Merging...

[FierceKitty]

I've realised that I really don't need a seperate set of rules for the crusades. I have been using one because I got my crusades armies before I started 10mm ancients, but where it differs from the ancient warfare set it's usually inferior, and I've already been using the ancient set for dark ages battles anyway. I've just incorporated a specialist bogey table for crusades battles into ancients, and ditched the obsolete set.

Uncomfortable at a certain level about banging two major periods into one set, but that's conditioning, really. It's far more of a neutron-star compression job to cover all of the ancient era in a single set of rules!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Well WRG extended to 1500 CE from 3000 BCE so you should have no problem

[Orcs]

Well WRG extended to 1500 CE from 3000 BCE so you should have no problem

Surely you mean 3000BC to 1500AD ?

I must admit I cannot see the point in changing from the BC and AD method. While I fully accept that a large proportion of the world do not have the belief that makes AD and BC relevant to them.  Even using BCE and CE we are still using the same marker for year zero. so why bother changing what has worked for 2 millennia?

If we are not using the same marker, what actual marker are we using? 

[FierceKitty]

I always feel nervous if I realise I'm doing anything the same way as WRG. I really disliked a lot about their attitudes and rules.

[mmcv]

I suppose it's all a matter of abstraction in how they fight. If you're not modelling nitty gritty details of the nature of warfare in each period then most pre-gunpowder is fairly similar in the broad strokes. I do like "general purpose" rules for trying out a period and seeing how it feels, and being able to pick up and play just about anything. Though at the moment I am finding myself drawn towards more period focused rules for those that I'm interested in to capture the feel and flavour. No doubt in the future I'll gravitate back towards more general rules for a lot of stuff, particularly as my collection grows.

If I recall your rules have their roots in WRG? So probably not that strange that in some areas you come to similar conclusions, they can't have been wrong about everything!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Surely you mean 3000BC to 1500AD ?

No correct useage is BCE and CE

I always feel nervous if I realise I'm doing anything the same way as WRG. I really disliked a lot about their attitudes and rules.

I know/knew Phil Barker quite well so I appreicate your concern.

[FierceKitty]

I suppose it's all a matter of abstraction in how they fight. If you're not modelling nitty gritty details of the nature of warfare in each period then most pre-gunpowder is fairly similar in the broad strokes. I do like "general purpose" rules for trying out a period and seeing how it feels, and being able to pick up and play just about anything. Though at the moment I am finding myself drawn towards more period focused rules for those that I'm interested in to capture the feel and flavour. No doubt in the future I'll gravitate back towards more general rules for a lot of stuff, particularly as my collection grows.

If I recall your rules have their roots in WRG? So probably not that strange that in some areas you come to similar conclusions, they can't have been wrong about everything!

No, your memory is betraying you. I did use DBR for a few years, and had to make innumerable changes, but eventually realised it would be better to make a clean start.

[mmcv]

Ah apologies!

[FierceKitty]

Takes a real man to say it! Have a drink.

[Big Insect]

L'art de la Guerre (LadG) is a good set IMHO - DBA based - covers both Ancients & Medieval and handles the interplay between the two very well.

It uses 'standard' 40mm frontage bases (for 10-15mm) and 60mm for 25-28mm.
It is my current 'go to' set of rules.

You get all the army lists at the back of the rules book - so no sets of separate army list booklets to buy.
It uses standard dice and rulers (so no expensive set-up kit - like special dice or cards or turning templates etc).
There is a very healthy facebook group and an on-line rules & player forum.

3 options of play - a fast-play 100 army point game - with circa- 10-15 bases on table - game over in 1hour 30 mins; standard play 200ap and a 300ap larger play game.
There is a free downloadable army list calculators.

NB: make sure you buy LadG v.4 which has just recently (in 2021) been released.
IMHO there are no absolute 'killer' armies and in the Crusades lists the Muslim forces will stand a reasonable chance against the Christians, and likewise the Byzantines.

Worth a look.

[FierceKitty]

Hmmph, the Ayyubids have won three times in a row against the Franks. My worries are in the other direction!

[steve_holmes_11]

I always feel nervous if I realise I'm doing anything the same way as WRG. I really disliked a lot about their attitudes and rules.

I endured the WRG NNth rules as a young man, and happily adopted DBA when published.
I saw DBM as "Too much of a good thing" and took a similar attitude for the various updates and later period versions.

Don't be nervous: I'd say that 75% of rules I see today still use the old WRG model (with a few tweaks), that figure is probably far higher for rules set in the Ancient and Medieval era.
Fewer tables, written in something close to standard English, diagrams and examples.
WRG was "of its time" and we are improving.

It's also worth considering the strengths of the WRG rules.
Some might say they represented a move to serious wargaming.
My own take is that Phil Barker provided extensive historic information using sources available at the time.
He also had a great eye for dividing a chaotic problem space (like troop types) into neat discrete categories.
Weaknesses are probably; not knowing when to stop adding features (Horse, Foot and Guns M'Lud), and the idiosyncratic use of language.


As for timescale for rules, there seem to be two approaches that work well.
One is to nominate a century or two (or forty five) and write generic rules to cover a period. (The period usually bookended by major technological change).
The other is to select a specific war, or series of wars and write rules that attempt to capture the essentials of those conflicts.

The later avoids problems like "How many ammunition plate wearing men at arms can I kill with a fire-hardened sharp stick".
But since we all have our own ideas of the essentials of the conflict, there's equal scope to disappoint.

[steve_holmes_11]

And while we're doing <Cleese> "What have the WRG ever done for us?" </Cleese>

Well, there's the standard basing.
Army lists - Thaasans of em!
A lingua franca, misunderstood across the known world.
And DBA.

[Big Insect]

And while we're doing <Cleese> "What have the WRG ever done for us?" </Cleese>

Well, there's the standard basing.
Army lists - Thaasans of em!
A lingua franca, misunderstood across the known world.
And DBA.

Not to forget such wargamers-only terminology as:

Zones of Control (ZoCs)
or
"Buttocks of Death " ... a favourite of mine

[Big Insect]

Hmmph, the Ayyubids have won three times in a row against the Franks. My worries are in the other direction!

It is probably a more 'balanced' game with LadG from my experience - the challenge with the Crusaders is (pretty much always) their command & control issues and defending their flanks.
It is also about army balance - too many knights and the army is powerful but small. Too many infantry and the Muslims ride around them turning them into pin-cushions from archery.