The figures are hat Nassau Napoleonic infantry. 1/72 or 20mm plastics.
I picked them because they have the nearest shako look for the Dane’s bell shako.
I have started to use a furled flag approach as invariably my flag production does not match my figure painting!
I could do some head swops to get other sets in on the act but wanted to try a straight paint job here to see if I liked the result.
The basing is my standard 40mm square mdf with budgie grit pva then 3 colour brown, ochre and yellow/white highlights. As it’s nearly spring the grass is dead tufts from gamers grass over Javis sawdust green.
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
Not all softcover publications fail – Mike Smith Table Top Battles is stapled – crude but effective. Later Fire & Fury editions have gone to hardback meaning rulebook collapse is less likely.
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).
Fire & Fury was very busy but brisk………..
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.
Battles with Model Soldiers gets you into action rapidly and is brutal……In Battles with Model Soldiers units were cast to the four winds in the first rounds of action
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.
Neil Thomas rules provide an excellent mix of production, design, game mechanics and action mechanisms making them hard to beat for all round use in mid nineteenth century gaming
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.
Following on from three simple battles using Fire & Fury, Piquet Field of Battle is the next ruleset for consideration. Published in 2011 – 20 years after Fire and Fury and card driven the ruleset should give a different feel.
The battle comprised the same forces that were used in the Fire and Fury ruletest A3 covered in a previous post.
The objective was to secure the ridge and drive off the opposing force.
The Forces this time were……….
The Austrian Right Flank
Austria
Left Flank – Brigade Von Baden (Orange Facings)
Centre Left – No1 Field Artillery Battery
Centre Right – Erzherzog Albrecht Brigade (Red Facings)
Right Flank – 5th Graf Radetzky & 8th Ferdinand, Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha Cavalry Brigade
Piedmont Left Flank
Piedmont
Left Flank – National Guard Milan Brigade
Centre Left – “A” Battery Field Artillery
Centre Right – Bersaglieri di Vignola Brigade
Right Flank – 3rd & 6th Piedmont (Lancers) Cavalry Brigade
The Battlefield itself is slightly altered from that used in the Fire & Fury battles.
The road bisects the battle field on the diagonal but notionally there is a ridge which it crosses and where an enclosed Orchard is located.
a 4’x4′ table set up works just fine for these tests. Alas these excellent light weight but sturdy german made Lidl sourced picnic tables have been OOP for 4 years. Crikey they even have 4 height settings in the legs…………….my Kloster Arens encounters made good use of this variable height capability The Orchard on Symmetry Hill (some of the model trees were planted in the 1970’s!). The Austrian Artillery have Unit Integrity of 2 (most infantry have 3) with a Defensive Dice 1xd6 (like all other units) plus Combat Dice 1xd10 again like most of the units in this battle
The Orchard is inpenetrable to all arms for all the remaining rules to be tested. So in effect it is a flank and divides the action into two areas.
The fence supplier is unknown but the orchard dates from the early 1970’s – by german model railway company Noch, not bad for 50 years of play.
In Field of Battle (FoB) terrain is classed for its impact on the game.
This means the orchard is a Class II line of sight blockage and a Class IV movement restriction.
Unit integrity is the key variable for each unit in the game. It reflects status/morale/strength as a variable.
Combat Capability is defined as a Dn (where n=an even value in the range 4-20) so thats D4,D6,D8,D10,D12,D20.
Opposed rolls is the way results are determined.
Command radius determines the limit of a leaders influence on the battlefield and is a variable (Dn x 10 = command radius in inches)
Initiative is determined by opposed rolls of the two Leaders respective dice. The difference equals the total initiative each side can use in this part of a turn. Turns get complicated but the game does not!
The winner of the opposed roll decides order of play.
you can still buy 2nd edition card decks, I have yet to consider moving to 3rd edition.
The game is card driven and a deck for each side needs to be determined. In this case both sides used the exact same variables so ended up with identical card decks. In most games the playing decks would be asymmetrical.
Piquet is essentially an asymmetrical game. Therefore winning has to be defined to ensure the asymmetry does not simply distort the game one way each time.
The forces all elected to “march” with the Austrian left using the road benefit
On Turn 1 Step 1 the Austrians scored 9 on d10 against Piedmont just 4. This gave the Austrians 5 initiative points as the ACTIVE player.
In the event the Austrians drew 5 cards none of which were for movement. Essentially the army just stood transfixed.
Piedmont (REACTIVE player) now promptly drew some excellent cards for move and melee.
Piedmont have already secured the ridgePiedmont right wing crash into the Austrians strung out on the road, a now regretted ploy.
The opposed roll dice off in Piquet is usually with different dice as factors peculiar to that melee move the players dice up or down the scale of d4/d6/d8/d10/d12/d20.
The Lancers went from d12 to d12+3 scoring 3 on the dice and adding 3 = 6
The Von Baden Brigade went from d10 down to d6 mitigating some negative factors through a discard of a tactical advantage card drawn in the ill fated Austrian Initiative as the ACTIVE player. Von Baden scored 3 on the dice.
The difference = 3 hits on the Austrians. This equated to 1 unit of integrity which is the value of 1 UI for all arms.
The Piedmont Lancers won the melee going out of command while the Von Baden Brigade lost unit integrity and the army morale lost 1 point. The Bersaglieri were not so fortunate……
Each Army started with an Army Morale Rating of 4 – determined by the make up of the Army x a variable 1xd12. The range being 3 to 50.
The No1 Austrian Field Battery made short work of the impulsive Bersaglieri.
The Bersaglieri threw their defensive dice in the opportunity fire step. A 1 on the die!
The Austrians had their eye in, with a D10 moving to D12+1 and with a die roll of 4 scored 5. So 4 hits on the Bersagleri meant 1 unit of integrity lost plus a spare hit.
The Bersagleri retired 4″.
Piedmont also now saw their Army Morale drop from 4 to 3.
Piedmont still had initiative and the next cards drawn were Artillery Firepower and Infantry Firepower. Firing is permitted at any time a unit is ready to fire, these cards tell you a unit has reloaded. Hence the puffs denote units who have fired and cannot fire again until they get a firepower card from the deck.
It means you don’t know if that unit will be able to fire when charged…………the sort of randomness that many “face to face” gamers quite simply will find too constraining.
For the Solo Wargamer such an approach offsets the lack of the live opponent uncertainty and simply adds to the narrative.
“A” battery Piedmont Field Artillery open fire on the Erzherzog Albrecht Brigade.
“A” battery went up 2 from d10 to d12+1 threw 6 = 7
In response to this fire the Erzherzog Albrecht Brigade threw 4 on their d6. with 3 hits they lost 1 unit of integrity and another army morale point and went out of command.
The first round of initiative ended. And we are still in game turn 1!
The Austrians won the dice off again and gained 5 initiative.
The Austrians drew another 5 cards which included a lot of LULL’s – basically nothing happens.
They did managed some movement cards to get their troops into line.
On the Austrian Left Flank things were heating up
The Piedmont initiative started badly with an Army Morale card which meant testing for the army morale. failing the d12 throw meant all units went out of command (OOC).
“A” battery opened up again OOC but had no effect.
No other cards were of use and some more LULL put paid to the Piedmont initiative.
The next initiative die roll saw Piedmont win 8 to 2 giving 6 initiative points to them.
Artillery fire caused more damage to Brigade Erzherzog Albrecht
another round had no effect though
no other cards could be played
The Austrians had a mixed hand and did manage to inflict some more unit integrity loss as well as army morale reduction.
The next dice off saw the Piedmont grab the initiative again with 5 points advantage.
firepower was at first ineffective from the Bersaglieri and Milan Brigades
Bersaglieri then managed to attack the Austrian artillery again causing 1UI damage along with 1 army morale reduction
The Milan brigade then blasted the Piedmont Cavalry Brigade inflicting 1UI loss and a further army morale point deduction.
LULL and ARMY MORALE and MANOEUVRE cards followed
The Austrian response was
their artillery again damaged the Bersaglieri who lost 1UI and army 1 morale point
but then ARMY MORALE came up for the Austrians who had to die role their leadership dice of d10 against a d12 because their Army Morale rating was already reduced to zero.
the throw was lost
As a result of losing this throw the Austrians quit the field.
A victory for Piedmont and King Victor Emmanuel.
The faster attrition through loss of army morale eventually worked against the Austrians
In effect this was all one game turn if you say the exhaustion of the deck is a game turn. Both sides had unturned cards.
The Milan Brigade eventually got into action and probably delivered the losses that tipped the balance in favour of Piedmont.
The game did feel different to Fire & Fury however it did play at the same sort of pace. I had played Field of Battle Piquet before which certainly helps as the processes are unusual.
I have some more reports coming, before concluding this rules test series.
So belatedly my third offering this year finally makes it to the pedestal.
The First Schleswig Holstein War was fought between the Danes and the Prussian driven German Federation – aka the Holy Roman Empire. The Danes won but the Prussian steamroller was just getting going – in 1864 the 2nd war with Danish defeat, heralded the misery of 80 odd years of German led mayhem across Europe. However it is reported, you can argue it was weakness on the part of France and the United Kingdom to stand up for territorial integrity, that condemned Europe to decades of Prussian agression.
In 1848 the Danish Infantryman was clad in red tunic and blue trousers with a bell style shako plus white belts and straps. The bell style shako had evolved from the Napoleonic era shako, both of which were also to be seen in civilian fashion changes on the journey from tricorne to bowler hat.
Almost as soon as the war started the soldiers ditched their shakoes and donned their fatigue hats – bright blue kepi’s. Add in the new all dark blue uniform with black belts and straps gets you a soldier looking not out of place in the American Civil War that was raging 15 years later.
This Piedmont unit from 1859 gives you a rough idea of the transformation in 1848 danish military uniform. The Danes led the way, not just the Prussians.
The metal figures are from Irregular Miniatures. Being 20mm they are at the small end of 1/72 so they get some extra basing to reduce the height disparity with the many 1/72 and 25mm figures I have.
Irregular Miniatures sell them under their Colonial range.
Here are some more views of the unit.
The units are set up for Piquet rules – 4 bases equals a unit.
The 3 figure basing was an idea I picked up from an article in Lone Warrior – magazine of the Solo Wargames Assocation. The article was a cost cutting exercise for DBA armies where the advent of element basing undermined the need to consider figure scale and to have full ranks. Peter Pigs Conquerors and Kings also advocated 3 figure basing as did their Bloody Barons medieval ruleset.
I am quite taken with this unit so will probably add to this force.
I will probably use Neil Thomas’s book – European C19th Wargames which gives you rough army lists to play his rules and scenarios from the book.
For the basing I used my standard three colour paintwork (burnt sienna + yellow ochre + very pale yellow/white dry brush all over budgie grit/pva. This time I have gone for paler washed out grasses. And I am quite pleased with the result.
The flag was an afterthought. I suddenly realised I had the flagstaff from Irregular with no flag! Now I could probably have bought a Danish flag online. But I had started to make crude flags from dried out screen wipes (basically I bought some wipes and found that they had lost their alcohol content). The end result is a rough paper that takes colour easily. I simply used some permanent ink colouring pens. Marking out was the longest task. So very quick – but I suspect I will change them if I get a chance.
So that is the 1848 Danish Infantry unit ready to march!
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.
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.
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.
In part 1 of this series of posts I covered the background to the “Twins War” which broke out in Greater Zarland.
In part 2 I gave a narrative account of an encounter between two advance guards of the respective Royal Zarland Army (the defender) and the VinAlban Army (the aggressor).
In this, part 3 I will detail the rules I am using.
Fauxterre is my mythical realm for what I call the Vienna Treaty Wars. The period between the demise of Napoleon and the Russians wresting control from the Ottoman Turks of the Black Sea is about 60 years and offers up a fascinating choice of technology, engagements and of course uniforms.
Fauxterre 1816 is very much Napoleonic in outlook to begin with. By Fauxterre 1878 the components for World War 1 are already in place – especially technology.
My primary ruleset is from Neil Thomas – Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878 (NT19e). How convenient!
published by Pen and Sword of Barnsley, Yorkshire, England available as an e book and the occasional ebay offering.
I now have many Neil Thomas titles in my wargames library. And this one first arrived as an “e publication”. I was so impressed I tracked down a rarely for sale hard copy version from the USA. I use both. I am a “printed” book collector anyway.
For my Fauxterre campaign I have also used some other rulesets to meet my needs.
They are
Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming
A solo wargames association article on campaign unit advancement
One Hour Wargames and Wargaming an Introduction by Neil Thomas
Table Top Battles – Grid Wargaming by Mike Smith
A Gentlemans War (e pub) by Howard Whitehouse
Piquet Field of Battle 2nd Edition by Brent Oman
a gamut of rules!
In fact I am keeping the rulesets apart for battles and actions.
Why multiple rulesets?
As a soloist you can please yourself. I actually want the rules for different situations.
Table Top Battles on a grid are good for big encounters – one base equals say a battalion
One Hour wargames does what it says on the tin! quick turnround
A Gentlemans War lends itself to looking at skirmishes in more detail
NT19e simply gives you a complete package and coupled with One Hour Wargames, lots of flexibility
Piquet – simply because I like the randomness of the rules for a change! and lastly
Practical Wargaming by Charlie Wesencraft is another complete package and with some fine mechanisms it gives you a quick and interesting game (in a way Donald Featherstone offerings were not – with Donald Featherstone, I am always spoilt for his fantastic range of choices instead!).
Wargaming, an Introduction gives me some perspective on Neil Thomas thinking. It includes rules for Napoleonic and ACW wars which sort of bookend his NT19e ruleset.
Where to start?
I think for campaigns the attrition of forces is as good as any. And together with attrition is their reinforcement, gaining of experience and honours.
I came across these ideas in Donald Featherstones books first.
discovered in a library – it was my second wargames book after Charge!
The ideas have remained popular. Indeed RPG games starting with D&D quite simply were all about gaining experience and levelling up: The difference – it was so personal.
this now retired 1970’s level 3 thief would know all about levelling up in D&D
In 2012 Sam Mustapha published his Maurice ruleset and in there you find a very basic three level unit quality rule aimed at Maurice being a simple multi battle campaign.
Elite
Trained
Conscript
Neil Thomas uses a 3 level scale in his book Wargaming, an Introduction.
In the Napoleonic rules he uses Elite, Average and Levy with ranges 3-6/4-6 and 5-6 respectively. He then slides these to 4-6/5-6 and 6 on D6 dice rolls when he moves to the ACW era. You can see he downgrades “elite” and “average” while levy are also downgraded and become “militia”.
Perhaps in all this is the genesis of a finer grading he uses in Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe which I have abbreviated to NT19e. Either way Neil sees unit quality as an important ingredient for this post Napoleonic era which also includes the ACW period albeit in Europe. Morale on a D6 rating are
Fanatic (2-6)
Elite (3-6)
Average (4-6)
Levy (5-6)
Rabble (6)
I used these in the Kloster Arens encounter.
For future battles though I will probably adopt the following approach.
I found it in an old copy of Lone Warrior, TLMorgan wrote “oh what a surprise!” His fragility factors attracted me because they also seem to lean towards the 19th century armies willingness to easily run away and then come back and have another go. In fact Donald Featherstone uses that very idea in chapter 12 of Battles with Model Soldiers to reflect his view of ACW armies.
Overflowing with ideas but not a package – a great book for the DIY rules player
And again in Neil Thomas’s Wargaming an Introduction, he contrasts Napoleonic rules with ACW era where in the latter you have rallying of quick breaks in the fighting ability of units.
TLMorgan provided the following example in Lone Warrior
Green 0-5
Seasoned 6-13
Veteran 14-16
Elite 17-20
The idea is each unit gathers small amounts of experience or attrition and moves on the 0 to 20 scale.
Note TLMorgan describes experience levels whereas Neil Thomas mixes it a bit with measures (average) and types (militia).
TLMorgan provides the means to reflect smaller steps of progress in a campaign compared to say Maurice where each step is the result of a major battle – a case of sequenced battles equating to a campaign. In my case I wanted a campaign where big battles were not guaranteed. In that situation you need a different approach to rewarding experience. Actually much more of a nod to incremental levelling up you get in the original D&D game.
Next TLMorgan also used a similar technique I came across in Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming. This is where a unit can have its incremental grading for the campaign but on the day of battle can have a different one! This is excellent for narrative creation – prevents the best always being at their best and delivers that campaign grist soloists need.
Again from the original D&D – a super swordsman adventurer having a hangover from too much beer the night before and not being able to wield his sword the next morning…….
another retired 1970’s D&D hero – ral partha Elf – my painting and photography does not do justice to this sculpture.
Prior to each battle TLMorgan threw a 1D6 for each unit with a 1 meaning the unit was demoted one of their grades for that battle only. Similarly a 6 gained the unit a temporary promotion. Your narrative takes care of the reason.
Another Charlie Wesencraft idea I like is the weather board – ok Donald Featherstone gives you plenty on weather effects as do so many others. I have simply found the Practical Wargaming version enduring and simple in its impact.
You have a scale of 2 to 12, with 6 weather effects and each battle turn you move up or down on a dice throw (range -1,0 or +1) having thrown a 2d6 to get you a starting point.
Kloster Arens Encounter
I used my narrative map to generate some relationships to flesh out the core story about succession. It is here in an earlier Fauxterre post:
These relationships have driven the conflicts and belligerants including who might be supporting whom.
Having created the conflicted situation I simply used the NT19e minigame scenario generator for the advance guard forces and the main scenario generator for the main bodies.
To get some unit qualities I simply threw a single d12 for each unit against the following table
Fanatic on a 1
Elite on a 2 or 3
Average on 4 to 8
Levy on 9 to 11
Rabble on a 12
Zarland Royal Army Advance Guard (Commander is General Sumpf)
4th Benkendorf Infantry Regiment – Average
12th Maulhadt Infantry Regiment – Levy
13th Nurtberg Infantry Regiment – Levy
6th Dirkheim Artillery – Average
5th Gellenstein Cavalry – Average
No skimishers in this NT19e selection
VinAlban Army Advance Guard (Commander is General Stute)
11th Fusiliers – Levy
12th Fusiliers – Rabble
13th Fusiliers – Levy
1st Artillery – Average
2nd Artillery – Levy
no cavalry or skirmishers in this NT19e selection of pretty poor troops.
Both commands could control up to 6 units using NT19e optional leadership rules.
So you can see that immediately NT19e gives you asymmetrical or rather different but balanced forces. The use of a unit grading/quality then further alters the result.
Finally I have seen the reference to “zero player” wargaming. This is where the soloist takes neither side but in effect is the third person umpire you get in normal two player games that do have an umpire.
I suppose I play “zero player games”.
To help this dimension I add another layer of deviation or loss of control.
Written Orders
Long out of popularity with two player gamers, written orders are a convenient way to control a game for the soloist. First memorising one sides plans is hard enough, memorising two sides is near impossible and you live in the moment reacting to everything that has just gone before: objectivity and impartiality go out the window.
Written orders gives you a delayed reaction and contributes to the fog of war.
I write two moves ahead which further removes my immediate control. I think it still retains a degree of accuracy when units fail to always react to situations immediately. Very unrealistic situations are simply handled, with dicing for a series of revised actions to modify that one issue.
And if one general is particularly poor they may have to write three ahead – personally intervening more often, if they can, to get things changed more quickly. In contrast a very superior general may be allowed to write only one move order ahead reflecting their greater awareness to situations and independence of their officers.
Neil Thomas is not a great lover of explicit command rules believing in the wargamers ability to mess up, being enough friction in itself! Yet I think in his heart he is writing mainly for two player face to face games and his unaltered rules work really well there.
In summary I use a set of rules with their options and then add in the scene setter + unit quality (if missing) + written orders + weather.
In my last post I mentioned some pesky Bersaglieri – so here they are. 1848/1859 and all that………..
The figures in the line are Strelets 1/72 based to Piquet Field of Battle (I use 40mm square bases) – three figures to a base just like Wesencraft and Peter Pig – the rule of three works quite nicely here.
My own preference these days is to have command bases even where the rules don’t require them. Impetus rules tempted me away from the rigidity of DBA and with its larger bases plus the variable figure poses offered by 1/72 I really like the combination.
Yes these chaps are the slightly maligned Lucky Toys which stand at almost 26mm high.
In build along with some Piedmont Line Infantry and Red Shirts, so you know what is coming down the line sometime……..
Read the Plastic Soldier Review, be horrified and then pay about £4 for 30 odd figures which you have to build yourself just like Perry plastics!
These Bersaglieri are meant to represent Piedmontese/Sardinians in summer dress (white trousers) and will work from the 1840’s to 1870ish.
I paint the bases in burnt umber followed by a yellow ochre heavy dry brush and finish with a pale yellow highlight. I prefer the clumps of grass which to my mind looks right even though Lombardy can look just like the bright green fields of England on its day.
The first milestone is complete. I have a unit of Piedmontese for the period around 1850. Probably the first figures in this era I have painted (well since the year DOT Airfix ACW figures that started me off wargaming).
ok so these Union ACW Strelets Firing Figures are from the wrong continent but hey there were only these kepis in the depot and their regulation tunics had to be swopped for something a bit longer! Oh and they left all their packs behind when they went chasing some Austrians…………On a pedestal nothing is too good for Strelets despite the frankly accurate reviews in Plastic Soldier Review. The thing is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.In PIQUET 1700-1900 Field of Battle rules, 2×2 equals Attack ColumnThe Firing Line from PIQUET 1700-1900 Field of Battle rulesI like a few figures with my scenic crumble (courtesy of woodland scenics – no I am not a shareholder)
Next up on the painting board are some Austrians looking quite serious and on the other hand Bersaglieri – complete with capercaillie feathers.
I have had some very satisfactory results moving to large bases as suggested by Impetus Rules when using 1/72 figures. So 80mm x 60mm basing has been almost exclusively the preferred basing method.
With my latest enchantment – Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU) I have moved onto something different. I intend using PIQUET rules amongst others. In their ruleset 1700-1900 Field of Battle, Brent Oman suggests that units composed of a few bases not only work for his rules but look good.
I think he is right. So I am going with a standard unit of 4 bases, each measuring 40mm x 40mm.
This will allow 1×4 columns, 2×2 blocks and 4×1 lines. As you have probably gathered, scale is not my priority on the battlefield. I like a combination of “look”, proportion, abstraction and playability.
And being a solo wargamer “look” is simply my preference.
So these pictures show my first Piedmontese Line Infantry unit.
one up front does not look right.
The only other consideration is figure arrangement. Going with PIQUET, I have settled on 3 figures per base. So you can either have one figure at the front or two to the front, assuming your not having 3 in a row.
I am going with 2 to the front.
two up front looks better to my eye. And actually the 12 man units look ok.
The Wargaming Erratic 
