Home Forums Horse and Musket Napoleonic A Nostalgic Rules Review

This topic contains 21 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Tony Hughes 1 week, 2 days ago.

Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #120984
    vtsaogames
    vtsaogames
    Participant

    I found my old copy of WRG’s War Games Rules 1750 – 1850 and gave them a read-through. We had a lot of good games with them in the past, until we discovered the parts that didn’t work. I don’t have photos because we didn’t have digital cameras back then. Moving computers required fork-lifts.
    Metal war game figures were mostly 25mm. If you want to drift back in time, go here

    https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/

    #120990
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    An interesting read, thanks.

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

    #120992
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    The second edition addressed some of those issues.

    https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/9389/wargame-rules-1685-1845

    Of course it also introduced some new ones 🙂

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #121007
    Guy Farrish
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    I love the optimism of this bit:

    Please dont write in blaming us for…

    #121025
    vtsaogames
    vtsaogames
    Participant

    The second edition addressed some of those issues. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/9389/wargame-rules-1685-1845 Of course it also introduced some new ones 🙂

     

    I don’t consider that a second edition, rather a completely new game. Not only the turn sequence, but the logarithmic table is gone, replaced by completely different fire and melee systems, different basing, the works.

    https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/

    #121045
    Ochoin
    Ochoin
    Participant

    I began gaming with the 2nd Edition. They were excellent rules but I’m now using the replacement set of the rules that replaced these.

    BTW I was wondering why people change rule sets when the one they use is quite useable?

    Could it be a factor that after playing a large number of games, the whole thing becomes predictable? Thus you seek out a new rule set not necessarily because it is “more accurate” etc but because you have to learn its nuances all over?

     

    donald

     

    #121047
    vtsaogames
    vtsaogames
    Participant

    In my experience with WRG 1750-1850, it was because I discovered flaws after playing them for a while, things like the overly powerful light infantry, like the two columns can’t be stopped by infantry, etc. I couldn’t “un-discover” them. It broke the game. So on to the next set of rules, seeking the grail.

     

    What replaced the 2nd edition?

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by vtsaogames vtsaogames.

    https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/

    #121054
    Ochoin
    Ochoin
    Participant

    In my experience with WRG 1750-1850, it was because I discovered flaws after playing them for a while, things like the overly powerful light infantry, like the two columns can’t be stopped by infantry, etc. I couldn’t “un-discover” them. It broke the game.

    House rules?

    Replaced for several hundred decades with ELAN. These were recently replaced by ‘General d’Armee’.

    donald

    #121105
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Not only the turn sequence, but the logarithmic table is gone

    Logarithmic table?

    What was logarithmic about it?

    All the best,

    John.

    #121111
    vtsaogames
    vtsaogames
    Participant

    That’s what they said it was. At least that’s what they said the ancients version was and this looked like a kissing cousin. Back in the day we thought Wargames Research Group meant that their rules were all scientific-like. And the points system infallible. Might have been what we were smoking.

    https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/

    #121112
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Weird. I started playing WRG ancients with fourth edition, and I have no recollection of any mention of logarithms there.

    All the best,

    John.

    #121115
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Free versions of the first five editions of WRG ancients are available at https://freewargamesrules.fandom.com/wiki/WRG_Ancients

    Although the text is not machine-searchable, I can find no mention of logarithms anywhere.

    All the best,

    John.

    #121117
    vtsaogames
    vtsaogames
    Participant

    Somewhere I read that the casualty table was derived from logarithms. But then back in the 70’s truth was nearly as fluid as it is now.

     

    I will avoid going through the first 5 editions. I have edition 6 here. It is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

    Anyway, the second version of the horse and musket rules ditched the casualty table, along with most of the other rules.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by vtsaogames vtsaogames.
    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by vtsaogames vtsaogames.

    https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/

    #121120
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Somewhere I read that the casualty table was derived from logarithms. But then back in the 70’s truth was nearly as fluid as it is now.

    I think I remember a couple of people saying on TMP over the years that the WRG tables were logarithmic (I have never played them myself, so I have no idea personally) so potentially that left the idea in the recesses of your mind.  So the idea is “out there” somewhere although its provenance may be…doubtful.  From what I can see, Phil Barker has never used the idea.

    I’d be vaguely interested in knowing which rules do use logarithmic functions for anything.  I can dimly recall someone saying that Charles Grant’s “Battle” rules did (to allow artillery on the same table as the tanks and infantrymen) although I have no idea if that is actually true.

     

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by Whirlwind Whirlwind.
    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 4 days ago by Whirlwind Whirlwind.

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

    #121134
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    I’d be vaguely interested in knowing which rules do use logarithmic functions for anything.  I can dimly recall someone saying that Charles Grant’s “Battle” rules did (to allow artillery on the same table as the tanks and infantrymen) although I have no idea if that is actually true.

    Nope, “Battle!” used a scale of 1 inch to 33 1/3 yards, or 100 feet, which is 1:1200. Charles Grant expected his artillery to be off-table. Weapon ranges and movement distances (for a one-minute move) were all on this same linear scale, and the way Charles Grant explained how these were worked out is one of the things that make “Battle!” still my favourite wargaming book. It is surprising that so little wargaming literature bothers to explain the design process in this way, and I suspect that a lot of rules still have a good deal less thoughtful design behind them than the designer would like to admit.

    I vaguely remember that one of the modern sets of rules in one of the Shire Books efforts might have used a logarithmic ground scale, but I suspect it is a feat more discussed than attempted. I am fairly sure the idea of logarithmic ground scales was specifically disclaimed in the introduction to one of the early WRG modern sets, but I’m not near my collection at the moment.

    As for algorithmic combat resolution tables, I don’t even know what that would mean.

    All the best,

    John.

    #121135
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    I am fairly sure the idea of logarithmic ground scales was specifically disclaimed in the introduction to one of the early WRG modern sets, but I’m not near my collection at the moment.

    It is in the introduction to 1925-1950:

    “other innovations include a one-to-one figure scale and an arithmetical instead of a logarithmic ground scale”.

    That sort of implies that there were logarithmic scales in use in the late 60s/early 70s.  Does he simply mean the shortened ranges for heavier weapons in some rules, which I guess has roughly the same effect as a logarithmic ground scale?

     

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

    #121180
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    My Shire Publications rules are hiding from me, but I found this:

    https://vintagewargaming.blogspot.com/2009/04/following-three-posts-are-series-of.html

    Not a set of rules I had previously encountered.

    All the best,

    John.

    #121184
    Whirlwind
    Whirlwind
    Participant

    Thanks John.  The pics to accompany the articles are very nice.

    Trying to think this through, is there any difference between a logarithmic ground scale and proportionally shortened weapon ranges a la Bolt Action or Flames of War?

     

    https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/

    #121185
    Guy Farrish
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    I’m sure I remember someone experimenting with a logarithmic ‘ground’ (actually water) scale for modern naval games at a Conference of Wargamers back in the mid 1980s.
    It meant that people could have all their 1/3000 ships including carriers on the table at realistic ranges (although of course it did rather eliminate the point of locating and identifying the enemy as you could see them on the other side of the table). Something of a triumph of aesthetic over function.
    I may stagger into the attic to dig out my early Nuggets at some stage to try and find a write up.

    #121894
    Steve Burt
    Steve Burt
    Participant

    Ian Russell Lowell had a set of chariot warfare rules in Slingshot which used a logarithmic distance scale. Basically it only had 5 distances:

    1. Out of bowshot
    2. Within chariot (composite) bow shot
    3. Within foot (simple) bow shot
    4. Within javelin shot
    5. In contact

    You moved back and forth through those range bands rather than any set number of inches.

    #121903

    One of the comments on that blog mentions having to hand-carve their D20’s.

    Ah, the Golden Age of Wargaming!

    #121908

    Tony Hughes
    Participant

    The ‘logarithmic’ casualty tables were scaled so that casualties doubled every so many rows or columns ( I think it was 5 rows in the Ancients rules) and the values between were on a logarithmic scale to make each the same proportional increase. Nothing to do with logarithmic distance scales.

    I do remember a WW2 set by Bish Izwazko (I’m sure I’ve spelled that wrong so apologies) that used log scales for shooting distances – I always thought it wrong. It sounds like a clever idea but simply distorts the relationship between movement distances and range.

     

Viewing 22 posts - 1 through 22 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.