
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Post Reply