Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   In last weeks game my opponent pointed out that it was possible to move across the front of an enemy unit and never be a target.

   E.g. A cavalry unit in waves or abreast is perpendicular to a regular sized infantry unit. As the cavalry can move 8 or 6 BW it can move across the front of the infantry within 4BW (firing range) and be out of the firing zone by the time the infantry have their reaction phase.

   I can't see this happening often but it would certainly irritate me me if I was on the receiving end of this manouvre.

   Have I missed something that would prevent this? If not I think an option for some kind of opportunity fire would be called for.

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   I have trouble imagining that musketry fire would be effective in such a case as that: cavalry trotting, probably at least 20 mph/ 30 kph, across their front? Given the need to fire by platoon sequence, I suspect that 90% of the shots would be in empty air.

   Posted 1 year ago #

3. Another_Grognard
   Member

   We had this come up too. But as you noted, it doesn't happen very often. However, after the game we talked about it and we have come up with some good ideas. One idea (house rule of course) was to come up with a simple fire en passant (fire in passing). Basically the unit fires during the other player's Activity Phase and marked with smoke (or some other marker). After that, the unit can do nothing until your Activity Phase, and the only thing that unit can do it remove the smoke marker.

   Anyway, this is just an idea so far. We have not put it into practice. Seems sound, but we need to try it first in a few games that this situation will come up.

   Posted 1 year ago #

4. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   Sam

   I don't think this will come up much and it hasn't happened in one of my games yet - but I am sure it will eventually. Being able to fire in these circumstances probably amounts to 1 DISR.

   As to firing by platoons, I am not sure this is a valid counterargument if you look at the examples quoted in Brent Noseworthy's book.

   Grognard

   I like your proposal and will offer it as a house rule to any opponent that is concerned over this issue.

   Posted 1 year ago #

5. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   [As to firing by platoons, I am not sure this is a valid counterargument if you look at the examples quoted in Brent Noseworthy's book.]

   I'm just saying that units trained to fire at enemies who were facing them, or at least to their front. The entire basis of platoon fire was predicated on the assumption that the enemy was either stationary or moving toward your position, and thus presented a target that could be hit by any platoon in the firing line.

   Stand on the side of a road while cars drive by at @20 mph / 30 kph, and try to imagine a line of musketeers hitting any of them. Somebody might get incredibly lucky, and just by sheer chance happen to fire right as a car / horse passed by, and thus hit him. But it's nothing like the shooting that they trained for, and which the game assumes.

   Posted 1 year ago #

6. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   Sam

   I understand what you say about platoon fire but most armies do not seem to have used platoon fire in practice once a battle got started. Feu de billebaude (every man doing his own thing) seems to be more the norm according to eyewitness accounts. Therefore I don't think the car analogy is that relevant.

   Posted 1 year ago #

7. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   Whether by platoon fire, or "fire at will," I still have trouble imagining a line of men scoring many hits on a couple ranks of horsemen trotting past their positions. It probably takes longer to present and fire a musket, than it does for the target to pass any individual shooter.

   Posted 1 year ago #

8. Alan Charlesworth
   Member

   I like your last point Sam. Using the cavalry to attack the infantry seems a better bet than riding past them on parade.

   This issue is of minor concern but fun to discuss like many other points about the rules. I particulary liked Paulus comment in another thread

   "Here we go again ...a Napoleonic rule set comes out and because some people have read such and such a book they want to change things ....Just look at how many Napleonic rule books are on the market all clogged up with minute detail.

   Lasalle comes along nice and streamlined with good fun elegant game play and people want to change things ...lets stick to the book, have fun and remember when playing wargames its better to have a straight forward approach than one that is fiddly with all different mechanisms."

   Hear, hear say I. But it's still fun to debate don't you think.

   Posted 1 year ago #

9. Pickton
   Member

   Alan, Tsk! Tsk! It's not a matter of changing things. More a matter of an uncomfortable feeling that we might have got so involved in the rules mechanisms that we have begun to divorce ourselves from reality

   And then again to ignore all the other mails in this forum suggesting 'adjustments' and rule changes and latch on those that use actual eye-witness sources seems odd.

   Or should I interpret what you say to mean... If you like it then it is innovative and if you don't it's clutter..:))

   Gentlemen... The real infantry would at least be able to point their muskets at the passing cavalry, not fire straight forward, thus firing from various angles. Except at the final moments of a charge cavalry moved about at a trot/walk. I would not want to be riding on the flank nearest a line of infantry say 250 x2 men wide with loaded muskets and be told to trot across the front of them. Conversely as a musket man I am looking at a target more than three horse lengths wide.

   There are times for a cool look at a situation!

   Ever thought of playing Chess Alan? :)

   Posted 1 year ago #

10. Andrew
    Member

    just a few observations

    Pickton:
    And then again to ignore all the other mails in this forum suggesting 'adjustments' and rule changes and latch on those that use actual eye-witness sources seems odd.

    Pickton:
    I was in agreement with your Nobility points with everything except giving a reroll for bad dice. Isn't that one of the occupational hazards of Wargaming that make it so much fun?

    "I don't like being forced to operate without cavalry at all so my opponents let me start with a cavalry Brigade on table if I wish and vice versa."

    Now it must be me but you have had a suggestion for a rule change on squares and it hasnt gone down to well, history lessons aside. You pop into this thread to imply you are being ignored. the number of replies would suggest your debate was active. But players dont either want or see a rule change is required in the manner suggested.

    Further to that you have to have your cavalry on the table at the start of the game because you cant play without it. I would therefore humbly suggest you actually played the rules as written in the book before making suggestions to rule changes.

    None of this is meant personally but if you come onto a forum and expect changes to rules then you should be playing the rules Sam has gone to great lengths to bring us as written before quoting chapter and verse from accounts in history.

    Posted 1 year ago #

11. Sam Mustafa
    Le Grand Fromage

    Anybody can play with any Optional Rules they can imagine. You don't need me to make them "official."

    The "Official" Optional Rules that I've taken from the Forum have generally been pretty thoroughly explored, or at least summarized with an attempt to codify them in all relevant game play situations (Rafa's Baggage Wagon rules, for example, already existed on his own website, and I just refined them a bit.) In the case of the optional formation-change restrictions rule, several people brainstormed the implications of that for a week or more, and we worked-through various complications. In the end, the version that I posted was not as potent as some people had wanted; I tried to strike a balance between no change and too much change.

    I never weighed in on the "moving squares" thread, because I never saw any actual rules proposed there. Plenty of discussion and disagreement, but not - at least not to my knowledge - any actual proposed rules, nor any specific attempts to work through how it would affect the game play.

    (Not to mention that the book already HAS an optional rule for moving squares.)

    One more thing to consider: I will probably not sanction optional rules that have dramatic effects upon basic game systems or the Sequence of Play. That's a change to the game's structure - not just an Optional Rule. (In the case of "opportunity fire," for example, I can't see myself ever violating one of the game's cardinal principles that a Game Turn represents one player's activity, by injecting a sub-phase into the sequence during which the Passive player acts, puts out markers, etc.)

    However, as I stated above, everybody is free to alter the game in any way he wants. You don't need my permission.

    Posted 1 year ago #

12. kshuler
    Member

    "More a matter of an uncomfortable feeling that we might have got so involved in the rules mechanisms that we have begun to divorce ourselves from reality"

    I'm sensing a little hostility here fellows, so guess what guys...we're grown men playing with toy soldiers. We've already divorced outselves from reality.

    Seriously though, debate is nice and all, when it's nice. If you have problems with the rules, then make a house a rule or play a different set. Rules lawyers are one of the reasons I got out of gaming for a long time. They don't want to play, they only want to win...ever notice that.

    Frankly, I don't care if you kill every bit of my cav if rides across your front. It makes it that much more chanlleging for me to do a good job with what I've got. Gentlemen, I want to suspend reality for 3 brief hours and command a force of little lead figures. I want to have FUN (Mer-Web def.--1 : what provides amusement or enjoyment). If the rules don't cover every little detail of battle, then so be it. I want to PLAY (Mer-Web def.--3 a : recreational activity).

    Sam, tip of the hat to you. You have a written a usable set of rules. That to me is more important than every little detail being beaten to death in a vast tome of "Well if that happens then this, unless this happens then do that, uless that happened..." legalistic claptrap.

    It's a game, it's supposed to be fun. It's debate, it's supposed to be informative and civil. So, why don't we all just make some suggestions and we can all adopt the ones we like best instead of getting our warm fuzzies by being able to say "Well, I won that round."

    Like Sam stated, you can alter the rules anyway you want. Just don't expect a)everybody to agree with you and b)Sam to enshrine things as your contribution to HIS efforts.

    Rules lawyers, shheeesh.

    Keith J. Shuler

    Posted 1 year ago #

13. Jules
    Member

    Well i normally don't have my brigades with all the battalions in column so i would assume that the battalion to the left or right would fire at the offending cavalry.

    But you can add endless layers of detail until you are rolling to see if each infantry stubbed his toe as he marched. But then i would still be playing my first game :)

    So you have to realise the abstract nature of the game to enjoy a table full of soldiers fighting a napoleonic game in a evening.

    Personally i have been waiting years to be able to play a game of 'naps' down my local club and can live with any weirdness as i dont feel anything i have seen made me feel like it wasn't a good representation of a napoleonic battle from a divisional general point of view.

    Posted 1 year ago #

14. buttridi
    Member

    More a matter of an uncomfortable feeling that we might have got so involved in the rules mechanisms that we have begun to divorce ourselves from reality"

    More likely we are not concerned about having rules for every possible situation to bog the game down, such as what may be a rare situation of cavalry crossing the front of inantry or moving squares...

    There is a divorce from reality in most table top games, It's called Igo Ugo, and LaSalle does a nice job of integrating that with a unique turn sequence.

    Posted 1 year ago #

15. Gun-Pit Paul
    Member

    The way I look at this is as follows:-

    1) The Napoleonic battlefield was full of drifting smoke, therefore, did your Officers spot, and identify, that cavalry unit,

    2) Your troops were taught to obey orders, with not much initiative allowed to them (except in Hand-to-Hand fighting),

    3) Your troops were taught to shoot to their front, and not to take aim,

    4) The ground is not flat, but undulating,

    5) With enemy Cavalry that close, you would more than likely be in Square (600 men divided by 4 [sides] divided by 3 [ranks] times 2 [front and middle ranks shooting] equals 100 men shooting across a frontage of 33 yards 1 foot [30 metres] frontage). The cavalry unit, at 20mph [30kph], would cross your frontage in approx 20 seconds (2 ranks of cavalry). Therefore, 100 musket balls in the general direction of the passing cavalry unit. You may hit 1 or 2 troopers, and/or their horses.
    (NB. 6oo men per Battalion, with 2 foot [60cm] frontage per man).

    Paul

    Posted 1 year ago #

16. Gun-Pit Paul
    Member

    In 5) The time taken should be 3.4 seconds, so you could say 4 seconds. Goofed on my calculations.
    With a total of about 10 seconds to aim and shoot, you'd be lucky to hit anything, therefore the 1 or 2 troopers/horses is about right. Thats assuming your musket is loaded.

    I think Sam has this one right, too many rulesets get bogged down in minute detail.

    Paul

    Posted 1 year ago #

17. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    1) The Napoleonic battlefield was full of drifting smoke, therefore, did your Officers spot, and identify, that cavalry unit,

    This could apply to any and all situations and there are plenty of examples that it did. So by that argument we shouldn't be able to fire at anything.

    2) Your troops were taught to obey orders, with not much initiative allowed to them (except in Hand-to-Hand fighting),

    First hand accounts show that infantry tended to start shooting against orders. This was particulary the case when advancing and the orders were to charge. Very often the advance would falter and firing would start. Once firing began officers often had a difficult task stopping it.

    3) Your troops were taught to shoot to their front, and not to take aim,

    Very true.

    4) The ground is not flat, but undulating,

    And this applies in all situations and so would mean a lot of 'targets' could not be seen, not just cavalry riding across your front. It also means that units could get very close to you without being seen viz von Bredow at Mars la Tour. All war-games tables are too flat. Something to with figure scale not matching ground scale. A 1mm dip in your table would be enough to hide an infantry battalion from sight.

    5) With enemy Cavalry that close, you would more than likely be in Square (600 men divided by 4 [sides] divided by 3 [ranks] times 2 [front and middle ranks shooting] equals 100 men shooting across a frontage of 33 yards 1 foot [30 metres] frontage). The cavalry unit, at 20mph [30kph], would cross your frontage in approx 20 seconds (2 ranks of cavalry). Therefore, 100 musket balls in the general direction of the passing cavalry unit. You may hit 1 or 2 troopers, and/or their horses.
    (NB. 6oo men per Battalion, with 2 foot [60cm] frontage per man).

    But the point of the question was that the infantry unit is not in square but in say column or line.

    It is possible to rationalise away any anomaly by postulating a set of circumstances that would explain it. But here we are examining a possible set of circumstances where a line or column of infantry has cavalry in abreast or waves ride across it in clear view. If waves then the flank would present considerably more than two horses depth, and if moving at a normal pace would be in view for some time.

    Ultimately I don't think it is that important as it will come up very rarely. The rules are an abstraction at a level where these issues are not a material factor. Personally if I was worried about the level of abstraction I would use a different rule set. However, I like these rules because they are at the simpler end of the spectrum yet still give a very good overall feel.

    Posted 1 year ago #

18. Pickton
    Member

    Boys! Boys! Sufficient to say that the rule writer didn't see my comments as an attack on his rules but certain of you did and have chosen to attack me while notably not attempting to answer the argument. It is not progressive to jump on those you feel are not marching in step.

    I am willing to bet, having read much of his work, that Sam would be quick to say that people should air these concerns without others proving my initial point.
    'That war gamers end up believing the rules are the reality'.

    So again Alan going to your rule mentality.
    1. We can't quote cannon smoke etc, because it is not factored into the rules.
    2. What is to stop the officers observing the enemy cavalry on their approach to the front of the line? That's why they didn't have muskets.
    3. The ground IS flat as far as the vision is concerned for the rules.
    4. Shouldn't it count as firing into a column of march from the side?

    Alan be honest. No officer in his right mind would do this with his cavalry and expect to come out the other side with a regiment. This is pure 'gamesmanship'. Using the math to make a calculation no man would/could make on a battlefield.

    It's not people like me who will screw up the rules, or make them more complicated, it is the people who try to do things like this or use 'super square formation to line' moves to escape attack, or travel across the table faster than it has been deemed a man can move.

    Posted 1 year ago #

19. Sam Mustafa
    Le Grand Fromage

    [No officer in his right mind would do this with his cavalry and expect to come out the other side with a regiment.]

    Perhaps. But there are a lot of other assumptions built in to the example, that are equally difficult to imagine. For instance: no battalion commander would keep his men in a line, if enemy cavalry was moving so close to his flank, that it could ride right across his front.

    And it's even somewhat dubious that a cavalry commander would ever think of riding across the front of an enemy infantry battalion, as opposed to charging it.

    And it's dubious that an infantry battalion would be so isolated from friendly infantry and artillery, that it would have no friendly shooters on either flank, who could shoot that enemy cavalry once it completed its move... and yet for some reason that isolated, lonely battalion never formed square.

    But if there's one thing I've learned over the years in game design... It's not to try to chase down every possible unlikely game move with a specific rule. The Law of Unintended Consequences plays havoc with wargames.

    For example, in this case the original post was a suggestion for "Opportunity Fire," as a means of preventing this very odd and rare maneuver. But something like Opportunity Fire, which would require a fundamental alteration in the Sequence of Play, would have immense and far-reaching consequences way beyond the very limited example of this maneuver. Who knows what fascinating new, weird, "gamey" rules tricks you'd then create without even realizing it?

    Posted 1 year ago #

20. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Pickton

    In both your posts in this thread you seem to have some hostility towards other members of this forum. I think you need to read this thread again carefully as you seem determined to misunderstand what is said. If you do I think you will find that I have not attacked you in any way and that I have agreed with some of the comments that you made in your first post.

    Posted 1 year ago #

21. Pickton
    Member

    Yes Sam I agree, but then again I am chasing the attempt at justification here

    Alan. I am not hostile to anyone EXCEPT gamers who come along and spoil rules by pushing the interpretation of them beyond the reality. THEY are the ones who cause rules to become increasingly complex.

    Yet, if you write and tell me that that you can trot a regiment of cavalry across the front of 500 infantry without substantial loss of men and morale and cite reasons that again are slanted in favour of the desired effect, then you must expect a reply, hmm?

    As to the other thread. Another fine example. I produce solid evidence that troops could and did, move about in square and attack in that formation too and attract what I considered hostile comments about trying to mess up the rules etc instead of a discussion of why most rules (including these) penalise the formation unnecessarily. The proof was sound and this is supposed to be a forum.
    Sadly, the replies proved my opening comment only too correct.

    So, I appeal to common sense Alan. The cavalry should not be able to cross the front of 500 men and KNOW they will not be fired on. Sam is right. They should be charging the line. What puzzles me Alan is that you appeared to start out being as much against thist being possible as I am.

    It might be better to hunt the players who want to do this sort of thing than those who want the tabletop antics of their lead/plastic troops to at least approximate the real thing a little.

    Finally, returning to Sam's comments again. I agree, the infantry should have gone to square. Perhaps this is a point in line with what I was trying to say discussing square elsewhere. That the way 21st Century wargamers are looking at the square may not be correct. Is the loss of movement/firepower just too high a price to pay for any benefits gained by going into square?

    Of course, if we take it back to the people who think in terms of the game, then squares don't form on the colour (centre) company and the infantry can always go into square on the company at the far end of the line, thus being ready to deploy behind the backs of the cavalry in the next move after it passes by *shudders*
    This is what happens when you push the reality (common-sense) out of the game.

    Posted 1 year ago #

22. Alan Charlesworth
    Member

    Sorry to drag this topic up again. But in my game tonight we had an instance of cavalry riding accross the front of artillery and within canister range and of course being unscathed as allowed for in the rules.

    Makes me think that we will adopt Another_Grognard's suggestion as a house rule.

    Posted 1 year ago #

23. MarkGrindlay
    Member

    I tend to agree with Sam that a fire in passing rule, or am opportunity fire rule is a huge change for a minor occurrence.

    If you wanted a rule to prevent this - other than just continually winning against the player who does such silly thngs, which is usually the best deterrent, I would adopt one from another rules set I use, which says you cannot cross the flank lines of an enemy unit when within their zone of control.

    or more Lasalle specifically.

    troops cannot completely cross both sides of the firing arc of enemy troops in one move - firing arc range being defined as musket range for formed infnatry, and canister range for artillery.

    effect:

    they can march over one flank line, but must remain at least partially inside the firing arc of the other line if it would leave them in canister / musket range - i.e. they are forced to halt under the guns.

    If the troops were already partially in the firing line, then they may move out of it. If the 'crossing' was at an angle which moved the 'exit point' out of range, then this is also fine.

    The rule is aimed at folk 'doing a dances with wolves' rather than folk trying to 'get the heck out of there'.

    Posted 1 year ago #

24. Pickton
    Member

    Hi Mark.

    Can we really be happy with the notion of a regiment of cavalry riding across the front of a battery of artillery without the artillery firing on them???

    Okay, then I suppose it's a small step from there to believing it's alright if you can do it in the CERTAINTY that your troops will not be fired upon because that is the game mechanism.

    I am quite capable of grasping the abstract in games, but this feels wrong for a Napoleonic game and cries out to be addressed.

    Posted 1 year ago #

25. cam_millar
    Member

    We have seen a number of suggested improvements recently (I am sure there are others that I have missed):

    * squares should move
    * squares should fire
    * bouncethrough fire should ... ummm ... bouncethrough something
    * opportunity fire should be added
    * irregulars should sometimes be able to charge regulars
    * more constraints on formation changes close to the enemy
    * a voluntary "rout"

    My reaction looking at each other these in isolation is "yeah, that seems a reasonable change". Squares could move and shoot, cossacks probably did occassionally charge regulars, and so on.

    But when I think about how to add it to Lasalle, they are often quite complicated things to change.

    Take squares moving. I tried the optional squares-can-move rule and IMO it didn't work - the only time squares moved was to advance from about 75 paces from enemy cavalry to about 25 paces. Which I don't think happened regularly. A squares-can-move rule could be added, but it would have to be more complicated than the optional rule provided.

    Where I get to is that adding these extra rules would improve Lasalle's realism - but probably only marginally. On the other hand adding more rules does pose a risk to Lasalle's core virtue for me - a fast and easy to learn set of rules that gives a good Napoleonic game.

    The test of Lasalle for me is not whether any individual rule is correct or not. But whether the overall game achieves its goal.

    If players find that doing something clearly not historical is a game winner and so happens routinely, then the rules need to be changed.

    For me I am not convinced any of the suggestions fall into that category yet - but others they may feel there are too many compromises to realism for the sake of simplicity. Luckily for them there are lots of competing rules that put more emphasise of bottom up realism.

    Cam

    Posted 1 year ago #

26. MarkGrindlay
    Member

    With you all the way, Cam.

    I'd add tighter command and control restrictions to your list, but thats just to be complete, not to propose any conclusion.

    For me Lasalle is never going to be the rules we use to refight Saalfield.

    Its the rules we use to play a good game in a club evening - played to a conclusion and with a beer.

    That aim is a category of rules which every other set I have come across has singularly failed to achieve, no matter how well prefaced they are with 'try these' from folk who claim to have done just that.

    When I want to refight something historical as a full on re enactment game, where the rules get 95% of what happens correct, I'm going to start somewhere else.

    When I want to play a good fun game of Napoleonics after work on an evening with a set of rules that get 85% of what happens correct, I am going to start here.

    I am, however, losing patience with attempts to sandwich both categories together. If you want an historic recreation set - you MUST start with tightly restricted command and control, to prevent the god-like general. When you do that, it becomes a lot harder work to play.

    Posted 1 year ago #

27. Andrew
    Member

    Have to agree with you both Cam and Mark,

    Lasalle does exactly what it says produces a playable fast game that gives a result is enjoyable and easy to pick up and learn.

    There are enough sets out there that bog everything down in minute detail, require a super computer to calculate the outcome, and leaving you feeling cheated as you can rarely obtain a result in anything less than a weekends gaming let alone a few hours.

    Thankfully we can choose to ignore most of these suggestions, as they are always going to be optional. However now and again someone does suggest something useful that adds to a game, like the baggage train rule.

    but suggestions of charging squares, moving square, firing squares and superman squares formation changes and opportunity fire are surely only going to slow the game down and fundamentaly change it, so are best avoided.

    Posted 1 year ago #

28. Pickton
    Member

    As I said, the game has become the reality :)

    Posted 1 year ago #

29. Sam Mustafa
    Le Grand Fromage

    Pickton, I'm not sure what your complaint is.

    Do you want to write a house rule, so that this incident does not occur in your games? If so, then why not simply write one?

    Or do you want everybody to play the game according to your house rule?

    Or do you want me to make your house rule "official" ?

    If it's the first one, then play the game however you like. Nobody will object.

    But if it's the latter two, then I'm sorry; you can't expect other people to write your house rule for you, nor to play the game the way you want them to.

    Everybody has the right to add/delete/modify the rules in any way they like.

    Posted 1 year ago #

30. bertonius
    Member

    Personally, Sam, I believe you eloquently solved the impulse problem. I recently was able to deploy my horse artillery to catch a battalion of infantry that was poorly positioned by my wargamer buddy, and the canister shot was quite effective. While my friend had questions about firing while in a square, we figured that squares probably didn't cause that much damage to cavalry that was simply harassing them, rather than charging home. Thanks for your rules. They are very well written, simple, and easy to understand. I was able to pick up the general flow of them from one quick read, and have already internalized much of them. Thank you!

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.