Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Battle Cry» Forums » Variants

Subject: Minor game rule changes rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Laurence Cutner
Canada
Courtice
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just some thoughts on some minor rule changes allied with the range changes for infantry of 4/3/2 - your thoughts?

Sabre hits are only counted in combat at one hex distance.

Just seems a sensible idea. To my mind, this represents cavalry charges, grapeshot and bayonet charges.

Infantry can move two hexes but not battle and not end adjacent to enemy units.
Clears up the rather glacial advances of infantry and simulates column marching. Of course, marching to within one hex of an enemy unit and not firing is one heck of a risk.

Infantry may add one hex to range (1 die) if ordered but not moved.
This represents infantry skirmishers way out in front of prepared units. Typically they would remain closer to an advancing unit.

If a unit with General attached is eliminated, the general can retreat one hex if adjacent to an enemy unit.
I just think that if a unit is eliminated, the general would not really 'hang around' the carnage to be picked off.

Units may ignore one flag (only) by losing one figure and remaining in place.
Just really a continuation of the current retreat rule and allows units to 'stand their ground'.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R A.

Sarasota
Florida
msg tools
mbmb
I've seen the sabre hit house rule in other places, and I'd like to try it just to encourage more maneuver as a decisive factor.

I think I'd like to try it out, alongside the "any one card can be used as a move one unit and attack in any area card" to avoid complete paralysis for certain scenarios. (I was particularly traumatized by one play where 2/3 of my forces were in the left flank and I never drew more than one "move one unit in every area" that could affect it)

What I like about Battle Cry is how streamlined and fluid the play is, and how it blows right past most analysis paralysis without removing meaningful decisions from the players. While only one of your other rules (re: infantry range, which I think is already considerable relative to artillery in terms of game balance, not so much in terms of realism) seems like I wouldn't want to use it on its face, I'd be hesitant about whether the complexity is worth it in terms of how many meaningful decisions it would make for given the constrained strategic goals the C&C system allows for. Mind you, there's only one way to find out and I'm sure more veteran players might be more receptive to variety.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Anderson
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
I'll play the Klingons
badge
I'll play the Klingons
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
From the original release of Battle Cry, it has always been great as a foundation that allows tinkering. A great many of the rules to be seen in other C&C games were talked about as options for Battle Cry before those others came out (not to say that Mr. Borg hadn't already considered them as well).

All of these rules seem reasonable and I think that most have shown up in various C&C games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Swart
United States
Moscow
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
The only one I dislike is the added range for infantry. They already have too long a range. I believe the skirmishing was taken it to account with the range being already 4 hexes. Most of the battles are Divisional or higher thus the ranges are too long for the map as is. The longer ranges only work for regimental to brigade size actions.

Artillery could fire at extremly long ranges but not accurately. Battle after battle has Artillery firing at longer ranges being ineffective. Artillery in the game is too short, and should be extended by a couple of hexes. Something like 5/4/3/2/1/1/1 Rifle fire while could be fired over 500 yards, hardly ever were accurate over 300. Reasons are many. Ground almost never is level thus cutting down on range. The typical soldier had almost no training with his weapon. His training was movement and loading, but accurate fire was almost non-existant. The 3rd reason was officers trained in mass firepower warfare. Hence they were using tactics of 40 years or more earlier. At the shorter ranges the rifled musket even with untrained troops could deliver a terrible loss to life, but at longer ranges they tend to miss and miss often. I suggest decreasing the range to 4/3/2 and only giving the 1 with the rule you added. Or just dump it. Because the idea doesn't work well for soldiers holding a defensive position such as fieldworks or entrenchments.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Husted
United States
East Hartford
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Da Black Gobo wrote:
The only one I dislike is the added range for infantry.


I agree. Your comments are right on the money.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laurence Cutner
Canada
Courtice
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The added range was an idea that was difficult to really justify. Mind you, if in defensive positions, it may indicate better aimed fire - hmmm! I'll have to play test it some more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rauli Kettunen
Finland
Oulu
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One of the first things that popped to my mind after the first game (in which both sides were rather, ummm, too eager with their Generals blush ) was that anybody tried a -1 Command Hand per General killed? There is a scenario in the book where the Union forces get -1 CH per flag lost, that was the one that go me thinking. Losing Generals on the field, resulting in less command of the forces.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Swart
United States
Moscow
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
You could be it would be a slippery slope. Note that almost every game the Commanding General is not on the field. He is represented by cards. Also that there are no commands. What I mean is there are no order of battle. Look at Richmond Kentucky's scenario. There are 2 commanders on the field. They represent the two Brigade commanders. "Bull" Nelson was not even present until the 3rd position in this battle. The game shows the 2nd position not the last as it claims. Also not the units are the regiments that of those two brigades, but you do not know which regiment is with which commander.

I'd rather not remove cards. It will slow the game down to a crawl.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Anderson
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lizard_King wrote:
I think I'd like to try it out, alongside the "any one card can be used as a move one unit and attack in any area card" to avoid complete paralysis for certain scenarios. (I was particularly traumatized by one play where 2/3 of my forces were in the left flank and I never drew more than one "move one unit in every area" that could affect it)


Doesn't that mean the "alternate" power of any card is more useful than the printed power of a Skirmish card? Perhaps it should be "any one card can be used as a move one unit OR attack with one unit, in any area".
 
 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.