"How to scale down regimental fire and fury." Topic

So I like the rule mechanics in the game, but they are quite "space" hungry. Doesn't take many regiments before you need a very large table. And unit sixes of 50 figures are not uncommon.

I'm going to use 10mm, so I can scale down the footprint. But what about unit sizes. I have thought about just having everything. Each base of 3 is 80 men instead of 40. and at the same time, halfing all ranges.

I have tried to get into ACW dozens of times. But never really get far, so I must make the project as easy going as possible.
The alternative is to use black powder. And standard unit sizes of say 24 figures. But I feel BP is a far lesser ruelsett.

Why not just use the brigade level Fire and Fury rules?
link

Because it gets too abstract again.

I want regimental combat, but with a whole division. But in standard size, even just a full brigade starts to need 5x6 table. And that's like 2000 men, while a division is 6-8 000.

The effects of unit size don't really scale up and down in a linear fashion, and the closer you get to the ends of the range, the more exaggerated the effects get. I recommend an alternative approach: count figures instead of stands, and use something to mark casualties (like good ol'-fashioned kill rings?) until all figures on a stand are dead, then lift the stand. This would retain the mathematical relationships of the unit stats in proper proportions, but reduce the unit footprints. With smaller scale miniatures, this might allow you to switch inches to cm, so you don't even have to redo any tables.

All that said – I find that a division is about the max a single experienced player can control in RF&F, and to keep games moving I prefer to give each player only a brigade or maybe two.

I'm right there with you about wanting to represent each regiment/battalion on the table but playing at the division or corps command level; I just love RF&F, but I don't think RF&F is that game. Rifle Wars and Fields of Blue and Grey (sic) look to be better adapted to that kind of approach.

- Ix

I wasn't going for corps level, just division.

Specifically, Shermans 5th at Shiloh. So that's 12 or 13 infantry regiments, depending on the OOB you use.

I've run into this issue running 25mm games. One potential solution is to use half the number stands for infantry but require two hits to remove a stand. It's an abstraction and not perfect but has worked in a few games I've run. Smaller table required and also allows you to run scenarios for which you don't have enough figures.

Use the figures on the stand. Each hit removes a figure not whole stand. Its old school. Remember casualty caps?

Perhaps it would just be simpler to find a different set of rules? I can heartily recommend Dave Brown's Pickett's Charge. RF&F was our choice of rules but our Blue and Grey coats rarely saw the table. With the release of Pickett's Charge our ACW armies are getting regular workouts and we are having a ton of fun. Unit sizes are small, standard and large and you can set your parameters for each by looking at an OOB. PC has a lot more period flavour than BP even with the ACW supplement. Additionally, PC has the great support that one expects from a TFL related project.

I second Pickett's Charge though it will not solve your space problem. The ground scales are the same but you use only 1/2 the number of stands per regiment.

It looks like my post went off on a Bugging Run to another thread.

I am thinking about rebasing my 25s for RF&F, and I intend to have one stand represent two stands. The author really missed the mark by figuring frontages/mounting as single rank stands, screwing up ground scale depth even greater than it needs to be.

Wasn't this the problem that John Hill's Across a Deadly Field attempted to address (i.e. reduced footprint ACW regimental level battles at the division/corps level)? Not sure how well it works, but since no one else had mentioned, thought I would throw it out there.

link

I bought Pickett's charge, looks like acw version of general d'armee. Which are good rules.

Gunfreak, I'll be interested in whatever answer you come up with. Like you, I like the RF&F mechanics, but at the scales of 1 stand: 40 and 1":25 yards I keep bumping into one or both of the following: (1) on a 5' wide table, units begin within (sometimes well within) artillery range, and/or (b) on a 6'-8' wide table, full-sized divisions have little or no maneuver room to their flanks. I've returned (a bit reluctantly) to my old solution of using brigade F&F with regiments as the maneuver units (scaled at 1:100) and ground scale of 1":40 yds. For Maneuver rolls, we roll one die for the entire brigade and apply to each regiment in the brigade, applying individual regiment's modifiers (worn/shaken, attached leaders, etc) to that roll. It works, but it isn't quite RF&F.

I bought Pickett's charge, looks like acw version of general d'armee.

Chronologically and ideas wise, its the other way round but they are good rules.

Have you looked at Altar of Freedom?

Gunfreak I base my figures tight so that if the scenario requires a lot of units I can half the ratio and still have thick regiments. For example, my 28mm are based 6 (2 lines of 3) on a 60x50 mm base. If I have a busy scenario I will half the bases. So 10 bases regiment will become 5 bases but with a decent frontage of 15 figures. Same for my 18 mm. Of course you will need a few half or so bases when they are uneven. This way I can use my figures for bff and RFF and everything in between. Robert