September is a busy month for battle anniversaries in Yorkshire not least in 1066.
On the 20th the Vikings of King Harald defeated the Saxons of Earls Edwin and Morcar at Germany Beck in what is now Fulford. There are not many references to this battle – given that two climatic battles followed, its understandable.
The battle was according to records fought near where the beck joins a sharp turn in the river Ouse.
Crucially the defeated Saxons made good their escape as a rising tide flooded the beck. This meant they could fight another day.
There is a tapestry of the Fulford battle displayed at various locations over the years since it was made in 2012 after ten years effort!
On the 25th September the Saxons under King Harold of England defeated Harald and the Viking host at Stamford Bridge.
It was the end of the Scandinavian Viking threat after hundreds of years of invasion.
A tapestry of the Stamford Bridge battle can be seen in the old railway station at Stamford Bridge.
It was another Viking Scion – the Norsemen who took land in the Carolingian Empire and called it Normandy – who a few generations later then defeated the English in turn at Hastings.
It can be argued that without Fulford and Stamford Bridge there would have been no Hastings and maybe a different war between Harold and William might have played out.
So maybe instead of waiting for yet another Norman invasion (the bayeaux tapestry is en route to the UK) you could visit these other tapestries when they are on show instead or as well as.
People remember William for what followed yet Harold had marched 500 miles with his household troops and won a great victory putting together two separate regional armies before arriving at Hastings: William fought an outstanding adversary.
Back in 2020 I put together some shield wall armies and had some fun trying out various rules.
Shieldwalls – Dux Bellorum, AMW, OHW and Table Top Battles Rules reviewed
Over quite a few posts I have reported on my use of rulesets to play battles between shieldwalls. In most cases the two opposing forces were mirror images. This meant the mechanisms in the rules might be more transparent and then the rules could be better contrasted in my mind.
Having said all that “one swallow a summer does not make” so everything I write here is caveated – only multiple playing’s will help you like or dislike a ruleset fully in my view.
My consideration of the rules is of course subjective, and my criteria may not be to everybody’s liking. So, my criteria are
Reading the rules (understanding/comprehension) – both at the start and when referencing
Ease of Play – how the game played
Outcomes – the outcomes during the game and overall at the end
AMW
Let’s start with AMW. First I should say that from nowhere these rules have come to represent a modern take on what “I remember” I enjoyed about rules from the 1970’s: Above all simplicity. I used the Dark Age ruleset straight from the book.
The rules take up a couple of pages and are in clear large print and easy to understand. I printed the relevant pages as the paperback is a “tome” and short of breaking the spine it is not easy to “use” in a game.
The rules gave a simple mix of troops and are explained in a chapter on why the troop mix was chosen and what they could and could not do. The Shieldwall concept was well covered.
Saxon Cavalry were permitted, and I think Neil is more on the “they were everywhere in life so why not some on the battlefield”. He restricted their presence and impact.
Selection of the 8-unit force was straight forward. I added some variety in the choice of light troops. I used my 80mm frontage IMPETUS bases showing 1/72 plastics. Each base equates almost to 4 x 15mm scale 40x20mm DBA bases as referenced in the rules. Mine are 60mm deep “for the look” as IMPETUS suggests.
The dice to hit and dice to save has some interest for live opponents although for solo play arguably it simply prolongs the playing time. AMW uses the two-step process to provide the layered differentiation between such a small number of unit types to cover several hundred years of warfare and army types.
It did help to keep the stronger type of unit – nobles in the field longer than the peasants.
The first losses also triggered more (domino effect) as AMW uses morale effects to pile on misery when dice are thrown low.
The battle lines were deliberately aligned and close together as the intention was to show two equally sized shieldwalls simply coming together. And the erosion of the 16 hits or 4 bases in DBA speak resulted in some quick breakthroughs. With no need to put the units in base to base contact visually it did not look quite like two shieldwalls: More like roman maniples!
The use of some cavalry may have speeded up the result although I think the outcome was not in doubt.
The feeling and reality of individual units meant that flank attacks were inevitable, and these were the main mechanism of destruction. And the lines once met were static – which cuts both ways – that’s what happened – short of logging loss of points there is not much game movement.
The cavalry interventions were easy to achieve as there is no restriction on command and control.
Finally, the structure of the ruleset with core rules and some simple extra rules simply cries out for more house rules.
In my battle report I suggested a way to deal with anglo saxon cavalry in battle that might more reflect their power as pursuers and opportunists.
Because of the apparent strength of shieldwalls in AMW I then play tested cavalry against a shieldwall. The result was a defeat for the cavalry army. It showed you need to put the whole force jointly in together as the attrition is such that late comers – in my case the token infantry shieldwall were simply outnumbered and picked off in turn.
Coordination is in the hands of the gamer through movement of units and their proximity. This second game also confirmed that archery is quite potent.
Overall, I felt that AMW is better suited to combined arms battles as opposed to a slogging match. Given the breadth of periods covered by the rules these two battles were enjoyable enough for a further outing at some point.
Dux Bellorum
These rules are more modern in concept with command and control central to their use.
Again, the units were 1/72 plastics on 80mm x 60mm IMPETUS bases. Losses would be recorded use dice and tokens.
The points-based game with stat lines for each unit type were easy to understand yet not so memorable as AMW was to me.
I could not resist a slight difference between the forces with one side having mounted skirmish troops equating to a 1-point advantage – 31 v 32 points. Near enough.
The ineffective skirmishers and straightforward meeting of the two-battle lines using the leadership influence made this all feel realistic to my mind.
As in DBA pushbacks showed visually where units were losing the fight. The battle line was still retained as the movement was small.
Distribution of the leadership points can make or break units, although centrally controlled by the gamer I felt this reflected the fact that a line would comprise areas of strong men and areas of weaker maybe reluctant fighters.
The dice head-to-head felt more interesting than the hit versus saving throw of AMW. In a face-to-face game this might also make the exchanges more exciting.
Again, flanking forces including cavalry provided local advantage as the game moved into its later stages.
Dan Mersey talks about the swirl of battle and this was true although the battle line was still discernible late in the game.
Both armies approached their own demise and it was just a few points either way so although the king’s men lost it could easily have been the rebels.
This felt like two battle lines slogging it out and even though there was some “flanking” it was not significant. The forces to a units front mainly did the damage first.
Table Top Battles
The previous two games used “measure and move” rules. Table Top Battles was “gridded” removing any need to get the tape measure out. I have used gridded wargames before with Peter Pigs WW2 rules being memorable.
While many people will know and have played either AMW or Dux Bellorum I reckon TTB by Mike and Joyce Smith will be new to most people.
Published by Partizan Press the ruleset has a feel of looking backwards in the same manner as AMW. The grid though makes for a different feel altogether.
For two shieldwalls the square grid was perfect.
The rules are covered in a couple of sides of A4. Initiative is gained each turn so you can get the effect of a “push” by one side as they win the aggression dice throws successively.
And that aggression is simply a +1 on all dice throws. Getting the initiative also means losses are inflicted before the opposition replies – extending the benefit of being the aggressor.
TTB starts with some simple rules and like AMW adds a few mechanisms to layer the differentiation. The difference is more about advantage in play rather than troop type.
I used the less brutal rules option of push back rather than straight destruction. I don’t think this affected the outcome too much. And it was more appropriate for the slogging match here.
Again, the differences in forces were out on the flanks with one unit of light cavalry in play.
The head to head style of resolving conflicts felt like Dux Bellorum and flowed well. Combat can be grouped so you can really speed up results of several units being joined up for a particular combat round.
While firing is alternate and affected by the aggression advantage, combat is simultaneous. This seems to work ok.
The mass combat meant that push back saw a whole line move back – a bit mechanical – less attractive than Dux Bellorum. In the later stages the erosion of flank units meant push backs became messier and trickier for some units – no room to retreat leads to destruction. And with grids there is a bit of space management to be done and in the right order – shepherd your resources – quite board gamey or chess like. This will not be pleasing to some.
In close combat the mounted and foot skirmishers die easily – I like that.
Finally, the king’s men turned a flank, and this crumpled the rebel line although none had the ignominy of being pushed off the table edge itself. I had not considered that when choosing a very small battlefield of just 2 foot 6 inches deep.
The king’s men were about to really destroy their enemy when the 12th move was completed, and the game ended. A day is 12 moves in TTB. Victory was based on various criteria including base loss. The Kings men won on this measure alone.
TTB comes in a slim 42 page black and white softback A4 booklet. It’s 2-page battle rules are really aimed at supporting campaigns and scenarios. The design is oriented in that direction.
Overall, this was a quick game and the lack of measuring not missed at all. The bulk combats removed some subtlety. The rules are so simple like AMW that house rules can fix most objections.
Overall, I liked this set of rules and with some tinkering they might become popular with me.
One Hour Wargames
With just 12 bases (six a side) on the table this game should be quick.
One-hour wargames built on the reputation of AMW for a reliable set of basic quick play rules. Here the pursuit was an even simpler ruleset that gave a game in under an hour. The rules are really scenario based. I set up scenario 1 – the straight encounter of two equal armies. I ignored the force generator to retain two matched shieldwalls.
The rules in about one side of A4 are very simple. 15 points of value represents the “abstraction” of everything unique about a unit. Random losses tell their story – those losing least – obviously were the strong units!
The skirmishers were ineffectual and fought their own flanking battle.
The alternating slugging match by the shieldwall saw the two lines stand toe to toe with no movement, just points erosion to indicate the fluctuation of battle.
Eventually most of the units reached breaking point and some rapidly departed. However, the first to go were from the side that eventually won so it was not the case that once you gained a local advantage this would give overall success.
In this battle we started with only six units, so I allowed it to run to the last unit standing.
As a result, later on the flanking successes of each right hand meant the whole battle line swirled 90 degrees. And then it happened again. A visual demonstration of Daniel Mersey’s “swirling” battle description perhaps. After all there would be no dressing of lines with the leaders all to the front pushing at enemy weakness.
Overall these rules did feel similar to AMW and felt generic. They seemed to give the same outcome as AMW without the saving throw step. Sacrificing differences, or “layering” if you like, for speed of the game is one of those compromises faced by all rule’s writers and gamers. It is what you want out of a game that matters.
Table of Ruleset Criteria
Ruleset
Reading the rules
Ease of Play
Outcomes
AMW
Straight forward
Straight forward
All logical yet Lacked feeling for the period
Dux Bellorum
I often reread the small print! And a bit wordy at times
Once memorised easy to play
Logical and a good feel for shieldwalls
One Hour Wargames
Short and simple
Straight forward
Logical and yet lacked feeling for the period
Table Top Battles
straightforward
Straight forward or so I thought*
A whole battle line eventually got turned twice while the shieldwall fight itself felt ok.
*I made mistakes in all these games but more of them in the TTB – simple errors forgetting to do something here and there. I took more care with Dux Bellorum.
Overall score – brutally simple – rank 1 to 4 (4 is highest) direct preferencing with no ties and no weighting!
Ruleset
Reading the rules
Ease of Play
Outcomes
TOTAL
AMW
3
1
2
6
Dux Bellorum
1
2
4
7
One Hour Wargames
4
4
1
9
Table Top Battles
2
3
3
8
Surprisingly I am saying OHW is the best for two straight shieldwalls. That probably is true though, diverse forces with more movement would probably show up the limitations of OHW even against its stable mate AMW.
If you ignore the rules reading as being less relevant after many games, it’s a tie between Dux Bellorum and Table Top Battles.
And in the final analysis I have to say that it is Dux Bellorum that gets my vote as the most “shieldwall feeling” rule set.
The others all betray their origin as generic rule sets while Dux Bellorum shows its depth of consideration by the author for a very specific period.
So next time I put up a shieldwall or two for a battle it will be Dux Bellorum unless I am in a real hurry. Then I will have 2 or 3 worthy substitutes.
Finally, some aspects of each ruleset that might be important.
AMW
Pros – well thought out design that gives you a simple yet good range of armies with sufficient variation and interest. The core rules plus some supplementary ones do work
Cons – no command and control explicitly and if you don’t like saving throws then this is not for you.
Dux Bellorum
Pros – command and control plus the head to head fighting. Also, the ability to put pressure into the game yet not everywhere all the time. Detailed for the period of Arthur so no need to compromise on design
Cons – somehow the rules are simple yet don’t read so well or indeed stick in my mind. I was constantly referencing the book which then suffered for its small print and layout with some key parts at the foot of a page and easily missed in the heat of battle. This is a minor point as after 10 games most of the rules will be memorable.
One Hour Wargames
Pros – it is such a simple concept and with the random forces selector and scenario choices is a gem. Speed of play!
Cons – it is generic
Table Top Battles
Pros – I had a brief spell with Kallistra, Strategos and then Peter Pig. Grid gaming has generally passed me by though. I like TTB and they feel like a set I could tweak or tamper with. And I think that gridded wargames may come back into favour.
Cons – sliding towards a board game with figures. We are at the far end of wargames abstraction. Your required to do a lot of imagining.
Well I missed the Wargames Illustrated Magazine free rules giveaway this Autumn. The rules were “never mind the billhooks”. Written for Wars of the Roses. They are just one of many or should I say one of the “plethora of rules” that wargamers can access these days.
So what fuss would there be, given their free, should be more bargain basement than of any original value surely?
Well Andy Callan is the author and for me he has history and if he has authored the rules they will be worth a look. I first encountered Andy Callan as a writer in the 1980’s when I recall his ideas about rules were running against the grain: Something to stir up trouble in wargaming circles most of the time. After all we can be a fussy lot.
Over the years I have kept articles from magazines. Yes I know I have probably destroyed some valuable copies in the process. Still I have what I need. And more to the point I have articles that are still useful reading even decades on.
So back in Spring 1987 when I think Stuart Asquith was at the helm, Practical Wargamer published an article by Andy Callan entitled Leaders and Generals.
He covered three periods in the short article that was really about rules design. The medieval and dark ages era leaders should worry about unit formation – a measure of order, unit aggression – a measure of fighting spirit and unit strength. The latter being an amalgam of numerical strength, armanent and relative fatigue.
The Leaders would be allocated command points.
His main objective for this period was that the “big man” (he coined that term) should be focused on being a “leader” and not be a “general” standing at the back directing operations with so many staff officers.
Move forward a couple of years and we are back with Stuart Asquith who via Publisher Argus Books offered the “wargaming in history” series of A5 booklets.
Simon MacDowell authored Goths, Huns and Romans.
My Dark Ages – “as the lights go out” late roman end of the period has never got beyond a 15mm DBA army acquired at Triples about 20 years ago. Well I do also have a 15mm late byzantine DBA army. Neither have had much of a runout despite my love of DBA. A case of right period wrong ruleset maybe?
He offered a set of rules within a booklet that also gave some background history; explained the forces and troops involved; set out a variety of game options from skirmishes, through encounter battles to campaigns.
Simon required his leaders to personally intervene to motivate troops to act. Control Points were allocated to each Leader along with inspiration points.
Both these writers were contemporary with the first trials of what became DBA. DBA was conceived in 1988 and was first published in 1990.
And so I thought that all this was disconnected from today. Yet I happened then to rediscover an article by Daniel Mersey in Battlegames shortly after publication of his successful Osprey publication Dux Bellorum around 2012.
And nestled there is Daniels’ homage to that 1980’s wargames era and specifically Andy Callan.
I remember Andy Callan promoting what I consider to be important considerations when trying to replicate the feel of a period through command and control. And I think the other key theme is that you make your rules period specific.
I hope his latest rules “never mind the billhooks” carry on that theme of challenging the status quo and promoting enjoyable and satisfying wargames.
And one final point, Angus McBride bestrides the world of illustrated warriors. His work has become synominous with Osprey. Yet Rick Scollins had a way to engage you in the 1980’s and as you can see he even influenced the young Daniel Mersey (see above). And perhaps appropriately it is his West Saxon Thegn who illustrates that 1988 article in Practical Wargamer.
I will eventually report and conclude my wargames ruleset testing using two anglo saxon shieldwalls. Setting up two identical shieldwalls to fight each other is a recipe for a tedious game surely?
Well I have to say that has not been the case. And I admit there have been some deviations from the rule of exactly matching forces. On the face of it in those cases they were thought to be marginal. Well with one exception.
Of more interest to me are the rulesets themselves. They are all typically at the abstracted end of the technique.
To make my point I will draw on a totally different subject – art. And specifically the painting. Like table top wargames paintings have limits and are normally framed in some way. That is another story though………….
Art and abstraction go together. As far as I know my first inkling of abstraction was to do with art and how painting techniques changed over time – well a few centuries. And abstraction was what artists started doing in the late 19th century.
So this is my take on abstracted rulesets – here are 9 to choose from!
These are all images of some fantastic art on show at the Ferens Art Gallery in Kingston Upon Hull or Hull as it is commonly known. If you get the chance pay a visit. For that matter visit any art gallery you can right now. Like all art and music industries, COVID19 will change everything at least in the short term and possibly for a long time to come.
So the images contain some classical or traditional views of the painted picture. In there is a Constable and a Canaletto – both detailed. Yet perhaps not as detailed as the portrait in the bottom right. Apparently it took the artist several months just to paint the head of the life study. Someone else stood in for the rest!
And in there is some cubist style work and “abstract images”
So what we have here is 9 images of different types of wargames rules.
And my anglo saxon shieldwall ruleset tests are definitely in the following vein.
Ancient and Medieval Wargames by Neil Thomas with apologies to Paul NashTable Top Battles by Mike and Joyce Smith with apologies to Percy Wyndham Lewis – vorticists in action!Dan Mersey and Dux Bellorum with apologies to Peter KnightOne Hour Wargames with apologies to the unknown artist as I forgot to snap their resume!Just for fun and tongue in cheek, I reckon this painting might be the equivalent wargames ruleset legend – “the Newbury Rules” apparently very closely typed text with no pictures requiring a wargames lawyer to assist in its application. Beautiful very Beautiful but a very scary prospect to paint (or in the case of the newbury rules, wargame).
Did you notice the Lady Butler painting – return from Inkerman. If you can, do visit the Ferens Art Gallery in the centre of Kingston Upon Hull – entry is free and there is a coffee shop to sustain you.
If you do go – the portrait of the Lady is by Gerald Brockhurst and is titled “by the hills” and was painted in 1939. When you stand in front of it the feeling is that it has to be a photograph.
Paintings posing as wargames rules might be stretching your mind and you might think I am mad. However this has turned out quite theraputic.
To that I can add “if a year ago you said I would be writing about wargames and artforms in a blog post – I would have said your crazy”. In the year of COVID19 it seems even the craziest thing is possible.
Above all enjoy life while you can, keep playing wargames with the rulesets that make you happy and seek out your way to a healthy life!
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 this is part 3 of a three wargame test of shieldwalls using two rulesets – Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas and Dux Bellorum (DuB) by Dan Mersey.
In the first two games which used AMW I first tested two shieldwalls against each other and then pitched a mounted force against a shieldwall.
The third game used Dux Bellorum. Now I have used AMW quite a few times whereas this was only a second time use of Dux Bellorum (DuB). DuB was published in 2012, 5 years after AMW and arguably a different offering. AMW perhaps looks back to traditional gaming techniques refreshed while DuB uses more recent approaches.
It emphasises the “leader’s influence” and is very much a game to be enjoyed. So although I think the latter applies to AMW, AMW is more about the collective 8 units working together to achieve victory? By that I mean the capabilities given to the units are the signficiant factor
I used the same “impetus style” elements (80mm x 60mm) to represent each DuB unit.
Instead of Nobles, Retainers, Peasants, Spearmen and Archers we have Companions, Shieldwall, Warriors, Riders, Bow and Skirmishers.
In keeping with a more modern terminology a stat line defines each type of unit.
Move – movement allowance in base widths (BW)
Bravery – equates to command, control and morale of the unit
Aggression (including missiles) – the striking effect of a unit
Protection – the defence value of a unit
Cohesion – endurance, numerical strength, will to fight ( so not the same as bravery above?) interesting that this cohesion is the stat that declines during the game though. Does that mean the unit always has the same morale but loses its will to fight?
Building an army is quick and simple. I went for two almost identical forces of 32 points maximum.
1 x 5 point companion + leader
3 x 5 point shieldwall nobles
3 x 3 point shieldwall ordinaries
2 x 1 point bow skirmishers
Except the “tinkerman” changed the Kings force swopping out one unit of foot skirmishers for some 2 point mounted skirmishers armed with javelins.
So in theory one side had the advantage of 1 point! 32pts (for the king) versus 31pts (for the rebels).
The Rebel Force was the Aggressor who normally goes first in each turn and each phase of a turn.
The battle took place on a plain devoid of any terrain features.
A companion or leader element was supported by 3 noble elements (1 unit to the left and 2 units to the right). At their left flank was 2 ordinary shieldwall units with 1 such element on the right flank. At each end of the line a skirmisher element of bowmen was deployed in the case of the rbels. The only difference was the Kings army having a unit of mounted javelin riders and only one unit of bow skirmishers. These horsemen were deployed on the Kings Earls right flank.
In the photos you will see some mounted troops in the centre of the Kings shieldwall – being a bit short of foot units these posed as foot companions in this battle! It should not affect the visual aspects of this post.
The arrangement being mirrored meant that each unit was matched except for nobles versus ordinary shieldwalls and the mounted javelin horse who squared up to some bow armed foot skirmishers.
roughed out set up of both forces before tinkering………
Narrative
Earl Toki continued his relentless march through the Wessex and even now the King still did not attend to him. He just sent another Earl, Earl Mathedoi, a Breton immigrant, to deal with Earl Toki.
Earl Mathedoi gathered a scratch force of infantry and again pursued the wily Earl Toki.
Earl Toki elected to give battle again on a flat plain confident that his men would be victorious whatever enemy force was sent against him.
Game set up
I used the set up rules positioning the two walls as close together as possible and aligned – 3 BW’s from an imaginary table centre lineThe Rebels are on the right in this view above. The rules are in small font compared to the AMW rules – not so good for quick reading mid game but the quick reference sheets were very useful.I used a large dice to show the units cohesion – red for the companions/leader. I used some silver beads to show their leadership points.Rebel left wing bowmen with some leadership points and a failed bravery throw (2 x D6 needing equal or less than 6)The right flank rebel bow skirmishers has more luck and moves forward. Generally small WHITE dice show hits for the rebels as well as tests such as braveryEarl Mathedoi with his impressive 6 cohesion and golden leadership points – both armies started with the basic 6 points leadership allocation.I like the leader bases even though neither DuB or AMW require them.An Ordinary shieldwall fails to move needing 7 – they then used the leadership points to achieve the roll.elsewhere on the rebel left flank good bravery throws were to be seenEventually Earl Toki and his rebels advance on the unmoving KIngs men
Earl Mathedoi elects to wait on events – he who waits………maybe?fruitless exchanges between bow armed skirmishers on the rebel right flank. Blue or purple small dice show hits for the King or things like bravery testsequally fruitless bowfire on the rebel leftThe two shieldwalls make contact – the rebels moved as a group using the leaders successful throw for bravery.Kingsmen at top throw basic aggression dice (three for ordinary shieldwall and four for noble shieldwall). The rebels moving into contact throw an extra dice on this occasion. The kings ordinaries won their fight and pushed back their opponents while their noble neighbours were both beaten and had to retire half a base width. Feels a bit like DBA here.Rebel success on each flank while the Kings men drive back the rebel centreThe Kings men attack in the flanks but lose again some initiative in the centreThe rebel bow skirmishers on the right pick off(with a 5 die roll) some more javelin horseman on the left flank they can just be seen in the bottom left trying to stay clear of the pesky bowmenon the rebel right flank some swift exchanges finally result in the rebel bow skirmishers fleeing the fielda bit disconcerting view that shows best the cohesion losses with the rebels having the worst of it.however the aggressive attacks by the rebels still give them some advantages, in DuxB attackers are well rewarded with more chances to hit – the issue is can the dice role well and has the repeller played their leadership points not so well?The rebels have the upper hand in the centre in attacksand also on the rebel left flank the rebels have the potential to damage the kings men.now the dice roll well for the rebels on their right flank as seen from the kings side herein the centre it is a disaster as the Mathedoi throws well – very well.On the rebels left flank they also stumble with the Javelin armed horse throwing in their lot as well.Earl Mathedoi’s left hand ordinary shieldwall collapses thoughin a blur they are gone!again this pitcure shows the cohesion dice well – everywhere both sides are on the verge of collapseThe rebel left flank bowmen skirmish with their javelin horsed opponents – firing into a melee is permitted under certain conditions. Here Mathedoi has thoughfully put some leadership protection in place to save the day for now.The battle reaches its height and yet the battle lines are still discernableThe rebels right flank shieldwall make contact with the kings left flank skirmishers who put up a fight using some valuable leadership points – opting to go for the kill rather than in this case saving themselves.in the centre the battle goes against the Kings menOn the kings right flank disaster strikes – three rebel sixes destroy the kings ordinary shieldwall and Mathedoi’s right flank shieldwall collapsesThe ordinary shieldwall retires from the fieldAgain the rebel skirmishers fail to make any impact on the kings javelin armed horsemen who bravely now face the rebel shieldwall alone. It is here you must remember Dan Merseys words that the battle is a whirling mix of individual fights and not the apparent order conveyed by our neatly based models!The final act as everywhere the rebels inflict terrible losses on the kings lineThe kings ordinary men still have some fight in them (the blue dice) though, as they destroy a rebel shieldwall while their noble brothers succumb at their sideMathedoi, his companions and more nobles give up the fight. The loss of units earlier in the battle has reduced the kings leadership points and fatally weakened Mathedois ability to keep units in the fight including his own hearth troopsEven the kings javelin horsmen run out of luckIn the distance the javelin horsemen flee as do the nobles, companions and Mathedoi himself. Nearby some rebels give up the fight as wellAs Mathedoi is swept away by his own troops he has no time to reflect on how his decision to wait on events probably made all the difference between victory and defeat. Dux Bellorum on this occasion rewarded the brave and agressive rebelsAs the fighting ends and the line thins out, the Kings men have just 3 units left and with their leader fleeing they are defeated. The rebels hold the field with 7 of their 9 units intact.
In my next post I will comment on these three battles.
Narrative ending for now
Earl Toki was beginning to feel confident as were his men who had now seen off many of the Kings forces. Who would come against them now?
So having had a good start to the year painting wise, by August I had enough units to do some gaming. My wargaming has always been predominantly “solo”, so road testing rules on my own is natural for me.
Impetus elements of Anglo Saxons, Carolingians and Normans ready to do battle
I should also say that from my earliest wargaming days I have tinkered with rules.
It is a quirk of fate that the first wargames book I read on rules came from my local public library (remember them?). So being a child you take what you can or rather see. So what did my local library have in the adult section? Well a single Donald Featherstone book. And his book was called “Advanced Wargames”. It was a book about wargames and the advanced bit meant nothing to me.
years after my public library discovery I bought my own copy of this book. It actually contains material that has been “invented and popularised” decades later such as grid gaming
So armed with Advanced Wargames I started rule based wargaming and of course met a big problem. Advanced Wargames is a set of chapters dealing with “aspects” of wargaming. Drawing on multiple sources and authors the book covers most areas of rulesets yet they are not joined up to provide a single useable ruleset.
The assumption was that you had a wargames ruleset/s already and some prior knowledge of the whole idea of rules based wargaming. Then you would cherry pick additions and improvements from the book.
I think this is the origin of my “tinkering” with wargames rules. Give me a set of rules and I will invariably add in some “house rules”.
So back to my road test of the rulesets of Neil Thomas and Daniel Mersey.
I have posted previously about my reluctance to move from seriously thought out but quick DBA into the very simple world of AMW. Yet this ruleset is very enjoyable and is more subtle than you might think.
In Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas there are four period rulesets
Biblical Wargaming 3000BC – 500BC
Classical Wargaming 500BC – 300AD
Dark Age Wargaming 300AD -1100AD
Medieval Wargaming 1100AD – 1485AD
My choice here was obvious – Dark Age Wargaming.
I used his rules without house rule changes on this occasion. Well with one exception.
I use Impetus sized elements having abandoned DBA with its restrictions on depth. And I had settled on 1/72 20-25mm figures on 80 mm wide bases which Impetus assumed would be for 15mm although the rules clearly gave you the option for 1/72 basing.
In fact Impetus rules whole approach to basing was so refreshing when I encountered them. And for me they have set the tone for most of the last decade.
I think they were in the vanguard of “BW” measurement or base width’s. This simple decision meant the end of the need to “rebase” figures when switching between rulesets. Of course if you only have one ruleset it is never an issue.
I have almost as many rulesets as guides to painting figures if not more……..dozens.
AMW assumes you have DBA based figures so uses 4 40mmx20mm bases giving you an 80mm x 40mm element and 8 of these make an AMW army.
In effect you need 32 dba bases which is not so good if you have 12 unit dba armies: And most of my thinking had been on these compact DBA army lines.
table size and figure basing all go together for me. I fixed my maximum table size at 6’x4′ imperial and 1.8m x 1.2m metric. 3 collapsible picnic tables from lidl are the foundationsurface finish is 3 x 20mm thick mdf 4’x2′ (1.2m x 0.6m) boards to minimise warping covered with felt in this case
Then I read an article in the Lone Warrior magazine of the Solo Wargamers Association. There the writer suggested a cheap way to build armies was just use the 40mm x 20mm bases as single elements and/or reduce figure count to just say 1 for light troops, 2 for medium and 3 for heavy troops. Well it was something like that because it was the principle that made the difference to me. It broke me fully away from DBA “figures per base rules” and Impetus gave me the solution of 1/72 figures which I prefer – yet now on a smaller 15mm scale base size I also prefer.
The net result is I use 80mm wide bases and actually a generous 60mm depth for all units. This allows the impetus suggested “diorama” approach, better showing individual figures you have carefully painted rather than their being very squashed together under DBA.
You sacrifice ground scale though. I guess in this I have followed favourably the increased “abstraction” approach on ruleset design. Abandoning figure removal for losses in the 1990’s? was the start of this “abstraction” and for some the descent fully into gaming and away from any simulation. I love history yet I love gaming so the compromise matters.
Neither AMW nor Dux Bellorum require explicit command bases but I like them so here is one – from my much delayed “Normans in the South” project – none other than Tancred d’Hauteville looking at the shield design.
Using single base elements meant that required base removal in AMW rules was not now possible. The fix here was simply to use two dice. The first was used to show the 4 “virtual” bases while the second showed the 4 points value each virtual base could sustain before being knocked out and removed from play. I have also used three dice in other games (18 so showing 6+6+4 at the start). But the rules in AMW use base counts to indicate available attack dice. Unless you like mental arithmetic, showing the two aspects gives a simple visual indicator.
A few years later Neil Thomas used this “one number” technique to good effect in his fastplay “One Hour Wargames” (OHW) rules where units are a single base elements with a value of 16 which equates to all the elements morale/resistance/casualty value and overall strength in one number.
With AMW you need not fear flank issues so the shieldwall has gaps between each element/unit ! you can of course place units in base to base contact – i was reflecting the AMW book diagrams!
So I played two games with AMW. The first was essentially two shield walls crashing together and the second was a cavalry led force attacking a shieldwall.
The mighty Norman/Carolingian or Franks in AMW speak start their assault on the Anglo Saxons shieldwall. AMW give suggested army set ups although you still have plenty of choice in the small army lists in the text
The third ruleset test game was another shieldwall versus shieldwall this time using Dux Bellorum.
atmospheric artwork throughout the Osprey book makes its use feel positively different to the text heavy AMW where a central batch of irrelevant but professional model armies fails to add any real value. The AMW font is bigger so the text is much easier to refer to in the heat of battle though!
These rules are aimed at a narrower period AD367-793 and with a nod to fantasy gaming called “Arthurian Wargaming Rules”. These rules use the “BW” concept, being published in 2012, 5 long years after AMW.
a solid pair of shieldwalls square up for Dux Bellorum. The dice are colour coded for the unit grades such as “nobles”.
Again there were no tweaks for once. Indeed in both cases as I fought shieldwall battles a side benefit was to better understand the design of these two rulesets. Because shieldwalls in both rulesets result in quite a static and very balanced game you can see the effect of a limited number of the author’s variables in action.
Here is an Anglo Saxon Command with to its front my version of a shieldwall in 1/72 Strelets plastics on an Impetus 15mm scale 80mm wide element base.
In my next blog I will consider what happened in each game.
the ring and dice combination solved my AMW rule problem when using only base instead of 4.
The Wargaming Erratic 