NZ Rule Modifications « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Optional Rules

NZ Rule Modifications

(97 posts) (23 voices)

Started 1 year ago by cam_millar
Latest reply from EagleSixFive

Tags:

« Previous 1…34

EagleSixFive
Member

"I'm just trying to explain that unless you want to make major fundamental changes in the rules, you're not going to "fix" that with a small rule about requiring 2BW separation between the columns, etc., because as long as you can shoot a bit of a unit, you can shoot that unit."

Simpler solution is to lessen the effectiveness of column firepower making them roll 5+ to hit.

Added benefits:
-Increases net firepower effectiveness of line formation versus column(s).
-Improves melee dice of 4 base units -v- multi-columns as Disruption from their fire is less likely.
-Multiple columns of 4 base, 6 base or combination of both will not match or exceed firepower of a unit in line formation.

Posted 1 year ago #
Evil Trev
Member

Very interesting reading. So far theres been over 3 pages about how to change a rule for a tournament or was it the same question following a tournament? Does'nt really matter as tournament organisers are the ones to implement a "house rule" (hate that wording, prefer amendment) for their own events. It has become blatantly obvious that Sam will not make an official change for this and as a fellow rule writer I do agree that changing something like this in isolation usually affects something else to a greater degree. However, I do agree that there are issues with columns against (especially British) lines, but over 35 years of gaming I dont think I've seen a satisfactory response in a ruleset to correct this. I think it is great that you are discussing this here, as I am relatively new to Lasalle and it is letting me see yet another of the ambiguities of this ruleset. I am also a fan of BLack Powder which has special rules to give the qualities of different nationalities troops (such as First Fire for British Infantry), but anyone wanting hard and fast rules should really keep away from them. Lasalle has a much more rigid system which is necessary for competition style games. Even though Sam states in the rules he wrote them for competitions I beleve he also admits he's not a competition player!

I am finding some very unusual situations appear in games I am playing, or watching, but as long as you stick to the rules you can work through to a result. Sam has done well in this, in that there are not holes that have not been covered at all (hopefully I'm not opening any up here). I like the feel of the game in general, even though I am not so sure of their historical accuracy in parts. The most important thing is that we can all play games with a framework that we enjoy. I'd suggest amendments should be left to either the rulewriter (and I dont think he's going to do any now) or tournament organisers for their own individual events OR for smaller groups to play in their own games or specific scenarios, but if it is the latter case then that group should not expect the whole gaming fraternity to adopt them as most wargamers dont hold the same opinions.

Good luck Sam with Blucher, which is obviously a higher priority for you now.

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

"I am not sure by what you mean by "defensive offensive actions", but while the British infantry at Talavera and Albuhera sustained heavy casualties, isn't the relevant point that the British infantry were victorious? This begs the obvious question - why?"

Hi Paul
Defensive actions of British against Offensive actions of French or vise-versa when British are attacking.

"You claim that the "big difference" in explaining British tactical success was because of superior logistics - but I don't understand how this affected battles between British lines and French columns? Can you point to any examples to support your opinions?"

No, that is not what I said at all! I was trying to make the point that why Armies win or lose battles is sometimes out of the control of those who fight them, no matter how hard they keep trying whilst starving, fatigued and diseased. Supply It is one element out of a soldiers control that will affect his morale, poor morale affects discipline, poor discipline affects combat effectiveness, as you can well imagine.

There is no one factor to explain why French columns failed against British line,
but when you're packed like sardines into a column falling over itself, being shot at by artillery then have a volley delivered into your face at point blank range blowing away 1/3 rd of your formation time after time it must get a bit demoralising!

This is why the firepower of columns need reducing so that some redress of game play between columns 2/1 advantage versus one line.

"Of course, at Barrossa, Salamanca, Vittoria the attacks were made by well ordered lines (ironically against French defending uphill!). On the tactics and mechanics of an attack, read Rory Muir's wonderful "Salamanca"."

I don't have that one, only his "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon"
Whom is stating "well ordered lines" Rory or part of a quote in his book?

If this is the attack I'm thinking of, the French began shooting too soon, therefore waisting the first volley. Is that the one?

"I suspect the example you are thinking of of a rare British column fighting is that of the 29th Foot at Talavera."

Could be.

Here is a good explanation of the internal dynamics of a column charging:
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm#_infantry_columns

cheers

Posted 1 year ago #
Eugene dB
Member

My apologies in advance for likely repeating much of what has been said already but I feel it is a bit much for the micro/tactical (formations, training, elan) to completely account for the macro/strategic (logistics, unified command, political will). That is not to say that the micro never influenced the macro but that is not the scope of Lasalle or any similar game systems.

If you truly believe that a component of any army was superior then you must utilize the tools that Sam has provided to force that superiority or you will never be satisfied with your game.

Similarly if game mechanics yield results that are at odds with what you understand to have actually happened on a regular basis then you have a variety of options at your disposal to change them. If you don't like tinkering with the mechanics as provided then you must develop stratagems within the game's framework to counter the undesired results.

I really don't mean to sound condescending and I hope none that have contributed to this very thoughtful thread will take it as such! I just don't think that it is Sam's responsibility to provide all the answers. I expect many of the people in this group have read substantial amounts of Napoleonic history and are therefore perfectly competent to revise the game as they see fit. For those newcomers to the era it is a chance to either learn more or just enjoy the game as is!

Best regards,

Mark

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Mark I thought this thread was about rule amendments for tournament organisers. Nothing to do with changing the official rules or Sam or what people do with their own private games? Although it has to be said it has strayed off topic more than once :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Eugene dB
Member

Hi Alan,
You're absolutely correct but I think the thread has brought up some dissatisfaction with the game and a desire to legitimize (i.e. make official) some suggested revisions. This is certainly a natural process and I don't mean to criticize it. I guess I was hoping to cast the net a little further beyond tournament organizers and suggest to any Lasalle player to change the things they can't live with if it makes for a more enjoyable experience.
At least that's what I think I was trying to say. Maybe I shouldn't try to contribute to the forum so early in the morning:-)
Thanks for your indulgence and now back to the subject in hand!
-Mark

Posted 1 year ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

Hi Mark

Well yes, it did get off track, History does that sort of thing!

Back to Lasalle, I think some of us were objecting/advocating suggestions that:
- British should be made to fight in linear formation (ala Shako).
- British should be upgraded to Valiant status.
- Columns should shoot to hit on 5+ because they gang up on one unit in line too easily.

Whilst the NZ guys have tried the following using French and Austrians:
* all cav are reserves
* cav cannot charge an enemy in rough
* Attacker must win, otherwise the defender wins.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 1…34

Reply

You must log in to post.