Pub Battles -How to Resolve Combat Part 3

How to resolve Combat in Pub Battles. Regular attacks, defenders under cover, support, flanking and artillery on defense.
Note: This is based on the 3.0 version of the rules. They can change a little.

[@Crosbie71]

Could do with explaining why: support units aren’t pushed back and spent (like units in the way of a retreat); baggage train isn’t pushed back in this way. Love the videos though!

[@CommandPostGames]

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, we thought about things like that. It is really easy to make long, boring videos. To keep them short we decided not to cover everything, just the bare minimum basics to get somebody started. Not sure if that's the right way to go but that's our thinking so far. :)

[@shawnledford4077]

I have exactly the same question. Can you explain in the comments section the difference? Thanks!

[@AntsSingaporeantchannel]

On your turn, before resolving combat, can you manoeuvre your piece away from the attack?

[@ryolacap]

Any historical accounts of both sides retreating in battle? Just wondering after seeing this with both sides retreating. I would think in most engagements 2 sides would fight until one ran away.

[@CommandPostGames]

Good question! These would be highly contested, swirling fights that go back and forth. I’m thinking like the Sunken Road at Antietam and the Peach Orchard at Gettysburg. Remember that we’re looking at this from a higher scale of Divisions. We’re saying that most of the Division has fallen back in disorder. One side likely still has a few battered regiments barely hanging on. Those would be easily brushed aside by another full Division moving through there in a big way. So the idea is that wh oever can get a Division to move in there first, gets it. There aren’t enough survivors left to really contest it anymore.

[@CommandPostGames]

I was just reading about the Sunken Road at Antietam. That is a pretty good example of this. The Rebs held for awhile but then their left collapsed. They pulled out and ran but the Feds didn't occupy the position. They were worried about enemy positions on the cornfield and started taking artillery fire. They fall back up onto the rise behind them. So both sides fell back and nobody was occupying the sunken road. -until the next operation.

[@manuelkong10]

multiple hits should Have to be spread amongst any and all units involved

[@CommandPostGames]

They are! =)

[@alexbulza50]

Can someone explain the meaning of the dice numbers? i didn't get it.

[@CommandPostGames]

Ah, you've got to get high numbers to get a hit: 4, 5 or 6. This can be modified. So if the defender is in Cover, then you fire with a -1. Meaning you only hit on 5 or 6.

[@alexbulza50]

@@CommandPostGames thanks

[@shawnledford4077]

Flanking - in the 3.0 rules, pg 3, two Red blocks cross the river, with the supporting block being mostly in the river, to assault a Blue block. The diagram says that a nearby Blue block cannot move into a flank position on the Red blocks because that would put it mostly on the other side of the river. Can you explain why a Red block can be in support in the river but Blue cannot flank along that same river?

[@CommandPostGames]

The river is blocking most of the space where Blue would have to deploy to be able to put down a good effective flanking fire. Most of the Blue block wouldn't actually be able to fire. There isn't really room for the Red block to just sit there in the middle of the river either. In fact, if there was no combat then I normally wouldn't allow a unit to just move into the middle of a river and sit there but that is not what this represents. It is an attack. The Red blocks are crossing the ford and attacking the Blue, in the order shown by lead and support. So they aren't really sitting in line formation in the middle of the river right? That's just the scale of the blocks. We are assuming that they are forming up into column to cross the ford then falling back out into line as they attack the Blue. First the lead, then the support. That's why there is a movement and combat penalty. We're just waiting to see what happens with the combat. Did they make it or get pushed back? I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well. Does that make any sense? lol... Also, consider if Blue just put a defender right on the ford, right along the edge of the river. If you said that Red couldn't end it's move sitting in the river, then it would be impossible to ever attack across one, right? It may look a little funny with the time and unit scale and abstracting all the combat into one. What is really happening is the Red is forming up and putting down fire across the river, while smaller units are switching to column and attacking across the ford to establish a bridgehead and then the rest of the unit files across and forms back out into line. In any event, it IS possible for the Red to attack across here somehow if the Blue defends like that right? We just don't see all those details at this scale. You could actually play this out with the KS blocks at a smaller scale. It is interesting. You would break it down into shorter turns and use ranged musket fire like we toyed with in the Experimental 3.0 rules. It is a valid and interesting way to play. You get more detail and accuracy that way. You also hugely expand the time requirement to play a game. It starts turning into a full fledged wargame then! Nothing wrong with that. We may pull all of those ideas together later to form a new series. Check out the Review tab on the Brandywine Kriegsspiel scenario. Some guys are doing exactly that. They say it plays fantastic!!

[@shawnledford4077]

@@CommandPostGames Your explanation did help, thank you! It seems common sense needs to be applied in some situations as it becomes difficult to write rules that cover every eventuality - unless you want to write a rulebook comparable to ASL :)

[@CommandPostGames]

@@shawnledford4077 Exactly. According to the experts on technical writing: Covering every possible question anybody could ever have is bad technical writing! It is what the industry has become used to. I think that hurts us in many ways. It is part of why our hobby is so small. We're trying to push in a new direction some here.

[@slothkingdom3382]

Will the rules for the Battle of Berlin or Bulge change the game significantly or just a slight amount?

[@CommandPostGames]

We tested the regular PB rules at Bulge. They seem to mostly work. We've been trying to develop an area based system instead for WW2. We've got one that works in Berlin. We're trying the get it synced with Bulge. Getting close.

[@slothkingdom3382]

Do you know when they will be ready?

[@CommandPostGames]

@@slothkingdom3382 Not yet. We are hoping for next year.

[@shawnledford4077]

Why does the supporting British unit advance to contact after the first unit retreats rather than engage in a fire fight as shown in the 3.0 rules?

[@CommandPostGames]

Sounds like you are looking at the 'experimental' rules. You can get the official rules with the games or email us to get a copy! :)

[@shawnledford4077]

@@CommandPostGames Email sent! :) I have a copy of the Monmouth Starter Set and am looking at picking up Waterloo.

[@shawnledford4077]

Rules received! They explain things very clearly. Looking forward to playing with the new rules.

[@mikestrand3023]

Shouldn't 2 hits on the spent Colonials eliminate them?

[@mikestrand3023]

My bad, the British only got one hit on the Colonials! I forgot the British were still at -1, so the four would not have hit.

[@CommandPostGames]

At 3:30 that is only 1 hit because of the hill.

[@smat2899]

At 6'45 : when support unit advances, isn't it a second combat ? Then artillery should throw dice too.

[@mikestrand3023]

Not sure I understand you. The artillery has retreated, and the support unit moved up to continue the second round of the same combat. After it's retreat, the artillery is no longer part of that combat. Note also, that if the artillery hadn't had that supporting unit, then it would have been eliminated, as unsupported artillery is eliminated if it is forced to retreat. I believe the purpose of this video is just to give folks an introductory overview. If Marshall had wanted to explore every permutation, the video would have been much longer. A lot of the rules can be easily understood once one has been shown how the basic system works. Thank you for your question, if you're wondering, then others are, too!

[@smat2899]

@@mikestrand3023 Yes, you're right. Rule book 3.0 Page 6: "a supporting attacker may move up ans return fire for the first round". It wasn't the case in 2.8 rules of play. Thanks

[@CommandPostGames]

Yes, that's right. Still the same combat. It just goes into another round. The artillery is out for the second round because they retreated.

[@manuelkong10]

simple rules SHEET, an UNMOUNTED map, painted pieces of wood, stickers....wildly overpriced

[@CommandPostGames]

$35 is wildly overpriced? Compared to what?! Canvas maps alone are worth $250-350.

[@manuelkong10]

then charge $350 for your games and see how far you get

[@CommandPostGames]

@@manuelkong10 We do! We offer a cheap paper map option like most wargames but we hardly ever sell any. Almost all our sales are for the canvas. Nobody wants the cheap stuff. What's wrong with giving people a choice and letting them decide what they want? Is it better to force everybody to buy only cheap stuff?