Number of turns

[hazelbark]

What do people feel they are averaging in number of turns per game.

I think in terms of 6-8 seem common for a regular game according to the rules. Now partially this depends on what is developing on the table.

My thinking is how to model scenarios or holding actions.

I had an anglo-port force defending vs French and I managed to repulse the center French infantry about 3 turns in a row. They fell back and reformed rather than risk getting shot up horribly. I didn't have mounted or enough power to pressure them sufficiently to break them.

So in many ways it was a good game and historical. But it got us discussing afterwards how to fit that into a campaign context and what timetable you could require of the attacks. So what might you set for a number of turns?

[Blathergut]

I haven't counted, but I'd say that we're more like 9-12 turns over 7 hours.

That's 9-12 turns for each player.

[viperofmilan]

Dan,

You really have to define your timeframe for the game. As you know, we have been doing "tournament" style games in a 3.5-4 hour timeframe. Including terrain selection and set-up, we have been getting in 5-8 turns as you indicated. In a "scenario" game, perhaps with a longer time allowed for actually pushing lead both because of the pre-set terrain and no real need to fit into a 4 hour timeframe, it may well be that 12+ turns would be possible. You know that many of our games end with players a turn or two away from anything like a decisive result, so more turns would be welcome.

Kevin

[hazelbark]

Oh I agree. I was trying to get the turn count more than real life time.

I am thinking some scenario construction.

[JJMicromegas]

I've played about 6-7 games now and from what I have experienced the first 3-4 turns are spent getting into position and doing the bombardments, this is because in the rules the attacking side has to soften up the defenders and cause disruptions before having a hope of a successful assault. Assaults tend to only happen in turn 5 or 6 and by this time we typically have to pack it up. we have started putting the two sides 18" inches apart so that they are just outside bombardment range.

[hazelbark]

I've played about 6-7 games now and from what I have experienced the first 3-4 turns are spent getting into position and doing the bombardments, this is because in the rules the attacking side has to soften up the defenders and cause disruptions before having a hope of a successful assault. Assaults tend to only happen in turn 5 or 6 and by this time we typically have to pack it up. we have started putting the two sides 18" inches apart so that they are just outside bombardment range.

A few suggestions on speed of play.
You may want to do your terrain before arrival so that it goes out quick.
The defender being able to deploy back is very important to prevetn the attacker form rushing the weak point.
I find the attacker is mostly just out of 6" at the end of their first move. Because the attacker double moves usually with significant success.
So by the end of turn 2 there are usually mutliple units/places where the infantry is firing medium range.

[BrettPT]

Hazelbark's observations above are shared by me.

In most of my battles there is heavy medium range from the end of turn 2.
I would add to this that cavalry is often in combat in turn 2. If both sides have opposing cavalry wings, by turn 4 one side is often teterring on a 30:10 if they lost the mounted scrap.

My feeling is that few of my battles take more than 6 turns to get a result.

Cheers
Brett

[timt9cole]

My experience is similar to Hazelbark but we did have one game where the British first division with its Guards, Highland and KGL brigades all failed their CMTs for double moves in the first and second turns. Later on the Guards failed all sorts of other tests and were routed by a frontal cavalry charge. Statistically very unlikely with these good quality units but sometimes these things happen. It certainly made for a very different game from that envisaged at the start!

Regards
Tim

[hazelbark]

I would add to this that cavalry is often in combat in turn 2. If both sides have opposing cavalry wings, by turn 4 one side is often teterring on a 30:10 if they lost the mounted scrap.

This is something that I distinctly do not like in the tournament format. I am with you on why and I and people I see were doing this as well. But it is decidedly un napoloenic. It is more reflective of 18th century battle planning.

I don't fault the players its just the construct of rules, time and tournament format interacting.

Now it is fun to just put out squares and artillery in front of the cavalry wing and wait for the player to just say I guess I will pass through...to the waiting riposte behind the squares.

[KeefM]

I don't think the number of turns is dependent on whether there is a cavalry vs cavalry shoot-out or not.

Generally, in all my games to date, games get to a result in 4 to 6 pairs of moves irrespective of whether there is a cavalry battle or not. In practical terms the attackers needs to use the advantages offered in the first two moves to set up the shape of the game while the defender counters that as best as possible. Usually deterioating cohesion levels around the point of attack (for either the defender or the attacker) drive the result onwards.

My most memorable "defence" of all was when a Russian army with large quantities of cavalry (more and heavier than mine) waited inside its deployment zone until I could go and get it after the 3rd turn - even that game was over at the end of the 5th pair of turns.

The artificial mechanism of attacker/defender add a great incentive to get on with the game IMHO. There are also incentives inherent in the break points: namely, 30% usually isn't too many ACV in most armies - at an army size of 30, the 30% break point is only 9. Breaking two units gets 4 or 5, and more often than not there are some contingent cohesions losses nearby. From that point, knocking an even bigger hole is not a lot of extra effort if you have sequenced your attacking force well enough. Ditto on defence.

Whether there is a cavalry shoot-out in itself is largely irrelevant - whichever side loses that has usally racked up 2 to 4 lost units in the process thus their army is already close to breaking. Hence, IMHO, a defender who goes in for a cavalry vs cavalry duel is always asking for trouble unless the attacker has made a mess of their on-table organisation.

Likewise, the fire-then-move sequence in the game is one of the most crucial of all mechanisms to come to grips with in my view. I think, FWIW, that this inherently favours a sequenced approach whether attacking or defending. In effect, it isn't the actual exchange that is important, but rather the ability to escalate that exchange after the initial efforts (whether by shooting or hand-to-hand). What you have arranged by way of follow up becomes the determining factor in whether you can push home the advantages of the opponent's cohesion losses (defending or attacking).

In other words, IMHO, the key to how quickly the game gets to a result relies on whether you have planned/organised how to sustain either an attack or defence.