Last Hussar | 15 Nov 2014 5:11 p.m. PST |
Made up a load of tiles 3cm squares, and a 8x8 grid to put them on.
There are clear, hills, woods, marsh and town. There are also road and river. The thin roads are to go on non-clear. Adjust the tile mix depending on the campaign map I will be using these: TMP link Close-up
Detail of the board its a floor tile (as are the terrain tiles, cut up) with wall tile spacers every 35mm.
The numbers are green and blue to match with coloured dice to generate random locations- not the edges, as well as river and road entry points. Its for use with Horse and Musket and earlier. I am intending 1 tile is 2ft on the table, so a 3x2 area would be the table. I was going to start each player with a marker on their entry point. The assumption would be both commanders are looking to give battle if they are both on here. Movement is 1 square at a time, you may move forward or sideways, but you never increase the distance from the enemy. The side with the most light cavalry may move diagonally. Once the two sides are adjacent this gives you the general idea of the table- that area will have a wood in, not the whole square, but a feature in it. The thin road goes through the tabletop terrain. Obviously the armies are in the centre of the table, so the table is the tiles the pawns are on, plus the ones on either side. In the Sam Mustapha La Grande Guerre rules each tile is about 2-3 miles. Any further ideas should I have the sub units (not the actual play units, but the level between base and player) as seperate pawns with a max of 2 per tile? (So in LGG this would be Corps, as the bases are divisions in F&F the pawns would be Divisions, because the units are brigades). |
Maddaz111 | 15 Nov 2014 6:23 p.m. PST |
Clever Idea for closing. an extra pawn if you have better scouting than enemy… a tile swap ability if you are a brilliant commander and the enemy have not fixed it yet by moving through, but you have to take the second tile. Allowing an army that is a "cavalry" army a rear-ward move if in clear/non forest terrain, or setting an ambush marker. |
Great War Ace | 15 Nov 2014 9:19 p.m. PST |
System is not granular enough for my tastes, creating huge terrain features all of a dimensional predictability…. |
Extra Crispy | 15 Nov 2014 11:30 p.m. PST |
You might try this: Draw up map tiles for each terrain type (dense forest, light forest, famrland etc). Then when you play a game you draw appropriate maps. Record the resulting battlefield on paper for re-use later if needed. Maybe if a table is 3x2 you draw 6 cards to lay out the table. That way you can put a lot of variety in your table easily. |
Last Hussar | 16 Nov 2014 3:29 a.m. PST |
EC- are you suggesting a card deck for each tile kind to generate the table? Great war ace- they are not supposed to be ' huge'. They represent the general terrain in an area- the whole 1/6 of the table isn't one wood. Its the thing that wargamers ignore, the pre battle manoeuvres to gain favourable position. When people say 'I only do real battles/historical scenarios' this is one of the things they conveniently ignore- battles happen for a reason (along with their OOB is almost certainly wrong, their troops are rated incorrectly, and they have hindsight- Wellington would have set up differently at Waterloo if he had known what we do) This is a attempt to allow commanders to choose their battlefield, rather than a picked or random set up. Does anyone have thoughts on the manoeuvre part. |
Great War Ace | 16 Nov 2014 10:07 a.m. PST |
"I've kept this piece of ground in my pocket", said Wellington/Plummer. Sounds like he knew what we know. I'm still not getting this: are you saying that "1/6th" of the table is a wood tile, but isn't one wood? How do you put other stuff inside, or with, the 1/6th of the table that is generated by the "wood" tile?… |
Last Hussar | 16 Nov 2014 12:36 p.m. PST |
That part of the table has a wood large enough to be represented- its not a couple of inches- but it isnt the whole area. link Zoom to 1:50000, the squares are 1km, so 4 of them equal one of my tiles. If I did the link right you should have Hitch Wood in the centre. That is a wood on the grid, though it covers 9" x 14", not the whole area. Once you transfer to the table you can use what ever system you normally use- the idea is you have some idea of terrain, and you can manouever pre battle. I like to think the quote isn't apocryphal/wise after the event, in terms of this it meant he knew what those tiles were like and chose there to stand. If one side has knowledge of the terrain you could let them set up. However they are constrained by the manoeuvre board- the attacker won't find pure defensive terrain if he has forced battle in an area with a lot of open ground. |
Martin Rapier | 16 Nov 2014 12:57 p.m. PST |
I did the same sort of thing for my 'Race to Leningrad' campaign – dense terrain was more likely to have woods and swamps, hilly terrain had hills, towns had towns in them…. You can randonly generate/place/use pre configured boards or whatever to put down the actual terrain squares. |
Great War Ace | 16 Nov 2014 2:13 p.m. PST |
I guess I'm as dense as "dense terrain", then. The purpose of the tiles is to randomly generate terrain for the armies to march across? And then you meet and have a battle. To lay out the game table, you look at the six terrain sections where the armies engage and make assumptions about what is actually there? So is there a "real" map with these details? Why use tiles? Why not just use the map? Is this to deny players granular knowledge of the terrain ahead of time? How would this work on a historical map? I can see a make believe map being presented on tiles, with the actual probability of that type of terrain dominating what is there, and randomizing the smaller details within each "tile" for the game table…. |
ChrisBBB | 16 Nov 2014 3:53 p.m. PST |
I applaud the ambition of trying to give players the chance to make those pre-battle choices that then shape the battle. I admire the work you've done, and I understand where you're coming from – I've tinkered with similar ideas myself in the past. But I think there are better and easier ways to do what you want to do. As Great War Ace says – use the actual map. It's going to be far more nuanced and tactically interesting. It will also have the right granularity. I'm looking at some actual battle maps, and at the 2 to 3 mile scale I can see some grid squares that contain multiple hills, multiple villages, multiple woods, roads and rivers; I can also see major hill features that extend for many miles, and plateaus or mountain massifs that cover multiple grid squares. It's hard to produce realistic terrain at that level with a random tile system. You could try semi-randomising it – make tiles more likely to be similar to the ones next to them? – but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Just kriegsspiel it on a real map. As a last comment: beware of trying to create a campaign that is supposed to generate multiple tabletop battles. Too often the tail gets to wag the dog. Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! link |
Last Hussar | 16 Nov 2014 6:04 p.m. PST |
1 this isn't a real map- I didn't say it was, sorry if it came across that way. You draw tiles to make the overview map, adjusting mix for the general area. I did say the numbers were there to help random placement 2 I don't want to use a real map, because frankly that is boring. Who wants to fight the same battles all the time? 3 I have better things to do than try and find 200 year old maps for any particular part of Europe. You can use it with whatever terrain generation system the rules have, but the general layout is roughly known before hand. Its a way to introduce the idea that armies manouever for advantage before battle is joined. Wellington knew where Napoleon was trying to get to so could put him self on the route. Boney didn't have the luxury of lots of manoeuvre. However other generals have marched miles close to the enemy, until they both find terrain where they are prepared to fight. This a pregame. I have run game generating campaigns- the secret is to concentrate onjust the strategic movement, and assume your civil servants are doing their job. |
ChrisBBB | 17 Nov 2014 5:51 a.m. PST |
No, I understood what you meant. By "use the actual map" I meant of a real country to use as the campaign area, not just a battlefield. But OK, I'm sure that if you want to use tiles to generate terrain, this could be an interesting exercise and could achieve your aim. Here, then, are some (hopefully) constructive suggestions. Make the weather matter. Rain makes trivial streams into impassable obstacles, ice makes rivers crossable, etc. Make route reconnaissance matter. Will the bridge take the weight of the heavy guns? Can they get over that mountain pass? The pros and cons of marching united or divided really need to be emphasised. March columns can be many miles long, so while we wargamers like to mass our armies, massing them on a single road might mean half of them never reach the battle. On the other hand, if you have several corps all marching on different routes, you get all the resulting problems of (mis)communication and (lack of) coordination. Good luck with the system. Let us know how it goes! Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! link |
greenknight4 | 17 Nov 2014 6:13 a.m. PST |
I think it is a very novel idea. The gamers themselves can decide what a tile really consist of. I use a similar system in my Day of Battle campaign system (comes in the supplements). I use a point to point map and the idea is to determine the strength the areas point represents and which noble it is allied to (if any). I like systems like the one you have presented. If I recall right On To Richmond has a similar campaign system. Nice job. Chris P |
Last Hussar | 17 Nov 2014 11:44 a.m. PST |
Ah, misunderstood what you mean by a real map. OK, got you, but not sure feasible. I'd have to have available quite a chunk of countryside, and I have a feeling simple to use maps of 18th century Poland or Bavaria are going to be rare. I know maps exist, and occasionally linked to here, but the ease of use is another thing. LGG is army level. In our test run we had about 27 units each (each base is a division), a game should last about 10 turns (day lengths are fixed to a total number of action points used, eg summer 140) and we did a game in 2 hours. Borodino is about 50% – 60% larger, but will actually be shorter (because Autumn days only have 120 APs). The terrain is high level- towns under 6000 people have no effect. As you can see its quite a wide ranging game. The Murat point to point maps are about a day's march between points. I need to be able to go round my mate's house, work out a couple of weeks march and generate the terrain quick enough to play the game! I'm thinking about different for corps moving separately on the tile map. Once two corps come into contact the other corps move the rest of the day (1 tile per hour), and the battle happens the next day- any corps not present arrive 10 ap later per tile they were away. I like the idea about scouting. Certain tiles, such as road over river, may have restrictions, arriving there allows you to look at the problem. |
OSchmidt | 17 Nov 2014 2:10 p.m. PST |
Excellent work, tremendously innovative and imaginative. Wait till your gamers get their mits on it. |
Elenderil | 18 Nov 2014 7:00 a.m. PST |
I'd be tempted to add stacking limits to each square to reduce the ability to have all of your forces in one place at one time. It could be a flat limit covering all circumstances or one that only takes effect when units are moving. That would represent the effect of movement choke points such as bridges or villages where there is a limit to the number of men who can pass through the choke point per day/hour. |
ChrisBBB | 18 Nov 2014 7:10 a.m. PST |
I once ran a one-off game with a similar motivation to yours – i.e., to emphasise the pre-battle manoeuvres – set in the 1890s. A major element of the game was the fact that a division in column of march was 17km long (or thereabouts). I used a modern British Ordnance Survey map of Shropshire, purely because that was what I had to hand. I don't remember a lot about it apart from long columns snaking across the map. But I do recall that the Serbs and the Austrians (or whoever it was) ended up clashing at Nesscliffe, and that the interaction of the road network and the topography, particularly the cliffe itself, were crucial in shaping the battle. Hence my initial comment about real terrain producing a more nuanced game. My point this time is that you don't necessarily need 18th century maps. If you're willing to go for randomised terrain, does it matter if it's based on a modern map? It just depends what you and your players want. Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! link |
Last Hussar | 18 Nov 2014 12:06 p.m. PST |
I have OS maps that I've used for real time Kriegspiel (Thetford as it happens). I have considered using them in the past but the 20th century has too many towns and roads, and not enough woods. Its fun playing on maps of areas you know, if only imagining the troops attacking your grannies house! |
ChrisBBB | 18 Nov 2014 3:24 p.m. PST |
Thetford, eh? I hope your granny's side won! My mum has a house in Normandy that figured in Operation Bluecoat: an SS Panther was knocked out on the drive, and British soldiers were briefly held prisoner in it. I have wargamed the battle in the house. As you say – fun playing on maps of areas you know! Chris |
Gamesman6 | 21 Nov 2014 4:03 p.m. PST |
Reminds me a bit of a an idea but using playing cards that was in War games Illustrated come years back called PRECOMS A neat way to generate a area to manoeuvre on quickly and then use the armies moving around to find a battle field without going to the trouble of creating a full map or choosing one, especially for periods when detailed mapping was not available |
thomalley | 21 Nov 2014 4:49 p.m. PST |
A similar idea from Perfect Captain link |
Last Hussar | 21 Nov 2014 6:31 p.m. PST |
I have those! I've used them with the 6x6 grid they give you. |
Der Alte Fritz | 21 Nov 2014 8:57 p.m. PST |
See the Sport of Kings campaign system that is part of the Age of Reason set of rules. You roll percentage dice and each number corresponds to one of one hundred different battle fields. That decides what your tabletop will look like. |
Last Hussar | 22 Nov 2014 8:18 a.m. PST |
Its more of the movement to battle I'm looking for ideas. |
Kropotkin303 | 23 Nov 2014 6:51 a.m. PST |
I've used this generator from Muster the Troops website. Print out your map and draw on roads, rivers and villages/towns. Can be resized as well. link |
hagenthedwarf | 05 Dec 2014 4:26 a.m. PST |
I think it is a very novel idea. Was the concept not suggested in Donald featherstone's ADVANCED WARGAMES? |
MajorB | 05 Dec 2014 4:59 a.m. PST |
I think it is a very novel idea. Was the concept not suggested in Donald featherstone's ADVANCED WARGAMES?
It was indeed. |
Last Hussar | 05 Dec 2014 11:37 a.m. PST |
Was it? I had a flash of inspiration while musing on the Perfect Captains battlefinder system. |
jgibbons | 05 Dec 2014 6:55 p.m. PST |
|
MajorB | 06 Dec 2014 6:23 a.m. PST |
Was the concept not suggested in Donald featherstone's ADVANCED WARGAMES? It was indeed.
Yep. I've just checked my copy of "Advanced Wargames" (Don Featherstone, Stanley Paul, 1969), chapter 28 "Map Making Made Easy" pp 205-209 – explains a very similar idea. |
Last Hussar | 06 Dec 2014 10:32 a.m. PST |
|
Dan 055 | 21 Dec 2014 8:37 p.m. PST |
How about a "stacking limit" on movement down roads? A major road may allow a division per hour (or turn) while a minor road may only allow a brigade. |
Last Hussar | 22 Dec 2014 4:50 p.m. PST |
I've been thinking that, not sure how to implement it- sizes speeds etc |