A very rewarding game, and massively enjoyable to watch... this one really swung from side to side, and it wasnt clear who was going to hold the field right up to the very end.
Excellent game. I like how you brought the close combat rules forward, I think they lend themselves to the fight, especially with this scenario where the Belgians could have just sat back and shot up anything coming over the bridge.
Thanks Shawn OHW is straightforward and I think it’s beauty is with an emphasis on simplicity you can add elements, such as combat if you think appropriate. You may choose not to the next time around, but it’s your game to play - and most importantly enjoy. Thanks for the feedback, more to come.
Looks great! I have owned this book, read this book, and bought an even bigger version of this book. Have yet to play a game from it, but I don't regret either situation at all and i had fun watching. Thanks. 🙂
Hi Greg, it's Chris. I changed my UA-cam handle from 'BoerChris' as most people assumed I was South African. Question: you don't explain how you brought in hand-to-hand fighting. It isn't in the Machine Age rules, even for cavalry Could you explain?
It’s not in the rules for WW1 but is in the rules elsewhere which simply states that only the attacker rolls the dice. The option would be to withdraw but here I fought to a conclusion in each case always taking the decision to continue to “attack”.
So, yes, the game looks great. But there are an incredible number of errors in the scenario's terrain placement, who goes first each turn [scenario explicitly states that RED goes first each turn], there is no melee in the Machine Age rules, no Move and Shoot [the rules are Move OR Shoot] and overall, there's been so much mish-mashing of the rules that the many subtleties of the rules and scenario simply don't matter. And there are reasons for all these limits, which makes the rules a classic set instead of the mess that most miniature rules are. As the rules and scenario are so simple, I don't see any reason for how this was done.
Thanks AA appreciate the note. I’m not sure which unit moved and shot too? And I’ve missed the red goes first. Most importantly it was a really enjoyable game to play.
The joy of solo wargaming is that you can do what you like, as you like, and when you like, without any complaint or disagreement from an opponent. Something Featherstone expressed very well in his Solo Wargaming book.
A very rewarding game, and massively enjoyable to watch... this one really swung from side to side, and it wasnt clear who was going to hold the field right up to the very end.
Agreed and a great game to play
Excellent game. I like how you brought the close combat rules forward, I think they lend themselves to the fight, especially with this scenario where the Belgians could have just sat back and shot up anything coming over the bridge.
Thanks Shawn OHW is straightforward and I think it’s beauty is with an emphasis on simplicity you can add elements, such as combat if you think appropriate. You may choose not to the next time around, but it’s your game to play - and most importantly enjoy. Thanks for the feedback, more to come.
Looks great! I have owned this book, read this book, and bought an even bigger version of this book. Have yet to play a game from it, but I don't regret either situation at all and i had fun watching. Thanks. 🙂
Thanks Jason glad you’ve enjoyed the game 👍
Wonderful looking table! Great stuff, thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the feedback 👍
Interesting, how such a simple rule set can make a fairly ingrossing battle report. More please.
Thanks for great feedback and more to come!
Getting back into wargaming and inherited the book. Did not know of it till several months ago and think it’s great 👍
Very straightforward but at the same time produces great games
I believe this still relatively unknown book will indeed (through time) become a true wargame classic.
I really like your idea on the NCOs and removing casualties
Thanks Joe 👍
Thank you sir! Can I ask where you got the casualty counters?/
Thanks Graeme the bases are from War Bases👍
Thanks Graeme the bases are from War Bases👍
Hi Greg, it's Chris. I changed my UA-cam handle from 'BoerChris' as most people assumed I was South African. Question: you don't explain how you brought in hand-to-hand fighting. It isn't in the Machine Age rules, even for cavalry Could you explain?
It’s not in the rules for WW1 but is in the rules elsewhere which simply states that only the attacker rolls the dice. The option would be to withdraw but here I fought to a conclusion in each case always taking the decision to continue to “attack”.
So, yes, the game looks great. But there are an incredible number of errors in the scenario's terrain placement, who goes first each turn [scenario explicitly states that RED goes first each turn], there is no melee in the Machine Age rules, no Move and Shoot [the rules are Move OR Shoot] and overall, there's been so much mish-mashing of the rules that the many subtleties of the rules and scenario simply don't matter. And there are reasons for all these limits, which makes the rules a classic set instead of the mess that most miniature rules are. As the rules and scenario are so simple, I don't see any reason for how this was done.
Thanks AA appreciate the note. I’m not sure which unit moved and shot too? And I’ve missed the red goes first. Most importantly it was a really enjoyable game to play.
The joy of solo wargaming is that you can do what you like, as you like, and when you like, without any complaint or disagreement from an opponent. Something Featherstone expressed very well in his Solo Wargaming book.