[General Slade]

It’s working for me again, both going from Greystreak’s link and my old bookmark.

[General Slade]

It must be something like that because I could call up the page successfully two minutes ago but it has now disappeared completely.

[General Slade]

It’s still there.  You just need to click on the link at the top of the landing page.  Or you can go directly to the page here: https://kiver.000webhostapp.com/allfacings.html

Edit: That’s odd – when I click on my own lick the page isn’t there.  But I can still get it when I use the book mark in my browser or click on the link at the top of Greystreak’s link.

Another edit: Now I can’t get it at all.

 

[General Slade]

I don’t think I really have managed to answer my own question because I still don’t understand how they went about reducing the number of companies. For example, were men retrained and re-uniformed in order to expand the flank companies?  Usually, in a British battalion the light company would make up one-tenth of the numbers but here it may be that the light company formed a sixth of the battalion.

I think in most Napoleonic armies companies were administrative rather than tactical because in the field the battalion had to be divided into sections of equal numbers in order to manoeuvre.  For example, the six company KGL battalions would presumably be using the same drill as when they were ten company battalions and in order to do this I think they would both have been broken up into the same number of sub-sections.

[General Slade]

Thanks guys,

As far as I understand it (which is not very far), companies were basically administrative bodies rather than tactical units.   So in the field the number of companies in a battalion was irrelevant because the troops would be divided up into sections of equal numbers of men in order to perform manoeuvres.

I found the following statement on Rod MacArthur’s website where he shows the results of some detailed study into British Napoleonic organisation:

“Most of the KGL battalions, having discharged their non-Hanoverian personnel at the end of the Peninsular War, were reduced to 10 companies of 60 in Dec 1814 (actually at Waterloo they operated as 6 companies of 100 with the surplus 91 officers and 104 sergeants detached to the Hanoverian Landwehr).”

Authorised Establishments of the British Army 1802-1815

So, since the actual number of men in the battalion remained the same, it does appear that the change in organisation was designed to reduce the number of officers needed in order to transfer them to the Hanoverian army.

However, I’m left wondering what this meant in practice for the flank companies and I still can’t work out whether the number of grenadiers and lights increased, decreased or stayed the same.

[General Slade]

Sage advice willz but this is Napoleonics we are talking about.  If you don’t sweat the small stuff you’re not really doing it right.

[General Slade]

Thanks willz.  Unfortunately, I have also seen illustrations that show them with brown leather gear so I was hoping someone might have access to a clothing warrant or some such.  However, it occurs to me that their shabraques and sheepskins are basically French in style so they probably did have black leather equipment.  Anyway, that’s what I am going with unless I hear different.

Thanks again.

[General Slade]

Cacique Caribe wrote:

Salvator Rosa’s “The Temptations of Saint Anthony”, 1645!

One can only wonder how Saint Anthony managed to resist being tempted by that?

[General Slade]

I love Minifigs.  It’s a great-looking collection.

[General Slade]

I haven’t played Advanced Heroquest so I don’t know how similar it is but Gloomhaven might be worth looking at.  It’s a co-operative game and I find it quite addictive.  However, it is quite a complicated game to run so if you do play it I recommend getting the Gloomhaven Helper app while it is still available: http://en.esotericsoftware.com/gloomhaven-helper

Also, now that you are looking for a game for adults, I will re-recommend Shaun Travers’s Zombicide recommendation.  It is a fun game, especially if you play one of the campaigns.

On the downside both games are expensive and you need a lot of storage space  for them (and in the case of Gloomhaven a strong back to pick up the box in the first place).

[General Slade]

I agree with the other guys about the cells.  I also don’t find alternating between black and green in the column headings to be helpful.  The headings in black stand out more and so appear more significant when in fact they are essentially just the same as the headings in green.  For example, in the last table the 1000m range band looks more important than the 500m range band and the stats for rear armour look more important than the stats for side armour.

[General Slade]

I’ve got the original Traveller three-book box set, which I bought when it came out.  I loved the design.  It looked  great. It had a really good typeface. It also smelled really nice, which was a bonus.  But after that it was all down hill and it is a mystery to me how anyone picked up those rules and played a game with them.  From memory (and it probably is forty years since I last read the rules), character creation took forever (and I think your character could actually die during the process, meaning you would have to start all over again), you needed a maths degree to understand how to fly a spaceship, the combat rules were unplayable and the section on alien life forms was perfunctory and lacking in any kind of colour or interest.

It has always amazed me that the game became popular, or for that matter how the rules got published in the first place.

[General Slade]

You have probably seen this already but there is an errata and FAQ sheet for the rules: 1914 Errata and FAQ It’s available from the downloads section https://www.greatescapegames.co.uk/1914-downloads

[General Slade]

Hi Norm,

I enjoyed your review and I just watched the learn to play video you linked to. The authors have a very engaging style and the rules do look like they would give an enjoyable game.  I’m seriously tempted to pick up a copy.

[General Slade]

The figures are very nice but I’m not so sure about the trains and they really haven’t put a lot of effort into the buildings.

But I do like those figures.  I am tempted to buy some.  And then wonder what on earth I am going to do with them . . .

[General Slade]

Weren’t people a bit smaller in the past?  I mean it’s all relative isn’t it.

And in other news, I used to like playing Scoop when I as a kid.

[General Slade]

The container looks most like the brown box on the right in the Riich models picture posted by deephorse. It is basically a chest with a hinged lid.   I guess what looked like a corrugated lining is in fact an indentation in the metal (presumably to stop the shells rattling round?).

Anyway, great stuff guys.  Many thanks to all of you.  I can get on with painting my paras.

[General Slade]

Thanks @willz

None of the pictures appears to show any kind of lining inside the lid so I guess I will do what I always do.  When in doubt paint it brown.

[General Slade]

Thanks.  I will take a look.

[General Slade]

I really enjoyed your battle report.  A lot happened for such a small encounter and it was great the way it swung back and forth and the result remained in doubt.

I like Neil Thomas’s books and rules but I hadn’t heard of Simplicity in Practice so I have followed the link in your article and bought the PDF from Wargame Vault.  Cheers for the heads up.

[General Slade]

I had never heard of them before and was actually expecting some sort of tank trap when I clicked on the link.  It’s a lovely bit of modelling and painting.  Great stuff.

[General Slade]

I’ll second Guy’s thoughts.  I hope you find a new home for your site soon.  It is a wonderful resource.

[General Slade]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

My cracked and taped and pencil-translated Funckens still grace my shelf, although I haven’t opened them for ages (nor the Eltings for that matter). — Funny you should mention the white hackles of the fusiliers, G. S. I don’t pay much attention to British uniforms, but I stumbled upon that exception, and spent a little bit of time trying to run it down on the internet. I found post-period official acknowledgement, but I could not find an authoritative source confirming the practice during the era. I worry that it’s one of those things “everybody knows” and no one can say why. JG

Hi Jonathan,

I got the information from this thread on TMP (which I was taking part in under the screen name SJDonovan – embarrassingly I note that I spelt fusilier wrong).  I don’t know the guy who posts as ‘dibble’ but he seems to know his stuff when it comes to British uniforms of the period and he does give a non-internet source for his information.  Though of course there is always the possibility that the authors of the book got their information from the internet in the first place.

British Fusilier Centre Company Plume/Hackle Colour

[General Slade]

They are very nice figures and you have done a very impressive paint job.  And it’s nice to see some 28mm figures that aren’t suffering from big hands syndrome.

[General Slade]

I like the book, it’s nicely laid out and illustrated and I have found it very useful.  I don’t have it in front of me right now but my memory is that whilst it is very good on general things it is not always so good on the idiosyncrasies of individual regiments (as far as I recall it won’t, for example, tell you that all companies of fusilier regiments wore white hackles or that the 5th Northumberland regiment did likewise).  Also, Mr Franklin’s prose isn’t always easy to read but on the plus side there isn’t much of it – the book is mainly pictures.

@Jonathan Gingerich

I could be wrong about this, but I think there was a problem with the first print run and some of the colours came out other than was intended.  In my version officers’ coats are scarlet while those of the rank and file are brick red (as in the plates posted by willz above).

 

 

 

[General Slade]

Victrix do German tank numbers in 1/144.  I don’t know whether they will look way too big on 10mm vehicles.

Victrix decals

 

[General Slade]

Thanks Andrew.  That’s really useful.  I still use hex paper to draw dungeons and that is the most user-friendly site for creating it that I have seen.  Now I just need to find myself an A3 printer.

 

[General Slade]

For anyone who is interested, I got the definitive answer from Dave Brown on the General de Brigade forum:

It’s 1 : 2 or 3 for 15mm or 20mm.

However some 6mm players have gone for 1 : 1. So, each section base in an infantry platoon has about 8 or so figures. While a tank or gun section is made up of two models.

DB

[General Slade]

I was very impressed with that.   Your narration in particular is excellent.  This is the first one of your videos I have watched but I will definitely be checking out more. Great stuff.

[General Slade]

ian pillay wrote:

Can’t comment on the rules, but for the period, North Africa.

I am tempted to do North Africa – mainly because I like Matilda IIs and I really like the British camouflage scheme (the one in pale blue, sand and brown). I’m also tempted to do it because I don’t have to worry about buying a lot of terrain.

[General Slade]

I like the look of  O Group, and I like Dave Brown’s General de Brigade rules (I haven’t actually played them but it’s a nice book!) but the vehicle ratio for O Group is 1 to 2 or 3, which is a non-starter for me.

Hammer of Democracy looks interesting but as far as I can see it is only available as a pdf and while I don’t mind buying a pdf to check something out I want to be able to get hold of a hard copy if I am actually going to play it.

[General Slade]

JozisTinMan wrote:

You could try Nordic Weasel’s Hammer of Democracy (also on wargame vault), but it does require that you track shock for units. I play a related set for WW1 (Trench Hammer) in 10mm based 3 or 4 to a base with 2 bases per squad and now use little explosion markers to track shock / hits. You can see my examples here: http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/search/label/Trench%20Hammer Let us know how you get on, I may give Iron Cross a try

Thanks Jozi,

I will give them a look.  You do have to track morale in Iron Cross as well so I am already resigned to doing that.

Don’t hold your breath on me doing a review of Iron Cross.  I’ve got to buy, paint and organise some armies (and terrain) first.  And I haven’t even decided whether to do North Africa or Normandy yet.

On first reading the rules sound like fun but of course you can’t really tell until you have played a few games.

[General Slade]

willz wrote:

General Slade wrote:

@NTM I’ve just bought a pdf of the Iron Cross rules. They look like they fit the bill of what I’m looking for and the fact that they are only a fiver is definitely an added bonus.

That’s definitely an excellent reason to use as set of rules.

I’m not sure it’s an excellent reason to use them but it certainly simplified the decision regarding whether or not to buy them.

[General Slade]

@NTM

I’ve just bought a pdf of the Iron Cross rules.  They look like they fit the bill of what I’m looking for and the fact that they are only a fiver is definitely an added bonus.

 

[General Slade]

Thanks guys,

I will check out your recommendations.  I’ve been reading lots of reviews online but haven’t yet found something that seems to fit the bill.

I’m basically a horse and musket gamer and don’t know a great deal about WWII gaming.   I’ve been playing Chain of Command with a group of friends and have really enjoyed it but it feels very much an infantry game.  I don’t want to make infantry irrelevant but I would like to get a few more tanks and guns on the table.

I guess what I am looking for is something the next level up from Chain of Command.  Something where a rifle section or Bren team is represented by a stand rather than a bunch of individual figures and where I can get a few more tanks and guns on the table.  I thought O Group was going to be ideal but it turns out one model represents two or three tanks and for some reason I have a real problem with that.

[General Slade]

Stream wider than a road?

[General Slade]

Thanks Guy.  Sounds like this isn’t the ruleset for me.

[General Slade]

Thanks Don,

I’m planning to use 12mm figures so I don’t know whether adding the extra vehicles would work – I think the table might get a bit crowded.

I found something from Dave Brown written prior to publication in which he said that the ratio for vehicles and guns was 1:1 but I get the feeling this changed somewhere along the line.  I’ve posted the same question on the General de Brigade / O Group forum so hopefully someone there will be able to give me a definitive answer.

[General Slade]

I like the look of these rules and I’m thinking of buying the complete bundle that is on offer on the TFL website (O Group).  However, I’m having trouble finding the figure ratio for vehicles and guns.   In some places it says one model represents one vehicle and in others it says one model represents two or three vehicles.

I’m asking because when I am doing WWII gaming I only like playing at a 1:1 ratio. For some reason I can’t get my head round the idea of one model tank representing two real ones.

 

[General Slade]

I have had many nights out that ended in Cardiff’s Chip Alley.  And I have no desire to replicate them in miniature on the wargames table.  So it’s Brigade of Guards for me.

Nice neat lines.  Parade uniforms.  All the same manufacturer. All the same pose.

And plain bases.  No flocking.  I hate, loathe and despise flocking.

 

[Author]

Posts