From: shecky@ix.netcom.com(Tom Primrose) Subject: Re: Picquet LONG I agree that Piquet is unique in its approach to gaming. I read somewhere that it is more of a game than a simulation and have to agree with that to some extent. But first, my caveat, I have only played Piquet twice, though I have read the rules and will be putting on a SYW game using the Cartouche supplement this weekend. Here are my observations so far: 1. The game is not based on a move - counter-move or a simultaneous move system. Rather, each army has a sequence deck which reflects the character of that particular army. At the beginning of a phase each side rolls 1d20 and the difference is the number of impulses the winner may play. He may spend 1 impulse to turn a card from his sequence deck or act upon an active card. Depending on the card you may move, resolve melees, reload or simply do nothing. Some armies, such as the Spanish Napoleonic army, have a lot of "dress line" cards which are essentially useless, while other armies allow for a lot of movement or reloading or special events. 2. Dicing. Each unit has a basic die for firing, melee and morale - the dice are d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12. The die types are modified by certain conditions resulting in a final die which you roll against the opponent. For instance, for melee resolution you might start at a d10 and end up with a d12 rolling against an opponent who rolls a d8. What I like about this system is that if you do not have the initiative you do not sit back and watch your opponent roll over you, but instead you actively participate in his phase. 3. One key to the game, at least what I have seen so far, is using your initiative and impulses to your best advantage. We played a Napoleonic game last Sunday where the Austrians won the initiative for at least 5 straight phases. Using their manuever cards, they were able to get an advantage in position over the French. However, by the end of the game the dice turned toward the French favor who were able to win 4 or 5 initiatives in a row and thus secure a draw. 4. Another key is are the morale chips. At the beginning of the game each side draws a number of cards based on a ratio of their units. These cards allow for special events and establish the number of morale chips an army receives. Whenever an enemy unit takes casualties or is in melee you may spend a morale chip to force that unit to take a morale check. Since you have a finite number of morale chits you are forced to play them conservatively. If a unit only has one or two hits on it then the chances of it passing the morale check are good so players usually wait until an opposing unit has received a lot of casualties before spending their chips. Also, you lose morale chips each time one of your unit is disordered or routs. 5. The combination of random sequence cards, uncertain number of impulses and the value of your morale chits forced me to play the game differently than I would have a move/counter-move or simultaneous movement game. You have to take advantage of the sequence cards and impulses whenever you can. I could not easily respond to the Austrian Cavalry on my flank because I did not get the right combination of cards and impulses. This may frighten some players who are used to the _helicopter view_ and like to respond to a threat even though the responding units would not actually know the event is happening. The first game I played I sent my French division against a Prussian division defending a river. I spent most of the time trying to get my units across the river to push the Prussians back, to no avail. One person observing the battle remarked, "why don't you just put your units into column and charge them over the bridge on your right." With these rules that is easier said than done. I would have to turn over a deployment card to put my units into line and then at least two manuever cards to move them to and across the bridge. If my attack was actually the critical attack rather than a feint I probably would have done this but instead this would have taken impulses away from the main attack. The rules do have some problems - such as having to wait for a melee resolution card to resolve most charges, unrealistic skirmish rules (they can't evade a charge), the ratings for some units (I don't think SYW Prussian Hussars should be rated as medium cav., elite), and having to wait for a reload card to reload units which fire (we rate fired units down 1 die type until they reload) but I am withholding final judgement on the rules until I have played them a few more times. Most of the problems we have found so far are easily remedied. All in all, they are a unique set of rules which force players to think in different ways when compared to other rules systems. Tom From: rjones7228@aol.com (RJones7228) Subject: Re: Piquet Hi Tom I saw your latest post on Piquet/Cartouche, and thought I might respond. A few thoughts: 1. The optional cards are there as a way to create scenarios, and specific effects in those scenarios. As is pointed out in the rules, they should be used sparingly and with forethought. Confused withdrawal is a powerful card, and removing after one occurance is probably a good idea. I view the rules as a "toolbox" and some gamer/scenario designer's creative ideas and judgements are not only requested, but necessary. I'm afraid that Piquet is more a design system, rather than a legalistic, rules lawyer's "heaven". 2. How many units do you have rated at the D10 (Adjusted to D12) level? The frequency of occurence sounds high. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the rating issue if you'll E-mail me. 3. On the reload card, I refer you to MWAN #84. Remember, the Deck is nothing more than a segmented and randomized turn sequence. Most games allow a single fire phase in a turn-In Piquet, a unit may fire 2-3 times in a turn-given the frequency of reloads. Piquet does not allow the commander to always optimize his fire as in other games and that can be frustrating to new players. If you are selecting fire and targets for units at every opportunity as in other rules, it seems to me you are actually micromanaging to a greater degree! If you find to many units are "unloaded" perhaps you're firing too often, too far away, and too indiscriminately. We tend to hold fire until its needed, well in range, and likely to have a good payoff-rather like the 18th c. batallion commanders did. In truth, fire in many horse and musket period games may, in relation to history, be too easy, at too great an average range, and too frequent. In any case, the flow of impetus allows fire volumes to vary widely from turn to turn. My article in MWAN #84 addresses this issue. I wish I had called the card "Peak Fire effect" (even if it functioned the same way)! 4. The size of your battle is quite large(over 80 units) and I would recommend the suggestion on page 34 of the core rules to use multiple decks. Additionally, You could use multiple initiative rolls by the various corps commanders. In large games this has the added benefit of keeping everyone involved and giving everyone impetus decisions . Most of all I would recommend that as with any rule set a somewhat smaller scope would initially be helpful until the mechanics, and process, are more clearly framed in the mind of the new players. 5. As to the degree of firepower loss , the design premise here is that combat loss, in any game terms, is relative. Many past designs structured fire and melee as mutual effect roll offs where both sides would take losses-requiring calculation and time, when the final combat determinant is ultimately the "net" losses. In melee both sides are vulnerable to loss though, again, the net loss is all that is ultimately represented. In Piquet, We are really only interested in 'Who won?' and was it a narrow or striking victory? This is somewhat closer to a boardgamer's design premises than to the typical miniaturist's concepts. Some Piquet gamers are not removing stands, but placing casualty markers or casualty stands to indicate "losses", some have opted for a simple roster. I refer you to The Napoleonic forum on AOL over the past two weeks as these issues were discussed. I am sure there are many changes I will be making to this system as time goes by, and I appreciate all feedback-but I think part of what is occuring and will, I hope, continue to occur, is a re-framing of the design paradigm for miniature games in people's minds as they encounter Piquet's admitedly "different" approach. Hope you give it another try, and good gaming! BJ