Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. Basilhare
   Member

   AAR: Long w/ Pics
   http://basilhare.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/lasalle-our-first-game/

   Basically a meeting engagement between the equivalent of a core + 1 support element for each side. I resisted the urge to do up a terrain heavy layout (as per my Sharp Practice Games) and went with a bland-minimalist terrian approach to keep the clutter down.

   Feelings were mixed on the game. i think we're still scratching our heads on the outcome. Perhaps as much to do with the scenario design and wild dice results as anything. We plan to tweak the scenario (I will post it after another playtest) and have another go...our Pros & Cons after the first game:

   Pros:
   • Game flowed well
   • Interactive: Kept the players involved. Very Little turn angst.
   • Potential Fast Play (First game went slow because I was the only one that knew the rules – but we quickly realized the potential for a fast moving game)

   Cons:
   • Our game seemed to be very luck driven w/ wild results. Scratching our heads on this. Possibly a fluke or just the way the game was set up. Still thinking on this.
   • Artillery seemed ineffective, with none of the batteries causing significant damage
   • The game system seems to minimize the differences between the troops. Everything seemed a bit “vanilla” to us. (Could be my choice/availability in troops and/or my scenario set up)

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. Basilhare
   Member

   
   

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. EagleSixFive
   Member

   Hi mate

   Had a good read of your report. That was really ambitious for a first game. Probably would have been better using the game set up rules as per the book and defining clearly an attacker and defender.

   Way too many objectives, one is more than enough for a section of battlefield about a mile wide.

   No wonder it felt generic. Certainly cannot get any semblance of combined arms with units going off in all directions doing their own thing trying to take objectives. Not what the system is about at all.

   One other thing too, the British had a huge advantage permitting cavalry to deploy on table. All British cavalry is Reserve meaning it must be committed from off table. Not doing this neutered the French organic force structure.

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   It didn't strike me as having too many units; at least the pictures seemed to show about a dozen on each side, which is normal.

   What struck me, though, was the table being only 3.5' deep, but you're using 28mm figures. I'm assuming a BW was 2" ? And it looks like each side set up within about 10" of the edge, so... not very much separation between the armies at the start? If I understand correctly, you were having melee combats by the end of the French player's first turn?

   That might be one reason why the French artillery got overrun so quickly, for example. For big figures using a 2" BW, that French 12# battery should have been able to fire out to a range of about four feet. There needs to be some "approach time" built into the relationship between Attacker and Defender.

   If you're constrained to a table only 3.5' deep, you might want to impose some house rules that use smaller BW, and/or something like having the attacker enter the board with his first move, rather than setting up within 6BW of his side.

   The other thing, of course, is that the Objective isn't supposed to be in the middle of the board, with both sides advancing toward it, but rather behind the Defender's position.

   Now obviously, you can play without an objective and just have both sides bash together in the middle for fun. It does have some implications, though, for things like the survivability of artillery units, or the balance between the two opposing sides. (Although I can't tell if you were using the game's Army Builder unit sizes, or just experimenting with your own?) And of course the Defender's Army Morale is contingent upon the Objective, so if you put it out in the middle of the board, you'll either have to ignore the Army Morale rules, or change them.

   For what it's worth, my recommendation for a first-time-out game with totally new players would be to try a more "book-standard" scenario involving an attacker versus a defender protecting an objective. And try to get the set up distances and your BWs scaled so that the Attacker has to spend two of his turns in the approach. That means in most games, melee combats begin around Game Turn 6 or so. That's how the system makes assumptions about rolling for Reserve forces, and for the ranges of artillery and musketry, and so on.

   If you try that, and like it and want to continue with the system, then you can start to get more creative and experimental with non-standard setups, once you get a feel for the mechanics.

   best of luck,
   Sam

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. John de Terre Neuve
   Member

   Hi Sam,

   Your observation is very interesting, I ran the same scenario twice with just 2 core armies. Contact did not really occur until move Turn 7 in one game and in Turn 9 ( decided to use artillery to soften up the defenders) in the second game.

   Do you believe that there is an ideal # of BW's to start the 2 forces apart, I used 20 BW's in 2 games.

   Thanks,

   John

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   [Do you believe that there is an ideal # of BW's to start the 2 forces apart, I used 20 BW's in 2 games.]

   I didn't want to mandate something in the rulebook, because people will be playing the game with different sized bases and tables. But the rule of thumb that I offered on the "Tips" download on this website is:

   The attacker should spend two of his turns closing with the defender. In his third turn (typically Game Turn 5) he should be deployed into whatever fighting formations he has chosen, and now in musketry range and/or charge range.

   So you'll have to look at your table, and your figures, and decide how to scale your BWs accordingly. Or perhaps add or subtract turns. But that's the assumption built into the game, with regard to rolling for Army Morale, and rolling for Reserves.

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. seldon
   Member

   I can give test to this. I've ran three "first games" so far, always with new players. I've always used the full set up rules. I think it is a key element of the system.

   For me this is an important element for games, I have tried too many games with sound mechanics but a bad system for creating games, and Lasalle's system is really great.

   I would certainly recommend trying a standard game as a first game so one can understand how the system works...

   Nice report and great pictures !!

   cheers
   Francisco

   Posted 2 years ago #

8. Basilhare
   Member

   Thanks for the comments. The game was a moderate size for the rules, so I dont think that was an issue. I think the main thing is the table width and I will re-think that for the next game. I guess I was operating under the assumption that if a 6x4 table size is standard, then we were only shorting each side 3" of width on a 3.5' table. We wanted to get into action quickly so that we could see how the mechanics worked. That was our main priority and my thinking on that may have been flawed, given the results.

   As it was though, we played for 3 1/2 hours and only got to turn 10 because we were looking up rules and going slow so everyone could work out the mechanics. We set up the Brit units on the board edge, but the French were set up well onto their table on their side. The Cavalry clash occured in Turn 2, most of the infantry clashes were turn 5 or after.

   Admittedly, we denied the artillery long range fire because of the width, but we were still surprised at how innefective short range fire was. We figured that cannister should be much more devastating, but in our playtest it did little damage.

   As to the game being generic, that may have been a function of the troops we were using more than anything. However, with only three morale grades it still seemed a bit generic, but Im not sure thats all bad. Isnt that a part of the concept that when you get down to the petit-tactical level, the troops become a bit more "alike" in their abilities? I believe Sam says as much in some the descrptions in the book.

   We'll look at tweaking the scenario a bit...I knew that it might have influenced the game and said as much in the AAR...we have a long way to go in being seasoned Lasalle Players, but were definetly interested in playing some more games.

   The table width is going to be an issue, but perhaps marching on board is a good compromise...we'll see....thanks....faron

   Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.