My recent painting blast over winter had dried up with the end of the Analogue Hobbies Painting Challenge XIV. It broke my preoccupation with the mid 19th century.
The Danes and Germans are sat there in the various painting queues but making no progress.
Green-shoots anywhere?
something different maybe?
yes!
It is a case of returning to an old favorite. Ancients.
In fact two threads emerged from the languid waters I found my wargaming boat resting in. One followed the other.
The first, which I will cover in another post was partly prompted by Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy recent magazine running a Bronze Age theme: I have lots of Bronze Age figures for a long abandoned project.
But the impulse here was mainly due to Curt’s Trojan horse entry for the analogue hobbies painting challenge 14.
Curts fantastic Trojan horse entry for AHPC14These chaps have dwelt long in the deep halls of the plastic mountain- just maybe they will get some paint – finally – who knows?
The second concerns DBA. DBA got me back into the hobby after an almost 20 year break. It also propelled me into 15mm scale at the time – the late 1990’s. Those armies had since lain unused for years as 1/72 and 25/28mm tempted me back to bigger figures.
I dug them out – quite a mixed bag – could I run a campaign using the 1st or 2nd Editions 6 nation offering. I mulled this over before the figures went back into a slightly more accessible store and the unpainted ones joined the paint queue jostling with mid 19th century Danes and Germans.
And then I went to York one weekend for the annual open studios tour. Somehow somewhere I came away with the urge to craft. Note – not paint.
The next minute I was cutting card and with drawing pens to hand inking DBA bases. I had picked a campaign and lacking the right figures thought I would simply play empty bases. I have done this many a time and its a very enjoyable digression. And then I remembered all these 2mm armies currently in vogue plus that crafting itch had not been sated fully. And so out came some discarded HEAT board gaming counter sheets! minus the useful counters. Maybe I could use these “blocks” to suggest groups of soldiers?
A bit of crafting is invariably satisfying activityI grabbed some thin card and used the DBA 15mm base width of 40mm then just played around with the game counter offcuts to get the look I wanted.I went for a standard DBA campaign list which gave me six armies and I added in a Thracian army because I like them!The magnificent seven! A day later glue dried, a take away container holds 7 dba armies
And there we have it instant 2mm armies for a 6 nation DBA Bronze Age campaign: The Thracian’s might make a guest appearance!
If Battlegames and Henry Hyde introduced me to wargames blogs then I guess my next Blog Influence was that blog that most reflected my interests at the time.
And at the time I had decided for budget reasons to switch to 1/72 plastics for new projects. We were still struggling out of the recession.
Into the bargain I was using an idea from Lance and Longbow SocietyHobilar magazine to reduce DBA standard figure numbers on each element/base – the article was about cutting the cost of your hobby yet keeping the pleasure.
At the same time I had encountered Peter Pigs Bloody Barons (15mm focused) which joined up to Society of Ancients article by Mike Tittensor “Do Ancients stop at Quadesh?”.
Peter Pig makes figures and writes rules – many use grid based gaming
The upshot was I found plenty of 1/72 ancient chariot sets for sale and plunged in.
The Chariots never got painted although the infantry did. However I have since then indulged myself across multiple periods painting 1/72 figures.
Behind all this was a particular blog, Wargaming for Grown Ups. Trebian provided lots of inspiration not least that 1/72 was a good table top scale to game with. His large table games had masses of space yet that meant something smaller would still look good and play well.
So Blog influences No2 is Wargaming for Grown Ups. Trebian offered me a window into table top wargaming in 1/72 plastics and even 15mm metals. His blog offered a range of posts – games, figures and of course a bit of real life. And there were the “opinion” pieces in amongst a nice mix of text and images.
I can pretty much say that Wargaming for Grown Ups has been my longest running go to Blog and given me plenty of ideas and enjoyment. Thanks Trebian.
Minus their chariots my 1/72 ancient lybians square up to some Sea People invaders – Hat and Ceasar figures on show on 80mm x 60mm bases “flocked” using a games workshop idea involving bird gritIronically I have used War and Conquest to play my 1/72 bronze age games.
Surely Campaigning without maps is an oxymoron? and when it comes to wargaming, maps are central to what defines wargame campaigns as opposed to say, endless rounds of competition encounter battles.
Well thats true. I have spent most of my wargaming life pursuing the mantra that the greater the detailed map the more satisfying the campaign.
Or so I thought.
I guess there have been numerous nudges away from that point of view when I think about it.
The thing is that I have applied the same abstraction that works for the field of battle to campaign maps. Out go measured marches and in comes the dreaded “outcome”. I suppose the test for some might be “does the end justify the means?” or why waste time getting a result that does not improve your hobby enjoyment.
Except “process” is what a lot of wargaming is and that means the process is the enjoyment in itself.
Moving pieces across a map at steady rates, checking the weather, accounting for ground conditions and working out where the enemy is are themselves a process to get to that almighty battle outcome – ok 6 units a side armed with One Hour Wargames – because you must go shopping or rearrange the cushions on the settee this afternoon for an evening watching the football/that latest box set/a comedy (delete /insert as appropriate).
It is not all about “outcomes ” because you could complete the abstraction and just toss a coin to find out who won that 5 year campaign you cannot seem to finish.
abstraction or the level of abstraction is often best considered in art – East Coast port image to be found in Hull Ferens Art Gallery.
It is about putting your effort into those parts of the process you most want to enjoy and sacrificing others through abstration to get you to those parts that matter.
And it is not that I don’t have any maps. I just use them in certain areas. I just don’t measure movement of forces “to scale” across them.
To my mind wargame rules came to the fore in the decades when scale paper maps became something to be purchased and valued – and used. People were taught eastings and northings and also how to fold a map. Remember some Generals fought their battles on the creases of the map in the pouring rain……..
Today you just flick the “app” tap a few virtual buttons and a high resolution image appears – is that my neighbours 3rd or 4th car – don’t remember it being that red – just how old is that image anyway…….sat navs beware……
For my Twins War in Fauxterre I have a narrative map.
And I do have a means of moving forces in Fauxterre – it is an abstraction.
So here is the abstraction for my Twins War in Fauxterre.
looks familiar…………..
I guess at a certain point – by the late 1990’s? the DBA wargame rules offered the most popular version of this diagram.
well used and enjoyedthe last page
By version 3.0 campaigns had been quietly dropped from the title along with the diagram.
Except NO! – the diagram had been replaced by a set of words in the giant hardback tome that is now DBA post 2014: Maybe a case of more becoming less?
ok so you get colour and royal purple(maybe mauve?) but the simple diagram has been discarded in favour of words
I suspect this diagram had in the meantime launched tens of thousands of wargames campaigns – ok maybe thats a bit excessive!
Well that’s it for now, I will explore the mechanisms that allow me to abstract the mapping activity in a way that balances my available time, the process, the outcome and most of all the enjoyment of solo wargame campaigns.
I will finish with some words from Donald Featherstone which are surprising given they are to be found in his book War Game Campaigns.
quite a statement in a book devoted to campaigning wargames! the one about the real meat of the hobby NOT austrian armies rolling over……………
That is the challenge – making table top battles part of a narrative or simply having continuity requires effort. Effort which is not available for gaming the battles or painting the troops. Take your pick or choose your abstraction.
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.
In my last post I explained my rediscovery of the ruleset published by Partizan Press and authored by Mike and Joyce Smith.
The Table Top Battles (TTB) ruleset uses a grid. Now I have dabbled in grid based wargaming and played lots of board games which are gridded games of some sort – not a tape measure in sight!
This post is a marathon and I hope you will see that this ruleset although “gamey” has a coherence to it. So the battle flowed and compared to AMW by Neil Thomas and more so with Daniel Mersey’s Dux Bellorum rules, I had little need to keep rereading the rules.
The usual sections follow – set up, then narrative and finally a picture based step by step report.
The rules require you have a base that will fight for each discrete unit. The term used is a “stand”. The General is another base who the way I read the rules is not a stand so does not fight.
I decided to use my leader bases and gave them stand status. The “tinkerman” at work already.
Essentially the line up was a shieldwall with some skirmishers at both ends of the kings battleline. At one end the single rebels skirmisher bow faced up to the kings skirmisher bowmen. At the other the Kings men had a foot bow skirmish stand plus a mounted javelin light cavalry stand facing a shieldwall of rebel spearmen stand.
The diagram below shows the set up. The playing area was kept to a minimum.
Narrative
Earl Toki now felt confident enough to split his forces which had grown due to his successes. He left Thegn Pyrlig with his main forces while he rode to meet some Mercians who promised to come over to his side.
While Earl Toki was away Thegn Pyrlig kept a good lookout and soon enough another force appeared who were yet another collection of the Kings men ready to fight the rebels. Thegn Pyrlig soon confirmed that these were western men but not any they knew or who could be “turned”. And Earl Mathedoi was at their head again, eager to avenge his recent defeat.
The battleground was simple – a flat plain. I used 80 mm squares here as my chosen unit type for 1/72 figures is the Impetus Rules with the 15mm suggested base width! Te grid is some cotton sheeting with penciled lines.On the Earl’s left flank his mounted skirmishers rode forward confidently while his bow skirmishers looked with concern that they faced a solid rebel shieldwall.In the game pictures you will see a peter pig pink die – this denotes the aggressor. Each turn dice are thrown and the winner has the advantage or the aggression in that turn.
TTB in effect uses the “pip” idea from DBA. It is simplified to give a +1 on ALL dice throws made by the aggressor.
The pink die reminds me that my wargame story has included gridded games in the past. My hex gaming with Kallistra never quite got going even though I thought the concept excellent. My problem was the geometrical look of hexes and the fact there is a “weave” for very linear types of warfare. Maybe I was just too focused on DBA at the time. Peter Pig rules for WW2 used square grids and his Poor Bloody Infantry (PBI) rules I really enjoyed before leaving that period altogether. There the grid worked – it did not impose itself in the way hexes did.
Clearly this is a very subjective matter. It is a case of each to their own.
This is my first return to the grid technique.
The orange 12 sided dice is used to decide who is the aggressor and therefore gets the valuable pink +1 diceThe right wing bow skirmishers got into action first. A game turn comprises phases – move, fire and combat with the aggressor going first in the move and fire phases. Crucially the aggressor inflicts firing losses before the passive opponent replies: Another advantage of having the pink jersey – woops – too much giro d’italia. Did I tell you my scenery ideas have benefited to my mind from watching hours of cycling tours riding across Spain, France and now Italy!
In the aggressors fire phase shown above both units have a value of one. This value is a combination of any fighting ability and morale. It is used in all firing and combat. To this fixed value you add the result of a single D6 throw. In this firing phase the aggressor has thrown a six and their opponent just 3. So no need for the +1 here.
The result is the loser score was “slightly lower” in the dice off so the stand is moved back. Not playing the +1 pinkie is an error because it applies in every throw. And in this case had it been properly used the losing score or “Target Player” score is now half. not just slightly less than that of the “Firing Player”. In this case the stand should be removed.
The Kings bowmen are happy to retire a square relieved they were not “removed” or were they?
TTB gives options throughout and I chose the harsher results approach. Stands either move back a square or are removed from the game.
On the kings left flank the mounted light cavalry (orange value 2) beat the shieldwall (purple value 3) 7v5 (yellow dice being the random addition). The kings bowmen managed a lowly 4 which being less than the shieldwall 6 proved ineffective. The net result is the shieldwall are discouraged and retire a square. Firing is between individual bases. Combat is additive.The error is corrected and the Kings bowmen leave the field early losing to the aggressors fire turn 8v4.The Kings men throw themselves against the rebel shieldwall. Even the kings reluctant bowmen, not doubt emboldened by the kings light cavalry, have joined the fray.The General adds the value of any 1 friendly stand in an adjacent square to the combat phase. Combat is simultaneous unlike the firing. Here a shieldwall spearman stand adds +3 to both leaders. Later on the eagle eyed will see I missed a few +3 yellow dice although because the leaders never moved and were always head to head they simply raised the value of both the group scores making it harder to get a decisive result in the grouped combat.The combat allows “grouping”. This speeds up the combat process. Because I had a simple shieldwall with all units the same I could use the grouping. The kings group shieldwall score was 7×3 (21 orange) +1 aggression (pink) and a measly +1 random throw (yellow) = 25 when you add the generals bonus of +3 (yellow)
Remember those brave kings bowmen? Well they were not so brave as the rules allow some stands to engage to fire and then retire if a 4 or more on a D6 is acheived. The kings bowmen threw a 4 and with the pink dice acheived a healthy 5 to retire
The Rebels amassed 7 stands at 3 value (base score of 21) to which they added support values of +1 (yellow)from each flank unit because they faced a different unit type or had no opponent. To that you added the generals bonus of +3 (yellow) and a random +5 (yellow). total score 31. I decided that as the rebel bow were a different unit they could not get the +2 flank attack and were just allowed the +1 supporting value.The whole kings line recoiled to join the already retired bowmen in the bottom of the picture.The Kings men retained the upper hand though and attacked again next turn winning the aggression dice throw with an 8 on their D12The skirmishers attacked again the rebel right flank.By chance the rebel bowmen offered a flank to the recently retired right flank kings shieldwall and they “slid” right as you do in gridded wargames TTB style.
In TTB movement is in any direction with only a few restrictions. No penalties apply for direction change or rather they are absorbed into the move allowance. Generally units face up to their nearest opponent without restriction. The exception is when a unit is pinned on one face – then flank and rear attacks can also be made.
The rebel left flank is driven back againalmost stalemate again but now the rebels have numbers in the group combat as well (7 purple dice v 6 orange dice)yet again the kings men aggressively return to the fray (winning the D12 dice off with a 9 to get the prized +1 pink dice) having lost the last group combatThe rebel bowmen were isolated by the right flank kings spearmen and put to flight with better dice throwing and that useful +1 in pinkNext up the rebel left flank spearmen stand determined to remove the kings own flank spearmen Its that pink dice again – the kings men win this round by just 1 and drive the rebels back. The small gaming space is relevant as if the rebels get pushed off the table (or out of the ring!) they lose those stands.The rebels throw a 12 on their D12 to resume their own aggression and take the fight to the kings men.The weary shieldwall resume their struggle with the kings left flank skirmishers. Yet taking no fire damage they see off the bowmen again while the light cavalry stay too close! (failed to get 4 on a D6)7v7 is a draw in this combat so the aggressor (rebel shieldwall) gets the nod and drives back the light cavalry. The pink dice has lots of ways of rewarding the owner!Close again as the kings men win the central group combat 25 v 24 despite the rebel having that pink +1. The rebels are driven back again.The Kingsmen are feeling good and secure the pink +1 dice with 11 on a D12Out of picture the kings yellow dice of 5 is forcing the rebels back into the group combat off to the left so destroying them instead. With a 90 degree retreat arc I could have had this stand retire towards its enemy baseline. I decided this would not happen and the shieldwall just melted away having been cornered.The kings men again triumph in the pink dice competition and drive forward but it remains a stalemateon the rebel flank the skirmishers cling to the shieldwall but remain ineffectiveIn the centre the rebels hold a small advantage while on both flanks the kings advantage in numbers is clearbottom right is the A4 rule book – to hand – actually despite 42 pages in length only about 2 sides of A4 text are relevant in the heat of battle. And here the rebels again aggressively attack the kings line. In the distance the left flank rebel spearmen drift out to engage the kings spearmen on that far flank.In their movement phase the kings skirmishers again crowd around the rebel right flank scenting bloodDespite driving back the kings spearmen on their left flank, the rebel right flank has collapsed although all units forced to retire have managed to stay in the game (that is “stayed on the gaming board”).A rare aggression victory for the rebels allows them to create some space as they renew their attack. The left handside of their line though, is crumpled.on the far flank the battle remains one of two evenly matched shieldwallsThe kings men begin to turn the rebel linethe javelins of mounted skirmishers still have no impact on the resilient rebel spearmen and neither do the bowmen.On the opposite flank the rebel spearmen get the better of the fight driving back the kings spearmenalthough their flank has been turned the rebel spearmen give the light cavalry short shrift when they fail to evade after another ranging attck with their javelins. The light cavalry fly from the field. Elsewhere the rebels lose the central group combat again and are driven perilously back towards their baseline.Even so with renewed vigour the rebels defend their line defeating the careless bowmen who retireagain the kings men win the centre combat driving the rebels back further. BUT……………..And then the rule of 12 lands! The game ends after 12 turns representing the part of the day the battle was fought. The rebels were still in the field but with more stands lost victory went to the Kings men.
Thegn Pyrlig led his men from the field. Already his camp alerted to the returning stream of wounded and fleeing men had begun to get ready to move.
Fortunately Earl Mathedoi and his soldiers simply remained on the field too exhausted to pursue the defeated rebels. Earl Mathedoi cursed has lack of a reserve and especially a mounted reserve. Come to think of it where had his light cavalry gone?
So 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.
On impulse I have gathered a set of figures to build a pictish type army for the british isles dark ages.
So which figures have I chosen?
I looked at the plastic solder review site and did not like any of the pictish figures on offer. So I looked around for something that might work. My main choice has been Orions slavic foot soldiers who would be more used to fighting at Adrianople or in the Balkans against the embryonic East Roman Empire.
The army will use the army choice given in AMW for the Picts – I have added two commands as wellThis set was bought for my much stalled stoke field project in 28mm! yes they were too small anyway. I have used some of the javelin and bowmen plus some of the mailed figures for the command basesThese Sarmations were a snap choice when passing through Frome in Somerset. I knew they would come in useful except not for dark age Britain! They provide some mounted troopsHaving now bought these figures they are wonderful sculpts. It is unfortunate that the Plastic Soldier Review plays down these figures on account of poor casting and flash. These figures have fantastic detail. They make up my main units for a pictish army
The army will comprise all the options for AMW so thats 12 units but based singley on impetus style 80mm wide bases with no base removal possible.
Neil Thomas and his Ancient and Medieval Warfare (AMW) book has grown on me over the years. At the start I did not think I would like an 8 unit army requiring 32 DBA bases to allow casualty removal. I tried it with single bases and dice and it worked. The breakthrough came with his One Hour Wargames (OHW) using the same technique and reducing the armies to just 6 units but crucially playing many scenarios.
I have played much more of both OHW and AMW than say DBA or my preferred ruleset of Impetus.
I arrived in Neil Thomas’ world by chance. Mike Tittensor wrote an article in Slingshot magazine published by the Society of Ancients (SOA) about bronze age warfare and using Peter Pig’s Bloody Barons ruleset. I bought the rules and these got me into plastics because I wanted a low cost solution. This was my first departure from what had been a preference for 15mm metals DBA gaming on a 600mm square board – an excellent coffee table sized game by the way. By chance I had now the opportunity to return to a dining table or 1800mm x 1200mm type gaming table. I was toying with 28mm but disliked the size of figures from a painting point of view. I had struggled with my Wars of the Roses Perrys figures to get a look I liked.
So it was the peak of the plastics era in the 2000’s and I just bought lots of chariots none of which in the end made it to the painting table – irony in there somewhere.
What I did get was a drift away from DBA gaming, first into Bloody Barons, then Impetus and then Neil Thomas.
Neil Thomas and 1/72 plastics are a perfect way to experiment in wargaming.
Not sure when this army will complete – sunshine and a last push for summer beckons.
Many years ago, although it seems only recently to me, I bought several titles from the Warhammer Ancient Battles booklist – they included Siege & Conquest – all about the siege; Chariot Wars; the WAB basic rule set itself; The Chinese Warring States and all that plus Shieldwall. A fairly random mix you might say which is correct.
I never really bought into Warhammer or Games Workshop after I returned to wargaming in the late 1990’s. I dropped neatly into 15mm and DBA. The 600mm square tabletop battlefield, relatively small metal mountains that could be painted and a simple ruleset that was popular all fitted my constrained interests and time.
And yet despite plenty of enjoyment 15mm became a compromise and once the restrictions on table size were removed I returned to the idea of 25mm (old style) which I suppose is my roots. Despite buying some 28mm figures that size has failed to ignite my interest.
I have discovered that 20mm/25mm or 1/72 is the figure size that appeals to me: Sufficient in size for each individual warrior, painting repays in the visual look while the table top is of the order 6′ x 4′ or 1.8m x 1.2m which is my limit.
And my 25mm wargaming odyssey has taken me back to the past with 1/72 plastics displacing metals but in the modern style from prolific manufacturers such as Zvezda, Strelets, Hat, Ceasar and the occasional Orion, Mars, Emhar and ok even vintage Revell. But it is not all plastic – tumbling dice miniatures have offered up some really nice figures to compliment the plastics. And so to have SHQ, Newline and Irregular Miniatures.
One thing I have done since returning to the hobby is read and that includes reading rulesets. In fact reading them more than I play them!
You need only one ruleset to play wargames for any one period. So I can’t explain why I have dozens. Yet rulesets are personal statements. In their way they seem to me someones interpretation of history albeit through their take on gaming mechanisms. So they are still history books in a way and thats how I consume them.
I only have historic wargames rulesets – fantasy wargaming is something I left behind in the 1970’s – Sci-Fi I could never get my head round.
And fantasy was for me doing dungeons and dragons in the 1970’s before it all took off. And yet my historical interests have always been tempered by an interest in historical fiction. Not the Sharp novels ilk. More a case of a parallel universe where so much is instantly recognisable yet the story lines, characters, countries have different names.
Each to their own as they say.
Well being inclined to Anglo-Saxons at the moment I dug out the Shieldwall book which I kept because like Chariot Wars it felt like a well researched and back then a well designed package. I never played the WAB ruleset with Shieldwall. Just maybe I might give it a go now.
Of course it is approaching vintage (25 years plus) and oldhammer is probably in the Oxford dictionary as a particular type of old wargamer already.
The constant theme though is to enjoy reading history, enjoy imaginative history and paint miniatures and if with a fair wind play some games. In short it is escapism – taking pleasure in playing with imagination.
I have started my Normans in the South project by painting up some Strelets figures. These are a bit chunky but on the whole a likeable set of figures. I used the figures from the big Stamford Bridge set and the mini sets for Normans
i have opted for an arid south mediterranean look rather than a dark earthy northern europe onein slightly different light the ground does not look quite like a desert!so a few archers and now a few spearmen – i have opted for a more open look with the shieldwall not formedI quite like some of the before battle poses strelets have done although figures do vary in size. I am not looking for the regimented look anyway.I am quite happy with the look including the vegetation. the bases are all 80mm x 60mm and I shall use them for either AMW, DBA or Impetus games amongst others.
Do bases matter that much when it comes to miniatures used in wargaming? By current standards they clearly do with plenty of trade offerings available and a wealth of DIY advice online.
Also the preference for elements without individual figure removal permits more imagination to be applied around a base. Perhaps the exception is skirmish gaming but even here you have the option of sabot bases providing the individual figure movement while retaining the convenience of the larger element base which can still be given varying levels of decoration.
My basing journey has been pretty basic. Back in the dim and distant past I painted desert or green paint onto cardboard bases. I still have them and they work after a fashion. The figures are 25mm. They look a bit tired though.
I think this figure is a citadel adventurer from the 1970’s when my painting hand was patient and my eyes still worked! note the ageing gloss varnish.
Then I started a 15mm phase and actually paid for painting including basing. The quality was good but somehow they did not grow on me. They look accurate but……
15mm Essex Byzantines professionally painted with matt finish and understated basing!
I did some of my own and I was even less happy!
And then I caught the plastic fantastic bug and returned to simple painted bases for some 1/72 scale figures.
Zvezda Russian Cavalry cruise past some positively ancient 20mm minifig french napoleonics and giant 25mm tradition russians
In the middle of this phase I moved into 28mm figures and thought they needed something extra. As it happened despite all the wealth of offerings and advice in all the various magazines and books I had collected, I stumbled across the humble warhammer guide in one of their rulebooks – maybe shieldwall – where they recommended simply gritting the bases, basecoating and drybrushing once. Somewhere I found a suggestion to use budgie grit. I tried it and painted it up, except no dry brush, but added some static grass and…… I was still underwhelmed. There is no pleasing some people.
Perrys 28mm Continental Burgundian Pike on DBA bases
I then had another surge of plain painted bases when I reworked more of my old 25mm metals.
You can see them next to the Zvezda Russians above – Minifigs French circa 1972? and Tradition Russians from the mid 1970’s. The bases they replaced were very dark green painted airfix box card – the figures have been transformed in my view, although unbelievably garish – they cheer me up!
And then I decided to do some mediterranean normans. Coincidentally I had watched both British cycling, Le Tour and La Vuelta races and the penny dropped. All my scenic basing had generally used dark green/dark brown earth (or grey brown for 15mm) colours – and I had not recognised why I liked the bright green bases beyond their simplicity. British cyclists rode through dark earth countryside with bright greens but La Vuelta cyclists went through fantastically bright coloured soils of many hues and even with brighter green shrubs and trees on top. (well except in the picos mountains in the north).
So I got my paints out and started experimenting – and so I have now found what I want for my Normans. Well until the butterfly lands on the next flower…..
The Wargaming Erratic 