Slightly off track Bangor in Snowdonia or rather Eryri National Park as it is now called is not an obvious destination when you have the mountains, seashore and a host of attractive towns and villages – usually accompanied by a castle – to pick from.
On this occasion this High Street trip included an island hop and a pier!
St Deiniols Cathedral in Bangor City is located on a site of christian activity since 530AD, the current buildings date in part from 1120AD.
The 6th Battalion of the Royal Welch Fusiliers (Caernarvonshire & Angelesey) were originally a volunteer rifle corps raised in 1859 at a time of concern about Britain being invaded. The more I visit the UK coast the more this issue of possible invasion around 1860 pops up.
Flags hang in the Cathedral and there is a window dedicated to the Regiment.The Great War memorial
The Tomb of Owain the Great is also to be found in the Cathedral
The ceiling is very ornate
I chanced upon a militaria shop in a very tidy 1970’s shopping mall, a stones throw from the Cathedral. It was full to the brim and also had a decent range of secondhand books. The owner gave me a good price for the items I bought and was very welcoming.
Currently I am reading about the early railways roughly 1820 – 1870. This book was a very nice find. You can find many railway history books with only a short intro to this early period but then lots of content post 1880. Instead this book stops around that time. So it suited me fine – it is this sort of steam engine in the picture that intrigues me these days. I remember seeing this book as a kid so it was an indulgence to buy it. The images are great but the text is a quirky 1970’s modern style combined with a formal teacher to pupil like text. This book was not something I was looking for but offers lots of ideas around siege activity during the civil wars.Another unexpected purchase. I have many Donald Featherstone books. This one I will read, take some ideas from it but probably then pass it on.The Menai Straits Bangor Pier from the mainlandIn the far distance is sunlit Beaumaris and its massive unfinished castleThe end of the pier gives an excellent view of Snowdonia National Park recently renamed Eryri National ParkOn Anglesey there is a marine conservation centre ………..They specialise in sharks – the small UK ones – but I also rather like the other young fish they breedI did not buy a marine gift but came away with this neat booklet – at 128 pages it packs quite a punch.I dropped in these because Criccieth Castle location is absolutely stunning while you can see Beaumaris is the peak of castle building in the British Isles.
Some High Street visits take you unexpected places!
GEMBA or “go see” should be the rule for the High Street.
How do you compare rulesets? empathy or process – which factors give you a good ruleset?
My recent challenge has been to find a preferred ruleset for mid 19th century European warfare. And that provides the first criterion – what exactly is mid 19th century warfare? Maybe we should be saying post Napoleonic Warfare or Pre Franco Prussian Warfare? Or should we classify with technology – percussion cap, needle gun, sabre, rifling, telegraph, ironclad…..
The thing is that between 1815 and 1865 not a lot seemed to happen. Apparently things regressed as West Point Officers tried to emulate Napoleon in the early years of the Amercian Civil War despite their Mexican war experiences.
1865 to 1915 is the same timespan – would the ACW soldier have recognised the trenches of Europe – well sort of but not the aeroplanes surely.
In fact between 1815 and 1850 warfare was still largely smoothbore in weaponry and equipment and uniforms remained similar. Changes were afoot as more accurate muskets made their mark with percussion caps and more rifling. Uniforms saw frockcoats, trousers and kepis appear.
And between 1850 and 1870 breechloading rifling transformed infantry and artillery capabilities.
Quite a bit going on which means your chosen ruleset is either narrowly period, even campaign, specific or has to be clever and flexible.
My recent simple testing of a series of rulesets has caused me to reflect on what those Criteria for my gaming preferences might be.
I have ended up with 4 areas on interest. First of all I am assuming the choice of ruleset is not limited to an examination of mechanisms.
Production
Philosophy
Game Mechanics
Action Mechanisms
Production includes everything about the printed or e delivered publication. So images and print clarity matter as do the range of wargaming aspects covered.
Philosophy I suppose could be called game design and includes period choice, scale and game size as well as chosen outcomes.
Game Mechanics covers things like army lists, pre battle activity, player numbers and figures.
Finally Action Mechanisms are aimed squarely at movement, combat resolution, control and turn structure.
When I had finished my long list of criteria a massive 43 items had been generated. I did consider some rationalisation when I looked and saw a lot of similarities. And then I decided to leave my longlist intact for now.
I used it to score my rulesets and accepted the potential weighting due to duplicated criteria. Otherwise there is no other weighting in terms of importance of one criterion over another. Action mechanisms are not prioritised over Production Values for example.
In each case a criterion gets a single mark.
That mark is relative to my perceived ideal. The scores can be +1, 0, -1. positive values are favorable.
Lets look at Production first:
NT19e
BwMS
GW
F&F
FoB
TTB
PW
Relevant Images
0
0
+1
+1
+1
-1
0
Fair Wear & Tear
0
0
+1*
-1
-1
+1
+1
Logical clear layout
+1
0
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
Plain text
0
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
Lots of Design Thinking
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
Simple Rules
+1
+1
0
0
-1
+1
+1
Scenarios included
+1
0
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
Campaigns included
0
0
0
+1
+1
+1
-1
Totals
+4
+3
+6
+5
+2
+2
+5
Table 1: Production Criteria
Not all softcover publications fail – Mike Smith Table Top Battles is stapled – crude but effective. Later Fire & Fury editions have gone to hardback meaning rulebook collapse is less likely.
So GW comes out top followed by F&F and PW. Before I list the rulesets in question the scoring is “relative” and not absolute. It is best thought of as indication of preferencing.
In my case these rules have all been through some sort of preselection in my decision to buy them in the first place. So they all score positively. It is how much more I value them against each other that is measured here.
When it comes to historical wargames rulesets today – in a 60 year old industry, we are talking about marginal gains. I think with fantasy/scifi etc. it is still possible to deliver up a “game changer”!
I have used the following abbreviations.
NT19e – Neil Thomas’s European Warfare in the Nineteenth Century – hardback edition published by Pen & Sword Military 2012
BwMS – Battles with Model Soldiers – hardback edition by Donald Featherstone published by David & Charles 1972
GW – Gentlemans War – “e” publication by Howard Whitehouse and Daniel Foley and published by Pulp Action Library 2018
Fire & Fury – 1st Edition in softback by Richard W Hasenauer 1990 published by Fire & Fury (2nd editions under Brigade and Regimental titles available)
Field of Battle – Piquet 1700-1900 by Brent Oman 2nd Edition published by Piquet Inc 2011
Table Top Battles – by Mike & Joyce Smith 1st Edition published by Mike Smith 2007 (2nd Edition 2018 available)
Practical Wargaming – hardback edition by Charles Wesencraft published by Elmfield Press/Shire Publications 1974
Is it fair to compare rulesets which are published decades apart written for vastly different audiences? I believe so. Despite visually apparent differences, there are some common threads in wargames.
On to Philosophy
NT19e
BwMS
GW
F&F
FoB
TTB
PW
Period – technology emphasis
+1
+1
+1
0
0
-1
+1
abstraction in scaling
+1
0
+1
0
+1
+1
-1
no figure/base removal
+1
0
-1
0
+1
+1
-1
cavalry ineffective
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
0
+1
irritant skirmishers
+1
0
+1
0
+1
+1
+1
vunerable yet destructive artillery
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
0
+1
column and line infantry formations
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
attack defense objectives
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
0
+1
morale dominant
+1
+1
-1
+1
+1
0
+1
battle narrative
0
0
+1
0
0
0
-1
Totals
9
6
6
5
8
1
4
Table 2: Design Philosophy
So NT19e along with FoB seem to have edged it on philosophy for me. I should say that by having a lot of scores to make, it may reduce my own unintentional bias (of course on the other hand wargames magazines are all about bias – “Buy me” bias).
Fire & Fury was very busy but brisk………..
Talking about bias – my requirement concerns European Warfare so I am effectively biased against other “continents” warfare considerations that are different.
Ok next up is Game Mechanics:
NT19e
BwMS
GW
F&F
FoB
TTB
PW
option to solo game
0
+1
0
+1
+1
+1
-1
measure not grid distance
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
army selection/lists available
+1
0
+1
+1
+1
0
-1
pre battle actions available
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
-1
-1
game time required (<2hrs)
+1
+1
0
-1
-1
+1
+1
units per side (6-12)
+1
+1
+1
-1
-1
+1
+1
unit ratings (varied)
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
0
+1
table size (5’x4′)
+1
+1
+1
-1
-1
+1
+1
concealment/ambush/surprise
+1
+1
+1
-1
-1
0
-1
chance (situations/ cards etc.)
0
+1
+1
0
+1
0
0
figures per basic unit (12-20)
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-1
support functions (engrs/ sappers) rules
0
0
+1
0
0
+1
-1
Totals
9
10
10
0
3
4
-1
Table 3: Game Mechanics
Earlier I asked is it fair to compare rulesets from different decades? Now the question might be should you compare battle rulesets with skirmish rulesets or measured games versus grid games. The answer is of course. Just be consistent in the criteria used for the scoring and try to avoid criteria that directly preference one solution. In my case grids games are not a requirement so do score badly on the requirement for a measured game that I chose to include – some personal bias there.
Battles with Model Soldiers and Gentlemans War seem preferable when it comes to Game Mechanics.
Battles with Model Soldiers gets you into action rapidly and is brutal……In Battles with Model Soldiers units were cast to the four winds in the first rounds of action
Finally we turn to Action Mechanisms:
NT19e
BwMS
GW
F&F
FoB
TTB
PW
alternate moves with opportunity
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
initiative
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
simple manoeuvre rules
+1
+1
0
0
+1
+1
+1
measure ranges
+1
-1
0
+1
+1
+1
+1
move and fire in a move
+1
0
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
road movement restricted
+1
0
0
-1
+1
-1
-1
simple interpenetration
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
saving throws
+1
+1
+1
-1
-1
-1
-1
leadership/pips/orders
0
+1
-1
+1
+1
+1
+1
written orders
0
+1
-1
-1
-1
-1
+1
cards for actions
0
0
+1
0
+1
0
-1
turn structure is fluid
0
0
+1
0
+1
0
0
simple combat resolution
0
-1
-1
+1
-1
+1
0
simple firing resolution
0
-1
-1
+1
-1
+1
0
8
4
3
3
6
4
5
Table 4: Action Mechanisms
Neil Thomas 19th century European rules come out preferred for Action Mechanisms along with Field of Battle.
Neil Thomas rules provide an excellent mix of production, design, game mechanics and action mechanisms making them hard to beat for all round use in mid nineteenth century gaming
In summary we have table 5
NT19e
BwMS
GW
F&F
FoB
TTB
PW
Production
4
3
6
5
2
2
5
Design Philosophy
9
6
6
5
8
1
4
Game Mechanics
9
10
10
0
3
4
-1
Action Mechanisms
8
4
3
3
6
4
5
Totals
30
23
25
13
19
11
13
Table 5: Summary
So there you go Neil Thomas rules are to be preferred in meeting my perceived gaming requirements. But……
I really like the liveliness of Fire & Fury while sometimes the grid games using Table Top Battles are just so easy and convenient. And then Gentlemans War offers a sense of detail which drives narrative – an essential requriement for the solo wargamer I would suggest.
Field of Battle uses the house theme of the card driven randomised turn structure of Piquet. I like it a lot but you need to invest your concentration in that ruleset even with the simpler FoB version. Like GW it offers narrative benefits.
My least liked set was actually BwMS even though Donald Featherstone has been the mainstay of my house rules over the years. This is because much of what he wrote was about design philosphy rather than pushing a particular ruleset. You could say nearly all his books were design handbooks for wargames rules writers.
This game was thrown in firstly because Battles with Model Soldiers was the source of my original ruleset test scenarios for Fire & Fury.
Battles with Model Soldiers is really a 200 page design/ideas book with rules dotted throughout.
The rules I used are explained briefly at the end of this post. A key aspect is alternate moves with losses incurred before any responses. Initiative (who goes first in each turn) therefore matters.
Donald Featherstones book provides basic rules for American Civil War actions. he shows the mechanics through three stepped up siutations
infantry only
infantry plus cavalry
infantry, cavalry and artillery
In this game I used the last stepped up situation of infantry, cavalry and artillery.
Narrative – Near Rome in 1849
In this confused affair a wargaming Napoleon faces off against Garibaldi – I suppose the nearest real conflict would be 1849 at Rome where Garibaldi gave the French a shock defeat.
The forces were
Roman Republic (Garibaldi) on the left
Red Dragoon Volunteers in foreground left
White Legion Volunteers
Roman Artillery (in liberated Austrian uniforms!)
Milan Sharpshooters in distance
The French were led by General Oudinot looking a bit like the great Napoleon himself.
33rd Line Regiment right foreground
Austrian Artillery on loan
66th Line Regiment in distance
French Cuirassiers
In terms of “ground” the battle was fought on a low ridge (no effect on movement) crossed by a rough track (no benefit) and the fenced orchard (inaccessible to all forces).
The rings denote remaining strength – red = 4 artillerymen/5 figures, yellow = 10 figures, blue = 20 figures with green showing 15 figures in value.
What you see is almost what you get – counting actual figures equals strength. I don’t do figure removal normally – using rings and dice to show remaining strength. So 8 cavalrymen on show were actually 10 in value. I also did some selected base removal in this game (for visual effect) just to confuse matters!
The action was brisk!
This game is a bit short on images – it was quick – almost done in 3 moves really……
Move 1
Both forces deployed and marched forward to drive the other from the ridge otherwise known as Orchard Hill.
Move 2 – Oudinot won the initiative
the 33rd Line fired on the Red Dragoon Volunteers inflicting 3 casualties at medium range
The Austrian artillery opened up on the White Legion Volunteers missing them completely
the 66th Line fired on the Roman Artillery and the artillerymen promptly ran away (die throw = 6 hits versus 4 figures in strength)
The 10 French Cuirassiers charged the 20 Milan Sharpshooters.
Basically a melee is headcount times 1 point for an infantryman or 2 points for a cavalryman.
So this fight was on equal points. 1 d6 is rolled per 5 points – 4 dice each. Cavalry get +1 on each dice throw (2 to 7 range possible) for charging.
Cuirassiers scored 17 versus Sharpshooters 20.
The points tally HALVED equals the damage. So 17 points halved and fractions rounded down meant 8 points of damage to the Sharpshooters. Thats 8 figures lost from the 20 that started the fight.
Meanwhile the 20 points of damage halved was 10 and divided by 2 points per cavalryman gave 5 cavalry killed.
The survivors represent their basic morale – 10 points of Cuirassiers x 1d6 throw of 5 = 50 while the Sharpshooters at 12 points x 1d6 throw of 6 = 72.
The Sharpshooters won while the Cuirassiers retreated with 50% losses. (bit of Roman gloss there…..)
Garibaldi responded
The Milan Sharpshooters hit the 66th Line with 4 hits
The White Legion hit the Austrian Artillery for six literally – destroying them
The Red Dragoon Volunteers charged the 33rd Line
7 remaining Dragoons x 2 pts versus 20 infantry x 1 pt meant 14 points versus 20 points or 4 v 3 dice (round up half or better fractions – 14 points becomes 15 points = 3 dice)
Cavalry get +1 for charging. The Dragoons inflicted 16 points damage halved = 8 infantrymen killed
The 33rd Line threw 12 in all = 6 Cavalry points damage or 3 actual dragoons killed
Now the Dragoons had already lost 3 casualties to firing so were now down to 4 dragoons
4 cavalry x 4 die roll versus 12 infantry x 2 die roll was 16 v 24 or a victory for the 33rd Line
The Cavalry retreated
Move 3 Garibaldi won the initiative to move first
The Milan Sharpshooters fired on the 66th Line scoring 1 hit
The White Legion fired on the 33rd Line scoring 8 hits – destroying the 33rd
Oudinotin Move 3 sent his 66th Line against the Sharpshooters. In the melee the 66th won reducing the Sharpshooters to just 4 men who retired.
The game is almost over!
Move 4 Oudinot moved first
The 66th fired at the Sharpshooters but missed
The Blue Cuirassiers now returned to the fray
Move 4 Garibaldi
The Red Dragoons also returned to the fray
The White Legion now closed on the 66th Line
The Milan Sharpshooters scored 2 casualties on the 66th Line reducing them to just 10 men.
Move 4 the french right is now under attack – the french left having been destroyedMove 5 the French Curiassiers charge in as the infantry trade fire
Move 5 Oudinot took the initiative
The French Cuirassiers made one last valiant charge into the Milan Sharpshooters.
The Sharpshooters killed 1 Cuirassier in turn receiving 3 casualties
The Cuirassiers won the melee driving off the Sharpshooters
The 66th Line fired on the approaching White Legion scoring 6 casualties (I allowed liberal firing arcs!)
Move 5 Garibaldi
The White Legion fired on the 66th Line inflicting 5 casualties in return
Move 5 the French Cuirassiers chase off the Milan Sharpshooters
Move 6 Garibaldi won the initiative
The White Legion fired on the 66th scoring 4 more casualities
Move 6 Oudinot attacksin desparation
The 66th Line and Cuirassiers charge home against the White Legion.
The White legion suffered 2 casualties
In return they inflicted 4 infantry casualties with 1 cuirassier loss
Move 6 The last knockingsMove 6 – the 66th Line break leaving the Cuirassiers alone to hold off the White Legion and the Red Dragoons
Oudinot knows the games up and in Move 7 his Cavalry retire covering the rest of his routing forces.
General Garibaldi triumphs capturing the ridge.
Rules used in the Battle of Orchard Hill
Donald Featherstone distributed his many periods (10) rules within the 200 pages of text. The basic rules presented were for horse and musket and his three stepped up situations used an American Civil War example.
My Summary of Rules from Battles with Model Soldiers
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.
Pursuing my side game of buying “face to face” for my latest project, in the world war two era, means wargames shows count.
For decades wargamers have treated shows as their own very necessary High Street. Remember once upon a time visiting “fairs” were very much part of medieval life for whole areas of a country. And of course prior to the internet and ebay they were the dominant route to wargaming purchases.
Quite simply the hobby could not sustain even general hobby shops on the high street even with railway and broader modellers sharing the same sources.
In fact talking about fairs reminds me that there is an excellent book by Graham Robb called the “Discovery of France” which highlights the circularity of life in France right up to the 20th century where whole rakes of the population derived their living through moving around the country. Even if your not a Francophile this book is a fascinating insight into a country which has dominated European Military history. His book certainly gives, in my view, a different view of France.
And then for the wargame shows, Covid19 really did drive us all fully online which may have far reaching consequences. On the evidence I saw at Leeds I am not sure what they will be though. Yes traders down, gamers down but then again we now have a late year crowded calendar plus organisers still having an obligation to manage their events to minimise the effects of Covid19 spread.
I for one, was a happy customer of the face to face variety.
I had stored up some planned purchases and spending money so here is a run down of my acquisitions and of course a “thank you” to the “SUPPLY CHAIN” without which we would not have the hobby we all enjoy.
First up some basics from Pendraken – 40×40 mdf bases for my currently stopped MAIN 2021 Project of the Italian Wars of Unification 1848/1859.
Colonel Bills yielded some 20mm preloved WW2 metals in the shape of a British Universal Carrier by SHQ and Romanian 47mm Schneider AT gun by FAA.
Regular visit to Coritani aka Magnetic Displays bought me some much needed paintbrush replacements and I spoilt myself with a prepainted crossroads – yes it was one of those days.
Stonewall Figures had some interesting kits and BT7 Russian Tanks were on my shopping list so these two Pegasus models dropped into my hand. And well these T34/76 armourfasts fell in as well.
Next up is a venerable book published in 1973 by Donald Featherstone. No4 in the series this is a bit late for me (1943-1945) as I am focused on early war activity. But it does cover the Tunisian Front and apart from Egypt/Libya where the British main north african action was, there is not so much printed material on matters west of Tunis.
Having grown up with Donald Featherstone books I find them an easy read: I know what I am getting. A nice purchase from Dave Lanchester.
Now for something completely different and I mean different. In this blog I have recounted my “sanity line” being nothing more recent than 1730-ish or the end of Peter the Greats reign. I caved in to Wars of the Italian Unification for 1848/1859/1866/1870 and suddenly found an interest in naval actions as well. You can see the slippery slope here………….Gradually ironclads have been creeping into my wargaming thoughts. So this book at Dave Lanchesters store was shown to me by Dave when I asked innocently if he had anything on Lissa 1866. Thanks to Dave I have a very nice 244 page hardback covering the second half of the 19th century.
Next up in contrast Grubbys Tanks yielded a small booklet at just 16 pages offering Rapid Fire fast play. This ruleset started life in 1994 so if age is pedigree that will do. I will give it a shot.
Now the Peter Dennis paper soldier books always look attractive and I finally picked up one I had previously nearly purchased back in 2018. The Spanish Armada is completely off my gaming list but I just could not resist, what with my current naval gazing.
I also tipped gaslands into the shopping basket at Dave Lanchester’s – not for me but as a christmas present for someone else.
The next two books from Dave were pure indulgence. The Russian Army in the Great Northern War 1700-1721 and William III’s Italian Ally 1683-1697 both Helion publications. I am hoping they will be ok on typos but I am not holding my breath. even so as I have posted before Helion publish where others fear to tread. So I have to be grateful.
Finally this is a repurchase – in fact I think it may be the third time I have bought this ruleset. Careless ……..
I do like Peter Pigs ideas, especially the uncertainty of process, and this set offers something a little different on the WW2 front.
Well thats it. Quite a mix when I think about it: More books than expected and less models.
So apart from Rapid Fire from Grubbys Tanks, I bought all my books at Dave Lanchester’s, who I must say keeps his books in very good condition.
The ones that got away or rather failed to appear – Russians by Plastic Soldier Company (Grubby’s were not short on Germans or US boxes though) and maybe a BA10 armoured car yet Stonewall Figures have promised to look out for one of them and set one aside for next year when they head north again.
So thanks to all my suppliers at Fiasco 2021 may you all prosper.
Thanks to Leeds Wargames Club for a very enjoyable show, all the sweeter, after such a long break from this aspect of wargaming.
Back to painting table………I wonder what will be up next?
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.
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.
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.
I guess I have become an accidental acolyte for Neil Thomas. Why?
In wargames rules terms we live in an era where there are “gazillions” of rules. There are probably AI engines knocking them out these days: I am of the view that wargaming is the multi billion dollar hobby that includes every online gaming app from fortnite to defend the cauliflower patch from aliens (ok I made one up). Miniatures is just an oxbow lake in this mighty river of gaming. And this particular oxbow lake is up to its ears in rulesets for miniatures gaming and seems to love it.
So who needs another ruleset and especially one that is so “retro”?
I do.
Sometimes you have to go back to go forward and just sometimes you can go back and rework an idea using more recent thinking to go somewhere else instead.
I like Neil Thomas rules because there is a hint of Donald Featherstone in his thinking. He is quite direct in his writing – this is useful – and his approach is to apply the right amount of abstraction.
It is quite interesting to reread Donald Featherstone occasionally. For example one of his books is ladled with “scale” as in movement, time and distance: yet Donald says at one point he would rather just approximate matters so he can get on with the game – a battle. The book is his offering on Wargame Campaigns!?
This is my key to Neil Thomas. He wants you to play games and specifically battles. That is his endpoint, the outcome desired.
Neil’s book “Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878” delivers battles using miniatures. It starts at the end result and is designed to give you a game in a space – typically 6’x4′ or 1.8m x 1.2m and very often less.
Neil presents his take on the various elements that defined the era and then puts all these into a neat package of rules that are brief and to the point.
The rules mechanisms are familiar to those who have his other rules to hand. Not too many and simplicity is the order of the day.
I think the important thing about his rules are what he leaves out – which of course you need to fill in – so abstraction is all.
Neil normally achieves a balanced asbtraction in his rules. They feel right to me. So did I like these rules?
A qualified YES, I have only used them once after several rereads of the book itself.
If Neil Thomas were an artist I would fancy his work would look like this – a detailed landscape of a pretty coastal portI do not think Neil would be offering you this much detail as an artist. Just look at that sky as well.
Both paintings are to be found in the excellent Hull City Ferens Art Gallery: Go visit when lock down ends.
The rules come with scenarios and cover all the key changes in weapons and fighting that occurred from the demise of Napoleon to the Russo-Turkish war of 1878. His rules are so abstract or rather to the point, that technology changes like the railway and telegraph get little mention. Actually covering this periods scope in itself is quite a feat – a bit like a ruleset mixing Napoleonic, AWI and most of the Seven Years War yet along with significant weapon/technology changes.
In 2020 I was at the Lance and Longbow Society stand where Lithuanians and Poles were fighting it out with the Teutonic Knights at the battle of Tannenburg (1410). There were live opponents that day.
For Virtual VAP 2021 I have time warped to around 1850 to play a solo battle.
My latest project is about the Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU). The outlier campaign is 1848 when the world also first saw Garibaldi play a signficant role in the peninsula.
By 1859/60 Garibaldi was ready for a star role leading 1000 red shirts driving out the Two Sicily’s Kingdom troops from Sicily in short order. I have already discovered some new aspects in my expanded reading on this fascinating period: That Naval muscle helped him was a surprise. And there seems a varied range of battle situations with the red shirts not having it all their own way.
The real wars seem to be fascinating. I normally like to fight with “imagination” forces which offer freedom to generate many battles and situations without the confines of “well that happened next”.
My WotIU armies are still “under the brush” so to speak. This means my game is populated with what is to hand. And the protaganists are the elusive “Empire” and “Kingdom”.
Back to the rules. I chose to start with the early period set – 1815 to about 1850. Smoothbore muskets and cannon. So pretty much Napoleonic era kit.
I had bought the “e book” as a limited dip in the water for a new period. I struggle with using rules in this format even though it is quicker to flick the pages!
So I wrote out on two sides of A5 the rules that seemed to matter.
When you look at them they amount to about a quarter page on movement, a quarter on firing and half on close combat plus a bit on morale.
Neil parcels up his principles clearly even if my scratty writing undoes some of this!So on one side of A4 (2xA5) you have all the rules for a game – neat – unlike my writing
So the usual fare then from Neil. Neil likes his saving throws and uses this double dicing to achieve some of his flavour/depth or granularity. So even though for solo play it seems avoidable this step provides a bit of subtle ebb and flow.
Both the Empire and the Kingdom fielded “Monarchist” armies.
I will run through the resulting battle in my next post.
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.
The Wargaming Erratic 