10 mm rules for any period of warfare

[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

[rexhurley]

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

What's the make us who have written and playtested them?   

[Luddite]

What's the make us who have written and playtested them?   

Abominable.

Surely at some point during the writing/playtesting you actually woke up and realised 'hang on, this is rubbish isn't it'...

[Leon]

Abominable.

Surely at some point during the writing/playtesting you actually woke up and realised 'hang on, this is rubbish isn't it'...

That's a little strong I think?  I know that Rex (and at least one other member) were involved in the founding of Battlefront, and they have said in previous discussions that the way the company is now isn't what they had visions of.  Whether the rules have changed as much as the company, I don't know, but I doubt anyone deliberately puts out a bad set of rules, it's just that some sets are more Marmite than others.  FoW must be appealing to someone, or they wouldn't be as widely used as they are.

[barbarian]

Yeah.

But just copying WHK40k couldn't lead anywhere else.

[rexhurley]

Yeah.

But just copying WHK40k couldn't lead anywhere else.

I wont get into a slanging match but just a couple of points for all the baggers of FOW.

(a) I never have nor ever will play 40k (neither have most of the Kiwi development team or primary playtesters) so ain't copied, ...also why I have sold my Bolt Action rules as right from Mr Preistley's own voice think 40k V2 and you have Bolt Action...wish i had seen that rpeview before my pre order lols, thems the breaks eh..

(b) I made a lifestyle choice to join them at the time I did, $80k salary down to $30k move to most expensive city cost of living wise take non working wife and newborn along for the ride.....I enjoyed my time there and can say I did it....unlike many....how many of you would do that to follow a dream?....

(c) Many people worldwide have contributed and a small dedicated team has put it out there and made it a success, yes GW style with a lot of ex GW Manager's but hey the owner has fronted with a seven figure sum to put it on the map so he wanted results...to be the top selling historical flavoured (notice I say flavour here gents!) game in the world where anyone can walk in with a couple of hundred dollar outlay (not a grand like another established company) and begin to play from nothing....ten years on he has it and a return on his initial investment and patience as we (I was involved with the Dark Ages of Version One)/they grew and learnt.....interesting to see that some initial dream's of Peter's (i.e starter sets and plastics) are now finally coming to fruition and while I chose to leave for personal reasons after a six month stint I have to admire his persistence in seeing the dream through a lot of people would have walked away and left many customers isolated...how many times do you see that in the marketplace?... 

(d) The game now dominates numbers wise at most comp gaming events all round the globe so something must be right or why would so many people play it? 

(e) It's a game (notice I say a game!) that's intention is "i want my toys on the table, I want to push them around and make things go boom" it is not nor has ever intended to be a full on historical reinvention, flavoursome yes, enjoyed by a lot yes, hated by a few yes.

(f) So all in all I respect everyone's choice to play or not play, have an opinion or otherwise but please guys lets stop bagging it especially with unknown and unsubstantiated comments that are just hurtful, and respect the fact others may have a different viewpoint. 

Take care and have a great week, regards Rex 

[barbarian]

I apologise if I've hurted feelings.


On the other hand, being popular isn't an argument of validity of a set of rules.
I'm a grafic designer and really know that a good art on boxes or well studied packaging will sell.
Just don't know if bringing a market already existent ( 15mm miniatures for WWII plays) to popularity, justify that prices and these rules.
I must admit, if pricing were (really) cheaper, I would have consider buying some. But, that's what lead me to Pendraken...so thank you Battlefront. 

Your most relevant point is f)

[Luddite]

That's a little strong I think?  I know that Rex (and at least one other member) were involved in the founding of Battlefront, and they have said in previous discussions that the way the company is now isn't what they had visions of.  Whether the rules have changed as much as the company, I don't know, but I doubt anyone deliberately puts out a bad set of rules, it's just that some sets are more Marmite than others.  FoW must be appealing to someone, or they wouldn't be as widely used as they are.

You're right Leon.  I'll retract the 'abominable' and issue genuine apologies to Rex et. al.  No cause for personal venom; I didn't intend that and apologise for it now.

I will however stand by my contention (with the usual 'personal preference' caveat) that FoW is one of the worst rule sets ever released.  Not Mr Lincoln's War bad, but pretty bad.

Popularity doesn't equal quality.

[GordonY]

Agreed!!

Otherwise how do you account for that most cringe-worthy set of rules Warhammer 40k still being in existance.

[rexhurley]

  Lol's gentlemen and well said it's also a little bit why I had the pokey tongue emoticon out in my post up the top, all cool.

had to laugh last night was reviewing my copy of BKC II again and saw in the acknowledgement section's recognition of My Priestley and the lesser known Paul Goldstone, interesting must drop Paul a line as he is active with developing both sets (BKC II and FOW) which I didn't know.

Anyway's all good and yeh baby love Pendraken 10's the true scale for gaming (especially WWII) their service (first class and not matched by anyone IMO  ), nice models in all ranges that paint superbly well (now if I could just take decent well lit photos  ) and the ability to build nice terrain to match...now all we need is some decent rules and some mates to play!! 

Just as a matter of amusement, I hate the special rules, I hate the use of characters, I dislike the tendency to change the rules to suit "gamey aka read cheesy " players.......

BKC II concepts I like but have to re-educate the brain (I'm old you have to forgive me  ) also struggle with small bases representing a platoon.  Have thought about maybe going to 60mm squares for something different and making a platoon type of diorama per peice but not sure if that's viable given my current gaming environment, or maybe just using Spearhead scenarios with FOW orgs (wash my mouth out    ) or FOW orgs, or Rapid Fire orgs with BKC II rules, bah an overstuffed market and too much choice, too much time to analyse and think not enough to paint and game arggjh 

thoughts or should we start another thread?

Re rules for 10mm though I reckon anything can work you like and either use the larger base sizes, i.e. 28mm and put more on or do what i am where my main base size now is 30 x 20 x 2mm (8 foot, 4 modern foot or 4 cav) per base commands on 30mm circles and guns on 30 x 40mm with a view to turning up and instead od playing ona  big massive table being that one like at railway shows where you go oh ahh at all the large HO scale layouts but the one that also sticks in your brain is that sexy little marklin one with all the detail and spectacular scenery, catenary and setup, that for me is 10mm to a tee.

Have a great day everybody, regards Rex

[Rothgar68]

Ack! What's wrong with Mr Lincoln's War!? (besides being disorganized) I've found that it works well.

I've played 40K and FoW and now I don't play either. They are pretty much the same thing. I'm not buying any more rule books or codexs on a yearly basis for one game.