"AOE2 and BFF2" Topic

Played BFF2 last night and love the new rules. Combat and Fire chart makes things move faster with more lethality.

I like AOE and have the second edition. Unfortunately it predates BFF2 and does not have the modified die roll tables of BFF2.

Has anyone tried to modify the die roll tables in AOE to include BFF2 updates? AOE rules are great as is, but I do want the improved tables for a quicker game.

BFF2? Which means what?

Good project for Colonel Bill. BFF@ is Brigade Fire and Fury 2nd Edition.

The official 18th and 18th century AoE variants have modified die roll fire tables. Are these the tables you are describing?

I'll be interested to see if this thread goes anywhere. I've been engaged in a slow long-term project to line up the mechanisms found across the F&F family of rules.

For the uninitiated, …

1990: Rich Hasenauer publishes Fire & Fury (F&F), an ACW rule set using the Brigade as the basic building-block 'unit'. I've gained the idea that the mechanisms built on On To Richmond.

These rules were widely adopted, and naturally soon spawned variants for other contexts; to my mind, the most substantial of these would be Nick Dorell's 'Fire & Furia Francese' adaptation (published in WI) for mid-late 19c European warfare. (In time this was further developed to become 'Mit Blut und Eisen')

2005: With Hasenauers's blessing, Bill Gray adapted the F&F system for larger Napoleonic actions; the result was Age of Eagles (AoE). If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Gray's avowed homage to F&F was sincere indeed; while AoE necessarily introduced changes to account for the expanded dimensions, the structure and wording line up precisely for much of the text.

2010: At the same time, Hasenauer had been applying his F&F system to Division-level engagements, with the Bn as core table unit; the result was Regimental F&F (RFF). From early on, these rules were designed not just for ACW, but also for other American conflicts from 1776 on, in which the forces were comparatively small. Others have, successfully I believe, made them work for the Crimea and the hyphenated mid-19c European conflicts.

Bill Grey was meanwhile extending AoE back to 1700 onwards and forward as far as 1914, giving rise to Age of Honor and Age of Valor respectively. These are extensions to the Age of Eagles vehicle, rather than new systems.

2015: an updated edition of AoE appeared – AoE2 – incorporating some improving tweaks

2017: Hasenauer had by now come to the view that his experience with RFF called for a revision of the original F&F; the result was Brigade Fire & Fury (BFF). BFF borrows directly from RFF, particularly the Fire Tables, and the structure and wording is considerably improved.

SO the outcome is an acknowledged family of related rules, ideally for multi-player games: Age of ~ occupies the Grand-Tac level for large armies; F&F/BFF that for small armies or large Corps; RFF meanwhile covers tactical engagements between opposing Divisions.

But the field is actually more crowded. While not wishing to offend the authors in question, it seems clear that the first F&F also provided inspiration for others. Chris Pringle took a scalpel to it (almost Grande Armee-style) to enable two players to thrash out big 19c battles at home; the result was Bloody Big Battles (BBB). The War Times Journal had already done something similar with its Republique rules. I also think I detect the nearby presence of F&F in aspects of Bruce Weigle's 1870/59/66/71 series.

Long ago, I started to waste my free time by compiling a mega-matrix of the aligned texts of F&F, AoE(2), RFF, BFF and later BBB. The obvious temptation is to distill this bloated monster into a single coherent body of rules – at my preferred sweet spot of small armies or large Corps.

I suspect many TMP readers might be curious to see these pages, but I have no wish to antagonise the great minds named above or invite copyright suits. However, I'd welcome thoughts in detail from anyone who has been thinking the same way.

That was most informative and helpful. Thank you.

Took a look at my QRS for AOE, BFF,and BFF2.

AOE is the least lethal, followed by BFF and BFF2.

The range of smoothbore muskets is also twice as long in BFF2 compared to AOE.

Dan, your QRS, as you say …

So look where?

I really liked the timeline summary, just got the extra knowledge. 😀

laretunue:

I have copies of all these rules and their QRS. I looked at the fire charts to see how they compare. The QRS are also online.

laretenue,
Many thanks for that review and timeline. Very helpful indeed.

Thanks to Stew A and Fred M.

I also apologise to Dan: I saw 'took' but read 'take', hence the confusion about what seemed to me to be an instruction.

I don't quibble with your assesment of the relative lethality of the various rules. It occurs to me that an explanation may lie in part in the different force and time scales in use. Remember that in F&F/BFF each base of infantry represents (1)150 or (2)200 muskets; in the original F&F each turn was set at 30 mins, but BFF goes for a more elastic fudge ('elastic fudge, anyone?') of 20-30 mins. AoE, while staying with the 30-min turn, extends the force ratio to 1:360 for infantry (1:180 for cavalry). There are. The two F&F scales also provide for a slight difference in representation of artillery.

Similarly, concerning ground scale, the alternative F&F ratios propose 1 inch to 45 or 60 yds. In AoE this rises to one inch to 120 yds in order to accommodate clashes the size of Austerlitz or Borodino. To underline this point, the ground scale thus rises from !:1620 or !:2160 to 1:4320.

My thought is that, in stretching the scale, Bill Gray wished to avoid making actions over-bloody, and thus built in allowance for more friction affecting battlefield performance, C&C etc. It would be good to hear from him or anyone else involved in adapting these rules.

Dan states that smoothbore muskets have greater range in BFF than in AoE. In BFF they fire out to 4", in AoE out to 2" unless the Brigade in question has the benefit of a skirmish screen – in which case the range is doubled. If you allow for the difference in ground scales, the range is the same in both rules. (Concerning the greater allowance given for skirmishers, AoE then presumes – like BBB at its own recommended ground scale of 1:5400 or more – that the base does not cover the full footprint of the unit or subunit it represents.)

But let's continue this thinking in the other direction. Regtl F&F (RFF) recommends a figure scale of 1:40 and a ground scale of 1 inch to 25 yds (1:900). A Turn corresponds to 15 minutes. Those who have adapted the rules to the Crimea or the Triple Alliance war have doubles the figures to 1:80 and one inch to 50 yds (1:1800) – thus quite close to F&F's point of departure. But a turn remains 15 minutes, and the essential distinction is that players are manoeuvring Battalions not Brigades.

I stand ready to be corrected but it seems to me that the tables in RFF or more punishing than in either F&F/BFF, ALLOWING FOR them showing about half the troops engaging half the targets in half the time. If I'm correct, even within his own rules, Hasenauer has also provided for smaller slices of an action being bloodier at a greater level of granularity.

Ultimately, of course, these calculations are gamey approximations in even the most carefully-written rules. In the same spirit, see the present discussion on this board about the time taken by a Battalion to change formation. There's no way this drill lasting a minute or so need penalise a unit with half its movement allowance. But the rules need to attach a penalty of some kind, else why show formations at all? And your only measures are in 15, 20 or 30 minutes at a time.

Furthermore I've also discovered an interesting twist here. At link you'll see that last year Rich Hasenauer posted some new horse-and-musket variants for RFF; lining up their tables, I've noticed that these seem to backtrack away from the outcomes of standard RFF and return closer to those of F&F/AoE. RH emphasises that these are not formal revisions, but Beta experiments. But since I'm trying to reconcile these various differences, I regard this as rather helpful.

May I request that this thread be shared with the 18th and 19th century boards and that for the ACW. Sorry, I can't see how to do this myself. There may be others who have useful experience or opinions to contribute.