By now, Austerlitz was supposed to be out. Ancient Pub Battles was supposed to be out. Germantown should be on the cusp of being released and 1st & 2nd Manassas should be ready for summer. What’s the hold up? Rules!!!
Before all of these new releases, we wanted to clarify and adjust a few things in the rules. We figured this would be a 1-2 week process. Wow were we off. Instead it developed into a raging and fierce debate among the design team and play testers. Months later, we are still at an impasse.
A play tester proposed a new approach to combat. This new method seemed to resolve many issues we were wrestling with, while simplifying and clarifying the rules to boot. Devout factions have now formed for and against this new proposal. Some love it. Some hate it. What should we do?
We would greatly appreciate input on this. Would you like to help us resolve this? We need more eyes on it.
I don’t want to lay out the details here in advance as that can bias and color your reception of the idea. Here’s how you can help:
- Download the new proposed rules here. This is only a proposal. This is NOT the official Pub Battles 3.0 update. This is also a first rough draft. Expect formatting errors.
- Print them out and play at least 3 complete Pub Battles games with the new rules. Try to keep an open mind. We all naturally resist any and all change at first. We are hard wired that way. You won’t like these at first just because they are different than what you are used to. It will seem strange and awkward. From my experience, it gets easier once your mind adjusts. It is not bad, just different.
- Give us some feedback by answering the following questions in comments below. You can send us a direct email if you prefer and feel free to add any other comments you may have.
Questions
- Do you like this approach better than the previous edition?
- Do you like this approach better than the original edition? (no FoE restrictions)
- Is this proposal consistent with the original Pub Battles concept? Simple, quick and realistic.
- Does this approach add more or less complexity?
- Does this approach make the game less fun, intense, or enjoyable?
- Does this approach make the game take longer to play? (once you are used to it)
Regarding the new rules. I think the previous edition, with FOE, is best for Revolutionary War and Napoleonic. Short range muskets used then with the game scale means the units need to be very close for combat. I also think it plays a little quicker.
However for the American Civil War, I think the new rules more accurately portray the longer range of the rifles then in use.
What if you kept the previous rules and made the new rules optional for Civil War era games?
My two cents.
Thanks
Steve
Artillery range problem =
Page 2 : Is there no difference between the FOF’s range of artillery and infantry ? Just 1/3 infantry move ? But Artillery can fire up to 1 infantry move (page 3 rules 2.8) ? The 3.0 rules (page 3) just repeat the FoF range and reduce artillery range. I think it’s a mistake, am I right ?
Ah, yeah. That is a mistake. Artillery should project out to 1 full Foot move.
The artillery needs some work with this approach. I think the idea is that 1/3 range is canister. After that it drops to elevation and richoshet. So out to full range for bombardment but that should be treated differently.
Hello ,
Have there been a concensus to approve the new rules version 3.0 ?
I think we have a majority now to move towards this. We are moving ahead with refining them.
The idea was to drop the ‘support’ rules and replace them with a more all encompassing and organic approach. Some argue that we need support rules for melee and artillery defense. I’m afraid this will just end up adding more stuff to the rules. We try hard to resist that here.
We wondering if maybe this material would be better used for a different game system or an ‘advanced rules set. ??
Tricky.
I try the new rules 5 times : Marengo, Antietam and Monmouth.
Questions
Do you like this approach better than the previous edition? Not so much in fact. I’d rather assault than fire fight wich I use just a few.
Do you like this approach better than the original edition? (no FoE restrictions) : I prefer the original
Is this proposal consistent with the original Pub Battles concept? Simple, quick and realistic. Ok for that, It can be played with simplicity
Does this approach add more or less complexity? It’s a bit more complex because of the placement and to understand one more the possibility to fight.
Does this approach make the game less fun, intense, or enjoyable? It’s more realistic.
Does this approach make the game take longer to play? (once you are used to it) Not really, just the time to have it in mind.
Field of fire can be an option but for me, the original rules work. I suggest just to ad something to the assault : the piece who win should advance. Contrary to a fire fight.
In the Monmouth scenario, Calvary *are* Dragoons. What dice (if any) would they roll in firefights? (None, I’m supposing, if cavalry may only melee…?)