Sharp Practice and Muskets & Tomahawks in the AWI

[TacticalPainter]

I played games set during the AWI using both rule sets last year and so thought I would set down my impressions in what turned into a fairly lengthy blog post. This is a comparison between the two rule sets to see how well each does in handling the period. No doubt each provides a good game, but not the same history lesson. The full article is here https://thetacticalpainter.blogspot.com/2022/01/using-sharp-practice-and-muskets.html

[SteveBurt]

Very nice analysis. I played the same scenario with both rules a while ago. Both gave a good game, but SP took quite a bit longer. You are quite correct though that SP is more driven by history

[BeneathALeadMountain]

Thank you for this, I’m slowly building up my AWI forces and whilst I have SP I have also considered M&T (I have the first ed) as my forces will be relatively small (not the large units, or representations there of, that most seem to aim for in AWI).

BALM

[Grumpy Gnome]

An excellent comparison, thank you for taking the time to write and share that.

[Pan Marek]

I too found the comparison excellent.  And disconcerting, as I've played M&T virtually since it came out, and have enjoyed all the games.  Now, I'm wondering about the SP approach using a leader, as opposed to unit, driven approach.
Imagine years of happy gaming and never once questioning the "all units of X type get to perform an action"!  Now I will!

M&T2 has changed some things.  I've only played it 3 times, due to the pandemic.   I'm still not so sure I like the idea of getting to activate (mess with) the other side's troops.  Sure its "friction", but it's mighty gamey to me.  One should be able to screw up one's tactics on one's own.

But I can also see that pulling a card per leader, as opposed to multiple units, could make games quite slow.  Unless, of course,
each leader controls multiple units. 

In the end, its clear that Tactical Painter is correct.  SP's mechanic is closer to how troops are moved in reality.  He's sold me on at least buying the set to see how they play out, especially in regards to length of game.

[TacticalPainter]

I too found the comparison excellent.  And disconcerting, as I've played M&T virtually since it came out, and have enjoyed all the games.  Now, I'm wondering about the SP approach using a leader, as opposed to unit, driven approach.
Imagine years of happy gaming and never once questioning the "all units of X type get to perform an action"!  Now I will!

M&T2 has changed some things.  I've only played it 3 times, due to the pandemic.   I'm still not so sure I like the idea of getting to activate (mess with) the other side's troops.  Sure its "friction", but it's mighty gamey to me.  One should be able to screw up one's tactics on one's own.

But I can also see that pulling a card per leader, as opposed to multiple units, could make games quite slow.  Unless, of course,
each leader controls multiple units. 

In the end, its clear that Tactical Painter is correct.  SP's mechanic is closer to how troops are moved in reality.  He's sold me on at least buying the set to see how they play out, especially in regards to length of game.

I’m not convinced having an enemy card in your hand bears any real relationship to ‘friction’. If we go to Clausewitz all he says is that even the simple things are difficult and these all accumulate. The simple things like walking across a field, sending a message, or communicating an order and having its intentions clearly understood can all become more difficult than they appear. His comparison with walking through water is a good one - it’s walking, that’s simple, but, it’s through water, that’s difficult. As you say each player should be free to screw up their own tactics. To me it’s a pure game mechanic. Not a bad one, per se, just not an appropriate one for the level of warfare the rules purport to portray.

M&T2 games are often shorter, I think they are designed that way, with small 4x4 tables and little manoeuvre before contact.

[Pan Marek]

Tactical- I suppose you're right.  But someone playing a card to force me to use a unit at that time causes ME friction!
But in the end, you've made good case for M&T's gaminess.   A fault that's even more pronounced in the same company's SAGA game. 

[TacticalPainter]

Tactical- I suppose you're right.  But someone playing a card to force me to use a unit at that time causes ME friction!
But in the end, you've made good case for M&T's gaminess.   A fault that's even more pronounced in the same company's SAGA game.

Indeed. Played SAGA twice and that was more than enough for me. I can see the appeal as a game but can’t see the appeal as a wargame about the medieval period. I play miniatures because I like the immersive nature of a table with terrain and miniatures but SAGA manages to break that immersion every time you start to contemplate the battle board and dice which, of course, is every single turn.

[mluther]

Very enlightening post.  I personally liked the original edition of SP with the Blinds.  But as with most TFL rules, it is easy to modify and add a scenario specific effect.  For instance, we do a lot of AWI games with Brit Lights being rated as Aggressive.  Native troops have the old 'Vamoose; ability from SP 1-this is especially handy with 2nd Seminole War games.
Another great blog post!
Mark

[Grumpy Gnome]

Indeed. Played SAGA twice and that was more than enough for me. I can see the appeal as a game but can’t see the appeal as a wargame about the medieval period. I play miniatures because I like the immersive nature of a table with terrain and miniatures but SAGA manages to break that immersion every time you start to contemplate the battle board and dice which, of course, is every single turn.

That is exactly what bothered Mrs. GG and I when we played Saga. We enjoyed the game well enough but we’re not immersed.

[Clawed_Greengrass]

"But someone playing a card to force me to use a unit at that time causes ME friction!"

SP does not "Force" any unit to activate at a given moment. Save the flag cards and interupt play when you feel it's the right time 

[Mindenbrush]

I have played M&T 1st edition for many years as it does support multiplayer games.
Not had chance to play the 2nd edition as I have not worked out how to handle the “card” issue.

Would Sharp Practice work with multiple players?

[FlyXwire]

Mindenbrush has brought up the reason M&T 1st edition has been so successful in my area, the class-based card activation allows for multiple players to be pushing troops at the same time.

2nd edition M&T very much went the route of SP - towards a 1 vs. 1 centralized, decision-making format.

M&T 1 adapts for multiple gamers to team up on a side (for better or worse , enabling the dynamics of an actual [live] Chain of Command).  Decision-making can therefore become more decentralized, and this is where command Friction is automatically embedded into games played in this style or at this level (the dynamics of command friction can occur automatically within each player team, without needing game mechanics to do so).

[Patrice]

Thanks for the link to the article. And that's an interesting thread, too.

[Pan Marek]

Clawed-

I meant M&T2.  I should have been more clear.