"Old School Army-Level Wargame" Topic

Recently there has been a rediscovery of the charms of 'Old School' wargaming, but such games usually focussed on low-level tactics and featured only a few infantry battalions, cavalry regiments and artillery batteries pretending to be a whole army. I'm intrigued by the challenge of designing an army-level wargame, in which the smallest individual unit will be a division, but in the 'Old School' style. It will be very much a fun game, rather than a detailed simulation, but will, I hope, have some historical flavour and not generate incredible outcomes. Any comments, ideas or suggestions you may care to make will be much appreciated!

Interesting challenge you have set there.

The "one true old skool" answer is however painfully obvious.

Call your battalions divisions and I'm your Uncle : )

Bob

I am not sure what you mean by 'Old School'. Would you, please, give some examples?

Old School has changed since it started, but this is my Old School in a nutshell:

Large battalions, often single-pose painted with little fuss. This is 60-90 figures a battalion.

Rules which don't focus on fiddly national characteristics or weapon performance. In one example: For every 6 miniatures firing, roll a d6 and remove that many casualties.

Really, at it's core, a style of game which focuses on playing with a lot of toy soldiers amongst friends where no-one ever stops to argue over the realism of rules or accuracy of painting.

And to answer arthur's question:

To represent a large army in the Old School manner one would find a bunch of chums who paint something close enough and combine your collections on a weekend.

One could discuss the realism of a brigade fighting with 3-4 battalions of 6 10-man companies vs. a corps fighting with 20 12-man battalions, but I think it would defeat the purpose.

You might take a look at 'Snappy Nappy'. The units can be represented by any number of figures. A stand represents 2,000 men.

It might fit the bill.

Bill H.

Try this:

link

"To represent a large army in the Old School manner one would find a bunch of chums who paint something close enough and combine your collections on a weekend."

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's what Arthur means at all. I'm sure he'll correct me if I am wrong, but I would think he is talking about using "Old School" style rules, but with units representing divisions rather than battalions.

Incidentally, I don't think there is anything specifically Old School about having units with a large number of figures. I have played Old School rules quite happily with units of only 24 – 30 figures.

I would go with having the units represent larger units

As I recall, the HG Wells units were a reasonable size – 12 to 20 figs or so – the Charles Grant rules (of which I have an original copy) have big units, 48 figs or more for infantry – interestingly, when describing games, he had no problem using units from one army for another

Use Morschauser's roster system and have each unit (or stand) be a brigade.

Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming For Fun has a simple, army-level game in it. (And also skirmish level; brigade level; Divisional level; and an "army commander's day" set of rules amongst a few others.)

"Use Morschauser's roster system and have each unit (or stand) be a brigade."

Except that Arthur said he wants a unit to be a division, not a brigade. And I'm sure Arther is familiar with the Morschauser roster system.

"Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming For Fun has a simple, army-level game in it."

Not quite what Arthur is after, I think. That army level game is not "old school".

Do we have to wear these if we play Old School?

link

Well, it shouldn't be too difficult, just pick an appropriate ground scale, level of figure representation and turn length and off you go.

My generic ninetenth century rules use divisions as manouvre units, 24 figure divisions (for four regiment divisions anyway), hour long turns. Generals are corps commanders and HQs are for armies. Div artillery is factored in so guns only represent corps reserve arty. Divisions have a frontage of 1000m (2000m for fat divisions deployed in line if they don't mind not having reserve regiments).

To keep it Old School, keep it simple, so a division is either 'marching' or 'deployed', don't muck around with lower level formations. (ie, like V&B).

"Do we have to wear these if we play Old School?"

I wear mine even when IM not gaming!

"The "one true old skool" answer is however painfully obvious.

Call your battalions divisions and I'm your Uncle : )

Bob"

As any fule kno!

Seriously, though, that is precisely what I want to avoid. It appears, in effect, to be what Neil Thomas has done in his new book on Napoleonic wargaming, which has the original idea that all armies are exactly eight units strong. On close examination, his rules create a battle between the small forces that were typical when I began wargaming, rather than portraying engagements between divisions or corps.

In reply to other posters: I am a member of the old school yahoo group and have posted this question there as well. I am also familiar with Morschauser's roster system, Griffith's army-level game and Snappy Nappy. I particularly like the latter, but want to write something simpler, with the divsion as the basic unit, of my own.

This introduction of old school thongs worries me – I fear we shall soon see Zardoz sporting one!

"This introduction of old school thongs worries me"

Don't you remember standing by your desk and singing the old school thong?

…

Sorry, couldn't resist!!

Arthur, I don't see where your approach is any different from say Grant. You're taking a unit of 48 figures (or so) and calling them 'divisions' rather than 'battalions'.

Rich

Rich, that's what I'm trying NOT to do! For example, I would not want to move bases to form one square and claim that this represented all the battalions of a division going into square. And I have never specified the number of figures I would use for a division – the numerical strength of a unit in figures is, IMHO, the least significant aspect of the old school approach.
To me, some of the important things about the old school approach are:
Concise, simple rules that do not require constant reference to rulebooks or complex charts for sociable games between friends
Maths, when necessary, one can do in one's head
Only one kind of dice – no d6 for this, d8 for that, d4 for the other..
Avoidance of acronyms, jargon and legalistic definitions of words beyond their common-sense, intuitive meaning
In this respect, the rules in Neil Thomas's latest book tick all the right boxes, BUT the game resulting therefrom is not army-level, rather a small forces game pretending to represent armies, bath-tubbing taken to extremes.

Well maybe not a direct answer but perhaps food for thought.

I like battalions of 4 x 28mm figures in my large scale games. The footprint of a line is 4" wide by 1" deep, which makes for a ground scale around 1" = 50 yards.

I don't use figure removal but to make it old skool, figure removal coupled with some inordinately easy saving throws might be in order to prevent battalions vaporizing too quickly?

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think that army-level can be done old school. Old-school is all about individual regiments painted in nice glossy colours. When you are playing old school the whole French army consists of a regiment of Old Guard, a squadron of Polish Lancers, a battery of horse artillery and a few battalions of infantry (generally painted as Swiss, Croats, Neapolitans and if you really must, French). They will be fighting against the Scots Greys, the 95th rifles, a rocket troop of the RHA, and some Highlanders. And that is all you need to refight Waterloo.

If this isn't what you are doing, then I am sorry, but you are not old school.

If large numbers or individual casualty removal do not feature among your priorities, I'm not sure what it is exactly that you're after – there are lots of division-level rules out there.

But for simple mechanisms and vector-free maths, I'd recommend taking a look at "Rank & File" from Crusader.
It works with bases (of any number of figures) that can represent anything from 50 to 200 men, and probably more; players decide how much period "chrome" they want to include through optional rules.

"Old School" for a youngster can be 1990, for a dinosaur like me,it means late 60s early 70s, so perspective on what you want and mean is important! I wish you good luck in finding the system that satisfies you, there certainly is a plethora of rules and adaptions of rules to choose from!!

"Old school" involves a pool cue which is painted in different colours to represent where the cannonball hits and where it bounces.

"When you are playing old school the whole French army consists of a regiment of Old Guard, a squadron of Polish Lancers, a battery of horse artillery and a few battalions of infantry (generally painted as Swiss, Croats, Neapolitans and if you really must, French). They will be fighting against the Scots Greys, the 95th rifles, a rocket troop of the RHA, and some Highlanders. And that is all you need to refight Waterloo."

I am sorry, but that is not Old School.

It never fails to amuse me that since I began wargaming in the early seventies with a copy of Charge in one hand and Little wars in the other, so many academics, army historians, serving officers, and arm chair generals have failed to come up with a set of rules that fit all requirements for all gamers! Are we not just crying for the moon? Until someone manages to animate our little armies with a life of their own, and a price that allows us to have a 1 to 1 ratio, we just have to go along with a best fit for the senario that we are trying to portray. Lets face it, if we can't even agree about what constitutes "old school" we arn't going to get far with answering the real question. I have witnessed these side tracks brought up so many times over the last fifty years, that I am not surprised at all over the lack of real progress in the hobby over all these years. Lets go back to first principles and start again, remembering the original remit of the game. Having fun, not necessarily trying to emulate history. You can now get computer battle simulators for that, if you like that sort of thing. Just try to answer Arthur's question without the smoke screen, and trying to show off how clever you are. You are all intelligent chaps with years of experience between you.Just help the fellow out without all the smart retorts.

Funny, I've been pondering the same issues lately, and am reminded of my 1960's-70's origins, BEFORE published rules, and then with the most elementary of systems.

My old French army consisted of three corps, some guard, and some cavalry reserve. Opposed to them I had misc Russians, Austrians, British and a few Prussians. Then I also had some confederation "units" – Berg, Wurtemburg, etc. The battlefield was a 4x8 plywood with wood edging and real dirt from the back yard, which looked better than any expensive commercial products I've ever seen.

Each "corps" consisted of four infantry "units", a cavalry unit, and one or two artillery pieces. The infantry units depicted divisions at the strategic level, but regiments or battalions at the tactical level. That is, they fought as battalions, but represented divisions in the larger context. The infantry "units" had about 24 figures, the cavalry units 10 or 12. So the combat was depicted in close, tactical terms--that is, it was FUN without abstraction. Individual figures were often promoted or decorated for heroism.

It worked great, and for all the fancy rules I've read ever since, provided more "fun" than anything I've done in the intervening 40 years.

Now that I've moved into a place with a basement, I'm thinking about building another such table, and using 1/72 plastic, recreating that very experience.

"Just try to answer Arthur's question without the smoke screen, and trying to show off how clever you are. You are all intelligent chaps with years of experience between you.Just help the fellow out without all the smart retorts."

While I agree with a lot of what you say, I think you are equally guilty of not answering Arthur's question.

"The infantry units depicted divisions at the strategic level, but regiments or battalions at the tactical level. That is, they fought as battalions, but represented divisions in the larger context."

That is "bathtubbing" and Arthur has specifically said he doesn't want to do that.

I have been thinking about this a lot, but since I wasn't there at the time my question is :What is (are) the sine qua non of old school rules? To my inexpert eye, they seem to involve:

A direct relation between models and firing effect.
Very few modifiers.
Very simple morale rules.
Alternate turns?

Regards

Whirlwind,
I very much agree with your analysis. For an army-level game, however, I think the first – direct relation between [number of?] models and firing effect – may have to be sacrificed, although I have been toying with the idea of having a base with a large number of figures mounted on it, but a few being fixed with plasticene or blu-tak so they can be easily removed as an indicator of casualties/loss of combat effectiveness, thus leaving the visual spectacle of many figures to suggest a large body of troops. Another option would be to have a separate CO and colour-bearer whose positions in front/left/right/behind unit would serve as a code for the damage suffered.

Arthur,

Do you have a copy of the Polemos rules? I was thinking that maybe if you ripped out the tempo/initiative rules then you would have a fairly simple old school game, firing done by the battalion or the brigade rather than individual figures. Make the game a strict alternate turns game, or alternate formations. Allow only generals to rally troops. That might work.

Regards

"Bathtubbing." New term for me. Sounds derisive, though only in an academic way.

Let's look at this from the other side. If someone is playing an army level game, and entire divisions are on a single move stand which can neither deploy nor change formation, we call that "board game."

Honestly, why not use some rules from Avalon Hills' "Waterloo," or something similar. How much real difference is there?

Roll 1 x D6

1 = Attacker elim.
2 = Attacker back 2
3 =

You get the idea.

C.F. Wesencraft: Practical Wargaming 1974

The Army Corps in action

"But what about all my beautiful figures mounted on their stands, you may demand. Fear not. The scale has altered but the figures will continue to march. A single stand containing three infantrymen becomes an entire battalion, two cavalrymen a cavalry regiment."

Movement table for scale of 12"=1 mile
Infantry on roads – 12"
Infantry over open country – 6"
Heavy Cavalry 24"
Light Cavalry 27"

Definition of old school: Any game where all infantry moves 12"

"Let's look at this from the other side. If someone is playing an army level game, and entire divisions are on a single move stand which can neither deploy nor change formation, we call that "board game.""

Not if there are miniatures involved and Arthur is not talking about a division being on a single stand anyway.

"Definition of old school: Any game where all infantry moves 12" "

Nope. In Featherstone's rules, infantry often move 6".

"Nope. In Featherstone's rules, infantry often move 6"."

As it should be!

Quite right, Mr. Snorbens. Arthur did not specify a division per stand, but that divisions would be the "smallest individual unit." So if a division is the smallest unit, it would not be deployable into smaller units. By using a few stands, it could change from "column" to "line" but what would that look like? Is a division ever in "line" or "column?" Only in a board game format, from what I've seen.

The difference is marginal. We are still talking about a division as the smallest manouver unit. I'm sorry, but that is very nearly the definition of a board game. So the "counter" has 6mm figures glued to it. So what? In terms of game mechanics, we are still talking about a board game, in principle.

But that seems to be where Arthur is headed. No problem. I've enjoyed board games in the past. They WOULD look better on a big table with figures glued to the counters, and terrain features and such.

It takes more than miniatures to make a miniatures game, IMHO. The whole idea, from the beginning, was a tactical flavor gained by the miniature soldiers themselves.

We have a whole spectrum of miniatures games represented on this forum. I, for one, don't see the point of 6-figure battalions, nor divisions as the smallest tactical units. A division is not a "tactical" unit to begin with. But that's just me. I speak for no one else.

Now, before you jump on that, Arthur did not use the term "tactical." I know that, but it's still the same idea. And if a division is the basic unit in the game, you really don't have a miniatures game that I would recognise. You have a board game with trays of miniatures representing divisions instead of cardboard counters. It's just prettier, not different.

"The difference is marginal. We are still talking about a division as the smallest manouver unit. I'm sorry, but that is very nearly the definition of a board game."

My army level ACW game:
PDF link
has a division as the smallest manoeuvre unit. However it is not a single stand, each stand represents a brigade, so a division can consists of anything from 2 to about half a dozen stands.

"By using a few stands, it could change from "column" to "line" but what would that look like? Is a division ever in "line" or "column"?

My rules distinguish three possible "formations", but they are not formations in quite the way you mean. "Fighting line" – i.e. deployed to fight, "marching column" – i.e. deployed to march, and "encamped" – that is not about to march or fight. The latter is specifically to deal with situations such as the Union troops at Shiloh.

It is definitely NOT a board game, neither is it "old school". I suppose you could play it with counters, but it would lose much of the appeal of using miniatures. MY definition of a miniatures game is any game played with miniatures.

"And if a division is the basic unit in the game, you really don't have a miniatures game that I would recognise."

Maybe not for you, but in my view it certainly can be.

>It is definitely NOT a board game

Irony…

>It is definitely NOT a board game

Irony…

??? It meets my definition of miniatures game (see above) and is not played on a board (in the sense of a cardboard board supplied as part of a package).

And we have already had this conversation elsewhere.
TMP link

Some miniature gamers seem to use 'board game' as a derogatory term meaning "miniature game with more abstraction that I like".

If it uses miniatures and is played on a table, it is a miniatures game.

I'd second Wesencraft's rules from "Practical Wargaming" as being a bone-fide set of army level rules from an "old school" author.

I have written my own, which maintain a fast-play, if not "old school" feel, without rosters or formations per-se and a minimum of markers. No casualty removal, but you could adapt this to replace the markers I suppose. Measurements are based on a standard distance equivalent to one unit's frontage:

link

They are written for 6mm, 1 base=brigade, so may not suit you, but at least they are free!

It is the same old qunadary with the same old answer, make it and write it to get the game you want….:)
We all have a different approach and ideas and thats what makes the hobby fun. My group have a basic set of homegrown rules of a few pages. We use simultaneous movement with cards (yes not everyones cup of tea), a stand is 6 foot figures or 3 cavalry and there are factors for the type of figure (line, light, battle vs light cavalry etc) and factors for class (which includes morale, training, ability etc). The stand can be whatever unit size you want it to be, and grouped with others accordingly with a card limit per "command". Sounds simple and I know others will disagree with it, however, we get good games, no problems recreating battles at all levels and we get realistic results. The overriding thing is that class will overcome quantity if used right. Write them how you want to get the system you want old chap,

cheers
Jon.

"The stand can be whatever unit size you want it to be,"

But that is bath-tubbing and Arthur specifically said he didn't want to do that:
"BUT the game resulting therefrom is not army-level, rather a small forces game pretending to represent armies, bath-tubbing taken to extremes."

I am old and slow and I am missing the point here, either because I am Old and Slow (likely) or is it that there no point to most of this? This guy will eventually find the elements he likes and put something together that satisfies him enough; just like thousands of others have done before. Just like scores of guys before he might write it all up and try to sell his ideas as a package. Just like a dozen or so guys have done he might actully do a good enough job to get lots of poeple to buy it. Lets wish him good luck in his quest for a system that meets his requirements ( I don't have a clue what all they are, but who cares)

Amen.

And good luck.

Surely the defining feature of a board game is the board itself?

Hexes or squares forcing strange looking battle lines with the trade off that there is no arguing over ranges etc.

I have played 1:1 scale board games and 1:4000 miniatures games and vice verso.

There are a number of miniatures/board game crossovers like Space Hulk and Command and Colors.

However changing the figure scale from 1:20 to 1:2000 does not make a miniatures game a board game.

A friend and I thought we were the most clever when we used to joke about the ultimate in abstraction; the wargame table depicts Europe on a 6 x 8 table; the alps are about 4 inches high, Italy is a few inches across. We imagine playing WWII at division level, with a division represented by a single 54mm plastic army man (infantry division) or tank (armor division). Russian and German Divisions face one another,literally face to face. American Divisions look to be ready to step across the channel in a single step. The joke is the title, "Do the Alps block line of sight?"

"with a division represented by a single 54mm plastic army man (infantry division) or tank (armor division)."

Oh dear, my Eastern Front operational rules do use division sized stands for some units (mainly Russian), so you do indeed have a whole division represented by a single tank, albeit in 6mm rather than 54mm (which would just be silly!). Yes, the Alps do block line of sight, unless you've got elements on them or air assets over the top of them.

Very hard to refight some battles in a sensible length of time unless you use fairly high level units. The largest modern units I've used are 1 base = 1 corps (that was a special case), and when we did Koeniggratz recently, I used Corps as the basic manouvre unit (albeit composed of brigade sized bases). Well it was a battle with half a million men engaged on a ten km front! I'm supposed to do it with battalions?

This thread got way off-topic, partly due to my fault. I'd like to try to address the original question/issue, and see what others think, m'kay?

Setting aside such concepts as "bathtubbing," we might compare the smallest tactical unit of this army-level game – a division – with the smallest tactical unit of a corps-level game – a battalion.

Like the battalion, this "division unit" needs to be composed of a number of stands, so that different deployments can be represented. As a point of discussion, let's propose that we deal with a linear-type arrangement vs. a columnar look. We might want a division defending to be represented by a "line" with all stands side-by-side. Attacking, we might want to see a column, say two stands wide. In reserve, a column of single stands. "Formation changes" between these different deployments might be treated, mechanically speaking, with considerations of time and activation modifiers. Also, the three different deployments might move at different speeds.

You may or may not want to represent skirmishing in some way. Unlike a battalion, there is not neccessarily a single stand or "company" of skirmishers, but a more abstractly represented "skirmish capacity," say two stands or groups of skirmish figures who can be deployed together or on up to two sides of the main formation. Some divisions might have more skirmishers than others.

If the division is disordered or been forced to retreat, the stands can be placed ajar, but still touching. If the division is routed, the stands ajar and slightly separated.

Another consideration might be that one combat result might be that only part of the division is engaged, supported by the other part. And/or, only part of the division is forced back or routed. Or, if the engaged portion, or "brigade" were defeated, the division as a whole might have a "saving throw" to maintain its order and/or postion following a defeat.

It would all need quite a bit of abstraction. For example, a typical French or Russian division might be simple to represent, but how about divisions like Picton's at Waterloo, featuring rifles, highlanders, British line, and Hannovarian landwehr? Such a division would need to be "boiled down" to a skirmish capacity represented partly by rifles, and perhaps two other "sub-units" represented by highlanders and landwehr.

Arthur, do these ideas approach what you were thinking about?