Tag: wargames rules

Threads and Themes

My wargaming has continued to evolve. In 2021 I played more games than in previous years and created more fictitious eras for my mythical worlds. Fauxterre expanded in surprising ways. And that of course is the point about imagination – its very chaos is the atrraction. Unless of course your livelihood depends on producing it for others.

My imaginative wargaming is simply for pleasure – a distraction, an escape from the real world.

Wargaming on the other hand seeks rules and restrictions. So rulesets for many wargamers are a pleasure (!) in themselves rather than simply a necessity. The exception is I believe competition gaming where the rulesets are a necessity simply to allow the “fight” to be resolved at all and a winner declared.

In the wargaming arena “rules lawyers” are the pantomime baddy except ruining the event rather than adding to it. Perhaps the solution has always been there – make competitions more fun than theory. Less historical particulars and more game means that the lawyers have less to exploit. That said, even such family games as cards, scrabble or monopoly betray the rules manipulators!

From my perspective there seem to be far more rules published for game enjoyment even in a competitive situation. And despite a drive for simplicity the abstractions are often well thought out so the feel of the game historically is still there – a key part of the wargame enjoyment.

This is another blog post that has deviated already. On the subject of threads and themes I have been musing on the subjects of rulesets, games and imaginations.

I do like a set of wargaming rules and as rules writers have tended towards explaining their ideas ,these publications have become more readable. Even if you never play a ruleset, they give you someone elses opinion about a conflict or technology – what was signficiant when it came to the conduct of a campaign or battle.

In 2021 I indulged myself.

Piquet Field of Battle 1700-1900 – 2nd edition of this ruleset which likes lots of uncertainty – ideal for soloists and those who enjoy a degree of chaos when it comes to game turn sequence

Neil Thomas 19th Century European Wargaming – post napoleonic but very much still horse and musket. Neil Thomas rules work, really work – its that simple.

Practical Wargaming by Charlie Wesencraft – another ruleset that is coherent and in fact I have never felt the need to tinker with – well ok a little bit.

Neil Thomas Wargaming an Introduction – not my first purchase yet some really useful rules in here.

Mike Smith Table Top Battles – my “grid wargames” ruleset – they even gave me an easy way in to some naval wargaming – something I had previously shown no interest in.

Battle – Practical Wargaming by Charles Grant. A complete set of simple rules for World War 2. A vintage ruleset they convey a simplicity of gaming I have since only really found in Neil Thomas rules.

Peter Pig Poor Bloody Infantry is a grid ruleset but so much more. It is definitely a “game” and does not need adaption for me. I play it straight out of the book.

Donald Featherstone rules don’t appear but had regular run outs. The reason is simply that none of his books were in my view a complete set of rules. They were always full of rules ideas. And that means you get to tinker big time. He gets his own list!

Battles with Model Soldiers ever popular for some simple basics

Advance wargames for period specific mechanisms

Wargame Campaigns – does what it says on the tin lid – ideas for campaigns

Surprisingly Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames had little look in this year. That suggests I have had more time to play each game.

The most satisfying ruleset for 2021 has been Neil Thomas Wargaming 19th Century European Wars. It gave me everything I needed for a new era with his excellent balance of simple play and historical feel. Add to that, excellent scenario generators for both historic battles and those of your imagination, This ruleset has sustained my new interest for most of the year without distraction.

wargame rules wargaming

Scenario MO/01: The Observer

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 4th Dec 2021
8 Comments on Scenario MO/01: The Observer

In my last post I described a small action in a narrative style.

I created the Scenario to try out some new figures. As I have no heavy weapons the challenge needed to be simple.

Also I game solo or rather ZERO. So the scenario had to meet certain specifics. The main one was that surprise or chance was needed to animate the game.

Most solo players are more than happy with rulesets that randomise outcomes far more than the norm for two player games. The reason is easy to see – deprived of your human opponent you need to substitute what would have been their random or unknown acts.

The following Scenario details will help you to apply this to your chosen rules and any number of players you chose.

RED v BLUE – for convenience I have used these terms. In the narrative the Azorians were RED and the Vossackians were BLUE.

RED objective: Place observer on hill to view valley below and call in an air strike against expected enemy concentrations.

BLUE objective: defender may or may not appear!

You can see immediately I have made this one sided in the sense that RED is the active party and BLUE the reactive party – well initially.

notable rules:

you should specify a distance for sighting or observing enemy units. This might look odd on the table when you can plainly see opponents in direct sight. This abstraction is fine – no different to the out of scale scenery versus figures or weapon ranges v movement. Distortion is the whole point of table top wargaming.
The defender throws each turn after RED has moved to find out if a part of its force has appeared
defenders appear at certain points (marked 1 to 8 on the map)
if RED pass through a marked point it ceases to be a point of entry for BLUE
to add variety troops can be of different qualities
movement was not hampered by the hills
movement was hampered by the woodland which covered all the hills anyway

I thought about which rules to use. Having returned only recently to the WW2 era I had previous rulesets to draw upon as well as new ones as yet untried.

Poor Bloody Infantry by Peter Pig
Chain of Command by TooFatLardies
One Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas
Various Featherstone rules – notably the set from Battles with Model Soldiers
“Battle” practical wargaming by Charles Grant Senior
“Operation Warboard” by Gavin and Bernard Lyall
Rapid Fire reloaded

To confound matters I remembered Neil Thomas published Wargaming an Introduction (WaI) that had a WW2 ruleset.

I opted for this ruleset feeling that One Hour Wargames might be too “lite” for my needs.

WaI is maybe not familiar to many people. It has similar mechanisms to other rulesets.

Dice were always six sided except a 1d8 for defender unit location

Back to the Scenario the following were added to the rules

I permitted double moves at the start as my 6×4 or 1.8m x 1.2m table had a lot of distance to be covered for no response due to the sighting rules.
Essentially the units could sprint (double move) once followed by a minimum two moves at normal speed.
Sections comprised separate figures spaced up to 3cm apart
3 Sections equalled a Platoon
I diced for observation distance on the day
- 20cm on a 3
- 30cm on a 4
- 40cm on a 5
- 50cm on a 6
After each RED move BLUE threw 1d6 to appear
- 1= throw a 1d8 for location of defender appearing
- throw 1d6 again to find out whats there
  - 1 nothing ! (this is logical confusion when solo gaming)
  - 2,3,4 means a rifle section
  - 5 means SMG section (could be another rifle section of course)
  - 6 means LMG or on a second check =6 again you get (1,2,3 HMG or 4,5,6 Heavy Mortar). In my game these would never have actually appeared – simply their effect being used.
- I also tested units for grade/quality as WaI requires this info.
  - 1,2 2nd rate
  - 3,4,5 average
  - 6 elite

What Happened?

Lieutenant Grabern set off with his platoon and the observer team. The game lasted 17 turns including some double moves at the beginning. That also meant RED closed at a faster rate per BLUE chance of generating defenders.

On turn 2 a defender location (3) was generated but at this stage its type was not diced for

On turn 7 another location generated (5)

Location 1 was overrun early on so could never activate any defenders

On turn 8 location 4 was also neutralised by RED

Location (6) generated on move 9 along with (2)

On move 11 location (3) was discovered to be an LMG and an elite unit into the bargain. They quickly pinned White Section.

(5) produced elite riflemen and (2) became another LMG – also elite!!!!

Donovan wiped out the LMG at (3) on move 12.

But this was soon replaced by an average rifle section (6) generation

The Azorians were all average troops and once effectively surrounded started to withdraw from move 13 onwards. On move 15 White Section was destroyed while on move 16 the Platoon Leader (Grabern) Section was nearly wiped retreating to the enclosure.

The difference in the “Observers” moves forward and then back is due to the action ending for the Azorians at the enclosure and not behind Hill 90 which was still several moves away.

So there you have it. A simple scenario for a platoon type action.

I was surprised and pleased at the fun levels without heavy weapons or any armour present. They can wait their turn.

Finally the satisfaction is also in selecting, acquiring, painting and then gaming the figures.

Tags the plastic soldier company, wargame scenarios, wargames rules

wargame rules wargaming

The Battle of Tinckermann

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.

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.

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.

Then the Zugarte, Estedio and Meshuda isolated the Allegheny although the Firefly gave aid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tags grid wargaming, gridded wargames, Mike and Joyce Smith, solo wargaming, Table Top Battles, table-top wargaming, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming, wargaming with grids

Mythical Realms wargame rules wargaming

Fauxterre 1816: Part 6 Running the Rule over Kloster Arens

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 3rd Aug 2021
2 Comments on Fauxterre 1816: Part 6 Running the Rule over Kloster Arens

The Neil Thomas ruleset 19th Century European Wargaming (NT19e) has quickly become a favorite of mine, stoking an interest in an era that frankly I have never read about since I was taught, as a kid, about some mad British Cavalry charging Russian guns in a place called Crimea. And not knowing that the French and Prussians rehearsed world war 1 44 years early, in 1870, as well. I did learn about the American Civil War – but that was on a different continent, so doesn’t count.

Neil Thomas restricts his interest to the evolution of European Wars over a 60 year period.

My original european wargaming interests ended at Waterloo in 1815, with Napoleon and then restarted in 1939 with world war 2.

Neil Thomas provides a comprehensive ruleset for battles between 1815 and 1877. Indeed he covers campaigns in a way not really addressed in any of his previous publications. He persists with his “keep it simple but interesting” style: Too simple and you get bored. And I originally considered my first contact with his Ancient and Medieval Wargames tended to the boring – compared to the more complicated rules still holding sway 15 years or so back then. How wrong that has proved to be. I now regularly use all his rulebooks.

For my first Zarland wars I have taken Neil Thomas NT19e and used the following

The forces generators for the mini and standard game
the command optional rules

To that I have added

My Zarland Campaign narrative – to provide the background and scenario details
Forces on the march so my forces invariably have advance guards or flying columns
Dispersal – you need to concentrate from the march because there is always something drawing troops away: So you don’t always get what you want, where you want it. Thats an imaginary life!

Zarland Backdrop

The collision of the three forces were part of the politics of the campaign with Davaria allied to Vin Alba and wanting to support Prince Otto, in reality also wanting a slice of Greater Zarland itself.

Vin Alba has other borders to attend to, so its own effort is only partial.

I used a simple random % to deal with such diverse interests and the use of respective forces drawn from each countries establishments. I normally set up an “establishment” – the theoretical force a country has in place or could raise with notice. Against this the actual field force is a product of circumstance, conflicted resources and leadership (both political and administrative).

So that gets you three slightly different forces and not all “top troops”.

Arrivals

The idea of forces on the march allowed me to apply the simple rule of an NT19e mini game for the advance guards contacting, followed by an NT19e main game for the main bodies clashing.

I diced for broad decisions which led to the Davarians under General Modistin having no advance guard, marching to join and support an already present VinAlban army. Also neither Zarland nor VinAlban advance guards had control of the field. So it was a proper blundering encounter.

Units were mixed with blinds to create a shuffled card deck which was dealt randomly into marching columns. These were moved until contact was made. I also kept the card deployments in place to help create some fog of war. This complimented my “umpire” role in what was a “zero player” wargame.

The advance guards fought a simple engagement with only a few units heavily involved which is always the more likely in my games. It was simply a logical move to retreat the VinAlbans northwards at the end of the first day. By chance this fed the second day action with a false assumption, by the Zarlanders, that the VinAlbans were in force to the north of the battlefield. All this helps develop the battle narrative without hijacking it.

On day 2 the main battlelines met on the same field. This time the NT19e command rule restricting the number of units in action per move did have some effect, while the use of written rules at least one move ahead, meant I had no temptation to make changes of order to achieve a sudden opportunity.

Finally the weather rule (from Charles Wesencraft’s Practical Wargames) provided detail and in fact influenced the game ending early. I then simply determined a number of options for day three and randomly selected one. This turned out to be the “VinAlbans break off action”. I then came up with the appropriate story line that this was caused by “orders from higher up” and ensuring some dissatisfaction on the part of the Davarians.

Tags 19th century wargame rules, Davaria, Fauxterre, Mythical Realms, Neil Thomas, Vienna Treaty Wars, Vin Alba, wargames rules, Zarland

wargame rules wargaming

Leadership, MacDowall, Callan and Mersey

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 17th Nov 2020
2 Comments on Leadership, MacDowall, Callan and Mersey

Well I missed the Wargames Illustrated Magazine free rules giveaway this Autumn. The rules were “never mind the billhooks”. Written for Wars of the Roses. They are just one of many or should I say one of the “plethora of rules” that wargamers can access these days.

So what fuss would there be, given their free, should be more bargain basement than of any original value surely?

Well Andy Callan is the author and for me he has history and if he has authored the rules they will be worth a look. I first encountered Andy Callan as a writer in the 1980’s when I recall his ideas about rules were running against the grain: Something to stir up trouble in wargaming circles most of the time. After all we can be a fussy lot.

Over the years I have kept articles from magazines. Yes I know I have probably destroyed some valuable copies in the process. Still I have what I need. And more to the point I have articles that are still useful reading even decades on.

So back in Spring 1987 when I think Stuart Asquith was at the helm, Practical Wargamer published an article by Andy Callan entitled Leaders and Generals.

He covered three periods in the short article that was really about rules design. The medieval and dark ages era leaders should worry about unit formation – a measure of order, unit aggression – a measure of fighting spirit and unit strength. The latter being an amalgam of numerical strength, armanent and relative fatigue.

The Leaders would be allocated command points.

His main objective for this period was that the “big man” (he coined that term) should be focused on being a “leader” and not be a “general” standing at the back directing operations with so many staff officers.

Move forward a couple of years and we are back with Stuart Asquith who via Publisher Argus Books offered the “wargaming in history” series of A5 booklets.

Simon MacDowell authored Goths, Huns and Romans.

He offered a set of rules within a booklet that also gave some background history; explained the forces and troops involved; set out a variety of game options from skirmishes, through encounter battles to campaigns.

Simon required his leaders to personally intervene to motivate troops to act. Control Points were allocated to each Leader along with inspiration points.

Both these writers were contemporary with the first trials of what became DBA. DBA was conceived in 1988 and was first published in 1990.

And so I thought that all this was disconnected from today. Yet I happened then to rediscover an article by Daniel Mersey in Battlegames shortly after publication of his successful Osprey publication Dux Bellorum around 2012.

And nestled there is Daniels’ homage to that 1980’s wargames era and specifically Andy Callan.

I remember Andy Callan promoting what I consider to be important considerations when trying to replicate the feel of a period through command and control. And I think the other key theme is that you make your rules period specific.

I hope his latest rules “never mind the billhooks” carry on that theme of challenging the status quo and promoting enjoyable and satisfying wargames.

And one final point, Angus McBride bestrides the world of illustrated warriors. His work has become synominous with Osprey. Yet Rick Scollins had a way to engage you in the 1980’s and as you can see he even influenced the young Daniel Mersey (see above). And perhaps appropriately it is his West Saxon Thegn who illustrates that 1988 article in Practical Wargamer.

Happy wargaming whatever your rules preference.

Tags andy callan, battlegames, daniel mersey, DBA, Dux Bellorum, never mind the billhooks, practical wargamer, simon macdowall, stuart asquith, wargame rules, wargames illustrated, wargames rules, wargaming

1/72 scale figures anglo saxons wargame rules wargaming

Two Shieldwalls and One Hour Wargames

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 10th Nov 2020
1 Comment on Two Shieldwalls and One Hour Wargames

My latest Shieldwall foray is with Neil Thomas again. His One Hour Wargames (OHW) have become a mainstay of my gaming. The rules come in what I would call large paperback size. And the book is a paperback as if to emphasise its everyday style.

OHW comprises 9 rulesets from ancients to world war 2. The rules are a “light touch” and the focus is on “scenarios”. His random force selector gives you 6 different unit mixes for armies of 6 units. Coupled with the 30 scenarios thats almost 180 combinations. I say almost, some scenarios limit the forces to 3 or 4 units. Even so its over 100 scenarios to play out. Excellent value in my book.

I used the Dark Age ruleset where you get infantry, warband, skirmishers and cavalry.

My two forces were 5 infantry units plus a skirmisher unit. In this battle the skirmishers faced each other at the royalist left flank and rebels right flank.

The rules cover just 2 sides or about one page of A4 and basically comprise simple movement, shooting and combat. Elimination of units involves chipping away at 15 points of value which covers all defensive strength, morale, leadership variables etc. Power to inflict damage remains constant as well. So it is the eliminiation of a unit that gives a player advantage. This in some way masks weakness and adds to the uncertainty and fog of war.

Before we do the battle report there is a small matter of the narrative.

Narrative

The Kings or Royal forces led by Earl Mathedoi had finally won a significant victory over Thegn Pyrlig while the rebel leader Earl Toki was away raising more of the land in rebellion – or rather recruiting disaffected Mercians to the cause.

The Kings Earl pursued the defeated Thegn, his now weakened but battle hardened infantry ready to fight. His cavalry had evaporated in previous battles and failed to find him. He believed another battle would finish the Thegn off.

And then his force suddenly collided with the returning Rebel Leader Earl Toki. Earl Toki had had little success with the Mercians concerning a mass rebellion although his force now boasted some Mercian reinforcements. Crucially he had not found his Thegn Pyrlig or the bulk of his army.

The two forces drew up and comprising infantry formed two shield walls on some open ground. The few skirmishers would fight each other on one flank as the shieldwalls slowly moved towards each other everyone jostling and making ready to receive or inflict blows.

Game Report

The photos show rebels at the bottom of the picture and royalists at the top.

Earl Mathedoi had defeated two rebel armies in quick succession. Importantly he had defeated Earl Toki whose first taste of defeat almost certainly meant the end of his rebellious actions.

Earl Mathedoi returned to the King to report the good news.

Earl Toki now met Thegn Pyrlig and discovered his main forces had already been defeated in his absence. The Mercians had departed having no desire to be associated with a defeated rebel and especially one lacking plunder.

Most of the rebels just drifted away and this included Thegn Pyrlig.

Earl Toki considered his options. It looked like he would have to go to the King and grovel for forgiveness. After all the King knew Earl Toki was always a useful warrior to have on his side, surely?

Tags Neil Thomas, one hour wargames, shieldwalls, wargames rules

wargame rules wargaming

Shieldwalls collide with One Hour Wargames

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 27th Oct 2020
No Comments on Shieldwalls collide with One Hour Wargames

Not content with adding Table Top Battles to the test mix I have now decided to test my shieldwalls under the very quick ruleset written by Neil Thomas. “One Hour Wargames” (OHW or 1HW) does what it says – gives you a game in under an hour.

So my next posting will cover what happened when Earl Mathedoi caught up with Thegn Pyrlig.

Tags one hour wargames, shieldwalls, table-top wargaming, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules, wargaming

1/72 scale figures anglo saxons wargame rules wargaming

Table Top Battles Tested

In my last post I explained my rediscovery of the ruleset published by Partizan Press and authored by Mike and Joyce Smith.

The Table Top Battles (TTB) ruleset uses a grid. Now I have dabbled in grid based wargaming and played lots of board games which are gridded games of some sort – not a tape measure in sight!

This post is a marathon and I hope you will see that this ruleset although “gamey” has a coherence to it. So the battle flowed and compared to AMW by Neil Thomas and more so with Daniel Mersey’s Dux Bellorum rules, I had little need to keep rereading the rules.

The usual sections follow – set up, then narrative and finally a picture based step by step report.

The rules require you have a base that will fight for each discrete unit. The term used is a “stand”. The General is another base who the way I read the rules is not a stand so does not fight.

I decided to use my leader bases and gave them stand status. The “tinkerman” at work already.

Essentially the line up was a shieldwall with some skirmishers at both ends of the kings battleline. At one end the single rebels skirmisher bow faced up to the kings skirmisher bowmen. At the other the Kings men had a foot bow skirmish stand plus a mounted javelin light cavalry stand facing a shieldwall of rebel spearmen stand.

The diagram below shows the set up. The playing area was kept to a minimum.

Narrative

Earl Toki now felt confident enough to split his forces which had grown due to his successes. He left Thegn Pyrlig with his main forces while he rode to meet some Mercians who promised to come over to his side.

While Earl Toki was away Thegn Pyrlig kept a good lookout and soon enough another force appeared who were yet another collection of the Kings men ready to fight the rebels. Thegn Pyrlig soon confirmed that these were western men but not any they knew or who could be “turned”. And Earl Mathedoi was at their head again, eager to avenge his recent defeat.

TTB in effect uses the “pip” idea from DBA. It is simplified to give a +1 on ALL dice throws made by the aggressor.

The pink die reminds me that my wargame story has included gridded games in the past. My hex gaming with Kallistra never quite got going even though I thought the concept excellent. My problem was the geometrical look of hexes and the fact there is a “weave” for very linear types of warfare. Maybe I was just too focused on DBA at the time. Peter Pig rules for WW2 used square grids and his Poor Bloody Infantry (PBI) rules I really enjoyed before leaving that period altogether. There the grid worked – it did not impose itself in the way hexes did.

Clearly this is a very subjective matter. It is a case of each to their own.

This is my first return to the grid technique.

In the aggressors fire phase shown above both units have a value of one. This value is a combination of any fighting ability and morale. It is used in all firing and combat. To this fixed value you add the result of a single D6 throw. In this firing phase the aggressor has thrown a six and their opponent just 3. So no need for the +1 here.

The result is the loser score was “slightly lower” in the dice off so the stand is moved back. Not playing the +1 pinkie is an error because it applies in every throw. And in this case had it been properly used the losing score or “Target Player” score is now half. not just slightly less than that of the “Firing Player”. In this case the stand should be removed.

TTB gives options throughout and I chose the harsher results approach. Stands either move back a square or are removed from the game.

Remember those brave kings bowmen? Well they were not so brave as the rules allow some stands to engage to fire and then retire if a 4 or more on a D6 is acheived. The kings bowmen threw a 4 and with the pink dice acheived a healthy 5 to retire

In TTB movement is in any direction with only a few restrictions. No penalties apply for direction change or rather they are absorbed into the move allowance. Generally units face up to their nearest opponent without restriction. The exception is when a unit is pinned on one face – then flank and rear attacks can also be made.

And then the rule of 12 lands! The game ends after 12 turns representing the part of the day the battle was fought. The rebels were still in the field but with more stands lost victory went to the Kings men.

Thegn Pyrlig led his men from the field. Already his camp alerted to the returning stream of wounded and fleeing men had begun to get ready to move.

Fortunately Earl Mathedoi and his soldiers simply remained on the field too exhausted to pursue the defeated rebels. Earl Mathedoi cursed has lack of a reserve and especially a mounted reserve. Come to think of it where had his light cavalry gone?

Tags AMW, DBA, Dux Bellorum, grid wargaming, gridded wargames, kallistra hex tiles, Mike and Joyce Smith, Mike Smith, partizan press, peter pig wargames, Table Top Battles, wargame rules, wargames rules, wargaming with grids

wargame rules wargaming

Dux Bellorum test drive: Two Shieldwalls

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 13th Oct 2020
No Comments on Dux Bellorum test drive: Two Shieldwalls

So this is part 3 of a three wargame test of shieldwalls using two rulesets – Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas and Dux Bellorum (DuB) by Dan Mersey.

In the first two games which used AMW I first tested two shieldwalls against each other and then pitched a mounted force against a shieldwall.

The introduction can be found here https://thewargamingerratic.home.blog/2020/09/06/prelude-to-wargames-rules-tested/

and also the two test battles are located here.

https://thewargamingerratic.home.blog/2020/09/07/amw-test-drive-two-shieldwalls/

https://thewargamingerratic.home.blog/2020/09/08/amw-road-test-shieldwall-and-cavalry/

The third game used Dux Bellorum. Now I have used AMW quite a few times whereas this was only a second time use of Dux Bellorum (DuB). DuB was published in 2012, 5 years after AMW and arguably a different offering. AMW perhaps looks back to traditional gaming techniques refreshed while DuB uses more recent approaches.

It emphasises the “leader’s influence” and is very much a game to be enjoyed. So although I think the latter applies to AMW, AMW is more about the collective 8 units working together to achieve victory? By that I mean the capabilities given to the units are the signficiant factor

I used the same “impetus style” elements (80mm x 60mm) to represent each DuB unit.

Instead of Nobles, Retainers, Peasants, Spearmen and Archers we have Companions, Shieldwall, Warriors, Riders, Bow and Skirmishers.

In keeping with a more modern terminology a stat line defines each type of unit.

Move – movement allowance in base widths (BW)

Bravery – equates to command, control and morale of the unit

Aggression (including missiles) – the striking effect of a unit

Protection – the defence value of a unit

Cohesion – endurance, numerical strength, will to fight ( so not the same as bravery above?) interesting that this cohesion is the stat that declines during the game though. Does that mean the unit always has the same morale but loses its will to fight?

Building an army is quick and simple. I went for two almost identical forces of 32 points maximum.

1 x 5 point companion + leader

3 x 5 point shieldwall nobles

3 x 3 point shieldwall ordinaries

2 x 1 point bow skirmishers

Except the “tinkerman” changed the Kings force swopping out one unit of foot skirmishers for some 2 point mounted skirmishers armed with javelins.

So in theory one side had the advantage of 1 point! 32pts (for the king) versus 31pts (for the rebels).

The Rebel Force was the Aggressor who normally goes first in each turn and each phase of a turn.

The battle took place on a plain devoid of any terrain features.

A companion or leader element was supported by 3 noble elements (1 unit to the left and 2 units to the right). At their left flank was 2 ordinary shieldwall units with 1 such element on the right flank. At each end of the line a skirmisher element of bowmen was deployed in the case of the rbels. The only difference was the Kings army having a unit of mounted javelin riders and only one unit of bow skirmishers. These horsemen were deployed on the Kings Earls right flank.

In the photos you will see some mounted troops in the centre of the Kings shieldwall – being a bit short of foot units these posed as foot companions in this battle! It should not affect the visual aspects of this post.

The arrangement being mirrored meant that each unit was matched except for nobles versus ordinary shieldwalls and the mounted javelin horse who squared up to some bow armed foot skirmishers.

Narrative

Earl Toki continued his relentless march through the Wessex and even now the King still did not attend to him. He just sent another Earl, Earl Mathedoi, a Breton immigrant, to deal with Earl Toki.

Earl Mathedoi gathered a scratch force of infantry and again pursued the wily Earl Toki.

Earl Toki elected to give battle again on a flat plain confident that his men would be victorious whatever enemy force was sent against him.

Game set up

In my next post I will comment on these three battles.

Narrative ending for now

Earl Toki was beginning to feel confident as were his men who had now seen off many of the Kings forces. Who would come against them now?

Tags 1/72 Strelets Anglo Saxons, anglo saxon strelets, anglo saxons, Dux Bellorum, wargame rules, wargames, wargames rules

1/72 scale figures 20/25/28mm figures anglo saxons basing wargame rules wargaming

Prelude to Wargames Rules tested

Post author By lorenzoseventh
Post date 6th Sep 2020
3 Comments on Prelude to Wargames Rules tested

So having had a good start to the year painting wise, by August I had enough units to do some gaming. My wargaming has always been predominantly “solo”, so road testing rules on my own is natural for me.

I should also say that from my earliest wargaming days I have tinkered with rules.

It is a quirk of fate that the first wargames book I read on rules came from my local public library (remember them?). So being a child you take what you can or rather see. So what did my local library have in the adult section? Well a single Donald Featherstone book. And his book was called “Advanced Wargames”. It was a book about wargames and the advanced bit meant nothing to me.

So armed with Advanced Wargames I started rule based wargaming and of course met a big problem. Advanced Wargames is a set of chapters dealing with “aspects” of wargaming. Drawing on multiple sources and authors the book covers most areas of rulesets yet they are not joined up to provide a single useable ruleset.

The assumption was that you had a wargames ruleset/s already and some prior knowledge of the whole idea of rules based wargaming. Then you would cherry pick additions and improvements from the book.

I think this is the origin of my “tinkering” with wargames rules. Give me a set of rules and I will invariably add in some “house rules”.

So back to my road test of the rulesets of Neil Thomas and Daniel Mersey.

In Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas there are four period rulesets

Biblical Wargaming 3000BC – 500BC
Classical Wargaming 500BC – 300AD
Dark Age Wargaming 300AD -1100AD
Medieval Wargaming 1100AD – 1485AD

My choice here was obvious – Dark Age Wargaming.

I used his rules without house rule changes on this occasion. Well with one exception.

I use Impetus sized elements having abandoned DBA with its restrictions on depth. And I had settled on 1/72 20-25mm figures on 80 mm wide bases which Impetus assumed would be for 15mm although the rules clearly gave you the option for 1/72 basing.

In fact Impetus rules whole approach to basing was so refreshing when I encountered them. And for me they have set the tone for most of the last decade.

I think they were in the vanguard of “BW” measurement or base width’s. This simple decision meant the end of the need to “rebase” figures when switching between rulesets. Of course if you only have one ruleset it is never an issue.

I have almost as many rulesets as guides to painting figures if not more……..dozens.

AMW assumes you have DBA based figures so uses 4 40mmx20mm bases giving you an 80mm x 40mm element and 8 of these make an AMW army.

In effect you need 32 dba bases which is not so good if you have 12 unit dba armies: And most of my thinking had been on these compact DBA army lines.

Then I read an article in the Lone Warrior magazine of the Solo Wargamers Association. There the writer suggested a cheap way to build armies was just use the 40mm x 20mm bases as single elements and/or reduce figure count to just say 1 for light troops, 2 for medium and 3 for heavy troops. Well it was something like that because it was the principle that made the difference to me. It broke me fully away from DBA “figures per base rules” and Impetus gave me the solution of 1/72 figures which I prefer – yet now on a smaller 15mm scale base size I also prefer.

The net result is I use 80mm wide bases and actually a generous 60mm depth for all units. This allows the impetus suggested “diorama” approach, better showing individual figures you have carefully painted rather than their being very squashed together under DBA.

You sacrifice ground scale though. I guess in this I have followed favourably the increased “abstraction” approach on ruleset design. Abandoning figure removal for losses in the 1990’s? was the start of this “abstraction” and for some the descent fully into gaming and away from any simulation. I love history yet I love gaming so the compromise matters.

Using single base elements meant that required base removal in AMW rules was not now possible. The fix here was simply to use two dice. The first was used to show the 4 “virtual” bases while the second showed the 4 points value each virtual base could sustain before being knocked out and removed from play. I have also used three dice in other games (18 so showing 6+6+4 at the start). But the rules in AMW use base counts to indicate available attack dice. Unless you like mental arithmetic, showing the two aspects gives a simple visual indicator.

A few years later Neil Thomas used this “one number” technique to good effect in his fastplay “One Hour Wargames” (OHW) rules where units are a single base elements with a value of 16 which equates to all the elements morale/resistance/casualty value and overall strength in one number.

So I played two games with AMW. The first was essentially two shield walls crashing together and the second was a cavalry led force attacking a shieldwall.

The third ruleset test game was another shieldwall versus shieldwall this time using Dux Bellorum.

These rules are aimed at a narrower period AD367-793 and with a nod to fantasy gaming called “Arthurian Wargaming Rules”. These rules use the “BW” concept, being published in 2012, 5 long years after AMW.

Again there were no tweaks for once. Indeed in both cases as I fought shieldwall battles a side benefit was to better understand the design of these two rulesets. Because shieldwalls in both rulesets result in quite a static and very balanced game you can see the effect of a limited number of the author’s variables in action.

In my next blog I will consider what happened in each game.