Thanks, gents, for the thoughts. I'm very happy to have gotten to the playing stage with these figs.
To reply to the specific questions:
-----------------------------------------------------
79th PA (Joe),
My Chocolate Box Wars (CBW) system is going to be two bases per unit. That isn't done yet, so I'm using the same figs for my VnB battalion scale variant--which is standard VnB one stand per unit (it's explained in the notes in the battle report)--I have a two stand variant of that as well, though (the battle report is the standard single stand variant).
My basing conventions follow my Chocolate Box Wars system (not yet fleshed out), but I use them (obviously) for my VnB variants as well:
Infantry stand: 2.5" x 2"
Cavalry stand: 2.5" x 2.5"
Artillery stand: 2.5" x 3"
Sub commander: 2" (I use octagons)
Army command: 3"
You can find the draft rules and rationale for the CBW on my 19th Century rules page:
link
The latest version of my VnB variant is in the Hatvan Battle Report (earlier versions are on the above page, along with a few other bits).
-----------------------------------------------------
Hi Chris,
Happy to pass along news and information on BBB when I can; it's all good (and I appreciate the information you provide, too!).
Regarding Hatvan, given the nature of the beast, I think you are more constrained than I when constructing scenarios. As I mention in my blog, I use the historical battles as a framework to generate games (and as a sidelight, to educate a bit on the conflict). So, I'm sure that anyone schooled in the era might wince a bit at my OOBs--thanks for not picking them apart :)
I think there would be less tolerance for hypotheticals or deviations from the historical events from something you would produce, though, given the nature of the beast (commercial product and all of that).
I expect to be running another game in July to smooth out my latest VnB variant.
Best,
Ed M
