GDA2

Moderators: Vis Bellica, Laffe, DCRBrown

Eg407
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 4:41 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by Eg407 »

Hi DB,

Firstly thank you for producing a great set of rules, and also taking the time to discuss points with the wider player base.

Our group has not played as many games of GdA as we would have wished, but I can say that we are in the a) camp. We really like the rules and the crunch they give the game. We have had trouble sometimes finishing larger games in an evening, but this is more likely to be strategic over extension on our part rather than anything the rules could help with. I would say that I did like Chasseur's review, but I don't agree with all of his points. And in the end there are already a large number of "fast play-big battle" rules out there, which we don't play because we find they don't give the feeling that we are looking for from our games with toy soldiers. We really don't like buckets of dice or fully abstracted combat resolution.

That said, there are a couple of points we have looked into house ruling:
1. "Grand tactical movement" - as already mentioned by Simmerson (we also play 6mm), there is a difficulty in getting bodies of troops moving realistic distances when behind the front lines. The risk that they will go hesitant is quite large, especially as the ADC resources are normally needed in the fighting. The repositioning of reserves at Waterloo (Chasse from Braine l'Alleud or Lobau to Plancenoit for example) would be nearly impossible in a game.
2. CinCs - again as already said, having the CinC/divisional commander being present should have a larger impact on the command rolls. If Wellington is giving the orders rather than an ADC then one would expect that they would have been carried out with more alacrity!
3. Streamlining the QRS - we find that having 4 pages is actually quite tough. So we are looking to reshuffle it and combine the most often used tables onto two pages and the other less often used tables on the other page.

Apart from those three points and perhaps the inclusion of the FAQ responses within the main text (plus more diagrams etc). I would say no real changes are needed.

On the topic of cavalry, I am not sure I totally agree with your logic. The example of Waterloo might not be the best. But as these are a higher level set of rules it is fine as it is. Cavalry operations by squadron is probably left to a GdB level rules and the more granular battle picture.

I would add that as wargamers we seem to always have the urge to tinker with rules. The past has shown some reasonably well liked rules sets releasing new editions with some major changes (seemingly just because), which causes division and fracturing among the player bases and then finally a massive decline in said rules set. I would hate to see this happen to GdA!
User avatar
DCRBrown
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:04 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by DCRBrown »

Good points all.

From this I'll probably follow Option b) but attempt to keep any changes minor and as close to the premise of GdA as possible, keeping close to the way the game "feels" and plays as now.

So to improve?

a) Hesitant. Slightly more manoeuvre possibility if over a certain distance from any enemy units?

b) C-in-C options? Though I'm not inclined to allow the C-in-C to wander around the tabletop improving brigadiers command rolls, as Divisional or Corps generals didn't do this historically. I will however probably amend Command to allow a "one-off" permanent attachment to a Brigade but then this will bring command disadvantages elsewhere.

c) Slicker Charge table.

d) Slicker Fire tables but keeping the basic 2D6 results charts. (Not moving to a dice casualty method.) The casualty charts will be more intuitive, so much easier to memorise and almost eradicate the need to refer to the chart, (hopefully!).

e) Slight adjustment to skirmishers firing method.

f) Tactical March option for those big games.

g) Finally I'd be interested to know how many gamers have used the Cavalry - Narrower Frontage modifier in any games and how often?

Thanks.

DB
nikjen66
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:20 pm
Location: Cambridge UK

Re: GDA2

Post by nikjen66 »

Hi Dave,

As mentioned already happy with some tweaks, and I know a lot have mentioned the charge process, please don’t change this too much. It works, once you get your head around it, it really does. If you’ve got good quality troops charging not so good you can generally be confident but not always. Conversely if you’re charging uphill with some shattered, Landwher into the teeth of some guns it’s probably going to end badly but..........

As for generals I agree they shouldn’t be whizzing around directing Battalions to do stuff (or perhaps they should, it did happen) but the impact on command and control should be catastrophic and the risk of injury significant whilst this happens. Perhaps an abstraction of quality should not in ADC numbers but in allowing some ADC re-rolls.

The ability to conduct marches is ok but again the rules allow for this. Perhaps removing the hesitate outcome from troops in Reserve or better quality troops or under the CinCs gaze might be an option.

In our games our Cavalry Regiments range from small (12 figs) to large (24figs) so the chances of getting ‘more’ than double frontage are unlikely unless a small unit in double/column line is in combat with a large unit in line! I don’t think we have used it in possibly 50+ games.

The rules are great please don’t change too much. 😊😊😊
Simmerson
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:11 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: GDA2

Post by Simmerson »

I know the Calvary frontage modifier and consider it in every game. Adds tactical decision determining what information I should be in and what formation my reserve line is.

I would think perhaps amending brigades to go hesitant on a 1 and not a 1 or a 2 if outwidth a certain distance of the enemy would be good. Moving to a 17% chance of going hesitant instead of of 33% chance.
Markconz
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:44 am

Re: GDA2

Post by Markconz »

"in the end there are already a large number of "fast play-big battle" rules out there"

There are plenty of fast play rules for big battles where your basic unit is a Brigade.

But I am unware of other fast play big battle rules where a battalions is your basic unit, except Black Powder. It's an under served market I think.
User avatar
DCRBrown
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:04 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by DCRBrown »

The Hesitant debate is very interesting.

First, Hesitancy does drop to barely 11% when using a Brigade attachment. So, down from 33% to 11% if you are focusing on command. Suddenly just a 1 chance in 9 seems pretty reasonable, if you are choosing this command decision above others.

I think the fact that GdA does not have a "command bonus" for troops beyond a certain distance from the enemy ruling, as found in some other rule sets, can cause a furrowed brow to some gamers. So perhaps it's an opportune moment to illustrate my rationale regarding Hesitant.

First, Hesitant does not represent a Brigade suddenly stopping and doing absolutely nothing for the turn, rather like Grouchy eating strawberries from the film Waterloo! Things will be happening but either more slowly or far more likely it's other factors taking over as explained below.

Hesitant when close to the Enemy.

When a brigade is in close proximity to the enemy it has limited options. It can still move and fire but obviously it can't "move" very well because it's basically in contact with the enemy. Suddenly commands such as changing formation or redeploying battalions become far more difficult. A brigade will likely go "Hesitant" simply because it's committed to combat and in combat things do go wrong.

Hesitant when not close to the Enemy.

There is however, quite a bit of evidence to suggest that units further away from battle were no more likely to move more efficiently than units closer to the battle lines, in fact they had far more opportunity to be slower. Why?

When separated from the enemy by a reasonable distance Brigadiers had the opportunity to take a far more wary stance precisely because they are not up close and personal with the enemy. They knew that they would only get one shot at an attack once they closed in, so they needed to get it right! And it's that "fear" or "determination" to make sure your command has done everything it can to ensure success that causes Hesitancy.

It's not proximity to the enemy at all; in fact it's the reverse IMHO. Being further way from the enemy gives commanders the time to prepare and double-check resulting in Hesitancy whilst they ensure Brigade readiness – a luxury they will not get when closer to the enemy. So what are they doing? When further way they have the opportunity to get formations right, have a final orders check with officers, ensure all officers are correctly positioned, double-check battalion alignments, ensure the officer in charge of the skirmishers has deployed correctly, etc, etc, i.e. to dither, to fuss about or do the final command checks prior to an attacking or defensive action- thus to "Hesitate".

After all if the Brigadier fails, very direct and public questions will be asked by the C-in-C about why the attack or defence failed!

I certainly accept the fact that when moving a brigade well outside enemy contact it could move faster and quicker than those brigades in the battle line. But this does not remove or even reduce the chance that the Brigadier will "Hesitate" as already stated being further away simply provides the opportunity to hesitate. Perhaps this is why some French units took ages to deploy at Quatre Bras. And why D'Erlon's approach to form up at Waterloo also took ages. Perhaps the best example of this is, I think at the Battle of Chattanooga, where the right flank of the Confederate army was supposed to attack at dawn but had not even moved out several hours later!

Personally, I've been in numerous "command situations" where there was a great deal of fussing about prior to zero hour. Senior officers coming up to me and double checking my orders, my deployments, where my reserves where, etc, etc. Why did they do this - because they wanted to get it right and if it when wrong they would take the blame and any promotion chances they had would disappear! And I think that is exactly what our Napoleonic brigadiers are doing when they go "Hesitant".

Also Napoleonic Brigadiers do not have the helicopter view that gamers have, so although you might know that there are no enemy within a certain distance your poor general does not and might well be halting the brigade to ensure that that sound of cavalry across to the left is in fact friendly!

GdA acknowledges the fact that there is simply more opportunity for commanders to delay or micro-manage when further away from the enemy, as this opportunity for final adjustments was lost as soon as the brigade closed up on the enemy and it also accounts for the fact they do not have a God like view over the battlefield.

DB
Petracelli
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:43 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by Petracelli »

Hi Dave,

Not sure if you will recall but we met when you came along to the club in Quendon a couple of years ago abs you lead the Prussians to a glorious victory!

My brief response before a more considered one is the rules are excellent. The charge system is great it really works and I really enjoy the tension it creates- and this includes having had one of my squares broken earlier today…

They may be a slight tweak here I. Firs skirmishers simply as the number of bases - 1 to work out how many dice to roll.

Struggle to think of anything I would change and we have played them at our club about 8 or 9 big size games.

Will give a more considered view but just wanted to say when I heard about you thinking about a re - write please leave them as they are as in forty years of gaming best set of Nap I have e played.

Cheers

Phil
baxterj
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:20 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by baxterj »

I agree on the skirmishers Phil. As I said in an earlier post I would have 1x D6 per base, but make them hit on a 6 only.
nikjen66
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:20 pm
Location: Cambridge UK

Re: GDA2

Post by nikjen66 »

Hi Baxter,

I’m not sure I agree with making the skirmishers hit on 6’s. A lucky die roll could make them overly effective. I like them hitting on 5-6 as it makes them a threat but not overwhelming if they get lucky. Perhaps 1 dice per two bases, or part thereof? With a bonus dice for better troops and a loss of dice for poor ones? If you reduce the effectiveness people won’t use them or reinforce them.
baxterj
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:20 pm

Re: GDA2

Post by baxterj »

Hi N, I think you’d find that this makes them less effective. There may be a slight increase in the number of dice if you go with a D6 per base, but the chances of hit reduce significantly if they only hit on a 6, rather than a 5 or 6. My view is that they are overly effective and this change makes it simpler (ie just count the skirmisher bases).
Post Reply