A number of years ago, having gone through a long phase of using the same style of rules and basing for many of the various periods I wanted to game, I decided to change to having each part of my collection provide a different style of game. I am pleased to announce that the failure of this plan has been recognized and accepted and this goal has been repudiated! More than that, I am immensely pleased and relieved to say so!
The official plan is to revert to having a series of rules, each covering a series of wars that share similar weapons and tactics and which I will play at the same level. This approach allows me to borrow from adjacent periods without this being "contrary to plan". As an example, some of the First Nations units may be used to fight against the British as allies of the French and later as allies of the British. In a pinch, I can even officially excuse my habit of making up discrepancies in an order of battle by fielding units whose uniforms are 10 or 20 years out of date!!
The painting, refurbishing and rebasing of my Century of Conflict collections (1745 1st Siege of Louisburg to the 1848 Battle of the Windmill) is still ongoing and will be for the next decade but "a change is as good as a rest".
 |
| More of the new Hat ACW figures and the first batch of Stone Mountain rail fences, glued at a 120 degree angle to conform to the hexes (more or less). |
Well, a quick check of blog posts showed that the ACW is now the primary collection that has spent the longest time on the shelf since its last battle. By the time I get these Rebs painted I should have decided on a scenario.
Those HAT figures look very nice - very wargamable
ReplyDeleteWouldn't have been quite as exciting in '63 (1963 that is).
DeleteYou couldn't resist the HAT figures? I thought I'd loaded you up with all the ACW you could ever need!
ReplyDeleteYou did but that didn't stem the flow of eager volunteers. What can one do?
DeleteAt a glance, I thought those advancing infantry in kepi were from the Perry ACW line (both very nice!).
ReplyDeleteYes but these are a little shorter :)
DeleteI keep thinking of doing a rules set based on fixed size elements - 60x60mm - that could include more than one type of figure - rules generally don't cope with mixed formations, so a Roman Republic unit could include 3 lines as per 'reality' - now, I've got more (!) than enough figres to do this without affecting anything else. Have I done it yet, even on a small scale?
ReplyDeleteNope.
Well, of course the old single figure approach could handle it :) but it seems to me that some element based rules included Roman line relief, some of Simon MacDowell's but others I can't recall.
DeleteBut are you talking about each stand being a whole legion?
Not really, though could, more a way of making an element based system more able to cope with different formations. Think in terms of lots units getting 'X' designation - so sparabara are BwX with two differently armed troop types on the same base. Here, hoplites and associated skirmishers would be on the same deeper base, or light cavalry and associated light infantry. Haven't really taken it very far.
DeleteEssentially a board game counter approach. The base (counter) has figures (symbols) to indicate what it is and it has factors/capabilities for movement, strength, ranged combat, close combat etc.
DeleteMight be a good approach for big battles particularly to make them playable in reasonable time and get the feel of the armies' capabilities. Maybe bigger bases (eg Volley&Bayonet 3" square bases except 60mm compatible ) I remember for a brief time in the 90's we played with some rule set or other that was element or unit based and didn't counted noses, might have been dba and experimented with counting 4xwrg/dba bases 2 deep as a single unit and doubled all movement and ranges. Looked better. Played the same since we didn't change the rules despite my suggestions :)