ACW CARDS Andy Daglish writes Offhand I can think of a number of ways in which both Dixie games mirror the ACW, for example artillery being very vulnerable to other unit types. The impressions gained from playing [with a full set] is that Bull Run was a linear battle fought by those not used to the ways of war, whereas Shiloh was a surprise Confederate attack launched with one eye on the clock, fought in close terrain defended by troops who if not battle-hardened had had at least a year to read about modern war in newspapers. It was immediately apparent that Dixie: Shiloh was an altogether harsher game than Bull Run, this was achieved by very slightly increasing the severity of various offensive factors, eg. stacking, so that the end result was to present a bloodier, larger and more violent affair than Bull Run, which is a design success in itself. When playing with most of the 400 Shiloh cards it is best to remove Lew Wallace's boys, as then the ratio of Specials to other cards on the Union side matches that of their opponents. Terrain is deployed by the player in Bull Run and is best to deploy it judiciously. In Shiloh the terrain adds authenticity to the proceedings and the timing of its placement is both of great importance and a very clever feature of the design. Though a Confederate player with good recollection will remember the terrain cards he might come up against, the real life situation is mimicked to some extent by disallowing him any knowledge of when and where it will crop up, which could be in a position he has just been thrown out of. A poor point of Shiloh involves cavalry, I thought it was not much used, except as Military Police, due to the rough nature of the terrain. WATERLOO CARDS Charles Vasey Eagles needs a lot of work on it here are a few ideas Quatre Bras: The possibility of a quick artillery bombardment bowling over a single infantry unit (where they have no buildings in which to hide) and ending the battle is difficult to support, so we play it that Morale Hits only cause a Rout if the unit is engaged or a six was thrown. If a morale marker is not removed then the unit remains in place unable to fire or shock or move until it either rallies or is engaged and routs. We also played victory based on holding an Area through to your next turn (so victory caused by the enemy exploding in his own turn was very sweet). Cavalry: We refuse to allow poxy cavalry to fire at Infantry, reckoning it does enough by keeping our infantry chums in square. But we do allow fire between cavalry. Leaders: Lots of Leaders makes for lower losses, in some cases you need six hits to kill a unit which is pretty unexciting. We use them differently. Firstly, an Army Leader placed face-up in the Reserve position conditions the number of units that can move from Reserve with his Morale points plus one. A reserve position without a Leader can transit one unit only a turn. (This will prevent the blitzkrieg attack where cavalry and horse gunners appear from the reserve hand). Secondly, a Leader can be used to remove hit markers without dicing, but he can only remove them up to his Morale Number and once used is removed permanently. Line of Battle: In the non-encounter battles (Ligny and Waterloo) I would increase the number of cards in your Muster hand (thus reducing the number of Reinforcements) to simulate the deployed nature of these battles. Andy Daglish These ideas were formed after playing with all the cards. The Deck and Muster numbers given in the rulebook are too small for decent Quatre Bras or Wavre battles, but 3-player Ligny, and especially Waterloo, can be interesting. Waterloo played as a three-position battle seems biased against the Allies, to the extent the Prussian reinforcements are not the winning advantage they seem to be in the five-position Campaign battle. Artillery is hard to beat since they blast you at short range, can kill at long. A good tactic is to blast the opposition with four guns then charge the cavalry through to the prepped enemy position. This tactic can be improved/exacerbated by Lost Order. This Special will automatically end the game if at any time a column is devoid of units, for example after all attackers have failed their morale checks with nothing behind them in the home position. Still no definition of Attacking/Defending, so we use Bull Run Tactical Ratings. "ANYTIME" Specials conflict, we say Specials must be fully executed before the next is played. For example. A face-down 95th Rifles moves to engage the French line with a Battle Confusion card but the French plays Fatigue before it fires. I say the Fatigue cannot be effective here since the Battle Confusion was played first it should be done before others take effect. Specials that say "British" cannot be used by orange-faced units. Presumably Friendly Fire implies no combat for that unit? Does FF affect Leaders? Emergency Prone: say unblown Lancers can target for Shock only, blown can target for fire ie. blown lancers are close by the target using their lances. The rules do allow engaging in square, allow only A morale units to do this outside the friendly battleline. [There is a picture of the 3eme Chasseurs à Pied going forward in square at Waterloo] Presumably you can form column in Woods as Shock is allowed, but no "formations in terrain" elsewhere. If face-down cards wish to adopt formations other than Line, game experience suggests they should reveal themselves first. You cannot reveal face-down enemies until all movements are completed; horse artillery only physically moves one move per turn. It helps to keep Leaders with their corps. Unlike Shiloh units cannot retreat onto their own men so overstacking cannot occur. Playing the campaign rules with all the cards, Waterloo & Ligny are very obviously FIVE POSITION BATTLES [L-LC-C-RC-R], Waterloo seems to be heavily biased against the French, because of early arrival of unlimited Prussians. Prussian units must be in command of an appropriate leader; if the Leader is dead/absent, Leaderless Prussians may change formation/fight but not move and may not win on their own. Create a single extra position to the left of the allied L position, entirely separate from the rest of the battlefield. The first commanded Prussians are placed as a first move here onto their home battleline, and at that instant the French may make a single, one-time move from their Reserve into their home battleline in this position with any number of units, where they must remain until all opposing Prussians are eliminated. Four units and a Leader must be face up at all times, if possible, French move/fire first. Stacking rules apply but units in excess are kept face down & cannot be used/targeted until turned up [by owner] to replace losses. This position functions as a normal battle position in all respects except that foot artillery may engage attacking enemy units. If all French are eliminated from this position it disappears and occupying Prussians/Prussian reinforcements enter the Reserve as normal. If the Prussians are eliminated entirely, surviving French are immediately moved to their Reserve and the position remains open to Prussians on succeeding turns whose placement triggers the above rules. GRAND TACTICS: Allow another position called Hal, following the rules above, but on the Allied Right flank occupied by Coleville's detachment. At game start only, the French may place one whole corps in this position -OR- any number of [surviving] cards marked "Quatre Bras/Waterloo". If the French units are all eliminated there is no further effect. If Coleville's detachment is eliminated in toto, surviving French units may fight the Allied R position with fire attacks only. These units are not engaged, all CV on both sides fire at F1. -OR-Start with all Prussian leaders, draw R1. If a Special is drawn, draw again. TERRAIN: WATERLOO: Allies: OHAIN is LC. HOUGOUMONT is RC. French Mon Plaisir is L [either/or LC?]. Otherwise exactly as printed. LIGNY: Prussians C, L, R in any corresponding positions and with any stacking combinations except that Ligny and Bussy must be stacked in the same or adjacent positions, and Sombreffe and St. Amand may only stack with corresponding Ligny Brook and no other terrain. Should some Specials be put in the reinforce deck only [Ammo Depletion, Fatigue etc?] Allow one Special per card per position per phase. Uxbridge is Chief of Staff when Wellington is absent or dead, Cavalry Corps Leader when His Grace is present. I suggest Chiefs of Staff in the Prussian and French armies are exchanged in place for the Big Man, at the instant he is drawn, irrespective of their position. Allow the Chiefs of Staff in the Prussian and French armies to return [from the reserve, after exchange] as Aide-de-Camps, ie 0/1 leaders in positions [possibly diagonally] adjacent to the Big Man. SKIRMISHING/PRONE: Light infantry, or infantry & light cavalry with "A" and "B" morale may skirmish [also represents British lying prone, less dense cavalry target etc] in any position/terrain. Eligible units may move and place or remove a "skirmish" marker in the same manner as a formation change. Marked units ignore single hits [caused by Fire]. Hits in excess of one are treated normally. Skirmishing units are targeted for shock by columns at +1S and by cavalry at +2S or +1F [thus a 1 die roll may cause both a hit on the skirmishing unit and leader]. Skirmishing units targeted for Shock combat lose skirmish status immediately. Skirmish markers can be placed on infantry in buildings but such units can then be targeted for Shock combat. LEADER PROTECTION: During the move phase a Leader may stack [or unstack] with infantry unit[s] in woods, buildings, or square formation, and only suffer hits from attacks directed at those unit[s]. However the leader gives morale support only to the units he is stacked with. After Quatre Bras/Ligny, all eliminated Leaders return/are replaced on a 1-3 [represents possibility of competent replacements, recovery]. BURNING BUILDINGS: If units occupying a building card total three or more "ones" when rolling for hits during the Morale phase, that building card is considered "On Fire" [place marker]. "On Fire" buildings no longer confer morale advantages and all units attacking into or out of the buildings card do so at minus 1 CV. QUATRE BRAS: This is a wonderful little stand-alone game, not unlike the version in Naps Last Batts, ideal for a tournament. However, it is critically important to play with all the cards. Experimental setup: Place all Terrain cards at start, all Specials are the only reinforcements. All French start in Reserve, with only cavalry/horse artillery playable from the Reserve on the first turn - moreover "Late Reserves" has this effect later in the battle. Allied player setup is limited to one Orange combat unit per position. Perponcher is the only leader who may be placed. Allied Reserve starts with six[?] cards. 95th can target enemy leaders, 1 = miss, all hits on Leader card. Guard Light Cav. must roll 1-3 to charge [not if targeting cavalry], if eliminated any leader must be discarded also. Count terrain for stacking. Allow units in a Bois de Bossu card to move/engage/disengage to the other Bossu card. The Hundred Days Battles: After playing Quatre Bras and Ligny side-by-side it became apparent that the Allies have little incentive to fight either battle. This is similar to a number of major points in Eagles, one wonders how the development/playtest could have passed them by. If the Allies win Quatre Bras they should immediately retreat from Ligny however well the battle is going. Winning Ligny is unlikely, as the Prussians are inferior in strength, which is another good reason not to fight at all. There is little point for the Prussians to lose units at Ligny if the setup at Quatre Bras is weak. If Quatre Bras looks winnable ie. the Muster is strong, then fighting may be worth it as the prize is the Hal corps as reinforcements to the battle of Charleroi, which usually must be hard for the French. Wavre/Waterloo can work nicely, however, and I would recommend playing this first. Quatre Bras/Ligny may be best as a four-player, with each battle played synchronously in isolation from the other in a separate room. NAPOLEONIC FIGURES Craig Ambler (CHV: Delayed by my sloth from May 1995) I use 15mm metal figures mainly Essex but also some Battle Honours and a few Minfigs. At the moment I have French and Prussian forces. I am finishing off the Prussians and starting on Russians and Austrians (with Bavarians in the 21st Century). Ah, the joys of figure painting. One of the reasons I like boardgaming is the instant access to them. The scale I use is 1:33 which gives a fair size battalion without being too large as with 1:20. I do not like the modern scales of 1:60 or 1:100 as the battalions are tiny. I found out a long time ago that having too many units is not always a good thing. The basic rule system works through the cards. Each unit possesses a card, when this is drawn the unit mat move, fire or pass. A unit may also react to action against itself, for example fire if charged, or countercharge if cavalry. Each unit has a movement rate but this is altered by die roll (CHV: swinging from 150% to 50%). No more straight linear attacks unless units wait for each other to catch up, not always a good idea under fire. To fire or melee one just multiplies figures with the factor and take that many figures off the opponent using percentage dice. Morale is simple, Each unit has a morale level which is a percentage level (french Line 70 and Prussian Landwehr 50, for example). These can of course be changed to reflect particular units or differing performance in historical campaigns. All units start the battle with A level morale but this can be reduced by combat. Just to keep things interesting I shuffle three "End of Turn" cards into the pack at the moment the third of these is drawn the back is reshuffled, so several units may not move or fire. CHV: Interesting the similarities to the card systems. If I may make a few general observations. The figure scale is something which is very important to figure-gamers but does not I suspect have a boardgame equivalent. Because figures have their own aesthetic value over and above their game-use it matters whether the battalion is longer than it is deep (the usual problem with 1:100 scales - 6 figures a battalion). Now I hold with brigade action and to me small battalions are not problem (and in line I cheat by putting four of them together to make a brigade that just happens to look like a battalion at 24 figures). The only boardgaming equivalent is my own dislike of stacking when you cannot see the counters - Kadesh sticks in my memory. The card activation system is a good basic motor for most combat systems, and can be particularly flexible. In my Napoleonic system I use Division (Les Quatre-Bras) and Corps (Le Beaux Soleil d'Austerlitz) activation with the movement blocks in both cases being brigades (or quasi-brigades for Austerlitz on the Allied side). My impression is that the activation level units could be expected to operate in a reasonably co-ordinated fashion (that is, that half a Corps would not move off while the other sat around asleep) thus permitting, for example, linear advances. The lower movement level is used because it seemed to be the block of choice. So divisional attacks were launched by the whole division but this meant (say) two brigades up, one back. In Craig's game he has elected to have battalions moving independently, I wonder if they did. It is interesting how rarely the historical accounts fit with the methods which we are all assured were actually used and battalion movement may be (at this scale) supportable. Certainly Wellington was forever shifting one unit here and another there in a fashion which would lead The Gamers to give him a Black Mark. My thoughts have run to this topic when talking recently to Bryan Ansell. We were discussing a mass-action set of rules for Frederick of Prussia. Traditionally one starts with the thought of the armies forming up in lines and marching around in effete lines instead of manly columns. But naughty old Freddie seemed to avoid lines frequently, Kolin for example sees "brigades" peeling off from march to attack the Kaiserliks. Leuthen is famous as an oblique approach, but Lobositz and Prague both have some jolly odd features. The systematisation of the linear concept is not, of course, saying it always happened that way, but I wonder whether it happened quite that way a lot. The French do seem to have kept to the linear approach in the sense that they organised by Line of Battle. This is organisationally important (which is not the same as being tactically important) because it means that Colonel de Foppington knows his regiment is in Le Comte de Siggins' brigade in the second line. He knows his place in a way which is difficult to grasp when one has absorbed the much more "come as you are" style of the Revolutionary French where the organisation was not spatially defined. ZOCs Steve Thomas The ease and realism of Ring of Fire are in stark contrast to the stuff churned out by Command. There are a number of areas where I disagree with Command's style and philosophy. The latter seem to have developed an objection to the concept of ZOCs. I'd accept that in some cases ZOCs are not valid. Even so they should have been included in Proud Monster and probably even Great War in Europe. ZOCs can represent different things in different games and more importantly can have different effects. Possibly Command are rather trapped in one particular way of thinking about ZOCs. Certainly I think there are a few points they have overlooked in their arguments on this score. Wargames work under the constraints of sequential movement. The reality was of course that units were moving simultaneously. While we have to base a unit in a particular hex when it is not in 'play' it doesn't necessary mean the unit is locked in that spot. It may be still moving in real time. There is also the fog of war aspect. There is invariably some element of uncertainty about where the enemy is and their capability. The effect of ZOCs reflects this. ZOCs do have their problems. Nevertheless they do represent some real constraints. The validity of their use comes in structuring rules suited to such things as the period, scale and type of units. Part of the problem may be that ZOCs are used rather automatically and too rigidly. They have tended to fall into two categories, all or nothing. Rigid ZOCs where you can't move between ZOCs are clearly inappropriate in many circumstances. There are however ways around this. The hex bond/link concept used by Ring of Fire is simple and sensible. If even this is felt too tough then you can always have a system whereby units pay extra movement points to move from ZOC to ZOC. This cost could be increased, if desired, depending on whether there are hex bond/links and type of units that is, Armour units exert double the ZOC cost of infantry. Back to Perfidious Albion #92 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1996 by Charles and Teresa Vasey. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com