Saturday, 22 December 2012

Portable Wargame news

Whilst I have been away on my latest cruise, the PORTABLE WARGAME has continued to go from strength to strength.

Steven Page (who writes the blog 'Adventures in Portable Wargaming') has been using a slightly tweaked version of the 'Modern' rules to refight several actions in North Africa, including:
At the same time Kaptain Kobold has not only produced a specific American Civil War version of the '19th Century' rules entitled MIGHTY MEAN-FOWT FIGHTS but has also used these rules to fight several battles including:
David Crook (of 'A Wargaming Odyssey' fame) has also been busy and refought The Charge of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba, October 1917 as well as an after D-Day action in Northern France that he has entitled Breaking the Panzers, France 1944.

So what have I been doing whilst all this 'action' was taking place? The answer is simple; no wargaming BUT I have 'converted' my version of my existing MEMOIR OF BATTLE AT SEA rules that cover the late nineteenth century into a similar format to that used in the PORTABLE WARGAME and renamed them the PORTABLE NAVAL WARGAME rules.

With a bit of luck I should be able to make these 'new' rules available online later today.

4 comments:

  1. Hi Bob

    Your PORTABLE WARGAME rules appear to be 'endemic'.

    No Bad thing!

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim Duncan,

    I must admit that I am very pleased with the way the PORTABLE WARGAME has gathered around it such a dedicated group of users, all of whom have contributed to its development in some way.

    They are probably the best wargame rules I have ever developed ... and I must admit to being ratrher proud of them!

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Bob
    I agree with you. The PW is a very good wargame rules with a lot of potentiality even to extend the rules to other periods with a minor changes.
    Having tested some battles of the XVIII centruy, one of the things I find a little bit strange is when resolving hits deppending on the type of the unit.
    For example imagine in PW two average cavarly units in close combat, the attacker rolls a 4 and the defender a 5. Both units get a Hit. The the attacker rolls 6 it survives but must retreat. Then the defender rolls a 2 so it is destroyed. In fact the attacker wins the close combat, but having retreat it sannot occupy the square occupied by the enemy.
    In addtion this fact becomes even more strange in BBPW due to the strenght points. Using again the example of two average cavarly units in close combat. Both get hits on the enemy.Then the attacker rolls a 1 so it loses 1 SP, and the defender rolls a 6 not losing any SP but must retreat. So the attacker wins the combat (?) having losing 1 SP and my occupy the vacant square.
    Well just some toughts I would like to share with you and to know your opinion.
    Just to end my comment one clarification question: if a unit must retreat and its back square is occupied by an friend unit, may it pass trhoug the unit, may it push it or it cannot retreat?
    Well thanks in advance and sorry for my english.
    Carles

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carles,

    Thanks for your interesting comments.

    Having given your examples some thought, I think that your understanding of what constitutes a 'win' in the PORTABLE WARGAME rules is not quite what I envisaged. If both sides 'hit' each other, neither side has 'won' the Close Combat; the next dice throw determines what each side's reaction has been to the Close Combat. In your first example the attacker has survived the encounter ... but is in no state to exploit their advantage whereas the defender has collapsed and the unit has dissolved.

    In your second example the attacker has prevailed - at the cost of sustaining casualties - and the defender has fallen back without being seriously disordered by the encounter.

    I hope that this explains the thinking behind the mechanisms.

    In answer to your question, I would argue that the unit cannot retreat in the circumstance you outline BUT there is no reason why you could not allow the retreating unit to pass through the unit that is behind them or allowing them to force the other unit to retreat in order to allow the retreating unit to fall back.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete