GDA2

Moderators: Vis Bellica, Laffe, DCRBrown

nikjen66
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:20 pm
Location: Cambridge UK

Re: GDA2

Post by nikjen66 »

Following from comments made by others I agree that the CinC role seems a bit anonymous at times. Be nice to see a table, as in other rules reflecting the ability of all the major players for the period at different dates as their quality changed. Napoleon 1805 ‘The God of War’ +3 Extra ADCs, can influence any brigade suffering a negative Falter Test that is within 30cm. By contrast 1815 ‘Not the Best’ +1 ADC and Guard cannot be committed unless he is with 30cm.

I’m being very specific above but might help to get the CinC, even down to named Divisional commanders, some more personality.

In GdA I also feel that in the larger games there is the need for more detail about sub-commanders, whether these are corps/column/divisions etc.

As for Brigadiers perhaps some national as well as (random) personality traits might be interesting but, as I’m the army commander I think the hesitant rule helps to provide some narrative for this. After all every dog has his day. 😉

Anythingbuta1
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2020 9:06 am

Re: GDA2

Post by Anythingbuta1 »

I am in the camp of if it aint broke, but of course if 2 is significantly different it doesn't stop you continuing to play 1 anyway.

N66

Im not a fan of too much Brigadier personality, its just another thing for us to forget to do, we manage to forget enough already.

I also feel its an attempt by N66 to give his French army yet another advantage , its already bulging with Elite cav, Vet Infantry, grand Batteries and more ADC,s than he can cope with, saddling the allies with a load of duff brigadiers would be right ups his street.

nikjen66
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:20 pm
Location: Cambridge UK

Re: GDA2

Post by nikjen66 »

Darn it my plan has been foiled already! 😂😂

dakkadakka
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:44 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by dakkadakka »

Basically, I’m in the “A” camp as well, with one or two changes/additions.

1) The C-in-C’s location should have an effect of some sort. I like the suggestion of re-rolling a Hesitant roll if in close proximity to the brigadier.

2) The Hesitant roll is frustrating. A brigade of conscripts has the same chance of going Hesitant as a brigade of guards. Maybe go to a 2d6 roll with modifiers for troop type, as well as proximity to the enemy, number of casualties, etc. Another possibility is to have the failure result be determined on how badly the roll was missed. If you use 2d6, you will have more leeway for different possibilities - anything from half move to no forward movement, to withdrawal, etc.

Overall I think the rules are excellent. I agree with what some of the others said - don’t change your vision of what you want the game to be. No ruleset will please everyone; and, no ruleset is perfect (although GdA comes close, and O-Group even closer)!!

Regards,

Jim

User avatar
IanKH
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: GDA2

Post by IanKH »

It's been a while since I last played GdA but I'm currently getting my troops together for some solo gaming. I think the game is fine as is, but my only gripe is with cavalry. The squadron is supposed to be the basic element but I have never seen how that works. Cavalry still seem to operate as a regiment. In a charge/melee one squadron followed by a second squadron form the same regiment don't count as supporting in a charge. They are just counted as a single regiment. But a regiment can support a regiment and that works fine. I've just never been able to get my head around how cavalry is supposed to work.

Yo30
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:16 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by Yo30 »

I have been a napoleonic wargamer since the 1960s playing Featherston, Guilder , and Brown rules and Gda is the finest yet. However nothing is perfect therefore (b) has my vote.

Simmerson
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:11 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: GDA2

Post by Simmerson »

I play in 6mm so my only niggling thing about the rules is hesitancy. Takes an age to get a brigade moving a distance.

I would like something along the lines of before battle or arrival from reserve to have an order. To change the order some kind of test would be needed. Make brigade commander personality have an effect on the roll. My view is units keep following the order unless something happens to them like going unformed and not needing to test every turn.

Takes a while to see a game concluded with the current hesitant rules. I love the rules. Just my view on how I personally would like it amended

User avatar
DCRBrown
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:04 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by DCRBrown »

IIanKH,

Just a quick reply specifically on cavalry.

IMHO the cavalry squadron was not the tactical element in battle.

Yes, it was on paper both the tactical and administrative element, but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that they were treated akin to infantry battalions in a major engagement as opposed to a skirmish or low level cavalry encounter.

E.G. In all major battles cavalry regiments and brigades were committed to action as one, never, (as far as I can see) as individual squadrons. For instance the Scots Greys at Waterloo did not attack as individual squadrons, they attacked as one, single regiment.

If we followed the squadron theory then would not the Greys have had at least one squadron in reserve? The answer is no, all squadrons of the regiment attacked. The same can be said of virtually every cavalry attack in that battle, the cuirassiers attacked by regiment, the light cavalry attacked by regiment, the guards by regiment, etc, etc.

Now, exactly how the regiment attacked, whether in line with squadrons abreast or in column of squadrons is another matter, but at the end of the day as far as I can tell the entire lot usually went in, rather than being committed piecemeal, and that's what GdA attempts to reproduce.

Hope that helps.

DB

Slynx
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:01 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by Slynx »

As a relatively new player to the rules, I have to say I like them a lot and their my preference.

I do find the whole charge procedure a bit complicated. I'm not necessarily after merging it into a single phase (as a lot of people dont seem to like this), but could it be streamlined a bit as its one of the few areas that doesnt seem to flow as smoothly as the rest of the rules.

I agree about commanders, in that they could be made more relevant to the game.

We have had a lot of discussion around skirmish fire, where you measure, range, arc how many bases etc, so clarification around that would be useful (answers on this forum have helped, but essentially it comes down to house rules).

Scenarios are great, but a system for generating engagements would be nice (terrain/placement etc) and some Army lists. Its all well and good to say that your playing a historical battle, but for a game on an evening we dont always have a book of battles worked out for all occasions.

User avatar
IanKH
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:38 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: GDA2

Post by IanKH »

DB

Thanks for clarifying.
My confusion came from a recent re-reading the rules where it states that the squadron is the basic cavalry unit. I've always played cav as a regiment ) or half regt) with GdA and other rules. So, thinking "should I be using squadrons instead of regiments" confused me. Especially when your 2017 tutorial videos show regiments.

Anyway, the important thing is that I'm painting up more French and Prussians to add to my existing armies in preparation of getting back into GdA.

Post Reply