Good books and other resources.

[owaincaesarius]

Oops, I was actually referring to Danny O'Haras Mexican Carabin 20-20 variant which appears long gone off the internet. Mexicanski 36 I probably have tucked away somewhere on a drive.

Graham

[Colonel Kilgore]

Actually I was referring to the Danny O'Hara documents too 

Here they are - I hope that's OK with everyone.

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

In terms of "other resources", there are some photos on TMP from a couple of days ago, of a Pancho Villa raid (skirmish, of course) and close-ups of some nice models:

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=532070

[martin goddard]

Sounds like the group is getting the information gatherers out there.
Good recce Simon.
That resource of Danny fits just fine into the "buy the rules too" mantra I like to push.


thanks

martin

[Antioch (Bob)]

After checking with Martin....from Pat Condrays site....not sure how long these will stay up.

http://www.ebhpc.com/resources.php

Martin Rapier modifications fir SCW... 

"Cuadro Golpeando!" (Square Bashing Variant Rules)
"Mexicaski `36".      (AK47 Republic Variant Rules)

Bob

[sjwalker51]

Don't want to divert the thread but intrigued by Martin's "buy the rules too mantra" comment. Potentially contentious but not intended to be critical, honest!

I always enjoy PP's refreshingly different mechanisms and period-specific focus in their rules, and I can see how a new set of rules might encourage figure sales for a particular niche period (eg: PITS, Bloody Barons) but I'm wondering whether the time/cost involved is the most cost-effective use of Martin's time (even when rule development and play testing is a team effort)?

Where there are already (multiple?) popular rulesets for a particular period available, would Martin's time be better spent sculpting and master-making? Or are rulesets an important part of the income/profit stream when the man hours involved are taken into account?

It'll be very interesting to see how much support for the MexRev range can be collectively generated by word of mouth, without a dedicated rule set to support it (a first for PP?).

In my (completely different) 'non-essential' consumer goods industry we're having to find new ways of selling profitably in the 'new normal', challenging all the preconceived ideas of how the business model should work, and it's been a really challenging but productive exercise.

Simon W

[owaincaesarius]

Actually I was referring to the Danny O'Hara documents too 

Here they are - I hope that's OK with everyone.

Simon

Good lad. A mind reader obviously.

Thank you.

Graham

[martin goddard]

Good questions Simon.

Peter Pig conforms in some ways to standard business models.
In  other ways it goes directly against common business models.

Peter Pig's primary goal is not making money (the horror).

The primary goals of Peter Pig are the following.

1.To generate enough income to pay the wages of Mike, Nigel and Julie. That is nice. I have relatively modest financial needs and value other things above mere profit. A luxury I know ; but it is nice to feel good.
2.To create "whole game" concepts. This means making any range we like. Creating rules that are revolutionary. This allows us the ability to explore new ideas and directions without considering the bottom line as the primary. driver. I like that too.
3. To satisfy gamers who have a similar outlook on gaming as we do. I would prefer to create products for a smaller "audience" of co-conspirators than follow a trend that I care not for. I prefer to work with the existing and new play testers whether the outcome is popular or not. It just needs to make the play testers and myself happy.
4.Assuming I have about 6 years left to live (crikey!), I would rather enjoy the people (i.e gaming with them) more than the money.
5. My arrogance (self belief?) makes me believe that we (the play tester group)  can create much better rules than any others out there. Mainly because we make what we like to play and damn the torpedoes.
6. Generally I  don't like skirmish games, sweeping games that claim to encompass too much, games that need a lot of rule consultation, statistic cards which are all just slight variations of each other, games where major tactical mistakes can be recovered from easily and games that make you the corporal, captain, major and general simultaneously, games that have a single victory (take the bridge) criteria.
7. I personally enjoy gaming immensely (that is why i usually play up to 200 full battles per year, more than most thus rules need replay intellectual challenge )  and want to use rules I enjoy.
The rules i see out there  seem to all  include one or more of my dislikes. I think Phil Barker's DBA ideas however are terrific. Not much else in the way of gaming rules has gotten me enthused  over the last 40 years. That does not mean that there are not brilliant rules out there (Peter Pig rules are not big sellers by any measure) , just that I can afford to indulge my own likes.

At a guess (it is a guess as I have not read them...which does undermine my argument) the current Mexrev rules out there have one or more of the following attributes?

1. Use a 6x4 table or any old size.
2. Have no pre-game. Just set the figures up and shoot each other.
3. Indefinite game length, Just go on until everyone is dead or players run out of time.
4. Deploy the armies at full strength (both sides equal- many gamers really hate PP army reduction for defenders)) on a base line and beat each other to death.
5. Rules list many minor differences in order to give an air of authenticity.  Mauser range 12'(carbine only 11"), Winchester range 11" (10" if using poor quality cartridges) and pistol range 2".
6. Players should flip a coin/roll a D6 if one of the many things not covered occurs.
7. Use a mixture of D10, D6, D2 plus a variety of colours depending on circumstance.
8. Little D6 /order markers/puffed out points on the table to record what each unit is up to.
9. Amusing events that can change the whole game . Pancho has eaten a really big breakfast and thus all of his cavalry must leave the table.
10. Templates for artillery explosions. Then roll a D6 to see how far it goes  NSEW.
11. Each piece of scenery is literal. Count the number of windows and that is the number of men that can shoot. Players can use a laser to determine if a shot can be had. This includes through woods or other units , so long as no tree or man  is touched.
12. Morale has outcomes such as "fall back in a direction that is the appropriate one". "Unit routs, but might come back in a minute".  "advance".
13. Game set up = put some stuff on the table (whatever the host has). First one there gets to set it up.
14. Special acronyms . Infantry move IMI (infantry move increments) if moving faster they use IMIA (additions). see chart for IMI and IMIA application sequence  for various foot types.

A long reply but good to get that off my chest (again)!


martin

[Sean Clark]

I think you've covered the RFCM philosophy nicely Martin. One I subscribe to wholehearedly.

I do hope you stick around for more than 6 years though!

[Colonel Kilgore]

Martin,

I agree wholeheartedly with Sean.

That's a very helpful RFCM "Credo", and I too wish you health and long life!

Simon

[Nick]

Great statement Martin. I like that a lot.

Nick

[martin goddard]

Thank you brothers.
They will hold their manhood cheap if they are not here!


martin

[Antioch (Bob)]

Great philosophy....  so here is more of wishing you long life to spread the good word. (And maybe that new set of casters for the command chair)

Bob

[sjwalker51]

Fascinating insight and a great philosophy - what a radical idea, a figure manufacturer who thinks the rules are as/more important than the figures themselves, rather than a clever marketing ploy to sell more stuff with endless supplements and updates like some we can mention.

And how wonderful to be able to make a business out of something so enjoyable - that's rare but helps if you have a sculpting talent like Martin.

6 more years - I bloody hope not! Or is that just until your next regeneration?

Simon W

[martin goddard]

Thanks for the good words.

martin