Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
- TooFatLardies
- Messages
Search
|
Re: La Lard Sacre
Dazza
I think I misunderstood your initial mailing. I agree one point in the first turn of EACH rout. So the Frogs on Tuesday would have lost two point each for their two routs(?). Had that been the case then the not only would not have won, but COULD not. which would be rather more historically correct than what happened, i.e. the cherry picking of which units to save at the expense of the rest. Cardmaster document sent. I use text box for the text and pictures, hoth with no wrapping, therefore the box stays the right size. Sid didn't bother with that initally and got a load of variably sized cards. However he is a twat. Ricardo --- In Toofatlardies@..., "therugdoctor2003" <greens@o...> wrote: Hi Rich, |
|
Re: La Lard Sacre
therugdoctor2003
Hi Rich,
I thought that losing 1 hit per move in rout would be a little excessive, but it would certainly give you an incentive to stop them! We just need to try it out and see. Yes, I guess the cards work well enough for me to invest in some pretty ones, so thanks, that would be appreciated! Cheers, Daz |
|
Re: La Lard Sacre
Dazza
1. Why only the first time they rout? Surely if a unit routs twice they should loose more, or perhaps never come back? 2. Probably be right. Certainly it would give them a "Big Man" factor, which would suit the Neys of this world. 3. The cards worked excellently, as mentioned. Do you want my card master document so you can do some pretty cards rather than those moth eaten bits of crap you wheel out? I vote for Marshal Aubergine! Rich --- In Toofatlardies@..., "therugdoctor2003" <greens@o...> wrote: We had a Napoleonic game last night, and the issue of units, whohave routed as part of a combat lost by a friendly unit, being able togeneral morale loss).brigade are in rout, or at half strength, no unit in the brigade mayinitiate attacks, unless personally led by a Divisional officer/CinC. (This |
|
Re: WWii rules
Ken
Dazza is correct, and his example of Colonel H is a classic illsutration of both the behaviour of a "Big Man" and the reaction of troops, even elite ones, to a firefight. Reading accounts of Goose Green (which I did specifically with a view to these rules) an elite unit had become bogged down on the battlefield. Attempts by junior officers and NCOs had failed to get things moving. Enter the "Big Man". He immediately animates his force and inertia ends. There are many such examples throughout warfare of larger than life individuals shaping the battlefield aroud them, Rommel's personal intervention at Arras being another classic example. The rules are designed to reflect the natural instinct of men towards survival. Your troops WILL move without a Big Man with them, sometimes doing exactly what you want, other times not. However they will move more efficiently with a Big Man. In a static defensive position this is not an issue, if an enenmy comes close enough all of your troops will shoot at them (as in real life). However when attacking you need to consider how you allocate your resources (as in real life). When devising his battle plan a commander should decide where his main point of attack will be. One has to presueme here that we are conducting our game in a sensible fashion, where part of your force will be allocated to pin, while another part concentrates on what the Germans call the "Schwerpunkt", the main point of attack. Considering this "critical point" the commander will (as in real life) allocate sufficient resources to hopefully ensure the success of the venture. This will, of course, include the raw material of war, i.e. artillery support, armour, heavy weapons, in fact anything that is available in that field, but will also include "management resources". In other words he will give this important job to his best officers and NCOs (as in real life). It is, as Darren says, very much the case that wargames rules generally (and actually with very few exceptions) give the commander too much flexibility when controlling the actions of his troops. Even systems such as DBM which use pips to limit the number of action that a commander may make, still give him the choice of which units he does move. In "IABSM" the cards are used to represent what Clausewitz calls "friction" on the battlefield. Whilst you may plan for a unit to do something you cannot guarantee that it will. HOWEVER.....by allocating Big Men to a unit the commander increases his chances of having the job done properly. As such you may perceive that IABSM is designed very much with the purpose of simulating the realities of warfare rather than a "bang bang you're dead" game. However it attmpts to do this using what are very much traditional game mechanics so that as well as being a simulation it is fun to play. The answer to your question, therefore, is "No, I have not considered using alternate movement" nor would I, as it would cease to reflect the realities of conflict in the Second World War. I guess it's the old story, we all like different things. If you want to use alternate movement then feel free to do so, the rules are certainly not scribed in a tablet of stone! Cheers Richard --- In Toofatlardies@..., "philips107s2003" <philips107s2003@y...> wrote: I have used your wwii rules several times with the school wargameto co-ordinate troops on the table top. Some units stop for noreason, others run ahead, meaning that forces are essentially not doingwhat they are ordered! This seems silly to us. Have you considered |
|
La Lard Sacre
therugdoctor2003
We had a Napoleonic game last night, and the issue of units, who have
routed as part of a combat lost by a friendly unit, being able to rally and return to the offensive without problem played a detrimental part in the game. So, how about these mechanisms: 1. Units, in the first turn they rout, lose 1 hit (deserters, general morale loss). 2. Introduce a Brigade morale rule: if >50% of the units in a brigade are in rout, or at half strength, no unit in the brigade may initiate attacks, unless personally led by a Divisional officer/CinC. (This would also force people to try and stop routing units, which was general practice!). Daz |
|
Re: WWii rules
therugdoctor2003
--- In Toofatlardies@..., "philips107s2003"
<philips107s2003@y...> wrote: I have used your wwii rules several times with the school wargameto co-ordinate troops on the table top. Some units stop for noreason, others run ahead, meaning that forces are essentially not doingwhat they are ordered! This seems silly to us. Have you consideredHi Ken, your observations are correct, and your desires are precisly what the rules intend to stop. Many wargames rules allow an incredible amount of coordination, which is completely unrealistic. They also allow units to carry on with an order when enduring all kinds of difficulties. In reality, private soldiers will "go to ground" as soon as they are fired on, unless there is an officer to spur them on. Think Col H Jones and the elite British paras at Goose Green- in these rules you have to get the officers to motivate the men once combat is joined, in many traditional wargames rules H Jones would not have had to lift a finger. Hope that explains some of the motivations. Cheers, Daz |
|
WWii rules
I have used your wwii rules several times with the school wargame
club. I and the boys have a problem with them as it is difficult to co-ordinate troops on the table top. Some units stop for no reason, others run ahead, meaning that forces are essentially not doing what they are ordered! This seems silly to us. Have you considered dropping the system of cards and using alternative movement? This would seem to me to be a better option, and allow the game to flow more readily. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Ken |
|
Re: Medieval Lard
开云体育Sounds excellent. Count me in.? The personality unit
approach is a great idea.?
?
The retinue idea would not always need to be way out/
humorous?either - there's plenty of room for some sensible historical
formations.?OK, so some of the retinues could be fairly typical (knights,
sergeants, bills and bows).? But others could have more of a local "feel" -
a Yorkshire contingent (Richard III) could comprise Border Horse/ Hobilars,
Yorkshire foot and German mercenaries - a Welsh contingent (from the Wirral?)
would have few knights but abundant longbowmen - you could also have a free
company (Jack Cade from 1451) of disaffected mercenaries back from the French
Wars which would be pretty vicious in action but small in size and prone to
looting.? I'm not an expert by the way - I'm just getting this from the old
WRG army lists for 6th\ edition and the WRG sourcebook which covers the
WOR.?
?
For figures, I agree with Harpers about Front Rank being
really fine, but Old Glory and Essex would be good alternatives.? When I've
seen the Front Rank at shows they're always really clean cast with plenty of
variations.? They've also added some excellent personality sets
recently.? The old Essex 25mm ranges of medievals are beautifully modelled
and cast, but I don't remember there being too many variants of each
figure.? Irregular Minitiatures do all the bears, jesters, beggars etc we
would need, plus some bishops and monks.
?
Linking everything into a Hertfordshire campaign would be
excellent.? Yep, count me in.
?
Sid
|
|
Re: Medieval Lard
开云体育Sounds good to me -
?
Figure wise I reckon Front Rank are best but this
firm ?do
a few very nice looking W o R figures. I am trying to find out if thet are still
going as the website has not changed since October I think.
?
I?agree we should have clerics and perhaps
fools/jokers and heralds/musicians as well (Am I suffering from deja vue or have
we discusssed this before?)
?
Harpers
|
|
Re: Medieval Lard
"De Bellies Lardicus" perhaps or toofatlardies own WRG (We're Really Gross).
I prefer the former.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I have little experience of Wars of the Roses but did once nearly come to blows with the wife over the last green triangle in the Quality Street tin. The nice thing about the wild west rules is the fact that Legends and Gunfighters can picked unclaimed 'action' cards and perform a double move. Given the pell mell state of medieval actions l'm sure lardification would work well for this period. The rules need not depart too greatly from those we used at Christmas, but perhaps with some of the (dare I say it) more ridiculous characters toned down a little. Some additional cards for like "Random peasant bottles it" or Stuck in mud, miss a go". Also, as in KMH playres may be issued points to upgrade troop types or get extra armour for their big men, that type of thing. 'units' of peasants would do nothing and maybe even disperse rapidly if a big man were absent and almost certainly would fuck off if he got wasted or if they started taking heavy casualties from missile fire. Young nights might be more likely to do something heroic or advance their troops recklessly if papa or some senior Baron is watching. Lower troop types should also be on the look out for plundering baggage, looting corpses etc. Dr Daz's characters look pretty good. To keep the flavour of the period we should use Olde Worlde terminology, so coward becomes "ye olde bottler" psycho becomes "begotton of the devil", headcase becomes "Olde ballspizzle", bastard becomes "ye bastarde", French becomes "breath of ye hound" etc. Bishops and clerics would also need including: Anyone in melee with a bishop should get a bonus chance to "Bash the Bishop" perhaps? (not Douche of course, he wouldn't need to) I'm up for it. We should certainly do a club project and this looks reasonable. Are there any other periods worth considering that we do not do? Yours, lardily Lord Lard richardclarkerli wrote: ?How about "Yorkshire Git" so Sid can play.? |
|
Re: Medieval Lard
How about "Yorkshire Git" so Sid can play.
I'm up for that. Indeed we could certainly do it as a club project, each of us paint a 40 figure retinue (so Mr T would have his ready in time for 2015) and we're ready to roll. If we wished we could use the basis of a medieval camapign system that I have already devised, based upon the Hertfordshire area. Each player could chose his name and livery, humorous ideally, so Nick could continue his career as Sir Melton Mowbray with a great big pie as his creat; Noddy would be Sir Grytings Grapple-Fannes &c. Lardification of the rules would be pretty easy, in fact would go back more to the original Wild West Gunfight rules, with several classes of Big men. These would be restricted to probably four characters per retinue, the rest being cannon fodder, maybe with their class being based upon their armour. Unlike the medieval skirmish at Christmas it would be too big a game to mark off wounds for each individual character, but perhaps the overall system could be converted to a straight outright "Dead or Not" system rather than wounds. Thinking aloud, maybe the Big Men would have a wound system but not the rabble. Any ideas on figure manufacturers? With the shows coming up we should think about it if that's what we want to do. In fact if we don't do this we should do some kind of club project anyway. Any other ideas out there? Lard One --- In Toofatlardies@..., "therugdoctor2003" <greens@o...> wrote: So for some reason I started thinking about Wars of the Roses orthe 100 years war, and how brilliant looking the figures are. Just ashame there are no good rules that make it an enjoyable and realisticgame (that's DBM gone then). Could we Lard them?into lines or troop types. You could have more than one big man peretc Each are able to motivate to a certain degree, as in IABSM. Eachthen have some character, which is where we can really start to get intooil rights or temporary political gain.allow them more flexibility, "French men at arms" (WRG-style "A classif sheep are within 12"), "Aristocrat" (test if young boy within 12") |
|
Medieval Lard
therugdoctor2003
So for some reason I started thinking about Wars of the Roses or the
100 years war, and how brilliant looking the figures are. Just a shame there are no good rules that make it an enjoyable and realistic game (that's DBM gone then). Could we Lard them? Initial thoughts on character types and organisation: You'd have a retinue as the basic "unit", but with some grouping into lines or troop types. You could have more than one big man per retinue- Knight, brother of knight, young son of knight, sergeants etc Each are able to motivate to a certain degree, as in IABSM. Each then have some character, which is where we can really start to get into the period: Coward- never makes offensive moves, tries to avoid close quarters Psycho- always attacks, usually has hatred of one or more enemy big men who he targets (or, for example, might hate the colour red and people that play football, sorry, fight battles, dressed in it) Headcase- a stupid Psycho, just attacks the nearest thing Bastard- attacks easier targets, aiming to wind up the enemy. For example, picks on young son of old Knight, and will always attempt "cheap" shots like rear attacks. French- keeps to alliances if it suits them, will change sides for oil rights or temporary political gain. Other cards could be multiple "English long bows" fire cards to allow them more flexibility, "French men at arms" (WRG-style "A class uncontrolled advance"), "Larry" (fantastic speach to boost English morale), "Yorkshire grit" (stop a unit from retreating), "Yorkshire tight" (Mercenaries won't fight until you pay them), "Welsh" (test if sheep are within 12"), "Aristocrat" (test if young boy within 12") What do you think? Dr Daz |
|
Re: Fantastic Prizes in our latest Lardy competition!
Nod,
So far the best! Send the Vodka now and you could win! --- In Toofatlardies@..., mikeqchromeuk@a... wrote: How about:---------- the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying,distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be acriminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmationto the sender. |
|
Re: Fantastic Prizes in our latest Lardy competit ion!
Trevor Harwood
How about "Samovar!" or "Time for Political Instruction"
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- |
|
Re: Fantastic Prizes in our latest Lardy competition!
How about:
Nah Zdahrovyeh (my best translation) with a pic of a vodka bottle. Mick ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quantachrome UK Ltd Unit 6-7 Pale Lane Farm, Hook, Hants RG27 8GB Tel: 01252 819719. Fax: 01252 819901? E-mail: qchromeuk@... Registered? in the UK No. 3827196, Registered Office:? 118a Oxford Road, Reading RG1 7NG IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only.? Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone else is prohibited and may be a criminal offence.? Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. |
|
Triumph of the Will
Gents
I am inclined to "Lardify" TOW, and shall have my first faltering pitch at it tomorrow. Any thoughts on card driven systems for the political arena? I feel that the Gunfight rules probably reflect this period more than most, so I shall go with standard cards, and then one Regular and Drilled "bonus cards" (id est none for miltia). Any thoughts on Command cards, cheka &c. would be welcome. Having said that it's so sodding long since we've pitted ideology against ideology that perhaps we all need an aide memoire. Lardus Superius P.S. How does Sid get that gayboy typeface on his letters? Can anyone advise him how to remove it and go for something more in keeping with an entirely hetro-sexual group? |
|
Re: Naval rules
Tis I,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I have awoken from sleep after a particularly enjoyable bun fest, and having waded through my inbox deleting all the trash you lot send me. Best way to send the Kiss Me Hardy rules is in Hard copy as datasheets and turning circles etc are not in standard Microsoft. If Ken lets me have a postal address (he can send it direct to nick.skinner@... if he doesn't want the rest of you nosey buggers to send him valentines cards)? I will place a 'complimentary copy' in the post. I only appear fatter than Richard in real life. On e-mail I think he
sounds much fatter. Toofatlardies is indeed a partnership. I have all the
ideas and Richard steals them shamelessly. I will sue him if he goes to
print with IABSM.
philips107s2003?wrote: ?Richard? |
|
Re: En Avant Pour Le Lard!
therugdoctor2003 <[email protected]>
--- In Toofatlardies@..., "richardclarkerli
<richardclarkerli@y...>" <richardclarkerli@y...> wrote: Regards "Le Lard Sacre"than stopping a shite commander acting at all if the magic card comes up,I certainly think we can refine this. What you have there could be used for a Pants commander- perhaps even let him allocate PIPs, then dice for which ones happen, so you simulate real incompetence. For the cautious commander, I was thinking that perhaps we would say "no forward movement", so he could spend time rallying his troops, putting them in square and so on. Definitely agree to the French strategic card, perhaps the same forPossibly, although Borodino is probably the only occasion they were useful in that role... generally they hung around looking for easy targets. I'll send you a copy (without the pics, saves several Mb on the email!) Cheers Daz.
|