A PROPOSITION for Fixing what Ain't Broke with Pictures.

[CoffinDodger]

Gentlefolk,

I have had an epiphany and would appreciate your patience whilst I set out the following proposed amendments to RtE for the sole purpose of improving the original rules beyond recognition. Like most other PROPOSITIONS and unlike the original rules, these have NOT been extensively play tested as they came to me in a dream where I was visited by Richard Sharpe of 95th Rifles fame.

So I commend these to l'Empereur Barry and his Chief of Staff Clarence but, since there is no need for play testing Mr O'Brien, your P45 is in the post.

1. The Initiative phase should be renamed the Mine's Bigger than Yours Phase and anyone who fields a Wellington should have a +2 to his die roll for having a hooky nose.

2. The Manoeuvre Phase is now called the Walkabout Phase and any kilted Highlanders moving at greater than half speed through bracken must take a -2 in the Shooty-Bang-Bang Wee Balls Phase (I'll explain later) to simulate the fact that some of them may have lost their balls. Also, French troops will no longer use Manoeuvre Points below:



But will be issued instead with cheese rations:



3. The Firing Phase shall be broken into the Shooty-Bang-Bang Big Balls Phase where artillery will only be allowed to fire on alternate turns (consider this a toilet break) instead of refitting at the end of four rounds of firing to assist the arithmetically challenged. In the Shooty-Bang-Bang Wee Balls Phase (I told you I'd explain), any Scottish infantry from Larkhall get an additional D3 worth of D6s when firing at green-uniformed French dragoons.

4. The Melee Phase, now called the Get it Up 'em! Phase, will avoid the abrasive question of cavalry being forced to charge squares by the simple expedient of replacing the square with a circle. In the interests of mathematical precision and simplicity the cavalry charge will take place as follows:

The cavalry move will be dissected by the Golden Mean and any cavalry commencing a charge on a circle prior to reaching the Golden Mean will no longer have to complete this charge, whereas, if they started after the Golden Mean they must follow through; however, if they commenced EXACTLY on the Golden Mean then there is the possibility that Dave Imrie can take an award-winning photograph.

The Golden Mean may be verified by the simple formula (a + b)(a − b) = ab where the Product of their Sum and Differences is Equal to the Product of the Numerals themselves.

The infantry circle does not have to check resolve but instead, the owning player measures the exact circumference of his circle and, if it is greater that 2π times the radius, he stands fast and collects the Nobel prize for mathematics, otherwise, he runs away.

5. Finally, the Resolve phase is to be renamed the Run Away Phase to represent more accurately the heroics of those who insist on fielding early Austrian armies.

Gentlefolk, your comments and opinions would be warmly welcomed and I sincerely look forward to the following six pages of irrelevant discussion as I intend to release these anyway, with Barry's permission of course, as a leather bound pdf file at the bargain price of £49.99 + VAT and Postage - PayPal only.

I remain,

Your Most Humble and Obedient Servant etc.,

Jim O'Neill

- for and on behalf of richardsharpe.

[barr7430]

I nearly SAT on my IRE

[Churchill]

Ray.

[Gerryjd]

Jim,

That's the best laugh I've had all day!!!!

Cheers

Gerry

[John Michael]

Wow......Quiet.......Success........Dissent stifled!

[PaulMc]

Au contraire mon capitain! Il est de retour! C'est magnifique, laissez la révision R2E recommencer!

[sotek111]

LOL! This is awesome!

[davidsharpe]

OK Jim, message received.

End of my propositions, long life to yours, a bit more chaotic than mine but certainly funnier.


Friendly yours and Scotland for ever !

D

[CoffinDodger]

...a bit more chaotic than mine

David, You underestimate yourself.

Friendly yours and Scotland for ever ! D

Vive la Vielle Alliance!

Toujours,

Jim

[davidsharpe]

Hello Jim

"David, You underestimate yourself"
Probably not, Jim !
Try both of them, you ll see.


I thought one of this forum objectives was to collect different point of view
(and this would mean proposing to change some points of rules).
I was wrong.

In France, we are more direct, if i had been like Barry, annoyed by a forumer proposing unwelcome Houserules, i would have said him "stop it or create yours and try to sell them"
It would have been fixed early.

Friendly yours.

[barr7430]

The Forum IS a place for exchange of views David. I have no objections to any of your suggestions but it does not mean that anyone/everyone will agree with them

R2E caters for MOST situations and does that fairly well. Of course there are exceptions but there is a nice phrase in English..
"The exception proves the rule"

Playing around with rule mechanisms is fine, in fact BLB and ultimately R2E came about by me playing around with other rule mechanisms. The point is really, that many people don't see any point if something works already and so the attitude will be against the change. Of course, if no one experimented we would not have Penicillin, got to the moon, split the atom etc...

You COULD write a rule set... here are the ingredients:

ideas
hundreds of hours
energy
a very resilient character
a wife who is a living saint
low maintenance children
money
a group of play testers
a very thick skin
objectivity
be slightly insane
no addictions to any other hobby


Apart from that, its easy.... Good luck!!

[davidsharpe]

Hello Barry


You said
"The point is really, that many people don't see any point if something works already and so the attitude will be against the change."

That s true.
The "group" of usual forumers are against the change, i could say "any" change.

Nearly everybody on this forum thinks RTE works well in all situations.
The topic "cavalry against squares" offered a very interesting debate where it was not so consensual, but majority prevailed and alternatives points of view left the discussion under the pressure.

I have played a dozen battles with RTE rules, and all is going very fine until there is ...a Close combat.
Most of the time it goes to a second round, unwinnable because no one gets enough dices (disordered, no charge bonus) to clearly win.
Consequences: it s a bloodbath, even for the winner.
Light Cavalry are without any dice at all in second round, (-3 for being light, disordered, no charge bonus).
Recruit cavalry are lucky they broke, veterans ones pass and get destroyed.
Sometimes things go well, because one flee before charge or broke after first round, RTE works efficiently then, it s not rare but not the majority.

It worked well particularly when we played Recruit spanish army against a veteran french army, situation where Resolve test system prevented most of the CC problem.

That s the weak part of your rules, and it could be fixed without affecting the general structure which i found the most clever and historical i ever saw.

But as everybody thinks RTE works well already, there is no problem at all.


Creating a rule ?
It s not my project, i like to play Napoleonic wargaming, your rules are a wonderful tool.
That s all.

Thanks for your reply Barry

Friendly yours

D

[obriendavid]

Light Cavalry are without any dice at all in second round, (-3 for being light, disordered, no charge bonus). D

David, everyone always gets at least one dice for shooting and close combat. Once you buy a set of rules they are yours so feel free to make as many changes as you want it's a bad habit I also have and it has taken me many years to try and get out of the habit.
Cheers
Dave

[barr7430]

Dave is right David, your interpretation of the rules is quite wrong there:

16 model unit of LC would have 4 dice, half to 2 for disordered, minus for light cavalry but 1 die is ALWAYS thrown in any shooting, artillery or close combat situation.

[davidsharpe]

Hello Barry and David

You are right, one die is the minimum in all sort of combat.

I wanted to show the typical situation of Close combat “unwinnable” most of the times.
In a second round.
The cavalry has one die and the infantry has 3. (a 24 models batallion, with already 4 losses from the first round
What are your chances to make a three hits difference ?
Very weak.

So you get a third round if nobody breaks because of 50% losses mandatory test.
So a minimum of 12 losses winner or loser.
The two units would be out of service.

But i had an idea, very simple, wirthout any “complex” changes.
(i realize that the more numerous we are in a group the more it is difficult, and dangerous for the cohesion, to make even minor changes, because we need common references everybody had such difficulties to intégrate).

The idea is to give choice to players, after a round of Close Combat,
If all tests are passed, to stay f ighting another round
Or to retreat .
The defender says his choice first then the attacker.
But if the attacker is the only one to test (because he lost the round or has attained 50% losses)
He says his choice first.

If one choose to retreat from the close combat, the other who “stayed”, has his losses taken during the round halved (rounded up).

When the situation is the famous “Cavalry against Square”
The cavalry is given the choice to

1 Go in the normal close combat as state before.

2 Retreat without contact (the most historical case)
but take a 50% fire from the square (which has perhaps already fired on it if he was already formed before the charge, it s then , another fire when cavalry rides on the side of the square to avoid physical contact). (no –2 fire modifier against cav)

With these small changes, which do not alter the rules procedures nor the mechanisms integrated by the players,
most of the problems about Close Combat would be avoided.

Then for the “chrome”
A +2 modifier for british “Stand and fire check” (instead of +1)
A +1 for french Young Guard and middle guard
A +2 for french Old guard.
All cumulative with other modifiers.
For exemple
A drilled british would have +2 modifier as a young french guard
A veteran (and guard ) british would have +3 modifier as Old guard.

I stop now discussing and proposing changes.

I hope for you both, because your design deserves it, (you too of course), that you will publish in the future, another (smaller) booklet with some few changes, scenarios and After action reports with comments on rules points and players decisions (like in the old “Avalon Hill General magazine”).
It would find great selling, rules support and show the potential of the clever rules to casual players who prefer Lassalle or Black powder rules because they see them “more playable”.

Thanks for the precious tool your offered us, to wargame napoleonic period.

Friendly yours.

D