"Clash of arms' rules: impossible to play!" Topic

I was amazed by the beauty of the map of the Lobositz battle map of the set issued by Clash of arms. So I bought this one; meanwhile I bought also the Leuthen battle from the same publisher.
Well, I read the set of rules: you need to attend a college course of 6 months to understand them!
Do anyone ever tried to play with?
I will be using just the movement rules… for my 1:1 ratio battles… but really…..

Ah yes, Clash of Arms Games, a name that harks back to the dark days of the hobby when the success of a miniatures game design was judged to be directly proportional to the intensity of the headache playing it induced; perpetrators of those ludic atrocities 'The Clash of Armor', which somehow still resides in my rules library, and 'Valmy to Waterloo', long since sold on to some sorry tabletop masochist, but still – in contravention of the laws of commerce and nature – in print, according to the company website.

Some people like complex games. I've sworn off them but each to their own.

I keep shooting for two pages these days.
I've heard it claimed that long complex rules are a youth thing. Growing brains need them the way growing bones need to run. As good an explanation as any, I think. Also, when you're 16 and still playing with toy soldiers, a rule set in three volumes shows it isn't kid stuff and you're really smart.
Perhaps a survey about the age at which the preferences shift?

I never played Lobositz but I loved that series of games. We played a few of them several times over. Talavera was one of my favoites.

Funny. I'm tired of all the simple, 2-page Lion Rampant/Bolt Action rules. I'm drifting back toward rules with some real meat on them. Roll dice, blow stuff up is fun at times, but they're kinda like Cheetos. Momentarily flavorful but not filling.

RP: There's a poll right now.

The Talavera game is very good. At least there is some sense of the period and how it worked--unlike the old brigade-level magazine games.

I had several of the Napoleonic boardgames – yes, they were beautiful, but impossible to play.

I like simple rules but agree with Extra Crispy: some complex, meatier games are fun too.

I like Clash's miniatures game Flint and Steel . Fairly dense but rewarding to play.

I've played them but they are slow. The stacking can get crazy with the damage markers if you have several counters in the same hex.

I have played both their Napoleonic and SYW games. They are not impossible to play, but they do take time to learn.

I have played, and still do, both their Napoleonic and SYW games. SYW/AWI rules are better written than their Napoleonics. I agree that the learning curve is somewhat steept, but once you learn the basics they are easy to use. Napoleonics are a tougher nut to crack, though, particularly the Charge/Assault mechanics.

On the other hand, if you want something almost unplayable -except if you use just a couple of ships per side- try their Command at Sea/Harpoon series.

The only reason that I ever bought the CoA games was for the maps and the historical commentary. The maps are really good and are useful for recreating portions of the battle on the table top.

As for meat and complexity, I would posit that maybe the problem is with your scenarios, rather than the rules. In my mind, the tactics and the outcomes of events (firing, movement, morale, etc) are in the hands of the players. The rules merely serve the player to effect the tactics on the field.

I own and have 'tried' to play C.O.A.'s '1777' Year of the Hangman' game. My buddy and I must have read the rules at least x4 each (cover to cover). Beautiful map and counters--but the game just did not work!

Tom Semian
Avalon, Pa. 15202

I agree. Actually my idea is to mix a board game with hex to recreate the entire battle and then when or more counters meet up I "transform" them in a 1:1 ratio battle, just by switching the counters in (paper soldiers) battalions.
So, as Der Alte Fritz, I bought Lobositz, Leuthen, Kolin and Austerlitz just in order to have the maps (I know quite expensive as a system) to recreate a huge battle at 1:1 ratio on a little / reduced board…..

"Funny. I'm tired of all the simple, 2-page Lion Rampant/Bolt Action rules. I'm drifting back toward rules with some real meat on them. Roll dice, blow stuff up is fun at times, but they're kinda like Cheetos. Momentarily flavorful but not filling"

My sentiments exactly. I know some layers who shift period and rulesets like others change underwear. The novelty substitutes for depth. However, if you like my group focus on a ruleset for years and game contiuously, then it is not complexity butlack of it that is a problem. A gamesystem can be complex and bulky or complex and fluid but with a lot of possible variations.

The simple rulesets on the back of a postcard – or a la Black powder just leaves me unsatisfied. They all claim simple yet realistic mechanisms, play the game not the rules…..and they all lie.

I agree with Extra Crispy, Sparta and the others who have stated that they still enjoy rules with a little meat on them. As a long time gamer, I no longer seek out new games that appear overly complex, but I still enjoy playing moderate complexity rulesets ( Reg. FnF, FoG 2, Shako 2, General Quarters 3). These are far more satisfying and fun to our group.
The current trend toward fast-play, easy-play rulesets doesn't really bother me because these have an important place in introducing new players to the hobby, but I'm not ready to be dumbed down yet. Nature will take care of that herself, I don't need to help her along.

I've heard it claimed that long complex rules are a youth thing.

@ robert

Seems highly likely. As a yoof I played Quarrie Napoleonic and WW2 and thought them fine, but also wondered about what rules were favoured by the supposed giants such as Featherstone. I was duly crushingly disappointed when I first read a Featherstone book. Instead of proper units, it was this many boxes of Airfix figures per side, and combat was one dice per five figures. There was not the slightest hint of period flavor and the bibliography – if any – tended to point to other books in the same vein where Quarrie pointed you to writers like Chandler. Had I read one of these old-school rule-sets before I read a Quarrie book I think I would indeed have dismissed this as an infantile hobby.

When I was 12 I still liked building Airfix tanks with my weekly pocket money, but I wanted something a bit more grown up to do with the results than shoot matchsticks at them, which old school rules would not have provided.

If simple rules are back in vogue it rather suggests an ageing hobby….

There is a difference between detailed rules/games that do work and detailed rules/games which don't work. C.O.A. seems to publish quite a few of the later.
Tom S.