Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Antonio J Carrasco on March 01, 2021, 07:47:19 AM
-
As many people, I have not the time, nor the space for playing big battles in the tabletop, that is why the bonanza of skirmish rulesets has been a godsend: new projects are measured in dozens of miniatures instead of hundreds; I can make a nice set up with my terrain collection; and it doesn't take two weeks to finish a game!
However, I have started to get somewhat bored lately. It is like all the rulesets propose a model so generic that any historical flavour is lost after a few games. I mean, even if you have "battleboards" or "card decks" that, in theory, should give you the peculiarities of your force of choice, in the end all of them function similarly... Perhaps the only exception are the rules by the Lardies, but those hardly qualify as "skirmish-y", when the model count easily reach 100 models per side.
-
Have you considered writing your own set, for a favorite period?
Many years ago I had to write a set for a club campaign.
Big club at the time, so many 'popular' rulesets. Photocopying was
new & therefore expensive. This all meant rules had to be simple,
i.e. little more than a QRS.
We were doing Ancients & I reasoned it all came down to:-
The unit does what the owner wants, or it doesn't.
It would do what was 'normal' for its type, e.g. Skirmishing slingers
would a) Skirmish (closing or retiring as needed) or b) Get the hell out of there.
They would NOT launch a suicidal charge on a heavy Cav. unit)
Simple test & simple options list and we were away.
Rules do not have to be long & involved. That too can lead to weird results.
I once heard an umpire tell the player, 'I know that result is stupid, but that is what
the rules say!'
What ever you try has to be better than you not being happy.
-
I agree... although I guess it depends how much you expect forces to vary on such a fine level? At a guess, 30 Viking raiders probably wouldn't have much difference to 30 Anglo-Saxon warriors? Perhaps the Vikings would have a couple of Dane axes, maybe a berserker.
A lot of the 'period flavor' only seems to come in at bigger scales? 12 man shield walls or pike blocks aren't really a pike block or a shield wall, just a group of guys clumping into close formation. Skirmish troops vs close-order 'line' rank and file makes little difference when you're in handful sized groups trying to steal chickens or capture a wagon or two.
As long as a game can cater for irregular vs regular (or professional vs amateur if you prefer), some sort of distinction between raw/trained/veteran, and a smattering of period appropriate weapon types, I am honestly not sure what else can be done?
(All that said, I still found it offputting that in legends of the old west the best way to put down your opponent was to give up on shooting at just get into melee...)
-
I agree... although I guess it depends how much you expect forces to vary on such a fine level? At a guess, 30 Viking raiders probably wouldn't have much difference to 30 Anglo-Saxon warriors? Perhaps the Vikings would have a couple of Dane axes, maybe a berserker.
A lot of the 'period flavor' only seems to come in at bigger scales? 12 man shield walls or pike blocks aren't really a pike block or a shield wall, just a group of guys clumping into close formation. Skirmish troops vs close-order 'line' rank and file makes little difference when you're in handful sized groups trying to steal chickens or capture a wagon or two.
As long as a game can cater for irregular vs regular (or professional vs amateur if you prefer), some sort of distinction between raw/trained/veteran, and a smattering of period appropriate weapon types, I am honestly not sure what else can be done?
(All that said, I still found it offputting that in legends of the old west the best way to put down your opponent was to give up on shooting at just get into melee...)
Yep. Perhaps that is the problem: we do not know enough about how they fought -at the small level, I mean- for certain periods, thus we trend to bump together all the lads that whose panoply and imagined warrior ethos were similar. To be honest, I think that many design decisions come down to what the designers believe the players want. Thus even if we know that it is improbable that Danish huscarls with double-handed axes and with mailcoats covering them from head to toe were involved in a raid to plunder a dozen of pigs from a farm, as players expect them in any Anglo-Danish "army list", the designer needs to figure it out a way to include them in the game, although it wouldn't be particularly historical.
But what about those wars for we do have a lot of information? I mean, we have manuals for how to deploy light troops, outposts, foraging parties, ecc that date back the middle of 17th Century. Many of them, I agree, were "unofficial", so we are not totally sure up to what point their recommendations were followed or not, and if the reality had any actual resemblance to them!. However, despite that kind of info, which allows us to follow the evolution of small warfare from the last 200 years of history, we still go with generalities that after a few games -to me, at least- become just the same lads but with different uniforms. I don't know if it is a conscious decision by the designer: I know it is not really historical, but it works as a game (which is a completely legitimate approach); or it is that nobody has bothered to read the manuals and tried to figure it out a mechanic to represent the actions described in them in the table, as a game.
Mind that this is not a rant. I appreciate the new life that games like Saga, Muskets & Tomahawks or Dan Mersey' skirmish rulesets have instilled in the hobby. Mine to start! I also understand that those rules focus on the gaming side of the hobby, rather than in the historical, and there is nothing wrong -quite the opposite- with that approach. I wonder, however, if it would be feasable to combine both, i.e. game and simulation, or is it a hopeless endeavour?
-
I agree with most of what has been written but I still seem to be able to enjoy a period-specific game.
For up to about 10 figures a side I use FFOL, and for anything larger up to about 100 figures a side I use Rampant. Though both systems have period/genre specific iterations, there are of course similarities that ease the mechanistic process. Obviously, I play games rather than simulations, but the level of rules detail necessary to create a realistic simulation is no longer for me..... enjoyment of the figures, of the terrain, of the rules are all important to me (like-minded good company helps too ;) :D).
I do tend to use a single rules iteration for a single project. If I didn’t I can see that it could easily ‘feel’ like I was playing the same games in notionally different periods albeit with different figures. For this reason I have rationalised my projects. For example, as I had Barons War and WotR collections that could be played with Lion Rampant, I sold off the WotR to focus on just the Barons War.
By way of examples, my main interests and their relevant rules are now:
Dragons Rampant = LotR (Osgiliath)
Lions Rampant = 13thC Medievals (Barons War)
The Pikemans Lament = English Civil War
Rebels & Patriots = Franco Prussian War / Battle of Dorking (VSF-ish)
The Men Who Would Be Kings = Low-tech post apoc (Wasteland Warriors)
I’m looking forward to the Rampant Sci-Fi rules coming out, at which point I will decide whether to go with my Star Wars project or sell it and start afresh. My WW2 Airborne Sicily project is also somewhat surplus as I imagined using a variation of TMWWBK with it, and I often ponder letting it go. Which also reminds me that I’ve assembled plastic Arthurian and Saxon armies that I no longer need as I’ve got Baron Wars for ‘that sort of thing’, so I suppose I should sell them as they’re now surplus .....
I’ve also got Old West, Victorian Gothic Horror, Feudal Japanese (Seven Samurai) and 17th/18thC Pirate projects but they are more suited to FFOL variants, and though there is some period cross-over with the above the different rules make for a different type of game.
In short, one ruleset from each stable, combined with absorbing relevant movies/books, keeps me in period/genre.
-
Maybe two bloke's with jammed SA80s banging each other over the melon with 'em, is not all that different from a couple of Vikings doing the same thing with axes?
The first bloke, from either era, dropping a bollock, is going to have a right bad day... in my 'umble opinion?
:'(
-
Not sure I agree. It very much does depend upon the rule set in question.
I really enjoy games of Saga (both Age of Vikings and Age of Magic), whilst for the most part there are very limited types of units you can take and equipment, I love how the battleboards make them play differently. And how the winds of fate are reflected in the dice you roll. Will those Anglo-Saxons roll that pesky helmet? Will they be able to roll it when the need it the most?
The difficulty is that there are two variables with skirmish games typically. Is it to create a faster paced game you can easily complete one or two of in a night at your local club or is the length of time not so important.
Lets face it, skirmishes in most periods of history were far more common than big battles. As folks have said, reflecting fighting styles in skirmish games can be difficult if you are talking about smaller scale engagements. A tortoise for Romans is going to be harder to achieve with a total of 12 chaps running about, especially if some are missile armed auxiliaries. However, their approach to battle will be no different I suspect. Stick together, use the pilums first, perhaps throw some, then make use of a tight group and shields to get close and work as a team to pick the enemy off.
I have just discovered Achtung Cthulhu - perhaps very late it would seem. But that too seems to have plenty of flavour. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be vast numbers of unit types as the Combat version of the game reads like it would work quite nicely as a straight WW2 game if so desired. I'm going to take a look at the Skirmish version later and that seems to have even more character and skills thrown in.
Then there is Slow Death Games with the likes of Star Breach, their new Super Hero game and a WW2 game. All manage to pack in nice amounts of difference to quite a number of factions.
More often than not, I feel it is the scenarios that you can create as players that can offer up a lot of different ideas and challenges. At my club we tried to mimic something along the lines of the Battle of Hastings using Saga. It is clearly doable, we were tinkering and never quite got there but we were coming up with a system where an Anglo-Saxon victory could lead to them following up fleeing Normans to the bottom of the slope they were defending, rather than just the 'S' you normally got. To represent the impulsiveness that led to the Normans winning the day in history.
Saga is perhaps not a great example as an all Levy Saxon army of 6pts still has 70+ models.
The rule sets are out there, I think it just takes people sharing them more so people can see how they work. For example, I have struggled to find a playthrough vid of Achtung Cthulhu Skirmish or Combat.
-
Depending on what you are calling a skirmish game, some "skirmish" games can still have hundreds of figures. The Song of... series is really good for skirmish with just a dozen or so figures per side. You can add personalized traits to the individual or type of figure. This can make the game different.
-
This is why i prefer my skirmish games to have individual characters, each with their own profile that you have to make yourself - It might not be perfect for historical simulation, But I'd far rather fight a pseudo historical battle where my dudes are all unique than one where I have x number of nameless warriors.
as others have said tho, the definition of what counts as skirmish is very blurry. Personally I think SOBAH and inquisitor are skirmish games - games with warbands in the single figure. Once you start grouping characters together into squads or units it all feels a bit...battle-y to me.
-
This is why i prefer my skirmish games to have individual characters, each with their own profile that you have to make yourself - It might not be perfect for historical simulation, But I'd far rather fight a pseudo historical battle where my dudes are all unique than one where I have x number of nameless warriors.
as others have said tho, the definition of what counts as skirmish is very blurry. Personally I think SOBAH and inquisitor are skirmish games - games with warbands in the single figure. Once you start grouping characters together into squads or units it all feels a bit...battle-y to me.
This is why my skirmish set of choice is Pulp Alley. If you're playing with small numbers of more figures which have more care and individualization in their modelling, they should have correspondingly individualized characteristics, no? I feel it's quite relevant as those will matter far more in a skirmish battle than in a mass battle.
For the viking example, if the Danes are lightly armed inexperienced raiders, but they're mainly tall, healthy young bucks looking to impress the local women, while the Anglo-Saxons are a mix of worn out elderly veterans, undersized youngsters, and angry farmer's wives (perhaps some of whom the Danes want to impress!), scraped together after the alarm is raised, there's going to be some very interesting interactions - and the capabilities of the specific individuals involved (perhaps the foolhardy courage of a particular Dane, or the wily experience of the one-eyed, one-armed Saxon granddad) will have far more impact on the battle than the "unit types".
-
Agree with your criticism here, and feel your pain...
One way to get the character and flavour in is of course with scenarios.
Take the simple ruleset Ravenfeast by Little Wars TV as an example see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=macRgkAACBQ&t=1s&ab_channel=LittleWarsTV
- Adding the scenario aspects deepens the enjoyment.
Another way is with narrative and roleplaying elements, which skirmish games lend themselves to rather well. Getting into character as it were can help making pushing tin around a table and throwing dice that much more immersive. Finding new people to play against could also help generate more interest here...
Linked games in a campaign approach can become more immersive too.
Adding traits and playing armies distinct in some way are two other methods perhaps, as alluded to in other comments above.
Take a break and or try something new could be other suggestions...
-
As many people, I have not the time, nor the space for playing big battles in the tabletop, that is why the bonanza of skirmish rulesets has been a godsend: new projects are measured in dozens of miniatures instead of hundreds; I can make a nice set up with my terrain collection; and it doesn't take two weeks to finish a game!
However, I have started to get somewhat bored lately. It is like all the rulesets propose a model so generic that any historical flavour is lost after a few games. I mean, even if you have "battleboards" or "card decks" that, in theory, should give you the peculiarities of your force of choice, in the end all of them function similarly... Perhaps the only exception are the rules by the Lardies, but those hardly qualify as "skirmish-y", when the model count easily reach 100 models per side.
This is a problem plaguing the hobby more and more lately. We have hundreds of generic rule sets all trying to appeal to people with standing collectors or kickstarters on the way. Having an actual universe and uniqueness to it has gone out the window sadly.
-
I agree with Steve,it’s the combination that makes a game,I find the story is the most important,which in my case can lead to a rabbit hole of complex scenery to create that story,however that’s what I enjoy; pictures in my mind if you like. Creating one’s own worlds is a boon, I tend to do this rather than use known sources in my fantasy and sci-fi ,however inspired they may be,for instance Starwars (but never Tolkien lol).
As for historical games; those Viking fellows have been mentioned,look to the sagas,or the vast amount of books written about them,all useful for inspiration and storytelling. A war game is nothing without the ahem,narrative.
-
Obviously, I play games rather than simulations, but the level of rules detail necessary to create a realistic simulation is no longer for me..... enjoyment of the figures, of the terrain, of the rules are all important to me (like-minded good company helps too ;) :D).
I think this is the main point. You have to figure out if you want a game or a simulation.
And perhaps the boring fact is that as far as simulations go a guy with a sword and a shield will perform more or less the same no matter if he was born i Surrey, Hamburg or Timbuktu.
I find most of the period flavour comes from the miniatures themselves, the scenery and the scenario. A simple thing like naming some characters/units and places is often enough to get a story going.
-
Why not create an individual character ( or even his second in command ) for each game you play and then use the usual Bobs as his retinue? You can easily come back to him is you want to see wherever his next mischievous expedition will lead him to?
And yes, play scenario's, that's m.i. the main strenght of skirmish games. Assemble your warband and then roll for a scenario. An extra challenge for your character and it will force you ( and your opponent ) to get a pretty much allround warband or you will find yourself hopelessly underequipped for most of the missions...
-
Good points here, although my question was more in the line if there is any chance of combining simulation with storytelling and competitive playing, in skirmish games (it could be said of any game, but I focus in skirmish or, to be more precise, small action, games). In fact, it was thinking in the line of roleplaying or problem-solving situations -scenarios, if you prefer-. For games set in earlier periods -i.e. before black powder weapons- it is almost irrelevant that you field Vikings or Late Empire Egyptians: they all fight the same in most rules. An Egyptian lad with a shield behaves on the table just the same that a Roman lad with a shield. I get it is almost impossible to do otherwise; after all, we have not field manuals for Rahmses III! It is just natural that designers model the game around archetypes, i.e. on the role that you can imagine it played an Egyptian lad with a shield because that is how men with shields commonly play, as far as we know.
And yet, we know that different cultures have different battlefield behaviours, regardless if they are armed -superficially- the same. For example, we know that Shaka didn't expand his kingdom based on a big technological leap forward, but by changing how were used the tools already in place. Of course, we come back again at the problem of what we know. We have relatively good sources for Shaka's expansion -albeit shouldn't be trusted too acritically, though-, but for other periods we are almost in the dark, as sources are scarce and not very specific on details.
Again, this is not a rant but a try to pick the collective brains of wargamers, with years of experience under their belts! In other words: is it really possible to design a small action/skirmish game that is distinctive, has historical flavour and yet is eminently playable? Or is it that a pipe-dream that would lead to impossible, unplayable complex games?
-
Many years ago I umpired a campaign using 'Science versus Pluck, or too much for the Mahdi'
In the Umpire's handbook it said, 'Remind players that they are Officers in her Britannic Majesty's
Army, and NOT members of some South American Death Squad'
Play to the Role & not the Rule.
Coz Kan, Needn't Ought (Just because a figure can do something, does not mean he ought to do it.)
-
Many years ago I umpired a campaign using 'Science versus Pluck, or too much for the Mahdi'
In the Umpire's handbook it said, 'Remind players that they are Officers in her Britannic Majesty's
Army, and NOT members of some South American Death Squad'
Play to the Role & not the Rule.
Coz Kan, Needn't Ought (Just because a figure can do something, does not mean he ought to do it.)
Oddly I was thinking about those rules too!! Albeit in relation with the posibility of adapting the idea -not the rules- of umpired game to the BEF in Flandres in 1914. I was re-reading Peter Hart Fire and Movement and thought that it could be interesting for a mini-campaign with the players commanding the British forces and the umpire acting on the Germans (my group have not enough Germans, so a solution could be for the umpire to use the models we have almost as tokens to represent the positions of known enemy units). Full disclosure: in part this thread was inspired for the search of a small action ruleset that could be used for that 1914 project! lol
-
‘Congo’ would seem to meet your criteria perfectly. Varied troops, with each having their own foibles, interesting activation mechanics, role playing elements, excellent scenarios, not too many figures needed for a game. One of the best sets of skirmish rules I’ve ever played.
-
Good points here, although my question was more in the line if there is any chance of combining simulation with storytelling and competitive playing, in skirmish games (it could be said of any game, but I focus in skirmish or, to be more precise, small action, games). In fact, it was thinking in the line of roleplaying or problem-solving situations -scenarios, if you prefer-. (............)
Again, this is not a rant but a try to pick the collective brains of wargamers, with years of experience under their belts! In other words: is it really possible to design a small action/skirmish game that is distinctive, has historical flavour and yet is eminently playable? Or is it that a pipe-dream that would lead to impossible, unplayable complex games?
I'd say "Yes", but before getting into the "How" of trying to answer your question: what rulesets did you play (except SAGA, which you mention)?
-
before black powder weapons- it is almost irrelevant that you field Vikings or Late Empire Egyptians: they all fight the same in most rules. An Egyptian lad with a shield behaves on the table just the same that a Roman lad with a shield. I get it is almost impossible to do otherwise; after all, we have not field manuals for Rahmses III! It is just natural that designers model the game around archetypes, i.e. on the role that you can imagine it played an Egyptian lad with a shield because that is how men with shields commonly play, as far as we know.
Yes... and no. Individually yes, but at least you can assume that a Roman (or other regular infantry) would be trained to testudo / shield wall and to keep this formation in movement; a Viking would be able to form a shield wall with his friends but would probablay break formation if trying to move rapidly, and would not carry any complex manoeuvres; other troops would be unable to do it at all (by lack of training, or because of smaller shields) but could still form lines of spears for a while (that's what I think of Pictish warriors). So there are interesting differences of behaviour, which can apply even in small numbers.
-
I'd say "Yes", but before getting into the "How" of trying to answer your question: what rulesets did you play (except SAGA, which you mention)?
Saga, Muskets and Tomahawks, Clash of Spears (not half bad, actually) a couple of FFOL games (which were quite fun, to be honest), Pikeman's Lament (not my cup of tea), Rebels & Patriots (but set in the Napoleonic Wars, not in the Americas) and Sharp Practice, which is more small action rather than actual skirmish. Have read Congo and Donnybrok, but never played them.
-
Saga, Muskets and Tomahawks, Clash of Spears (not half bad, actually) a couple of FFOL games (which were quite fun, to be honest), Pikeman's Lament (not my cup of tea), Rebels & Patriots (but set in the Napoleonic Wars, not in the Americas) and Sharp Practice, which is more small action rather than actual skirmish. Have read Congo and Donnybrok, but never played them.
CoS and FFOL mean nothing to me, but I know the other ones. They did nothing for me, in any case, for various reasons. When you say you aim for "combining simulation with storytelling and competitive playing, in skirmish games" and "a small action/skirmish game that is distinctive, has historical flavour and yet is eminently playable" you seem to aim for the same Holy Grail as I do. My approach has been the following -and has, for me at least, been quite successful so far.
I start with an historical or fictional (I swing both ways in that regard :D ) period that inspires me. I collect and paint figures that fit in this period, because that inspires me as well and creates connection and involvement with the period.
To realize good storytelling as well as competitive play I create scenarios to play. These provide the narrative as well as the challenge. Playing a good narrative scenario is an experience lightyears beyond playing any pitched battle- or pre-generated "save-this-or-that"game. Over the years I have become quite good at writing them if I say so myself but there is also a host of examples to be found to help you with this. So now I have a chosen period as well as a challenging and narrative game scenario.
Then I decide on the rules. The rules will need to produce the feeling that fits with the period. They will need to demand complex decisions and challenging dilemmas (exit Pikemans Lament and Donnybrook) as well as being straightforward enough to be used intuitively (exit SAGA and SP) and will need to produce a well-oiled and smooth-running game (exit M&T). That at least is my definition of "eminently playable".
Over the years I have found a few that usually fit one of my bills. Of the one you mention I liked M&T and SP the best, but both rulesets tend to provide game mechanics that shoehorn the narrative into the game. I like my rules to serve the purpose of a narrative game instead.
So they need to be flexible enough to fit around the scenario and enough of a simulation to produce that "taste" of the period.
Sticking to skirmish I have found that Spectre Operations does this for all modern and "close" SciFi games from 1916 onwards and En Garde does this for anything from the Bronze Age up to and including early firearms. For Pulp and other "cinematographic" periods I am divided between PEWPEW, something I wrote myself, A Fistful of Kung Fu and another Sfiligoi product; Rogue Stars. Congo might be good but for me as yet untried. Rangers of Shadow Deep looks promising mechanically but is a cooperative game.
These rulesets do not necessarily produce historical flavour by themselves as you can still use them to play bland pitched battles in basically any period. But for me the game becomes alive in the combination of the game scenario and the rules that fit that. The rules are actually the closing piece.
So, I don't think you will be able to find rules that are "distinctive, has historical flavour and yet is eminently playable" because no ruleset I have ever played can deliver that all on its own. It is the other way around and you have to add the most important parts yourself. And I am of course aware that "eminently playable" is largely a matter of taste. :)
-
Thanks, Pijlie. It is more or less along the lines I was thinking about, i.e. to move on from the rules themselves to create the tactical scenario/storyline and only then look which rules will be more appropriate to represent the action in the table.
One of the games I did enjoy most was an umpired scenario -not skirmish, but tactical, with a couple of battalions and squadrons per side-, in which we adapted the Kriegsspiel rules published by Reisswitz to our needs. It was confusing, mistifying and very, very funny. I was the Austrian player and my brief was to make a recon in force to my front, to try locate the main Prussian force, and for that I had two Hussar squadrons, one Grenzer battalion and one Grenadier battalion as support, plus two 3pdrs.
First, I managed to make a mess of negotiating the streets of the town where my forces were deployed. It took one hour to clear the chaos, which gave the Prussians time to deploy untroubled. Then, my Grenzers started to annoy the Prussians for the possesion of an insignificant woodlet that I had ordered explored, but that the colonel of the Grenzer battalion thought it was the key of the battle. The action tin the woodlet sucked troops as if it was a black hole! I was soo thinly deployed, with just one of my two Hussar squadrons on the top of the hill that covered my starting line, trying to look tough but ready to bolt as soon as attacked, that the only thing that the Prussian player needed to do to smash my line was charging the solitary squadron, as my Grenadiers were still trying to reach their position, and I would be done; but then, at that moment, the other Hussar squadron, which I had sent in a wild goose chase to the right flank, found the Prussian supply wagons and started enjoying themselves as only a Hussar knows how to... That sent my opponent into a panic and stopped him cold in his tracks, saving my command!
To make a long story short: I didn't accomplish my mission but by luck rather than design also avoided my command being wiped out, which given the fact that the Prussians had the stronger force and had got me with the proverbial pants down, I counted it as a win! All in all, it was a great gaming experience, with a lot of fun and a distinct historical flavour. Problem is that it took a lot of work for the umpire.
-
Yes, those are magical games.
Fog of war is almost impossible to achieve without umpire of software support, I think.
It is however possible to simulate things like looting Hussars of an officer completely fixated on a tactrical objective in a normal game. You could integrate it through attributes like SingleMindedness that require dicerolling to peel someone away from an earlier objective.
There is one ruleset (Fistful of Kung Fu) that actually has rules that enable the players to determine together what will be the effect of certain outcomes, like someone getting thrown through a fish tank or driving a car into a house. Player consensus on "cinematographic" outcomes is a great way in general to create memorable games, although it might not be suited for all kinds of competitive play. But then I am not a tournament player.
-
I hate to pump it so naggingly, but if you're looking for built-in storytelling, Pulp Alley has that baked into the rules in spades.
The rules and character abilities can easily be adapted for tons of other periods, so don't be fooled by the name.
-
To be fair, Pulp Alley is on my shelf awaiting testing.
-
:D
-
I hate to pump it so naggingly, but if you're looking for built-in storytelling, Pulp Alley has that baked into the rules in spades.
The rules and character abilities can easily be adapted for tons of other periods, so don't be fooled by the name.
Another vote for Pulp Alley! We use it to play a lot of different periods and genres. I've found one interesting thing: when I begin a new setting, I'll often find myself using character abilities that I would not have considered at all in a previous setting. It means that the characters and the games feel very different, depending on the setting.
You can see some of the stuff we've played here: https://preacherbyday.blogspot.com/search/label/Pulp%20Alley (https://preacherbyday.blogspot.com/search/label/Pulp%20Alley)
-
I have to agree with most comments here. It's hard for the basic rules to generate the variety you're looking for, it's in the scenarios, in player choices, and in the interaction between the two.
-
For games set in earlier periods -i.e. before black powder weapons- it is almost irrelevant that you field Vikings or Late Empire Egyptians: they all fight the same in most rules. An Egyptian lad with a shield behaves on the table just the same that a Roman lad with a shield. I get it is almost impossible to do otherwise; after all, we have not field manuals for Rahmses III!
From rules point of view, yes. But! Miniature wargames are visual things (for otherwise we would be playing mere board games with chits and maps) and a main part of the attraction pull of the game is the visual "feel" of the era. I personally would argue that visual 28mm splendour of Viking shields, Danish axes, long beards, striped pants etc. always comes first and any kind of rules, or lack of them, always comes second.
Again, this is not a rant but a try to pick the collective brains of wargamers, with years of experience under their belts! In other words: is it really possible to design a small action/skirmish game that is distinctive, has historical flavour and yet is eminently playable?
Battlelust (https://secure.columbiagames.com/ec/process-order.pl?ec_m=cg&ec_c=default&ec_cb=4d586047e70c00096136) of the Hârn line of games comes to mind, easily adaptable to historical medieval backdrop. Or would Knights and Knaves (http://www.hisentco.com/) fit the bill better, as it's a 100 % historical game? For anyone having a look, be sure to check out the author's pieces there on general wargames design. I found them very interesting read.