Homemade rules - Design Notes for "Rhythm of War Drums" Part I

I've been working on a set of rules for a while, which I started to called "Rhythm of War Drums". Of course, I have the rulebooks for both Lasalle from Sam Mustafa and Black Powder, but in a way, I felt they were too... abstract. They didn't have the element of confusion and fog of war I was seeking, and while Black Powder made leadership and command interesting, the gameplay felt very "Napoleonic Warhammer". Despite searching all over for a set of rules that had that 'element' I was looking for, I quickly realized that sometimes to get the ruleset you want to play, you have to create it yourself.

So this blog post is a little different, as its more me rambling about my design notes and what I have in mind for Rythme of War Drums, rather than showcasing my painting. Truth be told, I haven't painted anything this past week.

Anyhow!

Concept and Scale
- IGOYOUGO vs Alternate-Activation

The main "selling point" (if you can call it that), is that I plan on using the Alternate-Activation system of gameplay rather than the standad "IGOYOUGO" which I'm a bit bored of. I also dislike that system's ability to have infantry rush out of nowhere towards an opposing entrenched platoon over open ground, and proceed to destroy it in hand-to-hand melee. Even with the "overwatch" rules (which don't exist in Flames of War), I think we all know that in reality that sort of frontal assault would be cut down by a hail of pre-sighted MG and artillery fire.


Furthermore, using alternative activation of battlegroups (in this case, Brigades), means there's far less waiting around to actually play the game, rather than watching a stop motion 3-6 hour battle. Doing things more often means there's less waiting, but the battlefield will appear more fluid and alive.

-Command & Control
Secondly, I'm looking at using a command-management element. The specifics I've yet to iron it out, but something along the lines of either Black Powder or Warmaster. It always felt strange to me how in Lasalle (or any other wargame for that matter) units was automatically execute your orders with zero misunderstanding. What happened to confusion on the battlefield? That's one of the things I really enjoyed in Warmaster - "I really hope that order goes through so that General Gretchin over there will support my main assault...". That element of tension, uncertainty, and trying to coax things into your favor really appealed to me.

Even Warmachine's 'focus' points and focus point management system really made things interesting.

And so while I dont have the exact mechanics ironed out, the "focus points" management will appear in the guise of Aide-de-Camps. The Division or Corps general (ie, you) will have X number of Aide-de-Camps at your side, that can be assigned to certain tasks; ie assigned to subordinate generals to increase their capability in executing/carrying out orders, assigning them to individual battalions to increase their combat ability, or perhaps expend an Aide-de-Camps to "seize the initiative" and activate another brigade before the other player can, and thus assuring that the supporting force will not get intercepted as it marches to support your developing attack in the center.

I think additional options like that and using Aide-de-Camps as a form of resources to be assigned to individual units/generals should add an interesting potential to the game and create a more dynamic environment where the timely arrival of an Aide-de-Camps could actually increase the chance of the central assault of succeeding. Of course, said Aide-de-Camps that is valiantly leading the charge and inspiring the men might get mortally wounded in the following combat...  but such is the life of an officer full of dashing and panache.


-Basing and Scale
I've decided to align myself towards Lasalle-style basing, that is to say, "normal" size units (4 bases) and "large" size bases. Where I agree whole-heartedly with Sam Mustafa, is that infantry didn't conduct manuevers in companies, but by pelotons, and considering every army had a different doctrine, trying to model battalions in 6 bases, or 8 (depending on whether we're talking about 1805 French and 1812 French.... for example) seemed to not really add much to what I wanted to do.

The "force" sizes will definitely be Division size, or perhaps a small corps, as the base "group" that can be activated will be Brigades.



- Simultaneous Fire; 'Firefights'
One of the issues of alternate activations, like Epic: Armageddon, is that a unit that decides to open fire, has the first fire advantage. This is something I would like to avoid. I had considered the idea that when a unit opens fire, the target will take part in return fire to make firefights "simultaneous", but it dawned on me that if multiple targets were firing at a single target, the target fighting multiple units would have the support of a machine gun company if its able to shoot back at the 5 attacking units.

Instead, I've devised a system I've dubbed 'Firefights'. In the system is that firefights will carry on over 2 activations - the unit that initiated the firefight, and the unit that has recieved it. I.E. Player A activates a brigade and decides one of his battalions will form up in line, and engage an opposing battalion. The first half  of the firefight ensues, and both players simultaneously roll for hits and damage. Player A moves his other battalions, and his activation ends. Player B activates his brigade, which happens to include the battalion that just fought the first half of the firefight with Player A. The second half of the firefight ensues, and both Player A and player B roll for hits and damage, and the firefight is concluded. At this point, Player B can decide to move his unit if able. Alternatively, he may choose to not engage in the firefight and withdraw, fearing an assault forming, and thus instead of rolling for hits and damage, would "Disengage under fire" - with Player A rolling for hits as per normal in a firefight as Player B moves away.

Units would ever be able to fire in a single firefight, so in a multiple unit firefight, the defending unit may only be able to fire back at one of the firefights.

This system in my opinion would allow for a true exchange of musketry between units without having units being sniped by the typical "I shoot you, and then charge, wiping you out before you even moved" stage.



That's it for now, as I go off to consider whether generals should have command rolls or not to issue orders....