"New Neil Thomas Rules" Topic

'One-hour Wargames: Practical Tabletop Battles for those with limited time and space'

Interesting – I have pre-ordered from Amazon, although I think its not going to be issued for 6 months or so. These are new rules for small armies – I wonder what type of style he will use. I presume some kind of single element basing like DBX.

From the blurb:

One of the biggest problems facing wargamers is finding the time to actually play. Most commercially available sets of rules require several hours to set up and play to a conclusion; some can easily swallow up a whole day or weekend. For many gamers this means that their lavishly prepared miniature armies rarely get used at all. Apart from time, the other consideration is space, which further constrains the opportunities for a game. In One-hour Wargames, veteran gamer and rule-writer Neil Thomas has addressed both these problems. Now it is practical to play a game in around an hour on a normal dining table or living room floor. The book contains 8 (all-new) sets of very simple rules for various periods, from Ancient to WW2 and 30 scenarios which can be played using any of them, so you don't even have to take too much time thinking up a stimulating tactical situation and objectives. All the rules and scenarios are intended to be played on a 3ft x 3ft battlefield. The rules only require a small number of miniatures, so this really is an ideal way for new gamers, or veterans trying a new period, to get started with minimal investment of time and money. Also ideal for a quick game in the evening when a friend pops round. There are also sections on campaigns and solo games.

These should prove popular, thanks for the heads up.

Neil Thomas stuff is always worth a look – thanks for posting !

Phil

The sounds good. I really enjoyed his book on nineteenth century wargaming, and strangely he seems to know a lot of the same people I do although I don't think I've met him.

Interesting – will have to take a look at that, thanks, as I love his ancients book.

That's maybe my Christmas present to myself sorted!

Pre-order for August right? Looking forward to it!

I plan to pick this up when it comes out. I enjoy his previous publications.

It is now on my Amazon wish list. Thanks for posting.

Preordered

Very much liked his previous books

I agree with Martin that the 19 Century book was very good.

Love Neil Thomas' rules and I'll be getting these.
I imagine the cover pic bears no relation to a game using these rules which is a sort of tradition with Neil's books!!!

Thanks for posting this. It led me to finding about his ancient rules and ordering them.

There's a longish review of this by Arthur Harman in what is now the last issue of Miniature Wargames (issue 379). Pretty positive (he gave it a medal).

One of the Amazon reviews is mine. This is a super book and I cannot recommend it enough. Our group's first run through with the Horse & Musket set managed two games in under three hours and by the end of the first game we hardly referred to the rules. My evil plan is to use them for big games, but I'll be happy to use them for regular play.

I'm not that taken by the WW2 set as I think the core workes better for non-mechanised warfare, but the biggest problem is the temptation to expand into all the other periods!

in what is now the last issue of Miniature Wargames (issue 379).

Issue 380 has now been published.

I run the Oversee Scenario from the 1864 war between Denmark and Prussia/Austria,solo, from the Wargaming the 19th century rules. I will try to get a Battle Report up by the end of the week.

I can say it gave me what I wanted, which was a good fun game in just 1 hour on a small area. Historical outcome, though it was close.

I have the War gaming 19th century rules by him. Is there much new material rules wise in this book that makes it worth getting? I enjoy his writing style and his unapologetic musings on design considerations.

We've had a few games with various sets of his (Ancients, Horse & Musket, C19 as well as some of the one hour ones).

All tweaked, naturally.

I am rather pleased with my square based version of his nineteenth century set, but I had to significantly re-write the WW2 set from 'Introduction to Wargaming'.

To follow up on QC's post a few days ago, this gamer posted part two of a battle report using 1HW rules.

link

Apparently there will be a part three. Very interesting.

In my narrow little mind, I'd read 1HW thinking units would be four stands as usual. Reviewing these posts, it dawned on me that using these rules could be even easier than imagined: a unit could be one stand, 4 inches long, with whatever number of figures one chooses to base on it. If that works – and how would one represent a Napoleonic square doing that? – it would make assembling and gaming units for a particular conflict really manageable in terms of time and effort. Am I missing something?

You've ordered. I can't imagine how you pre-order something. Prepare the email, but don't actually send it?

For many gamers this means that their lavishly prepared miniature armies rarely get used at all.

So we can use our lavishly prepared miniature armies for just an hour? Also include the lavishly prepared terrain and the researched scenario.

I play in two games a month. One of them I put on. Depending on how complicated the map is and how many figures and buildings are involved it takes me 2 to 3 hours just to set up the terrain and set out the troops.

The games usually last from 5 to 8 hours, depending on the battle. We expect between 5 to 10 participants. I get just as much enjoyment preparing as I do playing. An hour long game isn't worth the trouble.

One hour is better than nothing I would say. It's not an either or supposition either. A one hour game played does not mean when you have time you can't play any other rules.
: )

Rallynow, what exactly did you contribute to the conversation?

Spot-on KT.
We put on big games from time to time and it's great to have 1000s of figures on a massive table, but it's not always possible to get 6/8/10 people together to spend the whole day playing. We want to play a lot (4 games this week including a big one…Hong Kong, 1941, 28mm) and can't wait to get these high-speed rules for modest evening games…there again we may find the rules work of huge battles too. Bigger is not the same as better and complex rules do not necessarily give a better game or better history.

Frankly as I am getting older, massive armies that take years to paint, terrain that takes years to build, and games that take days to play do not excite me. Joy to those it does, but it does not make them better in some way. Anyway let us forget Rallynow and his useless words and move on.

The first rule of war(games) is to understand the victory conditions (or something like that). I suppose Rallynow's victory conditions are just a bit different from those who are more enthusiastic on this thread. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

In my immature youth I used to sneer at the blameless and inoffensive ancients tournament gamers, without whom our club probably could not survive, because Aztecs vs Vikings etc is a travesty of history (or whatever). But now I understand that theirs is simply an entirely different hobby from mine and neither is intrinsically better or worse, it's just a question of what you like.

I did once suggest simplifying each battle to the toss of a coin. Then with a pocket full of change you could run a campaign in a minute. But that could be an abstraction too far. I may have been being facetious.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link

The whole point of the book is limited time and space. I would love to be able to set up on our dining table and keep the troops there for hours on end as I work my way towards a conclusion, but I expect it would be interrupted by the wife's baking plans or smeared with baked beans from the Little Imp's tea. Or worse, it would morph into a My Little Pony story.

In response to some of the good points made in previous posts..

Don't get too hung up on the scale. I call them engagement ranges, which includes firing, bayonet charges etc. note in some of the earlier rules NT takes this line for troops that shoot'n'scoot.

My ACW units are on 3 bases. I will drop one per 5 hits. My Napoleonics stick to NT's 4 base standard and, again, I just remove a base for every 5 hits. All infantry form in a double rank. Skirmishers form a single rank of 3 bases.

My aim was to actually to fight bigger battles with the OHW sets. I would stay with NTs Napoleonic rules for anything up to 12 units per side, but we don't have the players to manage more. I've played a few games of OHW and the feedback was very positive so aim to run our Christmas game with them. I have tweaked a few things to include heavy cavalry and horse artillery etc, so if anybody wants a copy I will gladly oblige.

OHW?

One hour wargames.

Must say I would change the ranges for the Rifle & Sabre rules. Franco Prussian wouldn't look right if the Prussians didn't have to run the Chassepot gauntlet to get in range.

i tend not to get to hung up on scaling and stick to what looks right and works for the game. Toy soldiers massively distort things anyway unless you fight at 1:1. And i doubt that would be entirely accurate either.

Thanks for the links – I'm always ready to steal good ideas!

QC,

I find it hard to extrapolate the OHW mechanics that seems well suited to mass battles type to the later Modern games. Even if the Modern games, each base represents a platoon, or even larger, formations. It may be that they are fine for that level of Modern operations, but just can't get into that headspace!

The yardstick of using bow range to compare rule scales can be a good one, but need to pick the rules carefully. Bow range matching ground scale becomes hard (well, impossible really, that's the whole point of design for effect) to compare in "design for effect" games. Armati is a good example here, where the bow range is 24" but is at the same scale (sort of) as DBM, where bow range is 4", or Rally Round the King, where it is 6". If is better just to hang onto the if the bow range is between 4" and 24", it is a mass battle game, and not worry about scale! There are plenty of people that like to have bow range matching ground scale matching time scale and will argue to death that the design for effect games get it all wrong. but to me it is, as you point out, all up to what the designer is trying to simulate.

Oh, and thanks for the good words about the blog. I have been off on other projects for the last 12 months and for a little more as I finish them off. I have a bunch of games with more different Ancient rulesets lined up to do over the next few months. Like you, I have been flat out at work for awhile (mine since June actually) that is eating into my gaming time and a little into my gaming motivation. I have a break coming over Christmas.

Alan Saunders started an interesting series of posts about this book in his blog "The Stronghold Rebuilt".
You could read them here:
link
link

Thanks for the links Cesar.

I found the book inspiring, but couldn't get into the rules as written without feeling the need to tweak, or use other players' tweaks. But, as someone commented above, different people like different things. I like taking simple rules and tweaking them to my taste.

I actually spent a lot of yesterday playing various scenarios, but using my own Battle Cry/Memoir '44 derived square-grid rules. And I can say that even if you don't like the rules on OHW/1HW the scenarios are worth the effort.

I wrote up two of them here, using 6mm ACW armies:

link

The post covers a brief report of the Bottleneck scenario and a longer one of the Unfortunate Oversight scenario. I played several others, some of them with my ACW armies again, but most with GNW armies, also using a BC/M'44 variant, but I haven't written them up. I even played one using the draft notes I'f drawn up for what I'm currently calling Memoir '33 (Gran Chaco War). But that still has a long way to go.

The key thing is that I was inspired to finally write up my square-grid rules properly, something I've been putting off for months.

Maybe we should ask for a Neil Thomas-themed board. :-)

"Maybe we should ask for a Neil Thomas-themed board. :-)"

For the 20 hours a day the Miniatures Page is available, you mean? ;-)

Anyway, we can't get an Age of Sail board. What hope do you think a Neil Thomas board has?

Hi,

I agree a Neil Thomas Board would be nice.

for the pike and shot rules I am looking at using 18 * 18 grid each square 1" and each representing 2".

for other periods where the movement is all in 3" increments I am looking at using 1" squares each representing 3" and therefore a 12 * 12 grid.

Each base will be 1" square and each unit will be made up of 2 bases unless artillery which is one base.

my reason for using a square grid is when i tried to use the game on a 1' square table the measurements became more awkward. also looking at making it into a portable wargame with magnetic board.

Rich

Kaptain Kobold:

"What hope do you think a Neil Thomas board has?"

My suggestion was part rabble rousing, part serious. I like Mr. Thomas' rules, regardless of the era covered. I think I have all of his rule sets. I've actually played the Civil War set from his "Introduction" and I'm painting/basing figures to alternately use with OHW and the nineteenth century set.

My point is that his rules span many time periods, yet the mechanics are similar (particularly in OHW). Rather than trying to hunt down commentary on different boards – which admittedly is made easier by the "search" function – it would be nice to have, maybe in the "General Boards," one place to post/see all Neil Thomas-related commentary, kind of like the AMW Yahoo group works. I'm certainly interested in others' comments on, and games using, his rules, regardless of the time period involved.

But I'm not too fired up about this. Again, the search function is great.

And by the way, thanks for the commentary you've offered on OHW on your blog. The Great Northern War adaptations were really interesting.

The are the rules I have been using for the last couple of days for my square-grid ACW games using the scenarios on OHW. They aren't Neil Thomas derived, being based on Battle Cry/Memoir '44, but they work well with the scenarios and give a good game within the hour which generally runs to the 15 turns.

link

I should have the Great Northern War version written up in the next day.

Just what the world needs, another dumbed-down, fast play set of rules.
there is a very true, and universal saying in life.

"reward gained is equal to effort"

You may be aligning simplicity of rules to enjoyment. And simplicity to tactical effort. Go, chess and a the multitude of card players may disagree with you.

I am nearly tempted to attempt a Neil Thomas Board – there is certainly interest.

"reward gained is equal to effort"

Indeed. And one should never underestimate the effort it takes to create a rewarding, yet simple, game.

Kaptain C – just looked at your rules – interesting and I think very playable alternative to NT 1HW. I like the optional rules, and as a Battle Cry/M.44/C&C player, I can see where you are coming from here.A good translation into a figure game.

My pennyworth on the other issues – A NT board would be great.

I don't have the time to paint and play big games. I can't sustain interest in a period long enough for me to paint anything larger than DBA sized armies, due to time constraints. I'd love to knock out 200+ figures for an army, but it would take me a year in 28mm. So small scale games DBA, NT etc are perfect for me. KOW is also great but requires lots of figures.

Complexity does my head in. I don't want to keep referring to a rule book at every stage of play. WAB was awful, with the innumerable army variant possibilities. Its meant to be a game – if it gets near to historical outcomes then great. It's meant to be fun not work.

KoW does not really require lots of figures. DBA bases are fine and convert inches to cm and play on a 2' wide board. KoW is unit based, not figure based. I have done with with lots of other unit based ancient and fantasy rules. I am planning to do this in the next few months with KoW. I have a few other rules I have not played I want to try out first.

QC,

Absolutely agree. I am going to replay the battle of Sentimum with 1HW and KoW (and other rules) on a 2'x2' with DBA bases. I think it will be fun, and should provide historical believable results, and be fast too!

I hadn't looked at KoW before, but it seems pretty easy to adapt to various historical games. And, yes, you could play all units at the same size (Regiments, say) and just use DBA elements or similar. I'll add it to my lengthy list of Things To Try Out One Day :)

Gentlemen – there is a Yahoo group for NT which has lots of useful stuff that members have posted.

I tried an ACW mini-campaign using the scenarios in OHW, but my own rules. A concusion in four hours. Sounds good to me.

link

Kaptain – interesting link. I was planning something similar based on a game I used to play with my dad, but we moved the 'campaign' along playing cards rather than wargaming!

QC – from comments on the yahoo group, NT doesn't do the 'post production care' thing! He tends to put his reasoning (and he does this at length…) in the books. Personally, I'm happy the rules don't need online support :-)

QC, Five games in 4 hours sounds good to me :-)

Interesting comments wrt the WW2 rules QC, I quite agree. I've managed to turn the WW1 rules into quite a passable set for the SCW though.

I was thinking of some more radical changes to the WW2 ones though, treat the units as battalions which then makes your combat types leg infantry, motorised infantry, armour and artillery. A spot of thinking to do in any case.

Personally I'm not too fussed about an NT board, the AMW yahoo group is pretty good, but hey, if someone proposes one I'll vote for it.