Hats, Horses and Hexes!
Personally I blame Kaptain Kobold. I'm sure I have said that somewhere before! I have been quietly working on a Napoleonic version of my hex grid variant of the OHW for WSS. I really want to be able to use some guys with neat hats and start painting some plastic 1/72 types. |
| Rupert, man with dog |
So, I have taken my draft Napoleonics OHW hex grid and chucked them out and started again with the ECW. You can find them here. I have loads of old Heroics and Ross 6mms to paint up and this seems like a good project for the Xmas holidays.
Looks good! Since I do not have a hex grid large enough to accommodate my 32mm ECW collection, I may give your amendments a try on an "unhexed" basis.
ReplyDeleteWhy thank you for the kind words. It's obvious from reading my blog that I love 'arseing about' with rules, but I do spend far more time than is sensible working out how to make things simpler, without making them too simple.
ReplyDeleteSaying that, I'm currently thinking about rewriting the ECW rules, as what I have are fun to play with but are not, I'm beginning to realise, much of an ECW set :)
And I've now read your rules, and am very impressed.
ReplyDeleteI like the Weak Fire 'ability', as it defines a range of things very nicely with one mechanism. In my rules I effectively have it as the unit rolling 2 dice but not being able to score more than one hit. You have modified it to being a shot with a saving roll. May I ask why? It seems to add in an extra step, as well as extra save rolls, something I personally strive to avoid. It also means that 'Weak Fire' can still cause two hits, which I really wanted to avoid.
In addition your design notes mention optional rules for leaders, but I couldn't find them. I allow leaders to try and rally hits off units, as well as allowing the removal of out of ammo markers (or placing them, in order to allow some units to charge).
As I said, I intend to rewrite bits of my rules one day. I shall freely steal bits of yours :)
I like your new rules and will be following the project. I have used a 6 x 6 hex grid to do 1 hour ACW and it is surprising how quickly once you get playing that it feels like a battlefield with more space than first appears to the eye.
ReplyDeleteAll good stuff. Glad to see that you have Africa tactical, ECW and Napoleonic all on the go at the same time ...... exactly as it should be :-)
I like it - I think my highlanders wouldn't fire at anyone, but I'll try to have a shot at this next week. All I need is for Real Life to back off a bit and give me a bit of downtime...
ReplyDeleteNice job. As for the 6mm poodle, I'm currently reading a book on quantum physics which seems to cover 6mm poodles. If the poodle is smaller than the wavelength of the light in the room, you won't see it. If you know exactly where it is, then it must be heading off somewhere else at a high rate of knots; if you are not sure where it is, it will be travelling more slowly, but no-one can find it anyway. This is, you understand, my take on Heisenberg's thoughts on the matter - either way, you don't actually need a physical model of the poodle - you can claim it is anywhere you want.
Tony
Hi Guys,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your comments.
Kaptain: The leaders rule is at the very end of the rules in Annex B. I allow leaders to add to saving rolls, thus potentially giving their attached unit greater longevity on the battlefield as a result of their dazzling leadership. The reason for the weak fire resulting in a saving roll is that there is already a saving roll provided for in the hand to hand fighting rule so I'm just using the same process. This also allows me to build in the leader rule with the same mechanism. The alternative is simply to give any unit with weak fire only one fire die as use two dice and only count one hit is an exception. Sorry that sounds a bit logical but in my imagination I can see the fire of an infantry regiment declining as ammo is used thus making them less effective. Feel free to nick whatever you want from this, the OHW stuff is just a great tool box!
Norm: The trouble is that everything is now totally jumbled up on my desk and I don't know what to do next!
Tony: Thanks, I'm reading Jim Al-Khalili's Quantum book at the moment. I guess if its Schrodinger's poodle then it will know whether I'm looking or not and decide not to be there if I am!
Cheers all
Jay
Jay - as it happens, by a remarkable coincidence, Al-Khalili's book is in the in-tray as I write this. I'm currently working through Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw(?)'s quantum book, which I have found pretty good , having been left a bit stranded by John Gribbin! I'm not sure about representing an electron by an infinite number of clocks, mind you, but hey. I've also got some Richard P Feynman titles, which I've been dipping into - all good stuff, though this is really just me attempting (and failing?) to prove that the brain still works. I'm enjoying the pretence if nothing else.
ReplyDeleteI might mention, in passing, that I only recently realised that Prof Peter Higgs (of boson fame) was my first year Mathematical Physics lecturer at Edinburgh Uni, long, long ago - he's never looked back since then, has he...?
Now, if this poodle has a choice of pet flaps then it might interfere with itself, which is a bit off, isn't it.
Hi Tony, I am finding the quantum stuff more and more interesting, although I profess nothing more than a very amateur level of understanding. What has blown me away recently is my finally grasping that atoms consist mainly of nothing and I am currently sitting on chair that is keeping me up only by electro-magnetic forces.
ReplyDeleteIf a poodle has more than one pet flap and can decide which one to go through and change its mind when it thinks I'm looking so I can't see where it has gone then that sounds very much like the universe is a simulation trying very hard not to be found out!
Cheers
Jay
This business with the chair consisting of very little is scary, I agree. As I understand it, if it wasn't for the limitations on energy levels in the quantum stuff, the electrons would lose energy and gradually spiral into the nucleus - I hadn't thought of that before - does that mean your chair would gradually shrink, or would it deflate or something? I realise it doesn't happen anyway (just as well, I say...) but the idea is bothering.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I was never that comfortable with Newton's version, either. Example - if you put your pint of beer down on the table, the upward reactive force on the glass (from the table, which is mostly nothing...) is exactly equal to the weight of the pint. Good - thus your glass does not sink into the table, and does not jump in the air. If you now drink half the pint, and put the glass down again, on the same bit of table, everything is still in equilibrium - how the blazes does that work? How does the table know you've drunk some of the beer, and therefore not to fling your glass up in the air?
Tricky stuff, gravity - useful, though.