Armchair Dragoons Forums
Wargaming => Age of Gunpowder => Topic started by: JudgeDredd on March 08, 2024, 01:24:43 PM
-
I'm struggling a wee bit with this.
It seems to be very geared towards the Confederates. I don't have a dog in the fight - it doesn't bother me one side has an advantage, only in so much as from a gaming perspective, one side (Union) is hobbled...so it makes playing them frustrating.
The Union leaders all seem to have low command ratings which often means they can't perform a full activation. This, in turn, means you do nothing.
In my Whirlpool scenario, I've pulled 4 divisional chits in the first turn - 3 for Birney and 1 for Barnes and they didn't pass for full activation, so none of them could do anything. That's Birney used up.
I know from my readings and watchings that the Confederates, at least early war, had superior officers. So historically, I'm sure this all fits. It just makes the game "half flat"...Confederates get to do stuff and Union doesn't.
So - I'm struggling a wee bit with the "fun" aspect at the moment.
Also, I would say the rules aren't written great. I've had worse, but I've certainly had better. Additionally, I printed out the rules on the Revolution Games website only to find out not only did they not have errata in them, but they were the first edition rules. I had the second edition of the game and the rules were slightly different in places. Not hugely - but noticable.
I've asked if they aren't going to update the manual to include errata (which would be ideal) if they could at least put the second edition rules up on their main page.
Onto the map. I love the map. It took me while to get to grips with the steep slopes...but after a while, I got there. Whilst I love the map - it is busy. It's very difficult to identify hexes...often having to find a similar hex wuiet a few hexes away and then work back to find the actual hex you want. It's outstanding looking, but difficult to navigate.
I also think the game needs a couple of extra player aid cards...one for the details of the Wild Chits and the other for details on the combat and close combat modifiers. I'm often having to grab the manual for both of these.
I know this all sounds negative, but it's absolutely not a bad game at all. I've just striuggled a bit with the manual, the map and the "fun" aspect given the neutered Union commanders.
Those are my thoughts on the game.
Now - here's something else. I'd be interested to hear from anyone whose plkayed the Blind Swords system and who have also played Battle Hymn.
I've now played both and in my head the rules are very similar. Somedifferences for sure, but things like getting support from adjacent units rang a bell when I read it. I think they are more similar than they are dissimilar. But it's been a while since I played Battle Hymn - so maybe I'm a bit foggy on the rules...I just know that stuck out to me (and there was something else that has escaped me now).
-
Interesting, JD.
I have the 'Kernstown' game and the game of First Bull Run and have played them quite a bit. Although the core rules are the same, there are obviously some special rules to cover each game, so there is a degree of difference between them all.
For example, in the Bull Run game, you can activate a formation and assign an order, but need a separate roll based on the leaders rating if an attack order is selected to see how many regiments of that brigade can actually take part in the attack. I'm not sure if this applies in your game, so it may well be different. Also, in general terms, the Union are on the defensive at this point, with the burden of the assault being on the Confederates, so even a Union limited activation will still allow them to fire at targets that are within range/LOS.
I just looked at the counters on BGG and see that most Union commanders are a '3' although Hancock and Sickles have no activation number and, if this is like the games I've played, then it means that can activate automatically without a die roll?
Also, again just talking about the games I have, they both have 2 PAC's, one for each player, and one the back of each is a 'Unique Event Description', so just have a check and see if its the same.
-
So this one is a bit different.
There are CiC chits...Longstreet, Hancock and Sickles. They don't have command values, but the scenarios specify their rating. For example in The Whirlpool scenario Longstreet is 4 and Sickles is 3.
Regarding the commander ratings. Basically if you don't roll equal to or less than the commanders rating you can do a limited activation which is simply a fire action - not the same as an Attack command. In an attack command, you can attack, move and then perform close combat if you're adjacent.
Most of the Union commanders in this scenario are 2...so you only get a 33% chance of getting a full activation. In the first turn, I pulled Birney 3 times and he's rolled more than 3 each time, resulting in each of his 3 brigades being marked as activated but not having done anything (because they were'nt in range of the enemy or just didn't have the firepower).
So it's just difficult.
This is only my second scenario...the first one being The Round Tops which was much smaller.
So I'll persevere - I have a while to go before I'm ready to get Salerno '43 on the table anyway. I've got Ayres, Barnes, Caldwell and Humphreys to activate yet and 3 of then have a command value of 3.
Regarding the PACS - yeah - I have 3. 2 have the sequence of play, combat modifiers and TEC etc on one side with event descriptions on the rear. But the two things the game is missing is the WIld Card chit explanations on a PAC and also a more detailed description on the combat modifiers (the combat modifiers are on one of them, but the manual has a more detailed explanation of them which would be handy on PACS). Having this info on PACS would save having to go to the manual.
-
I've posted this on BGG - but maybe you can help Bawb...
I don't know if I have the term "Normal Fire Combat Step" correct...I think it means 12.0 Fire Combat and does not include 14.0 Close Combat...is that correct?
Basically (because my Union Leaders are pants) They are failing to get a full activation and so perform a Normal Fire Combat Step...and I have some units engaged with Confederate troops. If I am correct with the term "Normal Fire Combat Step" meaning 12.0 and not 14.0, then they can't attack?
-
Yes, in a limited activation, a unit can only make a fire attack and nothing else. In order to conduct an assault (close combat) the formation must be under an attack order before it can engage (in other words, move adjacent to the defending unit(s)).
Remember also the sequence of play whereby with an attack order, fire combat is before movement and/or close combat.
Also, once assaulting units have been declared, the defenders get to issue defensive fire before the CC is resolved.
Hope that helps - if not, just let me know.
-
So a unit under a commander who only has a limited activation, and that unit is adjacent to an enemy unit, cannot fight that unit?
-
It can only issue a fire attack as its only action if under a limited activation, which, if its already adjacent to an enemy unit can be quite effective - and it could then fire again defensively if the adjacent enemy units declare an assault.
-
Right - so it can still attack, but only using the Fire Combat tables and not the Close Combat tables.
Good...I thought they couldn't fire at all which made no sense.
-
Yep - rule 12.0 for a fire combat step and then 14.3a for possible defensive fire.
-
Rebel Yell
I have a Confederate unit I can move adjacent to a Union unit to play this Command Event.
Question...there's already a Confederate unit adjacent to the Union unit...so if I move this other unit to engage with the Union unit, can I combine the other Confederate unit (that will be in an adjacent hex to the newly moved Confederate unit) into the attack...which you can do normally with a Close Combat?
-
I assume this will be the same as it is in the two games I have, in which case I think the key here is that you pick the unit(s) in one hex to move and then conduct the assault. I would therefore say that any units that did not start off in this selected hex are not included in the assault - that's my take on it, and that's the way I have been playing it. :-)
-
Thanks bob.
I have to say I'm a wee bit bored with this.
The Union player is hobbled so much with bad command. I've played two turns...I've got 6 Union brigades to activate and in 2 turns not one of them has had a full activation. And with their placement that means some of them aren't doing anything.
2 turns in and I've got 3 Union units in the Broken 2 box and several more on their battle worn side with morale hits.
It may be realistic...but the Confederates are just steam rolling over the Union. I don't have a dog in the fight...but I like some semblance of balance
I'm going to crack on through this scenario and decide at the end
I know I'm in the minority regarding this system...so two turns is no reason to dump it. I'm just doing a lot of eye rolling at the moment
-
....get some better blue dice................. ;D
I don't know what the victory conditions are for that particular game, so cannot tell if the Union are holding or not. I can only say that in the games I have, whilst there are some swings in fortune, that the games seem to be pretty balanced. I have found that the way the system works can often result in some very good and varied outcomes..
To be honest, the reason I did not get that particular game is because its (obviously) just a part of a larger event, and thus what happens in it is, for me, a bit out of context.
I think I would have recommended one of the smaller games, such as 'Stonewalls Sword' as a starting point to the series.
-
If the map goes back to Sickies' ordered position on Cemetery Ridge, you might find it a better game.
According to the Park Service's account, it was a gross mistake to advance III corps into the Wheatfield and the Peach Orchard.
The frontage was too wide for just two divisions and this led to the corps being overwhelmed. Meade was angry at the move but it was too late to fall back.
Having the corps tightened up on a shorter front, might make it a better fight?
-
I echo your sentiments, JD. I had this game last year, but the rules didn't really make me want to punch the game and try it out. I sold it fairly quickly.
-
So The Whirlpool is the battle for the Wheatfield, Devil's Den and Houck's Ridge. I don't know if that means anything to anyone, but I know too little about the ACW for that to resonate with me.
As BC said, the rules are somewhat confusing. I do remember when I got this game I kept the rule book out to learn it and decided to leave it and went on to a different game.
The rules do leave barn doors open for ambiguity. They use terms like Close Combat, Fire Combat, Defensive Fire, Normal Fire Attack...when I read the rules, it was not at all clear to me that when I performed a fire attack and then moved (an attack order), that you could also perform Close Combat. Additionally, it's wasn't clear to me that the temr "Normal Fire Attack" meant I could use Close Combat...because I was getting Normal Fire Attack confused with Normal Fire Combat. In part, it's because of ambiguous terms I think but a large part is I don't think the rule book fully represents the Sequence of Play and you need to check both in order to get a grip of the sequence of play.
I think there is alot to like in here. It reminds me of the behemoth Fields of Fire. Not a complicated game at all - but the rules make it look like Everest. Once you're in though, you're in.
As for your post bob, I don't know what the point of the scenario is - there's no blurb with it. All I do know is the Union has terrible leaders who cannot activate...leaving them stationary at best and at worst, neutered. I pulled Humphrey's and his only brigade on the board is Burling - and two of those regiments are in the Broken track! The one unit left couldn't move (because Humphrey's wasn't able to activate) and he couldn't shoot. Activation over. And that's not the only time. As I said, I've pulled 11 divisional chits for the Union over 2 turns and they haven't once had a full activation.
As I said - I don't care who wins. I have no side. But steam rollering over another side just isn't really fun.
Having said all that - there are Union reinforcements coming (as well as some Confederates) and also the possibility of the removal of some Confederate forces. 2 turns isn't really anything in a 10 turn game and looking at the reinforcement schedule it does look like there might be some to-ing and fro-ing. Of course there's only going to be some to-ing and fro-ing if the Union player actually gets some Union units to move.
So I'll stick with it for the time being.
On the map - initially I loved the look of the map. Then I hates it when I started to play. It initially appeared to be busy and complicated to read...but actually it's turned out fine. So you have a great looking map with some great features.
Additionally, this map provides me witrh something I've alsways wanted in games and it's not always there (or at least not always there to a decent degree) - the movement rates. In so many games movement rates are set so generic and with very little in the way of terrain to challenge it, you are able to move units wherever you want and with relative ease. With this map - you HAVE to use roads to get anywhere. most of the terrain (or at least the stuff I've been fighting on) is rocky, trees, hills, steep hills...and they all help to keep movement down unless you're using roads.
Anyway - I guess I just posted yesterday because I was frustrated with the lack of ability for the Union to act...we'll see how it goes.
I should also point out - I am a bit irked by two things...
1. The 2nd Edition was not released incoporating the errata
2. The 2nd Edition rules are not available on the website - it's the first edition rules
I could forgive 1 given the reasoning supplied by Revolution Games (time and small team), but two is not forgiveable. You have an updated set of rules for the 2nd edition - get them on your website.
-
I think we should also not overlook the historical fact that the Union was very much on the defensive.
-
I think that appeared to be the case because their officers were far less "active" than the Confederate officers - especially early war from what I remember from Ken Burns series.
I'm going to butt out talking about the history of it though - before one of our US compatriots come on here and tell me off though ;D
-
I'm not sure if that is strictly true. We are talking about July 1863, so its hardly 'early war'. I think its more a case that whilst much of the Confederate force were seasoned veterans, a lot of the Union troops engaged at that point were comparatively inexperienced. To a degree, this also applies to leadership at all levels.
-
Well - I don't know what changed between Turn 2 and Turn 3 - maybe just the acceptance that the Union leaders are crap...but I've just started to get into this.
The rules have ambiguity riddled throughout. I think wargamers in general (but absolutely most certainly me) can't often extract the obvious from the ambiguous and it leaves us wondering. I certainly felt like that with the "perform a normal fire action" - I had no idea (because it didn't mention either under Fire Combat or Close Combat that these were both "normal fire actions") that that included Close Combat.
I need it spelled out.
Anyway - I'm very much enjoying it more now that I was the last two turns. I still can't get a union leader to activate (the only time I could was pulling the CiC Sickles chit)...but I've accepted that now and they're just sitting there plugging away at the approaching Confederates.
-
As I have said before, just ask if you need any clarification. I have played the system enough to be very comfortable with it and have thus worked out/ resolved any perceived ambiguities.
I mentioned before about the relative quality of the troops involved, and again, looking at the counter-mix on BGG I note that many of the Confederate regiments have a 4 or 5 cohesion rating as opposed to many Union regiments with a 3. This makes a significant difference in combat and the ability to withstand adverse results, plus a big advantage when it comes to an assault.
But again, be very clear - a Limited Activation only allows a formation to conduct a fire action, and nothing else.
Obviously, you have to take the best advantage that you can of the CiC chit when drawn, as it allows a formation to activate twice (I assume its the same in all games) and thus represents a force multiplier.
As for just standing and plugging away, well yes, that is pretty much what happened historically :-)
-
I will do - calm down la, calm down... ;D
I was just explaining something has just clicked. I was actually just pulling chits last night rather than rolling my eyes at every one I pulled :2funny:
-
:bigthumb:
-
The conversation reminded me of something from the dim days.
Back around 1963, the ACW's centennial, there was a great fuss about Berdant sharp shooters badly damaging two leading regiments of Longstreets advancing force. Two Alabama regiments I think.
Does Berdan's First USSS have a role in the game?
Could they delay or disorganize a brigade of the Rebs?
-
I think that both 1st and 2nd regiments are represented in the game.
-
Ok hot shot - I got another question :2funny:
If I've got a unit that gets a D result and flipped to it's battle worn side. Lets say that unit now has a 1SP and 1CR value, but it also take 2 morale hits...that takes it's SP to -1 and it's CR to -1...is that how it's left, or does it have to take a break test?
-
Check rules 12.1 and 12.6
See also rule 2.0. That tell us that a units SP's and CR can never be below 0.
Does that help? ;)
-
No - not really I'm afraid - and I don't have 12.6 in my manual.
ok - they can't go below 0 - but I was wondering what you did with the other morale hit? Was it just dumped or did you have to perform a break test?
Additionally, you could end up with a broken unit with 2SP and 1 CR suffering 2 morale hits. Obviously giving the second morale hit would result in 0SPs (fine)...but the CR would be left as -1...do you continue with the other morale hit and treat the CR of -1 as a 0? Or is it dumped (because it takes a value to below 0) - and a break test is done?
Point is, you could end up with a unit with a disrupted marker that takes a unit's CR value to -1 - so if I'm to listen to rule 2, (rule 4 in my manual), I can't be issuing a second morale hit if it takes my unit's CR to -1?
I think I'll just not issue the second morale hit if it takes a unit's CR (or SP if that's possible) below 0.
-
I'm confused. I'm looking at my series rules, and there is definitely a rule 12.6 (Break Test). Also, what version rules do you have? I use the v1.1 rules which, if your game does not come with that version, you can download from Revolution.
If you follow rule 12.5 (Morale Hits) it explains the various effects from hits.
edit - I have just checked the base rules (v1.0) that were included with my games, and they definitely have rule 12.6.
-
My rules say Second Edition. They have a date of 2021.
My break test rule is 15.7...15.0 being the Cohesion Tests
-
Is that the exclusive rules or the series rules?
OK, I suspect that, with it being one of the older games, that this is a combined rule book and exclusive rules. The later games have a 'core' rulebook and an exclusive rule book for the individual game, that's why we are talking about different rule numbers.
I think you may find it easier to download the latest cope rules (v1.1) dated 2023, which maybe makes what you are looking for a bit clearer.