"www.wargamer.com article - Brigade Fire & Fury 2d Ed Review" Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Product Reviews Message Board Back to the Getting Started with ACW Gaming Message Board Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board Back to the Magazines and Periodicals Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral American Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleOur newest staff editor introduces herself.
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Colonel Bill | 02 Aug 2017 11:21 a.m. PST |
My take on Rich Hasenauer's just released ACW rules. See URL at: link Regards, Colonel Bill |
wrgmr1 | 02 Aug 2017 12:31 p.m. PST |
Thanks Colonel, good summation. As stated in an earlier thread my major beef with the original F&F was that musketry was pretty ineffective, thus players defaulted to charging in most games. We played a game last Thursday and musketry is much more deadly. We are playing another game tomorrow. |
DisasterWargamer | 02 Aug 2017 1:45 p.m. PST |
Nice review I concur with your mixed thoughts on level of command concern with type of rifle or artillery piece. I enjoy Regimental getting down to that level of detail – but think with the Brigade level – I will use some of the original factors (with updated fire power effectiveness) Note while I am using a bit of both – it remains a fine game and well worth the addition to ones collection of rules |
CATenWolde | 02 Aug 2017 2:03 p.m. PST |
I think you could approximate the older, simpler system by just declaring that all infantry use Rifled Muskets, and all artillery are rated as mixed Light Rifle/Napoleons, but the CSA uses the Faulty Fuses modifier for long range fire. In most cases you're going to be pretty close to correct anyway. |
svsavory | 03 Aug 2017 6:07 p.m. PST |
I just received my copy today. At first glance I like what I see. Based on your review, Colonel, and the few other comments I've read, I'm hopeful my group will find it an improvement on an already great set of rules. The Ream's Station scenario looks interesting, I want to try that one soon. My only complaint is that my copy arrived in an unpadded Priority Mail envelope with no inner wrapping of any kind. Somewhere in transit it must have taken a hard whack because the hardcover has a large dent along the top edge. Rigours of war, I suppose. |
sausagesca | 04 Aug 2017 9:26 a.m. PST |
Just played V2 yesterday. I agree with the posted review. It is a really well thought out game that builds on the superb original and draws a great deal from the regimental game, but I think the word 'brigade' got a bit lost in the shuffle. I did not like the regimental version of the game as much as the original F&F and so adding so much of that lower-level game to the brigade level seems to miss the point. I almost think that instead of being a revision of the brigade game that this new version is a streamlined version of the regimental game. That is actually a good thing, but again, have we lost the big battle conceptualization in the process? Ultimately Rich is an excellent designer of both game mechanics and book layout. But as the review indicates, this new game is great as a 'new game', but I'm not sure that this is consistently a 'brigade level game. A couple of things I really like…more deadly and decisive. The old F&F was very easy to play but strangely slow – in our evening games we couldn't ever finish even a small scenario because shooting was not terribly effective and units hung around the table for too long. In this new game the narrative moves a bit faster. I also like the modifiers for broader circumstances like the loss of objectives and divisional/army losses. This was definitely lacking in the original game. Really looking forward to playing more games and perhaps my initial concerns about the added detail will abate. Get it. Chris |
svsavory | 04 Aug 2017 10:57 a.m. PST |
Update: After seeing my comment from yesterday about my copy being damaged in transit, Rich Hasenauer contacted me via email and offered to make things right. That's excellent customer service! |
madcam2us | 04 Aug 2017 5:14 p.m. PST |
I just got mine today (along with the regimental rules) and they were wrapped in moving paper several pages thick… Good thing too as the top of the envelope was ripped (from handling??)…. Good news, no damage… Better news, they look really good both in lay-out and in concept… Im a JR player and like nuance. But i also want to play the big battles… Im hopeful this will be the answer to my desire in an ACW ruleset… Madcam. |
sausagesca | 05 Aug 2017 9:48 a.m. PST |
Hi Madcam2us, I think that if you are coming from JR you will find BF&F2 an easy way to play very large actions. My comments above are from the perspective of a player who used the original BF&F and find the new version perhaps a bit too detailed for the level of action it assumes. It is a a very well designed game and adds some rules that in fact suit the larger scale of action. Chris |
Russ Lockwood | 06 Aug 2017 11:33 a.m. PST |
Just played the first F&F Brigade (FFB) game on Friday. Generally plays like the original -- uses multiple stands per brigade, d10 system, base removal, and so on. The graphics presentation is excellent -- even better than the original 'wow' factor in the 1980s. The examples are well defined. However, FFB added lots more modifiers to all the charts, which means you spend more time checking this, that, or the other. Incrementally, each of the new modifiers isn't a big deal, for example, four levels of brigade quality (green, experienced, veteran, and crack) contribute modifiers to moving, firing, and melee. Now you've got to check the quality of your brigade up to three more times to get a modifier to a die roll. This makes for a slower game, and all the eight players (and one GM) were veteran players of F&F. We each had four brigades and a couple artillery batteries. Overall number of turns is about half what we usually play, in large part due to checking the details on the new charts. As Bill pointed out, the maneuver table now includes a double-quick result (no, it is not actually a 'double move' like Black Powder, more like 33% faster). So, now your movement is even more random than before -- a mechanic I've discussed with Rich on a number of occasions and I find detrimental to actual game play based on many games where gamers sit at tableside twiddling their thumbs because they can't roll high enough to do anything. To me, no movement = no game. That said, Rich manipulates the maneuver table with modifiers (As one fellow player said, +1 means a lot). +2 for Fresh troops and +1 for detached divisional leader (+2 for exceptional), although now within 12" instead of 18", etc. Personally, and even under the Original F&F, I'd make a house rule that fresh troops automatically move full. It's pretty close with all the modifiers anyway, so why bother to spend time rolling for movement? To me, the gimmick of 'double quick' is there to make up for sluggish movement caused by bad die rolls. Which leaves disordered status for a maneuver roll. Since firing (more later) seems more lethal in FFB, we rolled a lot on this table -- and chugged to a halt on it, too. Lots of rally in place or rally and half moves. An occasional run away, too. Also of note is that movement is based on one of four types of terrain, apparently not prorated -- use the lowest number in whatever you are in, entering, or crossing. That means consulting the terrain chart cross indexing formation with terrain. Again, nothing major or complex, just more time consuming than OF&F. Firing is where the significant change occurred. Instead of the one infantry stand fits all (1 fire point per stand, so to speak), infantry now have multiple categories (Rifled muskets, shotguns, repeaters, etc), and now get 2 pts per stand for close in fire (about 2" or less). Likewise, cannon come in a variety, with differing fire factors based on range like OF&F, but all these fire factors translate into a die roll modifier on a new chart (an extra step, so to speak). Furthermore, after rolling the die and adding modifiers, you need to know the target's quality (green, expd, vet, crack) to cross index the total with the quality. And furthermore, a main result also has minor variations (like charge halted before it hits home) depending on the roll. Bill posted the firing chart. Again, not a big deal, but again, more time. We did agree it was more lethal than before. We all agreed that the minor variation of 'disorder and lose 1 stand if already disordered' was a good addition -- double secret disorder now has a consequence. This attention to detail is probably a good thing at the Regimental level, and likely contributed to the success of Regimental F&F, but when you go up a level to brigade, I get that dreaded 'fiddly' feeling. Thankfully, when we did get into melee, it's the same process, albeit with a few more modifiers. We managed six turns in a little over 3 hours (not including 45 minutes of GM-explained rule changes, terrain explanation, and a little pre-game strategy session) on a Friday night. Bottom line: We'll certainly play this again to see how it goes now that we're more familiar with the charts. For first impression: More detail equals a slower game. As one player noted, the group may revert back to OF&F or use some of the tweaks in FFB to alter OF&F with house rules. We'll see. |
Old Pete | 07 Aug 2017 5:35 a.m. PST |
At £34.00 GBP from Cavalier Books it seems rather pricey. We looked at them at Claymore on Saturday but although they were interesting we decided against them. |
Puddinhead Johnson | 07 Aug 2017 10:27 a.m. PST |
We played for the first time yesterday and I agree with Russ Lockwood's observations. I was left with the feeling that I was playing RFF, but just calling each unit a brigade instead of a regiment. Not that it's bad -it's not; it's very good- just that I'd have preferred if they'd just reformatted the rules, updated the diagrams, maybe clarified the language, but left the nitty gritty details out. That being said, I suppose people can just ignore the detail they don't want by making all brigades armed the same, of the same quality level, and ignoring tactical factors they feel are too low level for a brigade game. The only extra you can't ignore is the fire points becomes a DRM. |
sausagesca | 09 Aug 2017 7:06 p.m. PST |
I reread the rules. They are more detailed and perhaps more than a brigade game should be, but I think these are a superb set of ACW rules and might hit the sweetspot for many ACW gamers. And I think this is for whom the game was designed -- it oozes the passion of a group of ACW play testers and a great designer. This is not to say that it is a complicated set, but it is clearly meant for those who liked the regimental game but want to play larger battles. I am not worried about the more numerous modifiers. Modifiers are remembered if you really want to play the game regularly. I am a bit more concerned about the need to reference the more complicated charts. You could almost guess the results of manoeuvre roll of fire combat in the old game. This will be more difficult in the new. But as I note, my first game went really well and we played a small scenario to a conclusion. A good start. |
Russ Lockwood | 19 Aug 2017 11:17 a.m. PST |
Fire & Fury Brigade: Part 2Had a great talk with designer Rich Hasenauer and some follow up about Fire & Fury Brigade (FFB), in part to expand upon his design intentions, in part to clarify some of my confusion of game mechanics, and in part to examine game time. There's no doubt of the success of Original Fire & Fury (OFF) -- literally tens of thousands of copies sold of OFF, plus the 'official' licensed versions for other periods like Age of Eagles, plus the hundreds of 'unofficial' house rules variations. It's ingrained in wargaming DNA. Nuts and Bolts FFB ClarificationsStorming Column vs. March Column: Tabletop-wise, both use the same one-stand wide formation AND the same movement rate. That means a Storming Column on a good road will use road movement. A Storming Column can only be used IF, AND ONLY IF, the column is attacking through a scenario-defined defile, causeway, town street, bridge, etc. (think Burnsides' Bridge). This was an optional rule from an OFF scenario book, adopted in Regimental Fire & Fury (RFF), and adapted for FFB. No defile, no Storming Column. I missed that part. My bad. Rolling Maneuver for Artillery: Done in RFF, but not in FFB (holdover mechanic from OFF). Rich defines a FFB battery as roughly the equivalent of 6 to 8 guns. Rich notes that not rolling for artillery units in FBB works. Firing: Yes, Rich confirms our suspicions that he tweaked the Fire Table intentionally to make it more lethal -- by about 10% or so. I had mused that charging might not be the best tactic in FBB, and yes, he noted that FBB would require different tactics than OFF. As he put it, FBB cuts back on charges -- now you need a good reason (and to me, some good preparation) before you charge. Maneuver Table: Rich asserts the Good Order side of the table offers more movement, in part by reducing the die roll number needed for a full move, and especially because of the new "Double Quick" category. On the Disorder side, he wanted to recreate more ebb and flow, noting, for example, the old OFF 'Rally and Hold Ground' doesn't make sense when confronting canister. That's why there's more falling back and rallying built into the FBB Disorder table than OFF. The additional negative modifiers (such as High Casualties and Key Position) should only come into the later stages of the game, Rich says, in an effort to bring the game to a conclusion. Command Radius: He noted 18 inches (OFF) was too liberal and 12 inches was more historical. To me, this also has the effect of encouraging you to keep your command concentrated and not haring off into the wilds of the tabletop. Fixed Movement Based on Terrain: Rich says it's easier to find the movement rate for a unit going through the worst terrain in its path than prorating the movement, especially towards the end of game where players are driving towards victory and may miscalculate prorating. Modifiers for Unit Distinctions (Green, Experienced, Veteran, and Crack): My bad on imprecise wording on this one. I can see where readers could infer you're checking three times per step. Clarification: You check the unit distinction modifier once per step (maneuver, firing, and melee). The idea for expanding the Unit Distinction came from providing brigades with more 'personality' as Rich puts it. In design goals, that means combining Experience (how many stands does a unit lose before it goes from Fresh to Worn to Spent) with Effectiveness (the Modifiers for Unit Distinctions). On Time and TurnsRegarding the Time Factor: He stressed that once players get used to the new charts and mechanics, BFF will play as fast as OFF. He noted that if in fact, it does take fractionally more time to go through the list of modifiers to resolve maneuver checks and combat, which can add up over time, it is more than offset by a higher probability of getting a faster movement rate in the maneuver effects, inflicting higher fire combat casualties, resolving fewer charge combats, and victory conditions and modifiers designed to bring the game to a more decisive conclusion. A Narrative of the Game: This feeds into the idea that you are creating a story with the troops battling across the terrain, and certain units are better at accomplishing victory conditions than others, which feeds back into the historical aspect of the game. As Rich noted, the scenario for the FBB game was not historical, so there's nothing to compare it to to see if the rules recreate history -- with enough leeway to give each side a chance at victory. Non-historical, big scenarios on large 12-foot long tables, with too many players will always slow a game down, regardless of their experience level with the rules. Yes, we all had played OFF for the last couple decades, but none with the new rules. He suggested limiting the scope of a first scenario to six players on a 5- by 6-ft table and playing one of the historical scenarios in the rulebook as a benchmark -- no doubt the game would have been easier to learn and play much faster. He also suggested a tag showing Green, Experienced, Veteran, and Crack and Fresh, Worn, and Spent data. We put these attributes on a peel-off sticker under the flag stand (so we can change them every game), which means we keep picking up the flag stand to see the unit. We do use a 3x5 card with the attributes, but we still have to doublecheck that the unit we think we're moving, firing, etc. is the actual unit we're moving, firing, etc. He also cautioned against the 'domino' effect, where changing one thing cascades into other things -- such as my suggesting that Fresh and Worn troops in Good order just move full, not roll for the movement rate. Rich noted that after 20 or so years, it was time to re-evaluate OFF. He said that you read more, you learn more, and so on. So I asked if FBB was the version 2.0 of OFF… for this is one of those questions us players went round and round on. The answer boils down to 'somewhat,' although I asked if he played OFF any more. He replied not for a couple of years as he playtested BFF to match historical results. Now, I'm more a historical flavor and playability guy than a strict simulation guy, and heavy on mechanics analysis, as you probably surmised from my write up. As Rich pointed out with a chuckle on both ends of our conversation, my Snappy Nappy Napoleonic rules were named like a British diaper and used a Picasso-like cover to indicate this was more a quick, fast play rules set than a simulation. His latter point is certainly true, though the former was for a memorable alliterative title! Definitely Another Game!And as I also noted, our group is definitely going to play another FFB scenario, incorporating the clarifications above. I'll let you know. |
|