Rules designed for 10mm models and figures

[goat major]

Oddly the larger the battles, the smaller the figures need to be.  

it would be even odder the other way round surely ? Austerlitz with Action Men ? Gladiator combat in 2mm ? 

[Luddite]

it would be even odder the other way round surely ? Austerlitz with Action Men ? Gladiator combat in 2mm ? 

Good point.

Hoever, gladiators with Action Men would make a great display / participation game...

[wargamesbob]

The drawback with 6mm is that, especially in advanced years, its just a colourless blur

I wish I'd read that ten years ago 
Bob

[Last Hussar]

Most wargames rules are written for 10mm, its just the authors are in error.

Seriously.

Many large scale rules use bases now - I'm thinking of F&F, Shako, Black Powder etc, and sometimes the authors give an idea of figure frontage.  Most of that is complete cock. 

I ignore 1 figure is x mm.

Take Shako for instance, a game that confusingly gives base sizes for 15m, but rules for 25mm, and tells you to use 2/3rds for 15mm.

Why?  What you are interested in is the size of the 3 bases that make one Battalion.  What goes on that is immaterial. 

BP gets this and says "you need 6 bases of 40mm, but we sometimes use 45mm (for 6 x 25mm figure rather than 4 figs per base), don't worry as long as both sides are within 25% frontage", and also mentions they sometimes mount 1 fig on a 20mm square base.

As I've said before convert inches to cm, and you have the same game in 10mm.  Infantry move 12cm, not 12 inches.  The bases become 6x20mm (40% of 45mm is 18mm, so close enough)  I have a 36man bn for under a fiver.  4 for the same price as a box of plastic 28mm, or 8 for the same price as 36 x 28mm.

My ultimate dream is to have the time, space and money to go with 24 bases per bn, mimicing the 24 man bns on individual 20mm bases and use the rules as written. 

What this dream may do is make people question the fire ranges, without realising the figures are still too big, not the ranges too long.
(we work on 1 measure unit =10 yards ish, Giving a max range of 180 yards, close of 60.  If we use inches as the MU, that makes 25mm = 10 yards, or 10mm figs 4 yards high!)

Even games publiched as 28mm skirmish games can work better as 10mm, using the stand of one 25mm fig as the base size.  Take everybody's favourite, WH40K

Put 2-3 10mm on a 1 inch base.  Platoons are now 20-30 men.  BUT fire by the element (ie base) not by the figure, so no rule needs to change.  Ranges look like they increase by over double - you now have a range of 30 figure sizes, not 12.  I'd give it a go more readily, I think the rules might appear to make more sense this way.

Now think about WH fantasy, with 4 figures on a stand, not one. They are mass medieval battles - 80 man units not 20.  THE RULES DONT CHANGE.  Those 4 men are still 1 figure effectively (same base).  OK it's more painting, but this is 10mm we are talking about, they are quicker, plus 50p for a base. 

Regiment of Foot recommends 4 15mm pikes on a 30mm base.  I get 16 10mm on that base.  Now that's a pike block.

I'd like to thank GW for WarMaster, and getting me back to 10mm.

[nikharwood]

Hear, hear - well said 

[republic of tolworth]

Ditto here too. 

That's why I love 10mm.

[Rob]

There are seems to be 2 points of view being expressed:

1. Go with the current types of rules available and use 15mm basing but with more figures to give a better effect of mass or the same amount of figures as 15mm for economy.
2. Go for more units and coupled with a smaller scale for larger battles.

View one does not require much input other than consensus on ‘How many figures are you putting on a base for XXXX rules?’

View two does require a different approach. The simple way to get more units on the table and have a bigger battle is to take an existing set of rules and half the 25mm scale recommended. This was generally the approach in the 80/90s for 15mm before scale creep meant it had to use larger bases.

The drawback with this approach is you will need to do more ‘processing’ during a game turn. That is for each unit ordered, each test taken or each event recorded you will probably have to do this task twice as many times. In my own experience these ‘processing’ tasks carried out more often soon start to irritate. The problem is that the detail of the rules is aimed at the wrong level for the amount of troops you can now get on the table. What is needed are rules specifically for 10mm scale.

What I would like to see in such a set is:
Rules that still allow period formations such as square, line, column and skirmisher for horse and musket era games, or tercios and Swedish Brigades for the pike and shot period, and believable unit sizes for ancient and medieval games.

Orders/prompts/morale/PIPS to be at brigade/division level, but not to have the brigade/division as the game unit.

A basic simplicity that means I don’t have to look at the bullet points on page 104 to find the arc of fire for my musketeers. So that I can process a large battle and get to a finish in a reasonable time without constant reference to the rule book.

What I would NOT like to see in such a set is:
Book keeping
Long lists of factors, advantage points, morale tests etc
Casualty removal of either figures or bases
Point systems based on a figure or base.


Cheers, Rob 

[Hertsblue]

Morale is usually the sticking point, Rob. You can reduce musketry, melee, combat - call it what you will - down to a die roll at its simplest. But the process of deciding how a unit has reacted to the results of those interactions usually involves a "shopping list" of factors. If you have to repeat the process over and over again tedium is the certain result. You can cut down the number of tests by applying them to groups of figures - brigade tests, divisional tests or what have you, but you then risk a wholesale collapse of large parts of the army in a domino effect. Getting the balance right is probably the greatest problem for any rule-writer. 

[Luddite]

Very interesting ideas Rob.

What I would like to see in such a set is:
Rules that still allow period formations such as square, line, column and skirmisher for horse and musket era games, or tercios and Swedish Brigades for the pike and shot period, and believable unit sizes for ancient and medieval games.

Agreed.  These are essentially up to a certain level.  For example a game representing divisional actions is unlikely to need such detail.  that level 'cut of for me is going to be the upper size limit of 'tactical' gaming i think.  (Perhaps 'grand tactical'?)

In terms of 10mm as a representative scale, i use it for all sorts from skirmishing up, but i think it works best at the 'Regimental' scale.  As i said earlier.  The larger the actions, the smaller the figures need to be!

Orders/prompts/morale/PIPS to be at brigade/division level, but not to have the brigade/division as the game unit.

So no orders / command engagements by the rules at all?  Simply have orders set at the start and let the players get on with it?

Command and Control is for  me, like morale, the trickiest thing for rules to get right.  often the most important factor in a period is how its command and control works.  A ruleset that gets that wrong is a real problem.  That's perhaps the 'simulation' aspect but its further complicated by the 'game' aspect.  Should the player and his/her actions represent the relative C&C of their army in the decisions they make?  Is it even neccessary for the rules to place restrictions on the C&C of an army?

A basic simplicity that means I don’t have to look at the bullet points on page 104 to find the arc of fire for my musketeers. So that I can process a large battle and get to a finish in a reasonable time without constant reference to the rule book.

Agreed.     But that applies for most rules though doesn't it?  I can't imagine anyone enjoying the endless fiddle of complicated rules that demands the rulebook constantly at hand.  There's an element of learning and familiarity that will mitigate that of course, but i agree that rules that remove 'clutter' are preferred.

That said, Fire & Fury is the best ruleset ever written and neccessitates reference to a playsheet for factors...i guess there's a balance to be struck there.  F&F certainly ain't as bad as FoG!

What I would NOT like to see in such a set is:
Book keeping

Agreed!

Long lists of factors, advantage points, morale tests etc.

So a short or easy list are ok?
Within the context of my comments above, all games need some form of 'factors' don't they?  Achieving 'points of advantage' (great term coined there RBS...) in the various aspects of troop performance are essential parts of any battle/game friction aren't they?

Casualty removal of either figures or bases

Interesting.  So how do you prefer to model the devastation of casualties, and the tactical effect that a reduced frontage, attack or defence capacity has?

I certainly favour 'toys on the table' as a general approach (my main gripe with IABSM - painted all these lovely figures but spend half the game pushing cardboard ovals about?!?) but i think casualties need to be removed.

I see three effects on a formation coming from enemy action: 

1. Casuality losses
2. Morale degredation
3. Formation disruption

Any rule system needs to model those three outcomes.

Point systems based on a figure or base.

Why?
Not all games need balance, and indeed scenario play should almost never be balanced as few historical battles were (Chikamauga maybe?)
For competative, balanced, or tournament play though, points grading is essential really.  I see no problem with including points for those who want/need them.  They can after all, be ignored if present.  Adding them in if absent is rather more difficult!

That said, if you're saying its 'points based on figure or base' are you advocating some other form of points based troops assessment?  I'd be interested to see an innovation in this regard.

[Rob]

Morale is usually the sticking point, Rob. You can reduce musketry, melee, combat - call it what you will - down to a die roll at its simplest. But the process of deciding how a unit has reacted to the results of those interactions usually involves a "shopping list" of factors. If you have to repeat the process over and over again tedium is the certain result. You can cut down the number of tests by applying them to groups of figures - brigade tests, divisional tests or what have you, but you then risk a wholesale collapse of large parts of the army in a domino effect. Getting the balance right is probably the greatest problem for any rule-writer. 

I agree with that entirely, so why do what every one else does and have a one dimensional morale system?  The sort of thing I have been experimenting with recently is to have a unit level reaction taken at event level (charging, taking hits etc) which is an easy to remember test where the result is either succeed, stalemate, or fail depending on circumstances AND a command level (brigade or division) test taken when units are lost or routed with the results ranging from when a command is fresh to attacks being halted to temporary retreats or more seriously a change in morale to ‘exhaustion’ where the command then becomes decidedly more dodgy. The result is not a chancy sudden creation of a hole in the line but a steady erosion of each side’s will that can be shored up with reinforcement or relief, while you have the reserves of course.

Cheers, Rob 

[Rob]

So no orders / command engagements by the rules at all?  Simply have orders set at the start and let the players get on with it?

Command and Control is for  me, like morale, the trickiest thing for rules to get right.  often the most important factor in a period is how its command and control works.  A ruleset that gets that wrong is a real problem.  That's perhaps the 'simulation' aspect but its further complicated by the 'game' aspect.  Should the player and his/her actions represent the relative C&C of their army in the decisions they make?  Is it even neccessary for the rules to place restrictions on the C&C of an army?

I am not thinking in terms of a regimental level game but more of a corps level or army, where a commander moves his command as a single entity in formation until close enough to the enemy where battalion level actions take place. The orders are at a high level and there is no need for orders at battalion level because their actions are governed by the higher level.

Cheers, Rob 

[Rob]

Agreed.     But that applies for most rules though doesn't it?  I can't imagine anyone enjoying the endless fiddle of complicated rules that demands the rulebook constantly at hand.  There's an element of learning and familiarity that will mitigate that of course, but i agree that rules that remove 'clutter' are preferred.

That said, Fire & Fury is the best ruleset ever written and neccessitates reference to a playsheet for factors...i guess there's a balance to be struck there.  F&F certainly ain't as bad as FoG!

Funny you should mention FoG it’s what I had in mind when I wrote that part. I introduced my lads to ancient wargaming with some DBMM chariot battles and medieval battles and they took to it immediately soon remembering by heart all the possible combat outcomes. I then bought FoG and we tried them and while I laboured through the book trying to get the game to flow the younger lad soon drifted away and the older although he stayed to the end pronounced it boring and “can we go back to the DBMM rules they were more fun”. I am sure there is a good game in there somewhere, but FoG does seem to make hard work of what is after all small battle. I think there is a need to be a little disciplined in what you put in rules and not have too many rules. Some things are best left simple, although this is easy to say but not to achieve.

Cheers, Rob 

[Rob]

So a short or easy list are ok?

yep

Within the context of my comments above, all games need some form of 'factors' don't they?  Achieving 'points of advantage' (great term coined there RBS...) in the various aspects of troop performance are essential parts of any battle/game friction aren't they?

Fully agree. But to process a larger battle they should be mostly short enough to remember or only need a glance at a quick reference sheet.

Cheers, Rob   

[Rob]

Interesting.  So how do you prefer to model the devastation of casualties, and the tactical effect that a reduced frontage, attack or defence capacity has?

I certainly favour 'toys on the table' as a general approach (my main gripe with IABSM - painted all these lovely figures but spend half the game pushing cardboard ovals about?!?) but i think casualties need to be removed.

I see three effects on a formation coming from enemy action: 

1. Casuality losses
2. Morale degredation
3. Formation disruption

Any rule system needs to model those three outcomes.

I do agree, but as an example in a recent game where I pushed to the limit, we had 2 Corps per side. When processing a turn for this lot it went remarkably well other than keeping track of losses. I tried using dice and casualty markers which is fine but inevitably with so many units some got left behind during movement. Basically it became a tedious process.
I’ve not tried this yet but I was thinking of trying a system where a unit apart from its normal grading also has a size; say small, medium or large. Hits would be registered against it during a turn in the normal way and it would use the number of hits received combined with its current size for any required reactions. At the end of the turn a die would be rolled and taking into account the number of hits this turn and its status i.e. good order, disordered, routing etc there would be a chance of it stepping down to the next lower size.

Cheers, Rob 

[Rob]

Why?
Not all games need balance, and indeed scenario play should almost never be balanced as few historical battles were (Chikamauga maybe?)
For competative, balanced, or tournament play though, points grading is essential really.  I see no problem with including points for those who want/need them.  They can after all, be ignored if present.  Adding them in if absent is rather more difficult!

That said, if you're saying its 'points based on figure or base' are you advocating some other form of points based troops assessment?  I'd be interested to see an innovation in this regard.

All I was thinking here is to raise the level of troop purchase to be by unit to save a players army list needing to be too long.

Cheers, Rob