"Latest installment of my 10mm Napoleonic game..." Topic

Howdy all!

Just wanted to let everyone know that I finally posted the latest installment in my 10mm Napoleonic game, the battle of Aroldo Valley… there is some VERY interesting redeployment of the forces and some excellent attacks and counter-attacks in the latest update… the battle has a very realistic flow to it! So please come on by and give it a look…

The layout and participants of the battle:

link

Part 1 of the battle report:

link

Part 2 of the battle report:

link

NEW!! Part 3 of the battle report!

link

And please, share any feedback! Are the photos easy to follow? Are the reports clearly written? Is it simply too much and not needed? Is it fun to read? Please, any comments or suggestions welcome!

And Part 4 will come up in the next day or two, along with a review of the new Osprey book "Armies of the Napoleonic War!"

Thanks for coming by!

Very nice reading.Very fun.
The photos, are not easy to follow.very far? perhaps?
I enjoy very much.

Absolutely Fabulous. The figures, landscape, and game itself are outstanding. It is very inspiring. Thanks.

Nice work as usual Ash. Very inspiring stuff. I'm always keen to pics or your terrain and scenics and the boys in action. Keep up the excellent work.

David
wardepot.blogspot.com
6to20painting.blogspot.com

That looks a great set up you have.

hussarbob1746.webs.com

Great report and game! The pictures really give a good feel for 10mm Nappy gaming

As an comment (and since you asked) I do think that, with elite infantry in hard cover, do not have a 15% chance of being shaken by skirmishers – maybe a 5% chance (at most)

Hey all!

Thanks for the kind comments!

Fred, at the moment I have added a bit more to the lights rules but I am still working on them…

Here, a question for everyone:

Light infantry coming into contact range with artillery. What should happen?

Right now the infantry has a decent chance of killing the crews and knocking out the pieces, whereas the artillery has some chance of forcing the light infantry back in disarray. Ruleswise both sides roll a d6, lights add +2. If lights roll higher half the artillery pieces are knocked out. If artillery wins, they force the lights back into the parent brigade which then has to take Stand! tests. Does this sound acceptable?

Anyway… thanks all for looking and if you have ANY suggestions for making it more clear or understandable please let me know!

Thanks!

Well, if you end up having a lot of modifiers, you could always switch to a 2D6 roll instead of a D6. But if there are only a few, and +2 is the highest modifier a unit will ever have (for being elite and being in cover), then it isn't neccessary. Personally, I'd leave it so that they are impossible to shake. That probably would be the likely result of some skirmishers firing at an elite unit with plenty of cover. They wouldn't be too worried.

As others have said, you could also do on a roll of 1, they roll another D6, then on a 1-3 or 1-2 on the second D6 they fail. Or, you could give +1 to the roll for cover, but instead of Elite giving another +1, it allows you to roll 2 dice and take the highest. That makes it extemely unlikely that they will fail, but still possible. But that also makes them a bit better when not in cover, as instead of passing on a 2+, (assuming you normally need 3+ and they currently get +1 for being elite) they'd roll 2D6 and only fail if neither is 3+. So I think that's an 89% chance to pass instead of 83%.

When in cover, right now they pass automatically. If you kept +1 for cover, but 2D6 and take highest for elite, you'd only fail about 3% of the time. But you could accomplish the same thing by saying if they roll a 1, roll again and on another 1 they fail.

Anyway, the rules sound interesting and I'd be interested in hearing more about them. And your game looks great! Thank you for posting the write-ups.

Hey!

Here is an old post that outlined a LITTLE bit about the basic rules… I'll post more once I've finished this test and gotten the light infantry working right in all situations…

link

Any input on how effective skirmishers were versus artillery is always welcome!

Okay, another question!

So in the game, there are some french troops in a nice stone wall position…

picture

They have held there the whole game, coming under murderous cannister fire from some nearby British guns that they could not push away, and now under fire from nearby British troops. However, they have done nicely behind their thick stone walls!

However, their commander just failed his test to get his orders, and so made up his own… and rolled a "Fall Back" command. Now, it took a pair of ones to get that result, but here is the question:

If a commander, the majority of whose brigade is in hard cover (behind stone walls or in buildings) fails to understand his commands and rolls a "Fall Back" move, should he be able to ignore that roll and simply hold? Or should he actually fall back, representing a commander simply making a poor tactical decision for whatever reason (thinks he is about to be surrounded and cut off or misreads an order or sees an "opportunity" to take dramatic action elsewhere…)

On one hand, I think he should be able to ignore the order, because it sucks to have an officer abandon a really solid position on your flank. On the other hand, there are a bunch of reasons an officer MIGHT leave a position.

In fact, what if that officer gets a "charge" order, thus making his men go storming out from behind the walls to attack? Should he be able to ignore that?

Opinions more than welcome!

I would avoid special rules for unlikely situation at all cost. So in this case, he falls back. The military judge can ask him, why he did it.

hold as default I reckon. Excellent AAR too, you should start doing 6mm…

I agree with Decebalus. The fewer special rules for special circumstances, the better. And there could be any number of reasons why the battalion commander orders his unit to fall back. I think it will encourage good narrative games, because the players will be obliged to think of a reason why the unit pulled out. Many such reasons would be impossible to factor into a set of rules, so encouraging the players to invent them will make for a better story of the game.

Hey all!

I appreciate the opinions so far… the special rule I feel like wouldn't be TOO too bad, as you can just say that "If in hard cover, can ignore fall back or advance orders." Hard cover is a pretty special thing, after all:) However, I also agree that it is kind of fun to have the possibility of a guy running off, thus screwing over the commanding general! But I tell you… it was JUST as the British were about to launch an attack on a pretty heavily entrenched and reinforced French force… if that guy had left he would have to be executed!

Anyway, more opinions welcome!

Different period, but it was a mistaken order that uncovered the flank of the sunken road at Antietam, resulting in that photo of the road full of Confederate dead.

I can see troops behind hard cover ignoring an order to charge. But ignoring an order to fall back reeks of ESP and the 100 foot tall general.

I'd say he does what the dice say- he is under heavy fire after all, and maybe thinks he is about to get slaughtered. A Fall Back could well include a stipulation to try and reach a safer place.
You may wish to consider my post here

TMP link

Another choice for lights vs. artillery.

You already have guns shot up or skirmishers driven back. I'll add a case from Ligny. The skirmishers went to ground, pinned by the gunners. No hits were scored but the gunners could not ignore the skirmishers. Both were neutralized.

Perhaps if dice scores are equal?

Feedback:

One thing I did on my first (and to date only AAR) is to make a GIF out of all the static shots.
This shows a turn by turn movie effect of the battle.

Not sure if that makes sense but at 10mm it would look even better than this no doubt:

link

Right near the bottom of the page.