Help support TMP


"Rules that cover the use of topography well" Topic


6 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.

Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

19th Century

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Amazon's Snow Queen Set

If snowflakes resemble snowy bees, then who rules over the snowflakes?


Featured Profile Article

First Look: Battlefront's Train Tracks

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian checks out some 10/15mm railroad tracks for wargaming.


648 hits since 17 Feb 2018
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Kevin C17 Feb 2018 8:05 p.m. PST

Some commanders were masters at using topography to their advantage in order to conceal the strength (or weakness) of their forces. Is there a good set of rules appropriate for 19th century warfare that takes this aspect of tactics into account?

JimSelzer17 Feb 2018 10:32 p.m. PST

unfortunately I have yet to see one that does allow players to have near perfect helicopter recon even when using a index hidden unit card information system

ChrisBBB2 Supporting Member of TMP18 Feb 2018 8:35 a.m. PST

If you mean rules that reward a player who is better at that than their opponent, then I suppose regardless of rules, you need hidden movement and an umpire.

If you mean rules that can give appropriate advantage to the side that was historically better at exploiting topography / concealment, or better at coping with the unknowns and less paralysed by uncertainty about the enemy's strength and locations, I suggest you try a set that uses a unit activation mechanism that can penalise the more hesitant side, and represent a dithering Bazaine or McClellan adequately.

(Yes, I do have one particular set in mind.) ;-)

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk

Kropotkin30318 Feb 2018 1:15 p.m. PST

Though I don't play it Crossfire seems to have a good sense of dead-ground.

link

balagan19 Feb 2018 11:25 p.m. PST

Crossfire is all about terrain. Woods, rough, rock fields, boulder fields, thorn fields, in season field, out of season fields, streams, buildings, fortifications, walls, hedges, depressions, hills, contour lines, crests. Crossfire has it all. A 4' x 4' table will have about 50 terrain pieces on it. A 6'x 4' will have about 75 pieces.

My Crossfire After Action Reports have lots of examples of tables. All with a high density of terrain.

The attacker primarily uses terrain provide covered approaches for their troops are visible troops. Although visible to the enemy players the troops are often invisible to the enemy troops.

Only the defender has an opportunity to use terrain to conceal the strength (or weakness) of their forces. Crossfire uses hidden deployment for this. And once hidden they get ambush fire and surprise assaults.

Out of the box Crossire is is 20th Century but it can work for 19th Century. I have done a A Crossfire Variant for the New Zealand Wars called Tupara

Kropotkin30320 Feb 2018 2:51 p.m. PST

Fantastic stuff Balagan. Gives the impression that every inch of terrain is fought for and that frontal assault is not a good option.

Wonder if there is a Modern/Cold War Hot variant?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.