tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post8664064336552059199..comments2024-03-28T14:11:47.247-07:00Comments on Archduke Piccolo: Vales of Lyndhurst - To be continued?Archduke Piccolohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-79699772699624366542018-11-01T01:39:31.217-07:002018-11-01T01:39:31.217-07:00Having said all that, I may be forced to keep the ...Having said all that, I may be forced to keep the fighting power of the units at their ORIGINAL SP value, rather than matching their CURRENT SP value. The jury is out on this.Archduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-73398164315776843842018-11-01T01:35:51.722-07:002018-11-01T01:35:51.722-07:00I can see your point, but for mine the 'chippi...I can see your point, but for mine the 'chipping away strength points' is what happens in the event of a prolonged firefight. I rather think I want to keep that. I can think of several instances in which an attempted storm of a position, say, bogged down into a prolonged attritional battle (Malplaquet, Blenheim, Kolin, Torgau, Albuera, Borodino, Brawner Farm, McDowell, the Muleshoe at Spotsylvania Courthouse, The Western Front in WW1. It seems to me reasonable that should happen in my battles.<br /><br />On the matter of multiple adjacent close combats, I'm inclined to 'go with the flow' on this. Suppose RED units A+B attack BLUE's X+Y, with A contacting X and Y both, which leaves Y in contact with A and B, both. RED having the move (initiative), he can select that both attack Y, ignoring X, or that A attack X and B attack Y. Both have their advantages; both have their downsides. <br /><br />Now, suppose that, in choosing the latter option A drives back X but B in turn is repulsed. That leaves A and Y in contact, neither of which fought the other. There seems to be no reason for the two not to carry on the fight against each other. <br /><br />On the whole, the system at the moment seems to be a reasonable compromise between the two 'schools' you mention: the 'convoluted school' and the 'short combat school. Both are possible, and players have some choice in the matter as well.<br /><br />A bit of a spoiler alert, here: the combat around the village of Benbow was a drawn-out affair of attrition, but it was a case of units on both sides being fed into the maelstrom, to supply the place of units eliminated. It was brutal! The village itself changed hands several times. The outcome was to come as something of a surprise, in the event. <br />Archduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-64731552272346837372018-10-31T01:05:11.313-07:002018-10-31T01:05:11.313-07:00W.r.t. adjacent combat: that's exactly why man...W.r.t. adjacent combat: that's exactly why many rules (but not all), both board wargaming and miniature wargaming, somehow stipulate that after a combat, either troops are eliminated or should retreat (e.g. 1 hex), thus leaving no contact after the combat. That also makes it clear: if you're adjacent, you should fight, and if you're not adjacent, there is no fight. But that doesn't solve the issue completely. In a situation as you describe, 2 units from different combats might still end up being adjacent (they were adjacent before combat resolution, but fought different enemies with different outcomes).<br /><br />Apart from that, I also feel that if one of both sides has to withdraw after combat (when not eliminated), this also gives combat a more significant meaning than just "chipping away strength points". It also means gaining territory by pushing the enemy away and possibly disrupting the deployment lines of the enemy. But whether you want to strive for that effect might also depend on how you want the game to flow. Some people like convoluted combat procedures that last for several rounds, some people like short combat procedures that result in other effects such as routs or pushbacks.Phil Dutréhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13607941040736764291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-23638674881511002232018-10-30T14:21:51.362-07:002018-10-30T14:21:51.362-07:00I'll probably repeat this in my next posting b...I'll probably repeat this in my next posting but, while I'm here... There were two reaons for my choosing to build an Imperialist Army from the Wargames Factory figures I bought. Well, three really. The 'afterthought' I'll mention first.<br /><br />Somehow a kind of thread has emerged in several of my army collections connected with the double-headed eagle. One of my 30YW armies is Inperialist, one of my 7YW period 'Imagi-Nation' armies is modelled upon the Austrian (uniforms, flags, Inhaber), and my biggest Allied army opposing napoleon is also Austrian. I must have a thing about Austria or the Hapsburgs.<br /><br />The second reason was the variety of uniforms. Grey is the predominant fashion,but there were white, blue and green coats as well. Even among the grey, there was a variety in the differencing.<br /><br />Finally, I really like the dramatic lobster helmets of the cavalry. Of the 72 figures, I made two 24-figure cavalry units, and a 24-figure dragoon regiment. Archduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-75203553237587515222018-10-30T14:06:27.218-07:002018-10-30T14:06:27.218-07:00Actually the figure numbers are quite arbitrary, a...Actually the figure numbers are quite arbitrary, and were chosen for convenience. I agree that 8-figure units would probably look better. It would make no difference to the strength-point system. With 8-figure units I would not have been able to the same extent to differentiate the contingents by the colour of their coats. As it was, the Footguards got white-coated grenadier outfits only because I ran out of blue coats! I nearly exhausted my supply of green coats as well. I agree that 8-figure units would probably look better. <br /><br />The alternative idea was to modify Barry's TO&E. His regimental system was more Continental multi-battalion than the traditional British system of one field battalion per Regiment. I did consider - even began - merging the battalions into regimental units. When I saw the battle maps, though, especially the late ones, I changed my mind.<br /><br />I had not considered whether close combat could be optional, but I don't think it ought to be. In the Clydesdale battle, all situations involving adjacent enemies were taken to be close combats and always treated as such.<br /><br />However, the question arises what to do about lines of close combats. Suppose you have two side-by-side units attacking two side-by-side defenders. however you arrange it one attacker will be adjacent to two defenders, and one defender will be adjacent to two attackers. <br /><br />The attackers can each attack one target only. They might decide to assault both defenders, or concentrate on the one. The defender, if he can, fights both in turn.<br /><br />This is simple enough when moving into contact, each unit's move and battle taking place in turn. What about units already in contact. All the moving player's units in contact must 'battle' one and one only enemy unit in contact. The enemy units respond to any all such 'battles'. This seems to me the simplest approach. <br /><br />Incidentally, in the actual battle, the Franco-Confederates got to move first, with EVERY subsequent who-goes-first-this-turn rolls being 'won' by the Royalists. There must have been at least ten turns, so we're looking at a thousand-to-one deal here!Archduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-28075033618959773252018-10-30T13:27:07.372-07:002018-10-30T13:27:07.372-07:00Cheers, Martin -
Artillery in close combat is real...Cheers, Martin -<br />Artillery in close combat is really tricky. I have toyed with doubling the Gun SP in close combat, but have also considered a -1 modification! Possibly the answer is use both: Guns double their SP at first contact, but SP:=SP-1 in subsequent rounds if the enemy can maintain contact.<br /><br />Guns take a while to reload, by which time a determined enemy might have got themselves in amongst the battery. Might be worth play-testing this idea, but might also have to research quite how Marlburian era batteries operated - that is, nearer the 30YW or the 7YW systems.<br /><br /><br />Archduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-75613293683314371982018-10-30T09:27:53.297-07:002018-10-30T09:27:53.297-07:00Why not represent Infantry with 8 figures instead ...Why not represent Infantry with 8 figures instead of 4? That will look better, but your personal views on this might be different of course ;-)<br />In my hex-based games, I usually try to "fill up" the hexes with troops, and that usually comes down to twice the amount of figures for an infantry unit compared to cavalry.<br /><br />One question about the rule mechanics:<br />Is it mandatory to fight when adjacent? Usually, players want to do that, but by stipulating such a rule, it also avoids some weird situations that might pop up. A unit can only move adjacent when it is indeed fighting another unit.Phil Dutréhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13607941040736764291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6650770985225450559.post-11032718172238275702018-10-30T07:07:20.439-07:002018-10-30T07:07:20.439-07:00The defensive grapeshot thing is one of the issue ...The defensive grapeshot thing is one of the issue with the Memoir 44 turn sequence. There are ways to address it (by fiddling with the turn sequence, reserved fire etc as you suggest) but perhaps the simplest is to keep the SP doubled in Close Combat if the artillery is attacked from the front arc, otherwise just use the basic 2. <br /><br />Assaulting artillery batteries from the front was a really, really bad idea.<br /><br />Martin Rapierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16788664847205341619noreply@blogger.com