"March Attack rules by Crusader" Topic

I am curious as to people thoughts about the March Attack set of rules.

What are the mechanics like and how do they feel where re-creating the feel of combat for the period goes?

What is basing like?

Thanks!

Personally I find them to be neither fish nor fowl. Many elements of boardgaming mixed in with figure gaming methods. I'm uncomfortable with them. Tried a game, couldn't make it match what I think it should be (real, right or wrong) so put the rules away. Came back 5 months later, tried again. Same result. So they're shelf filler.

As to basing, all infantry and cavalry units are represented on the table by 2 bases. (Lets you see column compared to line).

Infantry & Cavalry mounted on 40x30mm bases, Artillery on 40x40, each base represents from around 100 men to 1,000 men.

Try this:

link

Gives an overview of the mechanics

Hi, they are my favourite grand tactical ruleset at the moment. A player can easily control a division, while still retaining the feel that you are making tactical decisions – you still have musketry, cannon fire and the three formations of line, column and square to think about. Nice combination of tactical and strategic move is possible, and it is one of the few sets where I've seen divisions fall back, regroup and have another go n the battlefield in a normal evening's game. The abstract skirmish mechanisms are offputting to some people, otherwise we ave not had issues.
So, horses for courses, our bunch likes them.
Cheers,
Aksu – GeMiGaBoK club

I really like the mechanics.

But I think they have a very Napoleonic feel and I am not easily satisfied on that score.

I fiddled with the rules a lot as I like to play regimental rather than battalion unit games. I use my own basing system which is totally different from what the rules call for. With my changes, units do not disappear as fast which can be both good and bad.

But they are pretty simple rules to play with, to me, historically satisfying results.

Tom

Club tried it, we are back to shako

I also much prefer Shako2. Both rule sets are targeting a similar level of simulation/game. (Battalion as the basic unit and more than 1 division per side on the table at once) I did like the separate tactical/ strategic movement segments in March Attack, and the rules are straight forward and well written.
We were a bit disappointed by the lack of on table skirmishing , and IIRC (and I may not, it's been a few months) the cavalry rules about being blown and recall were also a little simplistic. We did not experience what appears to have been a common complaint on the website, that Artillery is too strong.
The biggest problem I did see though, was that the firing was way too deterministic. A 6 CV line against a 5 CV line has, mathematically , an overwhelming chance of destroying it's opponent. Columns are also too strong in terms of firepower,as they shoot at fully half the strength of lines.
In fairness, the designer seems aware of these issues and has suggested some possible changes to the firing rules. In fact the game seems very well supported on their site.
The design seems robust and would probably lend itself well to tinkering.

Keith

Just rebased my collection to MA. I like the simplicity of most of the rules.

Things I like:
Simple close action rules
Simple Cavalry breakthrough options
Disorder system is clever(automatic with time, no rolling)
Rally recovery system(once a game for forces)
Easy combat mechanics
Strategic turn with variable reinforcement arrival
Easy read and understanding
Large Corps/Army battles using battalions as base element

Thing I do not like:
Written style orders(not my thing)
Lack of skirmishing(it's abstract)
Column firepower(can be adjusted easily)
Fragile cavalry
Powerful(too)artillery

All in all, an easy to grasp Napoleonic rule set that does not require a massive figure collection and focused on simplicity. I highly recommend, but probably not everybody's cup of tea, respectfully and understandably.

Hope this helps.