I was looking for something in my bookcase when I stumbled over these rules. Bought several years ago & read but not played, I wondered if the SYW players amongst us know them & have an opinion.
I re-read them & found them well-written & seemingly very knowledgeable of the period. They're a rather complex IMO but not unplayable by any means.
Trying to think back to why I originally decided not to use them and I think it's the command mechanism: written orders & a difficult mechanism to change them. Written orders have also persuaded my against 'Shako' & 'Tricorne' though I have gamed with the latter a few times.
donald
Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
I haven't seen them, Donald.
Interesting comment about written orders. Do you mean writing orders for every turn, or just at the start of the game?
Interesting comment about written orders. Do you mean writing orders for every turn, or just at the start of the game?
If "The System" is the answer, who asked such a bloody stupid question?
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
Obviously, just because *I* don't like written orders, it doesn't mean they aren't a good idea. Just my personal preference.
With DKK, the c-i-c writes orders for each brigade using a menu of key terms - move, hold, assault etc. To change them, you need to throw 6-8 (depending on nationality). The brigadier can change them on initiative but must throw 8-10 to do so. In other words, it's difficult. particularly if you're French. Add the optional command rating (eg a 'poltroon' gets a -1) & some games would be foregone conclusions before you start.
I do understand following orders is important but to have fairly common situations where a brigade marches past an opportunity or fails to deploy etc just seems annoying.
donald
With DKK, the c-i-c writes orders for each brigade using a menu of key terms - move, hold, assault etc. To change them, you need to throw 6-8 (depending on nationality). The brigadier can change them on initiative but must throw 8-10 to do so. In other words, it's difficult. particularly if you're French. Add the optional command rating (eg a 'poltroon' gets a -1) & some games would be foregone conclusions before you start.
I do understand following orders is important but to have fairly common situations where a brigade marches past an opportunity or fails to deploy etc just seems annoying.
donald
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
I haven't read or played the set, but it's an adaptation of Dave Brown's General de Brigade rules.
In Shako/Tricorn, 'written orders' merely consist of an arrow drawn on the map.
In Shako/Tricorn, 'written orders' merely consist of an arrow drawn on the map.
My wargames blog: http://www.jemimafawr.co.uk/
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
Certainly, I'm not challenging the rule set that's produced such outstanding games for you, Mark. The reason why there are so many rule sets for every period is that people have different preconceptions, aims & objectives & preferences. I have gamed Tricorne & may do so again but Black Powder (with its flaws) & my home grown set (with more flaws) currently are in favour.
You are correct about the GdB ancestry - Angus Kostam wrote Dave Brown helped with the writing of DKK. I think I feel about them the same as I do about that other Gd'B offshoot; General d'Armee. Wonderfully conceived & scholarly but with aspects that don't gel with me. BTW after quite a few games of Gd'A, I decided I didn't like the ADC order mechanism. It is too invasive of the game as a whole....again, me not the rules.
I sadly drive my pals a little mad with my love of different rule sets & trying them out. In the interests of harmony, I'd better stick to the 2 I mentioned at least for a while....though part of me would like to give DKK a whirl.
donald
You are correct about the GdB ancestry - Angus Kostam wrote Dave Brown helped with the writing of DKK. I think I feel about them the same as I do about that other Gd'B offshoot; General d'Armee. Wonderfully conceived & scholarly but with aspects that don't gel with me. BTW after quite a few games of Gd'A, I decided I didn't like the ADC order mechanism. It is too invasive of the game as a whole....again, me not the rules.
I sadly drive my pals a little mad with my love of different rule sets & trying them out. In the interests of harmony, I'd better stick to the 2 I mentioned at least for a while....though part of me would like to give DKK a whirl.
donald
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
I understand your preference (better since the explanation) and wasn't meaning to criticise, mate. Just curious, as I can take them or leave them (especially if they have to be written rather than use counters or similar). The DKK system you describe seems a little convoluted to me, especially for that period- where the "brigadier" was usually a Major-General. I can imagine it now- MAJGEN Aufbrausend, whispering menacingly to his ADC, "What do you mean that I need to throw an eight or better on the dice before I may change my orders, you cowering, brainless worm!?".ochoin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 2:53 am Obviously, just because *I* don't like written orders, it doesn't mean they aren't a good idea. Just my personal preference.
With DKK, the c-i-c writes orders for each brigade using a menu of key terms - move, hold, assault etc. To change them, you need to throw 6-8 (depending on nationality). The brigadier can change them on initiative but must throw 8-10 to do so. In other words, it's difficult. particularly if you're French. Add the optional command rating (eg a 'poltroon' gets a -1) & some games would be foregone conclusions before you start.
I do understand following orders is important but to have fairly common situations where a brigade marches past an opportunity or fails to deploy etc just seems annoying.
donald
If "The System" is the answer, who asked such a bloody stupid question?
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
I don't know if it's shameful or pragmatic to admit that I often prefer to let history be ignored in favour of a good game.
Poor leadership & a creaky system of command certainly existed. But if by using such historical precedents, you make it virtually impossible for a side (in this case, the French) to win a game, the French player will stop playing.
Case in point: the Celts. Historically, the almost always got smashed in set piece battles with the dastardly Romans. We were using the Field of Glory rules then. FoG(a) were a dull but accurate representation of ancient armies so the Romans were remarkably good. I am stubborn, so for many, many games I tried to beat Roman armies with my colourful but largely useless Celts & mostly failed. Unless you set up a game with outlandish favourable terrain, or skewed numbers to a ridiculous extent or shamelessly played with army lists ("how many elite armoured infantry can I have?"), the Celts lost.
I gave up. At some point, I'll try out a Celt: Roman game using 'Hail Caesar', a rule set I don't mind admitting isn't that historical, so the Celts should be in with a chance. So, as for Aufbrausend in your example (above), have him needing to throw a '3' to change orders. Bad luck can happen but shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.
donald
Poor leadership & a creaky system of command certainly existed. But if by using such historical precedents, you make it virtually impossible for a side (in this case, the French) to win a game, the French player will stop playing.
Case in point: the Celts. Historically, the almost always got smashed in set piece battles with the dastardly Romans. We were using the Field of Glory rules then. FoG(a) were a dull but accurate representation of ancient armies so the Romans were remarkably good. I am stubborn, so for many, many games I tried to beat Roman armies with my colourful but largely useless Celts & mostly failed. Unless you set up a game with outlandish favourable terrain, or skewed numbers to a ridiculous extent or shamelessly played with army lists ("how many elite armoured infantry can I have?"), the Celts lost.
I gave up. At some point, I'll try out a Celt: Roman game using 'Hail Caesar', a rule set I don't mind admitting isn't that historical, so the Celts should be in with a chance. So, as for Aufbrausend in your example (above), have him needing to throw a '3' to change orders. Bad luck can happen but shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.
donald
Last edited by ochoin on Fri Nov 29, 2024 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
BTW it has occurred to me that I could change the command mechanism of DKK & use the rules. EG a simple command activation system like in 'Black Powder'.
Maybe, if Dal ever ventures north for a game, I could do this. I confidently predict an explosion if I changed SYW rules - AGAIN! - with my pals.
donald
Maybe, if Dal ever ventures north for a game, I could do this. I confidently predict an explosion if I changed SYW rules - AGAIN! - with my pals.
donald
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
Interesting comments Donald, I know nothing about DKK but am a real fan of GdeA (both 1 & 2). I like the ADC order system because it brings the "inability to control" into a game. I enjoy the frustration that not being able to do what you want to get units to do into the game. That aspect does irritate the hell out of my gaming mate though so its not everyone's cup of tea!
Re: Die Kriegskunst: Wargaming the Seven Years War
"Interesting comments" probably is a polite way of saying "unhinged". 
I find the ADC-aspect of G'dA to be awfully time consuming, too. We've moved to 'Valour & Fortitude' because it does play quickly.
Again, I wouldn't rule out our never using the Gd'A rules as they are well written & one of our number in particular, likes them (& Pickett's Charge) a lot.
donald
I find the ADC-aspect of G'dA to be awfully time consuming, too. We've moved to 'Valour & Fortitude' because it does play quickly.
Again, I wouldn't rule out our never using the Gd'A rules as they are well written & one of our number in particular, likes them (& Pickett's Charge) a lot.
donald