Sunday, January 29, 2017

Meanwhile back in Oerberg

I had to put the 54's away for a bit. They were getting rowdy and suggesting all sorts of changes in the attitude of the  rules, demanding to be treated as individuals, and being given 'proper' morale tests and all sorts of nonsense, not to mention numerous reinforcements. So I confined them to barracks for now and reset the table for a 2nd Oerburg War 40mm game.
Long Li draws a bead on the approaching enemy.
Its interesting how the reversion to a 6" grid has changed the look and feel of the game. One of the old 4 figure units now looks too small but larger ones look like they should have more dice and be able to take more hits even though the current rules take no account of how a unit is represented on table whether 4 or 12 toy soldiers or a single block of wood.   I was almost tempted to give it up and go back to the smaller squares but I like how the terrain, artillery and wagons fit better and I suspect the games will look and play better with fewer but more persistent units than with more small, vulnerable ones and I'll be happier if more of the already painted figures can fit on the table for a game.
The Oerburg lines with some very Oberhilse-ish looking "Volunteers".
The chosen scenario is #1 from Grant's Scenarios for Wargames aka the
"Not Fontenoy Scenario".  It will be played with 1 unit=1 unit except that the 2 gun batteries have been fielded as 2 units each and the light infantry units have been replaced with machine gun units. (No its not an accurate translation functionwise but it works.)

After mucking about with 6 figure units, 2x4 figure units and various other options I have (with great relief) decided to make the original 2014 8 figure units work. Infantry will have 4 stands, cavalry 3 and Artillery & MG units 2 stands. All stands get 1 or 2 (or 3 rarely) dice and can take 2 hits.

I've been futzing about with details and choices and finally realized that I can't cover all the details I want in The Tin Army like detachments, limbering, formations as well as some design notes in a two-sides of a page ruleset version like I've been trying to do. I need to lay out a full set of rules with explanations plus a quick reference sheet, like I did for Hearts of Tin ten years ago. The alternative is to simplify, make consessions, simplify, but I want this to feel like a more conventional game and provide games that last 2-3 hours for an average scenario.  So, confirm the basics then start writing. Good! Its the right season for it.

An overview of the game in waiting.
So when  when shall me, myself and I meet again?
To see the Hurley Burley done,
to see the battle lost and won.

Hard to say, maybe tomorrow, maybe not until next weekend!
Stay tuned.


  1. I must say, I like the 6" grid better, if only for the reason that line can look like a line. In practice it also better enables terrain AND units to co-exist in the same square at the same time to a better degree.

    As always, grid size is a contest over the number of cells that are created on a table, but my own experiments have shown that providing the table is at least 8 cells wide, a centre and two flanks can be represented independently of each other.

  2. A most impressive defensive position!

  3. This looks like a good one!

    Best Regards,


  4. Ross Mac,

    I must admit that the 6-inch squares and 40mm figures look right together, and do allow you to fit both figures and terrain into the same grid area. My own experience is that an 8 x 8 grid can provide and excellent game, and when using 6-inch squares it does not require a huge tabletop.

    I look forward to reading more about this battle.

    All the best,