If you really liked a set of war game rules that was written mainly for 10mm scale what qualities would you be looking for?
E.g.
Scale advantage
Size of army battle
Unit attrition modelling
Would this be different for different periods?
Ancient / medieval
Renaissance, 30years war, ECW
LoA, GNW, Marlburian
7 YW, AWI, Napoleonics
ACW, Austro Prussian, Franco Prussian
Colonial Boer War
WW1 SCW
WW2 Modern
Future war
Fantasy, LOTR
:-\ :-/
For me, it depends on the period.
For horse & musket era, it's about getting more troops on the table for a more economical price. The rules with stand removal as opposed to figure removal are ideal for 10mm. For instance, if a rule set calls for 4 figures on a 1x1 stand in 15mm, you can get 6 10mm figures on the same sized stand.
For the modern era, I prefer 10mm as the figure to table scale looks better than 15 or 28mm. Also, I don't mind figure removal in this period. Another benefit, again, is the price. I can field a 10mm WWII company with infantry, tanks, support, etc. for about 1/3 the price of 15mm.
Main advantages of downsizing are: 1. either bigger units or more of them, and 2. a more convenient or more aesthetically pleasing ground-scale. More units demand a simpler and more streamlined set of mechanisms in order to avoid the game bogging down in unnecessary detail. Aside from that, there should be no difficulty applying a set of rules to any scale of figures.
Go with all the previous comments plus value for money of 10mm from Pendraken
I'm an ancients fan, so my comments are limited to the "Ancient" (pre-gunpowder) eras.
I would like to see any new rules written in such a way as to support or encourage more a universal basing of the figures (so that they can easily be played with other rules systems as well). Nothing worse that having to rebase figures to play under different rules (one sure way to alienate current players), or line up opposite someone who looks like they have more troops just because they are more densely packed on the same number of bases (it just doesn't look right, you can of course still play!). I also think the 10mm scale looks best with more figures per base vs. simply mounting them using 15mm basing rules, and though not a stickler, I do think that the figures per base ratio should at least try to be somewhat proportional in representing "X" number of troops per figure (plus or minus 25%?), so all of that factors in to my opinion on this as well.
It seems to me that a 40x20mm base is the most common size in this scale. It is used for WMA, which is a good system, and is flexible in it's figures per base rules, so no problem there for WMA players. DBA and FOG are also popular rulesets with big fan bases (but not for 10mm) and 40x20 bases are the most common in their 15mm scale rules, but then they dip into odd sizes such as 40x15 for heavy foot and 40x30 for mounts, and 40x40. Both DBA and FOG define or give a range of figures per base. Note that DBA recommends doubling the figures per base for scales smaller than 15mm, and has similar variations to base depth (like FOG) depending on troop type. To play WAB in 10mm, you'll need a few extra 20x20mm based figures for casualty removal and it works just fine. Lost Battles is another fun game to play with 10mm scale mini's. I don't have any knowledge of other rules systems, but for players with existing 10mm armies to migrate to a new rules system, you'll want to take all of that in to consideration.
I have been trying to reconcile the different basing requirements of some of the popular rulesets so that my 10mm ancients work will be playable (and look good) under all of them. Here's a couple links to some posts and replies I've had on the subject...
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3011.msg26064/topicseen.html#msg26064
I am inclined to stick with 40x20mm as a base for my 10mm minis, and will go with a rough doubling (per sq. mm) of DBA and FOG suggested basing for 15mm scale. I think it looks great basing 10mm figs in 20mm depth increments, and they definitely can all fit on a base - 2 ranks of foot troops or one rank of horse per 20mm of depth (it looks awesome). Problems with doubling DBA/FOG at this scale is having a second rank of Foot on 40x15 can be a squeeze with some 10mm figs, and in my limited experience 40x30 for mounted figs does not give enough space for a 2nd rank of the various horses produced at this scale by different manufacturers, though all of my 10mm scale mounts fit if given 20mm depth per rank regardless of manufacturer. In essence, for the various 10mm scale mounts I have seen, going from 20 to 30mm (an extra 10mm of depth) does not deliver usable real estate for additional rank of figures, just more space around the ground of the front and back of the figures.
For some Renaissance era basing related comments (and my own though process and solution for determining how I will be basing my 10mm ancients) check out http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4436.0.html
Just my 2 cents!
-Greg D.
Greg - this has been the holy grail of wargaming since earliest times. Unfortunately wargamers are an independent lot who insist on marching to their own drums. If wargames were as formalised as football or cricket, or it had a strong central authority, standardisation might just be possible, but I don't see any chance of it in the current circumstances. :-\
I'd say that an approach using elements with multiple rather than individual figures is essential. Those who want to play skirmishes are part of the hobby too, of course, but the point where the smaller scales (up to and possibly including 15mm) are the smart player's choice must be that you can operate as the commander of an army, not a platoon sergeant.
Not being nasty to those who use the smaller stuff for economy, of course. Been there, done that, looked sadly at stuff I couldn't afford....
Quote from: Hertsblue on 05 February 2012, 12:03:42 PM
Greg - this has been the holy grail of wargaming since earliest times. Unfortunately wargamers are an independent lot who insist on marching to their own drums. If wargames were as formalised as football or cricket, or it had a strong central authority, standardisation might just be possible, but I don't see any chance of it in the current circumstances. :-\
Hertzblue, you make a great point. As a follow up, I would suggest the following for consideration:
For any new ruleset that might come out in the 10mm scale, the author(s) should at least consider what is already out there, so that they do not alienate individuals who currently have 10mm figures based in a particular fashion. I am most familiar with WMA, WAB, DBA and FOG, so my comments are limited to those rulesets.
In my limited experience (I do have a variety of 10mm manufacturer’s minis), most manufacturers 10mm scale figs seem to mount most uniformly in 20x20mm square increments. One can easily base 4 foot or 2 mounted troops in a 20x20 square. However, some 10mm figures are produced in “strips†that exceed 20mm in length, so I am sure there are collections out there that would not be able to be easily converted to a system based on a 20mm by 20mm square.
It seems to me that at the 10mm scale, 40mm base width is almost universal (except for WMA "shock" troops). If one desires, WAB can also be played using 10mm scale figs with a combination of 40x20 bases, and some 20x20 bases for troop removal. Therefore standardizing on 40mm wide bases seems like a no brainer. Deviating from a 40mm base width I think would potentially alienate the most players with a collection of 10mm scale figures.
Conclusion: recommend utilizing and standardizing on 40mm wide bases.I think it is important that any new rules should also account for armies that might be based in a variable manner (i.e. variable widths and depths). The main basing variables of the systems I am aware of are:
1) WMA’s “shock†mounting of troops (20mm wide x 40mm deep base, which I think looks particularly good on mounted shock troops, but can take or leave appearance-wise for foot shock troops).
2) DBA and FOG use a standard 40mm wide basing for everything, and primarily use 40x20 bases, but have some troop types with variable depths (i.e. 15mm deep for heavy infantry and 30mm deep for most mounted troops and some light foot).
I personally believe that a 20mm standard depth increment is the way to go at this scale for a variety of reasons. Physically, depending on the manufacturer, it’s sometimes a squeeze to get a 2nd rank of Foot on a 15mm deep base, but no issues for a 2nd rank if 20mm deep. Mounted troops from each of the different manufacturers I have all fit in a 20mm deep base, but many cannot can get a 2nd rank in a 30mm deep base, so the extra 10mm of depth is somewhat wasted real estate. Also, for all but the most serious of tournament players, does recoil really matter that much between a unit on a 15mm or 30mm deep base vs. a 20mm deep base? Even if it does, this could be easily handled by having rules that account for different recoil distances by troop type (rather than base size), and stick to a standardized (20mm increment) base depth. Bases that need to be larger (i.e. BUA’s or Camps) could be larger, so long as it is sized in 40x20 increments (i.e. 40x40, 60x40, etc,). I suppose that perhaps avid DBA or FOG players may insist on sticking to the base depths mentioned in their rules for 15mm scale play (but on the flip side, aren’t most all of the avid tournament players are committed to the 25mm or 15mm scale?). Either way, new rules should accommodate for armies based according to either convention.
Figures per base. 10mm scale collections (especially if mounted more densely than 15mm rules) visually appear more like a battle vs. a skirmish at the larger 15/25mm scales, which I think is the biggest attraction to the 10mm scale. DBA suggests using twice the number of figures listed per base in the 15mm scale, and if the same doubling ratio is applied to FOG figs per base, it’s fairly consistent and looks great. Combine the appearance of mounting double the number of 10mm figures vs. the 15mm scale, along with the relative affordability and increasing quality, and you have what I think are the biggest factors that could drive the growth of the 10mm scale.
If a number of figures per base is listed in the new rules, I would suggest that it should take into consideration the base sizes (at least width, if not depth) and figures per base ranges of popular rulesets that are already out there (as I detailed in a previous post), otherwise they are potentially less likely to get a foothold on the market.
I think a smart way to go would be to suggest a range of figs per base according to troop type, but allow for whatever is presented on the table to be played (so long as the aforementioned basing issues are addressed). The number of figures per base is mostly a matter of appearance, and so should remain flexible so that those players with limited resources could still acquire and field a playable army, which would promote the continued growth of 10mm scale gaming.
If well done, I believe this would continue to edge the 10mm gaming community closer to the so called “Holy Grailâ€, while still allowing for the flexible playability of collections based differently than the authors of a new ruleset might suggest. I know a number of experienced wargamers who already have their 25mm or 15mm armies, so they are "committed" to those sizes, and those are the only 2 scales out there that have a big tournament player following. However, leaving out the issue of limited 10mm tournament play opportunities, local players have mentioned to me that if they were starting their collection today, they would choose to build their new collection in the 10mm scale, primarily due to the appearance and affordability of the scale.
Another 2 cents worth. I guess I'm in for 4 cents now. :)
-Greg D.
Excellent Greg,
I agree that 40x20 is the way to go.. I am soon to move all my figures over to 10mm Pendraken, with the exception of Naps as I have so many Adlers, again on 40x20s.
It looks right and plays right..
Cudders
I agree, 40x20mm is my standard for pretty much all basing, but then i played DBx in competition for years so its sort of ingrained in me now! In fact most of my masing is in multiples of 20x20mm. As others have said it just 'looks and feeles right'.
I do find it odd that different rules using different basing conventions since they're all basically modelling the same 'dimensions'.
Men have always moved the same basic distances over given time frames and taken up the same basic space...
As to the OP:
QuoteIf you really liked a set of war game rules that was written mainly for 10mm scale what qualities would you be looking for?
Interesting question! I'll limit things to the specifics of 10mm you've asked for so generic issues like playability, accurate period friction, etc.
In 10mm the things i look for in rules are:
Army size10mm gives the capacity to field very large armies on standard tables. Rules should therefore be pitched at 'grand tactical' scale engagements.
Combined armsIn 10mm you can fill the army with all the bells and whistles that are normally restricted by the practicalities of cost and operational range.
Multiple protagonistsKeeping army size to a managable scale means you can reasonably buy more than one army or faction, so rules covering periods where there are lots of army options become more viable. You also have the option of filling out all the 'optional troops' that army lists seem to like including.
Um...there's more i'm sure... :)
Quote from: cudders on 14 February 2012, 03:00:28 PM
Excellent Greg,
I agree that 40x20 is the way to go.. I am soon to move all my figures over to 10mm Pendraken, with the exception of Naps as I have so many Adlers, again on 40x20s.
It looks right and plays right..
Cudders
Oh crap...just thought.. that means I have to buy and them paint them all :'(
Cudders
Quote from: cudders on 14 February 2012, 07:19:34 PM
Oh crap...just thought.. that means I have to buy and them paint them all :'(
Cudders
Yeah, but that's the pleasure, surely. And your painting will be improved anyway after the experience gained with the previous lot. Hence better figures and also better painting. Simples! :)
QuoteUm...there's more i'm sure...
For me one of the great advantages of 10mm is that ability to field quite large numbers of troops and that they look better than larger scales because sit "in" the terrain rather than dominating it.
By that I mean that the figures aren't taller than the hills and woods and the bases can fit within a terrain feature without looking silly or out of place.
Another advantage is that with multiple figures on a base the figures aren't seen as individuals and become units. For me units made of 25mm figures are distracting, I keep thing of the figures as being individuals and there is a tendancy for 25mm units to look like "a dozen blokes taking a flag for a walk".
If your period is 1866 or 1870 IMHO its got to be 6mm or 10mm. The drawback with 6mm is that, especially in advanced years, its just a colourless blur. 10mm allows the figure to be seen, the colour to come through but at the same time, permits the player to field BIG armies.
Re rules, I'm very enamoured of Brent Oman's Field of Battle; card driven which allows for period vagiaries without endless, tedious modifier tables. We've almost finished our house rules for 1866, I'll post them this week, the cards are in another RULES thread.
Quote from: DanJ on 15 February 2012, 12:13:20 PM
there is a tendancy for 25mm units to look like "a dozen blokes taking a flag for a walk".
;D
Aye, that scale is fine for skirmishing.
Oddly the larger the battles, the smaller the figures need to be.
I guess our brains just expect that and can process things better that way. Except in dungeons of course...
Quote from: Luddite on 15 February 2012, 04:18:06 PM
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 ? :)
Quote from: goat major on 15 February 2012, 04:21:39 PM
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... :-\
QuoteThe drawback with 6mm is that, especially in advanced years, its just a colourless blur
I wish I'd read that ten years ago :(
Bob
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.
Hear, hear - well said 8)
Ditto here too. ;)
That's why I love 10mm.
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 :)
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. ~X(
Very interesting ideas Rob.
Quote from: RobWhat 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!
Quote from: RobOrders/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?
Quote from: RobA 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. :D 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!
Quote from: RobWhat I would NOT like to see in such a set is:
Book keeping
Agreed!
Quote from: RobLong 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?
Quote from: RobCasualty 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.
Quote from: RobPoint 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.
Quote from: Hertsblue on 28 February 2012, 09:40:57 AM
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. ~X(
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 :)
Quote from: Luddite on 28 February 2012, 10:08:35 AM
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 :)
Quote from: Luddite on 28 February 2012, 10:08:35 AM
Agreed. :D 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 funâ€. 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 :)
Quote from: Luddite on 28 February 2012, 10:08:35 AM
So a short or easy list are ok?
yep
Quote from: Luddite on 28 February 2012, 10:08:35 AM
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 :)
Quote from: Luddite on 28 February 2012, 10:08:35 AM
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 :)
Quote from: Luddite on 28 February 2012, 10:08:35 AM
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 :)
Quote from: Rob on 29 February 2012, 02:23:23 PM
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 :)
Thats fine if you have fixed unit sizes/qualities, etc.
Fixing things like this are fine where you have points balanced forces for tournemants and competitive play, but its tricky for scenario design though eh?
Few formations ever really fought at 'paper strength' eh? That's true from divisional scale down to unit/skirmish scale.
For example, I recently did a bit of work on trying to figure out how the British operated tactically during WWI. I'm lucky enough to have access to an expert or two on this.
On paper, the smallest operational unit in the British army was the 10-man squad.
In practice, in the trenches the smallest operational unit was actually the platoon. A platoon would be of no fixed size (due to losses) but typically numbered between 20-40 men. The Officer commanding (again rank could vary greatly based on losses/replacements) would then structure his platoon according to the current task at hand.
For example, the Lewis LMG was often assigned as a section to a platoon. In defensive actions where it was firing from a fixed position and could therefore stockpile ammunition to be readily at hand, typically only 2-3 men would be assigned to the Lewis section. In an attack, it could be as many as 8-10 men assigned to the Lewis gun section, mostly as ammunition carriers and replacement gunners.
Modelling points for this at skirmish/small tactical level (1 figure = 1 man) 'by unit' therefore would be tricky, unless you just abstracted things of course (like rules such as The Great War, and many others).
In terms of 'rules for 10mm' though, where typically many figures are collected onto a base, such abstraction is assumed, and in the above example would 'represent' the relative effectiveness of a 2-man fixed LMG as equal to an 8-man mobile LMG.
Quote from: Luddite on 01 March 2012, 11:25:13 AM
Thats fine if you have fixed unit sizes/qualities, etc.
Fixing things like this are fine where you have points balanced forces for tournemants and competitive play, but its tricky for scenario design though eh?
Few formations ever really fought at 'paper strength' eh? That's true from divisional scale down to unit/skirmish scale.
Not sure we are on the same wave length. What I am suggesting is if you are going to have a game with a large amount of units at corps or army level you do not want to be buying your force by individual figures or bases. If your wargame force is a 1:1 ratio then you will build it by individual figures.
The size of the units should still be based on the reality of the original unit sizes and not on a theoretical maximum. As an example (Anorak mode) I’ve created French and Austrian army lists for Wagram 1809 to test out the viability of organising a force by units and building by brigades. Here’s an Austrian example:
Infantry Division HQ, 1 Division Commander @ 10pts 1-2 per Corps
Artillery Brigadier, @ 0pts 0-1 per Division
1 to 3 foot batteries made up of:
Brigade Artillery, 6lbr Battery, large, RC @ 60pts 1-2 per Division
Position Artillery, 6lbr Battery, medium, RC @ 40pts 0-1 per Division
Infantry Brigadier, @ 0pts 2 per Division
Up to 5 infantry regiments made up of:
Veteran Line Regiment, 2 or 3 medium battalions, SCv @ 72 or 108pts,
or large battalions, SCv @ 108 or 162pts 0-1 per Division
Line Regiment, 2-3 medium battalions, RC @ 48 or 72pts,
or large battalions, RC @ 72 or 108pts,
or extra-large battalions, RC @ 96 or 144pts 2-4 per Division
Landwehr, 1 small battalion, RB @ 6pts,
or medium battalion, RB @ 12pts up to 4 per Division
(/Anorak mode)
Sorry about the formatting, it all goes to c@*# in forum mode.
Quote from: Luddite on 01 March 2012, 11:25:13 AM
For example, I recently did a bit of work on trying to figure out how the British operated tactically during WWI. I'm lucky enough to have access to an expert or two on this.
On paper, the smallest operational unit in the British army was the 10-man squad.
In practice, in the trenches the smallest operational unit was actually the platoon. A platoon would be of no fixed size (due to losses) but typically numbered between 20-40 men. The Officer commanding (again rank could vary greatly based on losses/replacements) would then structure his platoon according to the current task at hand.
For example, the Lewis LMG was often assigned as a section to a platoon. In defensive actions where it was firing from a fixed position and could therefore stockpile ammunition to be readily at hand, typically only 2-3 men would be assigned to the Lewis section. In an attack, it could be as many as 8-10 men assigned to the Lewis gun section, mostly as ammunition carriers and replacement gunners.
Modelling points for this at skirmish/small tactical level (1 figure = 1 man) 'by unit' therefore would be tricky, unless you just abstracted things of course (like rules such as The Great War, and many others).
In terms of 'rules for 10mm' though, where typically many figures are collected onto a base, such abstraction is assumed, and in the above example would 'represent' the relative effectiveness of a 2-man fixed LMG as equal to an 8-man mobile LMG.
Surly this is the job of a platoon commander managing his assets and moulding the task organisation of his platoon to a particular mission. The same example could apply to rifle-grenade sections also. In a set of 1:1 based rules you will still buy individual figures and assign them to sections as befits their purpose in your force. If you are using rules with a base representing a section or a platoon, what you are purchasing when building your force is not necessarily a fixed number of men but a viable unit, so for a viable platoon this may mean an actual strength of between 20 to 40 men.
(Anorak mode) Incidentally the development of the British, French and German platoons during WW1 is a fascinating subject and will vary by year and division. If you have not read them I thoroughly recommend:
Battle tactics of the Western Front â€" Paddy Griffiths
British Fighting Methods of the Greta War â€" various authors, editor Paddy Griffiths
Stormtroop Tactics â€" Bruce Gudmundsson
The German Army on the Somme â€" Jack Sheldon
The German Army at Passchendaele â€" Jack Sheldon
1918 A Very British Victory â€" Peter Hart
I also have a PDF 1917 infantry platoon training manual and a translated 1918 French small unit combat manual if you want them.
(/Anorak mode)
Cheers, Rob :)
As a side note the Warmaster and Blitzkrieg Commander series of games were designed with 10mm in mind.
Having played BKC in 10mm and 15mm I definitely feel 10mm is the better scale for it and my 10mm forces are collected with that in mind (I use 15mm for IABSM which I feel is the optimum scale for that but 10mm works well for it too).
Greetings
Quote from: geoffb on 02 March 2012, 01:11:18 PM
As a side note the Warmaster and Blitzkrieg Commander series of games were designed with 10mm in mind.
Having played BKC in 10mm and 15mm I definitely feel 10mm is the better scale for it and my 10mm forces are collected with that in mind (I use 15mm for IABSM which I feel is the optimum scale for that but 10mm works well for it too).
Don't know about Warmaster but I agree completely on the BKC/IABSM points.
Regards
Edward
Interestingly the 'IABSM chaps' at the club appear to have been running it in 10mm for the last couple of weeks.
While i think the rules ore pretty dire (they love 'em so horses for courses), in 10mm the game looked jolly nice. Better than the usual 28mm they seem to use.
Greetings
Quote from: Luddite on 05 March 2012, 10:31:14 AM
Interestingly the 'IABSM chaps' at the club appear to have been running it in 10mm for the last couple of weeks.
While i think the rules ore pretty dire (they love 'em so horses for courses), in 10mm the game looked jolly nice. Better than the usual 28mm they seem to use.
I'd certainly struggle to do IABSM in 28mm :-) . In 10mm I've got my Western Desert stuff being based up as four figures per 4cm x 2cm base. This gives a section of 8 figures about 9-10cm including the interval between bases. The vehicles are smaller in relation to the total table area as well which helps with potential 'wheel to wheel' syndrome.
While I really like IABSM it's certainly true they're not to everybody's taste and I'd hate to be in a position where anyone is advocating a 'one true rules' approach. You should see the number of different rule sets I've got on my shelves.
Regards
Edward