Garry Wills

Interesting discussion. You can argue it both ways, i.e. the troops opened a disordered fire thus preventing the formation of square or as Nat says the unit’s officers spent all their time trying and failing to form square. As written the rules on page 89, don’t preclude the infantry firing disordered. However, I think this is due to loose…[Read more]

Totally agree, even then it might be a bit much given that they also get two extra combat dice. The average +2 to combat resolution is equivalent to 5 extra combat dice, so all together it is like being attacked by two normal units.

Yes the example given following my quotation spells it out. Yesterday, I refought Venta del Pozo and the French lost a third of their force when a squadron of Gendarmes broke, quickly followed by both supports! Three scores of 4 or less in a row!

Best regards

Garry

George

I like these forums because we always have the opportunity to learn about the games we love. However on page 78 at the bottom of the first paragraph it reads ‘For purposes of this test, supporting units are considered to be such if they are theoretically  able to support regardless of whether they actually contribute a support bonus or…[Read more]

Yes it is added to the combat resolution. Hvy Cav +1 is approximately the equivalent of adding 3 close combat dice, so a big effect.

and the units test whether they actually supported the combat or not, they just have to be within the 6inches.

The proximity rule is straightforward, the French grenadiers need to move into either their forward or rearward quarter (see p.24), the number and position of the Austrians doesn’t matter other than them being within 12 inches. The key point in this example, is that the grenadiers would have to charge the Jagers,  (you cannot contact them without…[Read more]

The one thing that concerns me about the close combat in Black Powder, is the follow up a retiring enemy. I would prefer close combat to be short and  therefore would prefer follow ups to be restricted to Sweeping Advance/Charge. Otherwise I think BP works well, especially if we remember that cavalry always retire from drawn combats.

Yes exactly, the editing of BPII leaves a lot to be desired at times. It is not entirely inconsistent as the Morale Saves and Break tests work in tandem to represent morale. But with regard to your original question there has never been any discussion of having an additional morale save factor for squares. The break test rule for squares is a big…[Read more]

It is not an error, just in the wrong place. The advantage for squares comes in the Break test, in which they treat all Retire results as Hold your ground. see page 89.

As far as I know there is not FAQ for BPII.

Figures per base are only important in terms of if they look right. The key thing is that the frontage of the units are the same at each unit size.

BP 2 and GH were both written before Epic existed.  BP2 does give the principles for base sizes, the frontages are what matters and so the standard units for cavalry and skirmishers will be the same as for the close order infantry. See p.16 of BP2, 200-250mm standard and 120-150mm small, you can change these up or down depending on how many epic…[Read more]

The dishonesty is not related to GH but to the assertion by modern rules writers that scales are not important, when they are actually intrinsic to game design.  As I said I wasn’t criticising you in particular, GH is probably my favourite supplement, it got me playing ACW.  I think that Jim has shown that what we take for granted in historical g…[Read more]

Since I started Napoleonic wargaming in the 1970’s I have always enjoyed the process of scenario creation and it has therefore been straightforward to adapt BP to historical scenarios. However I must say I find the ‘modern’ fad for rejecting scales as being too ’70’s’ a dishonest approach to rule writing. BP is no different to other ‘modern’ sets…[Read more]

To be fair, the core rules don’t use figure scales and only have implied ground scales. Many of the supplements use this flexibility to change the size of standard units from battalions to companies etc. GH is one of the best supplements so don’t be put off. Anyway using your unit sizes and the brigade compositions in the scenario will enable you…[Read more]

Frustrating isn’t it! I believe they vary in size, one of the maps is easy to size as 6 feet across by 9 feet, others are clearly smaller. The best bet is to scale them relative to your brigade frontages. Obviously these will be different depending n whether you game with 28 mm or 15mm figures.

George,  leaders only have to check for casualties inflicted after the unit is shaken, so probably only once in your example. (p.74 in BP2)

The important thing is to keep the unit frontages  as close as possible.

I apply it such that mixed formations always have 1 dice, which is the literal interpretation of the rules. Giving them an extra skirmisher die doubles their fire power with only a 50% increase in numbers.

The 2nd edition ruleset couldn’t possibly accommodate the scenario books, but by and large there is good consistency with BP2, but you need to check  each specific rule that you select. For example the rules for Generals were modified in BP2 but you still have the option to go with the BP1 option in order to fit with CofE for example.  An e…[Read more]