Those who have been following along in this blog will know by now that I am a fan of simple rules such as Charge! In a way it has been a full circle for me. Years ago, my old friend Tom and I started out our "formal" war gaming (i.e. with rules) in high school with Jack Scruby's Fire and Charge, simple with lots of dice rolling. From there, I tried and discarded many sets of rules such as the many iterations of the WRG Ancients, Column, Line and Square (still played with a group of local gamers on a regular basis), Fire and Fury, WRG "whatever", and many more. Who knew back then that a revolution was beginning?
A wise gamer observed this past week-end (as we discussed the Charge! rules), that those who know the tactics of the era as opposed to all the rules, actually do better in the game. Think about that for a moment. Isn't that what really makes a good set of rules? The scenario was set up as a straight forward attacker/defender. With the exception of a stone wall and a artillery redoubt, the terrain was pretty much open, save for two woods, and a bridged river.
Now, like any war gamer who sets up a game, I had a pretty good idea of how I would have played it. Speed was essential for the Royalists in order for them to bring their slightly better firepower against the Federation. Perhaps more importantly a key advantage the RC had would be hand-to-hand combat. Under the rules, the Federation, about a third of whose troops were militia and/or lacking bayonets which put them at a -1 disadvantage in all melee die rolls. In the rules, such combats are relatively quick affairs with the results decided pretty much after the first (and usually only) round.
A piecemeal attack was not going to bring the Federation to defeat, but unfortunately, that's what occurred.
 |
| The highpoint of the Royalist advance |
 |
| Another view of the battle |
So, how do we make this a better game? The rules allow for two options regarding how the units move and deploy. For simplicity, I used the alternate move system (side a moves a brigade, then side b, and so on). The other, one with which I am well-acquainted, is written orders. Column, Line, and Square, the classic Napoleonic rule set beginning in the 1960's uses them and there are some of us left who play the game regularly. Next time, written orders, using simple graphics to show what the unit was to do.
The biggest errors on my side were making two assumptions. This was a convention game whose rules, though simple, were unfamiliar to most of the participants. A brief tutorial may not be enough. Secondly was the troop density. I had six players signed up, most of whom I did not know. How many units could they handle? Three per player was my baseline. That was now I think too many.
Ah well...everyone seemed to have a good time and enjoyed the rules. That I think is the main goal. I am happy to see it was accomplished.
I am often surprised what players in a con/club game will and won't see and think in a given situation.
ReplyDeleteThe number of units seemed right to me but I find that many gamers struggle with the company/battalion thing. It caused problems for me in club or con games 29 years ago so I dropped it, brought it back for my games at Huzzah and quietly dropped it again mid game.
The terrain looked very constricted to me as defender though I wasn't clear on the effect of the woods. I think more period and rules experience might have been required for the British players to successfully negotiate the gap, deploy quickly and attack strongly and quickly. Would have been nip and tuck I think.
Anyway, I enjoyed the game regardless and expected my militia to run and my gun to be silenced by close range fire next turn. Good time for me to roll up on cannister and musketry!
I, too, have been debating in my head the company/battalion "thing". The practice game a few weeks back used the battalion only structure (similar to ATKM). Reflecting on that game on the drive home led me to a "what if..." moment and hence the company structure. Although, it was also compromised as I used only two companies as opposed to the rules' three. Much to ponder!
ReplyDeleteHey Alan, your post reminds me that hosting games is another art to itself.
ReplyDeleteSome thoughts:
- With players new to a system, anything requiring maneuvering through obstacles [bridges, woods] is probably best avoided.
- Having the other side sitting tight behind fortifications may be a bit dull for them; perhaps a maneuvering Units or two?
- for uncertain attendance, I like having a reinforcement scheme for latecomers, and of course they can just not be used if no one shows.
- I like to matrix some decisions in a pre-game phase, 2-3 each side gives several variations, i.e. 2 per side is 4 possibilities, 3 per side is 9 possibilities, etc. Examples would be:
1) You may steal a march by having one unit leave very early and set up 12" farther onto the board; however, they take a Fatigue Point.
2) You may put your guns on the hill or in the redoubt near the bridge; the unit in the redoubt will use a dummy marker until it fires.
Another old-school mechanism that has lots of possibilities is using a card-driven sequence. The most interesting I've seen lately is in "A Gentleman's War" but it is not simple [I don't think it is complex, either].
Hope those thoughts are helpful!
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I am already thinking about my next convention/game day scenario and I've already incorporated some of your points. What I have found interesting is the enthusiasm I have encounter for Charge! and other old school war games, especially those using 40/54mm figures.
ReplyDeleteAlan,
ReplyDeleteI played in the game and had a great time with it. I think the 3 units per player is a reasonable limit actually. You might be right about the rules explanation though.
I don't think the Royalist side had a good handle on how to use some of their light troops to screen their attack. In particular the Hessian commander (who was young and I assume inexperienced) had a tough job to do, having to cross the bridge in column and being immediately exposed to fire once on the other side. Had they gotten enough figures firing on the artillery to silence it, his job would have been much easier, but as it was each of his battalions got shattered as it stepped off the bridge.
Everyone did seem to have a good time though. I personally haven't played with 54mm figs in a long time. A few years back I ran a game of Muskets and Tomahawks at TotalCon using figures from Armies in Plastic and some terrain pieces from All the Kings Men (I was very sad when he announced he was shutting down). That was the last time I played 54's until Huzzah. Thanks for putting that game on!