Tag: Mike and Joyce Smith

Italian interlude as well!

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 25th Jul 2024
8 Comments on Italian interlude as well!

Corrugated cardboard was the trigger material for my solution

Just like John at just add varnish I have joined the season of scenery community challenge and started with an Italian theme.

This piece is still unfinished but has made it from idea to concept in only about five years – so that’s about four and half years procrastination plus various false starts in materials and a bit of design. And finally some tv viewing and Dave Stone’s scenery season challenge.

Eventually the material choice helped drive the form

Grid gaming by Mike Smith is a great rule set and early on in my Italian independence wars project I thought a couple of hilltop towns would be ideal for the grid.

Then the procrastination started – which materials and what style?

I use a 50mm grid with 40mm based units all square.

The toy soldier abstract had resulted in these block buildings a couple of years ago.

Initially I was absolutely into the idea of wood and it would be modular and come apart. Then when I started to think about details wood felt wrong. The framing of the town was to be the city walls and slim, this was leading to fret saw country and simplicity of the idea was waning.

A long delay ensued.

Style wise I was looking for the abstract and Joe morschauser scenery pictures – more grid games – drew me towards something that could still accommodate units as a garrison.

I came up with the cruciform of two bisecting streets with four quarters to the town – in Mike smiths grid game the towns are 3×3 grids

In the end watching the giro this year suddenly prompted a “just do it moment” and as it happened cardboard kept coming into my head as a possible material and multiple postal deliveries reminded me of this free material.

But it needed to have some structure. What to do?

Then I remembered the flat scenery that are found in paper boys armies booklets. These have interconnecting cutouts that give strength to the arrangement.

These interconnecting card pieces now became walls and the corrugations gave me another idea.

Plus other things on this long journey fell into place.

The whole idea of abstracted block buildings came in part from kids toys like this one – just add imagination….

In another direction this flat pack helped the idea that 3d solids is not the only way to create a 3d effect.

Maybe I could use these simple cut outs approach?

I did and I quickly developed some solutions to get the elevations I wanted to see.

The buildings had been done a few years ago during the wood era.

I added the church in card with a removable front. The tower is a work in progress.

The corrugations prompted cypress trees again in corrugated cardboard and cocktail sticks

In the end even the wall overlaps suggest buttressing

Well that’s it and it remains a work in progress but I think I have found my modular abstract Italian hill town.

Tags 1/72, 20-25mm, grid wargaming, gridded wargames, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, Scenery, Table Top Battles, table-top wargaming, wargames, wargaming, wargaming with grids, wars of the italian unification

Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame rules wargaming

Testing the Rules

How do you compare rulesets? empathy or process – which factors give you a good ruleset?

My recent challenge has been to find a preferred ruleset for mid 19th century European warfare. And that provides the first criterion – what exactly is mid 19th century warfare? Maybe we should be saying post Napoleonic Warfare or Pre Franco Prussian Warfare? Or should we classify with technology – percussion cap, needle gun, sabre, rifling, telegraph, ironclad…..

The thing is that between 1815 and 1865 not a lot seemed to happen. Apparently things regressed as West Point Officers tried to emulate Napoleon in the early years of the Amercian Civil War despite their Mexican war experiences.

1865 to 1915 is the same timespan – would the ACW soldier have recognised the trenches of Europe – well sort of but not the aeroplanes surely.

In fact between 1815 and 1850 warfare was still largely smoothbore in weaponry and equipment and uniforms remained similar. Changes were afoot as more accurate muskets made their mark with percussion caps and more rifling. Uniforms saw frockcoats, trousers and kepis appear.

And between 1850 and 1870 breechloading rifling transformed infantry and artillery capabilities.

Quite a bit going on which means your chosen ruleset is either narrowly period, even campaign, specific or has to be clever and flexible.

My recent simple testing of a series of rulesets has caused me to reflect on what those Criteria for my gaming preferences might be.

I have ended up with 4 areas on interest. First of all I am assuming the choice of ruleset is not limited to an examination of mechanisms.

Production
Philosophy
Game Mechanics
Action Mechanisms

Production includes everything about the printed or e delivered publication. So images and print clarity matter as do the range of wargaming aspects covered.

Philosophy I suppose could be called game design and includes period choice, scale and game size as well as chosen outcomes.

Game Mechanics covers things like army lists, pre battle activity, player numbers and figures.

Finally Action Mechanisms are aimed squarely at movement, combat resolution, control and turn structure.

When I had finished my long list of criteria a massive 43 items had been generated. I did consider some rationalisation when I looked and saw a lot of similarities. And then I decided to leave my longlist intact for now.

I used it to score my rulesets and accepted the potential weighting due to duplicated criteria. Otherwise there is no other weighting in terms of importance of one criterion over another. Action mechanisms are not prioritised over Production Values for example.

In each case a criterion gets a single mark.

That mark is relative to my perceived ideal. The scores can be +1, 0, -1. positive values are favorable.

Lets look at Production first:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Relevant Images	0	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	0
Fair Wear & Tear	0	0	+1*	-1	-1	+1	+1
Logical clear layout	+1	0	+1	+1	-1	+1	+1
Plain text	0	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
Lots of Design Thinking	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
Simple Rules	+1	+1	0	0	-1	+1	+1
Scenarios included	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
Campaigns included	0	0	0	+1	+1	+1	-1
Totals	+4	+3	+6	+5	+2	+2	+5

Table 1: Production Criteria

So GW comes out top followed by F&F and PW. Before I list the rulesets in question the scoring is “relative” and not absolute. It is best thought of as indication of preferencing.

In my case these rules have all been through some sort of preselection in my decision to buy them in the first place. So they all score positively. It is how much more I value them against each other that is measured here.

When it comes to historical wargames rulesets today – in a 60 year old industry, we are talking about marginal gains. I think with fantasy/scifi etc. it is still possible to deliver up a “game changer”!

I have used the following abbreviations.

NT19e – Neil Thomas’s European Warfare in the Nineteenth Century – hardback edition published by Pen & Sword Military 2012

BwMS – Battles with Model Soldiers – hardback edition by Donald Featherstone published by David & Charles 1972

GW – Gentlemans War – “e” publication by Howard Whitehouse and Daniel Foley and published by Pulp Action Library 2018

Fire & Fury – 1st Edition in softback by Richard W Hasenauer 1990 published by Fire & Fury (2nd editions under Brigade and Regimental titles available)

Field of Battle – Piquet 1700-1900 by Brent Oman 2nd Edition published by Piquet Inc 2011

Table Top Battles – by Mike & Joyce Smith 1st Edition published by Mike Smith 2007 (2nd Edition 2018 available)

Practical Wargaming – hardback edition by Charles Wesencraft published by Elmfield Press/Shire Publications 1974

Is it fair to compare rulesets which are published decades apart written for vastly different audiences? I believe so. Despite visually apparent differences, there are some common threads in wargames.

On to Philosophy

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Period – technology emphasis	+1	+1	+1	0	0	-1	+1
abstraction in scaling	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	-1
no figure/base removal	+1	0	-1	0	+1	+1	-1
cavalry ineffective	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
irritant skirmishers	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	+1
vunerable yet destructive artillery	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
column and line infantry formations	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
attack defense objectives	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
morale dominant	+1	+1	-1	+1	+1	0	+1
battle narrative	0	0	+1	0	0	0	-1
Totals	9	6	6	5	8	1	4

Table 2: Design Philosophy

So NT19e along with FoB seem to have edged it on philosophy for me. I should say that by having a lot of scores to make, it may reduce my own unintentional bias (of course on the other hand wargames magazines are all about bias – “Buy me” bias).

Talking about bias – my requirement concerns European Warfare so I am effectively biased against other “continents” warfare considerations that are different.

Ok next up is Game Mechanics:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
option to solo game	0	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	-1
measure not grid distance	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
army selection/lists available	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0	-1
pre battle actions available	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1	-1	-1
game time required (<2hrs)	+1	+1	0	-1	-1	+1	+1
units per side (6-12)	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	+1	+1
unit ratings (varied)	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
table size (5’x4′)	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	+1	+1
concealment/ambush/surprise	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	0	-1
chance (situations/ cards etc.)	0	+1	+1	0	+1	0	0
figures per basic unit (12-20)	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1
support functions (engrs/ sappers) rules	0	0	+1	0	0	+1	-1
Totals	9	10	10	0	3	4	-1

Table 3: Game Mechanics

Earlier I asked is it fair to compare rulesets from different decades? Now the question might be should you compare battle rulesets with skirmish rulesets or measured games versus grid games. The answer is of course. Just be consistent in the criteria used for the scoring and try to avoid criteria that directly preference one solution. In my case grids games are not a requirement so do score badly on the requirement for a measured game that I chose to include – some personal bias there.

Battles with Model Soldiers and Gentlemans War seem preferable when it comes to Game Mechanics.

Finally we turn to Action Mechanisms:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
alternate moves with opportunity	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
initiative	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
simple manoeuvre rules	+1	+1	0	0	+1	+1	+1
measure ranges	+1	-1	0	+1	+1	+1	+1
move and fire in a move	+1	0	+1	-1	+1	-1	+1
road movement restricted	+1	0	0	-1	+1	-1	-1
simple interpenetration	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
saving throws	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	-1	-1
leadership/pips/orders	0	+1	-1	+1	+1	+1	+1
written orders	0	+1	-1	-1	-1	-1	+1
cards for actions	0	0	+1	0	+1	0	-1
turn structure is fluid	0	0	+1	0	+1	0	0
simple combat resolution	0	-1	-1	+1	-1	+1	0
simple firing resolution	0	-1	-1	+1	-1	+1	0
	8	4	3	3	6	4	5

Table 4: Action Mechanisms

Neil Thomas 19th century European rules come out preferred for Action Mechanisms along with Field of Battle.

In summary we have table 5

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Production	4	3	6	5	2	2	5
Design Philosophy	9	6	6	5	8	1	4
Game Mechanics	9	10	10	0	3	4	-1
Action Mechanisms	8	4	3	3	6	4	5
Totals	30	23	25	13	19	11	13

Table 5: Summary

So there you go Neil Thomas rules are to be preferred in meeting my perceived gaming requirements. But……

I really like the liveliness of Fire & Fury while sometimes the grid games using Table Top Battles are just so easy and convenient. And then Gentlemans War offers a sense of detail which drives narrative – an essential requriement for the solo wargamer I would suggest.

Field of Battle uses the house theme of the card driven randomised turn structure of Piquet. I like it a lot but you need to invest your concentration in that ruleset even with the simpler FoB version. Like GW it offers narrative benefits.

My least liked set was actually BwMS even though Donald Featherstone has been the mainstay of my house rules over the years. This is because much of what he wrote was about design philosphy rather than pushing a particular ruleset. You could say nearly all his books were design handbooks for wargames rules writers.

So which ruleset will I go with?

At the moment it must surely be Neil Thomas.

Whatever ruleset you use – happy wargaming.

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

Prelude to Wargames Rules tested II*

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 4th May 2022
2 Comments on Prelude to Wargames Rules tested II*

Which rules are best for mid 19th century warfare. Of course it helps to know which continent your on because apparently the North America Civil Wars were nothing like those happening in Europe…..

My current preoccupations are with the Italian Wars of Unification that, depending on your viewpoint, ran from 1820-1871 or 1848-1870 or even just 1859-1861!

Whichever timeline you choose the events threw up numerous conflicts across the Italian peninsula.

My previous rules shortlist included

Neil Thomas 19th Century European Wars – reviewed here previously
Table Top Battles by Mike Smith – reviewed here previously and here
Gentlemans War by Howard Whitehouse
Practical Wargaming by Charles Wesencraft
Piquet by Brent Oman
These last three were considered here and here for my Kloster Arens Encounter

I guess I had settled on the Neil Thomas set with Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles offering a solution for larger battles generated by my mythical campaigns.

The thing is I had not actually tested Piquet for this period so that was still an unknown. And so was A Gentlemans War for that matter.

And then at Hammerhead 2022 I played Fire and Fury. It reminded me that this ruleset had caught my eye the odd decade ago (!) only to fade away.

I enjoyed the participation game and to cut a long story short, tracked down a 1990 1st Edition courtesy of Dave Ryan at Caliver Books. It included some photocopy extracts of post publication comments which suggested a lot of improvements! There were a lot of complaints at the time it would seem. Nice touch from Dave Ryan to include these contemporary articles with this ruleset.

With so much negative noise why bother with them though? Well they have continued to be published. And it seems they have been morphed into other era’s. My Hammerhead participation game was for the Renaissance: Perhaps this endurance shows the core mechanics work for lots of gamers.

I thought, just maybe an ACW (American Civil War) ruleset might suit my 19th century European wars in Italy after all.

The Italian Wars of Unification fit between the Crimean Wars and the Franco Prussian War while they also bracket the American Civil Wars.

Next up will be some simple tests of Fire & Fury to start with.

*In 2020 I was all Anglo Saxon and shieldwalls and tested a few rulesets to see which might work for me.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battaglia_di_Curtatone_e_Montanara.jpg

This image is to be found in an excellent Wikipedia page about the Italian Wars of Unification.

wargame rules wargaming

Threads and Themes

My wargaming has continued to evolve. In 2021 I played more games than in previous years and created more fictitious eras for my mythical worlds. Fauxterre expanded in surprising ways. And that of course is the point about imagination – its very chaos is the atrraction. Unless of course your livelihood depends on producing it for others.

My imaginative wargaming is simply for pleasure – a distraction, an escape from the real world.

Wargaming on the other hand seeks rules and restrictions. So rulesets for many wargamers are a pleasure (!) in themselves rather than simply a necessity. The exception is I believe competition gaming where the rulesets are a necessity simply to allow the “fight” to be resolved at all and a winner declared.

In the wargaming arena “rules lawyers” are the pantomime baddy except ruining the event rather than adding to it. Perhaps the solution has always been there – make competitions more fun than theory. Less historical particulars and more game means that the lawyers have less to exploit. That said, even such family games as cards, scrabble or monopoly betray the rules manipulators!

From my perspective there seem to be far more rules published for game enjoyment even in a competitive situation. And despite a drive for simplicity the abstractions are often well thought out so the feel of the game historically is still there – a key part of the wargame enjoyment.

This is another blog post that has deviated already. On the subject of threads and themes I have been musing on the subjects of rulesets, games and imaginations.

I do like a set of wargaming rules and as rules writers have tended towards explaining their ideas ,these publications have become more readable. Even if you never play a ruleset, they give you someone elses opinion about a conflict or technology – what was signficiant when it came to the conduct of a campaign or battle.

In 2021 I indulged myself.

Piquet Field of Battle 1700-1900 – 2nd edition of this ruleset which likes lots of uncertainty – ideal for soloists and those who enjoy a degree of chaos when it comes to game turn sequence

Neil Thomas 19th Century European Wargaming – post napoleonic but very much still horse and musket. Neil Thomas rules work, really work – its that simple.

Practical Wargaming by Charlie Wesencraft – another ruleset that is coherent and in fact I have never felt the need to tinker with – well ok a little bit.

Neil Thomas Wargaming an Introduction – not my first purchase yet some really useful rules in here.

Mike Smith Table Top Battles – my “grid wargames” ruleset – they even gave me an easy way in to some naval wargaming – something I had previously shown no interest in.

Battle – Practical Wargaming by Charles Grant. A complete set of simple rules for World War 2. A vintage ruleset they convey a simplicity of gaming I have since only really found in Neil Thomas rules.

Peter Pig Poor Bloody Infantry is a grid ruleset but so much more. It is definitely a “game” and does not need adaption for me. I play it straight out of the book.

Donald Featherstone rules don’t appear but had regular run outs. The reason is simply that none of his books were in my view a complete set of rules. They were always full of rules ideas. And that means you get to tinker big time. He gets his own list!

Battles with Model Soldiers ever popular for some simple basics

Advance wargames for period specific mechanisms

Wargame Campaigns – does what it says on the tin lid – ideas for campaigns

Surprisingly Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames had little look in this year. That suggests I have had more time to play each game.

The most satisfying ruleset for 2021 has been Neil Thomas Wargaming 19th Century European Wars. It gave me everything I needed for a new era with his excellent balance of simple play and historical feel. Add to that, excellent scenario generators for both historic battles and those of your imagination, This ruleset has sustained my new interest for most of the year without distraction.

wargame rules wargaming

The Battle of Tinckermann

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.

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.

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.

Then the Zugarte, Estedio and Meshuda isolated the Allegheny although the Firefly gave aid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tags grid wargaming, gridded wargames, Mike and Joyce Smith, solo wargaming, Table Top Battles, table-top wargaming, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, wargaming with grids

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

On the Grid with Post Napoleonic

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 10th Jun 2021
2 Comments on On the Grid with Post Napoleonic

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.

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.

Tags "Imagi"nations, grid wargaming, imaginative wargaming, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, Vienna Treaty Wars

Book Reviews Mid 19th Century Wargaming Military History new additions Vienna Treaty Wars wargaming

Vienna Treaty Wars: Book Cavalcade

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 11th Apr 2021
No Comments on Vienna Treaty Wars: Book Cavalcade

My current preoccuption with european wars in the post Napoleonic era have been fuelled by some book buying.

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.

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!

1/72 scale figures 20/25/28mm figures anglo saxons basing Carolingians lance and longbow society life metal miniatures Mid 19th Century Wargaming natural world normans in the south wargame rules wargaming

That was 2020!

Well we are at the end of a year that will become notorious.

A year when humanity staggered from the blows of a simple virus. It is perhaps a reminder that nature always has the upper hand no matter how sophisticated our societies have become.

I guess there are plenty of historical parallels to this type of massive societal correction. Not in the same vein but I read recently about how the particularly bad 9th century weather or should I say mini climate change dealt the Carolingians numerous bad harvests damaging their always vunerable Empire. Except even if it were decisive, the roaring vikings is a much more exciting concept of Empire destruction.

Yet right now the Dark Ages have become just that – the Dark Ages as in a box with a lid on it! Right now it is the 19th Century that dominates Wargames in the mind of Norber the Wargaming Erratic.

Before we go and embark on another year there is just enough time to reflect on the fact that 2020 has proven to be rather a good year for my wargaming.

The year got going with a trip to Vapnartak, notable for the fact that it proved to be my one and only show of 2020.

Playing (LIVE) the Lance and Longbow Society game of Tannenberg 1410 made it all the more important as it turned out. It was my last face to face gaming of 2020.

I was into Carolingians at the time of Vapnartak.

so which soldiers marched across my painting table in 2020?

well in 2018 I had managed zero painting while in 2019 I painted and based 32 “normans in the south infantry” and 11 “normans in the south” archers.

in 2020 I managed

12 Carolingians including the man himself – comprising the much maligned (by plastic soldier review) horses which actually give my bases some nice dynamics – in my humble view
10 Anglo Norman archers
24 Normans in the South (NITS – I can’t resist an abbreviation) Cavalry
21 Ottonian foot which look very much like anglo danes or could pass for NITS foot soldiers
43 Anglo Danes were my biggest effort

I finished the year with 4 slavs posing as Picts in my “to be” great army of Danes, Scots, Northumbrians and Norsemen which would fight Athelstan again at Brunanburh

And then the proverbial wheels came off the Dark Ages cart.

Right now the painting table has plastic Union Infantry posing as Piedmont Line Infantry along with some venerable Warrior Miniatures French Dragoons posing as – well French Dragoons. And they are metal!!!

I must say I had a good year with basing – finally getting a look for my mediterranean NITS – ok Normans in the South project.

In fact I have decided it will work for pretty much everything dark ages.

On the gaming front I started solo gaming with an unexpected purchase. Neil Shuck had recommended War & Conquest shortly before jumping ship with another ancients ruleset.

I gave it a go with my bronze age one hour wargame figures based using my hybrid impetus basing of 80mm x 60mm for 1/72 plastics. Ever awkward – probably just as well I don’t need to satisfy a live opponent. I rather liked the feel of the rules even though the play through was so limited.

And then with Covid19 lock down in full swing and some fine weather I had other distractions including lots of gardening .

INTERMISSION

Eventually the dark ages gaming started in late August with numerous shieldwall rule tests – I did really enjoy them all. The biggest surprise was playing gridded wargames using Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles.

My lst shieldwall battle took place in late October and many games and rulesets later was swiftly followed by a thoroughly enjoyable game of Dux Britanniarum by Too Fat Lardies.

I fleshed out some campaign plans as per the rules advice and then…………nothing. I was just starting some Pictish Warriors when I read the wrong article.

Next minute it is baggy pants Zoaves, Spikey helms and far too much rifling. OK so it is still rather pedestrian Piedmontese – these proto Italians are quite conservative chaps – very un Napoleonic.

And since then two battles have been fought – one with Practical Wargaming by Charles Wesencraft and the other using 19th Century Wargames by Neil Thomas.

And so I wish you all a graceful end to the year 2020 and hope that 2021 brings you all that you hope for.

wargame rules wargaming

4 Rulesets compared

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.

Here is a reminder of the rulesets tested

Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas
Dux Bellorum by Daniel Mersey

To these I added

Table Top Battles (gridded wargame) by Mike & Joyce Smith
One Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas

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.

Happy wargaming

Norber

Tags AMW, ancient and medieval wargaming, daniel mersey, Dux Bellorum, gridded wargames, kallistra hex tiles, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, Neil Thomas, one hour wargames, partizan press, peter pig wargames, strategos, Table Top Battles, TTB

anglo saxons wargame rules wargaming

Abstraction in Wargames Rules

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 27th Oct 2020
No Comments on Abstraction in Wargames Rules

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!

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.

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!

Tags abstraction, ancient and medieval wargaming, art and wargames, daniel mersey, Dux Bellorum, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, Neil Thomas, newbury wargame rules, one hour wargames, Table Top Battles