"Land of the Free Rules- Review after Playing " Topic

This weekend I had an opportunity to play a small game using Land of the Free (LOF). I provided a detailed summary of the rules here TMP link

We played an AWI game involving only infantry. Each side had two Groups (brigades) composed of 3-4 regiments. We assigned the same values to each side. All units were medium units with the standard attributes given in the book. It was just a line them up and have at it sort of thing. We didn't use any of the generic scenarios provided in the book. There were two Group Commanders and a Force Commander, as mandated in the rules.

The blow by blow wouldn't be very interesting I think, so let me just provide my observations/subjective thoughts.

At first I thought LOF was very similar to Black Powder. There's no base removal for casualties, the number of figures on the bases doesn't matter, heck, the number of bases in a unit doesn't really matter for game play since units are generically characterized as tiny, small, medium or large. Units need to receive orders from Commanders each turn to act.

But really, LOF is actually different under the hood (bonnet), so to speak.

Command in LOF is much more restrictive. Simply stated, with a very limited exception, a unit can't perform an action unless it starts within a Commander's command distance (LOF calls it "Sphere of Influence." This is either 12" or 18"). It can leave the Commander's sphere, but once it does so it's going to be stuck there. (By contrast BP allows it, although BP does make it more difficult to pull off the farther away the unit is). As a result, a player can't simply detach a unit and have it march clear around the enemy and take the position in flank. A Commander would have to accompany it. There's no initiative move (a unit can act when an enemy is nearby )like there is in BP.

Some hate this sort of thing. I quite like it. I think it makes units behave as parts of a larger formation—which I think is realistic.

But this rule also means a unit can't even shoot if it's outside the Commander's command distance (unless the unit has reserved an action to fire-see below). I think this takes things too far. I would prefer to see a unit being able to fire, but not move, even when it's not in command range.

One thing that takes getting used to is the measurement convention. All measurements are made from a unit's leader base. For example, to determine whether a unit is within a Commander's sphere of influence, you measure from the center of the Commander's base to any point on the unit leader's base. A few times I got caught because I was thinking that, as with most wargames, measurements are made from one point to the closest point on a unit (not the leader's base which must be in the center).

I like the disorder rules. A unit accrues disorder markers when it takes certain actions, like interpenetrating a friendly unit, crossing a linear obstacle, as the result of being shot at. For each disorder marker the unit has it shoots with one less dice and it also suffers a negative morale effect. The unit has to spend Maneuver actions to remove these disorder markers before doing anything else. This reminds me a lot of the disorder points accrued by units in the "Loose Files and American Scamble" rules and "British Grenadier" rules. It seems particularly appropriate for 18th century units that tried to maintain the ranks and files.

There are a lot of things to keep track of for a unit. You need to track its current morale state (Fit, Shaken, Exhausted, Shattered), you need to keep track of the hits it has accrued, and you need to keep track of disorder markers it has accrued. There will be a lot of markers on your table.

Commanders can also significantly influence units' performance beyond just restricting their ability to act due to proximity. Commanders can allow units to reroll Morale tests or Fire, they can give units additional actions to perform, they can lead an inspirational charge, etc. However, for most of these things the Commander has to attach to the unit he's influencing. While he's attached he can't give orders to other units. This means that if you attach the Commander to lead that heroic charge the rest of the units in his brigade will sit there doing nothing (unless you can move the overall commander in range to pick up the slack while the brigadier is otherwise engaged). So, there's a trade-off to be made, and that's a nice design touch.

Finally, I'm not sure these are really good rules for a large battle. There is a lot to think about in the sequencing of actions and how or if you're going to involve your Commanders. While speed of play would improve with practice, I still think that since you're acting with individual units and sequence of actions can be important there's a limit to how many units one person can handle. We had 6-7 per player things went ok. With 10-15 per player I think you'd be pushing it. So, I found it a bit ironic that the historical scenarios provided, at least for the AWI- are very large affairs (e.g. Brandywine, Germantown). The bright side is that you can have a nice game with the number of units we used and thus less than 150 figure per side.

I'm a rules junky and I buy lots of rules I never play. I've bought so many that bring nothing new to the table or, to be quite frank, are half-assed affairs, riddled with errors, inconsistences, or omissions. So I don't really expect much anymore and going in didn't have high hopes that LOF would be different. I have to say that my opponent and I were both pleasantly surprised to find that LOF gave an interesting game requiring thoughtful decisions to be made. I would recommend them to anyone interested in gaming the AWI.

"There's no base removal for casualties, the number of figures on the bases doesn't matter"
That's where I stopped reading…..

I like the write up. I am trying my first game this weekend. I think with respect to the size of games, I think larger games need more players in control. The one think I wonder about is that with more troops, the turns will take longer as this is an IGOUGO

Matthew

These rules will see their first trial by fire on my game table this weekend.

Thanks for the review.
The morale states (Fit, Shaken, Exhausted, Shattered) seem similar to other FoG style games.
Your last paragraph makes me think it's worth at least giving them a go.

"There's no base removal for casualties, the number of figures on the bases doesn't matter"
That's where I stopped reading…..

Different strokes. I prefer this approach to counting figures. It means I don't have to re-base to play the rules.

Thanks very much for the review.

Cheers for that. Looking forward to these rules, and the implication that there will be no rebasing required is a bit of a blessing after planning an army for British Grenadier.

vtsaogames : movement trays solves the problem for rebasing each time you wanna trie new rules….

That works if the new basing scheme is a multiple of my current scheme. Rules that count figures also make me work if my units have different numbers of figures.

Man, I'm with vtsaogames on this one! There's no reason figure stands can't equate to different "Effectives", and for so many gamers it just makes more sense being able to scale your [already based] figures at the ratios/ground scales you care to use them at, or for what one rule set or another specifies an individual stand is suppose to equal to. Quite frankly, making players base finite numbers of miniatures on a stands is "over the hill" in my book – I won't buy a set of rules today (except for skirmish gaming) that tells me I need to have a particular number of miniatures mounting on a base.

Btw, thanks for the LOF play-review here – I'll print this one out to read it through thoroughly (thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts Bede).

Thank you for the write up. They sound interesting. While I am happy with the rules I am using (loose files and american scramble) these sound interesting and different enought to give them a try. There is a kindle edition of them which I preordered. If I like them I will get the hard copy. Thank you!

Thanks for taking the time to do the Write Up Bede

I've played a couple of games of All the Kings Men and it seems to work well for me, only a small point that 'erks' me with that game.
But as to LOF..

LOF calls it "Sphere of Influence." It (a unit) can leave the Commander's sphere, but once it does so it's going to be stuck there. (By contrast BP allows it, although BP does make it more difficult to pull off the farther away the unit is).

That is the part that where I was thinking.. not for me.
I can understand in that period, yes farther away from your C.O. command /control is going to be more difficult, but for a unit to become practially useless, or as you say "stuck"? Nope, doenst work for me, Especially not being able to fire. I JUST dont get that.
As for removing casualties, have played both types of rules, A K M, the units are based on 12 individual Inf. per. unit, men are removed as 'KIA'.
In other games, its basically, morale/fatigue points, when a unit reaches its 'break point', they make a "must pass" morale test, if they Fail, they flee. If pass, they continue to fight but of course all To Hit, and Carrry Out Order rolls more difficult.
Thanks again for the insight..

I own these rules and they will be given a strong set of games in the near future. They exist in a zone between British Grenadier and Black Powder (which my club favors).

The point based game play is clearly designed for relatively few figures to be used in a "minor battle what if" type situation, while the historical scenarios are really so large that you probably would want a simpler set of rules, such as BP, that specializes in huge figure count multi-player action. In practice it may prove differently, but the amount of figures and table space needed to game some of those battles is overwhelming. Definitely something to work your way up to.

For those who immediately rejected the game due to the rule that units cannot act without a commander, be advised that not only is this merely a command and control rule to keep the related units together, but you never really can suffer "stranded units" unless you do it to yourself. It is much more of a limit to keep units from suddenly moving forward 3 moves and then letting loose a volley before the enemy can react. (Which is exactly what might happen in BP!) Pick your poison here. Both rules sets are trying to break out of the simple move 6", shoot, turn done IGOUGO. BP does it with dice based variation while LotF uses multiple orders per turn--but within limits (only so many combat orders, can only wander off just so far from the commander, etc.)

You also have at least one extra commander to give orders (the force commander), and you can promote more commanders in the event that you lose the one's that you start with.

Like most rules, it is clearly not representational so much as a brake on the gamer's desire to use units in ways that they generally did not do in the period, and to make up for the fact the all seeing eye on the table and far flung units acting in perfect harmony in the 18th Century.

And I do like that the rules set is focused on the american colonial period--that takes a lot of things out of consideration that you would need for contemporary European warfare required in a more general 18th C. rules set.

Overall I can't say if this set of rules is where my group will come down on--Black Powder has the edge due to familiarly, but it is certainly in the running, mainly due to it's more restrictive movement and order system (!) and may also have all the detail that a lot of players may be able to handle, as I know some will balk at the complexity of BG, especially as we learn it.

Shan

I don't think BG is that complex, though it may be a game best learned by those that have played it before. That might be true of most rules though.

British Grenadier has proved easy for my group to pick up, and they like it.

British Grenadier are by far the best set of AWI rules we have used at Ayr Wargamers. Think we will stick with them as they still seem superior to this new set, in our opinion of course.

"There's no base removal for casualties, the number of figures on the bases doesn't matter"
That's where I stopped reading…..

I prefer this approach – I am getting tired of rules where units fight to the last 10%

I agree with Last Hussar. Figure removal does nothing to enhance a game or create a "simulation". I will never rebase figures…ever.

This is a little off subject but I don't mind re basing my figures if I think the new project is worth it. I feel excited knowing that my little guys get to play again just like the first time I painted them. Another bonus for me is flushing out units that maybe don't quite have enough figures to meet the new unit size.

I have a large SYW – 40mm collection of Prussians and Austrians that I had based up on long 5" bases to use with C&C Napoleon but have decided with my brother to resurrect my old rules I sort of published in the 80's. The point being I really am enjoying it.

Chris

I just picked up a copy of LoF and so far like what I have read. However also got Black Powder so will give both a go and see what they are like.
I know some people that played BG at my old club, but since moving I haven't found a new club so need to have rules that are easy to pick up.