Wargames Illustrated rules article

[sharnydubs]

Barry , as always I enjoyed your article in this months WI on rules and rules sets. I too have bought many over the years, most of which have gone unplayed. Why - well in the main for the same reasons as you -
1) I have been looking for good orders of battle / army organisation data
2) I have been seduced by the quality of photographs and illustrations
3) They have been recommended by friends
4) I am a collector
5) It takes time and effort to try out a new set and with many of us gaming only infrequently over the years you tend to stick with what you know.

Having said all that I do have a few favourite sets and a few I will pass on.
Here's my list of favourites
1) Blood and Swash (Buck Surdu) - frankly the most adaptable and simple set of rules I hvae found. Great for quick games and easily explained across all ages. They are not produced ina a fancy format , easily affordable and I have used them ofr Ancients, Colonial, French & Indian wars, Prohibition Wars, WWII and Pirates.
2) WAB - I know they have their detractors but they are well produced, adaptable over many periods, and reasonbly simple to play. I like their OOB's and points systems.
3) Disposable heroes - I'm a convert after our last big game and am looking forward to testing them out for Vietnam.
4) Rapid Fire- my favourite WWII rules. Slightly complex but playable and fast.
5) Wellington rules (Buck Surdu again) - good Napoleonic rules with a straggler system which appeals to me.
6) Republic to Empire (by some Barry Hilton chappie) - having played these more than any other Napoleonic set and been given the opportunity to add my own comments to the continuing design, they are very playable, work with large scale and multiple players, generally very logical and have some nice uniqwue Napoleonic modifications with being too anoraky.
7) Volley and Bayonet - pretty decent set
Brother vs Brother - nice ACW set
9) 1644 - I love the period and these rules.

And my least favourites
1) Most other napoleonic rules sets including General de Brigade( way too complex) , Shako (ok),
2) Flames of War- beautifully produced, well marketed and fast but sits high on my list of "points to argue with the umpire" scale.
3) Principles of War - I'd hoped these would be a good colonial set but was disappointed.
4) WRG DBA, DBM - I know its heretical but they don't do it for me. To mechanistic, chess like, restrictive.

And the major gaps
1) Colonial - a rule set which adequately allows for large numbers of natives (Zulus / Mahdists / Indian mutineers) against smaller numbers of better armed/trained Europeans. Larry Broms Sword and the Flame are probable the best I've played.
2) Naval/land combination - most rule sets are either for land based or naval based battles. Something which combines the two for Pirate games, ACW or Ancients is missing.

So why do we keep buying new sets. I guess we are all looking for the perfect set, the Holy Grail of rules. Production qualities are certainly up but so correspondingly are prices. At £20 a set you think twice before parting with your cash now.

My views on best practice rules
1) Have a good index/ table of contents - it's incredible how many sets don't do this
2) Pageinate - again some many sets have no page numbers
3) Be flexible on basing - I hate rebasing and want my current basing system to work without any changes
4) Provide quick reference tables and charts - essential
5) Provide additional detachable tables and charts and templates - I've just bought the Foundry Medieval rules which give a page for you to photocopy and cut out. Rules sets should either provide laminated / plasti templates (for fire/artillery etc) or try and use already commercially available etemplates (Games Workshop/ Flames of War etc).

[sharnydubs]

Barry , can your new version of the site please include a spell checker !
To clarify - I do NOT think that the Republic to Empire rules are anoracky.

[kutusov]

anoracky no problem

It was the word "uniqwue"which puzzled me


sounds a bit iffy to me

kutusov

[Liam A of E]

I think two of the main reasons there are so many rulesets are:-

There are so many more wargamers all over the world, (back in my day...) so there is a market. Good old kapitalism means products should normally appear to fill that expanding market.

Wargamers come in an infinite variety, and we are all looking for rules to suit ourselves - we may say that we want realism, speed, fun, and so on, but these are our desires, we dont have to be historically accurate or fast. Its just thats what we want. And for every guy out there (I salute you gentlemen) who wants a good, enjoyable game to distract us from the daily toil, there is a rules lawyer who just wants to argue his point and who ruins everyones day. So, lots of rules systems that cater for all. Those who write them tend to write the rules they want to play.

So we have rules we like, and rules we hate. I hate DBM (or dbmm, or dbmmnnnmmnm, or whatever) for what I regard as good reasons. I hate complicated rules - as a lawyer I spend all week with complicated rules, why on earth would I want to go through that in my spare time? But I accept some folk like them, takes all sorts........

I dont have a fave ruleset, but my likes are:-

1. Victory Without Quarter - never had a game that wasnt fun, tests your generalship to the max
2. Rapid Fire - "Nobody likes us we dont care" - a good friend of mine plays a lot of DBM and hates these rules with a passion, as they are so quick and direct, not for chess players. Suits my "Two up and bags of smoke" mentality.
3. WAB - well its miles better than DBM
4. GDB - I actually like these, although more complex than I normally go for.

(Note - havent played any of Barrys rules although like the sound of the Napoleonics)

I agree with Barrys article about the essential elements - Command and Control is the biggie. The best laid plans and all that - but there has to be a rationale as to why your biggest brigade just isnt moving (but not pips arrrgghh). In my book, you are not testing your ability to be a general if everything does what it is told when it is told. And its more fun when things dont go according to plan - otherwise feed all the data into a computer and nip out to the pub while it works out who won.

There was a lot of good common gaming sense in the article, that I am guilty of ignoring becuase of pretty pictures and good procuction values. The trick is, not just to buy a new set of rules, but to get a chance to play them first - is it same old same old, or something new and good? I tend to be jaded and do the latter now. I was in a Glasgow games store recently, and the friendly shopkeep excitedly produced the new Foundry Medieval rules. I glanced with some pain through the nicely decorated pages, and all the cut out chits, thinking, "nice, ooooh, nice", before coming to my senses and handing it back with a wince and a quip "Spence, Ive just started painting Napoleonics in 28, do you really think I want to buy this?"

More Command and Control, less combat factors.

Oh, and Barry, well done for getting the word "twat" into Wargames Illustrated!

[barr7430]

Peter, thanks for the feedback
Liam you sound like a man after my own heart...

I get frustrated with sterile and safe articles which don't challenge people's thinking. Of course we are all creatures of habit but in wargaming terms we often accept passively, ridiculous mechanisms without questions because they are written down in a book. Of the several items I highlighted the one which freaks me out most is Line of sight.
The vertical dimension in wargaming is the least realistic and the root cause of most of the blatantly absurd situations which arise during games.
Oops, I'm off and running again

Incidentally, thanks for the goldstar for 'twat', it was a deliberate attempt to see what I could get away with It is also an extremely funny word and well worthy of being used far more frequently I think. You see, there are so many of them wargaming!

[theoldschool]

Barry
A well constructed and reasoned article. I would argue that there is no such thing as a bad set of rules, only rule sets that we don't like.

I have heard so much BS over the years about realism. At best they are an informed writer's interpretation, at worst they are based on reading the history of the American Civil War on the back of a Cornflakes packet. If it works for you and you enjoy the game then go for it and hang the rest of them.

Me, I just want to play with toy soldiers. Current favourites - 45 Adventure and its siblings, Astounding Tales and Chaos in Carpathia. Realism - pfah! Give me Hollywood.

[j1mwallace]

I also think that your opinion of a set of rules is affected to a large degree by the people who you play against the first few times. I like to read rules sets but can decide after the first 2 or 3 paragraphs whether I like them and the ethos behind them or not. My favourite set of rules ever are Fire & Fury, ACW. I've never come across anyone so far who doesn't enjoy playing them.
I've moved on over the last few years from complex rules to a more simple rules mechanism.
Not to be a crawler but I,ve always enjoyed ULB. Never had a boring game with them. That might be due to the Nish brothers though.

[barr7430]

I'm sitting here giggling out loud Jim after reading your comment about the Dumfries Legends Tam & Derek!

I am an Outlaw as far as Rapid Fire is concerned... Colin talks to me but I think Richard Marsh issued an ASBO on me after I made a few comments in print some time back .
Never really took to RF.
Have always enjoyed WRG 6th Ancients which probably makes me a cheat
Love GHQ WW2 Micro Armour
Hate Gde B
Love 1644
Hate WAB
Love Disposable Heroes
Hate DBM/DBA
Love FoW

[barr7430]

Thanks everyone for the feedback on this article.. there was even more this time than for the X Factor... I think I should stick to comedy though