Tag: Mike 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.

Mythical Realms wargame rules wargaming

Fauxterre 1816 Part 3 – Rules for the Kloster Arens Encounter

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 14th Jul 2021
2 Comments on Fauxterre 1816 Part 3 – Rules for the Kloster Arens Encounter

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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…….

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:

https://wordpress.com/post/thewargamingerratic.home.blog/2539

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.

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

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.

saxons wargame rules wargaming

Dux Britanniarum Episode 2 Vitalinus catches the Raiders

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 12th Dec 2020
1 Comment on Dux Britanniarum Episode 2 Vitalinus catches the Raiders

In episode 1 I set the scene for starting a campaign using Dux Britanniarum.

Two evenly matched small forces are all that are necessary to get started – about 40 figures per side – all infantry. Although in my case that equates to just 7 impetus elements for my Romans and 6 for my Saxons.

Then its character creation with simple Role-Playing Game style giving the forces some particular definition. And if you’re going to campaign rather than play one off battles then a narrative becomes a real benefit. Creating a story from your gaming is one very good reason to wargame campaigns.

I used these rules unaltered except for terrain set up where Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles were preferred.

Next is the campaign start rules. Career paths are provided to signpost your characters development. Quite simply they remind me of the original Levels in 1970’s D&D – each status in the path opens up more benefits and choices – for a price. And that’s where the filthy lucre comes in. You need some bright metal to progress.

The aim of the campaign is that the Saxon player ends up with their own kingdom carved out of the Roman Provinces. Meanwhile the British/Roman player simply needs to retain his kingdom and aspire to either rule it or become the great military power of the whole island itself.

The campaign is not map based. The campaign last 8 months in each year from March to October. Losses are not easily replaced so some months no conflicts may occur.

At the start of the game both sides are minor players so the battle rules can be ignored.

The book of battles does though have the crucial Raiding tables which set out what you need to do to run a raid.

You determine the forces morale based on results of the previous encounter and a random element. So, each game will be slightly different.

For my start the Saxons were on 5 + 2 = 7 while the Romans were on 5 + 3 = 8.

Pre game set up, champions and speeches are skipped as they relate to battles.

The fate cards, which drive yet more variability, are designed to give each force specific benefits. Some cards mutually benefit both sides.

The two forces are dealt a hand of five cards for the raid where two are specified and three are random. Poor shuffling meant that some awful hands were dealt at the start.

I will just show the early “hands”

In Episode 1 I described the terrain set up. For my “Raiding a Farm or Village” the location was determined using the raiding rules in TDux.

Again fortune smiled on the Saxons.

The Saxons then threw to find out how much surprise they had. The Saxons gained two free moves before the game proper started.

I moved the Saxons and then determined the Roman arrival point. This turned out to be a congested corner of the table which impeded their progress from the start.

The Saxons would win the raid if they left the table with their loot. The scale of their win would be helped by how many men escaped as well plus how many Romans they killed.

The Romans had to stop them taking the loot to win.

I suppose I should say that I have tended to use Romans in this post rather than British or Romano British. Maybe as the campaign builds, they will morph into “Britons”.

Rules Digressions

Before I return to the action I have set down some of the rules which I think are notable.

A small set of cards determine the sequence for each turn. Another randomisation. For gamers who like control this is probably getting far too much. For solo play its ideal as “loss of control” is essential to make the game come alive.

A key aspect of the sequence is that controlled forces all activate before the uncontrolled. Using your leaders and their supporting nobles, command range is important. It follows that their position can improve or hinder things.

Each side has three commanders, and the leader has an initiative of 3 while his nobles have 2. That represents their ability to activate. The leader can do three discrete activations while his nobles on their turn get to do up to 2. In one full turn of the card deck the three commanders share 7 activations.

There are various constraints on these leader attributes such as when they are in the heat of the battle or how they have organised their forces. The fate hand cards allow additional activation.

Yet another variable is movement – when activated a group will throw dice to determine their movement. With 3d6 the range is 3” to a staggering 18”. There are quite a few reductions and as you have to move the full amount this can work against your force as its leader loses range control.

Forming shieldwall rightly slows you down and makes you less manoeuvrable. There are the usual terrain penalties for movement. There are some rules for the missile troops and cavalry as well as interpenetration of groups being restricted or having consequences.

Finally, units end up facing the direction they travelled and can only see the 180 degrees to their front. This informs the 4” Zone of influence which a group imposes to its front restricting any enemy entering or leaving that zone. I forgot this rule quite a few times during the heat of battle………..

Firing is straight forward with range limitations and usual “to hit” throws required.

Now we come to impact. “Shock” is what results from missile fire or hand to hand combat. Accumulated shock drives a group back and eventually breaks them. Leaders can rally groups by removing shock through activation.

In Combat once two forces contact each other dice are thrown to hit and for allocation – multiple groups fighting need to know who hit who. Effect is determined as with missile fire consulting a table where the quality of troops being hit affects the random dice outcome.

Leaders are not immune! You can lose a hero.

Shieldwalls stop initial hits and initial shocks so it is a valuable capability for the Romano British.

Unless there is a difference in shock results, the draw means the fight goes on and on for every drawn round of fighting. Only two combat rounds occur before other forces move again. So, more forces might join a combat to shake things up!

“Misplacing ones Amphora” means a group has taken twice as many shocks as there are men in the group and is broken. After uncontrolled groups have moved these broken groups move 3d6 towards any friendly table edge searching for their missing amphora………

So now we come to the force morale mentioned at the start of this post. Each group lost reduces the morale of the force, again randomly influenced by the lost groups type. Losing better quality groups does more harm as you would expect. This variable ensures that you can play the same raid over and over again even on the same terrain and the result will be different.

All this variability means the ruleset presents a vast range of different games to play before any similarity might get seen.

At the end of the game, you count various losses on another table to get a total score. Compared to the enemy score the difference gives a winner/loser combination of outcomes depending on how large the difference is.

Rules then follow for gaining reinforcements and when the next raid will happen. If the Saxon has grown on their success, then the next big step is to contest the province.

There are some tricky annual events to tackle for the Saxon leader, so it is not all one-way traffic to the top!

At 92 pages even allowing for some resource pages plus big FONT, there are lots of rules here compared to the rules I have previously tested the shieldwalls for.

I think it was worth explaining these aspects of the rules up front.

Let battle continue

Now back to the battle where Coenwulf was facing up to some fighting before he could escape with his filthy lucre. Coenwulf wished Gudwal would hurry up and find some coin to make the day worthwhile.

The net result of all losses on both sides was a difference of simply 1 on the raid results table – meagre pickings for Coenwulf and with heavy losses it will be 3 months before the Saxon can raid again. With moderate losses Vitalinus will take 2 months to replace his losses. He will be ready and waiting.

Tags Dux Brittanniarum, Garrison Figures, Lamming Miniatures, Mike Smith, strelets, Table Top Battles, too fat lardies

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

1/72 scale figures anglo saxons wargame rules wargaming

Table Top Battles Tested

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.

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.

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.

TTB gives options throughout and I chose the harsher results approach. Stands either move back a square or are removed from the game.

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

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.

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?

Tags AMW, DBA, Dux Bellorum, grid wargaming, gridded wargames, kallistra hex tiles, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, partizan press, peter pig wargames, Table Top Battles, wargame rules, wargames rules, wargaming with grids

anglo saxons wargame rules wargaming

Another Ruleset Test

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.

Tags grid wargaming, gridded wargames, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, pike and shot society, Table Top Battles, table-top wargaming, Twilight Wargames Rules, wargaming with grids