Tinkering with 'Volley & Bayonet'

Some pics from a re-fight of ACW’s  Champions Hill again with Volley and Bayonet. The idea in this case was to get players enthused for a future BIG game. 

High ground results in a mod for the MORALE roll - interestingly positioned in the turn sequence - and a natural 6  is not always a fail - therefore you can get your troops into the situation where morale is solid and unbreakable, but this is rare.

The turn sequence is everything here as ever: command, move, rally, morale, combat, exhaustion…

Reb defensive positions on Champions Hill

 One key of course is the morale phase, where there is always a chance of a unit becoming disordered – with mods for flanking, support etc. …but if passed then combat can be a 50/50 or better; if failed however, one disorder can become a rout very quickly in a melee situation. The game also quite succinctly brings home the value of sustained musketry on one half of the battlefield, with close range melee on the other. Just like 'Piquet, Field of Battle', it plays as battles read.

Union attack

   Key design elements include:

• ·         Scale and Movement: The default ground scale is 1” = 100 yards with a time scale of one hour per turn, enabling units to march at realistic sustained rates (2.5–3 mph) while accounting for battlefield friction.
• ·         Unit Structure: Armies are organized into brigades (1,500–3,000 men) to keep command and control systems austere, focusing on player decision-making rather than complex mechanical modifiers. 
• ·         Simplified Formations: The rules omit traditional infantry formations like line, column, and square; instead, these are modeled through mechanics like morale, stationary status, and unit training levels. A 'faf' to make things simple, or actually genius design?
• ·         Sequential Action: The game uses an alternating activation sequence to capture the cyclic nature of command and counter-command, avoiding complex simultaneous resolution systems - although defensive fire can be activated if the attacker fires at same unit - a genius little mechanism, that makes tactical play very interesting.
• ·         Merit-Based Performance: The system rejects "national modifiers," arguing that unit performance is determined by training, leadership, and combat experience rather than inherent national temperament (and leadership mods are not there - relying instead on the temperament of individual players).
• ·         Scenario Flexibility: The rules support both historical re-fights and fictional battles through an innovative scenario system, with specific period hacks available (of note is J.D. Glasco's fantastic AWI stuff).

  …and to quote Frank Chadwick and Greg Novak themselves (these design notes are considerably expanded in both editions of the rules):

‘One of the first things new players notice – after the large movement rates – is the lack of the familiar column line and square infantry formations. In the original edition of these rules I said that you don’t need them because that is not the job of corps and army commanders; the decisions on formations are handled at lower levels, and the game assumes that troops are in formations appropriate to the tactical situation in which they find themselves – or perhaps not, in the case of less capable troops, which in part accounts for their lower morale ratings. ‘

20mm artillery with some old 'Minifigs' gunners - supplied by 'Steve the Wargamer' many years ago

This game is for big battles – yes, there have been concessions made to ‘playing with toy soldiers’ – no commander ratings, no formations at the micro level, BUT much is made of the big corps movements, division exhaustion, and putting yourself in Lee or Napoleon’s seat…and even enabling a scale-less approach to big basing, and big battles - that’s what I want for my toy solders.

Union troops close on the Confederate positions on Champions Hill

More interesting is the fact that multiple scales are available for differing levels of battle – yes, of course the game is designed for big battles, and sensible games with toy soldiers – that notwithstanding, tweaks and hacks are always there to use same system across multiple sizes of battle – does it work at reduced? Well, we shall see, as I have several AWI re-fights in mind…as example consider (taken from recent ‘Storm in the Valley’ supplement::

Regiment Scale

• 100 yards per inch
• 1hour per turn
• 500 men per strength point
•  6 guns per strength point

Battalion Scale

• ·         50 yards per inch
• 30 mins per turn
• 200 men per strength point
• 4 guns per strength point

Wing Scale

• ·         25 yards per inch
• 15 minutes  per turn
• 80 men per strength point
• 2 guns per strength point

2nd edition - some changes to light infantry / skirmishers, and clarification that 'combat is sequential, not simultaneous' - this is actually quite pivotal, especially so with low strength units

 

The seminal and ground-breaking 1st ed. I always loved the fact that AWI units on the cover have a very economic three figures per base...outstanding!

Stones River 1862, with Volley & Bayonet

Having some time over Easter to set up a large game, one of the ACW battles from the old V&B '90s scenario book seemed appropriate.

Stones River is of an appropriate size for the table and troop numbers, but even at that, is definitely designed for 4-5 players rather than two - mainly for the management of simple paperwork on the rosters - which can be time consuming with less players. The added advantage of many players also is that some may consider 'orders' as mere 'suggestions' bearing in mind that their division is about to collapse, which seems very in period. 

 

First army to lose 3/4 (ish) of its divisions to exhaustion would lose here.

Confederate positions with the river to their back...not healthy at all!

 To review turn sequence: 

Command Determination (check which stands are in command)

Movement (generous, but a turn is 1 hour)

Rally (routed units in contact with corps/army commander - these are essential)

Morale Checks (both sides in contact, or in 'close' range - artillery is the only element that enforces that here)

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 - these become very important and affect ability to charge and move) 

A successful union defence (albeit a very close run thing) in the centre

 To zone in on one of these this episode: 

The rules state: 'combats take place sequentially' - granted defenders can fire back, but not if they do not survive the volleys against them; also - 'defending stands which were not attacked may fire defensively at any enemy stands...at close range'. 

The beauty of this is that artillery ha a close range, though infantry rifle muskets and carbines do not - which makes choice of who to fire at, and which units to do it with, all the more interesting. This matters if your division needs to focus on a particular unit, or escape vector, and avoid being clobbered by stronger units before their half of the turn...gamey?, but it works well - especially so when divisions are on the verge of collapse, since your opponent will be playing exactly the same game.

the confederate right, where divisions would simply stare at each other for hours, waiting for a flank action to their right...which never really happened

The Reb attack on their left flank

Union stationary units give dense fire

The centre, where each side tries to goad the other into attacking first...the Rebs buckle and attack, because they are forced to due to action on their left

View from the Reb right - everything is happening on the left initially, though note the movement of Union reinforcements in the rear

Union brigades defend well...at first, and yet do take a heavy toll on some of the Reb brigades

It looks like somehow, the centre will be key

Union assault on the centre - unsuccessful as Palmer's division is simply blown away!

...but they keep coming...

The left becomes a trap for the Rebs, losing division after division, being forced to move troops from the precious centre...as well as corps commanders and Bragg himself

Union troops move to reinforce the centre now

...as their right holds fast...just

The Union have enough troops to plug the gaps - the Confederates...not so much.

Another Union push in the centre - which will be pivotal this time, breaking the Reb centre

'Hang on boys!'

View across the battlefield, from the Rebel right

The Rebel left is cooked...and the Union are in little better shape

All that is left of the Reb centre

Rebs hold on the Union left, but crossing the river, with three divisions already exhausted elsewhere is too dangerous

'Watch the flank boys!' Too many gaps to cover now in the centre

...and now with pressure on the Rebel right

In the end, 5 Reb divisions were exhausted - too much to come back from, as the Union troops could plug all the gaps, but a great game!

 

‘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!