SB Playtest team 2011

[martin goddard]

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

[pigsticker]

Martin,

kindly add me in so that we can have contributions from the Burton club. Thanks Ray

[Colonel Kilgore]

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

[martin goddard]

SB is certainly a future task.
I do not think it needs a radical change.


martin

[Smiley Miley 66]

SB is only small changes ?
Miles

[Colonel Kilgore]

SB 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

[martin goddard]

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

[Colonel Kilgore]

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

[Colonel Kilgore]

There are also the official clarifications that Simon C has posted here:

https://rulesforcommonman.uk/index.php?topic=392.0

Simon

[martin goddard]

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

[Colonel Kilgore]

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

[SimonC]

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.

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.

[SimonC]

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'

[Colonel Kilgore]

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

[Colonel Kilgore]

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'

I agree with that, and it's out of kilter with the general philosophy of RFCM rules.

Simon