"army lists" Topic

Army lists came up here recently in rather a contentious thread.

It isn't rare for a published set of rules to have sample army lists added as appendices or in several additional army list books.

I'm well aware of the commercial implications of the latter practice but ignoring that, what role in a rule set do army lists play?

By this I mean are they important in they add to the design philosophy? Do they say something about the writer's view of how battles were fought in this period?
Or are they just there to save the wargamer researching this period?

Do you use them? How?

As the proud author of a non-commercial* rule set, I'm wondering if I should add army lists.

* non-commercial in that no-one in his right mind would buy them

I would say complimentary army lists are generally an indication of how a rule writer envisages the forces around which (or for) the rules are played. Unit sizes affect casualties and morale, command rules affect or try to guide tactics and so on. Importantly, I would suggest they also try to prevent uber armies. Of course lists in tournaments try to introduce level playing fields.

As for me, I don't use commercial rules but I like lists to give me a guide for force composition, if I am not doing a historical scenario. I'd say if you wanted to add them to your Pulitzer prize rule set, perhaps just have them as a guide or as percentages.

Just my 2 cents worth, which due to the current state of the Oz dollar is probably not worth a razoo, brass or otherwise…..

The only time I use army lists is when I am unfamiliar with the era, such as when I decided to go into ancients. But I only use the lists as a supplement to my research as suggestions of what units were available, and perhaps in what amounts. I try to consult multiple lists if possible, just to get a second opinion.

But as to including them in your game, I donīt find the inclusion or exclusion of lists to have any effect on my opinion of the rules or their author.

So when will we be able to have a look at your rules? Proud authors of non-commercial rules are okay in my book!

We're going to end up with the game balance argument again I think. For me the army lists (and thus points) should take into account the effectiveness of the troops. If they end up too powerful due to the rules, then the army lists and points should reflect that.
I quite liked the way WAB adjusted the rules based on period. If you went out of period, you got nailed on points…. I'm thinking Byzantine cavalry played against an earlier army for example.
This may not be strictly historical, but it adds some balance between one off match ups.

@ TJ: they're SYW.

I can email them to you: 10 pages is a small file. PM me your email address?

But I'll have to charge you double what I've charged others

(0 X 2 = 0)

points should reflect that.

I'm avoiding points not least because I don't think I'm smart enough to work them out.

Aren't points integral to most army lists though? Without them its more of an OOB.
I'm with you on the smarts thing. I buy rules and lists because I'm happy to pay people to do that kind of brainwork for me, and, in theory, playtest them to death to make sure they're close.
Doesn't always work……

Dear Ochoin

Once a wargamer get the rules into his grubby little claws, all control over it is lost. The role they play is entirely up to him.

I never use them but again, that's simply me.

Otto

PM coming your way Ochoin, and thanks!

Aren't points integral to most army lists though? Without them its more of an OOB.

JezEger: I'm thinking more a ratio type thing. E.G. Prussians are only allowed 1 grenadier battalion per 2 line battalions or French must field 50% of their infantry as second rate troops etc.

I want to make it historical (at least according to my understanding….)

PM coming your way Ochoin, and thanks!

You thank me now because you haven't read them…..

I'm always in favor of army lists or at least sample profiles of some kind for warband size games. Even (perhaps especially) in games with unit creation mechanics, they provide a guideline for the kinds of forces the author has designed the rules for. I rarely look twice at rules that don't include army lists, either in the original text or on the game's website.

Clearly you're looking at this from a historical perspective, but I think the lack of army lists in a sci-fi or fantasy game might be even more infuriating. You don't even have history to go from so you're composing an army essentially by guessing.

your Pulitzer prize rule set,

@ korsun0

Flo: Why, I've never been so insulted in my life!

[Hackenbush looks at his watch]

Dr. Hackenbush: Well, it's early yet.

As a rule writer your job is to show us how good/effective each distinct type of combat formation is within your set of rules – according to your interpretation of the historical setting and what goal your game is supposed to give the player.
In this specific instance though, if a gamer can find your rules then he/she can find Duffy and Nafziger in which case an 'army list' is irrelevent.
This then brings me on to the more worrying statement
"I'm thinking more a ratio type thing. E.G. Prussians are only allowed 1 grenadier battalion per 2 line battalions or French must field 50% of their infantry as second rate troops etc."
If you have done the research and have read Duffy and looked at Nafziger's OoB then how can you come to such a conclusion (unless the statement is just an example of intent not of fact)
What factual basis would 1 grenadier per two line come from? And why 'must' the French field 50% second rate troops? (2d rate to whom, by the way?)
What might be a better approach is attempting to rate each regiment on its own (rather like in Empire)It is possible – there is just enough information in all the Duffys, Holding, Savory etc to do this. It does not require a complex formula just some judgement and if you add a little commentary as to why regiment A is better than B then gamers will be more indebted to you. And then folk use real OoBs and then they get the regiments they deserve.
As an example all the Hessian regiments should be at least a head and a good shoulder above everyone else (because they really were)they fielded no militia or average troops. They did not come as a single regiments worth, they didn't mix well with others and you rather had to pay for them in advance, by the brigade. They were the Grand Dukes Cash Cow, and largely picked first by the Elector of Hannover. By comparison, in a fair fight any number of French ought to be second rate.
If you do need a points system then how about a simple 1 upwards from bottom to top.
However in the 7YW you do have the problem of assessing Grenzers (in particular). They didn't (couldnt?) fight like regular line but I wouldn't bet against them in heavily wooded or hilly country. They were seriously tough fellas, but you wouldn't want them to face Hessians in an open field and you certainly wouldn't send your Hessians where Grenzers excel. And then there is the whole light infantry conundrum.
Rate within the rules use Historical OoB.

Designing army lists is a lot of (frustrating) fun. In my/our rules, army lists are the core element making the game into a "historical" exercise instead of just something made up. Wait, we made the lists up…

Well, you know what I mean. Research as many original sources and seminal works of good repute as you can find, then distill all of that into each army list. Stir regularly on the table top. Go back and tweak the "recipe". Repeat. Publish. Now, move on and do something else….

It depends.
If it's a period I am familiar with, I don't really use them much because we already know what things should look like.

If it's one of those weird periods where everyone walks in lines and wears funny hats, then I'll need it :)

As the designer, you should probably give some sort of hints as to what the army will look like, even if it's pretty basic.
"A battalion has 4 stands and a typical game has 5 of them" is fine. Just give me a place to start.

Points values are not needed but i do appreciate the option.

I also very much appreciate any random options. I like chaos.

@ wyeayeman

It was not my intention to "worry" you.

As for the ratios I foolishly advanced, I've just begun to think about lists & these were unpolished possibilities…
though as it took the grenadier companies from 2 Prussian line regiments to make a converged battalion of grenadiers, something along those lines would be fine, I think.
And the ratios would contain some elasticity where required eg 40-60% second rate infantry, to allow a degree of choice within acceptable parameters.

I've seen lists that cite specific regiments. To be accurate, they'd have to change the ratings every year (month?) as a unit was used in battle , was filled with recruits, grew experienced, was in battle etc

Yes, Lights are a thorny question…..best addressed in the rules not in lists (except I'll want to limit numbers)

I play so many diverse games that theres no way I can have an in depth knowledge of all the various periods,so I rely on lists to give me an idea of what to bring to the table.

I've seen lists that cite specific regiments. To be accurate, they'd have to change the ratings every year (month?) as a unit was used in battle , was filled with recruits, grew experienced, was in battle etc

Or have different compositions for different battles. If your system has some type of "effectiveness modifier", that could be an important thing to adjust event to event, even for the same troops. Thing like the ones that you mention – experience, fatigue, current logistic state, available intelligence, accuracy of that intelligence, etc. – can change radically from battle to battle and make big difference in the effectiveness of a force.

For my Napoleonic's I used Napoleonic Armies (A war gamer's campaign directory) to build my armies. The battles are rarely balanced so I have used army lists for those. I do rely on the scenario to balance the game conditions.
I also use the scenarios for other periods so use them less than I used to.

I find army lists very useful For pick up games with each side having the same number of points the ratios, maximums and minimums result in armies that are to some degree historical in make-up.

I also find them useful when putting together historical scenarios to help fill in the gaps. Battle histories may talk about the heroism or cowardice of some units, but the bulk of the guys just do their job and it is useful to have something available to bounce the order of battle off of.