This rules test used the 1990 1st Edition ruleset called Fire & Fury. No rule amendments were applied except to deal with the minimal number of units on the board.
My starting point was actually Donald Featherstones Battles with Model Soldiers and his three battle scenarios to show rules in action.
ruletest A – just infantry
ruletest B – infantry plus cavalry
ruletest C – infantry plus cavalry plus artillery
So first up is the all infantry affair. Having never used these rules before it was an easy way into them.
The table set up is shown below in the first photo with two brigades per side each of 4 bases.
Piedmont Forces led by none other than King Victor Emmanuel comprised
The righthand Brigade comprised the Bologna Volunteers in red banded kepis
The lefthand Brigade comprised the Brigade Pinerolo
The Austrians were amazingly led by Marshal Radetzky (brought out of retirement yet again)
The righthand Brigade comprised IR28 Green facings: Graf Latour
The lefthand Brigade comprised IR59 Orange facings: Leopold, Grossherzog von Baden
Uniforms are anything but, as my figure painting interests have ranged from 1848 to 1870! So 1848 uniforms will jostle with those of 1859 or even 1866/70. It was a period of much change in weapons and warfare which in turn influenced what soldiers wore.
The Brigade Effectiveness table is your starting point.
I gave all units a 4/3/2 rating = Fresh/Worn/Spent. This factor which declines during the battle modifies the basic die rolls for manoeuvring and combat. You can see this is a key way to show uneven forces from actual battles.
King Victor Emmanuel marched confidently towards the Austrian Line. Marshall Radetzky was confident these Piedmontese would be driven from the field.The Generals are not attached. Attaching Leaders to brigades confers benefits to events.Both forces changed formation (requiring a D10 + modifiers against a manoeuvre table of results). They adopted field column formation.Each turn starts with an initiative test – the winning General has the advantage of moving first as the ruleset is a IgoUgo turn based game. The rules are actually set up for refighting Gettysburg so each scenario defines the order of play. My solution was to assume both Leaders to have equal effectiveness through opposed rolling an unmodified D10 each.Both forces were very close now and the next initiative would give significant advantage. So far the Piedmontese rolled high…….The Piedmontese rolled high again opted to move and fire as well as changing from field column into line. The Austrians got their fire in first (opportunity fire) but this was “desultory”. I like the terms used to describe outcomes. The Austrian brigade leaders were not used to measure firing effects.Desultory fire all round and generally a lack of manoeuvre……….until the Austrian Brigade Von Baden disordered their Bologna Volunteer opponentson Move 3 the Austrians now managed to get into line and charged the Piedmontese. The Pinerolo Brigade managed to disorder the charging Austrian Brigade Graf Latour whose own fire was desultory before their charge was a success.The Pinerolo Brigade were driven back with significant losses (this is always a randomised value so can lead to interesting follow ups)Meanwhile the Austrian Brigade Von Baden were outstanding with their “elan”, charging home. The Bologna Volunteers were swept from the field, one base skedaddled (ran away), one stand was captured and the rest retreated a full move in disorder
This last event was I guess, what a lot of complaint was about when the rules first landed. Evenly matched forces could play out a massive swing on the “opposed rolls”. The Austrians rolled 7 up and 4 up to get the Bolognese “swept from the field” and “driven back”.
In the Wars of Italian Unification forces often melted away before renewing an attack with more vigour.
So maybe these rules might bear further examination
Narrative
On this occasion King Victor Emmanuel decided to lick his wounds and retired from the field damaged but not yet defeated. He would return to the fray……….
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.
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.
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
Oudinotin 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 destroyedMove 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 attacksin 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 knockingsMove 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
I started this post in early 2021 and simply abandoned it – binned the lot.
Here goes again.
In summary it is this………
playing games about war and through aspects of warfare
Thats it except of course that is not “it”.
Wargaming can involve any or all the following
ballistics
estimating
probability
statistics
art
abstraction
arguments
laughing
hilarity
geography
writing
mathematics
arithmetic
memory
history
science
persuasion
decisions
craftwork
competition
painting
geometry
religion
fieldcraft
impressionism
metalwork
research
fashion
design
imagination
woodwork
music
reasoning
rules
reflection
observation
guidance
opinion
measuring
scaling
proportionality
modelling
technology
language
FUN
plus anything else you can think of (apologies if you find a duplication in the list)
I might have set this out as per a certain 1970’s drinks add and finished with “ever fizzin…..” but I might have stumbled into copyright and licensing problems. Oh, so you can add
social media,
image rights and
IPR as well.
Take your pick – my abiding fascination for wargaming is its sheer variety.
So the next time your accused of causing aggression or violence point out that many sports are well ahead in that queue and quite a few other apparently “peaceful” activities as well!
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 actionNo 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.
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.
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.
So my first unit are line infantry from the Piedmontese Kingdom circa 1850. Here they are glossed – yes its all shiney here. 12 figure units are the order of the day.
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.
My Dark Ages – “as the lights go out” late roman end of the period has never got beyond a 15mm DBA army acquired at Triples about 20 years ago. Well I do also have a 15mm late byzantine DBA army. Neither have had much of a runout despite my love of DBA. A case of right period wrong ruleset maybe?
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.
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.
The Wargaming Erratic 