Monday, 16 May 2016

WWI rules borne from the sickbed

The quack gave me the green light to take a day at home from work, and so I have used it wisely, reading through some old back issues of Practical Wargamer. And yes, I realise the purpose of a day off is to rest, but I have been stirred to action away from my sick bed and into the computer chair. You see, I was re-reading the very first wargames magazine that I ever bought, Practical Wargamer Vol.11 No.1 from 1997 and within a few seconds came across David Ruck's article, Hold the bridge. 
Ahhh... nostalgia. I really regret ripping the cover when I pulled off the free game that came with this issue.
I remember reading this article 19 years ago and being completely entranced with the Foundry figures that illustrated the article. Remember that this was pre-internet, and so it was really a window onto another world. My wargaming had been all 1/72 plastics, and while as of 1996 I had begun to play Warhammer 40,000, I had very little knowledge of what was available on the other side of the world when it came to historics.

So when I reread the article it was with an overwhelming sense of nostalgia. Then I re-read the rules. They seemed very simple when I first read them, and as a result were a bit confusing. 19 years later I realise the confusion comes from the fact that some of the factors were transcribed wrong, and that with experience it was possible to fill in the blanks. They actually looked perfect for my 18mm 1914 project. So I sat down this morning and reworked them, changing a few things here and there (there is no evidence that German machine guns should be inherently superior to any other, for instance, which was reflected in the rules), making them suit my collection as it stands. I'm really happy with the result and look forward to a playtest, although this will have to be with unpainted figures because 1914 isn't on the painting radar until 2017!

I've put them up on their own page. Have a look and see what you think.

'This way boys! We have our own rules now! Urrah!'
Nate
Posted by at
Labels: ,

9 comments:

  1. Chris16 May 2016 at 15:16

    Rules are simple and straight-forward (which I much prefer), but what should the turn sequence be? (Maybe (1) Roll for initiative; winner chooses who goes first. (2) Side A moves and fires, then Side B. (3) Resolve all melees. (4) Conduct all morale checks?)

    Best regards,

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natholeon16 May 2016 at 15:36

      Thanks Chris. I hadn't really looked past basic IGO-UGO, but that sequence would be a bit more interesting to play. Maybe break it down even more where Side A moves, side B fires, Side B moves, Side A fires, then melee and morale? That would mean troops advancing would get shot at and then maybe counterattacked, only to be subjected in turn to defensive fire. I could add that units stop 5cm away from units that they close to contact with and that the enemy gets a round of defensive fire, before the attackers close in the melee round (getting an extra 5cm move if necessary).

      Delete
    2. Natholeon16 May 2016 at 15:52

      I've just modified the turn sequence and melee. It will be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out.

      Delete
  2. Michael Awdry16 May 2016 at 19:44

    Get well soon Nate, although it looks like you are using your time wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rodger16 May 2016 at 21:47

    Practical Wargamer are a great set of mag's. Get well soon Nate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Al17 May 2016 at 00:21

    cool post, take another day :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark Strachan19 May 2016 at 19:31

    Nate, I hope all is well now. I note that in that issue of PW there was an article on Custozza, 1866. If you get a chance, could you scan or photograph it? It holds great interest for me and texts in English are hard to come by.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Natholeon19 May 2016 at 20:08

      Hi Mark, There are three articles by Ralph Weaver in three successive issues. I'll try and get them scanned this weekend for you - or would you prefer photocopies?

      Delete
    2. Mark Strachan20 May 2016 at 02:15

      Scans are fine thanks Nate.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)