7/10/18
Over my vacation I had an idea on how to do miniatures for follow me boys that would make running urban combat games inexpensive to do and still be visually interesting. Architectural Models.
I could cut blocks of 1" boards into city blocks and glue on craft paper edges and court yards. No painting would be needed because the blocks would be abstract. I might add in other architectural features (domes, arches, second stories, etc.) and I might give them a coat of polyurethane. These could be placed on or glued to painted cloths to represent cities. These could be placed on bigger terrain cloths that include river strips of cloth, woods, roads and random kipple. Using some fancy hill stands would spruce it up even more. I could make pretty large cities without having to go the diorama route.
In addition to the cities I could make stamps and hand print stands on wooden counters in different colored ink. I could print the flip side to show a broken stand. I could varnish these stands to make them look professional and even put unit designations on the back side so you can tell units apart. Since wood tokens are really cheap I could make any armies I wanted pretty quickly. Heck! I could even print stands during games!
There are certainly games that have used architectural like buildings before. When paired with figures they don't always look good. Dioramas look great but not for printed counters. I think the combination would be interesting and I've never seen anyone do it before. This is good because when I start taking this game out to shows it gives it a distinct visual that brands the game. If FMB looks like every other game (and compares poorly because my terrain is not as good as other people's terrain) then the rules difference will be easy to ignore as well.
I'm beginning to think that "Follow Me Boys!" will produce a game very different from other wargames, that is still fun to play. It might be my third contribution to the hobby. Matrix Games and Ritter being the first two.
6/6/2018
When HG Wells played his first game of Little Wars a trope was established. Games were about knocking over little men. Units shot and casualties were removed. This continued in the miniatures games of the 1950's and 60's. It even showed up in early board games. Where combat result tables eliminated counters from the board. The idea remains the norm to this day.
But what if gaming had taken a different path? The idea of morale became normal in miniatures rules. So consideration of factors other than casualties was on people's minds. What if some time in the late 60's a rules writer decided to use miniatures to show units falling apart rather than just to mark casualties? It might have changed everything and made gaming very different.
"Follow Me Boys!" is a project dedicated to exploring how it might have been.
Miniatures, dice, toy terrain and lots of shooting remain the central part of the game but instead of shooting being about how many figures are knocked over it is about how many men run away. Figures are only destroyed when attackers are able to run down stragglers trying to flee the field.
So how does this work?
As forces approach one another they take morale checks for crossing critical distances (entering artillery range, rifle range, charge range) so units may begin to fall apart well before they reach the enemy. Stands of miniature are either formed or unformed. Formed stands point towards the enemy. They can advance and fight. Unformed stands have their tails to the enemy and can only run away (but often just mill around waiting to die). Of course as more stands flee from the formation the unit's morale becomes more precarious. But with luck even a shot up unit can make a stand and turn the tide of battle.
When units close they start shooting. Shooting drives more stands to run but it is the owning player who decides who goes so the brave lads at the front will be the last to go. It is the men in the rear who run first. Only when all the rear has fled does the front collapse. Hit units do get to try and save themselves from hits (like making saving throws in Dungeons and Dragons) but if any men run they take more morale checks which can make an otherwise sound unit lose more stands.
So there are lots of opportunities for units to fall apart so battlefields look like streams of panicked men strung out behind the front. Rather than spend too much time moving cowards routing movement is done quickly. The first stand to flee goes all the way back to the edge of the board. The next to run goes half way. Each router after that goes half way to the last router. Eventually a crowd builds up right behind the front. Men ready to be rallied to come back to the fight.
The result of this kind of fight is a game that plays like Stephen Crane's "Red Badge of Courage". Men run but they can come back and may be brave enough to win later.
Just to keep things confused, player have to decide if they will move their formed stands or unformed ones. So routers might end up out in the open far longer than they would ever like. And when they do move, the player rolls a handful of six sided dice and assigns the lowest dice to those closest to the enemy. The idea is that people far away have less in the way to slow them down, while those last to leave have the hardest time of it. They may pay dearly for their previous bravery.
The player then is confronted with managing their units morale state, How they deal with stragglers, when to rally and of course all the details of moving and fighting. It makes for a challenging, but not impossible, game. They have to really manage their units instead of view each one as John Wayne. So it has a little more depth than the average game and players need to think as much about how to pursue their foe as they do defeating them.
I will be interested to see how this works out. The game will require a lot of testing because it is doing something different. And doing something new is never popular. But I can't help myself. I'm addicted to innovation.