In my last post I explained my rediscovery of the ruleset published by Partizan Press and authored by Mike and Joyce Smith.
The Table Top Battles (TTB) ruleset uses a grid. Now I have dabbled in grid based wargaming and played lots of board games which are gridded games of some sort – not a tape measure in sight!
This post is a marathon and I hope you will see that this ruleset although “gamey” has a coherence to it. So the battle flowed and compared to AMW by Neil Thomas and more so with Daniel Mersey’s Dux Bellorum rules, I had little need to keep rereading the rules.
The usual sections follow – set up, then narrative and finally a picture based step by step report.
The rules require you have a base that will fight for each discrete unit. The term used is a “stand”. The General is another base who the way I read the rules is not a stand so does not fight.
I decided to use my leader bases and gave them stand status. The “tinkerman” at work already.
Essentially the line up was a shieldwall with some skirmishers at both ends of the kings battleline. At one end the single rebels skirmisher bow faced up to the kings skirmisher bowmen. At the other the Kings men had a foot bow skirmish stand plus a mounted javelin light cavalry stand facing a shieldwall of rebel spearmen stand.
The diagram below shows the set up. The playing area was kept to a minimum.
Narrative
Earl Toki now felt confident enough to split his forces which had grown due to his successes. He left Thegn Pyrlig with his main forces while he rode to meet some Mercians who promised to come over to his side.
While Earl Toki was away Thegn Pyrlig kept a good lookout and soon enough another force appeared who were yet another collection of the Kings men ready to fight the rebels. Thegn Pyrlig soon confirmed that these were western men but not any they knew or who could be “turned”. And Earl Mathedoi was at their head again, eager to avenge his recent defeat.
The battleground was simple – a flat plain. I used 80 mm squares here as my chosen unit type for 1/72 figures is the Impetus Rules with the 15mm suggested base width! Te grid is some cotton sheeting with penciled lines.On the Earl’s left flank his mounted skirmishers rode forward confidently while his bow skirmishers looked with concern that they faced a solid rebel shieldwall.In the game pictures you will see a peter pig pink die – this denotes the aggressor. Each turn dice are thrown and the winner has the advantage or the aggression in that turn.
TTB in effect uses the “pip” idea from DBA. It is simplified to give a +1 on ALL dice throws made by the aggressor.
The pink die reminds me that my wargame story has included gridded games in the past. My hex gaming with Kallistra never quite got going even though I thought the concept excellent. My problem was the geometrical look of hexes and the fact there is a “weave” for very linear types of warfare. Maybe I was just too focused on DBA at the time. Peter Pig rules for WW2 used square grids and his Poor Bloody Infantry (PBI) rules I really enjoyed before leaving that period altogether. There the grid worked – it did not impose itself in the way hexes did.
Clearly this is a very subjective matter. It is a case of each to their own.
This is my first return to the grid technique.
The orange 12 sided dice is used to decide who is the aggressor and therefore gets the valuable pink +1 diceThe right wing bow skirmishers got into action first. A game turn comprises phases – move, fire and combat with the aggressor going first in the move and fire phases. Crucially the aggressor inflicts firing losses before the passive opponent replies: Another advantage of having the pink jersey – woops – too much giro d’italia. Did I tell you my scenery ideas have benefited to my mind from watching hours of cycling tours riding across Spain, France and now Italy!
In the aggressors fire phase shown above both units have a value of one. This value is a combination of any fighting ability and morale. It is used in all firing and combat. To this fixed value you add the result of a single D6 throw. In this firing phase the aggressor has thrown a six and their opponent just 3. So no need for the +1 here.
The result is the loser score was “slightly lower” in the dice off so the stand is moved back. Not playing the +1 pinkie is an error because it applies in every throw. And in this case had it been properly used the losing score or “Target Player” score is now half. not just slightly less than that of the “Firing Player”. In this case the stand should be removed.
The Kings bowmen are happy to retire a square relieved they were not “removed” or were they?
TTB gives options throughout and I chose the harsher results approach. Stands either move back a square or are removed from the game.
On the kings left flank the mounted light cavalry (orange value 2) beat the shieldwall (purple value 3) 7v5 (yellow dice being the random addition). The kings bowmen managed a lowly 4 which being less than the shieldwall 6 proved ineffective. The net result is the shieldwall are discouraged and retire a square. Firing is between individual bases. Combat is additive.The error is corrected and the Kings bowmen leave the field early losing to the aggressors fire turn 8v4.The Kings men throw themselves against the rebel shieldwall. Even the kings reluctant bowmen, not doubt emboldened by the kings light cavalry, have joined the fray.The General adds the value of any 1 friendly stand in an adjacent square to the combat phase. Combat is simultaneous unlike the firing. Here a shieldwall spearman stand adds +3 to both leaders. Later on the eagle eyed will see I missed a few +3 yellow dice although because the leaders never moved and were always head to head they simply raised the value of both the group scores making it harder to get a decisive result in the grouped combat.The combat allows “grouping”. This speeds up the combat process. Because I had a simple shieldwall with all units the same I could use the grouping. The kings group shieldwall score was 7×3 (21 orange) +1 aggression (pink) and a measly +1 random throw (yellow) = 25 when you add the generals bonus of +3 (yellow)
Remember those brave kings bowmen? Well they were not so brave as the rules allow some stands to engage to fire and then retire if a 4 or more on a D6 is acheived. The kings bowmen threw a 4 and with the pink dice acheived a healthy 5 to retire
The Rebels amassed 7 stands at 3 value (base score of 21) to which they added support values of +1 (yellow)from each flank unit because they faced a different unit type or had no opponent. To that you added the generals bonus of +3 (yellow) and a random +5 (yellow). total score 31. I decided that as the rebel bow were a different unit they could not get the +2 flank attack and were just allowed the +1 supporting value.The whole kings line recoiled to join the already retired bowmen in the bottom of the picture.The Kings men retained the upper hand though and attacked again next turn winning the aggression dice throw with an 8 on their D12The skirmishers attacked again the rebel right flank.By chance the rebel bowmen offered a flank to the recently retired right flank kings shieldwall and they “slid” right as you do in gridded wargames TTB style.
In TTB movement is in any direction with only a few restrictions. No penalties apply for direction change or rather they are absorbed into the move allowance. Generally units face up to their nearest opponent without restriction. The exception is when a unit is pinned on one face – then flank and rear attacks can also be made.
The rebel left flank is driven back againalmost stalemate again but now the rebels have numbers in the group combat as well (7 purple dice v 6 orange dice)yet again the kings men aggressively return to the fray (winning the D12 dice off with a 9 to get the prized +1 pink dice) having lost the last group combatThe rebel bowmen were isolated by the right flank kings spearmen and put to flight with better dice throwing and that useful +1 in pinkNext up the rebel left flank spearmen stand determined to remove the kings own flank spearmen Its that pink dice again – the kings men win this round by just 1 and drive the rebels back. The small gaming space is relevant as if the rebels get pushed off the table (or out of the ring!) they lose those stands.The rebels throw a 12 on their D12 to resume their own aggression and take the fight to the kings men.The weary shieldwall resume their struggle with the kings left flank skirmishers. Yet taking no fire damage they see off the bowmen again while the light cavalry stay too close! (failed to get 4 on a D6)7v7 is a draw in this combat so the aggressor (rebel shieldwall) gets the nod and drives back the light cavalry. The pink dice has lots of ways of rewarding the owner!Close again as the kings men win the central group combat 25 v 24 despite the rebel having that pink +1. The rebels are driven back again.The Kingsmen are feeling good and secure the pink +1 dice with 11 on a D12Out of picture the kings yellow dice of 5 is forcing the rebels back into the group combat off to the left so destroying them instead. With a 90 degree retreat arc I could have had this stand retire towards its enemy baseline. I decided this would not happen and the shieldwall just melted away having been cornered.The kings men again triumph in the pink dice competition and drive forward but it remains a stalemateon the rebel flank the skirmishers cling to the shieldwall but remain ineffectiveIn the centre the rebels hold a small advantage while on both flanks the kings advantage in numbers is clearbottom right is the A4 rule book – to hand – actually despite 42 pages in length only about 2 sides of A4 text are relevant in the heat of battle. And here the rebels again aggressively attack the kings line. In the distance the left flank rebel spearmen drift out to engage the kings spearmen on that far flank.In their movement phase the kings skirmishers again crowd around the rebel right flank scenting bloodDespite driving back the kings spearmen on their left flank, the rebel right flank has collapsed although all units forced to retire have managed to stay in the game (that is “stayed on the gaming board”).A rare aggression victory for the rebels allows them to create some space as they renew their attack. The left handside of their line though, is crumpled.on the far flank the battle remains one of two evenly matched shieldwallsThe kings men begin to turn the rebel linethe javelins of mounted skirmishers still have no impact on the resilient rebel spearmen and neither do the bowmen.On the opposite flank the rebel spearmen get the better of the fight driving back the kings spearmenalthough their flank has been turned the rebel spearmen give the light cavalry short shrift when they fail to evade after another ranging attck with their javelins. The light cavalry fly from the field. Elsewhere the rebels lose the central group combat again and are driven perilously back towards their baseline.Even so with renewed vigour the rebels defend their line defeating the careless bowmen who retireagain the kings men win the centre combat driving the rebels back further. BUT……………..And then the rule of 12 lands! The game ends after 12 turns representing the part of the day the battle was fought. The rebels were still in the field but with more stands lost victory went to the Kings men.
Thegn Pyrlig led his men from the field. Already his camp alerted to the returning stream of wounded and fleeing men had begun to get ready to move.
Fortunately Earl Mathedoi and his soldiers simply remained on the field too exhausted to pursue the defeated rebels. Earl Mathedoi cursed has lack of a reserve and especially a mounted reserve. Come to think of it where had his light cavalry gone?
So I was looking for my copies of “Twilight” the Pike & Shot Society rulesets, as I had just acquired some more of them. This was prompted by my renewing my P&SS membership. The Arquebusier journal is worth the membership alone and at the moment of course is a lifeline.
Well I stumbled across “Table Top Battles” (TTB). This ruleset I have had many years and is in pristine condition which means unused. Authored by Mike and Joyce Smith my edition dates from 2007 although the bulk of the ruleset dates from its first publication in 2000. That was the heyday? of DBx rules and for that matter Warhammer Ancient Battles was in the wings and by 2007 everywhere.
I think some of the rules ideas reflect that era well. Yet they are niche in the sense that they are “gridded”. Now gridded wargames are not new and by some parts of the hobby be simply considered as extensions of chess or board games.
Given TTB pitches its main objective at around 6′ x 4′ playing areas and 2.5 hour long games, these are not board game rules.
My current testing of Neil Thomas’s Ancient and Medieval Wargaming (AMW) and Daniel Mersey’s Dux Bellorum (DuB) using Anglo Saxon shield walls, with the odd mounted troops thrown in, has now got a new dimension.
So next up will be a report on how two shieldwalls fared under Table Top Battles.
So this is part 3 of a three wargame test of shieldwalls using two rulesets – Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas and Dux Bellorum (DuB) by Dan Mersey.
In the first two games which used AMW I first tested two shieldwalls against each other and then pitched a mounted force against a shieldwall.
The third game used Dux Bellorum. Now I have used AMW quite a few times whereas this was only a second time use of Dux Bellorum (DuB). DuB was published in 2012, 5 years after AMW and arguably a different offering. AMW perhaps looks back to traditional gaming techniques refreshed while DuB uses more recent approaches.
It emphasises the “leader’s influence” and is very much a game to be enjoyed. So although I think the latter applies to AMW, AMW is more about the collective 8 units working together to achieve victory? By that I mean the capabilities given to the units are the signficiant factor
I used the same “impetus style” elements (80mm x 60mm) to represent each DuB unit.
Instead of Nobles, Retainers, Peasants, Spearmen and Archers we have Companions, Shieldwall, Warriors, Riders, Bow and Skirmishers.
In keeping with a more modern terminology a stat line defines each type of unit.
Move – movement allowance in base widths (BW)
Bravery – equates to command, control and morale of the unit
Aggression (including missiles) – the striking effect of a unit
Protection – the defence value of a unit
Cohesion – endurance, numerical strength, will to fight ( so not the same as bravery above?) interesting that this cohesion is the stat that declines during the game though. Does that mean the unit always has the same morale but loses its will to fight?
Building an army is quick and simple. I went for two almost identical forces of 32 points maximum.
1 x 5 point companion + leader
3 x 5 point shieldwall nobles
3 x 3 point shieldwall ordinaries
2 x 1 point bow skirmishers
Except the “tinkerman” changed the Kings force swopping out one unit of foot skirmishers for some 2 point mounted skirmishers armed with javelins.
So in theory one side had the advantage of 1 point! 32pts (for the king) versus 31pts (for the rebels).
The Rebel Force was the Aggressor who normally goes first in each turn and each phase of a turn.
The battle took place on a plain devoid of any terrain features.
A companion or leader element was supported by 3 noble elements (1 unit to the left and 2 units to the right). At their left flank was 2 ordinary shieldwall units with 1 such element on the right flank. At each end of the line a skirmisher element of bowmen was deployed in the case of the rbels. The only difference was the Kings army having a unit of mounted javelin riders and only one unit of bow skirmishers. These horsemen were deployed on the Kings Earls right flank.
In the photos you will see some mounted troops in the centre of the Kings shieldwall – being a bit short of foot units these posed as foot companions in this battle! It should not affect the visual aspects of this post.
The arrangement being mirrored meant that each unit was matched except for nobles versus ordinary shieldwalls and the mounted javelin horse who squared up to some bow armed foot skirmishers.
roughed out set up of both forces before tinkering………
Narrative
Earl Toki continued his relentless march through the Wessex and even now the King still did not attend to him. He just sent another Earl, Earl Mathedoi, a Breton immigrant, to deal with Earl Toki.
Earl Mathedoi gathered a scratch force of infantry and again pursued the wily Earl Toki.
Earl Toki elected to give battle again on a flat plain confident that his men would be victorious whatever enemy force was sent against him.
Game set up
I used the set up rules positioning the two walls as close together as possible and aligned – 3 BW’s from an imaginary table centre lineThe Rebels are on the right in this view above. The rules are in small font compared to the AMW rules – not so good for quick reading mid game but the quick reference sheets were very useful.I used a large dice to show the units cohesion – red for the companions/leader. I used some silver beads to show their leadership points.Rebel left wing bowmen with some leadership points and a failed bravery throw (2 x D6 needing equal or less than 6)The right flank rebel bow skirmishers has more luck and moves forward. Generally small WHITE dice show hits for the rebels as well as tests such as braveryEarl Mathedoi with his impressive 6 cohesion and golden leadership points – both armies started with the basic 6 points leadership allocation.I like the leader bases even though neither DuB or AMW require them.An Ordinary shieldwall fails to move needing 7 – they then used the leadership points to achieve the roll.elsewhere on the rebel left flank good bravery throws were to be seenEventually Earl Toki and his rebels advance on the unmoving KIngs men
Earl Mathedoi elects to wait on events – he who waits………maybe?fruitless exchanges between bow armed skirmishers on the rebel right flank. Blue or purple small dice show hits for the King or things like bravery testsequally fruitless bowfire on the rebel leftThe two shieldwalls make contact – the rebels moved as a group using the leaders successful throw for bravery.Kingsmen at top throw basic aggression dice (three for ordinary shieldwall and four for noble shieldwall). The rebels moving into contact throw an extra dice on this occasion. The kings ordinaries won their fight and pushed back their opponents while their noble neighbours were both beaten and had to retire half a base width. Feels a bit like DBA here.Rebel success on each flank while the Kings men drive back the rebel centreThe Kings men attack in the flanks but lose again some initiative in the centreThe rebel bow skirmishers on the right pick off(with a 5 die roll) some more javelin horseman on the left flank they can just be seen in the bottom left trying to stay clear of the pesky bowmenon the rebel right flank some swift exchanges finally result in the rebel bow skirmishers fleeing the fielda bit disconcerting view that shows best the cohesion losses with the rebels having the worst of it.however the aggressive attacks by the rebels still give them some advantages, in DuxB attackers are well rewarded with more chances to hit – the issue is can the dice role well and has the repeller played their leadership points not so well?The rebels have the upper hand in the centre in attacksand also on the rebel left flank the rebels have the potential to damage the kings men.now the dice roll well for the rebels on their right flank as seen from the kings side herein the centre it is a disaster as the Mathedoi throws well – very well.On the rebels left flank they also stumble with the Javelin armed horse throwing in their lot as well.Earl Mathedoi’s left hand ordinary shieldwall collapses thoughin a blur they are gone!again this pitcure shows the cohesion dice well – everywhere both sides are on the verge of collapseThe rebel left flank bowmen skirmish with their javelin horsed opponents – firing into a melee is permitted under certain conditions. Here Mathedoi has thoughfully put some leadership protection in place to save the day for now.The battle reaches its height and yet the battle lines are still discernableThe rebels right flank shieldwall make contact with the kings left flank skirmishers who put up a fight using some valuable leadership points – opting to go for the kill rather than in this case saving themselves.in the centre the battle goes against the Kings menOn the kings right flank disaster strikes – three rebel sixes destroy the kings ordinary shieldwall and Mathedoi’s right flank shieldwall collapsesThe ordinary shieldwall retires from the fieldAgain the rebel skirmishers fail to make any impact on the kings javelin armed horsemen who bravely now face the rebel shieldwall alone. It is here you must remember Dan Merseys words that the battle is a whirling mix of individual fights and not the apparent order conveyed by our neatly based models!The final act as everywhere the rebels inflict terrible losses on the kings lineThe kings ordinary men still have some fight in them (the blue dice) though, as they destroy a rebel shieldwall while their noble brothers succumb at their sideMathedoi, his companions and more nobles give up the fight. The loss of units earlier in the battle has reduced the kings leadership points and fatally weakened Mathedois ability to keep units in the fight including his own hearth troopsEven the kings javelin horsmen run out of luckIn the distance the javelin horsemen flee as do the nobles, companions and Mathedoi himself. Nearby some rebels give up the fight as wellAs Mathedoi is swept away by his own troops he has no time to reflect on how his decision to wait on events probably made all the difference between victory and defeat. Dux Bellorum on this occasion rewarded the brave and agressive rebelsAs the fighting ends and the line thins out, the Kings men have just 3 units left and with their leader fleeing they are defeated. The rebels hold the field with 7 of their 9 units intact.
In my next post I will comment on these three battles.
Narrative ending for now
Earl Toki was beginning to feel confident as were his men who had now seen off many of the Kings forces. Who would come against them now?
Nobles (Heavy Cavalry, heavy armour, Elite) 3-6 units
Retainers (Light Cavalry (javelin), light armour, Average) 1-3 units
Spearmen (Dark Age Infantry, light armour, Average) 1-4 units
Archers (Light Infantry (bow), light armour, Levy) 0-2 units
Special Rules
Spearmen can be equipped with medium armour
Norman Nobles get one extra dice per base in first round of combat
Crossbowmen permitted 1000AD onwards
Retainers shown as light cavalry can be equipped as Heavy Cavalry.
I only used the medium spearmen not permitting the Norman Cavalry ferocity of charge benefit, nor crossbowmen or retainers becoming heavy cavalry
About the 1/72 plastic Figures
Although the shieldwall are trusty Strelets normans and anglo saxons the cavalry include both Norman and closest to the camera some Carolingians whose horses look more like their in the Grand National! however I do like the mixed poses Strelets boxed sets give you. The Earl Beorthelm though is a pair of Hat El Cid cavalry, one being given a new head and lance. Earl Toki is from Strelets very big Stamford Bridge Battle set which is great value.
Narrative Story
I decided to link the three battles with a narrative.
Having defeated the Kings men sent against him Earl Toki, a Dane by origin, continued his march through Wessex. So The King now sent Earl Beorthelm to deal with the annoying Rebel. By chance he had with him some horseman from Flanders, good Frankish Cavalry.
With just these men and a few spearmen and archers he rode to intercept Earl Toki.
Earl Beorthelm had the following force
5 units of Elite Nobles heavily armoured
1 unit of Average Retainers in light armour armed with javelins
1 unit of Average Spearmen in medium armour
1 unit of Levy Archers in light armour armed with bows
The two armies meet on a small plain and aligned their roughly equal frontages. Again the two leaders fought their adjacent neighbours. Earl Beorthelm led his horsemen in a swift charge against the Shield wall Rebels. In the process he left behind his Archers and Spearmen (his reserve) while his Retainers peeled away to take care of some archers on the rebel left wing
It became apparent that the spearmen left the horse slightly outnumbered on the Kings Right wing where the Retainers had already incurred casualities from some rather effective rebel archers
The right hand cavalry unit did not charge in for fear of being outflanked by the shield wallThe spearmen were a reserve yet just too far behind the action……….The Retainers crash into the archersbut lose the fight due to archery losses then combat loses and finally morale collapsing – this double damage in AMW triggers rapid breakdown of the line. Visually unrealistic? maybe but good for a quick gameWith the Kings men Retainers crumbling the spearmen begin to advance in that direction to bolster the remaining heavy cavalry who remain on that flankmeanwhile the Kings Nobles make little impact on the solid shieldwall And the first Noble Cavalry decide to retireOminously the spearmen continue to march towards the empty Kings right wing while in the centre the shield wall breaks out to envelope the now static Kings horsemenThese Nobles soon retire On the kings right flank the isolated Nobles are being overun by a unit of rebel spearmen and those very effective archers. In the centre the spearmen hesitate while the Earl Beorthelm struggles to keep his nobles in the fray. On the Earls left flank another noble cavalry unit retires Having defeated the archers the right flank Noble Cavalry bravely fight the rebel spearmenOn the left flank the Kings archers belatedly inflict some casualities on the spermen opposite them. The right flank Kings spearmen attempt to retire in the face of overwhelming oddsEarl Beorthelm is swept away by his nobles as they decide this is not to be their day. Even now there is some small success as the Kings Archers defeat their opponents on Earl Beorthelms left flank Earl Beorthelms spearmen are caught by the rebel spearmen who have had little to doThe remnants of Earl Beorthelms force continue to hold onQuickly the Earl Beorthelm’s spearmen are worn down
However the last Noble cavalry on the Earl Beorthelm’s right flank fight on despite the defeat of the Kings spearmen that ends the battle. They had done well to almost defeat these spearmen although had they done so Earl Toki was on hand with men to spare.
Commentary on the Rules
These are one off games so do not remove the effect of bad or good dice throwing. The use of simple forces shows that for AMW a well set up shieldwall attacked by noble cavalry could win.
The piecemeal cavalry led attack resulted in local losses on the flanks which dictated the reserve would not support the centre.
You could say the rules demand that your forces – only 8 units need to work as a group as once isolated and outnumbered the relative strength of a unit becomes less important.
The archer units seem to have some power and at the very least dilute some unit strength which can make all the difference in subsequent combats.
The next battle is now fought with a different set of rules!
Earl Toki now puts his faith in Dux Bellorum by Daniel Mersey
Nobles – Dark Age Infantry – medium armour, Elite between 1-3 units
Peasants – Dark Age Infantry – light armour, Average between 4-6 units
Archers – Light Infantry (bow) – light armour, Levy between 0-1 units
Special rules
Shieldwall can be adopted by both Nobles and Peasants. This formation imposes movement limits while providing enhanced saving rolls equivalent to the best you can get.
Integral Archers gives extra firepower to a unit just in the first turn of combat
Cavalry – one unit of nobles can be reclassed as
Cavalry – Heavy Cavalry – light armour, Elite
The warband option only applies to armies before 600AD and is mandatory before that date. I was interested in the shieldwall so my armies were post 600AD and in fact more like 900AD, what’s a few hundred years in dark age time………..
The Gloom of morning catches the scene – Rebels in the foreground with the Kings men approaching in the distance
I opted for two identical armies conveniently named Wessex 1 (Kings Earl) and Wessex 2 (Rebel Earl). Nothing like some internal dissention.
The 8-unit armies were both the same.
2 units of Nobles
4 units of Peasants
Shieldwall capability applied to the above 6 units
1 unit of Archers
1 unit of Cavalry
I had intended to give the rebels the integral archery option but forgot to do that in the actual game. So much for testing!
The core of each army were peasants and noble units forming shieldwall
The six infantry units squared up against each other while the light infantry supported the right wing in each case with the Cavalry withdrawn on the left.
The Rebel Earl stood with his men in the ShieldwallThese Kings men look like interlopers both mounted and on foot, hmmmmm
The nobles were in the centre of each line and both lines matched each other so as the battle got underway it was noble against noble and peasant against peasant. I did not pitch each leader’s unit against each other though. Remember that the leader confers no extra benefit or disadvantage if lost.
At the centre of both lines the leaders fought adjacent to each other, something which would affect the battle outcome in an unexpected way.
The Kings men expected to make short work of these insolent rebels.
The sun began to shine although the glare did not seem to affect the rebels on the left flank
In the early stages, it was the rebels who made rapid gains on both flanks racking up hits before everything hit a stalemate or rather a slower rate of hits, now being equally inflicted.
The Kings men of the left flank take an early barrage of hits omniously.On the rebel left the Kings men were just taking a bit more punishment than they handed out. Maybe these rebels were no pushover after all
Finally, the left flank peasant unit of the Kings army fled the field after some hard fighting. And even the Cavalry behind them were no support to keep them in line.
The left flank peasant shieldwall dark age infantry reduced to a yellow ring indicating two bases left had already incurred 3 of the 4 available hits left to them on this ring. Three hits (yellow dice) were incurred while no saving throws made the cut (orange, 3,1,2 versus required 6) so with one base lost a nasty twist in AMW rules is triggered – throw for morale due to a base loss. Here the Kings men needed 4-6 and threw a measly 2. Already down to one base that went as well. The left wing of the Kings men leave the field in full view of the cavalry reserveThe Kings men cavalry reserve approaches the shieldwall which was now reforming. As they came up to the line the levy archers poured a few arrows into the hapless cavalry
These Kings horsemen rode into the fray. They crashed into the victorious rebel peasant unit who held them. The battle now continued until the rebels centre crumpled and a noble unit turned tail. The triumphant Kings Army Leader drove forward into the gap and turned onto the Rebel Leaders flank to deliver the killer blow. However, the rebel cavalry charged into the centre and took the Kings Noble Leader unit in the rear.
A rebel nobles unit on a yellow ring and with 2 hits remaining repeats the same trick of losing a base to combat (yellow 4,6 versus orange saving throws of 1,2) and then their remaining base to morale (green 2 when a 3-6 would have done the job)The rebel nobles unit retires leaving the Kings men with the opportunity to exploit the collapse of the rebel centre.The rebel leader and the right flank are dangerously weak with 2 red rings and one yellowthe kings men leader attacks the rebel leader while the rebel cavalry reserve come to the rescue of their leaderNow the tables are turned as the Kingsmen leader unit is caught in the rear by the Rebel cavalry
Meanwhile the Kings own cavalry unit gave up its fight with the rebel peasants and left the field. And in the centre the Kings Leading Nobles also succumbed, failing to destroy the Rebel nobles and unable to deal with the Rebel Cavalry attacking their rear.
On the Kings men left flank their own cavalry have had enough and retireThe kingsmen leader unit routs and the adjacent peasant shieldwall joins them.
A Kings Army peasant unit also abandoned the fight at this point.
Th Kings Army had now been reduced to just 1 noble unit, 1 peasant unit and 1 unit of archers. All three of these units were quickly attacked by the Rebels. The result was no longer in doubt. And the first to flee were the nobles!
The remaining Kings men shieldwall is now outflanked while the archers on the right flank can do little but watch their army disperse and look to their own survival.The end of resistance by the Kings men as the last noble unit abandons the field
With just two Kings Army units remaining the Rebels had the field and could celebrate a great victory.
The Kings Army had melted away and now the Rebels could enjoy their freedom for a while.
in this game I used rings and dice. You could use coloured dice to achieve the same result although I think the combination is quite neat.The battle turned on situations where the combat losses forced a morale test which when you fail it can be devastating – here a unit goes from blue (4 bases) through green (3 bases) and onto yellow (2 bases). Yes I know its really pale blue in the photo but the middle ring looks green in real life – ok thats sea green!
The casualty method I adopted here was to show nothing where a unit had all 4 bases intact with no losses. When the first hits were incurred the unit acquired a dark blue ring and a die showing hits received. A pale blue/green ring showed a unit was now on three bases. No die meant all 4 hits were intact. More casualties took units through yellow rings for just two bases remaining before the last remaining base was indicated by a red ring. You could use coloured dice of course.
The game uses saving throws which is something of a regression for some rule writers. In a way you get no more dice rounds than DBA – one for one against. What you do get more of is the number of die thrown for a unit in a fight. That’s the buckets of dice syndrome. That means you throw 4 dice at full strength instead of always just one in DBA per base/unit. On the upside even DBA has the dreaded list of “plus or minus factors” and AMW only uses this approach in the optional rules per army which add some flavour.
With no push backs the line remains static or rather you don’t see the push and shove and gradual break down of the line: It is not played out physically by the gamer, so you have to imagine it happening. This is a greater abstraction than DBA where the push back is required to be seen and of course gives combat benefits being integral to the next or adjacent base combat. DBA push back also alerts both players to outcomes allowing helicopter management: Appropriate for tournament play maybe. Of course, “transparency” is a competition issue and “imagination” has no place in tournament play.
During the slogging match the rebels were losing and at times it looked like the king’s men would make the decisive shieldwall breakthroughs. In fact, it was the Cavalry that made the difference. The king’s cavalry filled a gap in the line but were then quickly seen off by the shield wall peasants. The rebel cavalry was far more useful when the kings leading nobles exposed their rear in attacking the rebel leaders.
The moves I made were all logical – in the heat of battle why would you not descend on your enemy leader’s rear to finish him off and Leaders wheeling to expose a flank or rear – so what – those cavalry in the distance might not move our way……but they did.
For both armies I sent in the cavalry in response to an adverse situation that would be seen by the cavalry sat patiently to the nearby.
The combats were close such that on another day it might be the rebels fleeing from the field.
History Note: If you accept that Anglo-Saxons rode to war, which I do, then the army list is fine. The two situations in the battle (allowed under the rules) suggest why their use may have been more restricted and why the rules could be amended.
The Kings Cavalry charged a Shieldwall that had just defeated another Shieldwall. If we allow for the defeated men to drift away the cavalry will have been faced with a tired but formed body of men experiencing euphoria and relief. It is possible to conceive that the cavalry leader believed they were so tired that he could drive them off. In the event the Shieldwall reformed and defeated the cavalry. That seems reasonable as well.
In the other situation the cavalry reserve could see their own centre begin to collapse and after they own men had streamed away, they could see the “backs” of enemy troops. That assumes they could tell the difference at a distance. It seems reasonable to make that assumption because their own men had just left a gap in the Shieldwall line. With the backs of the enemy in sight why not charge into the fray.
In both cases it is about the morale and the decision to move rather than the outcome of the subsequent fight. And AMW allows you freedom to move. No pips, no movement decisions testing and no morale tests prior to moving.
AMW Rules note
On the face of just one playtest the temptation is to put in some control. AMW is attractive because it lacks the rule quantity of other sets. Restricting decisions to move or rather introducing wide ranging controls feels wrong here. Can we solve this problem another way? I think so and the answer lies in AMW having optional rules.
The Anglo-Saxon cavalry was an optional rule itself.
AMW House Rule No1
Anglo-Saxon Cavalry are permitted in battle and may advance into combat areas. They may charge into contact. After one turn of fighting they withdraw one full move unless they have at least one more base advantage than the unit they attacked.
So, the thinking here is that unless they make some rapid impact, turning the fight in their favour, they will use their mobility to withdraw before being destroyed.
This is not such a punishing rule as it seems. The withdrawn cavalry remains a threat and effectively may pin the opposition or at least make them think twice about their next moves. And they remain one of the three units required by the whole army to stay in the fight.
I think this rule reflects the likelihood of Anglo-Saxon cavalry being opportunists and pursuers in battles where the victory tide has turned one way or another.
Summary
The game was enjoyable and the result fine. I must admit allowing either army to fight with 3 units always looks a bit odd. Yet if you think in terms of abstraction – there are other men on the field all retiring or surrendering and not modelled. The few units left on the field show where the remaining core of resistance still exists. I can live with that.
One final thought is that shieldwalls are strong. How strong are they against a concerted cavalry attack though?
In my next post I will explore the classic dark ages infantry versus cavalry conflict.
So having had a good start to the year painting wise, by August I had enough units to do some gaming. My wargaming has always been predominantly “solo”, so road testing rules on my own is natural for me.
Impetus elements of Anglo Saxons, Carolingians and Normans ready to do battle
I should also say that from my earliest wargaming days I have tinkered with rules.
It is a quirk of fate that the first wargames book I read on rules came from my local public library (remember them?). So being a child you take what you can or rather see. So what did my local library have in the adult section? Well a single Donald Featherstone book. And his book was called “Advanced Wargames”. It was a book about wargames and the advanced bit meant nothing to me.
years after my public library discovery I bought my own copy of this book. It actually contains material that has been “invented and popularised” decades later such as grid gaming
So armed with Advanced Wargames I started rule based wargaming and of course met a big problem. Advanced Wargames is a set of chapters dealing with “aspects” of wargaming. Drawing on multiple sources and authors the book covers most areas of rulesets yet they are not joined up to provide a single useable ruleset.
The assumption was that you had a wargames ruleset/s already and some prior knowledge of the whole idea of rules based wargaming. Then you would cherry pick additions and improvements from the book.
I think this is the origin of my “tinkering” with wargames rules. Give me a set of rules and I will invariably add in some “house rules”.
So back to my road test of the rulesets of Neil Thomas and Daniel Mersey.
I have posted previously about my reluctance to move from seriously thought out but quick DBA into the very simple world of AMW. Yet this ruleset is very enjoyable and is more subtle than you might think.
In Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas there are four period rulesets
Biblical Wargaming 3000BC – 500BC
Classical Wargaming 500BC – 300AD
Dark Age Wargaming 300AD -1100AD
Medieval Wargaming 1100AD – 1485AD
My choice here was obvious – Dark Age Wargaming.
I used his rules without house rule changes on this occasion. Well with one exception.
I use Impetus sized elements having abandoned DBA with its restrictions on depth. And I had settled on 1/72 20-25mm figures on 80 mm wide bases which Impetus assumed would be for 15mm although the rules clearly gave you the option for 1/72 basing.
In fact Impetus rules whole approach to basing was so refreshing when I encountered them. And for me they have set the tone for most of the last decade.
I think they were in the vanguard of “BW” measurement or base width’s. This simple decision meant the end of the need to “rebase” figures when switching between rulesets. Of course if you only have one ruleset it is never an issue.
I have almost as many rulesets as guides to painting figures if not more……..dozens.
AMW assumes you have DBA based figures so uses 4 40mmx20mm bases giving you an 80mm x 40mm element and 8 of these make an AMW army.
In effect you need 32 dba bases which is not so good if you have 12 unit dba armies: And most of my thinking had been on these compact DBA army lines.
table size and figure basing all go together for me. I fixed my maximum table size at 6’x4′ imperial and 1.8m x 1.2m metric. 3 collapsible picnic tables from lidl are the foundationsurface finish is 3 x 20mm thick mdf 4’x2′ (1.2m x 0.6m) boards to minimise warping covered with felt in this case
Then I read an article in the Lone Warrior magazine of the Solo Wargamers Association. There the writer suggested a cheap way to build armies was just use the 40mm x 20mm bases as single elements and/or reduce figure count to just say 1 for light troops, 2 for medium and 3 for heavy troops. Well it was something like that because it was the principle that made the difference to me. It broke me fully away from DBA “figures per base rules” and Impetus gave me the solution of 1/72 figures which I prefer – yet now on a smaller 15mm scale base size I also prefer.
The net result is I use 80mm wide bases and actually a generous 60mm depth for all units. This allows the impetus suggested “diorama” approach, better showing individual figures you have carefully painted rather than their being very squashed together under DBA.
You sacrifice ground scale though. I guess in this I have followed favourably the increased “abstraction” approach on ruleset design. Abandoning figure removal for losses in the 1990’s? was the start of this “abstraction” and for some the descent fully into gaming and away from any simulation. I love history yet I love gaming so the compromise matters.
Neither AMW nor Dux Bellorum require explicit command bases but I like them so here is one – from my much delayed “Normans in the South” project – none other than Tancred d’Hauteville looking at the shield design.
Using single base elements meant that required base removal in AMW rules was not now possible. The fix here was simply to use two dice. The first was used to show the 4 “virtual” bases while the second showed the 4 points value each virtual base could sustain before being knocked out and removed from play. I have also used three dice in other games (18 so showing 6+6+4 at the start). But the rules in AMW use base counts to indicate available attack dice. Unless you like mental arithmetic, showing the two aspects gives a simple visual indicator.
A few years later Neil Thomas used this “one number” technique to good effect in his fastplay “One Hour Wargames” (OHW) rules where units are a single base elements with a value of 16 which equates to all the elements morale/resistance/casualty value and overall strength in one number.
With AMW you need not fear flank issues so the shieldwall has gaps between each element/unit ! you can of course place units in base to base contact – i was reflecting the AMW book diagrams!
So I played two games with AMW. The first was essentially two shield walls crashing together and the second was a cavalry led force attacking a shieldwall.
The mighty Norman/Carolingian or Franks in AMW speak start their assault on the Anglo Saxons shieldwall. AMW give suggested army set ups although you still have plenty of choice in the small army lists in the text
The third ruleset test game was another shieldwall versus shieldwall this time using Dux Bellorum.
atmospheric artwork throughout the Osprey book makes its use feel positively different to the text heavy AMW where a central batch of irrelevant but professional model armies fails to add any real value. The AMW font is bigger so the text is much easier to refer to in the heat of battle though!
These rules are aimed at a narrower period AD367-793 and with a nod to fantasy gaming called “Arthurian Wargaming Rules”. These rules use the “BW” concept, being published in 2012, 5 long years after AMW.
a solid pair of shieldwalls square up for Dux Bellorum. The dice are colour coded for the unit grades such as “nobles”.
Again there were no tweaks for once. Indeed in both cases as I fought shieldwall battles a side benefit was to better understand the design of these two rulesets. Because shieldwalls in both rulesets result in quite a static and very balanced game you can see the effect of a limited number of the author’s variables in action.
Here is an Anglo Saxon Command with to its front my version of a shieldwall in 1/72 Strelets plastics on an Impetus 15mm scale 80mm wide element base.
In my next blog I will consider what happened in each game.
the ring and dice combination solved my AMW rule problem when using only base instead of 4.
This is the tip I found by chance on the “The Waving Flag” blog of Martin who runs Vexillia. I found Vexillia during my interest in impetus rules and italian figure makers.
Then I dropped out of that and very recently came to Martins blog by way of one of his recent posts and then having wandered around his blog site again I found the tips section. And wet pallettes update from 2016!
OK so I am slow on the uptake but I do remember a lot of discussion about wet pallettes a while ago (was it in 2016 though?) and it passsed me by. It so happened this time round I was in the middle of a lot of painting and well the article or should I say tip caught my eye.
And yes I followed Martins advice and it works and works really well.
I had some ochre base paint in the wet pallette box for the best part of 3 weeks – no mould in sight and the paint remained perfectly workable.
So thank you Martin.
This is also my 50th post so I can say that starting this blog and achieving this very small milestone in the blogging world is in lots of ways due to the work of others. All those other blogs I have followed over the last 10 years for example.
Here are some that have inspired my gaming, painting and an appreciation of what blogging has contributed to the wargames hobby.
Thank you to one and all. And for those omitted from the list, thank you as well – it is the variety that matters – the different tastes and interests mean there is always something for everyone to enjoy or discover.
And my whole DBA 15mm world received a massive jolt one day in 2007. I picked up a magazine in WH Smiths at a railway station. Nothing untoward you say, except it was a copy of Battlegames published by Henry Hyde.
Subsequently in one of his magazines I read about the beginners guide to blogging by Greg Horne and his Duchy of Alzheim blog. At the time with zero wargames playing going on blogging looked like a waste of good gaming or even painting time.
Much later, much much later in the atlantic publishers era I read in Battlegames Henry’s guide to starting your own blog. Still not for me. And the site link above is Henry’s consolidated site now – the guide I followed in the magazine has been removed. But his main site mentions it.
Another site Henry introduced me to was meeples & miniatures blog and Neil Shuck, and that led me to podcasts – but thats another story.
Some of my favorite blogs have been the following…………
Pauls Bods – absolutely excellent painting of 1/72 plastics and most recently metals by tumbling dice
Wargaming for Grown Ups – great all round musings and plenty of 1/72 ancients plastics that got me out of a 15mm DBx rut and into simpler gaming with plastics and even modifying them
History in 1/72 – great for ideas about what you can do in 1/72
Parade Ground – got me back into 20mm metals with the likes of tumbling dice/newline/SHQ alongside plastics – motivated my purchase of Late Romans by Miniart. excellent 1/72 ideas, painting and figures
The Eastern Garrison – pics of the much missed figures of greenwood and ball – the garrison metals I always wanted were the Carthaginians. Great archive.
Harness and Array – excellent medieval material, motivated me to do or rather start my stoke field project. Sadly it is my one 28mm enterprise and remains unfinished despite the fantastic figures.
Dark Age Wargames – although it only ran from 2006 to 2016 I found this site very useful for my interests in the Dark Ages
The Wars of Wine and Cheese – another imagination thought stream that got me revisiting horse and muskest warfare – but always with a “fantastic” leaning
Vintage Wargaming – so enjoyed the old metal ranges being replayed I rebased mine and used them again
John’s Wargames page – another blog that got me convinced to go down the soft plastics 1/72 route
Heres no great matter – sustained my interest in 15mm, showed me the drawbacks but pleasure of ancient and medieval warfare (AMW) and lots of small but great ideas like dice army pics to show each turn development when reporting a game
Carpat’Land – simply amazing figures to enjoy especially in medieval period and L’art de la guerre ruleset appeared to me here
Steves Random Musings on Wargaming – consistently offers a variety on interesting ideas for me – books and war of the spanish succession to name but two
20mm figures and modelling – wargaming info provided lots of useful links plus news, rulesets views and some interesting carolingian material
the duchy of tradgardland – another imaginations find in my ealry days of reading other peoples blogs
As I say these are just some of the wargame blogs I have enjoyed – some are no longer updated but I think all I have listed can still be visited.
Thanks to every author who has committed time to share their ideas on this fascinating hobby.
Wargamers apparently have adopted this word in the realm of figure quality. Metal miniatures with heft matter. The rise of the plastic miniature in 28mm I suspect is the driving force. There have always been metal miniatures – well since the days of H G Wells and the 54mm lead soldier.
There have been plastic figures since the 1960’s, maybe even before that. Plastic has been the 20th century wonder material that is now the 21st century waste problem. So the appearance of plastic soldiers is from a wider phenomenon.
Heft appears to be a popular north american term for weight and so much more expressive I think. So not just “feel the weight of this I just hefted” said the man from Gloucester (UK) but “feel the heft in these” said the man from Philadelphia (USA)?
Apparently metal wargames figures are so much better in metal. I guess they perform better on the gaming board. Mind you plastic figures can be bought in their hundreds for the price of tens of metals, especially those metal figures blessed with detail from all that valuable tin in them. And then of course there is the quote “quantity has a quality all of its own”; was that said by a certain Mr Josef Stalin?
When it comes to books heft no longer applies to the vast swathe of “E” books. Yet in the realm of the printed book there is still room for heft.
Most of my printed books are paperbacks and they do their job well. Then once in a while you acquire something on a different scale.
This then is heft – John Blair’s Building Anglo-Saxon England published by Princeton University Press.
Anglo-Saxon buildings are rare, raring than Romano-British ones. The simple reason is building material. We are back to the plastic waste problem. Maybe just maybe in a hundred years from now all the metal miniatures might have been melted down and reused while dozens of plastic soldiers survive. Unlikely but maybe. Anyway the lover of anglo saxon buildings is frustrated because they all “rotted” away to leave some post holes and thats it. Except John Blair has published a lavish and I mean lavish, book on the buildings of anglo saxon england painstakingly reconstructing for our minds this aspect of dark age britain.
remember dark age britain on this blog means anything between the 4th and 11th centuries.
The book wins the “heft” competition in my collection!
On impulse I have gathered a set of figures to build a pictish type army for the british isles dark ages.
So which figures have I chosen?
I looked at the plastic solder review site and did not like any of the pictish figures on offer. So I looked around for something that might work. My main choice has been Orions slavic foot soldiers who would be more used to fighting at Adrianople or in the Balkans against the embryonic East Roman Empire.
The army will use the army choice given in AMW for the Picts – I have added two commands as wellThis set was bought for my much stalled stoke field project in 28mm! yes they were too small anyway. I have used some of the javelin and bowmen plus some of the mailed figures for the command basesThese Sarmations were a snap choice when passing through Frome in Somerset. I knew they would come in useful except not for dark age Britain! They provide some mounted troopsHaving now bought these figures they are wonderful sculpts. It is unfortunate that the Plastic Soldier Review plays down these figures on account of poor casting and flash. These figures have fantastic detail. They make up my main units for a pictish army
The army will comprise all the options for AMW so thats 12 units but based singley on impetus style 80mm wide bases with no base removal possible.
Neil Thomas and his Ancient and Medieval Warfare (AMW) book has grown on me over the years. At the start I did not think I would like an 8 unit army requiring 32 DBA bases to allow casualty removal. I tried it with single bases and dice and it worked. The breakthrough came with his One Hour Wargames (OHW) using the same technique and reducing the armies to just 6 units but crucially playing many scenarios.
I have played much more of both OHW and AMW than say DBA or my preferred ruleset of Impetus.
I arrived in Neil Thomas’ world by chance. Mike Tittensor wrote an article in Slingshot magazine published by the Society of Ancients (SOA) about bronze age warfare and using Peter Pig’s Bloody Barons ruleset. I bought the rules and these got me into plastics because I wanted a low cost solution. This was my first departure from what had been a preference for 15mm metals DBA gaming on a 600mm square board – an excellent coffee table sized game by the way. By chance I had now the opportunity to return to a dining table or 1800mm x 1200mm type gaming table. I was toying with 28mm but disliked the size of figures from a painting point of view. I had struggled with my Wars of the Roses Perrys figures to get a look I liked.
So it was the peak of the plastics era in the 2000’s and I just bought lots of chariots none of which in the end made it to the painting table – irony in there somewhere.
What I did get was a drift away from DBA gaming, first into Bloody Barons, then Impetus and then Neil Thomas.
Neil Thomas and 1/72 plastics are a perfect way to experiment in wargaming.
Not sure when this army will complete – sunshine and a last push for summer beckons.
These are my first Hat “el cid” 1/72 figures I have painted. Now given the period is pitched as 11th/12th century some of the figures have flat top helmets which mark the start of the great helm era. So my fix as I wanted my figures to back fit into early 11th century was to get some heads from my strelets normans and do a swop. They look ok to me.I did two Impetus bases and chose my own shield designs which dominate these figures. The horse colours are again coat d’arms which I have quickly become happy with. I suppose the cloaks might seem unusual for early 11th century but I think they work as long as they don’t have heraldic symbolsI used the shield design on the cover of ospreys armies of medieval italian wars, nice work by Mr Rava.I also get a command unit for the 12 figures you get in a Hat set. These guys were given a shield design based upon one from the osprey guide italian medieval armies 1000-1300. The design shown was apparently the d’hautevilles – a very large family of warriors who were involved in the Norman takeover of southern italy.I quite liked the design shown on the cover of this osprey so gave a version of it to my command
To round things off I based the figures for 15mm impetus! 80mm wide – a compromise I really like. I used my current favoured 3 layer base painting over budgie grit (warhammer idea) and finished this time with foliage from gaugemaster/noch for railway modelling.
The Wargaming Erratic 