DanLevi | 08 Nov 2015 3:24 a.m. PST |
So I got a copy of Donald Featherstone's Wargamer's Handbook of the American War of Independence Edited by John Curry. In it there is a set of rules I'm interested in using but the rules on Melees are a bit confusing. Here's what they say: Method: A melee lasts for two rounds per game-move. Front ranks only fight the first round of a melee and are reinforced by the second rank during the second round of melee. Melees are between the men themselves, thus each man will individually fight his opposite number (if more than one he dices to dodge; 2-1 needs 4, 5, or 6 to do so). Throw dice as under: American Militiamen, Artillery men – 1 die American Continental Infantry, Rifleman, Indians, British/American Light Infantry – 3 dice per 2 men British German Regular Infantry Cavalry – 2 dice When an attack is actually led from the front my a staff officer no melee-dice falls less than 3. If C-in-C leads no melee-dice falls less than 4. Infantry behind hard cover adds half score as long as opponent is on opposite side of said cover. Casualties are taken from the front rank; men exactly opposite each other cannot both be killed so that removing a man leaves a gap. Into this gap the triumphant attacker will move so that he takes up the position occupied by the man he has killed. The defender who kills his opposite number has the option of doing the same. This ruling does not apply when defenders are behind a wall or in a house. Casualties are 'saved' by throwing a die for each one; 5 or 6 saves an infantryman; 4, 5, 6 saves a cavalry man. Staff officers and generals may be considered casualties when the opposing side throws a 5 or 6 in the melee scoring throw; either one may count as personally against a staff officer rather than kill line troops. The staff officer saves on a 4, 5, or 6. So what I am asking is for some clarification. It seems to me that an entire unit could be wiped out in the first round of melee as I'm interpreting it. So could someone provide an example below of how to go through a melee based on these rules. Thank you!
-Dan |
John Simmons | 08 Nov 2015 3:28 a.m. PST |
Greetings, I'm looking for any game experience feedback from game table play with these rules, errata that you have used or house rules you have added. Thank you, John |
Lt Col Pedant | 08 Nov 2015 4:44 a.m. PST |
As far as I remember (and that's quite a way), if each figure in a unit -front and second rank- lost its melee round (first and second rounds both) and failed its saving throw, then the unit would be wiped out. Remember, most of DF's rules are for war GAMES, not simulations. |
vtsaogames | 08 Nov 2015 11:06 a.m. PST |
could be wiped out in the first round of melee Old school rules can be quite bloody. A few years back we played a game of Charge. After three turns both armies were wrecked. It rather seemed more like 1914 than 1757. Roll for first phase battles. If both figures would be killed consider it a tie. Advance winners into contact with the second rank. fight the second round of melee. Seems like last man standing melee rules. |
McLaddie | 08 Nov 2015 2:51 p.m. PST |
Remember, most of DF's rules are for war GAMES, not simulations. I'm not sure that Don made that distinction. |
Lt Col Pedant | 08 Nov 2015 3:32 p.m. PST |
In The Warmer's Digest, in the 60s, DF took some US contributors to task for theorising about war-game simulations. He thought it made the hobby (note HOBBY) far too serious and complex. |
Early morning writer | 08 Nov 2015 3:57 p.m. PST |
Well, then the legendary Mr. Featherstone was far ahead of his time (as well as in the thick of his time). Simulation complexity in games are just excessive and the ruination of 'fun'. Simple is always better. The point is to have fun with figures – not recreate history (though making it 'look' like history can be part of the fun, too). Enough said. |
Who asked this joker | 09 Nov 2015 2:37 p.m. PST |
What early morning writer said! Now, as for the front rank and second rank reinforcing: I always took that to mean if a figure in the front rank is killed, a figure from the second rank could step forward and fill the gap. I've never liked the simple man-to-man roll-off that he experimented with. I prefer the methods used in his H&M rules in Wargames. I agree that his rules can be quite bloody. I dialed them back somewhat and simplified things where I could. Here is what i came up with. PDF link We've tested and tweaked it and it works pretty well. It's designed for Napoleonic era but should work for the AWI (American Revolution). John |
Who asked this joker | 09 Nov 2015 2:42 p.m. PST |
As to the OP (John Simmons) who appears to have been bitten by the TMP bug (TM), vtsaogames I believe has played a few games of Tremble Ye Tyrants. I'll IM him for you. Maybe he can come back and share his thoughts. |
John Simmons | 09 Nov 2015 5:31 p.m. PST |
Dr. Who, thanks for explaining what bug I have, this was a strange tread to read! It looks like my Nappy post came right after the post to the American Revolution Board posting. Software Merged these two and took us on a little trip it seems. Playing the Tremble Ye Tyrants, these are new to me and was looking for any input from others, thanks. John |
vtsaogames | 10 Nov 2015 8:08 a.m. PST |
I played one game back in 2013, a sort of bath-tubbed Waterloo with no Prussians. The result was as I thought it should be, the Anglo-Allies slowly getting beat up. Short version: the fire, morale and command seemed pretty good. We really didn't like the close combat system and that kept us from giving it a second trial. The Fencibles are a mighty picky crew (including me). One or another of our group have given some popular rules the thumbs down. Your mileage may vary. If you want it, I can post the report of our trial game here. |
John Simmons | 11 Nov 2015 5:36 p.m. PST |
Vtsaogames, Thanks for the insights, no report of the battle needed but nice offer. Question on the melee results, was the issue the D6 system with extremes at each end (rolls 1&6)? Regards, John |