|
Post by bruce on Mar 15, 2019 0:03:02 GMT
How many of you consistently play with the same rules over time? Do you ever alter them or combine them with concepts from other rule sets? Are you entirely happy with the rules you use? I have had a long and sometimes enjoyable time collecting and trying out various rules these past 5 years. Not always as much fun as I had hoped, but I think solo players might not enjoy learning new rules on their own as much as a group. In the end I am settling with two or three sets that I have liked the most, but it seems I cannot leave anything alone and find myself changing and combining the best features. Every set of rules seems to have some feature that I do not care for or just don’t get. Is it just me? Or do we all tinker with published rules? Bruce
|
|
|
Post by jon1066 on Mar 15, 2019 9:47:39 GMT
Part of the hobby for me is making my own rules as well. So when I can't paint or play I can tinker with rules instead!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Mar 16, 2019 3:52:37 GMT
You make a good point Jon. Writing rules can and should be an interesting and creative exercise. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Mar 17, 2019 23:34:58 GMT
The group I'm part of uses a modified form of Hail Caesar. For those who don't know these are the Ancients rules from the Black Powder stable. Our organiser, Jim, is a rules enthusiast and considers aspects of Hail Caesar to be superior to Black Powder so we play a set called Hail Whoever which has a core which is modified for Napoleonics and several other periods. Jim understands the mathematics of probability and has used this to reduce the number of dice you need for some throws. He has also customised Bolt Action as Musket Action for smaller scale engagements where the dice driven activation system adds interest and another dimension of choice as the order of activation can be crucial. When I'm playing solo I use straight Black Powder and now Black Powder 2.0.
|
|
|
Post by twr on Apr 2, 2019 0:23:06 GMT
In answer to your question, I am very happy with the rules I use. I don’t tend to add in a range of amendments, but rather focus on understanding what the author possibly was aiming at. Sometimes an authors reasoning can be very subtle. I have this approach for the Napoleonic period but also the rules for other periods.
Despite this one of the great advantages about the hobby is there are so many choices, and many of them are excellent.
I have been playing many of my rules systems for a number of years. This consistency has allowed me to slowly build armies, improve the game visuals and focus on the game. It does usually take me a while to settle on a system however. For example it was only after I really decided on Volley & Bayonet, and the level of the game, that my collection started to take really form.
For variety I tend to alternate between periods. So while I have Napoleonic, ACW, FPW etc, these are supplemented by WWII & Modern or Ancients & Renaissance.
I tend to notice locally however that “competition” rules can dominate as some locals focus on the perfect rules system and unfortunately look down their noses at other rules. I am not really drawn to competition play. This snobbery also the case with scales where locally 28mm is deemed the best scale and anything else some how of little value.
|
|
|
Post by john124 on Apr 2, 2019 10:41:21 GMT
I tend to use an older set of rules, ( In The Grand Manner, by Peter Gilder.) I Shall tinker with them based I what Ive read.
1) Larger Villages/towns, based on Ligny where both sides were holding St Amand. The battle of Blenheim where the town swallowed up a fair proportion of the French army.
2) Cutting down on the number of guns in a battery able to fire. This from an article by Chris Cornwall. So for instance a 6 gun Russian battery to fire as 4 guns etc. The Lost guns can be used in a Corps reserve, ( handy if you use ammunition supply rules.) Also the big Russian batteries can be just devastating and can ruin a game. The French infantry marched right up to the Russian redoubts at Heilsberg and took the grand redoubt at Borodino, (Cavalry assault).
3) Just reading Gettysburg July1by David G. Martin in which there is a quote about artillery effectiveness against skirmishers, like shooting at mosquitos with musket balls. So I may make artillery fire against a skirmish line to have no effect.
4) I also at times play, To The Strongest by Simone Miller. In these rules movement is determined by the use of playing cards. So for a straight forward move into a open square you need a 3 ( I Think, but this is just a example). Say you draw a 6, well you moved into the square, but if you want to move again you have to draw better than the 6. I thought these rules would work well with any rules that became predictable and also in solo play.
That's it for now, no doubt there will be more tinkering until the holy grail is reached. John.
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Apr 2, 2019 20:55:14 GMT
The main thing is do the rules provide an enjoyable game? That means different things to different people of course. I want to associate with like minded and congenial people who don't see winning the game as the only desirable outcome. I like Black Powder because it's written in that spirit. I also like its relative simplicity and simple rules certainly appeal.
|
|
|
Post by twr on Apr 2, 2019 21:19:11 GMT
The main thing is do the rules provide an enjoyable game? That means different things to different people of course. I want to associate with like minded and congenial people who don't see winning the game as the only desirable outcome... I completely agree. The group I play have the same outlook. This probably contributes to why we continue to use the same rules for so long. They play well, produce few differences of opionion and provide the level of game or refight we are after in a reasonable time frame.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 3, 2019 3:35:56 GMT
I have never played in a competitive gathering - it is just not something I would seek out. I live in a rural area in any case and would have to drive a ways to join a club. Being better than others at using rules to win is not a primary consideration for me and I really don't get it.
In the days when I played with others, the first goal was good fellowship and an atmosphere of happy escape for a while into some historical narrative around the game. We were entertained regardless of the outcomes, which sometimes hung on a lucky roll of dice or some other random unforeseen factor. We settled any questions with some entertaining discussions around what would likely have happened in reality and were only to glad to exercise some give and take.
For me as a solo player, the rules still remain a means to an end - a happy escape into the world of the Napoleonic era. All the rules you all have mentioned provide the framework to support this goal and have stood the test of time. If anything, I look to simplify things. It's play in the best sense of the word, rooted in childhood fantasy, with a bit of wisdom thrown. Bruce
|
|