10 mm rules for any period of warfare

[i_am_win]

As i understand, no.  Unless you can pick up a second hand copy.  I believe Pete has stopped selling hard copies.

FWC is pretty good, although i know people who reckon that the Cold War Commander version is the best rules wise.  Not sure why since i thought they are all pretty much the same.

I suppose then I shall have to put my hand in my pocket and stump up for the PDF then! I just hope my monthy wargaming budget will stretch this month! However, I can see me having to dig deeper in the long run cos as soon as my eldest gets a sniff of them I will have to stump out for extra mini's for him also! (I can see him having to do lots more chores and house work in return  )

Being a primary Fantasy/scifi gamer the other variants don't float my boat, but the ancients may get a look in eventually when cash and time allow (I can see my lead mountain building up as we speak... )

[Last Hussar]

Except those who play Flames of War.  They're wrong.

 

and xxC. They are also wrong.

[Steve J]

Pete has found some printed FWCs, so they are available whilst stock lasts .

[Luddite]

Couldn't get him to rustle up a few Cold War Commanders could you?  I don't have that one.  

Ahem.

However, returning to the OP for a moment, and the search for the Rossetta Stone of wargaming, 'the one ruleset to rule them all', so to speak; is it even possible?

Rick Priestley for example has basically been rehashing the same couple of rule sets for decades; a decent, simple skirmish set (that GW continue to insist on ruining), and a mass battle ruleset (the aforementioned Warmaster et. al.).

The Priestly skirmish rules have morphed from a fantasy set (WFB) into a future fantasy set (40k), and has also spawned a variety of others (Necromunda, Lord of the Rings, WAB, Legends of the Old West, The Great War, Gladiator, etc., etc.)  The only time i've seen them actually work (since those heady early days of WFB, have been their use as true 'skirmish scale' rules, mainly Necromunda/Mordheim/Legends of the Old West.

They sort of get by at the WAB level but not really...

Ditto with Warmaster, which worked ok as a fantasy set but never really did the business as a historical set.  The revamp as Black Powder also singularly failed to 'float my biscuit' too.   


With another rules set, i loved DBA, DBM, and the fantasy version HotT, but hated the Renaissance version DBR.  It just didn''t work.  So it seems to be common to most 'stables'.

The Too Fat Lardies stable too, which seems to chuck out endless variations on their rules theme, none of which really work for me.



Do people really think a 'one size fits all' set of rules is possible?

[Steve J]

Hi Luddite,

I don't think you will ever find a 'one size fits all' ruleset. I have played a variety of games over the years and have settled on the BKC and WMA stables as the core rules that I really enjoy and come back to time and again. Maurice has been a new edition to my gaming stable as it is great fun to play IMHO. For others these games do not float their boat, which is fair enough. Each to his own.

[Luddite]

Of course 'each to his own' applies, but the question stands.

And if you've come to a 'stable' of rules, why?  And why that stable?

Surely the same rules can't provide a satisfying game for the frictions and characteristics of Ancient Mesopotamian armies and WWI can they?  Or can they?

Or is 'the game the thing', and the pieces used or any notion of simulation really not important?  ('This might look like a Tiger II but its got the same stats as Han Chinese heavy chariot so i'm using it as a proxy'...)

[goat major]

I think wargames rules are a highly personal thing. For me I would not get as much enjoyment out of a universal ruleset since I love things to have very specific mechanisms for period flavour. It doesn't mean that I don't enjoy more generic games though. I had a game of BP with Gavin P last weekend and it was great fun - but I probably wouldn't pick it as my regular ruleset of choice for AWI.

When I was RPGing a lot I used to feel the same about GURPS - a good, fun ,well designed game but never quite getting the atmosphere of the specific rulesets

[robert]

Chaps - please read Nik's post on this earlier - Warmaster is not a universal set of rules - it provides mechanisms which can be adapted for most any period and the historical warmaster yahoo group has files full of
period adaptations.

The benefit is that each period still gets its own flavour but the rules work in the same way - initiative or opportunity moves, command blunders and so on - in this sense it does not matter if its Ancient Mesopotamia or North West Europe in 1944 however Tiger tanks do have different stats to Han Chinese chariots and operate in a somewhat different manner

Maurice IS a completely different game and is a stand-alone unique wargame - it is real fun.

Warmaster and its variables will do for me in ACW, AVBCW and WW2 - simply because I only need to learn one core set of mechanisms which can be applied - how to move, how to issue orders, how to shoot, how to resolve close combat - all with their own period flavour.

[Fenton]

Try here

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Blitzkrieg-Commander-/300731704911?pt=UK_Toys_Wargames_RL&hash=item460501a64f

Noty a bad price to ( not me selling by the way)

I have to agree with Luddite about Warmaster, there is something that doent fit thoug I am not sure what it is, I find the same with FOG, and in my personal opinion I could never see why anybody played DBM but I am sure people will say the same thing about rules I enjoy

But each to there own I really enjoy Impetus and Vis Bellica and I slowly getting into computer moderated rules, and Maurice will be bought soon

At the end of the day I dont think a stable is possible, Most ancient rules I think try to cover to big a time span  and I think its hard to get a mechanic that works for Ancients thats also works for WW2 or Napoleonics especially when it comes to C&C either the rule usually allows to much freedom of movement for ancients or too little for WW2

But if you enjoy what you play then why worry  Just glad to see the back of the Newbury Stable and Challanger 2000

[Last Hussar]

I would argue from the Generals point of view combat doesn't change massively until mid 1800's - its still massed men maneovering in dense lines.  True Close combat moves from hand to hand to 60 yards/meters or so, but that is still a bloody and brutal all or nothing struggle.  Yes, there are muskets, but it is still this close combat that decides victory.  I'm not disregarding ranged combat, they weaken, but then did the massed Norman archers at Hastings.  The trouble is as wargamers we want to be Wellington, but insist on knowing the effect of every bullet!

[GordonY]

"The trouble is as wargamers we want to be Wellington, but insist on knowing the effect of every bullet!"

Agreed, the knowledge that the 3rd man from the right, succesfully saved being hit by a bullet because he had the family bible stuffed inside his jacket is totally immaterial to a General. All a general should know about a unit is, is it advancing confidently, is it wavering or is it retiring or routing. Similarly a General shouldnt have to order units to for example, form square if cavalry are about, thats down to the man on the ground, the commanding Colonel of the battalion. Decent rulesets should always assume that the units are in a formation suitable to their condition but very few do.

[Hertsblue]

Of course 'each to his own' applies, but the question stands.

And if you've come to a 'stable' of rules, why?  And why that stable

I think part of the answer is that wargames rules, being fairly complex entities, take time to learn and absorb. Each time we try another set it involves a learning curve that is sometimes quite steep. How much easier, then, to pick an additional set of rules for a different period that follows the same broad principles and uses much the same basic mechanisms as one already learned? Certain rule-writers have, over the years, built up a following amongst consumers and it's natural that those consumers should stick to what they know.

[Last Hussar]

I think if you like a mechanism you will want to stick with it.  Can cause problems - First few games of Black Powder we realised we had be using bits of WarMaster.

Before the release of IABSM v3 we used TW&T to resolve any problems with the earlier versions.  The reason IABSM looks so much like Charlie Don't Surf is that CDS is the set Rich was TRYING to write, but was having trouble with the asymetrical nature of Viet Nam.  Thus theearly version morphed into IABSM due to the matched nature of WW2.

[sunjester]

As others have said there is a lot of personal preference involved in picking a set of rules. My own criteria are:

1. Do I feel the rules gives me a flavour of the period (not an "acurate" representation ).
2. Do I get a fun game using the rules (most important)

So for example I like both IABSM and BKC for WW2, they are representing completely different levels of action.

Some rules writen as generic sets to cover a large period can work well for specific campaigns/wars, I like Black Powder for WSS but not for FPW.

You pay your money and take your choice!

[GrumpyOldMan]

Hi All

Just came across a set of rules for WW1 Middle East that has a DBx feel to them rather than the TFL card-driven ITLSU at http://www.atlanticpublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/big-table-v6.pdf. The Foreword says they are purposely written for smaller scales so should be of interest here. I've only had a quick flick through them so I can't say if they're any good or not, but look ok.

Cheers

GrumpyOldMan