"Encounter at Plattdorf: More Thoughts on SiP" Topic
3 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Solo Wargamers Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Battle Reports Message Board Back to the Blogs of War Message Board Back to the Magazines and Periodicals Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Napoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article Sometimes at a convention, you can be just dead lucky and find a real bargain.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
 Whirlwind  | 14 Apr 2016 5:10 a.m. PST |
As promised (threatened?) I've been experimenting with minor changes to the close combat rules in Neil Thomas' Simplicity in Practice rules published in Battlegames 23 payhip.com/b/0awc and I've tried them out by having a go at the Don Featherstone tribute scenario "Encounter at Plattdorf" from MW 366: henrys-wargaming.co.uk/?p=1506 The battle report and rules amendments are here: link |
| Durban Gamer | 14 Apr 2016 7:23 a.m. PST |
Thanks for a great report. What about 2 stands back to back for squares? |
| Whirlwind | 14 Apr 2016 11:10 p.m. PST |
Thanks for your kind words. I have considered using two stands per unit to allow the troops to depict squares (and columns) but ideally I won't go down that route for two reasons: 1. It would entail rebasing or it would put the game scale out of kilter (a unit "not" in square would then have its frontage doubled). 2. I like the way march columns are dealt with; I'd like to think of a similar way to incorporate the effect of squares without having to make a tactical decision to use/not use them. |
|
takes 
