Not sure whether this would generate demand.
The Context is the 2 Fat Lardies Chain of Command rules.
I've been scratching my head for ways to make this viable in 10mm - and figured a mix of basing the foot in singles and pairs maintains flexibility without the pfaff of lots of tiny baselets.
All the troops and vehicles are available, but there's a mismatch between team sizes in Pendraken packs and those required by the rules.
CoC genreally requires quite large crew: 2 for light mortars, PIATS, bazookas etc, 2 or 3 for LMGs and 5 for anything more substantial.
I contemplated subbing in some riflemen to make up the numbers, but those poses generally look quite active, and "shooty".
What I propose is:
A selection of generic "extra" weapons crews.
You can buy a pack of 10, and divvy them up around your LMGs, Mortars and ATGs as needed.
The art of this lies in the "Generic".
A guy handling a 75mm shell, or a Bren magazine has limited use.
Somebody waiting empty handed, or carrying a generic ammunition box s a lot more flexible.
Poses also need to be appropriate.
I'd guess kneeling or crouched, with rifles slung, and the occasional man in a "spotting" pose ought to fit nicely with most of the current weapon sets.
Would this sort of offering generate much demand?
Tell Leon what you want and he'll sort it for a very modest increase in price over standard packs - in my experience.
For brens all you would need is a prone rifleman, and a small lt green box, which contained 10 mags, it was modded to take L4 mags. Offically a gun team has 3 members, no 1 with the bren, no2 with an enfield and no 3 the L Cpl wit h an enfield. The spare kit would be spread around the three men
I would agree that generic helmetless open handed HW crews would be useful as mortar and gun crews.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 14 September 2020, 03:02:22 PM
For brens all you would need is a prone rifleman, and a small lt green box, which contained 10 mags, it was modded to take L4 mags. Offically a gun team has 3 members, no 1 with the bren, no2 with an enfield and no 3 the L Cpl wit h an enfield. The spare kit would be spread around the three men
I would agree that generic helmetless open handed HW crews would be useful as mortar and gun crews.
Do they need to be helmetless?
I'd imagined them looking much like ordinary squaddies, but with hands free and a bit less active.
Raised here because I don't see any suitable figures among the various rifle offereings.
I'm possibly missing a trick because the crew for most of the WW2 artillery aren't pictured.
It's likely that these would do the trick.
Helmetless casue the helmets are distinctive for each nation.
The AWI casualty pack's figures are bare-headed with various tricornes, hats, grenadier caps provided separately. So, do-able for WW2 also?
Edit: forget that idea - you can't get the figures to wear the headgear unless you slice off the top of their heads. D'oh!
(nevertheless, the pioneer pack and most of the artillery crew figures in the SYW range are bare-headed so perhaps a WW2 bare-headed pack is still do-able) (a multi-nation pack is also feasible with 'unused' nations' figures having the added use as POW's).
I think there are sufficient figures in the various gun crews anyway. They perhaps just need extracting into a separate code? Or codes?
When I wanted additional gun crews for towed artillery and to crew vehicles I asked Leon for 20 German artillerymen to be added to the order. I'm sure if I'd asked for particular poses he'd have done that too. Plenty on the forum have ordered non-standard packs and had no problem.
I will risk irking FK by reiterating my frequent mantra - "This is a solution looking for a problem!" :)
More pictures of the artillery and other support weapons clearing showing the crews would assist with this
Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 September 2020, 06:31:09 PM
... Plenty on the forum have ordered non-standard packs and had no problem...
I don't think I've placed an order that hasn't included non-standard packs :-[
We're moving on to some of the WWII website photos soon which will help quite a lot! We're also going to add separate crews as a catalogue code as well.
Generic will not do it, in my opinion. Even in WW2 the variety of uniforms is sufficient that a single generic 'crew' figure is no good, and the weapon itself dictates the role and, therefore, the posture of the figures in a crew.
For example, LMG and MMG generally have crews of between 2 and 6, some weapons are belt fed, others magazine fed. Mortars had at least as many crew. A British 3" Mortar platoon in 1940, for example, comprised two sections of 8 men and a 15cwt truck to carry the weapons and ammunition. LMG will, generally, require a prone crew while MMG and mortars will require, on the whole, kneeling/sitting figures. The boxes used to carry the ammunition for all these weapons were not the same and, when it comes to artillery, the ammunition itself is markedly different in appearance.
Light artillery normally fires fixed ammunition, but it is not all the same in appearance across the calibres and function. Heavier artillery often has two-part ammunition comprising a shell and separate charge. The former often needs a cradle, used by two crew to offer it up to the breech of the weapon, and one of the crew will have a small rammer, which may not be necessary on smaller weapons. Some guns need a seated crew member.
My solution has been to convert my own since there is really nothing out there that entirely fits the bill. Generic is almost always unsatisfactory, in my opinion, and the solution, I think, would be to revisit the crew served weapons on offer, and design crews specifically for the weapon in question.
An associated issue, for which converting figures has been the only solution, is movement. I like to have a moving team for each firing team, which avoids the need for some kind of marker to indicate what it is doing. Moving and firing teams for LMG, MMG etc would be far more use than casualty markers, the purpose of which still eludes me.
Quote from: Leon on 14 September 2020, 10:03:30 PM
We're moving on to some of the WWII website photos soon which will help quite a lot! We're also going to add separate crews as a catalogue code as well.
Bazinga!!!
What a guy, what a businessman.
I've looked at the artillery crew that are pictured.
There seems to be a guy kneeling, cradling something like a '75 shell.
The shell is an irritant, but can probably be drilled out / painted over.
I think there's another kneeling figure usually with his back presented to the camera.
Those guys can do most of the "crew work".
I'm hoping to find a suitable "corporal" either observing or pointing among the forward observer troops.
Quote from: John Cook on 15 September 2020, 11:07:55 AM
Generic will not do it, in my opinion. Even in WW2 the variety of uniforms is sufficient that a single generic 'crew' figure is no good, and the weapon itself dictates the role and, therefore, the posture of the figures in a crew.
For example, LMG and MMG generally have crews of between 2 and 6, some weapons are belt fed, others magazine fed. Mortars had at least as many crew. A British 3" Mortar platoon in 1940, for example, comprised two sections of 8 men and a 15cwt truck to carry the weapons and ammunition. LMG will, generally, require a prone crew while MMG and mortars will require, on the whole, kneeling/sitting figures. The boxes used to carry the ammunition for all these weapons were not the same and, when it comes to artillery, the ammunition itself is markedly different in appearance.
Light artillery normally fires fixed ammunition, but it is not all the same in appearance across the calibres and function. Heavier artillery often has two-part ammunition comprising a shell and separate charge. The former often needs a cradle, used by two crew to offer it up to the breech of the weapon, and one of the crew will have a small rammer, which may not be necessary on smaller weapons. Some guns need a seated crew member.
My solution has been to convert my own since there is really nothing out there that entirely fits the bill. Generic is almost always unsatisfactory, in my opinion, and the solution, I think, would be to revisit the crew served weapons on offer, and design crews specifically for the weapon in question.
An associated issue, for which converting figures has been the only solution, is movement. I like to have a moving team for each firing team, which avoids the need for some kind of marker to indicate what it is doing. Moving and firing teams for LMG, MMG etc would be far more use than casualty markers, the purpose of which still eludes me.
Good points John, but for my context (Chain of command) and most wargames I've seen the crew comprises the men actually serving the piece.
Crew size varies by ruleset, but I'm prepared to compromise with kneeling figures grouped around the piece.
Chain of Command's on-table weapons tend to be light mortars, tripod machineguns, anti-tank and infantry guns.
Rather smaller than the 2 part ammunition cannon.
Steve, I'm not familiar with Chain of Command. The rules I use have no restrictions on crews one way or the other.
Quote from: John Cook on 16 September 2020, 02:06:22 AM
Steve, I'm not familiar with Chain of Command. The rules I use have no restrictions on crews one way or the other.
The rules are quite interesting.
Worth a look (or at least a Google for some batreps) if Platoon sized battles at 1:1 figure are your thing.
Support weapons have a crew with fixed starting size, and are out of the game when the last crewman is eliminated.
Within a section/squad (eg Bren, or Bazooka) the commander can burn a command to assign riflemen to replace weapon crew.
Crews of more specialized weapons can't be replenished like this, so it's wise not to over-expose them.
I have their 'I ain't been shot Mum' but I haven't used it in ages. My gaming has been entirely dice-free for a long time. I use Computer Strategies games for all periods. You can set the ratio of troops to figures to whatever you like, the computer doesn't care. I use 1:1 for all my 20th Century games which are roughly platoon to company level. I know that a lot of people don't care for computer moderated games, but I wouldn't go back to dice these days.
Quote from: John Cook on 16 September 2020, 05:22:51 PM
I have their 'I ain't been shot Mum' but I haven't used it in ages. My gaming has been entirely dice-free for a long time. I use Computer Strategies games for all periods. You can set the ratio of troops to figures to whatever you like, the computer doesn't care. I use 1:1 for all my 20th Century games which are roughly platoon to company level. I know that a lot of people don't care for computer moderated games, but I wouldn't go back to dice these days.
Interesting stuff.
I'd not come across it until this discussion.
Will take a look.
Quote from: John Cook on 16 September 2020, 05:22:51 PM
I have their 'I ain't been shot Mum' but I haven't used it in ages. My gaming has been entirely dice-free for a long time. I use Computer Strategies games for all periods. You can set the ratio of troops to figures to whatever you like, the computer doesn't care. I use 1:1 for all my 20th Century games which are roughly platoon to company level. I know that a lot of people don't care for computer moderated games, but I wouldn't go back to dice these days.
Oooh! Interesting. I built a spreadsheet to manage my games, but I can put in things like "Firefly" shooting at "Panther", range "24", aspect "front". The spreadsheet then does the calculations and says I need "8" on 2d (or whatever). I don't let it roll the dice, as that was part of the game for me.
Quote from: John Cook on 16 September 2020, 05:22:51 PM
I use Computer Strategies games for all periods.
Do you have a link? trying to search for that just gets me things like Civilisation, Command & Conquer and Total War.
A fault in me I suppose, but I cannot understand using a computer for tabletop games.
If I'm in front of a computer I have a plethora of perfectly good computer wargames to play. Combat Mission, Company of Heroes, Memoir '44, Heroes of Normandie, the Total War series, Mare Nostrum, Naval Action or Victory at Sea to name just my regulars.
If I'm at a table I want to push lead and roll dice.
Ah, well! Each to their own.
Quote from: Raider4 on 17 September 2020, 07:06:41 AM
Do you have a link? trying to search for that just gets me things like Civilisation, Command & Conquer and Total War.
Yes, there are lots of 'computer strategy' sites out there. The website for Computer Strategies games is at:
http://www.computermoderated.com/
Computer Strategies have games covering ancient to the distant future. Once you have mastered one, you have mastered them all. In addition to Computer Strategies there is also Carnage and Glory. C&G, is limited to 17th to 19th Century gaming. Their website is at:
http://www.carnageandgloryii.com/
Ultimately, if throwing dice forms a fundamental part of your game enjoyment, then computer moderation is not for you.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 17 September 2020, 10:48:36 AM
Ah, well! Each to their own.
I've never really liked video games but, as you say.
I too want to push push lead, but I don't want to roll dice, consult tables and matrices or keep records. So, on balance I prefer computer moderation.
I'm quite intrigued by this as an idea. But having checked out the website, I'm more confused than enlightened.
The website is amazingly old school - especially for a piece of software. It looks to be windows only, which is a problem for me. Somewhat that runs on a tablet would seem much handy to have at the table.
The photos of the WWII game look very weird with tanks side by side like Napoleonic lines of infantry.
Fred, No, I'm afraid Computer Strategies is no use to you if you don't have a device using Windows. Same goes for Nigel Marsh's Carnage and Glory. Computer Strategies V7 is specifically intended to run with Windows 10.
Not sure what 'old school' is. I find anything 'new school' confuses me - I just spent over an hour trying to complete DHL's on-line ordering pages, to send parcel to my son in Australia. It was so user unfriendly that even a teenager would have difficulty with it.
I'm sure Clinton Reilly will happily answer any questions you have (see the ordering section for his email). He is a very helpful 'old school' Aussie. This is part of his hobby, so don't expect a wargaming Bill Gates.
I'm surprised so few people seem to have heard of computer moderated games. The first Computer Strategies and C&G games I used ran using DOS - Windows didn't even exist and before that I used Follow the Eagle, which was a Napoleonic specific game authored by the late Dave Watkins who also published First Empire magazine.
Quote from: John Cook on 17 September 2020, 05:57:40 PM
Not sure what 'old school' is.
I think he's referring to the look of both of those websites. Both look like they haven't changed since about 1996.
I'm sure you are right. You could probably say the same thing about Pendraken's site. If it works don't fix it as they say.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 17 September 2020, 10:48:36 AM
A fault in me I suppose, but I cannot understand using a computer for tabletop games.
If I'm in front of a computer I have a plethora of perfectly good computer wargames to play. Combat Mission, Company of Heroes, Memoir '44, Heroes of Normandie, the Total War series, Mare Nostrum, Naval Action or Victory at Sea to name just my regulars.
If I'm at a table I want to push lead and roll dice.
Ah, well! Each to their own.
I can see the benefits of having the gadget remember unit status and conduct the rolls.
My only experience of this was a couple of decades ago.
A big club game where all information had to be relayed to and from an umpire with a rather slow laptop.
It wasn't an ideal example, as the ump-laptop combo formed a very tight bottleneck, causing the action to drag.
Quote from: fred. on 17 September 2020, 04:52:51 PM
I'm quite intrigued by this as an idea. But having checked out the website, I'm more confused than enlightened.
The website is amazingly old school - especially for a piece of software. It looks to be windows only, which is a problem for me. Somewhat that runs on a tablet would seem much handy to have at the table.
The photos of the WWII game look very weird with tanks side by side like Napoleonic lines of infantry.
That's not unusual in Operational scale WW2 games, (and some popular competition games).
I have looked at those style of games before, especially in regards to solo play, but they always seemed to add a bit too much admin overhead to move the action forward. As I grew up putting many many hours into strategy video games, I definitely enjoy the tactile experience of tabletop as a change of pace. I've actually barely played any sort of video game in the past couple of years.
Plus I spend enough of my life staring at screens so nice to have a break from that from time to time. But I can see the appeal for club games and the like where you can share the load of using it a bit and I imagine reducing quibbles over rules.
I agree entirely. If you spend your working day staring at the 'magic lantern' the last thing you probably want to do is stare at one on your own time. Computer moderated rules are not for everybody, that has always been clear enough, even from when they first appeared back in 1990s.