Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of the Big Battalions => Topic started by: Norm on May 07, 2021, 03:11:31 PM
-
Trying out a set of fast play ACW rules .... Bonnie Blue Flag, using just a brigade per side as per the intro scenario. The other scenario in the book is Port Republic, which has two brigades per side.
I have blogged an article about mechanics and discuss unit footprint and table size.
Link
http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2021/05/bonnie-blue-flag-acw-rules.html
-
Another interesting review. Thanks Norm.
-
Yeah, thanks! I've played them too, and we used 15mm minis with no range modifications. It worked out just fine.
-
Interesting review thanks chap
-
Damn, Norm. You got me. Now I'll have to buy a copy of these rules.
-
Norm,
Thanks for the report on these rules! These comments strike a common chord with me atm too -
The combat twist that changes process focus from typically the attacker inflicting hits to one where the perspective is shifted to being target centric by having the target unit test for responses to attack is a refreshing take.
I am looking for a set of rules that will allow me to use 1 - 3 brigades per side on a table, for say a total of 8 or so regiments in play, something that will fit in with my 'Pocket Armies' approach and my initial contact with rules have me wanting to explore this further.
-
Damn, Norm. You got me. Now I'll have to buy a copy of these rules.
Edit:
OK, ordered.
Two possibilities: 15mm with 6" frontage, halve all distances. Do this for most games.
15mm with double ranks, 12" frontage, 72 figures per regiment. It would take almost all of my collection to play the first scenario. But it would look good.
-
72 figure regiments would look spectacular. There is a formation in the game called ‘Supported Line’, which takes a 6 base unit and ranks them 3 bases wide by 2 bases deep, compared to standard line, which is just 6 bases wide.
For scenario 1, I used 3 x 50mm bases per unit and kept distances.
-
They are indeed a great set of rules with some novel mechanisms.
As a member of The League of Gentleman Wargamers, which includes both authors, I've played these rules several times and enjoyed the experience every time. The group likes them because they are very quick and easy to pick up, which is very useful for a group that only meets three weekends a year; they provide for fast, interesting play that gets very large 'mini-campaign' games (involving thousands of minis on 400+ square feet of table space, with 12 - 15 players) in the two days of gaming.
I don't have any shots of the ACW games but, we played this Napoleonic game using a variant (pic shows just two of the four tables - This was Dresden 1813), and any set of rules that can easily cope with games this size gets my recommendation:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_nfmKPObDqw/XRuYz2ERmKI/AAAAAAAANqs/t4udcGL-B445lUhO-HHRien7fOI--E5UwCLcBGAs/s640/IMG_2691.JPG)
-
I like the sound of BBF and would really like to give it a go.
The whole idea of rolling percentiles to see how units deal with being fired on or melee'd seems similar to a set of rules by Donald Featherstone that I picked up last year, as I started to think about getting back into wargaming.
What happened was, I remembered Donald Featherstone's name from his books in my school library, amazon'd him, and came across his book on the American Revolutionary War. It has rules in it that sound a lot like these.
For some reason this approach sounds really appealing compared to Black Powder. But I haven't actually tried either yet so I'll have to see how it goes in play!
-
Dice are percentile but, these rules are not 'Old School': They are 'Modern'.
Kev and Peter are, despite their considerable age (ha, ha, guys), very much 'New Age Gamers', though only Peter sports a 'New Age' beard.
I hope Peter doesn't read this, when it comes to 'New Age' facial hair, he might wish to .....
Kev, on the other hand, will probably be wetting himself.
-
I have played another 2 games since and am increasingly liking the set. Lovely set-up above and interesting to see the 'other end' of the game scale that the rules can cover.
-
I received my copy yesterday from On Military Matters here in the US.
I do have a few questions still after a quick reading (is there an FAQ link I wonder too)? -
In the Under Fire Failure Results Table (the targeted unit's player is testing - correct?)
Under this table are two charts for Infantry reactions, the 1st (for Inf. Stationary or Moving Back), and the 2nd (for Inf. Advancing). My question - this moving status seems based on the targeted infantry unit, which I'm assuming is the non-firing (non-phasing player).....does this mean that players need to track each units moving action from one phase and/or turn to another (with markers to keep things straight)?
-
Another question?
The rules state that turn initiative determines which side goes first, and then each player will roll for their commanders+mods, with the highest score having the initiative.
Does this mean that the entire side which has the highest scoring commander activates together, or does a single player with the highest scoring commander begin activating his units first, and then the turn sequence phasing back and forth to each player based on their commander initiative rolls?
Tied to this question is the Order Of Battle for the 2nd included scenario Port Republic - which includes T. Jackson on the board in addition to Brig-Gen. Winder (for the Stonewall brigade). Would commander Jackson be rolling for [side] initiative too, or would only the Brigade Generals be rolling for the initiative of their brigades (to gain initiative for their whole side/or for each Brigade)?
-
I received my copy yesterday from On Military Matters here in the US.
I do have a few questions still after a quick reading (is there an FAQ link I wonder too)? -
In the Under Fire Failure Results Table (the targeted unit's player is testing - correct?)
Under this table are two charts for Infantry reactions, the 1st (for Inf. Stationary or Moving Back), and the 2nd (for Inf. Advancing). My question - this moving status seems based on the targeted infantry unit, which I'm assuming is the non-firing (non-phasing player).....does this mean that players need to track each units moving action from one phase and/or turn to another (with markers to keep things straight)?
I play that the target unit tests.
I marked units that advanced.
-
Norm,
Would you think the tracking needs to follow into the next turn also - or 'remove all movement markers from units' at the end of the turn?
-
Another question?
The rules state that turn initiative determines which side goes first, and then each player will roll for their commanders+mods, with the highest score having the initiative.
Does this mean that the entire side which has the highest scoring commander activates together, or does a single player with the highest scoring commander begin activating his units first, and then the turn sequence phasing back and forth to each player based on their commander initiative rolls?
Tied to this question is the Order Of Battle for the 2nd included scenario Port Republic - which includes T. Jackson on the board in addition to Brig-Gen. Winder (for the Stonewall brigade). Would commander Jackson be rolling for [side] initiative too, or would only the Brigade Generals be rolling for the initiative of their brigades (to gain initiative for their whole side/or for each Brigade)?
If a side has more than one brigade, I applied the Commanders rule from page 28, so that a divisional commander is on the table. At this point I assumed that the senior commander on the table uses his current attrition value to modify the initiative die roll.
A few times the system talks about doing things to meet the historical situation IF a historical scenario is being played, so I think scenario 2 overrides the the above.
For scenario 2, clearly the designer wants the presence of Jackson to be a factor of advantage over the Union, so for the Union, I ignored the divisional commander rule, since there isn’t one in the order of battle and instead, when initiative was rolled, I allowed the Union to use their best leader at that moment (i.e the one with the most attritional points left) to modify the initiative.
I think you could activate the divisional commander rule if you wanted to show structure and just represent the Union divisional commander with a base that has 2 attrition points, the same as a replacement leader would have.
-
Norm,
Would you think the tracking needs to follow into the next turn also - or 'remove all movement markers from units' at the end of the turn?
I think the tracking would need to stay with the unit until such time that the unit in it’s next movement phase does not ‘advance’.
-
I think your assumptions make good sense.
The procedure for determining initiative isn't too clear (perhaps complicated by moving from a 1 vs. 1 match system [a player per brigade facing the same] , to multiplayer game mechanics).
Maybe the author will define these.
-
hello guys, glad these rules are discussed. I think I read somewhere that there are "additional" rules regarding attrition. only I can't remember where I would have read this. I still vaguely remember that a commander could replenish his attrition points. only I no longer know how it worked. anyone any idea about that?
-
There isn't a great on the web, or at least that I can find. Brigade Commanders can have their Attrition points increased by a divisional commander handing over some of his .... is that what you are referring to?
-
If a side has more than one brigade... I allowed the Union to use their best leader at that moment (i.e the one with the most attritional points left) to modify the initiative.
Minor quibble: considering the amount of fuss about seniority when ranks were the same, I should think one of the Union comanders (determined by dice before the game starts) should be declared senior and his attrition points used. Allowing them to shift command back and forth sounds more like love children rather than jealous officers.
Got my rules recently and they look good.
-
Minor quibble: considering the amount of fuss about seniority when ranks were the same, I should think one of the Union comanders (determined by dice before the game starts) should be declared senior and his attrition points used. Allowing them to shift command back and forth sounds more like love children rather than jealous officers.
Got my rules recently and they look good.
That seems just as fair as any other way. That '6' Value for the Confederate Divisional Commander is pretty much going to ensure Initiative rests with the Confederates, at least for the first part of the game. The rule book does give a very good first impression, I would like more of my sets to look like this.
-
That seems just as fair as any other way. That '6' Value for the Confederate Divisional Commander is pretty much going to ensure Initiative rests with the Confederates, at least for the first part of the game. The rule book does give a very good first impression, I would like more of my sets to look like this.
I've been thinking the same thing, but even just with a couple opposing brigades on a side - one brigade hangs back, and it's commander detailed to keep his attrition points firm for winning initiative rolls (aka - game tactics, tactics). ;)
It is a beautiful-looking ruleset, and I liked the results vs. process mechanics as soon as you described them.
-
Hi, Thanks Norm for the positive review of Bonnie Blue Flag on your blog and for taking the time to answer the rules queries that have been posted.
If I could just clarify the Initiative question.
Initiative is rolled for at the beginning of each new turn with each side using the current attrition level of their senior commander on the field. In the case of the Port Republic scenario in the rules this would be Jackson for the confederate player and Tyler for the Union player as Tyler was in overall command of the Union forces although of equal rank to Carrol.
Swordsman I think the article you are referring to is the one I wrote for Charles Grants Wargammers Annual 2018 called wagons Roll. It explains the mechanism I devised for one of the large weekend games mentioned by olicana and involved the resupply of attrition to players via a system of supply depots, railroads and wagons with the risk of these valuable assets being captured by roving enemy cavalry.
Hope the above has been of help.
Kevin
-
Thanks Kevin - enjoying the rules thank you.
-
thank you very much for the info Kevin. You have no idea how much time I spent looking for that article in various magazines while having it on hand. The rule regarding is a nice addition. Thanks.
-
Hi Kevin. Just wondering, for those who want to make their own scenarios, how many troops a base of onfantry or cavalry shpould represent? A base of artillery is obviously a section of 2 guns. I'm thinking of the opening infantry fight on McPherson's Ridge, July 1, 1863.
Edit: my guess is 50-60 troops per base?
-
Ordered the rules yesterday after the discussion on this thread, looking forward to them, does anyone have a link to the FPW amendments mentioned on the Edinburgh Wargames site?
Clive
-
My suggestions (off the top of my head) for FPW: Chassepot as small arms, Needle gun as carbines. French artillery as smoothbores, Krupp guns as rifled guns. French units 6 bases, Prussians 8 bases. More Prussians, more artillery. Cavalry does not dismount.
-
Hi Vtsaogames. As a guideline for historical scenarios a base represents 40 to 50 men.
-
Thank you. I put together an OB for McPherson's Ridge based on the scenario in Summer Storm by Brad Butkovichhttps://www.wargamevault.com/product/171550/Summer-Storm-Regimental-Wargame-Scenarios-For-the-Battle-of-Gettysburg (https://www.wargamevault.com/product/171550/Summer-Storm-Regimental-Wargame-Scenarios-For-the-Battle-of-Gettysburg)
Add in a few of the additional rules and presto.
It will have to wait until I can play it, but it looks like s number of small veteran units should be able to thump a larger force of green units in large regiments. I think that's right.
-
Question: there's a +5 modifier for being fired on by troops in line. I presume that doesn't include a supported line, since less small arms are firing.
-
yes that is correct, +5 modifier for line firing only.
-
Looking at the tables for failing under fire or in melee, it becomes apparent that raw units will suffer worse than experienced or veteran units. They have a greater chance of failing tests in the first place. But they roll 1D6, experienced roll 2D6 and veterans roll 3D6. The results in the lower 6 of the tables are more severe. Raw units will run further from fire, and stand a 50/50 chance of surrendering if beaten in melee. Experienced troops have a 3 in 36 chance of surrendering, veterans a 1 in 216 chance.
Rather ingenious for such a simple set of rules.