Although war with VinAlba was inevitable, the Duke Constantius Regent of Zarland knew that Maximilian of Nuringia was likely to act in 1817. The Elector had marched to war in 1816 yet then suddenly withdrew his troops.
The Duke’s concerns about Nuringia were well founded. In spring 1817 the Elector of Nuringia, Grand Duke Maximilian resumed his attack on Greater Zarland.
In a series of skirmishes he engaged with Eastern Zarland forces now commanded by General Kratzen – who had been praised for his success at Kloster Arens the previous year while fighting the combined VinAlban/Davarian army.
Almost at every turn the Zarland forces found themselves outfought in these skirmishes. Eventually Maximilian’s General Paskievich manoeuvred the Zarlanders to battle.
In a small action General Kratzen attempted to hold the village of Baumdorf. The Nuringians needed something to show for their efforts beyond successful skirmishing. General Paskievich ordered his forces to take Baumdorf once he realised the Zarlanders were not retiring.
The resulting encounter saw the two forces fight for Baumdorf with its nearby hill also the focus of attention.
Sharp Action at Baumdorf. This battle was fought using Table Top Battles by Mike Smith using has “Grid” option.on land, on sea, even fantasy – these grid rules are in their second edition – my first edition is shown here
My Greater Zarland story fed the belligerents and circumstances
Each state has a relationship varying between allied, peace, neutral, disputes and war. With disputes these are irritating affairs of state that erode the capability of the state to mobilise for war. I randomly (1d6 123 = 5% or 456 = 10%) chose the part of the establishment diverted to deal with each dispute. Equally the reverse applies for allied states routinely supplying supporting forces.
Each dispute or war is diced for in terms of its occurrence and sequencing (one after the other or in parallel).
Disputes are a series of major or minor skirmishes with the possibility of a small action
Wars extend to larger actions and even greater engagements – possibly big set piece battles.
I used my campaign rules to generate the campaign forces available.
The campaign duration was made up of 32 segments. After each campaign turn a 1d6 determined how many segments were consumed. Once all 32 segments were consumed this campaign sequence ended.
In this case 7 turns had been played and 28 of the 32 segments consumed. Autumn was approaching and both sides had only a series of skirmishes to show for their efforts.
Each turn either a skirmish, action or engagement could occur – skirmishes most likely and engagements (large battles) least likely.
Now on this eighth turn an “action” was drawn. As it was a “small action” each force would have 8 units available to fight.
In this case I randomly selected the 8 units from each establishment.
Zarland defended the village because they had lost the skirmishes up till then.
I fought the battle using Table Top Battles on a grid. The rules generated the terrain. I used 50mm multi figure element bases representing a battalion of infantry or regiment of cavalry. One gun represented a battery of artillery.
The playing area measured 28″ x 40″ – 70cm x 101cm marked with a 5cm or 2″ grid.
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)
Despite constant harrassment and losing many of the skirmishes the Zarlanders were in surprisingly good spirits. The last two units had just joined the army when the action commenced. Two units with * against them upped their morale rating on the day.
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)
The units were allocated cards which randomised their deployment.
The Nuringian advantage lay in their artillery and cavalryThe Zarlanders were blessed with an advantage in infantry – ideal for holding Baumdorf
Again the Blue Kingdom Navy had word of the Red Squadron and despatched the same successful squadron, now repaired, to intercept the Red Squadron. The Bellona was added to the squadron.
The two squadrons met again near Tinckermann Bay, scene of the recent Blue Navy victory.
The Red Squadron approach Tinckermann Bay with trepidation…………
This time it was the Blue Squadron who were in a full line and met the Red Squadron dispersed in three groups. The Blue Squadron attacked immediately led by Abellino and Lyra.
The Blue Squadron sail into action confident of victory
The ships present were
The Red Squadron
Centre line
Elven – a single decker 3 masted FAST frigate
Neptunus – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
Right Line
The Meshuda – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Triton – a single decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Allart – a single decker brig with a Carronade
Left Line
The Zugarte – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Sarpen – a sloop of war
The Blue Squadron
The Chippewa – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Allegheny – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Abellino – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Firefly – 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
The Lyra – a 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
The Bellona – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Red Squadron seemed too spread out to present a threat and as the Abellino bore onward the frigate Elven turned, fired a broadside and scuttled to join the Zugarte.
As it happened both outer lines of Red Squadron ships fired on the Blue Squadron line who returned fire with mixed results.
The Neptunus presented a broadside to the lead ship Abellino who returned the favour. Behind the Blue Squadron quickly broke its line pursuing the seemingly disordered Red Squadron.
The Blue Squadron break their line
In the process Abellino found itself isolated as did the Lyra. Again luck was against the Blue Squadron ships as the Lyra and then the Abellino had their masts shot away leaving them adrift yet still able to fire.
Elven, Neptunus and Sarpen had done the damage.
Further back down the line Firefly joined the action at the head of the line while Bellona and Allegheny became isolated in the rear. In the case of the Allegheny it appeared she would soon be defeated. Bellona destroyed the Allart’s sailing gear leaving her adrift.
The lines are broken into a series of small ship to ship actionsNow Bellona and Sarpen (top left) began their own singular battle while Meshuda and Triton closed in on Firefly, one of the few Blue Squadron ships still intact.
The Allegheny could still make sail but was now disarmed, so she made much sail with Zugarte vainly pursuing her. Elsewhere the final reckoning was taking place.
Firefly managed to evade the Meshuda and Triton before being pursued by the Zugarte. The Allegheny had sailed away with Bellona close behind.
The Firefly fought a gallant final action against the Zugarte with the Triton now closing again (see bottom of picture).
Finally Firefly fled having lost all her guns.
The Red Squadron had defeated the Blue Squadron in the second battle of Tinckermann.
The Red Squadron had captured the Chippewa, Lyra and Abellino while the Sarpen and Allart had been demasted and had to be towed back to port.
The Red Squadron return to port with their prizes………
I had used the basic TTBnaval rules described in my previous posts including amendments in the Battle of Tinckermann post.
This time I introduced some variation on the ships themselves and added another weapon class – a carronade.
A carronade required the ship to be in contact with its target – point blank range and it throws on the broadside to hit column. The value though was always to be +1 on the respective broadside hit result. The carronade being just +1 on the to hit column meant throwing 12 +1 to get 13 and achieve the maximum 3 hits (2+1). Very damaging but not easily achieved. This combination of close range only + difficulty to hit, I think would prevent the carronade being too overly powerful.
In the event the Allart (a two masted Brig) had her masts destroyed before she could get into action and was left adrift with her shiney new carronade unused.
Another new ship for the Red Squadron was a “sloop of war” fast and well armed. The Sarpen did do some damage early on but was eventually brought to a standstill, her masts and sailing gear being destroyed.
Victory was secured in move 11 so again the game, with my changes, was contested between sides of differing numbers and capability. It could have gone the other way if the Blue squadron had not lost ship manoeuvreability early on.
Finally I have kept the “outcomes” unaltered because this is where the tempo of the game is achieved – brisk but not too brisk! And that is what makes TTBnaval fun to play.
Table Top Battles – the Naval Rules, have been occupying my time recently. NavalTTB are a very simple set of rules using a grid based set up. They are part of a compendium of rules featuring fantasy, air, siege and land based warfare.
Having played the basic rules I could not help but tinker with them.
The Extras
First up, I used a 50mm grid and not a 100mm grid permitting greater granularity in manoeuvre.
a 50 mm grid gave each 100mm square a centreline to sail on. In turn all “lines” became sailable with some rules tinkering. The spaces cease to be occupied directly.
Second I took the single broadside characteristic value of 3 and changed this to three possible values – 3,2,1. I also allowed three steps in the degradation of a broadside after being hit. So a ship might start with a 3 then go down to 2 and finally 1. Note the numbers 1,2,3 are the actual values added to the die roll for a broadside scoring a hit.
The Blue Squadron’s ill fated Chippewa has lost all sail, while all its broadsides (3 per side) and its one of its close action firepower (2xCr=Crew) remain intact
I also permitted some ships to have say a 2 or 1 rating for their broadside from the start reflecting a weaker armanent. And then I still allowed those ships three hits absorption before that broadside would fall silent. So this might be 2,1,1 or 2,2,1 or even 1,1,1.
I left the score tables, crew attack and command values unaltered.
Finally I altered the sailing manoeuvre value. Essentially a hit on a sailing capability each time reduces the speed (movement per 100mm square) by 1. I applied some options, as in a large ship could have say a maximum of 2 while a small ship had a value of 4. In either case degradation of manoeuvre gave more granularity. So a faster ship might have “S” values of 4 then 3 then 2 and then nothing while a slower ship might have “S” values of 2,1,1, before being unable to move.
One final change I made was to sail ships on the “line” of the grid and not in the space. A ship turns on its centre and cannot overlap another ship when it does so. The standard rule of no ramming was retained.
This was a result of my using a 50mm grid.
The unintended outcome of this movement change was for ships to become stuck alongside each other. That felt ok though.
The Battle of Tinckermann – Fauxterre 1816
The Red Kingdom had found out that the Blue Kingdom was attacking some of its provinces and making an amphibious attack. The Red Kingdom dispatched a strong squadron of ships to disperse the enemy fleet.
The Blue Kingdom, well informed about the Red Kingdom actions sent a squadron to intercept the enemy squadron.
The Red Squadron
The Fortuna – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Estedio – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Meshuda – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Zugarte – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Blue Squadron
The Chippewa – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Allegheny – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
The Abellino – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
The Firefly – 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
The Lyra – a 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
The Blue Squadron attacked the Red Squadron in two lines while the Red Squadron attempted to keep a single line and sail between both enemy lines attacking them at the same time.
Early on the Chippewa lost all sail control and drifted out of the battle. This in theory evened up the battle between 4 ships on each side. Then the Fortuna became caught between the Allegheny and the Abellino.
The Allegheny and Fortuna are in the positions that framed the rest of the action while Chippewa in top right drifts out of the action. The blue/red dice indicate a ship has acted in the turn.
Then the Zugarte, Estedio and Meshuda isolated the Allegheny although the Firefly gave aid.
Firefly attempts to aid the Allegheny
At this point in the battle both the Allegheny and Fortuna were stopped and the other ships manoeuvred to support or exploit the situation.
The final action saw the Red Zugarte and Estedio take on the fast Blue Frigates Lyra and Abellino. Lyra and Estedio had their sail control destroyed.
Lyra (blue) and Estedio (red) are stopped with no sailing power left – they have orange dice on them
At this point the Red Squadron broke off the action and the Meshuda escorted the Zugarte (now with no armanent left) away.
Actually the 12th game move finished. The standard rules are a 12 move game.
Outcomes
At the conclusion of the action the Red Squadron was driven off having to abandon both Fortuna and Estedio – both ships suffering so much damage to their masts that they could no longer manoeuvre.
Firefly and Abellino make sure the Red Squadron make plenty of sail.
The Zugarte had lost all its broadside and crew fighting power. It could still make sail and was escorted away by the Meshuda, which still had both fire and manoeuvre capability remaining.
The Blue Squadron despite driving off the Red Squadron had suffered badly.
The Allegheny had lost all sailing ability although it still had some broadside capability. The Lyra likewise could defend itself but needed repairs before it could make sail again. Early in the action the Chippewa had suffered complete loss of its sailing ability and as the action moved away it sustained hardly any damage keeping all its broadsides intact.
The Firefly retained sailing and fighting ability as did the Abellino – these two vessels were to be seen driving off the Red Squadrons Meshuda and unarmed Zugarte.
And so ended the Battle of Tinckermann with the Blue Kingdom free to continue its land attack on the Red Kingdoms provinces.
A mark 1 ship card – to make them reuseable I inked them in.A mark 2 ship card! – more improvements required methinks
Afterthoughts
The difference between a win and a possible draw occurred in the last move of the game between slightly unequal forces. I will test this a bit more. It does mean the game hangs in the balance. And for the soloist it is not easy to see who is winning where – always a bonus.
If I was inclined a permanent sea table along with 3D models would drastically improve the visual aspect of this game. Indeed I do have some models from wizkids 2005 pirate game. Somehow I preferred the 2D test set up.
So this has proven a surprising distraction from my land battles. I tend to use TTB for land battles when the action does not lend itself to using Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames or 19th Century European Warfare Rules.
I like to think if Neil Thomas wrote some naval rules then NavalTTB would not be far off the mark.
Having had my naval warfare appetite wetted by a series of books ostensibly about land warfare, I now had to hand a simple ruleset for naval wars.
a 40 page compendium of rules oriented to grid gaming
Table Top Battles (TTB) is a compendium that include several rulesets, one of which is about naval warfare. The rules are clear – they are not an exercise in sailing simulation: I think they are a landlubbers abstraction. That does not sound complimentary. They are simple, quick, fun and to this landlubber just what I needed to play out some of the small actions I have been reading about.
The Blue squadron engage the Red squadron – the red squadron started the action one ship less with otherwise identical ships. The rules reward broadsides although spectacular results can be had attacking the stern with a broadsideThe Abellino has taken a hammering from the Red Squadron and limps away from the action with just one sail (= 1 move per turn down from 3) and its command intact in the sternIn a last exchange Zugarte of the Red Squadron finishes off the Blue Squadron Lyra but it is too little too lateZugarte in turn is caught by Blue Squadron Allegheny and Firefly – no contest
I used the rules out of the book unaltered and found they were quick and easy to apply giving swift results. The original squadrons arriving in a line (two lines for the blue squadron) soon broke into small groups contesting their survival one to one and occasionally two to one. It felt right.
The movement is unlimited so ships can stop, go maximum or any distance in between if they have sufficient sail intact. Each ship had 3 sails = 3 spaces maximum movement. The ships could turn in a square with each 90 degree turn taken. This level of abstraction might feel like bumper cars. However the question is “is detailing carefully turning as a process – useful?” Whereas rules that focus on outcomes tend to the abstract.
Each ship is given armanent in the shape of a broadside on each side of the ship. The broadside can only fire at ninety degrees to the ships keel line. The crew represent other close action capability. This has limited range and impact yet 360 degrees of direction irrespective of which crew element is left in operation.
The final component is the command. This provides additional support to the combat elements of crew and broadside.
All 4 element types – sail/broadside/command and crew can be destroyed and that is the sole objective of the game. In this way you knock ships out of action.
The winning side is the one having the most ships with both some sail and broadside capability.
With 5 versus 4 ships, all identical, the advantage was signficiant and the result was all the smaller sides ships were defeated. You don’t get draws, I suspect, if fighting to the last ship. So any game should be time bound or have limited victory conditions.
As a basic quick maritime wargame it works. This landlubber is happy.
They retail at 14 GBP – remember though, you get multi era rules for land, sea, air, fantasy, sieges and campaigns. The naval ruleset also covers ship to shore battles which I have yet to look at.
Table Top Battles (TTB) by Mike and Joyce Smith are an excellent set of rules for my solo campaigning. The ruleset is actually a compendium of rules including air and fantasy not to mention siege warfare and, as you may have guessed, a set of naval rules.
My first edition Table Top Battles rules are unchanged in the second edition
All packed into 40 odd A4 pages the softback ruleset is short on images but strong on mechanisms that are simple, work together and can be adjusted or expanded.
So having flicked past the naval rules, on many occasion, I have finally succumbed. I dug out some thin card and scissors and pencil in hand in a thrice had two magnificant navies…………
The magnificent Blue Fleet “Abellino” armed with two broadsides plus two crew teams for close action. The Command in the stern adds bonus points when fighting while the three sails define the speed and manoeuvrability of the vessel
My current preoccuption with european wars in the post Napoleonic era have been fuelled by some book buying.
the most recent arrival – this old book is interesting because the illustrations are highly selective. The text explains why – to support a narrative concerning the evolution of uniforms rather than trying to show what each country chose.Lucy Riall is a very well respected modern author and focuses on the themes of what the Risorgimento means and to whom.This is a great dip in book full of easily accessed facts and provides the framework of what can be a confusing time in Italy.This book has lots of anecdotes which I plan to use in my imaginations campaigns.Having already devoured the South German War by the same author I have just started this book. The small actions around the lakes just cry out for a skirmish ruleset.Old but still full of useful information and given only limited interest today, means a dearth of current publications on 19th century Italy, these booklets are very worthwhile.I have a feeling this ruleset may being hooking up with Michael Embree’s Radestky Marches book for a skirmish or two.A quite unexpected catch. I really like the Funcken style and this book delivers it in spades. Lucky for me it is right on the dates and although it ends just before Crimea it does cover the crucial 1848 revolutionary year.Another recent acquisition – I like the grid rule set and it comes with handy campaign and solo rules all integrated as you desire. It even has naval rules. actually it does modern, fantasy and sci fi as well – not that I need them for my VTW – Vienna Tratey Wars
So my period is called the Vienna Treaty Wars and the era roughly covers 1815 to 1871.
Currently I have been painting quite well although right now a campaign beckons. I never thought I would be doing anything post napoleonic – thank you again Mr Renaissance Troll!
Well we are at the end of a year that will become notorious.
A year when humanity staggered from the blows of a simple virus. It is perhaps a reminder that nature always has the upper hand no matter how sophisticated our societies have become.
I guess there are plenty of historical parallels to this type of massive societal correction. Not in the same vein but I read recently about how the particularly bad 9th century weather or should I say mini climate change dealt the Carolingians numerous bad harvests damaging their always vunerable Empire. Except even if it were decisive, the roaring vikings is a much more exciting concept of Empire destruction.
Yet right now the Dark Ages have become just that – the Dark Ages as in a box with a lid on it! Right now it is the 19th Century that dominates Wargames in the mind of Norber the Wargaming Erratic.
Before we go and embark on another year there is just enough time to reflect on the fact that 2020 has proven to be rather a good year for my wargaming.
The year got going with a trip to Vapnartak, notable for the fact that it proved to be my one and only show of 2020.
Lithuanian Knights gather to charge the Teutons – figures by WillWarWeb I believe
Playing (LIVE) the Lance and Longbow Society game of Tannenberg 1410 made it all the more important as it turned out. It was my last face to face gaming of 2020.
I was into Carolingians at the time of Vapnartak.
The scary plastic soldier review horses of Carolingia!
so which soldiers marched across my painting table in 2020?
well in 2018 I had managed zero painting while in 2019 I painted and based 32 “normans in the south infantry” and 11 “normans in the south” archers.
in 2020 I managed
12 Carolingians including the man himself – comprising the much maligned (by plastic soldier review) horses which actually give my bases some nice dynamics – in my humble view
10 Anglo Norman archers
24 Normans in the South (NITS – I can’t resist an abbreviation) Cavalry
21 Ottonian foot which look very much like anglo danes or could pass for NITS foot soldiers
43 Anglo Danes were my biggest effort
A fine array of some Anglo Saxons, Anglo Danes and Ottonians
I finished the year with 4 slavs posing as Picts in my “to be” great army of Danes, Scots, Northumbrians and Norsemen which would fight Athelstan again at Brunanburh
And then the proverbial wheels came off the Dark Ages cart.
Right now the painting table has plastic Union Infantry posing as Piedmont Line Infantry along with some venerable Warrior Miniatures French Dragoons posing as – well French Dragoons. And they are metal!!!
Piedmontese in frock coats – shame about the squished stove pipe hats
I must say I had a good year with basing – finally getting a look for my mediterranean NITS – ok Normans in the South project.
Vikings aka Ottonians aka Anglo Danes aka NITS – the beauty of dark ages
In fact I have decided it will work for pretty much everything dark ages.
On the gaming front I started solo gaming with an unexpected purchase. Neil Shuck had recommended War & Conquest shortly before jumping ship with another ancients ruleset.
One of the many offspring writers/thinkers that Games Workshop brought to our wargames world.Sea peoples and desert tribes close in on Libyian bowmen
I gave it a go with my bronze age one hour wargame figures based using my hybrid impetus basing of 80mm x 60mm for 1/72 plastics. Ever awkward – probably just as well I don’t need to satisfy a live opponent. I rather liked the feel of the rules even though the play through was so limited.
And then with Covid19 lock down in full swing and some fine weather I had other distractions including lots of gardening .
I really like simple flowers with a few petalsThe colours are just fantastic
INTERMISSION
Intermission even surprised me – that was not in the plan
INTERMISSION
And of course there is always some track laying to do……………..
Eventually the dark ages gaming started in late August with numerous shieldwall rule tests – I did really enjoy them all. The biggest surprise was playing gridded wargames using Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles.
My lst shieldwall battle took place in late October and many games and rulesets later was swiftly followed by a thoroughly enjoyable game of Dux Britanniarum by Too Fat Lardies.
My vintage Garrison Vikings got a run out.
I fleshed out some campaign plans as per the rules advice and then…………nothing. I was just starting some Pictish Warriors when I read the wrong article.
On the way the renaissance troll introduced me to Faux Napoleonics for fantasy – here is my own 1970’s era Faux Fantasy Orc veering towards napoleonics?
Next minute it is baggy pants Zoaves, Spikey helms and far too much rifling. OK so it is still rather pedestrian Piedmontese – these proto Italians are quite conservative chaps – very un Napoleonic.
Will they really look like Piedmontese or just Union men on the wrong continent?
And since then two battles have been fought – one with Practical Wargaming by Charles Wesencraft and the other using 19th Century Wargames by Neil Thomas.
Whats in the container? – rescued from a dim corner of the erratic’s tardis store………Warrior Miniatures – yes they are metal and yes the brown paint was administered back around 1975!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats a long time on the paint table – 45 years ish. But probably not a record.
And so I wish you all a graceful end to the year 2020 and hope that 2021 brings you all that you hope for.
In episode 1 I set the scene for starting a campaign using Dux Britanniarum.
Two evenly matched small forces are all that are necessary to get started – about 40 figures per side – all infantry. Although in my case that equates to just 7 impetus elements for my Romans and 6 for my Saxons.
Then its character creation with simple Role-Playing Game style giving the forces some particular definition. And if you’re going to campaign rather than play one off battles then a narrative becomes a real benefit. Creating a story from your gaming is one very good reason to wargame campaigns.
I used these rules unaltered except for terrain set up where Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles were preferred.
Next is the campaign start rules. Career paths are provided to signpost your characters development. Quite simply they remind me of the original Levels in 1970’s D&D – each status in the path opens up more benefits and choices – for a price. And that’s where the filthy lucre comes in. You need some bright metal to progress.
The aim of the campaign is that the Saxon player ends up with their own kingdom carved out of the Roman Provinces. Meanwhile the British/Roman player simply needs to retain his kingdom and aspire to either rule it or become the great military power of the whole island itself.
The campaign is not map based. The campaign last 8 months in each year from March to October. Losses are not easily replaced so some months no conflicts may occur.
At the start of the game both sides are minor players so the battle rules can be ignored.
The book of battles does though have the crucial Raiding tables which set out what you need to do to run a raid.
You determine the forces morale based on results of the previous encounter and a random element. So, each game will be slightly different.
For my start the Saxons were on 5 + 2 = 7 while the Romans were on 5 + 3 = 8.
Pre game set up, champions and speeches are skipped as they relate to battles.
The fate cards, which drive yet more variability, are designed to give each force specific benefits. Some cards mutually benefit both sides.
The two forces are dealt a hand of five cards for the raid where two are specified and three are random. Poor shuffling meant that some awful hands were dealt at the start.
I will just show the early “hands”
Ebroin is Saxon Leader One in the small sequence deck – he might go first or sixth or even seventh behind his own missilemen. Garrison Vikings from the 1970’s dwarf the strelets impetus based figures – but somehow feel rights as they convey the “BIG man” idea within Dux Britanniarum.Saxon Poor shuffling or what! Ebroin will not get much help from this hand in his moveTiberius is Roman Leader One – its 472AD after all – still 4 years to the end of the Empire. Tiberius is actually played by a Lamming 1970’s Saxon – confused? most dark age battles were fought under dark skies with no LED lighting and everyone wore variations of grey/brown clothing anyway.Tiberius the Decurion is doing better but needs to ditch the saxon carpe diem card.
In Episode 1 I described the terrain set up. For my “Raiding a Farm or Village” the location was determined using the raiding rules in TDux.
Again fortune smiled on the Saxons.
The Saxons then threw to find out how much surprise they had. The Saxons gained two free moves before the game proper started.
I moved the Saxons and then determined the Roman arrival point. This turned out to be a congested corner of the table which impeded their progress from the start.
The Saxons would win the raid if they left the table with their loot. The scale of their win would be helped by how many men escaped as well plus how many Romans they killed.
The Romans had to stop them taking the loot to win.
I suppose I should say that I have tended to use Romans in this post rather than British or Romano British. Maybe as the campaign builds, they will morph into “Britons”.
Randomly generated terrain using Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles terrain generator meant the Saxons had easy access compared to the Romans. At least there was South ford……… upriver of the marsh. The hills punished any movement while other features impeded movement and/or inflicted “shock” on a group
Rules Digressions
Before I return to the action I have set down some of the rules which I think are notable.
A small set of cards determine the sequence for each turn. Another randomisation. For gamers who like control this is probably getting far too much. For solo play its ideal as “loss of control” is essential to make the game come alive.
A key aspect of the sequence is that controlled forces all activate before the uncontrolled. Using your leaders and their supporting nobles, command range is important. It follows that their position can improve or hinder things.
Each side has three commanders, and the leader has an initiative of 3 while his nobles have 2. That represents their ability to activate. The leader can do three discrete activations while his nobles on their turn get to do up to 2. In one full turn of the card deck the three commanders share 7 activations.
There are various constraints on these leader attributes such as when they are in the heat of the battle or how they have organised their forces. The fate hand cards allow additional activation.
Yet another variable is movement – when activated a group will throw dice to determine their movement. With 3d6 the range is 3” to a staggering 18”. There are quite a few reductions and as you have to move the full amount this can work against your force as its leader loses range control.
Forming shieldwall rightly slows you down and makes you less manoeuvrable. There are the usual terrain penalties for movement. There are some rules for the missile troops and cavalry as well as interpenetration of groups being restricted or having consequences.
Finally, units end up facing the direction they travelled and can only see the 180 degrees to their front. This informs the 4” Zone of influence which a group imposes to its front restricting any enemy entering or leaving that zone. I forgot this rule quite a few times during the heat of battle………..
Firing is straight forward with range limitations and usual “to hit” throws required.
Now we come to impact. “Shock” is what results from missile fire or hand to hand combat. Accumulated shock drives a group back and eventually breaks them. Leaders can rally groups by removing shock through activation.
In Combat once two forces contact each other dice are thrown to hit and for allocation – multiple groups fighting need to know who hit who. Effect is determined as with missile fire consulting a table where the quality of troops being hit affects the random dice outcome.
Leaders are not immune! You can lose a hero.
Shieldwalls stop initial hits and initial shocks so it is a valuable capability for the Romano British.
Unless there is a difference in shock results, the draw means the fight goes on and on for every drawn round of fighting. Only two combat rounds occur before other forces move again. So, more forces might join a combat to shake things up!
“Misplacing ones Amphora” means a group has taken twice as many shocks as there are men in the group and is broken. After uncontrolled groups have moved these broken groups move 3d6 towards any friendly table edge searching for their missing amphora………
So now we come to the force morale mentioned at the start of this post. Each group lost reduces the morale of the force, again randomly influenced by the lost groups type. Losing better quality groups does more harm as you would expect. This variable ensures that you can play the same raid over and over again even on the same terrain and the result will be different.
All this variability means the ruleset presents a vast range of different games to play before any similarity might get seen.
At the end of the game, you count various losses on another table to get a total score. Compared to the enemy score the difference gives a winner/loser combination of outcomes depending on how large the difference is.
Rules then follow for gaining reinforcements and when the next raid will happen. If the Saxon has grown on their success, then the next big step is to contest the province.
There are some tricky annual events to tackle for the Saxon leader, so it is not all one-way traffic to the top!
At 92 pages even allowing for some resource pages plus big FONT, there are lots of rules here compared to the rules I have previously tested the shieldwalls for.
I think it was worth explaining these aspects of the rules up front.
Let battle continue
Now back to the battle where Coenwulf was facing up to some fighting before he could escape with his filthy lucre. Coenwulf wished Gudwal would hurry up and find some coin to make the day worthwhile.
We left the two forces here, except the saxons had done a neat swop with Ebroin taking over the groups holding the bridge while Coenwulf led the saxon group against the sole Roman group approaching the village led by Decurion Silvanus. The green dice show the “initiative” or activiations available. Crude but effective as the action jumps around it is easy to forget who is next! The Romano British throw in a hero of the age fate card doubling the quantity of dice thrown. In the background the saxons finally turn up a hoard or rather “the only hoard”…….The Hero of the Age Silvanus was roundly beaten by Coenwulf who promptly retreats to handover the group to Gudwal who is already leaving the village with the filthy lucre. Coenwulf then recrosses the bridge to join the fight on the east bankThe terrain has taken its toll on the Romans arrival, and being strung out they have broken up into single groups. Silvanus leaves the field after being severely mauled by Coenwulf. The saxons have the advantage nowOn the Roman right flank those tricky 3d6 movements mean the saxon missile men are caught and driven from the field by Decurion TiberiusIn the centre the first round of fighting at the bridge has driven the romans back and more saxon support is arriving with the very active CoenwulfThe roman group led by Tiberius having destroyed the saxon missile men crash into the saxon left flank group of warriors led by Coenwulf.Coenwulf is with them and they hold despite Tiberius hurling missiles (no doubt picked up from those fleeing saxons) – the righthand “strong arm card yields 6 extra dice for some loss in movement.The saxons look in control as they carry off the loot in the distance, the saxons by the bridge just need to execute a fighting withdrawl……ha!
Silvanus has managed to return to the field having been carried off by his fleeing group. He now needs to extract a reluctant group of Numeri from the marsh and go to the aid of VitalinusEbroin is more than holding his own against Vitalinus who curses the mix up at the ford where his Comanipulares are paired with some reluctant Numeri. The romans are getting roughed up and attempt to rallyEbroin is still looking for a famous killBut Coenwulf is struggling to finish off TiberiusCoenwulf gets some more action thoughand promptly disengages as his loot leaves the table “literally” under the care of Gudwal – oops thats the character who lusts for his own power………….Meanwhile Ebroin is in a tricky position apparently abandoned by his leader only to find him yet again joining the frayMore moves for the Saxons – the red counter reminded me it was move 8 Coenwulf and Ebroin continue to drive back the Roman lineeventually the Romans get to move but not before the Roman levy have fled the lineNow Tiberius joins in and attacks yet another saxon group – Ebroin’s warriors – third time lucky? The orange dice denote the number of men still effective for rule purposes.no luck for the romans as they fail miserably. In the background Coenwulf and Vitalinus are toe to toe.And Vitalinus is thrown back again – his comanipularies are destroyed in the endThe saxons now actually want to be awayhaving fled to the south ford Vitalinus brings a Numeri group in a wide arc round the wood to return to the fightCoenwulf (yellow dice) having been attacked again turns to face the late arriving Silvanus (red dice) while the exhausted but victorious Ebroin (bottom left) sees an escape south open up unexpectedly. Tiberius (bottom right) hesitates.East bank saxons escapeWith Ebroin retiring south Coenwulf delivers one more mighty blow on the romans still fighting him. Tiberius looks on confused as Vitalinus appears from behind the wood. The ineffective Roman missilemen head towards the village to check out what damage has been done or rather escape the field of battleand then Coenwulf disengagesWith some sharp dice throwing the saxons head south and escape as VItalinus realises his mistake in circling the wood.
The net result of all losses on both sides was a difference of simply 1 on the raid results table – meagre pickings for Coenwulf and with heavy losses it will be 3 months before the Saxon can raid again. With moderate losses Vitalinus will take 2 months to replace his losses. He will be ready and waiting.
Shieldwalls – Dux Bellorum, AMW, OHW and Table Top Battles Rules reviewed
Over quite a few posts I have reported on my use of rulesets to play battles between shieldwalls. In most cases the two opposing forces were mirror images. This meant the mechanisms in the rules might be more transparent and then the rules could be better contrasted in my mind.
Having said all that “one swallow a summer does not make” so everything I write here is caveated – only multiple playing’s will help you like or dislike a ruleset fully in my view.
My consideration of the rules is of course subjective, and my criteria may not be to everybody’s liking. So, my criteria are
Reading the rules (understanding/comprehension) – both at the start and when referencing
Ease of Play – how the game played
Outcomes – the outcomes during the game and overall at the end
AMW
Let’s start with AMW. First I should say that from nowhere these rules have come to represent a modern take on what “I remember” I enjoyed about rules from the 1970’s: Above all simplicity. I used the Dark Age ruleset straight from the book.
The rules take up a couple of pages and are in clear large print and easy to understand. I printed the relevant pages as the paperback is a “tome” and short of breaking the spine it is not easy to “use” in a game.
The rules gave a simple mix of troops and are explained in a chapter on why the troop mix was chosen and what they could and could not do. The Shieldwall concept was well covered.
Saxon Cavalry were permitted, and I think Neil is more on the “they were everywhere in life so why not some on the battlefield”. He restricted their presence and impact.
Selection of the 8-unit force was straight forward. I added some variety in the choice of light troops. I used my 80mm frontage IMPETUS bases showing 1/72 plastics. Each base equates almost to 4 x 15mm scale 40x20mm DBA bases as referenced in the rules. Mine are 60mm deep “for the look” as IMPETUS suggests.
The dice to hit and dice to save has some interest for live opponents although for solo play arguably it simply prolongs the playing time. AMW uses the two-step process to provide the layered differentiation between such a small number of unit types to cover several hundred years of warfare and army types.
It did help to keep the stronger type of unit – nobles in the field longer than the peasants.
The first losses also triggered more (domino effect) as AMW uses morale effects to pile on misery when dice are thrown low.
The battle lines were deliberately aligned and close together as the intention was to show two equally sized shieldwalls simply coming together. And the erosion of the 16 hits or 4 bases in DBA speak resulted in some quick breakthroughs. With no need to put the units in base to base contact visually it did not look quite like two shieldwalls: More like roman maniples!
The use of some cavalry may have speeded up the result although I think the outcome was not in doubt.
The feeling and reality of individual units meant that flank attacks were inevitable, and these were the main mechanism of destruction. And the lines once met were static – which cuts both ways – that’s what happened – short of logging loss of points there is not much game movement.
The cavalry interventions were easy to achieve as there is no restriction on command and control.
Finally, the structure of the ruleset with core rules and some simple extra rules simply cries out for more house rules.
In my battle report I suggested a way to deal with anglo saxon cavalry in battle that might more reflect their power as pursuers and opportunists.
Because of the apparent strength of shieldwalls in AMW I then play tested cavalry against a shieldwall. The result was a defeat for the cavalry army. It showed you need to put the whole force jointly in together as the attrition is such that late comers – in my case the token infantry shieldwall were simply outnumbered and picked off in turn.
Coordination is in the hands of the gamer through movement of units and their proximity. This second game also confirmed that archery is quite potent.
Overall, I felt that AMW is better suited to combined arms battles as opposed to a slogging match. Given the breadth of periods covered by the rules these two battles were enjoyable enough for a further outing at some point.
Dux Bellorum
These rules are more modern in concept with command and control central to their use.
Again, the units were 1/72 plastics on 80mm x 60mm IMPETUS bases. Losses would be recorded use dice and tokens.
The points-based game with stat lines for each unit type were easy to understand yet not so memorable as AMW was to me.
I could not resist a slight difference between the forces with one side having mounted skirmish troops equating to a 1-point advantage – 31 v 32 points. Near enough.
The ineffective skirmishers and straightforward meeting of the two-battle lines using the leadership influence made this all feel realistic to my mind.
As in DBA pushbacks showed visually where units were losing the fight. The battle line was still retained as the movement was small.
Distribution of the leadership points can make or break units, although centrally controlled by the gamer I felt this reflected the fact that a line would comprise areas of strong men and areas of weaker maybe reluctant fighters.
The dice head-to-head felt more interesting than the hit versus saving throw of AMW. In a face-to-face game this might also make the exchanges more exciting.
Again, flanking forces including cavalry provided local advantage as the game moved into its later stages.
Dan Mersey talks about the swirl of battle and this was true although the battle line was still discernible late in the game.
Both armies approached their own demise and it was just a few points either way so although the king’s men lost it could easily have been the rebels.
This felt like two battle lines slogging it out and even though there was some “flanking” it was not significant. The forces to a units front mainly did the damage first.
Table Top Battles
The previous two games used “measure and move” rules. Table Top Battles was “gridded” removing any need to get the tape measure out. I have used gridded wargames before with Peter Pigs WW2 rules being memorable.
While many people will know and have played either AMW or Dux Bellorum I reckon TTB by Mike and Joyce Smith will be new to most people.
Published by Partizan Press the ruleset has a feel of looking backwards in the same manner as AMW. The grid though makes for a different feel altogether.
For two shieldwalls the square grid was perfect.
The rules are covered in a couple of sides of A4. Initiative is gained each turn so you can get the effect of a “push” by one side as they win the aggression dice throws successively.
And that aggression is simply a +1 on all dice throws. Getting the initiative also means losses are inflicted before the opposition replies – extending the benefit of being the aggressor.
TTB starts with some simple rules and like AMW adds a few mechanisms to layer the differentiation. The difference is more about advantage in play rather than troop type.
I used the less brutal rules option of push back rather than straight destruction. I don’t think this affected the outcome too much. And it was more appropriate for the slogging match here.
Again, the differences in forces were out on the flanks with one unit of light cavalry in play.
The head to head style of resolving conflicts felt like Dux Bellorum and flowed well. Combat can be grouped so you can really speed up results of several units being joined up for a particular combat round.
While firing is alternate and affected by the aggression advantage, combat is simultaneous. This seems to work ok.
The mass combat meant that push back saw a whole line move back – a bit mechanical – less attractive than Dux Bellorum. In the later stages the erosion of flank units meant push backs became messier and trickier for some units – no room to retreat leads to destruction. And with grids there is a bit of space management to be done and in the right order – shepherd your resources – quite board gamey or chess like. This will not be pleasing to some.
In close combat the mounted and foot skirmishers die easily – I like that.
Finally, the king’s men turned a flank, and this crumpled the rebel line although none had the ignominy of being pushed off the table edge itself. I had not considered that when choosing a very small battlefield of just 2 foot 6 inches deep.
The king’s men were about to really destroy their enemy when the 12th move was completed, and the game ended. A day is 12 moves in TTB. Victory was based on various criteria including base loss. The Kings men won on this measure alone.
TTB comes in a slim 42 page black and white softback A4 booklet. It’s 2-page battle rules are really aimed at supporting campaigns and scenarios. The design is oriented in that direction.
Overall, this was a quick game and the lack of measuring not missed at all. The bulk combats removed some subtlety. The rules are so simple like AMW that house rules can fix most objections.
Overall, I liked this set of rules and with some tinkering they might become popular with me.
One Hour Wargames
With just 12 bases (six a side) on the table this game should be quick.
One-hour wargames built on the reputation of AMW for a reliable set of basic quick play rules. Here the pursuit was an even simpler ruleset that gave a game in under an hour. The rules are really scenario based. I set up scenario 1 – the straight encounter of two equal armies. I ignored the force generator to retain two matched shieldwalls.
The rules in about one side of A4 are very simple. 15 points of value represents the “abstraction” of everything unique about a unit. Random losses tell their story – those losing least – obviously were the strong units!
The skirmishers were ineffectual and fought their own flanking battle.
The alternating slugging match by the shieldwall saw the two lines stand toe to toe with no movement, just points erosion to indicate the fluctuation of battle.
Eventually most of the units reached breaking point and some rapidly departed. However, the first to go were from the side that eventually won so it was not the case that once you gained a local advantage this would give overall success.
In this battle we started with only six units, so I allowed it to run to the last unit standing.
As a result, later on the flanking successes of each right hand meant the whole battle line swirled 90 degrees. And then it happened again. A visual demonstration of Daniel Mersey’s “swirling” battle description perhaps. After all there would be no dressing of lines with the leaders all to the front pushing at enemy weakness.
Overall these rules did feel similar to AMW and felt generic. They seemed to give the same outcome as AMW without the saving throw step. Sacrificing differences, or “layering” if you like, for speed of the game is one of those compromises faced by all rule’s writers and gamers. It is what you want out of a game that matters.
Table of Ruleset Criteria
Ruleset
Reading the rules
Ease of Play
Outcomes
AMW
Straight forward
Straight forward
All logical yet Lacked feeling for the period
Dux Bellorum
I often reread the small print! And a bit wordy at times
Once memorised easy to play
Logical and a good feel for shieldwalls
One Hour Wargames
Short and simple
Straight forward
Logical and yet lacked feeling for the period
Table Top Battles
straightforward
Straight forward or so I thought*
A whole battle line eventually got turned twice while the shieldwall fight itself felt ok.
*I made mistakes in all these games but more of them in the TTB – simple errors forgetting to do something here and there. I took more care with Dux Bellorum.
Overall score – brutally simple – rank 1 to 4 (4 is highest) direct preferencing with no ties and no weighting!
Ruleset
Reading the rules
Ease of Play
Outcomes
TOTAL
AMW
3
1
2
6
Dux Bellorum
1
2
4
7
One Hour Wargames
4
4
1
9
Table Top Battles
2
3
3
8
Surprisingly I am saying OHW is the best for two straight shieldwalls. That probably is true though, diverse forces with more movement would probably show up the limitations of OHW even against its stable mate AMW.
If you ignore the rules reading as being less relevant after many games, it’s a tie between Dux Bellorum and Table Top Battles.
And in the final analysis I have to say that it is Dux Bellorum that gets my vote as the most “shieldwall feeling” rule set.
The others all betray their origin as generic rule sets while Dux Bellorum shows its depth of consideration by the author for a very specific period.
So next time I put up a shieldwall or two for a battle it will be Dux Bellorum unless I am in a real hurry. Then I will have 2 or 3 worthy substitutes.
Finally, some aspects of each ruleset that might be important.
AMW
Pros – well thought out design that gives you a simple yet good range of armies with sufficient variation and interest. The core rules plus some supplementary ones do work
Cons – no command and control explicitly and if you don’t like saving throws then this is not for you.
Dux Bellorum
Pros – command and control plus the head to head fighting. Also, the ability to put pressure into the game yet not everywhere all the time. Detailed for the period of Arthur so no need to compromise on design
Cons – somehow the rules are simple yet don’t read so well or indeed stick in my mind. I was constantly referencing the book which then suffered for its small print and layout with some key parts at the foot of a page and easily missed in the heat of battle. This is a minor point as after 10 games most of the rules will be memorable.
One Hour Wargames
Pros – it is such a simple concept and with the random forces selector and scenario choices is a gem. Speed of play!
Cons – it is generic
Table Top Battles
Pros – I had a brief spell with Kallistra, Strategos and then Peter Pig. Grid gaming has generally passed me by though. I like TTB and they feel like a set I could tweak or tamper with. And I think that gridded wargames may come back into favour.
Cons – sliding towards a board game with figures. We are at the far end of wargames abstraction. Your required to do a lot of imagining.
The Wargaming Erratic 