"Counting something other than stands or figures" Topic

I have been gathering a collection of 18th C. figures for a while (WAS/Jacobite Rebellion/SYW). The basing is… inconsistent, to put it mildly. I've grudgingly rebased some figures that were based single-rank on tippy shallow stands, but several of the collections I've acquired have really nice bases that I'd rather not tear apart.

The problem is that the rules systems I prefer normally count "stands" to derive combat values and mark casualties (e.g. 1 die/stand, 1 fire point per stand, etc.), which would skew weirdly in favor of the narrowest stands. My collection has French on 20mm wide stands, British on 25mm wide stands, Jacobites on 30mm, 35mm, and 40mm wide stands, and cavalry all over the place, but I don't think French line should have 125% more firepower than British line and 2x or more firepower than Scots Highlanders.

My default is to just gather the right number of stands into each unit and call them "small", "medium", and "large", a concept which has been working in Napoleonics and Priestly's Warmaster derivatives (Black Powder, Hail Caesar, etc.), and then use markers instead of stand removal to track casualties.

I've already rejected some of the obvious alternatives:

• sabots
  
• counting figures
  
• assigning variable numbers of dice to each stand size

Are there any other approaches I should consider?

- Ix

"One figure = 50 men" – from the venerable WRG rules.
I've long moved on from this venerable practice as it gives a spurious precision to unit strengths.

I *really* like the BP approach. I think this sums up a relative strength which is far closer to reality.

I'm assuming you'll also grade units eg Raw,Veteran, Elite or some such?

I'm assuming you'll also grade units eg Raw,Veteran, Elite or some such?

All my candidate rules sets do something like that (Rank & File, Guns of Liberty, Regimental Fire & Fury, Battles for Empire), so yes.

I will also give Black Powder another couple tries to see if the advantages overcome my ambivalence.

I should probably also try Warfare in the Age of Reason again. It's been a while.

Rosters?

In Grande Armee units simply lose SPs until routed. You track them on a roster. You could use dice docks and use dice to track them.

But overall, yes, I like the small/medium/large approach.

YA, can't you adapt the BP unit size idea to the rules of your choice?

I really hate rosters. But in this case, I agree with EC. Assign units a number of "stands" toally independent of how they're actually based--roughly, as suggested, tiny, small, medium and large. Use this number for calculating strength, and reduce it as they take losses. Means either off-table rosters or dice docks, but you've rejected all the alternatives.

If it was me, of course, I'd rebase. But it would be a duller hobby if we all had the same preferences.

I vote for rosters and strength points. This also allows you to assign each base a strength number to represent historical units or grades of troops regardless of numbers of figures. You could also color code or just number the bases to represent certain numbers. Otherwise, I would rebase using magnets so you can mix and match for any occasion, remove figs, etc. Laborious, but great for play, IMO. I have thousands of magnetized 6mm with a variety of magnetic terrain bases, even for winter, to chose from.

I use rosters, stands, and figures. My ACW infantry regiments are 20 figures on 5 stands (4 figures per stand).

Morale and the like is stand based. Firing and casualties are roster based. When 4 figures are lost a stand is removed. The last action on every turn is an audit roster to stands on table.

Just for the spectacle of the thing, when a stand is removed, a casualty figure is placed at that location.

I also hate rosters. I accept them in naval games, but not land games. But that's okay, I already have systems of markers that work well enough as a substitute for stand removal.

YA, can't you adapt the BP unit size idea to the rules of your choice?

Yes! In fact, I said so in the OP:

My default is to just gather the right number of stands into each unit and call them "small", "medium", and "large"

I'm just trolling the braintrust for ideas I may not have thought of. Sometimes our ilk comes up with a brilliant method for tackling or bypassing a sticky mechanical problem that didn't occur to anyone else.

Yes! We are an ilk!!

(Collectively, of course. Because no man is an ilk unto himself.)

The calculation I do when using non-standard basing is to figure out what the unit sizes "should" be and then "count as" for the figures I'm using.

For linear warfare if the frontages are not too far off what they should be I just ignore that one unit is wider than the other. A French stand may be 25mm and a British 30mm, but as long as I'm not trying to use this to squeeze an extra stand of French into the attack it works out.

For casualty purposes I often use scenic elements, either casualty figures or small resin skulls or even pebbles placed behind the unit. Something that is not as visually obtrusive as bright plastic caps or rings.

We are all unique ilks!

I have been pondering this very problem of late. Currently expanding my Test of Honour forces to handle the forthcoming Naginata flavoured version of Never Mind the Billhooks. Which has also re-kindled interest in maybe doing original Wars of the Roses flavoured NMtB.

That's been tempting since the rules first appeared, but temptation averted on the grounds that no one around here has any 28mm WotR collections, and I would have to paint up two forces in the hopes of jump-starting any games. Expanding my existing Sengoku forces is a much easier proposition.

Currently mulling using several DBA sized stands for each Billhooks unit. A triple-sized big battle DBA army would shake out into a nice looking Billhooks force. And even if Billhooks didn't catch on, I would still have nice opposing forces for DBA big battle games that would definitely see table time.

Alas, I am also of the roster-hating ilk; and also the casualty-caps hating ilk (completely ruins the look of a game for me). Billhooks is a casualty-removing game. If I do go the DBA stand type route, small dice in dice docks will be in order.

Why not keep it simple? Just count the number of stands in the unit. IF your basic unit has 6 stands, (say a battalon is 6 stands) just go with that. Nations try to use the same spacing of files for all units. So if a unit is narrower. (for example 5 inches wide) compared to a unit which is 7 inches wide, it just means that both fire on the same table BUT the superior unit generates more firepower per inch of LOB. …… Doesn't this seem a better way to play, than having both units the same width, but using some die roll modification to demonstrate the superior unit?….. ……… Doesn't this represent reality better?…. If you want badly to defend an area, isn't it more realistic to cram in two smaller but superior units into that space to improve the density of effective fire?