Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of the Big Battalions => Topic started by: happyhiker on May 15, 2020, 10:21:23 AM
-
I've been playing a few rank and file games, but recently whilst browsing the rule came across something I think I'm doing wrong on morale checks. I'm not sure where else to ask, ask as theres no rules forum anymore. Can anyone clarify?( I know the rules are a bit old but I really like them)
p32 says "When a unit loses a stand… it will have to to take a morale test during the morale phase" Which is what we've always played.
BUT
p32 under Morale Tests says "even though a charging morale test has slightly different modifiers to a normal morale test it is still the only morale test that the unit will take this turn"
p31 Drawn Melee says "There are no break tests or morale tests for winner or loser, the loser is simply forced away and its morale gets worse".
So if a French unit with a commander charges a Britsh unit without. British unit defensive fires, causing a french stand loss.
French take a charging morale test and pass, and charge home. In the melee both units lose one stand, but due to the French commander the British lose, and retire 2d6, dropping to unsteady.
1) During the morale phase, the french have already taken a morale test so do not take another, no matter how many stands they lose in melee ?
2) The British have already dropped to unsteady due to losing melee so also do not take a morale test. Is that correct?
Doesnt that mean Morale test will only really get taken due to Fire Casualties?
Or if the British drop to unsteady and Also take a morale test, they could rout straight away, which seems harsh.
-
Been a while since we played R&F but IIRC all morale tests are taken in the morale phase, only the modifiers differ depending on circumstance. This happens BEFORE the melee is fought. After the melee results have been imposed the turn ends (no additional morale checks).
The units may attempt to rally in the Rally phase of the subsequent turn.
So in your example the British get a chance to rally before having to test morale for the stand loss (if they fail they are going to suffer).
I think your issue is to do with the unusual turn sequence:
Charge-Rally-Move-Fire-MORALE-Melee.
From your description I think you are doing it right already.
The ACW rule supplement expands the R&F morale rules by including the concept of big units that can ignore stand loss modifiers depending on the number of stands remaining.
-
OMG You are right, I've been doing the Morale check after Melee. So Morale is just for Fire Attacks really then.
ACW morale rule sound interesting, I think Morale checks on Units 6 stands or over is flawed. Maybe that fixes it.
-
Morale is for all combat, a stand loss is a stand loss regardless where it came from.
The apparent difference is because the morale test phase comes straight after the firing phase a stand lost to fire combat has an immediate effect, whereas the stand loss from melee is carried forward through the subsequent turn before affecting the morale.
I don't have my books to hand but I think the ACW rule is 7-9 stands ignores 1 stand loss, over 9 ignores 2 stands lost in its morale and rally modifiers (but that could 7-8 and 9+ I can't remember)
-
Ok, thanks. We just use a d8 for morale, but adding 1 to each morale test works too.Very good rules anyway.
-
I would have to consult my rule books but I believe you've got it sorted. I like the rules so well that they are my one and only rules for everything from Pirates to German East Africa. They just work. They play well, they play fast, they play to a result. They are easy to modify without breaking - and I do make modifications as appropriate. Only place I might deviate within the given time frame is my Slightly Cracked Colonials which is a bit VSF - but not - and a bit Pulp - but not. I guess you could call it Victiorian Pulp without the Sci-Fi component. Though I am going to suggest it be called TRederring. Raise your hand if you have a clue! ;)
-
What mods do you use for different periods ? I was double checking the rules because I want to use them for medieval, (theyre so good I don’t want an inferior medieval ruleset) but the closing fire morale check makes less sense pre gunpowder. (Archery I guess but ya know..) I’m going to play test it as is, once I get my hyw English finished...
It’s a shame crusader don’t mod the rules for different periods, and keep the forum open. I love the rules, no stat lines, no save throws, but still a period feel. And a unit decrease effective ness as it take losses, which even most complicated games don’t mirror. Shame they’re not more popular and better supported. :)
-
Can't help with medieval - closest I have is an as yet unpainted Robin Hood setup courtesy, primarily, of Splintered Light Miniatures.
Going that far back is quite a stretch of the rules but I do think they could be adapted but it will take some careful thought. If you are working with early gun fire weapons, that shouldn't be too difficult but if you are pre-gun powder for the most part that will be a bit more of a challenge.
What I like best about the rules is that the rules can almost be ignored during game play in the sense that with the single two side chart in hand, you can play away and very rarely - if ever - need to consult the rulebook. New players pick them up very quickly and off we go.
In my opinion, the worse thing that ever happened to wargaming were the complex, "realistic" rules that essentially killed the fun of playing with toy soldiers. I was a bit guilty of that at one time but then realized the joy is in the play - the nice looking figures on a nice looking table getting moved around and occasionally knocked over (killed or wounded) and enjoying the camaraderie. Complex rules interfere, simple rules, like Rank and File, enhance the experience.
Don't get me wrong, I am fascinated by history and read a lot of it. And I do uniform research to the extant it can be done. But the ultimate goal is to be having fun because there is no way we are going to recreate warfare through gaming with miniatures. And, with all the reading of history, anyone who wants to is a worrisome sort - war is horrific, brutal, gore that diminishes peoples humanity. Wargaming is just that, a game. And add in a healthy dose of downright silliness and gets all the better. Laughter, endorphins, and all that.
Rank and File forever, say I! Unless something easier and just as flexible comes along that gives a better gaming experience. And, since I'm not looking, unlikely I will find such a nirvana.
-
I am going to suggest it be called TRederring. Raise your hand if you have a clue! ;)
The good Major General Tremorden?
-
vtsaogames, the very man himself. I fear the site is becoming ever less known with so many years since its last updates (2006 I think it was?). But still a great inspiration in its time!
-
You got me looking at my Rank & File PDF again. Looks like just what I need for a set of rules where the basic unit is a battalion, etc. I like Bloody Big Battles for grand tactical games, Rebels & Patriots for skirmishes.
Has me thinking of AWI mods: British infantry are shock infantry, lesser rebel militia start the game unsteady.
-
Has me thinking of AWI mods: British infantry are shock infantry, lesser rebel militia start the game unsteady.
I am not up to speed on AWI troop classifications but unsteady on top of the militia "green" morale class is a substantial penalty. Certainly not going to be around for long.
-
I'm thinking of the mob of militia that took to their heels at Camden with nary a shot fired.
Not all militia were the same. Some were partisans like Marion's or Sumters who could be relied upon to give some fight, and others were quite upset to find themselves facing regulars across an open field. Militia that had been compeld to cross state/province lines could be quite flighty.
Camden sees some 2,000 British rout some 3,000 badly led and deployed Rebels/Whigs. If you treat the militia just as poor troops the Crown forces would be in for a tough fight.
-
Another option for the mix is to use d6 for morale for the militia and a d8 for morale for the British - for Camden.
As I recall, only about half of the troops at Camden were militia, the other half were some pretty solid troops and stood toe-to-toe with the British until the militia running away exposed their flanks.
There is also the Elite option which can, if desired, allow more than one re-roll during the game but should limit to one re-roll for a unit in a given turn.
-
As I recall, only about half of the troops at Camden were militia, the other half were some pretty solid troops and stood toe-to-toe with the British until the militia running away exposed their flanks.
Right. Allowing free deployment should lead to a fairly tough game. The historical deployment should lead to a British victory. I use historical Camden to see if rules work fot the AWI. If the British lose something is wrong.
-
Looked at my Camden scenario, think I can handle flighty militia by just making large green units. 8 stand green units vs. 4 stand veteran and regular shock infantry...
Further tempted to import a concept from Loose Files & American Scramble. If friends of equal or better morale grade break within 6", go down a morale level (steady to unsteady to routed). Ignore lesser breeds breaking.
Well, I won't get to try this out until sometime in July when I go home...
-
"If friends of equal or better morale grade break within 6", go down a morale level (steady to unsteady to routed). Ignore lesser breeds breaking."
That's what we used to call "The Old Guard rule", break the Guard and the rest of the army runs away >:D
Guaranteed to honour Christopher Plummer's immortal line "....put every gun to them sir, every gun..."
We have played R&F for the 1st Carlist War and even with the most abject Spanish militias have not needed to use anything more detrimental than standard Green morale to reflect their poor performance.
I think if you want to create a Camden (I had to go and read the accounts) it would be best as a specific scenario rule; maybe force a morale test when enemy within firing range, or when unit is under fire or when adjacent unit takes a casualty, or any of the above. They may survive one roll.....
-
Well, I get your point about testing the rules with the scenario and by all means, keep on using it as you wish.
I do, however, quibble that it is an effective test of rules since, on any given day, either the dice will tumble into an outlier result or, in the real history, the militia could have performed quite well - which on rare occasions it did, witness King's Mountain: exactly one regular on the field on the British side and not one on the Patriotic side. Camden could have been a draw or maybe even a very minor Patriot victory - I have no illusions about it being a strategic victory. So, always expecting an historical result of a rule set seems a very slippery slope to travel. Of course, I have a rather different criteria, history aside, and that is: are the rules fun to play. Simple goal. Rank and File, for me, get there. In a hurry. ;)
-
King's Mountain featured the "over the mountain men". These were a tougher breed than standard militia. They lived on the frontier and many had fought Indians. Militia raised in safer areas might be less likely to have heard shots fired in anger. Other AWI rules sets I've worked with differentiate between standard militia and partisans, like Marion's or Sumter's bands. A big feature for militia is leadership. Charismatic leaders like Stark or Daniel Morgan could make a big difference. One easy way to show this with Rank & File might be smaller units vs large ones. I suspect one large green unit is easier to beat than two smaller ones.
As for Camden as a test: I was working on home brewed rules some years back. The elite British forces on the right went forward and were shot to ribons by the Whig militia. That was a clue that something was badly wrong with my rules. I seek the grail; fun, easy rules that give a fairly historical result. And a winning lottery ticket.
The morale idea imported from Loose Files does give a reason to keep elite troops in reserve. They remain steady when the rest of the force has gone to pieces. It also gives a reason to use Daniel Morgan's deployment of militia up front. The Continentals ignore the flight of the militia.
-
The ACW expansion to R&F extends the rules around leaders and recommends their use for other eras also (the book provides probably the best simple +/- analysis of ACW leaders around).
Leaders can directly influence units by attachment or indirectly by command radii. The method of influence can be by factors or re-rolls. The simple system recognises and differentiates leader's abilities and charisma.
The "Old Guard" morale rule is a good one and I have seen it used for rules in all eras, it just falls foul of the "law of unintended circumstances" when used by certain types of players.
-
The ACW expansion to R&F extends the rules around leaders and recommends their use for other eras also...
The "Old Guard" morale rule is a good one and I have seen it used for rules in all eras, it just falls foul of the "law of unintended circumstances" when used by certain types of players.
I should get the ACW expansion. Certain types of players... cheese merchants, perhaps? I liked that rule in Loose Files. How do cheesy players exploit the rule? Perhaps better not to know...