"First game of Lasalle - my thoughts" Topic
12 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 remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Battle Reports Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleOur first Flintloque article.
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
olicana | 04 Jul 2019 3:12 a.m. PST |
Last night Peter J. and I fought our first game using Lasalle rules by Sam Mustapha. What did we think? Report here: link with some pics, of course
|
Shardik | 04 Jul 2019 3:30 a.m. PST |
Nice report James. I totally agree with your point about artillery, and I do the same, using 1 or 2 guns to represent 4 gun batteries |
rustymusket | 04 Jul 2019 4:54 a.m. PST |
Nice looking figs and table. Good report on the rules. I might look into them. |
torokchar | 04 Jul 2019 5:35 a.m. PST |
|
Frederick | 04 Jul 2019 7:38 a.m. PST |
Great pics and nice review – thanks for sharing! I have to agree about artillery – the one gun/battery is my go-to as well |
Yellow Admiral | 04 Jul 2019 10:24 a.m. PST |
I've only played Lasalle once (my group was unimpressed), and didn't encounter this problem (it was a learning the game), but as I am strongly attracted to these rules for their elegance and speed, I've spent some time researching them for opinions and house rules and scenarios and such. I'll be keeping an eye on your blog posts about it. Some players complain that attack columns afford too much of an advantage over lines, and there was some discussion about how to fix this problem on the Honour forums before they were taken down. There's still a bit of discussion left on Steven's Balagan blog: link The problem in a nutshell is the usual Napoleonics bugbear – the real-life difficulties in manuevering are eased on the game table, so there is nothing to stop players from forming their troops into dense moving walls of attack columns and getting 2:1 advantage in close combat against any lines in the way. Some players complained that the rules largely made lines pointless and they just moved and fought everything in field columns, which doesn't seem very Napoleonic. Sam Mustafa had an idea to fix this in a future update of Lasalle using a card activation system, a la Maurice, Longstreet, etc. but that hasn't happened. Personally I'm not a fan of the cards, so I'm more interested in other types of fixes. Steven's Balagan also proposes a house rule to disadvantage cavalry in rough terrain: link
This is the only place I've seen this mentioned, so maybe nobody else is using the rules for Peninsular War gaming. - Ix |
olicana | 04 Jul 2019 11:36 a.m. PST |
Hi Y A, Thanks for your reply. I've already thought about the possibility of this happening. As you say, massed columns are a feature of many games (Shako comes to mind) – it's a perennial problem in any game allowing 2 on 1. I suppose the quick fix would be to not allow infantry to charge home without a discipline check if it takes a fire disruption during the reaction phase – if it fails the discipline check it falls back 1 BW and no combat ensues (the column is stalled at the muzzles of the line). The discipline check might include using the number of disruptions done (1 or 2) as a negative modifier to the test. I'm fairly sure this would disjoint large attacks in massed columns and make forming lines to fire the more reliable option. I also like the idea of allowing the line to fire at any number of units that close to contact with full effect. A further deterrent. I'm not sure how I'll counter the possibility of all column games happening in the long run, because I'm still not that familiar with the rules, but the above solution was my first thought. Another thing that I'm not happy with going forward, is British Light Infantry having to be Irregular or Regular for the entire game. I think it would be better if they could switch between the two as a formation change – perhaps one taking a whole turn or by reaction. British Lights are invariably Valiant so thats not too difficult to achieve. My Light Battalions have the usual four bases (of 6 figs) plus four bases (of 3 figs). In other games, when deployed as 'irregular' I remove the 'regular' flank bases and put the four bases of three out in front of the centre bases. It's my understanding that a formed reserve was usual – something for the skirmishers to fallback on. This being the case, I can't see a problem doing this with Lasalle. British Lights can be irregular or regular, just not both at the same time. |
79thPA | 04 Jul 2019 11:59 a.m. PST |
|
olicana | 04 Jul 2019 12:07 p.m. PST |
BTW, my skirmish bases are 33% wider than my formed bases – 60 mm as opposed to 45 mm – so my irregular unit will be wider than its formed counterpart by 60 mm. 12 figures as a reserve, and 12 figures skirmishing – it looks pretty good in practice and I don't get overly hung up about frontages – even in rules where BW is the unit of measurement. |
nugrim | 07 Jul 2019 3:30 p.m. PST |
Yeah the walls are a problem you can jump a wall along its length also, increasing your movement dramatically. There aren't any rules for bridges either! It's my to go rulebook for 1700-1815 battles. I add period feel by cooking up my own army lists and unit stats for earlier wars. |
olicana | 08 Jul 2019 2:20 a.m. PST |
I've just recently read the errata, clarifications, and new optional rules for Lasalle on the Honour Rules website. The wall thing is dealt with in some depth, and I think from reading it, Sam has now come to the conclusion that having troops 'bridging' a wall at the end of a move is now okay – just treat the wall as normal rough terrain for movement. We've pretty much done that with every other set of rules in the past (probably because it's the easiest thing to do), so that will suit us just fine. The cover thing, for troops 'bridging' a wall, can be dealt with just by looking at it – troops in plain sight = no cover. I think the crossing bridges thing is inherent with just about every rule set I've ever read. |
nugrim | 09 Jul 2019 7:21 a.m. PST |
Yeah rough terrain sounds good |
|