"New rules from Sam Mustafa?" Topic

Reading through some old posts, I came across this rather interesting one from Sam Mustafa in July 2007. Has there been any further news on this since then?

"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."

Original thread at TMP link

All right, I might as well let the cat out of the bag, sooner or later. I try to keep quiet during development of these things simply because I inevitably get a bunch of emails requesting drafts or volunteering playtesting, and while I surely appreciate all the good intentions expressed, it's always impossible to comply, and I don't want to offend anyone.

But Yes, the project has developed substantially. The Core Rules are pretty much done, or at least well-tested over the past 7 months. They still need editing, of course.

The system is designed to be applicable to any horse-and-musket era, and any scale. In fact, the first real "debut" of the game will not feature the Napoleonics modules at all, but the ACW module, "Stonewall," which I'll run at Cold Wars. The Napoleonics modules will debut at Historicon, assuming I'm in the US. (I might be in Germany; it's not certain yet.)

I will try to sketch out the concept as briefly as I can, but please understand that I can't answer everybody's inquiries, so I ask for everybody's patience. This project is well advanced enough to be able to say with certainty that it will happen, but I can't promise any deadlines or product releases for another several months.

* * * * * *

I've always been puzzled by the fragmentation of gamers in the horse-and-musket era games. Unlike Ancients gamers, who pretty much only play at army-level; or World War Two gamers, who pretty much only play at small-unit or skirmish level; there is no agreed-upon preferred scale for our era. If you like petit-tactical, you're not going to buy a grand-tactical game, and vice-versa. Maybe your bases won't even be usable for it. (For whatever reason, the guy who plays battalion-level Seven Years War, thinks he's on a different planet from the guy who plays corps-level Napoleonics. I've never understood why that's such a divide, yet that same guy has no problem using one rules-set for Biblical Assyrians, Teutonic Knights, and Japanese Samurai…)

So if there is any room left to grow in this field, I'm convinced that it can only be with a new concept that could apply at ALL or ANY of these scales: the guys who like to pretend they're a divisional commander… the guys who liked all the old 1:50 scale games like EMPIRE or SHAKO, and the guys who liked to play an army commander, and played NAPOLEON'S BATTLES or GRANDE ARMEE.

The idea, then, is to have a single "Core Rules" of about 40 pages. The Core Rules use a standardized sequence of play, terminology, units of measurement, and basic concepts. It will use base-widths for measurements,to adapt to anybody's existing figures.

And then players would select "Modules" that addressed the scale of game they wanted to play. The modules would "plug-in" certain things that are unique to that scale or period. Perhaps there are some different rules for shooting musketry at the petite-tactical level, for instance, as opposed to the grand-tactical level.

The modules can plug-in different periods, other than Napoleonics, too. American Civil War, for instance, Age of Marlborough, Franco-Prussian… Pretty much anything involving horses and muskets.

The modules add the "Flavor" – army lists, special rules, historical scenarios, etc. But they all use the Core Rules, and thus if you've played one module, it's very easy to pick up another one.

As I did with "Might and Reason," there will be an integrated campaign system (it will be another module), and a tournament play system (built into one of the tactical modules, probably for Napoleonics.

I haven't decided yet on some key publishing concepts, like the format for the books. Do I go with the traditional Warhammer / FoW / FoG approach of a hardback main book with "codex" like modules? I was thinking perhaps of a three-ring binder more like the old "Advanced Squad Leader," in which you buy or download the modules you want and add them to your notebook, along with the scenarios, campaign data, etc. Every player would have a unique notebook, but all players would have the Core Rules in common. (Unfortunately custom binders are more expensive, and hard to store and ship.)

Anyway, there it is. For those of you who will be at Cold Wars, come by and visit the "Stonewall" game. (We'll be doing Shiloh.)

Sam

Gut instinct would be to keep the modules together. By keeping them as seperate books you deviate from the idea of unification. Indeed, I'd get away from calling them modules and instead call them something like 'scales' and keep them all in the same booklet.

Hopefully it will allow us to play battalion level one day and then, using the same figs, fight a brigade level game the next week.

as someone who is totally new to historical wargaming, I'm surprised this hasn't happened before. In fact, I thought I was the only one puzzled by the "fragmentation" in this game genre.

Looking forward to this project with anticipation.

Too bad it's from Sam Mustafa. Otherwise it might actually be accurate. But he will 'play balance it' and sacrifice historical accuracy to create a 'better game'.

Sad really, he has some otherwise good ideas.

Aye que mangos! Ariba, adelante!

Sam, do you have a publication date yet for "Once There Were Teutons"?

<;^}

I for one am very interested to see how this pans out. I really like FPGA, and M&R.

I, too, am very interested in the concept. I have enjoyed Grande Armee and the Fast Play version. But my heart sinks at the thought of a FORTY page set of Core Rules and then add-on modules for the different levels – I just can't cope with lengthy rulebooks these days [middle-age! and demands of job and family]. And one of my personal hates is having to cross-reference between different books, taking basic rules from one and period/campaign specific ones from another. I would much rather have ONE book which contained ALL the rules for one particular period and level, and another for others… In that respect, I'm quite happy with having a skirmish set of rules, a grand-tactical set and an operational set. I'm not sure that the different levels of command and player perspectives really can be dealt with satisfactorily by one set of core rules, but shall be most interested to see them in due course. Good luck with it Sam!

Excellent news Sam,

I have much less time for gaming these days, but I am still buying rules and toys and preparing for that mythical time when I will have room and time to game again.

I'll definitely add this to the 'well at least I should buy and read them' list, which – alas – is the only list I have at the moment!

Unification?
that way lies madness.
you'll doom us all.
Run.

Are there carryover concepts and mechanics from GA and MOA?

I'd certainly prefer the 3 ring binder approach to publishing.

Great news. Sam is one of the best rules writers out there. He has become my favorite along with Arty and Mr Broom. I well be there to buy everyone you put out.

I think Arty went with several of his rules being unbound, but with the pages three holed punched so you could put them in your own binder. It works really great. I put each page in a three hole clear sheet protector and they last forever. No stains, no tears and if there is a change in the rules later, you just take out the old page and put a new one in. So I guess you know what I want, unbound pages. That way I can put the modules in any order I want in the binder.

So its about time we got unification for the 19th century. My second favorite period to wargame after ancients.

[But my heart sinks at the thought of a FORTY page set of Core Rules and then add-on modules for the different levels]

To be honest, I'm just guesstimating on the length.

Much page-space is inevitably filled with illustrations, diagrams, etc. These days I try to go by word-count. To give you some idea, "Might and Reason" was about 40k words. The actual "rules" part of that book filled about 35 pages. I'm shooting for something similar.

[But my heart sinks at the thought of a FORTY page set of Core Rules and then add-on modules for the different levels]

My heart too, Arthur. I'm currently working on a set of rules for the AWI. They are TWO pages. My Napoleonic rules fit on a single page. My ACW rules are quite long – at 7 pages!

A lot of the content in those pages are visual descriptions depicting certain aspects of the rules. We are undecided about the format and this is where everyone can help out with suggestions. How best to deliver the information for each era covered to you guys. Nothing is in concrete yet.

Quote: I'm not sure that the different levels of command and player perspectives really can be dealt with satisfactorily by one set of core rules, but shall be most interested to see them in due course.

Old Warrior: I didn't think this would work out either but so far so good. Another nice aspect is that the rules are working very well with different basing schemes from other and past rules sets. My 6mm Ga stands are able to be used at any level of the game and my 30mm look great at any level

I think the Warhammer/FOW approach would be fine. Thin enough to be easy to ship, not hardbacked so its flexible, and avoiding binders where the pages get accidentally ripped out. Plus, pending on feedback, the additional booklets could incorporate any modifcations or clarifications. Personally, while I know many hate the "codex" approach to gaming, I do find it great for keeping the interest in a rule system and allowing for add-ons and alterations.

Erik

>"Gut instinct would be to keep the modules together."<

I disagree. I'd rather not have to pay for the tactical and operational modules, or AWI, 7YW, etc. stuff, when I'm only interested in Napoleonics and ACW at the grand tactical level (plus the campaign, or strategic level).

Sam, I know you say you don't need volunteers, but I'm a former newspaper editor (and ACW author), should you need another set of eyes to check them over.

PS: I like the 3-ring-binder idea. Binder not included.

PPS: and don't forget a Fast Play module!

I like the 3 ring binder idea as well. Binder not included.

Codexes per period with the three levels in each book? Say one for Nappy's , another for the ACW. Offer them at the same time as pdf print outs. Then everybody's happy. :)

The publishing format options are as follows:
1. Ring-binder with loose-leaf modules (a'la Advanced Squad Leader)

2. Traditional hardbound rulebook with softbound modules, a'la FoG, FoW, and Warhammer.

3. Web-based interactive, with download options.

What do you prefer? Did we leave anything out?

Darn. I was hoping the ruleset would be "The CA War"… :P

traditional hardbound with softbound modules. Presentation is important to some of us. I don't like binders. I'd end up losing pages eventually as the holes got ripped and damaged.

Also, a nice primer on hapoleonic wargaming, including a brief history of the napeolonic wars, basic concepts such as army organizational levels, formations and tactics in the napoleonic era, and a few color painting guides for the more common force. That would probably be a bit dumbed down for the more experienced wargames, but great for introducing newcomers.

"traditional hardbound"… "Presentation is important"…"also,a nice primer on hapoleonic wargaming, including a brief history of the napeolonic wars, basic concepts such as army organizational levels, formations and tactics in the napoleonic era, and a few color painting guides for the more common force."

Sam – also, please make this available for $10 USD or less, as rules are not something that we want to pay for. After all, anybody can write rules, and some have 2 page rule sets that are free!

Good luck Sam!!

Brent

I've read PK Inc's comment 5 times and I'm sure he's joking. But just in case he's not: FOW and FOG have both shown that polish sells. You might be fine with two pages printed on a dot matrix printer and then photocopied but a lot of people won't be.

I'm not a veteran gamer capable of writing my own rules, and I'll admit it: I'm shallow. You show me a ruleset with glossy color photos and a lot of colored diagrams and you have my interest piqued. If it has a points system for generating plausible army lists without me having to research OOBs in the original French then that's even better.

I know this won't win me any friends at TMP but I'd suggest a fairly dumbed down book that someone can flick through and think "Wow, this period is really colourful and these photos of games in action look great. I don't know anything about this but I feel like this book is going to get me up to speed enough to have fun."

[Sam – also, please make this available for $10 USD USD or less, as rules are not something that we want to pay for.]

And a free painted starter army with every ruleset please.

"You might be fine with two pages printed on a dot matrix printer and then photocopied but a lot of people won't be."

Who uses a dot matrix printer these days?

"I'm not a veteran gamer capable of writing my own rules, and I'll admit it: I'm shallow."

I was about 15 years old when I wrote my first rules. Well actually, I was modifying Don Featherstone's rules … you don't need to be a "veteran gamer" to write rules.

Real cheapskates or those who do consider themselves incapable of writing their own set could do worse than go here:
freewargamesrules.co.uk

Even Sam has a set of rules available there:
link

Very much looking forward to these Sam and I will try and prereg for your Cold Wars game when the PEL is out (I am running Sacile using Grande Armee Friday morning so I hope this doesn't conflict).

I think the high production values you are known for is something you should keep going with. I'll likely by them no matter the format (pdf or printed).

I will mention that I really like how the surlox bound Grande Armee book lies flat and doesn't fall apart like glue bound books so something that is three ring or surlox bound would be best. Just be aware that Europeans and North Americans would need different hole punching.

[Just be aware that Europeans and North Americans would need different hole punching.]

I know. And that adds to the expense and difficulty of conceiving it as a loose-leaf-in-binder format.

I suppose another approach would be to publish the core rules in a traditional hardback, and then all the modules in loose-leaf. With a custom full-color binder, for those (like me) who like their game books pretty. It would have pockets or fold-out segments for charts, etc. The more DIY guys could use any old binder. In any event, the rulebook itself would be easier to ship, and the modules could be available in a variety of formats (including download.)

I keep scratching my head, thinking that perhaps a project like this is a chance to really get outside the traditional limitations of format altogether and do something more web-based, but my imagination has thus far not been good enough to conceive it. I keep wondering if it would be feasible to produce the "Rules" part of the rules online – just entirely online. And then the "published" parts would be the abbreviated (@4 pages) and annotated tables and other essential things you'd need to play. But I get stuck thinking about the problem of needing to look something up for a more complete explanation, or examples, or whatever, and then having to go online in the midst of one's game.

Perhaps in another few years, when everybody is carrying around an i-Phone like device with a wireless connection.

Having moved from the States to Europe with many boxes of articles in binders, I've had to go through the "binder transition", but it's really only a problem with adding to old binders. If you simply print out a pdf and use your own hole-punch, there's no issue. My ideal format would be a pair of B&W and Color pdf's, with the illustrations optimized for each format and perhaps even bundled separately.

Mark me down on the "keep me updated" column, and good luck.

Cheers,

Christopher

PS – Tod, I've run Sacile twice with GA as intro games, and both went very well. I used random French arrivals and reinforcements, which along with the horrible Austrian command structure made for a very interesting game.

PPS – Sam, with the core rules done, have you decided on basing conventions? I assume that basing compatible with GA or reduced scale GA will work?

"My Napoleonics rules fit onto a single page."

Why stop there? Why even have rules, right? And why have books? Or binders with rules in them?

Personally, I wish Sam the best as he goes ahead. Can't wait to read the next set – binder, hard cover, whatever.

"Why stop there?"

Why indeed?

"Why even have rules, right?"

Already been done, it's called a Muggergame. See p8 of this:
PDF link

"And why have books?"
I presume you mean history books rather than rule books? You need history books to set the context of what we do with toy soldiers.

"Or binders with rules in them?"

Of course I need a binder. You don't think the Napoleonic one-pager is the only set of rules I have do you?

"Personally, I wish Sam the best as he goes ahead."

So do I.

>[But my heart sinks at the thought of a FORTY page set of >Core Rules and then add-on modules for the different >levels]

>My heart too, Arthur. I'm currently working on a set of >rules for the AWI. They are TWO pages. My Napoleonic rules >fit on a single page. My ACW rules are quite long – at 7 >pages!

This is the difference between a commercial ruleset and one to use "down the wargames club." The latter can be crayon scribbles on the back of an envelope, because "everyone knows what I mean" and the rules author will be on hand personally (or be readily available) to adjudicate disputes. Commercial rulesets must be written assuming the reader has a limited or non-existent familiarity with wargaming in general. This necessarily involves extra content. I don't think it's reasonable in the slightest to expect a commercial ruleset to be that succinct.

w.

And I forgot to mention that in order to have any hope of commercial success nowadays, a set of wargames rules has to have a least a basic aesthetic appeal to its presentation. Mimeographed typewritten screeds bound with rusty staples are no longer acceptable in the market.

This means that a commercial ruleset has to be laid out in an appealing fashion with white space and illustrations. This also adds to its length. The prettier (and more hefty) a ruleset is, the greater the perceived value and the greater a price may reasonably be asked, as well.

w.

"This is the difference between a commercial ruleset and one to use "down the wargames club." … Commercial rulesets must be written assuming the reader has a limited or non-existent familiarity with wargaming in general. This necessarily involves extra content. I don't think it's reasonable in the slightest to expect a commercial ruleset to be that succinct."

Here's the 7-page ACW rules:
PDF link
I've had a couple of questions from players that were answered by referring them back to the rules. No more than you would expect from any other published rules.

Incidentally you could probably modify them for Napoleonic without too much effort …

"And I forgot to mention that in order to have any hope of commercial success nowadays, a set of wargames rules has to have a least a basic aesthetic appeal to its presentation."

Depends what you mean by "commercial". If you mean "published", then my rules have been published both on the Internet and in a wargames magazine. If you mean "makes a profit" then you have to have a glossy book with more than a few pages in it to persuade puchasers that they are getting something worth what they paid for it.

>Depends what you mean by "commercial". If you mean "published", then my rules have been published both on the Internet and in a wargames magazine. If you mean "makes a profit" then you have to have a glossy book with more than a few pages in it to persuade puchasers that they are getting something worth what they paid for it.

Yes, I mean "commercial" as in "someone will pay money for them as a product". And since Sam's project isn't contemplated to be distributed free on the internet or in a magazine, I stand by my comment… it's gonna take more than 7 pages.

w.

>"you don't need to be a "veteran gamer" to write rules."<

Which explains many rules sets I have seen. :)

Personally, I'm leery of the hardbound rules idea. A lot of hardbound books these days fall apart after just a couple of readings, and a rules book, if it's good, will get a LOT of page-turning. If you can't go with the 3-hole binder, go with the format you used with GA.

"And since Sam's project isn't contemplated to be distributed free on the internet or in a magazine,"

Er … perhaps not:
"I keep wondering if it would be feasible to produce the "Rules" part of the rules online – just entirely online."

I am a big fan of Sams rules.

But wouldnt it be nice to tell two facts and i added one opinion.

1st. There is already a rule system that has the grand-unification-theory realized. It uses the same core rules for the whole time of 1700 to 1900 and for the different army sizes with bataillon, regiment and brigade size. It is Volley and Bayonet.

2nd. The mentioned base size is already used by Polemos and that rule set also hat two different sizes for napoleonic battles.

3rd. Why use a new or an old basing system if, what we really need, are rules that are playable with every base size. A napoleonic player usually uses the base size because of his personal aesthetical view. I think a modern rule system should be absolutely compatible with every base system. (If british and french bataillons could fight each other with different frontage, why shouldnt we players do that?)

1) I wasn't aware that Volley and Bayonet could do petite-tactical games, with say, a handful of battalions on a side. Granted, I haven't seen the new 2nd edition, but I was under the impression that it remained rather like the 1st edition, which was large-unit / large-battle, and scaled so that a unit was a brigade or large regiment.

2) I do have the two-scale Polemos set (again the 1st edition, not the 2nd), and it wasn't my cup of tea. I mean no slight against its authors; just as a matter of preference in playing style.

Obviously, no game will please everybody, and each will have its adherents. The Atlantic Ocean seems to have a lot to do with this, too: on one side they don't play much Polemos, and on the other side they don't play much Volley & Bayonet. I'm not suggesting that I can wave some sort of magic wand and suddenly unify everybody. But I do think there's an opportunity to create a "brand" of horse-and-musket games which – if people like the brand – will have the chance to be something new and fresh that can be played in a variety of settings.

3) I apologize if the snippet taken from my July 2007 post (which started this thread) gave the impression that I was going to be stuck on the old Grande Armee basing. I'm not. The basing will be totally flexible, and all measurements will be scaled to one's bases, so it will be truly universal.

Thanks to everybody who weighed in with suggestions about the style of publication. We'll keep thinking about it.

Hope to see some of you at Cold Wars. Our Shiloh demo game is probably on Saturday afternoon.

Sam

Whatisgoodatwork wrote:
"[Sam – also, please make this available for $10 USD USD USD or less, as rules are not something that we want to pay for.]
And a free painted starter army with every ruleset please."

Hey, you forgot the scenery!!

>"Hey, you forgot the scenery!!"<

And the snacks!

Mike S,

Not to jump into the middle of someone else's argument but to clarify:

"I keep wondering if it would be feasible to produce the "Rules" part of the rules online – just entirely online."

≠

"And since Sam's project isn't contemplated to be distributed FREE* on the internet or in a magazine"

Publishing on the internet and publishing for free are not the same and I think that wehrmacht's point was definitely specific to the *free* part, not the method of distribution itself.

*emphasis mine.

Cheers,

The Bandit

"Publishing on the internet and publishing for free are not the same"

That is true, but Sam hasn't said whether any material published on-line by him would be free or not, so the point is moot.

There was a set of 19th century rules (1'st Afghan war to the Second Boer War) published about 14 years ago or so called "Fields of Honor" that attempted to use the same basing for five different scales. A base of 3 infantry would represent a section, company, battalion, regiment or brigade, depending on the scale used. It seemed like a good idea, but the system never caught on. Did anyone here try it?

Regarding the 3-ring binder idea: If they have different hole arrangements in the UK, why not have a different publisher and/or printer in the UK? Saves on shipping as well. What do they have in Oz?

Mike S.,

"That is true, but Sam hasn't said whether any material published on-line by him would be free or not, so the point is moot."

No, then the argument between you and wehrmacht is moot since his stance depends on assuming that Sam will not make them free and your retort requires the assumption Sam will make them free.

My point stands.

Cheers,

The Bandit