"Do you like bloody rules?" Topic

No, I am not asking Brits to swear.
I am asking if you like rules that cut your regiments down rapidly in very few turns.
Rules that give massive casualties!
It CAN be frustrating to have a new, beautifully painted regiment and see it take 33% casualties in one turn. C'est la guerre!

33% in one turn (for flintlock period) seems a bit much, but I prefer a game be decisive. Either hack a unit down or make it run away. Otherwise a game can go on without resolution.

In my old age I prefer a bloody game – though there can be too much.

When I first started gaming, the rules used were homebrew type of rules, very bloody, a lot of damage could be done very quickly. Fun at first, but it left no real room for strategy, it was usually kill as much as you can as fast as you can to claim victory. Very few games had victories that met their objectives.
Playing mostly AWI games, there is damage to units, but most of the real damage comes from failures in morale….as is the case with militia.
But once in awhile, you need a good bloodbath.

I play and like Black Powder and while units can be destroyed very quickly, they can also hold on through incredible punishment at time.

I like this. Casualties are abstracted so the fights are not 'bloody' at all in some sense.

So it isn't clear how many casualties, exactly, my new unit has taken. But that unit might be removed from the table after a single enemy salvo if it rolls badly enough and I do like that.

It seems like it reflects accounts I have read of battles with some units getting it full in the face and legging it right away and other units not knowing when enough is enough and fighting on regardless.

When you consider that game turns of most games are about 15 minutes, 33% casualties is probably not that bad, specially if it is a close range firefight. However, there is a big danger of the game not having room for strategy as cavcrazy says above. I tend to like a game where 33% casualties in a turn would be a very good hit but the average being around 10-15%. I figure at 33% casualties (or more) the fellas in the unit are probably starting to look over their shoulders to spot the nearest cover or best route of escape.

Seems pretty plausible to me, in close quarters combat, with massed units.

Depends on the conception of "bloody." If it means actual persons killed maimed and rendered incapable of combat, that's one thing. On the other hand if we take the fact that toy soldiers are purely representational tokens and the "bloody" includes those who are shocked, demoralized, running away or ready to, then 33% in a turn,which represents up to an hour of combat then no, it's quite realistic.

Let's look at it the other way around. You have generally four to eight hours of real time, our time, the time we live in, to set up start, run, complete, and pack up your game. So Let's say that's six hours of solid gaming time. Thus if a battle takes in real life 6 hours, you have to have the ability to reach the same state in the battle that had been done in reall life. So if you want Borodino in six gaming hours- it better bloody well be bloody!

It all depends.

Depends on the perceived timescale of the game and how the combat mechanisms interlock with other aspects (first and foremost maneuvering). If units usually die in a bloody slaughter within seconds while my other units are unable to move a substential range during the same time segment, tactics and strategy become less decisive. It basically becomes a matter of rushing into close combat, rolling high and be done with it, while less bloody rules will put movement (and the denial of movement), flanking actions or the exploitation of a single lucky breakthrough on the forefront of deciding your battle.

My personal preference is thus for the less bloody rules where combat might stall for a few turns, but it depends on the overall design and what the rules are trying to represent.

What OSchmidt said.

No, if it means that I must paint large armies of figures in order to that the rules. Yes, it means a fun quick game that still give me the feel of the period. Can't stand rules with a long list of modifiers and die rolls for everything.

Depends on the time period. If it is horse and musket I much prefer a game that is morale driven rather than casualty driven for results. In modern (machine gun) warfare I acknowledge that enormous casualties can be taken in a very short period so don't mind bloody. Thinking back on when I played ancients, a balance of casualties and morale were the most satisfying as I recall.

I like Fire & Fury/Age of Eagles and Black Powder, in which there are casualties but they don't pile up so quick

One thing about Black Powder is that you keep the whole unit on the table – losses are marked separately – makes for a bit of a better look

I like the feel of games where lots of figures come off and go into the dead pile. It makes you look like you've accomplished something.

I like to have realistic rules. So while most of the time you will have a steady rate of attrittion, some times, units do get overwhelmed, we do have cases particularly in the ACW were a single regiment is forced to delay the enemy, and just get cut down, loosing 80+% casualties in less the 15 minutes.

Also most games don't do this, but I think some campgians do it, that the golden rule during the horse and musket is 2-3 wounded for every killed.

In the 20th century this was much more as much as 8 wounded for every killed.

Ifind it helps to not think of those men as dead, it is a break down of the effectiveness of that unit which van happen quite quickly in combat so yes I like quick decisive rules.

Volley and Bayonet can be bloody and I like 'em just fine.