• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

đź’€ Necro [+]I'm starting to think I just want Toy Soldier games

DocShoveller

Godwin's Lawman
Validated User
Ah! That's easy, then. All you need to do is to look at some real 18th century pictures, and decide whether you want early coats, or later coats with turnbacks, choose some suitable miniatures, and have an idea of how big you want the units to be for the rules you're thinking of using. Given that I started with the idea that I wanted to play Charge! and use 40mm Prince August figures, those decisions were fairly easy. The consequences of choosing to use 59 figure regiments in 40mm are another story...:eek:
I shall almost certainly be doing 28mm.

I think we're a little North Italian micro state, with green coats. Tempted by Wargames Factory's AWI British - their quite static sculpts seem 'right' for a unit on parade.
 

RSDean

Registered User
Validated User
I shall almost certainly be doing 28mm.

I think we're a little North Italian micro state, with green coats. Tempted by Wargames Factory's AWI British - their quite static sculpts seem 'right' for a unit on parade.
Sounds good. It's never too early to think about their opponents: French, Austrians, or another previously undocumented state? When we've talked about doing Renaissance Italian Wars imagi-nations, the sons and I have been leaning on naming them after pasta shapes...:p
 

Barticus

Banzai!
Validated User
Edit: A few weeks ago I mentioned a game called Charlie Company, a tabletop game set in Vietnam. This is a really interesting take on the "play to win" vs. "GMed exercise" mentality. It is for two players - one is the US, whose goal is to survive, the other is the GM who runs the VC/NVA, whose goal is to give the US player a challenge. It would be interesting to see this mindset consciously adapted to other games. (Space Hulk, perhaps?)
I have demo-ed Charlie Company a number of times and have a USMC Rifle Platoon (M-14) around my basement somewhere. It's an awesome convention game if all of the players are the US and the referee plays the VC/NVA, especially if the players are all friends. It seems a lot like a standard pen and paper RPG session actually, and I always have a lot of fun when I run it. Many 'chunky salsa' comments as the VC open up from concealed bunkers :)

B
 

komradebob

Registered User
Validated User
Tempted by Wargames Factory's AWI British - their quite static sculpts seem 'right' for a unit on parade.
It's funny how my tastes have changed. Being mostly a skirmish and Late 1800s/20thC guy, I used to hate mono-pose or nearly mono-pose minis.

Then I saw pics of stuff like RSDean's units, with everybody all formed up, and started to appreciate how cool that can look in masses.

Similarly, I'm starting to appreciate "old school" scenery and more open table layouts than I'm used to. It's taken me forever to wrap my brain around the idea that this stuff works with a different aesthetic than I'm used to, not that the style is somehow crude or primitive.

Much like my shift in appreciation for rules types and paint styles ( toy soldier block painting and/or blacklining vs approaches). Or my returning fondness for OSR approaches in RPGs.

RSDean:

I know we were mentioning CS Grant's Programmed Scenarios book, and the funkiness of the random table layouts. Perhaps this is also better understood with an idea that CS Grant was thinking of these more open, abstract/stylized table layouts? I'd been assuming his drawings in that book were, well, crude and limited by technology when they came out.

Maybe he really is showing what he expects to appear on the board, and the terrain is just so basic that effectively last minute changes aren't that much of a problem for the gamers he is writing for? Even significant shifts in roads or rivers isn't such a big deal because they're just bits of cloth, colored appropriately and woods are just a few trees defined by a boundary of string? Hills nothing more than foam tile or similar done up in different colors like a contour map, so easily made/carried/switched?

It could explain much.
 

komradebob

Registered User
Validated User
I have demo-ed Charlie Company a number of times and have a USMC Rifle Platoon (M-14) around my basement somewhere. It's an awesome convention game if all of the players are the US and the referee plays the VC/NVA, especially if the players are all friends. It seems a lot like a standard pen and paper RPG session actually, and I always have a lot of fun when I run it. Many 'chunky salsa' comments as the VC open up from concealed bunkers :)
It's always interesting to see what people dig in those kinds of asymmetric game situations.

I've always been more fascinated by the idea of playing the irregular force, and have yet to find a good ruleset for it. They seem to be all built with the regulars in mind, and then the irregulars rules are built to reflect that relationship.

For something like that, written from the irregular side, I'd almost think you'd need to create an overall context, then allow for the planning and execution of small ops in any order, with post-operation checks for the inevitable retaliation from the Security forces.

A very different sort of mindset to rules design.

Realizing of course, technology/era/contexts would differ, but there should be some broad mechanical concepts that could be applied whether you're playing FFI, Mosby's Raiders, The Tan War, The VC, or Robin Hood.

Damn, now I want to do this...
 
Last edited:

RSDean

Registered User
Validated User
It's funny how my tastes have changed. Being mostly a skirmish and Late 1800s/20thC guy, I used to hate mono-pose or nearly mono-pose minis.

Then I saw pics of stuff like RSDean's units, with everybody all formed up, and started to appreciate how cool that can look in masses.

Similarly, I'm starting to appreciate "old school" scenery and more open table layouts than I'm used to. It's taken me forever to wrap my brain around the idea that this stuff works with a different aesthetic than I'm used to, not that the style is somehow crude or primitive.

Much like my shift in appreciation for rules types and paint styles ( toy soldier block painting and/or blacklining vs approaches). Or my returning fondness for OSR approaches in RPGs.

RSDean:

I know we were mentioning CS Grant's Programmed Scenarios book, and the funkiness of the random table layouts. Perhaps this is also better understood with an idea that CS Grant was thinking of these more open, abstract/stylized table layouts? I'd been assuming his drawings in that book were, well, crude and limited by technology when they came out.

Maybe he really is showing what he expects to appear on the board, and the terrain is just so basic that effectively last minute changes aren't that much of a problem for the gamers he is writing for? Even significant shifts in roads or rivers isn't such a big deal because they're just bits of cloth, colored appropriately and woods are just a few trees defined by a boundary of string? Hills nothing more than foam tile or similar done up in different colors like a contour map, so easily made/carried/switched?

It could explain much.
Hmmmm. I think you're right, but I'll need until tomorrow to muster some citations and respond thoughtfully.

In the meantime, I did a quick image search, and came up with this OSW battle report, which I think illustrates the abstracted layout style you're thinking of?

http://littlejohnslead.blogspot.com/2010/03/battle-of-vier-arme.html?m=1
 

komradebob

Registered User
Validated User
In the meantime, I did a quick image search, and came up with this OSW battle report, which I think illustrates the abstracted layout style you're thinking of?

http://littlejohnslead.blogspot.com/2010/03/battle-of-vier-arme.html?m=1
That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of!:)

It looks...weird...after playing more skirmish-y games with GW influenced terrain, and being used to terrain just packed onto the board.

I guess it's a style where only truly significant terrain is shown, and variations in it assumed rather than modeled closely. Rules presumably cover all of the other issues and terrain of minor sorts that isn't actually depicted.

I mean, yes, all games pretty much do that, but this is more abstraction than I'm used to seeing.
 
Last edited:

RSDean

Registered User
Validated User
So, I’m going to necro this thread, because I have been playing a new entry in the toy soldier games category lately: A Gentleman’s War, by Howard Whitehouse and Dan Foley. My detailed review is the second post down in my blog link here:


Generally, they are intended for large toy soldiers (40 to 54mm) in units of 6 cavalry or 12 infantry, played on a relatively modest table in about 2 hours. The rules cover the period 1750 to 1900 or so, so I have been using them with my 40mm imaginary countries tricorne figures (the Not Quite Seven Years War).

This thread was a good idea in 2015; hopefully is still is now. :)
 

A2A

Proud Member of the Fuzz
Validated User
In the spirit of the necromancy, one of the things that I've always wanted to do is play The War Game, which is an old school set of rules for horse and musket imagi-nations gaming first published in 1971 as a book full of rambling discussions about the games the author Charles Grant played, and subsequently joined by the The War Game Companion, which contains further ramblings from Grant's son. They're both really entertaining reads full of the joy of playing with toy soldiers and world creation. I particularly like the anecdote about one of the players, (Brigadier Peter Young a former Commando during WW2) bribing the mother of another to kidnap a figure of a Duke's wife in order to hold her for ransom. There's also lots of fun little things like making miniatures for non combatant NPCs, holding victory parades with captured colours from their miniature battles, and generally having good natured fun. Both books are still in print, and the younger Grant (himself now a retired Army officer) still plays with and writes about his dad's rules.
 

komradebob

Registered User
Validated User
These are great updates. I've been following the development of AGW, but haven't picked up a copy of the finished game yet to try out.

I havew one of Grants old books. Really should get more of them. I'm starting to appreciate some of those older rules, or at least the spirit that goes with their modern incarnations.
 
Top Bottom