"Simplest rules possible question?" Topic

So, Sword and the Flame, for my purposes here, count as rather much too complex. Want lots of units with a dozen or more figures per unit – and by lots I mean scores, two to three score even at times. Multiple figure stands, say three apiece. Rules must acknowledge flanking but after that, simpler is vastly better. No buckets of dice (2 d6 being ideal with the bell curve) and no cards, either, if you please. Something that can be played solo, one-on-one, or with a bunch of players – say up to a dozen, why maybe even more. Can be Euro types versus Euro types, or same versus native, or native versus native. Or even the critters against – other critters or the poor humans. Games can last a half hour to three or four hours but should reach a clear conclusion more often than not, the odd draw being proof the rules are fair, I guess.

So, what is out there? You did read all requests first, before replying, yes? Otherwise you might be pointing the wrong direction, lads and lassies.

Serious question despite certain tactical lingual muscle positioning.

Introduction to wargames…… book by Neil Thomas. Covers most periods as well.

Hordes of the Things

Variants of that for anything from Dinosaurs to Spacemen

Couldn't be much simpler

I even use HoTT for skirmish, after all, a base is a base.

Send me your postal address to sigurd@eclipse.net
I will send you a copy of my American Civil War Rules which you can easily use for what you want. One 8 1/2 by ll" sheet, both sides. That's it.

One-Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas. Book or PDF. Nine sets of two or three page rules using a common core system cover eras from Ancients to WW2. Simple, and using the thirty scenarios provided, provides fun, tense, and tactically rewarding games.

Start a collection of old MWANs. Go to big conventions and see who's handing out one-page rules to the players. Plenty of good one- or two-page rules, but scale and period make a difference. People who wouldn't think of having one set of clothes for warm and cold weather, funerals and tennis matches are happy to demand the equivalent from a set of rules.
And don't ask of rules something the scenario should provide.
That said, there's an MWAN one-pager called "Victoria Cross" which gives a nice colonial game. For Horse & Musket warfare, Featherstone, Young and Glidden all provide--or can be stripped down to--quick two-page tactical rules. Wesencraft has a big battle stand=battalion set not much longer in his Practical Wargaming, with another for ancients.

Oh, and when you put on your lions v wildebeests game with three figures to a stand and lots of stands--and a dozen or more players--post a link.

Once you think through what you really want to fight and what you propose to fight it with, you'll find that locating or writing suitable rules becomes much simpler. The critical stage in getting useful answers is asking the right questions.

Go here, juniorgeneral.org

Everything you want and its free.

I didn't really look at HOTT – not a WRG fan, played DBA and it just didn't work for me. Why not just play a chess game?

Looked into OHW and it seems a step in the right direction but can it handle a game with a dozen players and 40 units – on one side!? It does seem worth further investigation.

My thanks to all for the replies so far. Otto, I'll email later.

20-30 battalions/units with multiple stands per unit?

Shako
Principles of War
Warring Empires

The number of figures per base are irrelevant in any stand based game as you can stick on as many or as few figure as you like.

I wouldn't fancy any Neil Thomas rules with 30 units per side, apart form maybe the One Hour ones.

HoTT/DBA/DBN would work, but only use single stand elements.

Horse, Foot & Guns would work, but again only uses single stand elements.

Battles for Enpire? Not sure how well that would scale to 20-30 units.

"Looked into OHW and it seems a step in the right direction but can it handle a game with a dozen players and 40 units – on one side!? It does seem worth further investigation."

Yes it can, but I would suggest your players would need some organising. I've run games for up to 50 players, but you needs some sort of command structure or it just descends into chaos.

You may find OHW is over a bit faster then 3-4 hours as it is very bloody and very decisive – the game system works as it is a combination of army selection and the requirements of each scenario, so you focus on the tactics required for the scenario, not running the rules system.

If you're not too worried about having multiple bases per unit you could try the Shetland club's 'Brutal' ACW rules; they were in the ACW gamer magazine a while back. We've used them many times with 80-100 units on either side (28mm), though I think never with more than 8 players in total and you will get a pretty clear-cut result in a few hours.

For that simple, why not just make up your own?

Ah. Now I wouldn't rate anything with a roster below "medium complexity." (It automatically goes to "high complexity" if there is any way of restoring lost hit points.)
If you're actually planning 12 players/40 units a side--i.e., each player has only three or four units--then those units have to be articulated enough to have different formations and robust enough to take casualties without being destroyed. Lots of rules will do that, including Junior General and OHW, but as Her Majesty and Martin point out, at that stage you're running the players and command and strategic movement rules become critical.
If you want a solo or 1-2 players a side game with 40 units a side, quantum units--which are either there or not there--are exactly what you need, and welcome to Barker and Wesencraft.
But neither of them will let you stalk zebra or be stalked by lions terribly well.
Your initial query reminded me of the old DoD joke about the submersible flying tank the contractor wanted to sell to all three services. You can imagine rules which will meet all your requirements in terms of troops and game sizes, but not rules which will then play well.
Once you say "I have this table size; my castings are based on this system. and I want to be able to fight this battle" it becomes fairly straightforward.

Many people play Sword and the Flame by cutting the units in half. Even eight figures for infantry and four for cavalry.
It seems to work. You could try that.

Lion Rampant could work.

Units are nominally 6 to 12 figures but that is unimportant to the game. Units function fully until at half strength, then degrade. So use three stands of 2 mounted or 4 foot and mark casualties with a pipe cleaner (everything to the left of the pipe cleaner is dead).

Players can handle a "retinue" of 6 units each, maybe more.

The game works on a warmaster style activation system. normally one unit at a time. But I'm playing a large multi-player game tonight with up to 10 players. We tweaked the activation system. Movement is simultaneous but we roll "local" initiative when enemies get close. So Fuzzy Wuzzy may go first at the north end of the table but the British go first at the south end.

The DragonRampant variation is for fantasy but is the same rules with a layer added on.

It does use 12 dice for full strength units and 6 for half strength, but converting that to 2D6 is pretty easy (I have a chart that would do it using base 6).

Drop me a line if you'd like more details.

mark@scalecreep.com

Many good ideas and hopefully more are coming. As to managing people, I've run mega games at conventions with 32 players and half that many more times, including local club games. So, I think I have that handled – and that is actually part of the motivation. And, yes, I can design my own but I'm hoping to find something 'off the shelf'. Can always get out the spanner and tinker.

My basic goal is to focus on the game and all but ignore the rules other than how they guide the action. Too many rules within the rulebook and we are playing the rulebook rather than the miniatures. I prefer to focus on the miniatures.

Keep the ideas coming – and thanks! Off to investigate the leonine rules mentioned above.

Colonial Adventures. Cut the units down to 8 figures or less if you want to speed it up.Here are some AARs – usually run around 45-90 minutes for a big game once you know the rules.

link

link

Rank and File from Crusader would seem to fit the bill.

I've actually been using Rank and File of late and they are very good rules – but they use too many dice for my tastes and actually want even simpler rules if I can find them. What I need most is more time! Very short of late.

Maybe FUBAR. One page rules…modify as you like…

FUBAR! I was thinking that as I scrolled through the comments.
Edit:
link

Rules by Ral. Simple, fast,easy to learn, easy to modify.

What you describe organizationally and in terms of number of units, and players, Battles for Empire sounds like it would fit. The rules are written for clarity and to cover all the bases so they are long. I suspect on first blush some might not consider them "simple" (a word I would be loath to use for any war-game) but when I host games at conventions they run smoothly with lots of novice players.

Unit size is either 8 or 12 or 16castings etc. Four stands per unit with whatever number of figures you want. I use 12.

Quite honestly, there are lots of easy-to play games out there. A bit of effort at the front end will make lots of games fun..

Cheers,
Chris

For games with dozens of people, I'd be wary of games with an alternating activation sequence. If you have 4-5 people on each side, it can slow down things pretty bad, since only 1 player gets to do anything at any given time.

Someone a few years ago posted a joke set of rules that literally fit into one paragraph… they were ok, basically like a straight IGYG, Move, Shoot, LD kind of thing.

I just HAVE to see those rules!

APoLOGIES! Someone sent me an email asking for our super-simple brutal rules, but I can't find the email…could you possibly send it again and I'll get right back to you.