M&T2 for bigger battles?

[traveller]

I am quite impressed by the Muskets & Tomahawks 2 ruleset after playing a first game. It is always a pain to learn a new set of rules but this one seems quite solid and with the (hopefully) coming additional supplements for other conflicts it could be THE ruleset for many conflicts. Has anyone also tried this for bigger battles? My thought would be to just increase the max size of units but apart from that using the same mechanics? Grateful for any comments or experiences!

[Pan Marek]

I've played M&T 1 alot.  It can handle fairly large amounts of figures.  How many is somewhat restricted by the figures being individually based.  I wouldn't attempt Saratoga or Plains of Abraham with it.   Stony Point maybe.

But M&T 2 is another matter.   I've read it through once, and its definitely more fiddly than the first addition.  Each side having a separate hand, with cards in the hand potentially from BOTH sides, might make larger battles too confusing.

But I don't know yet.  The rules came out just as the pandemic hit, and I've yet to play them.   There are a couple reviews out there,  and an AAR.   Also, youtube videos on how to play.   My feeling is you need to play a bunch of small scenarios to get a feel first.

[Battle Brush Sigur]

They certainly didn't have a good point in time to release the thing. Hope it does well and that the Nappy supplement is out soon! Depending on when that is I'll pick up the rules and give it a go.

[traveller]

Thanks for your comments. I also liked the card mechanics in M&T1 better so we used the same rules when we played M&T2. In bigger battles I would have a larger number of primarily the regular troops(increasing the max of 12 figs to 20-24 per unit)which are in close order, I therefore hope it would work with having them based four per base since they anyway would stay in close order during the whole game.

[SteveBurt]

The new mechanics in M&T v2 work very well. The Command Points add a lot - sometimes it is better to have enemy cards in your hand because you get command points for playing them, which can be used to do the one critical thing you need to do.
I wouldn't say it is more fiddly than v1 - about the same; the d10 system is also much better than the d6 one in v1, and they fixed the broken melee mechanics in v1.

[FlyXwire]

Traveller,

I also played and dabbled a lot with the v.1 rules, and adapted the system to do regimental battles.

Creating a ground scale that will define your typical regimental frontages, and thereby inform your weapon ranges is something you might first want to consider.

A rough rule of thumb that can illuminate many scaling issues in this era of black powder weaponry - typical smoothbore muskets wouldn't be effectively firing much farther than the width of an average battalion's battleline.  So game conversions expanding the ratio for figures/stand effectives upwards, should be scaled to the short range of the era's musketry (and mesh with the ground scale) - this will also get the battlelines appropriately close enough for cold steel to be an effective consideration.   

[blacksoilbill]

I'm doing M&T in 15mm at the moment. Two figures to a base, and each base counts as one figure for the rules. So I've got double the number of figures on the table.

As for the v.1 or v.2 activation mechanics, I far prefer v.2. There's much more player agency, with choosing cards to play and using command points rather than just relying on the flip of the card to determine what goes next.

[traveller]

Thanks all for the good input. I guess I have to do some tests to get a feel for how a bigger battle could work 

[Pan Marek]

After you play a couple of M&T 2 games, come back and tell us what you think.

[traveller]

After you play a couple of M&T 2 games, come back and tell us what you think.

Will do! Now back to the paint desk