So when I wrote IGABC I chose to put them on a squared grid. Why? Well the story is brief but educational, to my mind.
I'd already experimented with adapting Neil Thomas' 19th century rules to a grid, to go with Chris A's Russo-Turkish War project. I wrote about it here. We had experienced a number of issues that arose from Neil's annoying refusal to define a number of things clearly, as ever. These issues were resolved by imposing a grid on the game. It was therefore natural that this would be my starting point when gaming the 1879-84 Pacific War. As I said in the introduction to IGABC the rules soon showed their short comings for anything not down-the-line European, so I struck out on my own.
The grid solves a load of problems. It simplifies measurement for firing and moving. It makes game play quicker. It formalises the layout of terrain and, importantly for what I was trying to do, it resolved issues with unit footprint and formations.
Now I am aware that not everyone is enamoured of the square or the hexagon. I have also found sometimes that the grid does not solve all the problems I would like. Sometime in the next two or three years I expect to publish my "Va t'en..." series of rules* which use good old fashioned tape measures. There will not be a squared based version of them, as I cannot resolve the issues that these present without destroying the mechanisms that I like the most. Anyhow, in respect of IGABC, despite my view that the squares improve the game, I was reminded that some people reacted badly to "To Ur is Human" being only workable of squares when I was preparing for publication.
I therefore reversed engineered IGABC to enable it to be played without squares, should that be required by the purchaser. The methodology is contained in a two page section of the rules book, headed "Playing 'It's Getting a Bit Chile' without squares". Bob Cordery, of Wargaming Miscellany, even listed this as part of the rules in his review. I have not, however, always slipped the fact into the product description when publicising the rules, so I thought it might be helpful to go over the information here.
Converting square movement and range to inches or centimetres is really quite easy, as is the adjustment of arcs of fire and wheeling etc. The main issue to be resolved is unit density and formation. This isn't a big deal. For those of you who have not been privy to this piece of insight, DBA is a game played on squares**, where the units carry their squares around with them. The rules then have a procedure to explain how the squares are eventually lined up with each other when units are close enough. That's basically what happens in IGABC, although what you need to do is physically place the units on a square movement tray, - say 3" square - and move them on that. This is what Pete Berry did in his revolutionary "File Leader" rules.
There are some other bits and pieces in the rules which you'll need to take on board, and you'll need to make your own QRS for movement rates and ranges, but otherwise you're good to go, with no more excuses.
* "Va t'en Guerre" and "Va t'en Ecosse". Is two a series?
** thanks Phil
I'd already experimented with adapting Neil Thomas' 19th century rules to a grid, to go with Chris A's Russo-Turkish War project. I wrote about it here. We had experienced a number of issues that arose from Neil's annoying refusal to define a number of things clearly, as ever. These issues were resolved by imposing a grid on the game. It was therefore natural that this would be my starting point when gaming the 1879-84 Pacific War. As I said in the introduction to IGABC the rules soon showed their short comings for anything not down-the-line European, so I struck out on my own.
The grid solves a load of problems. It simplifies measurement for firing and moving. It makes game play quicker. It formalises the layout of terrain and, importantly for what I was trying to do, it resolved issues with unit footprint and formations.
Now I am aware that not everyone is enamoured of the square or the hexagon. I have also found sometimes that the grid does not solve all the problems I would like. Sometime in the next two or three years I expect to publish my "Va t'en..." series of rules* which use good old fashioned tape measures. There will not be a squared based version of them, as I cannot resolve the issues that these present without destroying the mechanisms that I like the most. Anyhow, in respect of IGABC, despite my view that the squares improve the game, I was reminded that some people reacted badly to "To Ur is Human" being only workable of squares when I was preparing for publication.
I therefore reversed engineered IGABC to enable it to be played without squares, should that be required by the purchaser. The methodology is contained in a two page section of the rules book, headed "Playing 'It's Getting a Bit Chile' without squares". Bob Cordery, of Wargaming Miscellany, even listed this as part of the rules in his review. I have not, however, always slipped the fact into the product description when publicising the rules, so I thought it might be helpful to go over the information here.
Converting square movement and range to inches or centimetres is really quite easy, as is the adjustment of arcs of fire and wheeling etc. The main issue to be resolved is unit density and formation. This isn't a big deal. For those of you who have not been privy to this piece of insight, DBA is a game played on squares**, where the units carry their squares around with them. The rules then have a procedure to explain how the squares are eventually lined up with each other when units are close enough. That's basically what happens in IGABC, although what you need to do is physically place the units on a square movement tray, - say 3" square - and move them on that. This is what Pete Berry did in his revolutionary "File Leader" rules.
There are some other bits and pieces in the rules which you'll need to take on board, and you'll need to make your own QRS for movement rates and ranges, but otherwise you're good to go, with no more excuses.
* "Va t'en Guerre" and "Va t'en Ecosse". Is two a series?
** thanks Phil
Having at last bought a pdf copy of the rule set from Wargames Vault (thanks!), I am thinking myself of adapting them to a 'free table' using fictitious armies modelled upon the Chilean and Peruvian/Bolivian; but also examining how they'd go on a hex grid.
ReplyDeleteThat might be down the track a bit, though, as I have become involved in a Madasahatta-like project in an East African setting, c.1875.
Thanks for buying them! I considered offset squares (I don't do hexes) but the grid looks more....19th century, I think. As I've written here and in the rules there are ways you can take the squares out but you'll have to do a little bit of work of your own, or at least apply common sense when playing them.
DeleteAlthough your armies are fictitious I'm sure you can find an analogue for your commanders in those supplied in the rules. Please post your thoughts on an appropriate forum when You've had a chance to read them, and let me know.
Hi Trebian. Bought IGaBC a few weeks back and am now putting the armies together using Baccus of course. Could you tell me. #1 Did the National Guard carry flags?. #2 Did both Bttns of a regt carry flags? or just the first. Thanks Nigel (njt236 on the Baccus forum)
ReplyDeleteNearly got yourself dumped in spam, there. Most comments from "Unknown" offer me a fortune in Bitcoins or want to introduce me to women who appear to pine for me and only me.
DeleteThe answer to both questions is I'm not sure. The flags I know about for certain are in the rule book. HOWEVER we are talking about armies who often ordered their uniform designs from Paris for the men and the actual uniforms themselves for the officers, so my gut says they'd have as many flags as they could lay their hands on. The books seem to imply that previously retired flags were pressed back into service. If in doubt, give the unit the national flag with a bit or writing on.
Why not. I'll give them all flags.
DeleteSound decision.
Delete