|
Springfield Fatts posted:Here's a link to my google doc version, if that's considered This is your own document, of homebrewed rules, it's not violating any sort of copyright and is totally fine.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2022 22:50
|
|
have a mod yell at me.
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
 Got my objective markers for Saga finished
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Got my objective markers for Saga finished Looking good!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2023 02:41
|
|
|
I am doing the actual finished version of my Easy Company army tray and I am very excited! It is going to take around a grand total of like 10 hours to laser engrave and whatnot, as each hole that will slot a soldier into is being made into a double sided token for use in some other games. It is like 75% done right now, and I am excited to glue it all together and then stain it and see how it looks. Will post pictures as soon as I finish it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
Springfield Fatts posted:When it comes to fuggin Napoleonics DBN is pretty light on the sperg but it takes it's cues from DBA which requires a drat translation manual. I've read it and it certainly seems fairly light, which is a bonus! I've not played OHW, is it worth swotting up on it? I may well try to give your rules a bash today on the dining room table with my austrians against some ghostly French: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2023 11:10
|
|
|
That's 100% what it's for. I picked it up a few years ago for some solo play while on covid lockdown. I've since used it for the American version of pub gaming since the map is only 2x2' and used it to ease some people into Napoleonics since it teaches the essentials without the bloat. Also has some variations on Ancients, Dark Ages, Medieval, Pike & Shot, ACW/Colonials and WW1/WW2 though honestly the last two are really pushing past what the system can cover. The biggest bonus to me is that you also get 30 scenarios with it. So even if the rules get boring after a few games you can use the scenarios included in any other system. You can get it pretty cheap, I'd say it's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Diamond. I gave it a run through today, and here's a little battle report for you all. The cinnamon sticks are borders of hard ground (i.e. road), the book is a promontory, and the oranges are a forest. Wily Austrian engineers have scoped out a hill with a commanding view over the expected site of tomorrow's huge pitched battle, but the French have rustled them out and sortie out in force to cut away the small Austrian battalion and artillery before they can be reinforced:  French units push forward from the south, the cuirassier regiment swinging along the western flank:  Both armies infantry columns form into line along the roadway against each other, while the French heavy cavalry surge up the hill into the flank of the Austrian battalion there, crushing it immediately.  The Austrian artillery must retreat in self preservation, limbering the guns but trying to maintain a toe-hold on the high ground. Austrian Jagers pick away at the Legere in the south-eastern corner:  The Jagers, their job done follow up into the rear of the French Ligne, and the Cuirassier's charge is hampered by the Grenzers forming square in the Northern edge of the engagement:  The sun is low in the horizon, and the Cuirassiers make a desperate gamble, ignoring the Grenzers on their flank and charging up hill again into the flank of another Austrian battalion which had just gained the hill:  It was a mistake, the are unable to break the Austrians in one go, and are decimated by enfilading fire, and the Jagers take sweet revenge for the compatriots by routing the ligne:  As night falls, the French have won a most pyrrhic of victories. It was fun and quick, but there were a few queries that I didn't get from Springfield Fatts rules breakdown, although I have ordered the main OHW book to validate. - If a cavalry unit flanks another unit, it hits on 3+, but if the defender is on a hil it's 6+ - so which takes precedence when you are flanking a hill defender? - Can you shoot into combat? i.e. charge with cavalry in movement, then shoot in shooting phase, then finish combat? I think this was only feasible because I was flank charging as I understand LoS is from front-centre to front-centre of bases. - I should probably have used single bases instead of doubled-up bases for my units as though the whole column-line thing was fun, it make blocking moves very easy since there's no interpenetration of normal units. I liked that was just 'done' and the rules were literally on a piece of folded A4 very much. I liked your damage resolution - counting to 3 instead of bloody 15 for each unit makes alot of sense. May I ask how you came to determine the rolls? I'm just generally curious. Next time I will use your Command & Control rules, and see how that changes things. I enjoyed that alot with Pike and Shotte and what little I played of DBA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
Glad you had fun. - I default to the flanking aspect as I assume something has hosed up if you allowed them to get behind/beside you while you have the high ground. It's entirely up to you though if you think that's too generous. - I've always thought no as it's baked into the 'this is all happening at the same time' abstraction of the turn sequence. I guess you could but as a risk/reward thing any misses cause damage to your unit instead. - Yeah if you go bigger with the bases I'd make the table bigger to allow move for maneuvering. Quick and dirty though if you wanted to add Line or Column just say Column adds 2" of movement but is hit by all enemy fire easier by 1. Line improves shooting by 1 but also makes all hand-to-hand hit you easier by 1. I dunno maybe Column also allows infantry charges but that's a whole other thing to add I didn't want to wade into. I stole my numbers directly from this guy's blog post..
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
Excellent, thank you. I see how you could add tweaks for things like formations which seem innocuous but would end up exponentially increasing complexity. C&C figures are based and so will be in the next game for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 10:29
|
|
|
Feeling a little meh about the 3mm miniatures after seeing them on the table and particularly in comparison to the 20mm AB miniatures. I’m not quite ready to switch scales already in napoleonics, so thinking a sojourn into 6mm in some other period might be a good idea to compare them in the flesh. My worry is that it seems that the Napoleonic period has such a huge focus compared to pike and shot, which would be my alternative idea - an ECW/TYW era it might not be tactically interesting in comparison? Is this a fallacy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Feeling a little meh about the 3mm miniatures after seeing them on the table and particularly in comparison to the 20mm AB miniatures. I’m not quite ready to switch scales already in napoleonics, so thinking a sojourn into 6mm in some other period might be a good idea to compare them in the flesh. Having a new period instead of rehashing the same but in a different scale seems to me like it should provide more gameplay options? But that’s coming from a guy who has napolepnics in two scales and samurai in three scales already. But yeah, 6mm 17th century sounds fun. Big pike and shotte formations, non-symmetric tactics and army building among factions, lots of famous battles with proper documentation, and distinctly different from other periods. From what I’ve read on the period there’s a lot of meat there for a wargamer. A Battle of Lund in tiny scale and 1:1 mini to man ratio IS on my bucket list after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
As you've pointed out: It does seem silly to buy a set of 6mm Napoleonics, since they would be mutually exclusive with the 3mm I've just finished, whereas a different era would leave both doors open to pursue. If it were straightforward and (postage) cost effective to order a single blister pack of 6mm then I'd do that, paint them up and see how it looks - but it's not, the postage would end up being 1/3 the cost of an entire DBA/DBN-sized army from bacchus. As such, I feel obliged to get a 'set'. Reading the OHW rules for earlier eras, combined with Springfield's C&C rules from the Horse & Musket era, I think we may be onto a reasonable option. I know that basing is the perennial favourite of historical wargaming, is there any reason to not continue with the 1" x 2" basing I've adopted for my napoleonics in Ancient/Medieval/Pike & Shot eras? I'm guessing maybe P&S would require 1" x 1" for the infantry formations but I don't know what various rules say about that (i.e. are pike and shot separate units, or a single blended unit typically?) For juice, here's Bacchus basing a battalia of P&S on a 200mm base:  Right now, I'm batch painting my platoon of 20mm Wehrmacht though, and I'll at least get that done from modelling perspective and a few more games with my 3mm nappies. I really liked the 2x2' board - but I guess that's a size which all but precludes super small scope games like OHW and DBN? Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Jan 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 09:16
|
|
|
I played OHW twice tonight, the same scenario - the French are deployed along the road with a small Austrian blocking force in the North, the Austrians attack in force from the East. The French objective is to exit three units from the North table edge on/by the road. I used single 2x1" bases this time and it was easier. The first time I played the game, it ran to the full 15 rounds. It was characterised by abysmal command dice rolling, almost all 1's and 2's - which combined with the spaced out nature of the forces and limited command radius, meant that most turns involved a single base move, rally or single (often uneventful volley). Towards the end one or two units were removed, and the French were able to slip the net at the last minute with some sneaky pivoting and running.  Mid way through Game 1, seven turns of stilted manouvering and ineffectual fire In the second game I played, I played without the C&C rules - there was immediately a lot more going on, with the French force able to push up towards the blocking battalions quickly, but also suffering many more casualties on the way. The game was over by turn 6, with the French being tabled by the focused guns of the Austrians:  End of Game 2, with a decisive victory I really enjoyed the tension of C&C in Chain of Command and DBA, but not sure it worked all that well this time. Maybe the scenario was a bad fit? Overall I found it frustrating - particularly after a series of awful command rolls were compounded with terrible dice rolling for fire or combat when it eventually happened. Rather than being faced with tough tactical decisions, I felt it was an uphill slog for anything of note to happen at all. On the other hand, I really did quite enjoy how simple the OHW rules were, with almost no referring to tables or reference sheets after the first few turns. Does that make me a filthy ameritrash wargamer? Will I have my grognard application form rejected? In other news, a few more 20mm Wehrmacht lumber towards completion - these need helmet straps/webbing and a couple of small details added but are largely complete:  I really enjoyed painting these and I'm so torn about 'the next project' - I love the massed ranks of 3mm but they just look like completely undifferentiated grains of rice on the table so I want to go larger, but how much larger? If I went with ECW/TYW rules then what kind of unit counts are we talking about? OHW obviously only 4-6, but I don't know about any other rulesets... Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 00:32
|
|
|
This is why I've been saying 20mm is the scale of kings for years in this thread! Just look at the detail you got to paint on those figures, but look how teeny they are! Warms the cockles so it does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:This is why I've been saying 20mm is the scale of kings for years in this thread! Just look at the detail you got to paint on those figures, but look how teeny they are! Warms the cockles so it does. I know  they are really wonderful and look so much better, but part of my enthusiasm for the 20mm miniatures is the fact I only have to paint a couple dozen of them. I think if I had to paint a couple dozen PER UNIT I'd feel differently. I decided to bite the bullet, eat the postage costs and order a sample pack from SteelFist (true 15mm) and Baccus (6mm). It was £10 for the pair including shipping. It seems a bit odd to go with 15mm for a scale where uniforms were pointedly random and mismatched and a massed pike block is the signature unit - and 3mm for a scale where a regiment of line infantry would be resplendent in colours and formation (at least early on) - so while I'm not wholly settled on the ECW for the next project it should help inform my decision for the scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 10:28
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I know On the other hand, I painted up some 15mm 30YW pikemen and artillery once and the looked gooooood
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 12:45
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:On the other hand, I painted up some 15mm 30YW pikemen and artillery once and the looked gooooood Well, my samples should arrive in the next few days - I can't really speak for how they'll look in massed ranks as I'm likely to get a bit of a dogs breakfast selection, but should indicate what they look like on the table. I've been racking my brains about games and table sizes: the main constraint is that units can't be too large or the ground scale will make fighting battles on a 3' x 3' board difficult. The main distinction to account for the ECW/TYW is the need for mixed formations of muskets and pikes - and how some rules treat them individually or as a group. Using 40mm wide bases allows me to field two shot and one pike base as a single unit in One Hour Wargames or Victory Without Quarter before running out of table space, but also allows me to field them as separate units in DBR or Pike & Shotte. There are no doubt individually better solutions - scenic mixed bases for OHW, larger and more spacious DBR bases - but they result in units exclusive to that ruleset. For the Medieval-era there would appear to be no need to have certain units split or merged depending on the ruleset and how units are divided is clearly less of an issue. It would appear that Impetus and DBA are the front runners, both of which would work fine on 60mm bases. I've played DBA and found it a little sterile, but that may just be that at the time I wasn't really familiar with the level of abstraction it aims for. In all: 
Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:On the other hand, I really did quite enjoy how simple the OHW rules were, with almost no referring to tables or reference sheets after the first few turns. Does that make me a filthy ameritrash wargamer? Will I have my grognard application form rejected? Not at all. You were already a filthy ameritrash gamer when you picked up a wargame with sculpted miniatures instead of playing a game about the League of Nations negotiating an end to the War of the Stray Dog through abstract mechanics involving differently coloured wooden cubes being moved around a board.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Not at all. Oh I didn't know Mark Herman was working on another Churchill knockoff
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Speaking of sperg, trying out DBN while my ECW dollies are in the post. My brain already hurts. I don't know if my dice are broken, I rolled four 1's and a 2 in a row for my CAP... Anyway, I played seven 50mm elements apiece on a 2x2 board, which I guess is a hybrid of board and unit sizes. I enjoyed how the game went by and large, but the roots of the system in DBA make it just that little bit more opaque than more modern game systems. In this one, the Austrians and French were converging on a hilltop fortress. I wasn't clear on the rules for garrisoning, I thought it was automatic when entering a built-up area - but the Austrians managed to turf out the French on the first turn of combat and utterly destroy them, despite the massive bonus that garrisoning affords. The rest of the game was primarily focused on the north edge of the ridgeline with Cuirassier and Hussars jockeying for position as the jaws of line infantry converged around them. I was a little satisfied to see the Springfield-style 3-hits-and-you're-out system as "attrition" in DBN and that worked well too, albeit a more binary state of suffering attrition or being outright destroyed through being doubled in combat/firing rolls. However, I felt that the multitude of units and their interactions was exponentially more complex than OHW and I'm not sure how much more satisfying it was. I guess as one gets used to stats and relationships, the nuances of Irregular vs Skirmishing cavalry, or Light vs Line infantry will come to the fore. I didn't take any photos of this game, I don't know if people would like to see them? I have ordered a battle mat so hopefully there'll be more to see than my dining table if I post more. Please let me know. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I know The Steel Fist 15mm ECW/30YW figures are beautiful, and for the most part armies of that period were relatively uniform. I had zero interest in the period before, but once I saw the previews for them I knew I had to pick some up. I now have several bases of infantry and cavalry painted and based and they look excellent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
That's awesome to hear. I have managed to convince my wife to part with one of her hair rollers so I'm also going to make up some 2mm blocks just to see what it looks like. I've been following the channel Joy of Wargaming on YouTube, and he has a massive 17-part series of a narrative campaign based on Chainmail (by Gygax) and the Solo Wargaming Guide. I'm reading through One Hour Wargames book as we speak, and it seems too that with the Solo Wargaming Guide it would be an excellent pairing for a Napleonic/ECW campaign. Would there be any interest in joint participation here (i.e. posters in this thread can determine campaign choices which are then fought out in battle reports)? If not, I think I'll just do it for myself!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 09:44
|
|
|
I will never not post in goon wargames, do it
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 12:34
|
|
|
Oh yeah, that's the kind of thread that always gets good interaction over in Let's Play! so you should definitely post that. Unless it's supposed to be posted here now because of what it is? I dunno what the rules for starting these things are, I just post in 'em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
Thirding, hell yeah - go for it. I'd suggest putting it in Let's Play just because it's got more of an audience than TG, and there's been some tabletop threads there in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Yeah, let's play always love a good wargame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Excellent, thank you for the advice! Text and pictures or video? Or both? I've been interested in the ECW from the sidelines since early on - I think this thread has my attempt at a 28mm Pike & Shotte brigade from 4-5 years ago. However, looking at rule sets which cover that period in OHW, DBA-RRR, DBR, Pike & Shotte and Victory without Quarter - my initial thought was that the troop choices were very limited, and by extension the tactical possibilities in a war game. Reading through OHW more generally and some of it's supplementary reading list has yielded a lightbulb moment for me: When you consider the categorisation of units by their interactions with each other on the battlefield, a lot of the minutiae of how we naturally organise them (such as by specific weapon) falls away and tactical and strategic factors yield far more differentiation. The variety, to Neil Thomas point, is in the scenario: ambush or escort, raining or fog. Armies in good supply, or at the limit of exhaustion? Raw recruits or hardened veterans? It feels like a light touch to add some small global tweaks for these kinds of things, which exponentially increases the interest of the wargame without needing reams of unit types with their own special rules. Maybe because I've basically decided that I'm only ever going to be solo-wargaming, the complexity can be balanced between a campaign level (even if not narrative, just a way to organise games for myself) which determines things like supply, weather, reinforcements, terrain and scenario - and a battle level which is mostly concerned with the interaction of units. PS. I haven't forgotten I've still got another 20 germans to paint - I'd better get on that before the ECW figures arrive. Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Jan 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 09:36
|
|
|
   First crack at some Saga terrain using hardboard bases. Not a huge fan of the drybrushing but eh good enough. Did come out a little warped- should varnishing the other side fix it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
Yeah that's what I did, covered it in undiluted PVA glue and let it dry, seemed to straighten it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
So I started a dry run through of solo historical campaign using the rules laid out by Bill Sylvester in Solo Wargaming Guide. As per post in the 'Miniature Wargaming' thread I'm really not sure if I'm getting the scale correct, but I've gone with Tony Bath's suggestion of around a dozen foot regiments and a third of that in cavalry. Behold a portion of Wessex, a heretofore uncharted county of England, somewhere between Lizard Point and the Antonine Wall:  A portion of Wessex, 1643 It is characterised by a wooded, marshy lowland in the North, a hard scrubland in the South, and a chalk ridge of hill bisecting the two. The previous year has seen Parliamentary and Royalist forces bypass Wessex, being poor and sparsely populated - but with the war increasing in tempo and ferocity in other theatres, a tactical victory in this pitiful shire may tip the battle elsewhere. I don't have any miniatures at the moment, but if I did it would be a secondary or tertiary theatre Over the winter of 1642-43 any military units that were in the area garrisoned themselves in the towns of the region, I started off by categorising towns as class A (supplying 4 regiments to the army), B (2 regiments) or C (1 regiment) - but now the campaigning season has started, and the Parliamentarians are soon to be on the move. I rolled D6 to determine they are the aggressor  March 1st, 1643 - all is quiet The Parliamentarians are lead by the charismatic Wainwright, their power base split between the southern towns of Ashbrook (under Stirling) and Charford (Wainwright himself). They opt for the most direct approach of capturing and bringing the primary Royalist stronghold of Oxbury to terms. Rolled D6 1-2 raze the east, 3-4 focus on Oxbury, 5-6 raze the west. The Royalists were unaware of this mobilisation D6 roll resulted in 'defender mobilises upon border crossing', their forces primarily garrisoned west of the River Oux and are slow to respond.  March 6th - Parliamentarians advance on the middle Downs road, holding forces on the Oulham-Ashbrook road and the northern bridge over the Char The Royalists under Stroudley finally hear of the mobilsation and move their forces eastward to block the middle and eastern roads (Another strategy roll-off). Despite the lateness of the hour, the oncoming Parliamentarian forces are slowed by the steep chalk hills. Wainwright's army finally crashes into Stroudley's Army above the downs. Baronet Craven of Eastmarch vacilates after recieving Stroudley's call to arms and does nothing for two days, another mobilisation roll-off but eventually his infantry eventually advance south on the Teadale road in line with the broad Royalist strategy of Eastern focus.  March 8th - Stroudley's Debacle & Craven's Delay The first meeting of minds will occur between Oxbridge and Oxling village, the Parliamentarian forces are superior in number with artillery support and reinforcements not far behind, while the Royalists have the advantage of being fresher with a contingent of heavy horse. My plan would be to fight this battle with the One-Hour-Wargaming ruleset "Bottleneck", with the Royalists despite being outnumbered, better know the territory and able to squeeze the Parliamentarians on the exit from the Downs. Obviously, the actual wargame is missing in this - but is this style the kind of thing that is interesting? Will Stroudley be able to hold off the Parliamentarians - and at what sacrifice? Oxling? Will the light horse under Craven manouvre to bypass the Parliamentarian foot and sack Charford? Will the Parliamentarian eastern forces under Maunsell crush the Royalist rearguard led by Billinton on the Oulham-Oxbridge road? etc. There are a number of options - the Royalists could retreat into Oxling for a kind of siege (Oxling being a small village, is unlikely to provide much but a last stand). Both armies have their cavalry accompanying the infantry, but once the strategic situation reveals itself, it's likely these will split Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jan 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 11:16
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Obviously, the actual wargame is missing in this - but is this style the kind of thing that is interesting? YES please continue!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 13:50
|
|
|
My first good board for my 101st force came out great!  
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 06:45
|
|
|
How does that work? Is it a display base?Comstar posted:YES please continue! OK, consider it done - that was as far as I can go without the miniatures to do it I think, but I figure I may as well go with one more series of moves to bring the experiment to a close. The are a couple of battles on the flanks, but the main action is happening down the middle of the map so I've omitted anything not relating to that for the sake of readability: "Test-Run War Journal posted:
I also ran the siege to conclusion, ending with the Parliamentarians starving and dying to smallbox, before the Royalists finally concede on the 19th. I think the siege rules probably work better in the context of huge armies and walled cities, rather than a dinky motte and a thousand troops! Anyway, would video be preferable to text? I feel that there's alot of information going on in parallel and text makes it hard to convey, but I'm happy to take advice either way. I'm super excited about being able to experiment with different rules and scenarios as a result of a narrative campaign - DBA-RRR for large, pitched battles, OHW for smaller engagements and Pikemen's Lament for skirmishes. I've ordered a couple of Pendraken 10mm Rennaisance miniatures too, I wonder if they might be happy medium between the evident loveliness of 15mm and the massed ranks of 6mm. I definitely don't want the typical 28mm-style "six dudes on a base" effect, and since I'm effectively limited to 40mm bases (in order that I can have shot-pike-shot units of 120mm, which is about the largest my 3' x 3' table is going to support. I don't expect the miniatures to be more detailed but I wonder if the mass will just help distance recognition! 
Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Jan 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Behold a portion of Wessex, a heretofore uncharted county of England, somewhere between Lizard Point and the Antonine Wall: Also this may make hex numbering slightly simpler for when you go with a campaign map: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I've been interested in the ECW from the sidelines since early on - I think this thread has my attempt at a 28mm Pike & Shotte brigade from 4-5 years ago. However, looking at rule sets which cover that period in OHW, DBA-RRR, DBR, Pike & Shotte and Victory without Quarter - my initial thought was that the troop choices were very limited, and by extension the tactical possibilities in a war game. It's pretty much the same triangle as Napoleonics, or a lot of other eras: infantry, cavalry, artillery. Infantry breaks down into pikes and muskets, cavalry has gallopers and trotters, artillery can be large or small, with plenty of sub-variants of each of these. You can also do oddball units, like Parliamentarian heavily armored cuirassiers, New Model Army, dragoons, "forlorn hope" skirmishers, "clubmen" (militias), etc, or different nations like Scots Covenanters. There's pretty good variety in ECW. Personally I really like Pikeman's Lament. It's a skirmish game from Osprey based on Lion Rampant. It's loose and open, so it's possible to build off-beat armies like "a cavalry squadron on a raid" or "Lord Jackass's militia." And I don't know if this will help, but check out this old thread on another board. It's a nicely done ECW board and models, and really shows some good ideas for fun skirmishes. Southern Heel posted:Reading through OHW more generally and some of it's supplementary reading list has yielded a lightbulb moment for me: When you consider the categorisation of units by their interactions with each other on the battlefield, a lot of the minutiae of how we naturally organise them (such as by specific weapon) falls away and tactical and strategic factors yield far more differentiation. I completely agree with this. "2000 points, line up, fight" games quickly become monotonous; the way to get interesting variety is to try different scenarios. Southern Heel posted:Obviously, the actual wargame is missing in this - but is this style the kind of thing that is interesting? Holy poo poo, just post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:
I think text comes across great, especially in the date by date format. If you wanted to do the battle with miniatures you could do video, but pictures work well too. It's up to you and your tech capabilities, I think. And you're doing fantastic with this, making me think about my own historical projects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Thanks for the tip, Arquinsel - my first time using hex! Wessex is one of the old english kingdoms during the heptarchy and the setting of various Thomas Hardy novels. Cessna, I'm definitely going to give TPL a go at some point. Interestingly, One Hour Wargames omits Artillery completely in favour of 'Swordsmen' - I understand the justification is that it ensures the ruleset also works for the TYW rather than the ECW where I understand they were at best a marginal component. I think I'd be inclined for "Swordsmen" to represent militia, and to include Artillery as additional units only scoring hits on a '6', but which double any casualties which are inflicted, or something of the sort. I guess that's the benefit of a very streamlined system like OHW! Victory without Quarter rules (https://gcooksonblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/victory-without-quarter-rules.pdf seem quite interesting, too. - it's open source/freely available, Mods) seems really interesting. It uses card activation - one card per unit, plus a 'Turn End' card which results in the deck being reshuffled and dealt out again. It seeks to emphasise the 'triangle' with some close combat rules: infantry can't charge other infantry unless they're shaken, etc. Like most homebrew rules it does seem to have grown organically with many edge cases, but I wonder if the limited scope of the rules/etc. make that usable. I guess I'll see in due course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 10:47
|
|
|
If you can track down a copy Warhammer Historicals' English Civil War is quite good. It's based on an earlier edition of Warhammer Fantasy (5th if I remember correctly) and once you strip out the magic and monsters it becomes a solid game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
If you, like me, are trying to paint Knights and love heraldry, another Kickstarter is live from Carthage Must be Destroyed. He's using the Complete Guide to Heraldry by Arthur C. Davies to create historically accurate decals. They're well made, imho.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Got together some nerds to play some Snappy Nappy on Tabletop Simulator and it was a good time! Here's an AAR for fellow plastic doll gamers who are interested in reading about our napoleonic shenanigans (in game pictures about halfway through and at the end): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HAJ0qEHc5OFOVusqv_-mwrVRHHnwu3xglWqshHlUsj0/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 21:38
|
|
