Battle Cry Active Units

[mtgelston]

I really like this game, but the rule that only ordered units may battle seems unrealistic to me. I can understand that allowing only ordered units to move simulates fog of war, uncertain lines of communication, etc. However, a unit actively engaged with an enemy unit, realistically speaking, would not need orders to return fire. What is the rationale behind allowing only ordered units to conduct battle? Perhaps the rule could be changed to allow only ordered units to move, but then any unit in range of the enemy may battle.

[Y2UAsk]

I think the rationale is that BC is first and foremost a game, not a model of Civil War combat. Given the level of abstraction involved, you can rationalize anything you like in it. You could just as easily claim that allowing only ordered units to attack is a reflection of combat effectiveness. When no cards are played, it indicates that although the units are engaged with the enemy, there is much confusion and little is being accomplished.

I suggest trying your idea in a few games and seeing what its effect really is. I suspect it will reduce the importance of cards and initiative significantly. Once you move into range of the enemy, the outcome is basically a dice-rolling contest. The player who accumulated cards for that flank will have very little advantage over the player who has no cards for that flank because it's a free-fire zone. That might turn out to be a lot of fun, or it might not. Only playtesting will truly tell.

If you try it, be sure to post again and let us know how it turned out.

Steve

[mtgelston]

That's an excellent answer, and as I think about it, I suspect you are right. It probably would not be as fun to allow all units in range to battle. It certainly would decrease the importance of the card play. Thanks!