Napoleonic War: Peninsular battle

[Blaker]

Are you using 40x20 as suggested or 50x20 bases?

Also, are all of your infantry based 10 figs per base?  Or are lights less?

just wondering how you like the look of your battalions 

[Aart Brouwer]

I've come to the conclusion that WM variants are more 'graceful' than Black Powder.

Can you please tell us why? Im interested.

I play a Black Powder game nearly every week, mostly SYW with friends' models and using BP's excellent Last Argument of Kings supplement. We tweak some of the rules, which is easy with BP (actually the developers encourage it) and one of its huge advantages over other sets I know.

However, I don't know WM. So tell us, darling, what makes it so much more grrraceful?  

Cheers,
Aart

[nikharwood]

Are you using 40x20 as suggested or 50x20 bases?

Also, are all of your infantry based 10 figs per base?  Or are lights less?

just wondering how you like the look of your battalions  

Yep - these are all 40x20 bases...they're all based 10 figs per base - the Lights are denoted by the central / front / command stand being painted as Rifles with the other two stands painted 'normally'

How do I like the look? I love 'em...even though I know I could paint them much betterer now   I have a real fondness for these ones - and my ECW - and my WW2 Germans & US: they're all my first Pendraken armies - bought & painted within a few months of each other...and I'll never sell 'em or retire 'em...

[Blaker]

Very cool Nik.  Have you heard of a SevenYearsWarmaster variant?  If so, where would one look for it?

I was thinking of doing lights with 6 minis instead of 10 per base, what do you think?  I like the look of 10 per base but I was thinking the lights would be in more or less an open formation 

[nikharwood]

Can you please tell us why? Im interested.

I play a Black Powder game nearly every week, mostly SYW with friends' models and using BP's excellent Last Argument of Kings supplement. We tweak some of the rules, which is easy with BP (actually the developers encourage it) and one of its huge advantages over other sets I know.

However, I don't know WM. So tell us, darling, what makes it so much more grrraceful?  

Cheers,
Aart

I knew someone'd ask...  

Firstly, I think that BP is a great ruleset - and beautifully produced: I find myself constantly having it to-hand for flicking through & staring at the eye-candy. It's a nice overview resource and has some nice philosophy etc etc. But...

...I find it a bit vague & unsatisfying...and it's puerile in places I think. I'm not certain that it gives a decent enough attention to some key mechanics that it tries to provide detail for - and everything kind-of-sort-of becomes a bit vanilla - and relies on special rules to give flavour-differential to troop types / nations etc etc...

The thing I *really* dislike is the 'fudge' on command rolls from the WM model...

For me, WM is more graceful [actually, elegant is probably the better word]  - and derivatives, including BKC / CWC / FWC - because for *each* order you're needing to roll a command roll. BP asks you to declare your order [which is a bit sad / puerile / stoopid] out loud [even more stoopid if you're playing solo   ] and then you roll to see how much of that [up to 3 moves] is achieved...for me, that's not decisive enough. I *love* the fact that with luck - and the commander bravery to even try it - you can pull off the kind of stunning outcome that warfare has demanded.

I also like the aggregated overview & simplicity [again, elegance] of the standard 3-base approach to units of WM & derivatives: with the differentials being incorporated into stat lines & some special rules; 'balance' is achieved through limitations on army selection. I like the simplicity of seeing how a unit is deteriorating in combat-effectiveness by stand removal and / or disorder [& not having to track units with stamina markers whilst the on-table size remains constant].

I *love* the decisive combat outcomes of WM - and that shooting is properly treated in terms of effectiveness - and I love the blunder tables & breakpoint approaches. I also love the fact that these are rules that are overtly and proudly written for 10mm [all other scales are playable of course, but even so...]. I also like the simple approach & not needing to buy supplement after supplement of badly-researched & written over-priced gamer-porn supplements.

Beyond all that though, I love that I can remember the 'core' of one ruleset & use it for *all* of my gaming desires from pre-Biblical to sci-fi. Simples.

[I'm turning into such a Grumpy Old B@$tard eh?  ]

[nikharwood]

Very cool Nik.  Have you heard of a SevenYearsWarmaster variant?  If so, where would one look for it?

I was thinking of doing lights with 6 minis instead of 10 per base, what do you think?  I like the look of 10 per base but I was thinking the lights would be in more or less an open formation 

Not sure there's a specific SYWarmaster variant - but the historical-warmaster Yahoo group is your friend; there's certainly a Marlborough variant - and it wouldn't take a huge amount of work to translate what others have done for SYW BP into a WM variant. I should say that I would incorporate the additions / improvements of WMA into my comments re WM above 

Lights would look cool with less figures - I'd probably be tempted to go with 7-8 per base I think: 6 might look a bit *too* sparse? 

[fred.]

Interesting Nik.

I largely disagree, having played lots of WM Fantasy and Hail Ceaser ( with Fantasty army lists) in the last 18 mths or so, HC comes across as the much smoother game.

The HC/BP method "give a broad order and see how much is completed" vs the WM "roll lots of times to keep pushing on". I prefer the HC method, it's quicker for moving the figures, it also allows units to be stranded in the middle of their move, far more then in WM. in WM you can carefully move 14cm one move to ensure you are postioned just so, then 20cm the next to get as far as possible then 13cm in to contact.  In HC you would determine its 3 orders and charge, if you don't get off the 3 orders you stop after the appropriate number of moves. There is no bravery in trying lots of moves in WM, if it's a key unit it will have its own commander so when the commander fails there is no issue.

Imitative in HC is so much better than WM. in HC if you are within imitative range of the enemy you get an automatic move - this move can be any style you like ( within the constraints of proximity rules). In WM you can only react by iniative to units you can see (even though they cause a command minus when they are out of LOS) and the move options are pretty limited.

Markers vs stand removal. While its nice not to have markers on the table, I would rather have wound markers then the fiddiliness and strangeness of the WM stand based combat system.  The role of support is much better in HC. Also the problem of short based shock cavalry goes away.

The multiple round combat in WMF can lead to some really strange results.  I had Dwarfs charged Orcs on a hill, the dwarves lost the first round, the Orcs followed up, and the Dwarves then managed to win the next round by 1 casualty, and so on for several rounds, and then several more, and finally destroyed the orcs. All this time there were several units of Orc cavalry sat nearby doing nothing. In HC one round would have been fought, and then the fight is held until the next turn, during which other units can join in. This has two advantages to my mind, it stops a slightly better unit winning by multi round attrition, it also forces proper battle lines as they can actually support each other ( either directly or in the next round).

That'll do for now...

[Aart Brouwer]

BP [...] relies on special rules to give flavour-differential to troop types / nations etc etc...

Isn't that one of its strengths? In BP you don't need to change the game mechanics in order to incorporate specific situations or troops, you just refer to special rule such-and-such. 

BP asks you to declare your order [which is a bit sad / puerile / stoopid] out loud [even more stoopid if you're playing solo   ]

Meh - you don't do that when you play solo. Unless you're the kind that talks to himself, eats last week's cheese and wears the same pair of underpants for a month.

Seriously, order declaration in BP is s meant as a check on fudgy dudgy, improvised moves of the 'oh wait, now that my grenadiers have advanced I'll have them turn left and fire at the enemy after all' kind. It forces the player to commit himself to a course of action and give a clear order, warts and all, which makes the game more exciting, methinks.

I like the simplicity of seeing how a unit is deteriorating in combat-effectiveness by stand removal and / or disorder [& not having to track units with stamina markers whilst the on-table size remains constant].

I appreciate that, but in BP this is mostly off-set by using appropriate markers (wounded, dead) that make for a natural look. And in BP you get to maintain your line even though it weakens under fire - you don't lose an entire wing off your frontage when your unit takes damage.

I *love* the decisive combat outcomes of WM - and that shooting is properly treated in terms of effectiveness - and I love the blunder tables & breakpoint approaches.

This I truly do not understand. Results in BP are as 'decisive' as they come. I've seen entire brigades wither away under fire within one turn because the player made a stupid mistake. And I've seen division level games player in under two hours time.

I also like the simple approach & not needing to buy supplement after supplement of badly-researched & written over-priced gamer-porn supplements.

Couldn't agree more on that point.

I'm turning into such a Grumpy Old B@$tard eh?  

No you're not, you silly man. You and a couple of others are the salt of this forum. 

Cheers,
Aart

[Steve J]

I just couldn't get on with BP, no matter how much I tried. I agree with Nik and much prefer WMA, BKC et al.

[Aart Brouwer]

I just couldn't get on with BP, no matter how much I tried. I agree with Nik and much prefer WMA, BKC et al.

Exactly what is it that you dislike in BP?

Cheers,
Aart

[Steve J]

Hard to put a finger on it really Aart. It's a while since I played it, but I didn't really like the way the command system worked nor the shooting and combat system, particularly the way the latter was resolved. It just didn't grab me as a rule system.

[Aart Brouwer]

Hard to put a finger on it really Aart. It's a while since I played it, but I didn't really like the way the command system worked nor the shooting and combat system, particularly the way the latter was resolved. It just didn't grab me as a rule system.

I understand. It's not that I have shares in Warlord or something, I don't want to advocate their system at all cost. The truth is that my mates and me are as critical of rulesets as the next guy. However, we find that for almost every criticism BP offers a simple remedy that is easily integrated into the system. BP was developed with an eye to easy customisation. That's why I think it's a real gem. But some things can't be remedied. If you don't like the entire combat system at all, then that's the end of it.

Cheers,
Aart

[Steve J]

As long as you enjoy the rules/game, that's all that counts. I know a lot of people who don't like the BKC et al rulesets. I love them but each to his own .