My wargaming has continued to evolve. In 2021 I played more games than in previous years and created more fictitious eras for my mythical worlds. Fauxterre expanded in surprising ways. And that of course is the point about imagination – its very chaos is the atrraction. Unless of course your livelihood depends on producing it for others.
My imaginative wargaming is simply for pleasure – a distraction, an escape from the real world.
Wargaming on the other hand seeks rules and restrictions. So rulesets for many wargamers are a pleasure (!) in themselves rather than simply a necessity. The exception is I believe competition gaming where the rulesets are a necessity simply to allow the “fight” to be resolved at all and a winner declared.
In the wargaming arena “rules lawyers” are the pantomime baddy except ruining the event rather than adding to it. Perhaps the solution has always been there – make competitions more fun than theory. Less historical particulars and more game means that the lawyers have less to exploit. That said, even such family games as cards, scrabble or monopoly betray the rules manipulators!
From my perspective there seem to be far more rules published for game enjoyment even in a competitive situation. And despite a drive for simplicity the abstractions are often well thought out so the feel of the game historically is still there – a key part of the wargame enjoyment.
This is another blog post that has deviated already. On the subject of threads and themes I have been musing on the subjects of rulesets, games and imaginations.
I do like a set of wargaming rules and as rules writers have tended towards explaining their ideas ,these publications have become more readable. Even if you never play a ruleset, they give you someone elses opinion about a conflict or technology – what was signficiant when it came to the conduct of a campaign or battle.
In 2021 I indulged myself.
Piquet Field of Battle 1700-1900 – 2nd edition of this ruleset which likes lots of uncertainty – ideal for soloists and those who enjoy a degree of chaos when it comes to game turn sequence
Neil Thomas 19th Century European Wargaming – post napoleonic but very much still horse and musket. Neil Thomas rules work, really work – its that simple.
Practical Wargaming by Charlie Wesencraft – another ruleset that is coherent and in fact I have never felt the need to tinker with – well ok a little bit.
Neil Thomas Wargaming an Introduction – not my first purchase yet some really useful rules in here.
Mike Smith Table Top Battles – my “grid wargames” ruleset – they even gave me an easy way in to some naval wargaming – something I had previously shown no interest in.
Battle – Practical Wargaming by Charles Grant. A complete set of simple rules for World War 2. A vintage ruleset they convey a simplicity of gaming I have since only really found in Neil Thomas rules.
Peter Pig Poor Bloody Infantry is a grid ruleset but so much more. It is definitely a “game” and does not need adaption for me. I play it straight out of the book.
Donald Featherstone rules don’t appear but had regular run outs. The reason is simply that none of his books were in my view a complete set of rules. They were always full of rules ideas. And that means you get to tinker big time. He gets his own list!
Battles with Model Soldiers ever popular for some simple basics
Advance wargames for period specific mechanisms
Wargame Campaigns – does what it says on the tin lid – ideas for campaigns
Surprisingly Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames had little look in this year. That suggests I have had more time to play each game.
The most satisfying ruleset for 2021 has been Neil Thomas Wargaming 19th Century European Wars. It gave me everything I needed for a new era with his excellent balance of simple play and historical feel. Add to that, excellent scenario generators for both historic battles and those of your imagination, This ruleset has sustained my new interest for most of the year without distraction.
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!
published by Pen and Sword of Barnsley, Yorkshire, England available as an e book and the occasional ebay offering.
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
a gamut of rules!
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.
discovered in a library – it was my second wargames book after Charge!
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.
this now retired 1970’s level 3 thief would know all about levelling up in D&D
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.
Overflowing with ideas but not a package – a great book for the DIY rules player
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…….
another retired 1970’s D&D hero – ral partha Elf – my painting and photography does not do justice to this sculpture.
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:
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.
The Duchy of Tradgardland Blog by Tradgardmastare always throws up interesting posts.
A recent one asked about your favorite battle from the wargamers fictional world. It struck a chord.
The Franco Prussian War centenary was in 1970/71, so during Donald Featherstones publishing boom it was very topical and popular. As a youngster who only knew about the ACW, WW2 and Napoleon it was a period that was just far too obscure. And there were no plastic figures to hand.
Donald Featherstones Advanced Wargames was the first book I got from a library although it was swiftly followed by Charge! Or how to play wargames, by Lawford & Young. That library gave me a lifelong hobby.
I eventually bought this favorite many years after a public library version got me hooked on wargames
It was a few years before I actually bought a book on wargames or rather received one as a present.
Advance Wargames is not a logical place to start wargaming. It did contain all the parts for a set of wargames rules. It was just that they were all dotted around and mixed up!
So it is not surprising that the chapter 14 about Games with more than Two players got me started solo campaigning!
Here are the vital words that I kept coming back to.
The whole issue of a small advance guard worked for me as I had no armies as such. I had a some ACW infantry, artillery and cavalry. They stood in for the French and Prussians who I had little interest in. When I obtained my first Airfix Napoleonics this battle idea was a regular one to feature.
Donald Featherstone always made me want to imagine a world around the game. And his writing I found very engaging.
The scenario sees some light infantry, light cavalry and horse guns contacting a larger enemy. And the scenario included generals with differing capabilities and couriers. Finally the scenario set similar objectives but with differing forces. So Asymmetrical Wargaming was a starting point for me.
I mentioned Charge! – the Battle of Sittangbad is of course another Asymmetrical situation. I quickly adopted that one as another favorite scenario.
And when I started my latest project – venturing beyond 1725 for the first time in decades – it was a scenario I used again. This time it was the post napoleonic era – 1815 to 1848ish.
And I used Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming – one book I did buy and still possess.
The hill of Moulet-Arles at the Gap of Moulet-Arles
Yep crease lines show up in pictures – at least I know the centre line of the battlefield though.
This battlefield is a take on a few where a road junction provides the focus of the action as forces collide due to poor scouting. I quickly drew a map looking to create a bottleneck to be fought over.
On this scrap of paper Moulet-Arles appears from nowhere. Maybe it will just as quickly be forgotten?
Narrative
Savelonia has been wracked by insurrection and revolution. Nothing new here as the region has been fraught with instability. Sabaudia and Savelonia occupy the western lands of the Empire which had seen better days.
Yet the Emperor Raymond has seen his fortunes improve in recent times and feels compelled to show some strength in the region.
Meanwhile King Nikola of Sabaudia sees opportunities to expand his kingdom and influence.
The provisional government of Savelonia had already appealed to King Nikola for assistance so it was easy to frame his response as coming to the assistance of downtrodden peoples still living under the hard boot of the Imperialists.
The Emperor ordered his forces to mobilise.
General Gutenstein marched south and west through the Crownlands of Pommardia and through some minor duchies before reaching the borderlands of Savelonia. It is a pity his majesty had not thought to build his very new fangled railways where the army needed to march, the General thought, as his forces struggled through the mud under grey and darkening skies.
He had sent ahead General Hartmann a promising young officer. General Hartmann had 2 battalions of riflemen along with 2 squadrons of light cavalry plus 2 horse guns.
His orders were to seize the road junctions around Moulet-Arles. Local guides informed him the area was known as the “Gap of Moulet-Arles” owing to a dense forest to the west and some high ground to the east. three roads came together at Moulet-Arles and just one road led south west into the Savelonian heartlands. Hartmann noted that his maps did not show these features as significant. He pushed his men on as the grey clouds dispersed a little.
To the South West General Forlan cursed the weather, the people, the roads and the Kings Logistics Corps or rather lack of one.
His forces had been late leaving their concentration points and then the revolutionaries in Savelonia had been creating havoc. At least he had corralled the rebellion to just the three major cities in the Grand Duchy. This had given the Provisional Government some order. It was little time in which to prepare for the inevitable response by the Empire.
Now he had word of Imperial forces gathering to the north east. He had sent General Ducrot forward to secure what looked like a key road junction at Moulet-Arles.
General Ducrot was your average time served officer of the Empire who had opted to make his later career with the kingdom and frankly this explosion of activity late in the year had not been to General Ducrots’ liking with his plans to enjoy the spa towns of the Drabzan Mountains now put on hold.
And the weather was turning bad it would seem.
General Ducrot considered his orders again. Take the two road junctions of Moulet-Arles driving off any enemy. His battalion of Chasseurs were key and were supported by 2 squadrons of light cavalry and 2 battalions of line infantry. His one horse gun left him vunerable but from what he had heard the Imperialists were only “demonstrating” – a bit of sabre rattling.
As he came within sight of Moulet-Arles the rain seemed to intensify, it certainly darkened despite it being late morning already.
Ducrot’s chasseurs deploy north of Moulet-Arles towards Petit Moulet-Arles. HIs light cavalry push west by the Forez en Moulet and to the west his other squadron climb the hill. The first line infantry battalion arrives in the village. Job done!Ducrot carelessly reconnoitres beyond his forces as an Empire cavalry force rides towards Petit Moulet-ArlesWith the Sabaudian forces almost all in position the Imperialists find their use of the road congestedThe light cavalry under their respective Generals face up to each otherFirst blood goes to the Imperialists as the Sabaudian Light Cavalry have the worst of itHeavy Rain slows all activity and the heat has gone out of the battle – literally
Heavy rain now sweeps across the battlefield and movement all but ceases. Both armies main forces are coming up but with the light fading fast General Hartmann concludes that his day is done. Leaving a battalion of riflemen in Petit Moulet-Arles he withdraws a little way away and seeks new orders.
Later that evening the Imperialists retire leaving General Ducrot and the Sabaudian forces to enjoy the dubious delights of Moulet-Arles on a very wet and sodden ground.
The Wargame
The narrative was built largely from the wargame outcomes with only the naming, origin of the war etc. being necessary additions.
Setting up the game
With my latest wargames fad being post Napoleonic warfare I just had to get some games in.
So there was a degree of improvisation necessary.
Currently I am painting armies for the 1850’s and with none complete that could not be my starting point. Help was at hand through Charles Wesencraft’s Practical Wargaming (WPW). While I was looking at his Franco Prussian rules I realised they were a build on his Napoleonic rules in the same book. Added to that I had some Napoleonic Figures ready to use and the decision was made.
This was a Faux Napoleonic game. Thank you Renaissannce Troll!
The idea for this game was the Franco Prussian scenario set out in chapter 14 of section 6 entitled “how many generals?”. And the book was Donald Featherstones Advanced Wargames (DFAW).
The scenario written for multiple players sees two forces collide having sent out advanced gauards. The question is who can feed in their main elements and rear gaurds most effectively.
Also objectives are defined by the ongoing campaign – so you don’t play fast and loose “one game” tactics.
The Imperial Forces were
Advanced Guard led by General Hartman (+1) with Staff Officer Kroos (0)
2 Battalions of Jagers (M2, M2)
2 Squadrons of Light Cavalry (M2, M2)
2 Horse guns (M2, M2)
Main Body led by General Gutenstein (+1)
1 Battalion of the Imperial Guardsmen
2 Squadrons of Heavy Cavalry
7 Battalions of Line Infantry
2 Field guns
Rearguard
Not specified
These forces had become broken up and were all heading on different roads which converged at Moulet-Arles.
In the “WPW” rules staff officers provide some variation and control when playing face to face opponents giving each staff officer a temporary +1 on die rolls with the unit they are with. I tweaked this by making staff officers themselves variable to introduce some more friction for solo play. And Generals were included to account for any decisions they made.
General/Staff Officer 6 on a D6 = +2
General/Staff Officer 4 or 5 on a D6 = +1
General/Staff Officer 1,2 or 3 on a D6 = 0
So the Imperial forces were well blessed with leaders
Turning to the Sabaudians we had
The Adavanced Guard led by General Ducrot (0) with staff officer Hautois (+1)
1 Battalion of Chasseurs (M3)
2 Squadrons of Light Cavalry (M2, M2)
2 Battalions of Line Infantry (M2, M1)
1 Horse Gun (M1)
The Main body led by General Forlan (0)
2 Battalions of Guard Infantry
5 Battalions of Line Infantry
2 Squadrons of Heavy Cavalry
3 Field guns
The M and number value for each advanced guard unit denotes their morale classification on the day. WPW assumes that top notch units can underperform and raw units out perform themselves on any one day. This helps with Campaigns or the sort of narrative gaming I do. Not much use to the “lists” gamers though – far too confusing.
So M3 denotes a unit in top form, M2 average condition and M1 – well you need to roll your dice high when testing morale!
I diced for all the units in the main bodies – when they would arrive and by which road (3 options for the Imperial forces!)
In the event the game ended swiftly because of some timing decisions and the weather.
Now there has always been something different to me about Charles Wesencrafts’ rules. Maybe it is because back then my wargames rules were from basically one author – Donald Featherstone: Gavin Lyall, Terry Wise and Charles Grant all passed me by for example.
Anyway WPW gives you a package – nothing outrageous – it is a complete package and everything has its place. With Donald Featherstone I always felt I could emphasise rule aspects sacrificing others with little thought to the overall game. With WPW I basically take them as presented and play them. Yes I do tweak a bit because solo play requires that extra friction in the absence of another human player.
Well the weather started off wet and just got wetter. I had also randomly found the action started part way through the day. So instead of say the example 12 move battle duration shown in the book I reduced it to no more than 6 moves. And once the rain had set in with the Sabaudians in possession of the crossroads it just seemed logical that the Imperial forces would withdraw and consider their options.
So that ended my first post Napoleonic wargame. And was it a damp squib? if you play only the individual games then absolutely. If on the other other hand you play for campaigns and narratives it was good and in fact immediately suggests other courses of action.
Will the Imperialists now exploit the fact that the Sabaudians have concentrated on the road junction. Maybe they will attack from a new direction. Or maybe mask this position and attack elsewhere to draw the Sabaudians from the crossroads altogether. Maybe the crossroads are now no longer important to the Imperialists.
Finally I will cover a few other points about WPC.
Firstly I used written orders – well simple pictograms and crucially I wrote them at least one move ahead. This immediately adds more friction for the solo game as well as making the staff officer element of the rules even more pertinent.
The rules were for their time, in my view, very good in approaching control and morale. The text at 180 odd pages is quite heavy when the basic rules can be condensed into just a few. This is especially so when you consider the rules cover 6 key periods (ancients, medieval, pike and shot, Eigtheenth Century, Napoleonic, ACW/Franco Prussian). Add to that three variations – two large scale game options and a skirimish option.
The point is the whole book is also the design philosophy into the bargain with explanation alongside the relevant part of the rules.
The rules are therefore stripped of unnecessary features yet have the right blend of “kept rules” so you get a good feel for the game.
The figure removal technique in the game, with what was then an unusual multi figure basing approach, is easily replaced with a value solution such as promoted by the Neil Thomas AMW or OHW rulesets. This allows the figures to stay on the table and as Charles Wesencraft says himself it is not obvious which units are degraded until they do something. Here his morale rules take care of that – so be prepared to move units to the rear rather than just remove them. And it follows rallying can still play a part with those staff officers effectively representing the efforts of all the leaders of the army at whatever rank attempting to keep men in the line.
You can still buy these rules here being part of the John Curry Wargaming Project.
Sometimes things come together in the most unexpected way.
No sooner had I read the SWA (Solo Wargamers Article) by Brian Cameron than I stumbled across the Renaissance Troll and his post about Napoleonic imaginations and painting a couple of foot soldiers with those early flashy metal helmets boasting giant “bog brush” combs!
In my last post I mentioned I had rediscovered Donald Featherstones’ Advanced Wargames Section 6 Chapter 14 Franco Prussian scenario.
And I recalled that the first time I found this book I only had Airfix Napoleonics remotely usable. And they were duly rolled out to fight the battles. Interestingly I did have Airfix ACW armies – and I probably used them as well except I never used ACW for “imaginations” warfare.
I also never had it in my head that “imaginations” worked with Napoleonics that well either. For one thing then I was consumed by the actual history – no need for imaginations gaming in that period.
my “Imaginations” gaming came from “Charge or how to play Wargames”.
The last chapter 10 – Tailpiece gives some very sensible advice on avoiding multiple period wargaming – pure madness apparently (oh dear).
It also recommends creating “Mythical Powers” (D&D in 1967!) and their armies so as to avoid arguments about uniform accuracy.
So my “imaginations” gaming has been of the tricorne variety.
Zvezda Peter the Great Russians and Swedes in the background
Back to Renaissance Troll who posted that neat little post about “a new miniatures project”. Yes those 4 simple words can either send a shiver down the spine of you average wargamer or create a frision of excitment that must be assuaged.
Yep its both – the anglo saxons have yielded to the inevitable. They now shiver in some dark corner of my wargaming tardis (yes its that bad here – I had to get some more storage options beyond 3D).
And now in the bright uplands there appear some Napoleonics……
Warrior Metals originally based for Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming now rebased for Maurice.
Well yes and no.
“Yes” I did get my game using some 1970’s retro rules (post to follow) using a few Napoleonics and “No!”
my painting table now has Strelets Union infantry on it with some
absolutely ghastly other figures on the worktable – boy do they need work.
oh dear oh dear oh dear……………..
Postscript
Renaissance Troll mentioned they were reading David Chandler. I have kept just two books on Napoleonics.
I can recommend the following books if you can track them down.
A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars published by AMS Press Inc. It was originally published in 1964 having been compiled for the Department of Military Art and Engineering, The United States Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.
Given I have always liked maps this book or rather atlas is an absolute cracker.
The second has an introduction in my copy by David Chandler. It is an adaption by Anne S K Brown of Henry Lachouques’ “Napoleon et la Garde Imperiale”. It is entitled “The Anatomy of Glory”. It is full of glory and is both gripping and draining. The later years of 1812 to 1814 are just relentless.
Enjoy you “imaginations” gaming whatever form it takes!
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.
The Wargaming Erratic 