Forum Replies Created
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/04/11/2021 at 18:58 in reply to: French & Spanish Standards for the Jacobite Rebellions #164243
Thanks both, I appreciate it.
Thanks Mike, appreciate that! More this week, with any luck…
I like the barrows too. Another DIY build from Games Workshop’s How to Make Wargames Terrain.
Once a week, solo, in the garage; once or twice a month on the kitchen table with family. Looking forward to getting back into club / F2F gaming soon.
Useful, many thanks all.
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/30/09/2021 at 10:03 in reply to: Fighting Retreat at El Perez – A Polemos Ruse de Guerre Refight #162448
No worries. I think pretty much all of the things that were ‘issues’ in 1e Polemos Napoleonics that weren’t ironed out by errata or the 2e have been resolved in Polemos Ruse de Guerre, pretty much because if you play the Polemos rules long term then you have to get there. Glenn’s take on it isn’t the only way things could have gone but they are an effective way. Things that were a bit wonky I thought were the re-deployment rules, the definition of a ‘force’, some of the outcome rules, some of the physical mechanics (how troops appraoch and line up and such like – the bit that DBx pays a lot of attention to defining) and the interaction/timing of the rallying rules. Every one of those is clearer and simpler in RdG. Sometimes that comes at a cost, at least potentially – the weirdness of outcome moves is essentially avoided by not having outcome rules, so to take Waterloo as an example, you won’t get an ‘uncontrolled pursuit’ by the British cavalry – in effect, in RdG terms, the player as Wellington decided to rush on, rather than the troopers. Similarly, there is no automatic advance after successful after winning a close combat. What this does is make winning and losing the tempo even more important than in other Polemos games, since rushing a vacated position or getting defending supports into place will be more a matter of the tempo than the combat results. And so on.
The thing about the command radius I never found myself, in Polemos Napoleonics. Sure, you can avoid the command radius rules and penalties by having all the divisional commanders huddle around the C-in-C, but if you do that you forego the combat bonuses and free rallies you get from having the commander with the troops – that is not usually worth it, in my experience! The optimum strategy of course is to huddle the generals around the C-in-C then disperse them to their commands just before the fighting starts but if you can pull the timing of that off great, you deserve the minor efficiency bonus…
Ruse de Guerre is specifically designed for horse-and-musket conflicts in North America from the FIW to then end of the War of 1812, where the cavalry simplification is more obviously a good move, but since Glenn is in the Toronto club they use RdG for the full range of ‘Black Powder’ wars. It is easy enough to add in different modifiers for a wider variety of troop types though.
This would be prejudicial against those who consistently roll high or low. We write rules that deliberately vary between high and low as a good result, so, for example, that combat is high and morale is low.
Does any player genuinely consistently roll low? Or do some players just remember their low rolls more?
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/26/09/2021 at 10:36 in reply to: Fighting Retreat at El Perez – A Polemos Ruse de Guerre Refight #162274
Agreed on the virtues of a clean table. I tend to only use obtrusive markers now when I am trying to make them visible for some reason (perhaps to explain them in a blogpost). It really is one of the few advantages over a boardgame.
And speaking of subjective, do you usually use Ruse de Guerre as opposed to the Polemos Napoleonic (either scale) rules for Napoleonic warfare in Europe? I don’t own Ruse, so I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about the differences and strengths of it?
I use all three. Once a month I will be using Ruse de Guerre typically, since that is the ruleset that the Napoleonic Miniature Wargames Society of Toronto uses and I attempt to play their monthly scenario using the same rules.
Ruse de Guerre is an evolution of Polemos Napoleonics, since its author, Glenn Pearce, used the latter a lot and they were gradually changed and amended largely but not entirely as a result of play experience. RdG is set more at the scale of General de Division than Marechal de l’Empire. The play is considerably smoother, mainly by eliminating a lot of the outcome moves and by a little bit more precision in the consitution of forces and in the way certain actions are performed (particularly reorganisations). This also makes the sequence of play more intuitive.
Firing at range is considerably more effective in Ruse de Guerre – offensively destroying enemy forces by fire is a viable option in a way it really isn’t in Polemos Napoleonics. It uses d10s, so the results are somewhat more swingy too. Although somewhat changing the performance of infantry, the real change is in the value of artillery, which is muich more effective than in the Napoleonic game.
Ruse de Guerre reduces the differentials between troop types compared to the Napoleonic version, both in reducing how many there are and in the effective of being better. The maximum viable swing between infantry units in RdG is really +2 on an opposed d10 roll (Raw Line Infantry vs Well-Trained Light Infantry), whereas in GdD it could be +5 on an opposed d6 roll (Raw Infantry Skirmish Rating 0 vs Veteran/Elite Guard Light Infantry SK2). All cavalry is ‘cavalry’ in RdG and is either Raw, Trained or Well-Trained – and that is it. No faster moving Hussars, no better fighting Cuirassiers per se. It is a bold call but actually works surprisingly well.
The command structure in RdG emphasizes the ‘force’ which tends to be the regimental or brigade commander (although might be a battalion commander for certain scenarios), and these commanders are rated separately, whereas divisional commanders are not; whereas GdD emphasizes the divisional commanders and makes brigade or regimental commanders an undifferentiated group.
My ‘first thoughts’ review is here. I could do another review since I guess I have played maybe around 20 games now, but I haven’t got enough new to say to make it worthwhile yet.
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/25/09/2021 at 09:57 in reply to: Fighting Retreat at El Perez – A Polemos Ruse de Guerre Refight #162262
Thanks very much Ian, appreciate it. I like those rivers too – perhaps a little Ladybird-book blue, but the varnish really gave it a decent ‘wet’ look.
Happy enough to play them; not happy enough to stick with them regardless of developments, with the possible exceptions of WRG 1925-1950, Nuts! and Five Men at Kursk.
Thanks very much both. That is quite a flavourful order of battle and a rather different size of overall forces than the other sources Guy, so very interesting indeed. One of the Polemos:ECW authors has kindly commented, so that may be worth a look on the post if anyone is interested.
Thanks Tony, I appreciate it. Castles on the table seem to be a must for this particular conflict!
Haha, thanks both!
Luckily for me this was a relatively straightforward encounter – although it need some luck and a liberal application of healing herbs and some good luck to make sure that my losses weren’t severe in this one…
Done a few bits and pieces lately, including some simple 28mm fantasy terrain:
And some 6mm Napoleonics and Thirty Years’ War:
Many thanks, both. Very kind about my representation of Lincoln, although I would like to be able to do better in future (although there is another report coming with the same set-up).
You are very welcome Guy. I think I mentioned it in the post, but the calibration of these rules is excellent – the guy clearly had a good understanding of what the relevant factors seemed to have been in the fighting. I think you could sit down and do some number crunching and get rid of most of the percentages and make the probabilities more digestible (and thus the game quicker) but that is 90s thinking onwards, I think gamers liked the narrative feeling of the numbers of casualties and so on back in the 80s.
I could make a decent game out of “Savage Way…” when I was 10, so they can’t have been that confusing or difficult. But you do need to impose some kind of superstructure on the ruleset which is almost entirely lacking to answer the questions: what order do I/we do things in, and how do conflicting actions interact with each other?
Those assumed hit probabilities do pop out a bit!
One question, is there a typo in the line in the second table: M1A1 at 2km against the kill probability in the 330 line? I can’t think why it would go up to 63%?
Thanks Mike, I appreciate it.
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/14/07/2021 at 22:14 in reply to: Adding to the penetration formula collection — or not. #158922
Thanks very much for posting that John, very useful for getting an estimate into the right ballpark.
What are your thoughts? Easily transferable from fantasy to strictly historical?
I am still playing 1e at present so my comments refer only to that, but…yes, really easily. You would have to re-jig a couple of the enemies (remove the sorceror’s magic powers, the monsters and the undead), change or get rid of a couple of items and then you would be good to go, I think.
Thanks both. I will just let the dice take them where they may for the moment, in tandem with finishing off my 28mm terrain making project.
I will have a look, many thanks Steve
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/11/07/2021 at 19:50 in reply to: Adding to the penetration formula collection — or not. #158767
I am awake, so you need to post the results.
And an e-mail sent, on a related subject!
wo out of 64 enemy aircraft destroyed may not seem a lot, but it is better than any of the British GBAD missiles. McKinstry’s point about lowness and slowness is borne out by the fact that neither small-arms shootdown was a fast jet. [Edited to add…] Having just had a gander at British losses, small arms are actually the best-performing air defence means the Argentines seem to have had. Of 8 air kills, the scores are Roland 1, Blowpipe 1, Pucara 1, 35mm AAA 2, and small-arms 3, bagging two Gazelles and a Harrier (although the Harrier was a long kill; Sqn Ldr Jerry Pook was eventually forced to bail out because a bullet had caused a fuel leak). Again, small arms do better than any of the GBAD missiles.
That is actually really, really interesting. Many thanks.
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/05/07/2021 at 14:26 in reply to: Modern Russian snippets — fireteams, arcs, tactical intervals, nerve gas #158486
Thanks very much for those snippets John, interesting and useful. I was quite taken with the “Rifle group” and “Weapons group” division.
A pal of mine stayed in my old TA battalion long enough to go on exercises in Poland. One of the things he commented on as remarkable was the attitude of the range safety officer on the Polish training area they were using. This was just after the wall fell, so the safety rules reflected Warsaw Pact practice. The Western visitors were told that they could do whatever they liked, but please not to use nerve gas on an open range without written permission.
I know it is very wrong, but that one has had me in stitches…
On a much smaller scale of cultural difference, I do remember an officer of my acquaintance being asked by a Rumanian officer how many sniper rifles his military police detachment should bring (on a peace-keeping operation)…
I think I did Quatre Bras, Ligny and Waterloo one year (for the 200th anniversary)? I don’t typically do it though – if I were to, I’d be using it as a memorable focus date for finishing the project as much as anything else.
Some Baccus 6mm War of the Spanish Succession Foot:
These are the new sculpts rather than the older ones. A couple more shots here, plus a few bits of what I have been up to stuff.
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/27/06/2021 at 16:10 in reply to: Imagination Tiberian Milice de Reserve Rioja battalion #158153
Thanks for replying. It did help, in that it helped me to figure out a better place to look! In this edition (1e) it is mechanically a re-roll ability on the ‘Adjust Threat’ chart.
All the best
Thanks Jack. Mine is a little way off, since the project grew the wrong way around – partly your fault for the inspirational campaigns and battle reports over the years!! I realized I could follow a platoon (in 15mm) and a company or so (6mm) from most of the major combatants from the beginning of the war…but that means I want to add Poles, French, Japanese and Chinese too. So I reckon another few months yet, since the ones I don’t have are largely the ones to get onto the table first!
Most of all though, I just want to get really back into figure and board games – most of my gaming time recently has been spent on RPGs and video games (my eldest two prefer them), which is fine, but I prefer the more tactile and analogue stuff.
With all the effort you have been putting into Vietnam and WW2, I am surprised you even have time to consider Napoleonics – more power to you!!
Lovely looking stuff Jack. I have been working on something pretty similar myself…
Nice looking game.
Odd isn’t it? You’d have thought a business valued around quarter of a million would have quite a few customers about wouldn’t you?
I was surprised by that figure (doubtless from my ignorance). Is that typical for companies with similar levels of history and presence, I wonder?
The map for Red Storm doesn’t include much of East Germany, so I’m postulating a scenario where NATO makes a major effort to degrade Pact airfields as much as possible, hoping to establish air superiority from the start. I fully appreciate the implausibility of this! However, Red Storm is a good rule set and I’m interested to see how this plays out.
Isn’t this what happens in the actual Red Storm Rising novel, without NATO needing to initiate hostilities itself?
You are right, that seems a pretty reasonable deal.
Seems pretty odd behaviour. Whether you like the show or not it is hard to see how anyone’s life is improved by this kind of thing. How would the complainant’s life be better if Sean stopped? My life on the other hand, and those of the other listeners, would be worse.
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/14/04/2021 at 18:14 in reply to: Identifying Different Manufacturers’ Shermans – Help Wanted #155107
Ah Leicester, of course.
https://hereticalgaming.blogspot.co.uk/11/04/2021 at 09:13 in reply to: Identifying Different Manufacturers’ Shermans – Help Wanted #154961
I’ll stick on the extra photos here to save people going to the blog:
Martin – could the one on the right of photos 1,2 & 3 be Lancashire? It looks a bit cruder than the rest
Yes, the Baccus Sherman is noticeably bigger than the other stuff – but since their figures are a bit bigger too, that is probably fine; they should work well with Adler’s figures too I think, but not so much with the older Heroics and Ros and Irregular tanks.