"Sharps practice army size question" Topic

Hi guys

how many figures is everyone putting in their Sharps armies, I have only skimmed the rules and didn't see any upper or lower limit, are you guys making company size forces or much smaller?

2-4 Big Men per player.

3-6 groups per player.

6-12 figs per group.

For the scale that I work from, where 12 figs is two English companies or 1 French Company, 8 is a Highlander company etc (vaguely 1:10), that gives me a battalion or squadron sized force per player.

We've also been finding that more than 4 players bogs down with too long a wait between opportunities to do anything.

I would agree with Malcolm on the # of players…about 4 per game works best due to turn angst….

We play fairly "loose" and dont necessarily try to equate our forces to an exact TO&E, rather just figure that the Big Man in charge is in camp one day and is ordered to gather up whatever men are available and go do mission "X"…this seems to be the case in the Sharpe Series where you find that Sharpe operates with an adhoc force, rather than a historical unit (some exceptions to this in the series noted)…

The current scenario (Shockley's Village Revisited) that we are playing has each side with 5 big men, 6 x infantry groups of 12 men each, 1 x cavalry group of 6-7 figs, 1 x 6# gun on each side…we have a 3.5 hour time limit on this scenario and find that it works out well…we typically get about 5 turns (ie., five run thrus of the card deck) in that time…

If you are just starting out, you could play with half of these figures and still have a great time…

Scenario brief:
link

Map Set Up: (7.5' wide by 3.5' deep)
picture

Malcolm has also done some excellent scenarios: EX:
link

We've been playing with companies of 21-24 figs with two big men per company and 1-2 companies per player. Our biggest game was with 7 players and about 10 companies total, which we finished in about 4 hours, but that was the maximum I would ever do as some of the turns started to go a little too long. I think the system works best by NOT combining groups into battalions unless there's only two players as the other players' big men don't get to do anything except remove shock points when in larger formations. Not very exciting unless you're in charge of the battalion!

What the hell is 'Sharps Practice'? Playing with needles?

"What the hell is 'Sharps Practice'? Playing with needles?"

Not Quite…Napoleonic Skirmish Rules by TFL…inspired by the Sharpe's BBC TV Series….

link

It messes with folks. See, the game is 'Sharp Practice', because they'd be messing with copyrights n stuff if they called it 'Sharpe Practice' but if they called it 'Sharpe Practice', it would have been 'Sharpe's Practice' in keeping with the pattern of the novel titles.

Now, we can't reasonably have 'Sharp's Practice' but folks just throw their hands in the air and make a slurred hybrid out of it.

Name puns or not…it's the Best new game for 2008 according to the TMP poll. Great Stuff

GR C17,

That, and $4.00 USD will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I never put any stock into those "Best Of" contests, because they are a product of those who bother to vote, from those who are members of the forum, etc. The "Brand-X" fan boys will also jam the polls to see their particular favorite get elevated.

Personally, I've been really turned off by the TFL's game system(s). they are well presented and have some great info, but I'm not willing to learn a whole new vernacular and deal with the randomness of their card system. I find it restrictive, confusing and unappealing.

Of course, that, and $4.00 USD will also get ME a cup of coffee, so take it for what it's worth: The opinion of one man who's played the rules a few times, and nothing more.

Respects,

"… they are well presented and have some great info, but I'm not willing to learn a whole new vernacular and deal with the randomness of their card system. I find it restrictive, confusing and unappealing."

Which, in recreating the friction of war, are exactly the reasons I love the rules … vive la difference!

Roly (who admits he is indeed a 'fan-boy', if that means someone who enjoys extolling the virtues of a product he enjoys using)

Well, I voted in both rounds…hope that does not mean I "jammed the polls".

TKindred, at least you tried them. ( unlike some in another thread )

Arteis, well said.

Now I need to find that $4 USD for coffee

GR C17,

I am always willing to give credit where it is due, and to give as objective an opinion as I am able. Everyone has their own take on how things should be, and that very variety is what helps keep wargaming vibrant and inclusive. There's something for everyone.

With very rare exceptions, I purchase most rule sets for periods I am interested in. That does two things. First, it gives you a variety of interpretations on how things should be, how other gamers treat a period historically, and mechanically. Two, it keeps those writers in business. That's important because, as I said, variety keeps gaming fresh, and those new rules might have something you can incorporate into your own rules, or at least give you another fresh set of views at a period and genre.

respects,

"I never put any stock into those "Best Of" contests, because they are a product of those who bother to vote, from those who are members of the forum, etc. The "Brand-X" fan boys will also jam the polls to see their particular favorite get elevated."

Isn't that rather like saying that you ignore elections because the political parties have their fan boys? Surely the point of the poll is that everyones' fans can vote, so it therefore becomes a level playing field.

You say "I am always willing to give credit where it is due", however you don't seem to be applying that principle in this case. A set of rules wins and award, and you immediately say that the award ain't worth a hill of beans? That hardly rates as "giving credit where it's due", does it?

GreenLeader,

Apples and oranges, old fellow. Not the same thing at all.

And giving credit where it is due refers to the rules set, not to their winning an award. They produced a nice looking set of rules, with nice background materials and a number of folks quite like them. I give them credit for that, and wish them well.

It's simply not my cup of tea, but that won't prevent me from purchasing a set for myself, as I have done with other systems I don't play. It's good to see how others approach the rules problem, and one can usually find something of worth to consider incorporating in other sets, or your own house rules.

Interesting how touchy folks can get when someone simply offers a mildly critical and candid view based upon their own experience.

respects,

Sharp Practice has a very simple system – shock points – which models morale better than many complex mechanisms I've used. The more shock a unit acquires, the slower it advances, while combat ability degrades. With enough shock the unit will turn about and head off. Leaders can remove shock from units. It helps of they get certain cards.

A unit that wins a fight but has lots of shock will be glad to see the enemy go, rather than chasing them. I've played other games where if your unit isn't routing its quite willing to charge. Not so in Sharp Practice.

All I can say is that TFL's Sharp Practice motivated me to move into Napoleonic Skirmish gaming in 28mm living color…Having been an avid "mass battle" player in 15 & 6mm Naps for some 30 odd years under Empire, Napoleon's Battles & Grande Armee, I wasnt sure what I would think about playing "Adventure Skirmish" type games such as SP….still playing almost 2 years later…Im hooked, addicted and converted…havent played big battle games in quite some time…enjoying the new (to me) rules & genre…

Basilhare the SP Fanboy

Yeah. It's just a popularity contest. Oh wait…

To answer the original question, the group sizes are very flexible. The bigger the group, the tougher it will be. However if you want a smaller game then six men groups are fine, or a larger game a dozen men per group (and thta is maximum).

The number of players really depends on your gaming group, but I would agree with the point made that each player should really have their own complete unit. So, for example, you could have forty Fusiliers in one formation made up of four Groups, but that should be one player's command. On the other hand if you had twenty riflemen and twenty fusiliers then that could quite happily be played by two separate players.

Regarding the TMP Award, people can say what they like about its value, but I can assure you that I am very pleased and honoured to win it. I really don't like the term "fan boy" as it smacks somewhat of disapproval, but what is true is that there are clearly plenty of fans of the rules who are prepared to vote for them, and I am most grateful to them for doing so. That degree of support is worth far, far more than a $4.00 USD coffee, whatever the cynics may say.

We have had great fun with Sharp Practice, and it is really rewarding for me to know that others are enjoying them too. Long may that continue.

Thanks all

Rich

Agreed…

Basilhare SP fanb….err uh…Fan of SP

Thanks for your help guys, i will keep my units to 10 men and for the fun of it build a range of units/nationalities from the Peninsular war, the Naps I usually paint are 15mm and Sharps is the perfect excuse to paint 28mm without having to build huge armies.I am starting with a box each of Brit and French plastic Victrix and Perry's. The Brits i will use half as Brits and the other half as Portuguese, the Victrix french will be French and Italians, the Perry's will be Swiss and German states, this will be fun. And having only browsed the rules they look OK to me.
gunnerswargamming.blogspot.com

Gunner Dunbar

I agree; it's nice to paint a relatively small number of figures and get a game on the table.

Have fun with the rules.

Rich

I would agree with 4 Big Men per side – we normally play 8 to 10 men per group. Usually one group per big man with a couple over.

We have experimented with one side with fewer groups and loads of Big Men, and the other side with lots of big groups but fewer Big Men – v. interesting, especially if it fits the scenario, like a "snatch", one group moving very quickly. The other really thinking about what was coming and trying to anticipate.

Great stuff.

For my money, its the additional bits that make it a fun game – we write down motivation, even if its as simple as "Get the Gehl, what?" or "Mort aux Rostbifs!" – it can become almost role playing (if that isnt some extreme heresy).

And poor Major Bohlsupp – manages to get knocked off in every game!

Poinyjavelin: You ain't wrong! If you try to create a hero they end up being useless, what I love is the way that characters emerge.

In our games Caporal Petain, a real "no mates" Corporal perfomed so consistently well that he became a centreal figure in all of our games. Whereas Dick Fondler usually ran away like a big girly…

That's the bit I love; stories and characters emerge and scenarios follow. Great fun!

I like the Lardie rules, flexible, give a good game and don't take themselves too seriously. I can't read those sets that seem written for lawyers or computer programers anymore (though was a WRG fan 20 odd years ago!)

Based on the many, many positive comments about these rules, I plan to pick up a copy at Historicon. Our group tried Napoloenic skirmish 4 or 5 years ago but couldn't find a ruleset we liked.