Over the weekend I did an American War of Independence play test using a set of
modified Napoleonic rules and army lists. I'm not an expert in the period so I
simplified Dale's on-line version, which was a bit granular for my purposes, and
kept the rules more aligned to the original version.
The game was a very enjoyable venture back into this period for me. I used to
play a lot of games using Featherstone derived rules and later the WRG 1685-1845
H&M rules in the late 70's / early 80's and it felt a bit like coming home with
this current ruleset.
The scenario involved a strong British force initiating an encounter with a
hastily deployed American defence. Despite a strong defensive position the
Americans were not deployed in much depth and this had a significant bearing on
the eventual outcome.
The British strategy was to force a fight with a focused assault on the American
line, a feint on the right flank with a thrust through the centre. Seemed sound
and worked to an extent, however, the Americans occupied a couple of towns which
helped them resist the British musketry and artillery assault, stalling the
British approach and pulling in their reserves earlier than desired by the
British General.
If the Americans had deployed in more depth I think the British would have
struggled to generate an effective breakthrough. As events transpired the
British did seize the vital central town and managed to rout the weak American
second line which was composed of low grade militia.
In this simulation the variable troop quality was a major factor. The impact of
a unit of British Grenadiers with elite status was significant as they took a
lot of punishment but could still drive through and pass Morale Tests. The
American militia was heavily penalised in my simulation with negative musketry
DRMs and poorer behaviour under fire which led to them routing in the open. In
defensive positions they were much more effective as holding troops. Also the
ruling that a tied melee result always resulted in a Patriot retreat made an
impact over the course of the game – my American Dragoons were particularly
impacted by this on a couple of occasions.
To be fair to the American General, he was deliberately forced to deploy in a
far more linear arrangement than he should have – my excuse for this was being
caught by surprise and the British forcing the pace.
End result was a reasonably convincing British victory 5 units to 2, however,
the British were severely mauled and the old Cornwallis jibe of expensive
victories could be levelled at the British Commander.
All in all an excellent solo game which had all the period drama I used to get
from my games long ago.
My next venture will be a Macedonian v Celt encounter inspired by the Battle of
the Celtic Hills in the Airfix Guide to Ancient Wargaming (Phil Barker). I've
done it with WRG 4th Edition so here is a chance to see how it squares up with
the Thomas rules version.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Sunday, 1 August 2010
More Playtests
Since getting back from my holidays I've had a few chances to do some further
playtesting via solo games for some of the rulesets.
I've done three recent ones:
1. Napoleonic: French v Russian (1807)
2. Second World War: US v German (1944)
3. American Civil War: Eastern (1862)
All were highly enjoyable and played the way I wanted them to with the
historical outcomes I was seeking to simulate.
The Napoleonic game was a vanilla scenario (no house rules) using similar forces
as presented in the example battle in Neil's book. Boy are the French Imperial
army a strong force. I thought the Russian army was pretty cool but the French
surpasses it, particullarly with the additional tactical flexibility of the
rapid formation change. The Russians were slightly imbalanced in their
deployment and the French concentrated their forces in a vital area where the
Russians were exposed. They also seized the strategic terrain features which
allowed them to dominate the surrounding areas. It was a hard struggle for the
French but they finally forced the Russians to concede (5 units to 2).
Moving almost a century and a half forward, this was my first "pure" WWII battle
using the rules in Introduction. I've done a SciFi and a couple of 19th Century
Colonial variants but not a genuine WWII scenario. This was a really hard fought
game which had all the drama I expected from two balanced forces fighting a pure
encounter battle for three clearly defined terrain objectives (one bridge and
two towns). A German victory (just) with two objectives held for one period,
however, the US force did inflict some serious damage on the German assault. My
Tiger I was immobilised by a Sherman early on which blunted a lot of my ability
to backup assaults on the key positions. Typically for the Germans, their
tactical flexibility allowed them to rapidly adapt and utilise as plan B their
assault gun and a rather cavalier Pz IV which had two kills to its merit by the
end of the game until it became the victim of a bazooka ambush from a wood, well
within US zone. I did have some house rules employed e.g.from Rapid Fire I use a
chance test for observation of units that withold their fire: this I find really
adds to the tension of close range troop interactions.
The final game, which I completed last night, was an ACW encounter set in 1862.
I've been looking forward to playing an ACW game: I had a good experience of
this last year when I was initially dabbling with rules and gave the Neil Thomas
Introduction rules a go. My setup gave the Union the task of assaulting a
smaller but more experienced CSA force in what materialsed to be a strong
tactical position, which included a couple of towns and a long ridge. What was
very distinctive in this game was the "ebb and flow" feel, with units made to
test for charges, be forced to retreat and then charge back to engage. I took
the mechanics for this literally sometimes such as in the case of units defeated
in melees having to retreat twice (one for losing the melee, a second retreat
for failing a morale test for losing a base). After a rather epic cut and thrust
fight the Confederates were victorious. Two out of three of the Union assaults
failed. The Union had a rather unimaginative deployment and battle plan with
three assaults. One would act as a feint and which actually should have been a
primary thrust as it was against the weaker CSA flank with more favourable
terrain to move quickly and exploit. Also the Union artillery, which could have
been a far more influential factor, was again deployed without much thought
about focusing on the key areas required in the Union assault plan.
On relection three fine games. Next I'm going to do some Ancients games and I'm
dying to try out the 18th Century variants I've created: WSS, SYW and AWI. Think
I'll go for a Macedonian v Celt next with an AWI game on the back.
playtesting via solo games for some of the rulesets.
I've done three recent ones:
1. Napoleonic: French v Russian (1807)
2. Second World War: US v German (1944)
3. American Civil War: Eastern (1862)
All were highly enjoyable and played the way I wanted them to with the
historical outcomes I was seeking to simulate.
The Napoleonic game was a vanilla scenario (no house rules) using similar forces
as presented in the example battle in Neil's book. Boy are the French Imperial
army a strong force. I thought the Russian army was pretty cool but the French
surpasses it, particullarly with the additional tactical flexibility of the
rapid formation change. The Russians were slightly imbalanced in their
deployment and the French concentrated their forces in a vital area where the
Russians were exposed. They also seized the strategic terrain features which
allowed them to dominate the surrounding areas. It was a hard struggle for the
French but they finally forced the Russians to concede (5 units to 2).
Moving almost a century and a half forward, this was my first "pure" WWII battle
using the rules in Introduction. I've done a SciFi and a couple of 19th Century
Colonial variants but not a genuine WWII scenario. This was a really hard fought
game which had all the drama I expected from two balanced forces fighting a pure
encounter battle for three clearly defined terrain objectives (one bridge and
two towns). A German victory (just) with two objectives held for one period,
however, the US force did inflict some serious damage on the German assault. My
Tiger I was immobilised by a Sherman early on which blunted a lot of my ability
to backup assaults on the key positions. Typically for the Germans, their
tactical flexibility allowed them to rapidly adapt and utilise as plan B their
assault gun and a rather cavalier Pz IV which had two kills to its merit by the
end of the game until it became the victim of a bazooka ambush from a wood, well
within US zone. I did have some house rules employed e.g.from Rapid Fire I use a
chance test for observation of units that withold their fire: this I find really
adds to the tension of close range troop interactions.
The final game, which I completed last night, was an ACW encounter set in 1862.
I've been looking forward to playing an ACW game: I had a good experience of
this last year when I was initially dabbling with rules and gave the Neil Thomas
Introduction rules a go. My setup gave the Union the task of assaulting a
smaller but more experienced CSA force in what materialsed to be a strong
tactical position, which included a couple of towns and a long ridge. What was
very distinctive in this game was the "ebb and flow" feel, with units made to
test for charges, be forced to retreat and then charge back to engage. I took
the mechanics for this literally sometimes such as in the case of units defeated
in melees having to retreat twice (one for losing the melee, a second retreat
for failing a morale test for losing a base). After a rather epic cut and thrust
fight the Confederates were victorious. Two out of three of the Union assaults
failed. The Union had a rather unimaginative deployment and battle plan with
three assaults. One would act as a feint and which actually should have been a
primary thrust as it was against the weaker CSA flank with more favourable
terrain to move quickly and exploit. Also the Union artillery, which could have
been a far more influential factor, was again deployed without much thought
about focusing on the key areas required in the Union assault plan.
On relection three fine games. Next I'm going to do some Ancients games and I'm
dying to try out the 18th Century variants I've created: WSS, SYW and AWI. Think
I'll go for a Macedonian v Celt next with an AWI game on the back.
Monday, 28 June 2010
Colonial Wars Playtest
I've just played a couple of games using the modified WW2 Rules from
"Introduction".
The first was a Zulu vs British encounter based on a Rorke's Drift type
scenario. The second a rather one-sided Battle of Colenso simulation from the
Second Anglo-Boer War.
I've a number of universal amendments that I apply, but basically I used theses
rules and further tweaked them here and there for period specific factors such
as Boer marksmanship (which was pretty devastating from concealed positions),
dismounted cavalry, traditional cavalry operations, Zulu rapid movement etc.
The Zulu Wars game was the most exciting and was touch and go for the defending
British as their enclosure was breached several times by waves of charging Zulu.
The devastating impact of close range fire really did seem to manifest itself
quite visually with waves of Zulu being cut down before they could just reach
the British lines. In the end the British managed to fend off the assault.
The Boer encounter was very much one-sided with a frontal British assault fully
repulsed by concealed Boers in a number of sangar positions. In hindsight the
Boers were in much higher numbers than they should have been historically and
also had a couple of pieces of artillery for good measure. On both marksmanship
and artillery handling / quality they get bonuses and advantages. Combined with
inflated numbers and defensive positions this proved to be a rather bloody and
one-sided affair. I'll refight this next time with lower Boer numbers and less
artillery.
Both played very well using these amendments and I was happy with the historical
results and period feel they gave me.
"Introduction".
The first was a Zulu vs British encounter based on a Rorke's Drift type
scenario. The second a rather one-sided Battle of Colenso simulation from the
Second Anglo-Boer War.
I've a number of universal amendments that I apply, but basically I used theses
rules and further tweaked them here and there for period specific factors such
as Boer marksmanship (which was pretty devastating from concealed positions),
dismounted cavalry, traditional cavalry operations, Zulu rapid movement etc.
The Zulu Wars game was the most exciting and was touch and go for the defending
British as their enclosure was breached several times by waves of charging Zulu.
The devastating impact of close range fire really did seem to manifest itself
quite visually with waves of Zulu being cut down before they could just reach
the British lines. In the end the British managed to fend off the assault.
The Boer encounter was very much one-sided with a frontal British assault fully
repulsed by concealed Boers in a number of sangar positions. In hindsight the
Boers were in much higher numbers than they should have been historically and
also had a couple of pieces of artillery for good measure. On both marksmanship
and artillery handling / quality they get bonuses and advantages. Combined with
inflated numbers and defensive positions this proved to be a rather bloody and
one-sided affair. I'll refight this next time with lower Boer numbers and less
artillery.
Both played very well using these amendments and I was happy with the historical
results and period feel they gave me.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Renaissance Playest: Japan Late 16th Century
I've just completed an excellent Renaissance game which simulated a clan dispute
set in Late Feudal Japan c.1550 to 1600.
Clan Yakato was opposed by Clan Onaka with the battle set in a lightly wooded
valley. Both sides had roughly the same composition of troop types:
Clan Yakato
Samurai (Gendarmes, Extra Heavy Armour, Elite) 2
Samurai (Swordsmen, Heavy Armour, Elite) 1
Samurai (Swordsmen (Longbow), Heavy Armour, Elite) 1
Ashigaru Mixed Unit: 2 x Shot (arquebus), Medium Armour, Average
2 x Pikemen (spears), Medium Armour, Average 3
Wakato (Light Infantry (longbow), Light Armour, Average)1
Clan Onaka
Samurai (Gendarmes, Extra Heavy Armour, Elite) 1
Samurai (Swordsmen, Heavy Armour, Elite) 1
Samurai (Swordsmen (Longbow), Heavy Armour, Elite) 1
Ashigaru Mixed Unit: 2 x Shot (arquebus), Medium Armour, Average
2 x Pikemen (spears), Medium Armour, Average 4
Wakato (Light Infantry (longbow), Light Armour, Average)1
Chugen One of the Ashigaru units designated as Elite
Infantry units were composed of only four stands. This is in contravention of
the Renaissance Rules, however, I felt that infantry formations were probably
smaller than their European counterparts and this also increased the power of
Samurai cavalry in relation to dismounted units, something I wanted to simulate.
For aesthetics I represented every unit with 6 stands ranged 3 to front 3 to
rear. As in my other games that I've used this method, the fifth and sixth were
for visual purposes only with no impact on gameplay apart from bulking the unit
during the process of casualty attrition.
The game proved to be a real epic. It began well for Yakato and by turn 6 it
looked as though they had the battle in the bag, however, a quite phenomenal
revival of fortunes by Onaka Clan, showing a real Bushido spirit, kept their
hopes alive all the way to end of Turn 15 when they were finally reduced to two
units, leaving Yakato the bruised victors with five remaining functioning
formations.
Again I used the D20 casualty removal and the Charge Test solo amendment. All of
these worked fine, introducing a few raised eyebrows when my elite Onaka Samurai
Swordsmen refused to charge a waiting unit of Ashigaru.
I'm starting to write up some Battle Reports so I'm hoping, in time, to post
these with diagrams to the Files Section.
Friday, 18 June 2010
Napoleonic Play Test: French Revolution
I had a game on Monday evening. This one was set in the French Revolutionary
period: Italy 1796.
A French force was tasked with assaulting and capturing a small town occupied by
an Austrian army. The latter proved a very stubborn opponent displaying real
determination in thwarting the French plan of steam-rolling over them.
Their superior cavalry had a decisive impact on proceedings in eliminating the
much poorer French cavalry and rolling up their infantry which were too slow to
push through the assault on the town.
All in all a very creditable performance from the Austrians with their army
playing to it's strengths: good cavalry, quality infantry when deployed in a
defensive position. I played this solo and must admit I was a little biased to
the French so I'm pleased the Austrians overcame this.
There were a couple of modifications I used to assist solo play:
1. Unit Activation: when within engagement range (30cm) and not in contact, each
unit rolls a D6 prior to movement. On 2-5 they act as normal, on a 1 a Control
Test is invoked. A further dice roll result, based on some variables, determines
whether the unit obeys orders, halts, retires or advances towards to enemy.
2. Charge Test / Charge Response Test: again to avoid the "sure thing" charge
and "stand firm" defender, I've devised a simple method of rolling vs Morale
with a few modifiers to determine charge initiation, response and defensive fire
resolution.
The next couple of battles planned are outwith the current envelope of covered
periods:
1. I want to do a late 16th century Japanese clan dispute. I'll use the
Renaissance Rules with a bespoke Army List. Infantry units will be four bases
not six. This will make the Samurai cavalry more potent.
2. An Early World War I encounter between a BEF advance guard and a German
equivalent. I've the rule modications and army lists drafted. All that remains
is finding a time to play it out.
One thing I really like about these rules is their speed. I got the Monday game
setup, played and cleared away in under two hours and still felt I'd had a
satisfying wargame with credible outcomes and historical gameplay.
Dale
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the spirit they were given in.
To answer some of your points. Firstly the context. This was a solo game where I
wanted to "mix it up" a bit and introduce some unpredictability. I actually
quite like Neil's rule on Close Order Infantry and would normally use this in
games.
On specifics: CO Infantry will roll 2D6 and take the better result if they have
more bases than their opponent, otherwise it's a straight D6 Morale Test. This
does overide the rule as you say.
Hasty Square: I'm not fully wed to this rule, however, my intention was again to
introduce a bit of chaos in the infantry response. If the receiver passes the
test they may stand and perform defensive fire on the charging cavalry so I
didn't specify a need to form square in this instance. On reflection maybe there
is scope to give this option. If the receiver fails but stands in place, this
invokes the Hasty Square deployment with the downside that the unit loses a base
if it fails the Test. With a retire the unit must give ground with no capacity
to fire on the attacker.
I quite enjoyed the impact the amendments had on the game as it certainly took a
fair degree of certainty out of the unit interactions. The great advantage of
the solo game is that you can tinker and modify without aggravating a live
opponent.
period: Italy 1796.
A French force was tasked with assaulting and capturing a small town occupied by
an Austrian army. The latter proved a very stubborn opponent displaying real
determination in thwarting the French plan of steam-rolling over them.
Their superior cavalry had a decisive impact on proceedings in eliminating the
much poorer French cavalry and rolling up their infantry which were too slow to
push through the assault on the town.
All in all a very creditable performance from the Austrians with their army
playing to it's strengths: good cavalry, quality infantry when deployed in a
defensive position. I played this solo and must admit I was a little biased to
the French so I'm pleased the Austrians overcame this.
There were a couple of modifications I used to assist solo play:
1. Unit Activation: when within engagement range (30cm) and not in contact, each
unit rolls a D6 prior to movement. On 2-5 they act as normal, on a 1 a Control
Test is invoked. A further dice roll result, based on some variables, determines
whether the unit obeys orders, halts, retires or advances towards to enemy.
2. Charge Test / Charge Response Test: again to avoid the "sure thing" charge
and "stand firm" defender, I've devised a simple method of rolling vs Morale
with a few modifiers to determine charge initiation, response and defensive fire
resolution.
The next couple of battles planned are outwith the current envelope of covered
periods:
1. I want to do a late 16th century Japanese clan dispute. I'll use the
Renaissance Rules with a bespoke Army List. Infantry units will be four bases
not six. This will make the Samurai cavalry more potent.
2. An Early World War I encounter between a BEF advance guard and a German
equivalent. I've the rule modications and army lists drafted. All that remains
is finding a time to play it out.
One thing I really like about these rules is their speed. I got the Monday game
setup, played and cleared away in under two hours and still felt I'd had a
satisfying wargame with credible outcomes and historical gameplay.
Dale
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the spirit they were given in.
To answer some of your points. Firstly the context. This was a solo game where I
wanted to "mix it up" a bit and introduce some unpredictability. I actually
quite like Neil's rule on Close Order Infantry and would normally use this in
games.
On specifics: CO Infantry will roll 2D6 and take the better result if they have
more bases than their opponent, otherwise it's a straight D6 Morale Test. This
does overide the rule as you say.
Hasty Square: I'm not fully wed to this rule, however, my intention was again to
introduce a bit of chaos in the infantry response. If the receiver passes the
test they may stand and perform defensive fire on the charging cavalry so I
didn't specify a need to form square in this instance. On reflection maybe there
is scope to give this option. If the receiver fails but stands in place, this
invokes the Hasty Square deployment with the downside that the unit loses a base
if it fails the Test. With a retire the unit must give ground with no capacity
to fire on the attacker.
I quite enjoyed the impact the amendments had on the game as it certainly took a
fair degree of certainty out of the unit interactions. The great advantage of
the solo game is that you can tinker and modify without aggravating a live
opponent.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Crimean Game Using The Napoleonic Rules
Played a Crimean game last night. I used the Napoleonic rules as the basis with
some period specific modifications.
It played very well. It was based on an Alma type scenario with the British
forces required to assault an entrenched Russian army ranged on a group of
hills.
Outcome was a narrow victory for the Russians. It looked as though they were
going to be ousted from the hills but managed to hold on and inflict sufficient
casualties on the British assault. The Russian artillery was potent in this
respect. They had more pieces and a higher kill factor based on superior calibre
weapons. With hindsight the balance should have been heavier on the British side
– an additional artillery unit or a couple of assault infantry units would have
been fairer.
One thing I did try out for this battle was to dispense with hit markers and
perform a D20 resolution each time casualties were inflicted. If there was one
hit this would lead to a base being removed on a score of 5, for two hits >10
and three >15. This worked well and certainly eliminated table clutter. On
balance it probably equalised out compared to a hit by hit tally.
I now plan to do a French Revolution battle and following that an Early World
War One adaptation of the WW Two rules with some modifications from Rapid Fire
and my own ideas on the subject.
some period specific modifications.
It played very well. It was based on an Alma type scenario with the British
forces required to assault an entrenched Russian army ranged on a group of
hills.
Outcome was a narrow victory for the Russians. It looked as though they were
going to be ousted from the hills but managed to hold on and inflict sufficient
casualties on the British assault. The Russian artillery was potent in this
respect. They had more pieces and a higher kill factor based on superior calibre
weapons. With hindsight the balance should have been heavier on the British side
– an additional artillery unit or a couple of assault infantry units would have
been fairer.
One thing I did try out for this battle was to dispense with hit markers and
perform a D20 resolution each time casualties were inflicted. If there was one
hit this would lead to a base being removed on a score of 5, for two hits >10
and three >15. This worked well and certainly eliminated table clutter. On
balance it probably equalised out compared to a hit by hit tally.
I now plan to do a French Revolution battle and following that an Early World
War One adaptation of the WW Two rules with some modifications from Rapid Fire
and my own ideas on the subject.
Friday, 4 June 2010
New Player: First Post
I'm giving this rules system a second try. I bought the Introduction to Wargaming volume by Neil Thomas a couple of years ago and had some good games with them.
Played an exciting Late Imperial Rome v Huns / Goth Alliance which mashed the latter quite convincingly. Also played an excellent ACW engagement and converted the WW2 Rules to a Sci-fi Space Marines type game (not WH40K the old FGU Space Marines Universe).
I recently purchased his other two books and since then have had two excellent solo games. First an out of period line up between Early Hoplite Greek v Early Imperial Romans. This was a real slugfest which went down to the wire. Greek victory but only just. The Romans had poor dice rolls throughout which had a bearing but seemed to reflect the impact of luck in war quite well.
The second game was a superb Early Renaissance conflict between French and Spanish in the Italian Wars. French won quite convincingly by pinning the enemy and rolling over with their pike blocks.
Now plan to play a Crimean game using the Napoleonic rules with a few period specific adaptations. After that a French Revolution conflict between French and Austrians.
I really like the flexibility of the rules. I think they are simple but not simplistic with lots of nice features akin to the old Featherstone Rules I used to game eons ago. It captures my view of how rules should play.
It's certainly getting all my 6mm armies out for an airing. I've got virtually every period in military history in my collection so I should have plenty of examples of period adaptations coming up.
Played an exciting Late Imperial Rome v Huns / Goth Alliance which mashed the latter quite convincingly. Also played an excellent ACW engagement and converted the WW2 Rules to a Sci-fi Space Marines type game (not WH40K the old FGU Space Marines Universe).
I recently purchased his other two books and since then have had two excellent solo games. First an out of period line up between Early Hoplite Greek v Early Imperial Romans. This was a real slugfest which went down to the wire. Greek victory but only just. The Romans had poor dice rolls throughout which had a bearing but seemed to reflect the impact of luck in war quite well.
The second game was a superb Early Renaissance conflict between French and Spanish in the Italian Wars. French won quite convincingly by pinning the enemy and rolling over with their pike blocks.
Now plan to play a Crimean game using the Napoleonic rules with a few period specific adaptations. After that a French Revolution conflict between French and Austrians.
I really like the flexibility of the rules. I think they are simple but not simplistic with lots of nice features akin to the old Featherstone Rules I used to game eons ago. It captures my view of how rules should play.
It's certainly getting all my 6mm armies out for an airing. I've got virtually every period in military history in my collection so I should have plenty of examples of period adaptations coming up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)