One rules to ring them all?

[Last Hussar]

One Rule to Ring them all?

Something I have been thinking about for a number of years now; How elastic can rules be in regard to time period?

(NOTE – I am talking about RULES  here – how the history is translated to our hobby)

I think we can effectively discount the 20th century here – WW2 especially is completely different to pre 20th century (#However – see further on)

Could you use a set that works for Waterloo for 1st Bull Run? Is Valmy in 1792 actually close enough in experience to Waterloo in 1815. It is 'only 23 years' BUT did the practice of warfare change more in that period, than the 46 years Waterloo to Bull Run?

What is the actual difference in gaming Bull Run with Waterloo rules? Is Appomatox more different to Bull Run than Bull Run is to Waterloo? Generals famously fight the last war.

Another example. Can I do WSS with ECW rules (wait!)
You will say 'Duh, pike', to which I reply 'Commanded shot'. What, ESSENTIALLY on the table top is the difference between two armies of commanded shot facing off. WSS have 'work-around' rules for Swedish 'Ga-Pa' .  How different is 1704 to 1664? Again – I mean on the table top. We don't have to worry about the practicalities, we are interested in results.

I realise I am straying into 'WRG' territory here! But really – What is the difference between Bowmen of 1461, Shotte of 1641 and muskets of 1841?

At this point I will be told 'Fire rate' and 'Range'. Yes BUT the low level tactics have changed to accommodate this; I am NOT talking about 600 crossbow v 600 musket. ON THE TABLETOP, are the casualties and effects any different between Lancastrians and Yorkists firing* at each other, or Union and Confederate? I'll repeat ON THE TABLE TOP.As the weapons changed, so did the formations at the very basic level, but we are still looking at men standing in lines shooting at each other.

In Air warfare we see the biggest change in effects of technology, but without changing the basic actions.
I have written a set of Battle of Britain rules. I started with the baseline of a Spitfire – max speed 9. Hurris therefore have a max of 8, 109s 10. I was asked on my blog could they be used for later war.  I can see no reason not to BUT... you would have to have period specific data cards. You can not set a 1944 FW190 or Hellcat against a Spit or Gustav.
Instead you would pick the exemplar, and make that Speed 9. But are the rules different? I haven't looked at it, but I would say no. Could these rules handle the start of fighter combat to the start of the missile.

Here's an out there thought. What's the practical TABLETOP difference between missile and torpedo?

Now the #However
How different are WW2 rules from Moderns (say circa 1990)? Remember we are not talking M1 v PzIV, but M1 v T80. You may not have the same date range,  but are metal boxes with big gun so different? We know infantry fire rates have gone up, but not infantry casualty rates.


Thoughts, gentlemen?

*An yes, I can use 'Fire' a bow. It isn't gunpowder specific. If you want, substitute your 'correct' word, but don't get off topic.

[fsn]

I would say "yes". Basic mechanics can remain the same.

Taking your air war example; if you move to 1950 and use the F86 Sabre as your base, then that becomes speed 9 and Mig15 maybe speed 8.

I would use basically the same rule set for Blenhiem as Borodino. Where my rules differ is in things like formations  and command structures. I don't have what you would consider to be Napoleonic light cavalry in 1704, so I don't use those rules. The mechanics stay the same; there are just flavours.

[steve_holmes_11]

I've been asking myself similar questions.

I don't have firm dates on the transitions between eras.
I have observed...
 * Some things change really quickly (technologies).
 * Some take a considerable time to catch up (manoeuvring thousands of men in formation, doctrine).
 * Others change incredibly slowly (the Mk 1 human eyeball, legs, lungs and lifting capacity).

My focus has recently been on big battle rules on a grid.
I have a hunch (through no practical evidence) that we could treat our historic eras in two steps.

 1 A movement and formation package, which changes relatively little.
 2 A weapons and fighting package which adds on the combat elements.
 X I'm not quite sure where doctrine and army organisation fit in.

[hammurabi70]

Was that not what The Universal Soldier Miniature Rules and GURPS were supposed to do?  How were they received?

[fred.]

I think the Peter Pig rules aim to this - is it Rules for the Common Man - RFCM?

With a core of rules and period specific details. 

Fistful of Lead certainly takes this approach at a skirmish scale, with a Hollywood flavour to its games.

I'm pretty sure Bloody Big Battles has mods to take if from its late 19th Century starting point back to the ECW, and forward to WWI

Fistful of Tows aims to cover all of mechanised warfare.

Are there 3 main periods that you probably need to consider

Early - armies in groups around a local leader grouped in wings or similar large formations - main weapons are close combat with some shooting

Mid - armies built around regiments, formations get wider and shallower, mainly shooting weapons 

Late - once you get tanks and vehicles and rapid firing shooting weapons

And it depends on what level of granularity you want, and what scale of unit you want. 

Also how do you make a game feel like it has the right elements to represent a period (this I find one of the challenges with FFoL). 

[fred.]

I've been asking myself similar questions.

I don't have firm dates on the transitions between eras.
I have observed...
 * Some things change really quickly (technologies).
 * Some take a considerable time to catch up (manoeuvring thousands of men in formation, doctrine).
 * Others change incredibly slowly (the Mk 1 human eyeball, legs, lungs and lifting capacity).

My focus has recently been on big battle rules on a grid.
I have a hunch (through no practical evidence) that we could treat our historic eras in two steps.

 1 A movement and formation package, which changes relatively little.
 2 A weapons and fighting package which adds on the combat elements.
 X I'm not quite sure where doctrine and army organisation fit in.

That seems a good approach Steve - I suspect doctrine and army organisations factor into the movement and formation element. 

[sultanbev]

Could you use a set that works for Waterloo for 1st Bull Run? Is Valmy in 1792 actually close enough in experience to Waterloo in 1815. It is 'only 23 years' BUT did the practice of warfare change more in that period, than the 46 years Waterloo to Bull Run?

"
Something I'm working at the moment for potential commercial release, one set of common core rules that covers 1790ish to 1890ish, for divisional to small corps level games. Operates in battalions, activates in brigades, figure agnostic, one base = 80 men or 120 men depending on how many figures/how much room you have.
Seems to be working so far in play tests.

[sultanbev]

How different are WW2 rules from Moderns (say circa 1990)? Remember we are not talking M1 v PzIV, but M1 v T80. You may not have the same date range,  but are metal boxes with big gun so different? We know infantry fire rates have gone up, but not infantry casualty rates.

I've been using one set for WW2 and Cold war for the last 45 years no problem. One day I might even publish them 

[pierre the shy]

Interesting topic LH 

Remember that there were 20 rings of power made all up - Sauron's ring plus Three Rings of the Elves, the Seven Rings for the Dwarves, and the Nine for Men.

The Nine Rings for mortal men end up enslaving their bearers as the Nazgûl, Sauron's most deadly servants 

Over the years I have tried many different broad period rulesets such as those produced by WRG (e.g. DBM/DBMM (3000BC to 1485AD) and their 1685-1845 ruleset that was published in the late 70's.)

They gave some very good games but these days I personally prefer more period specific rules than taking a very broad brush approach with one set of rules covering a larger timespan.

Its a choice that every gamer has to make individually.   

[steve_holmes_11]

That seems a good approach Steve - I suspect doctrine and army organisations factor into the movement and formation element.

They certainly will.


What I'm attempting to do is ...
 * Devise a set of grid moves for your Horse and Musket Brigades.
 * Then mask out the bits that don't apply within that era.
 * Fairly linear for the War of Spanish Succession / Seven Years War. Introduce columns, squares and skirmish screens for Napoleonics. Add loose/open order for the American Civil War and later.

All very theoretical at present.

As I type, I realise that Volley and Bayonet did this about 30 years ago.
 * Big "manoeuvre units" with different basing for Brigades and Linear armies.

Meanwhile Artillery probably gets a revision every quarter century or so.
Mainly mobility improvements in the early H&M era.
Later on big steps up in range and deadliness.

[Last Hussar]

There was no challenge here - though I may have presented in a challenging way to provoke a response. Apologies if anyone here felt personally attacked! (Well, maybe a little bit of an apology...).

It's just been running through my head off and on. Now I'm wondering could I use For King and Parliament - ECW - for WSS. How far can I push FK&P. Napoleonic? ACW? Treat infantry as Shot heavy units - the bayonet is basically pikes past 1700. Or only count as pike if spend an action preparing - think Napoleonics forming square - otherwise pike free?

How far BACK could we push them - Towton?(Sunjester - pointy sticks are your area, if you ever want to try)(I have 'splody sticks, not stabby sticks).

ECW is right in the middle - it is the beginning of the transition from Stabby to 'Splody . If it works for ECW rules, how far forward/back can we run the ends? Could we do ECW with Fire and Fury?

Can we go back further? Can we use WotR* for 1066? Roman? Earlier?  It's still stabby sticks,better but the stop-the-stabby-stick also improved.

Taking your air war example; if you move to 1950 and use the F86 Sabre as your base, then that becomes speed 9 and Mig15 maybe speed 8

My thinking precisely. And instead on 1cm = 30m, it now equals 45, or 60 or whatever. Our guns fire further, but so do theirs - all we are doing is redefining scale.



*either!

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

ReG Renaissance goes from 1475 -1710ish

Black Powder goes from 1759s to 1913...

Principles went from 1700s to 1920s

The main issues are the ranges of black Powder weapons Which steps up significantly in the mid C19th.

Tactics change with Boer Wars. Until then it's blocks if infantry and cavalry and artillery.
Keigspeil works that way
You might as well play Risk .. 🤣

[flamingpig0]

[pierre the shy]

It's just been running through my head off and on. Now I'm wondering could I use For King and Parliament - ECW - for WSS. How far can I push FK&P. Napoleonic? ACW? Treat infantry as Shot heavy units - the bayonet is basically pikes past 1700. Or only count as pike if spend an action preparing - think Napoleonics forming square - otherwise pike free?

How far BACK could we push them - Towton?(Sunjester - pointy sticks are your area, if you ever want to try)(I have 'splody sticks, not stabby sticks).

ECW is right in the middle - it is the beginning of the transition from Stabby to 'Splody . If it works for ECW rules, how far forward/back can we run the ends? Could we do ECW with Fire and Fury?

Looking at taking FK&P going forward into the 18th century FK&P publisher Simon Miller is currently in the latter stages of publishing a set of rules called "Lust for Glory" which are based on a lot of the FK&P mechanics. They are due for release sometime in 2026 I believe.

You can get a feel for the rule mechanisms from this blogpost: https://despertaferres.com/2025/07/26/wargaming-the-seven-years-war-with-simon-millers-lust-for-glory/

Its a Seven Years War game between Prussians and Austrians. 

Going backwards to WOTR (and 16th century?) you already have "To The Strongest" available.

Hope that helps.

[Ithoriel]

Equipment
Training
Weaponry
Industry
Economy
Social Cohesion

Each player gets a D4
If you are superior to the enemy in one of the listed areas trade the D4 for a D6
If you are superior to the enemy in two of the listed areas trade the D4 for a D8
If you are superior to the enemy in three of the listed areas trade the D4 for a D10
If you are superior to the enemy in four of the listed areas trade the D4 for a D12
If you are superior to the enemy in five or six of the listed areas trade the D4 for a D20

Each player rolls their die, high roll wins the war. Re-roll ties.

There you go wargames rules "From Sumer to Star Wars"

Bit lacking in period flavour though! :-)

I'll stick with period specific rules thanks. I like the crunch.

[fsn]

I think the level at which you are playing makes a difference. I really liked the "Once Upon a Time in the West" skirmish(?) rules, in which the individual steps taken to load differnt types of weapons were laid out.

Atthe other end, I used to play quite a few SPSS/Avalon Hill board games, when a strength 4 unit may have been a cuirassier brigade or a Panzer IV.

If you want to play Napoleonic Russians, do you include rules of pike armed opolchenie and bow wielding bashkir?
 

 

If you look at the way French infantry deployed between 1706 and 1870, you can see (yes I'm talking in general terms, and ignoring artillery) lines of blocks of infantry. The difference? A Brown Bess was effective at about 100 yards, a Dreyse maybe 250 yards (though potentially out to 650) and much faster, which is why we see the French high command abandoning the mass attack by 1914.
... or maybe a little later.

I suggest that the cake is fundamentally the same: the movement of men in formation common; the psychology the same; the reactions of horses the same.

What changes is the technology, and to some extent the use of the "blocks".

I have found that the difference is in scaling. For 1704 to 1815, I use a scale of 1 figure to 10 men. I have a maximum range of musketry at 10". If I go to the ACW, I take effective range to be about 400 yards. I don't want a 40" range on the table, so I adjust the figure ratio. Instead of a 60-72 figure unit I have a 24-30 figure unit. This makes the ground scale parger (smaller?) so I can keep a 10-12" range.     
 

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Would say that the same engine can be used aka Daniel Mersey's stuff.

[Chris Pringle]

Could you use a set that works for Waterloo for 1st Bull Run? Is Valmy in 1792 actually close enough in experience to Waterloo in 1815. It is 'only 23 years' BUT did the practice of warfare change more in that period, than the 46 years Waterloo to Bull Run?
What is the actual difference in gaming Bull Run with Waterloo rules? Is Appomatox more different to Bull Run than Bull Run is to Waterloo? Generals famously fight the last war.

Yes, absolutely you could. Witness Black Powder, Volley & Bayonet, Bloody Big Battles.

I maintain that the serious step change happens in the 1790s, when 'impulse warfare' takes over from 'linear warfare'. This is because the increased range and lethality of weapons (primarily artillery, but then rifles and MGs as the 19th century wears on) changes the battlefield geometry. Pre-Napoleonic battles are essentially linear because short-ranged weapons give the battlefield no depth and mean that flanks are very vulnerable. Hence armies have to deploy in solid lines with no flanks and have very limited options. 1790s on, that changes radically.

The implication for rules is that you do need some provision to distinguish the two periods. In BBB, we have done this by adding a few rule mods that restrict maneuver in the linear warfare period. A couple of rule mods do not mean it is a different ruleset, they just produce a suitably different flavour of game.

By Bull Run, rifles and rifled artillery mean that cavalry's relative potency is diminished. Improved firepower and ranges mostly drive cavalry off the battlefield: it is either away scouting or it turns into mounted infantry. But still, one ruleset can cope with both Bull Run and Waterloo. Indeed, BBB works right up to 1914: Anton van Dellen's Boer War scenarios are brilliant; Prof Travlos's Balkan Wars scenario book is amazing.

Once WWI gets into full swing and becomes an artillery game, I think you need a different ruleset.

In Air warfare we see the biggest change in effects of technology, but without changing the basic actions.
I have written a set of Battle of Britain rules. I started with the baseline of a Spitfire – max speed 9. Hurris therefore have a max of 8, 109s 10. I was asked on my blog could they be used for later war.  I can see no reason not to BUT... you would have to have period specific data cards. You can not set a 1944 FW190 or Hellcat against a Spit or Gustav.
Instead you would pick the exemplar, and make that Speed 9. But are the rules different? I haven't looked at it, but I would say no. Could these rules handle the start of fighter combat to the start of the missile.

Having been involved in the design of the Check Your Six! rules, I can confidently say that the rules for 1939 are no different from those for 1945. It's still all about getting on your opponent's tail. Given that 1939-model Re-2000 Hejas need to fight P-38 Lightnings and P-51 Mustangs in 1944, they have to fit in the same ruleset!

Obviously, just as improved firepower changes the battlefield geometry on land in the 1790s, so do missiles in the air in the 1950s. Hence CY6's separate "Jet Age" ruleset. (I'm not into jets at all, but I actually think Jet Age is a better game because the ballet of trying to stand off at just the right distance and attitude to use your missiles is so much more subtle and interesting than WWII get-on-his-tail.)

[Last Hussar]

Here's the thing - I always felt that BP is TOO generic (yeah, way to undermine your own point Hussar!) What it needs is tweaks - This period uses Rules 1-20, This one 1-16 with 21, 22, 24, and so on; not the unit specific ones given, but rather period specific. I've never quite managed to get my head round the Skirmish rules.

[T13A]

Hi

Just thought I'd throw this into the pot.

The original ACW brigade level 'Fire and Fury (F&F) Rules' by Rich Hasenauer (originally published in 1990!) spawned the regimental level version of the rules.

The original rules were developed into the 'Age of Eagles' (AoE) Napoleonic (again brigade level) rules by Col. (Rtd) Bill Gray (with Rich Hasenaauer's permission). These were further developed to cover the whole of the 18th century with the 'Age of Honor' (AoH) rules and now 'Age of Valor' which with various modules covers pretty much the whole of the 19th century and up to 1914. I understand that Bill is currently working on a set to cover the ECW/30 Years War. Personally I have only used F&F, AoE and AoH but my understanding is that they all pretty much use the same basic mechanics (and are all excellent rules IMHO, bringing out the individual 'flavour' of each period). The 'Battlefront WWII' rules are from the same 'stable' as F&F.

Cheers Paul