"Still looking for Beta testers for 1690's rules" Topic

The Bug ate my last post

I have concocted a set of rules for the period of the War of the League of Augsburg. To me they make sense and provide the level of granularity my gaming group likes. Please take a look and tell me what you think link

link

Thanks in advance

Not sure that I agree with your basic premise about rules for this period. i play a lot of games set in the 1688 to 1697 period using a set of rules, originally written by Steve Thomas ( Balagan), but now revised and rewritten and published by the Pike and Shot Society. They are called "Twilight of the SunKing". My games are a mix of historical scenarios (Aughrim, Marsaglia, Landen, Fleurus etc) and "what ifs". The outcomes of the historically based games often closely reflect the real outcomes, which is, I think a reasonable test of both rules and scenarios. The rules use 2 large bases per unit ( a unit represents either 2000 infantry or 1000 cavalry in larger battles or half that number for smaller engagements) and strongly encourage use of linear tactics. There is some differentiation for different battle tactics in both infantry and cavalry and the basic mechanisms are pretty simple, requiring only a couple of average dice ( there is an option to use 2 D6) and a single D6. There is no separate calculation for firing and melee, everything is rolled up into a morale test, which takes account of the units position, the effectiveness of its tactics versus those of enemy etc. The game can be played with any scale of figures and any basing system (players define the " Base Width", which is used for determining movement and Firing ranges.) I have run games with complete novices and they pick up the rules within two or three moves. The essential rules fit onto two sides of A4, although there is a more detailed rule book of course
I should also mention the " Under the Lily Banners" rules from The League of Augsburg; whilst I am not a player of these, they are popular, are well supported and, probably most important, were written by a group who have done extensive research into the specific period and have tried to reflect that research in their rules.
Have you tried either of the above sets? Might be worth a look before you get too far along the road with your own.

@steamingdave47

Thanks for your suggestions.

Yes, we have tried those rules and, while they play well enough, they lack the level of granularity that my gaming compatriots prefer. We would rather play smaller actions, or portions of larger battles, where the basic unit of play is a battalion. Having cut our teeth on WRG 4th Edition (decades ago) a little bit of charts and a fair bit of dice rolling are not at all off-putting. We are also not troubled by the removal of individual figures.

Yesterday I ran a game with three other players who had never seen the rules before, within three turns they had the concepts down and were not in need of the QRS that I had put together. So I am comfortable with the structure and mechanics, what I would like to find out is if I have the relative power of the differing arms balanced correctly. Having run several test games now I think that cavalry may be too dangerous to one another and not nearly powerful enough versus infantry.

If you are wanting to play at "battalion" level, are you really going to be playing the nine years war? I can see a case for a set of rules which deals well with the small scale skirmishes and raids which were so much part of warfare in the period, particularly during the winter season and before campaigning began in earnest.
As for the effectiveness of cavalry against infantry, my reading suggests that when pikes were part of an infantry formation, frontal attacks by cavalry were not that effective. Non- pike infantry might be roughly handled by cavalry ( e.g. The Danish contingent at the Boyne), but generally cavalry were at the most effective if there were exposed flanks of infantry or the infantry were already disrupted by other attacks.
Your proposed structure of units might put off some people who would otherwise be willing to give your rules a test run, modern wargame rules are generally fairly flexible re basing, but you are suggesting a very precise organisation/basing.
At the end of the day, if your circle of wargamers find the rules suit them and you enjoy playing them, it doesn't matter what miserable old b…..s like me think of them.

steamingdave47

All my minis are individually based and I'm using group bases as movement trays, so I'm not religiously tied to any particular organization. I just felt that given that French units often formed six ranks deep and others formed at three ranks some differentiation should be made, this could be accommodated by double-ranking one side and single ranking the other for those who are willing to playtest the rules.

I agree with your assessment of cavalry, having played several test-games now I am convinced that Horse are altogether too dangerous to one another and not nearly as much of a threat to Foot as they should be. I have begun tinkering with the dice allocation to correct that problem.

"Miserable Old S.O.B.s" like you matter because you have a great depth of knowledge and playing experience. You bring knowledge and a fresh set of eyes to my design process and I appreciate and welcome your input. I posted these rules hoping that someone would take me to task and question my thinking. If I can't defend my design it needs to be re-thought and made to better model battlefield realities.

A game that is fun to play is just that. A game that is fun to play and reasonably models an historical precedent is a much better thing to my mind.