"'Black Powder' rules" Topic

And these rules (from first impressions) certainly do seem to cater for my type of wargamer.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

From the introduction to BP:

"Before getting to grips with the rules of play, we shall be entirely honest about our aim. The Black Powder game is first, foremost and most decidedly an entertainment. Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerable representation of real battle; however, no pretence is made to simulate every nuance or detail of weaponry, drill or the psychology of warfare. We leave these matters to more complex rule-sets that are primarily concerned with such things. Nor have we attempted to define and regulate every detail of play – it is taken as readthat participants are sensible, manly fellows, who will quickly resolve any doubts and incongruities in an appropriately sanguine fashion. We realise that this goes somewhat against the spirit of many rulesets, which courageously attempt to be both definitive or comprehensive. Our looser approach reflects the origins and practical application of our game – a game played between friends in a spirit of mutual empathy"

That is the philosophy behind the product. It is a showcase (and a handsome one at that) for a particular STYLE of gaming. The style of gaming in question will not be to everybody's taste.

If what you as a consumer of rulesets require is an indepth, exhaustive tome on every possible nuance of a particular conflict, or you are a hardline "historical simulationist" my advice to you is to look elsewhere. This is unlikely to be the ruleset for you. If you require "a rule for everything" and like to argue the minutiae of of every move on the tabletop, do yourself (and perhaps many others) a favour, and look elsewhere, as this set of rules will absolutely NOT provide what you want out of a game.

However, as Arteis has posted, if you like your toys, like the aesthetics of gaming and enjoy pushing your lovingly painted little lead men around a beautiful tabletop with good friends and don't feel the need to treat games with model soldiers like some kind of High Court case, then you'll probably love Black Powder.

My reaction to BP when I opened the package this morning was very, very similar to my feelings when I first got hold of the hardback WFB 3rd Ed in 1988. I was very, very happy then. I'm equally delighted now.

This is the kind of gaming I like. This is a book not merely about rules for battles with model soldiers, but about a style and philosphy OF gaming – the kind of gaming that appeals to me, and I'm bound to say, to a number of other people. It absolutely won't be for everybody, and is no better or worse a product for all that.

So – think about what you want out of a game with model soldiers/ wargame/ simulation. Think about what draws you to the hobby, motivates you to paint, collect and game and then examine the extract from the intro to BP above. If that matches your gaming philosphy, you'll like it, if it doesn't – steer clear.

1/ The no nonsense movement is refreshing … formation changing is a move though so it often means it is harder to move any way you like in reality.
2/ Skirmishers can only evade non skirmishing infantry P63.
3/ Morale is more of a save … advantages of being formed in attack column is there, they save on a 5 not a 4 etc meaning they are less likely to have to break test. There are a few subtle rules for skirmishers which come into play as well like they can not be supported so that they are more likely to lose combat and have to test for the 'break' etc.

What got me when we played a couple of games is that what looks/reads like a very simple set of rules is actually very subtle … like it says though it was never meant to really be a super detailed set of rules etc.

The differences will be both weapons and special characteristics that you assign. You could, if you like, give the Rebels a ferocious charge bonus in ACW or determine that 18th century cavalry should get less dice in melee due to not being trained as shock cavalry in the same manner as Napoleonic cavalry. Units have stat blocks that you can tinker with to suit your tastes.

Regular troops can form line and some of them can also form skirmish order and some can form mixed which has a third of their number deployed as skirmishes. There isn't any clear distinction between shoulder-to-shoulder massed formation of Frederick and the more loose lines that we imagine later units adopting when shock cavalry was mostly gone from the battlefield.

Officers don't roll to move so they can't do a triple move. A mounted officer moves 48".

Yes, a cavalry unit could, on turn one, sprint across the table and charge the enemy that is 54" away from it. These rules want to see troops get stuck in but more, they want decisive action. So if you decide that you want your cavalry to sprint across the table on turn one, you give the order to charge. Suppose you only get two successes though. You must advance them 36" toward their target. Then you roll to order their supporting units to follow up and they fail. Your cavalry is left out there with its trousers around its ankles.

Just because you might get a triple move does not mean you should order things that require that.

Green Leader – commanders move once so the 9' move isn't there. If you are lucky a unit may get to be able to move 3 times but it is fairly rare … if the commander is fair with a quality of 8 the player will need to roll 5 or under on 2 dice to get the 3 moves – there are normally modifiers that make this harder as well.

The rules are really a 'guidline' with the differences in the periods being tweaked by the special rules for troops which encompass changes in weaponry and to an extent formations – with the ability to tweak the feel and formations for the period … if this makes sense. The QRS really is the bare bones of the mechanics.

Seeing the example from the FPW worries me a bit: infantry may and cavalry often will be able to advance into contact without taking effective fire. Whilst I can accept that this might happen against muskets (the emphasis being on 'effective' fire) it seems to go against the grain for the breech-loading rifle. Not that it will stop me trying them, though…

Charged infantry usually gets to fire at point blank range as the chargers come in on them (closing fire) and also if a move takes you completely through the arc of fire of a unit and within 12", it gets to fire (traversing targets).

Surferdude, thanks for your replies. I am really attracted to these rules as they cover a number of periods that I am interested in and it would be great to have one set that does everything. My problem is that my general experience of products that claim to do everything is that they do nothing.

My real big concern is that I have a 6' by 4' table. If I set up my Army 6" in from the edgem and my opponent does the same, our troops are 3' apart. Possibly one move.

With the odds you mention units will get to move three times in a turn every four or five turns. If this happens on turn one my opponent could charge his infantry across the whole table and attack my infantry, driving them off the table on the first turn. His cavalry would only need two moves to do the same thing, and presumably that happens even more often?

I am also a bit worried that the author says that the rules are a parody of wargames rules. I wouldn't pay money to watch a parody of a football match, so I am a bit wary here. These rules aren't cheap, and whilst I don't mind admiring the Emperor's new clothes I don't want to pay £30.00 GBP for the priviledge of doing so.

I think I'll wait for some reports of games to come around first before investing my entire monthly gaming budget. Thanks again for your advice.

GL- I agree … I pre ordered mine as I like the way RP's rules pan out and then was pleasantly surprised as it got me excited over the period again, the last few years have been my 'skirmish' game period :)

Playing on a 6x4 would mean you would have to change the distances … Rick is very explicit about this in the rules, the distances are big as they play on a 6' wide table all the time and want to get them into action with room for a bit of manoeuvring. We play in cm instead of inches on a 4x3 but use 10 or 15mm – not sure it would look good in 28mm if they were shooting 18cm etc – but not used to musket period 28mm games on a big level.

I am sure game reports will be around soon … we are planning on more games over the weekend.

The parody comment in the rules is more aimed at meaning (as far as I can tell from the interview in WI) that the rules are written as a 'we play this way' you do what you want with them type thing … however they are a very solid set of base rules if you want a quick fun game with as much period feel as they can accommodate within these parameters. Although that is obviously just my interpretation of the comment.

Rich J

The author clearly states that distances can be changed to suit table size, so long as you change both the moving and the shooting distances in the same manner.

My suggestion (not yet having played the game to see if this works or not) for 28mm figures on a smaller table would be to use centimetres doubled … ie 6 inches becomes 12 centimetres, 18 inches becomes 36 centimetres etc.

You might also want to tinker with the frontage of your units to make them also fit with such downgrading of move/fire measurements (ie have slightly narrower units – the actual figure count or amount of bases absolutely does not matter in this game).

Plan to order my copy just to get hold of the free figure….. with the Perry's, Johnson and Priestly in the equation sold to the man wearing the uniform of the Green Dragoons!

Hi all i have been reading the book all week, even that its a quick read.

1. Yes you can run across the table in one move, BUT, when you do enter hand to hand combat you get a +1 for each unit within 6" around you, so if you run across the table on your one you lost your support mates, its best to have other units with you for " Support "

2. " Closing Fire " is when you shoot at a unit about to enter hand to hand with you, its a 6" range, but a unit tests on his stamina score not above his stamine
IE/ Unit attacks and i shoot first before he gets stuck in..
In shooting a stamina 3 unit tests for a break and run on 4 hits, thats 1 more then the 3 stamina, but in closing fire its dead on stamina which is 3 not 4…

So a close range blast of fire could stop a charging unit and see them off etc.

Hope that helps some..

I like a lot of what I am hearing about BP.

The 2 things that concern me is the table size and the lack of points values. I want to be able to arrange a game at preset points value and then be able to turn up at my local gaming club and play a game on their 6'*4' table withut having to use a calculator to work out ranges for moving and shooting.

At the price charged I will have to wait until we can see more detailed playtests and reviews.

Cheers

James

There is a points system but what it really is is a points system system. You'll need to make all the available units for your chosen armies, build your army lists to choose units from, and then use the provided guide to work out the points cost for each of those units.

It isn't a system where you can spend an extra point by buying 1 more melee value or shave off a point on each unit by lowering their weapon range. Build army lists for yourselves and find the points.

My suggestion (not yet having played the game to see if this works or not) for 28mm figures on a smaller table would be to use centimetres doubled … ie 6 inches becomes 12 centimetres, 18 inches becomes 36 centimetres etc.

Actually, 1" = 2,54 cm. So you'll gain about a quarter, which aint much. Cm's instead of inches would work better on a smaller table, but I agree it would look a but silly, firing a bunch of muskets on 15 cm distance…

I'll post a full review of Black Powder on my blog once I have time, but my initial impressions are very positive. The casual tone is great and makes for a very entertaining read. I know I chuckled many times. Despite the claim of it being essentially a set of house rules or a book on a style of gaming rather than a set of rules, I think the rules are actually pretty detailed and quite elegant. The different mechanics seem like they will work well together, and having some base stats that are the same across all period supplimented with the special abilities was a good idea. The book is very high quality, the pictures are inspiring and cover conflicts from the entire period the rules cover, and the rules are very well organized and explained with plenty of good diagrams. Overall, I highly recommend it.

Having said that, for people that are looking for something highly competitive to use for tournaments or something like that, these rules aren't really meant for that purpose. You can use the point system to make sure you and your opponent have roughly equal forces if you just want to do an even pitched battle kind of thing, but I think the intention is that once you've played a few times, you should be able to determine forces and scenarios that will give a fun game with a chance for either side to win.

Played with the suggested measurements and unit sizes, it does seem to require a large table. I intended to play with 10mm figures using cm instead of inches, though I have yet to determine what unit frontage I will shoot for. But for those worried about distances, the nice thing about the ranges is that they all seem to be in 6" increments. So if you want to, you could make up a reference sheet that replaces 6" with 1x, 12" with 2x, 18" with 3x, etc. Then make x whatever you want. No calculator required.

I'm still – and more and more eagerly – waiting to get my copy of the book, but will fall into the category of "concerned 6 by 4s" in any case. The Squirrel's suggestions make a lot of sense to me, but then there's nothing silly either about muskets firing to 15 cm – after all that's 6", and the musketry range for quite a few respectable rulesets. One would just have to ensure that movement range is curtailed proportionately.

I've ordered a set, based on my reading here and on the rules website. I plan on using it with 15mm figures on a 6 X 4 foot table. My plan is to shrink all ranges and distances by 1/3, this being close to the size difference between 25mm and 15mm figures. So the 4 foot artillery range would be down to 32", which would leave some parts of my 4 foot wide table out of immediate artillery range.

I'm not worried about the triple move. How often could even a pair of units manage it at the same time? I figure the usual result would see one unit do it while their support would move once and watch their buddies vanish into the midst of the enemy. That's what would happen if I did it.

But it would mean you have to guard against the odd unit doing it, instead of the usual 'I can move something to block it before he gets there' thing. Gads, reserves and flank guards, what an idea…

Yep, I think someone doing an unsupported charge three moves across the table might learn very fast that it isn't using up *everything* the dice gives you that makes a good general, but instead using your brains *within* what the dice allow you to do.

Still, it would be fun to see, and, who knows, the charger might get lucky … once.

Also, because of the way brigade orders work, that charge could be an entire brigade so it could thereby include its own supports… except that if you give a brigade order to charge then I'd interpret that as every unit having to try to impact something. If you want to support a charge you'd need to send in a brigade or units on support orders.

Yep – brigade orders have to have the units doing the same type of thing (broad I know) so advance to the ridge and deploy with x here etc is fine. Sending a brigade crashing into the opposing line fine … but getting one unit to charge while the others screen flanks etc needs multiple orders as far as I can see, that's how we play it anyway.

This is what Rick wrote on the Warlord Games forum:

rick priestley said:

Even though we have pretty deep tables – we still usually start one side off table (attacker) and often have the defender awaiting reinforcements – and hence not present in strength to begin the game. We just happen to prefer that – and the rules suit that style of set up. We don't often  just line everything up on both sides and go at it. That tends to prevent those 'charge in turn 1' situations – where you can't set up far enough apart top start with. Another way round that – if you are setting up a little close – is simply to assume the army has a standing order not to engage in the first turn – so no charges can be issued in turn 1 by either side – there's no accounting for blunders though:) Mind you your table is pretty big so you shouldn't have too many problems.

I do not have a copy of the rules. this makes me ask are the same rule mechanic used for the 1700s, Napoleonic and post-1815 ?

Are there era specific rules to cover the different tactics of the different eras.

Or are the rules for a very low troop ratio like 5 or 10 men per casting which makes such tactic emphasis less important.

I like the way Casemate UK's website describes these rules:

"Black Powder is Warlord Games' first publication. It is a beautiful book in its own right with hundreds of colour photo of the most exquisitely painted model soldiers taken from the world's foremost collections. The rule book's intention is inspire a collector to play gentlemanly games with their collections of soldiers with friends where the emphasis is on the spirit of the period, not the letter of the rule.

"With decisive battles from the key wars of the period, such as El Teb, from the Sudan War, Ntombi River from the Zulu Wars, Alma from the Crimean War and Freemans Farm from the American War of Independence, as well as two fictional scenarios from the American Civil War and Napoleon's wars, there really is something to keep everyone happy.

"It is a hearty publication and not for nitpickers or miseries. There are some good gags in it, but it also plays well and enables players to conduct a very big battle in a reasonable period of time, leaving them more time to chat about the highs and lows and what ifs …"

Rudy,

There are core rules for movement and shooting and formation/formation changes which go across the piece. Shooting ranges differ with weapon type.

Also combat and moral and command have core elements.

There are a set number of formations – Line, Skirmish, Mixed (Line with Skirmish companies out) March Column (which covers road and Columns of Maneuver) and Assault Column and Square.

Players can vary periods by applying the use of these along with the various troop types available in the rules.

For example: (some of these are my terms rather than the rules)

Seven Years War – Use all the available cavalry and infantry types, Line, March Column, Skirmishers (in a limited fashion as Light Troops), some Irregulars and Square (depending on your beliefs)

AWI – Use only Light Cavalry, all Infantry Types and Skirmishers, Rifle armed units, Irregulars, poorer troop quality and Unreliable characteristics for Militia. Beef up the Brits with better shooting and charge bonus and forget Squares and Assault Columns.

Napoleonic – Tailor troops to national prejudices if you like, but other than that use the Whole Nine Yards!

ACW – Use Light Cavalry type and Mounted Infantry, basic Infantry type and values, rifled weapons and some smoothbores, rifled artillery, all the various formations with the exception of Square (Yes, I know they happened on odd occasions but come on!) Give the Rebs tendency to charge if you want to.

There are plenty of other tweaks available to bring out the flavor of the various troops and periods and space enough to invent anything you feel missing.

I think the acid test will be if the moving and command areas of the rules are not counter weighted by the period specifics enough to prevent players ‘suspending disbelief' when it comes to running different games but only playing will tell!

I've posted up a pretty detailed review of Black Powder on my blog. If you're still wondering about the rules, check it out. But, as others have said, if you like the style of wargaming they are encouraging, you'll like Black Powder.

link

Nice review Albino Squirrel. I've been interested in getting into the Civil War and these rules seem like they'd do the job.
Max

Nice review indeed. Some mild criticism, which is good, bot not all of it is appropriate (e.g.: about the hobby section.

Still: quite good reading, encouraging me even more to get my first game on!

The criticism over the order rolls is somewhat misguided as one suspects it was not the authors intention to graduate if you get 1,2 or 3 orders off … pretty obvious the idea is to get 3 off but bad luck or situational modifiers may well mean 0-2 instead.

Rich J

We played a game yesterday and found the command system to be great fun, particularly with personality rules. The personalities might have had a minor effect on probability (generally + or -1 to rolls) but they greatly affected the decisions that players made because of it and in a joyful manner.

We did find some very odd and counter-intuitive things in our combat results but I'll wait to reread the rules and find out what all we did wrong before commenting on those.

It was fun and dramatic and quick but it wasn't necessarily satisfying.

Albino Squirrels assertion that the authors need a lesson in statistics and the command factor (I think they are called some mild criticism above) are based on wrong statistical knowledge on his part and not understanding the intention of the authors in the command roll … so not really any criticism :)

As where MM above has played a game and has some reservations which to me seems far more valid .. MM what were the counter intuitive things you came over?

An attack column of Highlanders, engaged to their front by French infantry, was charged in the flank by cuirassiers. Though the Highlanders lost the battle by 9 or so, they made most of their morale saves (there being no modifier for being infantry not in square being cut down by cavalry, they made their orale saves on 3+) and so only needed to roll a 7+ on 2D6 to hold their ground.

On the other hand, a fresh, large unit that was supporting a small unit that broke would be removed form the table if they rolled a 4 or less on their subsequent 2D6 break test.

I'm rereading to try to find where I am getting it wrong, but there seems to be a 1 in 6 chance or more of a unit being removed from the table each time it makes a break test. There is no modifier to the break test for being shaken or flanked or fresh or supported. The only modifiers are for excess casualties beyond stamina, disorder, and under artillery fire.

picture

Hi
1/ Albino's statistical analysis and my revocation of such have both fallen foul to semantics … depends on how you take the sentence written in the book … so will drop that one, still think it is a slight to the authors how it was worded however but I am sure if they were bothered by it they would say :)
2/ MM – true the only modifiers that alter the core rules are for when in a square against cav… so can't cast light on that apart from I presume the hignlanders were guard or something as most troops have 4+ Morale (save) and were lucky not to be disordered with 9 hits on them. I think the mechanics which are made to flow smoothly with as few a modifiers to remember as possible will throw up odd results every so often, same with the break test. Overall though we have only had a few moments in about 20 or so games and have rationalised them by … the force being with or against them !!!

I presume the hignlanders were guard or something as most troops have 4+ Morale (save) and were lucky not to be disordered with 9 hits on them.

Troops in attack column receive +1 on morale saves making it 3+

It wasn't that they took 9 hits (they might have) but they were -1 to hit and the French, being +1 to hit, and getting +3 to the combat results due to charging (12 French dice vs 8 british dice) meant that the French ended up winning the combat by vast amounts… which had zero effect on the subsequent British break test (except to necessitate a break test)

I still need to reread the rules but I'm thinking that one of the first things I'm going to need to adjust in this 'tool kit' is to put a couple more modifiers on the break test. Of the top of my head I'll be adding stamina that hasn't been made casualtiies to the break test roll so that Fresh troops can, at worst, fall back without further minuses.

Oh ok … sorry had missed the attack column bit.

Constantine, the mention that there isn't much information about the miniature gaming hobby in the book is not critisism. But I thought it bore mentioning that the book would not be the best way for someone to start if they hadn't already done some miniature gaming of some sort before. Unlike, for example, the Napoleon rules from Foundry, or Warhammer Historical stuff, that would be okay for complete beginners. As I said, it's doubtful someone who wasn't a miniature gaming would be reading my blog about miniature gaming, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

As for Surferdude's absurd notion that my critisisms about weird probabilities were inaccurate, I've addressed that elsewhere. I don't have the patience to explain dice rolling probabilities to those who don't understand them.

1/ Albino's statistical analysis and my revocation of such have both fallen foul to semantics … depends on how you take the sentence written in the book …

The semantics being that Albino knows what he's talking about, and you don't. It's been pointed out to you by several people that there's 3 times the probability of rolling an 11 or 12 than there is of rolling a 12, not twice. It's basic statistics. Arguing against that just makes you look foolish. Admitting you were wrong rather than claiming it's semantics would be a vastly better thing.

Ok I can see this is not going to go away:
1/ Albino head and buddies seem to be using the 11/12 business to deflect the fact that in his 'review' of the game he hasn't played he suggested changes to the command system insinuating the authors were some sort of dullards not to notice that getting 3 orders is more statistically likely than getting 1 or 2 – while it is more than likely the intention was for 3 to be the default number with bad rolling or situations ending in one … now this ended with him saying the authors and friends needed a lesson in statistics because of the 11/12 business …

2/ The 11/12 business is semantics as it is arguing over 1 sentence in the special rules bit … now rolling an 11 over a 12 is TWICE as likely 2.78% to 5.whatever which to me is what it says – they are twice as likely to roll an 11 than a 12. Now AS sees it as meaning rolling and 11 or 12 is twice as likely as rolling 11 … now this means it is 3 times as likely … which is why I suggested we drop it as unless the authors come on and say which is meant we can argue all day and whichever RP meant in the end only means one of us can say 'nah nah' to the other … both of us I hope have actual lives so what's the point?

SO like I said why not drop it alltogether … he obviously quite likes the rules but has made some wrong assumptions which he wants to change without playing and he plastered all over the forums and net for people to see … fine, who cares , not me for one … I argue that is was disrespectful to suggest they need a lesson in stats because he can't fathom their intention (forget about the 11/12 issue)that wasn't the major point … now if people think he wasn't then fine, I do but I may be a minority.

So AS – I apologise for any angst this may have caused … but can't really see any point on continuing arguing over a game … everyone knows each point of view by now so we may as well drop it eh and both get on with playing a decent set of rules eh? :)

A bit late to the party but wanted to add a note of compliment on service. I ordered these on Saturday and they arrived today.. I'm in Melbourne Australia!!!! That is by far teh fastest service I have EVER had from a supplier outside of my own town let alone country!!! OK, some have matched that from Sydney to Melbourne but not bettered!

Impressive ruleset to look at but by the lengthy commentary a lot interpretation in order?

For any interested, I've written a blog post clarifying my comment about the Command Rolls, and my suggested rule change to make the results a little more logical:

link

Let me know what you think about the rule suggestion. But please, if you don't care about probabilities or are not capable of understanding them, don't bother reading the post. It will only confuse you.

Well I do and am :)
Tried them out tonight … didn't seem to make a huge amount of difference on the whole. Took some remembering to start with and we did find that our standard '8' commander seemed to get fewer 3 order rolls which slowed the game down and seemed to us to alter the feel of the game … depends what you want from the game though. We'll stick with Rick's version but can see why some people would prefer yours …

See that would have been the response right from the start of the whole thing if you hadn't suggested the authors didn't know what they were doing :)

Hatchet buried on my part!

I noticed that attack columns and extended order units get one die for shooting. Small units get a -1 die. So small units in extended or attack column cannot ever hit an enemy unit for shooting? Even when shooting at tiny units?

Or did I miss something?

You missed something. Small units get -1 fire factor so usually 2.

Units in attack column always get 1 dice only, regardless of size.

Those who have played a few games might be able to help me out….if i was to organise a multiplayer game at my club what would be the minimum command size for one player? a Brigade of 6 battalions?

I played a four player game with 5-8 units per brigade and one brigade per player.

It is the nature of the game that units will vanish suddenly and that things can happen very quickly. If all you desire is a fast paced game where someone can lose half of their forces by the end of turn three, then 6 battalions would be a good size.

It is akin to Warmaster in that at small point levels, the nature of drastic results can leave players' forces shattered beyond repair before they get into the game.

When all was said and done, our game felt like a 300 point per side Warmaster game.

one moment: picture

the next:
picture

This weekend, I hope to play it with 15mm with some 20 units per player. I expect to get a greater sense of satisfaction as losing a single unit or two will not suddenly change the entire battle.

thanks malcolm…….i shall look at a larger amount of units per player….

We have been using about the same size forces as in the book – 4 brigades with 4-5 units and maybe an arty with them with a bit of give or take.

Any less than 4 units may see that player having a bad not as much fun as they do the scarificial lamb bit for the team!

Brigade is a game term for BP though not a set amount – brigade orders often involve not all the units under that commanders control and his command if spread out will rarely get a brigade order – so another possibility is brigades with less units but give them more than one brigade – will make no real addition to the brain strain to be honest.

Thanks Malcolm. Where does it say in the rules that the size modifier does not effect the shooting of units in attack column, extended, etc? Just want to see what I missed.

So this means that a tiny unit and a large unit in attack column, frinstance, shoot with the same number of dice? Appreciate the input!

Well, a Tiny unit cannot be in attack column formation. But yes, any size unit in attack formation gets one die for shooting.

The "size modifier" isn't really a modifier that is used during the game. It modifies the base stats of the standard unit. They just mean that if a standard sized unit of what-have-you has a shooting stat of 3, a large one would have 4. It just changes what their statline is to begin with.

Thanks squirrel. Ok, I now get that size only seems to modify shooting when the unit is in line, and the other formations all get the same shooting no matter what size the unit is. Often modifiers are cumulative and I didn't see anything in the rules saying they weren't. Not trying to be dense!

I see that the reviews suggest you need lots if units to even out the sometimes drastic results that units suffer in the game. Hmm, had actually been considering using these for smaller actions!

One really needs a lot on the table or else it will be a very quick game and fairly one sided, with lots on you can afford it to go pear shaped in one area while you are exploiting another etc.

Like Squirrel says the size modifiers are there for one to tweak the base stats to suit either national characteristics or 'special' (for whatever reason) units – rifles come to mind.

It is also the base stats that are tweaked when making a unit veterans or fresh or fanatics etc. The special rules usually tweak the base stats in certain areas of the game.