"across a deadly field-very disappointed" Topic

i am a hardcore jr fan. been there from the brginning. love the game. all 3 versions, tbh. i have had the plessure of chating with john hill on many occasions, and he is a gent.
i was very, very interested in his new rules, across a deadly field.
it is a true disappointment.
first, i must confess i did not have to pay for the book. my wife, who runs a painting service, did some touchup work, free of charge, for a good customer. he somehow bought 2 copies of the book, and passed the 2nd on to me a a gift.
i'm glad i did'nt spend money on this.
john hill has said the regiment is the focal point in acw battles. this game is not about regiments. its a sad try to be a "fire and fury"(a game i don't like.) type thing. i don't even know what to call it…
the large scale of 1 casting equals 60 combatants means that anything other than the big opening battles, as presented on the table top, will look like lines of skirmishers facing each other. and how people are saying"no rebasing is needed", is beyond me. what if your regiments are already set up for one of the jr varients? how do you "reuse" a bunch of stands with 4 or more figures on them? this game has to rank as one of the worst examples of "what it is supposed to be, but what really is" as ive run into in 40 years.
why have a game with regiments when its quite usless to do much of anything with, well, the regiments? the rules are mainly brigade, why call it anything else? and john told a group of us himself, "it was nearly impossible to have brigades of regiments fire togeather", wth? but here, in his new rules, thats what happens.
i could go on. very disappointed.

saying"no rebasing is needed", is beyond me.

Yes, I agree that that statement is a bit disingenuous. Sure, you can play the game without rebasing, but you can't play it as written unless you have a selection of bases with different numbers of figures on them. (Since you say you play JR I'm not understanding why you don't have a collection that allows you to accommodate that)

It makes me wonder whether that was a requirement of the publisher for marketability.

As for the rest he clearly said it was a "big battle" game and that means you need to compress things to be able to have a game that's doable in a reasonable amount of space and in a reasonable time. I don't understand why you're disappointed when he did exactly what he said he would.

I was looking forward to these rules but had the opportunity to look at them in a store on the weekend. Man, what a mess! It seems mostly to be filled with tables. There are tables for those that use 10mm figures, tables for those that game in 15mm and then 25mm tables as well. Why are there so many frreaking tables? And why do they need to repeat the same tables for each figure scale? After flipping through the book I can't even tell you whether they use 6-sided dice or not, its such a mess. Are the tables padding to make up the page count.

I looked at the book and looked at the price and put it back. Maybe if it had been a $20 USD book like the other Osprey rules released in the last year or so. Then I might have bought it thinking maybe it might be playable once you got into the rules.

Myself, I think "Fire and Fury" is one of the best wargames ever written, but I am looking for something to use with my Perry plastics. I don't think this is it.

I use the bases that I used for Johnny Reb with no problem. I don't understand why you think " no need to rebase" is not true.
Osprey spread John's 2-page chart (per scale) across multiple pages for readability, the original 2-page chart is available on CigarBoxBattle.com
Having reference charts for each of 3 scales is an advantage, as you only use 1 scale in a game. Would you rather have a chart for 1 scale and have to make up charts for other scales ?

i have many, many stands with different numbers of figures on them, but the problem is that most regiments in ADF are so small, that it looks like a line of skirmishers. it does'nt even seem or feel like a miniatures game. its a almost board game. when i looked at some of the pictures of the game online, i wondered why the game mat many of these games were played on had things like fences, woods, buildings "penciled in" instead of, well, model fences, woods and buildings in 3d. guess the answer is that the game is so abstract, its a "why bother" thing.

Not what l expected, don't think you can field regiments when each figure represents 60 men.

These observations are not uncommon. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The rules mechanism is excellent. There are many people ignoring the stated scales and just playing at 1 figure = 30 and 1" = 50 yards.

John, I'm sorry that you don't like the game. John Hill designed a game where the unit of maneuver is the Brigade, but you can still "play" with the regiments. If you go up a level in scale, so the table can encompass a major battle, each figure must represent more than 30 men. At that scale the units must be physically smaller, and many regiments were worn down to fewer than 400 men by the time of those big battles.
John drew a beautiful map of the area north of Gettysburg, and had it printed on felt, which is what you see in the pictures. The players had the option of putting on as much "real" terrain as they wanted, which I can't imagine being a bad thing.
The Brigade, in ADF, being made up of Regimental units, looks alot more like a Brigade in the field, than it does in most other rules.

guess i'm just really let down.
mean to say, when you go from 5 stands, to 4 stands(jr 1, 2, and 3) with 1 casting being 30 combatants, then you go to 2 or 3 stands with very few figures, it just does'nt look like a line of men in the field.

It is out of the ordinary, doing a Brigade level game where you can play with individual Regiments, but I do believe Mr. Hill has achieved it.

The 1870 series did the same thing for the European wars of the period, with each battalion represented by a single base; not my cup of tea.

If you're commanding a corps or more your manoeuvre elements should be no lower than brigade, so Fire and Fury has it right.

I like em. Course I'm going to use the three stand system and Baccus 6mm figs with two strips of figs on each 20mm square stand. So 6 strips will equal a six fig regiment in the rules and will still look like a line of men. If I need a large eight fig regiment, I'll just put three strips on the two end stands and leave two strips in the middle.

I like the rules but didn't like the look of two stands with 3 or 4 figs on each. The pictures in the book just didn't look good. 6mm figs should solve that and make it much more visually appealing. A piece of pipe cleaner placed in between the strips will easily denote casualties also.

Most rules changing scales doesn't change much. For these rules, the plethora of charts implies otherwise.

i'm one of the guys using ADF at 1" = 50 yds and 1 figure = 30 men. It works well at that scale. I also have all my stands at 1" wide, 4 figures/stand and have no intention of rebasing anything. Either I just cap a couple figures (you can take that however you wish) to make up a certain size regiment or I just distribute figures throughout the brigade.

There is a temptation to use the brigade as the basic maneuver group ala F&F, but then you lose a lot of detail – I mean just try doing Longstreet's attack on the 2nd day of Gettysburg with Brigades and it just does not work what with all those little regiments in the Union 3rd Corps.

I use 3 stand regiments. I use the 25mm ranges and movement charts for 15mm figures. The game played ok. I like the mechanics. We did find that the support rules make regiments are very hard to break. We thought of increasing every unit's morale by 1 to make it a little easier for them to fail morale. As the rules are written a veteran or even a trained regiment with two supports will only fail morale on a 2 or 3 with two dice. Also, the six score bonus to all units behind friendly lines makes rallying quite easy. I do agree that the two stand units do not look right. The game looks too much like a skirmish game.

I took a quick look on Thursday and the first thing that struck me was the numbers of tables of factors there were.

They reminded me of the sort of rules we used to play in the 1980's when club nights became some sort of maths test.

That said, I only flicked through the rule book and have never played so my opinion counts for nought. The chaps playing it seemed to be enjoying themselves.

That opinion is valid. It is kind of all over the place with multiple vague charts. It does have that 80s feel with lots of +1/-1, however, you only use the best 2 on the list so you don't have to do algebra forever.
For a system that every figure counts and single casualties affect the unit I wonder why its not single figure basing.
If you can overcome those hurdles it does give a good game (so far)!

Two observations. The chart problem can be fixed with the previous mentioned CigarBoxBattle site mentioned above. You will find a single page chart just as in the JR series. Second one is a question as to if you have played the game or are making your displeasure based on the rules. As was noted in the jriii group, folks tend to change their mind after playing the game. I must admit that as another JR staunch devotee, I too had strong reservations about the rule set until I played it at NASHCON and Johnny Con. I thing it will be my go to game system for big games.

For a system that every figure counts and single casualties affect the unit I wonder why its not single figure basing.

For a game supporting major battles that's a pretty old school way of doing things.

Gotta agree with Trajanus.

I too am having trouble wrapping my head around certain philosophical aspects of the game. If you have a fixed figure to man ratio then your unit frontage is fixed regardless of how many figures to base (6 figures should occupy the same frontage regardless of whether you base two figs to a base or three. Only the number of bases change)

Then it is suggested that each unit should have the same number of bases regardless of strength only the number of figures per base is varied to best represent moral erosion at a glance. (I believe I read that moral goes down in thirds so three bases per unit is best.) This would seem to contradict the figure per man ratio which is fixed. If different numbers of bases per unit are allowed to accurately reflect unit strength then a more elaborate manner of tracking "thirds" would be needed rather than base removal.

I will reserve judgment on the game mechanics until I get to play test, not just skim the rules. I like the concept of "actions" per unit and use the same concept in my own ancients war gaming rule set to separate movement from firing from melee.

I too am having trouble wrapping my head around certain philosophical aspects of the game. If you have a fixed figure to man ratio then your unit frontage is fixed regardless of how many figures to base (6 figures should occupy the same frontage regardless of whether you base two figs to a base or three. Only the number of bases change)

This is one of the most misunderstood points of the game.

While the units are supposed to be the same number of bases, there's no requirement that each base be the same size.

So a base with 4 figures on it can be wider than one with 3 figures on it.

Note that the rules don't specify how much frontage each figure should occupy on a base. So the author does not agree that the frontage per 60 men (one figure) is fixed.

A professionally made ruleset, which wants top dollar for itself, should not be so readily misunderstood. It should be clear.

From my point of view I was interested in the rules until I had an opportunity to actually flip through them. After doing that I no longer had the same interest level. So I put it back on the shelf.

And the reason was as I stated previously in the thread above.

If you're commanding a corps or more your maneuver elements should be no lower than brigade, so Fire and Fury has it right.

There is no reason not to be able to play a multi-corps game with JR2 1:20 scale. Done it for years. Provided you have enough space, players and figures. We did Antietam, 1st and 2nd days of Gettysburg.

IMHO the ACW should be gamed at the regimental level. Regiments were the building blocks and in the final analysis soldiers identified themselves with regiments not brigades.

After playing JR2 for years and then JR3 I have had it with the weird basing and unorganized rules and the attempts to be F&F. We switched to MLW and haven't looked back.

I am with cwbuff on this, though I haven't played as many JR battles as he has I have played and enjoyed several. As a military historian for the U.S. Army I also have a solid understanding of Civil War tactics and battles.

I was pleasantly surprised at ADF, the mechanisms were smoother than I would have thought from a quick look at the demo book they had at Johnny Con. the game was fun and I felt as if I had to make some of the decisins that a division commander would have had to make.

I am leaning toward the cheaper kindle version.

COL Scott ret, I have both Kindle and hard copy. Hard for John to autograph the Kindle.

Note that the rules don't specify how much frontage each figure should occupy on a base. So the author does not agree that the frontage per 60 men (one figure) is fixed.

60 men formed in a two rank line shoulder to shoulder (22 inches per man) would occupy a front of less then 20 yards. Lets say you use 2 foot per man as an average, then at the stated scale of 1"= 80 to 100 yards you would have 4 to 5 figures of 60 men occupying that frontage. That's 240 to 300 men per 1" of frontage.

The size of a regiment (as well as a brigade) could very greatly. At Gettysburg both sides had individual regiments that were larger then some of their brigades. Some regiments had fewer then 100 men while others had 700 to 800 men!

This has always been an issue when re-fighting Civil War battles with historical strengths. Typically you will have to consolidate small regiments into one unit, and then sub-divide large regiments into battalions. Even using the brigade as the base unit you can have sizes from 700 men to over 2500 men.

For the most part regiments fought with the parent brigade. They would go into action together and withdraw together. Exceptions of course are regiments detached as reserves, supporting artillery, covering flanks or simply assigned elsewhere.

Games based upon the regiment as the base unit, or the brigade, both have a place in the hobby depending upon ones preference and size engagement they wish to fight. We once did the entire Seven Days at the Brigade level. I'm sure it's possible to do it at the regimental level, but I'm pretty sure that would take a monumental effort.

Kim

I recently put all my old Scruby N-gauge (roughly 12mm) figures (the painted ones, at least) on my 5x8 table, using the order of battle of Cedar Creek, with each 1"-wide stand representing a regiment/battalion. With divisions in columns of brigades.

There was almost no room to maneuver. And where's the fun when all you can do is charge straight ahead and hope for the best?

To me, the interesting part of the ACW is at the campaign level; that's where the real strategy lies.

Wow Don
Scruby "N's"!
Bill Protz and I almost loaded up on these and then Airfix happened. And then 15mm and then Minifigs/Hinchliffe etc…..