Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Next version (table size)  (Read 1165 times)

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
    • View Profile
Next version (table size)
« on: January 25, 2018, 11:06:57 PM »
The next version of C&K has no timeline for production but I will still put out various thoughts for conversation here.


Here is one thought.  Because ancient armies would fight in supporting lines then maybe there should be rectangles instead of squares.  This would make the figures sit in rectangles which would render  them more compact, from an aesthetic point of view. Maybe 6" by 3".  Or 8" by 3" this latter size on a 5x3 foot table (60 inches by 36 inches). Using flanks as just three zones (near, middle and far).  The flank zones are bigger to allow rapid movement by lighter/faster troops.

So,
5x3 table (60x36 inches)
Left to right 10", 8",8",8",8",8",10"
Front to back 8",4",4",4",4",4",8"   Giving large rear areas and less deep min battle areas. On flanks 12"12",12" (by 10") Thus light troops either control the central flank or not.

Whole table would be split into a total of 41 rectangles with smaller less deep ones in the centre and big ones on the flank.The centre of the table would be made up with 25 4x8 rectangles.

Scenery would fill whole rectangles.

Too tricky to draw up.

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2018, 07:58:48 AM »
That will give some of the terrain cloth providers a headache - some are just about getting to grips with regular squares... :)

But some innovative thoughts / mechanisms there - all very "Peter Pig"!

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2018, 08:33:34 AM »
It will get people thinking though Simon?  Possibly not

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2018, 08:42:17 AM »
Well, it's given me a headache already :)

But seriously, I think there are already quite a few innovative ideas in there well worth exploring. And yes, this will get people to think - and in slightly novel ways!

SimonC

  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
    • Lurkio
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2018, 12:26:41 PM »
I'd recommend sticking to 6" square for simplistic reasons. However, given that ancient warfare is generally flat - not requiring a lot of terrain you can use regions in the square. So for instance groups touching the front line , and troops touching the rear line, therefore splitting the grid surreptitiously. Would help with things like representing triplex acies or maniples.

I like the idea of bigger regions on the flanks

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2018, 03:12:29 PM »
Some other thoughts that would probably determine the rule direction are the PP "evergreens".
Base(or half) removal.
Alternate turns.
Deploy close to opponent.
Pre game to create an attack/defence scenario?
Movement in whole squares.

Be nice for a general to say "advance the infantry" and that be an easy manoeuvre with little technical know how necessary.
Ditto for "hold the line"
Ditto for "send out the skirmishers"

they all need to be easy manoeuvres in terms of player technique.
Player as general giving broad brush commands, rather than fiddling about with non-general issues.
The player in  CK will be more concerned with when to send in the reserves or  fall back.
The skill should be in deployment, battle plan, clarity and army motivation.  Maybe some surprises too?
An army needs about 17 working parts in order that a single fight or lost unit does not decide the game.
An army will need enough working parts to allow concentration without denuding all else.
Some confusion in identification too.

Maybe a table size to work with the linear fighting?  6x2?  Lots of width for flanks.




Leman

  • Supporter 2019
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1066
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2018, 11:28:57 AM »
I now have four mats split into various square sizes, so if 8x4 or 6x3 comes along I would definitely be looking at the imaginary splitting of the squares.

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2018, 12:10:13 PM »
Table size is always interesting. If any table size can be chosen, rules have more chance of working well. Many rule writers have chained themselves to 6x4 and WRG basing before they even get started!   Some older members here might remember the complaint "we do not play PP games unless they are on a 6x4 table because we only use 6x4 tables.  The 5x3 is just impossible".. 

DorchesterBede

  • Domestic Pig
  • *
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2018, 04:02:27 PM »
It would be good to see an update of C & K, the current 12inch square 5 x 8 table size does restrict it to club night games so shrinking it to say 5 x 3 would make it more viable. Before SB2 and RofF2 I would have argued 4 x 3 would be way to small however both these and ADLG work well on these size tables/mats. Not sure how defend/attacker would work as a lot of armies would not leave their camp if they did not think they could win the battle - perhaps some kind of bluff situation is called for when you find the enemy army is bigger then expect/deployed differently then first thought or your own  allies/mercenaries fail to turn up/leave the field etc.

The advantage of squares is that troops based for other gaming systems could be used - I have a vested interest in this as I have many a DBM/FOG/ADLG based armies. I also prefer more 'historical' match ups so seean advantage in producing a set of rules directed at a specific period of ancient history.

Control is always an issue, once the battle starts how much can a general control what happens on the battlefield.

Chris

   

SimonC

  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
    • Lurkio
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2018, 07:42:10 PM »
I'd also consider much more restriction on troops after combat is joined. 'Other games'(tm) always look like firework displays. Don;t get me wrong i play a lot of these games, but they aren't ancient warfare. PP rules tend to have enough periphery elements to actually afford the fighting to of lesser importance. This is a good thing BTW!

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2018, 07:58:36 PM »
I think that there's a lot to be said for a 5' x 3' table - most of us can find something of this sort of size in our houses - certainly easier than a 6' x 4' or a 5' x 8'!

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1463
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2018, 09:03:12 PM »
Agree to table size....most of our mats are 5x3. It's become the piggies standard.....along with 4*3 4*4 6*3 of course 😀

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2018, 09:15:30 PM »
So we are thinking 5x3 or even smaller!
Depth
5x2 feet  in 4" depth increments gives 6 increments.
Each deploys in their first increment. Gives a gap of 4 increments.  enough for manoeuvre?
Less depth allows off table reserves?


Game length
About 5 turns player either by countdown or paid extension/short?


Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2018, 09:22:18 PM »
the piggies standard.....along with 4*3 4*4 6*3 of course 😀

.... and the 8 ft x 20 ft in the Ardennes yesterday of course!

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
    • View Profile
Re: Next version (table size)
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2018, 08:48:34 AM »
The 4" depth is really for aesthetic purpose so that support lines are close. It is the same geometry as 6x6. Not sure here.  However the "look" is important? A 4" makes the rear square look engaged?
5x2 would give lots of room of table too for D6, no rulers, rules and a cup of tea.