Players proposals for v2
 General   Started by Man at War Staff   2017-03-06 10:52:54 +01:00   Comments: 108    Viewed: 1540

  1. Man at War Staff
    Man at War Staff Member Staff Member
    Hello all, this topic is to allow the players to propose new ideas or modifications for the Napoleon at War 2.0 version. We will discuss and eventually playtest it!

    Thank you in advance!

    Ricardo de Prado Sanz
    Man at War Staff, 2017-03-06 10:52:54 +01:00
  2. Quillup
    Quillup Member Colebrook
    Combat Phase: Cavalry vs Cavalry         
    1> Phasing players declares target and moves bases to contact    
    2> Non-phasing player rolls ET          
    3> If successful Simultaneous Combat, Attacker(phasing player) Wins ties and Breakthrough
    4> If unsuccessful, defending cavalry unit is caught flat footed. Combat as indicated in rule book, except Attacker wins ties.
                   
                   
    Combat Phase: Counter-Charge          
    1> Non-phasing Cavalry rolls favorable DT as indicated in rule book  
    2> Combat is now Simultaneous. Phasing player's cavalry wins ties and can breakthrough. Non-phasing cavalry does not get a breakthrough move if it wins.
                   
                   
    Movement Phase: Bricole          
    Artillery Movement            
    Artillery of any caliber/size cannot bricole move up hill.    
                   
                   
    Support and Rally Phase: Rally          
    Units must comply to Support Move Rules in order to Rally bases.  
                   
                   
    Retreat After Firefight and Combat        
    All units forced to retreat from a firefight or combat cannot charge the next friendly turn.
                   


    Combat Phase:
    Artillery Options

    Change option 1 (the option regarding stand and fire cannister) to:
    Artillery can stand and fire cannister on successful ET.
    If ET unsuccessful, attacking unit closes without need to pass Morale TestT to close and melee.

    Change Option 4(?) (the option regarding limber and retreating) to:
    Foot Artillery can Limber and retreat before combat on a favorable DT.
    If unsuccessful, attacking unit closes automatically without MT.
    Horse Artillery can Limber and retreat before combat automatically
    if a Cavalry or infantry unit is within support range.
    Else Horse Artillery can Limber and retreat with successful DT.
    If unsuccessful, attacking unit closes automatically without MT.

    Quillup, 2017-03-06 16:45:18 +01:00
  3. As a mostly russian player, I have become extremely frustrated with the Russian list

    I dont know if this game takes a complete new direction, but if the intension is base the new rules on old ones, I think some of the stuff written below could be of help... I have started rebasing my russians, since it seemed like this game wouldnt be be supported...Interesting where this is going


    These are some of the things, ive found to be wrong, based on the Leipzig Pts/lists
    ----

    Bayonet is a fine fellow vs Elan – Both 30 pts

    Compare them- and you will find that it would be much closer to 10pts

    Stubborn – Not really a bonus – You probably not even be in line formation in the first place, since you have 2 bases reduced when firing

    Fire is fickle – totally crippling shooting  abilities-making them assault-only unit


    So you have an over priced unit, that can only assault, but probably never will be successful, since you will be shot to thousand pieces with only one skirmisher


    The Artillery,  is however totally awesome- However, it is so awesome, that opponents find it too powerful. The grandbattery footprint, is generally so big, that it almost covers a complete Short-side of a table. Dropping it to 5 guns per battery like Lasalle, may be a suitable solution.

     

    The Army list construction, is also annoying when trying to copy orders of battle. They lack the possibility to use odd numbers of battalions

     

    And when you go to war with a total-suck Leipzig list, you will be in extremely big trouble. As a defender, you cant use your lines to shoot, and as attacker you are fucked-like all others armies attacking..on top of that, your troops are crap and overpriced.
    Grenadiers that are likely to attack generally has an uphill day. The guards seem fuctional, but very expensive,

    Scenarios favours defenders too much-adding points to attacker may be a solution-Please test scenarios!!!

    I would also like all troops to be on the cavalry/artillery sized bases, so its easier to change/begin with the game if youre testing/disappointed… Many Nappy games uses 4 base battalions


    The idea of stealing(taking the best of) from flames of war and Lasalle seems like a good tasty idea, and was probably why our group started playing this game in the first place

    And good luck by the Way ;)

    Edit Edit Edit!!!! - Here below, is a suggestion to make the russian list better - Simple and not play-tested

    ----Leipzig russian list change suggestion

    Fire is Fickle Each time a unit fires, subract 1 base from it's total number of bases in order to calculate how many dice you need to roll before applying any other modifiers     -10pts

    Bayonet is a Fine Fellow During a charge, these units ignore the initial stand loss when making an Elan Test to complete the move to contact, so that it must lose two stands from defensive fire before the Elan test becomes unfavorable. +10pts

    Stubborn:  infantry units may not Retreat from an enemy charge and all stubborn units roll a favourable MT to counterattack in combat. Futhermore these units always count as having  1 additional skirmisher when taking hits from musket fire. Brigades containing battalions with stubborn ability, only take break tests when MORE than 50% are removed from play.  20pts

    Understr .20pts  -1 Skirmisher:10pts

     

    Musketeer Batallion total points: (60Basecost)-120-180-240(4bat)

    Grenadiers/jägers-Same rule adjustments- points remain the same

    --

    Artillery- remove 1 base and Badpowder-rule

    ---

    Crispy Lineman, 2017-03-06 18:23:21 +01:00
  4. jon palmer
    jon palmer Member
    For Cav vs Cav as outlined by Quillup above, I would have Phasing players declares target and moves unit to 6 inches of target unit.

    Non-phasing player rolls ET to countercharge and if successful both units move 3 inches forward and meet halfway. Combat is now Simultaneous. Phasing player's cavalry wins ties and can breakthrough.

    IF non-phasing player ET is unsuccessful then Cav caught flat footed and charging Cav move last 6 inches and roll assault dice first.

    Question - Would Battle Cav get advantaged ET dice roll to countercharge ????

    Jon P

    jon palmer, 2017-03-06 23:25:46 +01:00
  5. David Brown
    David Brown Member
    Hi there Ricardo, great news to hear that N@W will gain new life.

    I have seen various attempts at rules to go into a 2nd / new edition and fail, usually because the review process was flawed and unstructured from the start.

    Rather than asking for ad hoc rules fixes at this stage I suggest you start at a sytematic point and conduct a player feedback survey.

    You should survey the player base and ask them what they like about the rules and what they don't - in broad terms, look and feel, scope of the game, rules philosophy, major mechanisms etc.

    Ask how the punters actually play the game, ie what points, scenarios, teams, figure scale and basing or other home rules, how long do your games last, did all these stack up with expectations?.

    Ask what format and style they'd like the new product and how it should relate to any support products such as army lists - what are the punters willing to pay for and what they might reasonable expect for free. (QRS sheets, army lists, scenarios etc).

    If needs be knock up survey questions and invite people to fill in the sections, perhaps even ask for a 1-10 score on elements.

    You should reasonably early on decide the scope of your review for v2, are you going for a tidy up?  are you intereted in major surgery?, are their areas off limits? - and tell people.

    Establish play-test groups of players who will stress-test the rules and brutally expose flaws and lack of clarity. 

    As you will get flooded with players (probably including me) sending ideas for individual rules ideas you want to accumulate all these and group them by topic, perhaps not really evaluating them until other people comment. ie you want to minimise backtracking and unintended consequences.

    I'm happy to volunteer to edit or offer whatever help you might want.

    Regards

    David F Brown
    Australia
    David Brown, 2017-03-07 07:33:17 +01:00
  6. Riton 34140
    Riton 34140 Member
    Cavalry vs cavalry

    A cavalry unit charge by cavalry can countercharge on a moral test.
    The combat is simultaneous.
    Riton 34140, 2017-03-07 07:35:42 +01:00
  7. Riton 34140
    Riton 34140 Member


    I propose

    Normal DT for Cav

    Favourable DT for Battle Cav.

    Riton 34140, 2017-03-07 08:12:16 +01:00
  8. David Brown
    David Brown Member
    We tried this, IIRC we had Favourable for any except Light Cav (excepting Battle Light Cav) testing vs Light cav, (and unfavourable for any non-Fearsome v Fearsome) to give mundane cav something to balance the Light Cav's power to evade.

    It might make sense for Battle Cav to be given a bonus here. 

    Frankly I haven't tried it enough to have a firm view on the concept - there may be hidden virtues or problems with it.

    DB
    David Brown, 2017-03-07 08:28:22 +01:00
  9. Ken Jacobsen
    Ken Jacobsen Member
    Concur with Quillip's rule regarding Cavalry vs. Cavalry combat.  That's now a staple house rule of ours - prevents the 18" dance of silliness between opposing cav.

    I would add a rule that Inf in square can move 2".  The Russians did it all the time, and the Middle Guard at Waterloo advanced in battalion squares.
    Ken Jacobsen, 2017-03-08 21:50:29 +01:00
  10. tzen67
    tzen67 Member
    For what it's worth, we made the following rule amendments and have been playing them for some time,

    Infantry charged by cavalry

    Test to form square.
    Infantry in line - as per rules.
    Infantry in column - Always favourable.
    Infantry in Battalion masse - Always favourable.

    Cavalry against Battalionmasse.
    Cavalry in melee with a unit in battalion mass get 2 d6 per unit.
    Cavalry lose draws.
    Battalionmasse get 1d6 per unit.

    Defensive fire
    If infantry opt to shoot at charging cavalry they must first pass a favourable discipline test.
    If the test is failed the cavalry does not have to test to charge home.

    Countercharges
    Cavalry targeted frontally by other cavalry may countercharge.
    To countercharge units must pass an élan test.
    If successful normal sequence of charge but melee is simultaneous.

    Battle cavalry get a favourable test to counter charge.

    Non targeted Cavalry may intercept charge as per rules.

    Cossacks
    Scurrying is defined as a favourable test to evade.

    Russian special rule
    Bayonet drilled; Ignore effect of hits on MT to charge home. Melee is simultaneous if at the point of contact units pass a MT against charging infantry (simultaneous melee not possible if defending a BUA).

    This replaces Bayonet is a fine fellow.

    I also re did the points for units as the published points appeared way off.

    Also managed to create lots of lists using Nafziger as the source.

    I have also been working on a 12 scenarios, 6 attack/defence and 6 encounter scenarios. 
    Scenarios are are selected randomly. They are still a work in progress.

    Changed victory conditions. Victory points are earned by destroying units, killing generals and taking/holding objectives.

    This removed the breaking of Brigades to earn victory points and so has stopped the brigade structure being so important. 2 unit Brigades are now relevant again and large Brigades do not dominate.

    Many thanks,

    Andrew




    tzen67, 2017-03-08 22:24:32 +01:00
  11. David Brown
    David Brown Member
    Hi there

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Andrew said , <snip>

    I also re did the points for units as the published points appeared way off.

    I have also been working on a 12 scenarios, 6 attack/defence and 6 encounter scenarios. 
    Scenarios are are selected randomly. They are still a work in progress.

    Changed victory conditions. Victory points are earned by destroying units, killing generals and taking/holding objectives.

    This removed the breaking of Brigades to earn victory points and so has stopped the brigade structure being so important. 2 unit Brigades are now relevant again and large Brigades do not dominate.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    All good ideas.

    As I mentioned above, I strongly recommend the new management undertake some 'formal' engagement with players, past and present, to determine what people liked or did not like about the rules at a broad level before going into detail, however Andrew has identified what I think are a few of the key issues that players have told me they thought needed fixing.

    The points system needs fixing, which is of course a play-balance issue that seeps into other areas of the rules. Players will soon find any flaws which can lead to players losing faith and interest in the rules.

    The scenarios are a weak link in the system and as they stand put people off.  While they might be fun for club games, they need to  be moderated for competitions - I've seen more than a few games where the match-up of armies and scenario where one side had really  no chance.  

    A particular bug-bear of mine are those scenarios that leave too many troops off table and / or play down the table. If I spend hundreds of dollars on figs, a year painting them and travel 6 hours to and from a comp, book hotels and entry fee, I just don't want to play half my games with half my army using half the table.

    Andrew's on the right track - make up a whole raft of scenarios 30, 40, 50 or whatever, players will learn which might be unbalanced and just veto them to play the remainder.

    If other parts of the rules (terrain, visibility, deployment, 'strategic' moves etc) are doing heavy lifting you sorta don't need any scenarios as these can develop naturally, players will order flank-marches, reserves, ambushes and so on to gain battle victory.

    Victory conditions is another area that players were unhappy with, Andrew's ideas are on the right track.  Napoleon set himself simple victory conditions - force the enemy to fight on terms to your liking and totally smash the enemy army.

    Mongering brigade size and sending your troops on a suicide run because you _know_ that the combat exhaustion loss of a stand will break a unit and therefore a brigade, then army is a bad thing.  

    One option I looked at is that a failed force morale roll rather than lifting the remainders of that Brigade caused the units to then individually test to stay on table, perhaps with bonus if they had their general attached/near or had won a combat this bound and penalties if they had lost a combat / stands this bound.

    Units of exhausted brigades should take a 1-dice combat /shooting penalty and penalties to charge home tests.

    Regards

    David F Brown
    David Brown, 2017-03-09 00:53:38 +01:00
  12. Chas Irving
    Chas Irving Member

    NaW points system

    A points system was looked at previously and may still be accessed in the old forum. I have written this up and added some new characteristics and points. The yellow highlighted areas are the new or altered characteristics and points.

    Russian players seem to have a problem with their firing, not being potent enough, so maybe a reduction fire is fickle cost.

    France and some other nations start with 2 skirmishers and it appears these are included in the points costing for free. The Austrians start with no skirmishers and have to add +10pts for each skirmisher but this adds the special Jager rule. Russia on the other hand has only 1 skirmisher,so I have introduced a cost for these nations : limited skirmishers -5pts. Any nation with only 1 or even no skirmishers, except Austria, subtracts 5 points from the unit cost.

     

    New points: Infantry

           

    BE

    120

    BD

    100

    BR

    90

    CE

    90

    CD

    70

    CR

    60

    IE

    70

    ID

    50

    IR

    40

               

    New points: cavalry

           

    BE

    190

    BD

    150

    BR

    140

    CE

    140

    CD

    100

    CR

    90

    IE

    120

    ID

    80

    IR

    70

     

    Reserve modification

    No points modification can take any unit below 20pts

    Infantry

    -40%

             

    Cavalry

    -25%

             

    Artillery

    -30%

             

     

    Instead of having one point allowance for increasing or decreasing Valeur or Discipline as it is now, the difference would be specific to each Valeur or Discipline. For example any infantry unit increasing it Valeur from Courageous to Brave would increase the cost by 30pts or -30pts for decreasing the Valeur from Brave to Courageous. Any infantry unit increasing it Valeur from Insecure to Courageous would increase the cost by 20pts or -20pts for decreasing the Valeur from Courageous to Insecure.

     

    No points modification can take any unit below 20pts

    Infantry

    Cav/General

    Arty

    B

    70

    110

     

    C

    40

    60

    20

    I

    20

    40

     

    E

    50

    80

     

    D

    30

    40

    20

    R

    20

    30

     

    Additional skirmisher

    5

     

     

    Acemilas

    -10

     

     

    Aggressive

    20

    40

     

    Alte Regiment

    20

     

     

    Archaic drill

    -10

     

     

    Bad powder

     

     

    -50

    Bagpipes

    20

     

     

    Battle Cavalry

     

    30

     

    Bayonet

    20

     

     

    Bombard

     

     

    20

    Brittle Morale

    -20

    -30

     

    Cavalry Battery

     

     

    30

    Cold blooded

    20

     

     

    Commander

     

    50

     

    Converged Skirmishers

    20

     

     

    Doubtful Dependability

    -20

    -10

     

    Elan

    30

     

     

    Extended ZoC

     

    10

     

    Fearsome

    20

     

     

    Fieldworks

    10

     

     

    Fire Fickle

    -20

     

     

    For your freedom (Zanasząiwasząwolność)

    20

    20

    10

    Field Fortifications

     

     

    10

    GebtKein Pardon

    10

     

     

    Grosse Bataillon

    30

     

     

    Guard

    30

    40

    10

    Heavy Artillery

     

     

    20

    Hesitant

     

    -10

     

    Hidden Deployment

    20

    30

    30

    Holy Mother Russia

    0

    0

    0

    Immobile

     

     

    -50

    Horse artillery

     

     

    40

    Impetuous

     

    -10

     

    Indelta

    -20

     

     

    Individual Fire

    -20

     

     

    Irregulars

    -20

    -20

    -20

    Jager

    10

     

     

    JägerVorhut

    10

     

     

    Lancers

     

    20

     

    Lendulet

    10

     

     

    Light Artillery

     

     

    -20

    Light Cavalry

     

    20

     

    Light Cavalry Eastern

     

    50

     

    Light infantry

    30

     

     

    LekkaPiechota

    30

     

     

    Limit Light Infantry

    20

     

     

    Limited skirmishers (1 skirmisher)

    -5

     

     

    Line Drilled

    -10

     

     

    Low Motiv

    -10

    -10

    -10

    No skirmishers

    -20

     

     

    Old enemies

    0

     

     

    Over strength

    30

    30

     

    Poorly equipped

    -30

    -30

     

    Poor Horse arty

    -10

     

     

    Preserve the Army

    30

     

     

    Pro Gloria et Patria

    10

     

     

    Rockets

    30

     

     

    Sappers

    20

     

     

    Scurry

     

    -30

     

    Sharpshooter

    10

     

     

    Skilled Horsemen

     

    20

     

    Siegodertod

    10

     

     

    Stoic

    20

     

     

    Stubborn

    10

     

     

    Superior Lt cavalry

     

    20

     

    TrèsManoeuvrier

    30

    40

     

    Understrength

    -20

    -40

     

    Undisciplined

     

    -20

     

    Üstünsavaşçılar (Superior fighters)

    20

     

     

    Valeur up (not rquired)

    40

    40/50

    40

    VerteidigenSiedieGrenze!

    10

     

     

    Viva Fernando

    10

     

     

    Volley & charge

    30

     

     

    Voltigeur

    30

     

     

    War&knife, (Guerra y Cuchillo)

    10

     

     

     

    Chas Irving, 2017-03-09 11:04:45 +01:00
  13. Riton 34140
    Riton 34140 Member
    What are the definitions of the list of skills that you have put?
    I do not find all of them in rule books
    Thank you
    Riton 34140, 2017-03-09 12:52:20 +01:00
  14. Ludwig
    Ludwig Member
    Hello Simone,

    First, regarding the rules, I would like to offer some opinions:

    1. The IGO/UGO system is too restrictive and unrealistic, so the game becomes very boring. The game needs a higher degree of simultaneity. For example, the firing phase should be simultaneous. The 'return fire' rule is an absurdity (in real battles, troops did not alternate in firing, first one side and then the other). And the combat procedure is artificially complicated.
    The firefight rule is not well fitted in the set. Napoleonic infantry combat was decided mainly by firefights; melees were infrequent except in built-up areas.

    2. I think that some national characteristics are bizarre and they are not historical, repeating outdated misconceptions: Russian 'defective powder' or 'fire is fickle', French supermen voltigeurs, and so on.

    3. NaW needs a basic orders system and a more elaborate command and control rules.

    4. I would prefer infantry battalions with four bases.
     
    I think that the rules may be improved and completed without losing their essence.

    Second, regarding the miniatures, I dislike the metal quality.The miniatures are not well proportioned and they are oversized. Cavalry and the artillery pieces are gigantic, real 20mm and not 15/18mm. I think that the sculptor should adjust the miniatures' size in order to get the correct scale (15/18mm). The sculptor can reduce proportions and size using the existing miniatures.

    Third, the army lists are not well balanced. For example, French units are too expensive.

    I think that army supplements and campaign books are necessary. They are really motivating.

    Best wishes!
    Ludwig, 2017-03-09 22:05:55 +01:00
  15. Ken Jacobsen
    Ken Jacobsen Member
    OK, I'll offer a rebuttal to most of Ludwig's points (not trying to be purposefully contentious):

    1. Disagree on the restrictive part.  I agree with you on your point of sides not taking turns firing.  However, this isn't a real time simulation.  A unit moving into firing range of a stationary unit will have less of a firing impact tahn the stationary unit - at least initially.  The game models this well enough.
    2. I like the national rules - adds a flavor to the game. 
    3. No, no, no.  I've played A LOT of systems that have orders rules; they add a lot of complexity to the rules mechanics without adding much to the game.  The "you cn't do everything you want" concept is modeled pretty well with the drastcally reduced ability to maneuver the closer you get to the enemy.
    4. I like the 6 bases.  We play 1500 point games on a 6' x 4' table.  Just enough "panalopy of war" to make it visually appealing without being cluttered.

    Agree totally on your second point.  I think a cooperative agreement with an establshed miniatures manufacturer (Blue Moon or Old Glory come to mind) is the way to go.Get more aggressive with putting books out, which will fuel mini sales.

    Third point: sorry to disagree again, but I think the lists are balanced (with the exception of the 1813 Russian lists - they're crap).  If you know your army (stengths & weaknesses), AND the opponent s army, leverage your strengths against his weaknesses, you'll do fine.

    Case in point: Historicon tourney in 2015.  Mark Henry brought a Spanish list.  I think all the other players were salivating.......until Mark steamrolled EVERYBODY.

    Ken
    Ken Jacobsen, 2017-03-09 23:44:59 +01:00
  16. David Brown
    David Brown Member
    Hi there

    Ludwig said

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    1. The IGO/UGO system is too restrictive and unrealistic, so the game becomes very boring. The game needs a higher degree of simultaneity. For example, the firing phase should be simultaneous. The 'return fire' rule is an absurdity (in real battles, troops did not alternate in firing, first one side and then the other). And the combat procedure is artificially complicated.
    The firefight rule is not well fitted in the set. Napoleonic infantry combat was decided mainly by firefights; melees were infrequent except in built-up areas.


    DB - N@W is a facsinating set for me, with effectively no command and control system beyond a simple 'command range' rule and a basic IGO/UGO sequence of play it should be a boring and unrewarding set to play (I suspect people soon tired of Lassale for these resons - not that I'm bashing Sam M, his Blucher is v good) - however the multiple tests to charge / respond / do things provide enough chaos that you best plan can soon come unstuck or unexpected opportunities open up.

    Having said that I think there needs to be some re-working of the sequence of play, to allow something like multiple support moves to allow the player to change the axis of assault and get inside the other player's decission / response loop.  Outmanoeuvering the other guy and sending trrops to where he doesn't expect them looks period flavour to me.

    I think the infantry combat interaction is broadly right, except you probably need more units / game time than N@W can handle to represent history a bit better.

    I don't know if the rules philosphy states it explicity but I take infantry close combat to mean close-range shooting and test of nerve, rather than massed fencing with bayonet.  

    Yes infantry contesting BUAs, hedges, walls, forts (some bad terrain) are more likely to be at bayonet and rules should reflect this in some way.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

    2. I think that some national characteristics are bizarre and they are not historical, repeating outdated misconceptions: Russian 'defective powder' or 'fire is fickle', French supermen voltigeurs, and so on.


    DB - I think the 2nd Ed needs to review all the characteristics and how they work in the rules - for example I'd recomend some things like single dice penalty / bonus, or computations as if one base less or more etc.

    I have another concern that there is a temptation to keep creating more characterists just because you have a new nationality, ie going in search of characteristss just because you can - it might be worth rationalising and knocking out some characteristics or combining similar ones.

       
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    3. NaW needs a basic orders system and a more elaborate command and control rules.


    DB - I'm not so sure, but you could bolt on more things for generals to do - for example generals could have some limited capacity to 'influence' a roll to make it favourable, but if it fails they lose the capacity for the remainder of the bound  (so some of the characteristics could be linked to this so Stolid Russian Infantry can have their general influence them to stand under fire and be harder to lose bases, or something), similarly if a cavalry unit has just been ordered to charge to its destruction, perhaps the one beside it might have a reduced chance to pass tests unless the general has retained his 'influence' - the reverse could be true that if their friends just smashed through the enemy they might be more likely to charge.

    I'm making this up on the run, but it might give the battle intereting momentum shifts.
     

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    4. I would prefer infantry battalions with four bases.


    DB - do you mean just for depiction or for all the combat dice computation?  Intersting, I guess it will speed things up as they will lack staying power -  have you tried this?
     

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Second, regarding the miniatures, I dislike the metal quality.The miniatures are not well proportioned and they are oversized. Cavalry and the artillery pieces are gigantic, real 20mm and not 15/18mm. I think that the sculptor should adjust the miniatures' size in order to get the correct scale (15/18mm). The sculptor can reduce proportions and size using the existing miniatures.


    DB - I use my existing armies (as did most of my opponents) and I now won't buy new figs unless they are as good as AB or if nobody makes what I want and I can't be bothered to sculpt myself.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Third, the army lists are not well balanced. For example, French units are too expensive.


    DB -  I think there is a recognition that the points need review - if the whole is still unbalanced can be hard to say as it interplays with scenarios (if any), points level played, army defeat rules and victory conditions.


    regards

    David F Brown
    David Brown, 2017-03-10 03:39:33 +01:00
  17. David Brown
    David Brown Member
    Hi there

    Ken said
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Case in point: Historicon tourney in 2015.  Mark Henry brought a Spanish list.  I think all the other players were salivating.......until Mark steamrolled EVERYBODY.

    DB - an army seamrolling all commers might be evidence of unbalance (or of course player skill), there are two forces here; the 'Tiger Tank syndrome' where powerful units can crush the enemy before he can bring his extra numbers to bear and the 'Wall of Crap' where the swam of poor-quality stuff just swamps the other guy before he can kill enough to win.

    Regards

    David F Brown
    David Brown, 2017-03-10 03:44:13 +01:00
  18. Riton 34140
    Riton 34140 Member
    At the club we play in 1500/2000 pts.

    If there is anything to modify, it is the rules of cavalry. As mentioned above, a loaded unit should be able to counter charge. We will test on Sunday what has been proposed (test discipline to counter-load).

    The format 6 bases per battalion is not an obstacle except that it requires more figurine.
    On the other hand, problem of all the rules, each wants its "format" of bases to avoid that one plays to other rules. It was necessary to sink by 3, then by 4 of front, grouping / separating the skirmishers, the foragers ... alone DBx and the ancient rules did well.
    The format 4 figures per base is an alternative taken up by several rules that I would hold.

    Do not make simultaneous movements, too much subject to appreciation, disputes and endless discussion.

    A system of movement by order implies swarms of tokens on the table that come to pollute the visual. Making a nice table to spoil it with pieces of paper is pretty damageable.

    Afterwards, the dueling phase at the same time would not weigh down the system and would not slow down the game.


    The national characteristics give a personalization of the army but it lacks the specificities of the formations by nationality (on-line English, Russian and Austrian in column, Prussian French in mixed order column / line ...)

    Especially do not add modifiers of fights / shots by adding + of - which make make pages of calculations before to solve a combat // shooting to the end do not bring anything more. Fighting / shooting is very good like this.

    Personal note: the empire player finds that a "good" rule has to be complicated, to the detriment of the game ... thing that "getting older" turns out to be false. The complexity of the rules ends up killing the game. To play a game of 4 hours that will never see a denouement due to lack of time, I have seen it too often.
    Riton 34140, 2017-03-10 07:07:56 +01:00
  19. Chas Irving
    Chas Irving Member

    I believe the rules just need a bit of a tidy up and some clarification on some points. There is a FAQ document on the web which answers most of the players’ questions.

    I recently asked a question about what happens when a cavalry unit is beaten in combat and cannot retreat out of the zone of control of its opponent because its path is blocked by another friend. I think some players got this confused with retreat from a charge and used infantry response against an infantry charge (P62&63) and cavalry response against a charge (p65). The charge has already happened; the combat has been resolved, so what happens next? The unit is eliminated because it can’t escape the zone of control of its opponent. This sort of stuff needs a bit of a tidy up and explained better.

    Another example, page 71, the rules say, you need to pass an MT if you have received casualties in a combat and want to counterattack. What happens if you don’t receive any casualties?This needs to be reworded similar to “After the attacking unit rolls its dice, and possible casualties are removed, the Defender must pass a test on its Valeur in order to counterattack and throw its dice.”

    All units have 2 characteristics, Valeur and Discipline, yet there are tests on MT (Morale), ET (Elan) and DT (Discipline). The tests should just be called a Valeur test or a Discipline test, depending on what characteristic is to be used.

    Here is a conflict in the clarifications in the FAQ

    Page 18

    Moving directly away from the enemy

    CLARIFICATIONS:

    Note that the 2” sideways move is to avoid obstacles or the table edge. An enemy ZOC is NOT considered an obstacle!

    Page 42

    Zones of Control (ZOCs)

    CLARIFICATIONS:

    Remember, units can slide up to 2” to avoid enemy ZOCs during charges.

    Chas Irving, 2017-03-10 12:21:25 +01:00
  20. Chas Irving
    Chas Irving Member

    Some additions to the rules may be added but there is no need to start from the beginning and write a whole new book.

    I would like to see a change in the movement distances and the artillery firing distances. I have based these measurements on a scale of 1”=24m.

     

    NaW Movement modified

    Road

    Clear

    Rough

    Difficult

    Infantry-line formation

    4"

    4"

    4"

    4"

    Generals

    16"

    16"

    16"

    12"

    Cavalry

    16"

    16"

    12"

    8"

    Horse artillery

    16"

    16"

    12"

    n/a

    Infantry-column formation

    5"

    5"

    4"

    4"

    Foot artillery

    5"

    5"

    4"

    n/a

    Infantry in line could be further reduced to 3”.

     

    Weapon

    Small arms

     

    Canister

     

    Roundshot

    Musket/rifle

    4"

    96m

     

     

     

     

     Musket/rifle

    6"

    144m

     

     

     

     

    Light Artillery 3-4pdr

     

     

    9"

    216

    20"

    480m

    Medium Artillery 6-8pdr

     

     

    9"

    216m

    30"

    720m

    Heavy Artillery 12pdr

     

     

    9"

    216m

    36"

    864m

     

    Chas Irving, 2017-03-10 12:22:45 +01:00
  21. Page 1 / 6

    (You must log in or sign up to post here)

Report Post

Write your reason

Log in | Sign up
Tems & Conditions!
Help!