"Horse and Musket version of "Bolt Action"" Topic

I was thinking lately that I don't want to have to learn a lot of different sets of rules for playing different historical periods at the same scale/level of game. That will only discourage me from getting miniatures in new periods that I don't have rules for. So I'm thinking about adapting the Warlord Games "Bolt Action" World War 2 rules to earlier periods, such as the "Horse and Musket" era. Have a look at my blog post for the details of my modifications:
link
So, what do you think? Good idea? Madness? I haven't tried this out yet, so it is just at the idea stage. If you have any useful feedback or suggestions, please let me know.

Why not used Black Powder instead?

Hey Albino,
I was thinking the same thing for VSF.

I'd go for Black Powder. We use it a lot at our club. Most guys do 28mm games, but a friend and I have used it very successfully for 6mm AWI games. Just measure in cms not inches. The ground and figure scale match almost perfectly, and they play smoothly enough to let us do big battles; I'm currently finishing the Rebels, but the full force with French will have about 28 battalions, but the game isn't slow.

I guess I should point out that Bolt Action is a skirmish level game, where each figure represents a single individual, and you are commanding about a platoon sized force, and your units are squads.

Black Powder is not a skirmish game. The units represent battalions or similar, and you are commanding probably a division sized force or larger. They aren't really at the same operational level.

I do believe that The Squirrel has gone mad.

There must be any number of skirmish rules designed specifically for the H&M period. Skirmish games by their very nature are generally easy to learn .

Sharpe's Practice comes to mind…

Well, I've always thought Bolt Action was so vanilla you could put any figure on the base (caveman, Armored Space Marine, Hussar, etc) and the game would play just fine.

Squirrel, having actually read your post and blog, I think you are making good progress. I think the goal of a common ruleset is a good one, especially when talking about gaming in what may be a fourth or fifth ranked period in a personal hierarchy of interest. Plus, I think Crispy is correct that BA is vanilla enough to be used as a good starting point.

Why not use Black Powder instead?

Why not Star Fleet Battles?

We've used BA for near future SF, western gunfights, plains wars, NW frontier, Vietnam and other settings. It does indeed work fine.

I think it could be done with a little tinkering.

Though tbh in most instances. 30-50 man skirmish groups will be all armed exactly the same. You would have a "company" that looks like this
10 men muskets
10 men muskets
10 men muskets
10 men muskets
10 men muskets
2 officers swords
1 bugler

That's would be it. Unless you fancy commanding a forlorn hope.

Sharp Practice is probably the best depiction of linear warfare at company/platoon level that I have ever come across (and it's hard to beat the Too Fat Lardies approach to customer support).

Brother Against Brother is not bad – the musketry is far too bloody though, and bigger games can lead to individual players sitting on their hands for too long.

Musket & Tomahawk I've not played, but it seems less "formal" in terms of what it depicts, and you seem to be limited in terms of unit size (very popular though, possibly for that reason – also from the same stable as SAGA, with similar philosophy).

Flintlock & Ramrod is a generic set of H&M skirmish rules; not played them, or seen them played by others, for many years now.

I think that Song of Drums and Shakos(?) may be set at a similar level, but I've never played that and couldn't tell you anything about it.

Sounds like muskets and tomahawks to me!

Btw no bugles, unless you are Germans or Brit light inf

or austrian or dutch pre 1810

This is an idea developing from a fringe to a central idea, having a core rule set for many periods. And while not skirmish level, I have adopted Rank and File for my core rule set – and it is designed to cover a wide time frame, 1740 to 1900. But it can be pushed back to at least the ECW era and forward to at least portions of WWI (German East Africa at least).

There is also Brink of Battle for very small scale games (as in a few miniatures). I'm not much on skirmish level gaming generally but do play them sometimes.

Nice to see this idea gaining ground. Wonder if it is something of a reaction to the absurdium extraordinarium of far too many rule sets or the hobby slowly progressing to a 'better place' where greater stability will be found through a few common rule sets. (Will always be those who need 75 rule sets, though.)

For historical miniatures to ever be an 'accepted' hobby and not some 'lurking in the corners' hobby, I believe there must be certain well accepted and very widely adopted rules. Otherwise it is too chaotic to appeal more generally.

Just my opinion. Can't speak to Bolt Action, never played it. Tried Black Powder, didn't care for it. But not every one likes Rank and File, but movement in the right direction.

Bolt Action is definitely a pretty, let's say streamlined, set of rules, which I think is what makes it a good choice for something like this. The core stuff (the random side activation, orders system, pinning markers to reduce effectiveness) is pretty general, and can be applied to a lot of different eras, so it only needs to have things added, rather than needing major changes to mechanics.

@D6 Junkie – I confess I don't know much about Victorian Science Fiction gaming. What kind of changes were you thinking of making? And what kind of games would you be representing? Victorian Soldiers fighting martians kind of thing?

@Rwphillipsstl – "Squirrel, having actually read your post and blog…" Thank you, sir, I quite appreciate that. But are you implying that sometimes people on TMP will reply to something they clearly haven't read? Who would do such a thing?

@David Manley – Did you make any general modifications, or was everything down to the specific scenario rules? I don't suppose you have any battle reports or anything? If so, I would be interested in them.

@Edwulf – You make a good point, that most forces will be fairly homogeneous, and kind of boring on paper. I think having good, interesting scenarios to play would be critical in making for a fun game, and making up for the lack of variety in a force. You could do something like that ambush near the beginning of Last of the Mohicans. Also, thank you for bringing up that it needs some rules for bugles and drummers. Any suggestions?

@Early morning writer – Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You clearly get the idea. And though you don't like Black Powder as a set of rules, I do like them, and they can be used the same way. Hail Caesar shares a lot of the core mechanics with Black Powder, and covers ancients to medieval, and with some tweaks I think Black Powder could cover up to WW1, aside from tanks/planes. Another game could probably keep most of the core mechanics (mainly the orders/command and control stuff) and work for division sized games from WW1 forward into future/sci-fi probably. I haven't read the Rank and File rules, but I imagine the same thing applies.

Also consider 61 – 65 by Ganesha Games or American Uncivil War by Architects of War. I have used 61 – 65 for AWI with good results and I plan to use AUW for Plains Indian War soon.

Albino,

Read your blog. The concept of one rule for all periods (with mods for the period) is appealing. I would love to see that. But it won't happen.

The argument oppose to such a concept is that a generic set of rules cannot be everything to every period. If you are really into the period then you have to have a specialized set of rules for it.

I ran into this when I was running a "Fields of Honor" 2nd Boer War game. The rules are suppose to cover the entire 19th Century but works particularly well for the Boer War at the battalion/commando level.

Never tried it for any other period. Some folks complained to me that using a generic set of rules for various periods cannot work. That 1815 is so different from 1899 that you need a specific set of rules.

But I think the standard set of rules for all periods is a great idea but getting the majority of historical gamers to accept one set of rules is a daunting task. What scales would you use. Battalion, Brigade, skirmish?

How many game publishers are going to go along with the one set of rules for all idea. They will go along with it if you agree that their rules should be those rules. There are too many variables, too many scales, too many independent minded people, too many people out to make a buck in our little hobby to make the concept work.

Early Morning- You're onto something there! The issue for us historically inclined, however, is to have a "core set" that can be tweaked in such a way that one arrives at "period feel". A very tall order, but likely not impossible. For if one cannot arrive at games that reflect the period, one's minis are just game counters.

I can't speak to H&M or Bolt action, but you make some very good sounding suggestions.

I also agree with the idea that it's often easier to adapt a set of rules for different eras and genres than for different scopes of play.

The Song of Blades mechanics have been adapted for many different genres and eras, but they all seem to be similar scopes of play, ranging from 10-20 or so minis per side.

On the other hand I've rarely seen good results from trying to scale a set of rules up and down for different size games. As an example, witness the abomination that is "Apocalypse" , resulting from taking a game that is already too rule-burdened for platoon/company play and trying to blow it up into a battalion level game.

Rallynow- Indeed. One core set of mechanics, with small supplements for varying periods, would likely mean less to sell, and hence, less profit.

Yep, Muskets & Tomahawks or Sharp Practice.

@Rallynow
I think you may have misunderstood my purpose. I'm not trying to get any game publishers to go along with anything. I'm not even trying to get any gamers to go along with anything. This is an idea I had for my own gaming, and I was interested in feedback on the idea. If other people want to try it out, that's great. It will likely make for better feedback. I'm certainly not suggesting that there should only be a single set of historical miniature gaming rules in the world, or that anyone would want that to be the case. And obviously you'd need different core games and mechanics for different operational levels, such as a skirmish game vs an army level game.

However, for a single level (for example a skirmish with several men in a "unit" that acts together) it should be possible to take the things that don't change much over different historical periods and make those core mechanics of the rules, and take the things that do change and make those part of unit or weapon stat lines or army lists. This way, the same core mechanics can be applied to many different periods or games. It sounds like the "Song of Somethings and Somethings" series is probably based on that principle.

It shouldn't really matter much what my motivation for this desire is, but since that seems to be the topic of conversation, I guess I can elaborate on it. There are one or two historical periods/conflicts I am very interested in, and very many that I am somewhat interested in. I do not get to game very often, and I don't want to have to learn a brand new game every time I do. Let's say I see some nice new American War of Independence figures (like the Wargames Factory ones), and I decide I'd like to try out a skirmish level game in that period. This is one of those periods that I am only somewhat interested in, and haven't gamed in. On one hand, I could look for a brand new set of rules that specifically covers skirmishes in the AWI, read some reviews, buy and read one or more sets of rules, and play a game with brand new rules, much of which will be spent learning rules I may not even end up liking or ever playing again. When I really just want to play a game. So if I already know how to play, for example, Bolt Action, and I know I like it, it seems like I might as well just play the AWI version of Bolt Action, if there were such a thing. So I will make such a thing. And if others of a similar mind end up using it, or doing the same kind of thing with rules they already like, I'm happy to have helped.

If you like, think of it as an elaborate justification for buying miniatures I don't really need, rather than an attempt to force everyone in the world to play the same game as me.

Of course you probably could have learned how to play one of the less complex rule sets (like M&T) in the amount of time you have spent just on this thread, much less creating the BA variant. :-)

After all that! Do it send the mods in PDF to TMP and Boltaction, those that want take those that don't, don't . Done.

Albino:

I was responding to EMW's post not your OP. I know nothing about "Bolt Action" other than I know of some local folks who play it quite often. If you going to do skirmish then you might consider a variant of TSATF.

@ordinary brass: 61 – 65 uses the "songs" engine.

Rallynow, and all,

I don't perceive one set of rules for all but a much more limited number of rules as the accepted norm. Say a few for grand strategy, a few for grand tactical, a few for tactical, and a few each for grand skirmish and man-to-man skirmish. And this can be for Ancient, Post-Ancient and Pre-gunpowder, Horse and Musket era, and Modern era. I think that adds up to 60 rule sets. So there is still plenty of choice. (Though it would be better to at least half and even better to quarter that number for my argument.) And there is still room for those who want ultra detail – through adjustments or specialized rules, home brew at the very least.

My concern is for the current situation and the newcomer thinking of entering into historical miniatures gaming (my personal interest). Where in the world do they start? The rules options are truly bewildering. The scales options are intimidating. The periods of history to adopt something of conundrum (though for some that period interest will be a hard target, of course.)

I'm arguing in favor of a much more simple and accessible decision making process as an entry point. There will be plenty of opportunity downstream for the new adherent to complicate his (or her) gaming life.

And it is very doable despite the naysayers (broad brush rules, I mean). It is being done, has been done, and will continue to be done. Those for whom such an option doesn't work don't have to follow that path. But it sure would make it easier to attract more people into the hobby we all enjoy. And isn't that a good thing? I'm certain the ease of access has everything to do with why Flames of War is so popular – sure, it is more game than simulation but there is nothing wrong with that, especially for the newbie in an explorative phase.

My gaming club thought to do FIW with modified Bolt Action rules. While some tweaks were needed for weaponry and troop types, we found the fast and furious rules made for a fun game.

link

I've never played Bolt Action but I would like to try a set of similar skirmish rules for Horse & Musket periods, given what I've read here. Do continue your quest and efforts, Squirrel, and don't forget to share the results!

I've got figures just itching to do something besides play in conventional pitched battles.

TSATF is also a very vanilla game and the OFM used it all the time for AWI and FIW games.

I am looking into getting Bolt Action myself, but are there tanks in the AWI?

At the skirmish level warfare is more temporally homogenous than at higher levels, so rules mechanisms should be a lot more transferrable across periods. Some game designers are well aware of this phenomenon and have used it to their advantage, e.g. the same mildly tweaked game engine operates in all Chris Peers' skirmish rules covering everything from the medieval period to SF.

Some writers feel the need to add a bit of caricature by borrowing from higher levels of warfare in an attempt to differentiate the periods, such as H & M rules that have small groups of five or six firing 'volleys', but really it's only technological advances and fighters' responses to them that matter; at this level everyone's a light infantryman/skirmisher.

Read your blog. The concept of one rule for all periods (with mods for the period) is appealing. I would love to see that. But it won't happen.

The argument oppose to such a concept is that a generic set of rules cannot be everything to every period. If you are really into the period then you have to have a specialized set of rules for it.

I agree that I would LOVE to have One ruleset to rule them all. Frankly, it helps my too-many-liberty-ports brain remembering ONE set of rules.

The problem is that pushing a WW2 or newer set back in time is one of firepower. I messed around with running Ambush Alley as a Colonial game once. It works, but you need to accept some serious figure compression, about 10 real troopers per mini on the table.

Since WW1, militaries have pushed to have more and more firepower available at lower and lower levels. A modern US Army squad has firepower that a WW2 German squad wishes they had (the two 40mm grenade launchers make a big difference), and is probably on par with the kind of firepower that an entire WW1 American or British platoon could put down. That gets even worse when you step back before 1900, where the idea that you could trust the enlisted men to do something without an officer's oversight was a concept so outlandish that people would laugh at you for suggesting it!

But if you don't mind a bit of figure compression and running squads all armed with rifles (and the rare machinegun, the Brits only had 1-2 Maxim Guns per battalion), though, using a modern skirmish game can work. Call each squad a company and you're good to go!

Another vote for Sharp Practice, it already does just what you're after.

Okay, I have a few questions for those that would like to help out.

I'm working out rules for Cavalry. It was pointed out to me that Bolt Action does have rules in the book for Cavalry, but I think they need a few changes and a little more detail for this version. But to start with, Bolt Action gives Cavalry three dice in an assault instead of the normal one die. That seems way too good to me, especially in a WW2 game, but even for a black powder era.

So, my first question is, at a skirmish/individual man level, how much more effective/deadly in an assault is a mounted person compared to the same person on foot? Does it depend partly or even entirely on what weapon he is using? Does the benefit only apply on the charge when he has momentum, not once he is bogged down?

Also, what kind of differences are there for the different kinds of cavalry in whatever periods you know about? I was thinking light cavalry/mounted infantry has the same Shooting/Assault/Morale stats as regular infantry, heavy cavalry is a little better at Assault. Does there need to be more distinction than that? And are there weapons, besides maybe lances, that need to be distinguished somehow in the rules?

Thank you in advance for your considered opinions.

I've added rules for cavalry and clarified and updated a few other things. Have a look and let me know what you think.

link

Now I'm thinking maybe it would be better if assault had a to hit roll, then a damage roll, the same as shooting does. This would make it more consistent, and also make assault less deadly, since I think it may be a little too deadly as is, compared to shooting. But maybe it should be.