RFCM

I have four thinks on the go, two hardware and two software.

1. Painting two Peter Pig samurai forces - will use the Dragon Rampant rules.
   I'm finding Samurai difficult to paint, the photographs on the PP website are very helpful.

2. Painting a hundred or so Pendraken figures to fill out a 16th century Kongo empire army.

3. Tweaking Nik Wright's Irregular Wars to accommodate Greeks, Macedonians, Carthaginians and Romans (Mainly Successor and Punic wars).

4. Dragging the Osprey Rebels and Patriots, kicking and screaming into a WW2 setting.

Percentages fall into the category of "false precision".
It was a common sin during the 1970's obsession with "realism".

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.

I would recommend a very lightweight (modern gaming) approach to campaigns.

Don't assemble every battalion form the 1812 invasion of Russia with hidden movement on a scale map.

Instead take a look at some of the early RFCM games.
You know those ones where you nominated three forces, and then fought one of the clashes.

A light campaign can do something similar, but fight all three battles.
A classic involves an invasion - three invading forces marching on three different routes.
Three initial battles with most casualties recovering, but defeated force suffering some reductions.

Then your grand finale brings all three invasions together for a big battle featuring the survivors of the earlier battles.

I believe Warlord have room for improvement on the project management and product management areas.
The products are generally high quality, but release schedules and availability are very confused.

I look forward to the new parent company assisting in this respect.

Woolies in Barkingside High street.

Airfix kits and figures, Airfix and Humbrol paints.
Also primary school uniform, black plimsols, gardening stuff and records.

I suppose there's a niche.
For example people coming to a new historic setting and wanting to play big battles.

I'm relatively fixed in my scales, and find small battles and large skirmish provide a lot more fun per game.
Now here's a lot of variability in 15mms, some closer to 20mm, some almost 15mm.
Mixing 13.5mm in with these isn't going to help.
This places me outside the target market.

Another consideration is infantry on strips.
I've a nagging interest in Pike and Shot.
It will always be a minor interest, so I don't wish to invest heavily in expensive figures or time consuming rules.
Many quick pike and shot rules hinge on pike Vs shot ratios in the infantry battalia.
Infantry on strips requires cutting, something that looks near impossible with the Warlord boxes.

As state above, it's probably not for 100% of grognards.
Some will find the figures useful, and that may be enough for Warlord's business.

Less gaming, more gardening.

Last week I switched my waking hours into a more "Spanish" style.
Morning, afternoon nap, working late afternoon, evening and occasionally into the following morning.

I've started a nightly painting session, and am making pleasing progress on an army of PP Ashigaru / Samurai.

Yes, my take away wasn't "This guys dissing us historical guys".
It was "This guy has an extremely limited view of gaming, whether fantasy, sci-fi or historical".
But that's built into YouTube's "Algorithm".
Hardly grounds for a flood of misplaced reaction videos.

Everybody has opinions, but informed opinions carry a lot more value than "some rando's anecdote".


Viewers of a certain age may remember a television clip.
A young lady with a pronounced English south-west accent explains why the Bay City Rollers are beter than the Osmonds.
(I can't find a clip on the internet)

That's Midwinter Minis - that is.

I saw the video.
The title interested me, as I think "Miniature wargaming has plenty of problems, but this isn't one of them".

I'm surprised / not surprised that the historical crowd have kicked off about it.
A combination of poor comprehension and "stoke up the drama"
It's essentially "My setting's better than your setting because more dakka, nice colours and none of that nasty history".

The original poster misses / ignores (I'll go with misses, since he seemed fairly ignorant of the historic side of the hobby) the fact that WH40K and Bolt Action are almost the same game.

He feels uncomfortable, and wants to carry on playing with his crude children's caricatures.
That's really no reason for us to get all defensive.


Now I personally don't play WW2 any more.
It was the default setting back when I had little money, lots of time and Airfix were the easily accessible supplier.
More recently I've come across several difficulties n a tabletop setting:
* The empty battlefield doesn't translate well to minis on a tabletop.
* The plethora of arms and weapon systems in WW2 create a chaotic situation, compared to Ancients (Pointy sticks for everybody) or Horse and Musket (Line up and shoot).
* All the vehicles - There's a potential habit forming "Never done" there, which won't mix well for my own shopping style.

All power to gamers who enjoy WW2; I enjoy other things more.


Maybe we should ask "has our hobby done anything to foster the view that we're all Main Kampfers?"

I've come across this suggestion in the past.

British being a maritime power designed their bombers like warships.
Germams - just getting to grips with armoured warfare designed their bombers like tanks.

The practice is somewhat different:

Germans operated mostly medium bombers, with the crew grouped - similar to the Battle, Blenhiem or Hampden.
The few heavies they developed had dispersed layout with dispersed gun positions.

The only standout among early British bombers was the Wellington.
Which begs two questions:
1. Was this more "naval" layout due to a pair of power turrets.
2. Was this more "naval" layout part of a global move to modernity (see also American, Japanese, Italian medium bombers).

1. Digital dice.    Yes. A very long time ago, but I preferred the tactile feel of real dice.

2. Laser pointers.     Never, I've tended to avoid rules that are fussy enough to require one.

3. RUBs.             Yes. 4l boxes for my mounted 15mms. 64l boxes for carp breeding.

4. Printed  battle cloths.        Not since the days of Subbuteo.

5. Movement sabots.         No. I don't play any rules that require them.

6.Mini D6 to record unit status.     Yes. I find these useful for one stand per unit games with hitpoint reduction.

7. Rulers marked out in the movement units for a particular set of rules. Includes custom metal rods etc.
         I'm experimenting with metal rods where rules specify a "movement unit" often related to base width.
         I find them useful for multiples up to six, beyond that a numbered ruler (even if division is required) is faster than feeling out the number pf units.
         Maybe the answer is to make my own numbered stick.

8. Computer rules or applications.     Tried once, a dreadful distraction from events on the tabletop. I'll play video games or tabletop games, but not a hybrid.

9. Push or pull sticks for manoevre.     No. I have a two metre wingspan, and have never needed a stick.

10. Post it notes.      Regularly: bookmarks, hidden objective details, unit labels, status pointers ... there are so many uses for a label that can be non-destructively removed.

A reply based on something I noticed today.

Realism (when it comes to rules) depends on whether I am making decisions similar to those that my historic counterparts made.
I like rules that are able to abstract those issues handled by the lower echelons of command.

Today I saw a new set of Napoleonic rules on the Perry Website.
I have not read them all yet, but immediately spotted a "red flag" of mine.
It seems all rules associated with the "Nottingham school" have special rules which make lancer cavalry especially effective.
I don't recall history bearing this out, and I can't remember a single time during the whole Napoleonic wars when a cavalry charge was delayed so the Lancers could be placed in the first wave.


Another element of realism is the credibility of outcomes in battles.
If the improbable happens too consistently (You know those "It happened once, so we must make provision in our rules" events):
    Infantry running down cavalry with cold steel.
    Cavalry capturing enemy warships.
    Veteran quality troops turning and running at first contact.
Then the game will not feel credible.


This raises another difficulty I see; especially in Ancients and Colonials.

The Romans (and before them, long lists of heavy infantry based armies) won almost all their battles.
The number of native victories in major battles during the "Pax Britannica" era of colonial warfare can be counted on the fingers on one hand.
Rules that produce realistic outcomes in these gaming periods run the risk of being "not much fun".

Some rules happily jettison an element of realism to allow the player with the big army of cheap troops a chance.
Others (especially Ancients) happily tread the "Romans can't lose" path.

The tubs are mainly plastic now, so not useful for magnetic storage.

I find them useful to store bulk items.
Things like terrain.

Exponential growth really means is the exponent is increasing in the function.
Not the base number as in the intial examples.

The term is  badly abused in news reporting (see also "decimated").