BBB First Thoughts and Queries

[Chad]

Chris

I bought the rules but have not used them as yet. The reason for not using them is that I am having difficulty understanding where you
placed the benchmark for what is a bloody big battle and what isn't and therefore outside the basic idea of the rules.

This first occurred when you recommended using Montebello as a good starting point. To me at least this action does not qualify as a 'bloody big battle' which then left me confused with regard to the underlying concepts. Now mention is being made of the AWI. Again I find it difficult to see how the size of actions in that conflict can be reasonably recreated by rules designed for significantly larger engagements.

What am I missing?

Chad

[toxicpixie]

Montenegro is at the minimum scale and even then is tiny, unless the Allies really fluff things. 500 men per base still only gives 35 or so bases total between both sides!

BUT - it's not actually a BBB as such, and didn't make the cut  for the scenario book because of that. What the BBB scenario is, is a training game. Two players, 60-90mins, low troops on a small board but with a little dash of everything so you can play and learn without getting overwhelmed. There's some cavalry, veterans, passive troops, awkward terrain an some special scenario rules all in the "normal format" for a "proper" game. Just smaller and very easy to play.

Same for Langanselza.

Normal scenarios would have those force amounts for ONE side at a minimum, be sized for four to six players, board size would probably be 6*4 and it'd be a three hour game simulating something four times the size. It's just a mark of how flexible the system can be that you can squash and squeeze it up and down well enough to make a playable game of little actions.

Not sure whether the AWI would fit, even at smallest scale but might be worth a pop to see. Certainly those mod would make sense for 7YW, WSS etc, or at least they look like they should

[Leman]

I think you might be missing a little flexibility in your approach. Although the original concept was for battles like Solferino, it soon became apparent that the rules would work for smaller battles by adjusting the scales. I'm no mathematician so I don't get hung up on those sort of things. What I do know is that the rules give a really enjoyable and exciting game.

[Chad]

Leman

I accept that adjusting the scales can give a smaller sized game. I do this myself occasionally. This however, does not mean that the rules can be automatically switched to earlier periods.

Chad

[Chad]

These are my thoughts on using the rules ( at whatever scale) for 18th century:

1. WSS - Formations, tactics and firepower are more closely related to the 17th century than the 18th. Therefore, adjustments for SYW ŵould not necessarily suit WSS and vice versa.
2. Artillery - Almost always static once deployed and few if any massed batteries. Battalion guns need to be considered.
3. Cavalry - Firearm cavalry would have to be considered as would the transition from attacks delivered at a trot to an outfight gallop.
4. Light Infantry and skirmishing - Not a feature of WSS battles but appeared by SYW albeit mainly but irregulars eg Croats & Pandours. In AWI light infantry could be either irregular or regular, with British Light companies being formed into elite units.
5. Grenadiers - Through to 1813/14, Grenadier companies were detached from parent units to form elite bodies.
6. Small Arms - Volleys normally delivered at much closer ranges than in mid to late 19th century to achieve maximum effectiveness.
7. Command and Control - Brigades and Divisions were ad hoc combinations of units put together on the day. the Corps as a formal organisation appeared in early 19th century. Therefore, aspects of command and control would need to be addresses.

My threepenneth for what it is worth

Chad

[toxicpixie]

You'd probably be well off playing the rules and period as written a few times before tweaking for other periods. See what you need to change an see what works. That said you're right on the money re:period within the period - there's a wealth of difference of ability, tactics, organisation, technology across a hundred years

[Leman]

Makes no odds to me. I'm sold on Honours of War for the C18th. I'm not even interested in the Napoleonic battles for BBB as I am definitely most interested in the post 1850 period.

[Chris Pringle]

Chris

I bought the rules but have not used them as yet. The reason for not using them is that I am having difficulty understanding where you
placed the benchmark for what is a bloody big battle and what isn't and therefore outside the basic idea of the rules.

This first occurred when you recommended using Montebello as a good starting point. To me at least this action does not qualify as a 'bloody big battle' which then left me confused with regard to the underlying concepts. Now mention is being made of the AWI. Again I find it difficult to see how the size of actions in that conflict can be reasonably recreated by rules designed for significantly larger engagements.

What am I missing?

Chad

Hi Chad,

Fair questions! The original point of BBB was to do what other rulesets didn't seem to (at least, not to the satisfaction of our group): to let you fight battles of about 40,000+ men a side in an evening.

But after publication, players began asking for smaller 'training scenarios' they could use to learn the rules before pitching into the big battles. Hence Montebello and Langensalza. Some players have been happily downscaling to create scenarios for divisional-sized actions in the Sikh Wars and other colonial battles. Others have been designing scenarios for the small Franco-Prussian actions that I had considered outside BBB's remit. So the 'shrinking' of BBB to cover SSS (Somewhat Small Scuffles) is all player-driven.

Similarly with the talk of extending forwards to WWI and back to C18. These are well outside my own main interest and expertise. The only reason I've been kicking these ideas around is because of public demand from players. I agree that the features you list would need to be considered in a C18 variant. I think they could be covered simply and realistically but I haven't given it any serious thought or research. Some time, maybe.

For now, there are something like 55 BBB historical scenarios available in the rulebook, the BBEB companion volume, and the Yahoo group files. Why not pick one you're interested in and give it a go?

Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.fr/

[Nosher]

Thanks Chris

Sorry Nosher. Back to the original thread

No worries - and sorry to have not responded sooner. Working all weekend and now 'back at school - meant to be studying' and I am. Just studying something not work related

Even brought BBB away with me for the week away from home to break up essay writing/research reading

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Sorry to jump in chaps,
Wondering whether my 75mm by 75mm bases are at all usable with these rules?

[Chris Pringle]

Wondering whether my 75mm by 75mm bases are at all usable with these rules?

Morning Lemmey,

It would obviously be imperfect and in some ways inconvenient but I expect you could make it work.

For units of 2-3 bases you could use a single 75x75 base, and for those of 4-7, two 75x75 bases.
Artillery units might be a problem as each unit is a single 1"x1" base. Having them take up so much more room could distort things. But maybe it would still work.

You would need ways to note both what formation the unit is in (line, depth, or column of march) and how many standard 1"x1" bases it actually represents.

Chris

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Thanks Chris.
Am going to play Nick Overland in a couple of weeks, might have to use his kit (my artillery is on 1.5" by 3" depth)!

[Chris Pringle]

Actually I seem to remember having to do something similar when I visited a friend and we used his block-mounted ACW troops. It was OK. Since your artillery isn't unduly oversized, the rest should be fine.

Greetings to Nick O.

Chris

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Will do Chris. 

[Shedman]

Wondering whether my 75mm by 75mm bases are at all usable with these rules?

I use 40x30mm so I would treat your bases as two stands

As Chris says you will need some method of flagging 1/2 bases and formation

Alan