Twilight of the Sun King : les guerres de Louis 14 faciles

Connaissez vous Twilight of the Sun King ? Une règle rédigée en 4 pages à l'origine... elle met d'accord pas mal de joueurs fatigués des règles plus lourdes ou détaillées sur cette période.
Le concept est très simple et original : toutes les actions, de la transmission des ordres aux tirs d'artillerie, sont résolues par un seul test de moral.
Il semble que les impressions générales sont excellentes par rapports à la période et à l'échelle de jeu ( 1 unité = 1 brigade). Il y a plein de règles optionnelles pour ajouter du chrome ou de la finesse, et les listes d'armées sont hyper simples.

La règle esr disponible chez Caliver Books, ou en version gratuite Ici dans leur version de 2001.

twiglet est arrivé plus après lecture

alors,
le jeu permet de jouer à deux échelles rgt / brigade
l'échelle de jeu est la base (socle) BW qui détermine les distances
le jeu utilise des dés de moyenne
c'est du grand socle, on ne retire pas de perte en fig.
on est passé de 4 à 26 pages mais écrit très très grand

au niveau innovation
-une unité ne prend pas des pertes mais perd du moral pour des circonstances x ou Y  et lorsqu'elle en rate un certain nombre de test,  elle déroute (les tests devenant de plus en plus difficile).
- le but du jeu est donc d'imposer des tests de moral à l'adversaire et de le placer en situation difficile pour les compliquer. c'est clair et fluide,
- une seule table qui permet de résoudre tous les tests  

facilement adaptables pour SYW (je compte bien m'y attaquer)      

ce que j'aime moins

- des couches de règles optionnelles qui donnent un côté bac à sable qui peut plaire mais qui rendent difficile la vision globale de l'effet de l'addition de telle ou telle règle sur l'ensemble.   ainsi une uniité peut être déterminée par 1 à 3 caractéristiques (taille: 3types / qualité: 3 à 7 types / moral 1 à 3 types ).  
- pas de budget,  pas que je sois un fan des budgets mais cela permet de jauger de la puissance d'une unité vis-à-vis d'une autre et donc d'équilibrer un scénario.
- pas de spécificité de nationalité  

je rejoins donc l'analyse du site

http://balagan.info/wargaming/twilight-of-the-sun-king

qui offre en plus pas mal de solution à ces petits problèmes

À tester (rapidement)    

Ps il y a un groupe Yahoo

Et bien ta lecture confirme toutes les bonnes impressions que le site que tu évoques m'avait donné!

Niveau présentation, la règle est bien?
Il n'existe pas déjà une variante SYW? Il en existe une pour la guerre de Trente Ans, je pense - si pas, elle est en préparation.

niveau présentation c'est un peu rapport de la cours des comptes: austère et pas très coloré mais ils ont pensé à nos vieux jours la police doit être 13-14

Hello,

I apologise for not writing in French but my French is not good. So I hope it is OK to write in English.

My name is Nick and I heard about this from a member of this forum who has joined the Twilight Yahoo group. I thought I could help you with these rules.

There is a set which will cover the period 1618-1660, including of course the 30 Years War, which will be published very soon - 1 month maybe. This will be called 'Twilight of Divine Right' (TODR). There will also be scenario booklets like with the new edition of the Twilight of the Sun King (TOSK). One scenario booklet will have 10 battles from the English Civil War and the other will have 12 battles from the Thirty Years War. There are also 1 battle from each war in the rules.

There is a playsheet/QRS for the SYW using the old rules in the files of the Yahoo group. I do not think these are very good but maybe you will like them.

I plan to do more scenarios for the TOSK rules next - probably another booklet of battles for Louis 14th battles and another one on the Eastern battles with the Russians and Ottomans.

After that I will work on doing a version of the new rules for the SYW and also the War of Austrian Succession and other wars of the period.

In addition to the Yahoo group there is information and extra material here -I can not publish links because I am a new member. Search for wyre forest gamers for the website and for twilight of the sun king on facebook.

I thought I would try to answer some things you do not like.

Lotharius a écrit:

ce que j'aime moins

- des couches de règles optionnelles qui donnent un côté bac à sable qui peut plaire mais qui rendent difficile la vision globale de l'effet de l'addition de telle ou telle règle sur l'ensemble.   ainsi une uniité peut être déterminée par 1 à 3 caractéristiques (taille: 3types / qualité: 3 à 7 types / moral 1 à 3 types ).  

I am sorry my French is not good enough for this. Can you tell me again what the problem is? Either in simpler French or in English.

Sorry again my French is bad

Citation :

- pas de budget,  pas que je sois un fan des budgets mais cela permet de jauger de la puissance d'une unité vis-à-vis d'une autre et donc d'équilibrer un scénario.

On this there is no point system or other balancing mechanism because the idea is you fight real battles with all of the armies, not some smaller parts of an army. So for example nearly all of the battles are 1 player fighting 1 player. Often you will fight real battles and this is what the rules are trying to do.

So the Twilight of the Sun King rules 'Louis 14th' scenario book has these battles -

War of the Grand Alliance (1688-97) Scenarios

Fleurus, 1690
Boyne, 1690
Landen/Neerwinden, 1693
Marsaglia, 1693

War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14) Scenarios

Luzzara, 1702
Speyerbach, 1703
Blenheim, 1704
Ramillies, 1706
Almansa, 1707
Almenar, 1710

You will probably need 2 players fighting 2 players for the biggest of these battles but most of them will be 1 player vs 1 player. For example if you do Fleurus 1690 you use all of the armies at the battle. In the Thirty Years War rules it is the same and most battles are 1 player fighting 1 player. The battle of Fleurus 1622 is in these rules, it is a small battle to play your first game.

It will be the same in the SYW rules when these are written - you will fight with all of De Saxe's or Frederick of Prussia's army. These are rules for fighting big battles with relatively small armies and tables.

So you use real full armies generally but you can use this in different situations. Also there are some files to make random armies on the wyre forest gamers site. More are coming.

Citation :

- pas de spécificité de nationalité  

The qualities of units and nationalities are not set but based on the real units and how they fought at a battle. So General ????'s infantry might be 'Raw' at a battle because they did not fight well at that battle. But at the next battle the same infantry might fight well and they might be 'Elite'. Often units have a random morale rating. For example a unit can be Trained (C). This means the units quality is rolled for when they first fight. A Trained (C) rolls a D6. If the roll is 6 it fights this battle as Elite. If it rolls a 1 it fights this battle as 'Raw'. If it rolls 2, 3, 4 or 5 it is Trained. A Trained (B) unit is Elite if it rolls 5 or 6 but the other results are the same.

So the idea is to build real armies and then give them qualities that are appropriate for the real units.

Units are defined by 3 characteristics: size (S / std / L) quality (R / T / E) and moral (W / std / D). which gives 27 possibilities of combination. Attributing these characteristics according to the rule must be done according to the performance in battle and can therefore change from one battle to another.

This seems to me very complex to determine because the rule merges morale, shooting and melee (a great idea). I will tend as Balagan proposes to regroup quality and morale. (Elite are D, Trained are Std,...)

Example the French guards at Fontenoy

As a guard she should have the status of Elite but she behaves badly in the battle so moral W. we get a unit that is effective but that has a low moral. I would find it more logical to simply classify it T (by regrouping moral and quality).

It seems to me as difficult to estimate the quality of a troop from a battle because it also depends on factors independent of it: the ground, its command, which is in front of it.
Moreover, we can often question the battle reports because it is the protagonists who write the reports and they seek to glorify their role.

Another point is that many historical battles are actually won or lost before they start because of the campaign. Which gives a tactical and / or numerical advantage to one of the two camps. Others are lost because of major mistakes of the CdA rather than the quality of the troops (Austerlitz). This limits the number of interesting battles to play even if there is indeed a lot

I find it unfortunate to deprive myself of a non-historical part balanced by the lack of budget but I understand your philosophical choice. Also like other poeples I like imagi-nation or imagi conflict (british versus Russia, ...).

Personally I also like a system that privileges the national doctrinal impact. In SYW, a Prussian must move better, etc. again Balagan make some interesting proposition

Lotharius,


Thank you for your reply.

I think the first thing to say is that everything on Balagan's site is about the 1st edition of these rules, which were only 4 pages. They were a good idea but only really a general guide to fighting battles. They are OK but I think need big changes to make into a good set of rules.

The 2nd edition of the rules are extended greatly and specifically aimed at the period 1680-1720. They have many changes, new idea, etc, which are designed to reflect that era. A different set or big changes would be needed to reflect the SYW, there are big changes in the set for the Thirty Years War.

Lotharius a écrit:

Units are defined by 3 characteristics: size (S / std / L) quality (R / T / E) and moral (W / std / D). which gives 81 possibilities of combination. Attributing these characteristics according to the rule must be done according to the performance in battle and can therefore change from one battle to another.

This seems to me very complex to determine because the rule merges morale, shooting and melee (a great idea). I will tend as Balagan proposes to regroup quality and morale. (Elite are D, Trained are Std,...)

Example the French guards at Fontenoy

As a guard she should have the status of Elite but she behaves badly in the battle so moral W. we get a unit that is effective but that has a low moral. I would find it more logical to simply classify it T (by regrouping moral and quality).

I think the important thing here is that the player can decide for themselves how to define a unit using the characteristics. I would not use the ratings you suggest but they could be used if you want and either is fine. You can decide which you think is best for the situation, that might not be the same as I think or some other person thinks.

Also the ratings are for specific reasons and usually for big differences, not smaller ones. The size and moral are the exceptions to the normal and are only used with a small number of units. Obviously this can vary but in general only a small percentage of units will not be standard size and moral. In the battles of Blenheim and Ramillies (2 scenarios from the scenario book) there are no W units at all. 2 units of the Confederate are are D. Maybe 75% are just Raw or Trained or Elite with the rest mainly Small and a few Large.

For example W (Wavering) is for specifically for units which for some reason do not want to fight. I do not think any French units in the period 1680-1720 or the WAS or the SYW would count as W. In the SYW I think that the only units in all the armies which would be W are the Saxon units which were forced to fight for the Prussians (maybe also the Swedes).

In the situation you describe I would rate the French Guards as Trained, in fact as Trained (A), and not as Elite W. As a Trained (A) unit at Fontenoy the French Guard would roll to see what their quality is the first time they take a morale test. If they roll 5 or 6 they will fight the battle as Elite, if they roll 1, 2, 3 or 4 they fight as Trained.

I have not looked in detail at Fontenoy but I think looking quickly at the battle you would use 16 French infantry units. None of these would be W but maybe the Irish brigade might be D. Some of the units would be S (small) or L (large) to reflect the number of units in an area. So for example the French/Swiss Guards and Irish could be 1 unit that is L (they are 6 battalions instead of the standard 4 battalions).

I would look in more detail before deciding exactly but my estimate for doing the French at Fontenoy would be 16 units. 1 unit of Trained (A) Large - the French/Swiss guard, 1 unit of Trained D - the Irish, 14 units of Trained.

Usually Fontenoy would be fought on a table that is 1.8 meters wide. It is a battle that is a large battle for 1 player fighting 1 player. So you would need more time to play it for example. Or it is an easy game for 2 players to fight 2 players in 3 or 4 hours.

Citation :

It seems to me as difficult to estimate the quality of a troop from a battle because it also depends on factors independent of it: the ground, its command, which is in front of it.
Moreover, we can often question the battle reports because it is the protagonists who write the reports and they seek to glorify their role.

I agree but it is exactly the same if you are going to use any system. Any general system like a budget or points system with some kind of army list is not capable of coping with the real variety of units and are usually the worst at this kind of thing.

This is one of the reasons we often use the idea of random morale with the chance of different qualities. Usually we rate most units as Trained (?) with the ? giving the chance of a unit being R, T or E. So we would maybe rate a brigade of guards as Elite and a brigade of militia as Raw. But most brigades would be Trained (?) with good brigades having a better chance of being E and bad brigades a better chance of being R. For example if brigades are Trained (B) they are E if they roll 5 or 6, R if they roll 1, T if they roll something else. If the brigade is Trained (D) they are E if they roll a 6, R if they roll 1 or 2. But again many units can be just Trained or Trained (C) with 1 = R, 6 = E.

Citation :

Another point is that many historical battles are actually won or lost before they start because of the campaign. Which gives a tactical and / or numerical advantage to one of the two camps. Others are lost because of major mistakes of the CdA rather than the quality of the troops (Austerlitz). This limits the number of interesting battles to play even if there is indeed a lot

Perhaps this is true in Napoleon's time, personally I do not believe so - or at least it does not have to be so. Many 'historical' rules do not in fact actually reflect the way real battles were. I do not think it is worth discussing Napoleon's time with these rules because I do not think that the idea would work well for then. If the rules did work for this time it would be no problem to use them for Austerlitz or battles with very uneven sides. You just need to have rules that reflect the conditions of the battle, including things like this. So for Austerlitz I would give the French good commanders and the Allies bad commanders. The players can still make mistakes with Napoleon and lose or use the Allied commanders well and win, but the ratings of the commanders is as important as the ratings/numbers of the units.

The reality is that certainly before Napoleon's time, and also I think in Napoleon's time and until modern times, battles were usually only fought if both sides wanted to fight. Both sides only wanted to fight if the armies were approximately balanced. If one side did not think it could win or the armies were unbalanced it would withdraw before the other side could organise an attack.

So I think this might be true in some cases but these are relatively few in reality, as long as the rules have the ability to reflect these things properly. In the end it depends on what kind of game you want to play. In a 'balanced' budget/points system type game if you are doing a war/battle/period that is not balanced in the ways you suggest you are changing 'history' to make it balanced. It is in effect changing the tactical/numerical/leadership differences that existed to make a balance. You can do that in any set of rules, including these, by doing the same but using any other method you might like. So if maybe if you think Fontenoy is too easy for the French to win then fight the battle in different terrain - a more open battlefield or the same battlefield but with no French defensive works.

Citation :

I find it unfortunate to deprive myself of a non-historical part balanced by the lack of budget but I understand your philosophical choice.

This has nothing to do with these rules but just generally. I have being playing games for nearly 40 years and I have never found a balanced budget/points system. So the real choice is whether you want to play a game which is unbalanced because of a points system or unbalanced because of history. I personally choose unbalanced because of history because in most cases they are usually fairly balanced. Points/budget systems and army lists are often complete rubbish. I once tried to use 5 points/budget systems and army lists to make the armies in a very balanced historical battle (this was for Ancient wars). It was not possible in any of them.

Citation :

Also like other poeples I like imagi-nation or imagi conflict (british versus Russia, ...).

Again this is easy to do if you want to, but it does depend a little on what exactly you want to do. If you want to do British vs Russian then that is fine. We recently fought Marlborough's army of 1708 (the one at Oudernaarde) against Charles 12th of Sweden's army of 1708 (the one that invaded Russia).

It is more difficult to do if you want to do imagi-nations but then these rules are not really aimed at doing this or at doing small skirmishes of a few 1000 men a side. Just as a set of rules that is good for imagi-nations or doing small skirmishes will be useless for doing the big historical battles these rules are intended for.

Personally I do not use these for imagi-nations but I also would never use the rules I use for imagi-nations to do these battles.

Citation :

Personally I also like a system that privileges the national doctrinal impact. In SYW, a Prussian must move better, etc. again Balagan make some interesting proposition

i have not looked in detail at what is suggested on Balagan's site but of course a SYW set of rules would have to have rules to reflect the national differences. I did not think that for me the rules there did this for me. The Louis 14th rules and TYW certainly have these, and so would a SYW set I would write. The Prussians would move better and also have rules for when they used bayonet attacks, the changes in the army over time, etc.

I think there would have to be relatively big changes in the rules to do the SYW to allow, for example, the use of big marches, like Frederick did at say Torgau and the Austrians at Hochkirch. Also many others for other things which are different in Frederick's time. I do not like rules which pretend to do battles from say 1700 to 1770 or 1815 as usually they do not understand the differences between the different wars.

Have you played a game of the new edition of the rules?

I hope this has helped but please ask more if you want.

Hello Hwiccee !

First of all, I would like to thank your for your subscription on our humble forum - it is always a joy to read authors talking about their rules and how they translate "things" ( the fury of battle, so to say!) into "rules", for our greater pleasure. I especially like the way the community around XVIIth and Louis XIV gaming is when considering different set of rules, more as different points of view about the same subjects than competing sets.

So, About TOSK, I admit I have only read the files on Balagan's site, I guess the 4 pages version. To be true, this was the very start of our interest about the rules - beside a good bottle of wine and cheerful talks between friends, a gaming midday meal, a few weeks ago...
Thus, I can only talk about my thoughts about the general concepts. In gaming terms, my only experience in these eras gaming are Tercios and V&B adapted to SYW, beside readings of a few sets (Beneath the Lily Banner 2, Pike&Shotte, Honour of War, Might&Reason, to name some)

Although I understand what my friend Lotharius evokes about multiple charachteristics and the variable nature of multiple additionnal rules, it does not causes any problem to me. Moreover, I like the flexibility it gives when looking at refighting a specific battle, following the knowledge we have of it. In this way, I pretty much see the things as you do about units behaviour during a battle or the next one.

In my opinion, the key is always to find the right balance between a vision of historicity, gamer's tastes, playability. The current fashion is for fastplaying rules, allowing to fight complete battles within few gaming time, and this is at my taste - and I think, it is the way TOSK was intended for.

I would like to have a few time to test the rule, and maybe translate it in French - sadly, rules in English do not find great success in France and french-speaking Belgium.

Regards,

Michel.

thank you for this detailed answer, so this is something to think about. As Michel says, it's a privilege to be able to communicate with an author because, more than words, you can understand his philosophy and his common thread and thus better understand his choices.

Regards

Ronald

Mig Wanzer a écrit:

Hello Hwiccee !


First of all, I would like to thank your for your subscription on our humble forum - it is always a joy to read authors talking about their rules and how they translate "things" ( the fury of battle, so to say!) into "rules", for our greater pleasure.  I especially like the way the community around XVIIth and Louis XIV gaming is when considering different set of rules, more as different points of view about the same subjects than competing sets.

Hello Michel and thank you for allowing me on to your forum.

I apologise again that I can not participate in French and thank you for taking the trouble to talk to me in English.

I think you are right about the view on XVIIth and Louis XIV gaming generally. In the English speaking world there are many different views on this period and so it is important to be flexible in approach. In part this is a result of development of historical discussion of the era in the 'real' world, most notably the greater use of non English sources of information, opinions, etc, in discussion of the period. In the past I am afraid much of the English language history of the era used very little material from non English sources.

So the rules for this period will have some 'view' on the issues of this period but also try to be flexible to allow different views to expressed.

Citation :

So, About TOSK, I admit I have only read the files on Balagan's site, I guess the 4 pages version.  To be true, this was the very start of our interest about the rules - beside a good bottle of wine and cheerful talks between friends, a gaming midday meal, a few weeks ago...  
Thus, I can only talk about my thoughts about the general concepts.  In gaming terms, my only experience in these eras gaming are Tercios and V&B adapted to SYW, beside readings of a few sets (Beneath the Lily Banner 2, Pike&Shotte, Honour of War, Might&Reason, to name some)

Ok so perhaps a little history of these rules. The original idea of these rules goes back to an article in a gaming magazine in 1994. These ideas were then developed, by Balagan, into the set which is online. This version of the rules was then taken by a member of the Pike and Shot society, a group interested in the history of this era (I can not put a link in here but an online search for 'pike shot society' will find them), who published the first printed version of these rules. These are a version of the rules on Balagan's site with more rules to reflect the Louis XIV era. They were 4 pages I think.

These rules are OK but like Lotharius I thought they lacked details and so I decided to do a set that would reflect this period better. Also that would fix some of the problems in the original rules. This led to the current edition which has 26 pages of rules and also some others in the scenario books. So these rules are a lot different to the original rules, although many of the ideas are the same. The Thirty Years War rules are even more different and I would expect this to be true with any future SYW set I do.

So the current rules are really quite different from the online or previous versions but with some common ideas. They, and the scenario booklets, reflect my view on the period which I think is probably different to previous authors.

I have not played all of the rules you mention but it probably the most similar to Might and Reason. I have not played Might and Reason for Louis XIV wars, I have only played SYW battles with these rules. There are big differences between the two ideas/rules but the kind of game intended is probably the same.

Similarly I think the TYW set is closest to 'Tercios'. I have not played these and I have only read the free online version but I think they are for a similar kind of game. Do you like these rules? What kind of battles can you fight in 3 to 4 hours?

Citation :

Although I understand what my friend Lotharius evokes about multiple charachteristics and the variable nature of multiple additionnal rules, it does not causes any problem to me.  Moreover, I like the flexibility it gives when looking at refighting a specific battle, following the knowledge we have of it. In this way, I pretty much see the things as you do about units behaviour during a battle or the next one.

I am glad you like the way I see units behave but then maybe we are both wrong. With a flexible system you can change the characteristics. The scenarios in effect reflect my view of the characteristics of the battle but they can be changed.

Citation :

In my opinion, the key is always to find the right balance between a vision of historicity, gamer's tastes, playability.  The current fashion is for fastplaying rules, allowing to fight complete battles within few gaming time, and this is at my taste - and I think, it is the way TOSK was intended for.

Yes I agree that you always have to have a balance of different factors. Also that different balances are good for some people and not good for others.

I also think that the current fashion for 'fast play' rules is good but then what exactly this means is often difficult to see. The idea with these rules is that you should be able to play most historic battles with 1 player against 1 player in one session of play - 4 hours for example. You will probably play on a table that is 1.8 meters wide, or smaller, but the scale is flexible so you can customise this to whatever you want. All measurements are in Base Widths which is 1/2 the frontage of a unit you use so you just adjust the scale to that. Similarly it does not make any difference in the rules how your figures are based, the size of the figures or the number you use. You will probably still need an army of a 'normal' size to play, i.e. not a few 10's of figures and not a few 1000's of figures, but you choose.

The biggest battles of the two periods we have done so far can be played by 1 person per side but you will need more time,figures and probably a bigger table to play. Usually we play these as 2 players a side as they can still be played in one session of play. For Louis XIV the big battles are Landen/Neerwinden, Blenheim, Ramillies, etc.


Will everyone like the rules? No of course not but then I think this is true with all sets of rules.

Citation :

I would like to have a few time to test the rule, and maybe translate it in French - sadly, rules in English do not find great success in France and french-speaking Belgium.

And why should rules in English be popular in French speaking areas? In a perfect world I think it would be great if all rules were printed in more than one language. I lived in the Czech Republic for 10 years and the language was always a problem there. I would love to say here that the society will publish a version of the rules in French or other languages. But the society is a non profit making organisation and relies on volunteers to do things, so probably that will not be possible.

If you or others have more questions please ask.


All the best,


Nick

Lotharius a écrit:

thank you for this detailed answer, so this is something to think about. As Michel says, it's a privilege to be able to communicate with an author because, more than words, you can understand his philosophy and his common thread and thus better understand his choices.

Regards

Ronald

Ah Ronald, I was not sure who you were here

I am happy to talk here or on the Yahoo group but I am also very keen to get non English peoples idea so I thought I would come here

You have the current rules? Do you have the scenario booklets?

Which battles/wars are you thinking you would want to do?


Regards,


Nick

hi

We played several games with Tercios and like Twiglet; it presents original mechanisms (orders, bonus-malus, general). It is a good balance between historicity and playability. And in a day it's easy to finish a big battle. At the level of the orders, the fact of having to estimate the action of the other general is very pleasant.

In 3-4 hours, it is possible to play a battle of +/-10 units on each side to start. I have not made a specific battle for the moment but I am busy painting a Spanish army for Rocroi. With the Count of Fontaine at their head (real) and where would have died the famous captain Alatriste (fiction).

To come back with twiglet, I own, as said on the yahoo, the basic book. I have not yet been able to test directly but it will be done tomorrow afternoon (cliffhanger for a next post ^^). I am not a specialist in the Louis IV period (unlike Michel), I was more interested in SYW, period for which I have a good library and the Kronostaff site as support. For now, I read the rule and I compared it in these mechanics with Maurice and Age of Reason that I practiced a lot; and with Black powder, Minden and honors of wars that I did not not practiced but that I studied thoroughly, which explains my remarks in my previous message.

Tercios looks interesting, I must try it one day.

Do you have the full rules? If yes how are they different?

Judging by the Brevis edition the rules are for a smaller scale than the Twiglet TYW rules will be. So they could be useful for fighting smaller battles.

Alatriste is a great film, very inspirational. I am slowly building a Spanish army as well, but for the 1620's.

OK on Twiglet. Please get in touch if you have any questions or anything.

Small back on three parts tests (one, isolated on my table and 2 with a colleague that I hope to bring on the forum soon)

We played with symmetrical armies for ease (8 infantry units: 7 trained Flinlock, 1 Elite), 4 cavalry including an Elite (2 galloping horse, 1poor, 1LH), two batteries and two generals (Rank O and Rank 1 ).

The first part lasted about 2H30 hours and the second a little less than 3 hours.

Compared to the rule, we just used units from a base (because of a lack of figurines) and so we did not apply the self-support rule. The figures (my SYW 15mm) were mounted on a temporary base of 8cm x 4cm and the artillery on 4 x 4.

Let's start with the bad news

- First of all nothing serious has blocked us, the flanking is sometimes a little complex to evaluate but nothing worse than with other rules or that can't be solved by a laser pointer.
- As we often test, we must think to be very systematic, initially we have forgotten a number of test causes. But after a few turns it improves.
- The factor table is long to go, it will take some time to master it
- The thing that bothered me the most is the number of table markers but it is surely improvable.
         o Bombing marker
         o Morale level marker (fct of the missed test count (0/1/2 / removed from the game).
         o Unit marker activated by the general (see below).
- Some factors are sometimes difficult to interpret: -1 morale test for the flanks supported (it was assumed that it was the flanks of the attacker).

The good news

- We had a lot of fun.
- The use of average dice that stabilizes a little the importance of random factors and luck, while keeping a proportional interest with regard to modifiers.
- Outside the factor table and having to pay attention to who should test, the grip is very easy even for a neophyte.
- I really like the rule of rear support on several ranks which pushes to support an assault and thus also to manage a reserve. In the same way, it is necessary to choose where and when its elites are engaged. They can make the difference but are not invulnerable.
- The role of cavalry (GH: battle, P: Dragon, LH: hussar) is very well made by the rule
- The role of the generals was the big surprise, the possibility of pushing some units but at the same time to prevent to produce in this case a moral test at the opponent is great because it gives a great freedom but prevents the abuses that the we find in other rules.

- The rule is a sandbox that will easily lend itself to modifications. I will probably try modifications to approach the SYW spirit. And I hope to see an official version quickly cover this period.


Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben?

Lotharius a écrit:

Small back on three parts tests (one, isolated on my table and 2 with a colleague that I hope to bring on the forum soon)

We played with symmetrical armies for ease (8 infantry units: 7 trained Flinlock, 1 Elite), 4 cavalry including an Elite (2 galloping horse, 1poor, 1LH), two batteries and two generals (Rank O and Rank 1 ).

The first part lasted about 2H30 hours and the second a little less than 3 hours.

Compared to the rule, we just used units from a base (because of a lack of figurines) and so we did not apply the self-support rule. The figures (my SYW 15mm) were mounted on a temporary base of 8cm x 4cm and the artillery on 4 x 4.

Yes a good game to start with. You should be able to use armies up to twice as big in the same tie without any problems when you know the rules better. More if you have more time to play.

Citation :

Let's start with the bad news

- First of all nothing serious has blocked us, the flanking is sometimes a little complex to evaluate but nothing worse than with other rules or that can't be solved by a laser pointer.
- As we often test, we must think to be very systematic, initially we have forgotten a number of test causes. But after a few turns it improves.
- The factor table is long to go, it will take some time to master it
- The thing that bothered me the most is the number of table markers but it is surely improvable.
         o Bombing marker
         o Morale level marker (fct of the missed test count (0/1/2 / removed from the game).
         o Unit marker activated by the general (see below).
- Some factors are sometimes difficult to interpret: -1 morale test for the flanks supported (it was assumed that it was the flanks of the attacker).

OK it is good that you didn't seem to have any big problems.

Flanking: As you say this can be difficult to evaluate. I think it is best to have some kind of 'house rule' for this. My group generally play that a unit must be clearly on the flank to count. If it is in doubt then it is not flanking.

When to Test/The Factors: Hopefully this will be better next time you play. You are right on the -1 for flank support. If you have any questions then please ask me.

Markers: You can cut down the numbers of markers or make them less visible if you want. We use balls of cotton wool for bombing markers. Casualty figures or similar for missed tests. Often we just use little coloured markers.

Long Factor Table: Again I think this will be easier when you play more. Also a lot of the factors will probably not be used by you - pikes, the Ottomans, etc. When we play standard Western battles we use a copy of the QRS with the factors for pikes, Ottomans, etc, blanked out.

Citation :

The good news

- We had a lot of fun.
- The use of average dice that stabilizes a little the importance of random factors and luck, while keeping a proportional interest with regard to modifiers.
- Outside the factor table and having to pay attention to who should test, the grip is very easy even for a neophyte.
- I really like the rule of rear support on several ranks which pushes to support an assault and thus also to manage a reserve. In the same way, it is necessary to choose where and when its elites are engaged. They can make the difference but are not invulnerable.
- The role of cavalry (GH: battle, P: Dragon, LH: hussar) is very well made by the rule
- The role of the generals was the big surprise, the possibility of pushing some units but at the same time to prevent to produce in this case a moral test at the opponent is great because it gives a great freedom but prevents the abuses that the we find in other rules.

This is good and I am glad you enjoyed it. I hope it gives you a good feeling of being a General. Also hopefully if you use real tactics of the period they will work.

Citation :

- The rule is a sandbox that will easily lend itself to modifications. I will probably try modifications to approach the SYW spirit. And I hope to see an official version quickly cover this period.

Yes I think that will be easy to modify generally but it is important to try to capture the spirit of a period. As I think I have mentioned we will be publishing soon, hopefully the end of this month, a set to do 1618-1660. A friend of mine is working on a set to play Romans against Barbarian warband armies (Germans, Gallic, Ancient Britons). For me the SYW is next


Nick

Hello,

Bon, pour tester cette règle en 15mm (et les amendements SYW de Lotharius), on suit sa proposition de soclage ?
Pour rappel :

Faire un sabot de 8 cm /4 cm par avec un creux de 7.5/2.5 et socler les fig sur trois base de 2.5/2.5 cela permet aussi de visualiser les colonne de marche en pivotant une ou plusieurs base de 90°.

Si oui, Combien de drapeaux par unité (sabot)?? En sachant que les unités françaises en avait deux.(Colonel et Ordonnance).
A+

pour le soclage je suis bien sûr pour

pour les drapeaux j'ai fait qq tests avec 12 fig par unité, 2 drapeaux m'ont semblé (mais c'est personnel) moins beau

- ils se cachent mutuellement
- cela fait beaucoup d'officier/tambour/drapeau pour une seule unité de 12fig.

de plus la répartition est un peu plus compliquée

1 bat colonel et 2 ordonnances
2-X bat: 3 ordonnances

1749
le nombre d'ordonnance diminue de 1 partout

par contre certains rgt sont très gros chez le Français (suivant les période et les batailles) à 4 voir plus bataillions, rien n'empêche alors de faire une unité à 12 avec le drapeau colonel et une autre avec le drapeau d'ordonnance. Personnellement, j'ai toujours privilégié le drapeau ordonnance en premier car c'est celui en couleur qui identifie le rgt.

d'autres semblent arriver à la même conclusion les seules unités que je vois sur le Web à 2 drapeaux sont en 28mm avec des grosses unités (24-+ fig).

il y a un article vraiment très intéressant sur WSS avec l'évolution des tactiques dans le Wargames illustrated 314 dec 2013

Godaille(Esmbel) a écrit:

Hello,

Bon, pour tester cette règle en 15mm (et les amendements SYW de Lotharius), on suit sa proposition de soclage ?
Pour rappel :

Faire un sabot de 8 cm /4 cm par avec un creux de 7.5/2.5 et socler les fig sur trois base de 2.5/2.5  cela permet aussi de visualiser les colonne de marche en pivotant une ou plusieurs base de 90°.

Si oui, Combien de drapeaux par unité (sabot)?? En sachant que les unités françaises en avait deux.(Colonel et Ordonnance).
A+

Et pour l'artillerie, que fait-on ?

pour l’artillerie et la cavalerie légère je serai d'avis de garder comme pour les règles de base 1BW X 1 BW soit 8x8cm dans notre cas. Je n'ai pas encore réfléchit à fond mais je pense faire un sabot de 2.5 x 5cm et placer 3 canons par unité. sachant qu'une unité représente 16 canons sur un front de 300m en mode brigade ou 8 canons sur 150 m en mode rgt. il y a de quoi faire une jolie scénette.

Lotharius a écrit:

pour l’artillerie ... 2.5 x 5cm .

C'est peut être un peu limite au niveau de la largeur, non ?

peut être je n'ai pas encore fait de test. mes batteries pour Maurice sont en 25mm*50mm de front mais elles sont individuelles. On peut aussi imaginer n'en mettre que 2 sur le sabot, avec plus d'espace entre pour faire une vraie scénette

Yop, désolé je reviens sur le post après un certain temps...

Alors, dans l'ordre :

Citation :

Faire un sabot de 8 cm /4 cm par avec un creux de 7.5/2.5 et socler les fig sur trois base de 2.5/2.5 cela permet aussi de visualiser les colonne de marche en pivotant une ou plusieurs base de 90°.

Super, ça me va!
Pour l'artillerie... je pense que je suis parti sur 2,5 x 4 ou 5. Comme ça, je préférerais en mettre 3 par plaquette, histoire de représenter une batterie et non 2 tubes, mais avec un peu d'imagination, des boulets, tonneaux et l'une ou l'autre figurine, on peu pimper la plaquette, belle idée Loth.

Citation :

Si oui, Combien de drapeaux par unité (sabot)?? En sachant que les unités françaises en avait deux.(Colonel et Ordonnance).

En théorie, je trouverais plus joli d'en mettre 2. Je n'en mets généralement qu'un pour toutes les périodes, mais c'est une erreur... surtout plus tôt, on en voit souvent toute une tapisserie sur les représentations d'époque. Faut voir une fois la plaquette assemblée, mais j'ai bien lu les remarques de Ro. Avec cette époque, on nage en permanence en pleins dilemmes...