Recently we've been playing a lot of the old Principles of War ruleset.
Although "old guard", its actually a solid, enjoyable ruleset.
However, we are struggling to get to grips with how "firing groups" work.
Does anyone here have experience of these rules? If so could you help me out by explaining how you understand the "firing groups" work?
:- :)
Great rule set.
Each unit multiplies for weapon and range.
Total everyone firing.
Find factor (unmodified)
Apply factors for each unit, or by group, depending on what rules say.
Roll dice.
Quote from: mad lemmey on 21 April 2017, 10:46:14 AM
Great rule set.
Each unit multiplies for weapon and range.
Total everyone firing.
Find factor (unmodified)
Apply factors for each unit, or by group, depending on what rules say.
Roll dice.
Yep, we're enjoying them greatly.
Its the bits in
bold we're struggling with.
There's no practical clarity around how to form a Firing Group.
1 unit v 1 unit - no problem
Multiple units v 1 unit - no problem, that's a Firing Group
Multiple units v multiple units - err...
We've found through play that every time we come to it, we're just not sure what can and can't be included in a Firing Group.
The example in the book just makes it worse! ;D
That said, its a joy to rediscover an older ruleset that's stood the test of time and gives a cracking game
Without having the playsheet in front of me... and it's years since I've played. Are you playing colonial or napoleonics, as the factors are slightly different!
Example that springs to mind is (colonial):
Three units firing! A twelve with breach loading rifles, a muzzle loading ten, and an attached artillery (shaken) 6.
12 BLR at short x3, MLR 10 at short x 2 (12x3 =36)+(10x2=20)=56, rounds up to 60. However, the artillery is long range (x0.5) and shaken, (one column shift left), so normally it wouldn't bother firing.
Your MLR are poor fire discipline 1L, one unit high fire discipline/sharpshooter 1R, back to 60, the firer notices the target group has cavalry attached, the artillery is (6 x 0.5=3) so could take your target up to 65, but shaken so normally this would cause a 1L per unit.
However, the target group includes cavalry (1R), up to 65.
Roll d6, watch your opponent turn pale! Just don't roll a 6 or your artillery loses another strength!
By unit is the three bases. By group is one, or more, units firing at the same target, or one or more target unit.
Cheers Lemmy.
This is the bit we're struggling with!
;D
Quote from: mad lemmey on 21 April 2017, 04:42:01 PM
By group is one, or more, units firing at the same target, or one or more target unit.
Okay, second turn of firing, another cavalry unit joins he target group, is still only a single shift 1R, So still 65.
I'll try and clear up...
3 bases = unit.
Two or more units = group, whether target or two or more firing.
Then apply factors whether by group or by unit (digging in shift, maybe, is by unit), cavalry shift right is (without the rule sheet) by group. Artillery on artillery is by unit.
I think this is why BBB was invented. This sounds like incredibly brain-frying hard work to me, reminiscent of O Level Maths - which was an enormous drag.
So, here's an example of the problem we had last game.
Units A-F are the Austrians.
Unit's 1-5 are the Italians.
The situation is that Unit 3 charged last turn (with unit 4 moving up), and Unit C has succeeded its Morale test to receive the charge.
It's now the Austrian Firing Phase, and we try to figure out what Fires at what, in what groups...
We went with:
A fires at 1 as a single unit
B, C, D, and F fires as a firing group at 3 and 4 as a target group
E fires at 5 as a single unit
However, we also considered that as the rules seem to be written A, B, C, D, E, and F should have fired as a group at 1, 3, 4, and 5 as a target group.
Much rules consultation, debate, head scratching, and more debate didn't really resolve our confusion.
:D
Now I'm going to fry your minds:
1&2 fire at A
5 fires at E
3&4 fight B as a melee (different factors).
The artillery F is in trouble!!!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 21 April 2017, 10:31:27 PM
Now I'm going to fry your minds:
1&2 fire at A
5 fires at E
3&4 fight B as a melee (different factors).
The artillery F is in trouble!!!
OK, so moving on to the next turn then!
Out of interest, why does 4 fight B in melee?
My fault, misread the picture, I thought they had contacted. My mistake, sorry.
4 & D can shoot each other, artillery F can also shoot at 4. D is in trouble, as at that range it will be canister, x3 factors!
So 4 has the option to charge D, and suffer closing fire, (1L for being charged, but both shots as short range) or stand and shoot.
Is that a shaken on 5? In which case, get in there!
LOL. The Italians pretty much broke after this turn.
:D
Quote from: Leman on 21 April 2017, 05:31:26 PM
I think this is why BBB was invented. This sounds like incredibly brain-frying hard work to me, reminiscent of O Level Maths - which was an enormous drag.
Frederick the Great disliked maths and was incompetent at even simple arithmetic. Likewise the current poster. You are in good company.
I haven't played Principles of War for many years and was talking about digging it out again just the other day. I'd forgotten about the degree of maths involved, perhaps I'll stick to Black powder! :- ;D ;D
Good god! that last explanation sounds about as much fun as pushing hot needles into your eyes. On a similar note I have just started to read a review of Spearpoint in WS&S. After the first section it had already become apparent that these were not going to appeal to me. In the same magazine there is a discussion of the very large number of rule systems around, giving plenty of choice (thank god for To the Strongest). In the article Richard Clarke comments on the decline of wargaming in the US, where the sheer size of the country means that a high proportion of gamers get most of their face to face games against strangers at conventions. As a consequence the number of rules systems is becoming more limited owing to the need for players to get straight into games. Unfortunately these systems are not always to the liking of those who, out of necessity, have to play them. Hopefully that will never happen here.
Principes is/was a great rule set, it produced a good result and some cracking games, whilst feeling 'right', especially in the Napoleonic and 19th Rules. However, as with all things after a while it started to show faults, as our games grew larger, the maths and paperwork was what killed it for us, especially when three or more Napoloeonic corps got involved!
Then Black Piwder with simpleness and rules with quirks arrived, you could get a historical resolution in an evening, whistle the having some historical hysterical results (blunders), plus no massive amounts of working out.
used to love PoW and most of my gaming in all periods and scales was using the various sets. Ive been considering selling them but will probably give them another go just for the hell of it.
Back to the OP, (and I dont have the rules in front of me) if multiple units are lined up in front of each other surely each unit fires at the unit closest to it? Group fire (one or more units firing at the same target) only applies if there is only one unit a group can fire at. I am probably barking up the wrong tree though as it has been years since I have played PoW
Quote from: Nosher on 22 April 2017, 11:12:28 AM
used to love PoW and most of my gaming in all periods and scales was using the various sets. Ive been considering selling them but will probably give them another go just for the hell of it.
Back to the OP, (and I dont have the rules in front of me) if multiple units are lined up in front of each other surely each unit fires at the unit closest to it? Group fire (one or more units firing at the same target) only applies if there is only one unit a group can fire at. I am probably barking up the wrong tree though as it has been years since I have played PoW
Just dug out the rules and no surprise whatsoever to find that I am half-wrong. I have always played it that each group fires at the unit closest to it and I think I will stick with this. The example in the book is as you say truly very poor.
In that example (p21) in my eyes at least:
Unit D causes all of the problems!
The Gun (when following the target priorities fires at the closest unit (Unit A) and Unit D falls into the guns beaten zone, however unit D is also in the beaten zone of unit 21 fires at A supported by the gun. Unit D is in the beaten zone of more than one unit therefore Units 1, 2 and the Gun are considered a firing group. If unit D were not present, 1 and the gun would fire at A, 2 would fire at B and 3 would fire at C.
In the reverse of this (if A, B and C were the firing units) none would fire as a group.
Still puzzling as to where the hell the relaxing fun in that is!
We dug out our first edition copies and it actually seems clearer in those;
"The firing player MAY choose to combine the fire of several units against several opposing units provided all units obey their target priorities."
We also poked about the Yahoo Group (I know! I mean who still uses Yahoo after the massive data hacks?! Its not 1996 anymore) and it seems this issue is regularly raised and the response is typically "what seems right at the time" and "always group shoot if you can as the intention is to minimise the calculations and dice rolling.
So basically we're going to play it as;
1. You can choose to form a firing group from any number of your units
2. Each unit fires according to its target priorities
3. Each unit therefore fired at is in the Target Group and casualties are spread out between them
As to the snide "maths sucks" comments, I share your pain as I'm poor at maths and don't like games with complex calculations and "fiddly".
All I can say is Principles of War has a bit of paperwork but its really not that bad, and in fact i've found it easier than many other rulesets overall, including Black Powder! And frankly yhe rewards in terms of game play, frictions, tactics, and outcomes are well worth it for us.
Never played Principles of War, but if the rest of the rules match up to your needs, would it be heretical to suggest that if you are playing amongst friends you seek to simplify the mechanism yourself rather than attempt to master what looks like complex maths.
It really isn't complex maths though. You add up a few units' strength, look on a chart, and move the result left or right depending on situational elements.
That is not quite how it was explained above.
I used to enjoy POW. I especially like that while you have an idea of the quality of a unit you do not know exactly what it it until its fired on. When fired on you roll a dice and increase or decrease its quality depending on the die roll.
While this does not make a crap unit brilliant or vise-versa it does bring some realistic variability into the game.
Quote from: Nick the Lemming on 23 April 2017, 01:54:34 PM
It really isn't complex maths though. You add up a few units' strength, look on a chart, and move the result left or right depending on situational elements.
Agreed.
For those who've not played it, it goes like this
French line infantry 1870 Strength 12 using breech loading rifles (
blr)
2 such units fire at a target Austrian cavalry unit and so combine their factors.
So 12 x2 = 24.
The
blr then modifies for range, let's say 7" which for blr is x2, so 24x2 = 48.
You always round to 5, so this rounds to 50, to you're rolling on Column 50.
Except that "firing at mounted" gives a "1 column right" shift, so you firing factors become 55.
Roll 1d6 on Column 55 will give you either 3 or 4 hits (1-3 = 3, 4-6 = 4).
You roll a 4 so the Austrian cavalry suffers 4 hits. It drops from 12 to 8 and now has to take a Morale test...
Once you get the hang of it, its nice and simple and rips along very quickly.
Love it!
Again - this is not the over-convoluted explanation that was given above, and in fact would encourage me to dust off my copy and have another look. Not sure what those Austrian cavalry were doing attacking French infantry in 1870, unless they had inadvertently ridden into a police box in 1859.
They were serving as an example. :D