Help support TMP

"Revising Fire and Discipline & others..need input" Topic

9 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.

In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board

Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

18th Century
19th Century

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Featured Ruleset

Habitants & Highlanders

Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Showcase Article

28mm Acolyte Vampires - Based

The Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.

Featured Profile Article

Current Poll

446 hits since 5 Apr 2024
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

TimePortal05 Apr 2024 7:35 p.m. PST

I have spent the past few days reviewing some rules that I designed and wrote in the 1980-90s. So I decided to revise them with a focus on faster mechanic for combat and movement.
So if I redo Glory from 1981, a name change due to the movie. I did not protect the copyright according to them. I am looking at a hex or square grid map. It will make movement and range estimations easier.
A campaign system for skirmishes called Life in the Fourteenth, will be updated as well.
The Fire and Discipline was a 1 to 10 ratio rules that originally had army lists covering 1750-1910. One question, I have is the use of none, hex or square grids. Two is do I have the all in one army lists or release smaller war specific list such as F&D: America, F&D:Europe after 1815, F&D: Colonial Wars, F&F: South America in the 1800s. Your opinion.
There are others that I will mention later. Thanks

Personal logo Dye4minis Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2024 10:53 a.m. PST

Hi, Rudy. I do not think one can make sweeping assumptions about the performance of any unit's fire and discipline and be consistent because it always had a multitude of possible factors that had local impact. I blame the value sets that rules are based upon. In reality, the training and experience of the men; training and experience of the Leaders and (most important) how long have these men served under these leaders are the value sets that are applicable in real life- why not use that value set? Lumping a unit's "potential" capability into general categories could be fine if you introduce some variable factor that could vary up or down the unit's performance for whatever reason they test )ie: moving, firing, melee, etc.)Does not matter what theatre or period being gamed, man is the common thread and rules need to reflect their behavior. Remember that the best weapons system in the world is only as good as the man pulling the trigger! )Well, you did ask, Rudy!) 8>)

TimePortal06 Apr 2024 1:30 p.m. PST

I agree that unit performance and morale are different. That is why in Guard du Corps , I had a capability rating number and a separate morale rating a letter. So a unit was a 6C rating. At this smaller tactical level, your comment about men to leader relationships is very true. Something important to consider. Do we do like ammunition and consider the troops have enough for a battle? So in morale, the unit or man, have enough steady composure to fight a battle and the morale check is only for adverse condition at that moment and not long lasting or cumulative?
Great talk.

Personal logo Dye4minis Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2024 8:23 p.m. PST

Hi, Rudy. The basic premise of morale rules ignores the fact that being a soldier is not a democratic process! The unit leaders are responsible to ensure their unit accomplishes their assigned mission. To use "morale" as THE factor to determine if a unit stands or runs is an example of rules based upon a false premise. Am pretty sure in your military experience you have experienced good and bad leaders and success and failures to accomplish assignments. Usually, it is not due to lack of material resources- it's the inability of the leadership to properly manage/coordinate all resources at their disposal or ask for help. If the unit leader allows the men to make his decision for him then he has lost authority and control of his unit. Such a weak leader should have been replaced long ago. (A valid argument especially in the ACW on both sides!)

Logistical support will always be an important factor in a unit's success. I feel we do not need to become experts on how that happens but we do need to know the effects (and to what degree) a unit is logistically supported. For example, in WWII, American units only carried sufficient ammo with them to sustain an hours worth us sustained combat. In that hour, more was "pushed" to the unit from selected and predetermined "loads" prepared for just that purpose from the next higher level of command. Unless we address factors that would interfere with that pre-plan, it may not be worth going down that rabbit hole unless it is a scenario specific challenge. It usually got thru is what the historical record shows. (Rules/circumstances should be aligned to the historical record unless the game focuses upon hunting rabbits kind of detail and not focused upon the results of such actions- again, best as some condition in a scenario but not elaborated in the rules.

Of course, we are playing a "game" yet the framework of that game needs to be based upon pertinent factors and not just a regurgitation of past rules, IMHO. Morale, the rubber band command and control radius, etc. are poor value sets that are supposed to be models of how armies fought. Very misleading value sets that ignore that it has always been leaders leading men into battle- not the men willfully overriding their leaders and acting on their own when the chips are down, en masse.

Pertinent factors in any unit remain training and experience of the men; training and experience of the leaders and (MOST important) how long these men have been under the control of these leaders! Cohesion is the label I suggest as the term used of what relationships develop from the leaders knowledge of their men and the men's confidence in their leaders. Even applies to civilian life- in both cases it always boils down to man/people.

TimePortal06 Apr 2024 9:02 p.m. PST

Logistics is a key part in the supplemental section of the GLORY revision. It includes a section on a generic scenario creation system. Plus a second section on a Campaign system called Life in the Fourteenth.
Commander influence on morale and doctors for the wounded are included here.
I have not done a campaign system for F&D yet.

Personal logo Dye4minis Supporting Member of TMP07 Apr 2024 9:28 a.m. PST

Being an old Loggie in real life, this is good news to check out, Rudi!

DisasterWargamer Supporting Member of TMP07 Apr 2024 11:14 a.m. PST

Related to movement consider operational areas as part of the command and control would also be nice to see a bit of fog of war factor in as well.

The individual supplements can provide a bit in the way of scenarios, period flavor and information (you have quite a bit of historical information about these different eras).

TimePortal07 Apr 2024 11:22 a.m. PST

DW, I am looking at a block option similar to Command and Colors for F&D and the colonial ICE. I have even had discussions with Richard Borg about it. Great way to do FoG.
With Skirmish Glory with small forces on each side, using a double blind system would be the best way for doing fog of war.

TimePortal07 Apr 2024 11:25 a.m. PST

DW, the limited area does seem best for F&D.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.