wargaming is everything from gaming on the table top with dice, painting figures, reading history, collecting figures, scenery and rules through to geography, politics, art, crafts and imaginative writing……..
I am kicking off a series of posts about some successful high street purchases.
As a wargamer, my gaming inclination is always drawn to playing cards. These were a nice set I snapped up in Bangor. But thats another High Street story.
Narrative
Colonel Ansaldi was fretting – having gained so much from the raid on Austrian storehouses he was worried that none of his scouts had been able to stay in touch with the Imperial troops known to be in the area. What he would give for a decent squadron of guides…….
Meanwhile not far away Colonel Albrecht considered the recent reports, nearby Austrian Hussars were watering their mounts. They had ridden hard to report finding the raiders. Now we shall obtain some satisfaction from those Sardinians thought the Colonel……..
Colonel Ansaldi cursed as the nearby hill was clearly occupied by troops – and they were not friendly – Austrians! To arms, to arms, went up the shout.
The Sardinian force consisted of 3 infantry units and 1 skirmisher unit. The Skirmisher unit headed for the Austrians on the hill
Already a brisk firefight had broken out between the two sides.
There was no time time to lose and anyway there was only one direction the Sardinians could take and that was straight past those Austrians on the hill.
Despite orders there was hesitancy on the part of the Sardinians who still traded fire with the lone Austrian unit. Now other forces appeared – infantry and cavalry!
Panic breaks out in the Sardinian ranks. I used the solo rules chance table which offered confusion, ammunition shortages, demoralisation, initiative, rallying and enemy panic.
The Sardinians continue to push on with their escape.
The Austrians continue to press with a further charge by the Austrian cavalry despite them being demoralised.
The Sardinian firing slackens off – Colonel Ansaldi sends a runner to find out what is going on. (chance intervenes)
But finally the Austrian cavalry also retreat as things are just too hot. Meanwhile the Austrian fire is good and effective and they continue to press the Sardinians.
Now on the point of victory the Austrians seem confused. Yet with a final effort they corner the Sardinians.
Colonel Albrecht curses his cavalry – they are blown and clearly fit for nothing as some of the Sardinians are still making good their escape. He calls for some scouts.
Later Colonel Ansaldi manages to regroup his shattered forces and with poor pursuit from the Austrians is able to restart his march back to Sardinian lines by a new route. Later many more of his dispersed men come in.
The solo rules regarding random confusion, demoralisation, panic and ammunition shortage added that “unknown/unexpected” element to the game that a real opponent usually brings. The interventions were not gigantic but did chip away at each forces potential.
Early on the Sardinians were stalled, then gained initiative before the Austrians finally gained lots of initiative to enable them to hem in the Sardinians even with a hesitation at the end.
Next up the Sardinians, having continued their march, encounter more Austrian forces intent on preventing their escape.
Ok so it was just two days – well it was that hot for two days. My optimum operating temperature is 22.333333333 degrees centigrade – either side by a degree and I am too cold or too hot, so 40 degrees was simply too much for this soul. Even the light was dazzling – queue troglodyte behaviour.
Neil Thomas’s one hour wargames ruleset is probably the ultimate “pick up” game for historical miniatures gaming, six units a side on a game area of 3×3 feet or 90cm square.
So I reached for the book and then remembered it not only has 30 scenarios and 9 period rulesets but also campaign and solo gaming suggestions.
I opted for Horse and Musket plus a best of 5 battles campaign – Blue versus Red. I was playing solo as well.
I randomly chose the 5 scenarios getting 6,9,13,24 and 25. Now Neil Thomas suggests for narrative purposes ordering the games. And you could include some consequences game to game but I did not go for that extra step.
Looking at the scenario types I opted for the following and the narrative fell into place. Local Blue forces go on a raid while Red forces try to find and destroy the raiders. The finale sees their activities ended as they are both ordered to support their main army forces…….
That was easy. For this set of battles the Blue forces were Sardinianish
while the Red were Austrianish.
The figures were mid nineteenth century with smoothbore artillery and inaccurate musketry still to the fore. The cavalry still strutted about with the confident self importance of being the premier arm.
I used the scenario scenery layouts as per the book with a few slight adjustments for my table and the items to hand.
I will cover the various specific rules as each scenario occurs.
I used the random deployment from the “solo wargaming” chapter. The campaign is basically straight out of that chapter, and it generated my scenario list, except I took a chance and drew from all 30 available scenarios each time rather than segment the list as suggested by Neil Thomas.
I also used the chance rule as per the chapter on campaigns.
In the next post I will cover Scenario 25 – Infiltration.
I made it to the Other Partizan, so thats three trips to Newark in 2022 (hammerhead, partizan and the other partizan). I missed Fiasco in Leeds last week owing to calendar congestion – real life intervened. Fiasco has been one of my most regular show trips.
Hopefully I will make it to Recon at Pudsey in December.
I find all these shows different and maybe most people give Recon only a nod. It is a really great show – ok so the foot fall will be a lot less – but remember quantity does not always equate to quality.
Recon not only has good carparking on site, its also just 5 minutes from the national rail network – strikes permitting. It has all the facilities you need under one roof with more eateries nearby in town. The show itself is well laid out and has a variety of traders and gamers and a well run bring and buy.
I found another gamer had reported their visit to Fiasco, The Balkan Wargamer. I follow them as they often write interesting book reviews with a good mix of posts about figures and gaming. Well balanced and thought out.
Mixed views and yes the current location is not naturally lit. Mind you I was sunshine dazzled at Partizan.
You win some you lose some!
I plan to return next year.
As a kind of subsitute for missing Fiasco I indulged the High Street buying two wargame magazines in one go! Talk about pushing the boat out – you don’t get change from a tenner anymore.
I reckon magazine prices track a different cost inflation curve to wargames figures anyway and probably always have.
Three national magazines were sold at the WHSmith store – where I bought mine. I took Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy (WSS) plus Wargames Illustrated (WI). Miniature Wargames (MW) was the third option.
I tend to buy WSS and occasionally buy certain themed WI. I rarely buy MW now, I enjoyed Battlegames so did follow it into MW. Even when most of that DNA was gone I found their Table Top Gaming angles of interest. Ultimately MW does not offer me more than either WSS or WI. So thats that I guess.
You win some you lose some!
Like the Times Illustrated* WI is the king of the image. And I do think if you value the printed word alongside relevant images then WSS is the best of the bunch. Of course they are all up against the behemoth of “online” so have to push large amounts of advertising. Anyone who can reflect on Wargames history knows that magazines were always loaded with adverts – it was and is a frail business model and buyers want that info anyway – even today when all that info is available free, in tons of gigabits. That data mountain is a problem and just maybe one reason why magazines still offer value as a “data consolidator”.
What did I get for my money?
WSS offered up a Dark Age Britain and Arthur theme and profiled the second edition of Dan Mersey’s Lion Rampant. Plus you get a lot of regular features including quite a few opinion pieces.
I thought it might restart some interest in previous adventures (Dux Brittaniarum, Shieldwalls) – I am not sure though.
WI majored on Twisted History which is apparently the new name for fictious historical wargaming or imaginations wargaming even. To cover every genre and time period, perhaps Twisted History might catch on as it has no baggage or rather has not already been claimed.
I quite like the idea of a generic term for taking history and twisting it. – except that is what historians do any way, don’t they? ok many are trying to untwist twisted history. Crikey I am confused now.
One reference point is Richard III (recently even the subject of a film without a single battle scene). Despite the discovery of his body and the dismissal of many myths created by the Tudors (history goes to the victors of course) you can still consume lots of now baseless Tudor tradition.
Ever Twisting Twisted History………maybe it will catch on.
And into the bargain of not attending a show I did some kit bashing and figure mods. These tell you that 19th century gaming is still on my mind.
*The Post title image is from a Times Illustrated large format publication about the British Royal Family. WI is simply continuing a great tradition of image!
Here is another .
I do have a general idea about an order of postings, yet every now and again I get derailed. The usual suspect here was a wargame show – the other partizan. And that show found me browsing the extensive rulesets on offer at Dave Ryans Caliver Books stand.
I had seen this ruleset before, but moved on many a time. The cover was more Franco Prussian – I had kept avoiding this conflict simply because my interests were 10 – 20 years earlier and there seemed a gulf between these warring times: 1848 to 1870 was a transitional period especially for technology.
“There are you Guns” derives from the “General de Brigade” rules system
This time I looked through a bit more, no, I read the introduction. Somehow the words immediately offered something broader. Never judge a book by its cover they say.
Well the upshot was I parted with some “plastic” notes (I like to take a budget in my pocket – when its its gone, and it kind of adds to the immediacy of a decision) and this ruleset added to my burgeoning ruleset collection – yet again.
A few days later I set about reading the book cover to cover. Not usually my method – I often just get a few figures out and tinker with parts of a ruleset first off.
On this occasion I felt the ruleset could be read as a book. This was because the design philosophy as well as gaming examples are intervweaved amongst the rules chapter by chapeter.
Each chapter is self contained and includes contemporary illustrations and suitable military quotes of the day. It proved a good read.
When I had finished the book I put it to one side and got on with some figure painting. This was after a lay off, the usual “I was painting one day and the next – nothing”. I even had one unit just needing some base foliage adding – but no – production had ceased.
Then I suddenly decided I had to play a test game and yes I had to try for sufficient forces to look at the “divisional” set up. I felt anything smaller might not help me explore the rules sufficiently.
So “Blue on White” was born and I had one division per side comprising 2 brigades of infantry and artillery plus some divisional cavalry. I opted for most of the variables to match on both sides and also headcounts as well.
In effect I took out lots of variables regarding quality. I also discarded all the terrain rules by virtue of fighting the action across a plain.
The Battle of Gatehouse Road: Set on a small rise the road to the Gatehouse described a very low ridge.
The result was a long game where the game was left set up for several days – something I tend not to do. The reason was I felt compelled to find what the result would be by playing out the game.
The rules are not fast play and quick kills were not obvious where forces are very well balanced. At this point I should say that mostly smoothbore ruled the field. The exception was some muzzle loading riflemen. We are talking 1840’s not 1870’s.
I also suspect my use of the smallest size of units made the task of defeating an opponent harder. Although it should follow that units were eliminated quicker – which did not seem to happen.
I might just get a report out discussing the detail because I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed the ruleset mechanisms.
So where do I reckon “there are your guns” (TAYG) comes out against the basket of rules I tested recently?
In short with an overall score of 25 its looking very promising.
“there are your guns” (TAYG 1848) ruleset scores
| Criterion | Score |
| Production | 4 |
| Rule Philosophy | 8 |
| Game Mechanisms | 4 |
| Action Mechanisms | 9 |
| Total | 25 |
The best thing about the rules were their feel – having read quite a few books now around the mid 19th century – the rules seemed to reflect well the descriptions/opinions I have encountered. Now one test does not answer every question and crucially I had in effect boxed off 4 brigades against 4 others with some divisional command on top. No flanking and no variability in force quality. No terrain influencers either.
There are your Guns or TAYG1848 – I can never resist an abbreviation
Overall I will be using this ruleset but I am not yet sure how. They feel like they need a sizeable force on the table.
Blue (with a bit of Green) on White – who won? or in this case did the rules win me over?
Happy wargaming.
Earlier this year I attended Partizan at Newark Showground. For the first time in many years I have made a second visit in one year – this time its the “other” Partizan.
Same location, same show – sort of.
The Autumn sun blazed through the south facing windows. I think that bright light helps – its uplifting. Except when your looking into the sun at the grasses selection on the Northumbrian Tin Soldier stand. You simply cannot please some people……
I enjoyed the Other Partizan. I almost feel Partizan in Spring was still all about what might be and was upbeat while the Other Partizan is no less upbeat but just maybe many gamers have now got stuff done and there is also an air of reflection maybe even planning thoughts for 2023…….
Here are some pics of things that caught my eye.
I turned up in time to get a free figure: The Empress Matilda.
I did buy a few items – nothing like some retail therapy.
https://wordpress.com/post/thewargamingerratic.home.blog/5079
https://wordpress.com/post/thewargamingerratic.home.blog/3388
Happy Gaming!
Last week I was looking for a post published on Pauls Bods about figure conversions and I stumbled across his homemade balloon for ACW battles. Then I caught a Sky History Channel programme about early winged aviation and yes their nemesis balloons appeared. Finally this week I picked up Wargames Illustrated – it had free rules in it as well – I can’t resist rulesets, especially free ones. And this one offered up some rules on balloons.
A coincidence maybe.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Early_flight_02561u_(10).jpg#metadata
http://paulsbods.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-silk-dress-balloon-gazelle.html
Pauls Bods is a treasure trove of ideas for tweaking your bought figures. In this case its about a completely home made model.
No sooner than I encountered a model balloon on Paul’s Bods than I started watching a programme about early aviation. This single episode was well set out with good balance and content given what it had to cover. And without the annoying repetition you get with some other channel documentaries I was not tempted to fast forward.
Obviously the programme was preoccupied with what they called “heavier than air” flight. There was a slot for “lighter than air” flying machines – balloons. The slot highlighted how the french balloon industry and thinking eclipsed the crucial ideas of a french aviator Alphonse Penaud – eventually leading to his suicide. It sounded like a missed opportunity on the road to Kitty Hawk and the Wright Brothers. Perhaps powered flight might have been achieved earlier?
Either way this programme was most enjoyable not least in recounting those flying pioneers of the 1800’s.
And then I saw that this months WI theme was Napoleonic Wargames and it offered some “simple rules” in a free offer. Nestled amongst the articles gaming a Napoleonic action were Jervis Johnsons’ free ruleset options.
Use of observation balloons were included. And a balloon appears in the game pictures.
https://www.wargamesillustrated.net/product/wi418-october-2022/
I thought 3 balloon items in the space of a week a coincidence. Hang on though, “up north” there was the last ever great balloon festival on York Racecourse at the end of September. So thats 4 coincidences!
All this hot air has me thinking a Balloon might make a fine addition to my mid 19th century wargaming.
How do you compare rulesets? empathy or process – which factors give you a good ruleset?
My recent challenge has been to find a preferred ruleset for mid 19th century European warfare. And that provides the first criterion – what exactly is mid 19th century warfare? Maybe we should be saying post Napoleonic Warfare or Pre Franco Prussian Warfare? Or should we classify with technology – percussion cap, needle gun, sabre, rifling, telegraph, ironclad…..
The thing is that between 1815 and 1865 not a lot seemed to happen. Apparently things regressed as West Point Officers tried to emulate Napoleon in the early years of the Amercian Civil War despite their Mexican war experiences.
1865 to 1915 is the same timespan – would the ACW soldier have recognised the trenches of Europe – well sort of but not the aeroplanes surely.
In fact between 1815 and 1850 warfare was still largely smoothbore in weaponry and equipment and uniforms remained similar. Changes were afoot as more accurate muskets made their mark with percussion caps and more rifling. Uniforms saw frockcoats, trousers and kepis appear.
And between 1850 and 1870 breechloading rifling transformed infantry and artillery capabilities.
Quite a bit going on which means your chosen ruleset is either narrowly period, even campaign, specific or has to be clever and flexible.
My recent simple testing of a series of rulesets has caused me to reflect on what those Criteria for my gaming preferences might be.
I have ended up with 4 areas on interest. First of all I am assuming the choice of ruleset is not limited to an examination of mechanisms.
Production includes everything about the printed or e delivered publication. So images and print clarity matter as do the range of wargaming aspects covered.
Philosophy I suppose could be called game design and includes period choice, scale and game size as well as chosen outcomes.
Game Mechanics covers things like army lists, pre battle activity, player numbers and figures.
Finally Action Mechanisms are aimed squarely at movement, combat resolution, control and turn structure.
When I had finished my long list of criteria a massive 43 items had been generated. I did consider some rationalisation when I looked and saw a lot of similarities. And then I decided to leave my longlist intact for now.
I used it to score my rulesets and accepted the potential weighting due to duplicated criteria. Otherwise there is no other weighting in terms of importance of one criterion over another. Action mechanisms are not prioritised over Production Values for example.
In each case a criterion gets a single mark.
That mark is relative to my perceived ideal. The scores can be +1, 0, -1. positive values are favorable.
Lets look at Production first:
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| Relevant Images | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | 0 |
| Fair Wear & Tear | 0 | 0 | +1* | -1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| Logical clear layout | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| Plain text | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| Lots of Design Thinking | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| Simple Rules | +1 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| Scenarios included | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| Campaigns included | 0 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| Totals | +4 | +3 | +6 | +5 | +2 | +2 | +5 |
So GW comes out top followed by F&F and PW. Before I list the rulesets in question the scoring is “relative” and not absolute. It is best thought of as indication of preferencing.
In my case these rules have all been through some sort of preselection in my decision to buy them in the first place. So they all score positively. It is how much more I value them against each other that is measured here.
When it comes to historical wargames rulesets today – in a 60 year old industry, we are talking about marginal gains. I think with fantasy/scifi etc. it is still possible to deliver up a “game changer”!
I have used the following abbreviations.
NT19e – Neil Thomas’s European Warfare in the Nineteenth Century – hardback edition published by Pen & Sword Military 2012
BwMS – Battles with Model Soldiers – hardback edition by Donald Featherstone published by David & Charles 1972
GW – Gentlemans War – “e” publication by Howard Whitehouse and Daniel Foley and published by Pulp Action Library 2018
Fire & Fury – 1st Edition in softback by Richard W Hasenauer 1990 published by Fire & Fury (2nd editions under Brigade and Regimental titles available)
Field of Battle – Piquet 1700-1900 by Brent Oman 2nd Edition published by Piquet Inc 2011
Table Top Battles – by Mike & Joyce Smith 1st Edition published by Mike Smith 2007 (2nd Edition 2018 available)
Practical Wargaming – hardback edition by Charles Wesencraft published by Elmfield Press/Shire Publications 1974
Is it fair to compare rulesets which are published decades apart written for vastly different audiences? I believe so. Despite visually apparent differences, there are some common threads in wargames.
On to Philosophy
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| Period – technology emphasis | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 |
| abstraction in scaling | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| no figure/base removal | +1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| cavalry ineffective | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| irritant skirmishers | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| vunerable yet destructive artillery | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| column and line infantry formations | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| attack defense objectives | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| morale dominant | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| battle narrative | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 |
| Totals | 9 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 4 |
So NT19e along with FoB seem to have edged it on philosophy for me. I should say that by having a lot of scores to make, it may reduce my own unintentional bias (of course on the other hand wargames magazines are all about bias – “Buy me” bias).
Talking about bias – my requirement concerns European Warfare so I am effectively biased against other “continents” warfare considerations that are different.
Ok next up is Game Mechanics:
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| option to solo game | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| measure not grid distance | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| army selection/lists available | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | -1 |
| pre battle actions available | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | -1 |
| game time required (<2hrs) | +1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| units per side (6-12) | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| unit ratings (varied) | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| table size (5’x4′) | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| concealment/ambush/surprise | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | -1 |
| chance (situations/ cards etc.) | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| figures per basic unit (12-20) | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| support functions (engrs/ sappers) rules | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | -1 |
| Totals | 9 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 4 | -1 |
Earlier I asked is it fair to compare rulesets from different decades? Now the question might be should you compare battle rulesets with skirmish rulesets or measured games versus grid games. The answer is of course. Just be consistent in the criteria used for the scoring and try to avoid criteria that directly preference one solution. In my case grids games are not a requirement so do score badly on the requirement for a measured game that I chose to include – some personal bias there.
Battles with Model Soldiers and Gentlemans War seem preferable when it comes to Game Mechanics.
Finally we turn to Action Mechanisms:
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| alternate moves with opportunity | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| initiative | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| simple manoeuvre rules | +1 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| measure ranges | +1 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| move and fire in a move | +1 | 0 | +1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| road movement restricted | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | -1 | -1 |
| simple interpenetration | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| saving throws | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| leadership/pips/orders | 0 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| written orders | 0 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | +1 |
| cards for actions | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | -1 |
| turn structure is fluid | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| simple combat resolution | 0 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | 0 |
| simple firing resolution | 0 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | 0 |
| 8 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
Neil Thomas 19th century European rules come out preferred for Action Mechanisms along with Field of Battle.
In summary we have table 5
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| Production | 4 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Design Philosophy | 9 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 4 |
| Game Mechanics | 9 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 4 | -1 |
| Action Mechanisms | 8 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| Totals | 30 | 23 | 25 | 13 | 19 | 11 | 13 |
So there you go Neil Thomas rules are to be preferred in meeting my perceived gaming requirements. But……
I really like the liveliness of Fire & Fury while sometimes the grid games using Table Top Battles are just so easy and convenient. And then Gentlemans War offers a sense of detail which drives narrative – an essential requriement for the solo wargamer I would suggest.
Field of Battle uses the house theme of the card driven randomised turn structure of Piquet. I like it a lot but you need to invest your concentration in that ruleset even with the simpler FoB version. Like GW it offers narrative benefits.
My least liked set was actually BwMS even though Donald Featherstone has been the mainstay of my house rules over the years. This is because much of what he wrote was about design philosphy rather than pushing a particular ruleset. You could say nearly all his books were design handbooks for wargames rules writers.
So which ruleset will I go with?
At the moment it must surely be Neil Thomas.
Whatever ruleset you use – happy wargaming.
The Wargaming Erratic 
.jpg#metadata){kind=link}