"A Very British Civil War with Black Powder rules?" Topic

Good evening!

I've had more than a passing interest in the alternate history of AVBCW, and spent a little time investigating local history for a setting and thinking up weird and wonderful factions that could have sprung up in the north-east of England in the alternate 1930s. I've also recently acquired a much-anticipated copy of Black Powder… a ruleset loosely based on one of my all-time-favourite games, by designers I very much admire, in a loose and friendly style. I've heard of people adapting BP to work for early Great War, has anyone tried for AVBCW yet and are there any foreseen problems with this?

Perhaps by making closing fire and artillery more effective, although I don't see artillery being all too common in my AVBCW campaigns, and including provisions for infantry going to ground; should the BP rules accommodate wargames set in AVBCW?

Regards,

Paul

I'm not sure – I see BP as big battalions and linear formations.

AVBCW is more of a large skirmish – leaning more towards the open battlefield as troops keep in cover.

But the command and control elements of BP should help mimic the confusion of largely amateur forces – and a high Command force of regulars should be able to move much more easily.

Also various light inter war tanks always appear in AVBCW battle reports – not sure how these would work in BP?

Give it a go – see if it meets your ideas of what AVBCW battle should be – they are as valid as anyone else's!!

No harm in trying, but BP is designed for the Black Powder era. You could also try looking at Bolt Action, which are more in period.

I would certainly need to fiddle with the rules to accommodate the later period. According to another thread on playing the Great War period with BP, frontal attacks should be nigh on impossible without substantial artillery support. So I should need to make closing fire more powerful to reflect that.

All infantry would basically be in skirmish formation, although they may be scenario specific occasions for them to be in march column perhaps. Armoured cars and AFVs are another headache, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it!

I like the command and control mechanics of BP, and the way the command is structured by 'brigades'. I imagine my basic standard-sized VBCW units would represent approximately company-sized formations, so a 'brigade' would be approximately a battalion and the entire army would be a brigade-sized formation. I'm sure there's scope for such sized clashes in AVBCW setting, after all there are not a few people playing Blitzkrieg Commander rules for it which is a similar scale of conflict.

Of course this is mere speculation at the present, as I have yet to play a game of BP and so I may find them entirely unsatisfactory, but until such time I believe it can be done :)

Regards

Paul

It's a bizarre thought, but I reckon that it might work (though it won't look like a game from the rulebook). Lower density of troops (and firing at longer and longer distances) tends to balance out the increased volume of fire. Assume everyone is in open order and double firing dice and reduce morale if they are (for some reason) in close order.

As you say, you need to worry about armoured vehicles; though they are really just mobile firing pieces with a good save v small arms.

However, I'd recommend making the following changes as a minimum:
- alter the sequence of play so that firing comes before movement
- units which fire MAY NOT use initiative
- units which fire get -1 to command.

You may also want a 'go to ground rule' whereby troops can go prone, increasing their morale save but giving perhaps a -2 to command.

Good luck.

As you say, you need to worry about armoured vehicles; though they are really just mobile firing pieces with a good save v small arms.

That's exactly how I see it at the moment. AFVs could have a 2+ morale save against small arms, so a high volume of fire could possibly halt them or drive them back, but you'll need artillery to kill them. I'm also thinking of making them Unreliable, to make them difficult to coordinate.

However, I'd recommend making the following changes as a minimum:
- alter the sequence of play so that firing comes before movement
- units which fire MAY NOT use initiative
- units which fire get -1 to command.

I've seen this elsewhere in suggestions for adapting BP to Great War scenarios and will probably try the rules out playing it both ways, to see what fits best.

I like the idea that troops 'gone to ground' are more difficult to issue orders to, because they're busy keeping their heads down.

Thanks or your thoughts :)

Paul

For AFVs I would probably not allow them to brigade with infantry – to reflect the lack of communications. (BKC does this for early war French).

The gone to ground idea is very nice – reflects the natural instinct of troops to seek cover and shoot at the enemy, and then not want to get up into danger again.

For AFVs I would probably not allow them to brigade with infantry – to reflect the lack of communications. (BKC does this for early war French).

Good idea :) something else I'd considered.

Perhaps forcing infantry to 'go to ground' when casualties are suffered to shooting, and making the order penalty a cumulative -1 for each casualty marker, although this might cause troops to get bogged down too much. I suppose leaders can demonstrate, well, leadership by Rally orders.

Finally, although all units will basically be in skirmish formation I will treat them as line for issues of frontages and flank and read contact, so enfilading fire is still possible.