"Land of the Free: Elemental Analysis" Topic

Betsy Ross flag on the cover?
Harrumph.

Not that I don't have three regiments proudly dying it!

I would agree with the OFM if his troops were proudly "flying it" while being historically inaccurate…

:)

Ouch!

The rules don't have a ground scale either.

So, you're overthinking it. As long as similarly sized units ( in terms of what they represent) what difference does it make?

We plan to size Medium units at 5 bases (4 figures each), Large units at 7 bases, etc.

Note it is best that your units have an odd number of bases so that the leader base occupies the center. The Leader base is used for most measurements.

So you'll keep the figures per stand constant, and show the element class by number of stands…

i find if quite difficult to make any significant value judgements based on the information presented without seeing how the different elements are handled in the game mechanics.

Context is everything. however i don't currently have access to hte rules.

I would also use the number of bases/stands to designate the size of a unit. It seems to me that is the trend these days, ie; away from figure counting and removal, especially in a sliding scale game this this one. I use 40mmx30mm for 15mm with 6-8 figures on the base.

Looks like an interesting set of rules but a silly title

From the description of how the units "elements" work it appears you could game everything from Huck's Defeat up to Yorktown.

all rule sets to be serious contenders for future/younger gamers coming into the hobby should consider that eventually, as skill changes, players will want flexibility eg:

one stand = one unit so the number of figures on each stand is immaterial.

AWI/War of 1812: skirmish level e.g one stand = one company (cav stand = squadron, art stand = section)

Zulu era: same as above

ACW/Napoleonic: one stand = one regiment, cav stand = battalion (or company if desired; same base size), art stand = battery

Pike and Shotte: one stand = one unit, cav stand = company art stand = section

on second thought a little more clarity:

Antietam: each stand of figures = brigade
Gettysburg: same
Murfreesboro: same
Biggest battle in AWI: stand = regiment
Cannae: Carthage v. Rome: one stand = one cohort (regiment)

On flag I couldn't care less; fact is people need to stop thinking about the patriots/traitors as all dressed in blue and looking like they had cash to buy actual hats. They didn't. These people might look like that on parade, but two weeks in battle they look like ragged rebels looking to eat whatever isn't nailed down.

"On flag I couldn't care less; fact is people need to stop thinking about the patriots/traitors as all dressed in blue and looking like they had cash to buy actual hats. They didn't. These people might look like that on parade, but two weeks in battle they look like ragged rebels looking to eat whatever isn't nailed down."

That's what has attracted me to the period in an aesthetic sense!

Ground scale is important. You need to know it when designing scenarios. If you are building terrain or buildings, it is important to know the ground scale.

Rules that do not include ground scale, minutes per turn, unit scale and how many soldiers per figure, are rules I usually wont consider buying. British rules are infamous for leaving this information out.

I don't understand how you can design a set of rules without knowing the scale. It makes one hesitate to purchase the rules. I would rather use the rules written by the guy that is "overthinking" it.

Ground scale goes out the window with base sizes. The depth of bases is always inconsistent with ground scale. As for British rules being infamous for leaving it out maybe they recognise it it is wrong anyway. The British rule sets of the 70s and 80s all focused on the ground, time and figure scale.

As Vinnie Barbarino so aptly stated, "I'm so confused!" I think I'll stick to Larry Brom's A Glint of Bayonets.

Jim

Just picked this up, all my troops are based for an older set of rules called Flint & Steel by Clash of Arms long ago and are all in 15mm, mounted on 4 stands of 3 figures each with a loose extra 13th figure in most units because the rules used figure removal and where based on 1 fig = 33 men roughly per/unit. I'm hoping I can make due with these rules with my figures like they are, but where might I find the QRC's and the Unit Roster's in PDF for print out?

I just gave them a quick read through. Basing is dead simple.

"Element" = "game unit of maneuver"
Base= thing with figures stuck to it.

From there stick some bases together to make "elements". Number and size of bases, and number of figures don't really matter. You need to be able to tell tiny elements from huge elements, and that sort of thing.

Just apply a little common sense. This isn't WRG!

Interesting even with people defending it the term "unit" quickly supplants "element", which indicates element is obfuscating. Squads, companies, battalions etc are universally known as units. People build units with "bases". Unless a designer is creating a seismic paradigm shift, needlessly being different with nomenclature does not help you. I have never understood this trait in some writers.
Rallynow, no offense, but I assume you are either being ironic or are 80 years old. If not, then you do not ever need to consider looking at new rules being published today, ever. Also, British rules ARE the ones that have those things, it's the newer American ones that do not, Sam Mustafa's Honour games being the poster child for that.
That all being said, if I have to spend more than a minute reading over basing and units, then have to re read it to make sure i got it right, then I am pretty confident that the rest of the rules are not going to interest me. This should be the simplest thing in a set of rules. (unless it is old school and I am removing individual figures).

As a quasi-published author I thought I'm chime in a bit. I will not mention any of my games as that is not what this is about. In my recent game I had saving throws but I was so turned off by the term (not sure why now) I used the term "Success Roll". It sounded cool and different to me and heck I thought nobody would notice. Ha at my very first convention game at Cold Wars an nice observer who was there to watch the game asked why I didn't call them saving rolls, or throws. Well I didn't really have a good answer other than what I just mentioned. So if I could do it over I would have used the term most gamers associate the mechanism with. So what I'm trying to say is that sometimes writers get so involved in wanting to be seen as creating something new they lose sight of the obvious. Starting with myself :) In this example maybe element for unit, not that I'm putting words or reasons into his mouth.

Chris P.

Wow! Late to this discussion. I picked up a copy of "Land of the Free" at discount from Hamilton Books, and the rules look interesting. I'm probably going to use the basing system for "Redcoats and Rebels" (which seems to be designed for a much higher level of command than was common in the American Revolution). It seems to me that a "unit" is composed of a (varying) number of "elements" (or bases) and the size of a unit will be defined by the number of bases included. I've yet to try the rules, but they do look worthwhile on an initial read.