Peter Pig have just started a new range of 15mm figures for AWI.
There are currently ony a few packs, the range is aimed at completion in 2010.
Although specifically AWI, so most figures won't be correct for SYW, most PP
ranges include special/marker figures eg casualties that might be handy as
disorder markers etc.

Just thought I'd let you know in case you hadn't seen them.

Thanks for posting Craig: enjoyed those pics very much. Were those Games
Workshop battle mats you playing on? How do you find them?

Cheers, Keith.

--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "craigdreghorn" <craigdreghorn@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> Just uploaded a load of pics from a large game I put on at our club(Maidstone
wargames society) recently. The game was fought on a 10 x 4 board and lasted all
day (10am - 5pm) and sadly due to some major mistakes the allies lost!!
>
> Cheers Craig
>

Hi all

Just uploaded a load of pics from a large game I put on at our club(Maidstone
wargames society) recently. The game was fought on a 10 x 4 board and lasted all
day (10am - 5pm) and sadly due to some major mistakes the allies lost!!

Cheers Craig

Gentlemen,

     I use 28mm figures and currently my normal line unit is 24 figures
(6 stands of 4); and cavalry 12 figures (4 stands of 3).


              -- Jeff

========================
Re: Basing Question ???

Hi there

The only thing I would add to Keiths comments is
(1) if both opposing armies conform to your basing there really is little
difference and
(2) as you havent mentioned the number of stands in the unit, I tend to
use 4
stands of cavalry (8 figs) and 4 stands of infantry (16 figs). This usually
provides a finely balance cav vs infantry fight which can be touch and
go (does
the infantry stay in line and use its firepower, or form square?) - if
you had a
unit of infantry with say, twice the number of stands, up against a unit of
cavlary, the result would be much more of a foregone conclusion.

Happy gaming

Barry

Hi Jeff, welcome to the forum.

All good suggestions, people just love to adapt things. My objective was always
simplicity, and with that, you make tough choices about content. That said,
feedback I have had about the rules is a very wide spectrum - from "best ever"
to "not my cup of tea" - and that just goes to show what a strange and varied
bunch we are.

All the best

Barry

--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Hudelson <bluebear@...> wrote:
>
> Barry,
>
>     In reading the back posts (and no, I'm not up to the present yet) I
> noticed a question about Orders.  Apparently MR has three orders --
> Attack, Hold and Retreat -- my own rules have the following Orders
> available:
>
> Assault -- whole brigade attacks as fast as possible & charge when can
> Attack -- pretty much the same as MR
> Maneuver -- brigade must move toward and into a pre-plotted position
> Defend -- defend a defined area -- similar to MR's Hold
> Hold -- could be called "Wait", used for reserves
> Delay -- slowly give ground, delaying enemy (default order for
> Skirmishing Foot)
> Withdraw -- similar to your Retreat
> Retreat -- more precipitous than your Retreat
>
>     Now all of these have various limits and morale effects in my rules
> (which aren't important here) . . . but something like the Maneuver
> Order might solve the movement of troops question that I saw earlier.
>
>     Note that one of the reasons that my home rules have so many
> different orders is that my brigadiers always have a chance of
> misinterpreting their orders (depending upon their personality), so I
> need a few more options.
>
>
>              -- Jeff
>

Hi there

The only thing I would add to Keiths comments is
(1) if both opposing armies conform to your basing there really is little
difference and
(2) as you havent mentioned the number of stands in the unit, I tend to use 4
stands of cavalry (8 figs) and 4 stands of infantry (16 figs). This usually
provides a finely balance cav vs infantry fight which can be touch and go (does
the infantry stay in line and use its firepower, or form square?) - if you had a
unit of infantry with say, twice the number of stands, up against a unit of
cavlary, the result would be much more of a foregone conclusion.

Happy gaming

Barry



--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Flint" <tetrarch44@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> From the rules, your infantry are based exactly as recommended. The base sizes
for cavalry recommended by Barry are 50mm wide for 2 cavalry figures, whether
light, medium or heavy. So your hussars and dragoons also have the same frontage
per figure as in the rules. Your 'cavalry' are obviously a bit less, but I don't
see this as being a problem. The melee rules don't rely on lining up bases: the
whole unit on each side fights.
>
> All infantry and cavalry units have 3 to 6 stands, so for cavalry that's 6 to
12 figures in a unit @ 2 per stand. You can simply juggle your available bases
as required.
>
> Hope this helps, Keith Flint.
>
> P.S. you can find pics of a recent MR battle on my blog
>
> http://keefsblog.blogspot.com
>
>
> .--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Hudelson <bluebear@> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> >     My first post . . . and I don't have the rules . . . although I'm
> > looking into them.
> >
> >     How critical is the basing that I see pictured on the net?  More
> > specifically my infantry is based on proper stands (4 foot on 40mm
> > square bases); but my cavalry is based on a three-to-a-stand motif.
> > Cavalry on a 60mm base frontage; Dragoons on a 75mm base; and Hussars
> > also on a 75mm frontage, but a deeper base.
> >
> >     Will this work for Minden Rose?  Or would I face rebasing my mounted?
> >
> >
> >           -- Jeff
> >
>

Hi Jeff,

From the rules, your infantry are based exactly as recommended. The base sizes
for cavalry recommended by Barry are 50mm wide for 2 cavalry figures, whether
light, medium or heavy. So your hussars and dragoons also have the same frontage
per figure as in the rules. Your 'cavalry' are obviously a bit less, but I don't
see this as being a problem. The melee rules don't rely on lining up bases: the
whole unit on each side fights.

All infantry and cavalry units have 3 to 6 stands, so for cavalry that's 6 to 12
figures in a unit @ 2 per stand. You can simply juggle your available bases as
required.

Hope this helps, Keith Flint.

P.S. you can find pics of a recent MR battle on my blog

http://keefsblog.blogspot.com


.--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Hudelson <bluebear@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
>     My first post . . . and I don't have the rules . . . although I'm
> looking into them.
>
>     How critical is the basing that I see pictured on the net?  More
> specifically my infantry is based on proper stands (4 foot on 40mm
> square bases); but my cavalry is based on a three-to-a-stand motif.
> Cavalry on a 60mm base frontage; Dragoons on a 75mm base; and Hussars
> also on a 75mm frontage, but a deeper base.
>
>     Will this work for Minden Rose?  Or would I face rebasing my mounted?
>
>
>           -- Jeff
>

Barry,

     In reading the back posts (and no, I'm not up to the present yet) I
noticed a question about Orders.  Apparently MR has three orders --
Attack, Hold and Retreat -- my own rules have the following Orders
available:

Assault -- whole brigade attacks as fast as possible & charge when can
Attack -- pretty much the same as MR
Maneuver -- brigade must move toward and into a pre-plotted position
Defend -- defend a defined area -- similar to MR's Hold
Hold -- could be called "Wait", used for reserves
Delay -- slowly give ground, delaying enemy (default order for
Skirmishing Foot)
Withdraw -- similar to your Retreat
Retreat -- more precipitous than your Retreat

     Now all of these have various limits and morale effects in my rules
(which aren't important here) . . . but something like the Maneuver
Order might solve the movement of troops question that I saw earlier.

     Note that one of the reasons that my home rules have so many
different orders is that my brigadiers always have a chance of
misinterpreting their orders (depending upon their personality), so I
need a few more options.


              -- Jeff

Greetings,

     My first post . . . and I don't have the rules . . . although I'm
looking into them.

     How critical is the basing that I see pictured on the net?  More
specifically my infantry is based on proper stands (4 foot on 40mm
square bases); but my cavalry is based on a three-to-a-stand motif.
Cavalry on a 60mm base frontage; Dragoons on a 75mm base; and Hussars
also on a 75mm frontage, but a deeper base.

     Will this work for Minden Rose?  Or would I face rebasing my mounted?


           -- Jeff

Interesting point. Would you say that brigade commanders were better behaved (or
more disciplined) in Napoleonic times than the SYW? I suppose my reading
suggests that they were; but I'm certainly no expert.

Cheers, Keith.

--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "Jeremy Sutcliffe" <CllrJMTS@...> wrote:
>
> I think my usual playing partner and I are both committed to Shako for
Napoleonics where there is the idea of giving a brigade commander a distinct
"destination" requiring clear change of orders to advance beyond it.
>
> In a way what we decided in MR is not too different from the ability to deploy
a brigade in an advance position but with a requirement to be onhold orders.
>

I think my usual playing partner and I are both committed to Shako for
Napoleonics where there is the idea of giving a brigade commander a distinct
"destination" requiring clear change of orders to advance beyond it.

In a way what we decided in MR is not too different from the ability to deploy a
brigade in an advance position but with a requirement to be onhold orders.

Hi Jeremy.
Well done for trying to keep posts on this group going single handed! This is
definitely an interesting house rule. However, for myself, I will continue to
use the current rules. I find the idea of a brigade reaching their destination
then deciding to ignore common sense and keep going in the search for glory 
quite entertaining. I have found in my Blitzkrieg Commander gamers that a
certain lack of control tends to produce games with more surprises and unusual
events, which adds to their interest. Of course, this is not to everyone's
taste.

Best wishes, Keith Flint.

--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "Jeremy Sutcliffe" <CllrJMTS@...> wrote:
>
> As a "house rule" we adopted a convention for initial orders of an "advance to
a location and hold" by puttinga green marker over a yellow one. When the
intended destination has been reached the green marker is removed and the normal
change order routine applies.
>

As a "house rule" we adopted a convention for initial orders of an "advance to a
location and hold" by puttinga green marker over a yellow one. When the intended
destination has been reached the green marker is removed and the normal change
order routine applies.

I finally gave uptrying to find ways of representinmg my 3 stand notional units
as 4 stand units with marrkers and roster sheets and the like and just pl;ayed
them as they were.

It worked well. The only difference that we anticipated was that a routing unit
would evaporate a little bit quicker.

--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Lee" <emperorbaz@...> wrote:
>
>
> How do you base your 10mm? I bought a few packs of Pendraken AWI and was
really impressed by them, wouldnt mind giving it a try. Any photos?
>

I used 10mm for FPW. I used Principles of War base sizes (3 x (30x15) but
instead of the 3 or four 15mm I'd put on a base I put 7 (a rank of 4 and a rank
of 3). This was needed to ensure the interleafing of forward facing weapons.

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmts/1115750668/in/set-72157600042580295/

Both Chariot figures, from Magister Militum, and Pendraken are good but but
Pendraken has a clear edge in terms of quality and price.

The only problem is that I've not found a set of rules I find satisfactory.

I understand these are released tomorrow, and from the pictures I have seem look
every bit up to the excellent standard that Mark continues to churn out.

Now that got me thinking, a while back we thought about adding pike into the
Minden Rose set to cover earlier WSS, Marlburian and GNW periods.

I would welcom input from everyone as to how they think they could be
incorporated...

I have only ever played on game Turks vs Poles and that was using the George
Gush rule. My Poles routed the Turks in the third move and we never played
another game. Ended up on a Bring and Buy somewhere!


--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "fastolfrus" <fastolfrus@...> wrote:
>
> After watching "Baron Munchausen", the obvious thought that sprang to mind was
"why not dust off the 15mm Ottoman Turks and try them out against a SYW army".
> So the question is, has anyone else tried branching out, and if so what
variants have you added into the rules ?
>

How do you base your 10mm? I bought a few packs of Pendraken AWI and was really
impressed by them, wouldnt mind giving it a try. Any photos?

--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, NEVILLE BROWNLEE <nevillebrownlee@...> wrote:
>
> Go for the old 10mm-more space.  Looks good too.
>
> --- On Sat, 18/4/09, fastolfrus <fastolfrus@...> wrote:
>
> From: fastolfrus <fastolfrus@...>
> Subject: [MindenRose] Re: A 2000 point big game
> To: MindenRose@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, 18 April, 2009, 10:16 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We usually play on a 3 x 5 table and generally find it overcrowded with
anything above 1200 points
>
> --- In MindenRose@yahoogro ups.com, "Jeremy Sutcliffe" <CllrJMTS@ .> wrote:
> >
> > One of those things. I'd finished painting my British/Hanoverian 15mm army
and as it worked out at 2000 points worth I decided to play them against 2000
points worth of French. On my 6x4 table 1500 is probably the maximum size.
There's a picture folder of shots from the game.
> >
> > As I've said before (long ago) my SYW stuff is base in notional units of
three stands of 40x15, a legacy from Shako and POW. When I've played MR before
I've found a way of representing the 4th stand but this time it didn't seem as
satisfactory.
> >
> > Looking at the maths of it, I don't think that working on 3 stand units v 3
stand units, still at the 4DPS norm significantly changes the probabilities on
the number of HPS scored so next time we might play it without the sort of
tweaking I've been trying.
> >
> > Queries
> > Is it acceptable for a unit to split its fire between targets?
> > Is artillery a difficult target for musketry
> >
> > We also wondered whether there should be clearer startements of target
priority of artillery.
> >
>

We usually play on a 3 x 5 table and generally find it overcrowded with anything
above 1200 points

--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "Jeremy Sutcliffe" <CllrJMTS@...> wrote:
>
> One of those things. I'd finished painting my British/Hanoverian 15mm army and
as it worked out at 2000 points worth I decided to play them against 2000 points
worth of French. On my 6x4 table 1500 is probably the maximum size. There's a
picture folder of shots from the game.
>
> As I've said before (long ago) my SYW stuff is base in notional units of three
stands of 40x15, a legacy from Shako and POW. When I've played MR before I've
found a way of representing the 4th stand but this time it didn't seem as
satisfactory.
>
> Looking at the maths of it, I don't think that working on 3 stand units v 3
stand units, still at the 4DPS norm significantly changes the probabilities on
the number of HPS scored so next time we might play it without the sort of
tweaking I've been trying.
>
> Queries
> Is it acceptable for a unit to split its fire between targets?
> Is artillery a difficult target for musketry
>
> We also wondered whether there should be clearer startements of target
priority of artillery.
>

One of those things. I'd finished painting my British/Hanoverian 15mm army and
as it worked out at 2000 points worth I decided to play them against 2000 points
worth of French. On my 6x4 table 1500 is probably the maximum size. There's a
picture folder of shots from the game.

As I've said before (long ago) my SYW stuff is base in notional units of three
stands of 40x15, a legacy from Shako and POW. When I've played MR before I've
found a way of representing the 4th stand but this time it didn't seem as
satisfactory.

Looking at the maths of it, I don't think that working on 3 stand units v 3
stand units, still at the 4DPS norm significantly changes the probabilities on
the number of HPS scored so next time we might play it without the sort of
tweaking I've been trying.

Queries
Is it acceptable for a unit to split its fire between targets?
Is artillery a difficult target for musketry

We also wondered whether there should be clearer startements of target priority
of artillery.

After watching "Baron Munchausen", the obvious thought that sprang to mind was
"why not dust off the 15mm Ottoman Turks and try them out against a SYW army".
So the question is, has anyone else tried branching out, and if so what variants
have you added into the rules ?

Not yet, if I ever work out the secrets of digital photography it might be
possible.


--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Lee" <emperorbaz@...> wrote:
>
> I like the roundway figures, and if I did 15mm, they would be my first choice.
Any pictures?
>
> --- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "fastolfrus" <fastolfrus@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The Roundway Malburian casualties look splendid, 8 figures to a pack, 4
> > poses, two tricorne casualties laying down, one face down one face up,
> > 1 bareheaded sitting wounded, 1 grenadier (in mitre cap) sitting
> > wounded.
> >
> >
> > --- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "fastolfrus" <fastolfrus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To keep the table tidy and make it easy to see which units are
> > > disordered etc we decided to use casualty figures to designate a
> > > disordered unit.
> > > It seems to work quite well, simply place a casualty figure in front
> > of
> > > (or behind) the disordered unit, and remove it when they re-order
> > > themselves.
> > > Since we play in 15mm it isn't a huge outlay, although finding any
> > > suitable bodies was tricky. We have started with a pack of dead
> > pirates
> > > from Peter Pig. Not ideal (they aren't wearing uniforms, but they're
> > > dead so the sergeant can't tell them off) but we've spotted that
> > > Roundway do some Malburian casualties so we have two options now.
> > >
> >
>

Yes it happened in the last game, (three melees in the same turn) where the
defenders lost the melee and took morale test but in each case the morale tests
came out at less than 8 (lots of 1s and 2s in the morale rolls).


--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Lee" <emperorbaz@...> wrote:
>
> Good question. If the melee is drawn, it is inconclusive, and both sides fall
back. But if one side loses, but "passes" morale test (by which I think you mean
a score of 8 or less on 2D6), they fall back (see morale table 3), and if the
opponent can follow up, the melee continues next bound.
>
> Hope that helps
>
>
> --- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "fastolfrus" <fastolfrus@> wrote:
> >
> > Just a quick question, but if one side loses the melee and then pass
> > their morale test, do they fall back and leave the winners in situ or
> > do both sides fall back as if inconclusive ?
> >
>

I like the roundway figures, and if I did 15mm, they would be my first choice.
Any pictures?

--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "fastolfrus" <fastolfrus@...> wrote:
>
>
> The Roundway Malburian casualties look splendid, 8 figures to a pack, 4
> poses, two tricorne casualties laying down, one face down one face up,
> 1 bareheaded sitting wounded, 1 grenadier (in mitre cap) sitting
> wounded.
>
>
> --- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "fastolfrus" <fastolfrus@> wrote:
> >
> > To keep the table tidy and make it easy to see which units are
> > disordered etc we decided to use casualty figures to designate a
> > disordered unit.
> > It seems to work quite well, simply place a casualty figure in front
> of
> > (or behind) the disordered unit, and remove it when they re-order
> > themselves.
> > Since we play in 15mm it isn't a huge outlay, although finding any
> > suitable bodies was tricky. We have started with a pack of dead
> pirates
> > from Peter Pig. Not ideal (they aren't wearing uniforms, but they're
> > dead so the sergeant can't tell them off) but we've spotted that
> > Roundway do some Malburian casualties so we have two options now.
> >
>

Good question. If the melee is drawn, it is inconclusive, and both sides fall
back. But if one side loses, but "passes" morale test (by which I think you mean
a score of 8 or less on 2D6), they fall back (see morale table 3), and if the
opponent can follow up, the melee continues next bound.

Hope that helps


--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "fastolfrus" <fastolfrus@...> wrote:
>
> Just a quick question, but if one side loses the melee and then pass
> their morale test, do they fall back and leave the winners in situ or
> do both sides fall back as if inconclusive ?
>

The Roundway Malburian casualties look splendid, 8 figures to a pack, 4
poses, two tricorne casualties laying down, one face down one face up,
1 bareheaded sitting wounded, 1 grenadier (in mitre cap) sitting
wounded.


--- In MindenRose@yahoogroups.com, "fastolfrus" <fastolfrus@...> wrote:
>
> To keep the table tidy and make it easy to see which units are
> disordered etc we decided to use casualty figures to designate a
> disordered unit.
> It seems to work quite well, simply place a casualty figure in front
of
> (or behind) the disordered unit, and remove it when they re-order
> themselves.
> Since we play in 15mm it isn't a huge outlay, although finding any
> suitable bodies was tricky. We have started with a pack of dead
pirates
> from Peter Pig. Not ideal (they aren't wearing uniforms, but they're
> dead so the sergeant can't tell them off) but we've spotted that
> Roundway do some Malburian casualties so we have two options now.
>

Just a quick question, but if one side loses the melee and then pass
their morale test, do they fall back and leave the winners in situ or
do both sides fall back as if inconclusive ?