‘Volley and Bayonet’ vs ‘Field of Battle 3’ and some more Almanza 1707

I would of course call this ‘the great debate’, but to be fair, it’s only a great debate in my head, as neither set is particularly popular amongst the wargaming ‘glitterati’. 

The recent Almanza game, redone with V&B - each unit dropped a base, but gameplay and outcome VERY different

Frank Chadwick and Greg Novak’s ‘Volley & Bayonet (Road to Glory)’ (note also  Classic ‘redbook’ 1^st edition ) and Brent Oman’s ‘Piquet: Field of Battle’ (often just called Field of Battle or FoB3, its DNA cut richly from Piquet) are both brigade to division-level black-powder wargame rulesets covering roughly 1700–1890 (Napoleonic, AWI, ACW, etc.), designed for large historical battles.

Both sets are superbly written and well designed and tested, and yet ...the tragedy remains that other hardback glossy covers, with rules which need to be interpreted and re-written, which have multiple overpriced supplements, seem more popular!!! Predicting human behaviour, and wargamer dopamine, is a necessarily rash proposition it seems.

An early English attack on their left - I thought it was complete folly, but it did a lot of damage to the flank, routing Spanish cavalry - even Berwick was a bit worried

Both V&B and FoB are excellent in my view, but they feel completely different at the table. Is it as simple as VnB being 'chess with dice'; FoB as 'poker with miniatures’? Broadly speaking no, but  if you play one, the other will still feel fresh. There is the key. Both offer great game-play, but with very different play-styles.

The current '2nd'(ish) edition; options for reducing current scale, where a unit is a 'brigade'. Many options exist for AWI in smaller scales for instance.

The original 1990s version - still prized for turning the concept of the 'scale' of a wargames battle, and what it meant, on its head.

Head on clash in the centre, where the 'stationary' bonus for musketry (effectively doubling dice) really began to take a toll mid game, leaving the centre virtually empty and open to exploitation from both sides, who in their rashness to break the opponent's centre, would leave multiple flanks open....V&B does not reward foolhardy moves...

For predictable command, clear phases, and classic morale tests? → Volley & Bayonet?

For card-driven small ‘c’ chaos, army morale that can snap as the force wears down, and possible momentum swings? → Piquet: Field of Battle?

·        Depending on the game and period, and sometimes for the ‘same’ period, I like the feel of both of these options.

Cavalry clash on the French right

·        *METAPHOR ALERT* It’s like cycling – Road Biking and Mountain Biking use machines and mechanics which are similar – but the muscles/mindset you exercise in one endeavor vs the other, are very different in most respects. Each provides a very different experience (especially if you crash!), and some cyclists do both, whilst others see the opposing ‘sport’ as a dangerous anathema to their own.

 

British/Allied attack, despite being outnumbered, gains steam early on.

·        The rules differ dramatically in philosophy: VnB is a quasi-traditional, deterministic IGOUGO system that emphasizes command ‘geography’ and steady attrition, whilst FoB is a card-driven Piquet-family game (without the larger swings) that builds in friction, fog of war, and drama via decks and opposed dice.

 

Units blown away in the centre, as stationary musketry clashes create bedlam for both sides.

 

 Some more detailed comparisons:

1. Turn Sequence

Volley & Bayonet (Road to Glory): Classic IGOUGO. Each player completes a full turn in sequence before the opponent acts. One turn = roughly 1 hour of battle time. Phases:

• Command Determination (check which stands are in command)
• Movement
• Rally (routed units touched by corps/army commander)
• Morale Checks (both sides)
• Combat (firing+melee resolved together; attacker chooses order – KEY, if shot at, the defender shoots back – choose carefully).
• Exhaustion & Collapse (division checks if over casualty threshold – KEY to its elegance in my view)

Everything is (relatively) predictable and simultaneous within each phase with no cards or variable activation (in standard game).

That steady attrition, with your opponent not necessarily being aware of your army's sorry state, and the effects of degradation, is its core strength.

Piquet: Field of Battle: Card-driven with variable impetus. Each army has its own 27(ish)-card Sequence Deck (composition based on CinC quality — better commanders get more “good” cards and fewer Lulls).

• Both CinCs roll Leadership dice (D8–D12+). High roller chooses to go first or second, but both sides receive the full pip difference as “impetus points.”
• Each impetus point = turn one card from your deck. The card type (Move, Infantry Firepower, Melee, Army Morale, etc.) tells all your units what they can do this card.
• Turns end when one side exhausts its deck or duplicate leadership rolls occur. Result: highly asymmetric, unpredictable ebb-and-flow. One side can have a long run of cards while the other might only fire defensively, then suddenly the momentum flips.

Winner for predictability and elegance: VnB. Winner for drama/friction: FoB.

Cavalry action on the French left, which is fought to a standstill.

 

 2. Command & Control

Volley & Bayonet: Purely ‘geographic’ / positional.

• Every stand belongs to a division under a divisional commander stand.
• Must be within 6″ of its commander (or linked through another in-command stand).
• Out of command penalties are harsh: half speed, cannot recover disorder, cannot close with the enemy, cannot go stationary for extra fire dice.
• No command points or dice rolls to activate — if you’re in command you move/fire freely in the appropriate phase.Be careful where your command ends up however!
• Higher commanders (corps/army) move freely and are never attacked.
• Very “hands-on” generalship: you physically keep your division together or suffer.

Piquet: Field of Battle: Card + Leadership-die activation (no fixed radius).

• Units are grouped into flexible Command Groups (2–6+ units) each with its own Leader who has a Leadership Die type (better armies = higher dice).
• On a Move card, every Command Group leader rolls its LD vs opponent’s D6 for progress: “1 = no move” risk.
• Fire and melee are also 'gated' by their own cards.
• Better CinC = better deck + better LD types → more reliable activation.

Summary:

·        VnB sometimes feels like “keeping formations together on the map until it all falls apart”, whilst FoB is more “issuing orders into the fog and hoping that fortune favours the bold.” In each case, the planning process is slightly different.

 

 3. Morale

Volley & Bayonet: per-stand, traditional morale tests.

• Each stand has a Morale rating 1 (poor) – 6 (elite).
• Test: roll d6 ≤ modified Morale rating → pass. Higher = disorder.
• Disorder is temporary but crippling (–1 morale, saves on 4-6 vs hits, cannot charge, etc.).
• A second disorder while already disordered = rout (lose 1 SP immediately + full move retreat). It pays therefore to avoid disorder - the irony is, it's impossible.
• Divisions have an “exhaustion” threshold (40–60 % losses); once crossed the division is brittle and can suffer automatic morale collapse.
• Close-range fire or melee often triggers extra tests. Rally is by physical contact with higher commander (no die roll, but the unit stays permanently disordered).

Piquet: Field of Battle: Almost no per-unit morale checks — morale is handled at two levels:

1. Unit Integrity (UI): Infantry start with 4 UI, cavalry 3, artillery 2. Every 3 pips difference in opposed Combat Die vs Defense Die = 1 UI lost.
2. Army Morale Points (AMP): ~1 per unit at start. Lose 1 AMP per UI lost.

• When an army reaches 0 AMP (anywhere from 20 - 35 normally, depending on game size), the Army Morale card (there are usually 3 in the deck) becomes lethal: CinCs roll LD; loser can lose whole Command Groups, be forced to retreat, or the battle can end immediately.
• In combat: if the damage roll is even, the target often suffers an immediate extra effect (Out of Command / shaken, retreat, or rout outright). No disorder markers per se — units just lose UI until they rout at 0 UI (removed at –1).

Summary: VnB has frequent, granular morale tests that create disorder and rout cascades. FoB uses army-wide “morale chips” and sudden combat-triggered routs for a more cinematic army-collapse feel.

 

4. Probability of Routing a Unit!

Volley & Bayonet (probabilistic via morale tests):

• Base disorder chance on a d6 test: for average Morale 4→ fail(disorder)on 5–6 = 33 %.
• Elite (6) → only fails on 6 = 17 %. Poor (2) → fails on 3–6 = 67 %. Modifiers (flank, high ground, etc.) shift this.
• Routing requires two successive disorders (or direct combat result).
• Once disordered, the next test is at –1, so probability compounds quickly.
• Routed unit is immediately weakened and usually out of the fight unless rallied (which is automatic by contact but leaves it permanently disordered).
• Cumulative hits from fire/melee also grind stands to 0 SP → removal.
• Steady, predictable attrition until a unit “breaks” via the disorder mechanic.

Piquet: Field of Battle (more swingy, combat-driven – harder to get a definitive ‘probability’ style answer due to its nature):

• Units retreat via losing against an even damage roll. Units rout primarily by losing all UI (usually 3–4 hits) or by an even 2 hit damage roll in fire or melee (which triggers instant rout).
• Combat resolution is opposed dice: attacker’s Combat Die (D8–D12+) vs defender’s Defense Die (D4–D10), modified by range/formation/terrain. Difference of 3+ pips = 1 UI lost.
• Probability of routing therefore depends on quality matchup: elite French vs poor Austrian can rout a unit in 1–2 good rolls; ‘even’ matchups take longer but the “even, rather than odd number, roll = extra bad thing” adds sudden-death risk.
• Army-wide collapse (via Army Morale card at 0 AMP) can end the game instantly – but this takes time. More potential for  “boom-or-bust” — a single hot streak of cards + good dice can rout multiple units in one go.

Bottom line on routing probability:

• VnB → gradual, morale-test driven (you can calculate exact % per test). Units usually disorder first, then rout. Building to ‘division exhaustion’, and knowing which corps to avoid ‘breaking’,  is the sweet spot here. Keeping everything managed is key.
• FoB → combat-result driven with high variance (opposed dice + even/odd rider). Units can rout suddenly without warning, with no affectation to division exhaustion, but in my view, you don’t notice too much; there isn't time! Planning for unpredictability is key.

  

Quick Overall Verdict

• For predictable command, clear phases, and classic morale tests? → Volley & Bayonet.
• For card-driven chaos (with a small ‘c’), army morale that can snap as army is worn, and momentum swings? → Piquet: Field of Battle.

Both are excellent for large battles, both are representative (as much as they can be) for the periods, but they feel completely different at the table.  There is ‘some’ predictability in a V&B game – play the same game the same ‘way’ twice, and the dice should give similar results; thus it is open to variability in play style. That doesn’t happen with FoB: battle is very dangerous. Making mistakes can be costly in both games, though for different reasons...it's hard to cheat and 'game' the turn sequence in either game.

 The absence of C2 friction in V&B is not an oversight — it's a design choice, I believe, that keeps the game simple, fast, and focused on high-level generalship rather than micromanaging lower-level command. The rules even note that true friction emerges best in multi-player games - a convenient excuse not to design a command rating system?..or simply the understanding that this is a game to be enjoyed at the table. This ‘simple but not simplistic’ design lets big battles flow without bogging down in activation rolls or command-point bookkeeping.

 

A quagmire of broken units near the game end - victory will go to the side that exhausts each division of the opponent...it was a very close call in the end, with the French winning VERY narrowly.

 

Therein, for me, lies the conundrum/opportunity. Both types of game feed the wargamer’s very soul! Having spent years trying to choose, I still want to play both, so choice appears to be off the table … whilst both games remain on it. 

What do they both have in common then? I would suggest efficient, systemically stable designs are key – each well honed in how they work.

 

At each end of the spectrum, these designs are both easily top of a very broad field, highlighting the difference in approach to horse & musket game/simulation.

 

They aren't glitzy hardbacks - they don't need to be. Both are stand out entries, and yet very different in design, such that I really have no compulsion to try the other contenders, and have already used ‘Black Powder‘ as loo roll, in all its various editions. 

 

To finish, a sampling of some of the scenario books, written both in house and by interested players. All excellent!