Tag: wargames rules

Stop Press – another ruleset

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 30th Oct 2022
4 Comments on Stop Press – another ruleset

I do have a general idea about an order of postings, yet every now and again I get derailed. The usual suspect here was a wargame show – the other partizan. And that show found me browsing the extensive rulesets on offer at Dave Ryans Caliver Books stand.

I had seen this ruleset before, but moved on many a time. The cover was more Franco Prussian – I had kept avoiding this conflict simply because my interests were 10 – 20 years earlier and there seemed a gulf between these warring times: 1848 to 1870 was a transitional period especially for technology.

“There are you Guns” derives from the “General de Brigade” rules system

This time I looked through a bit more, no, I read the introduction. Somehow the words immediately offered something broader. Never judge a book by its cover they say.

Well the upshot was I parted with some “plastic” notes (I like to take a budget in my pocket – when its its gone, and it kind of adds to the immediacy of a decision) and this ruleset added to my burgeoning ruleset collection – yet again.

A few days later I set about reading the book cover to cover. Not usually my method – I often just get a few figures out and tinker with parts of a ruleset first off.

On this occasion I felt the ruleset could be read as a book. This was because the design philosophy as well as gaming examples are intervweaved amongst the rules chapter by chapeter.

Each chapter is self contained and includes contemporary illustrations and suitable military quotes of the day. It proved a good read.

When I had finished the book I put it to one side and got on with some figure painting. This was after a lay off, the usual “I was painting one day and the next – nothing”. I even had one unit just needing some base foliage adding – but no – production had ceased.

Then I suddenly decided I had to play a test game and yes I had to try for sufficient forces to look at the “divisional” set up. I felt anything smaller might not help me explore the rules sufficiently.

So “Blue on White” was born and I had one division per side comprising 2 brigades of infantry and artillery plus some divisional cavalry. I opted for most of the variables to match on both sides and also headcounts as well.

In effect I took out lots of variables regarding quality. I also discarded all the terrain rules by virtue of fighting the action across a plain.

The Battle of Gatehouse Road: Set on a small rise the road to the Gatehouse described a very low ridge.

The result was a long game where the game was left set up for several days – something I tend not to do. The reason was I felt compelled to find what the result would be by playing out the game.

The rules are not fast play and quick kills were not obvious where forces are very well balanced. At this point I should say that mostly smoothbore ruled the field. The exception was some muzzle loading riflemen. We are talking 1840’s not 1870’s.

I also suspect my use of the smallest size of units made the task of defeating an opponent harder. Although it should follow that units were eliminated quicker – which did not seem to happen.

I might just get a report out discussing the detail because I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed the ruleset mechanisms.

So where do I reckon “there are your guns” (TAYG) comes out against the basket of rules I tested recently?

In short with an overall score of 25 its looking very promising.

“there are your guns” (TAYG 1848) ruleset scores

Criterion	Score
Production	4
Rule Philosophy	8
Game Mechanisms	4
Action Mechanisms	9
Total	25

At 25 this ruleset came in joint second

The best thing about the rules were their feel – having read quite a few books now around the mid 19th century – the rules seemed to reflect well the descriptions/opinions I have encountered. Now one test does not answer every question and crucially I had in effect boxed off 4 brigades against 4 others with some divisional command on top. No flanking and no variability in force quality. No terrain influencers either.

There are your Guns or TAYG1848 – I can never resist an abbreviation

Overall I will be using this ruleset but I am not yet sure how. They feel like they need a sizeable force on the table.

Blue (with a bit of Green) on White – who won? or in this case did the rules win me over?

Happy wargaming.

Tags 19th century wargame rules, Blue on White, Caliver Books, dave ryan, general de brigade, mid 19th century wargames, rules test, TAYG 1848, The battle of Gatehouse Ridge, the other partizan, there are your guns - general de brigade, Vienna Treaty Wars, warfare in the age of steam, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe

Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame rules wargaming

Testing the Rules

How do you compare rulesets? empathy or process – which factors give you a good ruleset?

My recent challenge has been to find a preferred ruleset for mid 19th century European warfare. And that provides the first criterion – what exactly is mid 19th century warfare? Maybe we should be saying post Napoleonic Warfare or Pre Franco Prussian Warfare? Or should we classify with technology – percussion cap, needle gun, sabre, rifling, telegraph, ironclad…..

The thing is that between 1815 and 1865 not a lot seemed to happen. Apparently things regressed as West Point Officers tried to emulate Napoleon in the early years of the Amercian Civil War despite their Mexican war experiences.

1865 to 1915 is the same timespan – would the ACW soldier have recognised the trenches of Europe – well sort of but not the aeroplanes surely.

In fact between 1815 and 1850 warfare was still largely smoothbore in weaponry and equipment and uniforms remained similar. Changes were afoot as more accurate muskets made their mark with percussion caps and more rifling. Uniforms saw frockcoats, trousers and kepis appear.

And between 1850 and 1870 breechloading rifling transformed infantry and artillery capabilities.

Quite a bit going on which means your chosen ruleset is either narrowly period, even campaign, specific or has to be clever and flexible.

My recent simple testing of a series of rulesets has caused me to reflect on what those Criteria for my gaming preferences might be.

I have ended up with 4 areas on interest. First of all I am assuming the choice of ruleset is not limited to an examination of mechanisms.

Production
Philosophy
Game Mechanics
Action Mechanisms

Production includes everything about the printed or e delivered publication. So images and print clarity matter as do the range of wargaming aspects covered.

Philosophy I suppose could be called game design and includes period choice, scale and game size as well as chosen outcomes.

Game Mechanics covers things like army lists, pre battle activity, player numbers and figures.

Finally Action Mechanisms are aimed squarely at movement, combat resolution, control and turn structure.

When I had finished my long list of criteria a massive 43 items had been generated. I did consider some rationalisation when I looked and saw a lot of similarities. And then I decided to leave my longlist intact for now.

I used it to score my rulesets and accepted the potential weighting due to duplicated criteria. Otherwise there is no other weighting in terms of importance of one criterion over another. Action mechanisms are not prioritised over Production Values for example.

In each case a criterion gets a single mark.

That mark is relative to my perceived ideal. The scores can be +1, 0, -1. positive values are favorable.

Lets look at Production first:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Relevant Images	0	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	0
Fair Wear & Tear	0	0	+1*	-1	-1	+1	+1
Logical clear layout	+1	0	+1	+1	-1	+1	+1
Plain text	0	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
Lots of Design Thinking	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
Simple Rules	+1	+1	0	0	-1	+1	+1
Scenarios included	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
Campaigns included	0	0	0	+1	+1	+1	-1
Totals	+4	+3	+6	+5	+2	+2	+5

Table 1: Production Criteria

So GW comes out top followed by F&F and PW. Before I list the rulesets in question the scoring is “relative” and not absolute. It is best thought of as indication of preferencing.

In my case these rules have all been through some sort of preselection in my decision to buy them in the first place. So they all score positively. It is how much more I value them against each other that is measured here.

When it comes to historical wargames rulesets today – in a 60 year old industry, we are talking about marginal gains. I think with fantasy/scifi etc. it is still possible to deliver up a “game changer”!

I have used the following abbreviations.

NT19e – Neil Thomas’s European Warfare in the Nineteenth Century – hardback edition published by Pen & Sword Military 2012

BwMS – Battles with Model Soldiers – hardback edition by Donald Featherstone published by David & Charles 1972

GW – Gentlemans War – “e” publication by Howard Whitehouse and Daniel Foley and published by Pulp Action Library 2018

Fire & Fury – 1st Edition in softback by Richard W Hasenauer 1990 published by Fire & Fury (2nd editions under Brigade and Regimental titles available)

Field of Battle – Piquet 1700-1900 by Brent Oman 2nd Edition published by Piquet Inc 2011

Table Top Battles – by Mike & Joyce Smith 1st Edition published by Mike Smith 2007 (2nd Edition 2018 available)

Practical Wargaming – hardback edition by Charles Wesencraft published by Elmfield Press/Shire Publications 1974

Is it fair to compare rulesets which are published decades apart written for vastly different audiences? I believe so. Despite visually apparent differences, there are some common threads in wargames.

On to Philosophy

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Period – technology emphasis	+1	+1	+1	0	0	-1	+1
abstraction in scaling	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	-1
no figure/base removal	+1	0	-1	0	+1	+1	-1
cavalry ineffective	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
irritant skirmishers	+1	0	+1	0	+1	+1	+1
vunerable yet destructive artillery	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
column and line infantry formations	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
attack defense objectives	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
morale dominant	+1	+1	-1	+1	+1	0	+1
battle narrative	0	0	+1	0	0	0	-1
Totals	9	6	6	5	8	1	4

Table 2: Design Philosophy

So NT19e along with FoB seem to have edged it on philosophy for me. I should say that by having a lot of scores to make, it may reduce my own unintentional bias (of course on the other hand wargames magazines are all about bias – “Buy me” bias).

Talking about bias – my requirement concerns European Warfare so I am effectively biased against other “continents” warfare considerations that are different.

Ok next up is Game Mechanics:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
option to solo game	0	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	-1
measure not grid distance	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1
army selection/lists available	+1	0	+1	+1	+1	0	-1
pre battle actions available	+1	+1	+1	-1	+1	-1	-1
game time required (<2hrs)	+1	+1	0	-1	-1	+1	+1
units per side (6-12)	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	+1	+1
unit ratings (varied)	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	0	+1
table size (5’x4′)	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	+1	+1
concealment/ambush/surprise	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	0	-1
chance (situations/ cards etc.)	0	+1	+1	0	+1	0	0
figures per basic unit (12-20)	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	-1
support functions (engrs/ sappers) rules	0	0	+1	0	0	+1	-1
Totals	9	10	10	0	3	4	-1

Table 3: Game Mechanics

Earlier I asked is it fair to compare rulesets from different decades? Now the question might be should you compare battle rulesets with skirmish rulesets or measured games versus grid games. The answer is of course. Just be consistent in the criteria used for the scoring and try to avoid criteria that directly preference one solution. In my case grids games are not a requirement so do score badly on the requirement for a measured game that I chose to include – some personal bias there.

Battles with Model Soldiers and Gentlemans War seem preferable when it comes to Game Mechanics.

Finally we turn to Action Mechanisms:

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
alternate moves with opportunity	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
initiative	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
simple manoeuvre rules	+1	+1	0	0	+1	+1	+1
measure ranges	+1	-1	0	+1	+1	+1	+1
move and fire in a move	+1	0	+1	-1	+1	-1	+1
road movement restricted	+1	0	0	-1	+1	-1	-1
simple interpenetration	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1	+1
saving throws	+1	+1	+1	-1	-1	-1	-1
leadership/pips/orders	0	+1	-1	+1	+1	+1	+1
written orders	0	+1	-1	-1	-1	-1	+1
cards for actions	0	0	+1	0	+1	0	-1
turn structure is fluid	0	0	+1	0	+1	0	0
simple combat resolution	0	-1	-1	+1	-1	+1	0
simple firing resolution	0	-1	-1	+1	-1	+1	0
	8	4	3	3	6	4	5

Table 4: Action Mechanisms

Neil Thomas 19th century European rules come out preferred for Action Mechanisms along with Field of Battle.

In summary we have table 5

	NT19e	BwMS	GW	F&F	FoB	TTB	PW
Production	4	3	6	5	2	2	5
Design Philosophy	9	6	6	5	8	1	4
Game Mechanics	9	10	10	0	3	4	-1
Action Mechanisms	8	4	3	3	6	4	5
Totals	30	23	25	13	19	11	13

Table 5: Summary

So there you go Neil Thomas rules are to be preferred in meeting my perceived gaming requirements. But……

I really like the liveliness of Fire & Fury while sometimes the grid games using Table Top Battles are just so easy and convenient. And then Gentlemans War offers a sense of detail which drives narrative – an essential requriement for the solo wargamer I would suggest.

Field of Battle uses the house theme of the card driven randomised turn structure of Piquet. I like it a lot but you need to invest your concentration in that ruleset even with the simpler FoB version. Like GW it offers narrative benefits.

My least liked set was actually BwMS even though Donald Featherstone has been the mainstay of my house rules over the years. This is because much of what he wrote was about design philosphy rather than pushing a particular ruleset. You could say nearly all his books were design handbooks for wargames rules writers.

So which ruleset will I go with?

At the moment it must surely be Neil Thomas.

Whatever ruleset you use – happy wargaming.

Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame rules wargaming

Ruletest E: A Gentlemans War 1848-1861

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 25th Jul 2022
No Comments on Ruletest E: A Gentlemans War 1848-1861

A Gentlemans War or “Glossy Coats and Tin Bayonets” is a bit different to the previous rules tested. It is much more towards a skirmishing style and is definitely for enjoyment of the game. These rules are aimed at the period 1875 to 1914 so are a bit later than my interest.

The losses are per figure so the units were

12 man infantry brigades
4 man field artillery batteries
6 man light cavalry brigades

I used their 1850-1875 shooting modifications to the rules

Essentially it shortens all the ranges giving you just rifled muskets or smoothbore cannon.

I ran out some new playing cards for this game.

With a normal playing card deck red cards work for one force, black for the other.

numbered cards allow singular activitions
court cards allow brigaded activations ( I did not use these) or singular activations
ace allows double move and cannot be held in the hand
cards in the hand are used as hold cards to be used as above
cycle ends when every unit on one side has activated
first joker end all cycles – with all disorder markers removed
both sides start new cycles
second joker – cycles end plus all held cards are discarded and packs reshuffled for a restart

The set up was identical to previous tests and the Orchard was inaccessible to all arms, while the road offered some benefit.

The Empire Forces were

left flank – Erzherzog Albrecht Infantry
centre left – No 1 field artillery battery
centre right – Ritter Von Benedek Infantry
right flank – Graf Radetzky Hussars

The Republican Forces were

left flank – Milan Brigade
centre left – “A” battery field artillery
centre right – Bersaglieri di Vignola
right flank – 3rd & 6th Line Lancers (combined)

The action was swift with the rebel lancers charging first……

As they charge in the Austrian Infantry fire scoring on 5 or 6 on 1d6

Rebel saving throws on a 5 or 6 mean only 2 hits make a mark. Yet this meant 1/3 losses 2 out of 6 men killed so a morale check was required which said the Lancers were “bothered” but continued their charge albeit “lukewarm”.

In the melee the “advantage factors” were with the Austrians meaning the Lancers needed a 6 to hit against 3-6 for the infantry. 6 hits on the cavalry halved meant the remnants of the cavalry ran away (1 cavalryman!) while the infantry were reduced by 1 man to 11.

The Bersaglieri attempted to rush the Austrian artillery but became “bothered” and had to retreat. while a fierce firefight took place between the Von Benedek Infantry and the Milan Brigade.

Eventually the Von Benedek Infantry became “disconcerted” – morale test on 50% losses, and ran away.

With just one infantryman left in the Erzherzog Albrecht Infantry the game is up for the Austrians as the Milan Brigade still numbers 10 men and the Bersaglieri have 8 although they keep running away!

So General Radeztky decides to quit the field. General Durando celebrates a great victory largely down to his Milan Infantry brigade which destroyed the Hussars, routed the Von Benedek Infantry and drove off the Austrian Artillery almost single handedly.

Yes this is Ruletest E so where is Ruletest D?

It will be along in due course.

Tags a gentlemans war, austrians, gaming aids, mid 19th century wargames, playing cards, solo wargaming, Vienna Treaty Wars, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, wars of italian unification, wars of the italian unification

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

Ruletest C: Neil Thomas & the Roman Republic 1849

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

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

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

The Battle of Symmetry Ridge

French Forces

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Oudinot quits the field.

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

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

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

wargame rules wargaming

Rules Test A3: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 25th May 2022
5 Comments on Rules Test A3: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

This is the third of a series of battles testing the simple aspects of Fire & Fury (1st edition).

As before Marshall Radetzky and his Austrian forces are engaged with the Piedmontese of King Charles Emmanuel.

The commanders are equal rating under the rules and each move initiative is diced for on opposed d10 dice throws.

All the units have the same Brigade effectiveness rating of 4/3/2 Fresh/worn/spent. As the battle rages units decline in effectiveness going from 4 though 3 to 2 rating. This value modifies the opposed d10 dice rolls which are characteristic of the game rules.

The Forces are

Austria

Left Flank – Brigade Ritter Von Benedek (Green Facings)
Centre Left – No1 Battery Field Artillery
Centre Right – Brigade Von Baden (Orange Facings)
Right Flank – 5th Graf Radeztky & 8th Ferdinand, Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha Cavalry Brigade

Piedmont

Left Flank – Pinerolo Infantry Brigade
Centre Left – “A” Battery Field Artillery
Centre Right – Bologna Volunteers Infantry Brigade
Right Flank – Piedmont Lancers 3rd & 6th Regiments

The initiative went with the Austrians who as one “well handled” moved forward in one line.

In response some “desultory fire” came from the Piedmontese.

in turn the Piedmontese line move forward “well handled”.

The Austrian Hussars had achieved a breakthough and promptly fell upon the Piedmont “A” battery field artillery.

The attack “faltered” miraculously for Piedmont, as it looked like their whole line was about to collapse under the first assault. (hussars rolled modified = 4 against artillery unmodified max die throw of 10).

It was all over so quickly – one swift attack by the Austrians and the Piedmontese turned tail! The Empire is restored, the rebels suppressed and folk can return to drinking coffee and smoking in the cafes of Lombardy…….

Victory Points are usually won by destroying enemy units. The emphasis is not on objectives. Not surprising as a 1990’s era ruleset rarely made objectives the focus. Not so today where often it is the dominant aspect of working out the winner.

Here Austria accrued 7 victory points versus 2 for the Piedmontese.

Just to be clear – no arrangement was made in these battles – the die rolls were as you see them. I suspect it was such as the hapless artillerymen holding off rabid hussars that caused so much ire when these rules were first published.

The rules contain outcomes with descriptions that feed a narrative easily. Telling fire or desultory? you know which one is having an impact.

The Fire and Fury rules (FaF1ed) use scales to help the gamer play Gettysburg on the table top! So the Brigade is the key unit size. Battalions and Regiments don’t figure. This actually also narratively worked for me, which I had not expected.

All in all three very enjoyable games.

Before I conclude my thoughts on FaF1ed, I will run some more rulesets out for a canter.

Tags austrians, fire and fury rules, fire and fury war game rules, piedmontese, rules test, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, WRG 6th edition

wargame rules wargaming

Rules Test A2: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 24th May 2022
2 Comments on Rules Test A2: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

King Victor Emmanuel gathered some more troops and returned to the battlefield, this time his infantry were supported by some cavalry.

The forces were

Piedmont

left flank – Pinerolo Brigade
centre – Bologna Volunteers
right flank – 3rd & 6th Line Cavalry (Lancers) Brigade

Austrians

left flank – Brigade IR59 Von Baden (orange facings)
centre – Brigade IR28 Graf Latour (green facings)
right flank – 5th & 8th Hussars Brigade (5th Carl Albert, Konig von Sardinien with 8th Ferdinand, Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha)

I used Fire & Fury Rules 1st Edition with no amendments. Again each unit had identical Brigade effectiveness 4/3/2 fresh/worn/spent ratings.

Initiative was diced for with unmodified d10 opposing rolls.

Again Charles Emmanuel and Marshall Radetzky faced each other. As it happens the 5th Hussars were already being renamed Marshall Radetzky given Piedmont had turned its back on the Empire.

The Marshall won the initiative no doubt buoyed by success in the previous engagement.

However both infantry units were “tardy” in moving to contact while the Hussars galloped ahead.

In the opposed rolls using modified d10’s the results were

Graf Latour scored 6 against the Bologna Volunteers scoring 12, the minus 6 forced the Austrians to retreat 8″
The Austrian Hussars scored 9 while the Pinerolo Brigade could manage just 4, the Piedmontese Infantry were driven back

In the melee there is nothing between the Lancers and Von Baden so a “desparate struggle” begins.

The Lancers charged home against the Austrian Hussars. The Hussars “checked” the Lancers charge forcing them back.

The Bologna Volunteers held and the “attack faltered” for the Austrian infantry who lost many men.

The Hussars drove back the Lancers inflicting heavy casualties, and they achieved a “breakthrough”. Yet it was hollow and the Lancers were able to retreat intact.

As evening draws in the Austrians quit the field. No victory celebrations for the Marshal tonight.

Tags austrians, fire and fury rules, fire and fury war game rules, piedmontese, rules test, Vienna Treaty Wars, wargame rules, wargames rules

wargame rules wargaming

Rules Test A1: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 23rd May 2022
3 Comments on Rules Test A1: Fire & Fury 1848-1861

This rules test used the 1990 1st Edition ruleset called Fire & Fury. No rule amendments were applied except to deal with the minimal number of units on the board.

My starting point was actually Donald Featherstones Battles with Model Soldiers and his three battle scenarios to show rules in action.

ruletest A – just infantry
ruletest B – infantry plus cavalry
ruletest C – infantry plus cavalry plus artillery

So first up is the all infantry affair. Having never used these rules before it was an easy way into them.

The table set up is shown below in the first photo with two brigades per side each of 4 bases.

Piedmont Forces led by none other than King Victor Emmanuel comprised

The righthand Brigade comprised the Bologna Volunteers in red banded kepis
The lefthand Brigade comprised the Brigade Pinerolo

The Austrians were amazingly led by Marshal Radetzky (brought out of retirement yet again)

The righthand Brigade comprised IR28 Green facings: Graf Latour
The lefthand Brigade comprised IR59 Orange facings: Leopold, Grossherzog von Baden

Uniforms are anything but, as my figure painting interests have ranged from 1848 to 1870! So 1848 uniforms will jostle with those of 1859 or even 1866/70. It was a period of much change in weapons and warfare which in turn influenced what soldiers wore.

The Brigade Effectiveness table is your starting point.

I gave all units a 4/3/2 rating = Fresh/Worn/Spent. This factor which declines during the battle modifies the basic die rolls for manoeuvring and combat. You can see this is a key way to show uneven forces from actual battles.

This last event was I guess, what a lot of complaint was about when the rules first landed. Evenly matched forces could play out a massive swing on the “opposed rolls”. The Austrians rolled 7 up and 4 up to get the Bolognese “swept from the field” and “driven back”.

In the Wars of Italian Unification forces often melted away before renewing an attack with more vigour.

So maybe these rules might bear further examination

Narrative

On this occasion King Victor Emmanuel decided to lick his wounds and retired from the field damaged but not yet defeated. He would return to the fray……….

Tags fire and fury war game rules, piedmontese, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, wars of italian unification, wars of the italian unification

Vienna Treaty Wars wargame rules wargaming

Prelude to Wargames Rules tested II*

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 4th May 2022
2 Comments on Prelude to Wargames Rules tested II*

Which rules are best for mid 19th century warfare. Of course it helps to know which continent your on because apparently the North America Civil Wars were nothing like those happening in Europe…..

My current preoccupations are with the Italian Wars of Unification that, depending on your viewpoint, ran from 1820-1871 or 1848-1870 or even just 1859-1861!

Whichever timeline you choose the events threw up numerous conflicts across the Italian peninsula.

My previous rules shortlist included

Neil Thomas 19th Century European Wars – reviewed here previously
Table Top Battles by Mike Smith – reviewed here previously and here
Gentlemans War by Howard Whitehouse
Practical Wargaming by Charles Wesencraft
Piquet by Brent Oman
These last three were considered here and here for my Kloster Arens Encounter

I guess I had settled on the Neil Thomas set with Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles offering a solution for larger battles generated by my mythical campaigns.

The thing is I had not actually tested Piquet for this period so that was still an unknown. And so was A Gentlemans War for that matter.

And then at Hammerhead 2022 I played Fire and Fury. It reminded me that this ruleset had caught my eye the odd decade ago (!) only to fade away.

I enjoyed the participation game and to cut a long story short, tracked down a 1990 1st Edition courtesy of Dave Ryan at Caliver Books. It included some photocopy extracts of post publication comments which suggested a lot of improvements! There were a lot of complaints at the time it would seem. Nice touch from Dave Ryan to include these contemporary articles with this ruleset.

With so much negative noise why bother with them though? Well they have continued to be published. And it seems they have been morphed into other era’s. My Hammerhead participation game was for the Renaissance: Perhaps this endurance shows the core mechanics work for lots of gamers.

I thought, just maybe an ACW (American Civil War) ruleset might suit my 19th century European wars in Italy after all.

The Italian Wars of Unification fit between the Crimean Wars and the Franco Prussian War while they also bracket the American Civil Wars.

Next up will be some simple tests of Fire & Fury to start with.

*In 2020 I was all Anglo Saxon and shieldwalls and tested a few rulesets to see which might work for me.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battaglia_di_Curtatone_e_Montanara.jpg

This image is to be found in an excellent Wikipedia page about the Italian Wars of Unification.

wargame rules wargaming

Fuoco e Furia or Feuer und Wit, battles in the Po Valley?

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 27th Apr 2022
2 Comments on Fuoco e Furia or Feuer und Wit, battles in the Po Valley?

I have been searching for rules that offer that “something” – that dimension that enhances gaming a certain era. You could call it flavour because most rulesets are basically the same – dice throwing, card turning, measurement, maths, probability and movement around a table sized gaming space.

And of course we all like different flavours.

The Po valley in Northern Italy has seen great armies and leaders pass through, throughout the centuries. Mid 19th century warfare as an era is probably seen by most as a backwater – certainly when it comes to Italy. I guess the wars that get remembered are the Franco Prussian War and of course the American Civil War. These wars it could be argued, framed the next 100 years of global history and perhaps still do.

Back in the Po Valley it was the case of an old empire in retreat.

It was also the time that got us from Napoleon to Kaiser, musket to rifle if you like. Smoothbore and Rifled guns operated side by side.

Battles in the Po Valley in the mid 19th century were short and hurried affairs. But some incurred great loss of life that was noticed. Notable for their apparent lack of professionalism – something about no scouting, lots of surprises and a distinct lack of strategy. The accounts – many contemporary bear out the first two criticisms.

The great strategist Napoleon fought in the Po Valley at the end of the 18th century and his battles were very much confined by the geography. I think his Napoleonic Grand Strategy is more about what went on in the whole of Europe. His wars should been seen in that context. So I would argue Radeztky in 1848 was no less able than Napoleon in achieving his strategic victory in the Po Valley. The difference is that Austria was not fighting a pan european war. But it was fighting battles in the Po Valley.

The issue of poor scouting and too much surprise actually makes for more interesting wargames and throws up opportunities to make a game more interesting. It perhaps beckons to the more erratic ruleset?

For many the war across the Atlantic in the United States is not to be compared – different continents with different outlooks, society and geography.

And yet to my untutored eye while the ACW might have had a grand strategic aspect (western and eastern theatres?), it also seems to have had some campaigns driven by geography limiting the options available to a General. Perhaps there were similarities between these apparently very different wars fought on separate continents?

Even so I had set my mind against looking at the American Civil War as a rules source for my mid 19th century European interests: A case of less is more – something wargamers are often not very good at – me included.

But……

The very nature of limited professional armies, volunteer forces, often with ineffective leadership and disorganisation plus similar technology means that the wars in the Po Valley, seemed quite complimentary to those of the Amercian Civil Wars (ACW).

A bit of a ramble to explain how belatedly, I have considered using ACW rules for my Wars of the Italian Unification (WotIU) battles. In particular Fire and Fury.

http://www.comune.torino.it/canaleturismo/risorgimento/webapp/battaglie/index.html

The Wiki Commons licensed image shown here is to be found in an excellent Wikipedia page about the Italian Unification Wars. The image shows a classic hill top town – in this case being attacked by the Sardinians (Piedmontese) while defended by Austrians.

Tags american civil war, fire and fury rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, wars of the italian unification, wikipedia

Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame rules wargaming

Ruletest D: Battles with Model Soldiers – The Battle of Orchard Hill

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 25th Apr 2022
No Comments on Ruletest D: Battles with Model Soldiers – The Battle of Orchard Hill

This game was thrown in firstly because Battles with Model Soldiers was the source of my original ruleset test scenarios for Fire & Fury.

Battles with Model Soldiers is really a 200 page design/ideas book with rules dotted throughout.

The rules I used are explained briefly at the end of this post. A key aspect is alternate moves with losses incurred before any responses. Initiative (who goes first in each turn) therefore matters.

Donald Featherstones book provides basic rules for American Civil War actions. he shows the mechanics through three stepped up siutations

infantry only
infantry plus cavalry
infantry, cavalry and artillery

In this game I used the last stepped up situation of infantry, cavalry and artillery.

Narrative – Near Rome in 1849

In this confused affair a wargaming Napoleon faces off against Garibaldi – I suppose the nearest real conflict would be 1849 at Rome where Garibaldi gave the French a shock defeat.

The forces were

Roman Republic (Garibaldi) on the left

Red Dragoon Volunteers in foreground left
White Legion Volunteers
Roman Artillery (in liberated Austrian uniforms!)
Milan Sharpshooters in distance

The French were led by General Oudinot looking a bit like the great Napoleon himself.

33rd Line Regiment right foreground
Austrian Artillery on loan
66th Line Regiment in distance
French Cuirassiers

In terms of “ground” the battle was fought on a low ridge (no effect on movement) crossed by a rough track (no benefit) and the fenced orchard (inaccessible to all forces).

What you see is almost what you get – counting actual figures equals strength. I don’t do figure removal normally – using rings and dice to show remaining strength. So 8 cavalrymen on show were actually 10 in value. I also did some selected base removal in this game (for visual effect) just to confuse matters!

This game is a bit short on images – it was quick – almost done in 3 moves really……

Move 1

Both forces deployed and marched forward to drive the other from the ridge otherwise known as Orchard Hill.

Move 2 – Oudinot won the initiative

the 33rd Line fired on the Red Dragoon Volunteers inflicting 3 casualties at medium range
The Austrian artillery opened up on the White Legion Volunteers missing them completely
the 66th Line fired on the Roman Artillery and the artillerymen promptly ran away (die throw = 6 hits versus 4 figures in strength)
The 10 French Cuirassiers charged the 20 Milan Sharpshooters.
- Basically a melee is headcount times 1 point for an infantryman or 2 points for a cavalryman.
- So this fight was on equal points. 1 d6 is rolled per 5 points – 4 dice each. Cavalry get +1 on each dice throw (2 to 7 range possible) for charging.
- Cuirassiers scored 17 versus Sharpshooters 20.
- The points tally HALVED equals the damage. So 17 points halved and fractions rounded down meant 8 points of damage to the Sharpshooters. Thats 8 figures lost from the 20 that started the fight.
- Meanwhile the 20 points of damage halved was 10 and divided by 2 points per cavalryman gave 5 cavalry killed.
- The survivors represent their basic morale – 10 points of Cuirassiers x 1d6 throw of 5 = 50 while the Sharpshooters at 12 points x 1d6 throw of 6 = 72.
- The Sharpshooters won while the Cuirassiers retreated with 50% losses. (bit of Roman gloss there…..)

Garibaldi responded

The Milan Sharpshooters hit the 66th Line with 4 hits
The White Legion hit the Austrian Artillery for six literally – destroying them
The Red Dragoon Volunteers charged the 33rd Line
- 7 remaining Dragoons x 2 pts versus 20 infantry x 1 pt meant 14 points versus 20 points or 4 v 3 dice (round up half or better fractions – 14 points becomes 15 points = 3 dice)
- Cavalry get +1 for charging. The Dragoons inflicted 16 points damage halved = 8 infantrymen killed
- The 33rd Line threw 12 in all = 6 Cavalry points damage or 3 actual dragoons killed
- Now the Dragoons had already lost 3 casualties to firing so were now down to 4 dragoons
- 4 cavalry x 4 die roll versus 12 infantry x 2 die roll was 16 v 24 or a victory for the 33rd Line
- The Cavalry retreated

Move 3 Garibaldi won the initiative to move first

The Milan Sharpshooters fired on the 66th Line scoring 1 hit
The White Legion fired on the 33rd Line scoring 8 hits – destroying the 33rd

Oudinot in Move 3 sent his 66th Line against the Sharpshooters. In the melee the 66th won reducing the Sharpshooters to just 4 men who retired.

The game is almost over!

Move 4 Oudinot moved first

The 66th fired at the Sharpshooters but missed
The Blue Cuirassiers now returned to the fray

Move 4 Garibaldi

The Red Dragoons also returned to the fray
The White Legion now closed on the 66th Line
The Milan Sharpshooters scored 2 casualties on the 66th Line reducing them to just 10 men.

Move 5 the French Curiassiers charge in as the infantry trade fire

Move 5 Oudinot took the initiative

The French Cuirassiers made one last valiant charge into the Milan Sharpshooters.
- The Sharpshooters killed 1 Cuirassier in turn receiving 3 casualties
- The Cuirassiers won the melee driving off the Sharpshooters
The 66th Line fired on the approaching White Legion scoring 6 casualties (I allowed liberal firing arcs!)

Move 5 Garibaldi

The White Legion fired on the 66th Line inflicting 5 casualties in return

Move 5 the French Cuirassiers chase off the Milan Sharpshooters

Move 6 Garibaldi won the initiative

The White Legion fired on the 66th scoring 4 more casualities

Move 6 Oudinot attacks in desparation

The 66th Line and Cuirassiers charge home against the White Legion.
- The White legion suffered 2 casualties
- In return they inflicted 4 infantry casualties with 1 cuirassier loss

Oudinot knows the games up and in Move 7 his Cavalry retire covering the rest of his routing forces.

General Garibaldi triumphs capturing the ridge.

Rules used in the Battle of Orchard Hill

Donald Featherstone distributed his many periods (10) rules within the 200 pages of text. The basic rules presented were for horse and musket and his three stepped up situations used an American Civil War example.

My Summary of Rules from Battles with Model Soldiers

8 moves = 1 dayof daylight and 4 moves = nighttime
Alternate Moves – I opted for “initiative” going to one side for whole move, fire and melee process.
guns picked target after moving is complete
Infantry Firepower
1. 1d6 per 5 men with muskets/rifles
2. modify -1 (0″-6″ short range) 1d6 = hit = casualities of 0 to 5
3. modify -2 (6″-12″ medium range) 1d6 = hit = casualties of 0 to 4
4. modify -3 (12″-24″ long range) 1d6 = hit casualties of 0 to 3
5. -1 per dice for hard cover
6. half casualties for cavalry
Artillery
1. hit on a 6 @ 18″-36″ then 1d6 = casualties
2. hit on 5,6 @ 9″-18″ then 1d6 = casualties
3. hit on 4,5,6 @ 0″-9″ then 1d6 – casualties
4. half casualties for hard cover
5. halve casualties for cavalry
Melee
1. INF v INF = 1pt v 1pt
2. INF v CAV = 1pt v 2pt
3. 1d6 per 5 pts fighting
4. +1 per dice for charging cavalry
5. +1 per dice attacking rear
6. half result to get effect in points
7. half effect for cavalry (they=2pts)
8. survivors in points x 1d6
9. compare result – highest is melee winner, loser retreats one full move
Movement
1. Infantry 12″
2. Cavalry 18″
3. Guns 18″ -3″ limber and unlimber
4. Guns select target in their turn
5. No firing if moved
6. Gun target selection is not movement
Morale
1. Loss of Cin C (not used)
2. 1d6 is thrown per unit
  1. =1 unit flees the field
  2. =2 retire from the field in good order – will defend itself
  3. =3 surrender
  4. =4 fall back 1 move and rallies
  5. =5/6 carries on

A simple set of rules although for some the melee points technique might feel complicated.

Tags ACW, Battle of Orchard Hill, battles with model soldiers, donald featherstone, fire and fury war game rules, garibaldi, garibaldi wargaming, Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Republic, General Oudinot, mid 19th century wargames, solo wargaming, Vienna Treaty Wars, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe, wars of italian unification, wars of the italian unification