Sorry for posting here but I just simply do not get on with yahoo groups, they seem to mess with my computer something rotten. I am still receiving emails from other yahoo accounts I had years ago that I deleted my account on >:(
I picked up my copy of BBB today and on a brief read through I very much like what I see. :)
My current forces for FPW are based for Principles of War - 3x 30mmx15mm bases making a unit using 6mm figures. I can see the rules are based on 1" squares - so my bases are slightly wider but much narrower. I first considered double basing which would mean my bases were 30x30 - slightly bigger than the recommended size.
I then realised that if I do that I would then have to buy two new armies of roughly the same amount of figures I have now to play most of the scenarios :(
I really don't want to buy more figures (as I am playing solo) and I am certainly not going to rebase, so are there any issues with simply using one 30mmx15mm base per element of the unit? I'm already thinking that March columns would be much shorter but does depth matter that much in the rules?
At a push I might consider sabots but then I would be increasing the width even further.....
Dave Fielder bases his units on 30mm x 30mm and it hasn't adversely affected our games. Hope this helps?
Quote from: Steve J on 01 April 2016, 05:09:10 PM
Dave Fielder bases his units on 30mm x 30mm and it hasn't adversely affected our games. Hope this helps?
Cheers Steve. I just don't want to buy more figures and to go 30x30 would mean lots more figures
I don't see a problem. I base 30 square simply because the Irregular 6mm bases fit. In 2mm I use the recommended 25 square - either way even a 3 base unit pokes out of a village footprint. The shallower base may even look more realistic. I play the ACW scenarios with my 15mm figures based 30x20. The important thing is that both sides are on the same base sizes.
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g440/dourpuritan/ACW%2015mm/IMG_1748_zpspclnc1fu.jpg)
A recent BBB game of Bull Run.
Given the enormously flexible ground scales for BBB I doubt it would make that much difference. Bear in mind Chris Pringle's statement in the rules regarding what a base actually represents - the centre of gravity of a unit - rather than its footprint. I would recommend you go with what you have, and see how you find it. You can always change later. For what it is worth, my figures are based 25mm x 20mm, and I found no need to change.
Mollinary
I use 30x15mm for the Russo-Japanese War and 40x30mm for the 1859 Italian War - both work
Hi Nosher,
Welcome to the BBB fold! The replies you've had already should be enough reassurance, but if you need any more, here's mine: your 30x15 bases should work just fine. Don't bother rebasing, just get stuck in and have fun!
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.fr/
Nice one. Cheers chaps. Looking forward to getting a game in.
One more question (two actually....) Which scenario would you choose for a first game? Anyone playing solo and if so does that speed the game up or slow it down?
Naturally hoping to get a game in against an opponent but my regular gaming partner and I can't get together till June!!
Just to hijack this for a second. Has anyone tried BBB for AWI at all?
Cheers
The best starter scenarios are Montebello (1859) or Langensalza (1866).
If you want FPW ones, then Spicheren, or (smaller and easier to set up) Coulmiers or Beaune-la-Rolande.
These are all in the BBB Yahoo group files.
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
If you don't want to join the group, you can also find most of them on Flickr:
Montebello:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127771552@N03/albums/72157648083020223
Langensalza:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127771552@N03/albums/72157649862262451
Spicheren:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127771552@N03/albums/72157648191219054
Beaune-la-Rolande:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127771552@N03/albums/72157661947377836
Chris
Quote from: Fenton on 02 April 2016, 08:11:18 PM
Just to hijack this for a second. Has anyone tried BBB for AWI at all?
Not that I know of. But just last week on the group we've been talking about 18th century BBB and I posted a few simple but significant rule mods that I think would make it work well for C18. I was thinking more of Marlburian or Seven Years' War but the same principles should apply to AWI.
Chris
Cheers Chris
Having a bit of trouble getting Yahoo groups to work but hopefully it will work soon
Hi Fenton,
Well since you're having trouble getting to the group, I'll just re-post here and hope that Nosher will excuse the hijack!
===
here's what I thought about using BBB for 18th century battles.
To represent pre-Napoleonic linear warfare you'd need to make some simple but significant changes.
Key differences I reckon are:
- Formation changes took much longer
- Artillery much less mobile (and less destructive)
- Much greater concern for flanks (because formation changes took longer) hence need to deploy in continuous lines.
So I'd suggest:
- All formation changes, including limbering/unlimbering, take a FULL move, not half.
- No more free wheeling. Any change of facing costs a full move. Movement out of arc is still possible but costs half a move, and allows no change of facing.
- All artillery units are 'Reduced' (fire at half effect).
- Artillery movement allowance reduced to 6".
You might add a new +1 or +2 modifier to the Movement rolls for "Conforming": i.e., if the unit next to you just moved, and if you are moving to maintain your position relative to it, you get +2 for conforming and maintaining the line. Not possible if in or trying to move through difficult terrain.
Difficult terrain is more of a problem.
? Any except designated Light troops that spend any part of their move in Difficult Terrain end their movement Disrupted?
Not a different rule per se but more of a feature would be much greater use of the "Devastating Volleys" rating - probably standard for most decently trained regular infantry for most C18 battles.
I think those tweaks would capture some important features of C18 warfare without having to rewrite the rules radically.
Thanks Chris
Sorry Nosher. Back to the original thread
I haven't tried today yet, but yesterday I was able to get back into the BBB Yahoo group.
Chris
I bought the rules but have not used them as yet. The reason for not using them is that I am having difficulty understanding where you
placed the benchmark for what is a bloody big battle and what isn't and therefore outside the basic idea of the rules.
This first occurred when you recommended using Montebello as a good starting point. To me at least this action does not qualify as a 'bloody big battle' which then left me confused with regard to the underlying concepts. Now mention is being made of the AWI. Again I find it difficult to see how the size of actions in that conflict can be reasonably recreated by rules designed for significantly larger engagements.
What am I missing?
Chad
Montenegro is at the minimum scale and even then is tiny, unless the Allies really fluff things. 500 men per base still only gives 35 or so bases total between both sides!
BUT - it's not actually a BBB as such, and didn't make the cut for the scenario book because of that. What the BBB scenario is, is a training game. Two players, 60-90mins, low troops on a small board but with a little dash of everything so you can play and learn without getting overwhelmed. There's some cavalry, veterans, passive troops, awkward terrain an some special scenario rules all in the "normal format" for a "proper" game. Just smaller and very easy to play.
Same for Langanselza.
Normal scenarios would have those force amounts for ONE side at a minimum, be sized for four to six players, board size would probably be 6*4 and it'd be a three hour game simulating something four times the size. It's just a mark of how flexible the system can be that you can squash and squeeze it up and down well enough to make a playable game of little actions.
Not sure whether the AWI would fit, even at smallest scale but might be worth a pop to see. Certainly those mod would make sense for 7YW, WSS etc, or at least they look like they should :)
I think you might be missing a little flexibility in your approach. Although the original concept was for battles like Solferino, it soon became apparent that the rules would work for smaller battles by adjusting the scales. I'm no mathematician so I don't get hung up on those sort of things. What I do know is that the rules give a really enjoyable and exciting game.
Leman
I accept that adjusting the scales can give a smaller sized game. I do this myself occasionally. This however, does not mean that the rules can be automatically switched to earlier periods.
Chad
These are my thoughts on using the rules ( at whatever scale) for 18th century:
1. WSS - Formations, tactics and firepower are more closely related to the 17th century than the 18th. Therefore, adjustments for SYW ŵould not necessarily suit WSS and vice versa.
2. Artillery - Almost always static once deployed and few if any massed batteries. Battalion guns need to be considered.
3. Cavalry - Firearm cavalry would have to be considered as would the transition from attacks delivered at a trot to an outfight gallop.
4. Light Infantry and skirmishing - Not a feature of WSS battles but appeared by SYW albeit mainly but irregulars eg Croats & Pandours. In AWI light infantry could be either irregular or regular, with British Light companies being formed into elite units.
5. Grenadiers - Through to 1813/14, Grenadier companies were detached from parent units to form elite bodies.
6. Small Arms - Volleys normally delivered at much closer ranges than in mid to late 19th century to achieve maximum effectiveness.
7. Command and Control - Brigades and Divisions were ad hoc combinations of units put together on the day. the Corps as a formal organisation appeared in early 19th century. Therefore, aspects of command and control would need to be addresses.
My threepenneth for what it is worth
Chad
You'd probably be well off playing the rules and period as written a few times before tweaking for other periods. See what you need to change an see what works. That said you're right on the money re:period within the period - there's a wealth of difference of ability, tactics, organisation, technology across a hundred years :D
Makes no odds to me. I'm sold on Honours of War for the C18th. I'm not even interested in the Napoleonic battles for BBB as I am definitely most interested in the post 1850 period.
Quote from: Chad on 03 April 2016, 09:19:12 AM
Chris
I bought the rules but have not used them as yet. The reason for not using them is that I am having difficulty understanding where you
placed the benchmark for what is a bloody big battle and what isn't and therefore outside the basic idea of the rules.
This first occurred when you recommended using Montebello as a good starting point. To me at least this action does not qualify as a 'bloody big battle' which then left me confused with regard to the underlying concepts. Now mention is being made of the AWI. Again I find it difficult to see how the size of actions in that conflict can be reasonably recreated by rules designed for significantly larger engagements.
What am I missing?
Chad
Hi Chad,
Fair questions! The original point of BBB was to do what other rulesets didn't seem to (at least, not to the satisfaction of our group): to let you fight battles of about 40,000+ men a side in an evening.
But after publication, players began asking for smaller 'training scenarios' they could use to learn the rules before pitching into the big battles. Hence Montebello and Langensalza. Some players have been happily downscaling to create scenarios for divisional-sized actions in the Sikh Wars and other colonial battles. Others have been designing scenarios for the small Franco-Prussian actions that I had considered outside BBB's remit. So the 'shrinking' of BBB to cover SSS (Somewhat Small Scuffles) is all player-driven.
Similarly with the talk of extending forwards to WWI and back to C18. These are well outside my own main interest and expertise. The only reason I've been kicking these ideas around is because of public demand from players. I agree that the features you list would need to be considered in a C18 variant. I think they could be covered simply and realistically but I haven't given it any serious thought or research. Some time, maybe.
For now, there are something like 55 BBB historical scenarios available in the rulebook, the BBEB companion volume, and the Yahoo group files. Why not pick one you're interested in and give it a go?
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.fr/
Quote from: Fenton on 02 April 2016, 08:42:40 PM
Thanks Chris
Sorry Nosher. Back to the original thread
No worries - and sorry to have not responded sooner. Working all weekend and now 'back at school - meant to be studying' and I am. Just studying something not work related :D
Even brought BBB away with me for the week away from home to break up essay writing/research reading ;)
Sorry to jump in chaps,
Wondering whether my 75mm by 75mm bases are at all usable with these rules?
Quote from: mad lemmey on 07 April 2016, 09:32:24 PM
Wondering whether my 75mm by 75mm bases are at all usable with these rules?
Morning Lemmey,
It would obviously be imperfect and in some ways inconvenient but I expect you could make it work.
For units of 2-3 bases you could use a single 75x75 base, and for those of 4-7, two 75x75 bases.
Artillery units might be a problem as each unit is a single 1"x1" base. Having them take up so much more room could distort things. But maybe it would still work.
You would need ways to note both what formation the unit is in (line, depth, or column of march) and how many standard 1"x1" bases it actually represents.
Chris
Thanks Chris.
Am going to play Nick Overland in a couple of weeks, might have to use his kit (my artillery is on 1.5" by 3" depth)!
Actually I seem to remember having to do something similar when I visited a friend and we used his block-mounted ACW troops. It was OK. Since your artillery isn't unduly oversized, the rest should be fine.
Greetings to Nick O.
Chris
Will do Chris. :-bd
Quote from: mad lemmey on 07 April 2016, 09:32:24 PM
Wondering whether my 75mm by 75mm bases are at all usable with these rules?
I use 40x30mm so I would treat your bases as two stands
As Chris says you will need some method of flagging 1/2 bases and formation
Alan
I've ordered the rules and supplement to collect at Salute.
Just been to the garage and checked my 10mm (Pendraken of course) Franco-Prussian War forces. About 80 bases of infantry and 8 guns plus a few cavalry bases per side on the 1" bases. Not painted in the same league as Lemmy's but reckon they should do. Also got similar number of Union in 6mm with the Rebs and some buildings in a bag. 2 new periods with minimal outlay. Result!
Nick
Excellent news Nick! Looking forwards to it!
My next game down the club will be to introduce another member to BBB, via Spicheren, for which I have the troops and terrain ready prepared. Looking forward to it as I have become much more au fait with the rules.
Hello
I've read the rules and like what I read ;)
But no army ready.
What scenario would be OK for a first game ? :-\ ( I also bought BBEB )
( I think I'll play Crimean War, but may proxy a scenario when I'm ready)
On the Yahoo Group there are some small scale scenarios that are perfect for training games. Montebello and Langensalza spring to mind as good ones to start with. Hope this helps Ronan?
I'll check.
Thank you !
edit : I checked ! that's Ok. THANK YOU !
Well as planned my thoughts on the day:
http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/bloody-big-battles-bash.html (http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/bloody-big-battles-bash.html)
And some more pics to tempt you...
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dz2o37jskJ8/VwqoLOcjzqI/AAAAAAAADcE/lLM0HL-zk3MPejlqhqUrhyJNt4TIzB_JA/s400/BBB%2BBash%2B016.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HY9INa79B4U/VwqoYLd6J4I/AAAAAAAADcM/SZ5TKh_Hnv4B794lfO7xGjfqO7BlYSM1g/s400/BBB%2BBash%2B019.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1_GVbWklyBE/VwqocnHDRJI/AAAAAAAADcw/324ptHdLeFsRdG0raA3AVuA4C-ecg8Slw/s400/BBB%2BBash%2B027.jpg)
Thanks for sharing those, Steve.
Great piccies. :)
Cheers - Phil
Took me a few minutes wondering why there were pikemen at the front of the army
Nice pics Steve
QuoteTook me a few minutes wondering why there were pikemen at the front of the army
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Fenton on 12 April 2016, 07:34:58 AM
Took me a few minutes wondering why there were pikemen at the front of the army
Nice pics Steve
Somebody must have finally lit the blue touch paper.