"March Attack rules" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Product Reviews Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticlePart II of the Gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
Dan Beattie | 30 May 2012 1:44 p.m. PST |
Does anybody play March Attack rules, by Crusader Publishing, or is it just one of the fine Napoleonic rulesets to have disappeared? |
Extra Crispy | 30 May 2012 1:59 p.m. PST |
My friend Tom loves them and has run a lot of games – 5 or 6 in the past 6 months I'd guess. He's converting them to regimental basing but he is a big fan. |
Garryowen | 30 May 2012 4:21 p.m. PST |
Yes, this is Tom. I am a big fan. I converted them to regimental level. My only complaint right now is that while the mechanics are quick to resolve, we want to play with so many figures, that it does take longer than we would like to play to conclusion. I have a few thoughts to remedy that. We have to be careful units do not disapppear too quickly, yet not stay around too long. The rules are very, very well written. Many fine examples. It has a true Napoleonic feel, yet is still simple to play. This is a great compliment. That is a tough combination to make work. Nonetheless, I do have several pages of house rules, some due to converting it to regimental level, and some just my preferences. Tom |
JCBJCB | 30 May 2012 4:38 p.m. PST |
I took advantage of Mark's kind offer to extend a free copy of MA to blog owners who would do a review of the rules. About two weeks after I received my copy, I had unforeseen surgery that has kept me from taking out my collection and putting on a game. I hope to have this all resolved by summer's end. Though I haven't played, I agree that the rules are extremely well written. Couldn't be clearer, and they have me very excited to try a playable Auerstadt while still pushing around battalions. |
Ken Portner | 30 May 2012 4:39 p.m. PST |
I thought they were interesting. One thing that put me off was the requirement that units allocate their skirmish factors (skirmish combat is abstracted) across an ill-defined front. It just seemed line it wod be difficult to apply in practice. |
nickinsomerset | 30 May 2012 11:19 p.m. PST |
I am currently painting 28mm stuff basing 8inf/3 Cav to a 60 x 45 base with units either 4 or 6 bases strong. Will these work? Tally Ho! |
CATenWolde | 30 May 2012 11:52 p.m. PST |
These are still my Napoleonic rules of choice, due to the balance between unit level detail and the overall flow of the battle. Here's a thread with some previous comments: TMP link They successfully combine a strong feeling for battalion level mechanics (column, line, square etc.) with a streamlined system for maneuver and combat that allows a single player to easily handle an entire corps and still complete the game in short order and a satisfactory manner. The flow across the battlefield is excellent. Bede – I initially had the same thoughts about the skirmish system. For those not in the know, each infantry formation (usually a division) has its own skirmish rating (defined before the game, not calculated on the fly), based on the quality and number of its units' skirmishers. There is a separate skirmish phase where the opposing skirmish factors in an area are compared, and the side with the most can cause disorder or damage. It's a very fast way to represent this
but is it hard to define the "area" to compare? In practice I've found it to be pretty easy, but sometimes it does call for player agreement. For instance, if half of your formation is facing one enemy formation, and the other half is facing another, just split the skirmish factors. If you still have about a third of your formation in march column, then reduce the skirmish factors by about that much, etc. By far the most common case is fully deployed formations facing each other, so these sort of situations come up maybe once or twice per game. Nick – The RAW basing is 2x40mm bases per battalion and a 1" = 60 yards ground scale, but you could easily play with 2x60mm and knock the ground scale down to 1" = 50 yards or so, or reduce measurements by 1/3 if you really wanted to. Using the full 4x60mm or 6x60mm would require you to reduce the measurements in the rules accordingly, as those are significant differences. All combat mechanics are based on CV (combat value) for the unit, or 1/2 CV, so the actual number of bases doesn't really matter. Cheers, Christopher |
JJMicromegas | 05 Jun 2012 10:32 a.m. PST |
Hello, I was wondering if these games give a Napoleonic flavour, ie: how do the C&C system reflect Napoleonic commands. Also why do you think they haven't quite caught on, they seem to be absent from a lot of the Napoleonic rules discussion. |
MikeKT | 07 Jun 2012 10:56 p.m. PST |
I have read up on the rules. It seems to have much to recommend it, but the Combat Value system would probably be a problem for me. Using a common CV as the basis for all combats is I find well suited for a quick play overview game, like Basic Impetus, for example. Focusing on that one-dimensional numerical Combat Value tends to piling on modifiers and other tie-ins that have to be reconciled and adjusted to produce reasonable historical outcomes across the full range of scenarios. This can lead to awkward arithmetic and statistical issues and force rules compromises. I'm with the view that defining troops and defining combat interactions in terms of several types of attribute and therefore in multiple dimensions provides more flexibility and resiliency gamewise and enables more more discriminating representations of the complexity of reality. If this allows many modifiers and qualifications to be dispensed with, this "complexity" can actually ease play. I will add, however, that seeing what battalions and squadrons are up to, even if from the higher level of control rather than command, sounds like a plus for March Attack. |
JJMicromegas | 08 Jun 2012 2:03 p.m. PST |
Ironically Impetus (the full version) is my ancients rules of choice so that sort of mechanic appeals to me. MA is also corps level which is IMO the largest viable at level to play at in 15mm, I like the C&C mechanic of giving orders. So I think I'm going to give it a solid try. |
Hussar76 | 01 Sep 2012 4:52 p.m. PST |
Has anyone tried these rules with 28mm figures? I am thinking of using a 60mm x 40mm base for my units with six figures per base. |
|