September is a busy month for battle anniversaries in Yorkshire not least in 1066.
On the 20th the Vikings of King Harald defeated the Saxons of Earls Edwin and Morcar at Germany Beck in what is now Fulford. There are not many references to this battle – given that two climatic battles followed, its understandable.
The battle was according to records fought near where the beck joins a sharp turn in the river Ouse.
Crucially the defeated Saxons made good their escape as a rising tide flooded the beck. This meant they could fight another day.
There is a tapestry of the Fulford battle displayed at various locations over the years since it was made in 2012 after ten years effort!
On the 25th September the Saxons under King Harold of England defeated Harald and the Viking host at Stamford Bridge.
It was the end of the Scandinavian Viking threat after hundreds of years of invasion.
A tapestry of the Stamford Bridge battle can be seen in the old railway station at Stamford Bridge.
It was another Viking Scion – the Norsemen who took land in the Carolingian Empire and called it Normandy – who a few generations later then defeated the English in turn at Hastings.
It can be argued that without Fulford and Stamford Bridge there would have been no Hastings and maybe a different war between Harold and William might have played out.
So maybe instead of waiting for yet another Norman invasion (the bayeaux tapestry is en route to the UK) you could visit these other tapestries when they are on show instead or as well as.
People remember William for what followed yet Harold had marched 500 miles with his household troops and won a great victory putting together two separate regional armies before arriving at Hastings: William fought an outstanding adversary.
Back in 2020 I put together some shield wall armies and had some fun trying out various rules.
Shieldwalls – Dux Bellorum, AMW, OHW and Table Top Battles Rules reviewed
Over quite a few posts I have reported on my use of rulesets to play battles between shieldwalls. In most cases the two opposing forces were mirror images. This meant the mechanisms in the rules might be more transparent and then the rules could be better contrasted in my mind.
Having said all that “one swallow a summer does not make” so everything I write here is caveated – only multiple playing’s will help you like or dislike a ruleset fully in my view.
My consideration of the rules is of course subjective, and my criteria may not be to everybody’s liking. So, my criteria are
Reading the rules (understanding/comprehension) – both at the start and when referencing
Ease of Play – how the game played
Outcomes – the outcomes during the game and overall at the end
AMW
Let’s start with AMW. First I should say that from nowhere these rules have come to represent a modern take on what “I remember” I enjoyed about rules from the 1970’s: Above all simplicity. I used the Dark Age ruleset straight from the book.
The rules take up a couple of pages and are in clear large print and easy to understand. I printed the relevant pages as the paperback is a “tome” and short of breaking the spine it is not easy to “use” in a game.
The rules gave a simple mix of troops and are explained in a chapter on why the troop mix was chosen and what they could and could not do. The Shieldwall concept was well covered.
Saxon Cavalry were permitted, and I think Neil is more on the “they were everywhere in life so why not some on the battlefield”. He restricted their presence and impact.
Selection of the 8-unit force was straight forward. I added some variety in the choice of light troops. I used my 80mm frontage IMPETUS bases showing 1/72 plastics. Each base equates almost to 4 x 15mm scale 40x20mm DBA bases as referenced in the rules. Mine are 60mm deep “for the look” as IMPETUS suggests.
The dice to hit and dice to save has some interest for live opponents although for solo play arguably it simply prolongs the playing time. AMW uses the two-step process to provide the layered differentiation between such a small number of unit types to cover several hundred years of warfare and army types.
It did help to keep the stronger type of unit – nobles in the field longer than the peasants.
The first losses also triggered more (domino effect) as AMW uses morale effects to pile on misery when dice are thrown low.
The battle lines were deliberately aligned and close together as the intention was to show two equally sized shieldwalls simply coming together. And the erosion of the 16 hits or 4 bases in DBA speak resulted in some quick breakthroughs. With no need to put the units in base to base contact visually it did not look quite like two shieldwalls: More like roman maniples!
The use of some cavalry may have speeded up the result although I think the outcome was not in doubt.
The feeling and reality of individual units meant that flank attacks were inevitable, and these were the main mechanism of destruction. And the lines once met were static – which cuts both ways – that’s what happened – short of logging loss of points there is not much game movement.
The cavalry interventions were easy to achieve as there is no restriction on command and control.
Finally, the structure of the ruleset with core rules and some simple extra rules simply cries out for more house rules.
In my battle report I suggested a way to deal with anglo saxon cavalry in battle that might more reflect their power as pursuers and opportunists.
Because of the apparent strength of shieldwalls in AMW I then play tested cavalry against a shieldwall. The result was a defeat for the cavalry army. It showed you need to put the whole force jointly in together as the attrition is such that late comers – in my case the token infantry shieldwall were simply outnumbered and picked off in turn.
Coordination is in the hands of the gamer through movement of units and their proximity. This second game also confirmed that archery is quite potent.
Overall, I felt that AMW is better suited to combined arms battles as opposed to a slogging match. Given the breadth of periods covered by the rules these two battles were enjoyable enough for a further outing at some point.
Dux Bellorum
These rules are more modern in concept with command and control central to their use.
Again, the units were 1/72 plastics on 80mm x 60mm IMPETUS bases. Losses would be recorded use dice and tokens.
The points-based game with stat lines for each unit type were easy to understand yet not so memorable as AMW was to me.
I could not resist a slight difference between the forces with one side having mounted skirmish troops equating to a 1-point advantage – 31 v 32 points. Near enough.
The ineffective skirmishers and straightforward meeting of the two-battle lines using the leadership influence made this all feel realistic to my mind.
As in DBA pushbacks showed visually where units were losing the fight. The battle line was still retained as the movement was small.
Distribution of the leadership points can make or break units, although centrally controlled by the gamer I felt this reflected the fact that a line would comprise areas of strong men and areas of weaker maybe reluctant fighters.
The dice head-to-head felt more interesting than the hit versus saving throw of AMW. In a face-to-face game this might also make the exchanges more exciting.
Again, flanking forces including cavalry provided local advantage as the game moved into its later stages.
Dan Mersey talks about the swirl of battle and this was true although the battle line was still discernible late in the game.
Both armies approached their own demise and it was just a few points either way so although the king’s men lost it could easily have been the rebels.
This felt like two battle lines slogging it out and even though there was some “flanking” it was not significant. The forces to a units front mainly did the damage first.
Table Top Battles
The previous two games used “measure and move” rules. Table Top Battles was “gridded” removing any need to get the tape measure out. I have used gridded wargames before with Peter Pigs WW2 rules being memorable.
While many people will know and have played either AMW or Dux Bellorum I reckon TTB by Mike and Joyce Smith will be new to most people.
Published by Partizan Press the ruleset has a feel of looking backwards in the same manner as AMW. The grid though makes for a different feel altogether.
For two shieldwalls the square grid was perfect.
The rules are covered in a couple of sides of A4. Initiative is gained each turn so you can get the effect of a “push” by one side as they win the aggression dice throws successively.
And that aggression is simply a +1 on all dice throws. Getting the initiative also means losses are inflicted before the opposition replies – extending the benefit of being the aggressor.
TTB starts with some simple rules and like AMW adds a few mechanisms to layer the differentiation. The difference is more about advantage in play rather than troop type.
I used the less brutal rules option of push back rather than straight destruction. I don’t think this affected the outcome too much. And it was more appropriate for the slogging match here.
Again, the differences in forces were out on the flanks with one unit of light cavalry in play.
The head to head style of resolving conflicts felt like Dux Bellorum and flowed well. Combat can be grouped so you can really speed up results of several units being joined up for a particular combat round.
While firing is alternate and affected by the aggression advantage, combat is simultaneous. This seems to work ok.
The mass combat meant that push back saw a whole line move back – a bit mechanical – less attractive than Dux Bellorum. In the later stages the erosion of flank units meant push backs became messier and trickier for some units – no room to retreat leads to destruction. And with grids there is a bit of space management to be done and in the right order – shepherd your resources – quite board gamey or chess like. This will not be pleasing to some.
In close combat the mounted and foot skirmishers die easily – I like that.
Finally, the king’s men turned a flank, and this crumpled the rebel line although none had the ignominy of being pushed off the table edge itself. I had not considered that when choosing a very small battlefield of just 2 foot 6 inches deep.
The king’s men were about to really destroy their enemy when the 12th move was completed, and the game ended. A day is 12 moves in TTB. Victory was based on various criteria including base loss. The Kings men won on this measure alone.
TTB comes in a slim 42 page black and white softback A4 booklet. It’s 2-page battle rules are really aimed at supporting campaigns and scenarios. The design is oriented in that direction.
Overall, this was a quick game and the lack of measuring not missed at all. The bulk combats removed some subtlety. The rules are so simple like AMW that house rules can fix most objections.
Overall, I liked this set of rules and with some tinkering they might become popular with me.
One Hour Wargames
With just 12 bases (six a side) on the table this game should be quick.
One-hour wargames built on the reputation of AMW for a reliable set of basic quick play rules. Here the pursuit was an even simpler ruleset that gave a game in under an hour. The rules are really scenario based. I set up scenario 1 – the straight encounter of two equal armies. I ignored the force generator to retain two matched shieldwalls.
The rules in about one side of A4 are very simple. 15 points of value represents the “abstraction” of everything unique about a unit. Random losses tell their story – those losing least – obviously were the strong units!
The skirmishers were ineffectual and fought their own flanking battle.
The alternating slugging match by the shieldwall saw the two lines stand toe to toe with no movement, just points erosion to indicate the fluctuation of battle.
Eventually most of the units reached breaking point and some rapidly departed. However, the first to go were from the side that eventually won so it was not the case that once you gained a local advantage this would give overall success.
In this battle we started with only six units, so I allowed it to run to the last unit standing.
As a result, later on the flanking successes of each right hand meant the whole battle line swirled 90 degrees. And then it happened again. A visual demonstration of Daniel Mersey’s “swirling” battle description perhaps. After all there would be no dressing of lines with the leaders all to the front pushing at enemy weakness.
Overall these rules did feel similar to AMW and felt generic. They seemed to give the same outcome as AMW without the saving throw step. Sacrificing differences, or “layering” if you like, for speed of the game is one of those compromises faced by all rule’s writers and gamers. It is what you want out of a game that matters.
Table of Ruleset Criteria
Ruleset
Reading the rules
Ease of Play
Outcomes
AMW
Straight forward
Straight forward
All logical yet Lacked feeling for the period
Dux Bellorum
I often reread the small print! And a bit wordy at times
Once memorised easy to play
Logical and a good feel for shieldwalls
One Hour Wargames
Short and simple
Straight forward
Logical and yet lacked feeling for the period
Table Top Battles
straightforward
Straight forward or so I thought*
A whole battle line eventually got turned twice while the shieldwall fight itself felt ok.
*I made mistakes in all these games but more of them in the TTB – simple errors forgetting to do something here and there. I took more care with Dux Bellorum.
Overall score – brutally simple – rank 1 to 4 (4 is highest) direct preferencing with no ties and no weighting!
Ruleset
Reading the rules
Ease of Play
Outcomes
TOTAL
AMW
3
1
2
6
Dux Bellorum
1
2
4
7
One Hour Wargames
4
4
1
9
Table Top Battles
2
3
3
8
Surprisingly I am saying OHW is the best for two straight shieldwalls. That probably is true though, diverse forces with more movement would probably show up the limitations of OHW even against its stable mate AMW.
If you ignore the rules reading as being less relevant after many games, it’s a tie between Dux Bellorum and Table Top Battles.
And in the final analysis I have to say that it is Dux Bellorum that gets my vote as the most “shieldwall feeling” rule set.
The others all betray their origin as generic rule sets while Dux Bellorum shows its depth of consideration by the author for a very specific period.
So next time I put up a shieldwall or two for a battle it will be Dux Bellorum unless I am in a real hurry. Then I will have 2 or 3 worthy substitutes.
Finally, some aspects of each ruleset that might be important.
AMW
Pros – well thought out design that gives you a simple yet good range of armies with sufficient variation and interest. The core rules plus some supplementary ones do work
Cons – no command and control explicitly and if you don’t like saving throws then this is not for you.
Dux Bellorum
Pros – command and control plus the head to head fighting. Also, the ability to put pressure into the game yet not everywhere all the time. Detailed for the period of Arthur so no need to compromise on design
Cons – somehow the rules are simple yet don’t read so well or indeed stick in my mind. I was constantly referencing the book which then suffered for its small print and layout with some key parts at the foot of a page and easily missed in the heat of battle. This is a minor point as after 10 games most of the rules will be memorable.
One Hour Wargames
Pros – it is such a simple concept and with the random forces selector and scenario choices is a gem. Speed of play!
Cons – it is generic
Table Top Battles
Pros – I had a brief spell with Kallistra, Strategos and then Peter Pig. Grid gaming has generally passed me by though. I like TTB and they feel like a set I could tweak or tamper with. And I think that gridded wargames may come back into favour.
Cons – sliding towards a board game with figures. We are at the far end of wargames abstraction. Your required to do a lot of imagining.
Well I missed the Wargames Illustrated Magazine free rules giveaway this Autumn. The rules were “never mind the billhooks”. Written for Wars of the Roses. They are just one of many or should I say one of the “plethora of rules” that wargamers can access these days.
So what fuss would there be, given their free, should be more bargain basement than of any original value surely?
Well Andy Callan is the author and for me he has history and if he has authored the rules they will be worth a look. I first encountered Andy Callan as a writer in the 1980’s when I recall his ideas about rules were running against the grain: Something to stir up trouble in wargaming circles most of the time. After all we can be a fussy lot.
Over the years I have kept articles from magazines. Yes I know I have probably destroyed some valuable copies in the process. Still I have what I need. And more to the point I have articles that are still useful reading even decades on.
So back in Spring 1987 when I think Stuart Asquith was at the helm, Practical Wargamer published an article by Andy Callan entitled Leaders and Generals.
He covered three periods in the short article that was really about rules design. The medieval and dark ages era leaders should worry about unit formation – a measure of order, unit aggression – a measure of fighting spirit and unit strength. The latter being an amalgam of numerical strength, armanent and relative fatigue.
The Leaders would be allocated command points.
His main objective for this period was that the “big man” (he coined that term) should be focused on being a “leader” and not be a “general” standing at the back directing operations with so many staff officers.
Move forward a couple of years and we are back with Stuart Asquith who via Publisher Argus Books offered the “wargaming in history” series of A5 booklets.
Simon MacDowell authored Goths, Huns and Romans.
My Dark Ages – “as the lights go out” late roman end of the period has never got beyond a 15mm DBA army acquired at Triples about 20 years ago. Well I do also have a 15mm late byzantine DBA army. Neither have had much of a runout despite my love of DBA. A case of right period wrong ruleset maybe?
He offered a set of rules within a booklet that also gave some background history; explained the forces and troops involved; set out a variety of game options from skirmishes, through encounter battles to campaigns.
Simon required his leaders to personally intervene to motivate troops to act. Control Points were allocated to each Leader along with inspiration points.
Both these writers were contemporary with the first trials of what became DBA. DBA was conceived in 1988 and was first published in 1990.
And so I thought that all this was disconnected from today. Yet I happened then to rediscover an article by Daniel Mersey in Battlegames shortly after publication of his successful Osprey publication Dux Bellorum around 2012.
And nestled there is Daniels’ homage to that 1980’s wargames era and specifically Andy Callan.
I remember Andy Callan promoting what I consider to be important considerations when trying to replicate the feel of a period through command and control. And I think the other key theme is that you make your rules period specific.
I hope his latest rules “never mind the billhooks” carry on that theme of challenging the status quo and promoting enjoyable and satisfying wargames.
And one final point, Angus McBride bestrides the world of illustrated warriors. His work has become synominous with Osprey. Yet Rick Scollins had a way to engage you in the 1980’s and as you can see he even influenced the young Daniel Mersey (see above). And perhaps appropriately it is his West Saxon Thegn who illustrates that 1988 article in Practical Wargamer.
I will eventually report and conclude my wargames ruleset testing using two anglo saxon shieldwalls. Setting up two identical shieldwalls to fight each other is a recipe for a tedious game surely?
Well I have to say that has not been the case. And I admit there have been some deviations from the rule of exactly matching forces. On the face of it in those cases they were thought to be marginal. Well with one exception.
Of more interest to me are the rulesets themselves. They are all typically at the abstracted end of the technique.
To make my point I will draw on a totally different subject – art. And specifically the painting. Like table top wargames paintings have limits and are normally framed in some way. That is another story though………….
Art and abstraction go together. As far as I know my first inkling of abstraction was to do with art and how painting techniques changed over time – well a few centuries. And abstraction was what artists started doing in the late 19th century.
So this is my take on abstracted rulesets – here are 9 to choose from!
These are all images of some fantastic art on show at the Ferens Art Gallery in Kingston Upon Hull or Hull as it is commonly known. If you get the chance pay a visit. For that matter visit any art gallery you can right now. Like all art and music industries, COVID19 will change everything at least in the short term and possibly for a long time to come.
So the images contain some classical or traditional views of the painted picture. In there is a Constable and a Canaletto – both detailed. Yet perhaps not as detailed as the portrait in the bottom right. Apparently it took the artist several months just to paint the head of the life study. Someone else stood in for the rest!
And in there is some cubist style work and “abstract images”
So what we have here is 9 images of different types of wargames rules.
And my anglo saxon shieldwall ruleset tests are definitely in the following vein.
Ancient and Medieval Wargames by Neil Thomas with apologies to Paul NashTable Top Battles by Mike and Joyce Smith with apologies to Percy Wyndham Lewis – vorticists in action!Dan Mersey and Dux Bellorum with apologies to Peter KnightOne Hour Wargames with apologies to the unknown artist as I forgot to snap their resume!Just for fun and tongue in cheek, I reckon this painting might be the equivalent wargames ruleset legend – “the Newbury Rules” apparently very closely typed text with no pictures requiring a wargames lawyer to assist in its application. Beautiful very Beautiful but a very scary prospect to paint (or in the case of the newbury rules, wargame).
Did you notice the Lady Butler painting – return from Inkerman. If you can, do visit the Ferens Art Gallery in the centre of Kingston Upon Hull – entry is free and there is a coffee shop to sustain you.
If you do go – the portrait of the Lady is by Gerald Brockhurst and is titled “by the hills” and was painted in 1939. When you stand in front of it the feeling is that it has to be a photograph.
Paintings posing as wargames rules might be stretching your mind and you might think I am mad. However this has turned out quite theraputic.
To that I can add “if a year ago you said I would be writing about wargames and artforms in a blog post – I would have said your crazy”. In the year of COVID19 it seems even the craziest thing is possible.
Above all enjoy life while you can, keep playing wargames with the rulesets that make you happy and seek out your way to a healthy life!
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 