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
Table Top Battles – the Naval Rules, have been occupying my time recently. NavalTTB are a very simple set of rules using a grid based set up. They are part of a compendium of rules featuring fantasy, air, siege and land based warfare.
Having played the basic rules I could not help but tinker with them.
The Extras
First up, I used a 50mm grid and not a 100mm grid permitting greater granularity in manoeuvre.
a 50 mm grid gave each 100mm square a centreline to sail on. In turn all “lines” became sailable with some rules tinkering. The spaces cease to be occupied directly.
Second I took the single broadside characteristic value of 3 and changed this to three possible values – 3,2,1. I also allowed three steps in the degradation of a broadside after being hit. So a ship might start with a 3 then go down to 2 and finally 1. Note the numbers 1,2,3 are the actual values added to the die roll for a broadside scoring a hit.
The Blue Squadron’s ill fated Chippewa has lost all sail, while all its broadsides (3 per side) and its one of its close action firepower (2xCr=Crew) remain intact
I also permitted some ships to have say a 2 or 1 rating for their broadside from the start reflecting a weaker armanent. And then I still allowed those ships three hits absorption before that broadside would fall silent. So this might be 2,1,1 or 2,2,1 or even 1,1,1.
I left the score tables, crew attack and command values unaltered.
Finally I altered the sailing manoeuvre value. Essentially a hit on a sailing capability each time reduces the speed (movement per 100mm square) by 1. I applied some options, as in a large ship could have say a maximum of 2 while a small ship had a value of 4. In either case degradation of manoeuvre gave more granularity. So a faster ship might have “S” values of 4 then 3 then 2 and then nothing while a slower ship might have “S” values of 2,1,1, before being unable to move.
One final change I made was to sail ships on the “line” of the grid and not in the space. A ship turns on its centre and cannot overlap another ship when it does so. The standard rule of no ramming was retained.
This was a result of my using a 50mm grid.
The unintended outcome of this movement change was for ships to become stuck alongside each other. That felt ok though.
The Battle of Tinckermann – Fauxterre 1816
The Red Kingdom had found out that the Blue Kingdom was attacking some of its provinces and making an amphibious attack. The Red Kingdom dispatched a strong squadron of ships to disperse the enemy fleet.
The Blue Kingdom, well informed about the Red Kingdom actions sent a squadron to intercept the enemy squadron.
The Red Squadron
The Fortuna – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Estedio – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Meshuda – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Zugarte – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Blue Squadron
The Chippewa – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Allegheny – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Abellino – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Firefly – 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
The Lyra – a 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
The Blue Squadron attacked the Red Squadron in two lines while the Red Squadron attempted to keep a single line and sail between both enemy lines attacking them at the same time.
Early on the Chippewa lost all sail control and drifted out of the battle. This in theory evened up the battle between 4 ships on each side. Then the Fortuna became caught between the Allegheny and the Abellino.
The Allegheny and Fortuna are in the positions that framed the rest of the action while Chippewa in top right drifts out of the action. The blue/red dice indicate a ship has acted in the turn.
Then the Zugarte, Estedio and Meshuda isolated the Allegheny although the Firefly gave aid.
Firefly attempts to aid the Allegheny
At this point in the battle both the Allegheny and Fortuna were stopped and the other ships manoeuvred to support or exploit the situation.
The final action saw the Red Zugarte and Estedio take on the fast Blue Frigates Lyra and Abellino. Lyra and Estedio had their sail control destroyed.
Lyra (blue) and Estedio (red) are stopped with no sailing power left – they have orange dice on them
At this point the Red Squadron broke off the action and the Meshuda escorted the Zugarte (now with no armanent left) away.
Actually the 12th game move finished. The standard rules are a 12 move game.
Outcomes
At the conclusion of the action the Red Squadron was driven off having to abandon both Fortuna and Estedio – both ships suffering so much damage to their masts that they could no longer manoeuvre.
Firefly and Abellino make sure the Red Squadron make plenty of sail.
The Zugarte had lost all its broadside and crew fighting power. It could still make sail and was escorted away by the Meshuda, which still had both fire and manoeuvre capability remaining.
The Blue Squadron despite driving off the Red Squadron had suffered badly.
The Allegheny had lost all sailing ability although it still had some broadside capability. The Lyra likewise could defend itself but needed repairs before it could make sail again. Early in the action the Chippewa had suffered complete loss of its sailing ability and as the action moved away it sustained hardly any damage keeping all its broadsides intact.
The Firefly retained sailing and fighting ability as did the Abellino – these two vessels were to be seen driving off the Red Squadrons Meshuda and unarmed Zugarte.
And so ended the Battle of Tinckermann with the Blue Kingdom free to continue its land attack on the Red Kingdoms provinces.
A mark 1 ship card – to make them reuseable I inked them in.A mark 2 ship card! – more improvements required methinks
Afterthoughts
The difference between a win and a possible draw occurred in the last move of the game between slightly unequal forces. I will test this a bit more. It does mean the game hangs in the balance. And for the soloist it is not easy to see who is winning where – always a bonus.
If I was inclined a permanent sea table along with 3D models would drastically improve the visual aspect of this game. Indeed I do have some models from wizkids 2005 pirate game. Somehow I preferred the 2D test set up.
So this has proven a surprising distraction from my land battles. I tend to use TTB for land battles when the action does not lend itself to using Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames or 19th Century European Warfare Rules.
I like to think if Neil Thomas wrote some naval rules then NavalTTB would not be far off the mark.
Having had my naval warfare appetite wetted by a series of books ostensibly about land warfare, I now had to hand a simple ruleset for naval wars.
a 40 page compendium of rules oriented to grid gaming
Table Top Battles (TTB) is a compendium that include several rulesets, one of which is about naval warfare. The rules are clear – they are not an exercise in sailing simulation: I think they are a landlubbers abstraction. That does not sound complimentary. They are simple, quick, fun and to this landlubber just what I needed to play out some of the small actions I have been reading about.
The Blue squadron engage the Red squadron – the red squadron started the action one ship less with otherwise identical ships. The rules reward broadsides although spectacular results can be had attacking the stern with a broadsideThe Abellino has taken a hammering from the Red Squadron and limps away from the action with just one sail (= 1 move per turn down from 3) and its command intact in the sternIn a last exchange Zugarte of the Red Squadron finishes off the Blue Squadron Lyra but it is too little too lateZugarte in turn is caught by Blue Squadron Allegheny and Firefly – no contest
I used the rules out of the book unaltered and found they were quick and easy to apply giving swift results. The original squadrons arriving in a line (two lines for the blue squadron) soon broke into small groups contesting their survival one to one and occasionally two to one. It felt right.
The movement is unlimited so ships can stop, go maximum or any distance in between if they have sufficient sail intact. Each ship had 3 sails = 3 spaces maximum movement. The ships could turn in a square with each 90 degree turn taken. This level of abstraction might feel like bumper cars. However the question is “is detailing carefully turning as a process – useful?” Whereas rules that focus on outcomes tend to the abstract.
Each ship is given armanent in the shape of a broadside on each side of the ship. The broadside can only fire at ninety degrees to the ships keel line. The crew represent other close action capability. This has limited range and impact yet 360 degrees of direction irrespective of which crew element is left in operation.
The final component is the command. This provides additional support to the combat elements of crew and broadside.
All 4 element types – sail/broadside/command and crew can be destroyed and that is the sole objective of the game. In this way you knock ships out of action.
The winning side is the one having the most ships with both some sail and broadside capability.
With 5 versus 4 ships, all identical, the advantage was signficiant and the result was all the smaller sides ships were defeated. You don’t get draws, I suspect, if fighting to the last ship. So any game should be time bound or have limited victory conditions.
As a basic quick maritime wargame it works. This landlubber is happy.
They retail at 14 GBP – remember though, you get multi era rules for land, sea, air, fantasy, sieges and campaigns. The naval ruleset also covers ship to shore battles which I have yet to look at.
Having decided to try out Mike and Joyce Smith’s Table Top Battles (TTB) – the naval rules, I suppose the question might be why? why now?
The consequence of being taken in by post napoleonics and 19th Century Italian Wars has led me to 1848. In that year there were a series of revolutions across europe. Some, like the First War of Italian Unification involved such unlikely naval opponents as Piedmont and Austria in the Adriatic, while on the Baltic Denmark squared up to an aggressive German Confederacy.
Now I also stumbled across something else.
The Wars of Italian Unification are reckoned to have really got going after Napoleon first defeated Austria in the 1790’s fuelling the peninsula with raw ideas of revolution.
So reading about Napoleonic Italy led me to the US Navy in the mediterranean sea! This is something I have completely missed. Mind you the 1812 Anglo-American War has passed me by as well.
All these steps were made possible by reading books. I love book reading – yes I need access to online material but I love reading a “printed” page.
MacAulay’s Book 1 of his Garibaldi trilogy includes his hero’s failed attempt to join the besieged Venetians. Michael Embree’s Radetzky Marches covers the siege in more detail including some sea action.
The red book of McAulay written in the early 1900’s about his hero Garibaldi. I am sure Sharp Practice would work for Garibaldi at least in 1848 anyway!
General reading about the italian wars of the 19th century introduced the presence of the US fleet in the mediterranean.
this educational book is just right for quick reference – it gives excellent summaries
The First Schleswig Holstein War of 1848 includes some fascinating sea action – where the shore batteries won!
This is a fascinating war related to a famous question – the Schleswig Holstein question of course.
A book about Barbary pirates fighting the US Navy in the Mediterranean in the early 1800’s actually covers some of the effects of the Anglo-US war of 1812 and the whole issue of the lack of a US fleet that could even put to sea when blockaded in home ports by the dominant British Navy.
an interesting story about the USA squaring up to the Barbary states of North Africa who had got used to being bought off by the Europeans when it came to enslaving captured ship crews and passengers.
And that final book has led me back to the USA and some of its naval experiences during the Napoleonic era. That has somehow triggered in my head the need to test simple naval rules.
I am after small actions and a high level of abstraction.
a favorite abstraction icon from the Ferens Gallery Hull – East Coast Port by Paul Nash
While abstraction is an essential part of wargaming your mind of course fills in all the gaps to give something like this…………
Table Top Battles (TTB) by Mike and Joyce Smith are an excellent set of rules for my solo campaigning. The ruleset is actually a compendium of rules including air and fantasy not to mention siege warfare and, as you may have guessed, a set of naval rules.
My first edition Table Top Battles rules are unchanged in the second edition
All packed into 40 odd A4 pages the softback ruleset is short on images but strong on mechanisms that are simple, work together and can be adjusted or expanded.
So having flicked past the naval rules, on many occasion, I have finally succumbed. I dug out some thin card and scissors and pencil in hand in a thrice had two magnificant navies…………
The magnificent Blue Fleet “Abellino” armed with two broadsides plus two crew teams for close action. The Command in the stern adds bonus points when fighting while the three sails define the speed and manoeuvrability of the vessel
I have revisited some grid based wargames rules I used with some success last year in my shieldwall battles.
This time they are dealing with post Napoleonic Warfare.
Rules: Table Top Battles now branded for GRID Wargaming by Mike Smith and I was using a 50mm grid style table just slightly bigger than the one used in the rules.
You will notice that I like asymmetrical forces wargaming which is essential if you are to enjoy solo campaigns.
Narrative: Zarland is in crisis with the succession challenged and neighbouring countries all seizing opportunities!
Davaria, located south west of Zarland, decide it is time apply some pressure and march on Zarland.
General Jacapo Guarnieri led a strong force to the border. Meanwhile the Regent dispatched General Jenthe Knees with a hastily gathered force to hold the river Plima. General Knees at least had the good fortune to discover the likely crossing point of the Davarians.
He bivouacked his troops around the village of Menas.
He had with him
4 units of Hussars
6 units of Infantry mostly untried militia
2 field guns
As the morning mist drifted off the river Plima General Knees viewed the arrival of the Davarians, who had been marching since just before dawn.
General Guarnieri had the following troops at his disposal. Many of his light troops were away foraging, sorting logistics and scouting. The irregulars were probably just sleeping under some trees!
4 regular infantry units
4 regular heavy cavalry units
4 field guns
General Knees ordered his Zarland cavalry forward to test the Davarian left wing marching against the north Menas bridge. He posted the rest of his forces on the defensive.
General Guarnieri ordered his troops forward to take both bridges and force a crossing. The river here was narrow but with steep banks, difficult to cross. The Davarians planned to keep their feet dry.
The Zarlanders on the right have put together a scratch force with many new or militia units. They are trying to hold the river and prevent the Davarian forces securing a crossing to exploit.The Zarland Hussars recklessly charge the enemy guns which are withdrawn. The success of the Zarland Hussars is shortlived as they encounter Davarian foot with some Davarian cavalry arriving on their flank.
Meanwhile the Zarland militia do well to repulse the Davarian Foot who try to rush the south Menas bridge.
Eventually the battle ends in stalemate at the south bridge as the Davarian Infantry can make no headway here. The north Menas bridge though is now exposed by the loss of the Zarland hussars who are driven off to the North West.
General Knees uses the cover of dusk to abandon his positions. The Davarian Commander General Guarnieri has secured his objective.
I used the standard rules plus elements of the solo rules section. The rules are a really useful halfway house for campaign battles where to set up a full game is not possible but dicing for a result is too blunt.
I have become a lot more amenable to grids – Peter Pig was my first enjoyable exposure (Rules for the common man) especially since I have simply never managed to like large hex wargames where I just feel its a blown up board game. Peter Pigs grids were almost invisible – excellent. Mike Smith’s grids are for me a happy compromise.
My current preoccuption with european wars in the post Napoleonic era have been fuelled by some book buying.
the most recent arrival – this old book is interesting because the illustrations are highly selective. The text explains why – to support a narrative concerning the evolution of uniforms rather than trying to show what each country chose.Lucy Riall is a very well respected modern author and focuses on the themes of what the Risorgimento means and to whom.This is a great dip in book full of easily accessed facts and provides the framework of what can be a confusing time in Italy.This book has lots of anecdotes which I plan to use in my imaginations campaigns.Having already devoured the South German War by the same author I have just started this book. The small actions around the lakes just cry out for a skirmish ruleset.Old but still full of useful information and given only limited interest today, means a dearth of current publications on 19th century Italy, these booklets are very worthwhile.I have a feeling this ruleset may being hooking up with Michael Embree’s Radestky Marches book for a skirmish or two.A quite unexpected catch. I really like the Funcken style and this book delivers it in spades. Lucky for me it is right on the dates and although it ends just before Crimea it does cover the crucial 1848 revolutionary year.Another recent acquisition – I like the grid rule set and it comes with handy campaign and solo rules all integrated as you desire. It even has naval rules. actually it does modern, fantasy and sci fi as well – not that I need them for my VTW – Vienna Tratey Wars
So my period is called the Vienna Treaty Wars and the era roughly covers 1815 to 1871.
Currently I have been painting quite well although right now a campaign beckons. I never thought I would be doing anything post napoleonic – thank you again Mr Renaissance Troll!
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 I was looking for my copies of “Twilight” the Pike & Shot Society rulesets, as I had just acquired some more of them. This was prompted by my renewing my P&SS membership. The Arquebusier journal is worth the membership alone and at the moment of course is a lifeline.
Well I stumbled across “Table Top Battles” (TTB). This ruleset I have had many years and is in pristine condition which means unused. Authored by Mike and Joyce Smith my edition dates from 2007 although the bulk of the ruleset dates from its first publication in 2000. That was the heyday? of DBx rules and for that matter Warhammer Ancient Battles was in the wings and by 2007 everywhere.
I think some of the rules ideas reflect that era well. Yet they are niche in the sense that they are “gridded”. Now gridded wargames are not new and by some parts of the hobby be simply considered as extensions of chess or board games.
Given TTB pitches its main objective at around 6′ x 4′ playing areas and 2.5 hour long games, these are not board game rules.
My current testing of Neil Thomas’s Ancient and Medieval Wargaming (AMW) and Daniel Mersey’s Dux Bellorum (DuB) using Anglo Saxon shield walls, with the odd mounted troops thrown in, has now got a new dimension.
So next up will be a report on how two shieldwalls fared under Table Top Battles.
The Wargaming Erratic 