Further to my earlier blog posts (here and here), I have been thinking about the tabletop battlefield I might use for my hybrid rules.
In the DOMINION rules, the tabletop looks like this:
In the FAST-PLAY 3 x 3 PORTABLE WARGAME the tabletop looks like this:
I have been looking at two possible hybrid tabletop layouts, both of which combine aspects of the above. The first is a slight reworking of the FP3x3PW …
… and the second adds a further rank of squares to create a tabletop that has a 3 x 4 grid plus reserve areas.
I hope to experiment with both tabletop layouts over the coming weeks in the hope that a preferred layout emerges.
.jpg)
Interesting looking board Bob. Presumably movement is restricted to Rear to Forward in a unit's corresponding sector (L, C or R), or from Reserve to Rear (any sector)?
ReplyDeleteMaudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteI was envisaging unit movement up (and down) each line of sectors (e.g. staying in the left sector) and not across from one line of sectors to another (i.e. a unit cannot move from the left to the centre sector).
However, I may change this if I think that it will improve game play.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteI'll be interested in seeing how that pans out. I'll be honest with you and state that I haven't really cottoned to the 'Dominion of..." concept, probably with an uneasy feeling that (a) I'll be distracted from other projects (that's what happened with my Roman Civil War!), and (b) the action would become rather stereotyped.
I have to admit, though, that the presentations by Mark Cordone and others do look very attractive - very nearly tempting!
The extra 'depth of field' with the 4x3 concept might offer more variety and tactical scope as well.
Meanwhile, a fleet action is developing in 'La Manche' - what the irreverent Ruberians call 'the Trouser Leg' - as the Azurian Navy tries to break past 1st Battle Squadron, covering an invasion fleet. So far, the outnumbered 1st Battle Squadron is giving a good account of itself, but they are starting to hang out for the 2nd to come in from the north.
Just where IS Admiral Jellibene and his powerful battleships?!
Time is running out, taking 1st Battle Squadron's stamina with it...
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI am impressed by the subtlety of the gameplay in the ‘Dominion of …’ rules … and the fact that you can set up a campaign that you can play to a conclusion in an afternoon or evening. You can also have lots of fun writing up the battle reports to create a campaign narrative.
I am hoping that enlarging the battlefield will enable players to pull units back without it penalising them if they do so, thus adding the opportunity for more tactical choices for the players.
It sounds as if the naval battle is going to be a classic ‘hold until relieved’ action, and I look forward to reading you battle report.
All he best,
Bob
Bob -
DeleteBattle reports - yes. I'm building a little bit of a backlog there, I have to admit...
The campaign thing is of course a consideration for the 3x3 and Dominion of concepts. I have played a few now, and the periods in which of played them (Roman and Byzantine, 'Roman' naval) seem well suited to them.
I seem to recall that the Caesarian fleet had to protect a fleet of transport ships against superior numbers of Pompeian. The 3x4 system would have been very suitable there, methinks.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteBetter to have a backlog because you are managing to fight wargames … unlike me!
As I got older, campaigns began to be my preferred wargaming option as they gave each battle context … and therefore - in my opinion - greater fun.
I have yet to try the 3 x 4 grid, but I think that it has the potential to be a significant development in the whole portable grand concept.
All the best,
Bob
I'm interested in the possibilities of the 3x4 layout in particular. Are we going to see some play test battles with the different layouts?
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteI hope to stage some play-tests in the near future … once I’ve overcome my current state of ennui.
All the best,
Bob
IMHO, Dominion games sacrifice portrayal of the battlefield terrain and armies' deployments and use very stylised or abstracted combats in order to achieve quick results from a simple, playable game. It does have subtleties in initial deployment to achieve advantageous match ups and selection of which sectors to resolve first. But these are not necessarily good representations of the sorts of decisions historical generals had to make.
ReplyDeleteI can't help wondering whether such tinkering with the Dominion system will eventually lead one back to Portable Wargames on a larger grid of many more squares, which will allow the battlefield terrain to be better portrayed...
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI think that your summary on the ‘Dominion of …’ system is very insightful … and spot on!
I suspect that my experimental play-tests may well lead to something that is more FP3x3PW than not. But like most rule writers, I like to tinker with what I am likely to use for my own wargames.
All the best,
Bob
Reminds me of Napoleon in Europe boardgame when using the standard rules for major battles. Except you don't use a retreat area.
ReplyDeleteSpearhead,
DeleteI never owned a copy of NAPOLEON IN EUROPE but I did own a copy of their ANERICAN CIVIL WAR game, which also included a ‘battle board’.
All the best,
Bob
Bob - you and I are thinking along similar lines, BUT, you are looking at the battlefield itself, whilst I am looking beyond it... More to follow when I have written my notes up!
ReplyDeleteIan Dury,
DeleteI look forward to reading your thoughts. Mine are still very much in the early stages of development.
All the best,
Bob
Interesting stuff, Bob. Dominion and PW have plenty of mutually adaptable mechanisms…it’s great when something like this fires up the imagination and gets the cogs turning 👍. Looking forward to reading where you go from here.
ReplyDeleteMartin S.,
DeleteCheers! I certainly think that both systems can ‘borrow’ from each other … and that is what I am hoping to do.
All the best,
Bob