The problem with multiple figures bases and the base is the casualty the final unit can be almost a base bigger than reality because some rules only loose effectiveness as they drop the relevant number of steps so making the points cost of an extra stand actually worth 2 stands in a battle. I started with Brig. Peter Youngs Charge! rules (1968) and they worked very well at the time. When I saw the dust jacket with the Erb Prinz Regiment marching across the battlefield, I had to play😎
On your excellent question about turn 6, the unit had three valour tests to take and failed all three, so the way I read the card it would have only saved one failed test. This is what makes V&F so deadly, with 3 tests for shooting casualties the unit had only a 30% chance of survival and in melee it would have been only a 1/8 chance. In BP there is a 32% chance of survival with 3 excess casualties so the V&P melees are significantly more decisive.
@@garrywillswargamerauthor Yes! I realized the same thing, but only after I'd posted my original question. Hahaha, isn't that always the way? Thanks for your reply.
I love the war of 1812. I live near the site of the battle of Crysler’s Farm and have many ancestors that fought in the war. Nice battle report but I must say after playing Valour and Fortitude once that I think they are the worst wargame rules I have ever played and I have played a lot of different rules in my day. Those rules have nothing at all to do with Early 19th century warfare and are completely ahistorical. They are absolutely god awful. Thanks for the video I enjoyed it very much despite my negativity over the rules.
Hello Wendy, thanks so much for watching my video. Your comments regarding Valour and Fortitude are very understandable. I tend to agree with you (perhaps not the worst tho) and I am not expecting to make many more videos with them. The concerning thing is that there is already version 2.3 in works, in which setbacks have been removed altogether, so it is clear they are underdeveloped. I chose to play them exactly as written, which enabled one of the British battalions to withdraw from melee in this game. For me there is not enough friction, it is token level and I prefer to see skirmishers on the table rather than abstracted like they are in V&F. As it happens today I have reset the game to replay it using Black Powder for episode 26. Presumably your ancestors fought in the fencibles and the militias. Thanks again, all the best Garry.
@@garrywillswargamerauthor You are right about my ancestors being in the Fencibles (the Glengarry Light Infantry specifically) and the militia. I have an ancestor who was in the Kentucky Militia as well.
Great - thanks for your interest in my work, this link will give you access to my Playsheet. drive.google.com/file/d/1vZVdUDxP6-C5XoppyqClUs_k_EQsia2w/view?usp=sharing
Like a lot of modern war game rules they have been dumbed down for the sake of speed or simplicity often making sides more generic than factual whereas the competition rules of the late 1970’s with studied historical army lists you can play a good historical battle. There were some 18th. Century rules that could be 10:1 figure ratio which were skirmish rules for the French Indian war. This battle although small you have made interesting. Have you tried this with a 15 or 20 to 1 figure ratio with tighter command and initiative structure. To be fair to the Americans they thought they would be fighting Canadian militia only because British regular were tied up in the Peninsula but there were always 2nd. Battalion troops being sent to exchange for worn/depleted peninsula battalions. Having said all the above, I’m not criticising in any way the game and rules some times you do it this way because it gives you a game that shows the result matching history, and an enjoyable game, which after all is why we play the games. Any replies in Anglo Saxon please as I’m not sensitive ;-)
Thanks for your comment. I tend to stick with 33:1 figure scale, mainly because of the resulting ground scale effects on table size. Although this is a small battle with respect to numbers of troops I still needed a full 6x4 table to fit the battlefield on. If I went with a 20:1 figure scale I would have needed a much bigger table.
@@garrywillswargamerauthor I didn’t Realise it was that big, I use age of eagles for big battles where 4 figures in 2 ranks represent 360 men and the smallest manoeuvre unit is a brigade but it doesn’t work properly with 1 player per side. Waterloo with just Napoleon and Wellington. There would be no mistakes by Ney or the Prince of Orange it would just be a board game but imagine giving orders to marshals then they give orders to division generals I’ll bet none of them will follow orders to spend thirty division on a risky attack with the chance of loosing half the men in their command and no longer take part .
The problem with multiple figures bases and the base is the casualty the final unit can be almost a base bigger than reality because some rules only loose effectiveness as they drop the relevant number of steps so making the points cost of an extra stand actually worth 2 stands in a battle. I started with Brig. Peter Youngs Charge! rules (1968) and they worked very well at the time. When I saw the dust jacket with the Erb Prinz Regiment marching across the battlefield, I had to play😎
Interesting location and scenario. I'd love to play this out! Plus I learned something new.
On your excellent question about turn 6, the unit had three valour tests to take and failed all three, so the way I read the card it would have only saved one failed test. This is what makes V&F so deadly, with 3 tests for shooting casualties the unit had only a 30% chance of survival and in melee it would have been only a 1/8 chance. In BP there is a 32% chance of survival with 3 excess casualties so the V&P melees are significantly more decisive.
@@garrywillswargamerauthor Yes! I realized the same thing, but only after I'd posted my original question. Hahaha, isn't that always the way? Thanks for your reply.
Very interesting Garry, a new subject to me, glad to hear you got to use the US minifigs after all those years! Paul.
Of course I only ended up painting half of them but had to buy more to complete the units. Need another scenario now to use the rest!
I love the war of 1812. I live near the site of the battle of Crysler’s Farm and have many ancestors that fought in the war. Nice battle report but I must say after playing Valour and Fortitude once that I think they are the worst wargame rules I have ever played and I have played a lot of different rules in my day. Those rules have nothing at all to do with Early 19th century warfare and are completely ahistorical. They are absolutely god awful. Thanks for the video I enjoyed it very much despite my negativity over the rules.
Hello Wendy, thanks so much for watching my video. Your comments regarding Valour and Fortitude are very understandable. I tend to agree with you (perhaps not the worst tho) and I am not expecting to make many more videos with them. The concerning thing is that there is already version 2.3 in works, in which setbacks have been removed altogether, so it is clear they are underdeveloped. I chose to play them exactly as written, which enabled one of the British battalions to withdraw from melee in this game. For me there is not enough friction, it is token level and I prefer to see skirmishers on the table rather than abstracted like they are in V&F. As it happens today I have reset the game to replay it using Black Powder for episode 26. Presumably your ancestors fought in the fencibles and the militias. Thanks again, all the best Garry.
@@garrywillswargamerauthor You are right about my ancestors being in the Fencibles (the Glengarry Light Infantry specifically) and the militia. I have an ancestor who was in the Kentucky Militia as well.
Ill step up and try to represent you scenario with our game group.
Great - thanks for your interest in my work, this link will give you access to my Playsheet. drive.google.com/file/d/1vZVdUDxP6-C5XoppyqClUs_k_EQsia2w/view?usp=sharing
Like a lot of modern war game rules they have been dumbed down for the sake of speed or simplicity often making sides more generic than factual whereas the competition rules of the late 1970’s with studied historical army lists you can play a good historical battle.
There were some 18th. Century rules that could be 10:1 figure ratio which were skirmish rules for the French Indian war.
This battle although small you have made interesting. Have you tried this with a 15 or 20 to 1 figure ratio with tighter command and initiative structure.
To be fair to the Americans they thought they would be fighting Canadian militia only because British regular were tied up in the Peninsula but there were always 2nd. Battalion troops being sent to exchange for worn/depleted peninsula battalions.
Having said all the above, I’m not criticising in any way the game and rules some times you do it this way because it gives you a game that shows the result matching history, and an enjoyable game, which after all is why we play the games.
Any replies in Anglo Saxon please as I’m not sensitive ;-)
Thanks for your comment. I tend to stick with 33:1 figure scale, mainly because of the resulting ground scale effects on table size. Although this is a small battle with respect to numbers of troops I still needed a full 6x4 table to fit the battlefield on. If I went with a 20:1 figure scale I would have needed a much bigger table.
@@garrywillswargamerauthor I didn’t
Realise it was that big, I use age of eagles for big battles where 4 figures in 2 ranks represent 360 men and the smallest manoeuvre unit is a brigade but it doesn’t work properly with 1 player per side.
Waterloo with just Napoleon and Wellington. There would be no mistakes by Ney or the Prince of Orange it would just be a board game but imagine giving orders to marshals then they give orders to division generals I’ll bet none of them will follow orders to spend thirty division on a risky attack with the chance of loosing half the men in their command and no longer take part .