Distance at which units fire.

Feedback and questions from the magnificent 7 Play test groups in Edinburgh, Dumfries, Sweden, Cheltenham, Arizona, Georgia and Florida.
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:15 am

barr7430 wrote: Anyway.. the Scots (as everyone knows) are

fun loving, generous to a fault, even tempered, abstemious, polite, deferential, unassuming, passive, compliant, supportive, uncritical and of course loving....

But the IRISH..... :roll: :lol:
I'm not biting! :lol:

Cheers
Dave
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:51 am

Why?

You usually do! :lol:
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Forlorn Hope
Private
Private
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Forlorn Hope » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:29 pm

To add a"lighter" note, I'm reminded of a definition of the four nations of the home islands givien during an Army seminar in the early 80s (I can't tell you where as I'd have to.. well you know.)

The Welsh - Pray on their knees...... and upon their neighbours.

The Scots - Keep the Sabbath holy... and anything else they can get their hands on.

The Irish - Will fight and die for any cause... they don't understand.

This, of course leave the English. They are a self-made race.... which relieves God of an awesome responsibility. :roll:

Not very PC I know but then the Army was/is not known for being touchy-feely tree-huggers. If there is anybody I haven't insulted please forgive me and, in the spirit of Equality and Diversity, I promise to try harder. :oops:

As an aside, the definitions were given an illustration given when discussing the various peoples making up the old Soviet Union (Go figure!). :?

Regards
Tom
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:40 pm

OK, getting out of the comic interlude and back into the nuts and bolts how do we feel about this very basic distinction:

We already have Platoon Firing & Rank Firing Foot.
Platoon firers get bonuses thus:

They get +1 when stationary and shooting
They can 1/2 move and fire without penalty.

This advantage is heightened when Rank Firers move 1/2 and fire as they take -1 modifier.

That is the story so far and in summary, a distinct advantage to the Platooners and nothing to the Rankers.

Now I am not in the business of simply giving 'special advantages' to every side in order to sell models(a la FoW) but we could:

Allow Rankers to charge non SHAKEN infantry (a distinct tactical advantage which would introduce a much higher level of unpredictability into games. I am NOT in favour of a combat advantage in the form of a +1 modifier. Tribals get a good advantage becausae of their type but I think trained regular infantry would be evenly matched with the advantage coming through troop quality and uncertainty provided by the die throws..

What do we think of that then??
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Churchill
General
General
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:49 pm

Platoon & Rankers

Post by Churchill » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:41 pm

Hi Barry,

Very interesting and I think you've just about hit the nail on the head.
I still don't like the idea of Platoon firing troops being able to move half and fire, even though for my British this would be an advantage.
I just don't believe this is how Platoon fire was conducted on the field of battle during this period.The +1 is in itself the advantage for Platoon firer's when stationary.
Everything else is fine, the Ranker's get to move closer to the enemy and return fire with a -1 when moving and firing, but can now charge steady infantry.
No advantage in hand to hand except for charging.
All sounds good to me :wink:

Regards..........Ray.

Image
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Post by flick40 » Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:00 am

I'd like to have that option. Strangely in all my games so far, v1 and now v2, there hasn't been a single infantry charge. I need to be sure we test this combat option, more soon.
"Is that your opinion or the game masters ruling?"
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:35 pm

From my point of view the main aspect of the period is about linear fire fights with very little infantry hand to hand and the idea of French elan with the bayonet seems to hark to the Napoleonic period rather than the one we are trying to game in BLB. Denain seems to be the main battle that I have read about where the French stormed with the bayonet and this seemed so unusual that it became a major talking point.
Cheers
Dave
User avatar
j1mwallace
Major General
Major General
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Dumfries, Scotland

Post by j1mwallace » Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:47 pm

I'd tend to disagree with Dave I'm afraid, most infantry combats of the period were settled by threatened use of the bayonet, especially by the French. The Standard French tactic was as stated before to close "gently" to keep order, then to advance at the double. its when the french did not advance like this and were forced onto the defensive and into a firefight that they tended to lose,
Firefights are more a product of the linear warfare of Fredericks period.
to hearken back to an older set of rules (DBR) you might remember that French were classed as shot(Fast) who tended to rely on the charged whereas English foot were classed as shot (O or S) who tended to rely on firepower,
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:00 pm

Jim, apart from Denain which other major actions did the French go in with the bayonet? I feel that to give any bonus to bayonet charging infantry would alter the whole feel of the period.
Cheers
Dave
User avatar
j1mwallace
Major General
Major General
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Dumfries, Scotland

Post by j1mwallace » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:38 pm

hi Dave. Both at Steenkirk and Neerwinden the French infantry attacks were carried out exactly as above but with swords , musket and pike rather than bayonet. I'm not really referring to bayonet charges per se for the French but rather their agressive infantry tactics in wanting to get "stuck in". As I've said before the french tended to discard their muskets and use their swords. As the bayonet became more common the sword was used less and fell intp disuse.
I quite like the idea of "bayonet" vs fire discipline.
Denain seems to be the forst real mention of a bayonetattack as such.
The french army seems to have multiple notions in fire/ melee combat by the though.
My opinion and its only that is that this is not a period of prolongued firefights.
I'm entirely open to contradictory info however.
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:05 pm

Hi Jim, I was only really talking about the WSS as this is the main period I have studied so I can't really comment on the earlier period and like yourself I am open to having my perceptions changed by those with more knowledge. I wouldn't like to see the rules becoming too much like R2E which is why I made my initial comment.

Cheers
Dave
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Post by flick40 » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:05 pm

...to give any bonus to bayonet charging infantry..
It was already stated by Barry that he is not considering giving a bonus in melee to any army. Rather for certain army doctrines he is considering to allow them to charge non shaken foot.

Charging formed foot frontally would still be a big gamble. I am working out some situations on paper to see how viable doing so would truely be.
"Is that your opinion or the game masters ruling?"
User avatar
j1mwallace
Major General
Major General
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Dumfries, Scotland

Post by j1mwallace » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:25 pm

I'd agree. Flick/ Dave. I can't find find any evidence that they charged and fought any "better" just that this was their tactic. I think that allowing them to charge unshaken infantry is a good compromise.
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:57 pm

That is where I am going with this gents... Jim's last stated comment.
I think the charge option introduces the 'threat' which will put the Platoon Firing units slightly on edge because the chances of them prevailing by fire alone can now be interrupted. That in itself will produce a result if the French player is aggressive enough. Of course some charges will fail..
..to go
... to charge home

..to win

but some will SUCCEED!

Joe.. once you've done your usual number crunching pls share!

DO'B.. you need to get over here for a game I think!
"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: 2557
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:44 pm

My appolgies to Jim, I was under the misunderstanding that you were arguing that the French should have a bonus for charging which would dramatically change the dynamics of the period but I have no problem alllowing French to charge unshaken troops.

Your also right Barry we need to get together for another game.
My misses is off to Tucson tomorrow for two weeks so I should have some spare time to get through. Will be in touch later.
Cheers
Dave
Post Reply