Just looking at two rule sets from the 70's that I recently picked up and comparing with similar modern rules, I have just put a few thoughts and observations on the blog.
http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2019/06/oh-simple-things-where-have-you-gone.html
An interesting post Norm. I found these books an interesting read but am not sure I would enjoy playing the games. Today's more abstracted games tick all the boxes for me, but the books are worth getting for the ideas contained therein.
Good stuff Norm.
I suspect the 70s simplicity as evidenced by the One Hour ethos will become popular.
Did play a horse and Musket game with Featherstones rules around the time he died. Terrible. F'r instance A Confederate Infantry Rgt in a Church Yard - behind a stone wall - was wiped out by a single union cavalry rgt. Accurate ????
IanS
Interesting read, thanks Norm. The old rules are well before my time, but it is interesting to see the evolution of rules from those earlier times to now.
Featherstone's The Wargame was my introduction back in 1966. [Can't believe I am the same age now as someone born in 1899 was then]
My first armies were Airfix ACW, and what Ian doesn't seem to grasp is that the two or three wargame books were all that there was back then. Obviously when Featherstone died rules had moved on (although not always in the right direction - WRG has a lot to answer for). At the time I was working as a hall porter on a Saturday (people still took a week or fortnight's annual holiday in Llandudno in those days) for the princely sum of !5/- plus tips, so an Airfix box for 2/6 was easily doable. When I started to buy metal Minifigs they were 11d each, so I could only get about 16 figures for my entire week's wage. It was also a case of sending a SAE waiting for it to come back with a catalogue inside then sending off again and waiting for the box of sawdust to come back, occasionally 6 weeks later. No butterfly projects in those days, no being distracted by another period. Consequently, by the time I was 16 in 1969 my ACW armies were huge and painted, based on information in the trusty Airfix magazine. Halcyon days indeed, but I'm glad rules in general improved, figure sculpting went way beyond the early Minifig efforts and numerous new gaming periods were opened.
A very interesting thread. My first gaming book was Donald Featherstone's "Tackle Model Soldiers This Way", which I still have - purchased back in the early '60s. Although I had gamed WWII for years, my first introduction to non-WWII gaming was also the ACW using the Arifix figures, and their Foreign Legion painted up as Zouaves. Used home rules, that were never very satisfying, but gave many, many hours of fun. My first lead/metal figures were a few second hand SAE types, amnd some Bussler ACW figs. Then I saw the Life magazine article on Waterloo and I was off and running into Napoleonics - which I still enjoy today.
Oh, tp trip down memory lane!!!
Terry
I still use Featherstones Horse and Musket rules whenever we play an Old School ACW game with very few modifications.
Great post Norm!
As you might know, i am a big fan of Neil Thomas' rules and have almost all of them (still have to get 19th century wargaming sometimes)
They just work with minimal fuss, are easy to houserule or add on own rules, and give a fast game. If i want an even faster game, i can even use his 'one hour wargames ' book.
For me, i used to be happy with a complicated and crunchy ruleset back in the day, but as you branch out and get into a lot of periods, it starts getting harder to remember all those different rules. Having simple sets with minimal mechanics just helps you get stuff on the table more often!
Thanks all. I do a lot of boardgaming as well, some of which has in-depth rules, with a wide range of subjects covered, so I am increasingly moving to a view that I want my figure side of gaming to be doing something slightly different, so the aesthetics and fun element are increasingly coming to the fore as being important elements, at least in my mind, which in turn partly has me looking backwards to perhaps less serious times.
I also enjoyed your article on your blog, Norm. =D>
@ Ian: I'm really surprised at your experience (coz I recall my own cavalry being hammered in a firefight with infantry) but I'm wondering if you were using the rules from Featherstone's book or Featherstone's actual ACW rules. In his blog Norm refers to units of 20 but my recollection of Featherstone's ACW rules are infantry regiments of 40 plus 5 officers plus - what was it? - cavalry units of 20 figures(?). I recall that you had a shooting advantage for 'resting weapons' and that your saving throws might also be improved because your troops were behind a wall. However, I used to deploy my regiments in 'open order' so I'm wondering if yours were in 'close order' - I also wonder if you were facing repeaters and not simply cavalry carbines - either that or your die rolls were rubbish or you were cheated! :o ;D
@ Terry: our Zouave units were Airfix French Foreign Legion figures also! :D
@ Leman: your own experience also enjoyed. :)
@Westie
Featherstones book says his ACW infantry units were 20 strong and the cavalry 15 strong.
40 strong infantry units with 5 officers is much more like Grants rules.
Jim
This is intriguing, Jim, because for many years I've been under the impression the rules I used were Donald Featherstone's (separate to the book). Unfortunately, the guy who might have been able to clear this up for me is no longer with us (he had purchased the rules when we were in our teens). What I do remember is that Grant's Napoleonic rules had 48 figures (plus officers) in four companies. But under the rules I'm thinking of it was definitely 40 figures and five officers - this was OK for a 48 pack of Airfix ACW (except Union, which had some prone figures) but as you only got 2 or 3 officers in that pack, you had to somehow supplement these with other officer types from other Airfix packs (e.g., I can recall WW2 Japanese Officers being used by my pal and also, the likes of John and Buck Cannon from the High Chaparral pack! ;D ).*
* in some regiments, you didn't have the full complement of 5 officers - which, in one respect was quite good because in some small way it somehow reflected real life
I have a separate copy of Featherstones Horse and Musket rules somewhere in my collection.
I'll hunt them out and see if they differ.
Interesting article Norm, thanks for posting.
I discovered some of Featherstone's books in the local library around 1971/2 and devoured them intently, then shortly afterwards discover there was a club in my town! The earliest rules I remember using on a regular basis was Grant's Battle! Practical Wargaming for WW2 and for ACW I was using the Airfix ruleset by Terrance Wise (using Airfix plastics, of course!).
Quote from: jimduncanuk on 23 June 2019, 06:01:41 PM
I still use Featherstones Horse and Musket rules whenever we play an Old School ACW game with very few modifications.
That would be brilliant, Jim. This could be a life changing moment for me ... :-S ;D
Rules from the book circa 1966 !
I'm with Norm on this, most of my armies are now are 24 infantry and 12 cavalry, with very basic rules. Life's too short.
[Wondering now if the following should be opened up as a new post in the Rules section: but I'll carry on here]
This notion of mine that the ACW rules I played away back over 45 years ago were another version of Featherstone's (i.e., not the simple rules mentioned in his book) is still puzzling me. I came across this link in Vintage Wargaming showing the cover of Wargames Newsletter Rules:-
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SH2iJHS2LjA/TFWCIbEnc4I/AAAAAAAAGxU/XufqXTxvq5w/s1600/Athenal+cover001.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SH2iJHS2LjA/TFWCIbEnc4I/AAAAAAAAGxU/XufqXTxvq5w/s1600/Athenal+cover001.jpg)
By the looks of it, Wargamer's Newsletter Rules (Donald Featherstone) were published by Athena in 1987 (124 pages)
(but also possibly printed by Imperial Press, 34 Imperial Crescent, , Doncaster DN2 5BU?).
It includes 10 sets of Rules from 1000BC to 1944 one of which is "American Civil War Rules by Donald Featherstone." I do not know if these are a re-print of the simple ACW Rules in the book mentioned by Norm or the more advanced rules I recall playing.
The rule sets included are:
1. Rules for Ancient Wargames 1000 BC - AD 900 by Tony Bath
2. Medieval Rules by Tony Bath
3. God for Harry! England and St George! Wargame Rules for the Medieval Period by Donald Featherstone
4. Rules for the English Civil War by Donald Featherstone
5. Rules for the 1750 period in Europe by Tony Bath
6. Napoleonic Rules by Donald Featherstone
7. American Civil War Rules by Donald Featherstone
8. Rules for late 19th Century wargames by Donald Featherstone
9. Rules for 1917 period wargames in German S.W. Africa (including rules for early tanks, armoured cars etc) by Donald Featherstone
10. Rules for 1944 (Normandy) Wargames by Phil Barker.
These Rules were also individually available to order from Donald Featherstone. 8 of them (on the list)(excluding Don's Medieval and English Civil War rules) are listed in a notice in Wargamer's Newsletter from December 1967 at 3s 6d each or the set of 8 for a guinea, including postage. I am under the impression this is how my then wargaming buddy acquired the ACW rules (he also purchased Napoleonic rules but we never played these).
Does anyone have this edition of Wargames Newsletter Rules?
Other than infantry units being 45 figures strong (including 5 officers)(with or without six skirmishers?), cavalry units consisted of two squadrons only. For artillery firing, we also had to make a shell burst template consisting of 6 circles for long range and 4 for short range with a die roll deciding which circle the shell exploded in. You could also take pot shots at officers but to find out if your shot hit the officer, you threw a die again with (something like) a result of 3 or 4 hitting the target, 5 or 6 the person to his left and 1 or 2, the person to his right. Unfortunately, if you missed the target, we teenagers took the other results too literally, accepting without protest that it was possible that some poor guy nowhere near the officer could get hit by a wildly off shot! :-[
That's certainly how I acquired Don's ACW rules, but unfortunately they are long gone, although I have donated all my old copies of Wargamers Newsletter to the Liverpool club.
I can only say I'd have flogged off the whole collection decades ago if the hobby hadn't grown up (exponentially in the case of rules).
Very interesting initial post and subsequent thoughts.
I picked up Charles Grant's Battle early on though I did not use it much. I did not really get into Featherstone (for some reason I bought his Advanced Wargaming years before anything else) and have only really read rather than played Charles Grant's other rules - though it is possible a version of The Wargame (18th century) may get played at some point.
Regards
Edward
.
I started with Featherstone, and soon dismissed them as childish. Now 60 odd years later I regard them with nostalgic affection, but do not play them. I do however play the odd game based on Charles Grants SYW and Well's Little Wars rules, even if I have to tinker with them to accommodate my multiple figure bases. Again this is nostalgia