Tag: wargames

Categories
wargame rules wargaming

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.

Categories
Mid 19th Century Wargaming wargame rules wargaming

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).

The rings denote remaining strength – red = 4 artillerymen/5 figures, yellow = 10 figures, blue = 20 figures with green showing 15 figures in value.

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!

The action was brisk!

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 4 the french right is now under attack – the french left having been destroyed
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
Move 6 The last knockings
Move 6 – the 66th Line break leaving the Cuirassiers alone to hold off the White Legion and the Red Dragoons

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

  1. 8 moves = 1 dayof daylight and 4 moves = nighttime
  2. Alternate Moves – I opted for “initiative” going to one side for whole move, fire and melee process.
  3. guns picked target after moving is complete
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.

Categories
miniatures painting wargaming

Snapshot

John at just add varnish posted his Waterloo 1815 Austrian artillery from the 1850’s. And as it happens I was gaming with very same figures.

Plastic soldier review certainly did not like the officers samurai sword!

So the game report will be a while coming and in the meantime here is a quick snap. My Austrians are in brown as per the box art.

The battle of orchard hill will feature more Austrian forces
In the distance the 1860 bersaglieri di Vignola have run away after finding our Austrian gunners a bit too sharp at even long range – radeztky would have been delighted
Categories
life wargaming

Improvise!

I am not a snow scenery person so you will have to forgive this small quirky offering.

Merry Christmas One and All!

Veteran Minifigs from 1970’s to the front and a kit theatre from the Norman Palace in Parlermo – its side frames show off the famous marionettes or puppets – a theatrical tradition stretching back to the 13th century.
Categories
wargaming world war two

An Unexpected Surprise

For the soloist, looking into the eyes of an opponent and not via a screen is a surprise – a nice surprise.

In this case it was a “live” wargame for a soloist. What to play? Time of the essence – it had to be quick. Although Neil Thomas is invariably a draw, it was “What a Tanker” (WaT) by Too Fat Lardies that won the decision.

with a bit of notice a suitable scene was created – the crossroads was supplied by Coritani at the Fiasco Show

I set up a congested scene after a recent solo run out of WaT had proven to be a bit too much of a target practice event.

Points tally was dictated by wanting at least 3 tanks a side playing wide across a 6’x4′ or 1.8m x 1.2m board. And with one gamer wanting big German tanks to figure, we ended up as follows.

Germans (43pts)

1 Pz VI Tiger I 21pts – armour 10 and strike value 10 with slow moving turret and heavy armour

2 PzIV E-F1 9pts – armour 5 and strike value 4

3 PzIV H-J 13pts – armour 6 and strike value 7

they were up against

British (45pts)

1 M3 Honey 9pts – armour 4 and strike value 4 Fast

2 M3 Grant 10pts – armour 4 and strike value 6

3 M4 Sherman 12pts – armour 6 and strike value 6

4 Sherman Firefly 14pts – armour 6 and strike value 9 slow mover

The British were so short of tanks the Honey had to be sent into action in bare metal (ok plastic) and some white primer!

The scene was near a destroyed bridge with a village of sorts clustered around a crossroads.

What a Tanker requires scenery classification.

The starting points were random. The tiger was in one corner. The M4 Sherman was opposite. The weaker PzIV EF and Grant were at the other flank. In middle the Honey and Firefly faced off the other PzIV HJ.

Everything was a minor obstacle except for some tough hedgerows which being MAJOR obstacles required extra effort to cross. These were my recently completed “sponge hedges”.

Victory conditions for this game were destuction of all enemy armour.

The hedgerows at the top of this photo drove both the German PzIV EF1 tank and its M3 Grant into the village with mixed results.

The Germans were a bit sluggish yet the Tiger took out the fast M3 Honey even before it moved. Things were not looking good for the British. The M4 Sherman (in the wide open) and opposite the Tiger had maxed out on moving (getting lots of drive dice to use in its first turn) and also rolled high (you roll dice for inches of movement). It promptly raced for the relative shelter of the village.

The Firefly was soon engaged with the PzIV HJ and stayed on the west road exchanging light damage.

The Tiger struck again and the Firefly was no more.

The Firefly succumbs! as later does the PzIV HJ – west street was littered with destroyed tanks

The odds were still stacked against the British. Fortunately the Tiger failed to get “drive” dice and the remaining M4 set about the PzIV EF1. Meanwhile the M3 Grant which had struggled to do anything useful managed to get on the north road despite halting in line of sight of the Tiger which this time failed to “acquire” dice for an easy target ( the tiger was at one end of the board, the Grant at the other – 72 inches away).

The Grant then scurried into south east wood before heading north!

Finally some better luck for the British as the M4 took out the PzIV HJ – striking at its weaker flank. Yet the Tiger was now hunting in the village.

The Tiger stalks the M3 Grant at very top left – it really is there! – but it is just a glimpse as the M3 scuttles away

Now the Tiger was really on the move and almost caught the tail of the M3 Grant. Random movement allowed the Tiger to then reverse back onto north bridge road to confront the M4 Sherman that had carelessly decided to chase the action.

The Tiger reverses back onto north road to deal with that “2 kills” M4 Sherman

The M3 Grant continued to skirt the east side of the village arriving at the north end of the village at exactly the right moment – what a journey!

Finally the M3 Grant arrives at the action
No fire dice? with Tigers you can simply crush the opposition………..

The Tiger dice were thrown and they were “drive” dice and no “fire” dice. The Tiger simply drove straight into the M4 Sherman and then – nothing – it failed to crush the M4.

Failing to crush the M4 Sherman led to the M3 Grant getting a free shot at the Tiger’s slightly weaker rear armour.

At that point the M3 Grant had completed its own circumnavigation of the village and acquired the weaker armoured rear of the Tiger 1.

At last the dice really went with the British and another lucky shot destroyed the Tiger 1.

really lucky dice by the unfashionable M3 Grant

Game over!

Gaming tools include measuring sticks, tape measure, dice and dashboard indicators for loaded, aimed, target acquired and buttoned

This game had all the twists and turns WaT offers. After the early dice rolled well for the Germans, luck ran out later on as the British crucially threw two sets of “tank destroyed” dice.

Great fun and we even gave the “oldhammer” measuring sticks a run out.

Categories
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.

a 50 mm grid gave each 100mm square a centreline to sail on. In turn all “lines” became sailable with some rules tinkering. The spaces cease to be occupied directly.

Second I took the single broadside characteristic value of 3 and changed this to three possible values – 3,2,1. I also allowed three steps in the degradation of a broadside after being hit. So a ship might start with a 3 then go down to 2 and finally 1. Note the numbers 1,2,3 are the actual values added to the die roll for a broadside scoring a hit.

The Blue Squadron’s ill fated Chippewa has lost all sail, while all its broadsides (3 per side) and its one of its close action firepower (2xCr=Crew) remain intact

I also permitted some ships to have say a 2 or 1 rating for their broadside from the start reflecting a weaker armanent. And then I still allowed those ships three hits absorption before that broadside would fall silent. So this might be 2,1,1 or 2,2,1 or even 1,1,1.

I left the score tables, crew attack and command values unaltered.

Finally I altered the sailing manoeuvre value. Essentially a hit on a sailing capability each time reduces the speed (movement per 100mm square) by 1. I applied some options, as in a large ship could have say a maximum of 2 while a small ship had a value of 4. In either case degradation of manoeuvre gave more granularity. So a faster ship might have “S” values of 4 then 3 then 2 and then nothing while a slower ship might have “S” values of 2,1,1, before being unable to move.

One final change I made was to sail ships on the “line” of the grid and not in the space. A ship turns on its centre and cannot overlap another ship when it does so. The standard rule of no ramming was retained.

This was a result of my using a 50mm grid.

The unintended outcome of this movement change was for ships to become stuck alongside each other. That felt ok though.

The Battle of Tinckermann – Fauxterre 1816

The Red Kingdom had found out that the Blue Kingdom was attacking some of its provinces and making an amphibious attack. The Red Kingdom dispatched a strong squadron of ships to disperse the enemy fleet.

The Blue Kingdom, well informed about the Red Kingdom actions sent a squadron to intercept the enemy squadron.

The Red Squadron

  • The Fortuna – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
  • The Estedio – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
  • The Meshuda – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
  • The Zugarte – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line

The Blue Squadron

  • The Chippewa – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
  • The Allegheny – a 3 decker 3 masted ship of the line
  • The Abellino – a 2 decker 3 masted FAST ship of the line
  • The Firefly – 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate
  • The Lyra – a 1 decker 3 masted FAST Frigate

The Blue Squadron attacked the Red Squadron in two lines while the Red Squadron attempted to keep a single line and sail between both enemy lines attacking them at the same time.

Early on the Chippewa lost all sail control and drifted out of the battle. This in theory evened up the battle between 4 ships on each side. Then the Fortuna became caught between the Allegheny and the Abellino.

The Allegheny and Fortuna are in the positions that framed the rest of the action while Chippewa in top right drifts out of the action. The blue/red dice indicate a ship has acted in the turn.

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

Firefly attempts to aid the Allegheny

At this point in the battle both the Allegheny and Fortuna were stopped and the other ships manoeuvred to support or exploit the situation.

The final action saw the Red Zugarte and Estedio take on the fast Blue Frigates Lyra and Abellino. Lyra and Estedio had their sail control destroyed.

Lyra (blue) and Estedio (red) are stopped with no sailing power left – they have orange dice on them

At this point the Red Squadron broke off the action and the Meshuda escorted the Zugarte (now with no armanent left) away.

Actually the 12th game move finished. The standard rules are a 12 move game.

Outcomes

At the conclusion of the action the Red Squadron was driven off having to abandon both Fortuna and Estedio – both ships suffering so much damage to their masts that they could no longer manoeuvre.

Firefly and Abellino make sure the Red Squadron make plenty of sail.

The Zugarte had lost all its broadside and crew fighting power. It could still make sail and was escorted away by the Meshuda, which still had both fire and manoeuvre capability remaining.

The Blue Squadron despite driving off the Red Squadron had suffered badly.

The Allegheny had lost all sailing ability although it still had some broadside capability. The Lyra likewise could defend itself but needed repairs before it could make sail again. Early in the action the Chippewa had suffered complete loss of its sailing ability and as the action moved away it sustained hardly any damage keeping all its broadsides intact.

The Firefly retained sailing and fighting ability as did the Abellino – these two vessels were to be seen driving off the Red Squadrons Meshuda and unarmed Zugarte.

And so ended the Battle of Tinckermann with the Blue Kingdom free to continue its land attack on the Red Kingdoms provinces.

A mark 1 ship card – to make them reuseable I inked them in.
A mark 2 ship card! – more improvements required methinks

Afterthoughts

The difference between a win and a possible draw occurred in the last move of the game between slightly unequal forces. I will test this a bit more. It does mean the game hangs in the balance. And for the soloist it is not easy to see who is winning where – always a bonus.

If I was inclined a permanent sea table along with 3D models would drastically improve the visual aspect of this game. Indeed I do have some models from wizkids 2005 pirate game. Somehow I preferred the 2D test set up.

So this has proven a surprising distraction from my land battles. I tend to use TTB for land battles when the action does not lend itself to using Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames or 19th Century European Warfare Rules.

I like to think if Neil Thomas wrote some naval rules then NavalTTB would not be far off the mark.

Categories
Mid 19th Century Wargaming Vienna Treaty Wars wargaming

Plan A never survives contact

In 2020 my wargames hobby plan started with a plan and actually stayed mainly on track with just a few unexpected deviations.

So the Plan was NitS (Normans in the South). The main deviation was to Normans in the North – well actually Norsemen posing as Danes fighting Anglo Saxons. I painted, played games (ok solo ones), read copiously and tested some rules. My wargaming always includes painting figures, playing wargames, reading about the subject of history as well as the wargame and testing out rulesets.

a favorite image from 2020 – the shieldwalls collide

So the main deviations still relate to which plan I am doing. And a plan is normally related to a period in time.

2020 was definitely dark age territory.

I painted up 1/72 plastics, based impetus style as 80mm x 60mm elements. The Strelets multiposed figure boxes work very well. The reissue of their Normans after 8 or so years was also a great help.

Coupled with Neil Thomas’s, Ancient & Medieval Warfare (AMW) or One Hour Wargames (OHW) Rules requiring only 8 or 6 elements per army meant I had some easy gaming options.

And more crazy, I bought a book to learn anglo saxon – now gathering dust, yet I did write a poem about Aethelflaed on this site.

Crikey wargames is dangerous stuff!

Well Plan A 2020 was looking good to become Plan A 2021 – until I read an article in Lone Warrior about some “mid 19th century warfare” (very catchy period name). By then it was late November so you could argue Plan A 2020 – job done. I mean I should already have Plan A 2021 in the can? Well I did.

Plan A 2021 would see a return to NitS (Normans in the South).

A few of my Normans in the South that did get off the Painting Table in 2020

Wargames Plan A – never survives contact with …………………………. ……………………………………………………………….. another interesting article.

So for completely unexplainable reasons, as I read Brian Camerons article, my mind wandered towards 19th century bearskins, kepis, long trousers, rolled greatcoats, lances, sabres and rifles.

The Renaissance Troll post I read about Napoleonic “imagi”nations put the final nail in the NitS coffin.

The 2021 plan A did not include the dark ages or NitS. Sorry folks – I am sure they will make a comeback.

So for Norber the Wargaming Erratic – Plan A 2021 is

Wargame Rules

  • Wargame using “19th Century European Warfare rules” by Neil Thomas
  • Wargame using “Table Top Battles” by Mike Smith maybe with his grid system
  • Wargame using “Piquet Field of Battle 1700-1900” by Brent Oman
  • Wargame using “Practical Wargaming” by Charles Wesencraft

Wargame Army Periods

  • Post Napoleonic 1815 – 1830
  • Monarchists & Revolutionaries 1830 – 1849
  • French resurrection & Prussian hegemony 1850 – 1866
  • Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans demise 1866 – 1877

Wargame Figures

  • Hat 1/72
  • Strelets 1/72
  • Waterloo 1815 1/72
  • Maybe Warrior Miniatures 25mm metals

I wrote this in January but since then have been busy posting about doing things. And yes Plan A 2021 is all about the 19th century.

A recent VTW1815 game using Neil Thomas rules and an eclectic mix of figures – is that the “shade” of Napoleon or his Doppelganger?

More posts coming on the Vienna Treaty Wars or VTW as I abbreviate it.

Categories
wargame rules wargaming

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.

Categories
wargame rules wargaming

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.

roughed out set up of both forces before tinkering………

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

I used the set up rules positioning the two walls as close together as possible and aligned – 3 BW’s from an imaginary table centre line
The Rebels are on the right in this view above. The rules are in small font compared to the AMW rules – not so good for quick reading mid game but the quick reference sheets were very useful.
I used a large dice to show the units cohesion – red for the companions/leader. I used some silver beads to show their leadership points.
Rebel left wing bowmen with some leadership points and a failed bravery throw (2 x D6 needing equal or less than 6)
The right flank rebel bow skirmishers has more luck and moves forward. Generally small WHITE dice show hits for the rebels as well as tests such as bravery
Earl Mathedoi with his impressive 6 cohesion and golden leadership points – both armies started with the basic 6 points leadership allocation.
I like the leader bases even though neither DuB or AMW require them.
An Ordinary shieldwall fails to move needing 7 – they then used the leadership points to achieve the roll.
elsewhere on the rebel left flank good bravery throws were to be seen
Eventually Earl Toki and his rebels advance on the unmoving KIngs men

Earl Mathedoi elects to wait on events – he who waits………maybe?
fruitless exchanges between bow armed skirmishers on the rebel right flank. Blue or purple small dice show hits for the King or things like bravery tests
equally fruitless bowfire on the rebel left
The two shieldwalls make contact – the rebels moved as a group using the leaders successful throw for bravery.
Kingsmen at top throw basic aggression dice (three for ordinary shieldwall and four for noble shieldwall). The rebels moving into contact throw an extra dice on this occasion. The kings ordinaries won their fight and pushed back their opponents while their noble neighbours were both beaten and had to retire half a base width. Feels a bit like DBA here.
Rebel success on each flank while the Kings men drive back the rebel centre
The Kings men attack in the flanks but lose again some initiative in the centre
The rebel bow skirmishers on the right pick off(with a 5 die roll) some more javelin horseman on the left flank they can just be seen in the bottom left trying to stay clear of the pesky bowmen
on the rebel right flank some swift exchanges finally result in the rebel bow skirmishers fleeing the field
a bit disconcerting view that shows best the cohesion losses with the rebels having the worst of it.
however the aggressive attacks by the rebels still give them some advantages, in DuxB attackers are well rewarded with more chances to hit – the issue is can the dice role well and has the repeller played their leadership points not so well?
The rebels have the upper hand in the centre in attacks
and also on the rebel left flank the rebels have the potential to damage the kings men.
now the dice roll well for the rebels on their right flank as seen from the kings side here
in the centre it is a disaster as the Mathedoi throws well – very well.
On the rebels left flank they also stumble with the Javelin armed horse throwing in their lot as well.
Earl Mathedoi’s left hand ordinary shieldwall collapses though
in a blur they are gone!
again this pitcure shows the cohesion dice well – everywhere both sides are on the verge of collapse
The rebel left flank bowmen skirmish with their javelin horsed opponents – firing into a melee is permitted under certain conditions. Here Mathedoi has thoughfully put some leadership protection in place to save the day for now.
The battle reaches its height and yet the battle lines are still discernable
The rebels right flank shieldwall make contact with the kings left flank skirmishers who put up a fight using some valuable leadership points – opting to go for the kill rather than in this case saving themselves.
in the centre the battle goes against the Kings men
On the kings right flank disaster strikes – three rebel sixes destroy the kings ordinary shieldwall and Mathedoi’s right flank shieldwall collapses
The ordinary shieldwall retires from the field
Again the rebel skirmishers fail to make any impact on the kings javelin armed horsemen who bravely now face the rebel shieldwall alone. It is here you must remember Dan Merseys words that the battle is a whirling mix of individual fights and not the apparent order conveyed by our neatly based models!
The final act as everywhere the rebels inflict terrible losses on the kings line
The kings ordinary men still have some fight in them (the blue dice) though, as they destroy a rebel shieldwall while their noble brothers succumb at their side
Mathedoi, his companions and more nobles give up the fight. The loss of units earlier in the battle has reduced the kings leadership points and fatally weakened Mathedois ability to keep units in the fight including his own hearth troops
Even the kings javelin horsmen run out of luck
In the distance the javelin horsemen flee as do the nobles, companions and Mathedoi himself. Nearby some rebels give up the fight as well
As Mathedoi is swept away by his own troops he has no time to reflect on how his decision to wait on events probably made all the difference between victory and defeat.
Dux Bellorum on this occasion rewarded the brave and agressive rebels
As the fighting ends and the line thins out, the Kings men have just 3 units left and with their leader fleeing they are defeated. The rebels hold the field with 7 of their 9 units intact.

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?

Categories
new additions wargaming

A quick AMW army in 1/72?

On impulse I have gathered a set of figures to build a pictish type army for the british isles dark ages.

So which figures have I chosen?

I looked at the plastic solder review site and did not like any of the pictish figures on offer. So I looked around for something that might work. My main choice has been Orions slavic foot soldiers who would be more used to fighting at Adrianople or in the Balkans against the embryonic East Roman Empire.

The army will use the army choice given in AMW for the Picts – I have added two commands as well
This set was bought for my much stalled stoke field project in 28mm! yes they were too small anyway. I have used some of the javelin and bowmen plus some of the mailed figures for the command bases
These Sarmations were a snap choice when passing through Frome in Somerset. I knew they would come in useful except not for dark age Britain! They provide some mounted troops
Having now bought these figures they are wonderful sculpts. It is unfortunate that the Plastic Soldier Review plays down these figures on account of poor casting and flash. These figures have fantastic detail. They make up my main units for a pictish army

The army will comprise all the options for AMW so thats 12 units but based singley on impetus style 80mm wide bases with no base removal possible.

Neil Thomas and his Ancient and Medieval Warfare (AMW) book has grown on me over the years. At the start I did not think I would like an 8 unit army requiring 32 DBA bases to allow casualty removal. I tried it with single bases and dice and it worked. The breakthrough came with his One Hour Wargames (OHW) using the same technique and reducing the armies to just 6 units but crucially playing many scenarios.

I have played much more of both OHW and AMW than say DBA or my preferred ruleset of Impetus.

I arrived in Neil Thomas’ world by chance. Mike Tittensor wrote an article in Slingshot magazine published by the Society of Ancients (SOA) about bronze age warfare and using Peter Pig’s Bloody Barons ruleset. I bought the rules and these got me into plastics because I wanted a low cost solution. This was my first departure from what had been a preference for 15mm metals DBA gaming on a 600mm square board – an excellent coffee table sized game by the way. By chance I had now the opportunity to return to a dining table or 1800mm x 1200mm type gaming table. I was toying with 28mm but disliked the size of figures from a painting point of view. I had struggled with my Wars of the Roses Perrys figures to get a look I liked.

So it was the peak of the plastics era in the 2000’s and I just bought lots of chariots none of which in the end made it to the painting table – irony in there somewhere.

What I did get was a drift away from DBA gaming, first into Bloody Barons, then Impetus and then Neil Thomas.

Neil Thomas and 1/72 plastics are a perfect way to experiment in wargaming.

Not sure when this army will complete – sunshine and a last push for summer beckons.