East Cavalry Field-Gettysburg Scenario

Just a few notes on the East Cavalry (Gettysburg) Battlefield scenario by Michael Ward. Played this last night and it was a fun little game. A few observations are in order though. The "Runnel" house is misspelled and should be the Rummel house. Also, the terrain tiles listed for the scenario are short one hill and one woods tile. It's a pretty quick, bloody scenario with a ton of cavalry. We played using the standard rules where cavalry can only shoot one hex. I think that by adding the variant dismounted cavalry rules the game might play better. Those allow non moving cav to fir 3-2-1 instead of the normal one hex 3. I'll give that option a try later on. While the actual action at the East Cavalry field include a few all out cavalry charges, there were a number of instances of the cav fighting dismounted as infantry. The scenario as written doesn't account for that. It's a good scenario which can be much better with the few updates I suggest.

Right, misscount one hill and forest tile

And yes, adding some houserules makes fun and sense sometimes (dismounted CAV for example).
We have tested BC with CCN rules, and it worked also very well (i think, MarkMcG will add his modified CCN rules here).

More like BC rules modified with CCN elements. The concept is that they substitute the existing BC rules entirely, using the existing game components (cards, terrain, scenarios, units).

Overall, they will appear like the BC150 rules with additions, but the overall effect is to change the balance of play from favouring the attacker to favouring the defender. So I'm still playtesting to tweak the terrain modifiers a bit to give Artillery more power.

Mark MCG wrote: ?..the overall effect is to change the balance of play from favouring the attacker to favouring the defender. So I'm still playtesting to tweak the terrain modifiers a bit to give Artillery more power.

Favoring the defender would be more to form in US Civil War battles. Any link to a preview of these rules?

I put a set up for comment here
ccbattlecry.net/index.php?option=com_kun...d=125&Itemid=167#417