|
Post by bruce on Feb 10, 2018 22:10:11 GMT
i know many of us have challenging space issues for gaming. Some lucky gamers have permanent dedicated space, some do not. It's not always a choice we get to make.
I have been lucky to have space and kept a 5ftx 12ft tables for a number of years. But recently, I came up with a new idea based mostly on comfort and laziness. I got a 17 inch heavy duty rotating turntable, like you might put a tv on. They cost less than $20 dollars. I put this on a small end table, then laid a piece of 4x4ft 2 in. thick polystyrene insulation board, strong but very light, centered on top of the turntable. The whole board swivels with a touch of a finger. I added a 4x4 battle mat and a comfy office padded swivel chair.
Now I can spin my table to bring any part of the battlefield to me without getting up from my chair. Great for solo play. This got me thinking about what other designs and ideas for easy to set up tables there might be out there.
And also what do you think is the minimal size table for 6mm, and if you could name your favorite size table, what would it be? Bruce
|
|
|
Post by twr on Feb 11, 2018 5:33:59 GMT
When I first found V&B I spent some time considering the typical historical battles I planned to refight. Gettysburg, Waterloo, Aspern Essling etc. Many required a table 8 or 9 feet in length. However as I planned to use 6mm and half scale, where 1” represents 200 yards rather than the normal 100 yards, 8 feet translates to 4 feet. This was clearly ideal for my standard wargames table and greatly simplified battlefield specific terrain. There are, even with half scale, some very long ridges that need to be modelled, stored, and potentially transported for some battles.
Wagram meanwhile requires two 6’ x 4’ tables even at half scale, though I haven’t refought this battle yet.
Some smaller historical battles however fit on a table that is 3’ by 2’. I’m just been organising terrain for one of these this weekend.
Our fictional Napoleonic games, when we aren’t relighting historical games, tends to be on a 4’ x 3’ table. Though sometimes we have used a full 6’ x 4’ table for some large fictional games.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 12, 2018 5:19:54 GMT
Thanks Keith! Yes scales are a factor in figuring table size and they can be adjusted. I am thinking lately that I often spent a lot of time moving units into contact on my large permanent table when I could have just as easily had them appear closer together on a smaller table at the proper time and saved myself the trouble. I do love big diorama like layouts but for a quick and easy game set up the smaller tables make sense and I can set it up almost anywhere. . Bruce
|
|
|
Post by twr on Feb 12, 2018 5:37:40 GMT
Yes, you can set it up anywhere - even on a turntable You make a good point regarding moving troops on a large table only to have them fight in a small part of it. I think there is a balance. In someways we have this on our normal 4’ x 3’ table where, in fictional encounter, delays getting troops arriving can result in battles being fought in different locations. In these games there are around two corps per side on the table. This is less troops per given area than some of the larger battles. To some extent this “extra space” is perhaps useful in fictional encounters but not as necessary in historical refights.
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Feb 12, 2018 10:11:47 GMT
I recognise Bruce's problem. I also eventually worked out that spending up to half the session moving up units was not the most thrilling, plus usually resulted in having to end without much of a clear result. I tend to use a 6ft x 5ft table, but set most of the opposing armies up within at least cannon range. That way events get going promptly. Any attacking force is usually in contact in a couple of rounds and things develop from then. There is still plenty of ebb and flow, and still opportunities for march moves. In addition, if units are driven off the table, that's it - they're gone.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 13, 2018 4:42:04 GMT
I do think there is a campaign aspect to the large table setting sometimes, but I'm with you David. Let's get to it, units can arrive from the appropriate direction at the appropriate time if they are coming from far away. I am not unhappy fighting portions or certain phases of the big battles. I did this when I realized that the footprints of my Waterloo Leven 6mm buildings were too big to fit to scale on my big table.
Wagram is a massive challenge like Leipzig or Borodino. But these can be fought in stages if space is an issue. We'd all love to see them in a full size set up, but it is a huge commitment in time and space. It might cease to feel like a game at some point. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Feb 18, 2018 20:21:01 GMT
I agree that there is a compromise here between the look and feel of the game and the time it can take to get units across the table. I suppose one could do things like changing timescales to reflect different phases of a battle - e.g. first three moves are manoeuvre phase and everything happens at double speed. Then the world slows down as contact begins. This is me just thinking off the cuff but it strikes me that dual timescales actually do reflect some perceived experience of battle too. Here's something really off the wall - in some naval rule sets when the fleets start to drift off the table you simply move the sea under the ships.....unless coastal shoals are a feature of the scenario the table thus becomes more or less infinite.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 19, 2018 4:50:51 GMT
Yes Prof, this is an interesting concept. In the March Attack rules, there are two turn phases, strategic and tactical. Strategic takes place outside of 9 inches away from enemy units and troops have a faster movement rate. Tactical moves are within the 9 inch range and are slower.
Tim uses March Attack, I think, and would know better than I. I like these rules, but I wanted something with less to remember as a solo player. After a couple of years of going through a lot of rule sets and writing my own, i am appreciating MA a lot more. It also has good skirmish rules, although I still do not get how skirmish areas are determined. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Feb 19, 2018 18:45:30 GMT
Hi, thanks for that. I'm also solo of course and only do Black Powder so have never really looked at any other rules. I think I've said this before but one of the things that constantly exercises me is that wargaming tends to prioritise firepower over manoeuvre and I'm pretty sure that most Napoleonic generals saw it the other way.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 19, 2018 22:42:50 GMT
One of the things that fascinates me is the relationship between manoeuvre and firepower. Even as a solo player I am still surprised at how unexpectedly this can work out. It seems to me you have get enough firepower at a specific point to get a result of some sort, and tactical manoeuvre can get derailed by bad judgement. I have caused a lot of traffic jams in my day and paid the price. This would be the tactical phase in March Attack.
What about flank marches, isolating units of the enemy, holding terrain, etc.? So this is where the issue of not having a big table comes in. Not really broad campaign factors, but whether to send out some cavalry on a sweep to cause some chaos, for example. Again the question of scale arises. What kind of mechanics could allow for a cavalry sweep when the table is too small? You don't want to lose this stuff, and you don't want a game where you just line up and slug it out.
Too much firepower? I agree. And it's effectiveness may get overrated. I think that a loft of units fell apart and ran, even when they had not suffered a lot of casualties, just wondering about what was coming. Morale, or whatever you want to call it. Again, in March Attact, units have a Combat Value that reflects different factors. Many rules do this now. How well a unit can stick it out is as important as firepower. And manoevre under fire seems restricted in many rules, depending on scale and scope. Lots to think about. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by twr on Feb 20, 2018 4:30:26 GMT
One of the things that fascinates me is the relationship between manoeuvre and firepower. Even as a solo player I am still surprised at how unexpectedly this can work out. It seems to me you have get enough firepower at a specific point to get a result of some sort, and tactical manoeuvre can get derailed by bad judgement. I have caused a lot of traffic jams in my day and paid the price. This would be the tactical phase in March Attack. What about flank marches, isolating units of the enemy, holding terrain, etc.? So this is where the issue of not having a big table comes in... One of the first things that hit me with Volley and Bayonet was the movement values. I recall seeing them and saying “well these rules won’t work. Look at how far a stand moves each turn”. I was wrong, they did in fact work. A standard infantry stand moves 16” in an hour or three times this when stretched out on a road. Now we use 1/2 scale, but still in one hour a brigade can move 8” or 24” in road column. The other night I was reading the design notes and this paragraph caught my eye. Frank Chadwick wrote: This design goal all but mandated a ground scale of 1”/100 yards, and a time scale of one hour per turn, and much else followed from that. Troops in road column could march at a sustained rate of between 2.5 and 3 miles per hour, and that’s what road march movement in the game works out to. Field maneuver is slower, of course, because it builds in a lot of “friction,’ – pauses to wait for new orders, realignment with adjacent units, and so on. Still, after cutting the road march movement by a third, new players of the game almost always remark on how big the movement rates are. If you want to have a game where maneuver matters, you need to be able to move.
|
|
|
Post by tim on Feb 20, 2018 13:43:21 GMT
Bruce sorry for the slow reply. Yes the strategic move is a great idea speeds up a game and you can throw in a reserve force to reinforce a breakthrough or move it quite quickly for a flank turning mission (as long as your table is big enough to allow one of course) Regarding the dividing of skirmishing areas you can divide it up by terrain, areas of most action or by units, brigade frontage for example. The rules are a bit vague on this so just follow your gut feeling on what is logical.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 21, 2018 22:40:49 GMT
Thank Tim, both the strategic moves and the skirmish areas make good sense to me. March Attack was always an under appreciated set of rules. It kind of slipped my mind as I have bought a lot of rule sets by now. But it remains an excellent choice. Bruce
|
|