In part 1 of this series of posts I covered the background to the “Twins War” which broke out in Greater Zarland.
In part 2 I gave a narrative account of an encounter between two advance guards of the respective Royal Zarland Army (the defender) and the VinAlban Army (the aggressor).
In this, part 3 I will detail the rules I am using.
Fauxterre is my mythical realm for what I call the Vienna Treaty Wars. The period between the demise of Napoleon and the Russians wresting control from the Ottoman Turks of the Black Sea is about 60 years and offers up a fascinating choice of technology, engagements and of course uniforms.
Fauxterre 1816 is very much Napoleonic in outlook to begin with. By Fauxterre 1878 the components for World War 1 are already in place – especially technology.
My primary ruleset is from Neil Thomas – Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878 (NT19e). How convenient!
I now have many Neil Thomas titles in my wargames library. And this one first arrived as an “e publication”. I was so impressed I tracked down a rarely for sale hard copy version from the USA. I use both. I am a “printed” book collector anyway.
For my Fauxterre campaign I have also used some other rulesets to meet my needs.
They are
- Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming
- A solo wargames association article on campaign unit advancement
- One Hour Wargames and Wargaming an Introduction by Neil Thomas
- Table Top Battles – Grid Wargaming by Mike Smith
- A Gentlemans War (e pub) by Howard Whitehouse
- Piquet Field of Battle 2nd Edition by Brent Oman
In fact I am keeping the rulesets apart for battles and actions.
Why multiple rulesets?
As a soloist you can please yourself. I actually want the rules for different situations.
- Table Top Battles on a grid are good for big encounters – one base equals say a battalion
- One Hour wargames does what it says on the tin! quick turnround
- A Gentlemans War lends itself to looking at skirmishes in more detail
- NT19e simply gives you a complete package and coupled with One Hour Wargames, lots of flexibility
- Piquet – simply because I like the randomness of the rules for a change! and lastly
- Practical Wargaming by Charlie Wesencraft is another complete package and with some fine mechanisms it gives you a quick and interesting game (in a way Donald Featherstone offerings were not – with Donald Featherstone, I am always spoilt for his fantastic range of choices instead!).
- Wargaming, an Introduction gives me some perspective on Neil Thomas thinking. It includes rules for Napoleonic and ACW wars which sort of bookend his NT19e ruleset.
Where to start?
I think for campaigns the attrition of forces is as good as any. And together with attrition is their reinforcement, gaining of experience and honours.
I came across these ideas in Donald Featherstones books first.
The ideas have remained popular. Indeed RPG games starting with D&D quite simply were all about gaining experience and levelling up: The difference – it was so personal.
In 2012 Sam Mustapha published his Maurice ruleset and in there you find a very basic three level unit quality rule aimed at Maurice being a simple multi battle campaign.
- Elite
- Trained
- Conscript
Neil Thomas uses a 3 level scale in his book Wargaming, an Introduction.
In the Napoleonic rules he uses Elite, Average and Levy with ranges 3-6/4-6 and 5-6 respectively. He then slides these to 4-6/5-6 and 6 on D6 dice rolls when he moves to the ACW era. You can see he downgrades “elite” and “average” while levy are also downgraded and become “militia”.
Perhaps in all this is the genesis of a finer grading he uses in Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe which I have abbreviated to NT19e. Either way Neil sees unit quality as an important ingredient for this post Napoleonic era which also includes the ACW period albeit in Europe. Morale on a D6 rating are
- Fanatic (2-6)
- Elite (3-6)
- Average (4-6)
- Levy (5-6)
- Rabble (6)
I used these in the Kloster Arens encounter.
For future battles though I will probably adopt the following approach.
I found it in an old copy of Lone Warrior, TLMorgan wrote “oh what a surprise!” His fragility factors attracted me because they also seem to lean towards the 19th century armies willingness to easily run away and then come back and have another go. In fact Donald Featherstone uses that very idea in chapter 12 of Battles with Model Soldiers to reflect his view of ACW armies.
And again in Neil Thomas’s Wargaming an Introduction, he contrasts Napoleonic rules with ACW era where in the latter you have rallying of quick breaks in the fighting ability of units.
TLMorgan provided the following example in Lone Warrior
- Green 0-5
- Seasoned 6-13
- Veteran 14-16
- Elite 17-20
The idea is each unit gathers small amounts of experience or attrition and moves on the 0 to 20 scale.
Note TLMorgan describes experience levels whereas Neil Thomas mixes it a bit with measures (average) and types (militia).
TLMorgan provides the means to reflect smaller steps of progress in a campaign compared to say Maurice where each step is the result of a major battle – a case of sequenced battles equating to a campaign. In my case I wanted a campaign where big battles were not guaranteed. In that situation you need a different approach to rewarding experience. Actually much more of a nod to incremental levelling up you get in the original D&D game.
Next TLMorgan also used a similar technique I came across in Charlie Wesencrafts Practical Wargaming. This is where a unit can have its incremental grading for the campaign but on the day of battle can have a different one! This is excellent for narrative creation – prevents the best always being at their best and delivers that campaign grist soloists need.
Again from the original D&D – a super swordsman adventurer having a hangover from too much beer the night before and not being able to wield his sword the next morning…….
Prior to each battle TLMorgan threw a 1D6 for each unit with a 1 meaning the unit was demoted one of their grades for that battle only. Similarly a 6 gained the unit a temporary promotion. Your narrative takes care of the reason.
Another Charlie Wesencraft idea I like is the weather board – ok Donald Featherstone gives you plenty on weather effects as do so many others. I have simply found the Practical Wargaming version enduring and simple in its impact.
You have a scale of 2 to 12, with 6 weather effects and each battle turn you move up or down on a dice throw (range -1,0 or +1) having thrown a 2d6 to get you a starting point.
Kloster Arens Encounter
I used my narrative map to generate some relationships to flesh out the core story about succession. It is here in an earlier Fauxterre post:
https://wordpress.com/post/thewargamingerratic.home.blog/2539
These relationships have driven the conflicts and belligerants including who might be supporting whom.
Having created the conflicted situation I simply used the NT19e minigame scenario generator for the advance guard forces and the main scenario generator for the main bodies.
To get some unit qualities I simply threw a single d12 for each unit against the following table
- Fanatic on a 1
- Elite on a 2 or 3
- Average on 4 to 8
- Levy on 9 to 11
- Rabble on a 12
Zarland Royal Army Advance Guard (Commander is General Sumpf)
- 4th Benkendorf Infantry Regiment – Average
- 12th Maulhadt Infantry Regiment – Levy
- 13th Nurtberg Infantry Regiment – Levy
- 6th Dirkheim Artillery – Average
- 5th Gellenstein Cavalry – Average
No skimishers in this NT19e selection
VinAlban Army Advance Guard (Commander is General Stute)
- 11th Fusiliers – Levy
- 12th Fusiliers – Rabble
- 13th Fusiliers – Levy
- 1st Artillery – Average
- 2nd Artillery – Levy
no cavalry or skirmishers in this NT19e selection of pretty poor troops.
Both commands could control up to 6 units using NT19e optional leadership rules.
So you can see that immediately NT19e gives you asymmetrical or rather different but balanced forces. The use of a unit grading/quality then further alters the result.
Finally I have seen the reference to “zero player” wargaming. This is where the soloist takes neither side but in effect is the third person umpire you get in normal two player games that do have an umpire.
I suppose I play “zero player games”.
To help this dimension I add another layer of deviation or loss of control.
Written Orders
Long out of popularity with two player gamers, written orders are a convenient way to control a game for the soloist. First memorising one sides plans is hard enough, memorising two sides is near impossible and you live in the moment reacting to everything that has just gone before: objectivity and impartiality go out the window.
Written orders gives you a delayed reaction and contributes to the fog of war.
I write two moves ahead which further removes my immediate control. I think it still retains a degree of accuracy when units fail to always react to situations immediately. Very unrealistic situations are simply handled, with dicing for a series of revised actions to modify that one issue.
And if one general is particularly poor they may have to write three ahead – personally intervening more often, if they can, to get things changed more quickly. In contrast a very superior general may be allowed to write only one move order ahead reflecting their greater awareness to situations and independence of their officers.
Neil Thomas is not a great lover of explicit command rules believing in the wargamers ability to mess up, being enough friction in itself! Yet I think in his heart he is writing mainly for two player face to face games and his unaltered rules work really well there.
In summary I use a set of rules with their options and then add in the scene setter + unit quality (if missing) + written orders + weather.
The Wargaming Erratic 