Thanks, guys.
I really appreciate the Cracker Line/Plank Road figures. I just received some Magister Militum figures and I don't think they come up to the same standard. Don't get me wrong, they're good figures. They're a good match in size, though the MM horses are noticeably smaller. But the figures aren't as cleanly cast (a BIG DEAL in my view these days--I HATE cleaning figs!). Nor is there much variety in posing. I'll paint 'em up and add them to the forces but I'll probably stick to the CL/PR from here on out.
The Die Fighting II rules caught my interest because of a couple of interesting mechanisms. I think of them as rather 'Old School' in style and generic in approach which appeals to me. The author doesn't explicitly say that they are for any particular level, though in my my mind I consider them as regimental level because your units are split between a number of stands so that you can represent line, column, square, skirmish, etc. I just see those as regimental commands (though I suppose they would have been issued at the company level in the real world). You don't remove casualties due to losses, but the unit's morale is adjusted as it takes losses and is forced back. So basing is not terribly important as long as you can represent the various formations.
What really interested me, though, was they way army efficiency is handled via the number of dice you use during the game. You start out with a set number of dice and as you issue commands you remove the dice from play. While you do get some of them back, they slowly (or quickly depending on how demanding you are of your troops) dwindle away. When you're out of dice, essentially you lose control of the army. I think this is an elegant way of tracking command control and the deterioration of control over the course of battle.
The other mechanism that intrigues me is that the order in which players accomplish actions is randomized through the use of phase cards. While play alternates between sides, each side may be executing different phases. For example, one side may turn a card that allows artillery fire to take place, while the opposing side's card may allow cavalry actions. Each side has the same six phases (more or less depending on the scenario) but the order in which they progress through those phases is randomized for each side. Overall, I think these are fairly simple mechanisms that introduce the appropriate amount of complexity to decision making. To me, that's the part of a war game that makes it interesting. It should be difficult to decide what to do, difficult to balance the pros and cons of any action. But once the decision is made it should be simple to execute.
The author, Bob Jones, is also the author of Piquet. I think some of these ideas probably had their genesis in that game.
--jeff
03 December 2017, 09:26:59 PM
