What the last rules set you played in 2021

Started by Steve J, 06 January 2021, 02:15:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

fred.

Quote from: T13A on 29 July 2021, 09:10:06 PM
Hi

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - 'O' Group (WWII)
2) What armies were confronted? - British v German
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - No, not yet at least, although I was getting there by the end.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Yes
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo
6) What went well? - After just one trial game I really like these rules. The 'feel' was right for WWII (IMHO) and what happened on the table could easily have been in a book about the action. Much more emphasis on command and control and not exactly knowing where the enemy is and what you are up against.  
7) What could have been improved? - Although I like what I have seen so far playing solo (after just one game), having a real opponent would bring out the best in these rules. Problem is that none of the small group of friends I play with are really into WWII  :(

Cheers Paul

Great looking photos. I'm keen to play O group too, need to sort out some more Germans. And work out how to play, it doesn't feel too suited to remote play, which is what we are still doing
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

T13A

Hi Phil

Re. previous piccies, my fault, I deleted them from my Imgur account and I'm not sure how to restore them to the original post.

Cheers Paul
T13A Out!

Steve J

Nice looking game from the 'O' Group rules. I've considered them but very happy to stick with BKCII/IV.
http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/

2017 Paint-Off - 2 x Winner!

steve_holmes_11

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Pikenan's Lament (Osprey) - Pike and Shotte skirmish rules from the "Lion Rampant" stable.
2) What armies were confronted? - Westmarchers Vs Holme's Regiment.
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, I think  this was our fourth set-to, though after 18 month's lay-off we were a little rusty.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No (See above)
5) How many players were in the game? - Two, myself and Westmarcher (also of this parish).
6) What went well? - Interesting "Raid the village" scenario. Westie selected a high quality force, while mine was a high pile of cheaper options. We did recall an impressive proportion of the rules after 18 monthis.
7) What could have been improved? - See below.

Raid the village is a bit of a paper/scissors/rock problem.
* Village defenders "clubmen" are pathetic in the extreme, one puff of gun smoke and they panicked, failed successive morale checks and eventually dispersed.
* Both sides grabbed the closest plunder and withdrew, so conflict was minimal.
* Neither of us were quite smart enough to assign low value units to escort the plunder off the table.
* Both of us recruited some high-value troops that played no significant part in the battle.


Summary:
A smash and grab scenario, which ended with an interesting running firefight.
Certainly worth a replay, when we might make wiser unit selections.

Westmarcher

Yes, thanks for the game, Steve. A mission I'm in two minds about.  Essentially, this was a 'clash' of opposing foraging parties at a village defended by the locals. No player 'lost,' as such, because the objective was to forage for (i.e., "steal") as much as possible from the village defended by two units of "Clubmen." 4 forage tokens were up for grabs; one worth 3 points, one worth 1 point and the remaining two worth 2 points each. Being fortunate enough to grab two tokens early on worth 5 points in total, it was a logical decision for me to withdraw with my loot after 'disposing' of the unfortunate Clubmen who, after all, were only defending their homes - one of the unpalatable reminders of 17th century warfare. If the two tokens had only amounted to 3 points, however, I may have been compelled to have challenged Steve's troops to grab more, if I wished to gain more 'Honour' than him. Instead, my objective devolved into a successful fighting withdrawal, fending off Steve's efforts to thwart me in doing so and in spite of him inflicting more losses on my force than I did his.

Although quantitively, Steve's company was slightly more superior, it would have been interesting to see how my better quality units would have fared against him.  Instead, my elite units ended up escorting my 'loot' off the table after brushing aside the defending Clubmen (although admittedly one elite unit was badly mauled by Steve in the process). All considered, good to see Steve and a good afternoon's wargaming with an easy set of rules to play with and both of us getting to put our toys on the table.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

Steve J

When I've played the game with Michael Leck (co-author) at Salute, IIRC you only check the value of the loot once the game has finished. This gives the incentive to gather as many tokens as possible.
http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/

2017 Paint-Off - 2 x Winner!

Westmarcher

Quote from: Steve J on 01 August 2021, 07:30:48 AM
When I've played the game with Michael Leck (co-author) at Salute, IIRC you only check the value of the loot once the game has finished. This gives the incentive to gather as many tokens as possible.

We also felt the scenario required some tweaking, perhaps by making all supply tokens of equal value so that you must try seizing 3 to win. With the 4 tokens having to be placed in each corner of the village area, next time, I also suggest we change the facing of the village by rotating it slightly (making it more diamond shaped rather than square) so that it presents a corner to the advancing marauders instead of a flat face - perhaps that might increase the chances of both foraging parties disputing the other tokens after seizing the first.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: Westmarcher on 01 August 2021, 10:20:39 AM
We also felt the scenario required some tweaking, perhaps by making all supply tokens of equal value so that you must try seizing 3 to win. With the 4 tokens having to be placed in each corner of the village area, next time, I also suggest we change the facing of the village by rotating it slightly (making it more diamond shaped rather than square) so that it presents a corner to the advancing marauders instead of a flat face - perhaps that might increase the chances of both foraging parties disputing the other tokens after seizing the first.

It was certainly a little too easy to dash in and out while evading the enemy.
I can think of a few amendments that would increase the potential for fisticuffs.

* Rules as written allowed players to check value of loot when captured, the small change to "Only check at the end" increases the incentive to go for a third loot.
* Approaching farm form corners (also above) gives each team one easy with, and places two where they're liable to cause a fight.
* Bonus honour  for "taking a prisoner" - scattering an enemy formation in close combat.
* Reduced speed for units escorting loot - giving pursuers a better chance of catching them.

The scenario certainly creates some challenges in force selection.
* Cheap quick moving units (commanded shot) seem ideal for dashing in and grabbing the loot.
        In our game, both sides ended up with premium units (Mine including my officer) herding cattle and not fighting.
* A fighting reserve, to defend the retiring looters.
* A quicker moving shock force to chase down enemy looters and steal their loot.

But a limit of 24 points means you can't have it all.

Steve J

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Shadow of the Eagles
2) What armies were confronted? - French vs Austrians 1809
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Not bad for a first game
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Yes, although I read through various developments of the rules.
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo
6) What went well? - For a simple and quick game, all went pretty well and the rulebook is well laid out, so I could easily find what I needed to help clarify the QRS, given it was my first game
7) What could have been improved? - Both sides failed to rally off hits, so a rather quick and bloody win for the Austrians.
http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/

2017 Paint-Off - 2 x Winner!

nikharwood

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Mordheim
2) What armies were confronted? - Kislevites, Skaven, Undead, Ogres
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yep - completely - we *love* this ruleset (right SteveJ? ;) )
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Oh no...
5) How many players were in the game? - 4
6) What went well? - Fun, dialogue, hanging out, laughing at dice rolls, tactical feckwittery and utter madness (inspired by bravery / foolishness and dice-rolling)
7) What could have been improved? - Just more time to *love* this hobby...

Steve J

Yep, a brilliant game if played in the right spirit Nik, as we always used to :).
http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.co.uk/

2017 Paint-Off - 2 x Winner!

Raider4

Mordheim was fun back in the day. The problem we always found was having enough scenery.
ISO 3103 Certified

FierceKitty

05 August 2021, 09:34:24 AM #192 Last Edit: 05 August 2021, 09:37:20 AM by FierceKitty
1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - HEP! DEVS VVLT!
2) What armies were confronted? - Franks and Ayyubids
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, though it went down the slipway a bit earlier than other systems in my rules fleet, and creaks a bit in stormy weather.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Nah.
5) How many players were in the game? - Two.
6) What went well? - Managed to skirmish the knights most of the game, keeping them from doing much real harm. Meanwhile most of the Mamluks and ghazis thumped the Frankish foot, and surrounded the Hospitallers too.
7) What could have been improved? - The Royal Mamluks made the mistake of trying to stop the Templars early on. They're good cavalry, but nowhere near good enough for that, and they nearly took Saladin with them when they routed off. I also had a chance to throw an ambush at a unit of crossbowmen, but my Bedouin cavalry bounced off harmlessly. An attack on Safed castle met the usual fate of my attempts to take fortifications.
I have not the pleasure of understanding you. Of what are you talking?

Elliesdad

Quote from: FierceKitty on 05 August 2021, 09:34:24 AM
1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - HEP! DEVS VVLT!
2) What armies were confronted? - Franks and Ayyubids
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, though it went down the slipway a bit earlier than other systems in my rules fleet, and creaks a bit in stormy weather.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Nah.
5) How many players were in the game? - Two.
6) What went well? - Managed to skirmish the knights most of the game, keeping them from doing much real harm. Meanwhile most of the Mamluks and ghazis thumped the Frankish foot, and surrounded the Hospitallers too.
7) What could have been improved? - The Royal Mamluks made the mistake of trying to stop the Templars early on. They're good cavalry, but nowhere near good enough for that, and they nearly took Saladin with them when they routed off. I also had a chance to throw an ambush at a unit of crossbowmen, but my Bedouin cavalry bounced off harmlessly. An attack on Safed castle met the usual fate of my attempts to take fortifications.

30+ years ago I visited Safed. The castle ruins are nice. But, then again, there are lots of castles in the area, many of which are very impressive.

Geoff

FierceKitty

It certainly wasn't my attack that turned it into a ruin!
I have not the pleasure of understanding you. Of what are you talking?