Thursday, 31 May 2012

Decisions, decisions, decisions!

I have begun to make some progress with designing my 'new' wargames rules. The working title that I am using for all the related documents and folders is MEMOIR OF BATTLE 2 (MOB2) ... but whether I will want to keep that title in the long rule is something that I will leave until later.

So far I have sketched out a combat mechanism for both Artillery and non-Artillery Combat, with the latter doubling up for Close Combat (i.e. fighting between Units in adjacent abutting grid areas). In the case of Artillery Combat, this will be taken 'as is' from my MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules, although I do intend to include a rule that allows an Artillery Unit to 'hold fire' so that it can fire later in the turn sequence in support of another Unit.

Non-Artillery Combat will still use the special D6 dice with symbols rather than numbers on the faces, but the number of dice thrown by each type of Unit will be determined by its strength and possibly its tactical formation, and not the range. This is a significant change to the existing mechanism that I used in my MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules, but it makes it easier to accommodate differences in Unit quality and to reflect a Unit's reduced fighting ability as it begins to suffer casualties. I am also including a proviso that non-Artillery Units that move and fire in the same turn will fire with less effect.

I have also decided to keep the existing move distances from my original MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules, but I will remove the difference between Native and non-Native troops. This was only really applicable to a few colonial Native armies and could easily be included in an appendix of optional extra rules.

My current design 'block' concerns the activation of Units during the turn sequence. In my MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules I used an IGOUGO mechanism, but this does not provide sufficient uncertainty in both solo and face-to-face wargames. In the end my choice has come down to two alternatives:
Because of the nature of my overall design, it is possible to 'design' many of the mechanisms I intend to use in my 'new' rules as separate self-contained subroutines. The same is true of the Unit activation mechanism I will eventually choose. In fact I could choose one mechanism but still 'offer' the other as an alternative within the appendix of optional extra rules.

I am making progress ... but the progress is still very much rushing slowly!


  1. Lobbying on behalf of native spearmen everywhere, what about a separate troop type for native or tribal spear units? They will already need a separate combat ability, close combat only, and possibly different terrain rules as well.

  2. Ross Mac,

    Point taken, but for the moment I am leaving Native troops out of the design.

    I will no doubt add them at a later date (just as I did with MEMOIR OF BATTLE) but first I want to get the new rules to work for conventional late 19th/early 20th century armies.

    All the best,


  3. "first I want to get the new rules to work for conventional late 19th/early 20th century armies."

    A good plan; start with one particular theatre or style or warfare, then add new bits as required.

  4. Kaptain Kobold,

    I have always found that it is better to start with something simple (and flexible), and then add to it, rather than start with something complex, and then try to simplify it.

    All the best,



Thank you for leaving a comment. Please note that any comments that are spam or contain phishing messages or that come from Google Accounts that are 'Unknown' will be deleted.