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.

Mike's Pub Battles Rules Introduction

It seems there is some confusion with the rules for the Pub Battles system. Some people feel the rules are incomplete. I usually find that this is because they are assuming it is more complicated than it is, and that the designer left something out.

This is simply not true. The design goal for Pub Battles was to create a short one page rules set. It was felt that rules were getting way too bloated. The one page rules aren't complete, but the complete set is only eight pages, and that includes diagrams!

The problem this can create for some people is that they are used to rules explaining every little thing. They are used to having every specific question addressed. If you believe something isn't addressed in Pub Battles, it is often clearly explained in general terms, but you can't find it because your looking for a specific rule.

I want to clear up some common concerns with a few remarks, and demonstrate how the rules DO address many of these concerns:

When your command is drawn you can move units even if they have already been contacted by an enemy unit. The chit draw mechanic simulates simultaneous movement, and often times the command moving later is considered to have the advantage. This represents the commander having out thought and out maneuvered the opposition. So while in linear game terms the opponent moved first, in non-linear simulation terms, the friendly commander got the upper hand and the contest resolved in terms favorable to him. 

Sometimes you'd rather move first, Alter Turn Order mechanic works both ways.

What happens if I attack an opponent who is uphill, in woods, and across a river? As explained on the Terrain Effects Chart, uphill and woods are -1 not -2. Attacking across a river is treated as being outflanked for the first round only, so for the first round the attacker is at -2 and the defender is at +1, on any subsequent rounds the attacker is at -1.

HQ's are immune to the enemy. As stated in the rules, HQs cannot be attacked, overrun, and do not block movement. The enemy simply ignores them when moving. Move them as little as necessary if they are in the way. It is assumed that the nimble HQ can avoid large formations.

HQ range Hqs can not be in two places at once. Before a unit moves to attack (moves into contact with the an enemy unit) it must be within HQ range. I usually move HQs first so I don't forget, but that isn't required. Most of the time, the HQ can easily be within command range of its entire Corps. For larger Corps or Corps with far ranging cavalry, this can be an issue and must be managed carefully.

Artillery does not need to be within HQ range to bombard. Only units moving into contact with enemy units need to be within HQ range.

Occupying Terrain The Authentic maps look very cool, but there are some features that have no in- game functions other than window dressing. The rules state that a unit is considered to be occupying the terrain that the majority of the piece is in. This means small farmsteads and towns, as well as small bits of woods, have no game function if they cannot contain half a unit block. It is good gamesmanship to announce whether or not your unit is occupying a terrain feature if it seems questionable. Remember that if you are occupying a town or city, your unit must become spent! 

Artillery The way the designer intends artillery range to be calculated is by majority of piece to majority of piece. I just measure from front center to any point on the defender. Use whatever method makes sense to you! The reason for this imprecision is because much of the artillery that is represented by the blocks is a mix of different types and functions. The range specification is a generalization of the whole. Pub Battles is a quick play system that doesn't bog you down in ballistics issues and ammo supply concerns.

The design goal of Pub Battles was to simulate the feel of commanding an army from the period represented. IMHO this it does better than any other game system. On the other hand, if you want a study in the small unit tactics of the period with hundred page rule books and requiring many hours to play, or you thrill to the simulation of supply and logistical concerns, there are other titles that offer that in spades.

However, if you want the authentic feel of commanding an army, while only taking up an hour or so of your time, or even a best-of-three series in an evening, welcome to Pub Battles!

Please reply with any further questions that you might have, and I will do my best to answer them promptly and succinctly.

Marengo map clarifications

Coloring Rivers in on the Marengo map.

The double streams with the swamp only cost 1/3 a move to cross!

Here you can see the road I drew in with a #2 pencil, which connects the road from the fort with the bridge across the river. This allows a unit to use the March Column move rate from Alexandrie North and cross back over the rive on the French right flank. This is the intent of the designer. 

Artillery duel on the Brandywine!

 As can be seen from this setup, this game started fairly standard, but then Washington's chit was drawn first and my opponent, Wade, being ever the aggressor, fired his artillery at Prescott's Brigade and eliminated it! He followed that success with a dash across the Brandywine bringing the battle to me.

Conventional wisdom says this is a bad move for the colonials because they are less able to react to a flanking move. Wanting to see how a British attack might fair with both commands battling across the Brandywine, I elected to bring on Cornwallis right behind Knyphausen with the hope that I might destroy him in the center and be done with all his shenanigans.

At the end of turn one you can see that Washington is in a precarious position.

Washington quickly retreats back across the river and attempts to hold the line at the water's edge. Howe's counterattack is a bit costly. Colonial artillery spend the Grenadiers and then the Pennsylvania militia eliminates them, though they too are wiped out.

Looking to make the sacrifice of the Grenadiers not be in vain, Abercromby storms the Brandywine. Nash is able to pin him on the edge of the stream while the First Minnesota makes a flank attack! But even though the odds were in their favor, they are mown down like so much wheat.

Cornwallis' attack stalls with a skillful delaying action by Nash while Knypshausen's artillery drives Sullivan from the river's edge. On the British extreme left the Highlanders cross the river while Bland's Cavalry fall back. At this point much of the battle may seem to be strangely held up, why aren't the British pressing ahead more aggressively? The chit draws, man. The chit draws; and the command rolls.

Just before dark, Knyphausen's artillery eliminates one more unit and the games ends with a one point British edge, which under the latest revision is a draw.

Parting thoughts:
If Cornwallis had not flanked and had attacked completely across the Brandywine as Washington had assumed, then the battle could have begun much earlier. Both commands could have been on the Brandywine to start the battle.
Howe was using local guides and informants much more effectively than Washington.
Knyphausen's job was to "demonstrate" and fix the colonial army to the Brandywine.

Given those three premises, I offer this alternative method for setup.
Setup begins with a British Plan:
If Howe elects to forgo the flank move, then the battle starts three turns earlier. The colonial player sets up first and then the British player sets up BOTH of his commands. Set the turn die to four count down to one and then back up to five, thus giving three extra turns.
If Howe elects to flank, then the British on-board command sets up first, followed by the colonial commands. Play proceeds as normal.

Understanding the chit pull mechanic

Understanding the chit pull and turn order mechanic is the key to understanding and gaining the edge in Pub Battles: Brandywine. Generally, you want to move last because that allows you more control over your combat engagements.

In Pub Battles: Brandywine, when a unit’s command is activated, it may move, even if an enemy unit has moved into contact. This means if you are defending you can move out of contact, and if you are attacking it means you can move into contact without the opponent running away or reinforcing the position. Of course, especially early in the game, a command may want to go first if it is trying to reach important ground or react to events of the previous turn. Washington reacting to the British’s flanking maneuver is a primary example.

Pub Battles: Brandywine focuses on command and one of the ways it simulates this is the HQ’s ability to affect the all-important turn order. For example, if Corwallis' chit is drawn first he may wish to wait until the command he is facing (Sullivan) has moved so he can choose exactly where he wants to attack. Let’s say he makes his roll and his chit is put back in the cup, his HQ is turned over signifying he has used his action this turn. The next draw is Knypshausen and he is fine moving first since he is just biding his time threatening Greene (forcing him to guard the Fords and not fly to Sullivan’s aid) and only fires his artillery. The next draw is Sullivan and the colonial player does not want to move first so he has Greene roll and he makes his roll. Sullivan’s chit is put back in the cup and Greene moves. Cornwallis' chit is drawn next and Cornwallis still does not want to move first so this time Howe rolls for Cornwallis, he fails the roll and Howe must move. He moves but is ever mindful of his attacks as Sullivan will move after him and can just pull back or reinforce any advantageous attacks.

Why do the rules allow a unit to just walk away from an enemy attack? Remember, the rules are simulating a command advantage. This may mean the enemy has been hoodwinked and either has been out maneuvered or perhaps had been uncertain as to the enemy’s disposition. In any event, at the end of the hour and a half they had failed to come to grips with their foe. Things had fallen out such that the units ended up in the positions shown on the map. They may never have even been close, or perhaps the unit had deployed a very effective screen of skirmishers. Even though in game terms a command may move last, what it may be simulating is that command moving first before the enemy can react! Pub Battles: Brandywine dispenses with the pages and pages of rules that would be required to show what really happened (and can never capture all nuances), and focuses on what these multitudes of happenchance result in, which is all the commanders need to know, or care about, at the time.