Thinking about CWB 2- 20 years on

[Sean Clark]

I had a read through Lincolns War tonight.

Table size was recommended to be either 6x4 or 7x5. 12" squares with an occupancy of no more than 10 units!

Basic units were regiments  formed into brigades of 3 or 4 units. Union were 4 bases, but Rebs could be 4 or 5 bases.

Squares were either open or closed and being 12" squares, scenery only occupied 1 Square.

The author recommended 15mm Peter Pig figures, but suggested other figures would fight just as well 

I liked the addition of the Gettysburg speech and the lyrics to some songs. Very thematic.

The off table campaign section determined whether or not reinforcements  would arrive. Very innovative. 

[Forst22]

I have used these rules for much of their 20 yrs, and I must admit I like them and their stable mate Washingtons Army as they are.

There is a great danger if you go to squares that they will just become a derivative of square bashing? I use SB for RCW battles and they are great, but I would call at an AC W version.

I know I wouldn't rush to buy a squares version of CWB.

Can you confirm if the proposed 2026 amendment were found to be acceptable?  I assume the 1 or 3 AP for firing makes it much more common?

I do prefers the roll each turn for countdown even though I had just manufactured a track with 36 slots for use with my other sets!

Was any thought put into the disorganization system, the AC W version makes it much easier for Raw units to become disordered AND much harder to reorder, compared with the WA version, I assume this is still relevant to the period?

[Sean Clark]

It's interesting to any Peter Pig historian like myself that the ACW rules are the only ones to start out as a grid based game before moving to a non gridded game. And now potentially back again 

Forst22, I am with you. As I've said before CWB are my favourite, but a close second is Washingtons Army. They are my goto choice for ACW or AWI.

I'm happy to tinker with both sets of rules at home and have tried several changes over the years  especially on saving rolls. But I would never presume to think anyone but me would be interested and the rules as written are brilliant.

It's worthy of mention that the same system more or less also features in Battles in the Age of War for Samurai warfare. It was also used in Bloody Barons and Regiment of Foote before  both went gridded.

I was a big fan of both of those games, but in my opinion both are better games on a grid.

Ultimately, if CWB does go gridded, no one will mind at all if you stick with the original  The amendments used last weekend sound like they worked well. AK47 is a good example of people still enjoying the classic edition amd there is quite a strong following for it on the AK47 Facebook group.

[martin goddard]

Thanks Sean and Graham for getting stuck in. Shows we can have good chat.

To break the chat into areas.

1. The amendments for CWB seemed to work well.  i.e. Countdown re-roll, 1AP for first shot and re-roll scenario events. They got a good try out at the CWB battle day and most seemed happy(?). Disorder is harsh and should be re-considered  I think.

2. Luckily the existing versions of PITS, AK,PBI are all still available and there to buy. The problem is that a new edition might fracture a group between new and old. Similarly it gives players a choice of editions.

Side note:-
PP rules have the longest update span of any other rule set publisher. AK =16 years, PBI= 10 years, PITS= 14 years , CK= 25 years as examples. Incredible I think. In addition PP rules demand very little army change from one edition to the next. Armies are not outdated, just adjusted. Marvellous.


3. All PP rules are a derivative in that they use D6, similar sized cloths, similar game lengths, comprehensive victory criteria and are attacker/defender.
Do various RFCM games seem like the same game? No.

4. Grids are always going to be a "no no" for some players. Accepted with no problem. Shop elsewhere.

5. As asked earlier; is  AK  PE a better game than reloaded?  is PBI 2025 a better game than Company commander? is PITS 2026 better than the Gordon's alive version?
If they are not better for some then all fine, just carry on and enjoy what you have.

6. Try not to judge the rules before they are even at play test stage. See above.


7. CWB 2 will once again be a unique set of RFCM rules which most here will enjoy testing and owning, I hope?
Will they be popular? Possibly.

8. Don't forget that as an RFCM group we go against the direction of most other rule sets.
ie.
A. Always defence /attack created by the players at the game start. Not the normal "alpha player sets it all up before the game".YuK!
B.  Always full victory criteria. Not the normal single criterion of win lose. The horror.
C. Each game is unique. Not the normal let's play one of the written scenarios. Please no.
D. Both players are involved in the table set up. Not the normal "I have set it all up for you to save time. I am on the high ground".  Awful. Please don't.
E. Grids. Not the normal "that makes it aboard game" stupidity. Rolls eyes.
F. Players choose their scenery. Not the normal "I have set it all up for you". Maybe when I played against my grandpa.
G. Many ways to win the game. Not the normal blue flag single criterion for victory. Might as well not turn up.

There are many sets of wargame rules out there which are more popular than the RFCM offerings. Fine, but do those players want the A-G  that we want?  Probably not.

The RFCM forum is the  place to discuss the mechanisms as they come along. If the overall project does not bring potential joy then leave it  to those that are keen. 


martin

[Sean Clark]

All agreed. We're a broad church. One man's fillet steak is another mand Big Mac.

I can't wait to get going. But I think I'll try a game of Lincolns War for nostalgia purposes 🙂

To fit the desired 7 squares by 5 squares onto my table   I'll need squares that are 9.5" x 9.5". I need them as big as possible due to fitting 10 units in a square. I'll probably go for 24cm squares. No need to permanently mark the grid. I'll just use counters or bits of clump foliage to do so for this one off nostalgia  game.

[martin goddard]

Good news Sean  A retrospective review would be nice.


martin

[Sean Clark]

An interesting point is that at the start of a turn, players roll a dice with the attacker adding 1. The higher roll moves his troops  then the lower roll moves his troops. Firing and fighting are then carried out but considered simultaneous. I'd forgotten this!

[Stewart 46A]

Lincoln's war was one of my first Peter Pig rules

I used 6mm figures and 6" squares

Still have everything in storages so may bring it to the Weymouth weekend


Stewart

[Forst22]

I just counted and I have ppig rules covering 13 of your periods! I also have multi generations of pbi, ecw, bloody barons, square bashing, pirates, vietnam and AK etc and have enjoyed playing them all.

I particularly like the "whole game" nature of the rules ie a setup, a game and a victory conditions giving a complete package. That's good as I find myself playing more solo on small tables, as some of my partners are no longer around!

I am trying to get new players involved, but as they just want a game rather than read and learn the rules, they much prefer me to provide them with say half a dozen pre done armys to choose from and I also generate random distributions of points and terrain options for the setup. These are normally on cards which they select blind. The result is a random set of terrain to be distributed as per the rules and random set of variables for the scenario bit.

're the old versions of the rules, I particularly liked the old ECW pre game with the linked narrative. And a very memorable game of the old Bloody Barons when my opponent started the game with only his generals on the table!( His men wernt that far off table!)

I find the opposed dice rolling from the old Vietnam rules and Sudan set frustrating a fiddly, much prefer the 1 dice is element plus other factors vs saving throw system .

[Leman (Andy)]

I think, having read this, that a good general discussion topic might be related to the rules, so I'll pop it in there to preserve the ACW element of this thread.