Does anyone use their own rule sets, or does everyone use a commercial set?
I'll confess to using my own set., It's a multilayered thing that I use for all periods and all scales. I treat everything as a block - be it a bit of a ACW battn, a WWII tank or single hero. They all move and have various abilities to cause damage to various things. Morale is a human concept, so can also be common, which just leaves command and control. That is where technology makes a great change, after say 1860-1900.
Bit of local colour (French WWII tanks penalised for a single man turret) and Robert is the gentleman who visit's your mother when your father's away.
What I lose in detail, I gain in universality.
*Waits for howls of disbelief*.
Not quite the same as using your own set but with a few exceptions me and a friend tend to stick with the Warmaster model these days as it covers most periods of history (and Fantasy).
Warmaster for Ancients, medieval and ACW (Though I've not tried it yet)
BKC for WW2
FWC for Scifi
Primarily this is because we don't game with each other very often so it makes it a lot easier to remember the basic rules of what we're doing.
Quote from: fsn on 02 June 2013, 06:44:12 AM
Does anyone use their own rule sets, or does everyone use a commercial set?
(...)
Both.
I do use some home made rules, but we also play with official rules ( BKC2, FoF, SBH ..) AND we change some minor rules in this books. :ar! ;)
I mainly use my own rules - it's the only way I can cater to my various biases. Have a look here:
www.rulesdepot.net (http://www.rulesdepot.net)
I have been drawn into commercial rules from time to time, usually at the behest of regular opponents.
Commercial rules largely based around the Warmaster concept, as I like the way they handle command and control.
Warmaster rules here too, as it's easy to remember.
I will however be looking in to the USE ME line for skirmish battles and for phil's the new zombies off course :D
Always my own... far more rewarding I think :)))
I like to learn how some authors see the past period.
It's not always my taste, but it's interesting.
I have probably spent as much time reading and researching to produce rules as painting and playing over recent years .
I have to admit I do get a lot of satisfaction from playing with rules that I have had some part.in. A friend and myself are still developing realistic cavalry combat rules which reflect first hand historical accounts.
Many first hand accounts do make one question the large casualty figures quoted officially as men tend to shy away from actual combat with greater emphasis on the role of officers spending more of their time stopping troops routing ad opposed to leading
Quote from: General Greenman on 17 July 2013, 10:29:17 PM
I have probably spent as much time reading and researching to produce rules as painting and playing over recent years .
I have to admit I do get a lot of satisfaction from playing with rules that I have had some part.in. A friend and myself are still developing realistic cavalry combat rules which reflect first hand historical accounts.
Many first hand accounts do make one question the large casualty figures quoted officially as men tend to shy away from actual combat with greater emphasis on the role of officers spending more of their time stopping troops routing ad opposed to leading
Indeed. See Duffy's description, taken from the Prince de Ligne, of cavalry combat in the Seven Years War in his
The Army of Maria Theresa (P100).
Quote from: General Greenman on 17 July 2013, 10:29:17 PM
(...) A friend and myself are still developing realistic cavalry combat rules which reflect first hand historical accounts.
(...)
it sounds interesting !
Do you plan to share it ?
First hand accounts suggest that cavalry would charge at each other and pass through with limited casualties possibly increasing only with the degree to which they become unformed and the choosing to engage in separate combats if their morale remained intact , probably the only casualties of the firstpass coming as the last ranks came through as these would be forced to slow down due to the press of horses.
A good read is Warhorse by Philip Sidnell whom writes as an ex cavalry officer
as a newbie to this forum and having been inactive as a wargamer for over twenty years I have noticed the growth of commercial rule sets in the interim. That's not to say there weren't commercial sets available back then. WRG produced some especially ancient rules. however the group that I wargamed with tende to produce our own inhouse for the periods we covered probably using a generic base tweaked for the period. I recently found a folder containing a lot of the rules in the form of what today is known as QRSs. and foe the life of me I had difficulty recalling just how they operated so much ws not written down just the salient points. I look at some of the commercial sets available today and find there is so much to take in Flames of war is a case in point a 294 page rule book which basically expands on the set presented with their open fire introduction set. it seems to me that rule writers are trying to cover every eventuality and trying to recreate the conditions of the periods they are writing about, something that is neigh impossible on a table top. only re-enactors wearing the clothing of the period ,provided it made from the same materials available then and not modern synthetics can come close to experiencing some of the conditions that soldiers did. Their attempts also appear to remove a lot of the fun from the table top actions. and I feel they have forgotten it is only a game (the hint is in the title ...warGAME)
All this being said it is interesting to see how different authors attempt to emulate; some try to provide rules covering a large period of time, some a set specific to a particular war/campaign or even battle. Some take a broad brush view others pay a microscopic attention to detail. Ignoring logistics, something I have rarely seen covered the basics of any rule set should be command and control, troop quality and control and Morale, everything ,movement firing and casualties can be reduced to statistics. These all apply from army level down to platoon/ individual skirmish level. The proverbial holy grail of rules, the elusive set contained on the back of a post card will never be achievable,why? I remember that when I began wargaming I posed a simple question; what is the best set of rules? I still remember the answer... get two or more wargamers discussing rules and you will end up with more sets that persons present for everyone has their own take on how things should work EG I have watched programmes disparaging the longbow as simply an area effect weapon and not a particularly effective ne at that, the experts promulgating these views blithely forget or ignore that at its peak the archer had been practicing from childhood and used a more powerful bow than many modern re-enactors could draw, that he could hit a target at ranges and with a greater rate of fire that surpassed smoothbore firearms. So while yes it was an area effect weapon its effect was, in the right hands devastating. Then that is only my opinion. blimey just realised how much I've sprouted better stop and go have a cold shower lol
There are references to draw weights of Upton 450 lbs if you read the Great Warbow that looks at the bows found on the Mary Rose n..
that's what I mean modern archers are lucky to be able to draw weights of 200 - 250 lbs
Nicely put Mr Nirnman.
I wonder if the multiplicity of rules will be a savior or a death blow to wargaming? On the one hand if you look at computer games, there are many, many of them and people like their own flavours. On the other hand, if you sweat blood and teeth (then I would advise seeking medical advice) creating a C16 Polish army using the strict requirements of "On the Road from Warsaw" and then can't get a game because everyone else uses "The Bloody Road to Warsaw" so you have too many hussars and anyway they're based all wrong, then I would suggest that a certain amount of disappointment will ensue.
Wouldn't it be nice is rule writers could standardise somewhat? E.g. if there was agreement on base sizes then so much would fall neatly into pace. If "Going through Warsaw on a Road" uses 12 figure battalions, then the only thing that someone who has created an army using "Where to stay in Warsaw" (which of course uses 36 figure bttns) is to get some extra command units.
But don't get me started on the ridiculousness of base sizing!
As an ex reenactor and part time longbow shooter, I usually shot about a 45-50lb draw mostly due health and safety requirements, and could probably get the shaft out to about 100-150 yards with out much difficulty...accuracy would be a bit pants though
Also after being at Hastings a couple of times, even 20 horses trotting/cantering up the hill is enough to make the ground start shaking. So I am sure for inexperienced troops facing massed cavalry coming at them would be more than a little off putting
Again these are the subtle factors that I think get missed in rules. I was recently invited.to take.part in an ACW re-enacters training weekend and became.aware of the actual difficulties of co-ordinating a drill instruction with a whole mix of.abilities the role of the corporals and sergeants was invaluable.
Musket firing by rank clearly was a hazardous affair when the second rank fired over your shoulder !!! Hence I suspect that close order was far more open in reality than rules suggest.
The affixing of bayonet would also make tthings interesting for the front rank as they have the experience of their ears being cleared by a two and a half foot steel cotton bud with a loud bang !!!
Quote from: General Greenman on 21 July 2013, 11:31:31 AM
Again these are the subtle factors that I think get missed in rules. I was recently invited.to take.part in an ACW re-enacters training weekend and became.aware of the actual difficulties of co-ordinating a drill instruction with a whole mix of.abilities the role of the corporals and sergeants was invaluable.
Musket firing by rank clearly was a hazardous affair when the second rank fired over your shoulder !!! Hence I suspect that close order was far more open in reality than rules suggest.
The affixing of bayonet would also make tthings interesting for the front rank as they have the experience of their ears being cleared by a two and a half foot steel cotton bud with a loud bang !!!
Ages ago I put forward a suggestion for WECW that raw infantry being charged by Cav for he first time in the battle would have to take a fear test ...I also suggested that raw troops would have to take a Ld test to stop them firing the first time any enemy nit came into range...I dont think either was adopted. I thought they were interesting ideas though
Fenton,
I like this concept a lot, and may incorporate the idea into "Star & Garter" my Hundred Years War variant for Dux Bellorum. On occasions it has felt a little wrong having a unit of Archers or Longbowmen standing their ground whilst French Knights on Horseback charged them, in the hope they could hit enough of them on the way in to make it a more even fight once it got into hand to hand.
How about any Militia/Braigands, Archers, or Foot skirmishers beinch charged by Mounted Knights/Mounted Men at Arms needing to take a bravery test to see if they stand their ground, if they fail they cannot fire and auto fall back?
Cheers,
Craig
Tiny Terrain Models
Written quite a few over the years, but you need people willing to give up a number of gaming sessions for playtesting.
Mostly it's Lardie (IABSM, KMH, TW&T now CoC, TCHAE)
or Warmaster (+Black Powder)
I have both Regiment of Foote and Pike and Shotte for when painting the ECW is finished (NEXT after rounding off ACW)
Got some yet to try (Charlie Dont Surf and Sharpe Practice), plus F&F and MSH sitting 'resting'
However my Battle of Britain rules are the only air combat I use
http://lasthussar.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/battle-of-britain-free-wargames-rules/ (http://lasthussar.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/battle-of-britain-free-wargames-rules/)
For small games will fit nicely with those lovely 1:44 airplanes Pendraken sell. The rules are free, so you can afford to buy some.
Also those who were at Newbury last year may remember a Medieval/Wars of the Roses participation skirmish game. I was certainly surprised to see it, as I forgot I'd given Jim a copy. That's on the Blog as well - "My Kingdom for a Horse"
Quote from: TinyTerrain on 21 July 2013, 12:27:29 PM
Fenton,
I like this concept a lot, and may incorporate the idea into "Star & Garter" my Hundred Years War variant for Dux Bellorum. On occasions it has felt a little wrong having a unit of Archers or Longbowmen standing their ground whilst French Knights on Horseback charged them, in the hope they could hit enough of them on the way in to make it a more even fight once it got into hand to hand.
It's what the English longbows actually did in battle after battle of the Hundred Years War. Admittedly they (or their superiors) took certain precautions, e.g. planting sharp stakes to their front and having a body of men-at-arms in their centre that the opposing knights always made for. But the fact is the archers were confident that they could halt, or at least disrupt, the charge before it reached them. And they proved it on many occasions. In a sense the entire war was a French search for an answer to the problem.
oh the joys of solo gaming.
Never have to worry about any of this stuff :D
Many years ago i used to ride horses, once after falling off, four other horses galloped close by me, the experience gave me some idea of what it felt like to have horses coming at you at speed. not nice.