Thank you, Yes I use very deep bases so I can take up the correct depth of a unit in column.5cmx8cm for foot and guns and 5cmx12cm for horse.with 5 figures per base 2x2 + either a sargant or drumer in a 3rd row behind or an officer in front,looks good for me.For the moment I play with a mix of wrg ancient rules with the wargame for distances.I am just looking to modernise my thinking and gaming as Im pretty much on my own here.
It would seem you know more about units sizes in the armies of the German states than I do, Cennedd!
The basic idea in the rules is that you pick a standard unit size that covers most of your units, then if you think some may have been significantly larger or smaller than this average, you can create 'large' or 'small' units as you wish. How much larger or smaller you make these other units is up to you, depending on personal choice and your basing conventions. The rules indicate how I do it, but this is only an example. With 5 bases as the standard, 7 bases counts as large, 3 bases as small. All the units you mention would be 'standard' size under my convention, but that doesn't mean you can't do it another way if you think it is justified.
As I mention in the rules, the concept of standard unit sizes is a convention to make the rules play more simply, based on the idea that unit sizes varied anyway during a campaign due to casualties, sickness and desertion (assuming they were up to strength to start with).
I wish I did Living in France my main interest is the French army and try to play loosly historic.Therefore my main interest are the minor Germanic nations.The difference between a Saxon battalion starting the campain with an average of maybe 400 coming up against a theoretical Hanoverian with 8-900 needs to be shown. I quite understand and agree with your philosophy,but do like to be about right as Im not a great painter and am missing my right arm.There is nothing more enerving than being mocked by a self centered know all,especially when your with your sons at a some gathering or other.Thats enough self pitying.like the site like the ideas thank you for the work.
yes,my reply was a mix of welch,french and good old fashioned anglo-saxon.such theoretical snobs spoil a hobby Ive enjoyed since a schoolboy,quite a few years ago now.As I remember there was a trend to make our figures more smuggie not so detailed and as I refuse to wear specs I cannt see all the detail any more or at least thats my excuse
The difference between a Saxon battalion starting the campaign with an average of maybe 400 coming up against a theoretical Hanoverian with 8-900 needs to be shown.
I quite agree. I base my units on an average of 600 men per line infantry battalion, so your Saxons might be counted 'small' whilst your Hanoverians could be 'large'. How you represent that in figures/bases is up to you. If you feel that this creates too much of a difference, you can play around with what size you consider to be 'standard' and work from there, for example, make the Hanoverians 'standard' and the Saxons 'small'.
I am just beginning with your rules and my first word will be thank you for making SYW so simple at last! So said, after a couple of small games played, the rules are sometime too simple and battalion size provides a good exemple of it.
I cannot agree that a large and a small unit take the same amount of hits to break. As you encourage adaptations, I am thinking about something that would keep the rule as simple as it is but assuming that difference in numbers. My idea would be to state that "large units ignore the first hit" when small units would double one at some moment, but I am not at which. Would the small number shows its effect at the first blood or when the small unit falls to a very few left? Your thoughts would be usefull on that point. And tries must be made.
This simple manner allows to keep the unique hits dice system the same, whatever the size of the unit it will be done at 5, AND to take in consideration that a "large hanovrian battalions" needs more bullets on to break than a tiny saxon ones.
Thank you for posting Francois, you make a good point. I did consider this during development, but my conclusion was that changing the number of hits required to destroy a unit according to size made the difference between large, standard and small units too great. I felt game balance and simplicity favoured my approach.
However, you are of course free to disagree and I think your solution is an interesting one, in that it avoids having a different reaction table for small and large units. I would agree that large units ignoring the first hit and small units taking an extra hit when first fired at would be worth trying. Let me know how you get on.
I think that small units have enough of problems as they get a +1 modifier as a target. So even Grenadiers vs. bad disciplined line infantry have their Problems to stay in Position.
In my favorite period in the mid 18th century the grenadiers were often assembled to small groupes, for example 3 coys of Grenadiers together.
Unit sizes vary very often. I had some discussions about elite Forces with a expert for napoleonic and late 18th century warfare. In this time normaly the elite Units in the French army like Grenadiers were hold in a good strengh on the cost of the fusiliers. As the French did not used the Grenadiers in the WAS very often for special operations it doesnt Change the game.
I give the Units a numerical strengh following my impression from the campaign. For example, normaly my French bn.s would have around 6 bases. But when desertion was very common because of retreats etc. I give them 4 or even 3 bases only. Large Units vs. small Units - for example - have 2 modifiers. It's not so easy to hit large Units and +1 to hit small.
After 5 or 6 games with HoW I never had the impression that the rules are not well balanced enough. If one would make it more difficult to hit a large unit, than the game would run longer.
But in my oppinion it's allways the same question. Do you think a set of rules is to difficult or to simpel? Many wargamers think that they have to change these or these rules. Reason is very often to make them more "authentic". If you prefer simpel rules led them how they are. If you want to reflect a lot of more aspects of 18th century warfare you might prefer Die Kriegskunst - but than you may play not for 3 or 4 hours but for days with the same scenario. It was the same when some colleagues of my Group started with Maurice and wanted very soon that there were brigades, small and big units, every unit moved in the same turn etc.. I said that this would change the game completely and if you prefer all These aspects you could use BP or better HoW...
In fact there are some Problems with unit sizes. For example the standard cav.-unit in HoW is a regiment. But a regiment of 4+ sqn.s would need a lot more space than even 7 bases.
Es marschierten drei Regimenter wohl über den Rhein...
And thank you for your long and interesting post that I share at 100% I like Keith rule very much as it is simple and fast and I think only about a very small adjustment for a simple reason of logic, because encumbering the core of the rule with too many modifiers or tests would just change its philosophy, and this is certanly not my point.
However, as you mention those cavalry regiments, as Keith call them, and about which so much has been written previously above, I personaly feel very comfortable with that notion and believe this is just a matter of semantic.
I am familiar with Beneath the Lily Banners ruleset for the WSS which uses battalions as elementary infantry units, and "squadrons", or so called bodies of 250 horses, as basic cavalry units.
According to history, those "squadrons" (for gaming purpose) can figure a fraction of a large austrian cuirassier regiment or a "full but depleted" french light horse regiment on campaign. But this will not change their gaming purpose.
Keith's cavalry "regiments" look a bit the same to me. Rather than considering them as true "regiments", I see them as "bodies of cavalry" (which can be small, standard or large), two of them (as an average) usually forming an historical regiment.
This also keeps the pace of infantry men to figure ratio and units frontage with regiments of cavalry between 12/16 and up to 24 figures(720 horses!)but fighting in two different bodies of companies/squadrons/divisions of squadrons or whatever you want them to be. In the game, the second body can either act on its own or support the charge of the first one.