Home Forums General Game Design Further rule tweaks: TMWWBK

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #70249

    I am sure you are aware that the Colonial rules for ‘The Men Who Would Be kings” is intended as a framework that you can add to or adjust in order to address your prejudices.

    We’ve already introduced several “tweaks” (eg unit facings) but there are a few more areas I think need consideration.

    The basis of the rules is a maximum of one action per unit per turn.

    This works well in most situations. However, it does mean that immediate reactions to your enemy’s actions are not possible.

    I am thinking the rule should be modified in the case of mounted units being charged. The whole point of being mounted was speed of reaction. Now I think allowing counter-charges may be going too far but I would propose an evade move for mounted units (cavalry or camelry: not dismounted) being charged by any enemy. I am in favour of a varied movement distance as per the Field of Glory rules. Perhaps a D6 roll to minus that many inches from your normal distance? I have thought that a command roll might be used in order to allow an evade move but I think this might be too much. An evading unit would need to turn away & would end the move with their backs to the enemy. This means if they failed to get clear, they would be penalised in melee as per our rear attack rule.

    This too would add to the tension of the game. Clearly, a unit might choose to stand and fight the chargers (often at some cost, of course) but allowing Evade gives you tactical choices.

    Any comments, amendments or observations are welcome.

    donald

    #70274
    OB
    Participant

    Sometimes cavalry did get caught flat footed, wasn’t it in the manual for taking on greater numbers? But in the main I take your point.  Try it out on the table a few times and see what you think, variable evade is good, adds an element of risk.  Certainly the whole Rampant stable seems to me a very flexible tool kit.  

    You needn’t have more than one action though check out the skirmish rule.

    That said European battle cavalry were for charges.  I don’t think they practiced evading.

    OB
    http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

    #70275
    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    Ochoin: Where might we find your facing rules?

    If this is meant as a thread for general special rules, I had one for ammo:

    Ammo: Players may consider this rule for recreating ammo shortages in battles.  Players will need numerous Ammo counters and several Ammunition Porters.

    After each time a unit fires, place an Ammo counter next to the unit.  For each ammo counter the unit has when it fires, it must discard a single successful hit.

    Players have a supply of Ammunition Porters (Porters for short).  Porters are essentially markers, roughly 2” across, rather than units.  Typically your force will have one Porter for every two units.   Your Porters may move 6” per turn, and may not move within 3” of the enemy. They do not need an order to move. At the end of their move, one friendly unit within 3” may discard D2 ammo counters.

    The porters may not be targeted by the enemy.  They will not suffer casualties unless they are within 3” of a friendly unit that is destroyed, in which case the porter is also lost.  If the enemy move into contact with them, they porter will immediately move 6” away.  If they are forced to move a second time in the same turn, because of enemy action, or if their 6” move is not enough to get them out of an enemy’s movement distance, then the porter is lost.

    Units within 6” of each other may share ammo (assuming their weapons are compatible).  The unit with more ammo counters may give as many of its counters to the other unit as it wishes.  This is done as part of a firing action for the unit with more counters—it may fire afterward.

    #70286

    @ Nathaniel: I like your ammo rules & will try them out with a AZW game in the near future. Thank you.

    As for facing: we simply couldn’t like the ‘no facing’ of the rules as they stand. This is in part because we’re playing larger games than intended by the author. Thus, we have several “tweaks” designed to give units fronts, flanks & rears.

    * Interpenetration of units through friendly & unfriendly units is impossible unless retreating.

    *Units will move in straight lines with up to 2 wheels allowed per turn. A 180 degree turn before or after moving will cost 2 inches of the unit’s movement allocation.  A unit cannot charge an enemy in its rear.

    * Firing will be allowed at a 45   degree angle of the front face of the unit firing (except for Volley fire which will remain straight ahead)

    *Units charged on flank or rear will melee with their attackers on a ‘6’, using half their figure strength (rounding down).

     

    I don’t expect these to suit everyone (or even anyone!).

     

    donald

    #70321
    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    @Ochoin, thanks—those facing rules sound simple and effective.

    I haven’t tried my ammo rule so it might suck…

    #70344

    Against my initial judgement, I’ve come to like “toolbox” rules. You get to put your stamp on the rules without the burden of writing the thing from scratch.

     

    BTW WI evidently had an article by Mr Mersey on rule tweaks:

    http://www.warandpeacegames.com.au/Wargames_Illustrated_349_p/wgi-349.htm

    I don’t get WI so I missed out…..

    donald

    #70351
    OB
    Participant

     Me too, although I came to the tool box approach late.

    OB
    http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

    #70366

    Can I bring up game balance? As every game we’ve had so far is scenario based, any notion of finely balanced forces is irrelevant yet I’m still struggling to achieve a rough parity between my Anglo-Egyptians & Mahdists.  It seems to me to be a bit less than a 1:2 ratio. This is far closer than the rule book suggests.

    We haven’t really had a lot of games yet so maybe it’s just because the British players (mainly me) are a bit useless.   I’m also wondering if this is because of the various rule mods I’ve put in.

    Interestingly, it seems in the first part of the historical conflict, the Mahdists weren’t always that superior in numbers. Indeed, Osman Digna’s Bejas may have been outnumbered on occasion.

     

    donald

    #70367
    OB
    Participant

    I’m not overly worried about game balance at the moment although I can see why it’s important.  That’s a good point about our various tinkering perhaps having unforeseen consequences.  The only way to find out, I guess, is to keep playing.

    OB
    http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

    #70368

    I’m interested to know what rule mechanisms anyone is using to simulate ambush (the Mahdists’ most potent weapon).

    We’ve tried the standard marking on a map with discovery based on proximity: it works but is a bit awkward. I’m keen to use markers, both dummy & real. One of our little group thinks them too obvious. I’ve also seen a system of random entry points that looks good in that the A-Es don’t know where to expect the next attack but it may be a bit too random.

    Any other ideas?

     

    donald

     

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by Deleted User.
    #70378
    OB
    Participant

    I’d use a simple D6 dice throw for each terrain feature on the table that could accommodate the ambushers-1,2,3, you have an ambush.  You could further refine it by making the score dictate how many units were in the ambush.  Discovery by proximity as usual.

    That would certainly ensure players took scouting very seriously or paid the price for not doing so. 

    OB
    http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.