Some very good news to start the New Year ... my old friend and fellow blogger Trebian (AKA Graham Evans) has just published his latest set of rules, IT'S GETTING A BIT CHILE.
The rules have been specifically designed so that players can re-fight battles from the War of the Pacific* (1879 to 1884), but having read them in draft form, I think that they are easily modifiable for other conflicts that took place during the same period.
The rules are written to be used on a square gridded surface, although they can be used without the grid is players so wish, and the rules contain:
* The conflict is also known as the Saltpeter War, the Ten Cents War, the Second Pacific War, and Tacna-Arica dispute. It is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the Guano War, but this was a separate conflict between Spain and the relatively newly independent countries of Peru, Chile, Ecuador, and Bolivia over control of the Chincha Islands.
The rules have been specifically designed so that players can re-fight battles from the War of the Pacific* (1879 to 1884), but having read them in draft form, I think that they are easily modifiable for other conflicts that took place during the same period.
The rules are written to be used on a square gridded surface, although they can be used without the grid is players so wish, and the rules contain:
- An historical background to the war
- A figure painting guide
- A list of suitable figure suppliers
- An extensive bibliography
- Relevant ORBATs
* The conflict is also known as the Saltpeter War, the Ten Cents War, the Second Pacific War, and Tacna-Arica dispute. It is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the Guano War, but this was a separate conflict between Spain and the relatively newly independent countries of Peru, Chile, Ecuador, and Bolivia over control of the Chincha Islands.
Thanks for the publicity Bob. Fingers crossed for this set, which makes the previous ones look positively mainstream.
ReplyDeleteTrebian,
DeleteIt was my pleasure to mention your new book on my blog, and I am looking forward to reading it when my copy arrives next week.
All the best,
Bob
I think Bloody Big Battles covers this conflict, or it might be the earlier one. Either way, great to see this conflict getting some publicity.
ReplyDeleteSteve J.,
DeleteIt’s a very interesting little war, and makes a pleasant change from the American Civil War, the Seven Weeks War, and the Franco-Prussian War.
All the best,
Bob
There are claims by users that BBB covers the war, although that it isn't included in the writers blurb. Black Powder users would probably claim the same thing. And DBA/FOG covered the period for my previous set, which was Sumerians (To Ur is Human). My belief is that generic rules don't do a great job on the more "obscure" conflicts, as they assume that armies in Europe, for example, fight the same ways as in the US or in South America. I'm firmly of the belief that this isn't the case. Most generic rules start with one period and bolt bits on. BP was quite clearly written for Napoleonics initially, so everything you play with them is seen through that lens as the system is squeezed to make it all fit. Most ancients are written from Roman/Greek/Macedonian perspective and then expanded out. So I'm flying the flag for rules specifically written for a period in order to fight that, rather than, for example, another ACW battle just in funny uniforms.
DeleteTrebian,
DeleteYou make a well argued case for period-specific rules, especially for wars where the situation was pretty well unique. That said, as someone who tends to use and write generic rules, I’d probably argue the opposite case is just as valid. Mind you, once I’ve read your latest book, I may well change my mind.
All the best,
Bob
Generic rules, like your Redcoats in the Sudan, Chaco Wars, SCW and WW2 Russian Front. Do you mean those?
DeleteTrebian,
DeleteOuch! Touché!
All the best,
Bob