I am not a snow scenery person so you will have to forgive this small quirky offering.
Merry Christmas One and All!
Tag: wargames
Categories
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.
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 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 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.
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 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!
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.
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.
Game over!
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
More posts coming on the Vienna Treaty Wars or VTW as I abbreviate it.
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.
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?
Categories
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 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.
As much as I like too fat laddies productions and no doubt infamy will get the thumbs up, other manufacturers and scales are doing business.
Minairons have just dipped their toe in the 1/72 scale market. It is a test of the customer base and unlike kick starters you could say this is a rolling start production even if the roll is barely perceptible to start with.
They have opted for the back end of the baroque, or great northern wars or malburian or as they have called it – the war of the Spanish succession.
Starting with some skirmish troops their low key announcement showed the figures contrasted with the splendid zvezda great northern war swedes.
These look fantastic and very tempting……
1/72 Strelets Saxons on the painting table
So these figures will make me just 2 impetus style bases. I opted to switch to 80mm bases after finding an old solo wargamer article that gave some ideas for budget gaming say in a period that was not your main interest. Typically you ignored the traditional DBX rules of figures per base but still kept the frontages.
And then I discovered IMPETUS wargames rules – a great set that liberated my attitudes to basing. Essentially the rules offered a compromise between 15mm on 80mm and 28 mm on 120mm wide bases. They showed plastic 1/72 figures on the 80mm or 120 mm base widths. Either way the basing in Impetus was aimed at making the showing of your figures an important part of the game. It also promoted a diversity of figures showing more a mini diorama than rank upon rank of identical soldiers.
I like the strelets anglo saxons as they offer a range of armoured and unarmoured figures with perhaps a greater emphasis on swords and axes than some would like. As usual Plastic Soldier Review did have some complaints like the spearman above holding his spear awkwardly at shoulder/chin level and being a bit two dimensional. I rather liked him and kept him in even though he is one of the few in these two element groups not wearing mail.
I have moved to plastics because my butterfly interests have caused me to pursue so many different periods and armies usually to dead ends.
So at least my budgets are low! Still perhaps that makes it easier to abandon the plan or project? Sadly I think it would be the case with metals – actually it is, as I possess plenty of 1970’s unpainted metals!
I do feel that strelets anglo saxons have a certain animation which is not always present from their sculptors. They are a bit chunky and a bit inconsistent. I can live with the chunky well fed chaps and I like height, shape and size irregularities in my figures.
Medieval Warfare published by Karwansaray of Zutphen, Netherlands ran an article that caught my “Normans in the South” eye simply because of the date 1018. Just two years earlier a Norman pilgrimage to Mont Saint’ Angelo in Rome kick started the Norman adventure in Italy. So I was after some context and this innocent article led me David Bachrach, Count Dirk III and the Ottonians. I digress, the battle of Vlaardingen was fought between Count Dirks men and the Ottonian forces which included men from from Cologne, Liege and Utrecht as well as Lotharingians. The Ottonian or Frankish soldiers are shown in an interesting mix of red, green and yellow shield markings. I decided my saxons would look a bit like some of these men of the Empire.
Go buy the magazine MW VIII-3. Since I started taking these magazines I found numerous interesting articles and I like the mix of content – good photos, artwork and book references to expnad your reading round the subject.
So I get two options – saxons for any anglo saxon army plus these guys can be frankish troops who may even head south under the Emperor Henry II into the early years of “Normans in the South”.
Categories
Erratic wargaming
What its all about………
This blog will be erratic simply because when it comes to wargaming I am the proverbial butterfly, the world is full of the next nectar stop. So pop in now and again your always welcome.
The Wargaming Erratic 