Category: wargame rules

The Battle of Tinckermann

Table Top Battles – the Naval Rules, have been occupying my time recently. NavalTTB are a very simple set of rules using a grid based set up. They are part of a compendium of rules featuring fantasy, air, siege and land based warfare.

Having played the basic rules I could not help but tinker with them.

The Extras

First up, I used a 50mm grid and not a 100mm grid permitting greater granularity in manoeuvre.

Second I took the single broadside characteristic value of 3 and changed this to three possible values – 3,2,1. I also allowed three steps in the degradation of a broadside after being hit. So a ship might start with a 3 then go down to 2 and finally 1. Note the numbers 1,2,3 are the actual values added to the die roll for a broadside scoring a hit.

I also permitted some ships to have say a 2 or 1 rating for their broadside from the start reflecting a weaker armanent. And then I still allowed those ships three hits absorption before that broadside would fall silent. So this might be 2,1,1 or 2,2,1 or even 1,1,1.

I left the score tables, crew attack and command values unaltered.

Finally I altered the sailing manoeuvre value. Essentially a hit on a sailing capability each time reduces the speed (movement per 100mm square) by 1. I applied some options, as in a large ship could have say a maximum of 2 while a small ship had a value of 4. In either case degradation of manoeuvre gave more granularity. So a faster ship might have “S” values of 4 then 3 then 2 and then nothing while a slower ship might have “S” values of 2,1,1, before being unable to move.

One final change I made was to sail ships on the “line” of the grid and not in the space. A ship turns on its centre and cannot overlap another ship when it does so. The standard rule of no ramming was retained.

This was a result of my using a 50mm grid.

The unintended outcome of this movement change was for ships to become stuck alongside each other. That felt ok though.

The Battle of Tinckermann – Fauxterre 1816

The Red Kingdom had found out that the Blue Kingdom was attacking some of its provinces and making an amphibious attack. The Red Kingdom dispatched a strong squadron of ships to disperse the enemy fleet.

The Blue Kingdom, well informed about the Red Kingdom actions sent a squadron to intercept the enemy squadron.

The Red Squadron

The Fortuna – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Estedio – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Meshuda – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Zugarte – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line

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 Blue Squadron attacked the Red Squadron in two lines while the Red Squadron attempted to keep a single line and sail between both enemy lines attacking them at the same time.

Early on the Chippewa lost all sail control and drifted out of the battle. This in theory evened up the battle between 4 ships on each side. Then the Fortuna became caught between the Allegheny and the Abellino.

Then the Zugarte, Estedio and Meshuda isolated the Allegheny although the Firefly gave aid.

At this point in the battle both the Allegheny and Fortuna were stopped and the other ships manoeuvred to support or exploit the situation.

The final action saw the Red Zugarte and Estedio take on the fast Blue Frigates Lyra and Abellino. Lyra and Estedio had their sail control destroyed.

At this point the Red Squadron broke off the action and the Meshuda escorted the Zugarte (now with no armanent left) away.

Actually the 12th game move finished. The standard rules are a 12 move game.

Outcomes

At the conclusion of the action the Red Squadron was driven off having to abandon both Fortuna and Estedio – both ships suffering so much damage to their masts that they could no longer manoeuvre.

The Zugarte had lost all its broadside and crew fighting power. It could still make sail and was escorted away by the Meshuda, which still had both fire and manoeuvre capability remaining.

The Blue Squadron despite driving off the Red Squadron had suffered badly.

The Allegheny had lost all sailing ability although it still had some broadside capability. The Lyra likewise could defend itself but needed repairs before it could make sail again. Early in the action the Chippewa had suffered complete loss of its sailing ability and as the action moved away it sustained hardly any damage keeping all its broadsides intact.

The Firefly retained sailing and fighting ability as did the Abellino – these two vessels were to be seen driving off the Red Squadrons Meshuda and unarmed Zugarte.

And so ended the Battle of Tinckermann with the Blue Kingdom free to continue its land attack on the Red Kingdoms provinces.

Afterthoughts

The difference between a win and a possible draw occurred in the last move of the game between slightly unequal forces. I will test this a bit more. It does mean the game hangs in the balance. And for the soloist it is not easy to see who is winning where – always a bonus.

If I was inclined a permanent sea table along with 3D models would drastically improve the visual aspect of this game. Indeed I do have some models from wizkids 2005 pirate game. Somehow I preferred the 2D test set up.

So this has proven a surprising distraction from my land battles. I tend to use TTB for land battles when the action does not lend itself to using Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames or 19th Century European Warfare Rules.

I like to think if Neil Thomas wrote some naval rules then NavalTTB would not be far off the mark.

Tags grid wargaming, gridded wargames, Mike and Joyce Smith, solo wargaming, Table Top Battles, table-top wargaming, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, wargaming with grids

wargame rules wargaming

Rule test: Trim those sails

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 14th Aug 2021
2 Comments on Rule test: Trim those sails

Having had my naval warfare appetite wetted by a series of books ostensibly about land warfare, I now had to hand a simple ruleset for naval wars.

Table Top Battles (TTB) is a compendium that include several rulesets, one of which is about naval warfare. The rules are clear – they are not an exercise in sailing simulation: I think they are a landlubbers abstraction. That does not sound complimentary. They are simple, quick, fun and to this landlubber just what I needed to play out some of the small actions I have been reading about.

I used the rules out of the book unaltered and found they were quick and easy to apply giving swift results. The original squadrons arriving in a line (two lines for the blue squadron) soon broke into small groups contesting their survival one to one and occasionally two to one. It felt right.

The movement is unlimited so ships can stop, go maximum or any distance in between if they have sufficient sail intact. Each ship had 3 sails = 3 spaces maximum movement. The ships could turn in a square with each 90 degree turn taken. This level of abstraction might feel like bumper cars. However the question is “is detailing carefully turning as a process – useful?” Whereas rules that focus on outcomes tend to the abstract.

Each ship is given armanent in the shape of a broadside on each side of the ship. The broadside can only fire at ninety degrees to the ships keel line. The crew represent other close action capability. This has limited range and impact yet 360 degrees of direction irrespective of which crew element is left in operation.

The final component is the command. This provides additional support to the combat elements of crew and broadside.

All 4 element types – sail/broadside/command and crew can be destroyed and that is the sole objective of the game. In this way you knock ships out of action.

The winning side is the one having the most ships with both some sail and broadside capability.

With 5 versus 4 ships, all identical, the advantage was signficiant and the result was all the smaller sides ships were defeated. You don’t get draws, I suspect, if fighting to the last ship. So any game should be time bound or have limited victory conditions.

As a basic quick maritime wargame it works. This landlubber is happy.

The rules are available online or in print here. http://www.gridwargaming.co.uk/p/table-top-battles-2nd-edition.html

They retail at 14 GBP – remember though, you get multi era rules for land, sea, air, fantasy, sieges and campaigns. The naval ruleset also covers ship to shore battles which I have yet to look at.

weigh anchor and set sail……….

Tags grid wargaming, Naval Rules, Table Top Battles, wargaming with grids

Military History wargame rules wargaming

landlubber sets sail

Having decided to try out Mike and Joyce Smith’s Table Top Battles (TTB) – the naval rules, I suppose the question might be why? why now?

The consequence of being taken in by post napoleonics and 19th Century Italian Wars has led me to 1848. In that year there were a series of revolutions across europe. Some, like the First War of Italian Unification involved such unlikely naval opponents as Piedmont and Austria in the Adriatic, while on the Baltic Denmark squared up to an aggressive German Confederacy.

Now I also stumbled across something else.

The Wars of Italian Unification are reckoned to have really got going after Napoleon first defeated Austria in the 1790’s fuelling the peninsula with raw ideas of revolution.

So reading about Napoleonic Italy led me to the US Navy in the mediterranean sea! This is something I have completely missed. Mind you the 1812 Anglo-American War has passed me by as well.

All these steps were made possible by reading books. I love book reading – yes I need access to online material but I love reading a “printed” page.

MacAulay’s Book 1 of his Garibaldi trilogy includes his hero’s failed attempt to join the besieged Venetians. Michael Embree’s Radetzky Marches covers the siege in more detail including some sea action.

General reading about the italian wars of the 19th century introduced the presence of the US fleet in the mediterranean.

this educational book is just right for quick reference – it gives excellent summaries

The First Schleswig Holstein War of 1848 includes some fascinating sea action – where the shore batteries won!

A book about Barbary pirates fighting the US Navy in the Mediterranean in the early 1800’s actually covers some of the effects of the Anglo-US war of 1812 and the whole issue of the lack of a US fleet that could even put to sea when blockaded in home ports by the dominant British Navy.

And that final book has led me back to the USA and some of its naval experiences during the Napoleonic era. That has somehow triggered in my head the need to test simple naval rules.

I am after small actions and a high level of abstraction.

While abstraction is an essential part of wargaming your mind of course fills in all the gaps to give something like this…………

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/fr/deed.en

Tags garibaldi, grid wargaming, Naval Rules, wargaming with grids, wars of the italian unification

wargame rules wargaming

On the Grid but all at sea

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 12th Aug 2021
2 Comments on On the Grid but all at sea

Table Top Battles (TTB) by Mike and Joyce Smith are an excellent set of rules for my solo campaigning. The ruleset is actually a compendium of rules including air and fantasy not to mention siege warfare and, as you may have guessed, a set of naval rules.

All packed into 40 odd A4 pages the softback ruleset is short on images but strong on mechanisms that are simple, work together and can be adjusted or expanded.

So having flicked past the naval rules, on many occasion, I have finally succumbed. I dug out some thin card and scissors and pencil in hand in a thrice had two magnificant navies…………

Tags grid wargaming, Naval Rules, Table Top Battles, wargaming with grids

Mythical Realms wargame rules wargaming

Fauxterre 1816: Part 6 Running the Rule over Kloster Arens

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 3rd Aug 2021
2 Comments on Fauxterre 1816: Part 6 Running the Rule over Kloster Arens

The Neil Thomas ruleset 19th Century European Wargaming (NT19e) has quickly become a favorite of mine, stoking an interest in an era that frankly I have never read about since I was taught, as a kid, about some mad British Cavalry charging Russian guns in a place called Crimea. And not knowing that the French and Prussians rehearsed world war 1 44 years early, in 1870, as well. I did learn about the American Civil War – but that was on a different continent, so doesn’t count.

Neil Thomas restricts his interest to the evolution of European Wars over a 60 year period.

My original european wargaming interests ended at Waterloo in 1815, with Napoleon and then restarted in 1939 with world war 2.

Neil Thomas provides a comprehensive ruleset for battles between 1815 and 1877. Indeed he covers campaigns in a way not really addressed in any of his previous publications. He persists with his “keep it simple but interesting” style: Too simple and you get bored. And I originally considered my first contact with his Ancient and Medieval Wargames tended to the boring – compared to the more complicated rules still holding sway 15 years or so back then. How wrong that has proved to be. I now regularly use all his rulebooks.

For my first Zarland wars I have taken Neil Thomas NT19e and used the following

The forces generators for the mini and standard game
the command optional rules

To that I have added

My Zarland Campaign narrative – to provide the background and scenario details
Forces on the march so my forces invariably have advance guards or flying columns
Dispersal – you need to concentrate from the march because there is always something drawing troops away: So you don’t always get what you want, where you want it. Thats an imaginary life!

Zarland Backdrop

The collision of the three forces were part of the politics of the campaign with Davaria allied to Vin Alba and wanting to support Prince Otto, in reality also wanting a slice of Greater Zarland itself.

Vin Alba has other borders to attend to, so its own effort is only partial.

I used a simple random % to deal with such diverse interests and the use of respective forces drawn from each countries establishments. I normally set up an “establishment” – the theoretical force a country has in place or could raise with notice. Against this the actual field force is a product of circumstance, conflicted resources and leadership (both political and administrative).

So that gets you three slightly different forces and not all “top troops”.

Arrivals

The idea of forces on the march allowed me to apply the simple rule of an NT19e mini game for the advance guards contacting, followed by an NT19e main game for the main bodies clashing.

I diced for broad decisions which led to the Davarians under General Modistin having no advance guard, marching to join and support an already present VinAlban army. Also neither Zarland nor VinAlban advance guards had control of the field. So it was a proper blundering encounter.

Units were mixed with blinds to create a shuffled card deck which was dealt randomly into marching columns. These were moved until contact was made. I also kept the card deployments in place to help create some fog of war. This complimented my “umpire” role in what was a “zero player” wargame.

The advance guards fought a simple engagement with only a few units heavily involved which is always the more likely in my games. It was simply a logical move to retreat the VinAlbans northwards at the end of the first day. By chance this fed the second day action with a false assumption, by the Zarlanders, that the VinAlbans were in force to the north of the battlefield. All this helps develop the battle narrative without hijacking it.

On day 2 the main battlelines met on the same field. This time the NT19e command rule restricting the number of units in action per move did have some effect, while the use of written rules at least one move ahead, meant I had no temptation to make changes of order to achieve a sudden opportunity.

Finally the weather rule (from Charles Wesencraft’s Practical Wargames) provided detail and in fact influenced the game ending early. I then simply determined a number of options for day three and randomly selected one. This turned out to be the “VinAlbans break off action”. I then came up with the appropriate story line that this was caused by “orders from higher up” and ensuring some dissatisfaction on the part of the Davarians.

Tags 19th century wargame rules, Davaria, Fauxterre, Mythical Realms, Neil Thomas, Vienna Treaty Wars, Vin Alba, wargames rules, Zarland

Mythical Realms wargame rules wargaming

Fauxterre 1816 Part 3 – Rules for the Kloster Arens Encounter

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 14th Jul 2021
2 Comments on Fauxterre 1816 Part 3 – Rules for the Kloster Arens Encounter

In part 1 of this series of posts I covered the background to the “Twins War” which broke out in Greater Zarland.

In part 2 I gave a narrative account of an encounter between two advance guards of the respective Royal Zarland Army (the defender) and the VinAlban Army (the aggressor).

In this, part 3 I will detail the rules I am using.

Fauxterre is my mythical realm for what I call the Vienna Treaty Wars. The period between the demise of Napoleon and the Russians wresting control from the Ottoman Turks of the Black Sea is about 60 years and offers up a fascinating choice of technology, engagements and of course uniforms.

Fauxterre 1816 is very much Napoleonic in outlook to begin with. By Fauxterre 1878 the components for World War 1 are already in place – especially technology.

My primary ruleset is from Neil Thomas – Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878 (NT19e). How convenient!

I now have many Neil Thomas titles in my wargames library. And this one first arrived as an “e publication”. I was so impressed I tracked down a rarely for sale hard copy version from the USA. I use both. I am a “printed” book collector anyway.

For my Fauxterre campaign I have also used some other rulesets to meet my needs.

They are

Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming
A solo wargames association article on campaign unit advancement
One Hour Wargames and Wargaming an Introduction by Neil Thomas
Table Top Battles – Grid Wargaming by Mike Smith
A Gentlemans War (e pub) by Howard Whitehouse
Piquet Field of Battle 2nd Edition by Brent Oman

In fact I am keeping the rulesets apart for battles and actions.

Why multiple rulesets?

As a soloist you can please yourself. I actually want the rules for different situations.

Table Top Battles on a grid are good for big encounters – one base equals say a battalion
One Hour wargames does what it says on the tin! quick turnround
A Gentlemans War lends itself to looking at skirmishes in more detail
NT19e simply gives you a complete package and coupled with One Hour Wargames, lots of flexibility
Piquet – simply because I like the randomness of the rules for a change! and lastly
Practical Wargaming by Charlie Wesencraft is another complete package and with some fine mechanisms it gives you a quick and interesting game (in a way Donald Featherstone offerings were not – with Donald Featherstone, I am always spoilt for his fantastic range of choices instead!).
Wargaming, an Introduction gives me some perspective on Neil Thomas thinking. It includes rules for Napoleonic and ACW wars which sort of bookend his NT19e ruleset.

Where to start?

I think for campaigns the attrition of forces is as good as any. And together with attrition is their reinforcement, gaining of experience and honours.

I came across these ideas in Donald Featherstones books first.

The ideas have remained popular. Indeed RPG games starting with D&D quite simply were all about gaining experience and levelling up: The difference – it was so personal.

In 2012 Sam Mustapha published his Maurice ruleset and in there you find a very basic three level unit quality rule aimed at Maurice being a simple multi battle campaign.

Elite
Trained
Conscript

Neil Thomas uses a 3 level scale in his book Wargaming, an Introduction.

In the Napoleonic rules he uses Elite, Average and Levy with ranges 3-6/4-6 and 5-6 respectively. He then slides these to 4-6/5-6 and 6 on D6 dice rolls when he moves to the ACW era. You can see he downgrades “elite” and “average” while levy are also downgraded and become “militia”.

Perhaps in all this is the genesis of a finer grading he uses in Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe which I have abbreviated to NT19e. Either way Neil sees unit quality as an important ingredient for this post Napoleonic era which also includes the ACW period albeit in Europe. Morale on a D6 rating are

Fanatic (2-6)
Elite (3-6)
Average (4-6)
Levy (5-6)
Rabble (6)

I used these in the Kloster Arens encounter.

For future battles though I will probably adopt the following approach.

I found it in an old copy of Lone Warrior, TLMorgan wrote “oh what a surprise!” His fragility factors attracted me because they also seem to lean towards the 19th century armies willingness to easily run away and then come back and have another go. In fact Donald Featherstone uses that very idea in chapter 12 of Battles with Model Soldiers to reflect his view of ACW armies.

And again in Neil Thomas’s Wargaming an Introduction, he contrasts Napoleonic rules with ACW era where in the latter you have rallying of quick breaks in the fighting ability of units.

TLMorgan provided the following example in Lone Warrior

Green 0-5
Seasoned 6-13
Veteran 14-16
Elite 17-20

The idea is each unit gathers small amounts of experience or attrition and moves on the 0 to 20 scale.

Note TLMorgan describes experience levels whereas Neil Thomas mixes it a bit with measures (average) and types (militia).

TLMorgan provides the means to reflect smaller steps of progress in a campaign compared to say Maurice where each step is the result of a major battle – a case of sequenced battles equating to a campaign. In my case I wanted a campaign where big battles were not guaranteed. In that situation you need a different approach to rewarding experience. Actually much more of a nod to incremental levelling up you get in the original D&D game.

Next TLMorgan also used a similar technique I came across in Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming. This is where a unit can have its incremental grading for the campaign but on the day of battle can have a different one! This is excellent for narrative creation – prevents the best always being at their best and delivers that campaign grist soloists need.

Again from the original D&D – a super swordsman adventurer having a hangover from too much beer the night before and not being able to wield his sword the next morning…….

Prior to each battle TLMorgan threw a 1D6 for each unit with a 1 meaning the unit was demoted one of their grades for that battle only. Similarly a 6 gained the unit a temporary promotion. Your narrative takes care of the reason.

Another Charlie Wesencraft idea I like is the weather board – ok Donald Featherstone gives you plenty on weather effects as do so many others. I have simply found the Practical Wargaming version enduring and simple in its impact.

You have a scale of 2 to 12, with 6 weather effects and each battle turn you move up or down on a dice throw (range -1,0 or +1) having thrown a 2d6 to get you a starting point.

Kloster Arens Encounter

I used my narrative map to generate some relationships to flesh out the core story about succession. It is here in an earlier Fauxterre post:

https://wordpress.com/post/thewargamingerratic.home.blog/2539

These relationships have driven the conflicts and belligerants including who might be supporting whom.

Having created the conflicted situation I simply used the NT19e minigame scenario generator for the advance guard forces and the main scenario generator for the main bodies.

To get some unit qualities I simply threw a single d12 for each unit against the following table

Fanatic on a 1
Elite on a 2 or 3
Average on 4 to 8
Levy on 9 to 11
Rabble on a 12

Zarland Royal Army Advance Guard (Commander is General Sumpf)

4th Benkendorf Infantry Regiment – Average
12th Maulhadt Infantry Regiment – Levy
13th Nurtberg Infantry Regiment – Levy
6th Dirkheim Artillery – Average
5th Gellenstein Cavalry – Average

No skimishers in this NT19e selection

VinAlban Army Advance Guard (Commander is General Stute)

11th Fusiliers – Levy
12th Fusiliers – Rabble
13th Fusiliers – Levy
1st Artillery – Average
2nd Artillery – Levy

no cavalry or skirmishers in this NT19e selection of pretty poor troops.

Both commands could control up to 6 units using NT19e optional leadership rules.

So you can see that immediately NT19e gives you asymmetrical or rather different but balanced forces. The use of a unit grading/quality then further alters the result.

Finally I have seen the reference to “zero player” wargaming. This is where the soloist takes neither side but in effect is the third person umpire you get in normal two player games that do have an umpire.

I suppose I play “zero player games”.

To help this dimension I add another layer of deviation or loss of control.

Written Orders

Long out of popularity with two player gamers, written orders are a convenient way to control a game for the soloist. First memorising one sides plans is hard enough, memorising two sides is near impossible and you live in the moment reacting to everything that has just gone before: objectivity and impartiality go out the window.

Written orders gives you a delayed reaction and contributes to the fog of war.

I write two moves ahead which further removes my immediate control. I think it still retains a degree of accuracy when units fail to always react to situations immediately. Very unrealistic situations are simply handled, with dicing for a series of revised actions to modify that one issue.

And if one general is particularly poor they may have to write three ahead – personally intervening more often, if they can, to get things changed more quickly. In contrast a very superior general may be allowed to write only one move order ahead reflecting their greater awareness to situations and independence of their officers.

Neil Thomas is not a great lover of explicit command rules believing in the wargamers ability to mess up, being enough friction in itself! Yet I think in his heart he is writing mainly for two player face to face games and his unaltered rules work really well there.

In summary I use a set of rules with their options and then add in the scene setter + unit quality (if missing) + written orders + weather.

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

On the Grid with Post Napoleonic

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 10th Jun 2021
2 Comments on On the Grid with Post Napoleonic

I have revisited some grid based wargames rules I used with some success last year in my shieldwall battles.

This time they are dealing with post Napoleonic Warfare.

Rules: Table Top Battles now branded for GRID Wargaming by Mike Smith and I was using a 50mm grid style table just slightly bigger than the one used in the rules.

You will notice that I like asymmetrical forces wargaming which is essential if you are to enjoy solo campaigns.

Narrative: Zarland is in crisis with the succession challenged and neighbouring countries all seizing opportunities!

Davaria, located south west of Zarland, decide it is time apply some pressure and march on Zarland.

General Jacapo Guarnieri led a strong force to the border. Meanwhile the Regent dispatched General Jenthe Knees with a hastily gathered force to hold the river Plima. General Knees at least had the good fortune to discover the likely crossing point of the Davarians.

He bivouacked his troops around the village of Menas.

He had with him

4 units of Hussars
6 units of Infantry mostly untried militia
2 field guns

As the morning mist drifted off the river Plima General Knees viewed the arrival of the Davarians, who had been marching since just before dawn.

General Guarnieri had the following troops at his disposal. Many of his light troops were away foraging, sorting logistics and scouting. The irregulars were probably just sleeping under some trees!

4 regular infantry units
4 regular heavy cavalry units
4 field guns

General Knees ordered his Zarland cavalry forward to test the Davarian left wing marching against the north Menas bridge. He posted the rest of his forces on the defensive.

General Guarnieri ordered his troops forward to take both bridges and force a crossing. The river here was narrow but with steep banks, difficult to cross. The Davarians planned to keep their feet dry.

Meanwhile the Zarland militia do well to repulse the Davarian Foot who try to rush the south Menas bridge.

Eventually the battle ends in stalemate at the south bridge as the Davarian Infantry can make no headway here. The north Menas bridge though is now exposed by the loss of the Zarland hussars who are driven off to the North West.

General Knees uses the cover of dusk to abandon his positions. The Davarian Commander General Guarnieri has secured his objective.

I used the standard rules plus elements of the solo rules section. The rules are a really useful halfway house for campaign battles where to set up a full game is not possible but dicing for a result is too blunt.

I have become a lot more amenable to grids – Peter Pig was my first enjoyable exposure (Rules for the common man) especially since I have simply never managed to like large hex wargames where I just feel its a blown up board game. Peter Pigs grids were almost invisible – excellent. Mike Smith’s grids are for me a happy compromise.

Tags "Imagi"nations, grid wargaming, imaginative wargaming, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, Vienna Treaty Wars

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

Fictional Battle Favorite?

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 25th May 2021
No Comments on Fictional Battle Favorite?

https://tradgardland.blogspot.com/2021/05/favourite-fictional-fight.html?showComment=1621973038476#c1196243312562452816

The Duchy of Tradgardland Blog by Tradgardmastare always throws up interesting posts.

A recent one asked about your favorite battle from the wargamers fictional world. It struck a chord.

The Franco Prussian War centenary was in 1970/71, so during Donald Featherstones publishing boom it was very topical and popular. As a youngster who only knew about the ACW, WW2 and Napoleon it was a period that was just far too obscure. And there were no plastic figures to hand.

Donald Featherstones Advanced Wargames was the first book I got from a library although it was swiftly followed by Charge! Or how to play wargames, by Lawford & Young. That library gave me a lifelong hobby.

It was a few years before I actually bought a book on wargames or rather received one as a present.

Advance Wargames is not a logical place to start wargaming. It did contain all the parts for a set of wargames rules. It was just that they were all dotted around and mixed up!

So it is not surprising that the chapter 14 about Games with more than Two players got me started solo campaigning!

Here are the vital words that I kept coming back to.

The whole issue of a small advance guard worked for me as I had no armies as such. I had a some ACW infantry, artillery and cavalry. They stood in for the French and Prussians who I had little interest in. When I obtained my first Airfix Napoleonics this battle idea was a regular one to feature.

Donald Featherstone always made me want to imagine a world around the game. And his writing I found very engaging.

The scenario sees some light infantry, light cavalry and horse guns contacting a larger enemy. And the scenario included generals with differing capabilities and couriers. Finally the scenario set similar objectives but with differing forces. So Asymmetrical Wargaming was a starting point for me.

I mentioned Charge! – the Battle of Sittangbad is of course another Asymmetrical situation. I quickly adopted that one as another favorite scenario.

And when I started my latest project – venturing beyond 1725 for the first time in decades – it was a scenario I used again. This time it was the post napoleonic era – 1815 to 1848ish.

And I used Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming – one book I did buy and still possess.

here is the link to that battle refought in 2021.

https://wordpress.com/post/thewargamingerratic.home.blog/1892

Tags advanced wargames, battle of sittangbad, Charge! or how to play wargames, charles wesencraft, donald featherstone, franco prussian war, practical wargaming, the duchy of tradgardland

Book Reviews Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame rules wargaming

TFL’s Sharp Practice on World Book Day

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 4th Mar 2021
1 Comment on TFL’s Sharp Practice on World Book Day

Back in 2008 Richard Clarke of Too Fat Lardies published Sharp Practice. I had always considered this black powder ruleset very Napoleonic. Yet it is for black powder wars and these ran well into the 19th Century.

Enter George Macaulay Trevelyan (GMT) who a mere 100 years before Sharp Practice wrote a trilogy on Guiseppe Garibaldi hero of the Wars of Italian Unification (WotIU).

This little post is not about my current interest in WotIU. We must travel back to the 1830’s and sail to South America. Uruguay to be more accurate.

The War for Rio Grande do Sol was fought out between Uruguay and Brazil. Later Uruguay fought Argentina along the rivers that fed the Rio de la Plata.

Garibaldi fled Piedmontese execution in 1836, having failed to cause rebellion in its navy, served in both these wars and became a local hero by 1848.

In the process he developed his expertise in warfare, leading bands of highly motivated and very mobile forces. This experience would serve him well on his return to Italy.

I am not sure how you might acquire the GMT trilogy – I got mine from Paul Meekins Military books. There are a few other more modern Garibaldi biographies.

In the introduction to Richard Clarkes Sharp Practice the author makes it clear the rules aim to relive the exploits of 19th century literary heroes. GMT hero worships Garibaldi not least because of his political leanings – a true revolutionary of the people. GMT adds a lot of praise and enrichment to the story shall we say.

Contemporary accounts and later biographies recount small naval actions with Garibaldi being shot on deck and his wife Anita Riberas also being shot as she fought with him. Lagoons, amphibious assaults, cattle rustling (the key cash crop), sieges, river gorges, forests, upland ridgeways, prairie, pampas, arroyas (wooded streams) and canadas (ground dips deep enough to hide your forces in!), not to mention lancer cavalry fighting musket armed soldiers.

In fact the Risorgimento continues to be fought over as a literary subject in itself. I have enjoyed Lucy Riall’s book which injects some 21st century objectivity into it all. Lucy has also authored a book about Garibaldi, that might be a good starting point for using Sharp Practice in a different way.

Those pesky Bersaglieri cannot be left alone…………..postings to follow

So my offering today is to the jaded “Richard Sharpe” player – cast way those green jackets and take on the slaughterhouse cloth of Monte Video* and march or should I say ride with Garibaldi across the uplands of the Rio Grande do Sol, grossly outnumbered yet most often victorious: And he lived to tell his tales.

*the famous italian red shirts apparently started life as a very cheap industrial clothing for Garibaldis Italian Legion in Monte Video.

Tags garibaldi, Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Republic, george macaulay trevelyan, lucy riall, maps, paul meekins books, red shirts, richard clarke, rio grande do sul, sharp practice, too fat lardies, uruguay 1846, wars of the italian unification, world book day, WotIU

1/72 scale figures 20/25/28mm figures Mid 19th Century Wargaming miniatures painting wargame rules wargaming

New Wargames Project = New Basing options

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 12th Jan 2021
No Comments on New Wargames Project = New Basing options

I have had some very satisfactory results moving to large bases as suggested by Impetus Rules when using 1/72 figures. So 80mm x 60mm basing has been almost exclusively the preferred basing method.

With my latest enchantment – Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU) I have moved onto something different. I intend using PIQUET rules amongst others. In their ruleset 1700-1900 Field of Battle, Brent Oman suggests that units composed of a few bases not only work for his rules but look good.

I think he is right. So I am going with a standard unit of 4 bases, each measuring 40mm x 40mm.

This will allow 1×4 columns, 2×2 blocks and 4×1 lines. As you have probably gathered, scale is not my priority on the battlefield. I like a combination of “look”, proportion, abstraction and playability.

And being a solo wargamer “look” is simply my preference.

So these pictures show my first Piedmontese Line Infantry unit.

The only other consideration is figure arrangement. Going with PIQUET, I have settled on 3 figures per base. So you can either have one figure at the front or two to the front, assuming your not having 3 in a row.

I am going with 2 to the front.

Tags base widths, basing miniatures, Brent Oman, Field of Battle rules, multiple figure basing, Piquet Wargame Rules, wars of italian unification