Tag: a gentlemans war

Testing the Rules

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
Philosophy
Game Mechanics
Action 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

Table 1: Production Criteria

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

Table 2: Design Philosophy

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

Table 3: Game Mechanics

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

Table 4: Action Mechanisms

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

Table 5: Summary

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.

Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame rules wargaming

Ruletest E: A Gentlemans War 1848-1861

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 25th Jul 2022
No Comments on Ruletest E: A Gentlemans War 1848-1861

A Gentlemans War or “Glossy Coats and Tin Bayonets” is a bit different to the previous rules tested. It is much more towards a skirmishing style and is definitely for enjoyment of the game. These rules are aimed at the period 1875 to 1914 so are a bit later than my interest.

The losses are per figure so the units were

12 man infantry brigades
4 man field artillery batteries
6 man light cavalry brigades

I used their 1850-1875 shooting modifications to the rules

Essentially it shortens all the ranges giving you just rifled muskets or smoothbore cannon.

I ran out some new playing cards for this game.

With a normal playing card deck red cards work for one force, black for the other.

numbered cards allow singular activitions
court cards allow brigaded activations ( I did not use these) or singular activations
ace allows double move and cannot be held in the hand
cards in the hand are used as hold cards to be used as above
cycle ends when every unit on one side has activated
first joker end all cycles – with all disorder markers removed
both sides start new cycles
second joker – cycles end plus all held cards are discarded and packs reshuffled for a restart

The set up was identical to previous tests and the Orchard was inaccessible to all arms, while the road offered some benefit.

The Empire Forces were

left flank – Erzherzog Albrecht Infantry
centre left – No 1 field artillery battery
centre right – Ritter Von Benedek Infantry
right flank – Graf Radetzky Hussars

The Republican Forces were

left flank – Milan Brigade
centre left – “A” battery field artillery
centre right – Bersaglieri di Vignola
right flank – 3rd & 6th Line Lancers (combined)

The action was swift with the rebel lancers charging first……

As they charge in the Austrian Infantry fire scoring on 5 or 6 on 1d6

Rebel saving throws on a 5 or 6 mean only 2 hits make a mark. Yet this meant 1/3 losses 2 out of 6 men killed so a morale check was required which said the Lancers were “bothered” but continued their charge albeit “lukewarm”.

In the melee the “advantage factors” were with the Austrians meaning the Lancers needed a 6 to hit against 3-6 for the infantry. 6 hits on the cavalry halved meant the remnants of the cavalry ran away (1 cavalryman!) while the infantry were reduced by 1 man to 11.

The Bersaglieri attempted to rush the Austrian artillery but became “bothered” and had to retreat. while a fierce firefight took place between the Von Benedek Infantry and the Milan Brigade.

Eventually the Von Benedek Infantry became “disconcerted” – morale test on 50% losses, and ran away.

With just one infantryman left in the Erzherzog Albrecht Infantry the game is up for the Austrians as the Milan Brigade still numbers 10 men and the Bersaglieri have 8 although they keep running away!

So General Radeztky decides to quit the field. General Durando celebrates a great victory largely down to his Milan Infantry brigade which destroyed the Hussars, routed the Von Benedek Infantry and drove off the Austrian Artillery almost single handedly.

Yes this is Ruletest E so where is Ruletest D?

It will be along in due course.

Tags a gentlemans war, austrians, gaming aids, mid 19th century wargames, playing cards, solo wargaming, Vienna Treaty Wars, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, wars of italian unification, wars of the italian unification

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

Prelude to Wargames Rules tested II*

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 4th May 2022
2 Comments on Prelude to Wargames Rules tested II*

Which rules are best for mid 19th century warfare. Of course it helps to know which continent your on because apparently the North America Civil Wars were nothing like those happening in Europe…..

My current preoccupations are with the Italian Wars of Unification that, depending on your viewpoint, ran from 1820-1871 or 1848-1870 or even just 1859-1861!

Whichever timeline you choose the events threw up numerous conflicts across the Italian peninsula.

My previous rules shortlist included

Neil Thomas 19th Century European Wars – reviewed here previously
Table Top Battles by Mike Smith – reviewed here previously and here
Gentlemans War by Howard Whitehouse
Practical Wargaming by Charles Wesencraft
Piquet by Brent Oman
These last three were considered here and here for my Kloster Arens Encounter

I guess I had settled on the Neil Thomas set with Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles offering a solution for larger battles generated by my mythical campaigns.

The thing is I had not actually tested Piquet for this period so that was still an unknown. And so was A Gentlemans War for that matter.

And then at Hammerhead 2022 I played Fire and Fury. It reminded me that this ruleset had caught my eye the odd decade ago (!) only to fade away.

I enjoyed the participation game and to cut a long story short, tracked down a 1990 1st Edition courtesy of Dave Ryan at Caliver Books. It included some photocopy extracts of post publication comments which suggested a lot of improvements! There were a lot of complaints at the time it would seem. Nice touch from Dave Ryan to include these contemporary articles with this ruleset.

With so much negative noise why bother with them though? Well they have continued to be published. And it seems they have been morphed into other era’s. My Hammerhead participation game was for the Renaissance: Perhaps this endurance shows the core mechanics work for lots of gamers.

I thought, just maybe an ACW (American Civil War) ruleset might suit my 19th century European wars in Italy after all.

The Italian Wars of Unification fit between the Crimean Wars and the Franco Prussian War while they also bracket the American Civil Wars.

Next up will be some simple tests of Fire & Fury to start with.

*In 2020 I was all Anglo Saxon and shieldwalls and tested a few rulesets to see which might work for me.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battaglia_di_Curtatone_e_Montanara.jpg

This image is to be found in an excellent Wikipedia page about the Italian Wars of Unification.

Mythical Realms wargame rules wargaming

Fauxterre 1816 Part 3 – Rules for the Kloster Arens Encounter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are

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

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

Why multiple rulesets?

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

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

Where to start?

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

I came across these ideas in Donald Featherstones books first.

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

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

Elite
Trained
Conscript

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

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

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

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

I used these in the Kloster Arens encounter.

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

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

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

TLMorgan provided the following example in Lone Warrior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kloster Arens Encounter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zarland Royal Army Advance Guard (Commander is General Sumpf)

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

No skimishers in this NT19e selection

VinAlban Army Advance Guard (Commander is General Stute)

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

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

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

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

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

I suppose I play “zero player games”.

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

Written Orders

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

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

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

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

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

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