Gettysburg rules: seasoned to my taste!

Let me begin by saying that it is very easy to imagine and create endless rules for this simple system, but in doing that you are more likely to lose the best part of the game! It is a simple and quick playing  game and yields a very authentic feel. When I modify the rules, my basic guideline is, "How can I make this even more authentic and fun, for me?" I attempt to pare away every rule that isn't absolutely necessary.

What this means for Gettysburg: Shall I advance is this:

FoE is reduced to 3/8" and if you move into an FoE you are automatically placed in contact.
3/8" is the thickness of the blocks. 3/8" is almost 200 yds. The original intent of this rule was to prevent the gamey tactic of a defender edging back and being safe, in other words, it was to nerf defense a bit. In reality, more frequently, it prevented the attacker from getting close enough and involved a lot of measuring and re-positioning of attacking units. The opposite of what was intended! 1/3 of an infantry move is almost 1/2 mile, and that is too much. In fairness, this was done because it was a simple and common unit of length in the game. In that same spirit, 3/8" is the next smallest unit of distance that is easy to measure.

Only artillery units can rally every turn, all others can only rally during night turns.
The system originally was for Napoleonic and earlier black powder warfare. By the ACW, rifled muskets had become much deadlier and units were unable to recover as quickly from heavy musketry. The nearly identical size and composition of the two armies at Gettysburg saw decimated armies recovering every turn and this led to low casualty stalemates in my experience. The proof is in the pudding, and numerous play tests have proven the game yields a much more authentic feel. 

Night Turn - During the night turn at the end of days 1 and 2, follow these steps:
1. All spent units whose Corps are not exhausted, flip to fresh.
2. One half (rounding down) of all eliminated units are recovered and placed spent on the map within 1/3 of any of their parent Corps units, and not closer to an enemy unit. For this reason, even if a Corps loses all of its units during the day, players should leave the HQ in play.
3. Draw chits and move as per a normal night turn (only artillery rallies).

Victory Conditions - To win, a side must be the sole occupant of both Cemetery Hill and Cemetery Ridge, by the end of any day.

Although the intent of each commander was to "Whup the enemy," simple casualties as victory conditions do not yield the right feel. Also, this game frequently sees close casualties, intelligence that would have been beyond the ability of the actual participants to gauge. Ultimately and naturally, the battle revolves around those two elevations. If the Federal troops lose their hold of both those objectives, the battle is pretty much over. This seems a reasonable goal and yields the right feel for the battle.

Day 3 CSA Victory

 Day 3 started out much like day 2 except all of Meade's attacks were repulsed with grievous losses. Having lost Buford's cavalry division really showed because Stuart's cavalry was able to get an immediate upper hand. The victory conditions I use are that Sole possession of Cemetery Hill and Cemetery Ridge at the end of any day are what is required. I feel that possession of these two hills, based on the arrival of the two armies, were the key features of the battle.

Dawn day 3

Turn 2

Turn 3

After combat on turn 3, the Union has lost both hills and is outnumbered and in worse shape than the CSA. Meade is forced to retreat from the battlefield. Another major loss, and in Northern territory, is too much for Lincoln's presidency. He loses the next election to a peace candidate and the bloody war ends with a recognition of Southern independence. 

A very intense Day 2 Gettysburg

Just watch the two armies as the day's combat wheres them down. They start fresh and then get flipped to spent (labels showing) when they suffer damage. Then overnight they recover somewhat. This day was very intense!

Dawn day 2

Turn 1

Turn 2

Turn 3

Turn 4

Turn 5

Turn 6

Turn 7

Turn 8

Dawn day 3

Strongest Confederate Gettysburg Day 1 Ever!

Best Day 1 ever! This is a series of pictures taken at the end of the movement phase, before combat resolution. Last photo is at Dawn of day 2.

turn 1

Turn 2

turn 3

Turn 4

Turn 5

Turn 6

Turn 7

Turn 8

Dawn Day 2

Why I choose not to use the Field of Engagement rule

Before I get into this, I want to state right out that the system is so robust that it plays well with or without this rule. It is very important to keep the company's message intact, so I will support and answer any questions about the Field of Engagement (FoE) rules as published by Command Post Games.

The whole reason this rule came about was because people didn't like the idea of moving to attack someone just to have them back up an eighth of an inch and avoid the combat. This does sound reasonable except for the way it actually translates in play.

It actually makes attacking difficult because if you come up a little short you have to back up 1/3 away. It foments a lot of gamey tactics where you move one unit up to contact the enemy and then slide a backed up artillery unit a hair behind it. Then the first unit retreats after the first round of combat, leaving the artillery in place. Essentially, knowing little rules tricks that have nothing to do with  period history begins to creep in, and I don't care for that. Also, applying this rule is fiddly and time consuming as you must measure and calculate your intended move, then if you don't make it you have to measure a third back, this drags on game play, and has no historical correlation. If this were correcting a real problem with the simulation it would justify these efforts, but the only thing it corrects is the feeling that it just doesn't feel right. Let me address this next, because I like the way it feels!

Although it is subtle, the full power of the chit draw mechanic is amazing. It simulates a very fluid flowing event. It is a non-linear representation of a host of chaotic events. You can't describe the turn in a step by step fashion, only after the turn is complete can you look back and say, "This is what probably happened that led to these units in these positions in these conditions." Frequently, moving last may actually mean you moved first. It simulates a clever commander anticipating his opponent's intentions, basically making him show his hand first. If you're attacking, you usually want to move last, so you can choose exactly where you want the combat to occur. Frequently, on defense you want to move first so that you can recover from spent if necessary, unless you want to move last so you can react to the attacker's moves. Just because you are not rolling for combat does not mean no combat is occurring, far from it! What it does mean is that the attacking unit was not able to attack effectively enough to change the condition of either unit in game terms. Imagine fighting where the opponents are still locked in combat. The turns are arbitrary impulses on the battlefield. If a unit moves to attack and the opponent backs up a hair, it just means that decisive combat did not happen until the following turn.

In my discussions with the other developers over this, I constantly ran into entrenched linear "you move/I move, then we have combat" thinking. Even while acknowledging the simultaneous aspect to the design, it was just too revolutionary to imagine a state of probabilities existing undefined until the end of the turn, and maybe not even then. The game doesn't show you what is happening, it only shows you what happened, and even that can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

This is similar to the way historians look at an array of data and try to create a picture and narrative of what happened. This is, in my opinion, the best part of this game system. By not trying to model exactly what happened, it is able to model more fully what might have happened. No amount of rules can immerse you in the history, in fact, more rules tend to push the players out as they try to describe one tree in a forest. It makes the tree a dull subject, and gives no notion of the forest.

I have regular opponents who prefer to use the FoE rules, so we do. The beauty of this system is that it plays perfectly fine either way!

Waterloo: HQ variant

As always, let me start by saying that the game plays fine as is. This variant allows for a little flavor and gives a more nuanced feel. Specifically, it individualizes some of the personalities that were present at the battle. It does add a few more things to think about when you play, so there is always that balance.

"Flip" means flip block from fresh to spent. Limits action to once per turn. "Place" means to move block to a location without normal movement restrictions.

"It would not have done if I had not been there..."
During activation phase flip Wellington and place adjacent to a block and rally it, even if Corps is exhausted, even if unit is adjacent to an enemy. Block may still move if eligible.

"Bravest of the Brave"
Add a "Ney" HQ block to the French OB. At any time during the activation phase, flip Ney to place him adjacent to a block, that block may charge, as per the rule. Even if it has already moved (or charged!) and even if it is not ordinarily eligible to charge. If unit is backed up, both units may charge and resolve combined combat. Ney block has no other function.

Add a "Druout" HQ block to French OB. Druout activates when guard chit is drawn and may provide command to any Guard unit within range. Druout may not Alter Turn Order.

Essentially, this is a bump to Both Napoleon and Wellington. I have played several games using this variant. I find it fun and balanced. Let me know if your mileage varies!


Rationale

Wellington was very hands on and was seemingly everywhere he needed to be, especially when it came to steadying the line. This rule reflects this.

Napoleon was no longer at his best and was strangely uninvolved with the battle as it unfolded. At least, when compared with the Napoleon of the past. Although Ney was also behaving less actively than in the past, he still was taking initiative and "leading from the front." He seemed to want to die in battle at Waterloo yet he remained, miraculously, free of serious injury.

Units of the Guard were dispatched all over the battlefield to handle crises. To better reflect this, General Druout is able to extend the effective range within which the Guard Corps can operate offensively.

Full Contact Pub Battles

This is a variant for the Field of Engagement (FoE) rules that is currently part of the PubBattles game system. They are actually the original rules for the game. Full Contact simply means that you may move out of contact with an opposing block, so that it is no longer in contact with your block, and thus unable to attack you.
Why Field of Engagement?
These rules were put in place because many felt that the original (Full Contact) rules yielded unrealistic results wherein opposing units could be left "almost adjacent" and be oblivious to the enemy in so close a proximity.

There is no right or wrong way to do it, as long as everyone agrees on the rules beforehand. Obviously, the FoE rules are the official rules and should be considered the rules being used unless otherwise agreed upon.

Well then, why Full Contact?
I prefer this variant because I don't like limiting player's options with arbitrary "you can't because" rules. It feels a little awkward to have to adjust your play based on some arbitrary rule. Again, this comes down to what "feels right" for each player's style.

It may seem that making a unit end its move 1/3 move away from the enemy if they do not intend to attack, seems reasonable. Otherwise, the player moves to attack and the enemy backs up a hair and gives his opponent raspberries! That just seems wrong.

Except, that is a linear description of the action. It is "I Move/You Move" thinking. PubBattle's Chit draw system is supposed to simulate simultaneous movement. It did this brilliantly by allowing the command that's drawn last to move with the same freedom of movement as the player who moved earlier. I prefer it played this way.
In Full Contact PubBattles, denying combat by moving just out of contact does not imply no combat occurred, far from it! What it is saying is that the commander who moved last had the tactical initiative and denied the opposing commander the decisive engagement he desired. There may have been all kinds of fighting, the attacker was just not able to come to grips with the defender (think 'skillful delaying action').
True to PBs philosophy of concentrating on command and effect, and less concern over what and why things fell out the way they did, the system allows one to imagine what might have happened.

The Full Contact variant plays more smoothly, because one is not checking distances and determining where the FoE extends. This can be difficult on a crowded map with many LOS blocking terrain features obscured underneath blocks. Again, I wish to be fair. If you prefer the FoE rules, this extra bit of trouble is worth it.


So, for me, the Full Contact rules play faster and better simulate the chaos of combat. It is a credit to the elegance of the System system, that it is robust enough to play well and balanced with or without this variant.

Feel free to comment below and let me know how you feel about this variant. There is no right or wrong, but I may be able to explain my preference if I can understand why somebody might not prefer it.