Hi.
I know that it would be possible to use any size in the bases, but it would be possible to "advance" the recommended size?
Ii would be the first time that I have my armies ready when I get the rules...:)
Size Bases (in Maurice)?
(24 posts) (8 voices)-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
For 28mm figures I'm recommending a square base: 50mm or 2".
For smaller figures, you can either do squares or rectangles, such as the Lasalle bases (typically something like 40mm by 30mm).
What is NOT advised, however, is bases that are very wide, and shallow. For example, if you have single-rank figures on 2" X 1" bases... then I'll suggest doubling them up, two ranks deep.
(The reason this is important is that there are a lot of rules that depend upon being "within 1BW" of friend or foe, and weird things can happen if the unit footprints stretch out too much.)
Posted 6 months ago # -
Ok, 40 X 30 mm will be my election.
Thanks.Posted 6 months ago # -
Err - we had this discussion didn't we in the main Maurice thread? :-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
I was hoping i could do this in 28mm as a Colonial Wars skirmish game but now i'm not so sure.
What's the minimum numbers of figures i could use to have a meaningful game?
Thanks
James
Posted 6 months ago # -
Hi James - that was kinda covered in the other thread too - with Sam's responses about F&IW games... Figures isn't relevant it's bases (i.e. 4 per unit)... But units sound like they could be Companies, or even Platoons (and presumably there's some irregular option to cover North American Indians and other indigenous or tribal forces forces)... So in 28mm units might be on small 4 x 3cm square bases with 2 foot figs a base perhaps?
Posted 6 months ago # -
James, if you'll take a look at the info flyer on the Downloads page, you'll see that the number of figures isn't important, and the scale is flexible, so Yes, you can use it for things like F&IW.
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/10/Maurice-Flyer.pdf
Posted 6 months ago # -
Thanks Sam
I was looking at the 50mm/2" square recommended base size and trying to think how mult-basing would work for skirmish games - which is what i prefer to do at the moment.
I'll probably keep my options open by putting figures on 1p or 2p [UK coins] and then slotting them on appropiate sized "movement bases", which is what i've done for, cough, other systems
7YW doesn't really appeal to me but F&IW and AWI does.
I'll buy the new rules without a doubt and i suppose a full set of cards [wags finger as it smacks of dumbing down/blatant "essential extras"] [grin]
Thanks
James
Posted 6 months ago # -
I do not know much about the period in particular, would like to know how far goes the system in formations (columns and squares) My question is related to base sizes, as I definitelly base rectangles for the visual effect.
Posted 6 months ago # -
" I definitelly base rectangles for the visual effect."
For the smaller figures I do, too.
But I find that in 28m, the depth of a horse is at least 50mm nowadays, and an artillery piece easily twice that. So I just can't conceive of having enough money, time, and space, to do "true rectangular" bases in 28mm. They'd have to be enormous to get that same look.
I'm pretty happy with six 28mm INF on a base, and thus a 24-figure "unit." That same unit footprint for cavalry is 8 figures (two per base.)
Posted 6 months ago # -
Sam, what about artillery bases? Will they be similar to Lasalle?
I ask because we use 60x60mm artillery bases for 6mm figures in Might and Reason, and we'd want to use them in Maurice too. We use 60x30 bases for M&R for both Infantry and Cavalry.
Would these bases be too deep for Maurice? Will Maurice artillery be like Lasalle (ie several bases for a unit)?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Would these bases be too deep for Maurice? Will Maurice artillery be like Lasalle (ie several bases for a unit)?
That was already discussed in the other thread too... (I asked the same questions).
:-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
An artillery base should be 1BW wide, and... as deep as your models require. For my 28mm figures, that means that the gun bases are twice as deep as they are wide. For smaller figures, you have more options.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Cool, thanks Sam.
Posted 6 months ago # -
At our club we have decided upon 60 x 60 standard, Infantry in two ranks with officers and drummers in the rear, two or three cav figures each base representing a squadron, two for irreg and lights, three for heavies boot to boot so to speak, guns also fit on this base and are not cramped for room.
We also use this base size for might and reason as seen here in a Pangean Campaign game
http://thegrandduchyofskanderberg.blogspot.com/some pics will be up later this week of my First Russian 7YW Btn
http://lacewars.blogspot.com/How are light infantry/Skirmishers/ irregulars being depicted in the Maurice rules Sam?
cheers
MattPosted 6 months ago # -
An artillery base should be 1BW wide, and... as deep as your models require. For my 28mm figures, that means that the gun bases are twice as deep as they are wide. For smaller figures, you have more options.
For Lasalle I did this initially and have now rebased all My Medium Guns onto 1BW x 1BW bases (Heavy 12pdrs won't fit on 1BW deep though unfortunately) - This was because the movement rules inadvertently penalise you if your artillery base is deeper than 1BW (i.e. the depth of your Infantry bases).
Assuming Maurice has similar movement concepts and rates/logic to Lasalle then I'd expect the same issue to probably be present...
Curiously enough despite the smaller base and less figures per gun possible (and anomalies like not being able to put ramrod chaps at the front of base and such) I think they look much better - it looks more like a gun line (the deep bases effectively make artillery look 'wrong' by making the unit area too square and deep).
:-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
And about the light infantry?
I suppose that like in Lasalle and Might & Reason, all units have the same base.Posted 6 months ago # -
" This was because the movement rules inadvertently penalise you if your artillery base is deeper than 1BW (i.e. the depth of your Infantry bases)."
...and penalize you by giving you a longer flank, thus making you more exposed. But given the very large number of people who play with 28mm figures, there's really just no way around the fact that a 28mm cannon needs 3-4" of base depth.
"And about the light infantry?"
There are no "skirmish bases" in Maurice. The "irregular," "freikorps," "grenz" and various other wild and woolly critters are treated as separate four-base units. (Same base sizes and number, just very different behaviors.) That said, there is however an optional rule for little 1-base units of irregulars, to represent things like Indian war parties, or little bands of jägers in some freikorps behind the lines, etc.
Posted 6 months ago # -
" This was because the movement rules inadvertently penalise you if your artillery base is deeper than 1BW (i.e. the depth of your Infantry bases)."
...and penalize you by giving you a longer flank, thus making you more exposed. But given the very large number of people who play with 28mm figures, there's really just no way around the fact that a 28mm cannon needs 3-4" of base depth.
Yes. Although my original point Sam was of course if you make your artillery even 1mm more than 1BW deep your Infantry can never pass through it in line formation - which is by far and away a far bigger penalty!
As I mentioned above I have managed to rebase all my 28mm Perry's (Medium 6pdr-9pdr) Artillery (& Howitzers) onto 1BW deep bases (albeit with reduced crews of usually 3 figs), the big challenge will be my French Heavy (12pdr) Battery - which likely will need 2BW deep bases regardless... See Dominant Hill: The Black Brunswickers Baptism for game photos of some of my just completed 1BW deep based artillery (Brunswick & British).
As also mentioned I now think they look much better this way too - as it creates more of a thin gun-line look too...
:-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
"Although my original point Sam was of course if you make your artillery even 1mm more than 1BW deep your Infantry can never pass through it in line formation - which is by far and away a far bigger penalty!"
Huh?
I'm not sure I understand. Infantry has a 4BW movement allowance. It can pass through ART with no problem. Even in retrograde.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I'm not sure I understand. Infantry has a 4BW movement allowance. It can pass through ART with no problem. Even in retrograde.
Not in line it can't... Only 2BW move normally... ;-)
It also can't do so in Retrograde if in Attack Column - as it's move is only 2BW and the unit is 2BW deep so it will end up on top of the artillery unit...
If Artillery is 2BW deep stands then you need 3BW move to clear in line and a 4BW move to clear in Attack Column... So Infantry can never do so using a Retrograde move, or if in Line, and can only do so if in Attack Column AND moving forwards.
If Artillery is only 1BW deep stands then you can pass through in 3 of these 4 cases, and it's only Infantry in Line moving by Retrograde who can't...
BTW - In all cases I'm assuming the Infantry unit's front or rear edge is physically in contact with the front or rear edges of the Artillery unit's gun-line. If it's not it's even harder to pass through. And I've ignored March Columns for brevity... :-)
P.S. I am talking about Lasalle here, not Maurice, as per my original comment about artillery...
For Lasalle I did this initially and have now rebased all My Medium Guns onto 1BW x 1BW bases (Heavy 12pdrs won't fit on 1BW deep though unfortunately) - This was because the movement rules inadvertently penalise you if your artillery base is deeper than 1BW (i.e. the depth of your Infantry bases).
Assuming Maurice has similar movement concepts and rates/logic to Lasalle then I'd expect the same issue to probably be present...
Obviously having now played a game of Maurice and seen it first hand that isn't quite the case (as Infantry move 4BW in Line). But they still couldn't pass through in Retrograde as that's halved so you only have 2BW move, and a 2BW Arty unit + 1BW Infantry Line depth = 3BW... :-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
What did you think of your Maurice game?
cheers
Posted 6 months ago # -
Interesting... ;-) I hope to clarify my thoughts and post something on my blog next couple of days...
I did throw up some rough comments on TMP:
@vtsaogames said:
Maurice seems to be one unit is an infantry battallion/cavalry regiment though that may be me reading too much into it. You are highly unlikely to get your whole force moving in one turn – and then only if you have the right card and your army is divided in no more than two forces. No card play in Might & Reason. The combat system seesm to owe more to LaSalle than Might & Reason.
I responded:
Actually units are abstract – it's easiest to think of them as Infantry Battalions/Regiments and Cavalry Squadrons/Regiments but in fact they might each represent 8 battalions/regiments (e.g. 2 Brigades or so) of real troops in a scaled down game of Blenheim or such. As such some of the mechanics can see a bit unusual – I just had my first game and quite liked most aspects of it (certainly for WSS anyway) – although there are a couple of oddities that may take getting use to…
It is very much one of those games that will go through about 3 phases for each player – as their knowledge of the rule mechanics improves, then their perceived OTA develops, and then the true level of subtlety and ability to manage their army develops. But don't expect at any stage all aspects will match the conventional wargamer's view of the world. :-)
The ability to move your whole force is essentially impossible in a single turn (at least unless your whole army is all one type of troop, all in the same formation, and all units are close enough together) – so players need to get rid of any conceptions of being able to move and shoot everything each turn. It is comparable to games like Crossfire (where not a lot can happen in some parts of the battlefield for some time by the players choice) but without the semi-random effect that can sometimes occur in other systems (like some versions of Piquet for example).
And yes the combat system is similar to Lasalle, although the shooting is a bit more flexible (by base instead of unit) and the Close Combat is less critical about sequence (as you resolve combat scores for all units before determining outcomes for each in multi-unit combats)…
Sam has made an effort to try and create the ebb and flow feel of battles and incentive for players to not always be super-aggressive or such. I suspect over time there will develop a lot of subtlety involved in how and when cards are used and such, but how successful he has been will be yet to be seen.
Also due to the abstract nature of the game scale (units could just be Companies & Squadrons, or might be Infantry Battalions & Cavalry Regiments, or might yet be representing 6, 8, or more real units each) there will be some times in the game a mechanic or action will probably seem a bit 'odd' for the scale you have chosen to play at – but if you keep in mind the abstract scale, and also the slightly Old School/Charles Grant and Imagi-Nation type aspects, it seems to make sense. It likely won't please all the rivet-counters per se, but with the full flexibility the full version is going to have should give most people the ability to play enjoyable 18th Century games with fairly historical effects and troops… In fact I've already started musing over whether it might be backwards compatible 50 years or so with just a little modification to do ECW and similar (late renaissance conflicts) where the rise of the musket & decline of the pike first began…
Posted 6 months ago # -
I've now posted a link to a full first impressions in the following thread: Maurice – First Game Impressions.
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.