Wargames rules were often (not always) very different back in the 1970/80s.
Simultaneous movement
I don't think any current rule sets use simultaneous movement.
It was popular back in the 1970/80 s.
I think it is rightly dead.
Simultaneous movement is where both players move their units at the same time.
There is however a hankering after it as a "pure" part of gaming rules. To this end, some rule writers claim their rules have simultaneous movement. In actuality the turn is just broken down into a multiple of alternate move phases.
Estimating ranges for shoot and move
It was quite common for players not to be allowed to measure distances. If a charging unit did not quite reach the target, then they just stopped and whistled. Estimating ranges confused multiple guns shooting with single gun shooting.
Burst circles
Back to Charles Grant and Peter Young et al. A ring of wire that needed to be jiggled about for best effect. Amusing, but a chance for some players to be irritating. Once again, treating all shooting and grenades as single items. Making a battle into a skirmish.
Counter charge
I think this has disappeared from modern rules.
The concept was that when cavalry charge other cavalry the latter might just stand about and watch what happened. Ordering a unit to carry out the obvious has thankfully gone (?). Player as general and corporal.
No target priority
If there is a gap between two oncoming units players can shoot through that gap at a more distant target.
Rallying routing units
It was common for players to be allowed to put routed units back into combat at their previous ability. i.e rout, stop back into action.
At the extremes Featherstone games would allow routed units to merge and become new units.
Percentages
These were popular when % dice were new and novel. Some games still use them I expect? "+3% target moving 6"+, -5% shooter has just taken a shot". This would slow a game representing quick action to a game of slow action.
Random army creators
Players needed a big box to cater for all the options. The freshly painted guard infantry are now levy quality. Good fun and historical but irritating and not practical.
Giant houses
Using buildings literally.
The lack of ground scale allowed a house to be equivalent to a half regimental frontage. Each window giving space for 40 men to shoot from it.
Shooting over others
Infantry shooting from hills over other infantry.
Corner effects
Units hitting corners of other units. A 1cm touch would stop movement, disorder whole units, allow full effect shooting , destroy retiring units
All of the above is from a very personal and subjective view, but maybe it gets us chatting or reminiscing?
martin :)
On charge moves, I sometimes thought it would have been better if an unmeasured charge were made, if it hit within the unit's charge move it had full effect, but if it hit after the full distance there should be some penalty on the melee result for the unit arriving tired and disordered rather than stopping short. I can't recall any ruleset adopting that idea.
Fortunately measured moves are mostly passee now.
John
No game in the 70s would be complete without a cannister cone or an artillery bounce stick.
I still use Charge by Young and Lawson with my classic Napoleonics seen in action here.
The rulesets with an interesting design are those from the Piquet stable and they are like marmite - loved or hated.
I have a 1st game of Square Bashing 2 arranged for next week
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixRI5wXyLY5fl_aRbxFZjku_oe81HDAwY-njxRekznYwxYWaw4Hup2ha98FNoRJkpkqezJDag0TaBK7BU8bNmaDUiVEeJX-2tjuEmT5kDR1aL9lk8D8IS6XQduxeHu6fVVzcyoF0k4UuA/s2048/20211129_071756.jpg)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyfo6JYjaA6TYBluMOh8cKjt70bcFvncTlbHo0PYxzmXltzLXnQ3WdoSP93p6l-7_ANXzvAmSZFWM5yy0cInJRbK4JaMAMXmkoyqhUYFSGUH0i-vS40cI94rMiffTwRqIWMaSHeKt32xs/s2048/20211129_071923.jpg)
I like your figures, Ilkley Old School!
Simon
Light medium Infantry or Light Heavy Infantry. Never did like that about WRG rules.
Derek
Love the photos Mark. That would be great fun.
martin :)
Did anyone else dabble in the computerised wargame? I did once - never again. The toys were set up on the table and moved by the players (free movement, no grids). Combats were resolved by the computer after the situation of the combatants had been meticulously input via dozens of questions. Casualties and the status of units involved was kept hidden by the PC and only the obvious things like rout, retire etc were told to the players. Each move took ages. Dice rolls were kept secret by the PC. (Probably the best thing about the game - was a unit hammered or just unlucky?) I dare say that modern techniques could be vastly better. Not for me though. A tedious, souless exercise.
Derek of Cambridge
I was saved from that Derek. Sounds frightful. I don't even like digital dice.
martin :)
Yep Derek. Some ECW game. Tons of figures on a large table and writing notes to give to someone who input into a computer. only to find few casualties and 2 own guns explode! Seem to recall we played for about 8 hours and no-ones troops were ready to advance. Turned me off the whole concept.
Derek
Yes on the combat resolved by computer, I did suffer at the hands of that !
A medieval skirmish game ? What a faff ! I had twice the force and lost ? No don't go down that line ?
Percentage dice a whole British line fired at a French Column and one figure came off ?
People wondered why I took too RFCM games !
Miles
Derek, Today those WRG definitions would be described as;
Light Medium Infantry = Before lunch.
Light Heavy Infantry = After a blow out Spoons
Neil
I do think that computer rules do remove the social interaction and excitement. Others do differ though (good).
There will be a use for computers in the future when they become more flexible. This might be a computer in each unit. The computer can tell a player when to stop moving as it considers the scenery crossed and other relevant matters. The computer can also prompt morale tests when the criteria are appropriate. This would require each unit to have a computer monitoring it but that looks to be quite possible. The trick is for players not to have to type stuff into the computer, just set it at the game start and off it goes.
martin :)
Newbury Fast Play Rules... A misnomer if ever there was one. A bit like 'Military Intelligence'.
I do remember an attempt to turn computers into accountants to number crunch all those tables in rulesets that were so popular back in the 70s and 80s. Then someone had the bright idea of dispensing with all the complex factor tables...
Neil
Micro measuring. As in the Airfix Napoleonic rules. Muskets have a fire factor of +3 at 35mm but drop to +1 at 36mm.
I'm ashamed to admit those rules actually impelled me to buy a set of average dice and fire dice.
As we mentioned Featherstone, did anyone try constructing / using one of those ingenious circular slide rule devices from Advanced Wargaming? I seem to remember there was a set of Western skirmish rules which operated on a similar idea. Even back then I lacked the craft skills and dexterity to make it work properly.
At the Stoke club in around 1990 when I first started playing we played ACW in 25mm using Dixons miniatures on a 10'x 6' table. Usually 8 or so of us, and games lasted several weeks.
The rules were Victoriana, by Software Tactics on a Spectrum 128k. We used those rules for around 4 or 5 years non stop. Looking back they were slow and laborious and the better players could anticipate how to 'game' the system to best advantage.
I have fond memories of the friendships of those players, some who've now died, others who are still friends, but I wouldn't like to go back to the games. Give me Civil War Battles for the ACW any day 😂
Not an old gaming mechanism as such, but a tendency in the past for gamers to fret too much about whether they are able to adjust base sizes, because the rules state a base size. Nowadays experienced gamers are really only concerned that both armies are on the same size bases, or that base widths or a adjusted scale ruler are used for measurement. Gridded tables, of course, remove this problem entirely. Unfortunately this problem does seem to still persist in the minds of some novice gamers, but many rules now state "suggested base sizes" for figures.
There's also context to consider. I've no experience of it but I'd imagine that a spaceship game making heavy use of computers was okay. It would feel right. Ancients though! - Not right at all.
Derek of Cambridge
Quote from: Moggy on July 19, 2025, 03:42:23 PMLight medium Infantry or Light Heavy Infantry. Never did like that about WRG rules.
Derek
I'm still waiting for a list including ultra-heavy cavalry.
Percentages fall into the category of "false precision".
It was a common sin during the 1970's obsession with "realism".
I think there are still a couple of rule sets that talk in terms of "base widths" Why not just give a measurement?
martin :)
Quote from: martin goddard on August 02, 2025, 05:12:57 PMI think there are still a couple of rule sets that talk in terms of "base widths" Why not just give a measurement?
martin :)
...because it means you could, in theory, mount your models on any size base and still play the game. Usually aimed at 15mm v 28mm, but one set I use written in BW's also has a smaller base-width dimension, for space-strapped gamers, or more usually 6mm and 2mm.
Indeed, I have reduced my bases for Basic Impetus to 60mm frontage, and thus my measurement is now 1/2 base widths, i.e. 30mm increments. Easy, just mark out a stick, paint alternately red and white and write in the numbers. Fix with varnish.