acatcalledelvis | 04 Feb 2016 10:23 a.m. PST |
I've just played Edgehill with Peter Pigs new version of his Regiment of Foote rules and written it up on my blog. If anyone is interested: link I enjoyed it |
MajorB | 04 Feb 2016 10:37 a.m. PST |
Interesting. The Royalists had about 15 foot regiments at Edgehill. I only see 5 Royalist foot units in the game you played. So does each wargame foot unit represent 3 actual regiments? |
acatcalledelvis | 04 Feb 2016 10:42 a.m. PST |
The rules give 1 figure equals 40 men – there is no other scaling data I can find how the scenario balanced 15 regiments to 5, sorry. It's an interesting point though – thank you |
Timmo uk | 04 Feb 2016 10:52 a.m. PST |
The Royalists had five brigades at Edgehill comprised of men from 19 or 20 regiments, (Peter Young's Book Edgehill). So I guess a game unit is a brigade. l'll read your review – thanks for posting it. |
Who asked this joker | 04 Feb 2016 11:01 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the post. It does sound like a simple but fun game! |
MajorB | 04 Feb 2016 11:04 a.m. PST |
The rules give 1 figure equals 40 men Each foot unit appears to have 12 figures, so 480 men per unit. Five units of foot are therefore 2,400 men. The Royalists had ~10,000 foot at Edgehill. So either the figure representation is way off or this is a "bathtub" scenario. |
nazrat | 04 Feb 2016 12:58 p.m. PST |
AAAAAAH!! Pedant attack!! |
nazrat | 04 Feb 2016 12:59 p.m. PST |
On topic, it looked like a great game, acat. |
MajorB | 04 Feb 2016 1:06 p.m. PST |
What is pedantic about questioning whether a scenario is meant to be a "bathtub" scenario or not? |
yorkie o1 | 04 Feb 2016 1:08 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the post, its a rule set i'm probably going to get, looks interesting. |
acatcalledelvis | 04 Feb 2016 1:24 p.m. PST |
Yes it was a good game – I was really looking at the mechanisms and the feel – rather then the exact reproduction of a battle. I think it has some good ideas in it – and I am sure it can be used for a 'historical' set up battleline |
Timmo uk | 04 Feb 2016 1:33 p.m. PST |
I can see how the rules will work for the bigger ECW battles where both armies lined up pretty much like for like and then set on each other back and forth but how does the grid system work for the smaller less formulaic battles? |
Billy Goat Wargaming | 04 Feb 2016 1:48 p.m. PST |
Glad you had a good time both with the rules and the scenario. I wrote this scenario for the rule book along with the Cropredy Bridge and Naseby scenarios. As stated it is a bath tub scenario. The figure ratios are flexible really. As Timmo states I went with units representing brigades. The idea is that you can fight any of the battles in the book with a reasonable sized collection of figures. The exception is the Marston Moor scenario which is designed to be played as a club collaboration. We played it before Christmas and it went really well. Timmo, the Cropredy Bridge scenario probably fits your description of the smaller less formulaic battles. I think it works, but I'm biased! Any inaccuracies are mine alone and not the author of the rules. |
acatcalledelvis | 04 Feb 2016 1:51 p.m. PST |
One of the battle scenarios given is that of Cropredy Bridge which has units arriving at points on the table at various turns. Having not played it I cant say how it works, but it looks fluid and interesting. There is a campaign/battle generator in the rules, which reading through seems to create a formal battle |
MajorB | 04 Feb 2016 2:22 p.m. PST |
@acatcalledelvis: In your report you said the game was over in three moves. How long did it take to play? |
acatcalledelvis | 04 Feb 2016 2:34 p.m. PST |
It was my first game, I was writing notes, checking rules and taking photos – about 90 minutes. I am sure if I did it again it would be quicker |
MajorB | 04 Feb 2016 2:49 p.m. PST |
It was my first game, I was writing notes, checking rules and taking photos – about 90 minutes. I am sure if I did it again it would be quicker In other words a fairly short game. I can't help thinking that a game three times the size, and thus a closer match to the historical situation than a bath tub approach would give a more satisfying game and duration. |
Guillaume deGuy | 04 Feb 2016 4:01 p.m. PST |
I nave started to play with RoF2 also. In fact I tacked on a post about that in this thread: TMP link Not experienced with many rules nor have I ever used PP before so my learning curve was a bit steeper – and I'm not actually engaged yet (still messing with set-up and deployment) – so far it's fun. Agree with Major B regarding historical simulation but I'm looking for a set of rules that are fun to play in a small area, use the abstraction of grids and that I can use to introduce non-gaming friends to wargaming. I'm think that RoF2 may fit the bill. I grew up in the hobby using Forlorn Hope for ECW and have pretty much stayed there. Incidentally I Really like the scenarios provided. |
Guillaume deGuy | 04 Feb 2016 4:37 p.m. PST |
Kenneth – the rules say you can measure if you want to but my first take is that keeping track of things without the grid might be a little problematic. Illustrations in the rules show small dots being used to mark corners so probably simple to use pins or markers on the board you normally use. Have not verified that however. |
Oh Bugger | 04 Feb 2016 5:51 p.m. PST |
Good review and by the sound of it an interesting set of rules. Always nice to get a clear decision I think. |
martin goddard | 05 Feb 2016 12:20 p.m. PST |
Sean, a well written and playable scenario. This one can easily be instantly used, rather than just sitting as a "someday". I assume "bath tubbing" is a new made up thing that makes little sense in wargaming? from the internet…..Bath-tubbing, or Bath Tub Racing, started in Nanaimo, British Columbia and involves the use of a bathtub boat. The idea was made to show off Nanaimo to the rest of the world. With the first races beginning with the "Nanaimo to Vancouver Great International World Championship Bathtub Race" in 1967. martin
|
MajorB | 05 Feb 2016 12:41 p.m. PST |
I assume "bath tubbing" is a new made up thing that makes little sense in wargaming? No. The "bathtub" approach has been around for years in wargaming. It has absolutely nothing to do with bath-tub racing as you suggest. A "bathtub" scenario is one where a historical battle is depicted but a smaller unit is used to represent a larger unit. For example a single regiment represents a whole brigade. It sounds like a good idea in theory – you don't need so many troops or such a big playing area. However, in practice it throws out all the time and distance calculations, so that for example you find musket range being 3 times what it should be and units being able to move much faster than they would have done in the actual battle. TMP link link |
Tony S | 05 Feb 2016 2:43 p.m. PST |
Didn't Frank Chadwick originate the term "bath tubbing"? At the very least, I swear that is where I first encountered the phrase. |
martin goddard | 05 Feb 2016 3:27 p.m. PST |
OK. Still not persuaded it is a useful or enlightening term. Bathtub conjures up images of washing and getting clean after being dirty. But that is a subjective judgement, so carry on! Each to his own. martin
|
MajorB | 05 Feb 2016 3:39 p.m. PST |
Still not persuaded it is a useful or enlightening term. I don't think anyone suggested it was… |
IUsedToBeSomeone | 05 Feb 2016 3:39 p.m. PST |
According to tmp glossary, bathtub originated with GDW and their Russian campaign. It is a pretty standard term now…. Mike |
mashrewba | 05 Feb 2016 3:47 p.m. PST |
Well I got my rules today and I'm very keen to try them out -what I've read so far is very interesting. It is unfortunate how often a thread about an appealing new product get fixated on some perceived/piffling issue. Am I winning the fight…? |
mashrewba | 05 Feb 2016 3:49 p.m. PST |
Well I got my rules today and I'm very keen to try them out -what I've read so far is very interesting. It is unfortunate how often a thread about an appealing new product get fixated on some perceived/piffling issue. I mean we can't play Edgehill without 20000 figures on the table -better stay away from Neil Thomas' stuff!! Am I winning the fight…? I wonder how ROF would cope with Late 17th cent stuff?
|
Billy Goat Wargaming | 05 Feb 2016 4:37 p.m. PST |
Major B The scenarios are designed to be played in an evening over a couple of hours. A game as per the rules is 4 turns per player. Of course if you want something closer to a simulation than a game you might not like my scenario. Regarding squares, it is a simple matter to mark squares with those little adhesive dots to mark them out. Only cost a few pence. |
Dorchester Bede | 06 Feb 2016 9:31 a.m. PST |
Peter Pig have started uploading short videos explaining how the different aspects of the ROF rules work – I found the short PBI videos very useful prior to playing the new version and as a reminder prior to any games down at the club. More ROF videos to follow? Bede |
Number6 | 26 Nov 2017 5:04 a.m. PST |
"However, in practice it throws out all the time and distance calculations, so that for example you find musket range being 3 times what it should be and units being able to move much faster than they would have done in the actual battle." Most "realistic" rules sets fail by attempting to micromodel everything from the bottom up – for example movement and firing ranges. It makes the players feel like they are doing something, but they have way more control than any commander could have had historically. All that's important is that units are commanded to engage and then do. |
takeda333 | 28 Nov 2017 12:44 p.m. PST |
If you only game in one period Xtra detailed rules are good if you can explain them to new folks reasonably quickly. If you game in many different periods then imho, simpler is better. Too many rules and the little grey cells can only hold so much…..esp. at advanced age,….like mine. |
Hal Thinglum | 03 Dec 2017 8:21 a.m. PST |
I remember my old friend, Greg Novak, writing a series of articles for MWAN many years ago about the "bath-tub" concept in wargaming. I have assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that he was the originator of the idea. I enjoyed your article and encourage you to game anyway you please. Thanks for sharing. |
Shakespear | 23 Mar 2018 7:42 a.m. PST |
How did you handle the squares on the field? |