This time I am asking, “What if McClellan went all in at the Lower bridge and fords?”
I am also experimenting with zooming in on particular combats. When I zoom in, the image gets a little grainy and pixelated, but it is easier to follow. Working on transitions more, and added Yakkity sax to the speed replay. When I edit it I see all the mistakes I made, and I finish asking viewers to comment if they have any questions.

https://youtu.be/Og0aiP1Dsr0

In this replay I have used an experimental variant, which I have decided I really like, that requires the French player, if he really is as weak as he bluffs, to have to actually be much weaker. Leaving just the IV and V Corps to hold the Coalition’s attention, while he uses a more viable force elsewhere. If he does this, Napoleon does not appear at Austerlitz!

The full variant is explained Here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrBOFZu5HVk

The optional starting forces for the French are a great method for introducing the uncertainty that is key to simulating Austerlitz. While the official rules work great, I have a little trouble swallowing that the French player would have any reason for bringing on his whole army and having to win, when he can just as easily leave Davout and Murat behind, while bringing on the Guard (who were always with Napoleon), and only require a draw to win?

What if Napoleon split his army in two, intent on mounting a real threat elsewhere whilst pinning down the Coalition Army at Austerlitz? What if his choices were to bring his full army to Austerlitz, or merely leave Soult and Lannes to tie down the Coalition Army?

Let’s look at the French army:

In this variant, if Napoleon doesn’t bring on his whole army and fight with the regular Victory Conditions, he can simply fight a holding action with two Corps, and all he needs to do is manage a draw. If he does this, he wins.

Soult and Lannes have a significant force, maybe not enough to defeat the Coalition Army, but certainly enough to possibly force a stalemate. On their side is their superior organization and staff work. This is reflected in their 4 leadership rating compared to the Coalition Army’s 2. This means that when the French want to Alter Turn Order, they probably can, and when the Coalition want to Alter Turn Order, they probably can’t.

Now let’s look at the Coalition Army:

The Coalition Army actually has pretty good troops, they are just poorly organized and led. This isn’t so bad if they are merely defending (not so good either, but not so bad), but if it turns out that the French player only has a couple of Corps on the board, then they must attack!

Their poor leadership rating will make it hard for them to coordinate an attack on a key point at the right moment. Their artillery superiority is hard to use effectively because early on when they’d really like to have it, the fog will prevent its use.

Adding to their woes, the French have Five HQ cards to hide and disperse/or concentrate their forces, the Coalition player has only 3! Two wily players will only have HQs on the map and all their forces hidden in reserve. This makes it very hard for the Coalition to cover a broad front while searching for the French army.

The other tough part is they have very poor intelligence of the real French strength. Whether or not they are all there, All the French HQs will be on board until they can see them and call their bluff.

All of which puts them in a tough spot. They must begin as though the French only have the two Corps in play, and if it turns out they bet wrong, they have to quickly revert to the defensive with a slow, disorganized command structure.

Fought this way, the battle is actually quite even. If the Coalition strikes hard and quickly, they should usually break the French army, but if they find themselves stuck in and suddenly facing the whole French Army, they are in desperate straights. In either case, victory will go to the player who best manages the crises as they develop.

Now I want to add one little flavorful rule that you can take or leave. The historical battle was won when the French forces gained the Pratzen in strength and “broke” the coalition’s will to fight. I replicate this moment by saying that if the French player ends the game with an unpacked Baggage Train in the town of Pratzen, then they win, it’s as if they have broken the Coalition army.

Once again into the breach! Howe attacks from the South and I start testing the new 1/3 variant for FoF, but quickly determine it doesn’t work. I have a solution and will be posting another demo using that variant. Ultimately, unless I’m explaining what I’m doing, no one can tell anyway. So, there it is!

Movement is simultaneous in Pub Battles. This is important to remember when a unit sometimes passes by an enemy with out so much as a “How d’ya do! This can happen because there is no way to determine apriori what that unit’s action will be, it is better to not worry about the details.

It is a mistake to take quite literally what you see on the board. Since movement is simultaneous, it is better to view it in a more non-linear sense, i.e. all that really matters is where units end up at the end of the turn, and even that might be suspect. A unit is probably in a location, as far as the Generals can tell. Heck, sometimes the division commanders aren’t really sure where they are, and they certainly aren’t sure of where anyone else is! That is where I believe Pub Battles handles Fog of War in spades. Not in literally hiding unit IDs and locations, but in the fact that it is almost impossible to even be sure of what the board is showing you. All you can do is juggle (ATO roll) what the chit draw hands you. When I play double blind solitaire, I have perfect knowledge of where everyone is, but such knowledge is often of little avail if the chit draw does not allow me to do what I intend. That, and other than dragoons, I usually move my infantry in nearly straight forward marches if entering combat, simulating the level of uncertainty that accompanies most tactical operations.

What do you think? Is this what Pub Battles means to you? There is no right or wrong answer, it is a matter of how you feel most comfortable in viewing it.

The Field of Fire rule was created because it was felt that units in close proximity, but not actually in contact with enemy units, shouldn’t be able to just sit there with impunity. That makes sense. Problems arose immediately once the matter was investigated more closely. Are we talking about small arms fire and battalion guns, or are we including skirmishers and such. If we are including skirmishers, then LOS shouldn’t be a factor since skirmishers could move into position regardless. Well, what about firing across a body of water, like an unfordable river? Skirmishers couldn’t cross that, so perhaps FoF should only count if the intervening terrain is impassable. The simple “Blocks can not enter a FoF without moving to contact” FoF rule was getting laden with clauses and exceptions.

I simply chose not to use it, and my games worked fine. Except I wasn’t really happy with the rules, so I had to fiddle. Most recently, I came up with the concept of Infantry Ranged Fire, which allowed infantry to fire just like artillery bombards, except with a range of only 1/3. This worked mostly because enemy blocks stayed out of Infantry Fire range. Recently, when playing Brandywine, it was used fairly often by troops firing at each other across Brandywine. A lot of units suffered one or even two hits, which is pretty major since Baggage Trains are rarely unpacked in this fast and frequently mobile battle. Infantry Ranged Fire with smoothbore muskets and no battalion guns shouldn’t be able to do that kind of damage from over 250 yards away. I liked Infantry Ranged Fire better than FoF, but not much better.

Back to the drawing board I went. I reasoned that I didn’t like FoF because it had the effect of forcing a player to move back a block that ran out of movement before actually making contact. This just seemed counterintuitive, to me. It felt wrong to have a unit stopping when in reality it should have been picking up the pace. Most combat started at range as the combatant closed, why can’t the rules reflect that! I decided to reverse the process and try a different rule:

If you end your move within 1/3 of an enemy unit (ignoring facing and LOS), you must immediately be moved into contact (as an Attacker or into Support) with the closest enemy unit.

If all enemy units within range are already contacted and supported, you may ignore this requirement.

This rule recognizes that once you end your move within 1/3 of an enemy unit, ranged fire and light troops are already becoming engaged, closing to contact just acknowledges this. Of course, if the enemy hasn’t moved yet, and subsequently moves away, then combat has has been avoided. Perhaps your intentions have been foiled, perhaps you were simply hoping to maneuver him out of position without resorting to costly combat.

I don’t bother measuring too exactly. You can spend all your time measuring down to the finest hair, only to have the map jostled, or suffer big meat hooks like mine, fumbling around with closely packed units. Even effective firing ranges aren’t exact. Among the variables can be visibility and powder quality. You do have to draw the line somewhere. The actual movement rates are there, and should be used as a guideline.

This rule should speed the game up even more with less measuring. Frequently, you may not be sure if you can close to contact, but it is more obvious whether or not you can get to within one third. I’m going to try this in my next video. You won’t be able to tell I’m using it, units will either be in contact, or more than a third away. I’m testing it to find out if anything seems not right. You can never be sure until you try it out.

Here is the game where I tried this out and immediately decided I didn’t like it!

Pub Battles Brandywine. What if Howe flank attacked from the South? Can Greene’s troops face down Cornwallis’ best?

A quick battle, and one that makes me curious what others might think about the way it ended. Please let me know in the comments below!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNfPOwK8GNw

This time, Napoleon decides to fall back and not fight the Austrians immediately. One of the things that I really enjoy when playing double blind solo, is that I can try different things out, and then “Run the simulation” and see how it goes.

I’m not trying to win, but the “boots on the ground” certainly are! I’m directing each command to the best of their abilities, given their limited knowledge, and the orders they were given. I let the chit draw simulate things like lost or confused orders.

The Alter Turn Order rules work great for simulating different leader’s abilities, especially when facing a human opponent, but I still think it gives players too much control. Yes, different leaders had different abilities, but isn’t the whole point of playing competitive wargames wondering “What if I had been in charge?”

Washington tries a radically different strategy. Let me know what you think of it!