http://notjustoldschool.blogspot.com/2018/09/west-country-quatre-bras-wargame.html
It's a wonderful example of wargame as diorama as I hope this image from that posts shows:
But there was one particular aspect that caught my eye: the label trays (look bottom left hand corner). I was impressed that they blended in so well, but also that they were quiet significant in size and complexity. I don't know the rules they use, but that was not the issue.
One of the blemishes I have with my prefered Napoleonic rules is that at times the figures and terrain get swamped by counters. The following image from one of my most recent games shows my current level of evolution of with labels. I am still mainly using counters from the first edition of the rules, with only the casualty markers having been replaced.
I came to Napoleon's Battles around the same time as Fire and Fury and admired the later for its use of miniatures to represent status etc of units. So that has always been an objective. Sadly painting up the casualty figures etc has been secondary to painting up units. So it goes.
At the time I was also playing WRG Ancients and recall a talk by Phil Barker in which he described positioning the elements of a unit to show its status. In part that was an aspect of Napoleon's Battles (and probably most if not all Napoleonic rules): moving figures about to show line, column or square formation. This generally works well, but sometimes has footprint issues and position creep (advancing by change of formation).
With my adoption of Impetus and now Rommel, unit labels and associated casualty chits entered a new phase. I also had a laminator!
So, colour ink permitting, I have and can produce a variety of chits. Of course glossy reflective surfaces can produce some interesting photographic experiences.
However, the ultimate goal remains using figures to represent status. A benefit of which is if they are left cluttering up the table they should at least blend in: the challenge of practical/functional versus attractive.
For Napoleon's Battles the following is required:
- unit id and stats
- status
- casualties
Status includes routed/disorder and no move/half move; specific to artillery limbered and possibly "moved" (if using 4th Edition optional rule); and specific to cavalry react.
Here is my first attempt at a disorder marker:
The blue saddle cloth was the inspiration as blue is the historic colour of the disorder marker.
Getting back to James, the above figure, after a bit of modification to remove the rider who had lost an arm, was a gift from James. Better still, at the club recently I picked twenty old Minifig horses that will do nicely for markers. They are being mounted on 20mm washers and that has me thinking I can use different shaped bases (round, square, triangle and rectangle spring to mind) and possibly different colours on the edges to help further distinguish the role of the marker.
To finish up here is my response to James:
Not sure about the game aids. I agonize over labels and fret over counters. I have to say how you do it with Shako looks good (as is also the case with Fire and Fury, although the later has labels and I think Shako needs them too for big games when all the players don't know the units).
I have a project to make FnF type markers for Napoleon's Battles. I need to give some thought to more appropriate markers for Impetus as well. At least I've made some progress with Rommel.
The problem is always making sure to move any counters with the unit and to still allow units to form up when they do have counters/labels.
Then there is the problem of getting the other player(s) to follow suit...
For games which require simple markers - hits or disorder or similar - I use small stones in different colours. Yes, you have to remember to move them with the unit, but they kind of look like terrain (aside from maybe the white ones :-D ) Their advantage is that they're not period specific - they work just as well for my WW1 figures as they do for my ECW or fantasy armies.
ReplyDeleteExcellent idea and the dual purpose is really good.
DeleteSmall stones on a base would work as casualty markers for me. Has the benefit of being able to be used by all sides and easy and cheap to produce.
I did play about with beads from the do it yourself jewelry sets. Real cheap and varied, but I found tended to be too fiddly and prone to break. I tried using the cylindrical ones as bases in which to place pins that had flags denoting status, but the breaking problem put an end to that, but with a better base, flags have some appeal as they can be cheaply produced with a colour printer and pins etc.
A friend who has his troops based on metal has success with magnetic beads, but often needs tweezers to manipulate them.
Thanks for the input.
I have to admit that, although most of my recent war gaming has had recourse to 'player aids' of one sort or another, I'd rather not have them at all. But when the alternative is bookkeeping then it's 'where are those chitties and dice holders...?'
ReplyDeleteNearly all my games have detailed army rosters, but that is not really bookkeeping, more a QRS play aid.
DeleteIn games where I have used dice to record casualties they have frequently been picked up and rolled in the heat of battle.
I have had success with different coloured cotton wool (brown, black grey), but have to be careful of the breeze, heavy breathing and people waving rule books and QRS about. I ended up basing the cotton wool!
Interesting post Mark. I remember the old days of having curtain rings painted red as markers and in fact during the clubs heady days of Empire III we used cut down straws as casualty markers which conveniently went on the figures muskets and bayonets.
ReplyDeleteAs you have seen with our GdA games we use the wooden markers for states of play and orders which are not too obtrusive but the idea of a charging figure representing assault, a running figure representing rout etc. would be fantastic.
I've never been fond of casualty caps. Did play once with rings and it looked like the troops had lifebuoys slung around them. But straws are an interesting idea: cheap and easy to make. Would work well with Napoleon's Battles I think. So much so I've already made some! Won't work for all figure types I guess, but looks good on the ones I tried out.
DeleteUnlike some markers that are transitory (such as No Move/Half Move), casualty marks are more permanent (until base is removed) and that makes the caps practical (they won't get left behind and easy to remove by tipping the base when it is removed), are generic and cheap to make. All that remains is to play some games using them.
Thanks for the input!
Using figures or scenery items to indicate status is something more wargamers should do. I've also experimented quite a lot with this (I have still have an unfinished blogpost on my Wargaming Mechanics blog about this topic). I've seen games in which the position of the flag or banner (left, middle, right) of the unit is used (works with stands as well), or place on officer figure in front, behind, left, right of the unit etc. Going one step further, you could even alter the figures themselves. E.g. firing stat is indicated by figures firing, movement stat by figures walking etc. The latter would imply having some spare figures, and individually-based figures, but it can be done.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree, miniatures games are all about the aesthetics in my opinion. I did try a prototype with a base for positioning a flag, but had a few problems (fiddly to place, the slots broke and didn't quite look right).
DeleteUsing figures that depict the status is certainly appealing, but would require a significant investment (to match uniforms at least). However this is something I may attempt, using ADC and officer figures to denote cavalry on react, this would require them to be on a distinct base so they don't get confused with generals.
One advantage to using single figures as status marks is that the same figures could be used for skirmish games.
I think for solo play, markers and labels become even more necessary as there is twice as much for the poor gamers brain to process and rosters become harder to manage. I suppose the older systems that used to remove casualties significantly reduced marker dependency.
ReplyDeleteNot called player aids for nothing :-)
DeleteI find being slow and methodical helps, but often fails in the heat of a battle.
Removal of single casualties was a thing before group basing became du jour.