"BG rules likes and dislikes" Topic

EC:

I absolutely agree about the effectiveness of rifles – they weren't wonder weapons (American myth) and I believe George Washington wanted to replace them all with musket men with bayonets. But you also have to give the devil its due – they really shined during Saratoga. Maybe a change depending on the scenario.

I aslo share SM's thoughts on muskets – 40 paces was close range, maybe 120 yards effective. Not sure of many battles that started much longer range than that. Trying to recall when the first line at Guilford opened up.

For both of the above, and the canister question – a lot depended on how far you could see. While the bigger guns in the ACW could shoot a lot further, they simply couldn't see as far as the guns could shoot.

Anecdotal – years ago two re-enactor units had a firelock match – rifles vs muskets. The rifles (IIRC) scored a few more hits at the closer range, but the longest hit was achieved by a musket. The guy shooting was over six feet tall and he hit the silhouette of a man in the knee. Forget the distance, but about 100 yards. No rifle hits. Obviously not professional soldiers, but modern powder, some of the riflemen were shooters, and of course, no one was shooting back at them either.

I suspect that the (disproportionate) success of riflemen at Saratoga may have owed much to Morgan's leadership and organisational skills.

Maybe, but he wasn't aiming their weapons. :-)

Right now, the rules do a pretty good job of modelling Saratoga; artillerymen can't rally off DPs, so over time they'll take real hits, mirroring what happened to Lt Hadden's detachment.

No game is immune from incredibly bad rolls, but it seems like they even out (mostly) over time; HG is right about our Freeman's Farm game, though. Morgan's men couldn't hit for toffee.

One other question--seems like in some of the games it takes a very long time for formations arriving on map to get anywhere.

1. Has anybody else had this issue?

2. What did you do to address it?

I had one other nit about BG, or any set of rules that says you can halve the figure ratio scale – yet the ranges remain oddly unchanged, which makes no sense. If you halve the figure ratio, say from 20:1 to 10:1, shouldn't all the distances be doubled? Otherwise, isn't the ground scale all out of whack?

@ Virginia Tory,

There are rules allowing an entire brigade to make a common move, but it can also do this more than once (up to three times I think?) as long as it remains outside the range of enemy units on the table. This allows players to "speed up" the action.

@VirginiaTory
there were two separate rules introduced to tackle this problem. The first allows reinforcement moves, which are double normal ones until you get within range of the enemy. The second is a brigade move, where you move the whole lot on a single roll of a pair of AvD or D6 as appropriate. Really the brigade move is designed to speed up play in larger games. But you can use the two rules together to move your brigade up to double distance on a single roll.

@historygamer
well I know what you mean… and I don't. what you say ought to apply but it doesn't seem to. It seems to work fine at these different levels. Like many rule sets though, I think BG is not best looked at too closely in scaling terms. The issues of frontage, movement speed versus weapon range are very hard to resolve historically.
I have been working for some time on some late 19th Century Colonial rules and have tried to be much more disciplined about this issue. There are still compromises though, notably that your firing roll is more than one actual volley (in terms of the movement time and the distance covered) and you have to make compromises on frontage too.

Understand about rules and compromises. I once read an excellent article about either building rules from the ground up (lots of detail, but may result in Empire like rules) or from the top down.

We've played the rules a couple of times using 10:1, but it didn't play quite the same, especially Guilford where the frontages were difficult to fit on the table – especially the third line.

Still, if my 15mm battalion goes from five stands to 10 – roughly equivalent in inches – it seems like the firing distance should double to compensate. May try it to see, I wonder if anyone else has, or that "breaks" the rule system.

Still, love the rules though. :-)

The guy that said he didn't like DPs just doesn't get it. They are spot on for that period feel.

Some friends and I have play-tested a couple of scenarios for the next book using 15mm figures at 1:10 ratio. We found that if you used the 28mm distances/ranges, it worked quite well (these were both smaller battles/large skirmishes, so the table was less crowded).

Another thing to bear in mind of course is that the larger units at 1:10 will fire at higher levels on the musketry chart and thus a single volley is more likely to deliver 3 DPs PLUS real casualties in one go, than is the case with 1:20 units. This can make a high die roll quite devastating and you may need to decide if you want to have unusually large units (say 30+ figures) fire as two separate wings instead if you think it is getting too bloody.

SM:

Sorry to put this into this thread, but I owed you an explanation/reference to the word squad in the 18th century from a while back.

I thought I had seen it in Fawcett's revision of Bland's in 1759, but I could never find it when I looked. I did just run across it in Cuthbertson's System for the Complete Interior Management and Economy of a Battalion of Infantry – Chapter V – Of Forming Companies into Squads of Inspection….

I still swear I saw it somewhere in Blands, or it could have also been Cumberland's as well.

Anyway, there is one period source for the word. :-)

Thanks – duly noted.

So…I'm poking my nose through these British Grenadier Rules and it's not as easy to follow as I thought it would be. I sort of bought them because all the cool kids were saying they were marvy. It could be because i always try to read them when I'm tired.

Anyway, what's a controllable game? 5-6 units per side?

Also, I wanted to try it out solo, is that any fun? Anyone ever try that?

No, still love the rules. We've put on pretty big games with them – Birmingham Hill, Monmouth, Long Island, etc. We have fielded multiple brigades and up to 10 players commanding brigades. But start small. :-)

It is always best (I think) to learn new rules from someone who has played them before if you can. Maybe at a convention.

Have not tried it solo, but the good thing about the rules for that are that you "must" move the distance the dice show.

Yep, still enjoying them.

HG, I think we tried the "5 or a 6" for rifles rule in one of our Saratoga games (the October battle, perhaps?) Seemed like they were inflicting too many hits.

You can fire rifles on the formed units table, but historically you were really just turning them into high tech muskets.

And for Freeman's, I don't think Morgan's battalion fought as a formed unit at anytime--not that the sources seem to indicate.

Found in ancient Rome:

You can easily learn the rules by playing 5-6 units per side – either two infantry brigades, or one brigade with some light infantry and cavalry attached. I would not suggest "going solo" until you have got a decent handle on the rules, as they are best learned by playing with someone who already knows them. However, that said, once you are familiar with them they will give you an excellent solo game, as the early war Rebel forces were often defending, so their options are more limited and you can programme responses into your units according to the "orders" (eg engage, defend, etc) that you give them at the start of the scenario.

Which version of the rules do you have – 1st edition or the "deluxe" (2nd) edition?

Dee-luxe sir. I just got them.

I cant really hope to have an opponent because I am a little isolated by way of being time strapped.

The thing is, I cant paint for that period so I have to get both sides painted up. Thus, to not be excessive, I was wondering what the bare bones was to make a good force?

I was thinking 6 foot and some horse for the 'Mericans and maybe 2 Line, a light, a grenadier, Some Queen's rangers foot and some Brit dragoons for the British.

Maybe a gun or two for each side.

Am i leaving anything out?

Worst that could happen is I throw in the towel and play a modified version of the rules Ive always used for Napoleonics.

Didn't like the DPs. We spent most of our time trying to avoid or get rid of them, rather than fighting the battle. The rules were way more complicated than we liked.

We finally settled on a free set of rules by Wes Rogers, "Sons of Liberty" we have since made them our own. A simple set of rules, basing is like WRG and they require less figures per unit.

We played JR2 (ACW) for many years until a lot of us in the club got fed up with the complicated charges and strange basing system. Can't imagine playing AWI with them.

I thought DPs was what gave the rules it's period flavor?

Discovered written on a Roman Bathhouse wall:

Yes, the DPs are taken from the "loose files and American scramble" set and do give it the "period flavour" that you are looking for. What Rallynow says about avoiding/getting rid of them is pretty much what the real-life commanders had to do – it's actually part of fighting the battle, not an alternative as he suggests.

The order-of-battle you suggest should give you a good basic game, lasting 2-3 hours, once you are familiar with the rules. Bear in mind that artillery was used by both sides to support each infantry brigade (or elite battalion on the British side), thus you'll mostly be firing canister; also cavalry is not quite the overpowering weapon it can be in Napoleonic and SYW games, but used skillfully can still be a game-changer.

By the way, which adapted Napoleonics rules were you using, as BG is actually abstracted from a combination of "LF&AS" and "General de Brigade"?

Well, I am trying to locate a copy of Guns of Liberty too, for variety's sake.

2-3 hours isnt That long but it's a good length. For some reasom, I was beginning to think that number of miniatures would take all night long…all niiiiiiight. I lovel Lionel Ritchie.

Anyway, I havent wargamed in forever and recently, at my parents place, I discovered a folder from college that had a hand written copy each of most of the rules we used. The Napoleonics were a reduction of Column, Line and Square from a War and Peace volume to about 10 handwritten pages.

But I know those rules inside and out and can play a solo game with no problems. However, I am finding British Grenadier a bit "involved".

Rallynow said:

"We played JR2 (ACW) for many years until a lot of us in the club got fed up with the complicated charges….."

Agreed. While charges were devastating JR charges make the entire game stop until resolved, then the units go way too far. I think they cleaned some of that up in JRIII, but I'd have to go back and look. Over, I liked the rules. We recently tried the GdB variant Guns of Gettysburg and like them. Simpler charges to resolve. The rules were kind of like JR light.

"…and strange basing system."

Not sure what you mean by that. I like JR for the way it accounts for the wide differences in the size of regiments which is very period correct. As an aside, I am constantly surprised when I go to Gettysburg and see the flank markers of some of the regiments that fought there and just how small the frontages were – if the markers are accurate.

The basing is different sizes with different numbers of figures on them. I know what John was trying to do. He wanted to keep the frontage the same no mater how many soldiers there were in the regiment. In order to do that he had to have varies sizes of bases and vary the number of figures on them. So a 100 man regiment would have the same frontage as a 1000 man regiment. Which to me makes absolutely no sense. The rules require each regiment to have five bases no matter how many figures it had. So a 50 soldier regiment would have five bases of ten each.

It really makes it difficult when for example, you need multiple 114th Penn. Zouave regiments to reflect the different sizes of the regiment throughout the war. I told John larger regiments have larger frontages! Smaller will have smaller frontages! He never understood that.

When I placed my base orders with WA I had to have various sizes of bases on hand. John was not that interested in which regiments were at a particular battle. This can be seen by the way he did the scenario OBs.

John was also obsessed with eliminating paperwork. I never did figure out what ACW set of rules had tons of paperwork. I don't know how the guy bought a house without paperwork. He wanted the player to be able to look at a regiment and know immediately everything about it. I always have a document for all players so they know what units they have, their morale rating, weapons, the size of the unit and General officer ratings. I saw that as a player aide. He saw it as paperwork.

We played it where every base was 7/8 x 7/8 and had four figures. The size of the unit was determine by varying the number of bases. That worked perfectly for 12 years. Then I moved to a new city and the JR2 players there were up in arms over it. So that was that. Needed new rules.

I was hoping he would clean that up in JR3. Nope it stayed the same.

I've found a couple of typos in these Deluxe BG rules. One maddening one in the command section of the rules (pg 26, section 2(a)) where, for a while, I tried to reconcile the meaning until I realized "charged" should've been "changed"

Odd that such a beautiful set of rules with so many nice photos would have a typo. Unless I am wrong and the CiC is supposed to charge at a unit with their new orders? Or is he limited once a turn to giving only one brigade a charge order?

"Unless I am wrong and the CiC is supposed to charge at a unit with their new orders?"

Not sure what that means. A Brigadier or CinC must be within 12 inches in order for a unit to charge. He does not have to accompany them IIRC.

I don't think there are any restrictions on how many charge orders he can give, including to his entire brigade if he wants.

In regards to the change orders – I often find such rules a bit odd – as unless they are open for all to see (e.g., a market displaying the brigade orders), who does the opponent know if a roll is successful to change the previous orders? How do you keep track of the new orders going forward? Honor system? Maybe.

I thought perhaps it was a nod at Don Quixote that Brigadiers were supposed to charge enemy units on their own rather like Cervantes' hero charged windmills.

But, alas, it was simply a typo. That's rather sloppy proof reading.

Well, I'll be playing a fair amount of solo games, thus the honor system will be very difficult to enforce.

Note to self: Buy that grandmanner Peninsular windmill

link

I think you'll like the rules. I agree though, there are a lot of typos in all the BG materials. There is also an on line errata page you should get too.

@ Minipigs – Unfortunately, the publisher decided to rush the Deluxe rules out in time for Salute a few years ago (having sat on them for ages) and whilst I was in the middle of proof-reading them for the author. It took both of us by surprise, frankly; so not the author's fault. I did warn you that BG is best learnt by playing with someone who already knows them. However, once you have done that, they are very easy to work with.

Well, it's a forgivable offense because it's clear the author had a lot of passion for the period and the responsibility for proof reading falls more on the shoulders of the publisher.

Just a pity such a beautiful set of rules is marred like this.

Cornwallis would've been scandalized and would have demanded Howe this happened?

Incidentally, what advantage do the 'Mericans have in BG?

Why should they?

You British Soldiers, you train every day
You fight the approved European Old Way
We are but farmers who've laid down our tools
We can't be expected to know all the rules

There are two sides to a wall
Sides to a wall
Sides to a wall
And you, my friends, are on the wrong side

"You British Soldiers, you train every day
You fight the approved European Old Way
We are but farmers who've laid down our tools
We can't be expected to know all the rules"

More mythology!

MinPigs – have you read Brumwell's book on Washington?

No, I haven't. Can you summarize the key points?

Not really. If you want to understand the Continental Army, read the book. Best advice I can give. Fatal Sunday is a good one too.