Help support TMP


"Koenig Krieg Battlefield Missions" Topic


Koenig Krieg

16 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Koenig Krieg Rules Board


Areas of Interest

Renaissance
18th Century

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Ruleset


Featured Workbench Article

Adam Paints Three More Pirates

It's back to pirates for Adam8472 Fezian!


Featured Profile Article


Featured Book Review


330 hits since 20 Feb 2017
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Grizwald17 Jun 2009 10:31 a.m. PST

Quoting from the Siege Works Studios blurb about these rules:

"Six Battlefield Missions, including game set-up and victory conditions."

As if an 18th century general would have such a thing as a "Battlefield Mission" (or even know what one was)!!

Mooseworks817 Jun 2009 11:58 a.m. PST

Seen this in a signature over at the KK forums:

" Does the General want local maps or general maps?' "What a question to ask! I'm a General, I want General maps!"

Personal logo Cardinal Hawkwood Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2009 3:38 p.m. PST

ah the sublime latent joy of Anachronism!!

bavoisSYW17 Jun 2009 7:44 p.m. PST

I see Mr Snorbens has not actually read any of the battle generators or what the Siege Works team have labelled Missions.

King on the field to my mind represents the battle of Dettingen, "Daun" attack represents the early dawn suprise by the Austrians on the Prussians, Sieze and Hold the Crossroads represents many of the advanced guard and minor battles of the era. Postional battle represents the battles of Kunersdorf with defender and attacker and maneuvre battle well that goes without saying really….

I guess players that snub labells don't play games. How else would they call setting up, deployment/moving and victory conditions……

Its terrible having an English language which decribes actions. Oh to live in the dark ages where one does not have to describe anything, after all isn't all life and meaning relative….

Personal logo Cardinal Hawkwood Supporting Member of TMP17 Jun 2009 8:56 p.m. PST

I for one had a serious cringe when reading the painting guide to see grenadier mitre caps described as "helmets.." English language or not we don't need that sort of thing..

Grizwald18 Jun 2009 2:28 a.m. PST

"I see Mr Snorbens has not actually read any of the battle generators or what the Siege Works team have labelled Missions"

No, I haven't, but that isn't the point.

"I guess players that snub labels don't play games."

Of course I play wargames. I've probably been doing so a lot longer than you.

"How else would they call setting up, deployment/moving and victory conditions…"

Um … the word "scenario" comes to mind. That's what most wargames rules call that sort of thing. Why be different? Of course, even the word "scenario" might be regarded as anachronistic for the 18th century, so what about "battle plan" or "general orders"?

"Mission" is so obviously late 20th/early 21st century American jargon as to grate in the context of the relatively sedate warfare of the 18th century.

Garth in the Park18 Jun 2009 4:36 a.m. PST

[I see Mr Snorbens has not actually read any of the battle generators or what the Siege Works team have labelled Missions.]

Mr. Snorbens generally does not limit his critique to the tedium of actually knowing whereof he speaks.

Dave Crowell18 Jun 2009 4:39 a.m. PST

Partly this is just Mike being Mike. He does have a point though. "Battlefield Mission Generator" doesn't sound very 18th Century. "General Orders for Deployment and Conditions of Victory" sounds a bit closer to the Period, but it does not exactly trip lightly off the tongue.

Having read some actual 18th Century orders, I would not like to inflict them on modern gamers.

What Mike is objecting to is the use of the anachronistic term "mission" not the contents of the "missions". It breaks kafabe.

Guthroth18 Jun 2009 5:05 a.m. PST

While I like the rules, and am waiting anxiously to get my first game in, I confess I too find the 'Mission' concept a bit jarring.

Scenario is what they are, and what they should have been called.

I suspect the new owners desire to emulate the success of glossy systems like FoW has taken them into areas where traditional or 'Old School' gamers are less comfortable.

I also find their inability to distinguish between the use of there, their and they're more than a bit annoying.

Grizwald18 Jun 2009 5:17 a.m. PST

"I also find their inability to distinguish between the use of there, their and they're more than a bit annoying."

Good grief! I'm glad I haven't read them, then!!

JazzMonster18 Jun 2009 6:56 p.m. PST

Man, there's no pleasing some people. While not perfect and involving a couple of literals, this is a far superior set of KK rules to previous publications and much more accessible to new players. I know others disagree, but I actually think that's important if we are to grow 18th century miniature wargaming.

The rules themselves have been clarified rather than changed significantly and the authors make that acknowledgement in the front.

Those happy with their existing V2 rules should, I think, be happy that V3 will bring some new players into the field. I had certainly not played SYW prior to coming across KK V2, which I enjoyed but found frustrating at times. The new version is excellent and should be applauded.

Guthroth18 Jun 2009 11:55 p.m. PST

Jazz, Let's be clear here.

I bought my set after months of waiting and delays. I like them a lot. I will be playing with them at my club and at home whenever I get the chance.

I dislike the poor English (this board is full of criticism for other rules writers, so why defend KK) and the absurd 'missions' idea. I do not think they will get many new gamers with them however, because of -

1.The cost (Maybe not their fault, but that doesn't put the money back in my pocket)

2. The lack of any distirbution arrangements (this has been discussed on the KK forum)

3. In these straitened time gamers new to the period simply will simply not risk that much money on a set of rules unseen.

I sincerely want these rules to become widely accepted, butI worry thet they will not.

Dave Crowell19 Jun 2009 4:54 a.m. PST

The cost is currently what is putting me off buying these rules.

I will definitely have the only cpy for my gaming circle, and probably will have to field all the armies as well.

With no local access to look through the rules first it is a large expense to take on faith.

The game does look like a nice set of rules, although I am more interested in WSS than SWY. I just need to hear more before I commit.

JazzMonster19 Jun 2009 5:17 a.m. PST

Fair enough….I guess in Australia we are used to paying between $70 USD and $100 USD for sets of rules so I didn't realise the price seemed high for the States.

I am just keen to get people on board I guess because I enjoy the rules so much…..

starkadder24 Jun 2009 3:10 a.m. PST

I feel they're overwritten and could have done with some very serious edits. I have never liked factor-based rules as they seem to encourage a particular personality type who is no fun to play.

That said, the guys involved did a mountain of work on this edition. They deserve credit for that. The cost is a necessary evil as far as I can see. It's not as if it's a mass circulation magazine.

My main grump is that I only run 28mm and they don't seem to like that.

On the subject of anachronisms: why didn't you write your complaint with a quill pen and despatch a faithful aide to carry the missive to Koenig Krieg headquarters? You didn't even use a long S! :)

bavoisSYW25 Jun 2009 2:54 a.m. PST

On the subject of anachronisms: why didn't you write your complaint with a quill pen and despatch a faithful aide to carry the missive to Koenig Krieg headquarters? You didn't even use a long S! :)

Very amusing Starkadder.lol

Luckily for me I have 15mm bavarians, but was thinking of getting some Front Rank as they do look outstanding on the table. I was thinking that it would not be too hard to double the measurements and just write up a seperate table for measurements, as the charts are all based around 15mm. I used to do that just that with 10mm WW2, using Rapid Fire, (a 20mm WW2 set of rules). A bit of time, but worth it. My main concern is that nobody I know plays 28mm.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.