Editor in Chief Bill | 16 Jan 2016 1:11 p.m. PST |
What keeps you from liking these most-popular ACW rules? What do you dislike about the rules? |
Pictors Studio | 16 Jan 2016 1:16 p.m. PST |
I do like them. The only thing I don't like about them I modify and that is rolling a single d10 to determine the results of combat. We did that for a while but then seeing veteran units lined up firing into the flank of raw units and doing nothing but disordering them when they roll a 1 every tenth time we just started rolling 2d10 and averaging the results. This way the same thing could happen but much less frequently. |
PJ ONeill | 16 Jan 2016 1:26 p.m. PST |
The linear effect of 1 D 10 National characteristics, i.e. You are a better fighter if you are Confederate. Different levels of abstraction, some detailed, some generic. The assumption by many of it's adherents that base removal is the only "right" way to take casualties. I played 2 games many years ago and gave it another shot recently, it is not my cup of tea. |
Wretched Peasant Scum | 16 Jan 2016 1:27 p.m. PST |
@Pictors-you could also roll 3 D10 and use the "middle" score. |
Frederick | 16 Jan 2016 2:01 p.m. PST |
I like them – but you can wind up with pretty unwieldy units (there are some scenarios with 10 stand brigades) |
alexjones | 16 Jan 2016 2:11 p.m. PST |
Whenever the topic of the larger probability curve comes up in relation to Fnf, I always wonder whether d10 average die have ever been made by anyone. |
JSchutt | 16 Jan 2016 2:35 p.m. PST |
I agree with PJ Oneill…mostly that there is too much "fog of war" in (1) D10, though I can live with National characteristics. |
BobGrognard | 16 Jan 2016 3:03 p.m. PST |
2D6 would give a much better result curve. The D10 roll is so random it tends to spoil the game. It is easy to apply as well. Just 11 possible results instead of ten. Generally, I find the result the rules give to be entirely plausible, but it is very table and chart heavy. I find myself spending a lot if time adding factors together and thinking about the rules rather than the game. In that respect it feels quite old fashioned now. |
McKinstry | 16 Jan 2016 3:29 p.m. PST |
I like them but strongly agree they would be so much better using 2D6 to overcome the linear D10 problem. |
Rich Bliss | 16 Jan 2016 3:54 p.m. PST |
I firmly believe that there was no practical difference between the rank and file on both sides, so the "National Characteristics" make zero sense to me. I also heartily dislike the command control system which I think dramatically overstates the difficulty of getting troops stuck in, especially early in battles. |
Combat Colours | 16 Jan 2016 5:16 p.m. PST |
My first regular gaming was with the 1st edition brigade rules many years ago. We had a blast but every game was a slogger lasting many hours. The group was 4-5 players a game so I don't know if that contributed to the length of play and we used the printed scenarios.. We also had the issue that every battle ended up with an extended 'fish -hook' as we tried to outflank and then got caught up in a stalemate of sorts. Although the new regimental rules look great I , nor my present group, have the time to play drawn out games. That said I still have fond memories of that system and the guys around the table. The 'how to' parts of the book helped me in making terrain etc for the gaming I do today. |
Yankees | 16 Jan 2016 5:25 p.m. PST |
The rules are 30 years old….gaming technology is better now. Mechanics are broken….put two fresh confederate brigades in columns to charge one union brigade in supported line, It's almost a sure thing. The union brigade has to split its fire. If the union fails to disorder it, and they win the melee because so many pluses, a breakthrough allows these two brigades to breakthrough getting another plus for breakthrough, and now they hit Union units on the flanks getting more plus. You can form up 1" from the enemy with no penalty under fire Fresh units can pass through disordered units without getting disordered The game takes to long to play You put on the disorder, it comes off, then you put it on, then you take it off, this goes back and forth all game. It's too easy to give a disorder and take it off. Generals are attached?, they never attached. |
wrgmr1 | 16 Jan 2016 6:41 p.m. PST |
It encourages gamers to charge rather than sit and shoot. Seems off to me. I agree with what Yankees said as well. |
Saber6 | 16 Jan 2016 6:52 p.m. PST |
wrgmr1, and getting players to move is a bad thing? |
raylev3 | 16 Jan 2016 9:02 p.m. PST |
The plus 1 the rebels get….never made sense. Having said that, if we played an eastern scenario we gave them a plus one…in the west the Union got it instead or neither got it. |
darthfozzywig | 16 Jan 2016 10:27 p.m. PST |
|
Forager | 16 Jan 2016 11:10 p.m. PST |
These comments are regarding the original, brigade level, rules. Not attritional enough (Fire Combat not as effective as it should be) – As Yankees said above, units repeatedly got disordered and recovered with no lasting effect. I started playing "Lively Fire" as disorder plus a half stand loss (which stayed even if disorder was recovered). A second half stand loss resulted in a stand removal. Set levels at which units become worn and spent – Just too predictable for my tastes. Started doing it randomly. When a stand was lost, roll a d10. Drop a level (fresh/worn/spent) if die roll was equal to or less than 2 if crack, 3 if veteran, or 4 if green. Too easy to get Rally+/Well Handled results on Maneuver Table. Modified the Maneuver Table a bit and added a -1 modifier for "poor" leaders. "Charge happy" kind of game. The Charge Table doesn't give enough advantage to the defender so attackers are successful more often than they should be. Consequently, players charge a lot. Also, as mentioned before, charges are too random. This diminishes the effect of the modifiers used. FWIW, I use 2d6 for the Charge Table now. Too easy to go "low ammo". Also, when units combine fire points they can all go "low ammo" at the same time. Seems to penalize players for combining fire. Also, to comment on what others have said above, the "Confederates charging" modifier is there to encourage the Confederates to be more aggressive as they were historically (in general). However, I feel it should either be scenario based or not present at all. I prefer the modifier to be quality based: +1 for crack and -1 for green. The Confederates will typically have a greater portion of crack units than the Union, so would still get greater benefit from the modifier.
|
Early morning writer | 17 Jan 2016 12:11 a.m. PST |
It plays like a game rather than a simulation. |
Sudwind | 17 Jan 2016 12:23 a.m. PST |
I totally agree that the d10 for fire is naft. I do think it makes sense for melee and activation though. It provides the right feel….no certainty that orders are followed or that an assault goes as planned. When I think about the descriptions of close combat given in ACW history books, and contemporary records, the d10 mechanic seems to give satisfying results. |
Yellow Admiral | 17 Jan 2016 12:24 a.m. PST |
I totally agree with the others here about the wildness of the straight d10 rolls. I would prefer a bell curve. I always meant to convert to 2d6, but never did any work to make that happen. <shrug> I've developed a personal prejudice against most games declaring maneuver units to be brigades. I've come to think that level of abstraction works better in boardgames. This isn't a game killer for me, but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth… F&F takes too long to play. Like most games, this problem fixes itself with experienced players, but most of my games are at clubs and conventions where new players are a given. I'm convinced it's possible to make a few modifications to streamline the game further (e.g., I think the list of melee modifiers should be a lot shorter), but again I never lifted a finger for that effort. I never liked units getting "stuck" out of position until they die to a man. Switching to 2d6 would help, the RF&F "voluntary rout" rule would help more, a rule allowing a change of facing or retreat to cover or going to ground or some other reaction would be best. Having said all that, I used to love F&F, and I played a lot of it. Some of my favorite big battle games were F&F scenarios. If Rich completes his version 2 project, I'll try it again. I'm probably going to try out Age of Valor if it ever makes it into publication. The basic system is a classic design, and it's fun & easy to teach. - Ix |
Sudwind | 17 Jan 2016 12:28 a.m. PST |
Another bad thing….you need a llarge number of stands for most battles. It is the nature of the beast, but a change in scale could solve the problem. It might not look as good though! |
MWright | 17 Jan 2016 1:03 a.m. PST |
The issue I have is the large numbers of small stands in a unit. Main reason it is just so long to move a unit. A 13 stand unit takes 13 individual actions, multiply by the number of units per side and the game slows down. |
Jcfrog | 17 Jan 2016 1:06 a.m. PST |
All guns equal, especially smoothbores and rifles. Needs one more morale class. Easily modified though. |
john lacour | 17 Jan 2016 3:12 a.m. PST |
Is it generally accepted that RF&F fixes these issues? i only ask, because i'm a life long johnny reb player, and i have recently bought the regimental rules. I like the look of the regiments better than in johnny reb… |
CATenWolde | 17 Jan 2016 3:50 a.m. PST |
My opinion is that RF&F fixes most, if not all, of the issues with original brigade F&F. The new brigade F&F due out this summer (?) is obviously based on the improvements in RF&F, so I'm really looking forward to seeing them. The biggest of these (mentioned above)are removing "national" characteristics and replacing them with unit/tactical choices ("bare steel" etc.), making defensive firepower more effective at stalling frontal attacks, and tweaking the morale/maneuver chart. Being a regimental level game, there is all sorts of weapon detail that wasn't in the brigade level game. Having said that, I actually prefer the 1d10 to a 2d6 curve for ACW combat – the tactical factors "wrapped up" in a brigade level combat roll for the ACW represent the possibility (sometimes it seems like the inevitability!) of something really, really strange and dramatic happening on the regimental level. That was just part and parcel of ACW combat. However, F&F can certainly take some time to play, especially if you are trying to manage large numbers of units of variable size, quality, and command effects, both for the maneuver table and when counting up firing. This can either be accepted as "the price to pay" for results that are what you want in a game, or largely addressed by using more generically sized and rated units, so that there is less checking of details. Cheers, Christopher |
Big Red | 17 Jan 2016 8:25 a.m. PST |
As wrgmr1 stated, Fire and Fury does encourage players to charge while its ancestor, On To Richmond is more of a firepower game. |
nazrat | 17 Jan 2016 8:36 a.m. PST |
Yankee said it all! +1. I do credit F & F for getting me into ACW gaming and have always thought it an elegantly designed system but it just leaves me cold as far as gameplay. And I feel the same way about the regimental version. You could not pay me to play it. |
madcam2us | 17 Jan 2016 10:00 a.m. PST |
@All Im normally a JR player, but like the scale F&F allows for the "big battles". That being said, agree the charge mechanism can become wonky… One item i've considered is to change how Field Columns are treated so that they too suffer enfilade like March Columns. What I haven't worked out yet, is whether all firing or just vs fire from an intended charge target. Play-testing would need to be run To compensate, give them a formation bonus when charging, over the supported line +1…. Perhaps +2 to represent the weight of numbers at the local point.
Also… Make the confed +1 change bonus universal to both sides. Charges were local and not up to nationalistic elan. However, Rebs were noted as more competent in the tactical movement arena, give them a +1 to the manueveur table. Or better command levels if early enough in the war. these changes create choice in the player commander and choices whilst playing games is good…. Thoughts? Madcam |
Jeigheff | 17 Jan 2016 12:50 p.m. PST |
Although I like F&F better than some other ACW rules sets, I have to agree with many of the comments already made. |
Ryan T | 17 Jan 2016 1:12 p.m. PST |
I have two primary complaints about F&F. The first is that the rifle range of 8 inches is too long. Dependent on which of the two scales you are using this would be either 360 or 480 yards. Half of that distance would be more realistic. More problematic, however, is the "supported line" formation. This places half of a brigade in a second line within 1 inch (45 to 60 yards) of the first line. It was not uncommon to support half of a brigade with a second line, but this rear line was supposed to be far enough to the back that it would be out of the range of rifle fire. This line could then either reinforce or replace the front line. And a supporting rear line should not be able to fire when involved in a charge. The result of allowing such fire is that the usual formation on a F&F battlefield is a brigade deployed in two lines tight against each other. Such tightly closed ranks might be a way to gain more mass in a charge but it should be a trade-off against decreased availability of fire. |
McLaddie | 17 Jan 2016 2:48 p.m. PST |
F&F and Regimental F&F both suffer from some of the same problems. Personally, I don't see the D10 as all that much of a problem. There are other things that irritate when one plays either system. The first is the long range of rifles, which has already been mentioned, but that is a 'gimmee' part of the combat attrition system. Keeps troops under rifle fire for longer. This internal logic leads to the second issue: The movement rate for both systems are very, very short, about half of what was seen accomplished on the battlefield under fire. For instance, instead of twenty minutes historically, it takes an hour and a half for F&Fs Pickett's charge to reach the Union lines. It makes it difficult to play out historical battles in anything like the time scale of the original ACW engagements. Because of this, scenarios see the two sides very close at the beginning of any scenario. Regimental F&F suffers from them more than F&F. "quick Time" accomplishes maybe 2/3rds of what a normal march rate did on the battlefield. So what you see are the scenarios with at least some if not all of the troops starting within 300 yards of each other or one move. [Now really? One move or 300 yards in 10 to 15 minutes? Even a slow walk will get one to around half a mile or 600-800 yards] It is not surprising that games often devolve into slugfests. They are so close, that's all they can be. The claims of 'historical accuracy' found in both rules introductions remain a mystery to me. The rationale for the short movement rates seems to be the 'hurry up and wait' conditions on the battlefield, unknown terrain, confused or slow orders, and other issues of friction. This makes no sense if you are are already rolling on a maneuver table for the very same reasons, making the units even slower overall. For F&F, the supported line is at least partly understandable within a 30 minute turn. For Regimental F&F, not at all. The other is that in many [most?] cases a brigade did not support itself, but had another brigade in support. |
Trajanus | 18 Jan 2016 4:36 a.m. PST |
It is not surprising that games often devolve into slugfests. They are so close, that's all they can be. Which is why I stopped playing Regimental, the games just turned into a dice throwing contest. The D10 in F&F did bug me, the adding up of a load of factors just to achieve little or nothing on a bad roll was soul destroying after a while. Maybe I just roll bad – the average of 2xD10 was an improvement though. |
Garth in the Park | 18 Jan 2016 1:18 p.m. PST |
These comments really show how much the hobby has changed in the past 25 years. When F&F came out, it was groundbreaking because it was so simple, so abstracted. It caught a lot of flack for being "pretty" (well, OK, that hasn't changed; gamers still complain about that.) But it was also derided as being too fast (I'm not joking), and not detailed enough, i.e. not enough charts and tables, not enough morale grades, not enough differentiation between the weapon types, no written order system, and so on. Now, people's complaints are things like: "It takes too long to play" "It's too chart heavy" "Too many national characteristics" It really shows how expectations have evolved, that this fast-play game from 1990 is now considered too slow and clunky. |
Old Contemptibles | 18 Jan 2016 4:57 p.m. PST |
1. Brigade level. If I see another brigade of Zouaves I am going to puke. 2. National Characteristics in ACW. They were both exactly the same. No +1 for the "Rebel Yell." It's a myth. Just makes it easy to tell which way they are coming and fire at them. 3. Rolling morale before the unit moves. Have a morale phase! 5. To difficult to cause casualties. 6. Games are too long. 7. Maneuvering is not realistic. Units seem to perform feats of repositioning to rival the finest Circus Acrobats. |
McLaddie | 18 Jan 2016 5:59 p.m. PST |
Garth: Yep, things change over thirty years. History is like that. |
Yellow Admiral | 18 Jan 2016 6:46 p.m. PST |
Which is why I stopped playing Regimental, the games just turned into a dice throwing contest. I've only had that problem in RF&F games with too many units on the table. When I run/play RF&F games with lots of maneuver room and 4-8 units per player, there's plenty of maneuvering going on, even using the AWI charts with a 4" musket range. But that's a conversation on a different topic… - Ix |
Yellow Admiral | 18 Jan 2016 7:54 p.m. PST |
Yankee said it all! +1. Actually, I think most of Yankees' complaints are at least partially invalid. For instance: Mechanics are broken… put two fresh confederate brigades in columns to charge one union brigade in supported line, It's almost a sure thing. The union brigade has to split its fire. If the union fails to disorder it, and they win the melee because so many pluses, a breakthrough allows these two brigades to breakthrough getting another plus for breakthrough, and now they hit Union units on the flanks getting more plus. That's just a description of a successful attack by thousands of men assaulting half their number (or less) in waves. Nothing in that description sounds "broken". Besides, plenty of attempts at such attacks fail – sometimes the maneuver dice don't cooperate, sometimes the defensive fire is too effective, sometimes the terrain is in the way, sometimes the melee dice go the wrong way, and on and on. You can form up 1" from the enemy with no penalty under fire No, you can't. There is a +1 to shoot at a unit changing formation, and the enemy gets to shoot at you in the most disadvantageous formation. Fresh units can pass through disordered units without getting disordered Only if they're larger, if I remember. I'll have to look that up. Can't find that brain cell anymore… been playing too much RF&F. Humph. You put on the disorder, it comes off, then you put it on, then you take it off, this goes back and forth all game. It's too easy to give a disorder and take it off. I don't understand this complaint at all. It is usually not easy to recover units that are worn or spent or broken up by heavy engagement, and disorder has negative effects on shooting, melee and maneuver. Disorder can critically impact a grand tactical maneuver or firing cycle if the timing is right (er, wrong?). Generals are attached?, they never attached. What does this mean? I've seen lots of players attach generals to units. I've done it lots of times myself. Sometimes it's worth the negative impact on the command cycle. There are plenty of legitimate complaints about Fire and Fury, but I don't see how these qualify. These all sound like incorrect play, misunderstanding the rules, or misunderstanding the abstractions behind the rules. There are plenty of people who don't like F&F and never will. That's really inarguable – sometimes rules just don't make the kind of game you want to play. One player in my club nicknamed it "Fire and Frustration". :-) - Ix |
Old Contemptibles | 19 Jan 2016 9:47 a.m. PST |
The first time I played F&F was at a convention, a brigade opposite one of my brigades, managed in one turn to maneuver to my flank. In one turn! I couldn't do anything about it. My brigade just stood there and watch him do it. Another guy in our club got into another F&F game and he had a similar experience. We kept playing JR2. Regimental scale for the ACW just feels right and we do really big battles. Since then we started using MLW which solved some of the issues we had with JR. |
Blutarski | 19 Jan 2016 10:29 a.m. PST |
"The first time I played F&F was at a convention, a brigade opposite one of my brigades, managed in one turn to maneuver to my flank. In one turn!" ….. Too true. In Brigade level F&F, I have seen cases where the unit does the flanking by a brigade wheel which causes it to expose its own flank and rear to another (visible) opposing unit with no penalty or morale check requirement whatsoever. Utterly ridiculous. B |
Trajanus | 19 Jan 2016 10:55 a.m. PST |
Brigade level. If I see another brigade of Zouaves I am going to puke. LOL! We can all get to that one! In fairness that's the players not the rules. I think its also to do with F&F being the first ACW rules a lot of people played with. Mind you the Army of the Potomac did have a Zouave Brigade at one point don't forget. Its the Louisiana Tiger brigades that always made me reach for a big hammer! |
mbsparta | 19 Jan 2016 11:11 a.m. PST |
You are all crazy! The original Fire and Fury is better than sex!! :) Mike B |
McLaddie | 19 Jan 2016 12:23 p.m. PST |
You are all crazy! The original Fire and Fury is better than sex!! :) I donno. I think which was better would all depend on who you are playing with… |
Yellow Admiral | 19 Jan 2016 12:44 p.m. PST |
The first time I played F&F was at a convention, a brigade opposite one of my brigades, managed in one turn to maneuver to my flank. In one turn! I couldn't do anything about it. My brigade just stood there and watch him do it. This is an example of what I mean by units getting "stuck". It's even less fun when repeated command roll failures cause a unit to stand there and die to a man while enemy units beat up on it with impunity. OTOH, it was probably frustrating to a real general when some idiot didn't do anything about the obvious enemy flanking movement. - Ix |
Old Contemptibles | 19 Jan 2016 2:25 p.m. PST |
I can't count any more. I skipped 4. |
Old Contemptibles | 19 Jan 2016 2:56 p.m. PST |
Nobody in our club will play F&F. They all hate it. But they love AOE. I keep telling them it is the same system but they just say it works better in Napoleonic form. Go figure. I don't care for either one. I play AOE only because the club does. I don't provide anything for it. |
McLaddie | 19 Jan 2016 3:42 p.m. PST |
It's even less fun when repeated command roll failures cause a unit to stand there and die to a man while enemy units beat up on it with impunity.OTOH, it was probably frustrating to a real general when some idiot didn't do anything about the obvious enemy flanking movement. True, IF that is something that happened over an hour+ time. It all depends on what the designer meant that game situation to represent…or not. And then how often it actually happened, if it did. The first time I played F&F was at a convention, a brigade opposite one of my brigades, managed in one turn to maneuver to my flank. In one turn! I couldn't do anything about it. My brigade just stood there and watch him do it. Kind of like Jackson's flanking move writ small. Again, did it happen? How easy was it in linear combat, let alone where the friendly units did nothing? We can all 'imagine' that it's historical, but what actual history is it supposed to represent? I don't know. It didn't keep me from playing F&F, but as someone else noted, friends wanted to and I enjoyed myself as long as I ignored history [which I can happily do for any number of reasons ] |
Old Contemptibles | 19 Jan 2016 10:50 p.m. PST |
But it makes for a lousy game. It happens way too often. You would think that a brigade so badly led, that as soon as they are flanked they would run. But oh no, they stand there and get hit by every enemy brigade and battery on the table. Oh well I'm done here, good luck guys I am outta here. |
Old Contemptibles | 20 Jan 2016 8:29 a.m. PST |
The rules are 30 years old….gaming technology is better now. Really? How so? |
uglyfatbloke | 21 Jan 2016 3:57 a.m. PST |
Slow, too much chart-cranking and not easy to pick up unless you are attuned to systems with lots of chart-cranking. I always felt it was a game where a detailed understanding of how to manage and exploit the rules was the crucial thing – a bit like Saga in that respect. On the plus side we've used all the scenarios with other rule sets – some of them several times. |