Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Back of Beyond => Topic started by: SJWi on May 10, 2020, 06:28:55 AM
-
I am mainly an Ancients/Medieval and WW2/Cold War gamer, but many years ago did venture into RCW and Back-of-Beyond with Copplestone's beautiful 28mm figures. I was inspired by the Peter Hopkirk series of books. The only ruleset seemingly available then was the Back-of-Beyond supplement to "Contemptible Little Armies", and these really didn't work for me. my interest has been re-invigorated by what I've seen on this forum and I'm thinking of maybe dusting off my figures and revisiting the period.
What rules would people suggest for 28mm?
Thanks
PS I've also just bought some of the Empress/ Tsuba German 1918-19 figures plus the 1st Corps Erhardt armoured car.
-
The Perfect Captain ! ===> "Red actions" and the Campaign system "Beyond the river Don" !
http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/redactions.html
And the work of Pigmy Wars!
http://pygmywars.com/gaming/gamingpages.html
-
I use "Setting the East Ablaze" along with it;s wondeferful supplements. everybody needs to find rules that suit them..like a glove or good Chefs Knife..I have many unused rulebooks..sigh...But I feel these rules embody the spirit of the period..and you can always tweek rules to your groups style of gaming..
-
Contemptible Little Armies would work too.
-
Hi SJ,
I haven't actually played any games with my troops yet but I'm planning to and so thinking about rules and therfore in a similar boat to you. Here are my thoughts so far based on what I've seen and read.
Red Actions! looks to be the obvious choice for period flavour and authenticity. Especially if you also use Mark's excellent updates and army organisations from Pygmy Wars. I throughly recommend you take a good look at the Red Actions! and Pygmy Wars links Byblos posted even if you don't play the rules as the information on both sites is great. The RA campaign system is probably quite easily transferred to another system too. The rules are for element based moderate sized battles not really pulp heroics and were originally for 15mm figures but should work with 28mm and single basing quite easily. Infantry units are 10-20 figures or thereabouts. Personally, I had an issue that my club mates had tried some Perfect Captain rules before and while some of us loved them they were a bit involved for those less 'into' the period. Definitely worth a look though.
The next obvious contender is "Setting the East Ablaze" from our very own Ignatieff and his 'League of Extraordinary Kriegspielers' chums. I've got the rules and two of the scenario books which are again great work. There are lots of scenarios, ideas and pictures to inspire you whether you play them or not. The rules are mostly single figure basing and lean a bit more in the fun than simulation direction but seem to cope well with historical scenarios. Units are mostly 10 figures with irregulars being a bit bigger. They are big (very big in the League's case) skirmish rules and judging by the action reports look great and lots of fun.
Some other possibilities I was considering were two of the Osprey series. 'The Men Who Would Be King' are one of Lion Rampant series I think but really for the colonial period. However, I've seen them used for later conflicts too. We played a big Sudan game using these rules last year and it was loads of fun. They are about the same level as Setting the East Ablaze in game size. Maybe a good option if you already like Lion Rampant. https://ospreypublishing.com/the-men-who-would-be-kings.
Another Osprey option is 'A World Aflame'. I don't know much about these but I think they would work too, although maybe for slightly smaller games than the others. https://ospreypublishing.com/a-world-aflame-interwar-wargame-rules-1918-39
A dark horse option is Wiley Games 'A Fistful of Lead series'. Originally a wild west rule set, they have brached out into other periods with great success. I've seen some great looking games played using the various versions from original wild west to other historical periods, sci-fi and fantasy. Each player only has a handful of figures, so this is a small scale skirmish set but seems to cope with multiple players in teams. They have a turn mechanic involving playing cards I really like the look of and I expect the core rules would work well for small Pulp scenarios if you wanted a more 'great game' level of espionage play. They have just brought out a 'Bigger Battles' set too that uses the same core mechanics to reflect units instead of individuals. I'm keen to try these out. https://wiley-games.myshopify.com/
Those Tsuba figures look very nice and I'm just writing this whilst waiting for a wash to dry on my 1st Corps Austin now. :D It's a really nice model, so I'm keen to see your Erhardt when it's done. If the resin needs any slight ajustment dip it in really hot water for a few seconds and it softens up wonderfully for careful bending. Don't scald yourself. ;)
-
I mention “Triumph&Tragedy” and “Fistful of Leads: Big Battles”. Both great rules. James Morris used a lot T&T.
-
Chaps, thanks for the recommendations .I've just downloaded "Red Actions" and will read over the weekend. I have Triumph and Tragedy, Setting the East Ablaze version 1 and Osprey's "The World Aflame". I enjoyed T&T, couldn't get on with the Osprey set ( the lack of a QRS was an irritant), and for some reason I can't recall had a few issues with V1 of Setting the East ablaze. I may buy V2.
The Erhardt is edging closer to the front of the painting queue....
-
SJWi
Mate you probably have not thought of this ..however.. :o :o
We have used WW2 Boltaction Rules , for our Large Multiplayer Games.
They work very well , and actually work far better for this period than WW2 imho .
Try them ..!!!
Cheers
Ps we give cavalry one attack against other Cav , but two against infantry, and the Cav can counter charge always other cav.. works well
-
Triumph & Tragedy sounds interesting but it gets tiring being advised of vapourware. If you want to pay through the nose it is barely available and the company website is now gone and replaced with the usual BS links.
-
One that I recommend is Trumph of the Will. First rules invented by Two Fat Lardies and it looks as if they didn't even proof read them before moving on to something else (none of the game examples, for instance, are actually correct!)......BUT I think they're really well thought out. They capture the peculiarity of civil wars which most rules don't - how morale was crucial and how well-motivated troops could cut a swathe through unmotivated ones.
In the case of the RCW, I also like that they acknowledge the power/importance of cavalry in the conflict, altho these rules cover the whole interwar period.
They're fairly simple and there are some rules which don't work well - the clunky command/orders system particularly - but they can be dispensed with. Like Contemptible LA they are pretty bloody but they don't necessitate singly based figures (a pet hate of mine for purely aesthetic reasons). The rules are cheap and can be downloaded.
You mention adapting the Men Who Would Be Kings. Others have done that but personally I don't think it's ideal. Those rules were written to allow western armies to fight tribal ones and I think they lose their flavour when it's two western armies fighting each other
-
...Oh and one more thing - they don't require lots of markers littering up the table, which I don't like either!
-
One that I recommend is Trumph of the Will. First rules invented by Two Fat Lardies and it looks as if they didn't even proof read them before moving on to something else (none of the game examples, for instance, are actually correct!)......BUT I think they're really well thought out. They capture the peculiarity of civil wars which most rules don't - how morale was crucial and how well-motivated troops could cut a swathe through unmotivated ones.
In the case of the RCW, I also like that they acknowledge the power/importance of cavalry in the conflict, altho these rules cover the whole interwar period.
They're fairly simple and there are some rules which don't work well - the clunky command/orders system particularly - but they can be dispensed with. Like Contemptible LA they are pretty bloody but they don't necessitate singly based figures (a pet hate of mine for purely aesthetic reasons). The rules are cheap and can be downloaded.
Thank you for giving some detail as to what you like about these rules. Many people just like or don't but can't or won't state why. I think I will pick them up but not for RCW, which I like but for larger actions using Red Actions or the Pygmy wars or Cuprum's variations. I want to do more modern civil war or Bongolesia sort of thing in skirmish and ideas on implementing the effects of morale and motivation on those sorts of games sounds good.
-
Very interesting about ToTW - now the biggie do they have Tachankas?
-
Nyet. At least I don't think so. But it has special rules for armoured trains, cheka, priests, commissars, cossacks and ex-Tsarist military advisors, Comrade.
-
Excellent - it wouldn't be too hard to house rule them for Russians and Poles
-
Another vote for Triumph of the Will. As mentioned they really do need to be given a second edition with proof reading and clarifications but if you are prepared to overlook that they have some lovely mechanisms and play well once you got into the thought processes used. Some of the mechanisms are slightly counter intuative which I know puts off some of my gamer chums ( roll lower than the number of figures firing to score a hit modified by the quality of the target rather than the quality of the firer) really clever but takes some getting your head around. Also designed for other itner war conflicts so good for your Tsuba Friekorps.
A number of battles using these on my blog, example below:
https://gapagnw.blogspot.com/2019/05/rcw-far-east-aar.html
-
Excellent write up Roger seems TotW really would benefit from a new edition....once Rich has finished the current 12 projects! lol
-
I love the Lary rules as do most (but not all) of my wargamign chums. Sharp Practice probably being me favourite. By reading between the lines and playin g itn the spirit the rules were meant (I think) we get a good game.
-
I agree. Probably best not rewritten by the creators as the rules will then get 'tea breaks' and other silly in vogue Lardisms. Just adapt what's there already.
-
I use Triumph of the Will also. It does have Tchenka rules. Just specifically for movement only. Interested to know why the Tea Break card is a silly idea?
-
as you say, just a movement distance but you need more than that. How does it fire, how often, hits? They forget to say.
as regards the Tea Break rule, I wasn't questioning the idea which I don't know anyway, more the style. All that sub-Carry On film/Battle comic language about 'Time for A Snifter' and Jolly Good Chap/Absolute Topper leadership tables, or whatever. Not for me
-
as regards the Tea Break rule, I wasn't questioning the idea which I don't know anyway, more the style. All that sub-Carry On film/Battle comic language about 'Time for A Snifter' and Jolly Good Chap/Absolute Topper leadership tables, or whatever. Not for me
Well said ! :)
-
as you say, just a movement distance but you need more than that. How does it fire, how often, hits? They forget to say.
Maybe because they didn't think they needed to specify it's as MG's? Admittedly the rules are very loose, but they are very old now!
-
Perhaps that's so. I'd have thought that in any game rules, a tachanka has to work differently than just being a heavy machine gun that moves at the speed of cavalry. Always seems a particularly flawed contraption to me, not surprised it didn't catch on anywhere else!
-
Perhaps that's so. I'd have thought that in any game rules, a tachanka has to work differently than just being a heavy machine gun that moves at the speed of cavalry. Always seems a particularly flawed contraption to me, not surprised it didn't catch on anywhere else!
It did catch on elsewhere, in a big way. It's just the vehicle is different. The technicals of Africa are just modern tchankas.
The flat terrain of much of Russia allows carts to travel across country in ways that would not be possible elsewhere.
Regarding the rules, I took the ability to move and fire out. You are simply not going to hit anything while firing from a moving vehicle across country. Just as prior to stabilisers, tanks had to stop to fire. Some people believe tchankas often dismounted to fire anyway (you are a pretty big target to everyone if you are going to sit on the back of a cart and fire). Plus you can only fire backwards, so when advancing there is a lot of turning around involved.
-
Tachankas didn't operate like technicals. The big issue is that the MG would face backwards. Tachankas would move forward with the cavalry, but just before the cavalry stuck, they would quickly turn around to bring their MGs to bear on the targeted unit.
They did not continue on. They were very much a product of a particular place and time.
Technicals, like army jeeps with mounted MGs, can fire in the direction they are moving.
-
Yes, only being able to shoot backwards while on the move a crucial difference with the tachanka over technicals. Still, quite useful if you anticipated doing a lot of retreating.
-
So they've improved the tchanka concept with technicals firing forwards. Still the same basic MG on a mobile but unarmoured vehicle though. (Interesting that the firing forward rules them out, but apparently being on a truck caused no problem at all.)
-
I would be remiss of me not put a voice in for ‘Setting the East Ablaze’. But then again, I’m biased. And the supplements have lots of excellent scenarios (only some of which were written by me)
-
I second ,"Setting the East Ablaze"
-
You could check out what we are using in the Interwar forum for the campaign "ACW II New Sacramento Campaign" It is the Osprey rules called "The men who would be king", which is a colonial era set. But we modified it to what we call the men who would be warlord. Armored cars flame throwers etc.
-
How many are working on their own rules for the period?
-
How many are working on their own rules for the period?
Isn't that the same as how many are playing the period?
-
'Triumph of the Will' gets my vote, though I have been tinkering with the armoured trains section for my 15mm RCW. I want to have Train v Train encounters and have trains debouching and supporting troops since a lot of that took place particularly in the two theatres I'm interested in; The Far East bordering Mongolia and China, and Transcaspia...
Here are some thoughts on TOTW and armoured trains. I'd be interested to know if anyone else out there has been thinking along the same lines (pardoning the pun!)
Some thoughts on wargaming with WW1/RCW armoured trains
I've been taking tentative steps to look at how I might use armoured trains on the wargames table. The main issue to my mind is coping with the far greater average length of the train against the need for a mechanism to plausibly deploy the train on the table.
Movement and Firing
My preferred ruleset is 'Triumph of the Will' by TwoFatLardies. However, they restrict firing to stationary trains, but in the WWII rules 'I Aint Been Shot Mum' firing while on the move is permitted. The reason cited in IABSM seems entirely sensible. Unlike other more primitive AFVs, railways provided a far smoother motion enabling easier targeting. Acceleration/Deceleration incurs a penalty on permissible actions as does emergency braking.
In order for spotting to occur weapons should be on-table so off-table barrages are not permitted. Spotting is automatic up to 12” in flat terrain.
The movement rate for trains in TOTW is up to 5DAV per turn with 2DAV acceleration/deceleration. Given the length of trains (a carriage is on average 4", a loco plus tender 6") thus a standard echelon of flat wagon, artillery car, loco & tender, artillery car, flat wagon is around 20" in length. This means that only a high roll would enable the entire train to emerge onto the table in one turn. However, the limited deceleration might mean the train takes several turns to come to a halt and be able to fire by which time it is too close to enemy lines. This seems contrary to the tactical usage of trains.
A phased movement system seems the way forward. By declaring starting speed from the choice of STATIONARY, AHEAD SLOW (up to half movement), AHEAD FULL (half to full movement) subsequent alterations have to cycle up or down through the selection. As TOTW quotes a full speed of 25” I have opted for Full speed at 13”-24” and Half speed at 1”-12”. Markers can be used to indicate ‘Half‘ or ‘Full’ speed and whether the train is ‘Accelerating’ or ‘Decelerating’. No firing is permitted if the train elects to ‘Emergency Brake’ and a train must remain stationary for a full turn while the brakes are manually reset on each attached part of the train.
Rolling stock variation
Since I have 7 types of loco ranging from standard to fully armoured versions it seems churlish not to reflect this somehow in both performance and damage.
Others have suggested limitations on haulage based on motive power. However, motive power is less of an issue since train length on the table will place practical limitations on the number of carriages etc. way before this becomes an issue. Exposed running gear etc. on the loco will however be more prone to damage from small arms and shell-fire and should be reflected in increased chances in damage rolls.
Variation can also be employed on the different types of wagons and armament and used to create a points system. Based on the following examples a ceiling of 25-30pts per train is recommended. This can always be adjusted for different scenarios.
A proposed points system
1pt Flat wagon
2pts Open wagon
3pts Box van or carriage
4pts Loco (plus tender)
+1pt per vehicle improvised defences (sand bags, baulks of timber etc.)
+2pts per vehicle ‘blindirov’ part-armour concrete or plate metal reinforcements
+3pts per vehicle plate armoured throughout
+1pt per vehicle HMGs
+2pts per vehicle Artillery and HMGs
Thus a standard fully armoured train echelon will cost between 25 & 29*pts;
1pt for a flat wagon (x2 sacrificial wagons fore and aft)*
8pts (3pts + 3pts + 2pts) for each artillery car (x2)
7pts (4pts + 3pts) armoured loco and tender
*Further MGs stationed on the flat wagons fore and aft in improvised defences will cost an additional 4pts.
A more ad-hoc train arrangement will cost somewhat less @ 21 to 23pts;
6pts for 2 flat wagons with MGs in improvised defences (1+1+1) x2 fore and aft
5pts (2pts + 2pts + 1pt) open blindirov with MGs only
4pts unarmoured loco and tender (+2pts if partially armoured)
6pts (2pts + 2pts + 2pts) open blindirov with field guns and MGs
You get the general idea… I'd be particularly interested to hear from anyone who has used trains on the wargames table and since one of the scenarios I'm working on is the dustup at Dushak on the Trancaspian Railway... from any members of the Devon Wargames Group, and of course our esteemed stars in the League...
-
Ammunition supply is one reason to disallow firing while moving. They simply couldn't fire off round after round at high rate hoping one would hit. They fired each round to hit.
Trains avoided engaging at short range because it left them too vulnerable to artillery and being cut off. Their advantage was they had better range, so they used it. Rather than go close, they used spotters and fired from distance.
No matter how much you want it, train versus train at tabletop ranges was always the exception, usually when one side had stuffed up badly. In the examples in can think of, it is either a desperate ploy because the fight was going very badly or the engagement had one side desperately trying to leave because it had been caught out.