"Rules and Scales" Topic

OK, guys. I've sniped at so many people over adapting rules to different scales and basing systems, I decided it was time I went first and let everyone take a shot at me. Here's the situation as I see it. Assuming both armies have the same scale and basing--
1. All systems involving individually-mounted figures are playable with any rules requiring individually-mounted figures. You will, sometimes, have to adjust distances as you change scales, and there are almost inevitable inefficiencies as required unit composition changes.
2. All Morschauser of DBA-style games requiring a constant unit frontage are playable with any troops based on a constant frontage, though you may have to make some adjustments if stand depth is important--as it is, for instance, in the DBA series.
3.Any roster-based rules set can be played with castings intended for any other roster-based system, though depending on frontages, distances may have to be adjusted. Sadly, you still have a roster-based game when you're done, so why bother?
All these still have scale limits. go far enough down from the intended unit frontage, and the commands are too small for the commanders to fit around the table. Go far enough us from the intended unit frontage, and the game requires a table ten or twelve feet deep.
Otherwise, the further you go from the intended rules family, the more you generate book-keeping or table clutter, require special tools and distort the game. Each of us has to decide when it just isn't worth the trouble.
As an example, take 15mm troops based for Napoleon's Battles, and try to play Column, Line and Square, In the Grand Manner or Playable Napoleonic Wargames. You need stands of a set frontage you don't have. You need single-rank stands, which you don't have. You sometimes need groups of five six or ten castings, and yours are all based in fours. You can easily wind up needing to send troops in two directions where you only have one stand. Individually, each of these problems can be fixed--by sabots, by having certain castings come on the table already dead, by firing multiples which disregard basing, and so forth. But collectively, what you've done is to create a bad imitation of the intended game--much slower-moving, and never quite right. On the other hand, troops based for CLS, ITGM and PNB, while not identically based, are close enough that you could play any of the three sets with the same armies. There would be some problems playing against an army based for one of the others.)

So troops based for SOME rules can be used for SOME OTHER rules, no argument. But the gamer who blithely insists that troops based for ANY rules can be adapted to ANY OTHER rules speaks from a very limited experience in basing and rules.

My opinion. Rebuttals?

I think it only matters if you are playing games that use specific base sizes. And who tries to use the rules 'as intended'? I play games, not simulations, so if the rules work, but I want to adjust here and there, well then, I'm going to adjust*.

* adjusting is also known as tweaking**, modifying, altering, changing and fiddling with.

** not to be confused with twerking, please don't confuse it with twerking, really, please don't.

This has nothing to do with basing. This has entirely to do with how many "chits" you'll live with.

For example, I *prefer* rosters. They are more realistic, and add some "fog of war." If you pull castings, I know *exactly* how strong your unit is, and that is is *exactly* one hit away from a morale check. Meh.

But to the basing issue. Yes, ANY set of rules can be played with ANY basing, through the use of chits, markers, and sabots. Need 10 figures with bases of four? Use three and add 2 hit markers.

Need to split a unit – ditto add a stand and hit markers to suit.

I will grant this will make the game slower moving, but see no reason it would not be exactly the same game?

Caveat: does not apply to games with indirect bombardment – in this case foot prints under templates become much more important.

"Caveat: does not apply to games with indirect bombardment – in this case foot prints under templates become much more important."

So ANY set of rules" means "any set of rules prior to about 1700?" EC? And a game with heaps of chits on the table and reams of bookkeeping is exactly the same game as one without? The first is an important caveat. And I don't think you could find much support for the second. (I might note that not all the problems related to unit footprint are confined to footprints: frontages can also be a mess.)

As for the overall merits of rosters, it's a decent argument, and my objection to them is personal. I spent 20+ years in ground order of battle. For me, bookkeeping lost all its charms decades ago, and anyone who wants me to keep records of unit strengths on my time off had better be paying overtime wages.

If you're willing to put up with them, many things are possible. But for me, they're a colonoscopy without the health benefits.

I don't understand the problem.

For ANY rules may work only the smallest bases/blocks, so player may built up any other bases from these.

Player also may (or may not) use the individually mounted figures together with such bases. Presence (or missing) of such figures determine the presence of all information on table (or using rosters and bookkeeping on paper).

@ 2 Depth is really no problem for DBA-style games. Retreat/Pursuit is now also defined in Band-Width. The differences in gameplay (for example in impact of threadzone and lanking) is IMO neglectable. We played a DBA campaign with both, official depth and deeper elements. No problem.

In the post gun era bases are absolutely mixable. You have to define a standard, like a bataillon in line is around 6". Than it is no problem to have a bataillon of 4 4cm bases against a bataillon of 3 6cm bases, if you have defined their combat power to be equal.

I would say any game prior to WW1.

As for the chits….what counts as the same here will be a matter of philosophy. In the strictest sense, playing with one 80mm base is not the exact same game if played with two 40mm bases. Or if you use a die to record hits versus small stones. There is a visual difference of course.

But "reams of bookkeeping" is a matter of how, not if. If I have to record losses or morale or status, I can use a roster, I can use pipe cleaners or I can use casualty figures. So yes, it is the same game to me.

I use optional casualty figures purely for beauty.
Different losses are marked by removing officers, musicians and flagbearer markers.