September is a busy month for battle anniversaries in Yorkshire not least in 1066.
On the 20th the Vikings of King Harald defeated the Saxons of Earls Edwin and Morcar at Germany Beck in what is now Fulford. There are not many references to this battle – given that two climatic battles followed, its understandable.
The battle was according to records fought near where the beck joins a sharp turn in the river Ouse.
Crucially the defeated Saxons made good their escape as a rising tide flooded the beck. This meant they could fight another day.
There is a tapestry of the Fulford battle displayed at various locations over the years since it was made in 2012 after ten years effort!
On the 25th September the Saxons under King Harold of England defeated Harald and the Viking host at Stamford Bridge.
It was the end of the Scandinavian Viking threat after hundreds of years of invasion.
A tapestry of the Stamford Bridge battle can be seen in the old railway station at Stamford Bridge.
It was another Viking Scion – the Norsemen who took land in the Carolingian Empire and called it Normandy – who a few generations later then defeated the English in turn at Hastings.
It can be argued that without Fulford and Stamford Bridge there would have been no Hastings and maybe a different war between Harold and William might have played out.
So maybe instead of waiting for yet another Norman invasion (the bayeaux tapestry is en route to the UK) you could visit these other tapestries when they are on show instead or as well as.
People remember William for what followed yet Harold had marched 500 miles with his household troops and won a great victory putting together two separate regional armies before arriving at Hastings: William fought an outstanding adversary.
Back in 2020 I put together some shield wall armies and had some fun trying out various rules.
Like most wargamers I guess when you stop and reflect upon your hobby, your traits often pop up.
In my case I am more process than creative perhaps more risk averse as well. So that’s the wargaming general who gets his logistics sorted before attacking – and maybe never attacks as a result 😂 queue heap of unpainted figures and of course scenery.
You could of course burrow into all this personality assessment-briggs myers style. Anyway this is a long intro to justify this!
Scenery explosion
So instead of carefully planning my scenery making I just dug out any thing I could find and started building – note, no painting.
Of course one item is self coloured so it’s done! Dating from the days of the USSR and the DDR it shows there is nothing new under the sun – even back then modellers fed up with the painting step were catered for.
Three years ago I made a tower one summer after discovering Dave Stone’s challenge. Last year it prompted me to trawl my bridges and defences pile to excellent effect. Heck I have even managed to game them!
This year the reaction to July’s starting gun has been a frenzy of building – in fact anything I could find. And especially those “I will make this when I have time to do it justice”.
So I have
An italeri church
An italeri railway station
A warbases church
Two warbases cowboy town buildings
A vero (1980’s) 1/87 scale model railway church ready coloured
A blotz starter pack for 20mm Bronze Age fortress.
No idea when some paint will get sploshed on them……
The last wargames show of the year for me is Recon. It takes place at Pudsey Civic Hall. It used to be run by Wakefield Wargamers but since last year The Pit Gaming Shop have taken over. While it is one of the smaller shows its still a great day out and in the case of the venue you get free parking on site, level access to a well lit two storey event space with civilised toilets (yes I have been to Partizan many times….) and a decent licensed cafe bar on site selling a good hot food range.
The show supported “models for hero’s” who were at the entrance – no queuing as the show is FREE entry. You could make a donation as I did and also Pit Gaming ran a raffle.
Pit gaming had a good range cowboy skirmish material – notably dead mans hand
And if thats not enough a great range of traders and lots of participation games were to be had not to mention some life size sci-fi warriors wandering the aisles.
Hopefully The Pit Gaming Shop will host this enjoyable, relaxed and friendly wargames show again in 2025.
No apologies for pens – this was a to be played game not a demo.
This year I managed to take part in two medieval games at the lance and longbow stand. They were very enjoyable with veterans and beginners playing a modified version of Lion Rampant.
The game was designed for a balanced play and it delivered with both battles being close run affairs. It is always a challenge to design a scenario that gives enough opportunity without a walkover by one side. “Show” games are peculiar with the dynamics of unfamiliar players, unfamiliar rules and the distractions of other games, demos and traders. So they need to be interesting.
In this case the heavy mounted knights (attackers) looked like they would steam roller the bow and bill (defenders) albeit behind stakes. However in the first game just as the defenders looked to collapse the knights leader fell to his death and the attackers lost their will to press home the attack.
In the second battle the defenders were again overrun but no lucky leader death seemed forthcoming when the battle ended – so a sort of draw maybe:Exciting to the end though.
At the end of the day I had plenty of enjoyment from these games.
In fact I neglected to take many photos around the show.
Yarkshire gamer brought 1867 Italy – garibaldi trying to knock over the papal state despite French resistance You can never have enough red shirts!
There were plenty of traders but at the moment I am on a clear the iron mountain and plastic pit push. Of course impulse buys override such plans and I indulged at blotz.
28mm (but in 20mm) Bronze Age fortress starter pack made up there and then with a nice discount-thanks blotz
To be fair I had previously gazed at their Bronze Age fortress yet held off. Now though I have some converged plans which mean the fortress bit the dust or rather my wallet did!
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.
A constant theme of my interest in art is the variety of techniques on show.
My Weekend Open Studios visits prompted me to dig out some wooden offcuts I had minded to fashion into buildings.
The idea for “woodtown” was to provide my grid gaming with appropriately sized buildings. And they would be in keeping with the abstract nature of grid boards. In terms of the art they are definitely inclined towards Paul Nash. Ferens Art Gallery can be found in Kingston Upon Hull and an interesting painting by Paul Nash can be seen there.
Paul Nash – East Coast Portsome old bits of 2×1 with 45 degree cuts to create the roofline – at various heights to emphasise the randomness of old italian hill towns. The wood grain helps deflect thoughts that these are just bits of wood.The two clusters – the rough wood finish works on the red roof while the uneven whitewash fits the style
They make their first contribution in my recent Neil Thomas 1864 Minigame. Ironic that the game did not use grids…………
Neil Thomas offered this battle as an example of a small action using his mini battle setting. His rules assumed a 2’x 2′ or 600mm square. So thats board game sized.
His rules say you do not need to rebase. Always a positive these days.
I have a mixture of units – a result of my lock down era painting activity tending to paint what I fancied than worrying about actual armies!
The action is straightforward – the Danes are retreating and use a bottleneck on the key route north towards Jutland. The Danish rearguard are buying time for their main forces to retreat to their last defence line in Schlieswig – the Duppel fortifications.
suggested set up from book – copyright Neil Thomas.
Their opponent was the geographic “Empire” effectively still the Holy Roman Empire but now really the German Confederation post Waterloo with Austrian and Prussian interference/support.
In this case the Austrians were attacking the rearguard.
The Danish Rearguard
Infantry Unit A
Infantry Unit B
Infantry Unit C
Infantry Unit D
Artillery Battery E
The Artillery was Bronze Rifled while the Infantry were all Levy in loose order armed with rifled muskets.
The Danish troops are all deployed in the bottleneck.
The Austrians Attack starting at the river line comprise
9th Hussars – Average
Artillery – 2 batteries both with bronze rifled cannon
Their main forces arrive from move 1 on the main road
Jaeger Infantry unit – elite, rifled musket, loose order
Skirmishers – elite, rifled musket
On moves 2 & 3 the following units arrive via the same southern road access
Infantry Unit 6 – move 2 – average, rifled musket, loose order
Infantry Unit 7 – move 3 – average, rifled musket, loose order
Infantry Unit 8 – move 3 – average, rifled musket, loose order
Battle Narrative
With the objective to clear all danish forces from the road (at least 12cm from the road) essentially the Austrians simply went through the Front Door.
They had 10 moves to do it in with a win lose outcome and no draw.
Special Rules as suggested by Neil Thomas were used
Colonel Muller personal leadership of the Danes means any one unit at the start of any turn can be elite.
The Danish Artillery were quite ineffectual so get half the nortmal values in defence and attack
The Austrians fresh from rough handling by the French in 1859 adopt bayonet charges in preference to distance firefights. They stay in column the whole game and can charge without restriction (no unit base quantity advantage required)
Some shots of the action
Danish defence face the Austrian advance guard
The stream has no effect on movement except Artillery must use the bridge. The town can be accessed only by Infantry. The lake is impassable to all troops while infantry can move through the wood.
The Austrian battery drops into action as the 9th Hussars begin their fateful attack
The Danish front line are in line and not moving, supported by more mobile Column units behind. If infantry want to move in Neil Thomas’ rules they must be in column.
The 9th Hussars much reduced by musket fire charge home. The Austrian Skirmishers have made little impact but the Artillery have seriously depleted the Danish infantry to their front.The Danish front line has been blown away by the Austrian Artillery and the Elite Jaeger unit
Note in this game I chose not to field the woeful Danish Artillery ( i.e. I forgot to place them on the board!)
The second line of Danish infantry eventually destroy the Elite JaegerBut at the cost of another Danish unit when more Austrians charge homeIts the end of move 10 and the final Danish defence was about to be overrun by the Austrians
An Austrian victory seemed to confirm Neil Thomas’ view that history repeats itself with his suggested set up. In his notes he offers several options to up the defence capability of the Danes.
In this case a very narrow Danish Victory suggests a well thought out scenario by Neil Thomas. Generally I have found Neil Thomas scenarios are fun to play because they tend to lead to a lot of action and no quick outcomes. So although asymmetrical in set up they seem to be well balanced games.
Footnote:
The Figures are Irregular Miniatures and Hat for the Danish
In this picture top right clockwise – 1848 Danish Infantry, 1849 Danish Infantry then 1864 Danish and finally some rogue 1860 Piedmontese.The Austrians are top left clockwise Hat Grenzers – being Skirmishers then Minifigs (1970’s) French Hussars posing as the 9th, Waterloo1815 1859 Austrian Artillery and finally the elite Jaeger are WW1 Belgians painted as Neapolitan 1859 Cracciatori Light Infantry
Elsewhere in the photographs the regular Austrian Infantry on show are Waterloo1815 1859 Austrians in their white coats – in 1864 it was bitter winter weather so soldiers actually fought in their greatcoats.
Neil Thomas offers the mini game as a quick affair and it certainly was. Lots of enjoyment from a two foot square, scenery, dice and some figures.
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.
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 the previous two posts I have set out the campaign and mechanics that brought the two forces to action at Baumdorf.
In the distance the Nuringians advance boldly upon Baumdorf as the Zarlanders attempt to seize the hill
The forces were
Zarland Eastern Army commanded by General Kratzen
IR 8th Adelburg CF5 (2)
IR 6th Nurtberg CF5 (1)
2nd Tuttingen Skirmishers CF2 (1)
Pioneer Regiment 2nd Eyachdorf CF5 (2)
5th Gellenstein Cavalry CF6 (2)
Artillery Regiment 12th Pinkenfels CF6 (2)
8th Filstad Skirmishers CF4 (1)
IR 4th Beckendorf CF6 (2)
The Nuringian Army commanded by General Paskievich comprised
IR Von Rechten CF3 (1)
IR Von Ryssel CF5 (1)
1st Sharpshooters CF5 (1)
CR Prince Clement Dragoons CF6 (2)
CR Polenz Lancers CF14 (3)
1st Field Artillery Battery CF4 (1)
2nd Field Artillery Battery CF5 (1)
1st Pioneer Regiment CF14 (3)
Both armies had a similar mix of forces and both had pioneer units which often fight in these small actions in the realms of Fauxterre…….. and are feared in the same way as Grenadiers.
Each unit shows its campaign condition or “CF factor” – a value that is training, experience, morale and fighting ability all in one. This was converted to the relevant Table Top Battles unit class – again an “all in one” fighting factor.
The battle was fought over three objectives – possession of the village and the hill and also driving off the enemy from the area of Baumdorf.
This encounter action after numerous skirmishes caught each force unawares and they both aimed to seize the village and hill.
In TTB you dice for initiative, important when using alternating movement rules – Zarland won the first two rounds as the forces closed on the village of Baumdorf and its hill.
The Zarlanders gained an early advantage
Both entered the village and commenced a firefight involving infantry and artillery (these were only allowed in the village on the road).
Meanwhile the Zarlander 8th Adelburg IR and 8th Filstad skirmishers took the hill.
The forces close for action
On Move 3 Paskievich (Nuringians) took the initiative and attacked all along the battle line. Around the village the Zarlander 2nd Eyachdorf Pioneers and 4th Beckendorf IR broke.
Looking towards the Zarland lines. Somewhat chastened – the sole Zarland Artillery 12th Pinkenfels on the village road watched as their infantry broke on either side of them
On the Nuringian right flank the Zarland 2nd Tuttlingen skirmishers retired before the measured advance of the Prinz Clement Dragoons.
The fight for the hill is in the balanceThe Zarland Gellenstein Cavalry simply follow the Prinz Clement Dragoons onto the hill while the Zarland infantry are losing the fight for the hill
On Move 4 the Nuringians again pushed on, with the artillery duel in Baumdorf reaching a crescendo. The hill is taken by the Von Rechten IR and the Prinz Clement Dragoons, despite the Zarland Gellenstein Cavalry trying to draw off the Dragoons.
Looking towards the Zarland lines. On the Nuringian left the brave Zarland Artillery are driven from the village while the Nuringian Polenz Lancers break the remains of the Zarland Right wing on the edge of the village
Finally the Zarland Artillery (12th Pinkenfels) withdraw from the village. Elsewhere the 8th Adelburg IR are driven fully off the hill while the 6th Nurtberg are broken by the gallant charge of the Nuringian Polenz Lancers.
Paskievich had taken both objectives and very soon would achieve the third objective of driving the enemy from the field. This meant earning maximum “Control Points” for this action which would add weight to any campaign negotiations.
The Zarlanders stream from the field, while the Nuringians secure Baumdorf
After this action the campaign then ended with a final skirmish to complete the 32 segments.
Zarland won that last skirmish but overall lost the campaign – winning just 2 skirmishes to Nuringia’s 6 who also won the Baumdorf action. Nuringia took all the control points available in the campaign while Zarland had 4 units break in action to none for Nuringia.
For each skirmish or action experience points acrue to each unit taking part, 4 experience points = 1 condition point. Those broken units lose 5 condition points reflecting the wider consequences of a units collapse on the field with soldiers missing, deserting and having been in close fighting – more wounded not to mention those killed. It also counts as a measure of morale of those still in the unit.
So each units takes time to build its condition yet can lose it a lot more easily.
This meant the following units dropped to the lowest condition factor (CF) of “green” as replacements diluted the remaining expertise of the unit.
8th Adelburg was seasoned and is now green
6th Nurtberg were green on CF5 and are now on CF0 still green
2nd Eyachdorf were green on CF5 and are now on CF0 still green
4th Beckendorf were seasoned on CF6 and are now on CF1 green
This will dent Zarland forces capability in the 1818 campaigns.
My Abstraction of conflicts with the use of segments of the years campaign, being both in parallel and in sequence, means a unit could be propelled into another campaign activity in the same year. So those Zarland losses could yet affect other 1817 campaign outcomes.
I am tempted to apply a similar condition factor in my approach for Generals experience/rating. I typically use -1,0,1 or 2 range as in poor, average, good and great. Currently I am thinking of converting these to ranges and applying positive and negative moves to a Generals condition – all experience is growth so it is the reaction to the experience that matters and of course I am moving away from simply an inherent – your either a good or bad general for all time.
For each General the following could apply
General Kratzen (rated +1 = good) now means veteran so has a CF of 16 prior to the campaign and after it is up 3 experience – not enough for +1 CF. He is -5 CF for the defeat. A bit brutal – he ends up seasoned on a CF of 11.
General Paskievich (rated 0 = average) now means seasoned so has a CF of 10 prior to the campaign and earns 2 CF’s for all his victories giving a CF of 12 and still seasoned.
A long serving general declining back to green means while the ranges work the name tags need adjusting.
This approach could prove a bit onerous though – we shall see.
The Wargaming Erratic 
