Another TMWWBK Playtest Game

[guitarheroandy]

I personally like games that don't have set figure scale, ground scale and time scale for each turn and, although it's broadly 1:1 scale, one can still do as I do and visualise company level and it still works, as, although you remove single figure casualties, I envisage that as more of a reduction in fighting capability of the unit rather than losing all those men dead. So, win-win, really.

You probably could house-rule company squares for each British unit if amiong Sudan, etc - I have some embryonic ideas for that, but can't share them yet as it would give away too many of the actual rule mechanisms.

And that's something else to remember. Dan actively encourages groups of gaming buddies to design house-rules, etc. This is definitely NOT going to be a tournament-friendly rul;e set, that's for sure!! 

[Traveler Man]

'Fun and period feel' is right, and I think you've achieved that. Great game report and eye-candy!

[Leigh Metford]

OK, so units are sections or the native equivalent (historically, A British section would average 20 to 25 men).

In that case a rallying (company) square would consist of four units, so it might be possible to get away without any additional 'forming square' rule, and just rely on normal movement. However, there would have to be some sort of positive combat modifier to give troops in square a boost beyond any advantage for having formed a firing line.

Rallying squares might have been exceptional on the NWF, but you've said the rules will cover any colonial campaign during the period, so they really should be directly addressed in the system design.     

[Kommando_J]

How are commanders handled? is it just unit leaders or is their an overall separate officer? I see both nco and officer models in the sections and you say it's 1:1 or are they just for variation?

[Atheling]

In that case a rallying (company) square would consist of four units, so it might be possible to get away without any additional 'forming square' rule, and just rely on normal movement. However, there would have to be some sort of positive combat modifier to give troops in square a boost beyond any advantage for having formed a firing line.

Agreed 

Rallying squares might have been exceptional on the NWF, but you've said the rules will cover any colonial campaign during the period, so they really should be directly addressed in the system design.     

I'm going to be doing some play testing too using my Sudan collection (and hopefully a group of fellows from the Durham Club!). so I see 'forming square' as essential. If you imagine the troops scaled up then it is a must really. I guess the trick is to make it an effective tactic but not to give too much of an advantage. And of course, the squares in the Sudan were broken, not just the Egyptian army but the Brits too!

Darrell.

[guitarheroandy]

There is an option for a close order firing line that adds benefits to both firing and combat but it has limited field of fire. My idea would be to tinker with that to enable forming square in a house rule. However, players do need to be aware that my 'scaling up' is not the original intent of the rules and that it is meant to be 1:1 like Lion Rampant and therefore unit squares are not really 'appropriate' (that isn't the right word really, but I can't think of a better one).

The game has numerous scenarios as well, so you tend to avoid the 'big battle need to form squares' thing most of the time.

We intend to do Sudan as well, but Andy, who is building the forces, is wanting to focus on the smaller actions and skirmishes with these rules. We may well look elsewhere if trying to simulate bigger battles, unless our tinkering enables unit squares to work.

However, for small-scale actions, these rules are really shaping up well. So far 4 of us have played the rules and none of us dislike them, which is unusual in our club! 

[wulfgar22]

We may well look elsewhere if trying to simulate bigger battles, unless our tinkering enables unit squares to work.

I think there a various rules out there for the bigger battles in this period but none that I can think of that do skirmish level, which is why I, for one, am happy. 

[guitarheroandy]

How are commanders handled? is it just unit leaders or is their an overall separate officer? I see both nco and officer models in the sections and you say it's 1:1 or are they just for variation?

My units have both officer and nco models for variety but each unit has just one designated leader model. You dice for his leadership skill, which can cause some interesting conundrums! There is no overall force leader due to the rules scale. This does not actually impact on playability in a negative way at all, which surprised me as I kinda expected a force commander.

[Atheling]

There is an option for a close order firing line that adds benefits to both firing and combat but it has limited field of fire. My idea would be to tinker with that to enable forming square in a house rule. However, players do need to be aware that my 'scaling up' is not the original intent of the rules and that it is meant to be 1:1 like Lion Rampant and therefore unit squares are not really 'appropriate' (that isn't the right word really, but I can't think of a better one).

My response to this and please bear in mind that i haven't played any play test games as of yet, would be that there are plenty of cases of the Victorian soldier 'clumping' together in small groups that were actually quite effective. Maybe this should be taken into account? As i say, I haven't had the chance to play any play test games as of yet....?

The game has numerous scenarios as well, so you tend to avoid the 'big battle need to form squares' thing most of the time.

We intend to do Sudan as well, but Andy, who is building the forces, is wanting to focus on the smaller actions and skirmishes with these rules. We may well look elsewhere if trying to simulate bigger battles, unless our tinkering enables unit squares to work.

I'm painting up my forces for the Sudan for this very purpose at present. As soon as I catch up with the play testing I guess I'll have a better idea.

However, for small-scale actions, these rules are really shaping up well. So far 4 of us have played the rules and none of us dislike them, which is unusual in our club! 

I'm not at all surprised given the author's pedigree.

Darrell.

[guitarheroandy]

My response to this and please bear in mind that i haven't played any play test games as of yet, would be that there are plenty of cases of the Victorian soldier 'clumping' together in small groups that were actually quite effective. Maybe this should be taken into account? As i say, I haven't had the chance to play any play test games as of yet....?

You'll be pleased to hear that the 'close order' mechanism curently in the rules tackles this to some degree already.

[Atheling]

You'll be pleased to hear that the 'close order' mechanism curently in the rules tackles this to some degree already.

Yes, I should have added, re-read the rules  .

Keep up the good work and I'll catch you all up soon  .

Darrell.

[Ray Earle]

You'll be pleased to hear that the 'close order' mechanism curently in the rules tackles this to some degree already.

Ah, plenty of opportunity to play out one of many disastrous last stands. 

[Malamute]

Ah, plenty of opportunity to play out one of many disastrous last stands. 

Mostly not out of choice this is usually how my troops end up when playing

[Leigh Metford]

One more point:

At the level at which the game is pitched it would be extremely unusual to see more than one type of infantry on the NWF. You really shouldn't see British troops at all if less than a brigade is being fielded, and then there'd normally be one battalion, and two or three Indian battalions.

[wulfgar22]

With Lion Rampant, the rules were made to encompass both a 'Hollywood' approach as well as a 'historical' one. I'm guessing that these rules will do the same.