Game System query
Greetings to you all again. May I put a pigeon among the cats again? Why does the system seem to ensure disordered units take more casualties. If you are able to keep below 3DPs you are not going to lose many guys. Would it not be better to have DPs reducing fire effect as currently, but just have a simple casualty system from fire instead? Time to put me tin hat on and hit the trench again ahead of the expected incoming fire! Be happy guys!

Herky no need for tin hat - these discussions are welcome 8) DPs are applied to the firing unit to reflect the chaos and disorientation that followed salvoes of black powder weapons. We don't have the 'fired last turn' modifier used by GdB. It's all part of the DP situation. Most authorities are agreed that if two units blazed away at each other for any more than one or two volleys the effect became markedly less effective. This is why the DPs get applied on both sides. EC

And, of course, as the less well trained cannot rally off DP like their betters it gives the latter an edge in a firefight. More of a case of the less well trained take more casualties(or slipping off to the rear to help wounded etc) If you want inferior troops to have more of a chance then you get the officers to get involved and provide suitable inspiration, threats, abuse etc. The one thing I find disappointing in BG is my inability to use the historically correct tactic, for the British, of a volley followed by the bayonet charge. Every time I try it goes pear shaped whereas the occasional volley not working is not as catastrophic as a bodged up melee. When we re-fought Brandywine last year I was doing very well with Leslie giving the Americans a drubbing with some un-historical but accurate repeated volleys. However, Von Knyphausen kept nagging me to charge( which I could ignore as he kept failing his order throws) and of course when he finally did get me onto assault my one and only charge was a very typical failure. regards Paul

Paul your point about the rules' failure to replicate the typical British volley followed by a charge is worthy of further discussion, I think. I accept that the table top encounters dont quite match the contemporary descriptions in this case. There are a number of answers I could give you. For example what I try to do is get my attacking unit to move a half move and fire during the turn before its assault. Another answer might be that since 'melee' in GdB and BG actually includes close range fire combat, that assault move actually contains the British volley before going in. Loose Files and American Scramble had a Brtish bayonet chatrge modifier but it tended to be abused - ie every British charge was declared as a bayonet charge and it ended up operating a bit like the +1 for Brits in line in the GdB/BG system. Feel free to put forward any suggestions you might have in this regard Paul. My own instincts would be that if we made a change in this area it would operate in the morale area rather than fire combat because these baonet charges broke green American troops through fear rather than casualties. So for example you might say that a formed British unit charging in line would not get an 'in line' modifier but would have a more negative effect on enemy morale meaning they were less likely to stand around and receive the charge. Perhaps: for each British DP less than three, add one to the enemy's DP total ? eg Brit unit on 1 DP charges American one on 2 DP. Brits add 2 to the Americans' negative morale modifier ? EC

D'accord Monsieur d l'eclaireur
Thanks for all the interesting posts, all quite valid. I still wonder if the movement induced disorder should be lumped with the shooting disorder, I feel it does seem to skew the results of fire. My humble suggestion would be to have DPs as at present, but with no rule saying you must have 3 DPs before taking the excess as casualties. As I suggested in my last post, DPs would reduce your shooting die result as at present. To represent shooting disorder, how about giving the target unit 1 DP per casualty suffered. I would suggest allowing units to have a maximum of 5DPs at any one time. I would hope this would make the game simpler and keep the game operating as well as it seems to? Re the query on English army volley and charge, this modification to the system could make that possible, if the Patriots got enough DPs to make their fire ineffective, and their ?5 DPs would mess up their combat chance and Morale checks big time. As ever, I could be wrong! - But what do you lot think? Happy Gaming!

Herky well the Loose Files rules from which the BG set took its inspiration on Disruption Points did have a max of 5 rather than 3 DPs. I kept it to 3 because I wanted the system of -1 for each DP on firing, morale and melee to be a simple formula. Allowing minuses of up to 5 just swung things too hard against the disrupted unit, because those other aspects of BG do not function in exactly the same way as in Loose Files. It was a feature of the adaptation in other words. You could argue that allowing some units to go to -5 would be more historically accurate (for example meaning very few militia units would stand in front of a British charge) but that would also mean that many scenarios were very hard for the American side to play apart from turning up to have all their units run away ! With regard the idea of counting some hits as casualties and some as DPs, rejected this as too complicated. One thing people sometimes say about the rules is that you can blaze away turn after turn and not inflict a single casualty. This was a deliberate feature of BG. Many contests in these wars yielded very few casualties. I beeve the total of American soldiers killed in battle during the entire eight years has been calculated at 10,500. It's pretty small given the number of engagements that were fought. When comparing these outcomes to those in many Napoleonic battles it is apparent how ineffective fire combat in the AWI must have been. For this reason both musket and artillery tables are downgraded in BG, canister fire (a really be killer in many Nap battles) is further downgraded. The DPs add a further element of degradation in the effectiveness of fire. EC

Hi EC, I must admit when I made my comments it was my inability, through bad luck whenever a charge was attempted, rather than a perceived problem with the rules. That said though you are quite right that it is difficult to engineer the classic bayonet charge. It requires , as you say, a half move by the chargers to deliver an effective volley then the charge next move. To get green troops to break before contact you need to inflict a couple of DP to lower their morale. However, I think we are saying that the effect of the volley is relatively unimportant, it was the fact that these guys were about to get stuck in that caused the problem. Question is, you know this happened to green American troops but what about loyalist militias and other poor troops? Is this a rule that should only be applied to British versus American militia and only early on? Is it a purely infantry thing or should it apply if being charged by cavalry? I am nowhere near as well read on the AWI as yourself, RtL and others so I don't know. But I am not sure this could be a blanket Brits vs American modifier. I think any unit rated Line or better is not likely to need any further adjustment; it is still possible for such units to break before a charge due to DP, situation and just bad luck. Did units we would consider 2nd Line break from bayonet charges or is it just militia we are talking about? Are Militia and levy just statements about training, confidence etc in BG? I thought it possible to have regular units classified "militia"(and vice versa) where a units performance was poor. So by definition are militia/levy green troops and we could limit further penalties to them alone or do we need to consider 2nd line as well? Not sure about DP generating a modifier. The more DP the chargers have then the better they have to roll to charge home but once they start to go in is the target going to be analysing their perceived state or just the fact that there are an awful lot of bayonets coming their way? So in that case do we just have a generic modifier of -1 or -2 for militia/levy testing to receive a charge? I must admit the possibility of breaking the enemy prior to contact would make me more likely to order charges rather than relying on volleys as I do at the moment. It wil be interesting to find out what other players think; I suspect a lot of them have been getting stuck in rather more readily but it would be useful to find out how many charges end in melee as opposed to breaking before contact. Historically hasn't the latter been more prevalent in most periods of history dominated by firearms? regards Paul

My buddy has been working hard on GdB armies while I have been working on AWI. We don't have extensive experience with either of the rules but have played both GdB and BG! and close to being able to play some of the scenarios. Greg has just finished off the last of the stuff he needs to do the Guard Assault at Waterloo scenario. He is a painting machine. :) I have one more British unit to finish for Bunker Hill. We have just started playtesting the "Guard assault at Waterloo" scenario. He plans to take the whole scenario "on the road". (His next project is the Prussian vs. Young Guard scenario from Waterloo. He is addicted to Calpe's Prussians!). So the point is: We have found that the British, relying on historic tactics, are having a very hard time against the French. However, when we practice with BG! we have found the the British tactics as used in the AWI seem to work very well within the rules. With more experience these perceptions may change, but for now it seems to us that BG! gives a better historic representation of the type of battle it is trying to simulate. That is not to say the we have any problems with GdB, we don't. But we just haven't figured out how the British can rely on defensive fire and counter-atacks to win. While it has been very hard for my American units to halt a determined advance and charge by the better of the British foot. Mike B

Re M L'eclaireur
I know how hard it is to have a ruleset pulled apart as I write a lot of sets for my club myself! Its always difficult to alter a preexisting set once written as you get a cascade effect through the rest of the game by changing one part of it! As has been said before by someone wiser than me: 'All one can hope to achieve is an equality of disatisfaction'. No rules could ever satisfy everyone as we all have our own subjective view on any topic. I would be frightened to publish any of my sets as I think my Ego would not survive the inevitable shark attacks they would attract! M L'Elaireur--I salute you! :D

Herky you're too kind thank you 8) Mikeb your characterisation of BG providing a better simulation of British AWI tactics than GdB does of their Napoleonic ones is a view I shall deploy on Dr Brown at some very stressful moment in one of our future table top encounters :wink: