Defender limitations

[Douglas]

We have played about a dozen games so far.
It seems limiting the defender to not being able to advance for the first 2 turns makes it very hard on the defenders.
Any thoughts on only 1 turn limitation. We use 25mm figs so the gap between the lines closes very quickly. Our table is 6'x12'.

Thanks

[quackstheking]

I have to say I really like the 2 turns limitation! Think of it as the attacker has the initiative. Remember you both (generally) start off with the same points, so there needs to be something that forces action.

The keys for the first 2 moves for the side without the initiative is :-

* to deploy sufficiently far back to allow some manouvre room to respond to the attackers initial moves
* to use Light infantry and cavalry as skirmishers to slow the attacker down.
* have a road running parallel to your baseline to allow the rapid transfer of forces from one flank to the other flank quickly - at Busacco, Wellington built a road behind the ridge to allow him to move forces quickly.
* make sure you limit the attackers ability to target your initially deployed units with artillery, by deploying on the the reverse slope of your defensive ridge(s), (a tactic of a well known and successful defensive General)
* Think carefully what terrain you choose and how you can channel the attackers lines of advance.
* Deploy at least one Division as a reserve!

Many historical battles started with the attacker having the initiative and the battle developed with the defenders responses. Having played many other games, normally both sides advance and have a very meaningless "encounter battle" which happened a lot less than we would like to believe especially in this period where cavalry had scouted well ahead.

Lastly, forget the defenders challenges - what about the challenge for the attacker - morally they HAVE to do something - if they get it wrong then there is no going back!

Don

[hazelbark]

Agree with Quack.

I think it also is a different kind of advantage for unreformed armies attacking.
Also it changes the value of mounted troops more than people realize.

One thing we noticed was the importance of terrain. I think in our early games peole put out minimum terrain just because we really didn't know how to handle it.

But terrain is a huge effect on the game.
streams and rivers really can channel attacks and anchor flanks.
Roads can open those back up.
Buildings have a profoud imapct
Chunk of rough and/or cover.

We had one game that was so cluttered that it was an assault past or through 3 buildings or up hill through a channelling bits of terrain.
Fortunately the russian guard went up the hill and there were conscripts waiting to be routed on top of it.

[viperofmilan]

We had one game that was so cluttered that it was an assault past or through 3 buildings or up hill through a channelling bits of terrain. Fortunately the russian guard went up the hill and there were conscripts waiting to be routed on top of it.

Ooooh, those burly Russian guardsmen really need to get past boasting about their ability to manhandle a bunch of underfed 15-year old boys.

Kevin

[Blathergut]

Dead. and I have been playing 28mm on a 4' x 8' table, usually 800-1000 points. We reduced the wait time to 1 turn and that has worked out well. But like the others said, it does create an interesting game. This last game, a clump of trees ended up on my base line, just right of centre. I formed a unit of French light infantry in skirmish in it, drew a good 1/3 of the swarmy Austrian horde towards it, then skampered out and reformed in tactical with the forest holding my right. Nothing ever did come in through there! Buildings, as mentioned, are usually unconquerable redoubts.

[hazelbark]

usually unconquerable redoubts.

Heavy artillery, Howtizers begin to rectify that. A superior unit in poition to assualt it.

They do require you to concentrate 2-3 infantry units to soften it up.

But if you don't have a plan to retake the building if it falls, you could be in a lot of trouble.

[terrys]

Having played significantly more games now - against more varied opposition, I am of the opinion that the 2 turn limitation is an absolute must-use rule.
1) If forces the attacker to commit himself early in order to maximise his advantage. However, I have seen failured double moves negate this, and in fact led to the attackers defeat.
2) Some of the terrain can be negated by sliding it out of the defenders depployment area.
2) It means that the attacker can get past terrain that blocks the centre of the table before the defender can do anything about it.
3) It balances out the flank-marching rules. Flank marches are encouraged to be used, but without the 2 move rule they would be too riskybecause it's a whole division missing (rather than a few light cavalry as in FOGA). Battles would usually be fought in the centre of the table as the 'defenders' push forwards, with the flank march being unable to affect the outcome.

[BrettPT]

I initially was against the can't move for 2 turns rule, but am coming around now as well!

Brett

[deadtorius]

Using a narrower (4' wide) table with 28mm we used a posted suggestion for 1 turn delay. It has helped our games a lot since 2 turns put the attacker pretty much within range of the defending units and no chance for them to do much but stand there and get hammered. 1 turn pretty much pushes our attacking troops to get moving but allows the defender a chance to get out of the deployment zone before the real bloodshed starts.

As for buildings, I once set a veteran Grenadier unit in one, they took on and repulsed almost 1/2 of the French army for the entire game. That was some brave defence that time. I agree that to take a building you need to send in at least 2 units to shoot up the defenders, then charge in when they drop to wavering. Then try to hold on to it

[Jilu]

i like the Defender restriction, it enables the attacker to prepare the attack.

[hazelbark]

i like the Defender restriction, it enables the attacker to prepare the attack.

Has the benefit of beign rather historical for the period. You quite often had one side electing to receive the first kick. There were some notable ones where the momentum changed. But the opening was clearly one side moving as the aggressor on the battlefield.

[Jilu]

And...well...i think that when we deploy the troops, the only information to be given to the other player should be: the name and type of troops:guard, line infantry, light infantry, ....

Not the quality, it ould leave some surpise, as it should be.