“… & Blenheim Palace” (Do you see what I did there?)
These are the playtested (and amended, and playtested again, and amended again) rules we use for War of Spanish Succession with Warlord’s “Black Powder” wargame rules. These are independent of Warlord and the original writers.
Blenheim Palace v2.2 (PDF)
I know some will bring up specific situations where some of these will not be applicable, or counter to what happened at certain battles. I think these sort of instances are better handled in scenario specific rules.
Please remember the aim of these are to add the flavour of the period, not an indepth study of early 18th century warfare, so while I’m happy to receive constructive comments, Black Powder remains at its heart a game for Gentlemen played with Toy Soldiers! I wished to stop two identical armies being fielded, especially with the cavalry rules. Here I wanted there to be an actual difference beween armies using the two doctrines. More notes on page 8.
You actually only need pages 3-7. The other pages are bells and whistles to make sure it prints correctly for double sided, as well as following the style of the ‘eye candy’ original rules. Also 8 pages means it can be placed on A3 and make a booklet.
Click the Black Powder tag to the left for all BP related posts by me – there are a number, including a battle report, and my modification to the Broken Brigade rules. The tag at the top does all the BP entries across WordPress, so you’ll also find other people’s take on the rules (some contributed on my earlier WSS rules post – Thank you)
Play Nicely, and may all your dice be lucky.
Last Hussar's Barracks 
If ‘Column of Platoons’ is the only way to move through a wood, can you clarify how you would fight the actions on each flank at Malplaquet, which took place in and through the woods?
I think die for both 1st fire and Platoon firing is a little over the top, given the contention over the true effectiveness of the latter. Apart from the notorious Malplaquet incident, I have not heard/read of anything to support the advantage. I do not think there is sufficient evidence in the general works on the battles of the period to suggest that it specifically had any significant effect on the overall outcome or the opening shots, where you have it placed.
Nevertheless, I will give them a go.
Cheers
Pete
Looking good. I have one comment about cavalry. You use the word “caracole”. First off, this tactic was a specific tactic for light cavalry to loiter in front of enemy infantry firing their pistols all the while. The design was to break up the enemy formation so that other heavy cavalry and supporting infantry would have an easy time of it. I do not agree that during the WSS that the French Cavalry were somehow inferior to the English cavalry. I think they French cavalry was a victim of poor leadership and strategy. In their big losses, the French cavalry were grossly outnumbered. In their one shining example, Malplaquet, they were able to drive back those same English cavalry no less than 6 times before the trench line was finally secured by the allies. One more thing, the term “caracole” is anachronistic to the period as it was last used in the early 1600s before the outbreak of the 30 years war.
Other than that, thanks for the supplement. Very nice.
John
Thanks for these – I feared rude sneers!
Peter: Platoon Fire. I’ve tried to steer a middle course. There are those who would take the complete opposite, and I have one freind who would say that I have vastly underestimated the effect of Platoon firing, and it should be allowed through out the game (Although he is bias, one side of his family is from the low countries, and he usually fields Dutch/Belgium armies depending on the period!) The (commercial) rules he uses give Rank and Platoon firers different basing, giving Platoon firers an inherent advantage. A number of sources indicate that when done properly it was more powerful, but there is scepticism, both historican and amoung the wargame community, that this could be kept up for any length of time.
I did consider no “First Fire” for rank firers where platoon firers are fielded by either side, ie only the PF get the extra dice. The other option is to allow Platoon firers to reroll one of their misses the first time they fire (I discuss the statistical difference here
or even take it a step further, and have the first fire dice a different colour – that being the only one Platoon firers can reroll.
As for Malplaquet – that is a case for scenario specific rules. There is no reason that before a battle the terrain can not be defined in a certain way – i.e. “This wood does not require Column of Platoons, but is still half speed”. The Maps of Malplaquet appear to indicate the part of the woods the Allied Right moved through were thinner than the part between them and their centre. Terrain can be best decribed on the day, rather than overarching rules. BP itself has very little to say about the matter (Hills are not mentioned at all as a hinderance in the rules).
John. I wasn’t trying to suggest French Cavalry were inferior on a man to man comparison. However the difference in tactic was remarked upon in contemporary sources. It comes back to my remark in the supplement about wanting to avoid generic armies in different uniforms.
BP is a “broad brush” game, and you can think of that difference as being the reflection of the leadership. When I write rules I’ve stopped writing every variable, but ‘Black Box’ it – why roll for target, roll to hit, roll to damage when it turns out this gives a simple result that can be done on a d6. (I once joked the ultimate Napoleonic game would be one where you rolled for % each man in the battalion to see if he hit (2% chance per musket).
Remember, the only time Caracole are at a disadvantage to Cold Steel are when receiving a charge. The second round of combat (if they survive) they are evens. Additionally CHARGING they are at an advantage over British. I would suggest that maybe at Malplaquet they just rolled really well – we’ve all seen it happen on the table.
As to ‘Caracole’ – I found it on a couple of sources. I’m prepared to stretch a point so I have a name for them, rather than ‘shooting cavalry’!
You asked for constructive criticism! 🙂
Pistolier cavalry? Would that work? That’s what Stephen Danes called them in “Lace Wars”.
just to say we’ve now played 4 games using the amendments and have greatly enjoyed them. Much more of a period specific feel. quite happy with the platoon fire rules and the caracole cavalry rules.
It doesn’t really matter what you call them, the effect seems right.
We had an excellent game last night with a large cavalty action ( 28 squadrons of French Vs 32 of British and dutch ) seperated by a stream. It was quite interesting as in the end the allies had to charge across or be whittled away .
Excellent close fought melee. The rules seem to work fine as they are.
Good work.!!
We are going to try these rules with a Great Northern War game. I’ve briefly tested them and I have a short question. If a unit is contacted by enemy during the command phase (not in the initiative phase), can it still bear closing fire?
My club have found the BP rules put a particular importance on Melee (6 dices vs only 3 dices in firing). This sound strange in a rule set that involve mainly firing units. It could be good for irregular units in colonial wars but in all the games we have played we have seen that players tend to close instead to fire, and this seems really strange for XVIII century games.
What do you think about it?
Thank you for these very precious rules suggestion.
You are still allowed closing fire – the only thing that has moved was the ‘active’ player’s firing. All charged units may make 1 closing fire attack per move.
While it looks like melee is encouraged, it is actually a risky business. Closing fire has a 42% chance of delivering a ‘disordered’ result which will remove the advantage of charging. Additionally it is easier to force a morale test – you only have to shake a unit, not cause excess casualties – ie inflict 3 not 4. Plus ANY kill by artillery will force morale at -1 (see Morale QR sheet).
Additionally unless you are sure the odds are on your side, charging with infantry can be a big gamble. The defenders are more able to have set up a supported line, so they get extra ‘hits’ to count – it can be hard for teh attackers to get supports in place. Additionally it is easy to leave flanks exposed by a series of charges across your front, some of which don’t reach the enemy – if you are over 12 from the target unit there is an aproximately 50/50 chance you won’t contact (needing 2 or 3 moves) – thus leaving you possibly in his short range for firing.
Finally, remember the loser takes a morale test, even if he only has 1 hit on him, and because a unit quits the field of 4 or less there is AT MINIMUM a 1 in 6 chance of fleeing – forcing supports to also test.
After a combat a unit is likely to be exhausted, even if it won, and its quite possible that a brigade will thus be broken or close to it, and so unable to follow up. I think this is why melee is 6 dice – to ensure hand to hand is decisive.
Hi there
I have shared your files to my Black Powder rules page as i think it would be of interst to my readers http://www.10mm-wargaming.com/2014/12/black-powder-rules_9.html
Take care
Andy
http://www.10mm-wargaming.com/
Just spotted this – you’re welcome, with my usual caveat you don’t profit, you don’t pass off as your own work*. Hope it’s of use.
*I’m sure you won’t but there are those out there that will!
Thanks 🙂
You may have solved my frustrating search for some War of Spanish Succession rules. Thank you. Its a simple period, why was it so hard! 🙂