Tag: Neil Thomas

One Hour Wargames Campaign – Scenario 25

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 22nd Nov 2022
2 Comments on One Hour Wargames Campaign – Scenario 25

Narrative

Colonel Ansaldi was fretting – having gained so much from the raid on Austrian storehouses he was worried that none of his scouts had been able to stay in touch with the Imperial troops known to be in the area. What he would give for a decent squadron of guides…….

Meanwhile not far away Colonel Albrecht considered the recent reports, nearby Austrian Hussars were watering their mounts. They had ridden hard to report finding the raiders. Now we shall obtain some satisfaction from those Sardinians thought the Colonel……..

Colonel Ansaldi cursed as the nearby hill was clearly occupied by troops – and they were not friendly – Austrians! To arms, to arms, went up the shout.

The Sardinian force consisted of 3 infantry units and 1 skirmisher unit. The Skirmisher unit headed for the Austrians on the hill

Already a brisk firefight had broken out between the two sides.

There was no time time to lose and anyway there was only one direction the Sardinians could take and that was straight past those Austrians on the hill.

Despite orders there was hesitancy on the part of the Sardinians who still traded fire with the lone Austrian unit. Now other forces appeared – infantry and cavalry!

Panic breaks out in the Sardinian ranks. I used the solo rules chance table which offered confusion, ammunition shortages, demoralisation, initiative, rallying and enemy panic.

The Sardinians continue to push on with their escape.

The Austrians continue to press with a further charge by the Austrian cavalry despite them being demoralised.

The Sardinian firing slackens off – Colonel Ansaldi sends a runner to find out what is going on. (chance intervenes)

But finally the Austrian cavalry also retreat as things are just too hot. Meanwhile the Austrian fire is good and effective and they continue to press the Sardinians.

Now on the point of victory the Austrians seem confused. Yet with a final effort they corner the Sardinians.

Colonel Albrecht curses his cavalry – they are blown and clearly fit for nothing as some of the Sardinians are still making good their escape. He calls for some scouts.

Later Colonel Ansaldi manages to regroup his shattered forces and with poor pursuit from the Austrians is able to restart his march back to Sardinian lines by a new route. Later many more of his dispersed men come in.

The solo rules regarding random confusion, demoralisation, panic and ammunition shortage added that “unknown/unexpected” element to the game that a real opponent usually brings. The interventions were not gigantic but did chip away at each forces potential.

Early on the Sardinians were stalled, then gained initiative before the Austrians finally gained lots of initiative to enable them to hem in the Sardinians even with a hesitation at the end.

Next up the Sardinians, having continued their march, encounter more Austrian forces intent on preventing their escape.

Tags 19th century wargame rules, austrians, colonel ansaldi, imaginative wargaming, mid 19th century wargames, Neil Thomas, one hour wargames, sardinians, solo wargaming, table-top wargaming, wargame campaigns, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

40 degree campaign

Ok so it was just two days – well it was that hot for two days. My optimum operating temperature is 22.333333333 degrees centigrade – either side by a degree and I am too cold or too hot, so 40 degrees was simply too much for this soul. Even the light was dazzling – queue troglodyte behaviour.

Neil Thomas’s one hour wargames ruleset is probably the ultimate “pick up” game for historical miniatures gaming, six units a side on a game area of 3×3 feet or 90cm square.

So I reached for the book and then remembered it not only has 30 scenarios and 9 period rulesets but also campaign and solo gaming suggestions.

I opted for Horse and Musket plus a best of 5 battles campaign – Blue versus Red. I was playing solo as well.

I randomly chose the 5 scenarios getting 6,9,13,24 and 25. Now Neil Thomas suggests for narrative purposes ordering the games. And you could include some consequences game to game but I did not go for that extra step.

Looking at the scenario types I opted for the following and the narrative fell into place. Local Blue forces go on a raid while Red forces try to find and destroy the raiders. The finale sees their activities ended as they are both ordered to support their main army forces…….

25 – Infiltration – Blue is plundering Red’s supply lines
13 – Escape – Blue now turns for home but is blocked by Red forces
24 – Bottleneck – Blue attempts to clear another Red blocking force (while still escaping with their plunder)
6 – Flank Attack I – Blue encounters yet another Red blocking force
9 – Double Delaying Action – Forget that raiding, the local forces are both ordered to seize the same town in support of their main armies actions

That was easy. For this set of battles the Blue forces were Sardinianish

while the Red were Austrianish.

The figures were mid nineteenth century with smoothbore artillery and inaccurate musketry still to the fore. The cavalry still strutted about with the confident self importance of being the premier arm.

I used the scenario scenery layouts as per the book with a few slight adjustments for my table and the items to hand.

I will cover the various specific rules as each scenario occurs.

I used the random deployment from the “solo wargaming” chapter. The campaign is basically straight out of that chapter, and it generated my scenario list, except I took a chance and drew from all 30 available scenarios each time rather than segment the list as suggested by Neil Thomas.

I also used the chance rule as per the chapter on campaigns.

In the next post I will cover Scenario 25 – Infiltration.

Tags horse and musket rules, mid 19th century wargames, Neil Thomas, one hour wargames, solo wargaming, Vienna Treaty Wars

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.

garibaldi wargaming Mid 19th Century Wargaming Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

Ruletest C: Neil Thomas & the Roman Republic 1849

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 27th Jun 2022
6 Comments on Ruletest C: Neil Thomas & the Roman Republic 1849

This is one of a series of ruletests for mid 19th century warfare. Neil Thomas published a book specifically looking at the wars between 1815 and 1877. With a European focus these should be the go to ruleset for my Italian Wars of Unification which either run from 1815 to 1870 or 1848 and 1861 depending on your preferences.

The usual set up has been followed. But this time the Austrians have made way for the French. The Piedmontese have been displaced by the Italian Nationalists of the Roman Republic. It is 1849 somewhere near Rome……..

The Battle of Symmetry Ridge

French Forces

Left Flank – 36th Regiment of the Line – Infantry Brigade
Left Flank – 13th Battery 3rd Field Artillery Regiment
Centre Right – 66th Regiment of the Line – Infantry Brigade
Right Flank – Some Austrian Hussars (I decided the French Expedition was short handed in 1849)

Neil Thomas 19th century European Warfare rules (NT19e) are based on 1d6 dice throws to hit with saving throws for both firing and melee. Generally you don’t save on melee hits though. That means close combat can be very damaging.

Morale tests are a simple 1d6 throw against a quality rating – a roll of 4-6 being required by all the “average” units fighting. For this test all units had this common rating.

The 66th Regt formed in column of march while the Austrian Hussars formed up in the only formation they were permitted – in two ranks. Because I use deep bases the formations used by Neil Thomas show as very elongated. This has no real affect on the game mechanics although visually it is probably a bit jarring. Note I also have some 50mm base width units alongside 40mm base width units. Ho Hum…….

Garibaldi leads his soon to be famous red and blue shirts!

The Parma National Guard Lancers provide the right flank of the Republican Army joining the Blue shirts

Alternate movement was in operation and as with previous tests all units and leaders were the same quality/common value.

Opposed 1xd6 rolls determined who moved first each turn. This rule is I think is essential for this ruleset. It did have an impact and altered the game. This “initiative” roll has become a common theme in rulesets.

1xd6 roll determined command effect for that turn. This rule is optional and in the test did have a material impact.

roll on 1xd6=5,6 – allows 4 units to activate
roll on 1xd6=2,3,4 – allows 3 units to activate
roll on 1xd6=1 – allows 2 units to activate

In NT19e each unit comprises 4 bases (artillery have 1 base) and each base can absorb 4 hits. So after 16 hits on Infantry or Cavalry or 4 on Artillery the unit ceases to exist.

Taking hits has added risk in that for every base lost a morale test is required and if failed a further base is lost. Artillery can only lose firing hits as they get automatically eliminated if they lose a melee.

The decisive moment as the red and blue shirts aided by the remnants of the Parma Lancers attack both the 33rd and 66th Infantry Regts.

It is a characteristic of Neil Thomas rules that units are visibly destroyed yet even at the end still have some effect.

General Oudinot quits the field.

Garibaldi has triumphed for now – but he could ill afford such heavy losses in this victory.

Neil Thomas provides victory conditions within his scenarios. His book offers a separate set of game rules as well as numerous scenarios to use them in.

Tags 19th century wargame rules, garibaldi, garibaldi wargaming, Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Republic, garibaldini, General Oudinot, mid 19th century wargames, Neil Thomas, risorgimento, Vienna Treaty Wars, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, wars of italian unification, wars of the italian unification

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.

Mythical Realms wargame rules wargaming

Fauxterre 1816: Part 6 Running the Rule over Kloster Arens

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 3rd Aug 2021
2 Comments on Fauxterre 1816: Part 6 Running the Rule over Kloster Arens

The Neil Thomas ruleset 19th Century European Wargaming (NT19e) has quickly become a favorite of mine, stoking an interest in an era that frankly I have never read about since I was taught, as a kid, about some mad British Cavalry charging Russian guns in a place called Crimea. And not knowing that the French and Prussians rehearsed world war 1 44 years early, in 1870, as well. I did learn about the American Civil War – but that was on a different continent, so doesn’t count.

Neil Thomas restricts his interest to the evolution of European Wars over a 60 year period.

My original european wargaming interests ended at Waterloo in 1815, with Napoleon and then restarted in 1939 with world war 2.

Neil Thomas provides a comprehensive ruleset for battles between 1815 and 1877. Indeed he covers campaigns in a way not really addressed in any of his previous publications. He persists with his “keep it simple but interesting” style: Too simple and you get bored. And I originally considered my first contact with his Ancient and Medieval Wargames tended to the boring – compared to the more complicated rules still holding sway 15 years or so back then. How wrong that has proved to be. I now regularly use all his rulebooks.

For my first Zarland wars I have taken Neil Thomas NT19e and used the following

The forces generators for the mini and standard game
the command optional rules

To that I have added

My Zarland Campaign narrative – to provide the background and scenario details
Forces on the march so my forces invariably have advance guards or flying columns
Dispersal – you need to concentrate from the march because there is always something drawing troops away: So you don’t always get what you want, where you want it. Thats an imaginary life!

Zarland Backdrop

The collision of the three forces were part of the politics of the campaign with Davaria allied to Vin Alba and wanting to support Prince Otto, in reality also wanting a slice of Greater Zarland itself.

Vin Alba has other borders to attend to, so its own effort is only partial.

I used a simple random % to deal with such diverse interests and the use of respective forces drawn from each countries establishments. I normally set up an “establishment” – the theoretical force a country has in place or could raise with notice. Against this the actual field force is a product of circumstance, conflicted resources and leadership (both political and administrative).

So that gets you three slightly different forces and not all “top troops”.

Arrivals

The idea of forces on the march allowed me to apply the simple rule of an NT19e mini game for the advance guards contacting, followed by an NT19e main game for the main bodies clashing.

I diced for broad decisions which led to the Davarians under General Modistin having no advance guard, marching to join and support an already present VinAlban army. Also neither Zarland nor VinAlban advance guards had control of the field. So it was a proper blundering encounter.

Units were mixed with blinds to create a shuffled card deck which was dealt randomly into marching columns. These were moved until contact was made. I also kept the card deployments in place to help create some fog of war. This complimented my “umpire” role in what was a “zero player” wargame.

The advance guards fought a simple engagement with only a few units heavily involved which is always the more likely in my games. It was simply a logical move to retreat the VinAlbans northwards at the end of the first day. By chance this fed the second day action with a false assumption, by the Zarlanders, that the VinAlbans were in force to the north of the battlefield. All this helps develop the battle narrative without hijacking it.

On day 2 the main battlelines met on the same field. This time the NT19e command rule restricting the number of units in action per move did have some effect, while the use of written rules at least one move ahead, meant I had no temptation to make changes of order to achieve a sudden opportunity.

Finally the weather rule (from Charles Wesencraft’s Practical Wargames) provided detail and in fact influenced the game ending early. I then simply determined a number of options for day three and randomly selected one. This turned out to be the “VinAlbans break off action”. I then came up with the appropriate story line that this was caused by “orders from higher up” and ensuring some dissatisfaction on the part of the Davarians.

Tags 19th century wargame rules, Davaria, Fauxterre, Mythical Realms, Neil Thomas, Vienna Treaty Wars, Vin Alba, wargames rules, Zarland

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.

Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargaming

Virtual Vap21 armies in the field

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 19th Feb 2021
2 Comments on Virtual Vap21 armies in the field

In my last post I talked about Neil Thomas and his simple rulesets. For my Virtul VAP21 wargame I have chsoen his rules “Wargaming 19th Century Europe 1815-1878”. A snappy title!

The rules come with some scenarios. I used No1 the pitched battle.

Map 1 was as per the ruleset and objectives of victory the same.

North is up the page and Oldtown is objective B to the left where a north south road leaves town and crosses the river. Objective C is the other town where an east west road crosses and railway at Newtown. No railway tracks – so my excuse is the contractor has laid the track bed but no tracks. Objective A is the hill to the south of the two towns and roughly midway between them. A wood is located in the south east corner.

The defenders ended up with the following diced up

5 infantry units 4 average quality and one elite
1 skirmisher unit average
1 elite cavalry unit
3 artillery units

The attackers ended up with

8 infantry units 7 average and 1 elite
1 skirmisher unit average
2 elite cavalry units
2 artillery units

Prebattle events were used resulting in “bogged down” for the defender – they lost 1 artillery unit and 1 average infantry unit wandering around looking for a way to march to the gunfire. Maybe it was to march away from the gunfire?

The attackers had the benefit of”Flank March” which meant 2 average infantry units and 1 elite cavalry unit set off to outflank the enemies position.

Both commanders were average so cancelled each other out.

With 15 turns it was simply a case of defender A holding two of the three objectives at the end of turn 15.

I used written rules. A luxury a solo player can enjoy as part of this type of game. This approach allowed me to disassociate myself from both sides. A fog of war was added because I was always writing the orders for the next move +1. So sometimes my anticipated view failed to materialise and my orders which could only be altered by yet another round of orders might seem strange indeed.

Let battle commence – no narrative today folks. Its dawn and attacker Monarch B swoops on objective B – Oldtown.

It is turn 13 and the attacking General despite his heavy losses has already secured two of his three objectives. The third will soon be his through his flanking troops advance. He does not realise that as night falls they will gain the hill without a fight.

The game was most enjoyable with events quickly evolving in unexpected ways. Confusion in the centre where no clear battle lines appeared felt plausible. The requirement to write rules ahead of each turn meant units could not simply react to the most obvious opportunity.

And it created some narrative

The famous charge of the defenders elite cavalry destroying all the enemy artillery, driving off their skirmishers and nearly capturing the enemy commander!
The stoic defence of old town by the elite attackers infantry
The frustrated defenders elite infantry struggling in the woods near Newtown
The repulse of the Attackers elite cavalry by the Defenders rearguard watched by the commanding general

And while the setting of objectives was mechanical they did not become the sole issue and in fact the defenders position was turned as intended by the attackers flank attack.

In that sense the rules scenario plus the pre-battle options made the game sufficiently complex despite uncomplicated and relatively small armies being used.

So all in all a very nice scenario. Thank you Neil Thomas.

Now where are those white kittel coated Austrians?

Tags 19th century wargame rules, Neil Thomas, Vapnartak, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe

Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame shows wargaming

Virtual VAP21 : a wargame ruleset

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 17th Feb 2021
2 Comments on Virtual VAP21 : a wargame ruleset

I guess I have become an accidental acolyte for Neil Thomas. Why?

In wargames rules terms we live in an era where there are “gazillions” of rules. There are probably AI engines knocking them out these days: I am of the view that wargaming is the multi billion dollar hobby that includes every online gaming app from fortnite to defend the cauliflower patch from aliens (ok I made one up). Miniatures is just an oxbow lake in this mighty river of gaming. And this particular oxbow lake is up to its ears in rulesets for miniatures gaming and seems to love it.

So who needs another ruleset and especially one that is so “retro”?

I do.

Sometimes you have to go back to go forward and just sometimes you can go back and rework an idea using more recent thinking to go somewhere else instead.

I like Neil Thomas rules because there is a hint of Donald Featherstone in his thinking. He is quite direct in his writing – this is useful – and his approach is to apply the right amount of abstraction.

It is quite interesting to reread Donald Featherstone occasionally. For example one of his books is ladled with “scale” as in movement, time and distance: yet Donald says at one point he would rather just approximate matters so he can get on with the game – a battle. The book is his offering on Wargame Campaigns!?

This is my key to Neil Thomas. He wants you to play games and specifically battles. That is his endpoint, the outcome desired.

Neil’s book “Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878” delivers battles using miniatures. It starts at the end result and is designed to give you a game in a space – typically 6’x4′ or 1.8m x 1.2m and very often less.

Neil presents his take on the various elements that defined the era and then puts all these into a neat package of rules that are brief and to the point.

The rules mechanisms are familiar to those who have his other rules to hand. Not too many and simplicity is the order of the day.

I think the important thing about his rules are what he leaves out – which of course you need to fill in – so abstraction is all.

Neil normally achieves a balanced asbtraction in his rules. They feel right to me. So did I like these rules?

A qualified YES, I have only used them once after several rereads of the book itself.

Both paintings are to be found in the excellent Hull City Ferens Art Gallery: Go visit when lock down ends.

The rules come with scenarios and cover all the key changes in weapons and fighting that occurred from the demise of Napoleon to the Russo-Turkish war of 1878. His rules are so abstract or rather to the point, that technology changes like the railway and telegraph get little mention. Actually covering this periods scope in itself is quite a feat – a bit like a ruleset mixing Napoleonic, AWI and most of the Seven Years War yet along with significant weapon/technology changes.

In 2020 I was at the Lance and Longbow Society stand where Lithuanians and Poles were fighting it out with the Teutonic Knights at the battle of Tannenburg (1410). There were live opponents that day.

For Virtual VAP 2021 I have time warped to around 1850 to play a solo battle.

My latest project is about the Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU). The outlier campaign is 1848 when the world also first saw Garibaldi play a signficant role in the peninsula.

By 1859/60 Garibaldi was ready for a star role leading 1000 red shirts driving out the Two Sicily’s Kingdom troops from Sicily in short order. I have already discovered some new aspects in my expanded reading on this fascinating period: That Naval muscle helped him was a surprise. And there seems a varied range of battle situations with the red shirts not having it all their own way.

The real wars seem to be fascinating. I normally like to fight with “imagination” forces which offer freedom to generate many battles and situations without the confines of “well that happened next”.

My WotIU armies are still “under the brush” so to speak. This means my game is populated with what is to hand. And the protaganists are the elusive “Empire” and “Kingdom”.

Back to the rules. I chose to start with the early period set – 1815 to about 1850. Smoothbore muskets and cannon. So pretty much Napoleonic era kit.

I had bought the “e book” as a limited dip in the water for a new period. I struggle with using rules in this format even though it is quicker to flick the pages!

So I wrote out on two sides of A5 the rules that seemed to matter.

When you look at them they amount to about a quarter page on movement, a quarter on firing and half on close combat plus a bit on morale.

So the usual fare then from Neil. Neil likes his saving throws and uses this double dicing to achieve some of his flavour/depth or granularity. So even though for solo play it seems avoidable this step provides a bit of subtle ebb and flow.

Both the Empire and the Kingdom fielded “Monarchist” armies.

I will run through the resulting battle in my next post.

Tags "Imagi"nations, abstraction, donald featherstone, Ferens Art Gallery, Neil Thomas, Vapnartak, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, wars of italian unification, WotIU