GdeB 3

Artillery and deadground to rear for limbers etc
VB, I thought you would mention your artillery train idea. Oh go on then, but it makes me look like a noisy so and so and so :oops: What about an area of "dead ground or impassible ground" behind a battery that represents limbers and paraphenalia - close order troops can't enter this area voluntarily My artillery are based on 30x40mm bases, the deadground would extend another 1.5 base depths (6cms) from the back of the gun model base I'm suggesting these tentatively as options I may add - overall I'm very happy with GdeB - the best set I've evercome across for playability My only real gripe would be the potentialy overly devastating effect of the dreaded double six My personal choice to deal with the artillery issue has been to base all crew separately on the same size bases as the guns themselves. The crew can then become unformed if any other units move through the area they occupy. Limbers cam be used to similar effect positioned across the rear of a deployed battery.

Fire tables - evaluation in progress
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 ? I have been doing some serious analysis of the fire tables - and the two alternative musketry tables posted by DB. There are a number of issues with the probability spread of outcomes which I will detail in a post as soon as I have finished putting the analysis into a more digestible form. One alternative which I am exploring would remove use of the fire outcome tables altogether and convert all firing to comparatively simple dice throws. In the model I am presently evaluating the only half casualties would arise in halving effect for longer range. Whilst this approach may note suit all it could enhance speed of game play and I am designing it to fit as closely to existing outcomes as makes sense whilst preserving double one and double six as features.

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 Not at all Dave - its the General getting shot either in the testicles or between the eyes and dying I have angst about, particularly when a poor brigade morale ensues and results in the brigade legging it and losing 1/2 or more of its strength because some are already retreating etc and so to all intents and purposes ending a game :lol: I'm probably just jealous because I don't think any of my dice have sixes because I never seem to see any on them :)

VB, its the General getting shot...in the testicles :shock: :shock: :shock: I don't think I''ll be tempted to include this in the new double six table.... DB

Re: Fire tables - evaluation in progress
I have been doing some serious analysis of the fire tables - and the two alternative musketry tables posted by DB. There are a number of issues with the probability spread of outcomes which I will detail in a post as soon as I have finished putting the analysis into a more digestible form. One alternative which I am exploring would remove use of the fire outcome tables altogether and convert all firing to comparatively simple dice throws. In the model I am presently evaluating the only half casualties would arise in halving effect for longer range. Whilst this approach may note suit all it could enhance speed of game play and I am designing it to fit as closely to existing outcomes as makes sense whilst preserving double one and double six as features. Sounds good , I'm all for less tables and eqivalent results in a shorter time :) I'm interested in what you come up with.

I like the look of some of the potential changes in the new 2nd edition rules. I have to admit I don't mind the half casualties as it adds a bit of fun to the game esp when it is a throw to force a morale check. I definiately like the flank support mods & the cav versus column mods & the charging mass columns!! I would prefer not to see the rules moving in a fast-play direction, as I like the 'napoleonic-feel' this set of rules has and I prefer a level of complexity to enable us to achieve that... yes the casualty tables can slow it down a bit, but not really all that much imho... we have learnt to make our games (a fair bit) smaller to ensure we have sufficient time to achieve a conclusion in the time we have available! My only gripe is I sometimes feel the double six can have a disproportionate impact on the game, but then I am happy when I get them and the general test is exciting..

...we have learnt to make our games (a fair bit) smaller to ensure we have sufficient time to achieve a conclusion in the time we have available! Which is the secret (imo) of getting the best out of the rules. I am as guilty as the next name of wanting to field a large number of units, but it doesn't mean it's going to make a better game.

Well looking forward to the new GdeB2 Deluxe; I trust it will contain the various optional rules from the various scenario books (in particular I am thinking of the engineer and sappers rules which having now painted up a couple of companies and waiting for a suitable game to try them out - have been engaged in an offline conversation with Radicalthinker who has pointed out a similar treatment of these troops in an edition of Wargames Illustrated). Should we be slipping the new edition on our Christmas lists?

All, GENERAL de BRIGADE DELUXE 2nd EDITION. 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. The only request I would make is for an improvement on the presentation & layout. I find the old fashioned & very stylised serif typefaces to be hard to read on my poor old eyes, and the excessive number and location of some of the pictures and tables could be better adjusted to improve legibility. I'd much prefer to see less period picture content and better quality images for those you do include. Perhaps some diagrams of examples of play? As a mid priced set I see Battlefront WW2 main rules as an excellent example of how GdB should possibly look. Front Rank's 'Napoleon' is not what I'd like to see - too expensive, overstuffed with irrelevancies and with a total absence of proof-reading. The success of GdB has been letting the rules themselves do the talking. As mentioned elsewhere on this forum, amended/extended playsheets for the rules are already available on the web. Otherwise, quite definitely the best set of rules on the market for this level of game. Regards

View Full Version: GdeB 3