Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Guy FarrishParticipantAaargh! Molethrottler I hate you! Not really. But just when I have calmed down and walked away from being annoyed about this trend you stir it up again!
Saying ‘a d6 means the normal six sided dice you find in a standard family board game’ is fine: it clears up a doubt in a tyro’s mind.
Saying ‘We use the term d6 in this rule book to refer to a regular cuboid marked with the integers 1 through 6, one number per side, to generate a random value where required within the parameters of the mechanisms designed and contained herein to reflect the uncertainty in certain actions governed by the laws of chance or probability of occurrence on the battlefield.’ is frankly taking the mickey.
It is padding to justify a £30+ price tag for recycled concepts from the last 40 years. Very occasionally something new pops up but not often. Trying to hide a lack of originality with obfuscatory wording and pages of irrelevant photos is very often a waste of paper, digital space and my cash.
And on your other point – no I won’t pay tens of pounds on spec for a rule set that is going to require the purchase of a series of increasingly idiotic supplements to pad out what should be a stand alone purchase. If I need to pay that sort of cash I’ll buy a boardgame, or write some myself.
It’s another question really I suppose but why ARE there a constant flood of new rules? Most of them simply have to be rejigs of old ideas. There are only so many ways of skinning a cat. Is it the Holy Grail effect? Perfection must be out there? Or are most wargamers like me – they spend a lot of time talking about wargaming, reading about it but not much time actually doing it, and learning new rules is a good excuse?
Guy FarrishParticipantSorry to hear that Steve.
Guy – 4 Guys – we should start a group or something!
Guy FarrishParticipantWell, no pavilion but the rest was pretty much all good!
The cost was a little more than the usual shows I go to but there was proportionately more there so £6.00 was fine. The food was as is often/usually the case with ‘captive audience’ venues expensive for what it was, but what I had was more than just edible so that was a bonus.
There were a few of the bigger traders not there, but then many traders seem not to be bothering with the majority of shows now. There were sufficient stands there however that had things I wanted/liked the look of, that I came away wishing I had budgeted for a bigger spend.
There were a good looking assortment of games on the top floor although a combination of arriving a bit later than intended, having to return a bit earlier than I would have liked and a memory like a sieve (forgot it was only one day and I couldn’t come back on Sunday!) meant I missed playing a couple I would have liked to try – Zama being one.
Seemed pretty well attended and the traders I talked to, spent with, all seemed content. I didn’t bump into as many people I knew as normal but whether this was down to my failing eyesight, a more focused approach to purchasing or them not being there (or avoiding me!) I can’t say.
All in all a great day out and lots to paint and play with (as long as Mr Pendraken remembers to post my order soon). I hope it was a success for the club and that Colours is back on the regular circuit.
Guy FarrishParticipantWell, I’m glad you’ve said it Michael because it has always seemed a weird idea to me.
I’ve usually put it down to that sort of rather silly (in my opinion) gender divide ‘humour’ that is characterised as locker room or coffee morning chatter.
Whether it is men or women doing it, for goodness sake aren’t we adult enough to be honest with our partners? If we are spending money that is needed to feed kids, pay bills etc there is something wrong. If we have partners who are so dismissive of our leisure interests that we have to hide spending on them, again…
If we are embarrassed by spending such a large amount for a handbag, a pair of shoes, a 28mm Ghaznavid Army, perhaps we should pause and think – is it part of what I consider legitimate personal spending? If the answer is yes then grow a pair and be proud of it. If not – perhaps have a chat about the household budget before blowing it on unnecessary leisure items?
Guy FarrishParticipantWell that comment threw me a bit I confess – (maybe I make Spurious’ point about traders not liking it!) – I hadn’t realised there WAS a second building previously at Colours. I thought it had all been in the main grandstand building – over three floors but still all together. Sorry chaps – where was the ‘second building’ ?
Guy FarrishParticipantI’m afraid I can’t speak for the USA. But in the UK I hear similar concerns now and again. I think it is Balkanised more than the 80s (certainly more than the 70s) and this may skew older gamers views. There were Ancients (mostly Romans), 7YW, Napoleonics, ACW and WWII. (A bit of Renaissance as well). Now there’s all that (and ten different rule sets for each at least) plus Ancients is chopped up more into Bronze Age, Classical, Roman Empire, Post Roman, Dark Age, Early Medieval. Then there’s medieval and what was ‘Renaissance’ is much better catered for in small period slots from Italian Wars through to the War of the League of Augsburg. Musket wars include things like Great Northern War which nobody had heard of let alone gamed and nineteenth century gaming has many small wars covered in detail. WWI is in vogue of course at the moment for bizarre ‘anniversary’ reasons and post WWII gaming, real or imaginary is very big.
Add to that all the different levels and approaches of gaming all these ‘periods’ and I don’t think wargaming is dying at all – in the UK. My impression from reading about the US is that it is in a similar state, but my knowledge base from the 70s/80s is much less secure (no internet! and little travel there).
As for ‘imaginative’, I think a lot of the ground breaking innovation of the 80s, getting away from line ’em up slog fests of earlier days, has become so absorbed by commercial rule sets that we don’t notice their good bits so much (although there is a whole weirder vibe still going on about an imagined dichotomy between playability and ‘realism’ which may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater at times – please don’t discuss!).
I hope your perception is skewed about the States, loads of good stuff out of there in the past – keep it coming!
Guy FarrishParticipantYeah, me too.
I’m getting really slushy in my old age. I’m even showing an interest in Fantasy, and ten years ago I would have laughed in your face at the idea.
Not ‘against’ anything as a period – types of game – that’s another issue, but period, nah, no problems with anything I don’t think.
Favourites: Napoleonic, WWII, Cold War hypothetically gone hot in Europe, Thirty Years War, Italian Wars, based on things I played 40years ago and still play regularly.
Guy FarrishParticipant‘Does this document PROVE Aliens Built the Armley Gyratory?’
Who told you that? No one is supposed to know about that. Its secret. Tell me now who told you or else.
Guy FarrishParticipantI hope this is not as unhelpful as it may seem on first reading.
It depends what you mean by 32mm. 32mm from where to where?
Most ’28mm’ figures are at least 30mm foot to top of head and I have a plastic Perry WoR command figure in front of me and he is 35mm from bottom of foot to top of head. So even if we take 28mm as to ‘eye level’ (God knows why that became a place to measure to – yes I know the whole headcover issue, but it strikes me that is just an excuse for poor anatomical understanding by early sculptors) many figures are already way over scale.
If you mean 32mm from base of foot to eye level then unless you have a very rigorous control on the sculpting process you will end up with a near 40mm figure and I think the balkanisation of figure scales has gone far enough. Detail on current 25/28/30 mm figs is excellent. I see no need to creep upscale myself. Others may differ.
I’d be very happy to see good more good 28mm figs but I gave no desire to start building armies (however small in number) in a larger size. At a nominal 32mm your figures would not easily fit in with current 28mm or 40mm figs (and there are relatively few of the latter) and unless you are planning on releasing whole ranges in one go I am reluctant to buy figures in the hope the range (and its enemies) is going to be finished off anytime soon. I have been caught out in the past with unfinished ranges and armies with no enemies so even if I were to be swayed by their brilliance I wouldn’t be buying until there were sufficient figures in a range to allow a game. I am not a collector/painter so the figures must have a gaming purpose for me.
Having said all that, whatever you decide – best wishes. I admire anyone with the commitment to start a new range.
Guy FarrishParticipantLet these paper rules
Fashion triumphant thunder
to delight AngelsGuy FarrishParticipantLooking forward to hearing more!
Photos? Or is it too soon?
Guy FarrishParticipantHorribly eclectic -unfocused: take your pick.
Therefore there isn’t time to paint all the figures I would need at even very basic standard to fight all the games I want to.
I like painting but I’m never going to be able to afford all the figures I want let alone paint them all to high standard. So I have different approaches. Small scale battles in periods I know I am going to stick with I’ll try and paint fewer figures better. Big battles – smaller scale many more figs basic painting.
Limited interest periods – own painted picture photo reduced and stuck on counters.
One offs- coloured counters.
Very big or last second games – plastic overlay on map and chinagraph pencils.
Command games/Committee games/Crisis games – pens and paper no figs.
Paddy Griffith ended up saying ‘down with toy soldiers’ because he thought they skewed too many aspects of the game/simulation, I wouldn’t go that far but it is very much picking the right tool for the job and if you don’t mind not having the best painted figs available; play anyway with whatever works for you.
Guy FarrishParticipantYes.
But I think my main complaint with he BBC was the way they state (I was going to say ‘imply’ but they are a lot more positive about it) that there was only one way Napoleon could have won Waterloo.
To have won Waterloo he would have had to do something different than what he did on the day and as soon as you alter that all bets are off because all the actions that other people originally carried out based on reaction to what actually happened would then have been different. It is what irritates me in a way about ‘what if’ history – as soon as you change one decision all events change. So sending in the Guard early may or may not have won the battle but it would not have been the same battle with the exception of the Guard attack. Everything else from then would have been different.
Besides who can say what would have happened if Napoleon hadn’t waited for the ground to dry? Or a hundred and one other changes? I doubt that ‘there was only one way Napoleon could have won Waterloo’ holds any water at all, but thousands of casual readers/players of that site will now go away convinced that there was.Guy FarrishParticipantThere are answers which lead to the desired outcome and in that sense they are ‘right’.
But there are probably myriad ‘right’ answers or combinations of answers.
As you say if we could predict the future many would be out of work! Indeed if we could accurately predict what was happening contemporaneously over the hill, I would have been out of work for many years!So I happily reject the concept of the ‘right’ answer but willingly embrace a series of ‘good enough’ events.
Guy FarrishParticipantInteresting little game – odd that they think there is only one way Napoleon could have won. Seems rather a reductive logic tree. I suspect there are lots of different outcomes – but practicality on cost and time on the site dictates the answer. Shame it will convince many that there really are ‘right’ answers to battlefield decisions.
Guy FarrishParticipantLooks interesting.
Have to say I am not a fan of Kickstarter – if it is a success in Spain already why do you need to go that route?
Sorry – that sounds negative and you no doubt have your reasons. I guess I am somewhat old fashioned in my approach – if there is a product I like the look of I will buy it – but I’m not in the habit of funding a start up business.
Having said that I would like to play this so Good luck.
Hope it takes off.
Guy FarrishParticipantDid somebody say something?
Guy FarrishParticipantWhen you say ‘hobby related’…you just mean wargaming right?
Guy FarrishParticipantSorry Michael (and Patrice) did that wander off topic a bit?
Guy FarrishParticipantProbably – a typical phallocentric symptomatic palliation response to the legitimate demands for a fundamental feminist self determination, if you ask me. A ditch doesn’t need a vallum.
Guy FarrishParticipantThe complications of communicating in different languages via a written medium unmoderated by non verbal cues eh? Anyone remember Victor Borge’s phonetic punctuation sketch? Maybe you’re all too young – google it- we need a written emotional punctuation to tip in those non-verbal markers that undercut troublesome comments.
Now we’re all happy
anyone want to try the discussion about Chesterton’s Anglo Catholic anti-semitism? 
Maybe not.
Another forum, another day.
Guy FarrishParticipantHI Thaddeus,
There’s another meaning?
:^)
Guy FarrishParticipantNah he didn’t – the dyke is the ditch, the wall is …well the wall!
Guy FarrishParticipantMy copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (admittedly a no doubt rather staid 1975 edition) has this:
‘Dyke – see Dike’
‘Dike, Dyke, n & v.t. 1. Ditch’
You’re fine Patrice don’t listen to these ruffianly fellows.
Guy FarrishParticipantMadaxeman
Very interesting report. Nice to read something thought provoking rather than just the pretty pictures we often see of Salute.That raises a question for me (as does a thought you have in your report- more anon); Is Salute, as the prime example of where big ‘Wargame’ events are going in the UK, leading us to a position where money and/or modelling skill completely take over the idea of what wargaming is about? Pretty pictures often feel as if they give you the experience (minus the expenditure and discomfort) of what Salute is about. What about the gaming element? For me that would be gaming historical periods/events/genres but the point is more about the gaming experience rather than the period/genre. How do the damn things move and interact?
And now the ‘anon’ bit: you said ‘If the hobby can support an increasing number of increasingly professional-looking outfits and systems that surely must be A Good Thing, or at least A Good Indicator that Impending Doom and No Kids Coming Into The Hobby is simply untrue.’ Is it though?
Is the fact that clever marketing of prepackaged ‘systems’ can take money off people with disposable income the best(only?) criterion of the health of a hobby? Is that hobby just about playing games with pretty toys or does it need some research and knowledge and having at least some relevance to history (not the simulation vs game argument, honest)?
I’m not trying to denigrate fantasy/SF/Horror/Pulp gaming in the slightest but they do seem to be used as a lever to drive up unit price and erode the DIY area of the hobby. Lessons learned in flogging unlikely looking bits of resin as must have killer game winners, sit uncomfortably with needing the Spanish troops in a Peninsula game.
I have to confess I’ve never been to Salute and have no inclination to ‘remedy’ that omission. I’d rather spend the money I would spend getting there on books/figures/games with the ‘shed’ manufacturers. I have no feeling one way or the other about its existence. Its one day a year and, I hope, of supreme irrelevance to me. I say ‘I hope’ because I don’t like the idea of one large show distorting the market and I want year round purchasing patterns to be different to Salute and more money to be going to traditional historical manufacturers. I wish Salute and its organisers and attendees no ill will but I wish the rest of the hobby a healthy, prosperous and enjoyable semi-professional future.
Guy FarrishParticipant“muscles, buzz cuts and steely eyes”
I like that!
Michael knows me and I think we can safely say that beyond a certain (well hidden
) muscularity I don’t qualify!We were neat, short (not shaven) haired and well washed, but casual. More Captain Mainwaring than Captain Hurricane.
Definitely non-intimidating.
@ William, Thank you. I am wondering whether I might have time now to revive the idea and do a bit more in my current area. I have recently revived the interest of a ‘lapsed’ wargamer who has had a 20 year hiatus, so my proselytising zeal has been stirred again!
I like Patrice’s guide/flyer. May steal this!
27/04/2015 at 00:07 in reply to: Do You Remember the First Time .Ahem First War-game You Ever Played! #23041Guy FarrishParticipant1973 at school with Dave Hay and a few others (some names lost in the mists of time, others redacted to protect the guilty!) . French v Brits Napoleonic, I seem to remember some Hinchliffe riflemen in a churchyard totally impervious to everything thrown at them, holding the whole Grande Armee at bay. I’d played a few solo things after getting hold of Charge! by Lawson and Young the year before but had found Dave and a few others after much searching. And here I am 42 years later still (just about) going! (I still have my Hinchliffe Napoleon in a box in the attic – the rest of his men having been sold off long ago) The poor man didn’t even make it to Elba!
Guy FarrishParticipantBack in the 80s I belonged to a club that took the idea of selling wargaming as a hobby quite seriously (but in a fun way). The group was mainly ex military and associated civilians and I suppose we didn’t present the usual hairy unkempt wargamer look (come on guys! You know where I’m coming from here). We took a series of games and figure displays around military and air shows, village fetes and everything in between. The games weren’t strictly display or participation but we usually managed to cajole a few kids/teenagers and on one occasion at least a retired officer into playing a few turns to get the feel of the thing (note – simple, fast rules required). You needed at least one non-playing m/c to talk to people, explain what was going on and to try and entice them into playing a spare command. (Ideally you needed a spare person to immediately fill their shoes if they got hooked into leading someone into the game).
It was hard work but it worked really well and we picked up the odd regular player but I think more importantly it inspired people to be open to the idea of it as a possible thing to have another go at playing if they saw an opportunity in their own area. I don’t think we ever finished a game at any of these events but that was not the point. The public participants weren’t being asked to commit themselves to the whole game/day (although some did stay) just to take command of a brigade for an hour before Mum/Dad/wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend (yep women tried their hand too) collected them for the tombola/fly past/tank display.
It takes a bit of nerve to turn up on a Saturday morning in a library foyer with nothing else going on, or at a village fete where most people are there for the beer, cider and home made jam judging but it is usually a much fresher atmosphere than a wargames show, and it is encouraging that after the usual ‘Eh up, toy soldiers!’ routine, most people are fascinated and often start telling you things about local history, family military events and sometimes a lifelong secret desire to do something with all those Airfix figures they had as children.
Good effort Patrice.
Guy FarrishParticipantI wonder if he has any idea how many ice creams my son can get through in a day?
Guy FarrishParticipantLack of moral fortitude
(aka common sense?)
Guy FarrishParticipantGood question.
Not sure I have a good answer.
I think the company, when it works – its like a dinner party, I may not think the starter was the best and I’m not that keen on the way the vegetables have been prepared and I’d much rather cheese than that horrible sticky sweet fol de rol but the wine was great and the conversation witty and engaging. I even learned a thing or two.
On the other hand the figures can be exquisite, the painting superb, the terrain so lifelike you could be there but if the rules and/or the company is wrong…
I guess I like daydreaming about wargaming as well. When I’m painting or messing about with scenarios or rules I’m writing or cannibalising I like to let my imagination run. Storytelling perhaps. The history (I’m pretty much historical only – my main shift from this being historically based ‘what ifs’.) is also a plus.
But I guess it comes down to people, talking, having fun with people, using the excuse of a shared interest, however tenuous and broad the connection.
So I guess – you lot amongst others.
What a creep! (But true!)
Guy FarrishParticipantAs the Swedish Government in one of John Salt’s nuclear threshold games I can say it was obscure and brilliantly done. I particularly liked getting poker chips as a reward for not shooting down passing Bears and triggering a nuclear holocaust. (deja vu at the moment).
I suppose my most obscure game would be the Campaign in Togoland in 1914 – using Peter Laing figures racing for the HF transmitter in Kamina (against the French- with the Germans as interesting obstacles, although they proved rather more of a hurdle than envisaged).
Guy FarrishParticipantMcLaddie:
Point one – still not seeing a great deal of difference in what we’ve saidPoint two – He is saying specifically that they tried to deploy into line rather than come to contact in column – that this seems to have worked against other nations probably says something about British confidence (for whatever reason – doctrine or not) and French surprise that the British were still there at that point where they needed to deploy. This is a training/expectation issue and as we seem to be agreeing – a ‘national’ (resulting from organisational and cultural mind sets vice racial predisposition) characteristics. Do we reflect this in the rules – we probably should but not in such a way as makes the Brits supermen nor the French pathetic in the face of Brits.
What level – depends on what sort of game you are playing – if you are going for a Divisional game – with battalions as your unit of manoeuvre and decision- you probably can give the British a plus one on morale at being threatened with a close attack – so they remain in position rather than running and can put in the close quarter charge that seems to have so disconcerted the French. If you are playing above this level – Corps and certainly Army level – we should probably just allow the Brits a +1 on brigade combat for organisation in defence or morale if you split this – again to allow them to remain in place where others may have recoiled or fallen to a wasteful firefight.
(My beef with previous ‘national characteristics’ debates has been around ideas that for example British infantry are superior to all other Napoleonic period infantry in everything and particularly their fire combat should get plus modifiers. This , to me, speaks more of 19th century pseudo science of ‘the inherent yadda yadda’ of whoever because of genetic predispositions rather than any actual analysis of what happened.)
Guy FarrishParticipantGuy
;I agree that seeing <em abp=”946″>any discussion of National Characteristics as a sublimated racism is missing a great deal, as is simply limiting such discussions to technological differences. Different cultures, just in Europe, made different decisions about organization, tactics, command structures and military priorities based on their history, cultural norms, current circumstances and a host of other things. They all produced armies that <em abp=”948″>behaved differently under the same conditions. The Germans being ‘steeped in surprise’ is one example.
<p abp=”949″>Any number of historical questions revolve around why armies, soldiers and commanders acted the way they did. Why did the French, to paraphrase Wellington, seem to come on in the same old way over and over again unsuccessfully? The very organization of the Union and Confederate armies had a great deal to do with their resources and political circumstances. A Union army in the Eastern Theatre had twice the divisions and corps of a Confederate army of equal size. It made a great deal of difference in battle. The Confederate army <em abp=”950″>behaved differently in battle than the Union armies. There is nothing ‘racial’ about that.Unless I am missing something we seem to be saying the same thing.
Pretty much –
I think however the Wellington comment about the French is a bit of a red herring – lots of other eye witnesses describe them trying something other than simple column attack – Griffith and others have mentioned it, see Jim Arnold href=”http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/maida/c_maida3.html” title=”A Reappraisal of Column Versus Line in the Peninsular War” target=”_blank”>for example and this may be an excellent example of why we should regard ‘national’ characteristics – even Storr’s perhaps? – with some discretion. They often reflect the prejudices of those writing – even contemporary accounts, as much as reality. That there are some differences between armies that reflect their cultural background seems likely but to what we ascribe these differences precisely we should have a care as historians, especially if our expertise lies in military rather than social and cultural history.Guy FarrishParticipantOn the Computer – Scourge of War – gives you a command eye view (not a map) of a battle and lets the computer sort out the tactics while you concentrate on losing the grand tactical bit.
Krieggspiel
Volley and Bayonet (not Road to Glory which sticks back in load of the skirmisher level gubbins the first edition rightly abstracted).
Anything run with an umpire team that deals with what you wanted your lower level (or higher level) commanders to do. Wargames Developments produced lots of these types of games at one time. The problem tends to be that if rigidly applied it often results in very high frustration for the gamer, which generally they are using the game to avoid or channel away. So if you want realism, go for some of the WD command cell games (you may never see a toy soldier) or command games where you may see them but you’ll be sitting some way back from the table at low (physical not hierarchical) level and never touch the figures, while someone else completely misses the point of your genius manoeuvre and attacks the centre of the British line yet again to no avail.
Peter Dennis and Cliff Knight’s Army level games for Napoleonic and ACW – but beware they are VLB and whilst they purport to put you in the position of the army commander you tend to end up like the chronicler of a battle rather than a participant as you must decide what constitutes the change of situation at all command levels and then feed them back to yourself as c-in-c (get an umpire).
Guy FarrishParticipantI think its easy to deride ‘National Characteristics’ as sublimated racism (and I did when I read Quarrie’s variant of them in the 70s) and utter tosh. However when they are put in a context like Storr did they make more sense (he may have done it elsewhere but this is the bit that made a difference to me:
‘The creation and exploitation of surprise was central to German tactics in the Second World War. It does much to explain the difference in battlefield performance between German and US armies as described by van Creveld. As the Canadian military historian John English put it: “The German Army was, in fact, an army saturated with surprise. Mobility and manoeuvre were but the respective means to effect it in time and space.”‘(Storr, Jim. The Human Face of War, London: Birmingham War Studies
These are not racial characteristics but something flowing from a training regime and a command ethos. The acceptance that all German units performed better than US ones is a big one of course but the idea, for me clarifies something we could seek to include in wargames (whether you want them to be toy soldier, reality free, fun fests or something seeking to have some bearing on reality).
So – when and where? In conflicts where national training regimes can affect significantly an army (or some professional trained components thereof) but not in conflicts where ‘racial’ grouping is being portrayed as the only influence on an army (eg Austrian Napoleonic German units were stolid and slow, Hungarian units were mercurial, fast but brittle). So if an element of ‘nationally’ applied doctrine adversely or positively affects an army’s performance so be it, include it. After all, with hindsight we probably wouldn’t start from the position of the material many generals had to work with.Practically however: what would you do to reflect the ‘steeped in surprise’ of the German army in a wargame? Well you could let it react more rapidly to reverses – organise a counter attack on a lost position faster. Allow tactical manoeuvre faster – not ‘they run faster’ – but the junior NCOs expect and react faster to the idea of counter attack and envelopment as a response to positional loss. This assumes a mechanism to reflect the transmission time of orders and/or the reaction times of commands.
So ‘All French people inherently possess the ‘Furia Francese’, perhaps not. ‘Troops thoroughly inculcated with the spirit of the ‘flight to the front’ using the the pas gymnastique’ perhaps.
Guy FarrishParticipantRe the OP : ‘Have you ever seen a game that used “lingering combats” well? Smoothly? Without major glitches?’
Well, yes but probably because they were at such a high level of resolution that they effectively ignored many of the problems/events you outline.
You say the mythical beast of VLB addressed it poorly.
Peter Dennis, Cliff Knight in assoc with George Jeffrey addressed the issue in their army level rules for Napoleonic and ACW. They did this of course by regarding the arrival of the enemy within 100m and 400yard as a decision point about what sort of close combat took place (in the ACW they proceed to a 100yd tactical engagement if successful at 4ooyds). The length of the engagement is then decided and a time marker placed and the rest of the battle carries on around them. New troops can be fed in (from flanks only) and this constitutes a change of situation and the length and type of combat is recalculated.
When the time of the combat has elapsed the outcome is decided. This means there is no time period for a bound – there are no bounds as such – so is this a lingering combat in game terms? It is in reality and the game represents more or less instant close combat results – one side instantly routs – through to a 40 minute combat where one side falls back at the end (poor troops rout rather than fall back).
It does leave close combat proceeding while everything else goes on around it. I thought it worked quite well – but it takes the combat to a level of abstraction which probably does not satisfy what you are looking for. People I played these with had some other issues with VLB (and I did a little) of not having that feeling of tension as turns tick over and the battle sways one way and another but that is a different issue.
Guy FarrishParticipantTwelve days of Christmas – 6 to go
Guy FarrishParticipantSwizz – I thought I was being a rebel and voted ‘Yes’ and there are only 4 ‘No’ votes
Just shows you minorities shout very loud.Guy FarrishParticipantJust painted a batch of Perry plastic knights – used what I always use to hold them firm – Copydex. It is a latex based rubber cement and always hold figures tight while painting – does not attack plastics or metals and the figure can be ‘popped’ easily when finished for more permanent basing. I don’t know if it is available anywhere other than the UK but there must be similar latex based rubber cements available. The good thing about Copydex is it has no solvent base, and is non-toxic and not harmful to plastic – some rubber cements do contain solvents that may attack plastic so check the contents of other brands. It is used a lot in crafts for sticking fabrics together, including carpet.
Guy
-
AuthorPosts
