A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

A section devoted to questions and answers for this period.
Post Reply
User avatar
18th Century Guy
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA U.S.A.
Contact:

A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by 18th Century Guy » Fri May 03, 2013 4:59 pm

I've got a question for everyone. Have you played Maurice and if so what do you think about how 'command' is handled in it?

Command seems to be 'fungible' or flexible if you like a real word. Instead of having defined command groups say like BLB or most any other rule set in Maurice at the beginning of each turn you decide which units will be a group that will be commanded and you then move them (you have to play the cards to do so but that's the general idea). So from turn to turn the size and number of units within the command group can change as long as you follow the rules for what constitutes a 'force'.

Do any of you see issues with this? Some rule sets have strict command structures and you cannot stray outside those command boundaries when you are attempting to get your forces to move. But in Maurice you can expand or contract those units in command to suit your needs. So in my limited brain power there is no need for brigade commanders in this set of rules, you just grab the units you need/want at the time you perform some action and then attempt to complete that action.

This does seem to be a novel approach to command control but does it go too far or does it reflect what really happened on an 18th century battlefield?

Any thoughts?
Greg
footslogger
Major
Major
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:14 pm

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by footslogger » Fri May 03, 2013 6:10 pm

I half like them.

A couple of cool things about them I think are
- that you have to focus on what you are going to do right now
- that you have to decide whether to use your cards to extend the command radius or to modify something you want to do
- that you have to decide whether to spend one of your cards to get your commander closer to where the action is

The downsides to me it seems are
- that games end up not looking much like battles of the period, you end up with one force of infantry and one force of cavalry
- that battles get resolved without most of an army ever doing anything
- artillery is mostly only useful in boosting the size of your armies morale

Neat system, interesting stuff, but not quite there
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by flick40 » Fri May 03, 2013 6:14 pm

I've played them once. (my father hung me on a hook once,.. once) I liked some aspects of developing your army and commanders. The roleplay if you will. Maurice is for a later period and maybe it's not as big of a deal. In the period BLB covers, especially the earlier time, men aren't going to move unless told to by their officer and less inclined if it's an officer they hardly know. (or feel is suspect)

As for the movement itself, eh, felt too DBA to me.

Thats my take

Joe
User avatar
Redmist1122
Major General
Major General
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:43 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by Redmist1122 » Sat May 04, 2013 1:04 am

Intrigue by the hype, I bought the special bundle pack and the group here tried it out the other night. Prior to that, another gamer and I played three smaller actions.

I will say the Maurice game is designed for two players. The cards are nice twist and the command deal doesn't bother me too much. Not sure about the Notables and they're only assigned to one unit. So as mentioned before, all command is direct from the CinC...As Joe said before, you end up with one force on force because in any flank action would cause you to spend multiple cards to activate anyone or force. So the whole army gets left out...literally.

The game is very simplistic in a sense only a few modifiers, and units are pretty much generic; regular infantry and cavalry, and irregular infantry and cavalry. Dragoons don't appear to function very smooth, as you have to drop them into as irregular cavalry and not sure if I saw anything about dismounting.

Now back to club game. We played a bigger game as a group, with two player per side. This gets a bit confusing, as each player is now in control of their own small army, but share one CinC. You have to get two packs of the cards, or you'll run short very quick as we found out.

So if your looking for fun-sy and non-historical game, then Maurice will fit the bill.

Bottom line, I'm still a BIG BLB player, and really enjoy the gaming system and experience. BLB is easily adaptable to any period from the GA through the GNW, and I'm sure beyond. BLB offers a wide variety of troop types to use without any game mechanics to hinder their play.
Greg P.
Tucson, AZ, USA
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by barr7430 » Sat May 04, 2013 7:05 pm

It is always a little risky to step into a discussion on game design especially if you are yourself a game designer. So, I will restrict my comments to what I know. I have never played Maurice so I cannot comment on the mechs mentioned. As far as the evolution of BLB is concerned I wanted to offer players something to mull over as we continue to broaden the period's appeal (and that has definitely happened).

BLB evolved from my experience of a very simple set of WSS rules created perhaps 30 years ago for WHC weekend games.. simple to pick up for the uninitiated and reasonably quick and bloody. I got hooked by playing with a group who already knew the rules very well. I played over 80 games with them and got to know the ups and downs(there are such in every system). As the rules were originally written for WSS and my interest was in the far more interesting earlier period :wink: BLB evolved from there. Some of the anomalies and what I perceived as clunky-ness was ironed out in BLB1 and some(all I hope) of BLB1's gaps and greyness disappeared with BLB2.
Ironically, the unit sizes I opted for with BLB are not characteristic of my style of show games ie.. the model to man ratio is too high and thus unit are generally smaller than my mental vision of wargaming. As a consequence, Clarence and I have been discussing/ pondering/debating but not disagreeing! on an evolved BLB that maintains everything we've achieved so far but allows an optional gaming world in which units are larger than the current 18/6 Foot/Horse. One of the chief drivers here is my fixation with smaller engagements in which far fewer units took part. Small games with small units although a great lead in with little/no risk are not my main motivator. I am therefore considering an optional section for BLB which users a much lower model to man ratio say 1:10 or 1:15. This will allow the fielding of small forces of larger size. Cavalry 'Troops' could even be represented in some cases but mainly I am thinking Foot units around 30-50 models strong and cavalry regiments(with sub units) of up to 30 models. A gun would represent 'a gun'.
Basing etc would be unaffected but I foresee even more period nuance possible. The whole thing is not a pipe dream but is pretty imminent. Clearly not for everyone but those interested in small actions.. Ireland, Jacobite Rebellions, Sedgemoor, Tangier, such as the delaying action at Walcourt before the main event etc.... this could be handy for you.
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Clibinarium
Major
Major
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:47 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by Clibinarium » Sat May 04, 2013 10:30 pm

That's interesting, I'm planning on using something like the current base sizes for 28mm figures, but putting three times the amount of 10mm figures on them, but otherwise changing nothing.
That's if I ever get round to painting any.
User avatar
Redmist1122
Major General
Major General
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:43 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by Redmist1122 » Sat May 04, 2013 11:14 pm

Barry,
Looking forward to the Tangiers module. Been collecting Arab type figures for the last month.
Greg P.
Tucson, AZ, USA
blindjack
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Faversham, Kent UK

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by blindjack » Sun May 05, 2013 7:11 pm

Dear All,
I've not played Maurice but I've done a fair amount of reading about it and downloaded the rules and cards as a taster. It seems good enough. But I wonder if the crux of the matter is that we seek different things from rules and from our games. Sometimes as individuals we may desire a change in what we experience as wargamers. I like the frustrations and choices of rules like BLB which deny me god-like attributes to move all my units. However, when the opportunity and mood arises , I am happy to play ancients with warhammer-style rules and to hell with whether it has less period feel or is too generic in its approach.... it's what fulfils a need/desire at that moment.

Isn't it great that if we see a set of rules that does not appeal to our gaming style, hobby rationale or historical perspective that we can ignore it and can choose something from a vast selection that "rocks our boat". For the record Maurice is not for me, but I am intrigued by one or two of the mechanics. I like Black Powder for SYW and possibly for FPW... it's generic and limited in period feel that's why I usually use other rules/systems. But on occasion it's great to have the possiblility to have a few mates round and know that in a couple of hours (or less) a game (or two) has been played. It's not really about the games design, it's about us.

Sorry, this sounds like a rant. It's not. Perhaps I could've just said: does it matter so long as it enables a couple of like minded people to push their little metal men around a table and have a good time?

Richard
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by barr7430 » Sun May 05, 2013 8:25 pm

not a rant at all. The choices available are what make the hobby so interesting. Polls and comparisons often seek to set up rivalry or competition between sets of rules, that is not necessary.
Over the years I have found some sets of very popular rules not for me..
Rapid Fire.. too loose
Warhammer Ancients... too gamey
General de Brigade... too complex

Yet others which friends have been indifferent to I have loved and example being GHQ MicroArmor The game which I thought was truly fantastic but seemed a little abstract to my gaming buddies. These days simple works best for me but some gaming situations are not simple. When you are playing at home with a few friends the tricky bits can invariably be walked through and solved, when you commit something to publication you need to try and out think the most gamey players and most convoluted situations
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
Friedrich August I.
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2182
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:23 am
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by Friedrich August I. » Mon May 06, 2013 4:07 am

barr7430 wrote:.....Over the years I have found some sets of very popular rules not for me..
Rapid Fire.. to loose
Warhammer Ancients... too gamey
General de Brigade... to complex

It is not my place to say anything to the ongoing discussion but I am intrigued by the name of the rules alone as they are of Maurice de Saxe, Marshal of France and son of August the Strong :D .
Funny enough - or weird :?: - the rules are covering 100 years of warfare but are titled after a single man who was in command for only 28 years(1720-1748) :!:

Valmy to Waterloo ...very much complex
Johnny Reb.....fantastic, but limited in number of units manageable :(
Shako (the first) .... good to some extend but to little depth

I am for my part a stubborn 'One-Rule-Player' who sticks with a choosen set and not differing to another. In my case I am in a for me rare situation to play after two sets now :roll:
„Macht Euch Euren Dregg alleene“

"Sort your filth out by yourself!" The King of Saxony Friedrich August III., at his abdication 1918, referred to the quarrels in the parliament and the squabbling within the provisional government.
EvilGinger
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:27 am
Location: Burton On Trent

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by EvilGinger » Mon May 06, 2013 3:56 pm

To be honest small units rather put me off as I cut my teeth on rules with a fixed 1:20 figure to man ratio which is why I decided to do BLB with 15mm figures based on 28mm sized bases in the first place before I rather fell in love with Warfare Miniatures, & started my 100 years earlier project for Sharpe practice.

My current idea for BLB is to pack as many 15mm figures as I can on a medium flames of war sized base using 3 to an infantry unit with a small base of pike as a pike present marker & 2 to a cavalry unit with gun & artillery park being on a large base. I am also going back to my pin board unit roster & giving each unit a random strength recorded by pushing a pin into a box on a unit roster. My thoughts would be 12+2D4 for a range of 13-20 for foot & 4+1d4 for horse.

:evil: Ginger
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by obriendavid » Mon May 06, 2013 5:55 pm

If anyone is at the Falkirk show on Saturday they can see the first of my big, 38 figure units or perhaps Barry can take a few snaps.
The figures are individually based for the skirmish rules but also slot into multiple warbases stands for using as large units.
Cheers
Dave
User avatar
j1mwallace
Major General
Major General
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Dumfries, Scotland

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by j1mwallace » Mon May 06, 2013 9:09 pm

Rules are very definitely personal choice. I've been a long time BLB player. Before BLB we played another set which had 24 man units. Switching to BLB it was too much of a pain to rebate to 18 man units so we moved to 12
3x stands of 4. However we count each stand as 6. No casualty removal until the battallion disintegrates. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a very good multiplayer set of rules , the other guys at the club like big games played using pike and Shotte .
Same with napoleonic a. It's either black powder or RTE depending on the mood at the time.
Ail Caesar for ancients and now bolt action for ww2. Do you see a trend here?
However for ACW none of our guys will go past fire and fury.
Recently we have played a lot of French Indian wars and used muskets and tomahawks
Really what I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as a perfect set of rules, only perfect for you.!
EvilGinger
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:27 am
Location: Burton On Trent

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by EvilGinger » Mon May 06, 2013 9:14 pm

Sadly I wont be at Falkirk even if I where not a shade tired form the great Spirit Games move its a bit far to come when you have to work at 4am in the morning & the boss is a git.


:evil: Ginger
Captain of Dragoons
Major General
Major General
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Trenton, Ontario, Canada

Re: A Gaming Discussion - rules like Maurice

Post by Captain of Dragoons » Tue May 28, 2013 12:08 am

Basing etc would be unaffected but I foresee even more period nuance possible. The whole thing is not a pipe dream but is pretty imminent. Clearly not for everyone but those interested in small actions.. Ireland, Jacobite Rebellions, Sedgemoor, Tangier, such as the delaying action at Walcourt before the main event etc.... this could be handy for you.
Very Interesting,

Being a fan of Charles Grant's 'Wargaming in History' I think that a Hybrid version of BLB could work well with big battalions and squadrons. Mr Grant would scale down the ratio of the ORBAT but refight a battle (Hastenbeck, Minden, etc) with big battalions of 48/60 figures and sqns around 12 figures.

By scaling down the ratio of the ORBATs he would refight say for example Dettington with ten battalions and a sightly higher number of squadrons a side.

Barry above mentions smaller actions like Tangiers and Sedgemoor but scaling down the ORBAT ratio I think you could fight larger battles or parts of larger battles, say the beginning of Steenkerque.

One of the strengths of BLB is its period flavour & character. I think bigger units would only add to it.

Looking forward to see what Barry & Clarence come up with.

cheers
Edward
Captain of Dragoons
Post Reply