Can you give me an email adress to send it all again? Mine is
erwinmk@...


--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Jim B." <manfred@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Erwin,
>
> I remember you saying you were going to work on that, but I don't
> recall getting it. I checked my e-mails and couldn't find it.  Did
it
> go to the main WTJ webmaster address?  Unfortunately I don't have
any
> of my WWI guys with me right now, so I can't do much WWI
testplaying at
> the moment. I'll definitely take a look at the text though.
>
> Jim
>
>
> --- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Erwin Muilwijk" <erwinmk@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Jim, have you had a chance to look at my mail of some time ago?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Erwin Muilwijk" <erwinmk@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jim, I have rewritten the 1916-rules in part, after having
asked
> > so
> > > many questions over the years where things might be explained
> > > differently from what the text tells. Hope you will read the
> > > ammendments I sent you through the mail, as these do not alter
the
> > > existing version in any way, but does clarify certain matters,
> > > resulting in not having discussions anymore between players.
> > >
> >
>

Anyone done any work on scenarios from the German East African
campaign for "1916"?  It's a wild, interesting and little known
theatre, and seems like it would be fun.  Just wondering if anyone is
working on or has anything for it...

in the revue strategy and tactics n 135 of summer of 1990 it is a game
on east african campaign 1914-18
ciao peppe



--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <tantalus_unbound@...> wrote:
>
> Anyone done any work on scenarios from the German East African
> campaign for "1916"?  It's a wild, interesting and little known
> theatre, and seems like it would be fun.  Just wondering if anyone is
> working on or has anything for it...
>

I sent the rewritten rules for comment today to the email you gave me.

I got them Erwin, thanks!  I will check them out over the next few days.

Jim


--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Erwin Muilwijk" <erwinmk@...>
wrote:
>
> I sent the rewritten rules for comment today to the email you gave me.
>

I can recommend two books:

The Alpha Raid, by Alan Scholefield

And the delightfully light hearted,

Mimi and Toutou Go Forth, by Giles Foden
(which provides silhouettes of the vessels)

Ta,

Mike Barlow.


--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "giuffregiuseppe" <peppe@...> wrote:
>
> in the revue strategy and tactics n 135 of summer of 1990 it is a game
> on east african campaign 1914-18
> ciao peppe
>
>
>
> --- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <tantalus_unbound@> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone done any work on scenarios from the German East African
> > campaign for "1916"?  It's a wild, interesting and little known
> > theatre, and seems like it would be fun.  Just wondering if anyone is
> > working on or has anything for it...
> >
>

Hello there.

I found the website and thought i had best join the yahoo group.

I am mainly interested in 6mm napoleonics as my website will testify

clicky clicky <http://www.angelbarracks.co.uk/>

I will browse both sites and no doubt pop up every now and then





   [:D]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello there.

I found the website and thought i had best join the yahoo group.

I am mainly interested in 6mm napoleonics as my website will testify

clicky clicky <http://www.angelbarracks.co.uk/>

I will browse both sites and no doubt pop up every now and then





   [:D]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Has anyone used the Tsushima rules by DM to wargame the
Spanish-American War naval actions (or any others)? Thinking of using
WTJ ships to wargame various pre-dreadnought (RJW, SJW, SAW)? Thanks!

I should correct myself, they are written by Graham Short...

I remember reviewing Tsushima a while back - they were not to my liking. I
much preferred DM's Fire when Ready.



Here is the review I wrote back in 2002!



Phil



TSUSHIMA by Graham Short is the latest rule set to be published from A&A
Game Engineering.   Designed for fast play, the rules cover the
pre-dreadnought period between 1880 and 1906. They can be used for single
ship actions up to large fleet actions involving 20-30 ships per side for
games lasting 3-4 hours.  As confessed in the introduction to the rules
themselves, there is quite a lot of dice rolling 'for those who enjoy
rolling buckets full of them' and if that's not enough they will utilise
every dice you own from d4 to d20!



Acknowledging the poor accuracy of gunnery caused by the paucity of accurate
fire control during the period the rules are heavily weighted to give a
higher chance of hitting than the expected (one shot in fifty) of the
period, thereby providing a 'bloodier' game than reality.  The other
fundament premise on which the rules are build is that battleships were well
armoured and had good guns,  Smaller vessels being of similar balance could
hold their own against vessels of similar size but not against larger
vessels. This can lead to some very one sided battles with one medium
calibre round often enough to sink a destroyer.



The rules gunnery system uses range based damage levels with a simple to-hit
dice role.  The damage system splits damage into hull and weapons hits at
which point local armour is taken into account and with each successful
armour penetration rolling for critical hits.  Whilst this is simple to use
the damage rated and quantity of critical hits is indeed quite high. However
with such simple games mechanisms players will enjoy action packed games
without the detraction of extensive table checking or record keeping.



The rules do include a couple of neat touches.  The use of squadrons is
firmly supported and incentivised by strict penalties for non compliance.
Similarly movement sequence can be simultaneous if using written orders or
can be based on initiative at a squadron level factoring in national traits,
formation and leadership.



Included with the rules are the ubiquitous quick play sheets,  ship data
sheets covering the main fleets of the era, counter templates for the battle
of Tsushima and ship record sheets.  The provision of the data sheets allows
rapid population of the ship record sheets which makes for a fast-moving
game on the table, and also allows players to choose forces and compete
without extensive knowledge of the technical specifications of the various
vessels involved.



Overall, these rules can be regarded as a playable starting point for those
interested in a quick game with bloody results!















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is this a battle that can be either competitive or possibly win by the
Chinese? Does WTJ have most/all of the ships involved? Are there any
painting guides available for the Chinese and Japanese fleets? Thanks!

--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "le_coq_fou" <le_coq_fou@...>
wrote:
>
> Is this a battle that can be either competitive or possibly win by the
> Chinese? Does WTJ have most/all of the ships involved? Are there any
> painting guides available for the Chinese and Japanese fleets? Thanks!
>

I have worked up a scenario for this battle and the short answer is yes
the Chinese can win.  However, a victory for either side has proven to
be very dependant upon the tactic of concentrated fire.  To the point,
that I have had to make adjustments to the rules to reduce the
effectiveness of fire for more than four 'shooters'.

The Chinese battleships are tough even though there firepower is
limited.  The Japanese cruisers hit hard, but are 'pile up' the damage
very quickly.

WTJ does make all of the ships for the Yalu, although one of them - the
IJN Kongo - has been re-assigned to a disc of re-mastered models. So I
chose not to stock any more of the older Kongos during a recent
restocking (this was due to low yields on the Kongo mold cavity, not
because of any quality problems with the model itself).

There is a painting guide in Game Shop 1, including recommended colors
for the Japanese and Chinese ships.

Hope that helps.
Jim



--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "le_coq_fou" <le_coq_fou@...>
wrote:
>
> Is this a battle that can be either competitive or possibly win by the
> Chinese? Does WTJ have most/all of the ships involved? Are there any
> painting guides available for the Chinese and Japanese fleets? Thanks!
>

There was a lot of comment on the assault table but I have seen (or
remember) little on the artillery tables.  I am not sure that the beta
tables are an improvement in enjoyment - my guns always seem to suffer
from damp powder or short-sighted gunners.  What do you lads (and
lasses) think?  Are you using the beta tables?

David

--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "stickybombs"
<davidoliver2@...> wrote:
>
> There was a lot of comment on the assault table but I have seen
(or
> remember) little on the artillery tables.  I am not sure that the
beta
> tables are an improvement in enjoyment - my guns always seem to
suffer
> from damp powder or short-sighted gunners.  What do you lads (and
> lasses) think?  Are you using the beta tables?
>
> David
>

David,
I've encountered much the same experience as you with the beta
artillery tables.  With the beta tables, die roll modifiers affect
BOTH kills and morale hits.  Instead of a more linear reduction in
effectiveness, the modifier to each DR tends to create step-drops in
effectiveness.  I have more ineffective artillery results
which have prompted me to pool more batteries (when practical) and
utilize saved fire more frequently (again, when practical).

I've considered applying the DR modifier to only one die but haven't
tried it yet.

Nice to see some Republique discussion after a long hiatus.

Jon

I'll get this taken care of, as I've heard this elsewhere. Things
like this are why I posted the "very experimental" warning, so I do
appreciate you guys helping out with test play time. As you may or
may not have noted from earlier postings of mine, my Napoleonics were
in storage for quite a while and I was not really able to do much
test playing. And of course WTJ Naval has been quite a resource hog,
especially for the beginning and middle of its development. I felt it
was better to post Republique beta ideas for evaluation rather than
do nothing at all, etc.

Anyway, I still like the idea of the split artillery table, but if
it's totally incompatible with the available modifier curve I may
have to continue using the "old" one. No problem of course, but
always good to consider possible improvements. It's always possible I
may post some other alternative for evaluation, but as in the past
I'll give an indicator as to how much it has - or has not - been
tested before posting.

Jim


--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "stickybombs" <davidoliver2@...>
wrote:
>
> There was a lot of comment on the assault table but I have seen (or
> remember) little on the artillery tables.  I am not sure that the
beta
> tables are an improvement in enjoyment - my guns always seem to
suffer
> from damp powder or short-sighted gunners.  What do you lads (and
> lasses) think?  Are you using the beta tables?
>
> David
>

Hi Jim, did you so far have a good chance of reading through my
revised/clearer text on the 1916 rules?

Do you know colour schemes for russian ships after 1905 (bis 1910-
1914) ?

On May 7, 2007, at 2:57 AM, pzkarl wrote:

> Do you know colour schemes for russian ships after 1905 (bis 1910-
> 1914) ?
>


http://www.gwpda.org/naval/n0000000.htm

Check top 3 links under "communications"

I have posted a new type of artillery table which keeps the split
base/morale hit idea while giving a more robust "fire profile" for the
batteries themselves. It should also give results which, while more
varied than the original R1 combat chart, will not allow gross
variability. It *is* very different from what you've seen before.

Users of this table may notice more of a tendency for targeted troops
to suffer some level of morale hits "no matter what" when put severely
into harms way, even if they don't suffer base hits. This will mostly
be the case only when troops face really severe artillery
concentrations, which I don't think is unreasonable (yet).

This was tested out in three small games over the weekend so it has
been reasonably well calibrated. It is however, still considered for
evaluation only pending more work. I'll be working on this some more
during the week, any changes will be advertised by the date code listed
at the bottom of the chart (1050707 = rule set #1, month, day, year).

To be continued...  :)
Jim

Oh, and just as my gunners found their glasses and some dry power.  I
must have rolled more 5s and 6s last Friday for my artillery than in
any other game.  In one turn, three rolls at under 20 produced two
kills and two morale hits and the same guns didn't fail to get hits for
three turns.

Only trouble was my troops didn't take the glasses off when it came to
close combat.  Two double ones when the opponent rolled 11 and 12
pretty much finished off all my cavalry and all went pear shaped when
the enemy cavalry turned my flank.

We'll let you know how we get on with the new table.

David

Yes I did Erwin, and I would like to thank you for doing this, it's an
excellent text update. I plan to convert it into HTML so it can be
invcorporated into the existing 1916 pages.

BTW, I intend to reformat the 1916 rule text in the same manner as
other recent updates, namely to place everything in one file to
facilitate better printing.

Jim



--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Erwin Muilwijk" <erwinmk@...>
wrote:
> Hi Jim, did you so far have a good chance of reading through my
> revised/clearer text on the 1916 rules?

Jim,
I like the new artillery table.  I think will address my concerns
regarding modifiers affecting both hits and morale.  I'll be trying
this in my next game.
Thanks,
Jon


--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Jim B." <manfred@...> wrote:
>
> I have posted a new type of artillery table which keeps the split
> base/morale hit idea while giving a more robust "fire profile" for
the
> batteries themselves. It should also give results which, while more
> varied than the original R1 combat chart, will not allow gross
> variability. It *is* very different from what you've seen before.
>
> Users of this table may notice more of a tendency for targeted
troops
> to suffer some level of morale hits "no matter what" when put
severely
> into harms way, even if they don't suffer base hits. This will
mostly
> be the case only when troops face really severe artillery
> concentrations, which I don't think is unreasonable (yet).
>
> This was tested out in three small games over the weekend so it has
> been reasonably well calibrated. It is however, still considered
for
> evaluation only pending more work. I'll be working on this some
more
> during the week, any changes will be advertised by the date code
listed
> at the bottom of the chart (1050707 = rule set #1, month, day,
year).
>
> To be continued...  :)
> Jim
>

David O.,

I noticed some differences between the OOB for Borodino you sent me a
few years ago and the OOB posted in the Files section last year. I
was wondering if you've had a chance to look at the other list?  I'm
curious, since the version of your list that I posted on-line has
cavalry in different formations than the other list. Then again, I
might have accidentally moved something when converting it!

While I'm working on Republique, I'll try to get the Borodino OOB
nailed down a bit better. One thing I'll definitely do is eliminate
one-base units as much as possible, even if I have to merge numerous
brigades to get three or four base "divisions" like I've done with
other OOBs.

While we are talking about cavalry, I recall that some players have
previously experimented with using cavaly units based on less than
550 men per base (thereby increasing the size of cavalry formations).
I'm curious if anyone actually did that. Too much of a ratio change
would eventually require a recalibration of the cavalry portion of
the rules. I'm curious if players are interested in that, or whether
they prefer the current "dense" mounting assumption. ???

Jim

Jim

I will reply in detail but the good wife has me doing some house work
prior to her brother and family decending on us for the weekend.

For gameplay, we do - as you suggested - brigade the single base
cavalry units into twos or threes.  Because of the size of the units,
cavalry corps become independent divisions.

At first glance, there does appear to be a shortage of guns at
divisional level on the Russian side - even allowing for those given at
Corps level - and the lists I have show the guns attached at divisional
level rather than Corps.

Personally, I am quite happy using cavalry bases/sizes as present.

David

The OOB's in the file section are mine.  They are based on the OOBs
for "Napoleons Battles" and the Nafzinger lists.  Without a lot more
work I would not claim them to be definitive and if other, better
Republique lists exist (where?) I would be happy to replace these.

However, in absence of others they did provide us with 2 very hard
fought and balanced games.

I also would keep the cavalry bases as they are at the moment. No need
to change, the dense basing assumption works well IMO.

Rob.

--- In wtj_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Jim B." <manfred@...> wrote:
>
> David O.,
>
> I noticed some differences between the OOB for Borodino you sent me a
> few years ago and the OOB posted in the Files section last year. I
> was wondering if you've had a chance to look at the other list?  I'm
> curious, since the version of your list that I posted on-line has
> cavalry in different formations than the other list. Then again, I
> might have accidentally moved something when converting it!
>
> While I'm working on Republique, I'll try to get the Borodino OOB
> nailed down a bit better. One thing I'll definitely do is eliminate
> one-base units as much as possible, even if I have to merge numerous
> brigades to get three or four base "divisions" like I've done with
> other OOBs.
>
> While we are talking about cavalry, I recall that some players have
> previously experimented with using cavaly units based on less than
> 550 men per base (thereby increasing the size of cavalry formations).
> I'm curious if anyone actually did that. Too much of a ratio change
> would eventually require a recalibration of the cavalry portion of
> the rules. I'm curious if players are interested in that, or whether
> they prefer the current "dense" mounting assumption. ???
>
> Jim
>

I am a newbie here, and this may be an elementary question.  The
quick reference charts give movement figures in inches for foot and
horse units.  However, for vehicles, the charts refer to the Vehicle
and Equipment lists in the rules.

      When I looked at the German Vehicle and Equipment list, I just
saw one set of values for movement.  Does this set correspond to the
Large Scale, Medium Scale, or Small Scale?
       I would appreciate any guidance on this point.  Thanks.

hhrgamer

Hello awhile back i asked a question about other Russian Warships and
Aux vessels that you've not done yet,and when might they be coming
out.

SInce i've asked this question you have come out with a few new
Russian ships,including the Cruiser Varyag and 2 Aux vessels Ural and
Orel.

But there's some ships which aren't out yet and here's some of them-

   Boyarin-Russian Protected Cruiser
   Riona-Russian Aux Cruiser
   Kuban-Russian Aux Cruiser
   Terek-Russian Aux Cruiser
   Anadyr-Russian Transport
   Irtysh-Russian Transport
   Korea-Russian Transport
   Kamchatka-Russian Transport
   Rousse-Russian Tugboat
   Svir-Russian Tugboat
   Kostroma-Russian Hospital Ship

I know i've missed some but these are the ones i'm looking to add to
my Russian Collection.

Thanks
Michael

Hi!
I have only been a cassual player of the Quickfire rule, so I would not
say that I know the rules very well. I also know that the v1.0 is a
Beta version.

Anyway, here are two questions that I have about the rules:

1. I can't find any note that there is any difference in the range
between Heavy and light artillery. The only impact of the two range
brackets is regarding blast hits... right?

2. what if two ships collide... any damage?

Best regrards

/Lars R