King Karol of VinAlba had other things to occupy his mind which meant Prince Otto and the Zarland succession would have to wait another day.
Both Nuringia and Genachia would no doubt be pressing their claims.
As 1816 closed VinAlba remained officially at war with Zarland although relations had cooled with Davaria. King Karol did not expect any help from that direction after the Kloster Arens fiasco. His view was that, had the Davarians committed all their forces to his attack things would have fared better. Instead they had pursued their own small war to little avail.
The mechanical map – each link provided a viable invasion route between the nodal countries
Nuringia also remained at war with Zarland.
And Davaria seemingly had lost interest in taking some of Zarland as trouble brewed with its south eastern neighbour – Verbonia.
In Nuringia the Elector, Grand Duke Maximilian had been building his forces waiting for an opportune moment to strike. His objective was a land grab – well recovery of historic Nuringian lands. The broader objective was to acquire control of Zarland.
Maximilian decided to attack once the Zarlanders were fully occupied by the VinAlban/Davarian actions in the west. In the event his troops were marching only as the VinAlbans were failing at the battle of Kloster Arens.
This meant the Zarland Regent, Duke Constantius, was able to move quickly against Maximilian.
When both sides began to make contact their respective scouts reported the following numbers.
Nuringian Scouts estimated 11,000 Zarlanders in the field – this was not what Maximilian had expected.
Zarlanden Scouts estimated 9000 Nuringians in the field.
These estimates* were not far wrong and Maximilian realised his opportunity was gone. He ordered his forces to retire.
In just a few months the apparently tottering Zarland regime had repulsed three attacks on Greater Zarland.
Duke Constantius was well pleased with this outcome at the close of the first year of Princess Maria’s reign. He did not expect matters to improve though.
*for my campiagns I use various systems to create “establishments”. These are then subject to availability based on the turn of events. To add to the uncertainty for solo games I then use variable assessments by the enemy of the opposing forces. In this case Zarland actually did not field 11,000 men.
They had a lot less than Nuringia. It was just poor information and and misreporting that gave the high figure. The fog of war so to speak.
For solo gaming narrative campaigns its all grist to the mill. And it throws up more variety in terms of battles and forces.
My Greater Zarland story fed the belligerents and circumstances
Each state has a relationship varying between allied, peace, neutral, disputes and war. With disputes these are irritating affairs of state that erode the capability of the state to mobilise for war. I randomly (1d6 123 = 5% or 456 = 10%) chose the part of the establishment diverted to deal with each dispute. Equally the reverse applies for allied states routinely supplying supporting forces.
Each dispute or war is diced for in terms of its occurrence and sequencing (one after the other or in parallel).
Disputes are a series of major or minor skirmishes with the possibility of a small action
Wars extend to larger actions and even greater engagements – possibly big set piece battles.
I used my campaign rules to generate the campaign forces available.
The campaign duration was made up of 32 segments. After each campaign turn a 1d6 determined how many segments were consumed. Once all 32 segments were consumed this campaign sequence ended.
In this case 7 turns had been played and 28 of the 32 segments consumed. Autumn was approaching and both sides had only a series of skirmishes to show for their efforts.
Each turn either a skirmish, action or engagement could occur – skirmishes most likely and engagements (large battles) least likely.
Now on this eighth turn an “action” was drawn. As it was a “small action” each force would have 8 units available to fight.
In this case I randomly selected the 8 units from each establishment.
Zarland defended the village because they had lost the skirmishes up till then.
I fought the battle using Table Top Battles on a grid. The rules generated the terrain. I used 50mm multi figure element bases representing a battalion of infantry or regiment of cavalry. One gun represented a battery of artillery.
The playing area measured 28″ x 40″ – 70cm x 101cm marked with a 5cm or 2″ grid.
The forces were
Zarland Eastern Army commanded by General Kratzen
IR 8th Adelburg CF5 (2)*
IR 6th Nurtberg CF5 (1)
2nd Tuttingen Skirmishers CF2 (1)
Pioneer Regiment 2nd Eyachdorf CF5 (2)*
5th Gellenstein Cavalry CF6 (2)
Artillery Regiment 12th Pinkenfels CF6 (2)
8th Filstad Skirmishers CF4 (1)
IR 4th Beckendorf CF6 (2)
Despite constant harrassment and losing many of the skirmishes the Zarlanders were in surprisingly good spirits. The last two units had just joined the army when the action commenced. Two units with * against them upped their morale rating on the day.
The Nuringian Army commanded by General Paskievich comprised
IR Von Rechten CF3 (1)
IR Von Ryssel CF5 (1)
1st Sharpshooters CF5 (1)
CR Prince Clement Dragoons CF6 (2)
CR Polenz Lancers CF14 (3)
1st Field Artillery Battery CF4 (1)
2nd Field Artillery Battery CF5 (1)
1st Pioneer Regiment CF14 (3)
The units were allocated cards which randomised their deployment.
The Nuringian advantage lay in their artillery and cavalryThe Zarlanders were blessed with an advantage in infantry – ideal for holding Baumdorf
The Neil Thomas ruleset 19th Century European Wargaming (NT19e) has quickly become a favorite of mine, stoking an interest in an era that frankly I have never read about since I was taught, as a kid, about some mad British Cavalry charging Russian guns in a place called Crimea. And not knowing that the French and Prussians rehearsed world war 1 44 years early, in 1870, as well. I did learn about the American Civil War – but that was on a different continent, so doesn’t count.
Neil Thomas restricts his interest to the evolution of European Wars over a 60 year period.
Day 1: I used Neil Thomas NT19e to run a mini game between the advance guards
My original european wargaming interests ended at Waterloo in 1815, with Napoleon and then restarted in 1939 with world war 2.
Neil Thomas provides a comprehensive ruleset for battles between 1815 and 1877. Indeed he covers campaigns in a way not really addressed in any of his previous publications. He persists with his “keep it simple but interesting” style: Too simple and you get bored. And I originally considered my first contact with his Ancient and Medieval Wargames tended to the boring – compared to the more complicated rules still holding sway 15 years or so back then. How wrong that has proved to be. I now regularly use all his rulebooks.
For my first Zarland wars I have taken Neil Thomas NT19e and used the following
The forces generators for the mini and standard game
the command optional rules
To that I have added
My Zarland Campaign narrative – to provide the background and scenario details
Forces on the march so my forces invariably have advance guards or flying columns
Dispersal – you need to concentrate from the march because there is always something drawing troops away: So you don’t always get what you want, where you want it. Thats an imaginary life!
Zarland Backdrop
The collision of the three forces were part of the politics of the campaign with Davaria allied to Vin Alba and wanting to support Prince Otto, in reality also wanting a slice of Greater Zarland itself.
Vin Alba has other borders to attend to, so its own effort is only partial.
I used a simple random % to deal with such diverse interests and the use of respective forces drawn from each countries establishments. I normally set up an “establishment” – the theoretical force a country has in place or could raise with notice. Against this the actual field force is a product of circumstance, conflicted resources and leadership (both political and administrative).
So that gets you three slightly different forces and not all “top troops”.
Arrivals
The idea of forces on the march allowed me to apply the simple rule of an NT19e mini game for the advance guards contacting, followed by an NT19e main game for the main bodies clashing.
Day 2: At Kloster Arens – the main forces and their generals
I diced for broad decisions which led to the Davarians under General Modistin having no advance guard, marching to join and support an already present VinAlban army. Also neither Zarland nor VinAlban advance guards had control of the field. So it was a proper blundering encounter.
Units were mixed with blinds to create a shuffled card deck which was dealt randomly into marching columns. These were moved until contact was made. I also kept the card deployments in place to help create some fog of war. This complimented my “umpire” role in what was a “zero player” wargame.
The advance guards fought a simple engagement with only a few units heavily involved which is always the more likely in my games. It was simply a logical move to retreat the VinAlbans northwards at the end of the first day. By chance this fed the second day action with a false assumption, by the Zarlanders, that the VinAlbans were in force to the north of the battlefield. All this helps develop the battle narrative without hijacking it.
A lot of troops marched onto the field. In the event the weather brought matters to an early close.
On day 2 the main battlelines met on the same field. This time the NT19e command rule restricting the number of units in action per move did have some effect, while the use of written rules at least one move ahead, meant I had no temptation to make changes of order to achieve a sudden opportunity.
Finally the weather rule (from Charles Wesencraft’s Practical Wargames) provided detail and in fact influenced the game ending early. I then simply determined a number of options for day three and randomly selected one. This turned out to be the “VinAlbans break off action”. I then came up with the appropriate story line that this was caused by “orders from higher up” and ensuring some dissatisfaction on the part of the Davarians.
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.
After the clash of advance guards it was now the turn of the Zarland and VinAlban main bodies to seek to control the River Hase.
The River Hase passes the Kloster Arens on its eastern bank ridge while on the west bank is the Arensburg and its no less imposing Rittergut.
The Royal Zarland Army was commanded by General Kratzen an above average General whose chief of staff General Klettern was in fact an outstanding Officer.
As dawn breaks the Zarland pickets see movement on the west bank of the River HaseGeneral Sumpf has elected to hold what he has – Kloster Arens and keeps his few forces east of the River Hase
The VinAlban army was commanded by General Geflugel (an average general) who had been delayed along the route of the march. General Modistin commanded the Davarian force sent to support Prince Otto’s latest attempt on his fathers crown. Modistin was a poor general and very much concerned with his own importance. General Geflugel had sent his Chief of Staff General Nelke (an above average commander) to meet Modistin and try to contain the unreliable General until he could arrive.
Both Zarland and VinAlban forces descend into the river valleyThe Davarians are on the right flank, south of Kloster Arens and in force
The VinAlban and Zarland commanders had broken up their main bodies so as to push on to support their advance guards.
General Klettern had arrived with
7th Cavalry
5th Artillery
He sent these north west beyond Kloster Arens as it appeared the enemy were massing to cross the river Hase. General Sumpf had also mentioned the defeated VinAlbans had retreated north the previous evening – no doubt back onto their main body?
General Nelke had likewise brought some troops to reinforce the advance guard of General Stute. He had
10th Infantry battalion
2nd and 3rd Artillery
4th Cavalry
11th Skirmishers
General Nelke dispatched General Stute north with part of this force as reports had been received of enemy movements from that direction.
He then pushed a force across the river Hase in readiness for the arrival of General Geflugel and the main body. Its orders were to secure the flat ground north of Kloster Arens.
The force comprised
4th Cavalry
12th Infantry
10th Infantry
3rd Artillery
He then rode to meet General Modistin who had already arrived from the south west with a substantial force of Davarian troops.
both sides are bold with their artillery!
Earlier at 0400 am General Sumpf again sent patrols north to check on the VinAlbans whose advance guard had withdrawn in that direction the previous day. The 19th of March had dawned very cloudy but still dry. General Kratzen would soon arrive with the main Royal Zarland army.
The forces gather their courageIt is the Davarians who are across the river first as the VinAlban 4th cavalry also begin their crossing
General Klettern had in fact arrived earlier to take over from General Sumpf who took some rest in the Kloster Arens. General Klettern had been surprised to see not just VinAlbans across the Hase river valley but Davarians. He had immediately sent a courier to General Kratzen to hasten forward.
Vin Albans cross north of Kloster Arens as the first attack is made directly by the Davarians on Kloster Arens itself. Ouch!Today the artillery are seemingly ineffective General Nelke watches as the assault on Kloster Arens developsVin Alban skirmishers and infantry take artillery hits as the Davarians attack across the old sawmill bridge to the south
On the west side of the valley General Modistin had arrived at the Rittergut, meeting General Nelke and immediately demanded to know where General Geflugel was.
General Modistin was noted as a poor General yet he had sent his forces straight into attack showing an unexpected degree of boldness. General Nelke viewed the developing frontal attack with dismay.
The combined VinAlban and Davarian forces had descended the valley and made for the Kloster Arens and its ridge.
Finally both sides begin to see the attrition build from firing exchangesThe Davarians are seemingly undeterred by the steepness of the Hase river valley sides
General Klettern spreads his weaker forces across the ridge to contain the advancing VinAlbans and Davarians, feeding in the main body troops as they arrive on the Kloster Arens road. General Kratzen is now at the Kloster Arens and discovers a General Sumpf slightly the worse for sampling some excellent Kloster wine. Even so General Kratzen is pleased with Sumpf’s work the previous day.
As the afternoon beckons the grey day turns darker under heavy rain clouds. The Zarland forces have crossed the river Hase north of the Kloster bridge while the 3rd artillery deployed at the bridge and luckily for them. Opposite the 2nd Zarland Artillery, an elite unit, are under orders not to fire on the bridge which must be taken intact!
Today the elite artillery are off colour anyway as they fail to get the range on the advancing VinAlban 10th Infantry.
The fordable river is no barrier to the advancing troops. But it is the persistent light rain that is now affecting events.
The 14th Davarian Infantry are driven back across the old sawmill bridge
As the 14th Davarian Infantry seek the ridge line to the south of Kloster Arens they meet the 14th Zarland Cavalry and are driven back across the river Hase – with few casualties but suitably shaken.
Meanwhile north of Kloster Arens the VinAlbans turn the Zarland flank. Is this the moment the position becomes untenable?
Attrition is working through all the units in the battle. In the far distance the VinAlbans outnumber the Zarland right wing
At 1800 hrs the heavens open and a mighty deluge of rain slows movement and impacts firing. Although the Vinalbans are now making progress General Geflugel decides to withdraw across the river Hase as the weather shows every sign of getting even worse.
And so the battle ends with the Zarland Royal Army still holding Kloster Arens.
That evening General Geflugel held a review with his senior commanders including a frustrated General Modistin, the Davarian General. Everyone was informed that there would be no resumption of the attack as new orders from VinAlba required a withdrawl from Zarland.
An incredulous General Modistin stormed out of the tent into the torrential rain. He mounted his soaking wet horse and rode away cursing VinAlba and her useless Generals. At least he could say he had shed Davarian blood for Prince Otto in the so called battle of Kloster Arens.
……………as darkness gathers at the Rittergut, under leaden skies, the thoroughly soaked General Modistin grabs the last spotlight by staring hard to the east at Kloster Arens………………..
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.
In my case – creating a Mythical Realm is not normally a problem because I tend to invent some totally separate location that just happens to have the same oxygen, societies, nature, science and warfare of the period I want to plunder.
And then occasionally real history just cries out to be used. Italy is a regular case in point for me. Most recently I was on a Normans in the South (NitS) splurge before crashing into Faux Napoleonics by Renaissance Troll.
One thing has led to another and one minute I was on the Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU) – kepis, garibaldi and kettels, next I am thinking how to do Napoleonics without Napoleon, Wellington or Blucher etc.
Well I have solved the problem – it is a Vardoger Planet – ok maybe it is a sort of doppelganger.
The story is this.
Once upon a time there was a planet – called Earth and in front of it so to speak was another planet called Earth which experienced everything just that bit earlier. And so the worlds trundled along except that one day there was a small ripple and it was a very small ripple.
No one noticed because no one knew. Well I guess someone knew because I would not be telling you this.
We live on the first planet, or lead planet. The “Vardoger” one. Now our following planet is just slightly different.
Welcome to “Fauxterre” where things are just slightly different.
The Wargaming Erratic 