I'll put on some photos of my Russians as they're still out after the game yesterday evening ...
[Dragoons in the foreground]
1812 Russians
(18 posts) (8 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
[... with Light Cavalry Support choice]
Posted 1 year ago # -
Those are looking very nice, what scale are they?
Good motivation to finish mine and post them up here :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
They are 15mm and as someone who has faced them yes they are nice.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Very nice. Those 3 figures cavalry stands are quite impressive.
John
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks chaps.
The 1st Regiment of Dragoons are truly a thing of beauty.
Needless to say, i didn't paint those :). The rest i did.
I just need to finish off the 2nd support choice of more Cossacks, Horse Artillery and then move on to the Bavarians ...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi James....have you played Blue on Blue against Trevs Russians yet? ....if so how did the game go? ..cheers Paul
ps the infantry look better now you have rebased them:)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi Paul
Trev and I have played 4 games of Lasalle together so far. The first was a big scenario based game that I hosted of Austrians and Russians v French. Trev won as the French and it was after that game that he decided to take up Lasalle!
Our next 3 games were all Russians v Russians under AB conditions. I think Trev was surprised because he thought I would be more likely to use my Austrians or possibly French (sneakily I had decided to keep my real tournament army under wraps).
He based his armies on the Infantry core and mine were based on Grenadier core.
The first game went to Trev. At the point the game ended we were at around move 14/15 or so. He had lost a lot of units at that stage and exceeded his breakpoint and I thought victory was assured. I was the defender in the game but I wasn't taking defence of the objective seriously (the first time I had played a game with an objective under AB). This was a costly mistake because Trev grabbed the objective and then I failed the morale die roll even though I hadn't lost any units. An important lesson learned!
Hey! I just reread the the Army Morale Check section, page 67. It says "If playing a scenario that uses an objective marker, then the defender must take an army morale check if the attacker controls the objective marker during the defender's Status Phase...." But we weren't playing a scenario, we were playing an AB game - I was robbed - I demand a stewards inquiry!
The following 2 games went to me. I can only remember the details of one of them. Trev was defender and had opted for Home Field Advantage and we were fighting from the narrow edges of the table. He was late getting his reserve Cuirassiers to arrive. By the time they did so I had his army boxed into the edge of the table and they hardly had room to deploy, and couldn't get at me because their own troops were in the way.
So overall honours are even. And now the dastard has left the country to avoid the final showdown! Rumour has it he will make a return at Maelstrom.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sounds good Alan...it looks like you've got all bases covered for the Lasalle tourney...I must admit in AB games I thought you used the objective marker as well? ...I was quite surprised that Trev as started playing Lasalle as we have had plenty of debates with him in the past over Lasalle and Blackpowder, he always went for Black powder....a nice way to pull them in is to let them win their first game though:)
good luck at the tourney ...Paul
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes I agree about the objective marker. I was just making a tongue in cheek complaint :-)
As well as Lasalle I have also converted Trev into liking Impetus - that's another system he didn't think that he liked.
I like the idea behind Black Powder but inevitably for periods that you are really interested in, dedicated period specific rule sets tend win out over generic ones. Of course the big plus about a generic rule set is that you only have one to learn and remember. A big plus for us geriatric types.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi Alan....so it was you who got Trev into Impetus?....small world will have to meet you at Triples ....me and Nev will be doing the Hougomont...we need to have a few beers and a chat:).....cheers Paul
Posted 1 year ago # -
And Paul, i haven't rebased them. Just added a bit of flock [grin]
Posted 1 year ago # -
I just reread the the Army Morale Check section, page 67. It says "If playing a scenario that uses an objective marker, then the defender must take an army morale check if the attacker controls the objective marker during the defender's Status Phase...." But we weren't playing a scenario, we were playing an AB game - I was robbed - I demand a stewards inquiry!
I don't have the rules with me, but objectives are used in an AB game set up, so I think an AB game is playing "a scenario that uses an objective marker". Pretty pointless to use an objective marker if it has no game effect.
Cam
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cam read my reply to Paul - 4 posts above! I was making a joke :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Doh!
Well it is nearly April Fools Day, so consider me fooled.
Cam
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cam
This objective incident was an important lesson for both of us. I had played a lot of games but all scenario based before this and Trev had only started playing recently. Based on little real experience we had concluded that the objective did not offer much incentive to make the Attacker attack and that a common tactic might be to opt to attack, get the two extra units and then sit back and defend (shades of the Spanish HFA question!), as there is no penalty for an Attacker who does not attack. It was that line of thinking that led to the victory results shift rule in the forthcoming Maelstrom Tournament, i.e. a draw becomes a victory for the defender under certain circumstances.
Although the straight objective rules do not make the Attacker attack they certainly can be deadly for the defender as I found out to my cost.
I have not fought enough AB games to know whether this becomes a problem. Although it may be unsporting to opt to be the Attacker and then defend it does seem to be a permitted tactic under the rules. As winning is important to some players they can quite legitimately use this ploy and I don't think it can be complained of if both have agreed to use the rules as they stand.
Any thoughts anyone? Apologies for taking this thread so off topic.
Posted 1 year ago # -
We in Wellington have been playing with the rules for victory a bit as a result of the bias against the defender in these situations (in a tournamnet setting in particular).
What we had done was taken the FoW approach (as most of us are FoW Playtesters) and used the objective as the winning point meaning that the Attacker must take the objective or break the defender to win and the Defender can either hold the Attacker off until the turns run out or break the attacker (if they are lucky :) )
To take the objective there had to be no defending units within 4BW while the Attacker had at least one unit within 4BW. Its worked well so far.
The other thing we'll try is 'mission' based games with clear attacker and defender mission objectives for each game. there are a few in the forum already that we are keen to try out.
Simon
Posted 1 year ago # -
No, please, hijack my post again [grin]
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.