GdeB 3
Dave, there has been lots of worthy suggestions on additions to GdeB#3, but I am wondering what can be left out or simplified? My view (and I think the view of our little group) is that the rules themselves are pretty good. We would just like them to flow a bit easier, which might be a result of some simpler processes. Also, when do you imagine that #3 will be published? John

John, I agree that the rules themselves are good. They certainly "feel" right for the period, and tend to give good results (although, again I would suggest that the double 6 results can some times influence a game too much). perhaps a third of the way in. At this stage there are a lot of melees and morale checks. Calculating numbers and bonuses seems to take over from movement. Some of the new rules (eg generals bonuses) may well speed things up Where I find things most frustrating is finding rules. We seem to have several occasions in each game where a rule is queried and we have to consult the book. This can take time as the indexing can , at times, be less than helpful. Sometimes there is a need to consult several sections. A degree of cross referencing could be useful here. Also, some rules (forgive me) are open to interpretation. Even when the intent is clear, it only takes one dissenting player to cause a debate to ensue. Some things need to be more explicit, perhaps with some more diagrams (sorry, explicit and pictures sounds a bit dodgy!). There is certainly room for rules lawyers to manoeuvre. I can mention these areas specifically if people wish but it is pudding time for the kids so time to go. Ants

Yes agreed , I enjoy the rules, but in our group I seem to always be the one looking at tables all night :roll: Looking forward to 3rd edition , hoping that the new rules will , as you say , streamline a few things. DB is that the intention of the new version ? Or just a refinement ?

All, Well, well your eagerness is timed well. Right forget GdeB3 - the rules are to be revised and reprinted as a GENERAL de BRIGADE DELUXE 2nd EDITION. This reprint will be a revised 2nd Edition, so players of the original 2nd edition can use the revised rules without any real issues. It will contain many of the revisions we have explored and I'll also post an amendment sheet on the forum. It will contain lots of colour photos to assist in explaining rule concepts and generally show off the period to its best effect. It will have enhanced Orders of Battle and a good number of additional scenarios. It will also have an index along the lines of Panzergrenadier! It will probably not be out for a good few months, afterall I'd like to take the time ensure it has a proper proof reading before publication..... DB PS Any items you would like to see looked at then feel free to pm me or add to the thread, I won't promise anything but I will certainly examine them all.

DB This sounds good. I think the rules work well , all they need is a tidy up , the book is a bit of a jumble at times and not always easy to find what you are looking for under pressure. As I say to my students when they hand in a overly complicated program "re write it and it will be shorter , make more sense and be easier for all of us to understand." Off the top of my head here are some thoughts. The Fire Table Half casualties are a pain , when we play we tend to cling to the dice roll because when you are shooting you are looking for any extra casualty that will trigger that 10% morale check. Can you do away with the half casualties althogether ? If we could get the firing table to a point where after a few games we don't need to refer to it then it would be ideal , but I'm not sure how much of a change you want to make to it and if it's possible ? Same of the Artillery and Mellee table ? I'm not making suggestion just wishing there was a way to do it and get the same spread of results and still have the effect of more figures firing. To me thise seems to be slow point of the game as we stop for each fire resolution. Melee being probably more exciting and no change is need there perhaps now that I think of it. Skirmishers Skirmisher fire works well , I think we just need to restrict their operations somewhat , give them a zone of operation out in front of the brigade , we end up with them sniping from all over the place as the screen gets broken up. Some in front , some behind trying to take that extra casualty off the Cavalry that have suddenly ended up behind our lines after breaking through somewhere. Support Our games look nice when we start but after about an hour we have units in all sorts of positions , perhaps some sort of bonus for flank support , rear support etc ? Encourage generals to keep their lines tidier. You get a bonus to morale when an enemy unit within 15cms in running , and a minus when a friendly unit is running. Perhaps a +1 for a flank protected by a formed friendly unit in the same formation within 5cm ? +2 if both flanks are protected ? +1 for rear support ? Just an idea ? I'm keen to playtest any ideas you have. I'm excited !! :lol:

K, Half casualties are a pain Yet many like it as it adds that extra element of excitement & suspense... Perhaps a +1 for a flank protected by a formed friendly unit in the same formation within 5cm ? This has already been added which will hopefully address this somewhat. Reason to Test Unit Morale - Threatened Flank (Formed close order enemy unit/s behind units flank or rear & within 15cms. N/A if in squares/buildings.) DB

A summary of all new rules would be great then we could play test them in context of how they work with each other

Hi All Sounds good. We are all looking forward to the new edition and we would also be keen to playtest anything. We play every week and sometimes the games run like clockwork. We get a good game and a result, and yet sometimes we just end up in a mess, I think it depends on the scenario and the amount of troops on the table. I do like the threatened flank idea. We have had many debates during a game regarding breakthroughs and how other troops would react, (orders, priorities etc) so looking forward to this. The half casualty debate seems to continue and what we have done for a long time is use a single dice and go for an odd is dead. We do this after casualty calcs have been done and there is a half casualty left over. For quarter casualties we use a d4.

Dave might I suggest 2 ? optional rules 1 bonus moves/brigade Yes I'm aware people don't like the idea but I think one can offer a plausible suggestion for adopting it ONLY and ONLY in the first 2-3 turns of a game when opponents are often 40cms or more apart It could work like this- Throw a D6 for each brigade, this allows an additional D6 cms optional movement to the move distance of the units in that brigade until they close to within 30cms of the enemy. This can also be done on turn and on turn 3 by which only a reserve brigade is not likely to be within 30cms Why? - well we line our brigades oppsite each other and expect them to close at a distance of 15cms/turn in column - its predictable (yes perhaps as orchestrated movement was at this time) - the predictabilty makes it a little like chess as the move distances are standardised and its possible to neatly arrange for 2 brigades to advance side by side towards the enemy. what about the random element? how can you justify allowing one column to move 21 cms (15+D6) and another from a different brigade only 15cms when both are say trained infantry in column :roll: Answer - 1 brigade general is more organsied or enthusiastic and transmits his orders efficently or leads from the front and gets his brigade going, the other is more inefficient/reluctant to get his brigade into action - - choreographic the movement of 2 brigades isn't quite as easy then or... Its possible to calculate that the enemy will reach hill X in 2 turns, what if it gets there quicker because it might move say an extra10 cms in 2 turns and upset your plans forcing you to react quicker etc.. We generally play on flat tables yet in a battlefield there might be undulations that we cannot represent where whole units might disappear from view for a period of time because of the lie of the land :lol: Just a suggestion but particularly useful for those 1500 or 2000 evenly matched points games with a hill or village in the middle of the table :?: Suggestion 2 The ability of defenders to hold their nerve and crucially hold their fire until they see the whites of the eyes of the enemy and deliver a d6 dependent devastating volley. What about some unpredictability particularly for less seasoned troops that might reflect their anxiety as the lumbering column approaches. This should only be used for a unit when and ONLY WHEN it is being charged and elects to stand and fire. (Something on the lines of what used to be used ITGM ) When charged a defending unit throws a d10 as well as 2d6 - the 2D6 + other factors give the score that it does currently but the D10 gives an indication of the steadiness of their fire or its efficiency Eg A throw of say 1-7 on a D10 by a 1st class line results in an efficent volley but a 2nd class line might need 1-5 to get this - say it throws an 8 - the volley is not efficient as the troops didn't hold their fire and the effect is calculated as if at long range for example (1/2 casualties) Guards might only discharge an inefficient volley on a throw of 10 etc just a suggestion :wink:

VB, I thought you would mention your artillery train idea.

VB, Double Six Result: A standard double six result will only falter a battalion.....(risk to general aside). Is that unduly harsh? However I've now amended double casualties in melee to read a more subdued "2 extra casualties" DB

Wish List
The top item on my wish list for GdB III is to have closed column (battalionsmasse) gingered up to where there is a fair chance against a cavalry charge. It shouldn't be as good as a real square, of course, but the evidence suggests that all Continental armies used this more and more to allow them to manouver in the face of cavalry. I think that, when contemporary accounts mention large-scale movement of squares, and attacking in square, they in fact are referring loosely to this formation. Yours, James D. Gray

S, Its already been done: Melee Results on the 2-1 score now read: 2 to 1= Loser Pushed-Back 10cms <6”>* Cavalry Follow up. Foot may Follow up or Stand. Infantry retreat if pushed-back by cavalry - EXCEPTION Formed Infantry in Column stand & remain formed. Artillery retreat if pushed-back. Retreating units continue to retreat. So cavalry vs formed columns now need to beat them by 3 or more otherwise they "bounce off" and retire to own lines. Also note that columns are now a +2 vs cavalry and the standard infantry melee factor is also +2. And that cavalry vs Unbroken infantry now only inflict at a ratio of 1 per 12 figures. And to simplify I have now considered all columns to close up and form a masse (column serre, etc, ) when attacked by cavalry. DB