Die K - differences with GdB
Angus, I've had the pleasure of a longer read now :D You mention at the start that the rules are subtly different from GdB. Do you precis or summarise those differences somewhere that I have missed ? If it's not in the rules, as such, could you give four or five headings here for where the differences lie ? I have seen your remarks, for example on deployment of units onto the battlefield but am interested in gaining a fuller appreciation of your approach. cheers EC

DKK and GdeB - Differences
Dear "Ec", No, we didn't precis the differences between the two sets, as they weren't always straightforward. Some were pretty major (like the change of figure ratios or the manoeuvring or firing systems), while others were very small tweaks - just a word here or a line there. The main differences to the system are that: Firing is less effective, with more emphasis on the problems caused by moving and firing, and the initial volley. Movement is a little more staid, and changing formation is more restrictive, and requires a lot more forethought about where exactly your unit will deploy into line. Charges are much more controlled, and launched from a much shorter range than in GdeB. We also changed the procedure, making it a little more streamlined than in GdeB, and introduced a new mechanism to govern firing at chargers, which was a system we thought worked well in other rules. Supports are more important, encouraging people to use proper linear tactics. That also involved the introduction of other key rules, such as the "Passage of Lines". Orders - Many of these were modified slightly, and a new type of order - "Approach" was introduced. The Morale and Melee systems were largely unaltered, as they worked well enough as they were. However, we did tinker slightly with the factors. Then in the "Optional" and "Special" rules we added several new ideas, and stole (adapted) your nicely worked-out siege warfare section from BrGren! Overall our objective was to reflect the waging of linear warfare as best we could. We wanted to achieve this while altering Dave's system as little as possible, as we wanted to remain as true as we could to the original rules. We experimented with your Disruption Point system which works so well in BrGren, but we decided that it slowed our games down too much, as we often had more units on the table than would normally be the case in an AWI battle. I think that we managed to get the balance right, and games now have a distinctive SYW feel to them, rather than appearing a re-hash of a Napoleonic system with a few factors changed. Of course, "the proof will be in the pudding", and we hope that wargamers who try the rules will find that the system works as well for them as it did for the playstesters and the rules writers! Best Wishes, Angus Konstam (a corner of the "Tricorne") www.edinburghwargames.com

AK thanks for your reply. It's very good to have an insight into your philosphy. I've looked also at your Edinburgh Wargames page. Two thoughts occur to me related to an initial reading of the rules.... 1. Are you with movement, suggesting that brigades have to march on to the field in column of companies, wheel, march up to the right limit of their deployment with their left flank facing the enemy, before wheeling 90 degrees to form line in front of their enemy ? ie that this method of deploying is the rule. Reading Duffy et al, there were evidently ways of deploying from march column without doing this, eg with the leading company froming the centre of the line, rather than it's right. You allude to this with a reference to Prussian 'deployiren' and I am left a little unsure as to whether (a) the player has freedom to deploy in this way that does not involve exposing a flank to the enemy or (b) whether the you only allow the Prussians to do it. 2. You mention measures to reduce the effectiveness of musketry in DKK, quite right ! What about artillery ? I am thinking not just of its fire effects but of its freedom of maneouvre. The limbering/un-limbering still seem quite swift to me. When one looks at the impact of French revolutionary tactics, it seems many observers found their use of artillery much swifter and more aggressive than in the earlier era. Is there an argument for allowing guns (nb heavies) a deployment move, then saying they must remain stationary once unlimbered ? cheers EC

Ec, Yes, we've severely limited the ability of units to deply. While in DKK you can turn left or right into line from column of march, the contemporary method was to present your left flank to the enemy before turning into line. It was a pretty complicated business, and units which turned right instead of left landed up with their companies in the wrong place, which upset their pretty rigid systems of platoon firing. They usually got round this by countermarching to form up in the right place. We've simplified it a good deal, as worrying about which company was to take post on the left or right of the line is the path to wargaming madness. We allow the Prussians to make the "deployiren" move, but the manoeuvre isn't available to other armies. I agree, this is anothera simplification of the drills of the period, but it represents the most effective means of representing battlefield manoeuvre without becoming bogged down. Your other point about artillery - we lowered the number of casualties which can be inflicted, and we also limited the number of guns which can be grouped together into big batteries. this imposes quite a serious restriction on players versed in Napoleonic grand battery tactics, and seems to work fairly well at representing our view of the way artillery was handled. Yes, artillery movement is still a little on the generous side, any your suggestion of heavy guns staying put once unlimbered has merit. However, players also want to finish a game, not spent half their evening moving their guns into position. The movement rates therefore represent a compromise between accuracy and playability. If you think we've got it wrong, then feel free to create your own house rule. It'll probably be more accurate, but less fun! Best Wishes, Angus www.edinburghwargames.com

A, thanks for you reply. I look forward to my first game and seeing how people deal with the discipline of having to form in that way. I look forward to getting a cavalry charge in while some enemy is conducting such a manoeuvre :twisted: I like the fact that you have gone for four guns ratio to one miniature. That creates its own limitations, as do the other steps you have taken. House rules on not moving once you've deployed might be worth it - nb with 24 pdrs ! all the best EC

"EC", Well, there are other limitations. In the game we played last night the Russians charged the Prussians as they were deploying, which shows that sensible commanders faff about outside musket range, not within charge reach! Conversely my cavalry were stymied by a tiny unit of Prussian hussars, mainly because the only way to contact them was to charge across a ford - in column of march, and disordered. It didn't go well! My feeble attampts to claim they were in "column of assault" because they were horse grenadiers was rightly judged too "gamey", and was laughed out of court... Best, Angus