I like the boiled down scenarios from the book but the last time I tried the rules I wasn't impressed. Dale has got me thinking that I may not have given them a fair shake. So I decided to try them. Dale had been discussing an ancient game and, no longer having ancient armies (I can't believe I just wrote that after 45 years as an ancient's player!!), I grabbed some 16thC Scots and English and used them with the ancients rules.
The army selection gave the English (Blue Army though dressed in Red) 4 infantry, 1 skirmisher, 1 cavalry and the Scots (Red Army though dressed in White) 3 Infantry, 1 skirmisher and 2 cavalry.
The scenario has the Scots arriving en masse at the start of the game except that all units arrive on the single road so get stacked up. The English start with two units with another pair arriving on each of turns 5 & 10. To complicate things there is an impassible hill and a wood which only the skirmishers can move through.
I had hoped that the Scots would roll more skirmishers so that one could flank the English while the other ran fast and nabbed the town which is the objective. Having only rolled one, I sent it to the town.
What followed was a prolinged melee with the dice favouring one side then the other. English reinforcements arrived in time to restore the line and retake the town.
At least in the English counterattack the dice favoured one side over the other through the whole short fight. If the dice hadn't rolled English 5's and 6's vs Scots 2's and 3's the outcome of the game would have been different with the English being too damaged to hold out later if indeed they had had time to break in.
So what did I think?
Well, it was fast, actual playing time was not quite 1/2 hour. In that time I made something close to 100 die rolls and made perhaps 6 or 8 decisions, all important. Since each die roll counted, there was some tension that built towards the end of the game when a few good rolls by the Scots would have reversed the decision.
On the whole, the rules are better than my original assessment. They aren't my cup of tea and I still have some objections on the historical side, for example, most units are allowed one and only one tactic although in many wars many, not all but many, unit types had a choice of tactics and all arms forces are not allowed if using the lists. With those exceptions, when it comes to how the rules play, they work and whether you enjoy their style is a matter of taste.
I decided to reset the table and play the scenario again later using a different period and rules but that's another post.
Hi Ross
ReplyDeleteI tend to think of 1HW as fine for quick pick-up games for those occasions when one wants a game but without too much effort on set-up and with limited time to play.
I also believe that the whole list of scenarios might be good for a 'logical campaign' Starting from 1 and ending with 30. H'mmm... I've read the thing, and played a few scenarios out. I might be forced to get my own copy...
Cheers,
Ion
I've been using the scenarios a lot over the last couple of years, largely since being stripped down they are quick and easy to deploy and play. The rules, well, not my thing,
DeleteI found the rules to be a fascinating study on how far you can strip back rules and still get a wargame. He has taken that right down to the line and it is an interesting exercise in self restraint on rules bloat. I find the rules are easier to apply to the periods that are of perhaps secondary interest as you are likely to be more forgiving of limitations.
ReplyDeleteOutside of that, I think the scenarios will be the most valuable part of the book for the greater audience and that a lot of players will tweak the rules to get 'their' game. I have added morale.
Reading some comments on the internet, people have thrown down a game with these rules when otherwise they might not have put a game on the table and in that regard they do exactly what the author intended.
I like the idea and have been using the cut down scenarios along with my own simple rules.
DeleteSince I like very simple rules it sort-of bothered me a bit why I disliked the rules and lists. The lists were easy to fix, I roll twice on the 3 chart for units to get 6 unit forces that could have all arms. As for the rules, I like games that allow me to make choices without a lot of detail and which don't forbid historical tactics which these do in numerous situations. All of these things could be fixed to my satisfaction with one or at most small tweaks in each era but I'd rather tweak my own rules than mess with someone else's.
I use the standard game for a quick and easy throwdown if I can't think of anything else. I will generally map it onto a historical engagement and pick appropriate forces though, rather than rolling dice as time is too precious to waste on hopeless match ups.
ReplyDeleteLinked scenario mini campaigns work really well with these. I did WW1 over six games, starting 1914 with open warfare and ending in 1918 with tanks, stormtroopers, trench warfare etc.
I've started rolling twice on the 3 unit chart rather than once on the 6 unit chart as it tends to give a better balance and the possibility of all arms forces.
DeleteAn interesting subject matter to me Ross as my current 6mm project is centred around the same book of rules and scenarios. The scenarios are what I most like but I will give the rules a shot as they stand although I also have a couple of other things in mind.
ReplyDeleteI've played the full versions that a lot of these are based on and he's done an excellent job of boiling them down into well balanced scenarios that play quickly. I have started rolling twice on the 3 unit chart to get 6 unit armies though to give myself a chance at an all arms force.
DeleteA hundred die rolls in 30 minutes, that's fairly loosing them off. How are your wrists!!
ReplyDeleteWell practiced!
DeleteOHW has been responsible for getting me back into wargaming so I am grateful to Mr Thomas! The scenarios are fun and the rules are good for quick games but could, in my opinion, do with a morale system or exhaustion point, as they can end up as a fight to the last man which is not always what I want.
ReplyDeleteLuckily these sorts of tweaks are easily added.
DeleteThese rules have been staggeringly popular. People really like them.
ReplyDeleteYes, it has certainly filled a niche.
DeleteInteresting choices. I used the Skirmisher to flank the line of infantry guarding the gap. That allowed Blue to place an infantry in the town, making it very hard to dig out (given 1/4 casualties), but Red prevailed because it took Blue out piecemeal.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that the Red skirmishers went down so quickly, given the 1/2 casualties against shooting and melee. Sometimes the dice just go against you.
I was surprised too! With +2 on the dice inflicting 1/2 casualties they needed 4 consecutive rolls of 5 or 6 and got them. The lights needed to roll 3+ to get a hit with and managed to inflict I think 3 or possibly 2. One more turn was all they needed, Ah well.
DeleteYour thoughts on 2 rolls on the 3 unit chart has intrigued me a lot. I love the scenarios and have had the odd solo game and do enjoy the simplicity.
ReplyDeleteIt just bugged me too much that you couldn't ever, in any circumstance have a balanced all arms force with Horse, Foot, Guns and Light Infantry (or the equiv depending on the period) although they were common in enough in many if not most armies depending on setting and era.
Delete