"Russian Infantry division assaults the French. A N@W AAR" Topic

Hi all
I've posted another AAR of a game played on 9th February.
roll4reserves.blogspot.co.uk
Cheers,
Andy

excellent AAR and a very nice looking battle . i haven't played N@W , how long did this take ?

Many thanks Ernie. Set up is part of the game so in total approx 3hrs. It's one of the reasons we've adopted this rule set. It's the best fast play rule set I've come across, as it really keeps the feel of the period IMHO.

This game went a bit slower because Chris had not played for a while. In this game we only played 3 turns but could see which way it was going. Many scenarios we can call after approx turn 4. If the attacker is doing well then we'll carry on. 3 turns doesn't sound much but a lot can happen each turn.
Cheers,
Andy

Excellent AAR!
unfortunate negativity in my part here but….
discussion to over come/address my observations (which present a negative light to a somewhat popular rule set) or thoughts from the authors (who may see this) and getting their take on them… could be good so I think they need to be said.
RE:
" For my part once it was clear that Chris was totally committed against the village I felt I would probably win. That's because the total amount of points to be gained from taking the village was 3 (the objective plus the two infantry brigades.) Therefore as long as I didn't get drawn in to the battle around the village and throw in more forces (potential victory points) to hold that objective, time would run out for the Russians. That's why I brought my reserves on my right flank and not to help hold the village.

You may feel it was a bit gamey of me to play the battle this way. And ultimately, your right. I could have made more of a fight for the village but, to be frank, I needed a win for my own morale fibre as I've not had much luck with my own attacks lately ;-)"

1) This above quote from the AAR says the game was over before playing it. Something is awry here- agree or disagree and your thoughts to address….
2) Another item. A battery firing from medium to long range ( based on the picture- pls correct me if this incorrect)and destroying a 400-700 man size regiment in one turn!
If this true, I fail to see the attraction of this rule set since this seems to be a significant degree out of balance or was it handles incorrectly?
I could "some what better understand" this to be true if the cavalry came in during a charge and took an exceptional roll of defensive canister fire. Am I being unfair here?

I have a copy and have played only twice at a convention so my familiarity is limited.

3) I hope there will be plans in the works or what other players have decided to address these short comings, apparent gross unbalance and gamey I keep seeing in TMP or have experienced for myself so it would be great to see the comments.
4) I expect disagreement/agreement to my observation and like other thoughts on this before I make any decisions to wait for a rewrite before investing more time to them or need to put these up for sale for those who feel these rules are for them….So Does this need to be a separate TMP post…?

Otherwise, FIRE Away Lads!

MG

I don't know anything about the rules but I do feel the need to point out as a casual observer:

1) If a player doesn't properly account for the objectives it takes to win, it's not the fault of the rules. Many games will have victory conditions like that. I don't even see it as being unrealistic. It basically said, contest the field of battle and don't lose too many forces until enough time has elapsed.

2) Don't know the specific odds, but to be fair, I want to point out this was not a single battery but two batteries (which being Russian might even be larger than normal) combined into a single one. I'm guessing because he had an artillery general he could treat it as one unit. I don't know what the various states in the game represent but unless the rules actually determine casualties, it might just mean the unit was rendered unfit for immediate combat. For a short one-off scenario that's as good as being destroyed. That could be done as easily as taking out a command group with a lucky shot.

Cinncinnatus,

Very valid points.
I agree to Pt1 reply.
The COUNTER…Pt 2
I too do not know the odds & It would be great if Tzen67 could give the odds/die result ( ie was it an exceptional roll with 80% of the dice with hits)
With that information still unknown, the "some level of abstraction a rules set must have", and from my understanding of the period…
It still very much seems that this is very out of balanced. With the understanding that some amount of abstraction is required to affect play to be completed in a reasonable time the fact is still… there were 24 russian guns that had to change direction of fire, re-target its fire, fired ball ( and not being canister has a much lesser effectiveness)at effective or worst yet long range and thus was still able to destroy a complete seasoned/veteran unit in ~10 to 15 min turn ( I do not recall the time span for a turn but being tactical play it must be a short period of time since movement is up to 6" only per move), this just did not happen.
This seem too gamey to achieve quick results.
One has to figure…
Would that many guns fired by average gunners cause damage yes, caused the unit's CO to have to move to another position in order to not be destroyed (with time) yes but, not in one turn (and the owning player is not allowed to address the situation with either movement to reduce the treat or is forced by a moral check which cause involuntary move to reduce the treat).
He (the player) had them placed back away from the front which is what was desired and done to protect/reduce such damage. If it took three or so turns to destroy the unit because it either; was order to stay put and keep meeting moral checks or had charged both batteries – then I would more agree to your conclusion.

A very good start to the discussion and appreciate your reply!
MG

Hi there

There's a lot to like in these rules, the scenarios published in the rules are good to help you set up initial games, but beyond that I'd junk them and devise your own once you are familiar with the rules.

(The rules do need a 2nd edition tidy-up and I'd suggest a few changes here and there).

Can't say in my games that I've seen an infantry unit removed from one round of arty fire. But many games have a single 4-gun unit, the Ruskies with 12 are fearsome (and I have thrown cavalry to their doom to run them down – not totally without success).

Some parts of the rules are brutal, but it does advance the game, which in scenarios are linked to a 6-turn finish.

Like so many wargames pre WW1 say, you play with 12-20 units. In such a game you need to calibrate any call to 'realism' and just enjoy it as a game.

Regards

David F Brown

Hello Marshal Greg. Many thanks for your comments. Don't worry, I do not think your comments are negative, indeed I think all your issues are quite valid. Let me give you my thoughts.

1. I think Cincinnatus is correct in that my opponent lost sight of the aim of the scenario. It wasn't over from the start as he still had reserves to come on. The mistake was where he placed his reserves. As I stated, Chris has not played in a long while and this was his first attacking game for a very long time. Handling all the troops, remembering rules etc takes a little while to get the hang of. I think with only 6 turns he simply forgot how long long it would take to redirect his attack.

2. I tend to avoid statistical analysis of odds for dice rolls etc as I feel it takes some magic away from the game. But Chris rolled an amazing amount of 6's to destroy that cavalry so I feel confident it is a rare event. Again I feel Cicinnatus is correct in that base loss represents disorder and not just casualties and for the scope of this battle the cavalry were rendered out of action.

To explain how it worked out, the Russian batteries are very large, 6 guns (bases) compared to 4 for most nations. He rolled 2 dice per base needing 4+ to hit. As they were Heavy guns you get an extra dice for each 6 rolled. As part of a Grand battery you get to reroll misses. Russians have defective powder and so 5s count as misses. The cavalry unit only had four bases. It takes 4 hits to remove a base (less than 4 hits then the target gets a saving throw and needs to roll higher than the number of hits.) Chris managed to get 16 hits in total. I'll let others work out the odds.

3. As evilgong states you do not have to use the scenarios provided. Many use historical oobs or use thier own scenarios. We simply find that it is convenient to use these scenarios as we do not have time to come up with our own. Inevitably mismatches occur. Whenever I use my cavalry division my opponent always seems to get a village to defend! The terrain is randomly generated but placed by each player which can create issues.

There has been much debate about whether the scenarios are balanced or fair. The attacker has to attack an army of equal points which makes things very difficult but the defender has to deploy first allowing the attacker to choose exactly where to strike etc. The simple thing is we enjoy the scenarios as written despite occasional unbalance. We often ponder house rules to adapt the scenarios but have not employed any yet.

4. I would give this rule set a chance and have a few more games. They are not the best written but most issues have been ironed out on the forum. A few of my friends didn't like them at first but now enjoy them a lot. As others have stated a degree of abstraction is necessary for this style (fast play) of rule set to work. That said, these rules will not be to everyone's taste but if you need a good 3 hour game these are the best I've come across so far.

I originally felt that I would play this rule set solely for quick evening/club games but if I had time for a longer game (all day) I'd go for something like General de Brigade. But I now find if I have more time I simply have a bigger N@W game instead :-)

I hope that goes some way to addressing the points you raised. Sorry it's a bit waffley but it's late and I've just got back from the club where we played….you guessed it …N@W……and yes……. I lost :-((((((

Cheers,
Andy

Tzen67,

Thanks for the comments and reply to my Inquisition.
If anyone was waffly it was me.
You addressed the discussion very well. I see now that it was an exceptional result for the Russian guns.
I do need to play more and then visit the forum to understand the adjustments best.
I am still trying to get my head around a tactical game that is to be completed in as short as 6 turns or less. Being mostly a GTactical gamer and an older player this tourny concept is proving difficult.

I am off tonight for our game of LFS III, which is a "fast play" grand tactical. "Fast Play" being ….that compared to the likes of Empire III and allows a possible conclusion in an evening.
It is John's favorite system and since there is not much out there for NAPs in regards to interested players, I am very happy to oblige to his interests and push some lead. The AAR will most likely be up by late tonight or tomorrow by John. He is very prompt

Cherrs,
MG

thanks for the info , i'm looking for a game that will play in 3 hours so i'll have to get a copy of this .

marshalGreg … LFS = Le Feu Sacre ? or ___ ?