Category: wargame rules

Riding into a new Wargaming Era (an imaginations game)

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 11th Jan 2021
No Comments on Riding into a new Wargaming Era (an imaginations game)

Yep crease lines show up in pictures – at least I know the centre line of the battlefield though.

This battlefield is a take on a few where a road junction provides the focus of the action as forces collide due to poor scouting. I quickly drew a map looking to create a bottleneck to be fought over.

On this scrap of paper Moulet-Arles appears from nowhere. Maybe it will just as quickly be forgotten?

Narrative

Savelonia has been wracked by insurrection and revolution. Nothing new here as the region has been fraught with instability. Sabaudia and Savelonia occupy the western lands of the Empire which had seen better days.

Yet the Emperor Raymond has seen his fortunes improve in recent times and feels compelled to show some strength in the region.

Meanwhile King Nikola of Sabaudia sees opportunities to expand his kingdom and influence.

The provisional government of Savelonia had already appealed to King Nikola for assistance so it was easy to frame his response as coming to the assistance of downtrodden peoples still living under the hard boot of the Imperialists.

The Emperor ordered his forces to mobilise.

General Gutenstein marched south and west through the Crownlands of Pommardia and through some minor duchies before reaching the borderlands of Savelonia. It is a pity his majesty had not thought to build his very new fangled railways where the army needed to march, the General thought, as his forces struggled through the mud under grey and darkening skies.

He had sent ahead General Hartmann a promising young officer. General Hartmann had 2 battalions of riflemen along with 2 squadrons of light cavalry plus 2 horse guns.

His orders were to seize the road junctions around Moulet-Arles. Local guides informed him the area was known as the “Gap of Moulet-Arles” owing to a dense forest to the west and some high ground to the east. three roads came together at Moulet-Arles and just one road led south west into the Savelonian heartlands. Hartmann noted that his maps did not show these features as significant. He pushed his men on as the grey clouds dispersed a little.

To the South West General Forlan cursed the weather, the people, the roads and the Kings Logistics Corps or rather lack of one.

His forces had been late leaving their concentration points and then the revolutionaries in Savelonia had been creating havoc. At least he had corralled the rebellion to just the three major cities in the Grand Duchy. This had given the Provisional Government some order. It was little time in which to prepare for the inevitable response by the Empire.

Now he had word of Imperial forces gathering to the north east. He had sent General Ducrot forward to secure what looked like a key road junction at Moulet-Arles.

General Ducrot was your average time served officer of the Empire who had opted to make his later career with the kingdom and frankly this explosion of activity late in the year had not been to General Ducrots’ liking with his plans to enjoy the spa towns of the Drabzan Mountains now put on hold.

And the weather was turning bad it would seem.

General Ducrot considered his orders again. Take the two road junctions of Moulet-Arles driving off any enemy. His battalion of Chasseurs were key and were supported by 2 squadrons of light cavalry and 2 battalions of line infantry. His one horse gun left him vunerable but from what he had heard the Imperialists were only “demonstrating” – a bit of sabre rattling.

As he came within sight of Moulet-Arles the rain seemed to intensify, it certainly darkened despite it being late morning already.

Heavy rain now sweeps across the battlefield and movement all but ceases. Both armies main forces are coming up but with the light fading fast General Hartmann concludes that his day is done. Leaving a battalion of riflemen in Petit Moulet-Arles he withdraws a little way away and seeks new orders.

Later that evening the Imperialists retire leaving General Ducrot and the Sabaudian forces to enjoy the dubious delights of Moulet-Arles on a very wet and sodden ground.

The Wargame

The narrative was built largely from the wargame outcomes with only the naming, origin of the war etc. being necessary additions.

Setting up the game

With my latest wargames fad being post Napoleonic warfare I just had to get some games in.

So there was a degree of improvisation necessary.

Currently I am painting armies for the 1850’s and with none complete that could not be my starting point. Help was at hand through Charles Wesencraft’s Practical Wargaming (WPW). While I was looking at his Franco Prussian rules I realised they were a build on his Napoleonic rules in the same book. Added to that I had some Napoleonic Figures ready to use and the decision was made.

This was a Faux Napoleonic game. Thank you Renaissannce Troll!

The idea for this game was the Franco Prussian scenario set out in chapter 14 of section 6 entitled “how many generals?”. And the book was Donald Featherstones Advanced Wargames (DFAW).

The scenario written for multiple players sees two forces collide having sent out advanced gauards. The question is who can feed in their main elements and rear gaurds most effectively.

Also objectives are defined by the ongoing campaign – so you don’t play fast and loose “one game” tactics.

The Imperial Forces were

Advanced Guard led by General Hartman (+1) with Staff Officer Kroos (0)

2 Battalions of Jagers (M2, M2)
2 Squadrons of Light Cavalry (M2, M2)
2 Horse guns (M2, M2)

Main Body led by General Gutenstein (+1)

1 Battalion of the Imperial Guardsmen
2 Squadrons of Heavy Cavalry
7 Battalions of Line Infantry
2 Field guns

Rearguard

Not specified

These forces had become broken up and were all heading on different roads which converged at Moulet-Arles.

In the “WPW” rules staff officers provide some variation and control when playing face to face opponents giving each staff officer a temporary +1 on die rolls with the unit they are with. I tweaked this by making staff officers themselves variable to introduce some more friction for solo play. And Generals were included to account for any decisions they made.

General/Staff Officer 6 on a D6 = +2
General/Staff Officer 4 or 5 on a D6 = +1
General/Staff Officer 1,2 or 3 on a D6 = 0

So the Imperial forces were well blessed with leaders

Turning to the Sabaudians we had

The Adavanced Guard led by General Ducrot (0) with staff officer Hautois (+1)

1 Battalion of Chasseurs (M3)
2 Squadrons of Light Cavalry (M2, M2)
2 Battalions of Line Infantry (M2, M1)
1 Horse Gun (M1)

The Main body led by General Forlan (0)

2 Battalions of Guard Infantry
5 Battalions of Line Infantry
2 Squadrons of Heavy Cavalry
3 Field guns

The M and number value for each advanced guard unit denotes their morale classification on the day. WPW assumes that top notch units can underperform and raw units out perform themselves on any one day. This helps with Campaigns or the sort of narrative gaming I do. Not much use to the “lists” gamers though – far too confusing.

So M3 denotes a unit in top form, M2 average condition and M1 – well you need to roll your dice high when testing morale!

I diced for all the units in the main bodies – when they would arrive and by which road (3 options for the Imperial forces!)

In the event the game ended swiftly because of some timing decisions and the weather.

Now there has always been something different to me about Charles Wesencrafts’ rules. Maybe it is because back then my wargames rules were from basically one author – Donald Featherstone: Gavin Lyall, Terry Wise and Charles Grant all passed me by for example.

Anyway WPW gives you a package – nothing outrageous – it is a complete package and everything has its place. With Donald Featherstone I always felt I could emphasise rule aspects sacrificing others with little thought to the overall game. With WPW I basically take them as presented and play them. Yes I do tweak a bit because solo play requires that extra friction in the absence of another human player.

Well the weather started off wet and just got wetter. I had also randomly found the action started part way through the day. So instead of say the example 12 move battle duration shown in the book I reduced it to no more than 6 moves. And once the rain had set in with the Sabaudians in possession of the crossroads it just seemed logical that the Imperial forces would withdraw and consider their options.

So that ended my first post Napoleonic wargame. And was it a damp squib? if you play only the individual games then absolutely. If on the other other hand you play for campaigns and narratives it was good and in fact immediately suggests other courses of action.

Will the Imperialists now exploit the fact that the Sabaudians have concentrated on the road junction. Maybe they will attack from a new direction. Or maybe mask this position and attack elsewhere to draw the Sabaudians from the crossroads altogether. Maybe the crossroads are now no longer important to the Imperialists.

Finally I will cover a few other points about WPC.

Firstly I used written orders – well simple pictograms and crucially I wrote them at least one move ahead. This immediately adds more friction for the solo game as well as making the staff officer element of the rules even more pertinent.

The rules were for their time, in my view, very good in approaching control and morale. The text at 180 odd pages is quite heavy when the basic rules can be condensed into just a few. This is especially so when you consider the rules cover 6 key periods (ancients, medieval, pike and shot, Eigtheenth Century, Napoleonic, ACW/Franco Prussian). Add to that three variations – two large scale game options and a skirimish option.

The point is the whole book is also the design philosophy into the bargain with explanation alongside the relevant part of the rules.

The rules are therefore stripped of unnecessary features yet have the right blend of “kept rules” so you get a good feel for the game.

The figure removal technique in the game, with what was then an unusual multi figure basing approach, is easily replaced with a value solution such as promoted by the Neil Thomas AMW or OHW rulesets. This allows the figures to stay on the table and as Charles Wesencraft says himself it is not obvious which units are degraded until they do something. Here his morale rules take care of that – so be prepared to move units to the rear rather than just remove them. And it follows rallying can still play a part with those staff officers effectively representing the efforts of all the leaders of the army at whatever rank attempting to keep men in the line.

You can still buy these rules here being part of the John Curry Wargaming Project.

Tags advanced wargames, charles wesencraft, donald featherstone, Faux Napoleonic, john curry wargaming project, post Napoleonic, practical wargaming, Renaissance Troll

1/72 scale figures 20/25/28mm figures anglo saxons basing Carolingians lance and longbow society life metal miniatures Mid 19th Century Wargaming natural world normans in the south wargame rules wargaming

That was 2020!

Well we are at the end of a year that will become notorious.

A year when humanity staggered from the blows of a simple virus. It is perhaps a reminder that nature always has the upper hand no matter how sophisticated our societies have become.

I guess there are plenty of historical parallels to this type of massive societal correction. Not in the same vein but I read recently about how the particularly bad 9th century weather or should I say mini climate change dealt the Carolingians numerous bad harvests damaging their always vunerable Empire. Except even if it were decisive, the roaring vikings is a much more exciting concept of Empire destruction.

Yet right now the Dark Ages have become just that – the Dark Ages as in a box with a lid on it! Right now it is the 19th Century that dominates Wargames in the mind of Norber the Wargaming Erratic.

Before we go and embark on another year there is just enough time to reflect on the fact that 2020 has proven to be rather a good year for my wargaming.

The year got going with a trip to Vapnartak, notable for the fact that it proved to be my one and only show of 2020.

Playing (LIVE) the Lance and Longbow Society game of Tannenberg 1410 made it all the more important as it turned out. It was my last face to face gaming of 2020.

I was into Carolingians at the time of Vapnartak.

so which soldiers marched across my painting table in 2020?

well in 2018 I had managed zero painting while in 2019 I painted and based 32 “normans in the south infantry” and 11 “normans in the south” archers.

in 2020 I managed

12 Carolingians including the man himself – comprising the much maligned (by plastic soldier review) horses which actually give my bases some nice dynamics – in my humble view
10 Anglo Norman archers
24 Normans in the South (NITS – I can’t resist an abbreviation) Cavalry
21 Ottonian foot which look very much like anglo danes or could pass for NITS foot soldiers
43 Anglo Danes were my biggest effort

I finished the year with 4 slavs posing as Picts in my “to be” great army of Danes, Scots, Northumbrians and Norsemen which would fight Athelstan again at Brunanburh

And then the proverbial wheels came off the Dark Ages cart.

Right now the painting table has plastic Union Infantry posing as Piedmont Line Infantry along with some venerable Warrior Miniatures French Dragoons posing as – well French Dragoons. And they are metal!!!

I must say I had a good year with basing – finally getting a look for my mediterranean NITS – ok Normans in the South project.

In fact I have decided it will work for pretty much everything dark ages.

On the gaming front I started solo gaming with an unexpected purchase. Neil Shuck had recommended War & Conquest shortly before jumping ship with another ancients ruleset.

I gave it a go with my bronze age one hour wargame figures based using my hybrid impetus basing of 80mm x 60mm for 1/72 plastics. Ever awkward – probably just as well I don’t need to satisfy a live opponent. I rather liked the feel of the rules even though the play through was so limited.

And then with Covid19 lock down in full swing and some fine weather I had other distractions including lots of gardening .

INTERMISSION

Eventually the dark ages gaming started in late August with numerous shieldwall rule tests – I did really enjoy them all. The biggest surprise was playing gridded wargames using Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles.

My lst shieldwall battle took place in late October and many games and rulesets later was swiftly followed by a thoroughly enjoyable game of Dux Britanniarum by Too Fat Lardies.

I fleshed out some campaign plans as per the rules advice and then…………nothing. I was just starting some Pictish Warriors when I read the wrong article.

Next minute it is baggy pants Zoaves, Spikey helms and far too much rifling. OK so it is still rather pedestrian Piedmontese – these proto Italians are quite conservative chaps – very un Napoleonic.

And since then two battles have been fought – one with Practical Wargaming by Charles Wesencraft and the other using 19th Century Wargames by Neil Thomas.

And so I wish you all a graceful end to the year 2020 and hope that 2021 brings you all that you hope for.

Mid 19th Century Wargaming new additions wargame rules wargaming

Beyond Waterloo

There is nothing like a Neil Thomas rule set to get you in the mood for a quick table top war game. There is something about the way he writes that certainly has me itching to get figures on the table.

And his simple rules plus some magic essence seems to work every time. You have to accept he will give you a few pronouncements and strangley use some convoluted prose in the text that usually comes before his brief rules.

Get beyond that and he offers some gems.

It is also strange that I still like the complex rulesets he rails against.

On that score I have just acquired “Field of Battle” second edition Piquet rules by Brent Oman. Definitely marmite or niche at the least.

Published in 2011 they predate Neil Thomas’ Wargaming:19th Century Europe 1815-1878 which were published in 2012.

So they are contemporary.

With some 90 pages of rules and 2.4.2 style paragraph tabulations making Field of Battle look legal you would think Neil is on to a winner with me. Well that is all to play for as I have used neither set yet.

The read throughs have not deterred me from planning to try out both as soon as I can.

I like the look of Neils’ scenarios generators and I have the benefit of happily using them in his previous rulesets of Ancient and Medieval Wargaming (AMW) as well as One Hour Wargames (OHW).

I had expected to be looking at the Italy of the mid 19th century: erring towards Garibaldi amongst others. However I really have thought again about Renaissance Trolls two Faux Napoleonic Infantry he talked around.

And Neil Thomas neatly condenses his armies of the post Napoleonic era into “monarchists” and “revolutionaries”. All smoothbore as well. And you can still show off some fancy uniforms.

So I am drifting already…………. I am thinking I can have some Napoleonic cake and make it small enough to eat and without Napoleon, Wellington or Blucher looking over my shoulder.

Some nice obscurity history wise which will better feed my “Faux post Napoleonics” even before I get to the mid century period wars that started off this escapade!

The spiral into wargame madness continues.

Tags Brent Oman, Field of Battle rules, Neil Thomas, Piquet Wargame Rules, Renaissance Troll, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe

saxons wargame rules wargaming

Dux Britanniarum Episode 2 Vitalinus catches the Raiders

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 12th Dec 2020
1 Comment on Dux Britanniarum Episode 2 Vitalinus catches the Raiders

In episode 1 I set the scene for starting a campaign using Dux Britanniarum.

Two evenly matched small forces are all that are necessary to get started – about 40 figures per side – all infantry. Although in my case that equates to just 7 impetus elements for my Romans and 6 for my Saxons.

Then its character creation with simple Role-Playing Game style giving the forces some particular definition. And if you’re going to campaign rather than play one off battles then a narrative becomes a real benefit. Creating a story from your gaming is one very good reason to wargame campaigns.

I used these rules unaltered except for terrain set up where Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles were preferred.

Next is the campaign start rules. Career paths are provided to signpost your characters development. Quite simply they remind me of the original Levels in 1970’s D&D – each status in the path opens up more benefits and choices – for a price. And that’s where the filthy lucre comes in. You need some bright metal to progress.

The aim of the campaign is that the Saxon player ends up with their own kingdom carved out of the Roman Provinces. Meanwhile the British/Roman player simply needs to retain his kingdom and aspire to either rule it or become the great military power of the whole island itself.

The campaign is not map based. The campaign last 8 months in each year from March to October. Losses are not easily replaced so some months no conflicts may occur.

At the start of the game both sides are minor players so the battle rules can be ignored.

The book of battles does though have the crucial Raiding tables which set out what you need to do to run a raid.

You determine the forces morale based on results of the previous encounter and a random element. So, each game will be slightly different.

For my start the Saxons were on 5 + 2 = 7 while the Romans were on 5 + 3 = 8.

Pre game set up, champions and speeches are skipped as they relate to battles.

The fate cards, which drive yet more variability, are designed to give each force specific benefits. Some cards mutually benefit both sides.

The two forces are dealt a hand of five cards for the raid where two are specified and three are random. Poor shuffling meant that some awful hands were dealt at the start.

I will just show the early “hands”

In Episode 1 I described the terrain set up. For my “Raiding a Farm or Village” the location was determined using the raiding rules in TDux.

Again fortune smiled on the Saxons.

The Saxons then threw to find out how much surprise they had. The Saxons gained two free moves before the game proper started.

I moved the Saxons and then determined the Roman arrival point. This turned out to be a congested corner of the table which impeded their progress from the start.

The Saxons would win the raid if they left the table with their loot. The scale of their win would be helped by how many men escaped as well plus how many Romans they killed.

The Romans had to stop them taking the loot to win.

I suppose I should say that I have tended to use Romans in this post rather than British or Romano British. Maybe as the campaign builds, they will morph into “Britons”.

Rules Digressions

Before I return to the action I have set down some of the rules which I think are notable.

A small set of cards determine the sequence for each turn. Another randomisation. For gamers who like control this is probably getting far too much. For solo play its ideal as “loss of control” is essential to make the game come alive.

A key aspect of the sequence is that controlled forces all activate before the uncontrolled. Using your leaders and their supporting nobles, command range is important. It follows that their position can improve or hinder things.

Each side has three commanders, and the leader has an initiative of 3 while his nobles have 2. That represents their ability to activate. The leader can do three discrete activations while his nobles on their turn get to do up to 2. In one full turn of the card deck the three commanders share 7 activations.

There are various constraints on these leader attributes such as when they are in the heat of the battle or how they have organised their forces. The fate hand cards allow additional activation.

Yet another variable is movement – when activated a group will throw dice to determine their movement. With 3d6 the range is 3” to a staggering 18”. There are quite a few reductions and as you have to move the full amount this can work against your force as its leader loses range control.

Forming shieldwall rightly slows you down and makes you less manoeuvrable. There are the usual terrain penalties for movement. There are some rules for the missile troops and cavalry as well as interpenetration of groups being restricted or having consequences.

Finally, units end up facing the direction they travelled and can only see the 180 degrees to their front. This informs the 4” Zone of influence which a group imposes to its front restricting any enemy entering or leaving that zone. I forgot this rule quite a few times during the heat of battle………..

Firing is straight forward with range limitations and usual “to hit” throws required.

Now we come to impact. “Shock” is what results from missile fire or hand to hand combat. Accumulated shock drives a group back and eventually breaks them. Leaders can rally groups by removing shock through activation.

In Combat once two forces contact each other dice are thrown to hit and for allocation – multiple groups fighting need to know who hit who. Effect is determined as with missile fire consulting a table where the quality of troops being hit affects the random dice outcome.

Leaders are not immune! You can lose a hero.

Shieldwalls stop initial hits and initial shocks so it is a valuable capability for the Romano British.

Unless there is a difference in shock results, the draw means the fight goes on and on for every drawn round of fighting. Only two combat rounds occur before other forces move again. So, more forces might join a combat to shake things up!

“Misplacing ones Amphora” means a group has taken twice as many shocks as there are men in the group and is broken. After uncontrolled groups have moved these broken groups move 3d6 towards any friendly table edge searching for their missing amphora………

So now we come to the force morale mentioned at the start of this post. Each group lost reduces the morale of the force, again randomly influenced by the lost groups type. Losing better quality groups does more harm as you would expect. This variable ensures that you can play the same raid over and over again even on the same terrain and the result will be different.

All this variability means the ruleset presents a vast range of different games to play before any similarity might get seen.

At the end of the game, you count various losses on another table to get a total score. Compared to the enemy score the difference gives a winner/loser combination of outcomes depending on how large the difference is.

Rules then follow for gaining reinforcements and when the next raid will happen. If the Saxon has grown on their success, then the next big step is to contest the province.

There are some tricky annual events to tackle for the Saxon leader, so it is not all one-way traffic to the top!

At 92 pages even allowing for some resource pages plus big FONT, there are lots of rules here compared to the rules I have previously tested the shieldwalls for.

I think it was worth explaining these aspects of the rules up front.

Let battle continue

Now back to the battle where Coenwulf was facing up to some fighting before he could escape with his filthy lucre. Coenwulf wished Gudwal would hurry up and find some coin to make the day worthwhile.

The net result of all losses on both sides was a difference of simply 1 on the raid results table – meagre pickings for Coenwulf and with heavy losses it will be 3 months before the Saxon can raid again. With moderate losses Vitalinus will take 2 months to replace his losses. He will be ready and waiting.

Tags Dux Brittanniarum, Garrison Figures, Lamming Miniatures, Mike Smith, strelets, Table Top Battles, too fat lardies

wargame rules wargaming

4 Rulesets compared

Shieldwalls – Dux Bellorum, AMW, OHW and Table Top Battles Rules reviewed

Over quite a few posts I have reported on my use of rulesets to play battles between shieldwalls. In most cases the two opposing forces were mirror images. This meant the mechanisms in the rules might be more transparent and then the rules could be better contrasted in my mind.

Having said all that “one swallow a summer does not make” so everything I write here is caveated – only multiple playing’s will help you like or dislike a ruleset fully in my view.

Here is a reminder of the rulesets tested

Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas
Dux Bellorum by Daniel Mersey

To these I added

Table Top Battles (gridded wargame) by Mike & Joyce Smith
One Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas

My consideration of the rules is of course subjective, and my criteria may not be to everybody’s liking. So, my criteria are

Reading the rules (understanding/comprehension) – both at the start and when referencing
Ease of Play – how the game played
Outcomes – the outcomes during the game and overall at the end

AMW

Let’s start with AMW. First I should say that from nowhere these rules have come to represent a modern take on what “I remember” I enjoyed about rules from the 1970’s: Above all simplicity. I used the Dark Age ruleset straight from the book.

The rules take up a couple of pages and are in clear large print and easy to understand. I printed the relevant pages as the paperback is a “tome” and short of breaking the spine it is not easy to “use” in a game.

The rules gave a simple mix of troops and are explained in a chapter on why the troop mix was chosen and what they could and could not do. The Shieldwall concept was well covered.

Saxon Cavalry were permitted, and I think Neil is more on the “they were everywhere in life so why not some on the battlefield”. He restricted their presence and impact.

Selection of the 8-unit force was straight forward. I added some variety in the choice of light troops. I used my 80mm frontage IMPETUS bases showing 1/72 plastics. Each base equates almost to 4 x 15mm scale 40x20mm DBA bases as referenced in the rules. Mine are 60mm deep “for the look” as IMPETUS suggests.

The dice to hit and dice to save has some interest for live opponents although for solo play arguably it simply prolongs the playing time. AMW uses the two-step process to provide the layered differentiation between such a small number of unit types to cover several hundred years of warfare and army types.

It did help to keep the stronger type of unit – nobles in the field longer than the peasants.

The first losses also triggered more (domino effect) as AMW uses morale effects to pile on misery when dice are thrown low.

The battle lines were deliberately aligned and close together as the intention was to show two equally sized shieldwalls simply coming together. And the erosion of the 16 hits or 4 bases in DBA speak resulted in some quick breakthroughs. With no need to put the units in base to base contact visually it did not look quite like two shieldwalls: More like roman maniples!

The use of some cavalry may have speeded up the result although I think the outcome was not in doubt.

The feeling and reality of individual units meant that flank attacks were inevitable, and these were the main mechanism of destruction. And the lines once met were static – which cuts both ways – that’s what happened – short of logging loss of points there is not much game movement.

The cavalry interventions were easy to achieve as there is no restriction on command and control.

Finally, the structure of the ruleset with core rules and some simple extra rules simply cries out for more house rules.

In my battle report I suggested a way to deal with anglo saxon cavalry in battle that might more reflect their power as pursuers and opportunists.

Because of the apparent strength of shieldwalls in AMW I then play tested cavalry against a shieldwall. The result was a defeat for the cavalry army. It showed you need to put the whole force jointly in together as the attrition is such that late comers – in my case the token infantry shieldwall were simply outnumbered and picked off in turn.

Coordination is in the hands of the gamer through movement of units and their proximity. This second game also confirmed that archery is quite potent.

Overall, I felt that AMW is better suited to combined arms battles as opposed to a slogging match. Given the breadth of periods covered by the rules these two battles were enjoyable enough for a further outing at some point.

Dux Bellorum

These rules are more modern in concept with command and control central to their use.

Again, the units were 1/72 plastics on 80mm x 60mm IMPETUS bases. Losses would be recorded use dice and tokens.

The points-based game with stat lines for each unit type were easy to understand yet not so memorable as AMW was to me.

I could not resist a slight difference between the forces with one side having mounted skirmish troops equating to a 1-point advantage – 31 v 32 points. Near enough.

The ineffective skirmishers and straightforward meeting of the two-battle lines using the leadership influence made this all feel realistic to my mind.

As in DBA pushbacks showed visually where units were losing the fight. The battle line was still retained as the movement was small.

Distribution of the leadership points can make or break units, although centrally controlled by the gamer I felt this reflected the fact that a line would comprise areas of strong men and areas of weaker maybe reluctant fighters.

The dice head-to-head felt more interesting than the hit versus saving throw of AMW. In a face-to-face game this might also make the exchanges more exciting.

Again, flanking forces including cavalry provided local advantage as the game moved into its later stages.

Dan Mersey talks about the swirl of battle and this was true although the battle line was still discernible late in the game.

Both armies approached their own demise and it was just a few points either way so although the king’s men lost it could easily have been the rebels.

This felt like two battle lines slogging it out and even though there was some “flanking” it was not significant. The forces to a units front mainly did the damage first.

Table Top Battles

The previous two games used “measure and move” rules. Table Top Battles was “gridded” removing any need to get the tape measure out. I have used gridded wargames before with Peter Pigs WW2 rules being memorable.

While many people will know and have played either AMW or Dux Bellorum I reckon TTB by Mike and Joyce Smith will be new to most people.

Published by Partizan Press the ruleset has a feel of looking backwards in the same manner as AMW. The grid though makes for a different feel altogether.

For two shieldwalls the square grid was perfect.

The rules are covered in a couple of sides of A4. Initiative is gained each turn so you can get the effect of a “push” by one side as they win the aggression dice throws successively.

And that aggression is simply a +1 on all dice throws. Getting the initiative also means losses are inflicted before the opposition replies – extending the benefit of being the aggressor.

TTB starts with some simple rules and like AMW adds a few mechanisms to layer the differentiation. The difference is more about advantage in play rather than troop type.

I used the less brutal rules option of push back rather than straight destruction. I don’t think this affected the outcome too much. And it was more appropriate for the slogging match here.

Again, the differences in forces were out on the flanks with one unit of light cavalry in play.

The head to head style of resolving conflicts felt like Dux Bellorum and flowed well. Combat can be grouped so you can really speed up results of several units being joined up for a particular combat round.

While firing is alternate and affected by the aggression advantage, combat is simultaneous. This seems to work ok.

The mass combat meant that push back saw a whole line move back – a bit mechanical – less attractive than Dux Bellorum. In the later stages the erosion of flank units meant push backs became messier and trickier for some units – no room to retreat leads to destruction. And with grids there is a bit of space management to be done and in the right order – shepherd your resources – quite board gamey or chess like. This will not be pleasing to some.

In close combat the mounted and foot skirmishers die easily – I like that.

Finally, the king’s men turned a flank, and this crumpled the rebel line although none had the ignominy of being pushed off the table edge itself. I had not considered that when choosing a very small battlefield of just 2 foot 6 inches deep.

The king’s men were about to really destroy their enemy when the 12th move was completed, and the game ended. A day is 12 moves in TTB. Victory was based on various criteria including base loss. The Kings men won on this measure alone.

TTB comes in a slim 42 page black and white softback A4 booklet. It’s 2-page battle rules are really aimed at supporting campaigns and scenarios. The design is oriented in that direction.

Overall, this was a quick game and the lack of measuring not missed at all. The bulk combats removed some subtlety. The rules are so simple like AMW that house rules can fix most objections.

Overall, I liked this set of rules and with some tinkering they might become popular with me.

One Hour Wargames

With just 12 bases (six a side) on the table this game should be quick.

One-hour wargames built on the reputation of AMW for a reliable set of basic quick play rules. Here the pursuit was an even simpler ruleset that gave a game in under an hour. The rules are really scenario based. I set up scenario 1 – the straight encounter of two equal armies. I ignored the force generator to retain two matched shieldwalls.

The rules in about one side of A4 are very simple. 15 points of value represents the “abstraction” of everything unique about a unit. Random losses tell their story – those losing least – obviously were the strong units!

The skirmishers were ineffectual and fought their own flanking battle.

The alternating slugging match by the shieldwall saw the two lines stand toe to toe with no movement, just points erosion to indicate the fluctuation of battle.

Eventually most of the units reached breaking point and some rapidly departed. However, the first to go were from the side that eventually won so it was not the case that once you gained a local advantage this would give overall success.

In this battle we started with only six units, so I allowed it to run to the last unit standing.

As a result, later on the flanking successes of each right hand meant the whole battle line swirled 90 degrees. And then it happened again. A visual demonstration of Daniel Mersey’s “swirling” battle description perhaps. After all there would be no dressing of lines with the leaders all to the front pushing at enemy weakness.

Overall these rules did feel similar to AMW and felt generic. They seemed to give the same outcome as AMW without the saving throw step. Sacrificing differences, or “layering” if you like, for speed of the game is one of those compromises faced by all rule’s writers and gamers. It is what you want out of a game that matters.

Table of Ruleset Criteria

Ruleset	Reading the rules	Ease of Play	Outcomes
AMW	Straight forward	Straight forward	All logical yet Lacked feeling for the period
Dux Bellorum	I often reread the small print! And a bit wordy at times	Once memorised easy to play	Logical and a good feel for shieldwalls
One Hour Wargames	Short and simple	Straight forward	Logical and yet lacked feeling for the period
Table Top Battles	straightforward	Straight forward or so I thought*	A whole battle line eventually got turned twice while the shieldwall fight itself felt ok.

*I made mistakes in all these games but more of them in the TTB – simple errors forgetting to do something here and there. I took more care with Dux Bellorum.

Overall score – brutally simple – rank 1 to 4 (4 is highest) direct preferencing with no ties and no weighting!

Ruleset	Reading the rules	Ease of Play	Outcomes	TOTAL
AMW	3	1	2	6
Dux Bellorum	1	2	4	7
One Hour Wargames	4	4	1	9
Table Top Battles	2	3	3	8

Surprisingly I am saying OHW is the best for two straight shieldwalls. That probably is true though, diverse forces with more movement would probably show up the limitations of OHW even against its stable mate AMW.

If you ignore the rules reading as being less relevant after many games, it’s a tie between Dux Bellorum and Table Top Battles.

And in the final analysis I have to say that it is Dux Bellorum that gets my vote as the most “shieldwall feeling” rule set.

The others all betray their origin as generic rule sets while Dux Bellorum shows its depth of consideration by the author for a very specific period.

So next time I put up a shieldwall or two for a battle it will be Dux Bellorum unless I am in a real hurry. Then I will have 2 or 3 worthy substitutes.

Finally, some aspects of each ruleset that might be important.

AMW

Pros – well thought out design that gives you a simple yet good range of armies with sufficient variation and interest. The core rules plus some supplementary ones do work

Cons – no command and control explicitly and if you don’t like saving throws then this is not for you.

Dux Bellorum

Pros – command and control plus the head to head fighting. Also, the ability to put pressure into the game yet not everywhere all the time. Detailed for the period of Arthur so no need to compromise on design

Cons – somehow the rules are simple yet don’t read so well or indeed stick in my mind. I was constantly referencing the book which then suffered for its small print and layout with some key parts at the foot of a page and easily missed in the heat of battle. This is a minor point as after 10 games most of the rules will be memorable.

One Hour Wargames

Pros – it is such a simple concept and with the random forces selector and scenario choices is a gem. Speed of play!

Cons – it is generic

Table Top Battles

Pros – I had a brief spell with Kallistra, Strategos and then Peter Pig. Grid gaming has generally passed me by though. I like TTB and they feel like a set I could tweak or tamper with. And I think that gridded wargames may come back into favour.

Cons – sliding towards a board game with figures. We are at the far end of wargames abstraction. Your required to do a lot of imagining.

Happy wargaming

Norber

Tags AMW, ancient and medieval wargaming, daniel mersey, Dux Bellorum, gridded wargames, kallistra hex tiles, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, Neil Thomas, one hour wargames, partizan press, peter pig wargames, strategos, Table Top Battles, TTB

anglo saxons wargame rules wargaming

A small matter of some filthy lucre*

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 28th Nov 2020
No Comments on A small matter of some filthy lucre*

My year of 2020 wargaming has been dominated by anglo saxons and latterly playing some test games using shieldwalls. These fairly static affairs have allowed me to consider a small selection of rules and compare them.

A few posts ago I mentioned I had bought some new rulesets along with a book on modelling scenery. In this latest game rules test the newly acquired Dux Britanniarum gets a solo run out.

At the start of the first lockdown I tried to buy both Duxes, one by Mr Mersey and one by Mr Clarke. I expected to be comparing them. One arrived yet the other just did not come. In the end, having determined that no money was handed over by me, I concluded I had abysmally failed to complete the purchase. And that was that.

Having enjoyed playing Dux Bellorum and for that matter Table Top Battles by Mike Smith, plus AMW and one hour wargames, both by Neil Thomas, I returned to the fray and bought TFL’s Dux Brittaniarum. If nothing else it was Neil Shuck’s summary recommendation, back in 2012, that TDux gives you an excellent campaign tool as well as an excellent set of table top rules. It was the linked series of battles approach that made me buy the ruleset.

So here is my first TDux outing – again solo – complete with mistakes. I made quite a few but decided not to correct them.

I started at the beginning in another way. Interestingly the game handles the various parts of Britain with good geographic logic. In doing so it reveals the rather haphazard progress of the saxons across the land. Maybe Richard Clarke intended this to make the point that the saxon takeover of Britain was not some well orchestrated invasion.

So it took me a while to order all the “Book of Kingdoms” in chronological order. I was looking for a starting point.

And unless I am wrong, which is quite possible, the TDux fighting proper starts really in 472AD in Linnius – Lincolnshire if you like the modern take.

Nice try – oi! – this is the 5th Century – no modern take Lincolnshire thank you, and this is not a recently built Roman Road bridge either……..although it is the humber estuary. The river looks a bit wide here and I don’t like those mudflats, they look shifty to me.

I reckon I have 12 discrete campaigns to go at covering the period 472AD to 590AD.

In my first campaign I am raiding Caer Lind Colun and if captured its three other connected lands become the next target. But I am getting well ahead of myself. Right now Caer Lind Colun basks in the evensun of being a Roman Legion city while my rabble of adventurers occupy some small ships battling the running tide of the Humber……..

So a raid was the order of the day. Those mudflats still look dodgey but plenty of hideaway creeks methinks. Thank my pagan god for my having a trained spotting crow complete with full colour camera!

I started at the bottom of the heap as recommended in the book – a lowly saxon with a few followers landing somewhere on the coast of england, in my case near the mouth of the great humber estuary.

Coenwulf desparately needed some food, animals and coin. Coenwulf was “skint” like most over wintering saxons.

The Forces involved were defined in the rules.

The Saxon Force comprised

3 duguth groups
2 elite gedridht groups
1 missile group

Each comprised 6 figures while the missile troops numbered 4.

Note the game is set up for skirmishing in single figures group together. It is designed to permit your choice of figure or figures representation. Most recent rulesets have designed in flexibility of playing pieces in terms numbers and/or base size. The days of ground/figure scale and actual base size being critical are long gone and I like this level of abstraction.

The Saxons were led by Coenwulf aged 23 of average build with the constitution of an Ox. The son of a peasant Coenwulf had a thiefs hoard of wealth hidden in his ship.

Ebroin at 30 was his elderly Noble yet tall, strong and dutiful. He is ABLE and being wodenborn an aristocrat and LOYAL.

Gudwal 27 was short and wiry, lusting of power another son of a peasant trying to make good.

In these posts have woven the narrative into the actual game play. The game gave me the ideas for the narrative. I am already warming to the campaign side of TDux.

In March 472AD Coenwulf led his small force inland having hidden their small ships in the dryish wooded end of a shallow muddy creek on the south coast of the Humber estuary.

After finding some abandoned hamlets, if they could be called that, Coenwulf discovered a small village and managed to capture a lone ploughman (his lone furrow work can be observed along the battlefield centreline!!!). He quickly confirmed that the village was well occupied and that the local chief had a base there: Filthy Lucre time for Coenwulf…….

Coenwulf swiftly advanced on the village. This phase of the game is covered in the scenario with the Saxons moving twice without any response. The village was on the wrong side of a small and narrow but deep river so Coenwulf found a ford point north of the village and sent one warrior group into the village. Meanwhile he took the rest of his force south on the east side of the river. He was convinced it could not be this easy to raid a village. The place did not feel undefended.

Now I will explain the terrain selection. I used the generator in Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles. I divided the board (6′ x 4′) into 24 squares.

In TTB rivers go straight across the board between two sides. I picked the short edges so the river ran 6 feet down the board and a third in, so occupying one row of the notional 12″ squares.

The rest of the terrain was generated by throwing a series of dice to first select the type and then location. Mikes generator also dictates the number of terrain items.

I then applied the TDux terrain rules to each generated piece.

The net result was the Saxons entered from the north passing across fairly empty land to reach the village and discover a passable bridge over the river by the village. Ceonwulf thought things could not get any better. His divided forces were now easily connected again.

The villagers had fled so once the various farm animals had quietened an erie silence descended.

Across the land from the south came the unmistakable sound of armed men on the move, yet uncaring for the noise they made. They were in a hurry: They no doubt intended to spread fear by their noisy presence.

How long does it really take to ransack a few buildings? Ceonwulf was beginning to wonder just this issue when to the south west a mass of soldiers appeared, moving fast. And suddenly they were over the river and on the east side making straight for Ceonwulf.

Of course there must be a ford down there as well.

What were clearly unhappy Romans, rushed along both banks of the river. Coenwulf could not now retreat to the village without risking his escape north to the ships. After all, this river was only going grow deeper and wider as it neared the great humber estuary.

He ordered his men forward and hoped Adelig Gudwal had enough strength to hold the village and loot it at the same time! In TDux the various leaders get descriptions like Tribune or in this case Adelig for a minor Saxon noble.

Now the Romans (because here they still celebrated their military forefathers)

Tribune Vitalinus at 32 had years of hard fighting experience behind him. Son of an Honestiere he possessed merely a beggars bowl of wealth. Yet he was tall, strong and a devout christian.

His Decurion Tiberius at 22 was of average build also devout and son of an honestiere as well.

His other Decurion Silvanus also 22 was short, wiry and honourable. He was an exile with an unexplained background. Yet he had proven himself in battle quickly and was now to be trusted.

The hilltop lookout warnings on these clear late winter days had meant that Vitalinus knew raiders were on the move. And he had almost guessed their destination. Just not in time to be the welcoming party.

His scratch force comprised.

3 groups of Numeri
2 groups of Milites
1 group of Comanipulares
1 group of missile troops

As with the saxons each group consisted of 6 men, 4 for the missile troops.

At this point I should say my “groups” were actually 80 x 60mm IMPETUS bases of infantry in mail with shields and axes and looking suspiciously like late anglo saxons, danes and normans!

The headcounts used in TDux I represented with small coloured dice.

Adelig Gudwal was already ransacking the village and getting frustrated. Nothing except farm tools and threadbare cloth, not even some decent food or drink. It was a bad time to raid – the end of the winter sees everyone “short”. These people were just like Ceonwulfs people, half starved from a long hard winter.

Vitalinus raced towards the enemy and then stopped his men. These raiders were no rag bag bunch of thieves – they were well armed and organised and their shieldwall was already in the making. Vitalinus ordered his men into a better line before restarting towards the raiders at a more controlled pace.

Now both sides built their men into a battle frenzy – controlled but willing to close with the enemy and risk death and injury. As the two shield walls closed small axes appeared overhead along with small javelins and a few arrows. Soon the shieldwalls would collide and mayhem begin.

And now it became clear to Vitalinus that this would not be a mornings quick work.

In the next episode Vitalinus closes in on the raiding Saxons.

Tags arthur and british kings, britons, Dux Brittanniarum, romano british, saxons, too fat lardies

wargame rules wargaming

Leadership, MacDowall, Callan and Mersey

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 17th Nov 2020
2 Comments on Leadership, MacDowall, Callan and Mersey

Well I missed the Wargames Illustrated Magazine free rules giveaway this Autumn. The rules were “never mind the billhooks”. Written for Wars of the Roses. They are just one of many or should I say one of the “plethora of rules” that wargamers can access these days.

So what fuss would there be, given their free, should be more bargain basement than of any original value surely?

Well Andy Callan is the author and for me he has history and if he has authored the rules they will be worth a look. I first encountered Andy Callan as a writer in the 1980’s when I recall his ideas about rules were running against the grain: Something to stir up trouble in wargaming circles most of the time. After all we can be a fussy lot.

Over the years I have kept articles from magazines. Yes I know I have probably destroyed some valuable copies in the process. Still I have what I need. And more to the point I have articles that are still useful reading even decades on.

So back in Spring 1987 when I think Stuart Asquith was at the helm, Practical Wargamer published an article by Andy Callan entitled Leaders and Generals.

He covered three periods in the short article that was really about rules design. The medieval and dark ages era leaders should worry about unit formation – a measure of order, unit aggression – a measure of fighting spirit and unit strength. The latter being an amalgam of numerical strength, armanent and relative fatigue.

The Leaders would be allocated command points.

His main objective for this period was that the “big man” (he coined that term) should be focused on being a “leader” and not be a “general” standing at the back directing operations with so many staff officers.

Move forward a couple of years and we are back with Stuart Asquith who via Publisher Argus Books offered the “wargaming in history” series of A5 booklets.

Simon MacDowell authored Goths, Huns and Romans.

He offered a set of rules within a booklet that also gave some background history; explained the forces and troops involved; set out a variety of game options from skirmishes, through encounter battles to campaigns.

Simon required his leaders to personally intervene to motivate troops to act. Control Points were allocated to each Leader along with inspiration points.

Both these writers were contemporary with the first trials of what became DBA. DBA was conceived in 1988 and was first published in 1990.

And so I thought that all this was disconnected from today. Yet I happened then to rediscover an article by Daniel Mersey in Battlegames shortly after publication of his successful Osprey publication Dux Bellorum around 2012.

And nestled there is Daniels’ homage to that 1980’s wargames era and specifically Andy Callan.

I remember Andy Callan promoting what I consider to be important considerations when trying to replicate the feel of a period through command and control. And I think the other key theme is that you make your rules period specific.

I hope his latest rules “never mind the billhooks” carry on that theme of challenging the status quo and promoting enjoyable and satisfying wargames.

And one final point, Angus McBride bestrides the world of illustrated warriors. His work has become synominous with Osprey. Yet Rick Scollins had a way to engage you in the 1980’s and as you can see he even influenced the young Daniel Mersey (see above). And perhaps appropriately it is his West Saxon Thegn who illustrates that 1988 article in Practical Wargamer.

Happy wargaming whatever your rules preference.

Tags andy callan, battlegames, daniel mersey, DBA, Dux Bellorum, never mind the billhooks, practical wargamer, simon macdowall, stuart asquith, wargame rules, wargames illustrated, wargames rules, wargaming

1/72 scale figures anglo saxons wargame rules wargaming

Two Shieldwalls and One Hour Wargames

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 10th Nov 2020
1 Comment on Two Shieldwalls and One Hour Wargames

My latest Shieldwall foray is with Neil Thomas again. His One Hour Wargames (OHW) have become a mainstay of my gaming. The rules come in what I would call large paperback size. And the book is a paperback as if to emphasise its everyday style.

OHW comprises 9 rulesets from ancients to world war 2. The rules are a “light touch” and the focus is on “scenarios”. His random force selector gives you 6 different unit mixes for armies of 6 units. Coupled with the 30 scenarios thats almost 180 combinations. I say almost, some scenarios limit the forces to 3 or 4 units. Even so its over 100 scenarios to play out. Excellent value in my book.

I used the Dark Age ruleset where you get infantry, warband, skirmishers and cavalry.

My two forces were 5 infantry units plus a skirmisher unit. In this battle the skirmishers faced each other at the royalist left flank and rebels right flank.

The rules cover just 2 sides or about one page of A4 and basically comprise simple movement, shooting and combat. Elimination of units involves chipping away at 15 points of value which covers all defensive strength, morale, leadership variables etc. Power to inflict damage remains constant as well. So it is the eliminiation of a unit that gives a player advantage. This in some way masks weakness and adds to the uncertainty and fog of war.

Before we do the battle report there is a small matter of the narrative.

Narrative

The Kings or Royal forces led by Earl Mathedoi had finally won a significant victory over Thegn Pyrlig while the rebel leader Earl Toki was away raising more of the land in rebellion – or rather recruiting disaffected Mercians to the cause.

The Kings Earl pursued the defeated Thegn, his now weakened but battle hardened infantry ready to fight. His cavalry had evaporated in previous battles and failed to find him. He believed another battle would finish the Thegn off.

And then his force suddenly collided with the returning Rebel Leader Earl Toki. Earl Toki had had little success with the Mercians concerning a mass rebellion although his force now boasted some Mercian reinforcements. Crucially he had not found his Thegn Pyrlig or the bulk of his army.

The two forces drew up and comprising infantry formed two shield walls on some open ground. The few skirmishers would fight each other on one flank as the shieldwalls slowly moved towards each other everyone jostling and making ready to receive or inflict blows.

Game Report

The photos show rebels at the bottom of the picture and royalists at the top.

Earl Mathedoi had defeated two rebel armies in quick succession. Importantly he had defeated Earl Toki whose first taste of defeat almost certainly meant the end of his rebellious actions.

Earl Mathedoi returned to the King to report the good news.

Earl Toki now met Thegn Pyrlig and discovered his main forces had already been defeated in his absence. The Mercians had departed having no desire to be associated with a defeated rebel and especially one lacking plunder.

Most of the rebels just drifted away and this included Thegn Pyrlig.

Earl Toki considered his options. It looked like he would have to go to the King and grovel for forgiveness. After all the King knew Earl Toki was always a useful warrior to have on his side, surely?

Tags Neil Thomas, one hour wargames, shieldwalls, wargames rules

anglo saxons Book Reviews new additions wargame rules

One Scenery Modelling book and Two Rulesets

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 9th Nov 2020
No Comments on One Scenery Modelling book and Two Rulesets

I have recently bought another rule set and unusually for me, a book on terrain and scenery modelling. I have a lot of scenery articles saved from discarded magazines. So why do I really need any more advice. It is not like I am overflowing with home-made items.

Well it just caught my eye. It being “Battlefields in Miniature” by Paul Davies and published by Pen & Sword. Dating to 2015, I have the paperback version printed in 2018. I think the original was in hardback.

A quick flick through has made me pleased I bought it. It looks a comprehensive view of this part of the hobby. Also, I have noticed a preoccupation with “high density foam”. This appears in a lot of my saved articles as well.

Somehow it is not a material I like and in fact generally I have avoided plastics when it comes to scenery and terrain. Maybe that’s because when I was far too young to be left alone with polystyrene ceiling tiles I cut them up with nice sharp knife to make contour hills. I then glued them together with polystyrene cement with exciting melting results and interesting vapours. That was the 1970’s – safety was basic common sense then, which children often lacked!

It put me off, except for retaining a continuing interest in plastic figures.

I will use some of the ideas in the book and Paul Davies writing style is engaging: Very much just have a go. My only criticism so far is that the book is rich in finished items in use and yet some of those picture slots would have been better showing some more intermediate steps of construction for greater clarity.

Now how about that ruleset?

Well I looked at the Too Fat Lardies Dux Britanniarum several years ago just before I bought Maurice (another card driven ruleset as it happened). That was at Fiasco in Leeds, just one of many shows I have missed this year.

Here is one of those cards that drive the game. Love or Hate them they have an impact you cannot quite control. The figures are Greenwood & Ball (Garrison) Vikings from circa 1978. Yes they are posing as 5th century saxons……..

The figures are painted in Humbrol matt oils finished with gloss varnish while the basing in those days was dried tea – uncoloured. looking good at around 40 years of age.

I took a punt and bought the full rules including the follow up “raiders” supplement and all those cards.

I like dice and card driven games and I like the “big man” idea that threads through Too Fat Lardies publications.

I have since played a single game solo that took an age to complete. That will be reported in another post. Suffice to say I will play these rules again.

Tags Battlefields in Miniature, Card Driven Wargames, Dux Brittanniarum, Garrison Figures, greenwood and ball figures, humbrol paints, Paul Davies, Pen & Sword Publications, scenery modelling, terrain modelling, The Raiders DUXtfl, too fat lardies

anglo saxons wargame rules wargaming

Abstraction in Wargames Rules

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 27th Oct 2020
No Comments on Abstraction in Wargames Rules

I will eventually report and conclude my wargames ruleset testing using two anglo saxon shieldwalls. Setting up two identical shieldwalls to fight each other is a recipe for a tedious game surely?

Well I have to say that has not been the case. And I admit there have been some deviations from the rule of exactly matching forces. On the face of it in those cases they were thought to be marginal. Well with one exception.

Of more interest to me are the rulesets themselves. They are all typically at the abstracted end of the technique.

To make my point I will draw on a totally different subject – art. And specifically the painting. Like table top wargames paintings have limits and are normally framed in some way. That is another story though………….

Art and abstraction go together. As far as I know my first inkling of abstraction was to do with art and how painting techniques changed over time – well a few centuries. And abstraction was what artists started doing in the late 19th century.

So this is my take on abstracted rulesets – here are 9 to choose from!

So the images contain some classical or traditional views of the painted picture. In there is a Constable and a Canaletto – both detailed. Yet perhaps not as detailed as the portrait in the bottom right. Apparently it took the artist several months just to paint the head of the life study. Someone else stood in for the rest!

And in there is some cubist style work and “abstract images”

So what we have here is 9 images of different types of wargames rules.

And my anglo saxon shieldwall ruleset tests are definitely in the following vein.

Did you notice the Lady Butler painting – return from Inkerman. If you can, do visit the Ferens Art Gallery in the centre of Kingston Upon Hull – entry is free and there is a coffee shop to sustain you.

If you do go – the portrait of the Lady is by Gerald Brockhurst and is titled “by the hills” and was painted in 1939. When you stand in front of it the feeling is that it has to be a photograph.

Paintings posing as wargames rules might be stretching your mind and you might think I am mad. However this has turned out quite theraputic.

To that I can add “if a year ago you said I would be writing about wargames and artforms in a blog post – I would have said your crazy”. In the year of COVID19 it seems even the craziest thing is possible.

Above all enjoy life while you can, keep playing wargames with the rulesets that make you happy and seek out your way to a healthy life!

Tags abstraction, ancient and medieval wargaming, art and wargames, daniel mersey, Dux Bellorum, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, Neil Thomas, newbury wargame rules, one hour wargames, Table Top Battles