BIG TOPIC 2: SHORTEN MUSKET RANGES

Feedback and questions from the magnificent 7 Play test groups in Edinburgh, Dumfries, Sweden, Cheltenham, Arizona, Georgia and Florida.
Post Reply
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

BIG TOPIC 2: SHORTEN MUSKET RANGES

Post by barr7430 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:27 pm

Again, let me introduce the logic of the Tuscon Group to put the discussion in context....

First, I want to explain that we are in sympathy with the idea of having unspecified scales in the interests of period “feel” (yes, I play a lot of Chris Peers’ rules…). But if the game doesn’t have a distinct “feel” behind it, then it sometimes begins to seem like a generic rule mechanism has been adopted because there was a lack of intention behind the design. Wargamers who don’t know the period will always insist on something resembling Napoleonic capabilities, and that is simply not appropriate for this period.

First – infantry moved very slowly and deliberately. Infantry marched at 75 paces per minute. (as opposed to between 80 and 120 in later periods). Given that a pace is not even a meter, then you are looking at about 50 meters per minute. With a 15-minute turn, this represents 750 meters of movement, but then you have to deal with the fact that cadenced marching (to the beat of the drums) wasn’t employed yet, and units spent much of their time “dressing ranks” due to internal problems (and also needed to stay aligned on their fellow units, in some cases). Reduce by, say, a third to a half. Take into account the time taken to transmit orders, and so on, and you could probably cut this by a third or a half again. So, a unit would move (at top speed) around 200 meters per turn. Being in line exacerbates keeping formation, and would probably move half as fast.

In line, infantry go 4” per turn, and 8” in column. That predicates a ground scale of 4” = 100 meters. That seems reasonable to us – increasing the movement rate would seem to sacrifice period “feel”.

The problem arises when you look at the ranges for firing. At anything over 100 meters, musketry in this period was pretty ineffective, although maximum range was probably 200 meters. If 12” = 300 meters (our ground scale as determined by move rates above) then movement is too slow. We would argue that this was a period where deliberate maneuver was made at a slow pace, and volleys were ordered in a controlled way at close range.

Therefore, in the interests of “period feel” we would suggest *not* increasing movement rates, but – if anything – reducing musket ranges. Armies would deploy the night before a battle, in formation, and then wake up, have their morning tea, and then go at it. They spent the night in relatively close proximity, even. This was a very deliberate, “reasonable” era, and we feel that having deployments which require several turns of marching to make it into contact with the enemy are the result of poor scenario design, and the expectations of wargamers to have Napoleonic move rates.

To capture the period, it is best if players set up close to each other (possibly blind) and then have to deal with the consequences of their deployments, with infantry units that simply can’t move that fast, and artillery which basically can’t move at all (civilian drivers!). If you need to move something quickly on the battlefield, it is horse, and even that moves slowly relative to later periods. Maneuver should feel deliberate (and that means slow!)

In order to fire volleys, you should have to get into the enemy’s face – this is what they did historically, to make sure and get best use out of their first fire. Short musketry ranges are appropriate! (And although with a 15-minute turn “first fire” would be less important statistically than is represented by the game, it is a very important aspect of game “feel”, so we approve of what’s there now.)

With slightly reduced musketry ranges, you could say that a turn is 15 minutes and 1” = 25 meters and you would have a reasonable position to defend. Whether you want to do this or not is up to you – we are also fine with an indeterminate ground- and time-scale, so long as the correct feel is achieved.
"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 03, 2010 6:41 pm

I've always thought that musket ranges were too long but there as a compromise for the slow movement of foot. Reducing long range musketry to 8" maximum, based on the math, isn't going to affect game play other than slowing it down a turn.

If reduced there are other areas that will become affected.
-Re-tool of the artillery ranges
-Scenario design thoughts would change, table size etc.
-Ground/time scale now becomes more of a factor

I'm not opposed to the change.
User avatar
CoffinDodger
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Motherwell, Scotland.
Contact:

Post by CoffinDodger » Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:22 pm

With current ranges, the attacking infantry will take a volley before reaching charge range. If the range is shortened then they are capable of charging without this and the only fire they will take is in the actual charge phase.

I'm for keeping things as they are.

Jim
“I can assure you, Gentlefolk, they look better from a distance."
Jim O'Neill.
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 03, 2010 9:20 pm

attacking infantry will take a volley before reaching charge range...If the range is shortened then they are capable of charging without this
How so?

Foot charge 5/6", Long range musketry, if changed, 8". Foot can be shot prior to contact.
User avatar
j1mwallace
Major General
Major General
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Dumfries, Scotland

Post by j1mwallace » Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:52 pm

I think this is a well thought out and reasoned series of points.I would have no problem with shortening the range as noted. I also like the idea of deploying closer. I think that this would give a good feel for the period.
I'd agree as well that most wargamers think that this is just an earlier version of napoleonics in lines, with big sweeping rapid manoeuvre which it isn't. Good ideas
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:44 pm

While I agree from a historical and scale perspective with the view from the Tucson guys my concern is that with the shortened range and the proposed rule change to allow French troops to charge non-shaken troops I can see there being much more hand to hand combat taking place than currently happens. Our club used to use Napoleons Battles as a rule set but with their very short maximum shooting range every battle decended into an artillery shooting match then cavalry charges with tended to sweep away infantry with impunity. I no single battle did we actually get infantry into a firefight or even into hand to hand as the battle had already been won by the artillery and cavalry. After a couple of months of this time of battle the rules were quickly dropped and never used again. Because of these reasons my preference would be to leave the shooting as it is.

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

Post by Darkman » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:55 am

We played shortened ranges in BLB V.1 basically we took out medium range except in charge reaction) and reduced long range 4-8 inches.
This meant that you could start firing at long range quite ineffective or you could wait until short and get a good first volley off.
(What would have been good would have been a fire counter so you could bluff your opponent into firing at long range.)

At the moment if you are platoon firing with defend and at full strength and that you throw a 3 each time you fire (3 firings) you will have kill 7 figures in the time it takes your opponent to get to charge range. That also assumes that they moved full each turn and did not have a problem getting move counters. (that is unless they can judge their movement correct in which case you get 2 firings)

Of course this was when you could only charge shaken units.

(Thought what if instead giving units that stand and units that move modifiers what if units that stood could fire twice and moving units once. Afterall it is a 20 min turn. Just a thought don't flame me)

Now they would take 5 casualties using the above example. They might lose a 6th in the charge or does the charged unit hold fire. That would actually be an interesting decision for the defender.

As for more combats taking place I think that the defender would be more inclined to rout before contact is made, unless he had some cover to defend.

What if you had this. Attacker declares charge (no test). Defender then fires, attacker then tests to charge home if passes then defender tests with a minus modifier.
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 Feb 04, 2010 6:22 pm

Suggest allow opposing units to be no closer than 2" instead of the 3" currently.

Change musket ranges to 0-3" short, 3-6" effective (using the term lightly), 6-9" long

Artillery ranges need re-worked as well. These are just ideas in no way accurate and open to debate. Just throwing them out there.
3-6lb max range 9" (max eff range for a 3lb = 225 meters)
12lb max range 28" (max eff range for 12lb 6-700 meters)
24+lb max range 48" (max eff range for 24lb 1200 meters)

Thoughts?
User avatar
CoffinDodger
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Motherwell, Scotland.
Contact:

Post by CoffinDodger » Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:27 pm

flick40 wrote:
attacking infantry will take a volley before reaching charge range...If the range is shortened then they are capable of charging without this
How so?

Foot charge 5/6", Long range musketry, if changed, 8". Foot can be shot prior to contact.
Sorry, Flick,

I didn't get my idea across as well as I could have. I really meant that there would be less volleys prior to contact.

Regards,

Jim
“I can assure you, Gentlefolk, they look better from a distance."
Jim O'Neill.
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 Feb 04, 2010 10:56 pm

there would be less volleys prior to contact.
NP Jim. But yes and perhaps no. It comes down to morale, will they or won't they charge? Also depends upon army command percentages and the players priority of what they want to get done in a given turn.

We may see a little more foot on foot melee but not overly so. And that melee is still clearly a gamble. A gamble that can leave your lines open to exploitation by opposing horse.

Will a player shoulder arms and march all his troops into charge range and go for it? Perhaps someone will try. Frederick did, he paid dearly and changed that thought process by the next morning. :)

I think the change will be fine if made.

Joe
User avatar
Heneborn
Major
Major
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 1:00 pm

Post by Heneborn » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:08 pm

flick40 wrote:Change musket ranges to 0-3" short, 3-6" effective (using the term lightly), 6-9" long

Thoughts?
Would you change the modifiers then aswell? +3 for short, +1 for effective, none for long?
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 » Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:26 am

Would you change the modifiers then as well
No only the ranges would change, first fire is still +4 close range +3, no modifier for effective (medium) and -1 or 2 for long range (dont have the rules handy)
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 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:39 am

Armies would deploy the night before a battle, in formation, and then wake up, have their morning tea, and then go at it. They spent the night in relatively close proximity, even. This was a very deliberate, “reasonable” era, and we feel that having deployments which require several turns of marching to make it into contact with the enemy are the result of poor scenario design, and the expectations of wargamers to have Napoleonic move rates.


Not sure about this :?

Walcourt 1689: Humières advance towards Waldeck. Runs into his foragers and becomes an running fight as the confederate forces fall back on Walcourt.

Fleurus 1690: Luxembourg in the morning marches to engage the confederate army and divides his army in two parts to try and catch Waldeck on both flanks.

Steenkerque 1692: William of Orange uses a night march to try and surprise Luxemburg on his right flank. Advance guard engages but the rest of the army has a hard time deploying because of the ground.

Blenheim 1704: French Army thinks their safe behind the river and wakes up to see that Marlborough and Eugene had made a night march and were come down at them in columns of march before deploying.

Oudenarde 1708: another example of a river crossing and meeting engagement with Marlborough and Eugene maneuvering to engage the French.

Historically there seems to be a lot of marching.

cheers
Edward
Captain of Dragoons
Darkman
Major
Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:10 am
Location: Gloucester UK

Post by Darkman » Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:21 pm

I think that if you want to keep the 3 range bands then a better interpretation would be.
Effective 0-4" Not very effective 4-6" absolute waste of shot 6-8" :D

If the rule about rank firing being able to charge unshaken foot is included how about this,

If charging shaken foot then no initial test to charge is required, Bit of the 'look at them trembling lads this will be easy' The shaken troops decide what to to then test. Then the chargers test to charge home. If the charge is successful the shaken test again but with a minus modifier.

If charging unshaken foot then they test to initiate a charge, Defenders decide what to to then test. Then the chargers test to charge home, if the defenders did not go shaken they need not test . If they had become shaken then they have to test again.
Post Reply