CATenWolde | 07 Apr 2014 9:54 a.m. PST |
Hi, We are going to test Volley & Bayonet for large scale ACW games. However, I have a personal bias against the default "square" brigade stands because it forces the player to deploy troops in a double line, which not only was very often not the case, but also removes a basic deployment option from the commander. So
I was thinking that a simple fix would be that we could use the "rectangular" regimental stands (which also give a better linear look) as the default unit, but allow players to deploy one behind the other "in support" if they wish, and to thus achieve the extra melee dice that the deeper unit type receives. Casualties could also be split between the two stands, I suppose. Has anyone tried this simple option, or do you think it would work? My one concern is that individual stands will be limited to 2SP, as 1000 men is all that would fit in the 300 yard frontage (even allowing for some skirmishers "out there"). We're also working up a C&C system to graft on, but that's another topic. Cheers, Christopher |
79thPA | 07 Apr 2014 10:19 a.m. PST |
I'd go up to 3 points per stand since each stand still represents about three regiments. I don't see VnB being a game in which the commander cares about how a particular brigade is deployed, but, rather, it is sufficient for the commander to know that Smith's division is holding the left flank and Wilson's brigade has been tasked with holding the crossroad (and the brigade commander will deploy his brigade as he sees fit). I've dabbled with the idea of using multiple brigade stands to represent a brigade, but I've never gone anywhere with it. |
Rich Bliss | 07 Apr 2014 10:33 a.m. PST |
How would you handle morale checks? Would both stands check if only one was contacted in melee. Can one stand be forced back away from the other? I don't think that the square base is implied to force any formation. If you check the frontages, it assumes a reserve, not necessarily a couple line. |
CATenWolde | 07 Apr 2014 10:52 a.m. PST |
Well, if both stands are in the melee, then I suppose it would be treated as a single morale check affecting both – in essence they become temporarily joined when the decision is made to commit one in support of the other. If they are of different qualities? Hmm
average them, rounding to the lower, I suppose
As for not assuming a double line, you can only fit 900 men on a 300 yard frontage (assuming a two rank line), so even rounding up to 1000 assumes that you have skirmishers out there. If you have 3+ SP in a brigade base, then it certainly has to be an assumed double line (and actually having 5-6SP in an ACW brigade space doesn't seem possible). There's nothing terribly wrong with that, but I was wondering if there was a simple option that would give a bit more flexibility. On the other hand, since SP are divorced from other combat mechanics, you could just alter the ratio a bit to make the regimental stands more robust. C |
McLaddie | 07 Apr 2014 11:12 a.m. PST |
We do that for all my V&B games. All infantry and cavalry are on linear stands and operate as such. With a formation change[like going stationary] they can become a massed stand, one linear stand placed up against another and moved as a single unit. That way a brigade or regiment can cover a 300 to 600 yard area [with regular scale], which is the frontage they often covered. The square massed stands represent the internal configuration of supported lines and 'columns of waiting'
As the ACW was far more "linear" than the Napoleonic wars, it also makes sense, regardless of the actual scale. |
Rich Bliss | 07 Apr 2014 11:18 a.m. PST |
I would assume a skirmish line and a regiment or two on the firing line and local supports and probably a regiment in reserve. The idea is that the brigade is roughly in the 3" square area. The exact whereabouts is unclear to the Corps Commander (the player). |
CATenWolde | 07 Apr 2014 2:02 p.m. PST |
McLaddie – it's great to hear that you've used the same method to good effect, and for the same reasons. Just to be clear, do you mandate that the two stands must remain one turn stationary to bond together or break apart? I was thinking of treating it as a facing change, to allow it to happen "on the move" so to speak. How do you handle stands with different morale rating? Again, I was thinking that I would round down, but there is reason to round up as well. Perhaps round in the direction of whatever stand is in front? Cheers, Christopher |
McLaddie | 07 Apr 2014 5:12 p.m. PST |
Just to be clear, do you mandate that the two stands must remain one turn stationary to bond together or break apart? I was thinking of treating it as a facing change, to allow it to happen "on the move" so to speak. Christopher~ Hi. Yeah, that wasn't clear. Actually, we also do it as part of movement at a cost of 1/2 each unit's movement. As Frank C. says that the "Mass" formation represents the post SYW use of columns of waiting and supports, we see it as basically a formation change where two separate commands become 'synched' for support. To split into two stands again costs the same 1/2 movement. How do you handle stands with different morale rating? Again, I was thinking that I would round down, but there is reason to round up as well. Perhaps round in the direction of whatever stand is in front? We have tried rounding up and down, but then we started using the morale rating of the unit in front [morale checks etc], but that stand takes the casualties first. It's removed when the stand's SPs are used up, leaving the poorer [or better] morale linear stand. [We just didn't buy the idea that a mass stand could act as a massed stand with supports etc. with a linear stand's strength
but that's just us.] We think it adds some nice tactial nuances to the game, besides being able to protect or 'enhance' poorer grade units by mixing them with better units. Gosh, like they really did at times. Best Regards, Bill |
The G Dog | 07 Apr 2014 6:44 p.m. PST |
I do something similar for my Anglo-Sikh war games with V & B. The British regulars and company troops are on linear bases while the Sikhs are generally on the mass base – unless I need to cover a longer line in which case the regimental bases get used. It works pretty well
but the regimental stands can get caught short if they are hit by a mass stand. |
McLaddie | 07 Apr 2014 9:13 p.m. PST |
We first dealt with this problem with our 1859 armies. The Austrians typically deployed in line with supports, so that the actual frontage of a regiment historically on a regular bassis was twice that of a mass stand that represented it in V&B. Sooo, we had to come up with something that would work. We found it was a reasonable approach to any V&B era. G Dog: It sounds like you have substitute stands for the British brigades, or are the stands all regiments? |
The G Dog | 08 Apr 2014 4:58 a.m. PST |
McLaddie – the British stands are all regiments. Even the light cavalry. |
McLaddie | 08 Apr 2014 8:08 p.m. PST |
G Dog: Thanks. I wasn't clear on that. Always liked the Sikh wars. Very Napoleonic in an exotic theme. |
McLaddie | 08 Apr 2014 8:10 p.m. PST |
Christopher: I know I've mentioned the linear change to massed formation mechanic on the V&B list a couple of times. The monumental silence in response makes me think the idea is not that attractive to most ardent V&Bers. Bill |