New Zealand

Find a club and players
Répondre
Rupert of Hentzau
Soldat
Messages : 1
Enregistré le : jeu. 5 déc. 2019 19:28

New Zealand

Message par Rupert of Hentzau » dim. 8 déc. 2019 20:01

Hi,

Just wondering if there is much interest yet for these rules in New Zealand?

I know Mark Ottley has posted some interesting beginnings with his 28mm stuff in Christchurch and that Kelly Gay In Cromwell is showing some interest - but are there any others
.
From what I can see these will suit 15mm on a smaller size table, and with a 3cm base armies could be quite fast to complete.

Cheers
Bryan Fowler

Roundie
Grenadier
Messages : 23
Enregistré le : mer. 18 déc. 2019 04:20

Re: New Zealand

Message par Roundie » mer. 18 déc. 2019 17:20

Hi ya Bryan
There are 4 or 5 of us here in Nelson giving these rules a crack. Mainly with 15's, all using 40/30 (FoGN) basing.

I've also been messing about with 28's on a 6/8 table (75mm UD) which has worked fine so far.

cheers
Wayne

Tirpitz
Soldat
Messages : 9
Enregistré le : lun. 16 déc. 2019 03:14

Re: New Zealand

Message par Tirpitz » mer. 18 déc. 2019 19:22

Hi Bryan

Rob also from Nelson, I'm the one that has sparked the interest with the guys when we heard that BE was coming out. This was mainly due to the fact that we are all AdLG players !, so thought if these were of a similar vane then worth a crack. Great rules so far and so much to think about and do when you get into the "nitty gritty". I have Prussians in 15mm and I am a little disappointed that no allowance really has been made for Fusiliers in the later lists. So if building an army you will only have Musketeers represented and no Fusiliers but can have Jagers. Ah well I suppose you can't have everything.
Once we get more into these rules and play games I am sure they will be good. Will also be interesting to see if those north island guys would ever convert from FoGN !

Cheers Rob

martymagnificent
Soldat
Messages : 2
Enregistré le : ven. 20 déc. 2019 00:46

Re: New Zealand

Message par martymagnificent » lun. 23 déc. 2019 04:34

Not a NZ'er but as a regular FOGN player....

Why would/should players switch from FOGN to BE (apart from lower model count, which I consider a negative rather than a positive).

Martin

KeefM
Chasseur
Messages : 12
Enregistré le : jeu. 26 déc. 2019 07:59

Re: New Zealand

Message par KeefM » jeu. 26 déc. 2019 18:15

Marty,

Rightio then, where to start ?  By way of a super quick summary,  BE is very much a next-generation set ... if you think of FoGN v2 as being a step up from previous Naopleonic rule sets, then BE is at least 2 steps further on again. And it requires NO rebasing from any existing rules so figure density on the table is entirely over to you; existing FoGN armies morph as-is :-) !

So, first of all, it is probably worth saying that I am quite enjoying these rules and the game produced. 

I really really like the nested command and control elements across all aspects of the game. BE has a great mix of PIP-style command points, alongside nominated orders that govern what sub-Generals can or can’t do, and the inherent game mechanisms that impose structure such as command radius and morale/recovery/rally choices.  In effect, you end up with a constant stream of command decisions to make. And it all comes with the relatively ease of no written orders and easy-to-follow on-table mechanics. 

Overall I would describe the various command and control component parts as being a nice combination of ADLG/DBMx PIP-driven type of mechanisms with an orders-driven system alongside the need for managing your on-table physical cohesion of the differing units and command structures. The orders system alone is very good ! Yes, I like this a lot !

And that only gets better when coupled with a variable turn construction in which sub-Generals activate in a sequence determined by their current orders … and leaving both sides inter-weaving their activations within each differing type of orders. Very smooth mechanism to push you toward thinking carefully about how your component sub-Generals and their commands can be coordinated to carry out your intentions. This is a subtle mechanism but one that does influence how a game shapes up.

Movement, shooting and ‘contact’ combat all pretty much follows what you’d expect in a set of Napoleonic rules. As does rallying and morale aspects. And, of course, such things as squares, skirmishers, canister are also all present. In fact, I'd go as far as saysaying that BE has more prriodperiod "flavour" built in than any other set I've seen.

Subtle influences revolve around how well you can integrate your cavalry, infantry and artillery coordination given the inherent drivers from the command and control system. That’s kind of an obvious thing to say about any set of Napoleonic rules; but in the case of BE there is one fundamental thing to bear in mind throughout every turn: your opponent can conduct opportunity shooting AND/OR charging during the activation of one of your sub-Generals. Units can potentially activate more than once per turn, but certain actions they take (whether as opportunity interventions or in their normal activation) will mark them as having already acted that turn and thus limiting their array of subsequent responses/actions. 

So, coming back to my earlier point about the subtle (or not) influences of coordinating various commands/arms, forcing enemy infantry into square using your cavalry and then shelling them or charging them with your infantry becomes an exercise in coordinating differing sub-Generals, their orders and getting the sequence of activation right. Always assuming that an intervening activation by your opponent doesn’t force some opportunity actions on your part, or indeed leaves them with some later activations to thwart your efforts once your own troops are limited in their own responses.

And then, have you saved enough command points and positioned your sub-General(s) well enough for rallying ?!

All well and good … and a great set of rule mechanics with copious diagrams as per ADLG.

To round things out, and ignoring the scenario and game set-up sections entirely, let me turn to the Army Lists. I don’t intend to pick these apart as to historic accuracy; I’m sure there are plenty of folk who will find that aspect of interest. To me, at least, I have come to view army lists as a conceptual framework that is inherently driven by the rules mechanics ie if line formation is important in the rules, then the lists will govern who can use it, etc, etc. Likewise, this applies to the numbers and capabilities of troops. It is all a function of the rules themselves. The key thing, from my perspective, is that the “points costs” of troops mirrors their on-table capabilities and effect on the game: wargamers are notorious at being able to discover where troops effectiveness is more/less cost-effective than other troops, and are equally adept at putting frighteningly effective army list combinations that the rules authors never envisaged.

Good luck in doing so with BE. Well, at least initially while we all learn what/how works best and in what combinations ! The vast array of differing army lists, and the possible troop mixes is a dream come true for folk who enjoy seeing what combinations can/can’t be done.

Even so, there are some overriding characteristics that provide some inherent (and very nice/smooth) limitations on possible excesses. (Bearing in mind, that I am a past master of designing army list combinations!). 

Some of the army list limitations are universal and quite blunt in nature. First up, the portion of artillery available to any army is limited by nationality and ranges from maximums of 1 artillery unit per 8 units, all the way up to 1 per 4 units.  So, in an army of totalling 10-14 units the French, say, can only field 2 artillery units; to get 3, you need at least 15, 4 = 20, etc. Hmmmm, rightio then, let’s all field armies that can have the most guns ? Not so quick: are you sure that you really want a whole mess of Poor quality sub-Generals and artillery that are also rated as “poor shooters” or "short range" due to dodgy ammo supply or crew quality (oh yes, I did forget to mention a whole array of differing unit characteristics ? Ah, silly me !)

And, therein is just one subtlety coming through: the quality and quantity of your sub-Generals WILL govern what you can or can’t do on-table quite dramatically (unless you can muster a constant stream of rolling 6’s !). And that doesn’t even take into account the various national characteristics that might or might not apply to further inhibit your enthusiasm for one or other army. I haven’t (yet) finished my trawl through the possibilities generated by armies, but crickey there sure is a huge amount of variation (and each with considerable limitations/advantages).

Oh, and then there is the weeney matter of “reserves”. These appear in almost all army lists. Heck, you’ll be tempted (as I was) to include a goodly artillery reserve in each mix that you come up with. Why so ? Well, just so you can allocate the whole lot to a sub-General and equip them with the monster artillery barrage. So, why might you not do that then? Hah, army lists are limited in the number of reserve units they can have by the quality of their CnC; the quality of which is limited by the nation, timeframe and army list chosen. Oh, bother. Okay then, I’ll just pick an army that has an array of really good General choices alongside a good mix of troop types: like Brits under Wellington in the Peninsular say … of course, recognising that my new found artillery reserve is comprised of small batteries that all contribute to my limited number of artillery units overall. Dang having to have all that expensive infantry which now means that I might only have 2 batteries in 200 points. And so it goes on. Like I said, there will be hours of entertainment to be had picking apart all the possible combinations and choices for those so inclined.

All armies can have 2 to 5 sub-Generals. So, do I opt for a few really good quality sub-Generals and them commanding high quality contents, or more poor ones with rubbish units, or a mix of good/poor.

The size of your army in terms of its make-up (infantry/cavalry/artillery) defines your army break point; and all units are treated equally when it comes to that break point. For most units (and this varies quite a bit) infantry unit counts as 4, cavalry as 3, and skirmishers as 2. Size of units adjusts this (small, medium, large) as does quality (elite/guard/2nd rate). So does the sum of your generals’ qualities.  And your CnC quality will also influence the pre-game sequence, reserves, and in-game strategic and tactical actions points.

Oh yes, there is a lot to balance off in putting together an army list.

And I haven’t even mentioned pre-game initiative, game set-up or scouting. Or indeed, a fraction of the inherent mechanics.

As you might detect from my tone, I think this is a really good set of rules … all round it is a much better set than FoGN in my view having played an awful lot of FoGN games, both versions (with reasonable success).

Definitely order a copy of BE: you'll quickly see what I mean !! 

Cheers,

 Keef

martymagnificent
Soldat
Messages : 2
Enregistré le : ven. 20 déc. 2019 00:46

Re: New Zealand

Message par martymagnificent » ven. 27 déc. 2019 03:41

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts in so much detail Keef.

I'm hesitant to buy/look at them as I really like FOGN and don't particularly like ADLG (or indeed pip activation systems in general). I also suspect the high level of detail/chrome means that it may be less effective for large scale games.

Still, what you have said has made me consider giving them a look.

Martin

evilgong
Grenadier
Messages : 25
Enregistré le : lun. 14 janv. 2019 22:28

Re: New Zealand

Message par evilgong » ven. 27 déc. 2019 06:21

Hiya

I suspect when you boil them down the command systems in both are pretty similar in respect to what and how you the player drive things about.

I reckon BE might be a better game with more points and more divisions to mix things up. (I've only played 200pt games so far)

Probably the biggest differences between FogN and BE mechanisms is the former has running reaction tests to bad things and BE has streamlined combat and shooting mechanisms. BE has more gradation of troop state (2-6 hit points) but repairing troops looks easier in FogN.

I found BE much easier to get my head around and learn to the point of getting a game going.

regards

David F Brown

KeefM
Chasseur
Messages : 12
Enregistré le : jeu. 26 déc. 2019 07:59

Re: New Zealand

Message par KeefM » ven. 27 déc. 2019 07:36

Marty,

BE is nothing like ADLG ... apart from having the same author :D ! The CP system, while like PIPs in a lot of ways, is so heavily linked to the Orders system that the key thing is more about getting your orders right and ensuring that you have mutually supporting units and Divisions.

BE really is next-generation !

Cheers,

Keef

Répondre