The years keep rolling by.
The 2011 SB playtest team=
Les Beilby Tipping. Living in France. Still very active in proof reading and gaming.
Stewart Meecham. Chief play tester now.
Ralph Ashdown. Wargaming in France.
Rob Roriston. In the great wargames club in the sky.
Paul Coaker. Same as Rob.
Terry Shockey. Same as Rob.
Chris Cunningham. Still front and centre.
Tim Chance. Busy working.
Frank Pitman. AWOL.
Sean Clark. Gaming strong up North.
Si Tyler. Out there gaming.
Their names are remembered in the SB rules. This is good. Thanks to them.
martin :)
Martin,
kindly add me in so that we can have contributions from the Burton club. Thanks Ray
I can see where this is going, Martin ;)
So, once PBI Mk 4 is done and dusted, is it AK47 Mk 3 next, or SB Mk 3...?
Simon
SB is certainly a future task.
I do not think it needs a radical change.
martin :)
SB is only small changes ?
Miles
Quote from: martin goddard on February 29, 2024, 05:37:08 PMSB is certainly a future task.
I do not think it needs a radical change.
martin :)
I think most of us here would agree, Martin :)
It ain't broke, and doesn't need much fixing, I'd suggest.
Largely clarifying a few points of ambiguity?
Simon
Off the top of my mind I would
1. Make the pre game easier to understand. Stages instead of days etc.
2. Countdown both players with re-rolls as per the newer rules. More player control.
3. Buildings tabbed. Make it easier to place the models.
4. Objective placement.
martin :)
Could I beg to differ on the building tabbing?
The SB ground scale is very different from that of PBI and at the time there may well not have been major roads to all settlements.
I like the aesthetic of scattered buildings in SB.
Simon
There are also the official clarifications that Simon C has posted here:
https://rulesforcommonman.uk/index.php?topic=392.0
Simon
To clarify my thinking on SB roads.
I think roads and towns/villages are always linked. They are the major reason for each other. The SB roads are major routes not tracks to separate houses.
SB is not concerned with the odd farm or house. The building areas in SB are commercial and worker type housing. SB does try to cover the whole WW1 world though.
The matter with the building tabbing orientation is that a 2" width road leaves 2" for buildings(each side of the road).
I don't have any buildings with a 2" or smaller width.
Players could use smaller scale buildings but I do not like that visually.
I could make some new "narrow" buildings for WW1 of course.
The tabbing is more practicality than historical.
martin :)
Thanks for laying this out, Martin.
But it's really the fact that SB roads are major routes that I find - at first sight, I've not given this extensive thought - a little problematic. In the early 20th century, certainly in the English countryside, roads between often quite sizeable villages were often pretty minor. So I was thinking that these roads - like streams and minor rivers - would simply not be represented at the Divisional scale of game that SB represents.
I'd really appreciate thoughts from those that play SB more than me on this point!
Simon
QuoteThe matter with the building tabbing orientation is that a 2" width road leaves 2" for buildings(each side of the road).
I don't have any buildings with a 2" or smaller width.
Players could use smaller scale buildings but I do not like that visually.
I could make some new "narrow" buildings for WW1 of course.
The tabbing is more practicality than historical.
There are two obvious knock-on effects here. The 'long road', from a defense standpoint, can see buildings placed on the road and offers ease of movement along the road (along the line) while in the cover of buildings.
Secondly, the 'short road' is similar in that it currently offers a covered route onto the table for reinforcements. Also - albeit situational - cavalry often try to break through to defenders edge road square (thus preventing 'road' reinforcements). Buildings on the road make it much easier to defend this situation.
So both of these are pretty negative for the Defender. That said, the defender does have an easier time of it.
If we are wish-listing, mine would be
Progressive scoring. So you score each turn, thus eliminating that quite long count up at the end. Also, the 'ugly' casualty piles that accrues by the side of the table as the game progresses
Pre Game - it just needs to be more 'narrative', or at least have some strategical options. I can't remember the last time I ever changed from the default dice per week, as it just has no effect.
Last Half Base - I don't really like the last 1/2 base being on table. Especially holding objectives at the rear, or worse, off table never to be brought back on as reserves.Feels all too 'gamey'
Very controversial on the "Progressive Scoring" here, Simon - that's not the RFCM way! ;)
Personally, I like the suspense and the final tally, but understand that it's maybe not everyone's cup of tea.
Simon
Quote from: SimonC on March 01, 2024, 11:10:14 AMLast Half Base - I don't really like the last 1/2 base being on table. Especially holding objectives at the rear, or worse, off table never to be brought back on as reserves. Feels all too 'gamey'
I agree with that, and it's out of kilter with the general philosophy of RFCM rules.
Simon
I really like SB. Don't think it needs very much changing at all - perhaps the pre-game sequence as others have suggested.
Nick
SB version 2012 is obviously 12 years old.
This is a very long time for an in print rule set that is still supported and played a lot.
Probably due for an update?
Luckily players do not have to use any new edition, as the older editions will still be available as pdf. The limiter will be my lifespan :(
I agree about the last half base.
I expect that in play testing very few units got down to a last half base. I cannot remember.
There will not be any cumulative scoring. I want players to know what matters and seek to maximise the potential. A lot of time would be wasted by players carrying out their gains each turn. Especially as the criteria are numerous and might change as the game progresses (e.g. lose and gain again). I want players to fight on without calculating they can stop or have no chance. Most rule sets do not have the sophisticated multi criteria approach of SB. I want players to have many options of how to win and to take into account lots of end game facts.
Do remember this is a chat about SB.
Nothing has changed, none of this is set in stone, all is open to change and suggestion/comment.
(martin has the final say though :-[ )
martin :)
I concur that it shouldn't be a big revision though!
Quote from: SimonC on March 01, 2024, 01:23:24 PMI concur that it shouldn't be a big revision though!
Hear, hear! ;D
Simon
Square Bashing is definitely my favourite and most used set of RFCM rules. I agree that tweaks rather than a full rewrite is all that is needed, especially as I use them only for 1914 in WWI, but also a lot for the 1859-1871 period.