Pendraken Miniatures Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
03 December 2020, 01:20:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Libertad!, our Spanish Civil War supplement is now available!
311146 Posts in 18070 Topics by 2271 Members
Latest Member: Simon@TWZ
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Pendraken Miniatures Forum
|-+  Wider Wargaming
| |-+  Rules
| | |-+  What was the last rules set you played 2020
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 Go Down Print
Author Topic: What was the last rules set you played 2020  (Read 25049 times)
paulr
Field Marshal
*
*
Posts: 10248


« Reply #210 on: 28 October 2020, 06:21:07 AM »

 Thumbs up Applause Thumbs up

Nice looking armies, shame the game didn't go better Wink
Logged

2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
Techno II
Captain
*
*
Posts: 336



« Reply #211 on: 28 October 2020, 08:07:16 AM »

Seconded !  Thumbs up

Cheers - Phil  Smiley
Logged

I really shouldn't press buttons...before I know what will happen.
Probably STILL he most picked on member of the forum since the year dot.
sean66
Lieutenant
*
Posts: 166


WWW
« Reply #212 on: 30 October 2020, 07:43:08 AM »

Just been reading Cornered Wolves will be painting a few small units to play that in next few weeks.
also reading the Hind and Seek Rules so I think this weekend will be in the Panjshir Valley.
Regards
Sean
Logged

paulr
Field Marshal
*
*
Posts: 10248


« Reply #213 on: 31 October 2020, 09:23:50 PM »

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - For King & Parliament
2) What armies were confronted? - Royalists v Parliamentarians 1643
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Very
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No, but first time since May
5) How many players were in the game? - 4 last Saturday, 3 for the conclusion this Saturday
6) What went well? - Another close run game with plenty of twists and turns
7) What could have been improved? - not a lot

AAR to follow
Logged

2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
Steve J
General
*
Posts: 8829


« Reply #214 on: 17 November 2020, 04:23:54 PM »

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - BPII with Glory Hallelujah! supplement rules
2) What armies were confronted? - Red vs Blue
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - A bit rusty
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo
6) What went well? - Based upon a historical action, the scenario worked well.
7) What could have been improved? - Not a lot, other than the Jagers spending the whole game shooting at each other with little effect.

AAR to follow.
Logged

http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/

2017 Paint-Off - 2 x Winner!
Scorpio_Rocks
Lieutenant
*
Posts: 157



« Reply #215 on: 17 November 2020, 08:45:54 PM »

Just been reading Cornered Wolves will be painting a few small units to play that in next few weeks.
also reading the Hind and Seek Rules so I think this weekend will be in the Panjshir Valley.
Regards
Sean
LOVE Hind and Seek! we play a lot and have adapted rules for US & Brits in Afghan 2001-now too
Logged

"Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake - we must not interrupt him too soon."
Horatio Nelson.
mmcv
Brigadier
*
Posts: 1749


WWW
« Reply #216 on: 22 November 2020, 03:45:19 PM »

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - To the Strongest!
2) What armies were confronted? - Warring States Chinese - Qin vs Chu (twice)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Played two games - first one was a bit rusty and getting used to new armies, second went a lot smoother.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo
6) What went well? - First outings with two new armies. Game One saw the Qin make good use of the dense terrain to set up a crossbow killzone while Game Two on a more open table let the Chu deploy their cavalry wings effectively. Playing on a smaller table I used chits and d10 rather than cards, which worked well with the smaller space.
7) What could have been improved? - In Game One, the Chu shooting couldn't hit a thing and had a hard time chasing down the Qin for melee, while in Game Two the flanks saw most of the fighting while the centre didn't really engage until late game.

All in all reasonably happy. I have three different lists for these two armies, this being the "middle" one covering the later Warring States period. The Qin are a smaller, professional army, primarily mixed crossbow and infantry, while the Chu core of weaker conscript infantry is supported by two cavalry wings.

Battle reports likely to follow...
Logged

sean66
Lieutenant
*
Posts: 166


WWW
« Reply #217 on: 23 November 2020, 07:23:28 AM »

LOVE Hind and Seek! we play a lot and have adapted rules for US & Brits in Afghan 2001-now too


 :- did you have to change the rules a lot ?
I'd be interested in a copy of your adaptations to play a more modern Afghanistan (Ive already got half of the antagonists  Wink)
Regards
Sean
Logged

Scorpio_Rocks
Lieutenant
*
Posts: 157



« Reply #218 on: 23 November 2020, 02:30:52 PM »

No big changes:

Stats for the newer vehicles and some additional rules for ATGM and precision air strikes.

I can try to get it typed up and post it somewhere
Logged

"Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake - we must not interrupt him too soon."
Horatio Nelson.
paulr
Field Marshal
*
*
Posts: 10248


« Reply #219 on: 28 November 2020, 11:16:05 PM »

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Big Battle DBA
2) What armies were confronted? - Two Polybian Roman & an Iberian v Two Later Carthaginian & a Bruttian
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, very
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No, no, no...
5) How many players were in the game? - Four
6) What went well? - Everything for the Romans & Iberians
7) What could have been improved? - Deploying the Bruttian in the center was a bold move and the Carthaginian dice rolls were terrible, I could have remembered to take some pictures d'oh

This was a battle of the third Punic war using the almost all spear Carthaginian armies, we also used the Bruttian and Iberians so that all the ten army lists from this project have had a run on table.
We will have another game next week with some different armies from the Punic War project.

The earlier Later Carthaginian (1st & 2nd Punic Wars) with lots of options (including elephants) will usually be used in preference to the almost all spear army of the 3rd Punic war

The Apulian with more cavalry will probably be used in preference to the Bruttian
The Celtiberian with fast Blade will probably be used in preference to the Iberians with Auxilia

There are also Siciliot, Syracuse in Sicily and Gallic armies available to add variety


Logged

2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
OldenBUA
Colonel
*
Posts: 1017



WWW
« Reply #220 on: 29 November 2020, 08:14:08 AM »

Is the choice of allies a case of my enemies' enemies are my friends? From geography, Roman + Bruttian and Carthaginian + Iberian would be more likely? Then again, both options would see one of the allies traveling a sizable distance in support of the main force. Not much chance of that happening. But makes a fine ancient game anyway.  Tongue
Logged

Water is indeed the essential ingredient of life, because without water you can't make coffee!

Aander lu bin k lu.
paulr
Field Marshal
*
*
Posts: 10248


« Reply #221 on: 30 November 2020, 06:48:46 AM »

I think the Barker logic is that the Bruttian supported Carthage in the hope of remaining independent of Rome

The Iberians fought on either side

Logged

2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
Last Hussar
Major General
*
Posts: 3209


Swordsman, Poet, Lover


« Reply #222 on: 30 November 2020, 11:00:34 PM »

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Blucher.
2) What armies were confronted? - Austrian vs French 1809.
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No - about the 4th game vs Sunjester, and a solo before that.
5) How many players were in the game? - Two - Sunjester was the French

6) What went well? - We found we'd been using cavalry too 18th century!  We're used to WSS mod to BP, where cavalry can't charge formed infantry front on. They are usually relegated to the flanks where they muck about fighting each other ineffectively. We've tended to do the same with the limited cavalry we've been using.  Today I took the decision to have a couple of cavalry units extra (okay It helped they were Cuirassier!)  I charged early on. Sunjester said "Really? This early?" And then somewhere between a quarter and a third of his army stopped moving when it realised moving with horses around was a bit dangerous. I pointed out his thought of "keep throwing infantry forward to be charged so the horses eventually wear out" (winning a combat still causes the unit to lose an Elan Point) may not be universally popular.

7) What could have been improved? Sunjester's lucky dice, obviously (6 dice, 5 rolls of 4+ to hit). But mostly me not screwing up the 'Campaign' pre game, where you manoeuvre your Corps into contact on a area map. I started with just 2 corps vs his 4, with mine coming on as reinforcements. It would have been better if the Corps that came on on my right hadn't bounced of one of his units, despite a 2:1 dice advantage. They ended up not being able to stop his centre sweeping and rolling me up.
Blucher game by Last Hussar, on Flickr
« Last Edit: 30 November 2020, 11:02:42 PM by Last Hussar » Logged

I have neither the time or the crayons to explain why you are wrong.
paulr
Field Marshal
*
*
Posts: 10248


« Reply #223 on: 01 December 2020, 06:57:29 AM »

 Thumbs up Applause Thumbs up
Logged

2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
Steve J
General
*
Posts: 8829


« Reply #224 on: 01 December 2020, 09:11:34 AM »

The game looks great Cool.
Logged

http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/

2017 Paint-Off - 2 x Winner!
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!