One of the issues I have been having in completing my 2mm BCW rules is handling the end game. It seems to be a fashion at the moment for games to simply stop once one side or the other have reached a predetermined number of losses. DBA and related games simply stop the action once a certain number of elements have been destroyed. Other use a slightly more random approach for example the Battlegroup WW2 sets use a system where each time a unit is destroyed the player draws a chit which may have a random event but is more likely to have a number on it. Once the total value of the chits hits a certain value (based upon the forces selected by that player) the game ends.
There is an assumption to these systems which is that once one side no longer wants to contest the ground the other side decides to sit down and makes a cup of tea, opens a bottle of wine or some such. In reality the end game is much more chaotic than this some units break, some retire and others fight on. Often there has to be a fighting withdrawal until nightfall provides the shelter of darkness. If we take Naseby as an example, much of the Royalist foot found itself surrounded and surrendered, but other units notably Rupert's Bluecoats fought a last ditch defence, while some uncommitted units tried to counter attack but were prevented from doing so (the King and his reserves). Those formations who did manage to escape the field appear to have fought a running rearguard action all the way back to Market Harborough. Perhaps if we are only interested in the crucial combat phase of a battle a sudden halt works and it does have the effect of making games actually come to an end which is good for competition games or a single evening of play, but it doesn't model all of the issues a commander faced on the field of battle.
What I wanted to show in my rules was the steady reduction in willingness of individual units to continue to fight and the cascade effect that has on the higher formations up to and including the Army. I cracked the modelling of this at unit level fairly quickly by using a series of reducing moral steps rather than modelling actual casualties. It was the cascade effect which eluded me. I'm currently getting ready to try a solution based upon the character of the commanders of the higher formations.linked to the morale state of their formations units.
What I have in mind is to give each formation commander (Brigade, Wing & Army in BCW terms) an aggression factor. The more aggressive the commander the more they will try to keep their formation in action. The trigger will still be the morale state of the constituent sub formations, so a Brigade looks at it's regiments, a Wing at its Brigades and the army at the Wings, Centre and Reserve. I haven't decided on the trigger values yet but essentially I'm thinking that a timid general might decide to order the formation onto the defensive if he has no keen units, while an aggressive General may continue to try to press on as long as he has any steady regiments available. In effect I'm going to model unit morale at the regimental level and General officer morale at the higher formation level. As I mainly play solo games I don't mind the overhead although I do want it to evolve into a simple and straight forward check.
What do you think, do you prefer your games to end with a bang or a whimper?
I think there are three main issues in continuing a battle in the manner you describe:
ReplyDelete1) You need a bigger table as the "loser" starts to withdraw, unless you make that a separate game entirely.
2) In most rules, units are completely destroyed/lost. At some point you pick up the entire unit. But if you plan to game the post-battle those units need to "be somewhere." They don't just evaporate.
3) That kind of end-game is usually not a lot of fun for the losers :-)
Yes I can see where you are coming from and I accept that not everyone would want the extra overhead. On the other side of the coin gaming in 2mm allows the space for the initial retirement off table if not the long fighting retreat which at some stage I will probably randomise, although your idea of a seperate game has a certain appeal. I'm really interested in the attempt to extricate the army from a loosing fight or to have to hold reserves back to cover gaps when regiments or entire brigades start to retire or loose their edge and can't continue to attack.
DeleteMany rules give VPs for losses, so preserving your army matters. But most rules also suck at replicating a true fighting withdrawal anyway....
DeleteThat's one reason why I like to have table top games linked into a campaign setting. It stops the last man standing approach to generalship! I agree that recreating a long fighting withdrawal is difficult, the only solution I can come up with is careful tailoring of the victory conditions.
DeleteI like how Bob Cordery handles this. Once one side has reached their loss point, like your DBA example above, the battle continues but that side may not make any further aggressive actions aside from defense. The battle ends when the other side reaches their "exhaustion point."
ReplyDeleteI have a similar concept in my step loss mechanism in my home brew BCW rules. Units cycle downwards through stages. These are keen, steady, nervous, waivering and broken. They can temporarily act above or below that state based upon a reaction test result but overall with each step loss their ability to take aggressive action is reduced. I chose that system to make reserves of real use. The brigade can replace individual regiments in the front line (if they are deployed in depth) or brigades can be replaced by second line formations. Depending on the deployment doctrine being used. So rather than have everyone go to a defensive stance at the same time my rules create (or try to create) a slow degradation across the army which can be temporarily reversed by the use of reserves.
Delete