I haven't played AWI for a while now, mostly because of my dissatisfaction with the various rules I have tried. I've read a few more - tried even less - and none of them strike me as being able to accomplish the style of combat I read of in With Zeal and With Bayonets Only, A Devil of a Whipping, and others. I guess it is because I have my own prejudices on how things should be and none of the rules seem to reflect that.
That can only mean one thing: I need to write my own rules!
It was while reading the ancients rules, Warrior Kings, once again that it struck me what was wrong. I believe that the British, if their morale holds, should advance quickly towards the enemy, only slowing down enough to dress the lines to recover from disorder of terrain and casualties, and when they get to 50 yards or so, deliver a volley, then close in for the charge. The Patriots then react to the fire and to the subsequent charge.
The problem with most rules is that the turn sequence does not typically support this sequence of events. The British move, fire, then charge. Most turn sequences are Declare Charges, Move, Fire, Morale, Melee, and Morale.
Warrior Kings solves this problem, as do most ancients rules, by combining fire that is a part of a charge, as a modifier to the subsequent melee. Think of the Romans throwing their pilum before impact or the Germans throwing their axes. It really is the same sequence: Move, Fire, and Charge.
I've always liked the concepts in Warrior Kings. So much so that I once wrote a set of rules for the horse and musket period using their concepts of a reaction chart. I think I will take them up again.
As it stands now, I am looking forward to hearing about Peter Pig's upcoming Warshington's Army rules. Although not grid-based like Square Bashing or Conqueror's and Kings, it does sound interesting.
I noticed the same thing about "volley and charge", including the same example of pilum and ax. I seem to recall that Field of Glory has a troop type specific to that tactic--will have to dig out my copy again.
ReplyDelete