I have been searching for rules that offer that “something” – that dimension that enhances gaming a certain era. You could call it flavour because most rulesets are basically the same – dice throwing, card turning, measurement, maths, probability and movement around a table sized gaming space.
And of course we all like different flavours.
The Po valley in Northern Italy has seen great armies and leaders pass through, throughout the centuries. Mid 19th century warfare as an era is probably seen by most as a backwater – certainly when it comes to Italy. I guess the wars that get remembered are the Franco Prussian War and of course the American Civil War. These wars it could be argued, framed the next 100 years of global history and perhaps still do.
Back in the Po Valley it was the case of an old empire in retreat.
It was also the time that got us from Napoleon to Kaiser, musket to rifle if you like. Smoothbore and Rifled guns operated side by side.
Battles in the Po Valley in the mid 19th century were short and hurried affairs. But some incurred great loss of life that was noticed. Notable for their apparent lack of professionalism – something about no scouting, lots of surprises and a distinct lack of strategy. The accounts – many contemporary bear out the first two criticisms.
The great strategist Napoleon fought in the Po Valley at the end of the 18th century and his battles were very much confined by the geography. I think his Napoleonic Grand Strategy is more about what went on in the whole of Europe. His wars should been seen in that context. So I would argue Radeztky in 1848 was no less able than Napoleon in achieving his strategic victory in the Po Valley. The difference is that Austria was not fighting a pan european war. But it was fighting battles in the Po Valley.
The issue of poor scouting and too much surprise actually makes for more interesting wargames and throws up opportunities to make a game more interesting. It perhaps beckons to the more erratic ruleset?
For many the war across the Atlantic in the United States is not to be compared – different continents with different outlooks, society and geography.
And yet to my untutored eye while the ACW might have had a grand strategic aspect (western and eastern theatres?), it also seems to have had some campaigns driven by geography limiting the options available to a General. Perhaps there were similarities between these apparently very different wars fought on separate continents?
Even so I had set my mind against looking at the American Civil War as a rules source for my mid 19th century European interests: A case of less is more – something wargamers are often not very good at – me included.
But……
The very nature of limited professional armies, volunteer forces, often with ineffective leadership and disorganisation plus similar technology means that the wars in the Po Valley, seemed quite complimentary to those of the Amercian Civil Wars (ACW).
A bit of a ramble to explain how belatedly, I have considered using ACW rules for my Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU) battles. In particular Fire and Fury.
The Wiki Commons licensed image shown here is to be found in an excellent Wikipedia page about the Italian Unification Wars. The image shows a classic hill top town – in this case being attacked by the Sardinians (Piedmontese) while defended by Austrians.
This game was thrown in firstly because Battles with Model Soldiers was the source of my original ruleset test scenarios for Fire & Fury.
Battles with Model Soldiers is really a 200 page design/ideas book with rules dotted throughout.
The rules I used are explained briefly at the end of this post. A key aspect is alternate moves with losses incurred before any responses. Initiative (who goes first in each turn) therefore matters.
Donald Featherstones book provides basic rules for American Civil War actions. he shows the mechanics through three stepped up siutations
infantry only
infantry plus cavalry
infantry, cavalry and artillery
In this game I used the last stepped up situation of infantry, cavalry and artillery.
Narrative – Near Rome in 1849
In this confused affair a wargaming Napoleon faces off against Garibaldi – I suppose the nearest real conflict would be 1849 at Rome where Garibaldi gave the French a shock defeat.
The forces were
Roman Republic (Garibaldi) on the left
Red Dragoon Volunteers in foreground left
White Legion Volunteers
Roman Artillery (in liberated Austrian uniforms!)
Milan Sharpshooters in distance
The French were led by General Oudinot looking a bit like the great Napoleon himself.
33rd Line Regiment right foreground
Austrian Artillery on loan
66th Line Regiment in distance
French Cuirassiers
In terms of “ground” the battle was fought on a low ridge (no effect on movement) crossed by a rough track (no benefit) and the fenced orchard (inaccessible to all forces).
The rings denote remaining strength – red = 4 artillerymen/5 figures, yellow = 10 figures, blue = 20 figures with green showing 15 figures in value.
What you see is almost what you get – counting actual figures equals strength. I don’t do figure removal normally – using rings and dice to show remaining strength. So 8 cavalrymen on show were actually 10 in value. I also did some selected base removal in this game (for visual effect) just to confuse matters!
The action was brisk!
This game is a bit short on images – it was quick – almost done in 3 moves really……
Move 1
Both forces deployed and marched forward to drive the other from the ridge otherwise known as Orchard Hill.
Move 2 – Oudinot won the initiative
the 33rd Line fired on the Red Dragoon Volunteers inflicting 3 casualties at medium range
The Austrian artillery opened up on the White Legion Volunteers missing them completely
the 66th Line fired on the Roman Artillery and the artillerymen promptly ran away (die throw = 6 hits versus 4 figures in strength)
The 10 French Cuirassiers charged the 20 Milan Sharpshooters.
Basically a melee is headcount times 1 point for an infantryman or 2 points for a cavalryman.
So this fight was on equal points. 1 d6 is rolled per 5 points – 4 dice each. Cavalry get +1 on each dice throw (2 to 7 range possible) for charging.
Cuirassiers scored 17 versus Sharpshooters 20.
The points tally HALVED equals the damage. So 17 points halved and fractions rounded down meant 8 points of damage to the Sharpshooters. Thats 8 figures lost from the 20 that started the fight.
Meanwhile the 20 points of damage halved was 10 and divided by 2 points per cavalryman gave 5 cavalry killed.
The survivors represent their basic morale – 10 points of Cuirassiers x 1d6 throw of 5 = 50 while the Sharpshooters at 12 points x 1d6 throw of 6 = 72.
The Sharpshooters won while the Cuirassiers retreated with 50% losses. (bit of Roman gloss there…..)
Garibaldi responded
The Milan Sharpshooters hit the 66th Line with 4 hits
The White Legion hit the Austrian Artillery for six literally – destroying them
The Red Dragoon Volunteers charged the 33rd Line
7 remaining Dragoons x 2 pts versus 20 infantry x 1 pt meant 14 points versus 20 points or 4 v 3 dice (round up half or better fractions – 14 points becomes 15 points = 3 dice)
Cavalry get +1 for charging. The Dragoons inflicted 16 points damage halved = 8 infantrymen killed
The 33rd Line threw 12 in all = 6 Cavalry points damage or 3 actual dragoons killed
Now the Dragoons had already lost 3 casualties to firing so were now down to 4 dragoons
4 cavalry x 4 die roll versus 12 infantry x 2 die roll was 16 v 24 or a victory for the 33rd Line
The Cavalry retreated
Move 3 Garibaldi won the initiative to move first
The Milan Sharpshooters fired on the 66th Line scoring 1 hit
The White Legion fired on the 33rd Line scoring 8 hits – destroying the 33rd
Oudinotin Move 3 sent his 66th Line against the Sharpshooters. In the melee the 66th won reducing the Sharpshooters to just 4 men who retired.
The game is almost over!
Move 4 Oudinot moved first
The 66th fired at the Sharpshooters but missed
The Blue Cuirassiers now returned to the fray
Move 4 Garibaldi
The Red Dragoons also returned to the fray
The White Legion now closed on the 66th Line
The Milan Sharpshooters scored 2 casualties on the 66th Line reducing them to just 10 men.
Move 4 the french right is now under attack – the french left having been destroyedMove 5 the French Curiassiers charge in as the infantry trade fire
Move 5 Oudinot took the initiative
The French Cuirassiers made one last valiant charge into the Milan Sharpshooters.
The Sharpshooters killed 1 Cuirassier in turn receiving 3 casualties
The Cuirassiers won the melee driving off the Sharpshooters
The 66th Line fired on the approaching White Legion scoring 6 casualties (I allowed liberal firing arcs!)
Move 5 Garibaldi
The White Legion fired on the 66th Line inflicting 5 casualties in return
Move 5 the French Cuirassiers chase off the Milan Sharpshooters
Move 6 Garibaldi won the initiative
The White Legion fired on the 66th scoring 4 more casualities
Move 6 Oudinot attacksin desparation
The 66th Line and Cuirassiers charge home against the White Legion.
The White legion suffered 2 casualties
In return they inflicted 4 infantry casualties with 1 cuirassier loss
Move 6 The last knockingsMove 6 – the 66th Line break leaving the Cuirassiers alone to hold off the White Legion and the Red Dragoons
Oudinot knows the games up and in Move 7 his Cavalry retire covering the rest of his routing forces.
General Garibaldi triumphs capturing the ridge.
Rules used in the Battle of Orchard Hill
Donald Featherstone distributed his many periods (10) rules within the 200 pages of text. The basic rules presented were for horse and musket and his three stepped up situations used an American Civil War example.
My Summary of Rules from Battles with Model Soldiers
Peter Pig (PP) have a history of promoting rules which are a little bit different in an engaging way. For the gamer there is an enrichment with pregame activity and this also helps the soloist. For those who like total control and the key variable simply to be them – the general’s actions, then these rules may seem too restricting.
Poor Bloody Infantry (PBI) is PP’s WW2 game. And I say game advisedly. Although PP makes clear that the rules have been well researched to enable necessary compromise for game play, the purpose is an enjoyable game between well matched forces.
The key differences I guess are the prebattle steps, then the use of large control grids (no tape measures please) and what once used to be novel – unit activation.
The success of PP over the decades has seen many other rules writers copy the pregame idea and certainly utilise the activation sequences. PP has a long history of rules development and making a real effort to “design in” their research while retaining game play.
I wanted to get my latest painted figures on the board again, so opted for a PBI game as it had been a few years since I played it. In fact I had to rebuy the ruleset as I had got rid of my original copy in a massive clear out of all wargame things post 1735! Silly me.
Narrative Background
The Vossackians had surprised the Azorians who had over extended their advance and were forced to retreat. The resulting chaos with only a single main route caused the Azorians many problems. The Vossackians failed though, to fully capitalise on the situation. As a result of being well forward, Senior Lieutenant Saray was ordered to advance on a road junction which appeared to be of value to the Azorians in their retreat.
As it happened Captain Turner had orders to secure the same road junction to protect other nearby routes of Azorian retreat.
Both commanders were advised that supporting troops would soon be provided.
As dark clouds gathered overhead the two forces unwittingly collided.
The Forces
Vossackia – Senior Lieutenant Saray had 3 platoons of rifleman, SMG’s and LMG’s. Junior Lieutenant Zhelezo and Junior Sergeant Stali led a platoon each. The platoons were slightly mixed up owing to allocation of replacements and issues with logistics.
Azoria – Captain Turner had Garand armed rifle platoons supported with BAR LMG’s. The Azorians had suffered in some previous actions so were not up to strength. Lieutenants Bacon and Bean led a platoon each.
A Map is to be found at the end of this post.
Lieutenant Bean and his platoon crept along the main road seeking what shelter they could. At least they had reached the road junction without incident.
Note the tough hedgerows! they make a grid harder to leave in PBI. Cover affects movement in an abstract but logical way.
Activation is about mobilising possibly reluctant movement by soldeirs under direct fire. As you will see lack of movement and even pinning the opposition is key to allowing your own freedom of movement.
Peter Pig use groups (figures assumed based together). Rifle figures are in 3’s and LMG’s are in pairs of figures. SMG’s are in 3’s while leader groups can be 2 or 3 strong.Lt Bean brought up the rear. He had good activation to get to the road junction.Hang on I can see movement beyond that building in the distance…………..SLt Saray calmly responded to the excited shout of Junior Sergeant Stali – enemy spotted…..to the south of the main road and east of the South Lane, Lt Bacon had occupied a position which looked defendable. Not a moment too soon as Junior Lieutenant Zhelezo pushed his men forwardA section of Vossackian rifles rushed a nearby group of buildingsSLt Saray had quickly directed fire on the exposed leading section of Lt Beans platoonfurther damage was inflicted on Beans platoon on the Main Road. JLt Zhelezo gathered his men and exhorted them to be brave and unafraid as they assaulted the Azorian strongpoint. Lt Bacon was confident.Lt Bean’s platoon meanwhile was taking a hammering up on the main roadhowever a rash attack on the road junction by SLt Saray ended in disaster for the VossackiansJLt Zhelezo and his men continued to soften up the Azorians in the strongpoint, always building their momentum for an assaultAlthough driven from nearby buildings the Vossackians had now built up some strength. Captain Turner had also responded by sending more of his men to support Lt Bacon.At the road junction Lt Bean with the remains of his platoon fought off ever increasing numbers of VossackiansAnother assault goes in at the road junction with further damage being done to Lt Beans exhausted platoonLt Beans platoon or what remained of it were isolated and surrounded – overrun……The Vossackians took the road junction and were presented with the whole flank of the Azorian position as the fight for the strongpoint had sucked in most of Captain Turners reserves. At the strongpoint the Azorians were suffering.shattered Lt Bean stayed in cover at the road junction. The Vossackians pressed further west. Now Captain Turner had begun to extract some men from the strongpoint but it looked too late.Captain Turner came under attack just west of the road junction in another strongpointThe fight at the East strongpoint was still being hotly contested, but finally Lt Bacon’s strongpoint position was overrun And then the Azorians got lucky – a minus 6!The heavens opened and it turned pitch black in an instant, the Azorian Captain Turner retreated while his two trusty Lt’s Bacon and Bean still actually held their positions – grilled and baked!
Game Over!
This battle narrative came from the actual game. It was most enjoyable seeing the encounter fluctuate before ending. PBI tells you that “ebb and flow” is part of the game design.
Some more PBI rules came into play during the game.
First was the arrivals of troops. In the pregame journey on the equivalent of a snakes and ladders board the Vossackians with the advantage failed to get a clear superiority in numbers and prevent the Azorians gathering sufficient forces for the action.
The Vossackians posture under the rules was agressive while the Azorians was only responsive.
I think the rules are good at covering troops on the board at game start and those being fed in. Another variable to add flavour.
Three objectives had to be taken by the Vossackians for game victory.
The East Strongpoint
the Road Junction
The West Strongpoint
The Map
A countdown tracker starting at 23, and reducing, using 1d6 per turn meant game length was unknown.
The battle started well for Vossackia as the Azorians advanced allowing early contact and then finding the dice rolling for them. The Azorians quickly lost any parity on forces.
But later the rules around activiation started to work against the Vossackians at the critical moment. Things also slowed at the wrong moment.
To cap it all the countdown dice rolled for the Azorians with too many 6’s including the last one when the tracker was at 5. So the game ended early.
Cue – mega thunderstorm.
The positives are you get a fairly quick game – no measuring movement or ranges helps.
The abstraction that allows close proximity of opposing forces requires a bit of getting used to. I used the 6″ grid for 15mm with 20/25mm or 1/72 size figures. Maybe an 8″ (for 28mm figure) grid would give a better look.
What looks like contact isn’t. Contact is a process called assault and requires a lot of momentum to achieve.
The abstraction includes the proximity of the figures who spend some time in adjacent grid squares waiting to build momentum for an assault or simply erode the enemy through fire. The latter requires a decent advantage in numbers but the former is risky without overwhelming force.
The Vossackians lacked any heavy weapons or support which kind of reflected the “encounter” nature of this Scenario. And probably meant the Azorian victory was the right outcome.
Verdict is I will play PBI again.
I use a 2006 edition of PBI – easily picked up at show bring and buys (when they return) and on ebay. Of course Peter Pig will sell you the latest edition with improvements from over a decade more of game play. And PP also offers a fantastic 15mm range of figures and vehicles which, if I was not hooked up to 1/72, would suit my needs.
Roll on the Vossackian advance in Fauxterre 1930+……
My current preoccupation with a sideline project about the inter war years (between ww1 and ww2) has led to the acquisition of “armour”. To be specific, armoured vehicles and not some renaissance suit!
As it happened I was a bit slow on this aspect of 20th century warfare having focused on the infantry who appeared in my scenario Observer.
The idea was also that infantry heavy weapons would follow. And then finally the armour. The heavy weapons are still in the painting queue. The armour is on the factory production line………or maybe in the repair shop.
And of course the next problem is how do you fight armoured vehicles using infantry with no heavy weapons or anti tank kit either?
Use “What a Tanker” of course!
What a Tanker (WAT) by Too Fat Lardies is a game that only uses tanks and in my case some armoured cars – or rather thats all you need and actually you only need a 4-6 to play a game.
I have suddenly thought you could probably play 1 tank a side if the scenario was sufficiently rigged to stop one tank simply moving off table to end the game prematurely.
Maybe you could play a really powerful tank which is unable to move versus a much less powerful/armoured tank which has to try and manoeuvre to get in its killer shot before it is picked off.
In my next post I will explain the armour on show which is a story in itself. Suffice to say it is not what WAT is aimed at. WAT lovers I suspect lean towards the back end of the war with greater variety and dare I say it the more impressive bigger tanks.
I have got into WW2 only because of my interest in inter war era mechanisation and some various blogs that promote the Spanish and Russian Civil Wars plus 1941 Vichy middle east etc. In other words, variously considered marginal theatres in the journey from the WW1 tank invention to the great tank battles of WW2.
First up I am using armoured cars which don’t even feature in the ruleset.
I simply took a look at the values and had a punt. So this game was in a way a test of the rules to cope with weak kit. Would the game even work. Actually the secret is in the Japan tank table where some really weak options can be chosen. And I think TFL(Too Fat Lardies) really test their rules hard.
The Reds had three Renaults
2 Renault FT17’s – they got armour of 2 and strike of 3
leading this pack was a Renault NC29 apparently exported to Japan by a France that straight after world war 1 had the largest tank army in the world and led tank development. Armour 4 and a whopping strike value of 5 was given.
The Blues had
One Crossley 6 wheeled Armoured Car armour 2 and strike 3
One Marmon Herrington 4 wheeled Armoured Car armour 2 and strike 4
The Blue force was led by an M3 Stuart or maybe its a Honey Armour 4 strike 4
As WAT abstracts heavily WYSIWYG does not have to apply and I was the only one looking so that was fine. Apologies to the purists.
I put the two big tanks in the centre opposite each other.
No scenery was provided so it was a straight knock out.
looking more like insects you get the drift some homemade counters I made for the WAT dashboards
I belatedly got the camera into action so what follows is a truncated record of the action.
unfamiliar with the rules meant an untidy table! The FT 17 at the top of the board raced past the Marmon Herrington while the M3 did the same on the NC27. The two opponents at the bottom of the picture just got the wrong dice – you can’t see them tinkering with their faulty engines……….abstraction opens up so many possibilities!
I have only played WAT a few times properly and spaced out over time – end result was I could not remember the rules. I played the “long ball” set up – with three vehicles per side – set up opposite each other. Points were not the priority so absolute balance did not matter..
A “rushed to the front” (no time to paint it let alone apply camoflage) Stuart M3 catches a Renault NC27 side on and fails to make a kill! Poor dice left the NC27 a sitting duck
The Renault NC27 succumbed but so did the Marmon which seeking to support the M3 left the FT17 behind only for the dice to roll very kindly for the FT17. The FT 17 simply took the Marmon in the rear.
Meanwhile the other FT17 eventually destroyed the Crossley and returned to the remaining action just in time.
The Stuart M3 busy failing again to take out another Renault tank – an FT17. The Stuart M3 is caught in the rear by a second FT17 – ok I had the wrong gun pointing at the time! plus sometimes the dice roll for you.
Luck was running out for the M3 Stuart and so it did. It failed to quickly destroy the FT17 by the Marmon and so the two FT17’s were able to slowly kill it with some good dice throwing.
a final strike and its all over for the the Stuart M3.
So the M3 Stuart was first deprived of its weak armoured car supports and then finished off by the FT17’s. Thats Fauxterre 1930+ for you – what a tanker style.
My wargaming has continued to evolve. In 2021 I played more games than in previous years and created more fictitious eras for my mythical worlds. Fauxterre expanded in surprising ways. And that of course is the point about imagination – its very chaos is the atrraction. Unless of course your livelihood depends on producing it for others.
My imaginative wargaming is simply for pleasure – a distraction, an escape from the real world.
Wargaming on the other hand seeks rules and restrictions. So rulesets for many wargamers are a pleasure (!) in themselves rather than simply a necessity. The exception is I believe competition gaming where the rulesets are a necessity simply to allow the “fight” to be resolved at all and a winner declared.
In the wargaming arena “rules lawyers” are the pantomime baddy except ruining the event rather than adding to it. Perhaps the solution has always been there – make competitions more fun than theory. Less historical particulars and more game means that the lawyers have less to exploit. That said, even such family games as cards, scrabble or monopoly betray the rules manipulators!
From my perspective there seem to be far more rules published for game enjoyment even in a competitive situation. And despite a drive for simplicity the abstractions are often well thought out so the feel of the game historically is still there – a key part of the wargame enjoyment.
This is another blog post that has deviated already. On the subject of threads and themes I have been musing on the subjects of rulesets, games and imaginations.
I do like a set of wargaming rules and as rules writers have tended towards explaining their ideas ,these publications have become more readable. Even if you never play a ruleset, they give you someone elses opinion about a conflict or technology – what was signficiant when it came to the conduct of a campaign or battle.
In 2021 I indulged myself.
Piquet Field of Battle 1700-1900 – 2nd edition of this ruleset which likes lots of uncertainty – ideal for soloists and those who enjoy a degree of chaos when it comes to game turn sequence
Neil Thomas 19th Century European Wargaming – post napoleonic but very much still horse and musket. Neil Thomas rules work, really work – its that simple.
Practical Wargaming by Charlie Wesencraft – another ruleset that is coherent and in fact I have never felt the need to tinker with – well ok a little bit.
Neil Thomas Wargaming an Introduction – not my first purchase yet some really useful rules in here.
Mike Smith Table Top Battles – my “grid wargames” ruleset – they even gave me an easy way in to some naval wargaming – something I had previously shown no interest in.
Battle – Practical Wargaming by Charles Grant. A complete set of simple rules for World War 2. A vintage ruleset they convey a simplicity of gaming I have since only really found in Neil Thomas rules.
Peter Pig Poor Bloody Infantry is a grid ruleset but so much more. It is definitely a “game” and does not need adaption for me. I play it straight out of the book.
Donald Featherstone rules don’t appear but had regular run outs. The reason is simply that none of his books were in my view a complete set of rules. They were always full of rules ideas. And that means you get to tinker big time. He gets his own list!
Battles with Model Soldiers ever popular for some simple basics
Advance wargames for period specific mechanisms
Wargame Campaigns – does what it says on the tin lid – ideas for campaigns
Surprisingly Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames had little look in this year. That suggests I have had more time to play each game.
The most satisfying ruleset for 2021 has been Neil Thomas Wargaming 19th Century European Wars. It gave me everything I needed for a new era with his excellent balance of simple play and historical feel. Add to that, excellent scenario generators for both historic battles and those of your imagination, This ruleset has sustained my new interest for most of the year without distraction.
In my last post I described a small action in a narrative style.
I created the Scenario to try out some new figures. As I have no heavy weapons the challenge needed to be simple.
One box of Russian Summer dress Plastics Soldier Company 1/72 infantry plus one box of Early War US 1/72 infantry. Sadly the heavy weapons for the US figures get a very negative review on Plastic Soldier Review and from the photos I was inconvinced as well. It seems though that the Russians in all respects are dealt with better by PSC.
Also I game solo or rather ZERO. So the scenario had to meet certain specifics. The main one was that surprise or chance was needed to animate the game.
Most solo players are more than happy with rulesets that randomise outcomes far more than the norm for two player games. The reason is easy to see – deprived of your human opponent you need to substitute what would have been their random or unknown acts.
The following Scenario details will help you to apply this to your chosen rules and any number of players you chose.
RED v BLUE – for convenience I have used these terms. In the narrative the Azorians were RED and the Vossackians were BLUE.
RED objective: Place observer on hill to view valley below and call in an air strike against expected enemy concentrations.
BLUE objective: defender may or may not appear!
You can see immediately I have made this one sided in the sense that RED is the active party and BLUE the reactive party – well initially.
An abstraction of a Platoon – using 3 figures per section. Platoon leader has two rifleman. The observer team brought their own section with them. BAR’s and Garands are modelled by PSC. In the scenario Grabern split one section amongst his other three.
notable rules:
you should specify a distance for sighting or observing enemy units. This might look odd on the table when you can plainly see opponents in direct sight. This abstraction is fine – no different to the out of scale scenery versus figures or weapon ranges v movement. Distortion is the whole point of table top wargaming.
The defender throws each turn after RED has moved to find out if a part of its force has appeared
defenders appear at certain points (marked 1 to 8 on the map)
if RED pass through a marked point it ceases to be a point of entry for BLUE
to add variety troops can be of different qualities
movement was not hampered by the hills
movement was hampered by the woodland which covered all the hills anyway
I thought about which rules to use. Having returned only recently to the WW2 era I had previous rulesets to draw upon as well as new ones as yet untried.
Poor Bloody Infantry by Peter Pig
Chain of Command by TooFatLardies
One Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas
Various Featherstone rules – notably the set from Battles with Model Soldiers
“Battle” practical wargaming by Charles Grant Senior
“Operation Warboard” by Gavin and Bernard Lyall
Rapid Fire reloaded
played these and enjoyed them quite a few years agostruggled to get into these rules despite liking TFL mechanisms/ideas the go to ruleset – great for timepoor moments and even brain tired ones as well. A great antidote for “i am too busy to game”. They look like Vossackians to me…….and maybe both 28 and 25mm chaps on show – to be honest I had never noticed before?A Classic ruleset (almost) – my first “bought” book – the “incomplete” ww2 rules were a fantastic technique of Donald Featherstone’s, to make you do some work yourself – definitely a Classic in that respect. Could you get away with half a product today?discovered in a charity shop in Autumn 2021 – this book started a minor project and buying those Plastic Soldier Company figures, who fought this first WW2 wargame in many a long year!In for a penny, in for a pound – having found the Grant book by accident I remembered an enticing blog post about “Warboard” being an often overlooked classic but more to the point definitely not typical. I have read it cover to cover – fascinating.Just out in this format – Rapid Fire is now a veteran set – and with these quick play rules I will look again. Many years ago I dumped these in favour of Peter Pig before abandoning WW2 completely. Yes I have rebought Peter Pig PBI albeit secondhand.
To confound matters I remembered Neil Thomas published Wargaming an Introduction (WaI) that had a WW2 ruleset.
I cannot quite explain this – but I chose to run out these WW2 rules first. Well maybe I wanted a One Hour Wargames “feeling” with more detail?
I opted for this ruleset feeling that One Hour Wargames might be too “lite” for my needs.
WaI is maybe not familiar to many people. It has similar mechanisms to other rulesets.
Dice were always six sided except a 1d8 for defender unit location
Back to the Scenario the following were added to the rules
I permitted double moves at the start as my 6×4 or 1.8m x 1.2m table had a lot of distance to be covered for no response due to the sighting rules.
Essentially the units could sprint (double move) once followed by a minimum two moves at normal speed.
Sections comprised separate figures spaced up to 3cm apart
3 Sections equalled a Platoon
I diced for observation distance on the day
20cm on a 3
30cm on a 4
40cm on a 5
50cm on a 6
After each RED move BLUE threw 1d6 to appear
1= throw a 1d8 for location of defender appearing
throw 1d6 again to find out whats there
1 nothing ! (this is logical confusion when solo gaming)
2,3,4 means a rifle section
5 means SMG section (could be another rifle section of course)
6 means LMG or on a second check =6 again you get (1,2,3 HMG or 4,5,6 Heavy Mortar). In my game these would never have actually appeared – simply their effect being used.
I also tested units for grade/quality as WaI requires this info.
1,2 2nd rate
3,4,5 average
6 elite
What Happened?
Lieutenant Grabern set off with his platoon and the observer team. The game lasted 17 turns including some double moves at the beginning. That also meant RED closed at a faster rate per BLUE chance of generating defenders.
On turn 2 a defender location (3) was generated but at this stage its type was not diced for
On turn 7 another location generated (5)
Location 1 was overrun early on so could never activate any defenders
On turn 8 location 4 was also neutralised by RED
Location (6) generated on move 9 along with (2)
On move 11 location (3) was discovered to be an LMG and an elite unit into the bargain. They quickly pinned White Section.
(5) produced elite riflemen and (2) became another LMG – also elite!!!!
Donovan wiped out the LMG at (3) on move 12.
But this was soon replaced by an average rifle section (6) generation
The Azorians were all average troops and once effectively surrounded started to withdraw from move 13 onwards. On move 15 White Section was destroyed while on move 16 the Platoon Leader (Grabern) Section was nearly wiped retreating to the enclosure.
The difference in the “Observers” moves forward and then back is due to the action ending for the Azorians at the enclosure and not behind Hill 90 which was still several moves away.
So there you have it. A simple scenario for a platoon type action.
I was surprised and pleased at the fun levels without heavy weapons or any armour present. They can wait their turn.
Finally the satisfaction is also in selecting, acquiring, painting and then gaming the figures.
No sooner am I drifting from the mid 19th century by almost 100 years into world war 2, than I go the whole hog and leap several centuries – welcome to Bronze Age to Baroque does SciFi! – maybe.
I started the Wargaming Erratic blog in 2019 and aimed to cover my self declared restriction of “Bronze Age to Baroque”. In fact I had determined (for wargamer sanity reasons) to abandon not just my long time interests in world war 2 but also Napoleonics and the Seven Years War – anything after about 1730. The decision has proven to be easier to say than do.
It is not just bookshopping which can sidetrack your latest project (in my case Wars of the Italian Unification 1,2,3 – WOTIU). Strolling through other gamers blogs can be seriously distracting. Of course that is a very enjoyable activity with the vast range of ideas, activity and games being shown.
In this case “wargaming with barks” served up their new project using “five parsecs from home”. Now SciFi wargaming really has passed me by – even my D&D era, now eons gone, did not really depart from ancient medieval themes.
What caught me eye was that this ruleset is for solo wargaming – now that it is something that does fascinate me: Well wargames rules fascinate me anyway, solo rules especially so, because of the potential mechanisms on offer.
A hardback subA4 sized rulebook with very high quality print – colour throughout.
As Neil Thomas (author of one hour wargames) says, it is easy to write complex wargame rules while simple ones that constantly work are very challenging to compose.
In Five Parsecs from Home (FPfH) the movement and combat mechanisms themselves, look simple with the narrative derived from the wider aspects of character and weaponry for example.
at almost 200 pages loaded with data and ideas – this is the 2021 edition
So it is the case that two player wargames rules are more easily composed than solo rules when it comes to creating that unexpected and surprising element, which is at the heart of so much enjoyment in wargaming.
So far I have bought the book and had a quick speed read.
It looks very interesting and is a complete package including all your necessary rules plus both scenario and force generators.
Solo wargames much depend upon narrative to provide the variety and surprise in any game. It looks like this ruleset offers that potential in spades?
Finally solo wargames work just as well with live opponents – often just simply leaving out some rules is all it takes. So maybe you actually get two rulesets for the price of one!
In the previous two posts I have set out the campaign and mechanics that brought the two forces to action at Baumdorf.
In the distance the Nuringians advance boldly upon Baumdorf as the Zarlanders attempt to seize the hill
The forces were
Zarland Eastern Army commanded by General Kratzen
IR 8th Adelburg CF5 (2)
IR 6th Nurtberg CF5 (1)
2nd Tuttingen Skirmishers CF2 (1)
Pioneer Regiment 2nd Eyachdorf CF5 (2)
5th Gellenstein Cavalry CF6 (2)
Artillery Regiment 12th Pinkenfels CF6 (2)
8th Filstad Skirmishers CF4 (1)
IR 4th Beckendorf CF6 (2)
The Nuringian Army commanded by General Paskievich comprised
IR Von Rechten CF3 (1)
IR Von Ryssel CF5 (1)
1st Sharpshooters CF5 (1)
CR Prince Clement Dragoons CF6 (2)
CR Polenz Lancers CF14 (3)
1st Field Artillery Battery CF4 (1)
2nd Field Artillery Battery CF5 (1)
1st Pioneer Regiment CF14 (3)
Both armies had a similar mix of forces and both had pioneer units which often fight in these small actions in the realms of Fauxterre…….. and are feared in the same way as Grenadiers.
Each unit shows its campaign condition or “CF factor” – a value that is training, experience, morale and fighting ability all in one. This was converted to the relevant Table Top Battles unit class – again an “all in one” fighting factor.
The battle was fought over three objectives – possession of the village and the hill and also driving off the enemy from the area of Baumdorf.
This encounter action after numerous skirmishes caught each force unawares and they both aimed to seize the village and hill.
In TTB you dice for initiative, important when using alternating movement rules – Zarland won the first two rounds as the forces closed on the village of Baumdorf and its hill.
The Zarlanders gained an early advantage
Both entered the village and commenced a firefight involving infantry and artillery (these were only allowed in the village on the road).
Meanwhile the Zarlander 8th Adelburg IR and 8th Filstad skirmishers took the hill.
The forces close for action
On Move 3 Paskievich (Nuringians) took the initiative and attacked all along the battle line. Around the village the Zarlander 2nd Eyachdorf Pioneers and 4th Beckendorf IR broke.
Looking towards the Zarland lines. Somewhat chastened – the sole Zarland Artillery 12th Pinkenfels on the village road watched as their infantry broke on either side of them
On the Nuringian right flank the Zarland 2nd Tuttlingen skirmishers retired before the measured advance of the Prinz Clement Dragoons.
The fight for the hill is in the balanceThe Zarland Gellenstein Cavalry simply follow the Prinz Clement Dragoons onto the hill while the Zarland infantry are losing the fight for the hill
On Move 4 the Nuringians again pushed on, with the artillery duel in Baumdorf reaching a crescendo. The hill is taken by the Von Rechten IR and the Prinz Clement Dragoons, despite the Zarland Gellenstein Cavalry trying to draw off the Dragoons.
Looking towards the Zarland lines. On the Nuringian left the brave Zarland Artillery are driven from the village while the Nuringian Polenz Lancers break the remains of the Zarland Right wing on the edge of the village
Finally the Zarland Artillery (12th Pinkenfels) withdraw from the village. Elsewhere the 8th Adelburg IR are driven fully off the hill while the 6th Nurtberg are broken by the gallant charge of the Nuringian Polenz Lancers.
Paskievich had taken both objectives and very soon would achieve the third objective of driving the enemy from the field. This meant earning maximum “Control Points” for this action which would add weight to any campaign negotiations.
The Zarlanders stream from the field, while the Nuringians secure Baumdorf
After this action the campaign then ended with a final skirmish to complete the 32 segments.
Zarland won that last skirmish but overall lost the campaign – winning just 2 skirmishes to Nuringia’s 6 who also won the Baumdorf action. Nuringia took all the control points available in the campaign while Zarland had 4 units break in action to none for Nuringia.
For each skirmish or action experience points acrue to each unit taking part, 4 experience points = 1 condition point. Those broken units lose 5 condition points reflecting the wider consequences of a units collapse on the field with soldiers missing, deserting and having been in close fighting – more wounded not to mention those killed. It also counts as a measure of morale of those still in the unit.
So each units takes time to build its condition yet can lose it a lot more easily.
This meant the following units dropped to the lowest condition factor (CF) of “green” as replacements diluted the remaining expertise of the unit.
8th Adelburg was seasoned and is now green
6th Nurtberg were green on CF5 and are now on CF0 still green
2nd Eyachdorf were green on CF5 and are now on CF0 still green
4th Beckendorf were seasoned on CF6 and are now on CF1 green
This will dent Zarland forces capability in the 1818 campaigns.
My Abstraction of conflicts with the use of segments of the years campaign, being both in parallel and in sequence, means a unit could be propelled into another campaign activity in the same year. So those Zarland losses could yet affect other 1817 campaign outcomes.
I am tempted to apply a similar condition factor in my approach for Generals experience/rating. I typically use -1,0,1 or 2 range as in poor, average, good and great. Currently I am thinking of converting these to ranges and applying positive and negative moves to a Generals condition – all experience is growth so it is the reaction to the experience that matters and of course I am moving away from simply an inherent – your either a good or bad general for all time.
For each General the following could apply
General Kratzen (rated +1 = good) now means veteran so has a CF of 16 prior to the campaign and after it is up 3 experience – not enough for +1 CF. He is -5 CF for the defeat. A bit brutal – he ends up seasoned on a CF of 11.
General Paskievich (rated 0 = average) now means seasoned so has a CF of 10 prior to the campaign and earns 2 CF’s for all his victories giving a CF of 12 and still seasoned.
A long serving general declining back to green means while the ranges work the name tags need adjusting.
This approach could prove a bit onerous though – we shall see.
Again the Blue Kingdom Navy had word of the Red Squadron and despatched the same successful squadron, now repaired, to intercept the Red Squadron. The Bellona was added to the squadron.
The two squadrons met again near Tinckermann Bay, scene of the recent Blue Navy victory.
The Red Squadron approach Tinckermann Bay with trepidation…………
This time it was the Blue Squadron who were in a full line and met the Red Squadron dispersed in three groups. The Blue Squadron attacked immediately led by Abellino and Lyra.
The Blue Squadron sail into action confident of victory
The ships present were
The Red Squadron
Centre line
Elven – a single decker 3 masted FAST frigate
Neptunus – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
Right Line
The Meshuda – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Triton – a single decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Allart – a single decker brig with a Carronade
Left Line
The Zugarte – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Sarpen – a sloop of war
The Blue Squadron
The Chippewa – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Allegheny – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Abellino – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Firefly – 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
The Lyra – a 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
The Bellona – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Red Squadron seemed too spread out to present a threat and as the Abellino bore onward the frigate Elven turned, fired a broadside and scuttled to join the Zugarte.
As it happened both outer lines of Red Squadron ships fired on the Blue Squadron line who returned fire with mixed results.
The Neptunus presented a broadside to the lead ship Abellino who returned the favour. Behind the Blue Squadron quickly broke its line pursuing the seemingly disordered Red Squadron.
The Blue Squadron break their line
In the process Abellino found itself isolated as did the Lyra. Again luck was against the Blue Squadron ships as the Lyra and then the Abellino had their masts shot away leaving them adrift yet still able to fire.
Elven, Neptunus and Sarpen had done the damage.
Further back down the line Firefly joined the action at the head of the line while Bellona and Allegheny became isolated in the rear. In the case of the Allegheny it appeared she would soon be defeated. Bellona destroyed the Allart’s sailing gear leaving her adrift.
The lines are broken into a series of small ship to ship actionsNow Bellona and Sarpen (top left) began their own singular battle while Meshuda and Triton closed in on Firefly, one of the few Blue Squadron ships still intact.
The Allegheny could still make sail but was now disarmed, so she made much sail with Zugarte vainly pursuing her. Elsewhere the final reckoning was taking place.
Firefly managed to evade the Meshuda and Triton before being pursued by the Zugarte. The Allegheny had sailed away with Bellona close behind.
The Firefly fought a gallant final action against the Zugarte with the Triton now closing again (see bottom of picture).
Finally Firefly fled having lost all her guns.
The Red Squadron had defeated the Blue Squadron in the second battle of Tinckermann.
The Red Squadron had captured the Chippewa, Lyra and Abellino while the Sarpen and Allart had been demasted and had to be towed back to port.
The Red Squadron return to port with their prizes………
I had used the basic TTBnaval rules described in my previous posts including amendments in the Battle of Tinckermann post.
This time I introduced some variation on the ships themselves and added another weapon class – a carronade.
A carronade required the ship to be in contact with its target – point blank range and it throws on the broadside to hit column. The value though was always to be +1 on the respective broadside hit result. The carronade being just +1 on the to hit column meant throwing 12 +1 to get 13 and achieve the maximum 3 hits (2+1). Very damaging but not easily achieved. This combination of close range only + difficulty to hit, I think would prevent the carronade being too overly powerful.
In the event the Allart (a two masted Brig) had her masts destroyed before she could get into action and was left adrift with her shiney new carronade unused.
Another new ship for the Red Squadron was a “sloop of war” fast and well armed. The Sarpen did do some damage early on but was eventually brought to a standstill, her masts and sailing gear being destroyed.
Victory was secured in move 11 so again the game, with my changes, was contested between sides of differing numbers and capability. It could have gone the other way if the Blue squadron had not lost ship manoeuvreability early on.
Finally I have kept the “outcomes” unaltered because this is where the tempo of the game is achieved – brisk but not too brisk! And that is what makes TTBnaval fun to play.
The Wargaming Erratic 