Writing your own rules

Telchar · **Posted:** Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:22 am

Not sure wether this should go here or under "other Wargames", so, mods, if wrongly placed, feel free to move it.

I suppose there will be some others out there who, like myself, try to write their own rules for wargaming a certain period. So I thought it might be handy to have a thread were you can ask (and hopefully get answered) questions about problems you encounter, share tips and good ideas, etc. So here it is.

I'll kick off with my own question: I am writing a set of Napoleonic rules (Vive l'Empereur) and after much playtesting they generally work fine, except for one thing: Cavalry dies in droves to generally anything. Recently, my sister had 2 coys of Hussars flanking my (unguarded) artillery, and 2 cannonballs later, they were reduced to a totally ineffective strength. Does anyone know a trick to make cavalry more survivable?

hithero · **Posted:** Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:16 pm

Can't really answer that as we don't know your rule mechanics, but the obvious answer is to reduce the chance of killing them or increase their saving throw depending on how your rules work.

Telchar · **Posted:** Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:55 pm

It works like this: shoot phase: The firing unit throws as many dice as it has attacks, each that rolls a 3+ generates a roll on the "to hit" table. There, you roll as many dice as you have attacks, and the result necessary to kill an opponent is decided by your Shoot Value and his Defence value. Every time you roll more than the necessary result, you remove an enemy model.

Fight Phase: The charging unit throws as many dice as it has attacks, and then removes enemies for each that rolls enough on the "to hit" table (using Fight instead of Shoot).

The main problem is that compared to infantry, cavalry (especially light cavalry, but even Cuirassiers get shot to bits) don't have enough men to take the amount of punishment this method dishes out. Then you'd say make it harder to kill a unit, but that would make 6 coy infantry (56 models) rule the field, and make cavalry, if anything, even weaker. So I need something that is in keeping with Napoleonic Warfare, but makes specifically cavalry much more durable.

cal585 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:30 pm

How about increasing the 'to hit' needed against cavalry to represent the difficulty of hitting something moving faster? (eg. 4+ instead of 3+) Whether you made cavalry in general a harder to hit class or required a move over a certain distance. That way you would be limiting the number of shots they receive and therefore their resulting wounds while not overly changing the game mechanics. I haven't invented my own rules though and it may not work. Still, it's a suggestion to get the ball rolling

Telchar · **Posted:** Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:57 pm

That might work, I'll try it in the next game. Thanks.

hithero · **Posted:** Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:12 am

How about removing 1 cavalry model for every 2 hits or just increase their defence value, that way the rules mechanics and scores needed remain the same making the rules more streamlined.

Angularity · **Joined:** Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:56 am **Posts:** 157

I don't know if you've taken the factor of spacing into account well enough. The infantry would have been shoulder-to-shoulder, so any shot in the 'beaten zone' would probably be a (disabling) hit; cavalry may have been boot-to-boot occasionally, but more likely would be moving with 3-4 feet between individuals. Jac Weller's books have all the details. The bottom line is that you need to end up making it less likely to score a disabling hit on cavalry (except if they chose to close up).

You may also need to add in a factor for if a target unit moves more than X across the frontage of the shooter. A hit from a cannon becomes less likely, but more effective, if a unit in line is moving across the battery's front.

So, your target is more like hitting the hard bits in a colander, rather than shooting at a pan, if you see what I mean.

The old WRG Renaissance rules were brilliant, my favourite of all the ones I've used. There were 3 base widths for horse, and 3 for foot, which impacted on shooting and melee.

Telchar · **Posted:** Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:05 pm

Angularity wrote:

I don't know if you've taken the factor of spacing into account well enough. The infantry would have been shoulder-to-shoulder, so any shot in the 'beaten zone' would probably be a (disabling) hit; cavalry may have been boot-to-boot occasionally, but more likely would be moving with 3-4 feet between individuals. Jac Weller's books have all the details. The bottom line is that you need to end up making it less likely to score a disabling hit on cavalry (except if they chose to close up).

You may also need to add in a factor for if a target unit moves more than X across the frontage of the shooter. A hit from a cannon becomes less likely, but more effective, if a unit in line is moving across the battery's front.

So, your target is more like hitting the hard bits in a colander, rather than shooting at a pan, if you see what I mean.

The old WRG Renaissance rules were brilliant, my favourite of all the ones I've used. There were 3 base widths for horse, and 3 for foot, which impacted on shooting and melee.

Eh, I don't see what you mean

.

I know about the different distances between cavalry and infantry in formations, but what effect does that have on shooting? For the second paragraph, I really don't get how someone could represent this in a rulebook without writing another 20 pages of rules.

I don't know WRG, so I don't know why they were so brilliant.

lorderkenbrand · **Posted:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:23 am

How about increasing the 'to hit' rule by +1 for cavalry to represent the dilemma above. It should be harder to hit a moving target, especially if it is travelling as fast as a dodgy moped

Angularity · **Joined:** Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:56 am **Posts:** 157

Telchar wrote:

Angularity wrote:

I don't know if you've taken the factor of spacing into account well enough. The infantry would have been shoulder-to-shoulder, so any shot in the 'beaten zone' would probably be a (disabling) hit; cavalry may have been boot-to-boot occasionally, but more likely would be moving with 3-4 feet between individuals. Jac Weller's books have all the details. The bottom line is that you need to end up making it less likely to score a disabling hit on cavalry (except if they chose to close up).

You may also need to add in a factor for if a target unit moves more than X across the frontage of the shooter. A hit from a cannon becomes less likely, but more effective, if a unit in line is moving across the battery's front.

So, your target is more like hitting the hard bits in a colander, rather than shooting at a pan, if you see what I mean.

The old WRG Renaissance rules were brilliant, my favourite of all the ones I've used. There were 3 base widths for horse, and 3 for foot, which impacted on shooting and melee.

Eh, I don't see what you mean

.

I know about the different distances between cavalry and infantry in formations, but what effect does that have on shooting? For the second paragraph, I really don't get how someone could represent this in a rulebook without writing another 20 pages of rules.

I don't know WRG, so I don't know why they were so brilliant.

Maybe you're assuming that the shots from a Napoleonic musket are going where the shooter intends? It's more of a random thing, which is why they stood in great long lines.

Let's assume a company of infantry, 100 men in two lines of fifty, all shoulder-to-shoulder or as near as makes no difference. Shooting at a similar enemy company, that gives them 100 square yards of target to shoot at, for round figures. Shots go high, shots go low, some hit muskets or buckles and do no damage, some cause non-disabling hits, and the ones that are left are the figures you take off.

Shooting at cavalry, each man and horse takes up one yard wide by three yards high, one deep, and they're at least a yard apart. So, on a fifty yard frontage, there's 25 blokes, 25 horses, and a total target area of 25 x 3 = 75 square yards. Even on basic ratios, you've got less chance of making a disabling hit. Add in the effect of armour and heavy boots on the rider, all the tack that can absorb a hit, the cavalry moving faster so being more off-putting to the shooter, and the fact that the horse can absorb more hits before it's disabled, and you're down to around 33-50% as likely to score a disabling hit on cavalry as you are on infantry. Fiddle the 'to hit' roll required to make it work.

The cannon thing is easily done with card templates; a cone for grape, and a longer, narrower line one for ball. Place it over the target and roll for any model in the beaten zone. If your opponent is daft enough to expose his flanks to your guns, then he'll soon learn not to.

Telchar · **Posted:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:16 pm

Angularity wrote:

Telchar wrote:

Angularity wrote:

I don't know if you've taken the factor of spacing into account well enough. The infantry would have been shoulder-to-shoulder, so any shot in the 'beaten zone' would probably be a (disabling) hit; cavalry may have been boot-to-boot occasionally, but more likely would be moving with 3-4 feet between individuals. Jac Weller's books have all the details. The bottom line is that you need to end up making it less likely to score a disabling hit on cavalry (except if they chose to close up).

You may also need to add in a factor for if a target unit moves more than X across the frontage of the shooter. A hit from a cannon becomes less likely, but more effective, if a unit in line is moving across the battery's front.

So, your target is more like hitting the hard bits in a colander, rather than shooting at a pan, if you see what I mean.

The old WRG Renaissance rules were brilliant, my favourite of all the ones I've used. There were 3 base widths for horse, and 3 for foot, which impacted on shooting and melee.

Eh, I don't see what you mean

.

I know about the different distances between cavalry and infantry in formations, but what effect does that have on shooting? For the second paragraph, I really don't get how someone could represent this in a rulebook without writing another 20 pages of rules.

I don't know WRG, so I don't know why they were so brilliant.

Maybe you're assuming that the shots from a Napoleonic musket are going where the shooter intends? It's more of a random thing, which is why they stood in great long lines.Let's assume a company of infantry, 100 men in two lines of fifty, all shoulder-to-shoulder or as near as makes no difference. Shooting at a similar enemy company, that gives them 100 square yards of target to shoot at, for round figures. Shots go high, shots go low, some hit muskets or buckles and do no damage, some cause non-disabling hits, and the ones that are left are the figures you take off.

I know, that's why there are two rolls. The first to determine wether or not the ball hits the 100 yards where the enemy is, the second to account for balls passing between troops, causing non-fatal wounds, getting caught in armour etc.

[quote='Angularity']Shooting at cavalry, each man and horse takes up one yard wide by three yards high, one deep, and they're at least a yard apart. So, on a fifty yard frontage, there's 25 blokes, 25 horses, and a total target area of 25 x 3 = 75 square yards. Even on basic ratios, you've got less chance of making a disabling hit. Add in the effect of armour and heavy boots on the rider, all the tack that can absorb a hit, the cavalry moving faster so being more off-putting to the shooter, and the fact that the horse can absorb more hits before it's disabled, and you're down to around 33-50% as likely to score a disabling hit on cavalry as you are on infantry. Fiddle the 'to hit' roll required to make it work.[/quote]

Oh, so you're giving me an excuse for increasing the roll for cavalry, I thought you were suggesting a new rule of sorts. Thanks!

[quote='Angularity']The cannon thing is easily done with card templates; a cone for grape, and a longer, narrower line one for ball. Place it over the target and roll for any model in the beaten zone. If your opponent is daft enough to expose his flanks to your guns, then he'll soon learn not to.[/quote]

I have a rule to represent that kind of thing, which I think is easier, because it doesn't use templates. Canister allows the gun to fire at several formations close to one another at the same time, and has more attacks, so has more chances of killing people, while a cannonball automatically takes 3 men off each company it hits (at a 4+). I supposed this was a suggestion to make it harder for cannonballs to hit lines when firing into a flank.

We have a lot of misunderstandings

Telchar · **Posted:** Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:00 pm

Another, totally different question: I want to start writing a WW2 (the size of a large skirmish, if you get what I mean) ruleset for 1/76. Does anyone have any suggestions for rules to base it around? I know FOW, but that's for far bigger battles.

Caputo · **Joined:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:29 am **Posts:** 40

We always liked combat command but good luck finding a copy. On the other hand I can fish my copy out over the weekend and summarise if you are interested. Its a one figure is one man scale and works up to a couple of companies a side if you have space for it.

Telchar · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:26 pm

Sorry, I should have mentioned I'd made up my own things (though someone will have done it before) now. No help is required just yet, but thanks anyway.

Writing your own rules

Who is online