Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Anon User
    Member

    Hey Ivan,

    The SiP is much simpler than the 19th C. rules. As the design is a streamlined version of the entire Napoleonics, AMW and Intro books designs [hit, saves, damage] you can even see how the mechanic of converting Hits to damage comes around.

    More important than just the rules is the articles and design theories around them. They are useful for any game designer to read and attempt to thoroughly understand.

    Cheers,

    Alex

    in reply to: Contemporary Combat Tech status #67447
    Anon User
    Member

    I think these are some excellent points. As I consider upgrading my take on Neil Thomas’ “One-Hour Wargames” from WWII to moderns, part of me considers that all that may be necessary would be to reduce the nominal time from 5-10 minutes down to 3-5 minutes.

    šŸ™‚

    I downloaded the free version of Sabre Squadron. it is focused on the Cold War. The question for me is “what – if anything – has really changed since then and needs to be added?”

    For conventional peer combat – say, a hypothetical encounter between NATO/US forces and Russkies intent on swallowing up another little piece of Eastern Europe – it certainly seems that UAVs will have some impact on finding local units locally. BFT/JCR certainly seems like it helps find your blue, and green forces, anyway, and that can be helpful. The use of electronics is all well and good, except that like any tool you can still botch using it, it can break or be calibrated incorrectly, or – guess what – an idiot could still be on the end of the decision and make an obviously wrong choice. Then of course there’s e-war from jamming to using.

    Artillery seems like it may be a lot more deadly than it used to be, and airstrikes can also be pinpointed like never before.

    But it is a good question…what will add interest to a wargame, and how would one use it for both tactical interest and fun?

    in reply to: Contemporary Combat Tech status #66490
    Anon User
    Member

    Thanks Tim, this is the sort of thing I’m thinking about.

    The question is in a peer combat, how close will it be between us and say the Russkies or their proxies? I assume we’ll have an edge overall, but they could achieve parity in some cases, and superiority in a carefully developed attacked [occasionally].

    in reply to: Realistic Dark Age Skirmish Rules #66449
    Anon User
    Member

    I’ll run with “realistic” being an outlook that seeks a typical historical Dark Ages fight.

    I’ll run with “skirmish” being a small fight where each figure represents one figure.

    Within these parameters, the only game I know that fits the bill would be The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game – REALLY! If you only use “captains” and the occasional lesser Hero [many of which have interesting and characterful abilities that don’t add much complexity to the game, but give it a lot of flavor] the game is quite simple. Ā There are detailed rules [if needed] for falling, jumping, climbing, sieges, mounts, monsters, flyers, etc.

    We found it to be quite realistic in the actual fighting/combats. Depending on who wins Priority [initiative] and how you use your warriors and leaders, you can break into opposing groups of mutually supporting figures and kill them more easily individually [seems realistic], while your opponent has the same goal. The use of mounted troops is also “realistic” in that they can barge into figure groups and possibly knock some figs down, separating a mutually supporting group. Captains [indeed, most characters] have a limited ability to break the turn sequence a specified number of times, and once the ability is used up that’s it. So you have to pick and choose your critical moments carefully. This feels quite realistic.

    Copies of the rules are readily available used on line for a couple bucks used since they were so prolifically published. Also, I will add that unlike most Wargames, these rules were actually playtested, and the only issues that we ever came up with were the usual problems with balancing scenarios that involve really famous characters or monsters [unsurprisingly]. These are a moderately complex set of rules, but games are simplified by avoiding cavalry and complicated terrain.

    All the other skirmish games that I’ve played are either too much like RPGs [e.g. the classic Melee by Steve Jackson / Metagaming, free online now] or too clunky and gamey [e.g. the entire Song of Blades and Heroes stuff].

    OK, so that is it for “skirmish gaming”

    If by skirmishes you are also willing to extend the definition to small battles that typify the 90% of the period [instead of extraordinary battles that are large and may only occur once or twice in the lifetime of a warrior] I second the recommendations for Dark Ages Infantry Slog, for Dan Mersey’s efforts, e.g. Glutter of Ravens /Dux Bellorum, altho I must admit to not having played them extensively.

    For fast play rules, especially good for newbies, I strongly recommend Neil Thomas’ “One-Hour Wargames” which I’ve played hundreds of times and modified in several attempts. Cheap, and Highly Recommended!

    I have played the following variation on them very extensively, as I developed it with my gaming group:

    https://darkages40and25.blogspot.com/2017/07/latest-dark-ages-feudal-rules.html

    Posts related to them by topic, such as batreps and detailed tutorial of a feudal battle, are in this search thread:

    http://darkages40and25.blogspot.com/search/label/One%20-%20Hour%20Wargames

    I hope this helps, and LMK how it goes!

    Best, Alex

    in reply to: Air Combat in the Pacific #34618
    Anon User
    Member

    They look great Nat. WW2 Pacific war air combat has always been on my list to do, specifically Midway-type carrier forceĀ on carrier force.

    Would Check Your Six be suitable rules for these types of scenarios?

    Cheers

    Stuart

    in reply to: Terrain Problems #34360
    Anon User
    Member

    For me making the terrain gives its own rewards, just as researching, buying and painting the figures are all exiting parts on their own.Ā Running a wargame scenario over it is just the icing on the cake šŸ™‚

    I’m a big Papercraft fan and my biggest build was this shopping mall over which I run zombie hunt/survival gamesĀ :

     

    My all absorbing big build at the moment is a Deep Space Freighter for a planned Aliens game, progress being logged on my blog at Aliens project

    in reply to: What rules/system are you using? #3049
    Anon User
    Member

    WHFB 2nd ed for me, the three booklets in the red box version. I have been given a copy of every edition since then apart from the last two but 2nd ed still plays well for me and the DIY approach to stats and points makes it flexible enough to cope with virtually any army. It plays even better with 80s style miniatures as well.

    in reply to: Suppression effects in infantry games #2675
    Anon User
    Member

    Having seen the effects of suppressing fire first hand I can’t imagine any voluntary response to it other than by the desperate or suicidal. On the other hand, fire intended to suppress might be less than effective, I saw someone empty their magazine into the wrong side of a house in Nepal, the soldiers in the street on the other side didn’t even flinch. I think the onus is on the firer to put down an effective field of fire rather than on the defender to overcome their natural response.

    in reply to: Welcome to the General Forum #2611
    Anon User
    Member

    Nice one Mike and Sam, I hope this place goes from strength to strength.

    I am Clarence, more cross-eyed lion than guardian angel. Currently working on 15mm Sci-Fi, 6mm Napoleonics and the odd few 28mm Arthurians but I am more of a project starter than a finisher.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)