Pendraken Miniatures Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
23 January 2021, 01:45:24 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
The revamped Feudal Japanese have been released!
314797 Posts in 18224 Topics by 2282 Members
Latest Member: josh_davidson
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Pendraken Miniatures Forum
|-+  Wider Wargaming
| |-+  Rules
| | |-+  Samurai rules
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Samurai rules  (Read 2471 times)
Ithoriel
Lieutenant General
*
Posts: 7389



« Reply #15 on: 06 July 2020, 02:02:48 AM »

I'm rather taken with the mechanisms in Tenkatoitsu and am stealing using them as inspiration for my own home-brew set.
Logged

Growing old is mandatory, growing up is entirely optional!
Nick the Lemming
Captain
*
Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #16 on: 06 July 2020, 02:15:35 AM »

I'm rather taken with the mechanisms in Tenkatoitsu and am stealing using them as inspiration for my own home-brew set.

I take it you're familiar with this blog?: https://wargamesasp.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/6mm-sengoku-jidai-battle-with-tenkatoitsu/
Logged

Ithoriel
Lieutenant General
*
Posts: 7389



« Reply #17 on: 06 July 2020, 02:25:17 AM »


Yes, thanks for the heads-up though.

I'm planning on using 3mm and largish clan bases. Though I'm currently diverted by 20mm sci fi for my tabletop RPG games. "Maintenance of the aim" is not one of my strong points Cheesy
Logged

Growing old is mandatory, growing up is entirely optional!
mmcv
Brigadier
*
Posts: 1889


WWW
« Reply #18 on: 06 July 2020, 10:59:58 AM »

As Leon states - we have something being worked on at present

I have played Samurai armies to a lot of rules in the past - from specialist sets - through to the larger commercial rules - such as Armati, WRG, DB, Art de la Guerre etc but have never really found anything that captures the flavor of the period. I'm a huge fan of the epic Akira Kurosawa films - Seven Samurai - Throne of Blood - Kagoshima - The Hidden Fortress and ultimately Ran. So I am looking for sweeping moves and bloody combat.

Lock-down has allowed some major reworking and much more solo play-testing to take place ...  and we are heading towards a final play-test copy shortly.
The army-lists are also under construction as I type this. The idea being to allow players to create forces that range from small but extremely effective and highly trained professional retinues - through to huge peasant rebel armies (Ikko-Ikki being a favorite of mine).

For those planning ahead - buying paining and basing your forces - basing will be 100mm x 50mm for 6mm-10mm-15mm figures - 120 x 60 for 20mm -28mm - 30mm+
There are some basing exceptions - around Artillery and Ninja formations - which will be 50 x 50mm or 60 x 60mm respectively (NB: Ninja are included for specific smaller scale scenarios and campaigns rather than larger battles).

The idea is to try to allow players to create big battles - so it is about spectacle and the 100 x 50mm bases allow for a lot of figures on a base.
So hopefully this will give you all the motivation to start buying and planning armies.

Mark


Is the basing going to be single unit or mixed? And if single is the plan to have them coordinate to work together as "sonae" within the larger army? I'm thinking particularly where a lot of rules have a full unit of samurai where in many instances the samurai would be more of a support role amongst the peasantry rather than a cohesive unit. That works okay for smaller scale battles but doesn't always sit right in larger ones.
Logged

Big Insect
Lieutenant Colonel
*
*
*
Posts: 861


« Reply #19 on: 06 July 2020, 12:19:24 PM »

The intention is individual troop type based 'units' on a base.
So (for example) a base will consist all of Samurai with the same protection/armour level and same weapons (or a majority weapon).
But you could mix a small number of samurai into a majority ashigaru unit - to better represent higher quality ashigaru.

As per previous discussions on this thread - I don't believe (from my own research) that units operated in a mixed capacity - like European Pike & Shot (for example).
Interpenetration is possible and so you can replicate a situation where a unit armed with teppo shoots at an enemy and then a unit armed with yari interpenetrates forwards to protect them.
Likewise an evade move is possible - so a unit of teppo charged by mounted samurai can evade back through a yari unit to gain the defensive effect of the yari, but there is a risk that the 2 units might get caught by the charging mounted unit as they are interpenetrating and would then fight a a significant disadvantage.

Hope that helps?
Logged
mmcv
Brigadier
*
Posts: 1889


WWW
« Reply #20 on: 06 July 2020, 12:41:33 PM »

Yeah sounds like a sensible approach. The mixed unit formations tend to be more applicable for really huge scale battles where each unit may be an entire formation at the strategic scale. But trying to cover the few battles of that scale is likely impractical for a ruleset that also covers smaller more common battles where the tactical considerations are different.

Can I ask what general mechanics the system will use or is it to be a surprise?
Logged

Nick the Lemming
Captain
*
Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #21 on: 06 July 2020, 01:21:52 PM »


 "Maintenance of the aim" is not one of my strong points Cheesy

I have no idea whatsoever what that's like.


Phew, I think he bought it. Right, so which nation should I concentrate on next for my League of Augsbe - ooh, new samurai figures!
Logged

Nick the Lemming
Captain
*
Posts: 421



WWW
« Reply #22 on: 06 July 2020, 01:37:38 PM »


As per previous discussions on this thread - I don't believe (from my own research) that units operated in a mixed capacity - like European Pike & Shot (for example).



I'd be interested to know what sources you've used to come to that conclusion, since it seems to go against everything known about samurai warfare. I don't think anyone's ever claimed that their armies lined up as like and shot units, but similarly, any work on sonae and te formations show that there's a good mix of troop types in a unit. This blog has a good general overview of such: http://gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/03/sengoku-period-warfare-part-1-army-and.html

I'd encourage you to have a read at some of the sources that actual historians have used. How do you propose to depict any of the hachijin for example?
Logged

Ithoriel
Lieutenant General
*
Posts: 7389



« Reply #23 on: 06 July 2020, 02:13:54 PM »

Yeah sounds like a sensible approach. The mixed unit formations tend to be more applicable for really huge scale battles where each unit may be an entire formation at the strategic scale. But trying to cover the few battles of that scale is likely impractical for a ruleset that also covers smaller more common battles where the tactical considerations are different.

From what I've read, sonae seem to be about battalion sized (300 - 800 men roughly) with mixed troop types with the possibility of occasional sonae of almost entirely teppo armed ashigaru. One base of 30-80 3mm figures per sonae is my aim.

That sounds perfect for the smaller battles. Sekigahara will have to wait 'til I win the lottery Smiley

My problem is how to depict the myriad possible variations within that. Currently playing around with Pendraken Warband sabot bases and strips of figures representing the various lines of troops.

Still a work in (very, very slow) progress!
Logged

Growing old is mandatory, growing up is entirely optional!
DaveH
Lieutenant
*
Posts: 249


« Reply #24 on: 06 July 2020, 02:30:19 PM »

Personally I am going with the Peter Pig Battles in the Age of War rules, the units of Ashigaru are largely mixed arquebusiers and yari, though Samurai are less differentiated.
Logged
hammurabi70
Lieutenant
*
Posts: 299


« Reply #25 on: 06 July 2020, 02:44:11 PM »

Do you want me to ask Barrie if he still has a copy?  Cheesy

Yes, I would certainly be interested.  Currently I have a borrowed copy but eventually I will have to return it to its owner.
Logged

hammurabi70
Lieutenant
*
Posts: 299


« Reply #26 on: 06 July 2020, 02:57:11 PM »

As Leon states - we have something being worked on at present

I have played Samurai armies to a lot of rules in the past - from specialist sets - through to the larger commercial rules - such as Armati, WRG, DB, Art de la Guerre etc but have never really found anything that captures the flavor of the period. I'm a huge fan of the epic Akira Kurosawa films - Seven Samurai - Throne of Blood - Kagoshima - The Hidden Fortress and ultimately Ran. So I am looking for sweeping moves and bloody combat.

Lock-down has allowed some major reworking and much more solo play-testing to take place ...  and we are heading towards a final play-test copy shortly.
The army-lists are also under construction as I type this. The idea being to allow players to create forces that range from small but extremely effective and highly trained professional retinues - through to huge peasant rebel armies (Ikko-Ikki being a favorite of mine).

Sounds most interesting and I am sure you will get a lot of interest.  Certainly I will be very interested in reading the reviews when they appear.

I’m told Peter Pigs “battles in the age of warfare” are good - I’ve not played them myself though and like all PP rules they’re likely chalk or cheese for people!

Yes, my view too!  Not yet had a chance to play them.


It would appear that we will all soon have a much wider choice!
Logged

mmcv
Brigadier
*
Posts: 1889


WWW
« Reply #27 on: 06 July 2020, 03:27:30 PM »

From what I've read, sonae seem to be about battalion sized (300 - 800 men roughly) with mixed troop types with the possibility of occasional sonae of almost entirely teppo armed ashigaru. One base of 30-80 3mm figures per sonae is my aim.

That sounds perfect for the smaller battles. Sekigahara will have to wait 'til I win the lottery Smiley

My problem is how to depict the myriad possible variations within that. Currently playing around with Pendraken Warband sabot bases and strips of figures representing the various lines of troops.

Still a work in (very, very slow) progress!

I suspect we've read a lot of the same stuff. I'm guessing these rules will be representing a sonae as a division and an entire army as a te. That would work well for smaller battles and modelling the interplay of troops without the sonae. Not so much when dealing with some of the huge battles with each "division" commander within an army having tens of sonae themselves.

Ideally though I'm wanting to do a sonae as a single unit for larger battles having them all represented on a single base. I've been toying with sabots and mixed bases (e.g. using 40x20 or 25x25 bases of each unit type and combining them to make sonae of different strengths). So a line of yumi/teppo, line of yari then some samurai and command behind. I have pages and pages of notes on combination ideas as well as homebrew rule ideas.

I've yet to get any figures for the period (beyond a few 28mm figures untouched) as have been thinking a lot about representation first. Plus had hoped after a (now cancelled) trip to Japan would have been the best time to kick off. It is one that has long fascinating me though so it's definitely high on my to-do list.

Doing the above in 10mm may not look so well without ending up with quite large bases and an unreasonable amount of figures to paint. I don't have the space or time for those huge tables and thousands of figures some do. So a smaller scale might be necessary for that. I'd been thinking 6mm as seen some spectacular ones done there, but hadn't realised there was 3mm options too so that's definitely a possibility as I've been using 2mm for some large scale 19th century stuff.

It might be a case of doing 10mm for smaller battles and clan warfare then 3/6mm for the grand scale ones. Which probably means two different rule sets. One that handles mixed units and one separate. Sounds like I'm getting some 3mm sample samurai in my next MM order!
Logged

Big Insect
Lieutenant Colonel
*
*
*
Posts: 861


« Reply #28 on: 06 July 2020, 06:58:50 PM »

Yeah sounds like a sensible approach. The mixed unit formations tend to be more applicable for really huge scale battles where each unit may be an entire formation at the strategic scale. But trying to cover the few battles of that scale is likely impractical for a ruleset that also covers smaller more common battles where the tactical considerations are different.

Can I ask what general mechanics the system will use or is it to be a surprise?

If you mean Command mechanisms - then there should be no surprise in that the rules will use adaptations of the Commander mechanisms.
So you will have an overall commander and then a couple of different lower levels of command. There will also be the ability to include allied commands into your army - with varying degrees of loyalty.

Hope that helps  Cheesy
 
Logged
Big Insect
Lieutenant Colonel
*
*
*
Posts: 861


« Reply #29 on: 06 July 2020, 07:51:20 PM »

I'd encourage you to have a read at some of the sources that actual historians have used. How do you propose to depict any of the hachijin for example?

Thank you for your advice Nick ... I shall bear it in mind.

I have read that blog and the issue I have with it is that it does not quote historical sources for the specific conclusions stated by the author.
It also makes sweeping generalisations such as ", the sonae were composed from 300 to 800 men, and inside one sonae there were each type of troops present at the time, so ranged units, polearms unit, support units and cavalry units." This is actually incorrect as we know that certain Clans were much more heavily orientated towards cavalry 'heavy' sonae and an impact charge and that their sonae were often all of horsemen, with fewer infantry brigaded separately and in a subordinate or supporting role.
Also other poorer clans were very short of mounted samurai and were much more infantry focused.
The blog's author also goes on to contradict himself later on by stating that units were often made up by a majority troop type - particularly if missile armed.

So, according to the blog, not only are we expected to consider that a sonae - a single unit - has a mix of missile and melee foot units but also cavalry and that these operated as a single mixed formation on the battlefield, despite the operational and command difficulties that implies. However, there is no indication that ranks of teppo were mixed in with ranks of yari (for example). The two weapon types are depicted separately. This is also confirmed by the deployment of separately armed troops in the model deployment of an army camp.

It is all a matter of scale. If you are depicting the force of a major lord, that army will be made up of many lesser subject contingents - as well as having larger formations that directly belong to that lord. Having small groups of cavalry under separate command and attached to infantry formations scattered across the army front is both unrealistic and unworkable.
To back up the consolidation of troop types, looking at contemporary wood-block prints we see mixed heraldic banners in larger units of cavalry and infantry. So I'd suggest that smaller contingents were banded together. The designation between missile armed troops and polearm armed troops also makes sense as each operates very differently tactically.

As to the issue around depicting the hachijin formations - again it is a matter of scale. Using individual bases of differently armed units a player is perfectly capable of representing the elements in the formations - such as in the Gyorin (fish scales) formation, where this approach works well.

many thanks
Mark
« Last Edit: 06 July 2020, 08:07:53 PM by Big Insect » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 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!