"Sam, paging Sam Mustafa" Topic

Remember when you were posting about variations to Grande Armee for regimental/battalion/company action? You said at that stage you were shifting bases and going "hmmm, hmmm".

Well, any ideas? I would like to see a variant for smaller actions, say regimental or battalion/company.

Really I think the regiment is the basis for all actions. No matter if 1 battalion, 2, 3, or 5. The regiment was the identity, administrative and battle "unit". Maybe divisional commanders with control ratings and the typical 4 regiment division as a force? Corps co's as Wing co's?

Got me saying hmmm, too.

You should take a look at In the Name of Glory, might just suit you…

link

Four bases per unit, command and control, plays as fast as GA…

Hmm…my army is based in regiments of 4 stands; any required base dimensions for In the Name of Glory?

INOG, says battalion level? 4 square blocks would look a little silly in line IMHO. Thoughts? Really would like to use a regiment base.

Kinda already commited to half size GA bases. To me they look like little regiments. Plus all units in it are one facing color(already a regiment).

As for mechanics I am looking for:Regiments don't need to show square or other formation changes. If cavalry closes for example, roll one die to determine if a square was formed and sucessfully defended. Modifiers based on attacker such as hvy, lt, experienced or green. Same for defender. Use a chit or counter to show an immobile square for example.

Regimental commanders would assume responsibility for closing with the enemy and deploying a firing line. Nothing I would have to represent, such as Empire.

Hell, maybe I will write my own. Kinda wanted to avoid the leg work and playtesting.

Well… okay. Chuck Hamack is going to kill me for (a) letting this out of the bag, and (b) letting you know that he's involved, but:

For the past several months I've been working on an entirely new master-system that will be an attempt at a sort of "grand-unification-theory" of Napoleonic rules.

It'll be one core system with three modules (presently nicknamed "Craufurd," "Davout," and "Blücher"). The modules will tackle petit-tactical, operational, and grand-tactical scale games, respectively. The latter, "Blücher," is basically the same scale as Grande Armee.

All three will use the same basic sequence of play, but each scale module inserts various things appropriate to that scale. They will all use the same basic terminology for unit values, measurements, and basic systems. Most crucially, they will all use the same basing system.

People who own GA will be able to play "Blücher" with no re-basing, although not "Craufurd" or "Davout." That's because the new basing system is a 2:1 rectangle (of any size – everything is measured in base-widths). You just put two of them together to form a square, GA-like base, for "Blücher." (Or if you already have custom-made bases for GA, just use your existing ones.)

Then there will be a fourth module for campaigning, built-in to the system from the get-go, much as I did with "Might and Reason."

I've really gone back to the drawing-board for this new system. It's virtually nothing like GA or Might and Reason.

It's way too early to speculate, but at present I'm thinking of perhaps selling just the core rules as a bound book, and then selling the modules very cheaply over the internet, and people can just buy the ones they want/need, and save money and also keep updating the thing as time goes on, a'la the old AH Advanced Squad Leader.

For the next year or more, I'll be fiddling with this game with my New Jersey club, and I'll be leaning upon my long-time number-cruncher, rules-tester, and accomplished-accomplice, Chuck.

Who knows when it will be ready to playtest elsewhere. I've got real history stuff that needs attention first: a new book that is launching soon, two new scholarly articles, a conference paper for the SMH, and a panel for the AHA…. I'll retreat to the games when I can.

Maybe by Historicon 2008 I'll be able to debut some sort of playtest game for one of the modules. I'm the furthest ahead on "Craufurd," the little tactical one.

Stay tuned.

I would also dump the 6" skirmish rule. Didn't skirmishers pretty much shoot up the taget the main body was marching to contact anyway? Just throw in a modifier for the side with superior skirmishing power.

I knew we could squeeze a secret out of you, ya big pushover. This does sound very interesting however, and maybe it will address the "fix" I need.

Looking forward to hearing more about it.

I'm excited.
If you are going to use the CP chits in these rules would you consider a system that uses less of them? BTW I prefer the skirmish step.
Look forward to seeing the final product.
regards
Max

I'm horrified that you would let this cat out of the bag!
:0)
This is like announcing that you are attempting to find the unified theory for physics! Well maybe not that ambitious. But it is surly a lofty goal and you have made a good start.

Sam said:
"It's way too early to speculate, but at present I'm thinking of perhaps selling just the core rules as a bound book, and then selling the modules very cheaply over the internet, and people can just buy the ones they want/need, and save money and also keep updating the thing as time goes on, a'la the old AH Advanced Squad Leader."

To be accurate the modules will not require that you own another module. More like ATS (Advanced Tobruk System) than ASL (Advanced Squad Leader). Having gone over the rules with some playtesting (two games) the concepts work well and like GA and M&R the rules are easy to grasp. Sam has set some very tough goals with this set of rules.

Kudos for developing a campaign system to go with them too!
That alone is a great step forward.
So we can expect them on 1st January 2008, right?
regards
Max

PS. (Sorry about double posting.)
You will let us form square in these new rules won't you?
regards
Max

Yes there will be some possibility for squares so far.

If you go and join the ITNOG yahoo group, the rules are now available as a download for free.

link

Crauford may be just what we were after for 1812 in North America! I shall observe with great interest but I suspect my love for Grande Armee is unlikely to be eclipsed!

You got me excited there Sam! I hope to hear more on this; very cool idea.

Peter, I'm with you as far as regiments-scale action. You could take a look at Piquet; 4 bases per unit, and I know people who play regimental-scale actions using the Grand Tactical rules (I intend to try this myself).

[You will let us form square in these new rules won't you?]

In "Craufurd," being a nitty-gritty tactical game, the whole panoply of formations will be available to you. The basic infantry unit is the BN, with 4-6 bases. The basic cavalry unit is the SQN.

In "Davout," formations are simplified a bit because each BN is only 2 stands. So there is just column, line, and square.

In "Blücher," it's like G.A. Formations are all assumed.

If the battalion is the basic infantry unit of "Craufurd", what's the basic infantry unit of "Davout"?

The Battalion. It's just that in Craufurd, a BN is twice as big on the table. In "Davout" all BNs get simplified down to 2 bases. In "Craufurd" the smaller scale allows us to get more specific about size, frontage, formation, etc.

That basing system is brilliant! (translation: It matches mine!)

;)

I decided long ago that 2x 20mm bases would give a 1" = 100 yards ground scale, and you could still represent the most important battalion formations (line, column, square/mass). This is great for single corps or multiple corps games, while beefing up the battalion size to 4-6 bases makes for nicely detailed smaller scale games (a la General de Brigade), while keeping 1" = 50 to 35 yards scale. One of the reasons I like 10mm figures is that I can fit 3x inf on that 20mm frontage, and double ranks don't take up too much room.

At any rate, I'm not assuming that you are using the same frontage bases (in fact probably not, if any are specifically given), but ít sounds interesting so far. Keep us posted!

Cheers,

Christopher

AAARRGGG! Just when I have almost finished basing my armies for GA!!!

Eh, relax. It'll be three years before it's all done. And even then you'll still be able to use them for what you're using them for now: the grand-tactical game.

OK (dashing water in face)… pant, pant…

So the Polemos 60 x 30 bases will work well for both 'Davout' and 'Blucher'?

Yeah, any base that's roughly at a 2:1 ratio will work for all levels. All measurements are in Base-Widths, so the scale adjusts automatically to your bases.

I was thinking about this on the way home and had a chuckle – Sam strikes another blow for 6mm again – the scale of Crauford will allow for close to 1-1 actions (each company base would be about 24-40 figures or so in 6mm).

This is of course the promised land for 6mm gamers.

I will point out that next year is the 1808 anniversaries none of which play well with Grande Armee as they are too small but would be ideal for Davout. Ahem.

So long as they are ready for the 1812 anniversaries I could see my way to forgiving you <grin>….

Let us know when you are looking for playtesters.

Guys, I am basing ALL my units on GA artillery bases, that way I can play GA and all three modules.

I just begun rebasing last night(3 years ahead of the game). My half scale GA. All my 6mm will be based on 3/4 x 1 1/2in (artillery bases). That way the guns are correct size, and put two bases together and you have a 1 1/2 inch square.

Column? 2 bases, behind each other(1 1/2 in square)
Line? 2 bases, side by side
Square? 2 bases back to back.

Tactical? Add more bases 4-6.

Cut a square in half and it is good for artillery, and representing troops in line.In short, buy ALL artillery bases.

You can play GA and all three of the modules this way.