|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 14, 2018 20:43:39 GMT
Knowing some Napoleonic buffs in the past, I would take this as a strong endorsement of the rules.
The Napoleonic part plays fine, I just find them somewhat bland.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 15, 2018 9:33:01 GMT
...there are morejictures of that big battle: ... ... ...
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Oct 15, 2018 20:24:49 GMT
Great looking battle Vodnick!
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Oct 16, 2018 1:39:42 GMT
Knowing some Napoleonic buffs in the past, I would take this as a strong endorsement of the rules. The Napoleonic part plays fine, I just find them somewhat bland. Joe Collins I use HFG for Napoleonics & don't find them as bland as Joe does. You have to remember that in the game, elements represent brigades (battalion formations are irrelevant & effects are abstracted). The scale is in paces, also not abstracted like DBA. Unlike DBA, there are multiple different combat outcomes. Bayonet troops, for example, rout infantry if they score more in close combat. Firepower is in some ways not quite as deadly in HFG, though elements cannot close with the enemy unless they begin their move at effective small arms range (200p). This ensures elements must endure 2 bounds of distant shooting before they can close. Cavalry can potentially have more than one close combat in a turn, and can interpenetrate infantry in some instances. Overall, HFG is an interesting set of rules.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 16, 2018 7:16:22 GMT
...i did start playing later period conflicts using DBA-HX. The periods after DBM. In thebeginning using DBR. So i could get used to geometrical formations. My favored period was that of the prussian King Frederick the great: You need to deside the relation of shooting Range the movement Range and distinguish between particular troop type...
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Oct 16, 2018 7:35:09 GMT
Vodnik and Strelnikov thanks for the response, Vodnik I like the Prussians!Im definitely going to play HFG, the only problem I have is deciding which period to go for. I initially thought ACW but wondered if the lack of cavalry would make for a slow static game? I then considered Napoleonic s because, well there is so much variety of troop types and they would be fun to paint. Then I thought Seven Years War, because why not?Now I just can't decide!🤔 I can also play DBA-HX,I have heard good things about the game. Cheers,Paul.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 16, 2018 8:03:20 GMT
...there are too many experts using napoleonic. For me gaming is more important. In 7YW you can play also smaller battles...
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Oct 16, 2018 8:42:12 GMT
I use DBS-HX for my War of the Spanish Succession engagements and DBN for Napoleonic, although I am going to give DBS-HX ago for that period as well.
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Oct 16, 2018 8:59:41 GMT
Vodnik and Strelnikov thanks for the response, Vodnik I like the Prussians!Im definitely going to play HFG, the only problem I have is deciding which period to go for. I initially thought ACW but wondered if the lack of cavalry would make for a slow static game? I then considered Napoleonic s because, well there is so much variety of troop types and they would be fun to paint. Then I thought Seven Years War, because why not?Now I just can't decide!🤔 I can also play DBA-HX,I have heard good things about the game. Cheers,Paul. Have you looked at the HFG Yahoo Group?
Thinking about the time to play a game, with 4 other players who only use HFG once or twice a year, we put on a public demo of Blenheim, it took less than 4 hours to play once setup, as did Ramillies (now that's a big cavalry combat). Leuthen, Wagram and Borodino took a whole day, but the GNW games only took an hour or so.
We have put on lots of demos with HFG over the past 10 years, from WSS to GNW, WAS, SYW, AWI, Napoleonics, Crimea, ACW and FPW. Most of the games are written up on the HFG group, with photos.
Overall I think the ACW is less exciting because of the lack of cavalry charges, although never say never, it can happen. Yes, I think the FPW and later needs some more work. But what other rules allow a player to command such large armies and play a game through in less than a day on an accessible sized table?
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Oct 16, 2018 15:22:31 GMT
...there are too many experts using napoleonic. For me gaming is more important. In 7YW you can play also smaller battles... Yes, I was thinking 7yw would be easier to do,especially as I would like to do a campaign.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 16, 2018 15:23:32 GMT
I actually like the way the ACW games played. Some of the rules such as the extra Marches and hidden movement can be used to give a good approximation of Shiloh and Stones River...
You of course don't have Cavalry charges and such (3rd Winchester being an exception)...and artillery at 18 guns an element is weird...but otherwise they worked well.
FPW and past was a bit of a disappointment... The combat results there needed more work...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Oct 16, 2018 15:31:37 GMT
Vodnik and Strelnikov thanks for the response, Vodnik I like the Prussians!Im definitely going to play HFG, the only problem I have is deciding which period to go for. I initially thought ACW but wondered if the lack of cavalry would make for a slow static game? I then considered Napoleonic s because, well there is so much variety of troop types and they would be fun to paint. Then I thought Seven Years War, because why not?Now I just can't decide!🤔 I can also play DBA-HX,I have heard good things about the game. Cheers,Paul. Have you looked at the HFG Yahoo Group?
Thinking about the time to play a game, with 4 other players who only use HFG once or twice a year, we put on a public demo of Blenheim, it took less than 4 hours to play once setup, as did Ramillies (now that's a big cavalry combat). Leuthen, Wagram and Borodino took a whole day, but the GNW games only took an hour or so.
We have put on lots of demos with HFG over the past 10 years, from WSS to GNW, WAS, SYW, AWI, Napoleonics, Crimea, ACW and FPW. Most of the games are written up on the HFG group, with photos.
Overall I think the ACW is less exciting because of the lack of cavalry charges, although never say never, it can happen. Yes, I think the FPW and later needs some more work. But what other rules allow a player to command such large armies and play a game through in less than a day on an accessible sized table?
I wanted to play battles that allowed the player to refight actual historical/semihistorical battles.All of the rule sets I looked at would be divisional or corp level games.So in effect one would only be fighting a minor action, so I totally agree with you.Plus, I have limited space and time to play an actual game so HFG should be just the ticket.It seems to have its fans which is good to know. Thanks for directing me towards the Yahoo group by the way. Cheers, Paul.
|
|
|
Post by hammurabi70 on Oct 16, 2018 18:31:53 GMT
vodnik Avatar Oct 16, 2018 8:16:22 GMT 1 vodnik said: ...i did start playing later period conflicts using DBA-HX.
Is that the Humberside variant?
hadrian Avatar Oct 16, 2018 9:59:41 GMT 1 hadrian said: But what other rules allow a player to command such large armies and play a game through in less than a day on an accessible sized table?
Well BBB would be a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Oct 17, 2018 4:39:32 GMT
vodnik Avatar Oct 16, 2018 8:16:22 GMT 1 vodnik said: ...i did start playing later period conflicts using DBA-HX. Is that the Humberside variant?hadrian Avatar Oct 16, 2018 9:59:41 GMT 1 hadrian said: But what other rules allow a player to command such large armies and play a game through in less than a day on an accessible sized table? Well BBB would be a possibility. HX-DBA I believe it is a derivative of that said variant, written by members of this community. Don't know much about BBB, have you had a go at it? Cheers, Paul.
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Oct 17, 2018 6:29:05 GMT
I actually like the way the ACW games played. Some of the rules such as the extra Marches and hidden movement can be used to give a good approximation of Shiloh and Stones River... You of course don't have Cavalry charges and such (3rd Winchester being an exception)...and artillery at 18 guns an element is weird...but otherwise they worked well. FPW and past was a bit of a disappointment... The combat results there needed more work... Joe Collins I am really interested in the ACW, I think it was the Ken Burns series that got me hooked.There is so much material on the subject out there, especially from the Civil War trust which describes every battle in detail with maps and everything.So it would be really easy to wargame the ACW with that in mind.Ah decisions decisions! Cheers, Paul.
|
|