"Black Powder Vs Rank and File Comparison game - ACW" Topic

Hi,

My group played two games based on 1st Kernstown back to back this last weekend.

We first played with Black Powder, then with Rank and File (with ACW supplement).

You can read my thoughts on the two games here

link

The pictures are here

link

Thanks for the report getback. very interesting and well thought out.

A little food for thought. You said that CnC was not engaging in RnF and yet when the Green units of the Union started taking casualties, the attack broke up. This can be somewhat mitigated by having the General with the unit. (passing on a 5+ instead of a 6+). Point here is I am of the mind that troops generally do what you want them to until they get stuck in.

Nice reports. On the scenario itself, I would note that the Union troops were not so outmatched in the actual battle: they won. Their command was pretty bad but they weren't that much greener than many of the Confederates.

The battle counts as a strategic win for the Confederates because reinforcements on their way out of the Valley were told to stay there. Union command assumed Jackson had to have more troops to make such a bold attack.

Jackson's troops were beaten on the field, and Garnett marked with a stain that would be erased by his death at Pickett's charge.

Great read – I very much enjoyed your review and pics. It sounded both fair and thoughtful and was entertaining to boot! Thanks. I like BP but may give rank a file a look too!

Thanks for the reviews; it's very good to compare two rulesets who have the same time span.
Well done. Hope to see you return with added houserules.

PS, thanks for the photo's as well.

Very well done report, and I share some of your conclusions, although currently favoring R&F for clear-cut club or convention games. The lack of a C&C system in R&F is problematic in larger games, but the optional ACW C&C system does work fairly well. Actually, the system is straightforward enough that I think pretty much any orders-type system would graft on easily enough. As you noted, R&F makes it easier to get stuck in but hard to manage the chaos after units get beat up, which is often more fun on a playability level.

Regarding the fragility of Green units, did you use the optional rules for ignoring the first base or two of losses for large units when taking morale checks? It works pretty well, especially for the "enthusiastic conscripts" sort of units.

Cheers,

Christopher

Thanks. I have both and have read them through, but we haven't played them yet. I picked up on the R&F morale and command control while reading. Your thoughtful and accessible analysis was very helpful. I look forward to any further thoughts you may develop with additional playing and house rules.

i have R&F and was building forces for a Napoleonics run. I may have to switch to ACW instead. I really do like the rules though

I came to the conclusion that 'no command rules' actually worked better than 'erratic, unrelated to anything to do with command' rules because you get the erratic result in the combat system. I like erratic uncertainty, but not every die roll.

But then I like steak, but not every meal…doesnt make a good breakfast

My experience with these rule sets was that Rank and file was slower to start off with….until I played rank and file with 28s using 4 and 5 stand units …… boy was it quick! faster and better looking than any game of black powder I played. (The last one I was watching had french units of a brigade covering each others rear……and the strategic movement of forces reminded me of the sweeping desert battles of the cauldren. I commented to someone that that battalian right there was Rommel!)

How many stands did your RF units have?

Another quick note about house-ruling R&F: I was running into problems fitting some other more complex morale systems into the three-tier Veteran/Regular/Green system in R&F, so decided to simply use a d12 instead of a d6, and "fill in" the extra morale grades. So, Veterans (usually 3+ on a d6) simply got graded 5+ on a d12, Regulars 7+ and Green 9+. These result in the same odds for those categories, but I was able to nudge some additional ratings around the standard numbers.

Cheers,

Christopher

I noticed the max stands v die roll as a good way of working it.

Use a D8 when you have 6 – 8 stand units.

Stick to d6 for 5 and under

We are looking into D10's for R and F Morale. Not fleshed out detail yet.

We used 5-9 stand units for R&F as we were representing a range of regiment sizes.

Units supporting each other from behind in BP looked right for ACW.

We halved BP measurements and this worked very well on the 8X6 foot table that we used.

I would compare the rules with a small BP unit as 4 R&F stands, average as 5 & 6 and a large unit as 7 or 8 stands.

For cavalry, it would be one less stand.

I am quite surprised you went for such big units. A battery in R&F is one gun and crew, while in BP it tends to be a couple of guns.

I would suggest you try it just replacing a d6 with a d8 for 7-9 stand units. I know that sounds very simplistic, but the morale system is very simplistic .

One thing you could consider is working out the melee results with both systems and see if you feel the right side end up taking the morale tests for 'losing'

Looking forward to see how you develop.

They don't seem that big to me. Average size for early war battalions is about 8 stands, and batteries at the 1:50 scale are 1 model per 2 guns, so 2-3 models per battery.

The scale can vary from 50 men to 250 men per stand.

It is done like that because some people have 40 figure battalians in 10 stands while others have them in 12's and in 20's in 4 and 6 stands.

I am making the point that BP is scaleless. RF has a variable scale and having huge units will slow the game down

Recently picked up Rank and File. What house rules or other modifications do you still use and/or enjoy?
Are there any R&F forums out there?
Thanks

Answering the second question first: there certainly used to be an R&F forum associated with the Crusader Publishing website, but if it's still there, I couldn't find it.

My group mainly uses R&F for SYW (the simple "add 1D6 for battalion guns" being brilliant!). As stated, the R&F RAW has no C2 system, leaders are only used to "helicopter" around the table in the End Turn Phase, attaching to units that will need their help to Rally or Melee next turn. So my group added a simple top-down/command span C2 system (similar to Napoleon's Battles frankly – didn't think much of the C2 system in the ACW supplement). We also moved the Initiative Phase to the beginning of the turn, and made it affect the order of Charge Declaration, Movement and Attaching/Detaching Leaders (i.e. all things that are not simultaneous) to remove any/all ambiguity as to when things happen.

Really like how it plays for the SYW. Have considered trying to modify it for brigade-level Napoleonics and ACW, since one thing that has fallen out of favor for us with Fire & Fury mechanics is the two separate "half-turns" where both sides fire and melee, in each single game turn. In R&F the Fire and Melee is simultaneous, and hence each turn is quicker.

Codiver,
Thanks for the reply!
Getting some cheap ~15mm risk pieces mounted on 40x40 bases. 1 quick, terrible paint job to go and, should I survive the ongoing plague, I'll be trying these out.
Thanks again.