Hi all,

Has anyone made blinds in National colours/Flags. I am currently using
my IABSM ones. The Union Flag is OK but the Prussians/Saxons look a
little wierd as swastikas and the Russians as a Red Flag. It's only
aesthetics but it matters to me. I had a look in the files and saw
nothing.

Thanks

Paul

Hi all.

We had a club game yesterday at the Miltary Museum in Buda. It was
our first real game for two months and we were all very eager. I had
prepared a scenario based on Vauchamps (1814) and expected real fun.
In the end, we felt the scenario needs a little bit more work before
trying it again, so I haven't posted it yet. Still, it was a game
that evoked some real passion from the players.

The scenario makes use of two additional "weather" cards: "Mudbath",
which can paralyse a command and "Downpour", which inhibits
bombardment and spotting. Both of these cards had a significant
effect of the game (as in real life, where rain and mud played a
decisive part in the outcome). The mechanism for randomised arrival
of French reinforcements also had an effect. The main lessons from
the game, though, were the way that the main components of the rules
interact to produce truly realistic results.

With Blücher in "vorwarts" mode, von Kleist (Bold, Able) was ordered
to make an immediate attack on Vauchamps. Unluckily for him though,
the cautious Marmont managed to get there first (lucky cards and
PIPs). Kleist proceeded to make no less than four successive
assaults on the village, all of which were beaten back in turn (even
with 3:1 outnumbering – he failed to neutralise the flank artillery
support. Actually, his second brigade, standing idly by, should have
been murdered by Marmont's artillery, but the Downpour card came to
their rescue twice running.

Meanwhile though, the French were having distinct trouble with their
reinforcements (they couldn't get them onto the table). The
Bold/Poor Ney did arrive, but then had too few PIPs to make any
headway. Kapsevitch arrived with his Rzussian corps and sent them on
an ambitious flanking move, on blind in column-of march, making use
of multiple moves outside of 16". (Ákos is a very bold and
formidable LFS player -  although admittedly he had great luck with
his PIPs on this occasion). Nevertheless, it was a very bold move
and, when Grouchy (played by Lajos) finally managed to get his
cavalry into position on the French left, they were facing
impenetrable Russian squares and a great mass of guns.

Finally the rain eased and Marmont's guns came into action. They
proceeded to tear great holes in Kleist's second brigade, who began
to fall apart and rout. Mortier and Lefebvre had finally arrived on
table with the Guard and Blücher (John) chose this moment to propose
abandoning the game (he felt his position was hopeless – as
Napoleon, I reckoned the French still had many problems to solve).
Perhaps I should have accepted victory at this point, but I wanted
to give the scenario a chance. I proposed a short pause and, after a
quick conference on the allied side, the game resumed.

Braun's reserve artillery moved forward and no less than 5 Prussian
batteries were now pounding the defenders of Vauchamps and the
supporting troops around. No matter how we tried, we could not get
round either flank to cut the road and win the game. Hits from the
massed Prussian guns drove the Guard cavalry back on the right. On
the left, despite destroying one big Russian battery, Grouchy's
cavalry simply could not find an answer to Kapsevitch's squares. As
time ran out on the game, a last-ditch attempt by the Grenadiers of
the Guard (with Napoleon attached) to penetrate the Prussian was
held up when a battalion rolled a miserable one on their bombardment
morale test. The curator of the museum called `time" and the game
ended in a frustrating draw.

What had worked in the scenario? LFS did its stuff. Bold movement on
blinds, command ratings, PIPs, combats in BUA – all played a great
role. As Daz intended, artillery inflicted by far the most
casualties. Indeed, faced with a big disadvantage in guns, even the
French troop quality couldn't bring a decisive victory. The weather
cards were a hit with the guys (we should consider more "chance"
cards in scenarios).

What didn't work? With 76 units on the table, we couldn't get close
to real-time play (we have never fully managed it – I don't know
what's wrong with us) and would have needed 8 hours of playing time
(excluding setting up and clearing away time) to get through all 16
turns of the scenario. We only had 5 hours of actual playing time
available. Perhaps I will rework the scenario with the troops scaled
down further and we'll try it again.

Bob

Hi Daz

In our latest club game (quite a large-scale affair), we opted to
use all the new proposed rules. Here is some feedback on our
experiences.

7.3 Rallying from rout – we decided to apply this only to A/B class
troops. There were no instances of A/B class routing. However, there
were instances of D class units routing after 25%+ casualties, where
we were sure they could never have rallied to anything better than
permanently shaken in real life. So, we felt we were right that D/E
class troops cannot rally back to normal status. Our only question
now is about C class. Should they be included or excluded from this
rule. We are still worried that rallying back to normal status will
over-lengthen games and prevent clear-cut outcomes. I guess we will
decide to use this rule (if it is finally accepted) only for A/B
class.

15.2 Pinning – There were not as many instances of this as we
expected, but it worked fine and the group liked it. (I know, I
would say that, wouldn't I?)

17.3 Winners of firefight disordered – The group liked this one.
They think it is much better than the previous proposal. Curiously,
we didn't have a single firefight combat result, so it never got
used. However, this one gets a firm "thumbs up".

18c Shaken troops of same type rout. This worked fine. However,
there were no instances where the existing rule would have applied
anyway. We are currently neutral on this change.

18e Routers passing through friends – We are confused about this
one. Does it replace the bombardment morale test or is it in
addition? Is the unit passed through automatically disordered? We
gave up on this one. Personally, I think it would be simpler and
better if units of the same class or lower lose 1 strength point in
all cases.

21.15 Cavalry on 50% hits – We reject this one.

21.16 – Bombardment morale test for pinned infantry - This never
occurred in our game.

21.17 – Engage order – This worked fine and the group liked it.

Hope this is useful.

Cheers
Bob

Hi Paul

Not thinking of flags, but keep meaning to make blinds in national
colours. At the moment, we still use the ones I made when we first
tried LFS 20 months ago! They are in lurid, luminous yellow and pink
(all I had available at the time) and look truly disgusting! Must get
round to changing them one day.

Bob

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Timms" <PTimms7982@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Has anyone made blinds in National colours/Flags. I am currently
using
> my IABSM ones. The Union Flag is OK but the Prussians/Saxons look a
> little wierd as swastikas and the Russians as a Red Flag. It's only
> aesthetics but it matters to me. I had a look in the files and saw
> nothing.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>

Hi All

We debated at length the question of squares approaching to 2" of
cavalry and forcing them to fall back. This is now part of the rules
(covered in the "thoughts"). What I didn't really expect was that this
would start to become a standard tactic in our club. More and more
often now, infantry are attacking cavalry in this way (something that
really didn't happen too much in real life, I think).

Is anyone else having this problem, or does anyone have any ideas?

Bob

Certainly is! Many thanks.

My plans are to come out with a "definitive edition 2 amendments" in
the summer. Hopefully my head will no longer be filled with ACW by
then :-)

Daz

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Daz
>
> In our latest club game (quite a large-scale affair), we opted to
> use all the new proposed rules. Here is some feedback on our
> experiences.
>
> 7.3 Rallying from rout – we decided to apply this only to A/B
class
> troops. There were no instances of A/B class routing. However,
there
> were instances of D class units routing after 25%+ casualties,
where
> we were sure they could never have rallied to anything better than
> permanently shaken in real life. So, we felt we were right that
D/E
> class troops cannot rally back to normal status. Our only question
> now is about C class. Should they be included or excluded from
this
> rule. We are still worried that rallying back to normal status
will
> over-lengthen games and prevent clear-cut outcomes. I guess we
will
> decide to use this rule (if it is finally accepted) only for A/B
> class.
>
> 15.2 Pinning – There were not as many instances of this as we
> expected, but it worked fine and the group liked it. (I know, I
> would say that, wouldn't I?)
>
> 17.3 Winners of firefight disordered – The group liked this one.
> They think it is much better than the previous proposal.
Curiously,
> we didn't have a single firefight combat result, so it never got
> used. However, this one gets a firm "thumbs up".
>
> 18c Shaken troops of same type rout. This worked fine. However,
> there were no instances where the existing rule would have applied
> anyway. We are currently neutral on this change.
>
> 18e Routers passing through friends – We are confused about this
> one. Does it replace the bombardment morale test or is it in
> addition? Is the unit passed through automatically disordered? We
> gave up on this one. Personally, I think it would be simpler and
> better if units of the same class or lower lose 1 strength point
in
> all cases.
>
> 21.15 Cavalry on 50% hits – We reject this one.
>
> 21.16 – Bombardment morale test for pinned infantry - This never
> occurred in our game.
>
> 21.17 – Engage order – This worked fine and the group liked it.
>
> Hope this is useful.
>
> Cheers
> Bob
>

Hi Bob,
it's tricky. On one hand I like to ability to do so- lots of examples
of infantry attacking in square formation because of a cavalry threat.
And of course retreating in square formation because of a cavalry
threat!
But deliberately targetting the cavalry with squares...

I suppose 2" per move isn't going to get them anywhere too fast, and
they are at risk of the cavalry opportunity charging. And if the
cavalry have horse guns it can be pretty suicidal?

Daz

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> We debated at length the question of squares approaching to 2" of
> cavalry and forcing them to fall back. This is now part of the rules
> (covered in the "thoughts"). What I didn't really expect was that
this
> would start to become a standard tactic in our club. More and more
> often now, infantry are attacking cavalry in this way (something
that
> really didn't happen too much in real life, I think).
>
> Is anyone else having this problem, or does anyone have any ideas?
>
> Bob
>

I will be playing/running my first game of lfs on monday evening. It is
based on the starter scenario in the main rules, but using Russians and
Bavarians from the start of the 1812 campaign.
Are there any points I should look out for (eg important rules that are
easy to miss etc)?

Steve

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@...> wrote:
>
> With 76 units on the table...


Wow! That's a lot. We've sometimes had around 50.

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@...> wrote:
>
> We debated at length the question of squares approaching to 2" of
> cavalry and forcing them to fall back. This is now part of the rules
> (covered in the "thoughts").... More and more
> often now, infantry are attacking cavalry in this way (something that
> really didn't happen too much in real life, I think).
>

If this isn't allowed then cavalry can immobilize infantry. Cavalry
could obviously slow them down but could not stop determined infantry.

There's an 1814 battle (name escapes me - Fere Champenois?) where
Blucher retreated in square for miles, hounded on all sides by French
cavalry, including those blocking his escape route. The retreat went
pretty routinely until the French got some horse artillery across his
escape route. Blucher still managed to escape but suffered great loss
after this.

Later in the same campaign (Montmirail?) a division of French Marie-
Louises recruits retreated for miles in square while attacked from all
sides by swarms of Allied regular cavalry. The recruits finally lost
cohesion, were broken and the survivors captured.

That makes two examples of squares bulling their way through cavalry.
Bonaparte's infantry did something similar at the Battle of the
Pyramids.

Hi Steve,
sorry that I didn't catch this in time. Hope your game went OK!

Daz

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "stevemirvin" <stevemirvin@...> wrote:
>
> I will be playing/running my first game of lfs on monday evening. It
is
> based on the starter scenario in the main rules, but using Russians
and
> Bavarians from the start of the 1812 campaign.
> Are there any points I should look out for (eg important rules that
are
> easy to miss etc)?
>
> Steve
>

Plus the British Light Division at Fuentes de Onoro
(sp?), I believe, went long distances in square, beset
by cavalry on all sides.



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

Hi Vince.

Actually the battle where Blücher retreated in square was none other
than Vauchamps itself. He got away because Grouchy's horse artillery
were stuck in the mud. The battle where the Marie Louise infantry
retreated in square was, I think, Fere Champenoise.

Your point is quite right, as is what Daz said. My problem is with
the deliberate tactic of infantry in square attacking cavalry. It
just doesn't seem to fit in with history.

Bob

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent Tsao" <vtsaogames@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@> wrote:
> >
> > We debated at length the question of squares approaching to 2"
of
> > cavalry and forcing them to fall back. This is now part of the
rules
> > (covered in the "thoughts").... More and more
> > often now, infantry are attacking cavalry in this way (something
that
> > really didn't happen too much in real life, I think).
> >
>
> If this isn't allowed then cavalry can immobilize infantry.
Cavalry
> could obviously slow them down but could not stop determined
infantry.
>
> There's an 1814 battle (name escapes me - Fere Champenois?) where
> Blucher retreated in square for miles, hounded on all sides by
French
> cavalry, including those blocking his escape route. The retreat
went
> pretty routinely until the French got some horse artillery across
his
> escape route. Blucher still managed to escape but suffered great
loss
> after this.
>
> Later in the same campaign (Montmirail?) a division of French
Marie-
> Louises recruits retreated for miles in square while attacked from
all
> sides by swarms of Allied regular cavalry. The recruits finally
lost
> cohesion, were broken and the survivors captured.
>
> That makes two examples of squares bulling their way through
cavalry.
> Bonaparte's infantry did something similar at the Battle of the
> Pyramids.
>

You're right - there are a few examples from the peninsular of British
infantry moving long distances in square, under a cavalry threat. But,
I can't think of a single axample of British infantry in square
actually attacking French cavalry, can you? In fact, I can't think of
such a tactic being used anywhere (but I'm sure someone else will).

Bob

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, Code Ronin <code_ronin@...> wrote:
>
> Plus the British Light Division at Fuentes de Onoro
> (sp?), I believe, went long distances in square, beset
> by cavalry on all sides.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
_____________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>

Hi Daz.

I agree with all you say. It's the deliberate targeting of cavalry
that is my problem. Infantry on manoeuvre orders moving 2" in square
and the cavalry falling back in frustration, I can take. Infantry
advancing in square to attack other infantry (because of cavalry
threat) I can take. But can you think of even one example of
infantry forming square and then deliberately setting out to attack
cavalry? I can't thnk of a solution off hand. That's why I asked for
ideas.

Bob

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "therugdoctor2003"
<darrengreen123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
> it's tricky. On one hand I like to ability to do so- lots of
examples
> of infantry attacking in square formation because of a cavalry
threat.
> And of course retreating in square formation because of a cavalry
> threat!
> But deliberately targetting the cavalry with squares...
>
> I suppose 2" per move isn't going to get them anywhere too fast,
and
> they are at risk of the cavalry opportunity charging. And if the
> cavalry have horse guns it can be pretty suicidal?
>
> Daz
>
> --- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > We debated at length the question of squares approaching to 2"
of
> > cavalry and forcing them to fall back. This is now part of the
rules
> > (covered in the "thoughts"). What I didn't really expect was
that
> this
> > would start to become a standard tactic in our club. More and
more
> > often now, infantry are attacking cavalry in this way (something
> that
> > really didn't happen too much in real life, I think).
> >
> > Is anyone else having this problem, or does anyone have any
ideas?
> >
> > Bob
> >
>

Hi Vince

Yes, it was one of our biggest games so far. In general, I think
that around 25 units per side is about optimum for a club game, if
you want a definite result and some room to manoeuvre on the table.
We have occasionally managed 20 minutes per turn at that size of
game. Anything much bigger and we seem unable to achieve better than
30 minutes per turn.

Bob

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent Tsao" <vtsaogames@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@> wrote:
> >
> > With 76 units on the table...
>
>
> Wow! That's a lot. We've sometimes had around 50.
>

Hi Steve

I also missed this. New players often say that they find
the "Thoughts of Chairman Daz" helpful (from the explanations and
clarifications folder in the files section).

Bob

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "stevemirvin" <stevemirvin@...>
wrote:
>
> I will be playing/running my first game of lfs on monday evening.
It is
> based on the starter scenario in the main rules, but using
Russians and
> Bavarians from the start of the 1812 campaign.
> Are there any points I should look out for (eg important rules
that are
> easy to miss etc)?
>
> Steve
>

I suspect it's got more to do with the enlosed environment of the
wargames table. In reality it would be a hiding to nothing, on the
table the cavalry can run out of room.

Spirit over rules IMO

Zippee

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Daz.
>
> I agree with all you say. It's the deliberate targeting of cavalry
> that is my problem. Infantry on manoeuvre orders moving 2" in
square
> and the cavalry falling back in frustration, I can take. Infantry
> advancing in square to attack other infantry (because of cavalry
> threat) I can take. But can you think of even one example of
> infantry forming square and then deliberately setting out to attack
> cavalry? I can't thnk of a solution off hand. That's why I asked
for
> ideas.
>
> Bob

And to be honest we can be of more help after your first game when
you come with a list of things you have questions over, rather than
select a list of things we might think you will have a problem with...

Zippee

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve
>
> I also missed this. New players often say that they find
> the "Thoughts of Chairman Daz" helpful (from the explanations and
> clarifications folder in the files section).
>
> Bob
>
> --- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "stevemirvin" <stevemirvin@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I will be playing/running my first game of lfs on monday evening.
> It is
> > based on the starter scenario in the main rules, but using
> Russians and
> > Bavarians from the start of the 1812 campaign.
> > Are there any points I should look out for (eg important rules
> that are
> > easy to miss etc)?
> >
> > Steve
> >
>

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "zippeejerred" <zippee.jerred@...>
wrote:
>
> I suspect it's got more to do with the enlosed environment of the
> wargames table. In reality it would be a hiding to nothing, on the
> table the cavalry can run out of room.
>
> Spirit over rules IMO
>

I think it also comes down to a question: can unaided cavalry stop an
attacking force of infantry dead in their tracks or just slow them down?

I vote for slow them down.

Daz

We have made contact with a long time Lardy player here in Spain, and
have introduced him to LFS.   He in turn has introduced us to other
Lardy games - in particular an early Vietnam game.   This is the first
time we have played a Lardy rules, other than LFS, and we found
the "tea/coffee break" card to be a real challenge.   When this card
is drawn the move comes to an end, other than close range firing.

Apparently this is a feature of most Lardy games, and I wondered why
you did not incorporate a "wine break" card for LFS?

Paul

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Leniston" <paulleniston@...>
wrote:
>
>  When this card
> is drawn the move comes to an end, other than close range firing.
>
> Apparently this is a feature of most Lardy games, and I wondered why
> you did not incorporate a "wine break" card for LFS?
>

I for one would be truly pissed (Yank-speak for upset) if I moved into
canister range of a battery I wanted to charge and the next turn
the 'wine break' card came up before I could move. Perhaps there not
being any ranged combat other than artillery figures into it. But I'll
let Daz speak for himself.

Great name for the card, though.

We are currently test playing an ACW version of Lfs that Daz is working
on at Lard island. Daz has placed the tea/ coffee break card into this
game. It makes for some really nail biting situations I can tell you!
Regards
Biffo

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, John Turness <john.turness@...> wrote:
>
> We are currently test playing an ACW version of Lfs that Daz is
> working on at Lard island. Daz has placed the tea/ coffee break card
> into this game. It makes for some really nail biting situations I can
> tell you!

Ooh! Ooh! Spill the beans! Tell me more! Is it battalion or brigade
based?

Sadly this was only my first proper game. Tuesday's game involved three
Union brigades with artillery support up against two Confederate
brigades again with artillery support. Daz appears to be using a
modified version of the tried and trusted command and control from Lfs.
Infantry battalions now shoot and the ability to rally units that have
been routed for me certainly gave a real flavour of the period. A tough
game where the balance can swing from one side to the other at the turn
of the coffee break card.
This is a work in progress and suffice to say Daz will not doubt let you
all know how it is progressing in due course. So.....Watch this space!
Regards
Biffo

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, John Turness <john.turness@...> wrote:
>
> Sadly this was only my first proper game. Tuesday's game involved
> three Union brigades with artillery support up against two Confederate
> brigades again with artillery support. Daz appears to be using a
> modified version of the tried and trusted command and control from
> Lfs. Infantry battalions now shoot and the ability to rally units
> that have been routed for me certainly gave a real flavour of the
> period. A tough game where the balance can swing from one side to the
> other at the turn of the coffee break card.
>

Batallion is the basic unit then. Argh, am I curious.

For background ask away. I've walked most of the battlefields in
Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, and a couple coastal ones in North
ans South Carolina. Shiloh's on my wish list. I've been a fan of ACW
since the centennial back in the 60's.

Before that I told Custer not to mess with those Indians, but did he
listen?

And there's me thinking you were an AWI man!
Perhaps you could suggest a good book or two to help improve my lack
lustre performance.
>From the games played so far Rich is adamant that it is very hard for
the Confederates to win. The Confederates he feels need to score an
advantage very early on other wise numbers start to tell. Perhaps this
is just down to the scenarios played so far. For me Tuesday's game set
in 1863, as a Union player, I felt that the Union troops suffered badly
at the first few shots from the Confederates. There again my troops were
a mix of poor to average up against experienced/ aggressive
confederates.
As mentioned earlier this is still a work in progress. I for one
certainly need to do a little reading and learn an lot more on how the
troops reacted. That said the consensus of opinion was that what had
occurred on the table was historically correct.
Still early days yet.
Regards
Biffo

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@...> wrote:

> I can't think of a single axample of British infantry in square
> actually attacking French cavalry, can you? In fact, I can't think
> of such a tactic being used anywhere (but I'm sure someone else
> will).

Yes, but I look at the effect, not the mechanism. Unless I missed
something (highly probable), the effect of this "attack" is that it
allows infantry in square to displace the cavalry.

Put another way, how would you replicate in LFS the British marching
in square from A to B and the advance not being blocked by the
cavalry? This mechanism seems to replicate that.

Dale

--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Hewson" <bob@...> wrote:

> But can you think of even one example of
> infantry forming square and then deliberately setting out to attack
> cavalry?

Sorry, forgot to answer that part of the question:

"Empires, Eagles, and Lions" magazine already went over this ground
(issues 11 and Vol 3 No 1).

#11, by George Nafzinger, cited:

1. The Prussian Bernberg Infantry Regiment attacking Austrian cavalry
at Liegnitz in 1760;

2. The Russian Lithuanian Guard Infantry Regiment attacking French
cavalry at Borodino; and

3. The British 5th Foot Regiment attacking French cavalry at El Bodon
in 1811.

Note that this was regarding "bayonet attacks by infantry against
cavalry". Several incidents he also discusses were:

"The first such attack is reported in a letter from General Lorencz to
Marshal Oudinot. It occurred on 18 May 1813 in a battle near
Neukirchen when the French 52nd and 137th Line Regiments formed square
against a Russian cavalry attack, repulsed two such attacks, reformed
into column, and advanced more than once at the pas de charge against
that cavalry."

"In a second instance, during the battles around Katzbach on 26 August
1813 the 4/34th Line Regiment found a force of Prussian Uhlans that
had charged into and captured the park of the XI Corps. While only
about one sixth of their muskets would fire because of the day long
rain, the 4/34th charge in a battalion mass against the cavalry, drove
it away, and recaptured the XI Corps park. They do not appear to have
suffered any appreciable losses."

"A third and most unusual account of another bayonet attack by French
infantry against cavalry. It occurred during the battle of La
Fere-Champenoise fought on 25 Marchl814 and was executed by an entire
brigade! ... General Pacthod sought to gain the safety of La
Fere-Champenoise in this formation, but Count Pahlen II succeeded in
establishing himself behind Pacthod's Division with the Dorpat and
Lithuanian Chasseurs a Cheval Regiments. This presented Pacthod with
the alternative of surrendering or fighting his way through. After a
short council, General Delord proposed charging the Russians with his
infantry, while the rest of the French troops contained Korff's
forces. This recommendation was adopted. As soon as Delord's brigade
was formed in attack columns, it advanced at the pas de charge against
Pahlen's Russian cavalry and forced them to withdraw. However, the
sounds of battle had attracted the cavalry of Sacken's Corps, which
appeared to replace Pahlen and executed several charges. Delord was
obliged to form his brigade in squares and withdraw."

Again, no specific mention of charging cavalry while in square, but
the change from square to column of attack, followed by a charge
sounds like it was done in the space of a very short time.

I see the "square attacking cavalry" as a abstract mechanism to
reflect this.

Dale

Ha, Biffo beat me to it :-)

One reason for the differences is that all other Lardy games are at
a more detailed level than LFS- IABSM! etc are all at a scale of 1:1.

The ACW rules are, at present, working at a divisional game level,
with a scale of 1:25. Just using the LFS command and control
mechanisms felt a little "staid" for the close terrain and less
formal nature of the armies. So we introduced a "Cawfee break" card,
and it works pretty well (with some adjustments to reduce problems
like artillery at close range not having their card come out).

I'm sceptical about using this for Corps level games in Napoleonics,
as I wonder whether it will be just too disruptive. And SLOW- one
reason we're using divisional level formations just now is that what
you pay for the great "friction" effect is that you need more turns
to produce a result.

When the rules are a little more mature, perhaps I should post
an "LFS experiment" document so that you can try these mechanisms
with LFS?

"Wine break"- perfect!

Daz


--- In lfslist@yahoogroups.com, John Turness <john.turness@...>
wrote:
>
> And there's me thinking you were an AWI man!
> Perhaps you could suggest a good book or two to help improve my
lack
> lustre performance.
> >From the games played so far Rich is adamant that it is very hard
for
> the Confederates to win. The Confederates he feels need to score an
> advantage very early on other wise numbers start to tell. Perhaps
this
> is just down to the scenarios played so far. For me Tuesday's game
set
> in 1863, as a Union player, I felt that the Union troops suffered
badly
> at the first few shots from the Confederates. There again my
troops were
> a mix of poor to average up against experienced/ aggressive
> confederates.
> As mentioned earlier this is still a work in progress. I for one
> certainly need to do a little reading and learn an lot more on how
the
> troops reacted. That said the consensus of opinion was that what
had
> occurred on the table was historically correct.
> Still early days yet.
> Regards
> Biffo
>