Brigade distance

Questions, chat, feedback and developments relating to REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE... Wargaming the wars of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Post Reply
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Brigade distance

Post by wkeyser » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:12 am

Hi
Just picked up the rules and we are planning a few test games at our club over the next few weeks.

First question is the brigade distance rule. Do all the figures of the battlion need to be within the command distance or is it enough that only one figure is within?

So far having read through a couple of times I am looking forward to playing, I really like most of what Barry has done. Not sure about the refit rule for the artillery but will play it as is for now. My feeling is that the amunition supply should be enough of a penalty for the guns and restricts the gamer from firing at any thing in sight. I am aware of the few occasions that the guns where pulled back but dont buy that it was a common practice. If you look at the organization of the artillery of all nations they had numerous cassions assigned to each battery and the SOP was to ferry ammo from the cassions to the guns. Not a big deal but just a comment.

I am really impressed with the way the orders and MPs work I think it is a great system to reflect the way orders and reactions to them worked during the period.

We are going to try our first little game tomorrow so will probably have some more questions and comments latter but for now great job on the rules. Love the photos and it took me a little while to catch that quite a few are AB. We use 15mm and your photos really show the talent that is Anthony Barton.

William Keyser
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:36 pm

Welcome to the forum and I hope your frustration has abated a little! Just found your posts on TMP!

Only a figure/base needs to be within command distance for the brigade distance rule.

The Refit rule was always going to cause some controversy I knew that from the get go but I can say that I have never before seen players use artillery so thoughfully :lol:
I wanted the rules to place as much emphasis as possible on manouevre and deployment and less on the old wargming hobby horses:
Shooting - casualties - melee.

It doesn't make the games boring in fact quite the opposite. Look forward to further questions and musings from your group.. I thought you were in the States.. are you working in Denmark??
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:16 pm

Hi Barry
No moved to Denmark in 2005. Great club here with very active membership, we also started a Historical Wargame convention here at the Army mueseum in down town Copenhagen, so may be we can get you to bring a game over to us some time in the future.
William
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:47 pm

Where are you in Denmark?
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:48 pm

oops...missed the reference to CPH :oops:
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Brigade distance

Post by obriendavid » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:47 pm

wkeyser wrote: Not sure about the refit rule for the artillery but will play it as is for now. My feeling is that the amunition supply should be enough of a penalty for the guns and restricts the gamer from firing at any thing in sight. I am aware of the few occasions that the guns where pulled back but dont buy that it was a common practice. If you look at the organization of the artillery of all nations they had numerous cassions assigned to each battery and the SOP was to ferry ammo from the cassions to the guns. Not a big deal but just a comment.
If you don't use the refit rule you will find that artillery will become far too effective and you'll end up with the usual wargames practice of guys blasting away at extreme range at anything they can see whereas the refit means gamers have to think twice about what they are going to shoot at. Try the game using the refit rules then try it again without the refit rules and let us know how it goes.
Cheers
Dave
sotek111
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:37 pm

Post by sotek111 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:47 am

I am a big fan of the refit rule. First, four rounds of shooting is going to do some hurt at effective range or better. I think this is a very inovative method for strongly encouraging smart use of artillery. Rambo doesn't show up with his 54,000 round magazine and fire continously for hours :-)

In addition, guns firing for extended amounts of time needed cleaning and maintenance least they blow up in your face. This is a great way to simulate that. It also provides a use for reserve batteries to fill a role of "in place relief" for those batteries needing refit.

Lastly, in the games I have played, after four turns of being in range there usually is either not much left to shoot at or (sadly) a h-o-l-e where the battery used to be :-)
Jay White
Fremont, CA (USA)
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:45 am

Hi
Well we will certainly play with the refit rule for the first couple of games. The real problem for me is that it is a very "game mechanic” approach to represent doctrine. What I mean by that is that you don’t see artillery batteries pulling out of the line of battle, with one or two exceptions during 22 years of combat. The Russians at Eylau did not pull batteries out of the line during that battle, even the French guns at Waterloo did not pull back out of the line only to return. The problem is, that not much was written on the tactical use of guns during the period, lots of accounts but very little on doctrine, while the infantry and cavalry have lots of documents on doctrine, tactics and actual accounts of use on the battlefield.

The issue seems to be control the effectiveness of artillery to be in line with the designer’s views of the period. This is an important and valid approach to game design.

The real problem is understanding that each Nation had doctrine (most not written but common knowledge) for how the guns where used, and they all changed over the 22 years of our period. For instance the Austrian battalion guns of 1809 where really only the battalion guns from 1805 evolving into batteries, there use seems to be only to support the infantry they where attached to and it seems that fire was rarely if ever over 600 meters or so and against a threat to the infantry. As to use in an advance not sure if this was done. So how do you represent these tactics vs. the more aggressive use of artillery by the French. Another issue is did the guns accompany the infantry when they attacked, this I am not sure was a common tactic, so Barry’s refit rule does hamper the use of artillery and the result is that you as the gamer do indeed seem to take more time in deciding who you fire at and how often.

As to needing to clean or do maintenance in a battle every four turns or one hour and twenty minuets of combat I just don’t think that is realistic and pretty sure that did not happen, again look at some of the big battles Eyalu and Waterloo. The real effect of being constantly in combat was more fatigue of the crew which would lead to a much lower rate of fire over time and problems in constantly bringing up ammunition from the caissons. The caissons being another issue entirely and a problem in representing their effect on the table.

One other thing that popped up last night as I was reading was Howitzer fire, in particular overhead fire. This I think was almost never done, you have Waterloo firing over an orchard into an area that was known to contain enemy, and Busaco where the slope was so steep that this was possible, however, very few others. The real issue is two fold, first spotting the fall of shot, remember not only are the rounds being fired but some one is cutting the fuses so that the rounds explode at the correct moment, so who is spotting the fall of shot, the other is that the field guns could just not elevate enough to make this a feasible tactic.

Please don’t get me wrong I am really taken by the rules and intend to get my club playing, Barry has done a fantastic job with the command and control and reintroducing the battalion formations in an effective and visually pleasing manner. He has done a fantastic job in creating a game with a cleaver and detailed representation of command and control and - it to a simple but effective method of fire and combat. However, as most Napoleonic gamers are rules tinkerers I am unfortunately no exception, as a group I think it is in our nature to tinker.
William
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:22 am

Tinkering is fine by me.... R2E started that way it was originally and adapted version of BLB because a major multiplayer game of Dresden had gone into meltdown when we were using General de Brigade and our group wanted an alternative. I started from the rules I had written and just continued to develop them over 6 iterations and 4 years to what they have become.
Concepts by nature have to be defined so that people can understand and use them. They can then become something a little more dangerous when committed to print such as a perceived historical interpretation of facts, the gospel according to MrX or a piece of 'new' historical research.
The battery refit rule is actually none of these. It is as William says a game mechanic and in that context works exceedingly well BECAUSE it makes the player think differently.

He is thoughtful about how artillery should be used: Just like a real commander. He doesn't do all of the wargaming idiot activities:

- Blast away at everything within extreme range every turn in the hope of causing some damage. Fairly strict training and instruction was in place to prevent this. Artillerists were educated men not rich twits.
- Constantly and arbitrarily switch targets with no reference to the chain of command
- Use the God like omnipotence beloved of table top Generals.
- Use the artillery like machine guns.

All I would ask is that players look a little beyond the 'act' and consider the effect.
Of course there is historical precedent for including the mechanism (Uffindell's book on Ligny) but that is only the 'shop window'. What I am trying to convey is this:

No gun battery in whatever army would have fired continuously for 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 + hours which is what happens in wargames IF you don't limit something either ammo or ability to operate. The problems would be legion. Running out of ammo, powder, broken equipment and tools, equipment fouling, exhaustion or the men, accidental injuries, lack of water and food, smoke etc. Have you ever tried loading a cement mixer with a shovel for 20 minutes?? spare a thought for undernourished men rolling back a 12pdr 60 times!

This stuff hardly ever gets considered when we sit with our beer,cigars, tape measure and dice.

This is actually what the REFIT Rule portrays.. interruption to continuity. Humans and nature not machines and abstraction. The physical removal of the battery just 'locks' the player's thought process in to the fact that 'its over' for a while. Again referencing William's point, not enough info is available on precisely the points I am making as artillery is for most historians and gamers alike, an infinitely less alluring topic than cavalry charges, bayonet attacks or epic defences of outposts.

I absolutely welcome the discussion here on the Forum and as you may be able to tell am very engaged with the topic so William's comments are great stimulus to the ongoing debate about how to strike the balance between enjoyment, playability and realism on the tabletop. Those who know me will recognize that logic is my main tool and not emotion when it comes to argumentation so keep it coming.. my battery doesn't have to refit for another 3 turns!!! :wink:
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:52 am

Hi Barry
Great response and that is exactly what I inferred was the reason for the Refit rule and look forward to see it in action this evening.

William
sotek111
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:37 pm

Post by sotek111 » Tue Mar 08, 2011 7:34 pm

Wow --- excellent discussion.

I always like to refer back to "You don't know, you weren't there!" :-)

I always favor some playability over historical accuracy. "Interruption to continuity" is a great way to put it.

To be honest one rule set doesn't make everyone happy --- but after years of rule set after rule set the normal practice for me became read the rules then start the modification list of things that need to change to make the rules playable (painting time down the tubes). With RtE it was the first time (in memory) I read a set of rules and didn't want to change anything.

I would be interested to hear how your game goes and if you are still somewhat adverse to the refit rule after your games.
Jay White
Fremont, CA (USA)
Post Reply