Hello Doug!

A couple of good choices. Both are not exactly what you were looking for, but they offer things that probably never occurred to you and that you very much might enjoy.

BBB certainly has a following and Chris will always be there to help you out with any questions or concerns.

RdG was never intentionally designed to cover the ACW or the rest of the Horse & Musket era outside of it's stated period (FIW, AWI, War of 1812). We only discovered that during play testing. So you will not find any reference to other periods within the rules. My club has over 30 members and the last thing they want to do is learn a new rule set everytime we play a different period. So RdG was adopted as our house rules, not just because I wrote it. We discovered that it was just that flexable to pretty much cover the entire era. So when we play other periods the Scenario Designer simply adds in a rule or two that might embellish that particular game. So far no one has added anything to a ACW game.

The application of Tempo within RdG actually gives a controlling element to the commanders that is rarely found in any rules outside of the Polemos series of rules. It also creates a sort of head to head mini game between the commanders. They are forced to try and outplay each other every turn. Being able to dominate or outplay the other commander can in itself be a winning formula.  As the game moves along the pressure for more tempo builds as there is never enough to go around.

So hopefully you will see some value in RdG and if anything is not clear just ask. Let me know what you think after you finish reading them and thanks very much for buying them and taking the time to explore them.

Best regards,

Glenn

Probably why I will not play Polemos type rules. Not much of a play to win type. For me its about seeing a battle unfold before me rather than try and get one over on the other player. This probably explains my deep dislike of sport in favour of individual pursuits such as hill walking, and my dislike of wargame competitions, chess, board games in general. Also why I am now looking at more opportunities for solo play.

Hello dourpuritan!

Thanks for expressing your comments. A very important point of view.

Every Polemos rule set expresses Tempo slightly differently. I intentionally decided to embellish the competitive potential as that's what the vast majority of players want and enjoy about wargaming. So for anyone like yourself who does not like this you can very easily disengage this feature by simply assigning a predetermined number or just use a basic dice roll.

All of the Polemos rules are very easy to use for solo play. This was another major concern I considered when writing RdG. Whirlwind (John) has posted lots of solo Polemos games on a number of websites. They are all very well written (with lots of photos) and give a very detailed blow by blow description of every battle/game.

I've never used a better rule set in my entire life for seeing how the battles unfold before me. At the end of every game every player is able to trace back to the critical decisions that played a major part in their success or failure.

Hopefully this gives you a better understanding of the entire family of Polemos rules. If not please just fire away and I'll do whatever I can to help explain it better.

Best regards,

Glenn

I have a massive own up to make, Glenn. I have no idea what RdG stands for. If they can be used as a solo set they sound very promising and I particularly like the idea that they have the potential to be used across a wide period. Thanks for the explanation. Part of the problem I have had with some wargamers in the past is the smugness expressed after they feel they have pulled a fast one on you. Unfortunately it is something I really detest. Fortunately I now game with a group who are more interested in seeing the game unfold, the history of the periods we are playing, the painting and modelling aspects of the hobby and, most especially, the social get together it generates.

Hello dourpuritan!

RdG stands for "Ruse de Guerre" the Polemos rule set that I wrote covering North American Wars from 1754 to 1815.

There is a fellow (no longer in my group) who was perhaps even worse. He very often thought he pulled a fast one on you when he didn't. He had no clue that he was simply lucky or better still was being drawn into a trap that he couldn't see coming. So I'm familar with the type and they are indeed very anoying. However, thats generally a personality problem that even a good set of rules can't really fix. It's interesting in that this fellow did at one time belong to my group and left because he couldn't get along with a couple of members. They simply couldn't stand his nonsense and would always return his "smugness" in a way that he could not respond to.

The design of RdG certainly lets everyone see how the game unfolds. In fact some players are so fascinated to watch everybody move and listen to their comments that the game will at times slow down. RdG forces you think ahead as far as possible and then be able to adjust your plans on the fly. This seems to replicate some of the situations of a battle very well.

Most of the members in my club are history buffs and a few are reinactors. Over time it has also become very much a social club as well where you get to meet new friends and see old ones.

Anyway great to hear that you have found a good group as well.

Best regards,

Glenn

Thanks for the information Glenn, I'll take a look at the rules.

Hi Nick,

Yes I agree the Blucher approach to artillery basing is way I'm going as well, although I'm not a Blucher player.

Hi Glenn,

Initially I was leaning towards the sliding scale approach for artillery and have played this way before with 15's but wasn't comfortable with the footprint problem especially with 6's. Take a 30mm artillery base and a 60mm battalion or even worse 60mm brigade base, deploy that artillery base into sections and suddenly the artillery frontage becomes 90mm which is larger than that of a battalion and/or a brigade depending on game scale.

I see what you're doing with limbers as in using it as an anchor and to cause traffic jams, but parking all of that material right behind a battery doesn't feel right. I thought the park was further to the rear? What's wrong with treating it like baggage like in DBA or similar?... Also harping on about batteries deployed in sections again... suddenly the artillery park becomes very big, i.e. one limber becomes ~three for one battery...

Regards,

Steve

Hello Steve!

When you use the sliding scale in RdG everything slides at the same time. So if you want to use a three (base) section battery your battalions are also three bases. The artillery frontage then goes from 30mm to 90mm, the infantry from 60mm to 180mm. This also allows the scenario designer to play with the value of the guns. If he thinks three bases are too powerful or too weak he can change it to two or four, etc. The rules were intentionally designed to be open ended so that players can change most things to match their own thoughts.

The sliding scale also allows you to blow up or shrink the size of battles to give them a bit more of a dynamic feel, or make them more managable.

Yes leaving the limber right behind the guns is incorrect, but in a game it makes them more managable. However, is not even having them not worse? During movement, limbering and unlimbering they were together. There is nothing wrong with placing them somewhere else once they are unlimbered. That just reflects a level that is lower then the game design and would require a fairly comprehensive explaination.

It's not unusal for a battery to contain 8 guns. That means 8 limbers and roughly 24 or more wagons. Thats a sizeable amount of space on a battlefield.To not reflect this in your games is a major change in battlefield dynamics. Designing rules and playing games is all about compromise. To me this is too big of a problem and target to completely ignore. My compromise was to only represent one limber model per model gun. Not having any model limbers was too big of a compromise for me. As we know most wargamers don't use any limbers. For some it's a matter of cost, others simply a result of rule design and of course some simply have no idea of actual battlefield dynamics.

Hope this helps explain things a little better, if not just fire away.

Best regards,

Glenn

I agree with Glenn. One way to compromise with economic cost is try to do not "personalize" limbers... meaning just horses and limbers on the stand... they will become multipurpose gear for all the XIXth century conflicts without trouble... one of the best Baccus does is the ACW set. It is anti military modelling but you save a lot of time and cash... if need be build outriders with that uniform you like... I understand. For me a wargame without limbers is like lunch without bread.

My western theatre ACW armies are 3mm from Peter Pig. The artillery base contains both gun and limber - job done.