PSADennis | 30 Nov 2011 9:24 p.m. PST |
"No idea why there aren't lists for French and Spanish" I had the same question and I don't even have my rules from Foundry yet. Does Mr Chadwick contribute to TMP? I would love to get some insight. Also I have looked for a Yahoo Group but can't find one. Do any of you know if one has started? Dennis |
Mako11 | 01 Dec 2011 12:22 a.m. PST |
Those seem like glaring omissions. Thanks for the detailed rules review. It is greatly appreciated. |
Prince Rupert of the Rhine | 01 Dec 2011 2:50 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the review. I was very tempted by these (even more so as foundry have them on offer) but having read your review I think I'll pass. Which is good as really shouldn't be spending more money on new rules/periods. |
streetline | 01 Dec 2011 4:22 a.m. PST |
I flicked through a copy at the club last night. It's quite pretty but really not my thing with fixed unit sizes etc. I was greatly amused by the section on the pragmatism of the Condottieri and how they wouldn't bankrupt themselves to raise an army and fight wars. In a book from Foundry. I think I shall follow their advice
|
daghan | 01 Dec 2011 4:44 a.m. PST |
From a quick overview of the book I get the impression the rules are simple -dead simple. They could probably cope with small scale battles from 1300 to, dare I say, the English Civil Wars. The basic rules themselves don't take up much space: the fluff does. The campaign game looks interesting; and perhaps that's why the tactical battle rules are fairly straightforward. I'm happy I got my copy on the £10 offer, though. I don't think I'd have paid the full RRP. But we've yet to give the rules a go. Just to take up a couple of points made by Gattamalata: The French and Spanish must be classed as "armies in the main rules" as they're in the lists on page 30. And perhaps a Condottiere is "eliminated" when he is fired by a city-state in the campaign game -thus affecting the number of Fate Cards held by a player in a battle? |
Condottiere | 01 Dec 2011 5:47 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the review. Glad I ordered it at a discount. You are correct about the time span. Although there were Condottieri after the French invasion of 1494, it would have seemed appropriate to have the rules cover up to then, leaving Reiters and others out. Oh well. I'll certainly give them a try and judge for myself, but this looks like another flop like Foundry's Napoleon. |
Lentulus | 01 Dec 2011 5:52 a.m. PST |
What are the basic C3 and combat mechanisms? Setup and army list issues are easy to patch, if the game itself is OK. |
daghan | 01 Dec 2011 10:54 a.m. PST |
Gattamalata, I think the French and Spanish armies are there, at least implicitly. Appendix 3: Other Armies begins "Who says you can only play this game with the armies we listed in the main rules?" -but the French and Spanish are not in Appendix 3. However, as well as page 30, there are mention of French knights (p22),Spanish mounted arquebusiers, Spanish light cavalry, and Spanish briganti (p24), and Spanish pikemen (p25)in the section on "Troops" (p21); as well as flags for French and Spanish armies in the section on "Flags" (p110). I'm pretty sure a resourceful wargamer could cobble together an army out of this. |
A Twiningham | 01 Dec 2011 11:19 a.m. PST |
Sounds almost as bad as his "effort" on Dwarf Wars. |
thehawk | 01 Dec 2011 1:49 p.m. PST |
Are these the old Condottiere rules redone? |
WKeyser | 02 Dec 2011 3:01 a.m. PST |
Damn and was hoping against hope that these would be good so pushed the buy button way to early, however, can also ebay if I dont like them, was looking for a good excuse to buy the Perry plastics! oh well William |
French Wargame Holidays | 03 Dec 2011 3:02 a.m. PST |
The Condottiere is eliminated when he keeps rolling ones
:) |
daghan | 03 Dec 2011 3:20 a.m. PST |
ones are automatic hits in this game! |
Captain Cook | 03 Dec 2011 3:29 a.m. PST |
ones are automatic hits in this game! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That'll do for me :-)
|
oopsdoubleone | 03 Dec 2011 2:22 p.m. PST |
a game i might not lose
:) |
SVP001 | 07 Dec 2011 6:33 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the review, I recieved mine the other day and was glad I got it on offer as well. I'm not keen on games that use playing cards and I can see no benefit of the move order cards (hidden under the captain?) I don't undersand the reason behind the fixed unit size either. "Sorry we can't fight this battle today as some men are away forraging, can you come back tommorrow when we are at full strength please?" I'm affraid the poor quality figures in the pictures (apart form the older range) do not inspire me to game the period either. |
klingsor | 23 Dec 2011 9:20 a.m. PST |
The setting sounds perfect for a campaign game, unfortunately this does not seem to be it. Disappointing. |
cplcampisi | 24 Dec 2011 4:02 a.m. PST |
Hi, this is my first post to TMP. I picked up a copy of this book, and I like the fundamental rule system. I agree with others about the "fluff" -- seriously, Mallet's book which debunked a lot of this nonsense was written in the 70s! He has a whole chapter which describes how the Italians generally got the better of foreign invaders (including the swiss), during the 15th century. *Sigh* I needed to vent a little. :-) Am I correct in understanding that only the Ace, King and Queen of Hearts results in wounds, with regular Heart cards being the equivalent of passing a saving throw? No. That's not how I interpret it. Heart cards cause "wounds", Face (and ace) heart cards cause "fatal wounds", the soldier "dies". In either case the soldier is removed from the field. Whether or not a soldier was killed or wounded matters in the campaign game where wounded soldiers can return after a battle, but killed soldiers cannot. The confusing bit has to do with the "Stamina" skill. A soldier with the stamina skill takes two wounds to be removed from the game -- in this case, only if the second wound is an ace or face card does the soldier die. As the Stamina skill can be taken multiple times, only if the last wound is face or ace card does the soldier die. As I said before, I like the basic rules, and some of the weird rules make sense, if you think them out (like "passing fire"). But the rules are often presented in a confusing manner. I've only played a couple of games, as I haven't really built up an army (all I have is TYW era pikemen and musketeers to use). The quick reference sheet suuuuuuucks. It doesn't even include the ranged weapon modifiers, or clarify when soldiers rally, or what happens when the majority of a unit is dazed, etc. So I'm making one of my own. It's also in desperate need of an errata -- Organ guns and Cannons are both listed as having a range of 30 inches. Then under the Organ gun entry it states that Organ guns have a shorter range than cannons "as noted above". The Scottish army at the back gets Frame guns, which can move but are otherwise like cannons except they have a"range of only 36 inches" -- thanks! |
PSADennis | 01 Jan 2012 6:46 p.m. PST |
Does anyone know if a Yahoo group has started fr this? I have looked but have not found one. Dennis |
skyking20 | 04 Jan 2012 10:13 a.m. PST |
Is this what wargame rules have come to? Hardback books with lots of pretty pictures of figures (do the figure manufactures get kick backs?). No new ideas, rehashed ideas and /or non-historical ideas mixed with an imbalance between historicity and playability. You can't just read the book and play either. you have to debate, research and guesstimate just to get a game in. Then you wonder why do I even play the games? Maybe I should just paint the figures. At least there you can be certain that a hand is a hand and a foot is a foot! Finally there is the price for all of this and the (almost) manditory add-on volumes. etc etc! sky |
Condottiere | 04 Jan 2012 1:06 p.m. PST |
Not all wargame rules with pretty pictures are bad. In fact, there are several well done and well designed games available that are hardbound and filled with pretty pictures. So, I would say that it is wrong to suggest that "Condottiere" represents most if not all other like-produced rules. |
Condottiere | 13 Jan 2012 6:24 a.m. PST |
Not a large number of playtesters. Should have spread the playtesting to various groups around the globe, as other rules writers do, in an effort to gain insight and feedback. Instead, what was produced was a pile of horse manure. |
Mako11 | 18 Feb 2012 1:30 p.m. PST |
Sounds like I dodged a bullet on this one, since I didn't buy it. I was underwhelmed with their Trafalgar rules release too. The photos and book are beautiful, but I've got better rules off the internet for free, specifically, "Beat to Quarters 4.0.1". |
MarkRyan | 07 Mar 2012 12:37 p.m. PST |
We played a one-off game two weeks ago. We played out a 30 point Imperialist force against a similar point valued Italian force. The map was generated from the campaign system. The game was quite enjoyable and we hope to get a campaign going. Any thoughts on the correct artillery range? We opted for 60" based on George Gush's ratios of artillery ranges compared to the rules. |
cplcampisi | 07 Mar 2012 4:11 p.m. PST |
60 inches would be my guess for the artillery range. I actually like the underlying game system, I need to get more miniatures so I can play a complete game. |
Frank Chadwick | 21 Jun 2012 7:11 a.m. PST |
Sorry I'm coming late to the thread. If anyone is still interested, here are some observations. I did indeed turn the book over to Foundry probably eight or so years ago. Aside from some negotiations over rights, that's about the last I heard until my complimentary copies showed up. As I lost a hard drive in the interim with all of my original Condottiere game material on it, I can no longer comment on what difference, if any, there are between the version I submitted anf what they printed. All I have is the final book. They seem pretty similar, to the extent I remember, but I can't say much more than that. They had it for quite some time and it was my understanding they did a fair amount of playtesting and development. I believe the last four playtesters mentioned are theirs. That said, I'll the blame for anything about the game you don't care for. Unlike some folks here, I thought Foundry did a nice job with the physical production. I am afraid I have no recollection what my original thinking was on artillery ranges but I think there may be an error there somewhere -- the ranges look inconsistent. In terms of intent, the game is clearly meant to be evocative of the broad period, and the mercenray ethos, rather than a detailed historical simulation. From my thinking the historical "fluff" is absolutely essential to that, and I provided all of the historical essays. Have some of their theses been superceded by more modern scholarship? Of course (and those theses will, in some cases, themselves be superceded later) but the game is meant to be played not with an academic journal providing its backdrop, but rather a DVD of A PRINCE OF FOXES, or perhaps THE LAST VALLEY. I've always had difficulty understanding the criticism that the game allows armies from different periods to be matched against each other. Many games allow this. Players who prefer period-specific match-ups can certainly create appropriate armies from the lists provided. But for some folks I suspect their enjoyment is dampened by the nagging suspicion that somewhere, someone else is playing the same rules with non-historical matchups and (shudder) having a good time doing so. Ah well. For me the heart of the game is the campaign system. I don't know that anyone has ever tried to do a military campaign system before where the outcome of the campaign has almost nothing to do with which state wins the war. I also like the battle event cards a lot, and Brian Ansell had a lot to do with the variety of cards available. I wrote all of the cards, but his contribution was to keep saying, "These are good, but do a half-dozen more." Once I'd run out of every reasonable card I could think of, the call for another half-dozen, and then another, produced what I think are the best and most interesting cards -- the tribe of gypsies, the angry peasants, the herd of cows wandering aimlessly and getting in the way of your cavalry charge, "Hold That Pose!" etc. |
altfritz | 23 Jun 2012 9:19 a.m. PST |
I don't mind simple rules. In fact, simple is often better! |
altfritz | 24 Jun 2012 8:55 a.m. PST |
In a deck, sans Jokers, soldiers are affected by the Ace, King and Queen cards, with Hearts causing Wounds, but with Clubs, Diamonds and Spades, the aforementioned cause Panic, while regular cards give a Daze result. If an Ace is tunred, one's opponent chooses the target, with other cards one gets to choose the victim. Soldiers with the Steady skill ignore results from Club cards. Etc. and etc..Am I correct in understanding that only the Ace, King and Queen of Hearts results in wounds, with regular Heart cards being the equivalent of passing a saving throw? Why else specify the Ace and Faces as causing critical hits, since most have one wound? I had thought that the 3 cards negated the benefits of figures having multiple wounds with the Stamina skill, but if all it does is remove one wound at a time, go on about these cards? From the QRS, ALL hearts cause wounds. The Ace and face cards kill. It implies that they kill even those with the Stamina ability. With Aces the opponent chooses the casualty, which presumably could be the standard bearer or an officer (if sch exist
) Not sure if it's actually in the rules, but if in melee and you drew an "ace" and selected an opponents standard bearer for the casualty I'm thinking that would be a good opportunity for a captured standard
My set is on order but based upon the above review and what I can glean from the QRS and Fate cards it looks like the sort of rules I would be interested in. I actually was working on a set of rules for my "Garden of Kama" setting (sort of a Fantasy India/SE Asia) and I was tinkering with having troops run away in dribs and drabs rather than by unit. This system seems to do the same – I guess great minds do think alike! ;-) |
Uesugi Kenshin | 29 Jun 2012 4:10 p.m. PST |
@Frank Chadwick (completely off topic, sorry guys!) is there any chance of we fans of your games convincing you to release some scenario books for Volley & Bayonet, Road to Glory? I specifically would love to see a book on the Franco-Prussian or the 7 Weeks war. Thanks! U.K. |
Oudinot | 05 Aug 2012 4:28 a.m. PST |
I picked up a copy of these rules on the bring & buy at a local show for a fraction of the cover price. The production and presentation is very good and yes there is a lot of "filler"if you are familiar with the period, but if not, then that "filler" is of some use. I think the list of suggested reading is very poor, and the pictures of badly painted/hidious foundry figures is a waste of paper.(Why did they not get Kevin Dalimore to paint some figures especially for the rules?!) All that said the rules look interesting( We like Frank Chadwick at our club), and myself and three others have just ordered Perry plastics to give it a go. I would not have paid £25.00 GBP for these (Trade price apparently £16.00 GBP, just how much are Foundry making selling direct to the public??!!!) Will keep you posted after our first game. |
Frank Chadwick | 17 Aug 2012 9:22 p.m. PST |
U.K., we have two Seven Years War scenario books out and have a couple Napoleonics books in the works (one on the Penninsula, by Tom Harris, will probably come out first). Greg Novak was going to do an ACW book for us but sadly that project is on hold. We're also looking as an AWI book, but there's a limit to our output. V&B is our best seller, however, so it's not being ignored. |
Uesugi Kenshin | 18 Aug 2012 9:10 p.m. PST |
|
Roger56 | 03 Oct 2013 7:38 a.m. PST |
Let me see If I can shed some light. Following Oman Here there are roughly three periods that are covered by these rules. First, there is the period of the 14th Century maybe best represented by Hawkwood where mercenaries from outside Italy and used tactical systems learned from the HYW. The dismounted MAA and the Archer combination and battles that resemble those of the HYW. You would have to order figures accordingly. Second, the 15th century of sieges and cavalry armies manuvering endlessly under commanders avoiding pitched battles. The business of battle dictates quick surrender by the "vanquised" and ransom so the the defeated can rejoin "the business" as quickly as possible. The 16th century is ushered in by Fornova and the interveentions. The city states of Italy are now run by men involved in a grimmer kind of war. The Condotierre of this period are really the princes who cast about like the Byzsantine Emperor for troops they can pay to keep themselves in power and thier nickle in the more deadly game of 16th century. Of course, like all such concepts set up artificial structures that bleed into one another. Further it should be recognized the Oman's analogy to ancient Greece is a real streach requiring an ignorance of many saliant facts. So Condotierre is a set of rules that has to be approached from the standpoint of what the player wants for forces. They are trying to streach across almost three centuries of of war. The identity of who might qualify as "Condotierre" changes. Like I said one is interested in Hawkwood the force will be different than a force lead by a Mediche. If the rules have any "problem," it is that they do not concentrate around representitive Battles. And once you get into the 16th century all the "other" armies become relevant. |
cplcampisi | 03 Oct 2013 7:00 p.m. PST |
The problem is that Oman is, now (not necessarily when these rules were written), thoroughly outdated. Second, the 15th century of sieges and cavalry armies manuvering endlessly under commanders avoiding pitched battles. The business of battle dictates quick surrender by the "vanquised" and ransom so the the defeated can rejoin "the business" as quickly as possible. This was pretty thoroughly debunked in Mallett's excellent work, Mercenaries and their Masters, which came out in the 1970s, but sadly seems to be overlooked, understandable when these rules were first written. So from the perspective of someone who has studied condottieri, this work reinforces old ideas. At best the above quote is an extreme exaggeration. Italians fought foreign armies during the 15th century, including the swiss, and often got the better of them. I actually like the basic Condottiere rules, and the skills and liabilities allow for some nice variation. I feel it plays much better than Warhammer (that's just my opinion). Army lists are easily enough modified, that they don't discourage me too much. There are some confusing things in the text though, and sadly no errata has appeared to correct them. |