Map size in Glory Hallelujah

Frustrating isn’t it! I believe they vary in size, one of the maps is easy to size as 6 feet across by 9 feet, others are clearly smaller. The best bet is to scale them relative to your brigade frontages. Obviously these will be different depending n whether you game with 28 mm or 15mm figures.

To be fair, the core rules don’t use figure scales and only have implied ground scales. Many of the supplements use this flexibility to change the size of standard units from battalions to companies etc. GH is one of the best supplements so don’t be put off. Anyway using your unit sizes and the brigade compositions in the scenario will enable you to scale the battlefield.

Good Luck

The issue is that most of warlord games are what I call ‘frame work’ systems not ‘RAW’ systems.

What I mean by that is they are a frame work for clubs and groups to build upon/tweek to fit existing models or terrain or experience from other systems compared to say GW or Privateer Press’ RAW systems which tell you everything from unit base size to terrain measurements to dimensions of the table to use.

So yes coming in from the cold as @Jim is doing means there’s no base line to start with.  When we (at the chelmsford bunker) started BP Napoleonics about 6 or us spent time bouncing ideas of basing /frontage numbers, numbers per base off each other until we had a group decision … part of what we factored in was terrain the club already has & the size of table we can get (when the club reopens :p).   We also have a number of us who play Bolt Action & other game systems (some long since dead :() also we have been gaming for many a year in different clubs.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Nat.

Since I started Napoleonic wargaming in the 1970’s I have always enjoyed the process of scenario creation and it has therefore been straightforward to adapt BP to historical scenarios. However I must say I find the ‘modern’ fad for rejecting scales as being too ’70’s’ a dishonest approach to rule writing. BP is no different to other ‘modern’ sets of rules, the ground scales are implied by weapons ranges and unit frontage. While it is true that, like GW games, you don’t need to know the scales to enjoy BP, this logic falls over when you try to apply it to historical scenarios. Jim won’t be the only gamer we have lost because the faulty ‘modern’ logic means that one of the best BP supplements gets published without any consideration of the ground represented by the scenario maps. This is not a critique of Dr Dave, but of the ‘modern’ approach to our games.

The dishonesty is not related to GH but to the assertion by modern rules writers that scales are not important, when they are actually intrinsic to game design.  As I said I wasn’t criticising you in particular, GH is probably my favourite supplement, it got me playing ACW.  I think that Jim has shown that what we take for granted in historical gaming, i.e. the relatively small amount work required for scenario adaptation to our collections, can be a barrier to entry into the hobby.

All the best