Burto001 said:

This is an error. The reaction on card 53 should be "Counterattack".

Burto001 said:

I am not sure what you mean - supporting units do not advance so why they should be disordered?

Cybernex,

First, thank you for your response.  For the second card, I'm referring to the rule at the bottom of page 36 'An infantry unit fighting in melee (or supporting a melee attack) while in line formation is automatically disordered at the end of the melee).  So, with the fall back card, my situation was that the infantry in column declared an attack and declared the attack as supported by the infantry in line.  In response, the defending infantry played the fall back card.  I advanced with the column, but wondered if the rule at the bottom of page 36 still applied, as there was a declared melee.

James

Hi James, in your example, the infantry who has only declared to support the melee, in absence of combat (because the enemy withdraws BEFORE the melee) don't go into disordered status.
Sergio

Hi,

We just finished playing Road to Namur, and came up with a couple of rules questions, both having to do with the cards:

• Cards that are eligible to be played in the action phase (like Good Timing and Delay), can they be played at any time during the action phase?
• Card # 40, for the reaction part, Form Square, can that be played in a disordered unit?

Thank you,

James

Lines in the sand

We were quite puzzled to discover that infantry in line formation cannot move. Given the undeniable historical fact that the British infantry almost invariably attaccked in line formation, this limitation seems to require some explanation.

While on the subject of lines, I was bemused by the stricture against the French from using line in the maida scenario. The designers seem to have fallen for the old canard about maida, that the French attacked in column formation and were shot to pieces by the superior British firepower. Even Oman, who may well have created this myth, admitted his error in one of the later editions of his work, only to have subesequent editions reprint the errorpresumably because it made a better story! In fact, the French were advancing in deployed lines and Kempt's brigade caught them with one or two volleys followed by a bayonet charge (the tactic that became the mainstayof the British infantry throughout the war). This shattered the entirety of Compere's brigade, and Kempt's own command spent the rest of the day chasing the survivors off the field.

Peter

Artillery weakness

Another issue that I wanted to toss into the discussion is the weakness of the artillery. For the Queen of the Battlefield (in Nappy's terms) it gets extremely short shrift here. First, there are only two guns per side, clearly representing a single battery each. But their utility is severely limited. The guns cannot fire when limbered (incidentally, another rules oddity here; the rules illustrate what appears to be the same picture for limbered and unlimbered guns, just with the image reversedthere are no counters for the state; the idea seems to be that the position of the gunner figures somehow shows whether the gun is limbered or un, but they only difference I can see in the pictures is an extremely subtle oneit looks as if the limbered gunner is facing away from the hex and the unlimbered gunner is facing into the hex. Is that it?). And of course they cannot move when unlimbered. But notice that the guns can only fire once a turn, and though they are more effective at canister range, it is not really that much and they are prohibited from attacking in melee so it is entirely possible that I can march infantry up to a battery and attack it without the artillery ever being able to fire! Unless, of course, it is attacked by a cavalry charge, in which case it rolls against its morale and if it passes it gets to shoot at the cavalry. Huh? It can shoot against the fast moving horse but not the slow moving foot. This smells like an oversight to me. The optional rule that is supposed to represent the devastating effect of canister only allows the guns to split their fire (otherwise prohibited) to fire at both adjacent frontal hexesat half rounded DOWN of its total firepower. That's it. This seems to downlplay seriously the effects and effectiveness of Napoleonic artillery and is, at first blush, the most questionable subsystem of the entire game. I would certainly like to understand the rationale behind this representation.

peterperla said:

It is surely possible to have differing interpretations of how the Battle of Maida developed, and the one which was chosen to use for the scenario made for an interesting limitation to show typical tacticts of the two opponents.

Whoever does not like the limitation is of course welcome to lift it when playing at home! (I don't see many tournaments played using the "Maida" scenario...)

peterperla said:

I would be happy to have little horses to attach to the artillery figures when limbered but that must surely be what people call "over-production" - to use the position of the gunners seems to be a good enough solution to us.

On the more substantial considerations. I asked the designer to do a little bit of analysis on the topic.

As you can easily find out when you play, "marching the infantry up to the artillery" is not an easy trip.

Let's take as an example an average artillery (4-2-1 with 3 crew). The enemy (advancing in column with an attack, as necessary by the rules) suffers the first attack after it reaches a distance of 3 hexes from the cannons. The artillery rolls 1d10 + 1 (range) +3 (crew) + 2 (ranks) = 6 + 1d10

If all goes well, it will advance again in the following turn. The artillery rolls ri 1d10+2 (range)+3(crew)+2(ranks)= 7 + 1d10

Finally, if the infantry still holds its morale, it will advance a third time, adjacent to the artillery, and receives a third attack at 9+1d10

If, after three attacks like this, the infantry is still there safe and sound, it finally gets a good melee attack (assuming +1 Melee and no losses, +7), If it fails the melee attack, it is still under artillery fire...

In a similar situation, Cavalry would receive 1 or at most 2 attacks from the same artillery.

So, overall, the way the various types of troops interact seems to be realistic enough in actual gameplay.

For the more mathematically oriented, the rolls above against the infantry have the following average outcomes. If you assume you always roll "5" you will check the effect on rows 11-12-14 against the infantry:

row 11: 11% casualty, 32,7% disorder

row 12: 18% casualty, 40% disorder

row 14: 34,5% casualty, 56,4% disorder

And more or less every time the infantry will have to do a MT at -2 or -4...

Cybernex.

I agree with You about the artillery.

In the last battle I fought, an  English battery on the hill has almost destroyed two French  units attacking in column.

The infantry has reach the artillery ZOC  with some casualties and disorder and then has routed.

The artillery with no more ammunitions changed to limbered and retired in good order.

A limit of the artillery is the ammuniton (if You use the optional rule).

I think the optional rule is right and give to the game more historic realism, but it limits the artillery fire.

What I know is that in a Napoleonic battle the artillery was constantly supllied from the artllery train and ammunition caissons.

So what about a rule on the supply lines?  A battery is out of supply if can not have a free line to a fixed point of the map.

About the infantry can not move in line, I too think is a strong limit and I was surprised when read the rules.

The question is:

if the infantry in column move 1 hex how can move the infantry in line?

Maybe can move 1 hex but then is disorderd and furthermore can not change facing. What do You think about?

Claudio.

I think a reasonable "house rule" could be that infantry in line with an attack order could advance 1 hex and be disordered.

While this could be perceived as more "realistic" in fact it would reduce the importance of proper use of formation, so I would not bet that the game would benefit from such a change. However I am definitely interested in your experience if you try such a rule!

Cybernex,

Is it the correct interpretation of the rules that infantry, in line with an attack order, can advance if a hex they:

• fire on is vacated
• melee is vacated.

 

I understood that the line couldn't move, but it was unclear to me on whether or not the line could advance.

Also, when you get a chance, could you look at the rules questions I had in my 7/18 post.

Thank you,

James

James this is what I understood:

Yes, it is right, the infantry in line with attack order can advance in a hex vacated after a fire attack and must advance in a hex vacated after a melee attack.

After the advance the infantry in line is disordered.

Cybernex, I'll try it.

 " in fact it would reduce the importance of proper use of formation"   what do You mean exactly?

I belived that the column was more powerful for melee than fire and line more powerful for fire than melee, but this do not prevent the line to move.

Otherwise, how can refight battles of the early Empire like Jena or Austerlitz where the Prussians and Russians fought in line?

Claudio.

Cybernex said:

Oh, indeed. Sorry if I was more pednatic than even usual. One of my pet peeves, I fear. Thanks for the perspective. I still don't get the idea behind prohibiting movement in line, but the idea of showing typical tactics is certainly not a bad one.

Thanks

Peter

Cybernex said:

I am not so sure. Under Wheeling, the rules say: "During a formation change (including recovering from disorder), units may...."

KlausFritsch said:

OK, I asked Nexus, and they say recovering from disorder does not trigger reaction cards.