Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Colonial Adventures => Topic started by: FifteensAway on April 09, 2023, 06:56:41 AM
-
Finally played in a Men Who Would Be Kings game today, drove over a hundred miles one way to do so (and play with old gaming friends).
The Verdict. A bit of 'blah' I'm afraid. Lots of very cool ideas in the rules but some 'mechanical' elements that just didn't seem to work right for me. And one element in particular that, at least for me, was a thorough failure. I hope I understand the intent of the 'activation' process, remove the 'god'like player control which is good. But every unit, every turn (excepting, of course, the free actions) having to pass an activate roll greatly reduced the 'enjoyability' factor of using the rules. I don't think a unit with no threat or obstacle before it and no damage done to it by its opponent should end up 'dead in the water' for multiple turns based on a die role. That defies both logic and historicity in my opinion.
This doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the game, I did. But I think the rules missed some key marks and that has turned by attention back to Fistful of Lead: Bigger Battles as my leading contender as an alternative rule set. So, I guess I need to give those rules a try in a colonial setting which is what today's game was.
Sadly, this was not my opinion alone but a general consensus, for varied reasons, that the rules had issues - and this from more experienced players of the rules than myself. Not that they can't be made to work with some Significant Adjustments. And none of the issues were a result of the game master and his tweaks of the rules. It was core elements of the rules as written that presented problems.
Oh, well. At least I got to game with people I haven't seen in a while but have gamed with off and on for decades. And a couple of new faces, too.
-
Activation rolls - seems people either like the concept, or really really don’t like it.
In TMWWBKs the activation roll lottery is massively toned down due to all units having an automatic pass activation. Compare this to all the earlier period Rampant rules where everything is an activation roll.
I assume that Warmaster, BKC / CWC, or Black Powder / Hail Caesar aren’t part of your gaming history?
Can I ask what size of game you played, as your comment about units unaffected by the enemy, doesn’t really tally with my experience of TMWWBK games, as they normally start with everyone pretty close together. So even if no firing has occurred the presence of the enemy is known, and that can cause units to hesitate and spend time observing and planning (things that failed command rolls can mean are happening to me)
-
It was a larger game. Five players, several units per player. One side assaulting a walled compound. But except for the first few inches onto the table, the attacking units were in range of opponent fire.
This activation issue for me - in this and other rules - always seems to be a 'fun' subtractor. Yes, of course, in 'real life' it can happen that a unit fails to advance. But as a player in a game when too many of your units too often fail to advance, the fun disappears. And that was the most strident complaint - it just wasn't fun. Part of that was the scenario but that wasn't the issue for me, the scenarios design - one or two small tweaks for a very easy fix. It was the activation issue. And it wasn't all of my units all of the time. I actually inflected the most damage on our opponent inside the compound until the last turn or two. But it happened so often to all of the players, on both sides, that it just spoiled the enjoyment.
Another part of the rules I'm not sure I like is the Pinned mechanism but that is a reserved judgement - it didn't 'spoil' the fun but it definitely did not improve it, almost seemed like all it really did was slow down the action.
In its favor was that, overall, the game did play fairly fast, even with so many players running so many units, probably had over 30 units on the table through the course of the game. So, its not that I wouldn't play the rules again - but I would opt for other games with other rules if that was an option, say at a convention.
-
The chance of failure with activation systems I think it the really hard bit to get right.
With Warmaster and the Rampant games it can often be 40-50% chance of a failed command roll. Other games such as For King and Parliament and To The Strongest, its about 10% chance of failure for a simple order. Our home-brew fantasy rules have a base 10% chance of order failure, with around 40-50% chance of getting 2 orders off.
I don’t recall finding the activations a problem with TMWWBKs, I think as the auto-actions help a lot. We did find them quite fun, and chaotic games, and seemed to give the natives a fair chance. The Pinning mechanism is certainly something that a lot of people mention, the author’s view is that it is intended to allow the Europeans a chance to stop the attacks by fragmenting them.
-
While I recognise and understand the points you raise, can’t say they’ve really spoiled any of the many games (of all sizes) of MWWBK that we’ve played.
We have adopted a few house rules in respect of both Activation and Pinning, some in general and others theatre-specific to mitigate the effect without removing the uncertainty of a failed roll at a critical moment - such as when your Zulus are testing to Attack the British line.
For example, we give Fierce units (and any others whose primary tactic is to engage hand to hand) an additional +1 dice modifier when testing to Attack. Similarly, units Moving on a road also get a +1 modifier and, if part of a column, only the lead unit has to test in order for the whole column to move.
We assume that Tribal Infantry automatically Go to Ground when Pinned (usually renamed Shaken) and some troop types are allowed to withdraw a half move before testing to Rally, giving them a better chance of getting out of range/sight of the enemy.
Small tweaks like this don’t add to the complexity of the rules but do make for a more balanced game.
-
"I assume that Warmaster, BKC / CWC, or Black Powder / Hail Caesar aren’t part of your gaming history?"
Except for Black Powder - which I dislike - I have no contact with any of those other rules.
Another element that I didn't like when reading TMWWBK was the fistful of dice but that wasn't as bad as I thought - especially using dice rolling trays so the dice weren't all over the place. But, generally, seemed like excessive dice rolling in the system. I like the random element dice bring to miniature gaming - used judiciously. Maybe a bit too much here.
I do recognize a lot of people seem to like the rules but it doesn't feel like they took off to a high degree. Not sure if it is in second place to Sword and the Flame for colonial gaming or has edged them out a bit. Another rule system that has good points and drawbacks. Personally, I really dislike the melee mechanism in TSATF while others think that is what makes the system.
So, as said, I will either lean into Fistful of Lead or maybe just use Rank and File for "larger" colonial games.
I will at least, if the best available option, give TMWWBK additional tries.
-
I look on MWWBK as a good starting point for colonial gaming - robust core mechanics that allow you to tweak them to better represent your understanding of the particular period you’re playing without adding undue complexity.
We’ve had great fun with them, especially playing large American Plains War and Zulu War games with hundreds of figures per side - Boxer Rebellion will be the next ‘new’ project though we’ve still got several more Zulu refights planned (Khambula, RD and possibly Hlobane as well as a rerun of Isandlwana)
I quite like the ‘buckets of dice’ approach rather than endless tables of modifiers, and I’m with you on the melee system in TSATF which is inevitably dated in its approach, however much they’re loved.
-
Hi All
Today I played my first test / get to know the rules game against Mr Babbage. Babbage deployed two spear and sword armed Hadendowa bands (each 16 warriors) in front of two units of Naval Brigade and a Gatling gun.
Mr B didn’t get around to deploying any more units (I got too wrapped up in the mechanics of the unfolding action), while the Hadendowa got pinned and, unable to rally, one band routed and the other was gunned down at long range really quickly – even though the Gatling crew failed an Action test, and only one of the Naval Brigade units opened fire. (All of which was quite good for me, as I got the hang of the rules.)
But, it left me thinking: should a tribal unit that gets pinned be allowed an option to go to ground? It seems to me that this is likely behaviour. Perhaps on a roll of the dice? Would this be a factor of leadership? (Seems to me it would be more about the desperation of self-preservation.) Also, I notice that pinned units ‘do not block line of sight’.
So I found this interesting:
We assume that Tribal Infantry automatically Go to Ground when Pinned (usually renamed Shaken) and some troop types are allowed to withdraw a half move before testing to Rally, giving them a better chance of getting out of range/sight of the enemy.
I posted my thoughts (above) on the TMWWBK Facebook group, where it was suggested that giving pinned units additional cover, requiring three hits for each casualty, may be a remedy, reflecting going into cover, while allowing the pinned unit to continue to be targeted at long range.
I think the half move withdrawal is an interesting idea too, and seems likely behaviour.
I liked the action / activation for the most part, although I wondered why a crewed weapon wouldn’t have firing as a free action. I liked the ‘buckets of dice’ too.
I am going to have another couple of small games tomorrow, with different unit types (itching to deploy my 19th Hussars).
Cheers
JJ
-
:
I liked the action / activation for the most part, although I wondered why a crewed weapon wouldn’t have firing as a free action. I liked the ‘buckets of dice’ too.
I am going to have another couple of small games tomorrow, with different unit types (itching to deploy my 19th Hussars).
Sounds like you had a good test game. I think crewed weapons don’t get firing as an automatic action as they are fairly complex and slow to reload (at least compared to rifles of the period). And certainly Gatling Guns and the like were notorious for jamming.
-
@fred
I did enjoy it … and I learned quite a lot really quickly.
Since machine guns have the possibility of jamming when throwing the dice for hits I am wondering about skipping the activation for them, but keeping it for artillery pieces.
Cheers
JJ
-
Jack,
Amongst our (many) rule tweaks, we’ve given Artillery ‘Fire’ as a free action (for the reasons you give - it’s what they do) but also add limber/unlimber as a (tested) action. We still make heavier artillery test to Reload (representing possible delays) but give them larger crews and/or more dice per crew depending on the theatre.
Early MG’s also have to test to Unjam, it’s no longer automatic but we make it more difficult for later ones to jam in the first place.
As I said, the rules are a great ‘toolkit’ for adding a few house rules to the core mechanics to bring out a bit more of the unique character of particular campaigns - our ‘tweaks’ to the American Plains War ran to 3-4 pages (posted to the MWWBK FB page and, I think, here in a previous thread) and really added to our enjoyment of relighting Little Big Horn and Rosebud.
-
@sjwalker51
Ah! Yes! Limbering and unlimbering. I have modelled Jack Tars hauling a limbered Gatling gun, so this would be a good one to include.
I haven’t modelled a dismantled screw gun on mules or camels yet … and here the assembly / disassembly is a factor.
How does your testing for limbering/unlimbering work?
Cheers
JJ
-
This discussion confirms my use of TSATF. Why anyone would bother with another set of colonial rules is beyond me. We just had an eight-player game of the TSATF variant TSINA. TSATF and its variants are very flexible and give a fun game and best of all no activation.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/59568506@N02/albums/72177720307223054
-
Hi All
I have a question concerning Mr Babbage’s deployments:
When a unit appears on the table is that all it does, or can it undertake an action too?
That is, is deployment the end of the turn for that unit?
In my second test game today I had two tribal (Charger) units deploy within short rifle range and Speed value range of two KRRC units. I immediately played these as having Actions (from Table 2: Native Actions), and both charged home. The KRRC units (in close order) were severely mauled in the ensuing mélêe.
If deployment was all that could be achieved, the KRRC units (in close order) would have Volley fired, and likely stopped any attack.
I suppose another question is are Close order units allowed Volley fire on enemy units that are close enough to charge to contact?
Questions! Questions!
Cheers
JJ
-
JJ,
Regarding limbering/unlimbering: it’s simply another (tested) action (we also apply the same principal to screw guns etc that have to be unpacked and assembled).
Limbered Artillery can move more quickly than man-handled (we usually say 10” for simplicity but heavy artillery not usually seen in games is limited to 6”) but timing when to unlimber or limber up in the face of the enemy is nerve-racking sometimes.
We allow Babbage-controlled units to take an action as usual in the turn they deploy, for the reason you give - in your example, the units have ambushed the advancing Imperials before they could react - and there’s always the risk of them failing the Attack test and being hit by the KRRC volley fire in the following bound.
-
@sjwalker51 Great! Thank you!
That’s all very helpful.
Cheers
JJ
-
Hi All
I have a question concerning Mr Babbage’s deployments:
When a unit appears on the table is that all it does, or can it undertake an action too?
That is, is deployment the end of the turn for that unit?
In my second test game today I had two tribal (Charger) units deploy within short rifle range and Speed value range of two KRRC units. I immediately played these as having Actions (from Table 2: Native Actions), and both charged home. The KRRC units (in close order) were severely mauled in the ensuing mélêe.
If deployment was all that could be achieved, the KRRC units (in close order) would have Volley fired, and likely stopped any attack.
I suppose another question is are Close order units allowed Volley fire on enemy units that are close enough to charge to contact?
Questions! Questions!
Cheers
JJ
I'll try and explain how I believe this works
Native units appear on the table as a result of movement from one of your units. So for example if one of your naval brigade units moved and triggered a native unit's appearance you would place that native unit straight away on the table if you had a 2nd Naval brigade unit they could shoot that unit of natives as their action. Once you had completed all your units actions it is the natives turn and they could charge home.
As a unit can't move and shoot (except under skirmish orders) in the same turn and movement triggers native units to appear. A unit that triggered a native unit can't also shoot that native unit until next its next turn though units that haven't yet been activated in your turn could.
No idea if that makes sense lol
-
Thank you!
I am now re-reading the rules, which, on the basis of two test games, I now have a bit of a mental framework for.
I hope to get another test game in later today.
Cheers
JJ
-
Re the OP; TMWWBK is a great set of rules allowing us to play a full game in an evening that is entertaining and has the right feel for the period, we play it with house rules similar to others mentioned that cover the two points to which you refer and they do not break the system.
1. We make activation more common by simply using a 2+ activation roll for most units, a natural one is always a fail, on a fail units may Go to Ground if allowed or retire a half move.
2. All Pinned units retire a half move and Go to Ground giving them better cover (even if they do not have the fieldwork trait, self preservation is a first priority 🙂), if they fail to rally each failure reduces their Pin Level by one (minimum is always one). Also on the turn they rally they may carry out a half move of fire with half fire power.
Works for us.
-
Captain Darling,
Thank you for your reply - and bringing the conversation back towards center. I will play the rules again but I was just not as pleased as I hoped to be with the rules. And it seems everyone that plays them has modified the rules to make them 'work'. Says to me they were not properly play tested which I think is a common issue with Osprey rules. For me, they will be a second tier set of rules. Probably keep my focus on Fistful of Lead and its Bigger Battles variant for lesser actions and stick with Rank and File for large scale actions.
-
Cheers 15’s.
I would not say the rules don’t work and I wouldn’t belittle them and say they are a sandbox they are more than that, what I would say is since I first war gamed in the 1970s there is not one set of miniatures rules I have ever played that I have not House Ruled in some way…
🤔
-
Can't say I've modified the core rules in anyway I really like them and have no problem with action rolls. I have added plenty of special rules to help give a period feel to my various Darkest Africa forces, not every African tribe fought the same way after all, but then this is actively encouraged by the author. For me the best thing about TMWWBKS is the Mr Babbage rules that allow for for really good solo gaming.
-
Captain Darling,
Thank you for your reply - and bringing the conversation back towards center. I will play the rules again but I was just not as pleased as I hoped to be with the rules. And it seems everyone that plays them has modified the rules to make them 'work'. Says to me they were not properly play tested which I think is a common issue with Osprey rules. For me, they will be a second tier set of rules. Probably keep my focus on Fistful of Lead and its Bigger Battles variant for lesser actions and stick with Rank and File for large scale actions.
They were quite extensively play tested - I was part of the testing team. Obviously I can't speak for my fellow testers but I played a lot of games and sent feedback in, much of which was acted upon.
My gaming group does not house rule anything in the core rules, but what we have done is to tweak traits to be more 'theatre-specific'.
No set of rules is perfect and TMWWBK is deliberately designed to be 'cinematic' in scope and also fairly easy to pick up and play. As a result, some mechanisms are designed to enable that. Also, the author does encourage players to 'own' his rules and to make little changes or tweaks to improve their own personal gaming experience, which I personally applaud, having become disillusioned with 'tourney-play' rules that are like some draconian ancient law where anything outside RAW is punishable by death!
I personally love the rules but I've said on many similar threads here and elsewhere that I fully acknowledge they won't be for everyone.
-
guitarheroandy,
As a play tester then, a sense of how many play tests were completed? And were they full on games or bits and pieces to test mechanics or some combination thereof? I would think "extensively" play tested would, at a minimum - and after mechanics tests by the dozens, be a couple of dozen full on games with at least some of them, near the end process, completely "blind" play tests where the gamers have zero familiarity with the rules and find them, in the main, playable (though not without issues - no rules without at least some challenges).
Only rules I can think of that played without modifications were Volley Fire by Mike Nemechek (sp?). I think what kept those rules from rising higher than they did was their reliance on fractions. Too many math averse people out there and fractions are the great bug-a-boo for those folk. For those who are going to raise DBwhatever, I say 'ick' - version what, 39 now? lol
-
guitarheroandy,
As a play tester then, a sense of how many play tests were completed? And were they full on games or bits and pieces to test mechanics or some combination thereof? I would think "extensively" play tested would, at a minimum - and after mechanics tests by the dozens, be a couple of dozen full on games with at least some of them, near the end process, completely "blind" play tests where the gamers have zero familiarity with the rules and find them, in the main, playable (though not without issues - no rules without at least some challenges).
Only rules I can think of that played without modifications were Volley Fire by Mike Nemechek (sp?). I think what kept those rules from rising higher than they did was their reliance on fractions. Too many math averse people out there and fractions are the great bug-a-boo for those folk. For those who are going to raise DBwhatever, I say 'ick' - version what, 39 now? lol
I can't tell you how extensive the playtests truly were because I was only a part of it. I just remember a sense of the process being well-organised judging by the communication we had with Dan at the time. I didn't play against other named testers: I took the rules to my usual gaming buddy and my club. I played a lot of full-on 24pt games, testing out the mechanisms and scenarios. As I say, most of these were with my most usual gaming buddy but a few were played at my club with players unfamiliar with the rules. After each game I emailed in to the author with any comments, queries or points arising and at various points over the few months we were doing it, a revised version would hit the inbox. Minor tweaks really at that stage and those that arose from various testers and their games not just me, obviously.
I think one of the reasons that players do tweak the rules now or add house rules is that the format and mechanisms allow it. Many rules I've played (e.g. Warhammer Ancients) don't really have that same 'tweak potential' because they are so complex and full and a tweak to one aspect messes up another. Not so with TMWWBK or indeed the Rampant series - all seem to facilitate tweaking. And us wargamers do love a tweak! :D
Ultimately, if you don't like the rules and don't wanna tweak the bits you dislike, why not just play something else? There are other Colonial rules that might suit you better. I love them. I love the cinematic quality, the leader characteristics, the slight unpredictability that gives rise to proper 'Hollywood' moments and the ability to make them work really specifically to the chosen theatre (for me, NW Frontier) by tweaking the traits you apply to the various units. But they aren't for everyone - no set of rules is!
Always good to talk about this kinda thing though. Interesting to hear other views on what makes rules 'good', 'bad' or 'indifferent.'
-
My 2 cents: I've played NW and Sudan in my club and we all enjoyed it a lot. We just introduced a modification: we put coloured dice for different units in a bag . When a dice is taken, the owner of the involved units decides which one moves and so on. You can have the emotion of a unit which can move twice before the direct opponent can react. Very funny rules, I played a lot of time up to 48 points each side. Even more amusing!
-
I have played a dozen or so games of TMWWBK, so while I am hardly a veteran, I have come to view the rules as acceptable but not something I am very excited to play. I have tended to find standard natives-vs-Europeans games to be binary - either the Europeans roll well for shooting and blow the natives away, or the natives manage to close to contact and then stomp the Europeans. A few months ago a friend and I played the same scenario twice, swapping sides between games, and we found it played out like this both times. Opposite ways (I think I lost both games!), so there is "balance" in that sense, but it didn't feel like we had a lot of scope as players to sway the outcome. I freely admit I am not expert in the game, and there could well be subtleties to the mechanics that I have missed.
Of rulesets I know, I prefer Soldier's Companion. I'm aware it gets criticised for the initiative system (that leaves one side only capable of reactions each turn), but I have found that is not really a problem in games I have played - there are ways to manage it, so it becomes part of the challenge of the game. The importance of morale gives a nice to-and-fro rhythm; for ex., in a tribes-vs-Europeans match, the tribal side tries an attack, gets fended off, and then comes back for another go.
I recently acquired Death in the Dark Continent and look forward to giving it a whirl.
-
Only played a few times, usually "Hollywood French Foreign Legion" versus (unspecified Arabesque) native forces.
The activation rolls can be annoying, when you fail them (but brilliant when your opponent fails one).
But as with others on here I've been gaming since the 1970s and seen lots of other rules/ideas over the decades, varying from the "no activation at all, any unit can do whatever it wants" to the "units follow written orders, implicitly, until they either get a new order or forget the old order after failing a morale test". A lot of "written order" games saw significant parts of the armies sitting around immobile whilst waiting for messengers to get through with a new order (and invariably being the target for every sharpshooter in range) or waiting for an overworked officer/general to get to them and give a new order.
Other games/rules systems give some degree of "order allocation" allowing you to activate a limited number of units or a limited percentage of units. Others have you test to activate units one at a time with a modifier for distance from commander, but if you fail one activation then your turn ends and command passes to your opponent.
By and large, TMWWBK may not be perfect, but I find them playable, and I generally find my enjoyment of games being more dependent on what I'm playing and who I'm playing against. But I don't have to trek 100 miles for a game, my local club is only a 25 minute walk from home (probably 35 minutes if carrying a large heavy metal army)
-
Just to add my ha'penny worth to an already probably exhausted discussion, I really like the rules tho they're not perfect. We've used them for fairly large Back of Beyond engagements for which they're fun but not ideal - remembering the leader traits of each unit becomes a bind when you have too many units.
And would also say we've found those leader traits are fun but perhaps add a little too much unpredictability to the game - a string of bad die rolls on your best units (not matched by your opponent) and your side is knobbled before you even start.
One more thing I'd change - Irregular units, particularly infantry, are way too weak in the points system. If I remember right, they're inferior to Regulars in fighting, discipline, weapon quality and cannot volley fire and close order, which is a major disadvantage. All that and yet they cost only two points less than Regulars.
Given that so many colonial conflicts weren't about European-level regulars vs tribesmen, but forces in between those extremes, I'd boost Irregulars. Make them three points a unit and/or give infantry Go to Ground for free.
-
Lots of opinions about the rules with even those who like them adjusting them - which is sort of d'rigeur wargaming. I suppose, in a nut shell, what bothered me most about my experience with the rules - so far - is the feeling that I can play a game and never really get a chance to achieve an objective based on the activation and pinning systems. That's okay - to a point. But, for me at least, the point of a game is to have a good time, win or lose, and part of the fun is at least having enough control over your units to make a go at your goal - unless the dice disfavor you. I fear the mechanisms here are more in control than the dice themselves.
May have another game with the rules closer to home by the end of the month. Will see how that goes.
Oh, and I rarely have to drive 100 miles for a game, numerous active groups here in town I can game with when time and schedule and interest all align.