REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE -Your thoughts genuinely sought!

All matters to do with gaming, painting and uniform information

Buckets of dice or quick mechanic?

Yes buckets of dice please
9
32%
No buckets - something quick and simple
19
68%
 
Total votes: 28
kutusov
Captain
Captain
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:33 pm
Location: Angus Scotland
Contact:

Post by kutusov » Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:44 pm

Hi Barry

I vote for simultaneous moves and a few dice not buckets loads

It also depends on who you are aiming the rules at is it the traditional napoleonic player who IMHO is generally interested in the history and trying to get the feel of the period by building historically accurate formations balanced between the various branches of the army while trying to have interesting and stimulating enjoyable games regardless of winning or losing
or
Are you trying to attract a whole new type of Napoleonic player who is more interested in building a competitive and winning army for a set number of points regardless of its historical accuracy.which is what you tend to see happen with rules aimed at competitions or players of some GW sets of rules.

Kutusov
User avatar
theoldschool
Sergeant First Class
Sergeant First Class
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:16 pm

Post by theoldschool » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:23 pm

This may not be a popular view, but when the plastics hit the streets they will, if previous ranges are anything to go by, attract new gamers to the period and like it or not they will come from Warhammer.

So I think you have a commercial decision rather than a gaming one. If you want to make the rules viable (i.e. a decent return on investment) then it's dice and alternate.
User avatar
Atheling
Major General
Major General
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

Post by Atheling » Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:33 pm

I voted no buckets of dice. However, I feel compelled to point out that the last time I played a Napoleonic game we were using the Airfix rules :shock: :lol: .

Cheers,

Darrell.
Just Add Water High Quality Painting Service:
http://justaddwater-bedford.blogspot.co.uk/
Gawalthaufen Blog (Late 15C Warfare):
http://gewalthaufen.blogspot.co.uk/
La Journee Blog (Early 15thC Warfare):
http://lajourney-bedford.blogspot.co.uk/
Rank Bajin
Private First Class
Private First Class
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:14 pm
Location: Houston (Texas not Renfrewshire)

Post by Rank Bajin » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:43 am

Guys,

don't bracket all GW types with the max the points win at all costs type of gamer.

Most of the WAB guys I know and like play for the fun of the rules and try (within the limits of an ancient ruleset) to play as historical as possible.

Sure many folk go for the cheesey armies at tournaments - but that is the same for any rule set. As for collecting armies - how many french players have a disproportionate number of guard/heavy cav etc in their armies?

I don't think any branch of the hobby is any more historically acurate than the rest.

Points make for balanced pick up games - nothing more. You'll always be stuffed some guy pulling out the best troops from a list - but you don't need to play him all the time (hopefully). Good scenarios make for more interesting games - good players, with an interest and knowledge of history are not the sole preserve of the "traditional wargamer" - power gamers, likewise, are not limited to GW affionados.

A good set of rules should encourage hsitorical play but should also be fun. However at the end of the day, it will be the spirit of the players which will drive how it is played.

personally I fancy an austrian army in the hope my genearlship can overcome the constant backstabbing and political manouverimng of my divisonal commanders.....

all the best

Roy
User avatar
kiwipeterh
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:31 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by kiwipeterh » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:39 am

Count me in the 'no buckets of dice' camp ... but then I've already voted that way so I guess the countings been done! :D

Regarding simulataneous movement - I think that strict simultaneous movement is an ideal that is more trouble than it's worth. Then again a strict 'you go - I go' movement mechanism can lead to predictable (& eventually boring) game play.

Games like General de Brigade get around it by the possibility of getting two moves in a row with it's initiative system. Piquet type games throw any idea of alternate moves out of the window with it's card system (love it or hate it. I tend to love it as long as you can rid the game of the worst of impetus imbalance.)

Salute
von Peter himself
Visit the blog of von Peter himself at http://vonpeterhimself.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Atheling
Major General
Major General
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

Post by Atheling » Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:40 am

Rank Bajin wrote:Guys,

don't bracket all GW types with the max the points win at all costs type of gamer.

Most of the WAB guys I know and like play for the fun of the rules and try (within the limits of an ancient ruleset) to play as historical as possible.

Sure many folk go for the cheesey armies at tournaments - but that is the same for any rule set. As for collecting armies - how many french players have a disproportionate number of guard/heavy cav etc in their armies?

I don't think any branch of the hobby is any more historically acurate than the rest.

Points make for balanced pick up games - nothing more. You'll always be stuffed some guy pulling out the best troops from a list - but you don't need to play him all the time (hopefully). Good scenarios make for more interesting games - good players, with an interest and knowledge of history are not the sole preserve of the "traditional wargamer" - power gamers, likewise, are not limited to GW affionados.

A good set of rules should encourage hsitorical play but should also be fun. However at the end of the day, it will be the spirit of the players which will drive how it is played.

personally I fancy an austrian army in the hope my genearlship can overcome the constant backstabbing and political manouverimng of my divisonal commanders.....

all the best

Roy
Being one of those WAB players that (hopefully) doesn't max out on the 'good stuff' I can second what Roy has said :) .

Cheers,

Darrell.
Just Add Water High Quality Painting Service:
http://justaddwater-bedford.blogspot.co.uk/
Gawalthaufen Blog (Late 15C Warfare):
http://gewalthaufen.blogspot.co.uk/
La Journee Blog (Early 15thC Warfare):
http://lajourney-bedford.blogspot.co.uk/
martin terroni
Captain
Captain
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: The three "J'S"

Post by martin terroni » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:35 pm

Same here, wab is ace! No one in my group would even attempt that. And the rules /lists make you really field core troops, as per the new warhammer. Makes for a very well balanced game. :P
"There's no booze, there's no broads, there's no action!
Liam A of E
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: Your Flank, or Glasgow

Post by Liam A of E » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:14 pm

Ok. Just say "No" to dice. I play a lot of WAB and enjoy it while recognising its significant defects. Part of the reason I started Nappies was to get away from a WABlike system.

I also dont hold with dice being the major factor in deciding casualties. Take artillery for example. Most gunners of the period were fairly professional, they knew their business. Say a gun or battery is firing at an infantry unit. Turn 1, good die roll, 6 casualties or whatever. Turn two, poor die roll, 1 casualty. Why? I appreciate that there has to be a little luck, but if you get your troops at the right range, in the right formation, the damage you inflict should, IMHO be fairly standard, not wildly different depending on your dice roll. Dice rolling should be just one factor in causing casualties, and not the main one.

What is more important is command and control - I like the idea of units not doing what you want them to when you want them to, but not so that, for instance, anyone who likes Prussian 1809 uniforms is doomed never to win a game cos his brigades all go off in different directions! But I think that games should be won or lost on whether your plan is likely to be achieved by the units you use, not whether your opponent rolls snake eyes on the casualty chart. "Where is Grouchy?" is more the thing!

As to simultaneous moves, I am cautious about gamesmanship, but wouldnt let that stop a good system. My solution to that is you play the bounder once and thats it. I would like to see a system where the quality of the commander or the quality of the troops had a bearing. After all, a good commander may get his Landwher moving quicker than a mediocre one got his guards of ftheir packs.....Take those poor Prussians again - there was nothing wrong with the fighting quality of the units, just the High Command were a bunch of duffers. Give them some better commanders and see what they can do on the table! So, its a mix of simultaneous and IGO-UGO, with Excellent commanders activating units, then Guard, then Veteran, then Good Commanders etc etc.

Im also a fan of Card based moves, but thats a whole other dynamic and luck is more of a factor (unless "better" units had more activation cards etc...) which gives a different (but still fun) game.

Anyway, my deux centimes worth. :lol:
Vex me Not, or I will have you dragged awhile....
Post Reply