V2 issues so far

[RogerGreenwood]

Melee weapons are not in the budget list. From examination of the lists they will be -1 point.

Should there ever be a small irregular detached skirmishers unit it would have zero cohesion. I haven't found one in the lists though so should be OK.
(Maybe they just run away as soon as the battle starts )

[Arborian]

I am a little disappointed at the failure to proof read the English V2 book as follows:

In V1 of the rules when discussing mass musket fire the correct term VOLLEY is used but in V2 this has been changed to SALVO (a term that applies to artillery not small arms). I keep having to remember that SALVO is actually VOLLEY and this interrupts the flow.

In the ARMY LISTS INDEX the page number for the list in question is a number of times replaced with:
Erreur ! Signet non défini

The RULES INDEX of V1 is no longer provided

When paying a reasonable sum for such a document it should be avoidable error free with a competent proof reading, which would have picked up these errors.

Ian Wood

[RogerGreenwood]

Just to be very clear, I did not start this topic on the forum to complain. So far the only items mentioned have no impact on the game itself. As there is only one way to shoot, using 'volley', 'salvo' or 'firing' can only mean one thing.

Perhaps it would be good to mention that a rule book is a complex document where rules in one section affect others.
I am grateful to those who have put in many unpaid hours reading, play testing and seeking to find wording for easily misunderstood ideas and checking that game mechanics work.

Also thanks to those who organised play test competitions. All the above have spent far more in time and money than the cost of the rule book and still paid £35 to buy it.

Version 1 was an excellent game. Version 2 makes it even better.

[Arborian]

Let me start by saying that I agree with the final comment whole heartedly, having carefully read V2 from cover to cover, in that it does seem as though the changes will make V2 based games even better than the already excellent V1 based games.
I also agree that all the people involved in producing the rule changes and spending their time testing, evaluating and checking the game mechanics then reporting their findings, together with those competitors who trialled the new version should all be applauded for their contribution to producing V2.
However my concerns were never with the end product of all the time spent to produce the improved rules in V2 nor with the people who as you have said gave their time and effort freely but with the publisher of the English translation of the document who failed to proof read the document before offering it for sale.
I will cover the three points that I made in reverse order starting with the loss of the Rules Index. Most of the reviews of V1 commented on the Rules Index as being an excellent inclusion making it easy for newcomers to the rules to find the answers to any questions that they had. So the loss of the Rules Index would seem to me to detract from the V2 book. However at this point I have to say that it was only on my second read through that I noticed that the Rules Index had been moved from the back of the book to the front and not removed, foolish me.
The "Erreur ! Signet non défini" that occurs a number of times on the Army List Index however is not defensible as any proof reading should have picked it up and it should have been corrected before the full production run.
Lastly V1 correctly uses the term VOLLEY to refer to mass, simultaneous small arms fire, as opposed to skirmisher fire. So why change to the erroneous SALVO in V2. There is a long discussion document on the Internet that concludes that VOLLEY fire refers to mass, simultaneous small arms fire and SALVO fire refers to artillery or naval heavy battery fire as described in the English Dictionaries. Again a proof reading by someone with an English background and a knowledge of military terms would have picked this up.
Hopefully you will see that the only organisation that I am suggesting has failed is the publisher, no one else. I was just trying to warn potential buyers of the avoidable errors that occur in the V2 book and not suggesting that the V2 changes are anything but an improvement on the already exceent V1 rules.

Ian Wood

[Al Wright]

An infantry unit flees 6 ud and changes to column formation.

If the fleeing unit is a large sized battalion that defended in line and lost a combat to enemy infantry, will not the rear of the unit end up only 3 ud away from the winning attacker after it advances, and thus be in range of the infantry pursuit?

Or does the fleeing unit turn to column first, with it's rear edge where the front was at the moment of contact, thus allowing large battalions to flee further than small ones?

Also, are the Old Guard really now Light Infantry or is this a mistake in the lists? It seems somewhat ahistorical for the Grenadiers of the Guard to wander around avoiding artillery fire in skirmish formation until they want to form column and charge?

[RogerGreenwood]

It would seem unreasonable that men in a large unit would run faster than those in other units.
I can rationalise that running away in a big crowd is more difficult There are more people to get in the way and those at the back don't get as far away.

I seem to remember watching the start of races like the London Marathon. The guys at the back can't get into their stride and start off just walking until the runners space themselves out.

I had not seen the Old Guard are now LT. It would be interesting to know the reason for this.
I doubt many people will choose to put them into detached skirmishers. They would be too easy to drive off.

[Adrian Steer]

Don't think there is an issue with large units being caught in a flee, don't forget they are 2 ud wide in a column.

[Al Wright]

Sorry, coming back to this...

If a large cavalry unit gets a flee result and goes 10ud back in column, the rear of the column will be 7ud away from the point of contact. A pursuing cavalry will advance 1ud and pursue 6ud, thus contacting the back of the cavalry it just defeated. So, a large cavalry would be eliminated, while a medium or small one would survive?

[RogerGreenwood]

If a cavalry unit flees 10ud it will about face and move measuring from the front after the about face. If its base depth is 1 Ud the front of the column will be 11ud from the enemy, the back will be 8ud away, just enough to escape.

[Hazelbark]

Lastly V1 correctly uses the term VOLLEY to refer to mass, simultaneous small arms fire, as opposed to skirmisher fire. So why change to the erroneous SALVO in V2. There is a long discussion document on the Internet that concludes that VOLLEY fire refers to mass, simultaneous small arms fire and SALVO fire refers to artillery or naval heavy battery fire as described in the English Dictionaries.

Blame me. In V1 i was the one trying to standardize this so we didn't have two different words in the same rules meaning different the same thing. The problem being the French translation takes it the wrong direction. Meaning the logical French assumed word is the wrong one. Tried to fix this, but then life got in the way and i ran out of time to standardize this properly because I had mistakenly thought the fix would stay, but logically there was no reason to expect that. My fault.

There are several things where the French word in French translates to a word that is undesirable in English. It is very hard to get a rule book where it exists in multiple languages, with identical sections and structure and try to have it in sync. There are other languages that have comparable issues.

Consider the proofing levels:
Proof for typos
Proof for rule meaning the same thing after translation
Proof for rule generating a good game play
Proof the words then fit the format
Then proof the document you have corrected actually is internally consistent

Once you cross one stage, you are not done with that stage. Because then you need to double check others work of the same. Then when you correct one area you need to go back through all over again.

If you have been around professional translators they have cheats. They rally don't translate literally they translate their understanding of the intent which is a disaster in technical translations. It is why in diplomatic translations there are always at least two translators around one from each language to try and prevent erroneous translations.

At the end of the day it was a pretty massive project by amateurs and I am proud of what we achieved for the purpose of having a game and fun. But how do you say, "we are not perfect"