What you’re talking about is the number of manoeuvre elements. So much depends on the patience of the player(s) and whether or not you can leave the table set up to return to it the next day/week. I think you’re thinking of Russian divisional mass formation at the start? Solo play games work well with rules that have a lot of ‘fog of war’ that prevents you from using your omnipotent knowledge of what’s going on.
The Army did a study on the optimal number of units/personal/vehicles one person can command. 7 was the ideal number. Anymore then 7 and it becomes too many to keep track of and coordinate, and you lose track of the larger battlefield. Too few and you start to micromanage 1 or 2 units and lose track of the larger battlefield. So for games, I follow the same logic, 4-7 units per player. The other issue you bring up about the number of figures in a unit, is just a matter of how much time does it take to move the unit now. I started out playing The Sword and the Flame, which uses 20 figure units. I never played without movement bases to speed up the game. Think how long it takes to move 4 units of 80 individual figures, without 4 movement bases. This just reinforced the idea, that why waste time with all those individual based figures and why not just use 1 base units. I won't play a game now if the basic unit isn't just one base. Also time is a factor. I like a 2 to 3 hour game and I like a conclusion to the game. A clear winner and loser. How many games have you ended at 4 or 5 hours and said, just one more turn and I would have won, or I am sure just another hour and I would be winning. It sure looked like you enjoyed One hour Wargames. Quick and a clear winner. Just build on that. Plenty of variations on that game out there. One person came up with a Dark Age/Early Medieval version that expanded on that. I am using that to make a fantasy version, with the same rules. Doug
I would have said use sabot bases to cut down the number to move BUT that detracts from the look of the 2mm blocks. You could claim units (i.e. bases) are counted as one for move/combat/recovery as long as they are touching or within a given distance. This gives generals major issues if the centre of the line / column gets hit and pushed back / removed - do you use two commands to continue with the split OR do you use one command to merge the units but loose the chance to move. It does seem that rule complexity is inverse to the size or number of figures 😁 to allow us to cope. 2mm gives the look of big battles - maybe that's the best you can get out of them?
It’s always about trade-offs. If you have a game where the entire battalion is on a single base then you’ll need additional chits to show what formation your battalion is in. To my mind that is not very satisfying as a miniature wargame. It’s just one step further to ditch figures entirely and use a cardboard chit for your battalion-in-line and another for a battalion-in-column. But by this point you’re playing a board game.
Wargaming is not War. The emphasis should be on the gaming part. (It is a HOBBY... to be enjoyed... not a chore to be slogged through!) Familiarity with the rules; the "Level" that is trying to be achieved (Individual skirmish to Army Group Command); and House Rules based on common sense and military probability to keep the game from bogging down... are all critical components that muse be understood and agreed upon by the players before the first turn is started. Some rule sets are easier to play Solo than others. The Men Who Would Be Kings, from Osprey, has a chapter entitled, "Playing Mr. Babbage", that sets up one side with a simple AI system that will allow for some surprises for the Solitary Gamer.
as Mr Joy knows I'm new to war gaming with miniatures. Been a hex and counter guy on and off since the '70s '80s. dug out my old minis paying them and started playing Fistful of Lead. Skirmish battles. started with four figures of side and I went up to seven or eight And I have made a little twist on the news to kind of make it easier for me to track and keep order during the games. I've been using 28 plus millimeter size figures, And they are based individually. have plans to try something a little different with 20 figures aside as individuals and we'll see where that goes. I may try to break down the 20 on each side into two or three separate teams and see how that works. I've ordered both dragon and lion rampant rule books from Osprey They haven't put them in the mail yet but I hope I get them next week and I'll see what I can do with those with my 28 figures. oh joy.
Larger units also allow you to more easily see different unit formations. Something else you’d have to use a marker to keep track of with a single base.
I suddenly would like to see a 2mm fantasy big army style game, that uses regular 28mm guys as giants.
What you’re talking about is the number of manoeuvre elements. So much depends on the patience of the player(s) and whether or not you can leave the table set up to return to it the next day/week. I think you’re thinking of Russian divisional mass formation at the start? Solo play games work well with rules that have a lot of ‘fog of war’ that prevents you from using your omnipotent knowledge of what’s going on.
The Army did a study on the optimal number of units/personal/vehicles one person can command. 7 was the ideal number. Anymore then 7 and it becomes too many to keep track of and coordinate, and you lose track of the larger battlefield. Too few and you start to micromanage 1 or 2 units and lose track of the larger battlefield. So for games, I follow the same logic, 4-7 units per player.
The other issue you bring up about the number of figures in a unit, is just a matter of how much time does it take to move the unit now. I started out playing The Sword and the Flame, which uses 20 figure units. I never played without movement bases to speed up the game. Think how long it takes to move 4 units of 80 individual figures, without 4 movement bases. This just reinforced the idea, that why waste time with all those individual based figures and why not just use 1 base units. I won't play a game now if the basic unit isn't just one base.
Also time is a factor. I like a 2 to 3 hour game and I like a conclusion to the game. A clear winner and loser. How many games have you ended at 4 or 5 hours and said, just one more turn and I would have won, or I am sure just another hour and I would be winning. It sure looked like you enjoyed One hour Wargames. Quick and a clear winner. Just build on that. Plenty of variations on that game out there. One person came up with a Dark Age/Early Medieval version that expanded on that. I am using that to make a fantasy version, with the same rules.
Doug
I also love using multi bases. I hate it if the most of the time of a game is taking great units from one point to another
I would have said use sabot bases to cut down the number to move BUT that detracts from the look of the 2mm blocks.
You could claim units (i.e. bases) are counted as one for move/combat/recovery as long as they are touching or within a given distance. This gives generals major issues if the centre of the line / column gets hit and pushed back / removed - do you use two commands to continue with the split OR do you use one command to merge the units but loose the chance to move.
It does seem that rule complexity is inverse to the size or number of figures 😁 to allow us to cope.
2mm gives the look of big battles - maybe that's the best you can get out of them?
Your channel is excellent !
Hey, thanks, man!
"that's all I've got, go away now" - the joy of wargaming, probably.
It’s always about trade-offs. If you have a game where the entire battalion is on a single base then you’ll need additional chits to show what formation your battalion is in. To my mind that is not very satisfying as a miniature wargame.
It’s just one step further to ditch figures entirely and use a cardboard chit for your battalion-in-line and another for a battalion-in-column. But by this point you’re playing a board game.
Wargaming is not War. The emphasis should be on the gaming part. (It is a HOBBY... to be enjoyed... not a chore to be slogged through!) Familiarity with the rules; the "Level" that is trying to be achieved (Individual skirmish to Army Group Command); and House Rules based on common sense and military probability to keep the game from bogging down... are all critical components that muse be understood and agreed upon by the players before the first turn is started. Some rule sets are easier to play Solo than others. The Men Who Would Be Kings, from Osprey, has a chapter entitled, "Playing Mr. Babbage", that sets up one side with a simple AI system that will allow for some surprises for the Solitary Gamer.
as Mr Joy knows I'm new to war gaming with miniatures. Been a hex and counter guy on and off since the '70s '80s.
dug out my old minis paying them and started playing Fistful of Lead. Skirmish battles. started with four figures of side and I went up to seven or eight And I have made a little twist on the news to kind of make it easier for me to track and keep order during the games. I've been using 28 plus millimeter size figures, And they are based individually. have plans to try something a little different with 20 figures aside as individuals and we'll see where that goes. I may try to break down the 20 on each side into two or three separate teams and see how that works.
I've ordered both dragon and lion rampant rule books from Osprey They haven't put them in the mail yet but I hope I get them next week and I'll see what I can do with those with my 28 figures. oh joy.
Getting stronger all the time.
You love to see it happen!
Larger units also allow you to more easily see different unit formations. Something else you’d have to use a marker to keep track of with a single base.
Great point!
I got a learn the rules to this game I am a war game maker myself