Army Lists ? (Again)

[tony6655@outlook.com]

Martin was good enough to spend me a playtest copy of FfM and I'm looking forward to publication (as no doubt we all are). I have a query about the Armies. I understand why they are "much of a muchness" , but there should be enough of a difference in (for instance) equipment levels to find each force a "character" . Should Zapatas forces in 1917 be as "tooled up" as their opponents ? Should Carranza get an armoured car? And should Pershing get lmg based for his cavalry ? Please understand that this is not a criticism of a good set of rules.
         Cheers,
                  Tony.
   

[Stewart 46A]

Hi Tony
I think Martin has tried to make the forces different with the level of assets each can have also the extras are slightly different and again small changes in the force lists.

The shooting on the games table takes place at short range (3 squares) so the difference between bolt action rifles and Winchester's doesn't really close not.

Stewart

[martin goddard]

Hello Tony

Good to see you back in action.

FM is of course a generalisation.
Much of the character of a force is the assets, additions and unit types.
e.g. We did discuss whether to have differences between winchesters,  bolt actions etc but that  seemed a bit more skirmish level.

There is always the danger that a good idea on paper translates to a millstone around the neck of the rules when playing the game. e.g I worry when a rule set has small differences that slow the game down but are included merely to give the illusion of accuracy.

e.g Short range 0-3", Medium range3-6", Long range 6-9", extreme range 9-11". (time wasting but looks really well researched)
Which i would replace with close range 0-5" Long range 5-11" (Practical and reflects what the rules are modelling)

When play testing Vietnam we thought about AK for VC and M16 for US etc. Those considerations did not come through though.

Maybe there is scope for adding bits in once play testing is underway.
The only games carried out so far are about 12 with Stewart and martin, then another 6 with Les and Ralph plus Pierre and Xavier have done some too.

Onwards.

martin

[Smoking gun]

Hi,
Just a thought, and please keep in mind I haven't seen the rules, would an ammo limitation asset to be played on an opponents unit or square be an idea?

Best wishes,
Martin Buck

[Stewart 46A]

Martin there are low ammo and extra ammo assets for each force


Stewart

[tony6655@outlook.com]

Thanks for the replies but I was thinking more about the allocation of artillery/mgs, and the fact that each army gets the same. For instance in the 1915/civil war period all the armies had a reasonable allocation of heavy weapons but in the earlier (Madero) and later ("Ragged Rebel") phases of the conflict non government forces were short of pretty much everything.
           Cheers,
                      Tony.

[Smiley Miley 66]

As I haven't seen the rules either, but I think I can say. If you do allow each army some form of access to the "bigger" weapons wether it's restricted on some forces or not etc. Then there will be this I won't play them ! Because I cannot field this,that or the other. Unfortunately we all try and field the best Army that is available to "that particular faction" whatever game we play ? Because realism or not we all want to at least feel we have a chance to win that game ? Otherwise we would never play anything. Especially once we get to 20th Century plus, any Force/Faction/Country/Side we deploy has been discussed on many other threads of this forum, "Big Guns can and do matter ?" Wether we admit it or not.
Must admit once we are back to a normal routine I think I might join in as this game, as FM does have potential, looking at what Martin has fielded figure wise. Any excuse to use Trains has got to be good ?
But how far down my "To Do" list is another matter ?
Miles

[martin goddard]

Probably best to compare the following assets in the armies as a starting point.

HE
Plenty of ammunition
Short of ammunition

martin

[Camulogene]

Probably best to compare the following assets in the armies as a starting point.

HE
Plenty of ammunition
Short of ammunition

martin

I agree with Martin ; as far as I am concerned, when play testing FfM a couple of times I felt the assets well balanced and that it reflected well the different potentials of the listed armies, an I liked much the points system for adding complementary units which brings "flavor" to the composition and the personalisation of an army. You have to make choices, but still can field fierce forces.

Pierre

[tony6655@outlook.com]

Thanks again for the interest, as I said at the beginning, I'm looking forward to the final product 😁
     Cheers,
                Tony.
I'm off to read the copy of Robert Harvey's "Liberators" that Amazon have just delivered 😁

[Camulogene]

should Pershing get lmg based for his cavalry ?

                  Tony.

If  Martin allows me, I would suggest a very simple way to depict it.

Those « LMGs » were in fact bipod mounted versions of the Hotchkiss MG, and should be treated as « MGs » in every game aspects, except :

- allow US cavalry (and US cavalry only) to have attached MG bases, at the rate of only 1 base max per cavalry unit.

- The cost to leave « difficult » scenery would be 3 APs, instead of 4 for normal MG bases, because of their lighter weight and better mobility.

- In return, shooting would be 2D6 instead of 3 due to their lesser fire power and reliability.

Pierre

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

There has to be a balance between real life and effective ranges and how they translate onto the wargames table.

In my own professional area of expertise - the Sikh Wars - while SBML artillery of the period (1845-1850) had a max range of just over a mile, they were rarely if ever used at those extremes. European artillery effective range was 800yds to be able to guarantee an effective hit. In practice, a fear of heavier Sikh artillery prompted the Bengal Horse Artillery to close to much closer ranges around 400yds and try to silence the batteries with shell and canister. Sikh gunners practised long range gunnery up to 1200yds using shell for use against their Afghan neighbours but against the EIC had to rapidly adapt to closer range tactics using roundshot, heavy grape, canister and even chain-shot. On the table this would translate to shorter and bloodier ranges well below the theoretical maximums. The adoption of rifled ordnance and more effective shells during the ACW only a decade or so later made the carnage of that conflict even more apparent. ACW rules will undoubtedly reflect this, despite the fact that rifled weaponry carried significantly further.

[tony6655@outlook.com]

Hold on to that thought Pierre 😉 I might use it (or something similar) if  I start modifying MCB for 6mm "big battle" 😁