I cannot put my finger on it!!
Posted: 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
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
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
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