Hi everyone,
Here is the link to this years Call to Arms competition http://www.warlords.org.nz/
As you will be able to see if your entry is in by the end of the month it will only cost $45, so come one come all.
Here is the players pack again http://www.warlords.org.nz/cta2011/Call%20To%20Arms%202011%20Players%20Pack%20LaSalle.pdf
If all things work out I will be using my Russian Army so I will have a British army that can be borrowed.
I will be there with my Prussians. I also have some French figures which can be used if people want to borrow an army.
I will be there using British, now I just have to figure out how to transport a Lasalle army from down here to up there....
My unstoppable army of garlic-breathing cheese-eating death machines will be there.
(French Empire).
I have some sunburnt beer-swilling hooligans to lend (Peninsula British).
Cheers
Paul
I will be coming down.
Probably 1806 Prussians, but could use 1809 Austrians if there are other early Prussians in the field.
Cam
I expect to be playing, and hope to have my 1805 French rebased for it.
Will be great to see 1806 Prussians, they are my "Must do oneday" army.
Cheers
Bryan
Hi guys, I am eyeing up this tournament seriously with a very fresh British Army I have yet to finish painting. Can the tournament handle another Pomgolian?
Regards
Julian.
Hi Julian,
There can never be enough British armies. Be great to add another into the mix.
Cheers
Tim
Guys, I'm playing in the comp but am wondering if anyone minds if I run my Penninsular British as Guards?
How will you differentiate the different battalions?
I'll use the 1/88 and the 2/88 as the two Large, Guard, Valiant battalions as they both have yellow cuffs and colours.
The 1/74 and 1/58 will be the two other ontable battalions.
The attack options will be the 1/5 and 1/45
I cannot see that any one will mind. We have already had KGL maskerading as Brunswickers. I am looking at using my 1805 French, it is my opinion that they were markedly better than the French infantry of the later periods and I am seriously looking at using the French Guard list to show that.
Cheers
Bryan
Other than my own professional jealousy of also running British Guards, I dont really see a problem McBeth! Also I can't get on my high horse too much, I have Hanoverians who might be pretending to be Brunswickers, haven't quite decided yet!
I have been building a historical force based on the Fuzileer Brigade and a Portugese brigade in 1811-13, and have just finished painting the Portugese.
Will gamers mind if I play with an army based on this historical force using Cam’s points system?
3 British Fusilier units - Val/Exp SK2 linear tactics (33 points)
1 SK base (1 point)
1 Cacadore - Rel/Exp SK3 linear tactics (10.5 points)
2 Portugese Line - Rel/Ama/SK2 linear tactics (16 points)
1 RA BTY (7 points)
2 Portugese Line (16 points)
Using Cam’s points system, it comes to 83.5 points (compared to 86.5 points for Peninsula British, 92.5 points for British Guards, 88 points for French Empire, 96 points for Austrian infantry, 103 for Russian infantry…).
Cheers
Paul
I see nothing wrong with that list Paul, what do you plan on using for the support option?
Tim
Paul,
Is there a new set of Cams points?
The set I have gives army forces costing hundreds of points?
I am intrigued as to how Austrians would be over 10% more than Brits, brearing in mind their low Sk and lousy Generals.
Bryan
That may be my super draft version of a points system I was working on based on Cams points formula. I could never truly work out a good system to reflect a value a random chance of getting a good or bad general in a points value total.
Its hard to fully work out because the game is still very new and while Cam points system is good to work out how the book lists are constructed some weighting of attributes and generals ratings need a closer look.
I was using Cam’s V.1 system http://awc.wargaming.info/napoleonics-1790-1840/in-search-of-points-lasalle
I see I made a mistake (I calculated SK1 infantry at -1 point instead of -1.5 points, and didn’t factor in -2 for each Russian/Austrian subcommander). The Austrian Division should be 87.5 points, and the Russian Infantry Division should be 93.5 points.
Incidentally, thanks to Cam for developing a points system.
For Support brigade, I was going to use British heavy dragoon brigade (Long's Brigade of 3rd Dragoon Guards and 4th Dragoons). I've just started painting the figures - British cavalry horses without tails look very odd.
Cheers
Paul
Paul - what's the cut-off for CTA Registration/Entry - I'm wanting to come and had planned to drive down (as its the only way to get my army down), but have had some stuff come up that may scuttle that plan - and I won't know for sure if I can make it until literally the weekend before...
Cam and I had a game at the weekend and tried out the CTA Scenario thing - I'll try and get some photos up on my blog later in the week... Unfortunatley the British couldn't hit the side of a barn door with anything for the whole game but were 'winning' all game only to have lost it literally on the (probably) last dice throw (by the army breaking)... :-(
I'm sure Cam will have several questions but a couple of quick points:
1. The new C-in-C command thing is Cr*p!!!!! At least on first inspection - Cam was able to use it from half-way across the table to avoid using a -1 Vigour Brigade Commander 3-4 times when his Infantry were trying to form Emergency Square when my Cavalry Charged - it saved him 1 (or maybe 2) of those occasions. The wordign seems unclear but because reactions come first you can choose to just have the C-in-C just 'take over' anyone threatened - so it gets a huuggge thumbs down from me FWLIW! The standard I'm with Stupid Rule with 4BW is far superior and a lot less gimmicky IMO...
2. Attacker/Defender deployment was confusing when both sides were going to be 'on table' etc - Who goes first? Should there be no modifiers to the Attacker/Defender roll? Assuming you will use fixed terrain not random - we did random and it was a dog when considering the 3 objectives and Attacker/Defender had identical deployment areas you couldn't put terrain in... I also think the Defender is disadvantaged by this deployment due to moving second (I was lucky Cam was somewhat cautious early in the game)...
:-)
Hi Mycenius,
Not sure how Cam was using it from half way across the table as the CinC has a 10BW distance for command. But once he has used it with that command he cant use it on any others that turn.
I understand about "Im with Stupid", personally I would be happy with just that system but some players down here feel that the Austrian army is penalised too much with this rule. I dont see it, but I dont play Austrians.
There will be modifiers as some armies need to "Attack" or "Defend" to use army rules. Yes fixed terrain will be used so there will be spots for the objectives to go.
We have not found the defender to be at a disadvantage, but that is why I have added this mission in for something different.
Cheers
Tim
Not sure how Cam was using it from half way across the table as the CinC has a 10BW distance for command. But once he has used it with that command he cant use it on any others that turn.
I was being a little tongue in cheek - it "felt" like he was doing it halfway across the table - in fact it was halfway across his army to be accurate, his C-in-C was near the middle and using the bonus on the troops on his extreme left. The point being it was cheezy and completely bollocks - not being able to use it with other commands was irrelevant - that was little, or in fact no, deterrent at all...! You are always gonna do that if you can - it makes, once again, -1 Vigour Commanders pointless and provides an easy way for players to circumvent it, effectively removing that factor from the game...
I understand about "I'm with Stupid", personally I would be happy with just that system but some players down here feel that the Austrian army is penalised too much with this rule. I don't see it, but I don't play Austrians.
.
Agreed - I can't see it as necessary - and the Austrian Army was clumsy to manoeuvre - I think we should make all British Artillery 4 Bases too under that argument, because they get unfairly disadvantaged by the rules too making their artillery near useless! I just can't see the logic of reverting to a well known and identified cheeze issue that impacts all armies and games when the purported benefit is that 1 type of army of 1 nation "might" (I stress 'might') be slightly disadvantaged in some circumstances? And the 'only with 1 command per turn' thing is just pointless IMO, the likelihood of needing to split it over 2 commands is rare and with the 10BW radius you can work around it very easily... :-)
My historical 1815 Nassau Chaps will have 5 Large Battalions as their core and I don't see any need for this when I get them on the table...
It also means any French army will NEVER have -1 Vigour Commanders - because their C-in-C can override it from miles away and it's very unlikely they'd have 2 or more such commanders in any one game (AND both those poor commanders would have critical manoeuvres or reactions happening simultaneously)...
Mini-Rant over :-)
We have not found the defender to be at a disadvantage, but that is why I have added this mission in for something different.
Yeah - it's probalby just dependent on terrain - in our game I moved second and had the crappiest terrain to get across - which significantly slowed my speed. If Cam had been super aggressive he could have easily had his troops on top of all 3 objectives before I could reach them. :-)
So what is going to be the cut off for (CTA) registrations? If you have a nice even number I won't come regardless - so the numbers don't get skewered - but if I can make it and numbers are uneven it'd be good to catch up with everyone face to face... :-)
J.
Call to Arms is soon so this is a reminder to get you rego's in so I know how many tables to organise.
I am allowed to take entries up to the week before Mycenius so I will post numbers then to help you.
So lets see those entries gents :)
My take on the game with John.
I certainly didn't like the alternative CinC rules. I was able to use my CinC to bring over and command a Cuirassier regiment on one flank while the other Cuirassier regiment fought under their officer on the other flank. I also could use my CinC to overrule low-Vigor Ney in several crucial reaction tests. There was only one time where I wanted to use the CinC to both command the Cuirassiers (to rally) and Ney's infantry (change formation to square as a reaction) in the same turn. For me it was not constraining enough. But hey, I am using 1806 Prussians with 9 infantry units (11 on attack) and rubbish officers at CTA - so a generous CinC rule probably works in my favour!
In terms of the 3-objective scenario, it felt a bit gamey.
With this scenario, terrain is going to be pretty important. Bad terrain around objectives will make them very hard to capture. So how you set out terrain (or which side a player chooses) will be vital. Can objectives be put into rough terrain - or will the centre of the table always be clear? Will players add terrain to the table?
In my game with John, there was 1 objective marker that John held. I tried to grab the other two. I smashed the poor Brits to pieces. But the Zombie Black Watch held a position within 4BW of the 2 objectives I was contesting. This left the game positioned as:
* John had to test for morale. If he broke I would win.
* If he passed his morale check, then we would throw to see if there was another turn. If there wasn't, John would win for holding 1 objective and contesting the other 2.
* If there was another turn (mine), I was going to send my limbered Horse Artillery to within 4BW of his objective marker. Then if there was not another turn, the game would be a draw.
Now this was all very thrilling - based on a couple of dice throws I could win, lose or draw. But it was pretty silly.
I can see this sort of thing happening a lot - particularly the late rush to contest objectives with zombie units or horse artillery...
Cam
hey - what's with the new moniker?
Sam banned me from posting to the forum so I had get a new name. He says a "technical glitch" meant that while I could post nobody could see my posts ... but I think it was an attempt to silence me from telling The Truth About Squares in Lasalle.
It did take me about 57 posts to realise that nobody was actually responding to me. I was carrying on some really interesting discussions with myself.
Cam
Did you go back and repost them all? ;-p
So how many people are playing Lasalle at CTA next week?
I am (although I have had no actual confirmation back). Will I have anyone to play?
1806 Prussians for me - basically Graf von Schmettau's Left Wing at Auerstadt. Put in a terrible day's effort at Auerstadt and Schmettau ended up dead, so if I get smashed I will just compliment Sam on how historical Lasalle is.
(Well it should be the Prussians but I still have one more cav unit to paint, and the officers, and I need to base the entire army, and I really should try to do some limbers, and the facing colours on two units should really be redone ...)
Cam
Making excuses before you have even started, eh... ;-p
FTR I'm definitely not gonna make it which is a real bummer, I was looking forward to a few games and meeting up with everyone...
Damn - I was looking forwards to meeting you in person (and seeing your nice Hundred Days British). Remember that JetStar flights can be quite cheap...
When are you Auckland guys going to put on a Lasalle tourney?
Cheers
Paul
Cam,
I am using the Empire Young Guard list (No cavalry).
But I am using it to represent part of Lannes corps at Austerlitz. Suchets division.
I beleive the same troops and structure fought at Jena so if we meet it will almost be an historical clash.
I am also greatly looking forward to the weekend.
Cheers
Bryan
You must log in to post.