Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

War and Peace» Forums » Rules

Subject: TSBEF: THE ARMY OF THE ORIENT: BONAPARTE IN EGYPT 1798-99 scenario - re map? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bindusri de Silva
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi John,

Playing the above scenario under TSBEF rules version
TSBEF_Rulebook_2011_1001.pdf.

1/ For the Egyptian campaign there appear to some hexes which are deserts.
However I can find no listing of the desert in the TEC chart. Do we treat them as clear or ...?

2/ Hex 1 region south-west of Damietta, is that a coastal hex?

thanks Lakers24
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gant
United States
Wakefield
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I’ll take a look.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bindusri de Silva
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Same set of rules, page 21, D.4 Sieges

Any Assault on a fortress has the die roll modified by +1 if the Defender is the Smaller Force and by -1 if the Defender is the Larger Force.

Is modifier correct? It seems like the modifier is making it easier to assault fortresses with the DRM modifier favouring the assaulter which seems contradictory to the commentary below from page 21 G.1 2nd last paragraph

The overall lack of artillery in this theatre of operations made fortresses more effective than in many of the European campaigns. Consequently, a full siege was more likely to happen in the Egyptian campaign. This increases the chances of the siege of Acre occurring during the scenario.

thanks Lakers24
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gant
United States
Wakefield
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi,

Let's take a look.

Lakers24 wrote:
Hi John,

Playing the above scenario under TSBEF rules version
TSBEF_Rulebook_2011_1001.pdf.

1/ For the Egyptian campaign there appear to some hexes which are deserts.
However I can find no listing of the desert in the TEC chart. Do we treat them as clear or ...?

2/ Hex 1 region south-west of Damietta, is that a coastal hex?

thanks Lakers24


Question 1.

This sure looks like a significant error on my part. I think this got lost in the rush to wrap up.

Treat the desert terrain as low mountain areas for all movement purposes only and see how it plays. I think that is roughly how I wanted it.

Question 2.

This is not coastal. It looks obvious to my eyes looking at the map but I have a different view than you folks.

JokerRulez
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gant
United States
Wakefield
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have a newer rulebook than the one you are using.

Message me.

Rulebook 2012-0226 is the most current.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gant
United States
Wakefield
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Next one up:

Lakers24 wrote:
Same set of rules, page 21, D.4 Sieges

Any Assault on a fortress has the die roll modified by +1 if the Defender is the Smaller Force and by -1 if the Defender is the Larger Force.

Is modifier correct? It seems like the modifier is making it easier to assault fortresses with the DRM modifier favouring the assaulter which seems contradictory to the commentary below from page 21 G.1 2nd last paragraph

The overall lack of artillery in this theatre of operations made fortresses more effective than in many of the European campaigns. Consequently, a full siege was more likely to happen in the Egyptian campaign. This increases the chances of the siege of Acre occurring during the scenario.

thanks Lakers24


That does seem wrong to me as well. Could I have reversed the intended writing of this? Yes. I rushed some aspects of this.

I agree the rule is not consistent with my stated design intent.

Reverse it and see how it plays.

Glad you are trying this one out. This scenario had roughly 3 playtests before posting. All by me. It needs folks to try it.

--JokerRulez
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bindusri de Silva
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks John,

We are playing with the optional naval units.

Is either side allowed any Naval production points?

For the games currently being played I have assumed the French and English receive 1 Naval Production point per month as per the Grand Campaign rules but wanted to know if you had considered this aspect and whether you had a view.

cheers Lakers24
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gant
United States
Wakefield
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No. You should not allow naval production.

Given the lead time involved with naval ship building it wouldn’t be practical to enable these rules in this scenario. Rather a timed OOB would handle such work. I’m comfortable the current scenario structure handles the naval situation reasonably well.

Let me know how it plays with those rules. I found it tense and fun.

—-JokerRulez
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bindusri de Silva
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We are actually playing with naval production points, allowing 1 naval production point for each side as per the Grand Campaign. We are using this scenario as a warm up to playing the Grand Campaign to familiarise ourselves with the Naval rules. So far all naval production points have been used to repair damaged naval squadrons, however I also am planning to use some of the naval production points to convert a captured naval squadron.

Not sure what OOB stands for, is it Order of Battle?

I also think there should be a English Inf SP in Gibraltar for this scenario but no English naval transports. This is to stop the Pro-French from capturing Gibraltar and the entire English fleet if they manage to force the English squadron to retreat after winning a battle in the West Med.

Cheers Lakers24
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gant
United States
Wakefield
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cool.

Noted. Hadn’t thought of the Gibraltar Gambit.

—-JokerRulez
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.