Forum Replies Created

Viewing 37 posts - 1 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #144173
    Trebian
    Participant

    We don’t normally do Warfare, as it fell within the orbit of Society of Ancients south, and our contacts are midlands and north. We (Northamptonshire Battlefields Society) were keen to get a slot there, as our WotR/ECW areas of interest overlap with that region. My favourite for slightly different reasons is Campaign in Milton Keynes, as it is free to enter for the general public, so you get to talk to people who might not otherwise even think about wargaming.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #144128
    Trebian
    Participant

    When the shows are back, you will often find me for midlands/north shows in the UK on the Society of Ancients / Northamptonshire Battlefields Society stand. Always good to meet up with people in the hobby who you’ve only met on line.

    Trebian

     

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #144126
    Trebian
    Participant

    I am in a similar position in respect of Latin. I did three years of it at secondary school. Alas the medieval practitioners sometimes seem to have had less than that.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #144044
    Trebian
    Participant

    Chris: I shall be interested to read that. Sater cites him as a source. My “work” email is wgfgup(at)gmail(dot)com. It is my regret that I don’t read Spanish, despite having armies from several periods of Spanish history (SCW is up next on my publication schedule). I’d go to classes to learn it, but I spent 7 years at secondary school learning French and I was barely literate in that by the end of it. i will have ot accept that languages aren’t my strong point.

    Graham

     

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143713
    Trebian
    Participant

    Sater’s “Andean Tragedy” is worth it. Moller & Cerda’s “Uniforms of the Pacific Wars” is invaluable. Gerard de Lisle’s “Royal Navy and the Peruvian Chilean War” is an excellent period piece. Graham Evans’ “It’s Getting A Bit Chile” has been recommended by several people as an excellent guide for wargamers.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143657
    Trebian
    Participant

    Also, instead of giving the allies fortifications,

    although the Allies did have fortifications, so they should feature in the game, even if they’re not very good.

    On the resupply point, the Chilean advantage is that they all have the same rifles as well as a commissariat that is half way decent. They looked after their kit better, as well. At one point in the battle some Peruvians, I think, run out of ammunition, and go out and grab Comblains and ammo from dead Chileans around their position.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143614
    Trebian
    Participant

    The discussion has been great. Chris – have you thought about reducing the range of the guns so that only the Peruvian guns have an effect at close range? Recollection is that there is some nasty stuff at close range with the guns and MGs.

    I like your thinking on the extra modifications. I’d be easy on the fortifications as the one reference I remember about them is that they are a bit flimsy. You might want to look at the Allied command structure. Campero had only just arrived and didn’t know his officers, so a delay in Allied units moving might be wirth thinking about.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143575
    Trebian
    Participant

    Make it EVEN more interesting, surely?

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143556
    Trebian
    Participant

    Have you thought about starting the scenario after the initial artillery bombardment?

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143551
    Trebian
    Participant

    I don’t know what the effect of one left shift is. However, based on my reading of Curtis and Sater, if Chilean artillery is a battle winning weapon at Tacna, then something isn’t quite right. The Chileans bombard for several hours and hit virtually nothing. Tacna is an infantry battle. The only argument was whether Baquedano should have tried to turn the flank, rather than rush uphill in column. The Chilean infantry is certainly better (in IGABC terms they’d be Top Quality in this battle), with the Allies being a mix of standard and Poor Quality. I might also class the Allies as having “Old Rifles” to take into account their supply problems.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143512
    Trebian
    Participant

    If the Chilean artillery is murderous, then I suggest that you need to tweak the scenario. Tacna is a real infantry battle. The accounts I have both note that the artillery was ineffective on both sides, the shrapnel shells burying themselves in the sand, for example. It’s a triumph for the quality and commitment of the Chilean infantry man, who prevails despite the typical Baquedano boneheaded frontal attack plan.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143291
    Trebian
    Participant

    They’re nice. Pink is a good choice, as is a red leather type of colour or yellow. That’s a good range of buildings. If I didn’t have my 15mm models I might look at those, as often going one size down works well for scenery in large scale battles.

    Trebian
    Participant

    I’d add my vote too, but can’t find the posting.

    Trebian
    Participant

    You need to have a word with Leon at Pendraken. He has the figures for the 1860 campaign European armies. If he did a Boxer Rising range of Chinese, plus a few packs of Taipings you’d be well away. The Indian Mutiny supplement might be another month. Having decided I could do the job in 2 sides of A4, I find that they have grown a little bit in the writing down process.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143111
    Trebian
    Participant

    I have put Daza on the table several times, with the Peruvians. His Command card makes him almost a hindrance if he’s in charge of the army. I have a figure for him which is mostly gold lace on a big hat.

    BTW You do not know how ridiculously excited I am about the prospect of seeing an AAR written by someone else.

     

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143106
    Trebian
    Participant

    Good combination  of D&G and IGABC. Dave M and I corresponded about converting the land strength points in his campaign game to IGABC battalions. Those Bolivian cuirassiers appear at the back of the table in a lot of my games, before turning round and running away.

    I love the look of that cloth…very tempted.

    You are right about the expense of model railway stuff. I don’t know why railway modellers put up with it.

    in reply to: Wargaming the War of the Pacific 1879 – 1884 #143095
    Trebian
    Participant

    It’s a great period, with lots of colour and interest. Those Tumbling Dice models are super. We have used them several times: Pacific Ironclads. Still searching for the ideal rules, but Dave Manley’s rules from Wargame Vault are a good start.

    I’ve mainly concentrated on the land campaign. The uniforms are colourful, especially if you have the Bolivians. We did a lot of games at the back end of last year: 1879 Games as we were working on our set of rules called “It’s Getting a Bit Chile”, which, I think, are the only set of rules written specifically for the actual campaign, rather than using generic 19th century rules. There’s somew more info about them, plus links on where you can get them here: Wargaming For Grown Up Rules.

    Love the look of those 10mm buildings. If I wasn’t already committed to 15mm I’d be tempted by the Pendraken figures as they are very nice (BTW Blotz do a 15mm wind pump for your Officianas. Might be a bit big, but it’s only £3).

    Best of luck. Looking forwards to seeing some AARs.

     

     

    in reply to: What's your favourite ancients ruleset and why? #126883
    Trebian
    Participant

    Of the generic rule sets for Ancient Warfare, I agree that Armati II are great. Much overlooked, and deserve better.

    My personal view is that most generic sets like DBx, Armati, Impetus even AMW etc were all originally written around the Classical period for Greece/Macedon/Rome and then expenaded outwards. They often give a good simulation for things like Successor battles, but otherwise there’s a bit of “Eh? What?” when you use them for others. They may work as a game, but I’m not sure they’re a great simulation.

    That’s why if I’m doing anything other than Classical Battles I prefer to tailor my rules to the period, and that’s also why I wrote a specific set for Sumerian Warfare and published them: https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/p/wargaming-for-grownups-rules.html

    in reply to: To Ur is Human a review #126843
    Trebian
    Participant

    That’s the Gilgamesh idea I never used. Nothing wasted here.

    in reply to: To Ur is Human a review #126828
    Trebian
    Participant

    You might want to create a Lugal-like “Champion” who increases a units combat rolls. Fiddle with the fear test modifiers with great care. If you add factors directly to the Test itself you may create units that can never lose a Fear Test or never win one. The biggest modifier in the Fear Test is +2 for rolling most dice in combat. You want to ensure that the combat modifiers you give get that +2 to the right side. That table may not look much, but I did a lot of work on the numbers in the bands and the modifiers to ensure there are no certainties either way.

    Let us know how it goes.

    in reply to: To Ur is Human a review #126806
    Trebian
    Participant

    Early Iron Age now? Well, I hadn’t really thought about that, either. You might want to alter the “to hit” scores a bit, depending on what you think the troop classifications I’ve got map on to those you need. I don’t have a classification for warband/medium troops with javelins, but it should be straight forward enough to graft the LI missile rules on to them. My aim was to write very specific rules so I could keep it simple, and as I’ve said elsewhere they may work for some other periods, but come with no warranty (same for my suggestions in this post https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/2019/11/to-ur-elsewhere.html ) as I simply haven’t done even a single game playtesting. I’m nervous about anyone thinking that they can use these straight for something they weren’t intended for, then start a thread that goes “These are rubbish because my Phillistine Goliath figure isn’t covered”, but at the same time excited by the possibilities other people are seeing.

    in reply to: To Ur is Human a review #126753
    Trebian
    Participant

    The suggestions look workable to me, and fit in with how I see late bronze age chariot warfare. Will be intrigued to read how they work out in practice.

    in reply to: To Ur is Human a review #126263
    Trebian
    Participant

    Thanks to OB for starting the thread. Yes, this is the author here, more than willing to answer questions and give support where needed. What OB says above and in the review on his blog is accurate, and I can’t disagree with Mike H’s comments on the Pendraken forum (although I have explained myself in more detail, as he says, but i’m still mystified as to one of the other forum users responses). There’s more on development of the game, plus battle reports, over on the blog: https://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.com/  . The stuff is scattered over about 5 years, but it should all be labelled “Sumerian” or “To Ur is Human”.

    The rules can only be bought on-line via Amazon. They’re only £5, and are available worldwide. I’m often at shows in the midlands area, probably starting with Alumwell next year, the Milton Keynes Camapign, the two Partizans, and Hereward. I’m expecting to be at Joy of Six as well. You’ll usually find me with the Northamptonshire Battlefields Society/Society of Ancients stand. It is likely I’ll have copies with me, but you’ll have to ask as they aren’t a publication from either of those groups, so they’ll be under the table, so to speak. Bring your own brown paper bag.

    Trebian

    in reply to: What's your favourite ancients ruleset and why? #6823
    Trebian
    Participant

    I recently did a refight of Hydaspes back in December, but using AMW: http://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/hydaspes-here-we-come.html

    Porus was played by Richard Lockwood, who is the SoA Battle Day organiser. What I have found with a number of rule sets is that if you up scale the game and use a lot of kit many of the minor niggles in the rules go away, often because the loss of a single unit is of much less importance. Of course, once you do get a lot of units on the table it becomes even more important that the rules are simple and play quickly.

    Trebian

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #4592
    Trebian
    Participant

    Simon,

    Understand your problems. Did anyone object to you photographing their girlfriend?

    As for the masses of terrain, – it’s exactly the sort of place a smart general would not chose to fight against a good opponent, – unless he’s laying the ambush!

    Trebian

     

     

     

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #4407
    Trebian
    Participant

    I have one table, painted the same green as my figure bases. Then I have a desert cloth to go over it for the Sudan and similar.

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #4389
    Trebian
    Participant

    Howard,

     

    Very true on making tables like your own back yard. I catch myself doing it (which is okay for ECW as I live up the road from Naseby*).

    Whenever I holiday in areas that I also game in I try to take pictures of just countryside so I can re-create it better. My AK47 tables changed after going to Tanzania, for example.

    Trebian

    * Actually this is not the case as the land has been enclosed, but it sounded clever when I wrote it.

     

     

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #4388
    Trebian
    Participant

    Allen,

    You touch on a good point, – what colour do you paint bases of armies that fight in both Europe and Asia. The Macedonians start off in Greece (mostly green) go via Persia (mostly sand) and end up in India (green again).

    I ended up just going for green for everything to match my base board.

    Except for those figures on sandy bases….

    Trebian

     

     

     

    in reply to: What's your favourite ancients ruleset and why? #4284
    Trebian
    Participant

    Agree on large & simple. I’ve done some big refights with AMW and they’ve all worked well.

    in reply to: What's your favourite ancients ruleset and why? #4243
    Trebian
    Participant

    Nate,

     

    I agree with you and said so early on. However the sheer volume of HC/WAB is great made me go back to my cave. Good to see someone else agrees with me. AMW is just great to get started and it is so flexible.

     

    Trebian

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #3927
    Trebian
    Participant

    Adam,

    I would say that the great Generals fight on the terrain they want to (which is actually different to what you said). What this means is that say your opponent is able to get terrain out that works to his advantage then you simply don’t fight on it. As for cheesy tactics..well I’d sy from what I have observed of competition gamers it is the use of terrain that brings out the real cheese.

    Anyway, each to his own. The facts are (as stated at the start of this thread) that ancient battles do not tend to be terrain heavy. If you want lots of terrain then by all means use it. Just don’t pretend it’s realistic.

    Trebian

     

     

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #3811
    Trebian
    Participant

    Wingate,

    I don’t agree that lots of terrain is a test of a players generalship. It may test one part of their understanding of the rules, but if it is seriously asymmetrical then it tells you nothing. The classic ancient wargame, chess, has no terrain at all.

    What we all agree is that lots of terrain can look very nice. The danger is that you’re saying “I want lots of terrain on my table. How can I justify it even if it isn’t historical?”

    Trebia

     

     

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #3752
    Trebian
    Participant

    Most terrain generation systems (IMHO) provide unrealistic terrain which players have too much control over. I’ve heard all the arguments about the skill of a General in choosing ground etc and I don’t agree with them.

     

    Despite my last post most ancient battlefields are open. After that the most common terrain feature is a river*.

    Trebian

    * There was an article to Slingshot by Paul Sz analysing historical battlefields and terrain features which came up with this finding.

    in reply to: Ancient Wargaming and Terrain (or lack of it) #3726
    Trebian
    Participant

    I will admit to putting rivers and trees on the edges of battle fields to break them up a bit. However, open plains is where most of the fighting is done. Except for those battles where it isn’t such as Issus and Granicus and Cannae and….

    in reply to: Plastic hoplites #3128
    Trebian
    Participant

    Sondergaard,

    JDS’s recommendation to look at the Zvezda figures shouldn’t be over looked because they come in a box & people think they’re modern Airfix figures and so aren’t proper wargames figures. Look at the reviews over at Plastic Soldier Review:

    http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=335

    http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=1848

    Trebian

    in reply to: Wargaming Rooms #3056
    Trebian
    Participant

    A year or so back I did a number of postings on “Wargaming for Grownups” about building a wargaming shed in the garden then kitting it out. I then turned that into an article in Miniature Wargames earlier in the year. The story starts here : http://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/what-does-wargamer-do-with-redundancy.html and then there are updates every week or so.

    Steve’s got most of it. I don’t have a de-humidifier and as long as the insulation is good you only need a fan heater or two to keep it warm. Carpeting the floor makes a real difference if you’ve got some old rolls in the loft or similar.

    Don’t forget to put in a tea/coffee making area. As for storage under the table…that’s a matter of taste. I was going to do that but like having a table where I can alter the size so we can all get round it.

    Do NOT skimp on the lighting.

    Oh, and have a hat shelf as well.

    Trebian

     

     

     

     

    in reply to: What's your favourite ancients ruleset and why? #2928
    Trebian
    Participant

    Henry,

    For simplicity & cost I’d go with Neil Thomas’ “Ancient & Medieval Wargaming”, using a mixture of Hat & Zvezda 1/72 figures.

    I’ve played a lot of games in your target area (see these posts: http://wargaming4grownups.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Ancient%20%26%20Medieval%20Wargaming), and they play really well. Everyone claims their rules are “fun” and “easy to learn” and mostly that’s because they’ve grown up with them. Hail Caesar may be great, but the rules are buried in a 200 page book. The AMW rules cover about 4 sides of A4 max and are learnt in 10 minutes. Honest. Sure there are holes in them but the system is easy to tweak and if you’re playing with friends it isn’t an issue.

    The figures are based on standard element sizes so shifting to other rule sets is fairly easy.

    Trebian

     

     

     

Viewing 37 posts - 1 through 37 (of 37 total)