nelly114mk2 | 04 Apr 2007 3:44 a.m. PST |
anyone played these rules yet? got a copy from ebay on spec so to speak, cos they looked interesting. |
Spiraluk | 04 Apr 2007 4:37 a.m. PST |
They were played in a demo game at Crusade 2007, and from what I saw they looked like a good set. They managed to get in a couple of games rather than spending all day playing half a game which is what often happens on demo games :o) |
royaleddy | 04 Apr 2007 4:45 a.m. PST |
we played one game and would'nt play them again. the person who bought them is putting into the next bring and buy. the rules start with army lists (odd) and have little in the way of examples. multi-unit melee, possible or not? a couple of points about the game that i recall. theres only 3 orders you can give – attack, hold and retire. no simple move or support. you want to switch cavalry from one flank to the other? tough! then theres the hits per stand malarky. i'm sure this sounded jolly in theory. on the table it ain't. you have a 5 stand austrian inf reg, i have a 3 stand prussian. i need 5 hits to hurt you, you need 3. an austrian army has a built-in advantage over a prussian one. and check out what 1 HPS does – you move 1 inch less and appear to rally straight away next turn. as i recall you need 4 HPS to kill a stand (thats 20 hits for your austrians). we played 3 hours and precisely one stand of cavalry was killed. every turn i had a 24 pdr shooting at some troops on a hill and did absolutely nothing. one of the players knows a lot about the period and he said the minden scenario was all wrong. the setup suggested the game would consist of one cavalry charge. nice pics though. sorry to be so negative. eye candy does not good rules make. for the period i use king of the battlefield which is much better. |
Thistledo | 04 Apr 2007 8:12 a.m. PST |
Potatoe, King of the Battlefield is my favourite set of rules for this period. Although I have been playing them since they were published there is one rule interpretation I am still curious about. How do you deal with the flank attack rule? The Rules say make an emergency command test. If successful you can turn to face. For a line to turn to face would make the unit into a column. This may be the intention but doesn't feel right. We have added a house rule that one stand turns to face, representing a refused flank. It still counts the minus for flank attack but doesn't take the automatic hit.If the unit survives the melee the unit would have to reform in order to move. |
Der Alte Fritz | 04 Apr 2007 9:42 a.m. PST |
Why not try out the new Batailles de l'Ancien Regime (BAR) by Bill Protz. Easy to learn, thoroughly play tested, visually spectacular and fun to play. The rules allow correct historical tactics and outcomes and does not come with any of the frustrations mentioned above. [Blatant thread hijacking here – sorry] |
Garde de Paris | 04 Apr 2007 10:59 a.m. PST |
Hello, Alte Fritz: How does one get to Bill Protz about the new Batailles de l'Ancien Regime rules? By the way, e-bay in the 15mm wargame section shows new listing of Hungarian grenadier, 7 Years War by Old Glory, but of a unit with blue tight breeches and red facings. I don't know of any such Hungarian unit. Should be all red or all sky blue. Does anyone know of such a unit in fact? Further, down the page, a Hugarian line unit is properly painted in dark blue facings and tight breeches, but the figures are Old Glory Prussians! Odd. GdeP |
royaleddy | 04 Apr 2007 11:17 a.m. PST |
Thistledo. we call it an emergency change of face. if the unit passes the test it meets the flanking attacker in line. if the attacker is cavalry hitting inf we give the inf an option of forming square. (which we give a plus vs cav) |
ge2002bill | 04 Apr 2007 12:56 p.m. PST |
To obtain Batailles de l'Ancien Régime 1740-1763 (BAR) write to me off list at wprotz@msn.com PayPal is coming in a week or three. Meanwhile we can do things the old fashioned way as I've done them since the 1980s for other publications and when I was editor of the Seven Years' War Assn. Journal. Cheers, Bill Protz |
Thistledo2 | 04 Apr 2007 2:37 p.m. PST |
Potatoe. Meeting the flanking unit in line suggests you wheel to meet the attacker? This is not the wording in the rule which says change of face. Hence my confusion over what the designer intended. I personally don't like the forming square option, as that feels too napoleonic and I have not read of any battalions caught in the flank forming square in the SYW. It also specifically forbids emergency squares to be formed in the rules. Forming square has to be done in the movement phase, not as a last minute reponse to a flank attack. Thanks for responding though. The rules are very clear otherwise, and have the best cavalry vs cavalry melee rules I've come across. I have Prussian and Austrian armies but have also succesfully used the rules for the Jacobite Rebellion and am currently building up an Ottoman army to take on the Austrians. |
Keef44 | 06 Feb 2008 10:25 a.m. PST |
Recently played a game of Minden Rose with the author (complete coincidence – he lives nearby and we are both on the Old School Wargaming Yahoo Group). Found them straightforward and very enjoyable. Casualties mounted steadily and a result was soon achieved. Multi unit melees are of course possible. Moving units from one flank to the other? Interesting point which hasn't arisen in my limited experience. But I would think attack orders would cover that – as long as the units are moving toward the enemy (even if on the other flank). |
Yogah of Yag | 06 Feb 2008 11:34 a.m. PST |
ge2002bill: Is there any remote chance your BAR will be available via PDF? (I typically try to buy PDF's since they are on average somewhat cheaper in the electronic formatting.) Is there a thread here that delves into the "crunch", or can a site that discusses some of the features be found? |
Yogah of Yag | 06 Feb 2008 12:10 p.m. PST |
Addendum: I read your User Notes for BAR. It appears your rules require cards(!). I don't believe I've ever heard of any wargaming rules that requires playing-cards. Very novel! |
Keef44 | 06 Feb 2008 1:31 p.m. PST |
Alte Fritz – enjoy your site and your contributions to many a discussion on the SYW. But plugging your rules every time a rule question comes up is getting bit wearing – I've encountered it several times in the last few months. Saying sorry implies a resolve not to do the same thing again! |
Der Alte Fritz | 06 Feb 2008 3:15 p.m. PST |
Keef44: they are not my rules. So let's set the record straight on that score. I just enjoy playing them. Thistledo mentioned another set of rules so I thought it fair to plug a set that I like. I get no monetary benefit from the rules. This seems to be a fairly common practice on TMP (see the Napoleonic and ACW boards for many examples), so I was merely going with the flow. I will try to keep your comments in mind in the future and limit such comments, but I can't promise anything. Fair enough? |
Jeff of SaxeBearstein | 06 Feb 2008 7:29 p.m. PST |
Keef44, I'll also come to Der Alte Fritz' defense. Plugging rules that we like is quite common on TMP threads. Now I've never played either BAR or King of the Battlefield . . . and I had not even heard of the Minden Rose rules (which is why I started reading this thread). One of the ways in which we learn about rules is in how they compare with others. -- Jeff
|
Der Alte Fritz | 06 Feb 2008 8:50 p.m. PST |
The more rules in the SYW period, the better. It helps to attract new gamers to the genre. |
Keef44 | 07 Feb 2008 11:32 a.m. PST |
I stand corrected – apologies to Alte Fritz. It must be that Mr Protz fellow who's been winding me up of late. My point would be that there's a difference between advocating rules you like and plugging a product you are trying to sell at every opportunity. |
Keef44 | 08 Feb 2008 4:21 p.m. PST |
Returning to the subject of the Minden Rose rules – 4KingShaw, why do Austrian battalions have to have 5 stands and Prussian 3? Nothing in the rules specifies this. Where is the evidence that Austrian battalions were over 50% stronger than Prussian ones? On the other hand, if a 1000 strong battalion meets a 600 strong one, I think they would normally win regardless of which one was Austrian or Prussian. |
docdennis1968 | 08 Feb 2008 5:15 p.m. PST |
Keef44 The 1000 strong Austrian Btn comes from later napoleonic paper strengths that were 1st put forward in Column Line and Square rules back in the 50s. They seldom actully reached this number in the napoleonic times and certainly were not that big in SYW actions. Some things get started and never completely go away. The huge Austrian Btn concept is one of them! The same rules called for tiny 20 casting Russian Btns and that has not been totally discarded either in some rules. In truth, most Btns were of similiar size in most armies of the SYW! And by the way the big btn BAR system is not for everybody for sure, but you get to play with all your toys and it looks great. Not the most sophisticated reason to prefer those rules, but I am just too old to care about most of the other stuff anyway!! |
Keef44 | 09 Feb 2008 2:55 a.m. PST |
"You get to play with all your toys and it looks great. Not the most sophisticated reason to prefer those rules, but I am just too old to care about most of the other stuff anyway!!" Amen to that. Thanks for the reply. |
Flick40 | 24 Oct 2014 1:38 p.m. PST |
I know the thread is old, as are the rules but we just started playing these rules, we like them but have added a few house rules to give additional flavor. We know the intent of the original rules was for fast play/simplicity so our additions keep this in mind. I see the Yahoo group is dead and the Emperor Press website gone so support is basically non existent, thus my posting here. I don't know where the 5 stand vs 3 stand argument comes from, other than through the course of the game, but we have all battalions at 4 stands at game start. If someone wants to simulate the larger Austrian battalions then upgrade them to B class. It gives them a bonus without distorting the die throw in shooting etc. The same can be said for any under-strength battalions, lower them to D class. We are debating allowing disordered units provide support in melee, but can for morale purposes. I'm on the not allow for melee side of the fence. Support being a big part of the game we are wondering if a support unit should be allowed to pursue since it can follow-up and fall back with the primary melee unit. I think no because the unit isn't actually involved in the melee. We also limit horse pursuits to 2 and foot to 1. No squares, which removes the +2 in melee for horse vs foot not in square and makes horse think twice about charging foot frontally. No gun batteries over 3 guns and they can not shoot at the same target. Artillery should cause some morale tests and the occasional stand loss, not wipe out units. Lt Horse move 10 segments (10" in 15mm) and their random move 6 segments +d6 throw. Horse get +2 segments in column with foot and guns +1 segment. Prussian A,B,C with other nationalities A,B class troops can oblique at no penalty, all others become disordered. I know these rules aren't for everyone and haters gonna hate but those are the changes we have added so far and work for us without destroying the core rules. If anyone else uses the rules I would be interested in your changes/thoughts. Joe |