A Gentleman's War

You can reach me at professorbellbuckle@yahoo.com BUT remember I wrote these rules in 1986. If you want rules interpretations, your idea may be at least as valid as mine :)

See, that's what we want to hear! We have a Facebook page called, oddly enough, 'A Gentleman's War.'

Hey Alex - let me answer those questions. They aren't numbered, so see if you can follow what I am answering!

HW: Counter-charging is the normal response of cavalry to being charged. It’s what they do. In AGW a unit that doesn’t counter-charge is at a disadvantage of 1, as you say. Also, since ‘Gallant’ is the most common cavalry Distinction – which only counts when attacking – a unit that fails to coutercharge is very likely to be ‘2 down’ and at a serious disadvantage. This is is less of an issue with infantry, who will probably do better to stand and shoot their attackers – but, obviously, that depends who they are. Savages like, say, Afghan fanatics or the Russian Guard, might want to countercharge.

I didn’t go into ‘where they meet’, but I’d suggest that, unless the counter-chargers roll a very low score for distance, they ought to ‘meet in the middle.’


HW: The first of these, wheeling or pivoting as needed to face the threat. In...See more fact, suddenly forming a march column would be among the worst choices to make!

HW: I’ve used the term ‘flank attack’ to mean that the enemy starts outside the front arc, and ‘rear attack’ is when at least half of them are actually behind the target unit at the start of their movement. This is one of those things that I might have explained more clearly. The example might be better placed after the ‘Rear Attack’ heading, and I phrased it poorly. It really does involves the poor Loamshires being hammered from both flank and rear.

The better way to see this is that the lesser of the two dangers is an enemy off to the side, beyond the front arc, but visible. If you have a response that lets you turn a bit, you bring them into your front arc, and it becomes a ‘normal’ fight. The greater danger is that the enemy comes from 90 degrees or more from your front, so can’t easily be spotted before they hit you. That’s when the die roll comes in. Does that help? And, yes, if you are unable to face at all, it’s your bad luck, roll on the table.

If you are on Facebook, join us at the group ‘A gentleman’s War.’

Hi Howard, thanks very much for the reply.

That makes perfect sense re counter-charging, ie it depends what distinctions you’ve kitted your units out with as to whether it’s important (always for cavalry!).

Regarding the flank vs rear attacks: so if you are unable to turn and face a flank attack (outside your 45 arc) you fight with half your men, and if unable to face a rear attack you roll on the table.

I guess my confusion arose from the example which said 2 of the Loamshires were able to turn and fight, which suggested despite it counting as a rear attack, the 43 Ligne were making contact with the Loamshire flank, otherwise 6 men would have been able to fight on a roll of 5 if the contact was to the rear (1 rank turning for rear contact vs 1 file for side contact).

I appreciate now that this is possible as the line denoting the rear attack is drawn from the front of the target unit. This would be more evident against a target in attack or march column...See more where you can easily be behind their front line (counting as a rear charge) but facing the side of the unit. Less obvious against a target in line but still possible.

This also means it’s much better from a rear attack against an enemy in line to contact the side so you only fight 0, 2 or 4 based on their roll as opposed to 0, 6 or 12 if contact with the rear is made. Whereas against an attack column there’s less difference as it’s almost a square formation with 12 figures. That actually makes sense as there’s not much difference between front and rear attacks against a line if they can just about face at will (a good roll of 6!).

Thanks again, I’ll look out for the Facebook group.

I think the example probably isn't as well-written as it seemed at the time. Sorry. I lnew what the battlefield looked like in my mind ---

In theory a direct attack from the rear is more, erm, defensible than one from a direct flank attack. The Gloucesters turned to defeat an attack like that at Aboukir in 1801, IIRC. But, chances are, either one will demolish the target unit.

Shiny Toy Soldiers, roughly 1860-1913, but without the harsh reality of History.

So, I couldn’t do 18th century Imagi-nations?
Haha! just kidding. I know I can!

Howard has even used 'em for Medieval, so anything is possible.

If the period has soldiers standing in line and shooting, these rules will work just fine. There is even some optional rules for these periods. I played in the author's AWI game at Cold Wars. The rules worked very well. Great fun!