Forum Replies Created
I think he means TMP.
And I thought there was a rule here about using bad language!
Shame on you, Mike!!
I have long been a believer in mostly fielding armies with a range of morale/ability levels.
I do like a Guard unit, supported by a few veteran line battalions and even more militia-quality troops.
Gd’A encourages this approach.
D, I’m not sure if you have a copy of General de Brigade, as this covered the aspect of attempting to change formation when close up to the enemy. Basically the unit had to pass a “Formation Test” in order to successfully complete the manoeuvre, a fail meant the unit become unformed. I did tinker with a complete ban on such formations changes with GdA, but in the end settled for simplicity – but why not introduce a Discipline Test for such manoeuvres once a unit is within musketry range and see how it works? DB
I confess, I’m a tinkerer. This is no reflection on your excellent rule set. I’ll see if I can sell the idea to my pals and give it a whirl.
Thanks. I’ve had my share of colour-correction issues: famously, my ‘licorice all-sorts Gauls’.
“Model making is not a crime”
huh? You should my efforts. They’re criminal.
I hope this doesn’t sound as if I’m carping: why is the terrain so dry looking?
Obviously a great looking game but I’d’ve thought a greener battlefield?
He’s a talented lad, Alan.
As I’m doing a lot of thinking about Campaigns, it strikes me ‘Rommel’ might be a good vehicle for the big picture stuff before getting down & dirty with ‘Blitz Kreig Commander’.
I hold the Little Wars people in some esteem & if they say ‘Rommel’ is good, well it is.
You “shamelessly plug” away! Anyone posting photos of such a nice looking game has nothing to apologise for.
Jacob: I’ve looked at your blog many times. It’s good.
I would also see your posts at N.Other Forum. I’m glad you’re here.
“The table is too large”.
This made me laugh. How many times do you hear that about a wargame (my overcrowded games at least)?
Thanks for the AAR: enjoyable reading.
I’ll admit it’s got me interested.
the ‘Little Wars’ people have covered the game in two videos:
Hope I don’t get rebuked for advertising a manufacturer’s wares 🙂
Surely not. Such a thing would only happen in some sort of bedlam, run by a crackpot…..if one existed.
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.
Replaced for several hundred decades with ELAN. These were recently replaced by ‘General d’Armee’.
With a toddler, There is great productivity to be had if you can harness those 10 or 20 minute pauses on the day, napping or .
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?
The problem with pro-painted figures is that if I didn’t get my entire army thus painted, my very ordinary painted units would stick out like the proverbial.
At any rate, a return to painting focusses you wonderfully.
I’m leaning towards the 7YW….partly because I don’t have a single figure left to paint.
It always impresses me how some of the oldest wargames publications remain some of the best. !
Having read Wells’ “Little Wars” a couple of years ago, I’m not sure any new set of wargames’ rules are all that different. Take away the match-firing cannons, of course.
. I wonder if you might not try enlisting the help of remote commanders for the strategic moves in your campaigns while playing the battles out yourself.
I’ve thought about this but it would just mean fewer face to face games with my pals: their time is limited and anything wargames’ related cuts into their finite leisure time. I think this will be strictly solo.
Good luck finding silvery-bronze paint 🙂
I can’t find any but luckily Vallejo or someone makes bronzey-silver paint.
Lots of stuff to chase up: thank you, all.
One of the positives of all this solo stuff is there are no deadlines. I can progress as quickly or as slowly as I like.
I’ll nail down the map first & then buy a nice book to use as a a Campaign Diary in the next week or so. Or maybe the week after that.
Not my periods but I would have said the same. Should be some suitable board games out there. Plus many from defunct companies can be found and printed out at your local office supply place. BTW AZW? Anglo- Zulu maybe?
Forgive me if I’m a little full of myself, but I was surprised there was no reaction to my recent posting on my Page thread.
Apologies. I have your excellent site bookmarked. It is a fantastic source.
I have a large-ish 1812 Russian army but it is, unfortunately, heavy with cavalry & artillery & comparatively light on infantry. This may change soon as it seems Strelets are starting to release suitable scaled figures of some quality.
We wish to fight Borodino or Smolensk some time in the future. I am also partial to the Campaign of 1813 (lots of armies, the French aren’t overwhelmingly good etc) so your site will be an invaluable resource.
I’m wondering if these plastic figures might suit?
They’re F-P soldiers but @ 1/72 are any differences going to be significant?
Even discarding the “wave your guns in the air” figures, there’s enough in reasonable poses to fit my requirements & at a cost that is a fraction of metal figures.
They’re all turban wearing but I have enough plastic kepi heads to enable appropriate surgery.
Always good for a smile, Harry.
That’s a nice looking game.
Bright red, green, yellow shields. Maybe too bright. Did the Huns have shield patterns? Something painted/stuck over the colours?
It’s certainly possible in TSATF to incorporate shootys into stabby units; a friend does this regularly, to allow each player an opportunity to both shoot and stab. It does dilute the firepower, but as someone said, “a Zulu with a gun is a Zulu without an assegai”. OTOH, I played in one such game in which one of two shots from an impi killed the senior British officer. Such is TSATF.
At one stage, I tried this. The shooting prowess is so low that only an entire 12 figure unit of Shootys has any real chance of hitting their target occasionally. Indeed, adding Shootys to a Stabby unit diluted its effectiveness in melee. For the Zulus: lose-lose.
I presume the rules take into account that the shooty Zulus generally have smooth-bore muskets instead of Martini-Henry rifles?
“The Men Who Would Be Kings”, so yes.
In past games, what happened was you tended to shoot several times and hit nothing but every once in a while, you’d take out several British. Given the disparity of numbers, every British figure is vital. When playing the British, I would make it a policy to deal with “Shooty” units as quickly as possible.
Direct volley fire at them from outside their effective range, send a mounted unit to deal with them, direct the precious few guns to target them etc.
The “Stabbys” would get some respite when this was happening so “Shootys” even if hitting no-one, had this beneficial outcome.
Could we move to arrow heads? I would think the only reason for using bronze ones is the relative ease that accompanies casting.
A well knapped flint or obsidian arrow head would be lighter & potentially sharper than bronze…..but much longer to produce.
Mike: I’m assuming your Sumerians make full use of stone & bone in their weapons?
Geoff, I could not find your “dull reading”: I read such articles with a lively interest. Thank you for the links.
I take it from the articles that Late Bronze Age Hatti produced tools & weapons made of iron in appreciable, if small, amounts. No doubt this was mostly soft iron, not much better if at all to bronze.
Some was meteoric but it seems, given the quantities, that some was smelted. Regardless, my chariot prince, no doubt a favourite of the Storm god, will carry an iron tipped spear.
“the “cool Bronze Age gamers” (whoever they are!)”……aren’t all BA gamers cool by definition?
What a comprehensive response. Thanks, Michael.
I’m glad to know things are, all in all, travelling well. The site & you are deservedly respected in our circles.
Thanks. I will go with the 72nd PA lot as I suspect will have quite a few fez-wearing, red-and-blue units.
Indeed, as my pals & I build ACW armies, it’ll be hard to avoid having 7 or 8 regiments of Berdan Sharpshooters.
Excellent stuff. I gave my Nap. Austrian army away a few years ago & reports like yours make me regret it. donald
Shame! Repent! Shame!
I have a Late Prussian, a Russian, 1815 British-D-B armies & nearly enough French to take them on, combined.
The Austrians were superfluous to my needs. I think.
Excellent stuff. I gave my Nap. Austrian army away a few years ago & reports like yours make me regret it.
Thanks, DH. I know you don’t approve of our “Nightfall” mechanism. donald
It wasn’t that I didn’t ‘approve’, it was that it seemed to me like a ‘blanket’ approach when a more discriminating one might have been better, or more akin to a reality of sorts. It was merely a suggested mechanism.
I see your point. I do, BTW, come here for the informed comment (such as yours), so thanks. I daresay if we do it again, we’ll try to refine it so a set of criteria may be useful.
The Royalists had the advantage at the end of Day One & we were careful not to reverse this. The game ended, as I said above, in their victory. I would imagine that in a more competitive group than ours, if Day Two’s results had of ended with a Covenanter/Parly victory, there’d be some noses out of joint.
I assume they’re wealthy professionals; hence the club house, disposable income & time to game.
Certainly, as long as they care to make videos, I will avidly watch them.
If I might be permitted a small triumph, in spite of having my Covenanters and my pal’s Parliamentary armies soundly thrashed by the English & Scottish Royalists?
The far right of the photo shows the raiding force of a poor Horse unit and my Moss Trooper light Horse that successfully sacked our opponent’s supply camp, drew off & occupied two of Montrose’s Horse units, a Dragoon unit & a unit of English P&S, and none the less survived the battle intact.
It’s a bit like speaking about how well England did in the Tea break during the last Ashes match against Australia but I will take any positives I can.
Thank you, Roger.
The one aspect I am unsure about is how effective C&C would be as night (or, DH, the “gloaming”) falls?
It may well be the intent for an army commander to break off & re-group but how capable was an ECW general of having his intentions communicated to all his units?
I was also wondering about any superstitious dread of fighting at night in the period that might overawe any tactical advantages. These were men who, after all, believed Rupert’s “Hunting Pudle” was a demon Familiar.