TMWWBK first encounter

[Jack Jones]

@sjwalker51 Great! Thank you!

That’s all very helpful.

Cheers
JJ

[Diablo Jon]

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 

[Jack Jones]

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

[Captain Darling]

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.

[FifteensAway]

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.

[Captain Darling]

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…
🤔

[Diablo Jon]

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.

[guitarheroandy]

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.

[FifteensAway]

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?   

[guitarheroandy]

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?   

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! 

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.'

[giorgio]

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!

[Redshank]

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.

[fastolfrus]

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)

[Nogbad]

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.

[FifteensAway]

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.