Regiment of Foote 2nd edition

[d_Guy]

He never talked about Jutland ...

Amazing to think what he must have experienced! And to be in the engineering section - blind to the outside world - and half deaf too!
Frightening!

[Leman]

Having seen Titanic, it's not the part of a warship where I would want to be. Bought Regiment of Foote 2 at Vapnartak yesterday. Quite a bit different from first edition and much more like Square Bashing 2. Quite a lot to get through with over 100 pages, but that does include a goodly number of scenarios, and an extensive section on siege rules. I'm still not keen on the suggested basing, which looks a little sparse to me, and I am much more likely to go for the basing style of Fat Wally (there is a link to him on the Peter Pig ECW site). I hope they will fit in the 6" squares, although on a 6'x4' table I could get away with making them 7" squares. I will be using grey and green adhesive dots with some of the PP sprinkles as square markers as well - scarecrows, tree stumps, pebbles as rocks etc.

[d_Guy]

Leman,
I'll be interested to get your take when you start playing through RoF2 - I am finding them fun but still sorting a perceived contradiction here and there, plus making stupid moves out of shear lack of understanding. Because many things are so abstracted the size of the squares would not seem to matter. I put three of my 6 figure bases (1p, 2m) plus three 2 figure command bases in a sabot - so foot looks fairly dense.
Horse not so much with my basing system. RoF2 won't replace what I normally do but plan to use it for quick, fun games - particularly when I have a live opponent!

[Leman]

I find these kinds of games are also great for campaign battles, so that a campaign moves along smartly.

[Zippee]

Agreed, the basing isn't doing it for me either. Fat Wally's is for Baroque which unfortunately is different to Impetus, grrr!

I particularly don't really like the whole half-base thing, I suspect units of 6x20mm (or 25mm) bases will probably work better than 3x30mm. In fact the whole base counting and casualty thing seems a touch inelegant compared to Martin's other rules. Still they look like the concept works it just needs some finesse applying to the basing.

Whatever I go with I'll need it to work with Baroque - I've been holding off any re-basing or new for ages waiting and waiting 

[d_Guy]

In fact the whole base counting and casualty thing seems a touch inelegant compared to Martin's other rules.

Yeah - I have zero appetite for making a whole slew of different half-bases just to keep track of casualties within a unit - easier just to mark a base with something - I use a garish pink cube - aesthetics not my strong suit.  And the the casualty markers I normally use for - amazingly tracking casualties - are used to tally potential morale hits. 

My other beef so far is I don't agree with the musketry rules. I get that close range firing is abstracted into close combat, that's done in a lot of rules for pistols and carbines, but a one square range translates to about 40 yards (a 6" square = ~35 meters). Effective range is easily twice that (and probably three times). The design notes say that close combat is the decisive issue (and it does justify the presence of pikes which some rules don't) but the ECW is near the tipping point for musketry becoming the desicive factor. I will try a two square range at some point.

Still and all, I am having fun with it and now sure it will join my toolkit for certain applications.

[Zippee]

I think the ranges thing is completely abstracted due to squares, units could be at the rear of both squares, we really don't know. if it offends thee then sue bigger squares 

Also have you spotted the volley rules in the options?

I think it will give a good game, it's just not as slick as I was expecting for a new version - Martin's had a lot of practice with rules now, I just hoped for more than scattergun text, unnecessary sniping and assumption of gamesmanship and shoddy attitudes backed up by dodgy black and white pictures that quite frankly look rather poor (and I'd swear uses unpainted figures and terrain). 

I still await Baroque with hope 

[d_Guy]

I think the ranges thing is completely abstracted due to squares, units could be at the rear of both squares, we really don't know. if it offends thee then sue bigger squares 

Also have you spotted the volley rules in the options?

Good point about being in the rear of the squares - OK - 80 yards then. 

I had looked at volley fire option which allows you to translate some or all hits to a 66% change of hanging up to 2 morale check die on your opponent (at least I think that's what it means). Will have to get my head around it - I would have preferred lower the opponent's chances for a save.

The "fierce shooting" marker may be another way to "tune" musketry.

The pike differential rule is interesting - just had two conscript (1:2 M:P) units drive off two trained (2:1 M:P) units due mostly the the pike differential remove 5 of the attacker's dice  (some good  rolls were involved however)

Overall - I still like RoF2 well enough - will have live opponents this weekend - so I'll learn more.

And since this is also a Jutland thread - have you used any 1/6000 models?

[Zippee]

All fair points - and nice to see actual siege rules included, and as always the pregame mechanics add variety without a lot of heartache.

1/6000 yes - but not Jutland, Tsushima though not mine a friends. Mine are 1/3000 of course 

I think they look great, they allow a better feel of space on a decent sized table - I use a 8' x 6' which is Ok for 1/3000 even if big guns can pretty much cover the whole area, but it does look and feel better in 1/6000

I've said it before - if I didn't have so much invested in 1/3000 I would go for 1/6000 in a heartbeat but as I have all the (ie ALL the) RN, KM, USN, IJN, RMI, MF, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Greek, Yugoslav, Rumanian, Soviet WWII, sizeable WWI British and German, as well as pretty comprehensive Russian, Turkish and Japanese 1880-1925 fleets (plus a couple of convoys of merchants, fishing boats, trawlers and lighters) it would be a tad silly to swap scales. . .

[paulr]

I also have 1/3,000, only a large chunk of the US & Japanese for WWII and some Dutch

I have seen 1/6,000 and much prefer the look of the bigger ships, each to their own

[Leman]

TBH naval wargaming doesn't do it for me and I rather wish this naval stuff was in its own thread. Meanwhile, I am also rather disappointed by the poor production values of ROF2. I haven't yet played it, but I could see a lot of time spent by some gamers faffing around on the campaign chart trying to get more points. The original rules' pre-battle campaign had much more of an ECW feel to it, and I can see myself continuing to play the old rules.

[d_Guy]

Leman,
Since I stated this thread I figured I had the "power" to start another one for Jutland! 

All-
I have only just returned to tabletop wargaming. Played all the way through the 1970's and early 80's but pretty much stuck there.
I wallow in a vast sea of ignorance and basically don't want to annoy people with too many questions or threads. Leman and Zippee have both mentioned production values in RoF2 - the black and white pictures in particular. Martin says that is done for clarity. I think of the hours I poured of "Little Wars", "Charge!", "The War Game", etc - so no real problem. Of course, now having used "Pike and Shotte", Warband", and a dozen others, REALLY appreciate the new world!

I will probably always play from scenarios (self-designed and others) so for me at least most of the pre-game is not neccessary. Martin' s writing style is unique and minimalist and he does seem overly concerned about preventing "cheating" and other bad behavior - his experiences are presumably different than mine. Overall, as I continue to play RoF2, I generally like the experience and its application to my narrow pursuits. I may use it to prototype scenarios for other rules.

With virtually no experience with modern ( current) rules or their evolution I get excited about a new mechanism only to be lectured by a TMP'er that it has been around since the 1990's (yawn!). You lot are much more polite!

So the mechanisms I like in RoF2:
1. Rolling to move out of difficult terrain - thought I would hate it actually love it.
2. Opening cannonade - I fairly realistic way to begin a battle.
3. No diagonal move (old - but believably implemented)
4. Pike effect - arriving at a differential between the number of attacker/defender pikes and then essentially  fighting a pre-battle to see who can reduce the other side - best implementation of "push of pike" I've seen.
5. Except for light and medium guns no constant fiddling with formation and facing.
6. A simple field command ("Generals") implementation that uses three simple gifts that allow re-rolls in certain situations - of course I am paralyzed by the decision to re-roll 
7 The avoidance of combat is a simple and straight forward.
8. IGOUGO - right to left - as old as Senet but great for solo play

Not so much:
1. Everything to do with musketry
2. Cutesy things like "the preacher" and "the dog"  - love it in fantasy - not so much in historic - although it nows appears to be de rigueur.
Prefer cards for this sort of thing.
3. Did I mention the musketry? 

Zippee, I have looked a bit at the Impetus system and am also waiting for "Baroque" to be released - soon apparently.

[Ithoriel]

I wallow in a vast sea of ignorance and basically don't want to annoy people with too many questions or threads.

I think you underestimate the forum's most vocal members delight in sharing the things they know (or think they do   ).

[Leman]

Hi Guy - a regular opponent and I are play-testing the forthcoming Baroque rules, as he has offered his services to Lorenzo, so I'll let you know how things progress. As regards ROF2, it just strikes me as very odd as a set of rules, having played and enjoyed Square Bashing 2. SB2 doesn't seem to suffer from the sense of  irritability in ROF2, nor does it suffer from the appalling lack of proof reading. I can't think of another set of rules, and I have played many over the last 50 years, where the substance of the rules is filled with so much ranting. It's not the place for it. I'm a bit miffed at paying £17.50 to be lectured at about things with which I mostly agree anyway. My basic rule of thumb is that if someone is a cheat or a rules lawyer then just don't play them. That's all that needs to be said on the subject. There is also a poorly hidden rant at card driven games as well. I have played many card driven games and they are not all the same. Some I don't like, such as Maurice, others are great fun, such as Longstreet and Field of Battle. To lump them all together as bad games does seem a little excessive, especially as some of my opponents think Maurice is a really good game. For me the most disappointing aspect of the rules is the pre-battle campaign. In the original ROF this was terrific fun, but in ROF2 it seems very similar to the campaign in Blucher, which I think is pants. To sum up, I think the Peter Pig range of figures is really good, especially with the option of switching heads around to provide lots of variety. It's just a pity that the game presented to go with those figures is such a disappointment.

[Zippee]

Not a lot to disagree with in Leman's analysis 

I got very irked at the ranting against bad players - it's hard to feel it's not aimed at the reader which is rather silly, basically you're 'aving a go at your customers - probably wrongly, leaves a sour taste

I also heartily disliked the snide remarks about card based games, I like Maurice but appreciate it's only in part a miniatures game, but I'm a great fan of TooFatLardies stuff and it felt that was where the finger was pointing as the criticism was randomness equalling lack of plan. All that demonstrated to me was a very blinkered and uninformed opinion of such rules.

The production values just don't stand up in this day and age - again contrast with the production values of TFL, not a large publisher by any measure but vastly superior values.

I feel the pain of £17.50 - imagine mine I bought a PDF copy as well and had to stump up a whole nother £17.50, no discount bundle, just another mini-rant about suspicions of piracy of those who want the digital copy. Still that was my choice but I bitterly regret not waiting to see the PDF before ordering the hardcopy - wouldn't have happened without the whole personalisation delay.

I love PBI, I love PITS but ROF2 has failed to inspire - its close but just not what I thought it would be.

Roll on the full Baroque - it's been "soon" for far too long, we should have had it last Salute, it's looking doubtful for this one! Then there'll be the longer wait for Impetus 2, I'm not getting any younger folks!