Pub Battles Waterloo

Pub Battles getting ambitious? This is a new take on Waterloo in the PB style, but it also looks to be a starting point for a simulation of the 100 days campaign.

[@mikestrand3023]

Jeff, you came up with many of the same observations as myself with your end comments. The house rule setup that I use is that the Allies may set up anywhere North of La Belle Alliance and the French must setup South of the Allies and at least 1/3 away (out of FoE). Because of the terrain of the map, Wellington's reverse slope strategy makes sense and players will, after studying the terrain, probably elect to setup much as the Duke. This speaks well for the system.

[@mikestrand3023]

The issue people had with it was when an opponent moved into contact, when you chit was drawn you could back off, just a hair, and your opponent could do nothing, having already moved. They thought is just felt wrong, so the Field of Engagement rule was added.

[@smat2899]

Merci pour le partage : Pub Battle fait vraiment de superbes jeux qui donnent envie. Thank you for this video : Pub Battle makes very esthetic games which make you enjoy the play system.

[@marshallbarrington4986]

Hey Jeff, great video! Just wanted to help clarify a few specifics on the FoE. Question at 25:45 The French attacking Perponcher is perfectly fine. The FoE created by the Brits behind Perponcher do NOT prevent the French from attacking. So if you are in FoE, you must attack somebody. That counts and fulfills the requirement. You don’t have to attack 'everybody' that is projecting an FoE. Question at 31:30 Same situation here. You can’t leave pieces behind to ‘keep pieces at bay’ and prevent them from attacking. In this situation, the French can attack the British with no problem. -As long as they are attacking somebody. It doesn’t matter if they can’t reach pieces further back. All that matters is that they are ‘Attacking’. Imagine that the French do attack the lead Brit here and win, the British block runs. If the British move first next turn, those British blocks start in the French FoE. That means they must either attack the French or fall back. Same goes for the French. If they move first next turn, they must either advance and attack the second line of British or fall back. Hope this helps! ...and yes, I second what Mike Strand said earlier. :) Marshall

[@jeffcapuano3380]

Thanks for the clarification and the great game!

[@patrickdonnerstag7128]

Quick follow up. Thanks for your reply. You were almost as fast as the folks at Command Post who beat you by no more than 10 minutes :-) They have good news: it seems as if the first expansion to Waterloo , which is Wagram, is planned for end Q1 / early Q2 of this year. Possibly working on getting an additional map going for around Xmas time frame. All that is excellent news, and thank you for the diligent and informative video's. I will explore being able to combine actual Napoleonic figures (6mm - 15mm range) with their rules and EXCELLENT maps. Keep up the great work.

[@jeffcapuano3380]

Wagram would be s strange "expansion" as it was 6 years earlier and about 1000km away! Wavre, maybe? Good to hear, whichever it is

[@patrickdonnerstag7128]

@@jeffcapuano3380 Wavre it is.

[@palibrae]

D'Erlon's I corps seems to be missing an entire division (Quiot)! Fine review, as usual.

[@jeffcapuano3380]

Yes, that's a little curious. But, on the plus side all of the unit for all three armies are present in the mix pieces (including Quiot) so its no problem to adjust the scenario.

[@mikestrand3023]

I ran intro the same field of engagement issue as you (at 36:xx), but when I reread the rules they clearly stated "...limited by LOS." Since LOS does not extend through enemy units, once one has moved to contact, the only unit in LOS is the single defender. Many times, with this system, I have assumed the rules were incomplete, only to discover that the question I had was covered in the very brief rules that I had read over and not noticed!

[@jeffcapuano3380]

It was the explicit change from 2.0 to 2.5 that caught my attention. A question posed on BGG as to whether or not FoE extended thru units received the reply "Yes". Is that the final word? I dunno as the system kinda lacks a central definitive voice in the public domain (at least not one that I've noticed). And, I must remember the designer has blogged about the value of imprecision in games, which I don't dispute, so in the end I don't mind so much.

[@mikestrand3023]

@@jeffcapuano3380 I have written a variant which essentially reverts to the original rules before Field of Engagement. It is on my blog mikespbandj.blogspot.com/2018/11/full-contact-pub-battles.html

[@mikestrand3023]

Note the FoE (Field of Engagemnt) rules state that you cannot move into an enemy FoE "Unless you advance to contact." Note it doesn't specify who you have to move into contact with. Many overlapping FoEs may be in effect, but all that is required is that you move into contact with some enemy unit, or stay out of skirmisher and battalion artillery range entirely. What the FoE rule was designed to counter was the very gamey tactic of moving right up next to, but not actually touching, an enemy unit; thus blocking that unit without actually making contact. Essentially standing a few feet from the enemy troops and giving them raspberries! I have been playing this system almost daily since its Brandywine debut, I experienced many of the same questions as you. I blame this on our expansive knowledge of wargames rules. It is easy to assume certain things that are not so in this system. I don't want my comments to seem negative. I think you do a GREAT job in your demonstrations of the game. I have tried my own and failed, so hats off to you.

[@jeffcapuano3380]

Not having an issue with it myself, I might say its a solution in search of a problem. But, if the "1 millimeter retreat" is truly unacceptable the system seems to have an answer for that already: combat! If artillery can bombard at range, let those invisible skirmishers fire at a piece that maneuvers in range but doesn't close. The player gets to decide if they want to risk the damage rather than the system denying them the option.

[@wsclulin]

Great video as usual!

[@bertsaerens]

Great overview of the scenario. I haven't played any of the Pub Battles games, but I might pick one up. Do you think Waterloo is good for a starting off? Also, how well does this play in solitaire?

[@jeffcapuano3380]

Waterloo is a pretty good entry in this system; I'm kind of partial to Marengo due to the large amount of room for maneuver. The intro game of Monmouth is inexpensive but doesn't provide the complete experience of a large game like Waterloo. As for solitaire play: it will work if you're fair to both sides. The chit pull mechanism will keep you guessing as to what will happen next, but you do have to keep the best interests of both sides at heart when using command to change the order of the draw.

[@john-lenin]

The biggest issue in miniatures games is lining up units for combat. How do they handle multiple units on one unit, or units not lined up perfectly, or units at angles where the attacking unit can’t actually contact their front?

[@marshallbarrington4986]

Hi John! I'm on the design team. Can you send us an email at Command Post Games? I can email you a copy of the rules. I'd be very interested in your reaction to them. Lots of guys are starting to use them for minis now. Ah, and don't worry. We don't spam at all. :) Marshall

[@FinnMcRiangabra]

@@marshallbarrington4986 Or shorter reply: don't worry so much. This is not a game of millimeters. You can usually move units in a way that makes sense. If you are trying to do odd movements to get exact alignment, you are trying too hard. Multiple units vs one unit happen only on flanking (at 90 degrees) or total envelopment (at 180 degrees). If you are getting flanked, re-think your tactics. If you are being enveloped, you are doing things wrong.

[@varovaro1967]

Where to start? In their page there are so many options that it gets confusing.... not only options of games but of characteristics and add ons.... any light welcome. Thank you! (I dont have anything from these games...)

[@daveryan2148]

Curiouse if you have played many others from this system and what your favorite is? Also any clarification on threat zones?

[@jeffcapuano3380]

Yes: the simplest interpretation wins out in this system. That said, there is a Pub Battles "version 3" in the works that may change the game significantly. Still wondering what will come of that...

[@patrickdonnerstag7128]

Great video. I am brand new to this type of game and the company that produces it ( I do mostly 28mm Napoleonic figure driven war gaming). Quick question: did any of the expansion maps / units ever come out ? I dont seem to find any information on being able to purchase expansion maps....What am i missing ? Thanks in advance.

[@jeffcapuano3380]

If you missed it, I missed it as well. I don't *think* they've done an expansion (yet). I've seen people playing Pub Battles with the rules/maps but using 10mm figures instead of the blocks; looks really great! Alas I can't paint, so that's out for me...

[@cesarramos9314]

Thank you

[@captainnolan5062]

What is your favorite pub battles game and why? I am looking to get one, and there are so many options, I would like your take.

[@jeffcapuano3380]

I favor Marengo because of the large amount of room for maneuver; I think it really lets the command/chit pull system shine. Antietam is more of a fight in place slugfest, but it works nicely as well.

[@RHampton]

Where is Grouchy?!?

[@franekviscardi1047]

Does anyone know where to get the rulebook of this game?

[@jeffcapuano3380]

It is now a product sold by the publisher (the "starter kit") so I don't think it's available anywhere freely.

[@FinnMcRiangabra]

...Or, from Command Post Games, who publish the games. Unfortunately, you probably need a PayPal account if you want to purchase. In any case, you will want to re-create the video poster's movement sticks, which are a great idea. I've also made my own field of fire template, which should be included in the game, but is not.