Category Archives: Pub Battles

First Impressions: Pub Battles Gettysburg

Posted on by

So how is this new Gettysburg game?  Is it any good?  What is it like?  Here are some initial reactions from Mark:

 

 

I have been discussing ideas with Mike, but I have only played with the rules as written – and then the last couple times with the Baggage Train idea of 1 unit per Train rallying.  That rule, by the way, really improves the game for my tastes!

 

Overall, I enjoy the game very much.  I think it handles Day 1 as well or better than any other Gettysburg game I have played.  It unfolds in a historically plausible manner, is fast paced, and leads to plenty of solid, difficult decisions for both sides.  The PB system is responsible for a lot of that.  The random chit draw along with the ability to try and alter the draw is what makes the 1st day challenging and variable.  

 

That being said, the game suffers some of the same problems all Gettysburg games suffer in days 2 and 3.  There are a lot of units, both sides are very strong, and it is essentially a stalemate.  I find that in the opening turns of Day 2, there is still a feel of a good game going, with the South having an opportunity and the North just weak enough to make it exciting.  But unless heavy losses are inflicted quickly, the game tends to bog down into a game where the South is pressured to win (since I interpret the rules to mean that if you play past day 1, the only kind of victory available for the South is a Major victory by Defeating the Union through 50% losses).  The South no longer has any kind of positional or strength advantage by the second half of Day 2, so after that, it is a matter of attacking and hoping to out-roll the Union.   Now, that is still an enjoyable process, especially since the game moves fairly quickly even once all of the forces are on the board.  And the arrival of the cavalry on Day 3 adds a touch that most games do not have.

 

Toning down and getting rid of unit Recovery could help with this.  Day 1 saw heavy Union losses, twice as many as the South took.  After day 2, both armies were greatly reduced in strength.  But in my games, both armies tend to enter day 3 almost full strength.  That not only means a stalemate, but it makes the idea of the South eliminating 50% of the Union’s infantry almost impossible.

 

The FoE rules are more difficult to use in this game.  That is due to the density of pieces and the busy terrain on the map – there are many slopes and slices of woods all over the place.  So every unit on the front has to measure its LOS to see if and where it extends a FoE.  And measuring can be difficult when the terrain is well-covered with units.  I am not sure if there is a solution – but any kind of streamlining to make the process easier would help.

 

But overall I like this game, and I certainly would prefer it to any of the more complex games out there.  Relatively few units, simple rules, variable command system, and a game that can be completed while covering all 3 days (most Gettysburg games simply cannot be completed in a reasonable amount of time, if at all!).  I would say this adds a new take on a well-covered subject.

 

Mark

 

Gettysburg Launch!

Posted on by

Ok, we are ready to launch!  Our Kickstarter should be ready to go in about an hour.  You’ve been pre warned.  🙂

This will be a very short and quick Kickstarter.  -like Waterloo.  If you want to get in, move quickly.  It won’t last long.  

If you miss it, no worries.  We’ll get a page up soon for Pre Orders.  

If all goes well, we should be ready to start shipping in a few weeks in the order we receive them.  

 

Antietam Reserves

Posted on by

We introduced our rules for HQ Reserve cards in Antietam.  It was a great rule that took things in a great direction.  This is my favorite rule of the whole system!

 

What you see on the board.

It was a great improvement and start.  Since then we have been able to use them in other battles.  This experience has given us a better understanding of exactly what they do and how the work the best.

Note other HQs and even whole Corps can be held in Reserve.

Given all this, we are altering our lineup for HQ Res cards in Antietam.  This update is easy to implement.  All you need to do is take out some of your cards and trash em!

 

The New games are going to come with only 3 cards per side as follows:

  • Lee, Longstreet, Jackson
  • McClellan, Hooker, Burnside

 

This is one of those strange cases where less is more.  Most of the Federal Corps are small.  Many only have a couple of divisions.  If every Corps has a Res card, they become diluted and ironically have less of an impact.  We have found that 3 per side here work much better. 

 

What the Feds see.

Note that you CAN put other Corps in Reserve!  So this makes it much harder for the ANV to read exactly where the Potomac is and what their true intention is.  Where are there reserve Corps?  How many left?  You don’t know until they march out. 

 

What the Rebs have.

Give it a try!  We think you’ll like the effect much better.   

Managing Combat at Gettysburg

Posted on by

In most wargames, you can’t manage the combat result.   After you move and commit to an attack, your decisions are over.  There is nothing left to do but roll the dice and pray for a good result.  In Pub Battles, you can actually manage the fight, blow by blow as it unfolds.  There are many decisions left to make.  How exactly do you want to fight this engagement?

Often new players to Pub Battles will just stay every round of combat until contact is broken.  Playing this way leaves everything up to fate.  By carefully managing your combats, you can shift the strategic edge in your favor to win!  Let’s look as some examples:

This is the opening of Gettysburg.  (just making this up, not the actual OB)  It is early in the day.  We are defending McPherson’s Ridge.

The Confederates have advanced to attack Robinson’s Division.  All movement is finished and we are resolving combat at the end of the turn.

If you’re not familiar with Pub Battles, dice normally score hits on 4-6.  (only 5-6 if the defender is under cover)  On the first hit, your unit flips to its Spent side:  label up.  The second hit will force your unit to retreat.  A third hit will destroy it. 

 

Round 1:   The Confederates score 1 hit flipping Robinson.  Heth’s lead wing takes 2 hits.  He flips and retreats but his supporting wing advances to press the attack.

Now it’s decision time.  At the end of the round, we have the option to voluntarily retreat and break off this engagement.  Do you retreat and fall back, or stand and fight another round?

We have the advantage of the Hill.  That gives Robinson cover.  The Confederates only hit us on 5 or 6.  We hit them on 4-6.  Both sides roll 3 dice.  On average they will cause 2/3 of a hit.  We will cause 1 1/2 hits to them.  We should stay right?

Well, even though the odds are in our favor, with a little luck the Confederates could still easily score 2 hits on us.  Two more hits would destroy Robinson.  Is that a big deal?  It’s just 1 block.

Not normally but consider the strategic situation here.  This is the opening of Gettysburg.  There are very few units on the board, especially Federal ones.  Every single piece has an exaggerated importance now.  If we lose Robinson on the opening attack, first thing in the morning, we’ll be critically short that block for the rest of the day.  The impact of losing him is magnified.

If Robinson get’s destroyed defending Cemetery Hill on Day 2, no big deal.  Most of the Army of the Potomac will be here tomorrow.  We’ll have plenty of blocks to spare then.  Right now we only have a few blocks to delay and contain the waves of rebels pouring onto the field.

Given this, I’m feeling more cautious.  I’d rather not risk it.  We have ground and time to give up.  We don’t have many men to lose right now.  We can play cautious.  We decide to voluntarily retreat:

Heth takes McPherson’s Ridge.  Fine.  Next turn we can Rally Robinson back to upright Fresh status, fall back, reform our lines and continue the good fight.

 

What could have happened if we stayed?  Heth most certainly would have stayed and pressed the attack.  There is no good reason for him to back down here.  There are many possible outcomes.  Here are a few likely ones:

1         -We score 2 hits, Confederates score none.  We hold the ridge and successfully delay the Rebs for a couple of turns while they Rally and prepare to attack again.

 

2          -We score 1 hit, Confederates score 1 hit.  We are shoved back anyways but we flipped another Reb unit costing them more time.

 

 

3         –We score 1 hit, Confederates score 2 hits.  Robinson is destroyed!  The ridge is lost and we are going to be hard pressed to slow the Confederate advance on Cemetery Hill.  Looks ugly doesn’t it?

 

Three easily possible outcomes.  Notice that WE have the power to take the 3rd, worst option completely off the table.  We just need to exercise a little discretion and voluntarily retreat.

 

Let’s turn the table around and look at this from the Confederate perspective.  Let’s say the Feds recklessly decided to stand with Robinson and they got lucky.  He survived, held the Ridge and scored 2 hits on Heth, forcing him back:

We move on to the next turn now.  We are the Confederate player.  Federals have already moved and are incapable of bringing up any support for Robinson.  Robinson did Rally, but our artillery bombardment flipped him back to Spent status:

We have no other Fresh units in position to attack this turn.  We have 2 basic choices:

  1. Delay our advance this turn and Rally Heth to Fresh so that we can attack next turn at full strength:

  1. Strike now! Advance to attack Robinson again while Spent:

Option 2 is risky.  Is it worth the risk?

Odds are very good that we would see a unit destroyed.   Odds are also very good that we would take the Ridge and destroy Robinson as well!

As the Confederates, we do have units to lose now.  Time is much more important.  This is a close call.  I could argue either way on this.  Personally, I’d go for the risky option 2:  Attack now while Spent.

Notice all the decisions here.  Many things in our control.  Many ways to fight this out.

 

 

Why Napoleon Lost Waterloo

Posted on by

Many blame Grouchy for Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo? Because of these orders.

Lessons from Kriegsspiel

A very big question.  Over the course of designing Pub Battles:  Waterloo, several other musket era games and playing Kriegsspiel, I am gaining a deeper insight and understanding of this subject.  Let’s look at some examples:

Kriegsspiel Antietam

Emily orders Gabe to advance SE down road X to attack the enemy.  The problem was road X doesn’t go SE it goes SW.  What should Gabe do?  Should he travel SW down road X and attack nobody  OR should he travel SE down road Y and attack the enemy?  What did Emily mean?

Marengo

Napoleon orders Desaix to march south to recon enemy positions and block off any routes of escape.  The troops form up.  They are ready to begin marching south when they suddenly hear cannon fire to the north:  where Napoleon had the Austrians under siege in Alexandrie.  What should Desaix do?  Should he obey orders and start his march to the south?  Should he directly disobey these orders and march north to the sound of the guns in case Napoleon needs his support? 

June 17th, Waterloo

After the battle at Ligny, Napoleon takes the main army up the Brussels road to pursue Wellington and bring him to battle.  He detaches Grouchy with 2 Corps.  Grouchy’s orders are to march east to Gembloux and pursue the Prussians.  The problem is that the Prussians march north.  What should Grouchy do?  Should he march north in pursuit of the Prussians or march east to Gembloux?

June 18th, Waterloo

The Prussians seem to be concentrating at Wavre.  Napoleon orders Grouchy to attack the Prussians at Wavre so that they cannot join Wellington at Waterloo while he attacks them.  As Grouchy begins to march to Wavre, he hears heavy cannon fire starting at Waterloo.  What should he do?  March to Wavre and attack the Prussians as ordered or disobey his direct orders and march to the sound of the guns to support Napoleon? 

Are you noticing a trend here? 

Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo?  As wargamers we tend to compare combat & movement factors, leader ratings and hex terrain.  As miniature players we tend to focus more on comparing individual unit weapon performance and morale ratings.  We can argue and quibble over details like this till the cows come home.  From my experience in Kriegsspiel, I’d say all of this is trumped by orders and communication.  Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo?  Because of his orders to Grouchy.  What will your people do when given orders with conflicting goals?  God only knows. 

What did Gabe do at Antietam?  He surmised that Emily got her directions messed up.  He disobeyed orders.  He immediately attacked by marching down the wrong road to attack the enemy in the wrong direction.  He sent Emily a snarky message back telling her what he was doing and that she needs to learn how to read a compass!

I discussed this game with Gabe last week.  (Amazing because we played this game several years ago but we still talk about it and remember it vividly.)  His response to this problem in the game was pretty bold.  I asked him to consider the ramifications in real life, a real war, thousands of men’s lives at stake.  I pointed out that his military career and retirement were at stake.  His chances for promotion later.  Possibly a courts-martial and firing squad if he disobeyed orders.  He went down the wrong road in the wrong direction.  This is disobeying direct written orders during a battle with the enemy.  Would he still have responded this way in a real war?

After consideration, Gabe agreed that his response would have been very different in a real war.  Instead, he would have sat and did nothing while he wrote back and respectfully requested confirmation of the confusing orders.  His response:  delay and inaction.  Sounds about right.

What did Grouchy do on the 17th of June?  Put yourself in Grouchy’s shoes.  Napoleon, the greatest military mind of the age, orders you to march to Gembloux.  If the Emperor of France orders you to march to Gembloux, you march to Gembloux.  How could you do anything else?  As it turns out, this march delayed Grouchy’s column which ultimately led to Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.  It put Grouchy a half day’s march behind the Prussians.  Imagine yourself in Grouchy’s command.  You read the order from Napoleon, wad it up into a ball and throw it away saying:  “Nah, I think I’ll go north instead.  He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  I don’t think the Prussians are going to go that way.”  Yeah, that’s not going to happen. 

The same situation on the 18th of June.  When the guns opened up at Waterloo, Soult and Gérard urged Grouchy to march to the Emperor’s aid.  Grouchy refused.  Why?  His orders were to march to Wavre!  We have the benefit of hindsight now.  Put yourself in Grouchy’s shoes then.  March to Waterloo?  Why?  So the Emperor can have you shot for disobeying direct orders?  Grouchy’s attack at Wavre was supposed to tie down the Prussians and keep them from marching to Waterloo.  That was the Emperor’s plan.  What if disobeying orders and marching to Waterloo is what causes Napoleon to lose?  Now Napoleon lost the battle because you disobeyed direct orders!  That won’t be pretty.  At least by marching to Wavre, Grouchy had the defense of saying:  “But that’s what he told me to do!”

Ok, now let’s go back to Marengo.  What did Desaix do?  He disobeyed orders, turned and marched immediately to the sound of the guns.  Why the difference here?  First of all, Napoleon was still early in his career.  He hadn’t quite reached the status of “Military Genius of Our Age” yet.  It was easier to take a gamble and risk with a young, upstart revolutionary general. 

There was also a big difference in priorities.  Desaix was just on a scouting / recon mission.  Not a huge deal.  He could always return the next day to scout and recon.  An unexpected, critical battle breaking out that could decide the entire campaign is a much bigger priority.  Better to get there just in case…  There isn’t much to lose. 

Grouchy faced a much more difficult dilemma.  “Pursue the Prussians” is a much higher priority than scout, recon and forage.  On the 18th, Grouchy’s orders were to “Attack the Prussians” to prevent them from joining Wellington.  This is a mission critical priority.

“March to Gembloux and pursue the Prussians.”  The Prussians march north.  Gembloux is east. 

“March to Wavre and attack the Prussians.”  Wavre is north.  The Prussians march west. 

Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo?  Because of these orders.  Many blame Grouchy for Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.  Ultimately, a leader is responsible for his command and the performance of his subordinates.  These are elementary mistakes that you see immediately in Kriegsspiel.

Notice how these orders put the subordinates into a bind.  Do Y and X.  What if that becomes impossible?  Why put all this stress on your people?  You are setting yourself up for failure.  How can you avoid conundrums like this in the first place?

George Patton used to say:  Tell people ‘what’ to do, not ‘how’ to do it.  How would Patton have written these orders?

Instead of:

“March to Gembloux and pursue the Prussians.”

Patton would write:

“Pursue the Prussians.”

Instead of:

“March to Wavre and attack the Prussians.”

Patton would write:

“Pursue the Prussians and Prevent them from joining Wellington.”

-except there would probably be a lot more swear words thrown in there. 

Good orders focus on:  What to Do.  They focus on the end result or goal of the mission.  Where is Grouchy?  I don’t know where the *^%$#&@ he is but wherever he is, we can be sure that he is all over the Prussians like %&$#*@#$%^!

Napoleon does deserve a little slack.  He was suffering from very heavy health issues during the campaign.  He was not at his best.  He certainly wouldn’t have gotten as far as he did if he wasn’t doing something right. 

We can learn a lot from Napoleon, Waterloo and Patton.  We can learn important things from wargaming but the most important lessons to be learned come from Kriegsspiel.     

Think and Move Like Napoleon

Posted on by

What made Napoleon so fast?  Kriegsspiel shows us how.

This Pub Battles Variant simulates a more realistic command experience.

I had a great time running and playing CPXs and Kriegsspiels this year at Origins.  One thing that really stood out to me was how much like a video game it was.  With wargames, we usually have the luxury of slowing down and pondering carefully over tricky moves and situations.  Not so in Kriegsspiel.  It is much more true to life.  Slow periods of nothing interrupted by lightning strikes of panic and scrambling.

When a critical report comes in, the clock is ticking.  What should you do?  How should you respond?  Who needs new orders?  Where should you send them?  You have 2 min to answer all of these questions and write a new clear and concise order.  Can’t do it that quick?  Then you just missed your chance to respond first.  Can you have it together by the next 2 min turn before couriers go out again?  How many turns will it take you?

Napoleon was very quick.  He was often 1 step ahead of the enemy.  How did he pull this off?  Something interesting I learned about Napoleon, was that he often wrote orders in advance.  During the periods of nothing and ‘boredom’, he spent his time thinking ahead.  What are the key decision points coming up?  How will the enemy respond to your moves?  What are the possibilities?  Napoleon would then write out orders for several different enemy reactions in advance, already written to the commands they need to go to.  All he needed to do is pick a stack and hand to the couriers.  The thinking, decision and order writing was already done.  Boom, your troops are off and running almost instantly.

Our play test group has often discussed the Alter Rolls in Pub Battles.  This is the most crucial way to influence a battle.  Much better than the usual +1 mod to combat rolls.  This affects timing.  It is a shame that such a key element in the game is left to a simple die roll.  Make it or break it?  We’ve often discussed ways of expanding this beyond a die roll.  Instead of a leader rating, it would be much better if all the leaders were the same.  Your rating would instead be determined by your skill as a player but how?

After pondering the Kriegsspiel model, we have a new optional rule on this to try:

Rather than a die roll and only getting to roll once per turn for Alters, use the following rules:

Every HQ can attempt to Alter the sequence every chit pull IF that HQ has not moved yet in the turn.

There is no die roll.  There can only be 1 Alter per Chit Pull. (excepting ties) 

The first HQ that announces its Alter gets to do it.  All other fail.   

You must announce the Command and the type of Alter.  For example:

“First Corps, Delay”

“Eleventh Corps, Jump” 

You must say it clearly and discernable.  No mumbling.

Whatever you say, you must do.  You can’t blurt something random out and then decide what you really want to do later.

In a tie, BOTH HQs Alter.  Roll a die to determine which goes first.

You can Jump if your Chit was pulled.  This prevents another command from Jumping ahead of you, IF you say it first.  

 

Most of the play testers hate this rule.  It doesn’t work for solitaire games.  They prefer deep, thoughtful analysis to rapid, twitch style video games.  That’s fine.  That’s why this is an optional rule. 

However, consider this:  You have all the time in the world to thoughtfully analyze what you should do during the turn and before the Chit Pull.  Do you planning ahead of time, like Napoleon did.  When the time comes, be decisive and strike quickly. 

For those wargamers that want ‘more realism’, I’d argue this is it!  This puts you in the mindset of a commander.  It literally starts training your mind to think and behave like a commander.  Playing this way will teach you good leadership skills and habits.  

Even if you don’t like the idea, I’d urge you to find an opponent and at least give it a try.  Don’t knock it until you try it.  With a little practice, you may find it is easier than you think.  It also adds a lot of tension and fun!    

Waterloo Epic

Posted on by

Waterloo is now in play testing!  These are the first crude pix in it’s first, very rough draft state for testing.  Many changes to come before final release.

My son’s jaw dropped open when he walked in and saw this on the dinning room table.  He described it as ‘Epic’.  -and he doesn’t even like or play wargames.  As a junior in highschool, life is all about Rugby and girls right now.

First question is, how do these colors look?  Especially the Anglo – Dutch Army.  Is anything wrong?  Should some of the colors be different?  Please let us know if we have any glaring mistakes.

 

 

 

 

These are the pix of the adjoining engagement at Wavre:

 

Right now the biggest design question is:  Should we release these with maps at this size as two different battles?  I’d really like to see 2 huge maps of the region that fit perfectly together.  So you could fight both together.  Heck, you might not even fight at Waterloo.  As Napoleon, I’d really like to shift rapidly to the right and get in between the Brits and the Prussians.  Likely a foolish endeavor but I like to be able to try things like that.  If nothing else, then I discover why that is a really bad idea right?

The issue is that this approach will take much longer to work up graphics for.  Huge maps will also drive up the price.  I don’t know.  Maybe the Emperor is worth it.

 

Let us know what you think below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Napoleon’s Kriegsspiel

Posted on by

What did Napoleon use?  Did he play Kriegsspiel?  What did he use in the field? 

Kreigsspiel wasn’t created until after Napoleon.  Like all games, it didn’t just materialize out of thin air.  It was an adaptation of things that came before.  Games are constantly evolving. 

Lots of people comment on how authentic our games look and feel.  It is very easy to imagine yourself a general on the field planning your strategy for battle while playing.  I love that effect but how true is it?  What did they actually use?

Kevin Zucker was commenting about the impact of Berthier being absent for Waterloo:

“Gone with Berthier was the wooden cabinet with many drawers full of wooden blocks representing all the regiments of both sides.”

 

I was instantly struck by this.  Sounds like my house now!  I’ve got bags of Kriegsspiel blocks all over the place.  I’ve been planning on getting a wooden storage box to organize them in.  Something along the lines of this:

 Looking ahead, I can quickly see the blocks over loading that.  I really love that cabinet above with all the pull out drawers.  That would be perfect for organizing all the different nations and periods of blocks.  I might have to build myself one some day….  

Look at how the top makes for a perfect gaming table to place maps!  It almost looks like it is hinged and folds open for double the size if needed.  Amazing!

Here are some details of what the drawers and blocks from the period would have looked like:

 

So, to answer the question, yes, it is authentic.  This is exactly the type of thing real generals would have used to plan campaigns and would even take them into the field to use during the battles.  

Kriegsspiel wasn’t created yet during Napoleon’s time but he did use blocks on maps for planning.  They measured rates of march with a compass or measuring stick.  You can see how this would soon develop into official rules for movement and combat resolution.  

Napoleon didn’t play Kriegsspiel.  He did use wooden blocks on real maps to plan and strategize.  The tools of the trade.  He played with the precursor of what was to soon become codified into Kriegssipiel.

What about the maps?  Why do we print our maps on canvas?

This may seem kind of strange to us today.  We use canvas for art.  Maps are printed on paper.  Back then, the good maps were printed on canvas.  It is much more durable and longer lasting.  Without modern rain gear, plastic and rubber seals, I suspect it was much more common for gear to get wet.  Paper maps could quickly get ruined in the field.  

You can actually see the canvas threads on the maps from the period.  They were often folded up.  Over time, the folds would wear through the map.  This is a historical map we researched for our new Monmouth battle:

Yep, definitely canvas.  So why use canvas maps?  Because it doesn’t get anymore realistic than that.  They are more durable.  I haven’t played a Pub Battle outside in the rain yet but I’ll have to do it just to get pictures and show it can be done.  -You might want to clear coat the stickers first to seal them onto the blocks!  

The canvas really looks beautiful too.  It makes the map look like a work of art.  It’s hard to describe until you hold one in your hands and see it on the table.   It is hard to imagine playing without it now.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pub Battles 2.0

Posted on by

We have an all new rules update available for Pub Battles now!  This is going to make things much easier going forward.  

The new format is made to fit in a regular 3 ring binder.  We like to slide the Terrain Effects chart into the back cover for easy reference.  This will keep our rules from being curled. 

It also makes it easy to keep all your Scenarios, rules and expansions all in 1 place.  

We have complete updates for Antietam and Marengo Scenarios.  The rest should be complete soon. 

You can get zip lock pouches for these that are perfect for storing your dice, measuring sticks and chains:

Fields of Fire

What has changed in the rules?  Very little.  Mostly just some minor tweaking, re-wording and clarification.  There is one ‘change’.  We don’t consider it a change because it is the way we’ve always played.  Strangely, as a system evolves, sometimes you have to ‘change’ the rules to keep the game the same.  This is one of those cases. 

We have introduced the concept of Fields of Fire.  The sets firm restrictions on how you can maneuver when you get close to the enemy.  The basic idea here is that if you are going to attack, then attack.  If you are going to fall back and avoid the enemy, then fall back.  You can’t do gamey things like disengage but only fall back 1 mm, or you move up to attack the enemy but you don’t attack.  You stay back 1 mm.  

In real life terms, that IS combat.  You are still in close range of heavy musket fire.  We didn’t want to bog the system down with complex rules on assault vs ranged fire attacks.  This simple restriction forces you to maneuver like an Umpire would require you to.  No more trickery.  Fight like gentlemen.  🙂

Some of you will immediately think of the different musket ranges.  Yes, there is a difference between smooth bore and rifled.  At this scale, we are only talking the difference between 1/2″ and 1″.   We are still in the same 1/3 move range if you round.  You may want to mark the exact ranges on your sticks and chains if you want to use the real distance.  

However, while testing new Ancient battles between Rome and Carthage, we noted that this rule still mostly holds true even without any muskets at all.  A better term might be:  Proximity to the Enemy.  When the enemy is that close, everybody is kind of on edge.  Either side could rush at any moment.  There isn’t much time to react at that range.  It is very….   uncomfortable.  

In all ages, troops didn’t tend to get real close to each other and then just sit there all day.  You either attack and fight or you pull back and plan.   

How do I Get the New Rules?

If you already have Pub Battles, you can get the new updates for FREE!

Just send us an email.  (we won’t put you on a spam list)  We will send you a pdf of the Rules, Terrain Effects and Scenarios we have now.  You just need to print them out double sided and get a 3 ring binder.  We think black looks best with the clear view pockets.

Pub Battles -mini review

Posted on by

Pub Battles.  What is it like?  Is it really good?  Worth the price?  Blah, blah, blah.  I could talk all day about the system.  “Yeah, of course YOU say it’s great.  You’re supposed to say that.  What do other people say?”  It always carries more weight if somebody else says you’re great.    

We get feedback emails like this all the time from people.  I thought it would help to post some online.  This isn’t meant as a formal review.  It is hardly even a mini review.  The important thing is that it is not from us.  I think it does a good job of capturing some key concepts in the game.   

 

 

 

 

There is a fine line between simple enough, and too simple. As far as wargames go, Pub Battles is so simple that many feel the rules are incomplete. And yet to new players it is still intimidating.  

Pub Battles is perfect for me. It gives the feel of commanding an army without all the minutia that is actually required to run an army. 

I like how it mirrors the look of maps of the battles that we see in history books. The long rectangular blocks. It is as if you just blew up the map from a book and placed your blocks on the starting positions. I had always dreamed of doing that, and then Pub Battles! 

I’m also of the opinion that the more detailed the rules, the farther away one gets from an actual simulation. 

It’s like this; you have a mental image of a battle that the game is attempting to simulate. All of the rules are essentially an awkward interface with your mental image. Elegant rules are rules that seem intuitive, the kind you don’t have to keep looking up. Every time you have to stop and check the rules you’re breaking the spell. It’s like the film breaking during a movie. 

Many of my rules misinterpretation with Pub Battles come from never looking at the rules. For months I played Antietam almost daily, yet I never looked at the rules after day one.

I was doing a couple of things wrong, but it didn’t matter. It worked for me and I had fun. None of the grognards that I played it with ever thought anything was wrong either. They played the rules as I explained them and felt they were good rules. 

The biggest adjustment was the non-linear movement. When they would question a block moving out of contact I would just explain that it is simultaneous movement and the enemy wasn’t there when they arrived. If you move second you’ve hoodwinked your opponent. They liked this. 

 

Mike Strand