Napoleonic Game: Peninsular War

I played a Napoleonic game today, seeing that I'm completely cut off due to

heavy snowfall.

It was the classic British v French Peninsular line-up. The game was a cracker

with a real "near run" feel to it. The French were the victors in the end but

only just, with four remaining units, most of them pretty battle weary.

I did have an issue during the game. I had a British line attacked from the rear

by a Dragoon regiment that had managed to move round behind it from a previous encounter with vanquished British cavalry. The Dragoons won - but where do the British retreat? I ruled they would still move directly to their own rear i.e. through the Dragoons. In this case they met a Rifle unit placed in their path and were eliminated. Just wondering how others would have ruled on this.

Observations:

- British 2 man line firepower is very effective

- Use the crest line on slopes for British lines

- French artillery is brilliant, British very poor in contrast. If the French

had had more guns they would have mashed the British line in the unprotected

zones.

- the French Dragoons acting as dismounted infantry was a nice touch. Good range

if they are stationary and potent for defensive fire if charged.

Overall played very nicely as a simulation of Napoleonic warfare and reflecting

the Peninsular dimension.

War of the Roses Game

I've just completed a real grinding contest between the Houses of York and Lancaster. As it was pretty snowy outside I decided on a Towton like battle fought in a swirling blizzard. The gameplay matched the weather with a whirlwind of manoeuvre settling down to a series of close combats along the line.

The archers were potent and made a telling impact, however, it was the heavy infantry and cavalry which proved to be the decisive arms. The superior armour ratings gave them high battlefield endurance and staying power in close combat.

I succumbed to allowing a unit of mounted knights on each side - what a medieval game without knights! I know it wasn't on the lists but I couldn't resist.

Outcome was a very narrow Yorkist victory - 3 units to 2. About as close as you can get.

I really enjoyed this - it looked good and played the way I would expect a medieval brawling match would pan out.

Next on my list - a revisit of the skirmish rules I think.

Skirmish Game: Future War

I'm currently not going into work due to the adverse weather conditions in
Scotland, so between sessions of shoveling snow, this has given me the
opportunity to catch up on my gaming.

I was anxious to revisit the skirmish rules which I'd used for a FIW battle. I'd
enjoyed this immensely so I thought I'd give it a try this time with a sci-fi
spin. I'd used my old favourites the "Azzies" vs the Terran Union.

I used my completed Skirmish rule amendments and overlaid some random terrain
determination and specific solo play rules for the Terran deployment of
concealed units as the defender.

The Azuriach Imperium had an entire platoon of three sections which amounted to
36 men in total on 13 bases. 9 power armoured heavy infantry, 3 PML teams and
one Command base. The base is the combat element in my skirmish games.

Opposing them were a platoon of Terran Guard Infantry. These were 22 men
organised as 8 bases: 5 rifles, 2 PML and one command.

Both forces were classed elite for unit characteristics.

The table was pretty cluttered with terrain. I was simulating a rugged jungle
type environment with plenty of steep hills and ravines. This slowed the Azzie
advance. They did detect a couple of Union positions early and started to deploy
their greater numbers to eliminate these in turn. Well that was the plan but it
didn't go that way initially. The Terrans managed to ambush from a couple of
other concealed positions and throw back the assault on the left aimed at one of
the victory objectives - a steep hill occupied by 6 guardsmen.

By the way the Azzies had 3 primary objectives. Two steep hills occupied by the
Guard and a solitary research station.

The Union started to throw back the Azzie advance which was hampered by the
terrain and some bases getting bunched together. As casualties mounted so the
morale tests started to kick in. This ultimately had severe consequences for the
Terrans as they lost both of their PML Teams when they reached 50% casualties.
Their command stand was also eliminated which caused another base loss.

In contrast the Azzies' morale held up for two sub-unit tests and an overall
force down to 50% test. The Elite morale status helped both sides to maintain
cohesion and not disintegrate in the face of mounting casualties.

Finally the Azzies forced the Union to exit the table with only one base
remaining. The Imperium retained five battle worthy bases.

This was great fun and both sides gave me surprises. I think I've got the rules
with my own modifications nailed down now. I liked the discretionary use of
cover by bases, my solo defender placement rules worked well and the observation
rules operated nicely.

Overall a good one. I'll extend the combatants to my adaptation of the WWII
Rules next. I've done quite a bit of work to re-vamp and tighten the text up so
I'm looking forward to giving them a road test with combined arms forces.

Seven Years War Playtest: NPW Modifications

I finally got round to playing a game this weekend. The last of my Napoleonic
adaptations to other H&M periods. This time a Frederick impersonator pitted
against a wily Austrian commander.

The game played out very nicely and I particularly liked the way the Prussian
rapid fire ruling of half move combined with firing, allowed the Prussians to
advance on the Austrians and still inflict attritional casualties. Put a lot of
pressure on the defensive force to match the Prussian musketry.

The Austrians were good in defended positions, however, in this game the
Prussians seized the initiative early and managed to get to occupy most of the
prime locations early on.

I've been focusing on some research and a backlog of rules drafting to get all
my Modern periods and AMW sub-periods onto the word processor.

Now I'm free I'll get back to some more games and might even start rolling out
some painted forces!

World War I: Early War August 1914

Finished an excellent Early WWI game using my WWI amendments for the WWII Rules.
All worked really well and I made some positive tweaks as I went through the
game.

The encounter was between two advance guards, one a BEF Brigade, the other a
German Regiment. Both had supporting srtillery and cavalry squadrons.

The Germans took the initative which managed to deal effectively with one of the
British flanks. In the infantry conflict they gradually encroached on the better
positions making superior use of cover, which in these rules is a major
contributor to battlefield endurance.

Final analysis: Germans won in quite a convincing manner with the British
conceding and making a hasty withdrawl.

These modern rules stand up well for all the sub-periods I've played so far. I
think I'm onto a winner as I was after an Operation Warboard / Featherstone /
Rapid Fire style game which I think this ruleset offers.

War of the Spanish Succession Playest

I completed a playtest of my WSS amendments last night. A entertaining game with
some surprising results.

I went for a larger game format of 14 British units vs 15 French. The French had
more infantry but some of these were of lower quality and they had one less
artillery unit.

The French were to occupy two towns and hold these against the British attack. I
was fully expecting the British to advance with artillery support, perform a
successful assault through sustained musketry fire and sweep the French from the
field.

Nothing of the sort. The French took the initiative by forcing some early
cavalry duels. Again the superior British cavalry were expected to win this
contest. This didn't happen: the French firepower horse were effective in both
defensive and offensive fire and despite the elite status of the British a
couple of their units were impacted by poor morale throws. The French cavalry
captain was also able to use a local superiority of three units to two to
perform some flank attacks which neutralised the edge the British had in
hand-to-hand combat. Despite the success of the French I didn't get the feeling
I'd made the Firepower Horse overpowered. Like most aspects of the game there
seemed to be a consistent "bad luck" theme in the dice rolls from the British
side.

This also featured strongly in the infantry and artillery battle. The French
held their line and prevented the platoon fire of the deployed British units
disrupting their cohesion. They also had a reserve to plug gaps and their
artillery on the left flank performed an immense task in blunting the British
assault there. In contrast the British guns performed poorly.

Overall the French won in a comprehensive manner. They retained 6 Infantry, 2
artillery, their dragoons and most significantly three cavalry units. In
contrast the British conceded on three infantry and three artillery units(which
would shortly be neutralised by the unopposed French cavalry).

I was pleased with my amendments. I made some changes to my Dragoons when I had
them charged while still mounted. I ruled that they could not perform defensive
fire in these circumstances.

For aesthetics I dispensed with the 4 stand line and used 6 stands for infantry
arranged three to front with a depth of two (still counting as four for
casualties). The cavalry and artillery remained as per the rules.

This now leaves the Seven Years War to complete my initial first round of NW
period adaptation playtests. I'm finding that each H&M period I play not only
adds insight into that particular contest but also to the other peripheral
periods I've been looking at.

Big Battle AMW Game

I've just completed a mammoth Early Imperial Roman v Early German battle using
the AMW Rules.

I based this on an earlier game I played to try out my SIP amendments for
Ancients. I enjoyed that game so much that I decided that a big battle AMW game
was in order.

The game was based on the battle simulated in the Gladiator Film's opening
scene.

The Romans were deployed in a long line with a tactical reserve of two legionary
units: 8 Legionaries, 4 Auxiliary Foot, 4 Auxiliary Cavalry and 2 Artillery. A
total of 18 units.

The Germans ranged against them were sitting on a long ridge, flanked by dense
woods. They amounted to 12 Heavy Infantry, 4 Skirmishers armed with javelins and
4 Noble Cavalry. A total of 20 units.

The artillery made an early impression and showed that the Romans meant
business. With fireballs shooting overhead, the Roman line advanced at a steady
pace, the auxiliaries moving towards the wood line and the cavalry protecting
both flanks.

The Germans were deployed quite deep holding at least four infantry in reserve
just behind the battle line. The Skirmishers flanked the infantry, occupying the
woods with the cavalry lurking on the extreme flanks.

The German general showed a willingness to get to grips early and not be
pressurised by the Roman advance. Cavalry and Skirmisher v Auxiliary battles
flared up early. Mixed success for the Germans. Lighter armour was already a
factor and this became critical once the legions engaged.

Roman Heavy Infantry are remarkable. They showed a distinct superiority over the
Germans in one-to-one line-ups, however, the German general did use his reserves
to create flanking attacks and on the right flank they were actually prevailing.
However, with the collapse of the left flank, the Roman infantry started to
roll-up the battle line and it was only a matter of time before the Germans were
reduced to five operational units and lost the game. The Legions were supreme in
this contest. It felt very much as I would expect for an opposing force taking
on the might of Rome.

One area that I do feel that the Romans are a bit short changed on is the impact
of the pilum prior to charging. I know this is supposed to be factored in but
I've always liked a means to simulate this offensive fire during a charge. It
would have probably meant making the Romans invincible but I was considering
giving them the ability to roll two dice during the charge phase to represent
pilum throwing. Just an idea: I didn't try it out in this game.

One house rule I did experiment with was a push-back move during hand-to-hand
combat. I liked this feature in the older WRG Rules where units were pushed
about a bit during extended melees. Originally I decreed that the difference in
hits inflicted would mean the loser would be pushed back that many centimetres.
This produced some larger movements than I wanted so I looked a the loser moving
1cm if beaten in hits, finally settling on twice as many hits initiating a 1cm
retreat for the loser and associated follow-up from the attacker. It meant there
were some ripples in the battle-line which created a pleasing effect and
presented the commanders with more tactical problems to address in maintaining
cohesion. I'll continue to play test this in future games.

ACW Game: Old School Scenario

I played an ACW game last weekend just before I went on holiday this week.

It was based upon the classic Action in the Plattville Valley which appeared in
the Don Featherstone Wargaming book. I used identical line-ups, except for the
Union side, which on account of it's generally lower level of unit morale I
compensated it with two additional regiments of infantry and one gun battery.

The battle was a complete indulgence in nostalgia where I used as much of the
information re unit names and dispositions as I could. I've played it a couple
of times before. Once, back in the early 80's, using the ACW Rules written by DF
in his Wargamers Newsletter and a more up to date version using modified Shako
rules.

Enjoyed them all no matter the rules used - they all had their highs and lows.
I'd say I was consistently pleased with the Thomas version. I modified the
retreat rules following the recent discussion on the Group re this subject and
decreed that units retreat directly to the rear but were allowed to
interpenetrate blocking units, however, these would be subject to a morale test
which if failed would result in a base loss.

One feature of the rules I used far more than in previous games was rallying.
The Union side in particular gained significant advantage from resting their
battered units and regaining combat capacity to re-join the action. Having more
units gave them a greater flexibility to hold units in reserve and rotate their
engaged units with fresh ones.

The game actually ended very much as the original did. The Union were triumphant
on their right flank and were in a position to secure Plattville which was their
objective. The CSA General Jubal A. Early was able to retreat his largely intact
command under the cover of nightfall. He was still strong in cavalry and had two
thirds of the infantry intact, however, he'd lost both batteries and the Union
forces still had two and which were a persitant drain to his remaining offensive
capacity. Retreat to fight another day proved a compelling arguement.

The next game I'm planning to do is my Gladiator simulation, that I played using
modified SIP, as a 16 v 16 AMW game and see how this goes. I have a feeling this
will be a cracker. Masses of legions, masses of Germans. What more could you
want!

I'm also working on expanding my WWI and Colonial modifications to Colonial East
Africa and while on holiday have a noted a number of projects to keep me busy up
to Christmas.

Skirmish Game: French Indian Wars

One facet of Neil's rules that I haven't gamed so far, but have been wanting to
for some time, are his skirmish rules in Introduction.

I used to play a lot of skirmish level games back in the 1980's, the majority
were sci-fi and based on RPGs or FGU Space Marines. I also played some
historical and fantasy skirmish games. Since then not much so it was a return to
the olden days for this type of gaming experience. I wasn't disappointed.

My chosen period was the French Indian Wars in Canada. I have always been
intrigued by an article in Wargames Newsletter which descibed a game using Don
Featherstone's Close War rules. It has captured my imgagination and finally I
decided to go for it and set something comparable up but use the Thomas Skirmish
rules with the inevitable tweaks and amendments I've already overlaid on the
original.

The British raiding party was to penetrate dense woods in order to reach the
St.Lawrence and cut loose three floating batteries, protected by a camp occupied
by French regulars and Canadian Militia. Things started well with rapid progress
through clearings and paths. My New England Rangers were deemed to be unaffected
by woods so speeded round the French flank. Some well placed pickets of French
Regulars supported by a couple of patrols of Huron Indians and Militia soon
slowed down the British advance and stalled progress while they were being dealt
with.

Meanwhile the alarm had been raised at the French camp and the French Colonel
was able to deploy his men to guard the batteries and advance on the British
thrust down the river bank. Some British light infantry had succeeded to cut one
of the moorings but were forced back by heavy musketry from the French.

Casualties started to mount and with a 50% morale check eliminating further
stands I decided the British were not going to progress any further and they
melted back the way they came.

Overall a great little game. The rules performed really well and my in-game
experiments with my house rules proved very useful. I toyed with impetus,
ambushes, concealment, flank and rear attacks, the effect of wounds on combat to
name some of them.

I liked the loading delay in musket fire. I made the rifles more musket like
than the rules which I think are based on early breechloaders. I think the rules
could be used for virtually any period. I've focused my amendments more on
Modern and Sci-fi but I don't see a problem going further back to A&M and P&S.

I do remember playing Paddy Griffith's skirmish rules in Napoleonic Wargaming
For Fun. These were great but I did feel like I was loading my musket for half
the game. The actions in these rules are limited, the gameplay is fast and the
action pretty decisive. The game took about an hour and a half to two hours but
I was typing away on my amendments during the action so this probably slowed
things down a bit.

Look forward to another skirmish game.

SIP Playtest 2: Ancients

Just finished a rather epic Roman v Early German confrontation along the lines
of the opening scene in Gladiator. I chose a large game format with between 16
and 18 units on each side.

The Romans: 8 Legionnaries, 4 Auxiliary Foot, 4 Auxiliary Cavalry
The Germans: 12 Warband, 4 Skirmishers, 4 Cavalry

I was going to play the Germans as Heavy Infantry but I wanted to try out
Warband and was intrigued by this notion of "Fresh" that John introduced, which
I thought I'd go for instead of first round impetus.

To compensate I kept all troops on the same competency scale of morale. With
hindsight I think this was a bit over generous to the German side as Fresh works
really well if you're winning and the Romans would have benefited from ignoring
one DP on a number of occassions. Getting a precious extra 2 dice can really
make a difference.

The Romans had to attack a long ridge, flanked by dense woods. The Germans were
goading them to advance as per the film intro. Battle did commence but the
skirmisher screen put out by the Germans did a good job in delaying and
disrupting the advancing legion. I think this was a bit too disruptive, not from
the missile fire but the mere fact that they got in the way. Perhaps a dispersal
/ auto-evade type ruling needs to be in place. I allowed the LI to retreat a
move even though they didn't outmove the Legion. First rule change: no greater
than move restriction on retiral.

The auxilia then proceeded to engage the occupied woods while the Roman legions
finally advanced up the central ridge. The individual nature of combats meant
that other units couldn't get in to engage others that easily but did perform a
rather vital role of support to those who were doing the fighting. I spent some
time moving units into support positions near melee areas so that they sat
within the 10cm melee catchment zone. I liked this element of cohesion and close
support. Even the cavalry were helping when they couldn't get a clear run to
charge.

The combat was long and furious. Generally the Legions were supreme but Fresh
warband are a potent instrument particularly in favourable terrain and with
close support. I decided that terrain advantage should only last one round
otherwise it would factor too heavily.

The Romans won the contest but only narrowly. I decided that the Germans wanted
to keep their force intact to harass the Romans in the future so the game stood
at 9 remaining Roman units vs 6 German.

This game took a lot longer than my first tip-toe into the water. I would
estimate it lasted at least two hours but it was compelling stuff and I would
say that with some more modifications to the systems I should be getting there.
My main conclusion was that I liked what John had done to dumb down my
amendments which played in a rather cluttered way - I'll drop the Armour save
and probably the die modifier factors.

Look forward to updating the Group on my next foray which must be H&M as I
haven't even tried the original version yet!

SIP Ancients Playtest

With all the recent intrest and activity around the SIP Rules I thought I'd
better give my untried Ancients conversion a road test.

I used a simple setup of two Imperial Roman Armies composed of 4 legions, 2
auxiliary archers and two auxiliary cavalry units.

Both proceeded to advance on each other in the Roman manner. Clashes occurred
along the battle line. Meanwhile the archers busied themselves exchanging shots.

Outcome was a clear victory for the blue Roman Team.

My conclusion: although a simple line up of identical forces with no terrain I
was rather pleased with the game and how the rules played out.

Observations:
1. There are a lot of dice!
2. The proximity rule for more friendly vs enemy units starts to kick in as a
factor once a side starts to overwhelm the other.
3. I liked the grinding slogging match between units.
4. The excitement of getting double points in melee was entertaining. Can't wait
for a treble.
5. Missile fire wasn't a battle winner as expected.
6. Much faster than AMW - I finished this game in under half an hour.
7. With a more challenging scenario and different combatants the rules have all
the potential to be a very entertaining alternative to AMW. It could be a great
way to play really massive games or recreations at tournaments / events. Younger
players would love the dice!
8. I would encourage you to give it a try - I think you will find that they will
start you thinking about all the uses they could be put to. They seem to be a
very flexible way to adapt any scenario - large, medium, small.

Final point: I'm just not sure how they could be viewed vs the original. It
doesn't feel quite like detailed vs summary rules systems. Could be a DBA v DBM
sort of comparison?

Austro Prussian War Playest

Just finished a cracking Austro Prussian encounter battle using my APW
amendments.

I also dcecided to go for a larger game and see what that did to the time / feel
/ game dynamic, so I fielded 12 units a side with a 3 unit army breakpoint.
Selections were 1.5 x max / minima rounded down on the Army Lists.

The Austrians started rather sluggishly with a general advance while the
Prussians looked set to obtain the favourable positions and towns. This didn't
quite manifest itself as some early Austrian success with their longer ranged
Lorenz rifles and superior artillery blunted a couple of Prussian advances and
must have shaken the confidence of the Prussian General as his troops adopted a
more cautious approach or went prone. I allowed the Dresnye armed Prussians the
ability to go prone and fire. This proved to be a a very useful way for the
Prussians to either hold a position or co-ordinate an advance with a couple or
more infantry units. Seemed historical anyway. I also allowed them to use
assault columns but fire with two stands. Despite being at a tactical
disadvantage I can't really explain how the Austrians seemed to weather the
Prussian storm. They did use their cavalry much more effectively and their
gunners were quite superb.

With more units on the table, particularly more cavalry, there was more movement
on the flanks than I was experiencing in most of my other games. Not unaturally
there were more incident zones where units had mini battles and the outcome of
these could have direct impacts on adjacent contests. The game played slightly
longer - maybe an extra half hour but as the mechanics are pretty fast I wasn't
feeling any in-flight drag. Quite the contrary as I think I enjoyed more not
less for this battle.

The Austrians slowly started to dominate the Prussians and through superior
artillery (and some cracking scores from the gunners!) and a rather flamboyaunt
use of cavalry they won 7 v 3.

I've been looking through my log of Battle Reports and across all the historical
periods I've played since using these rules the Austrian side has actually won
all of them. My Austrians seem to be bucking the historical stereotype of a good
opposition to beat.

These are the games I've played with them:
7.French Revolutionary War:Jun 2010:French v Austrian:Austrian Victory
20.Franco Austrian War:Sep 2010:French v Austrians:Austrian Victory
21.Austro Prussian War:Sep 2010:Austrians v Prussians:Austrian Victory

I think in all of these games they suffered from some pretty severe tactical
limitations so the way I play the Austrian commander must have something going
for it. Solid infantry used in supporting groups, effective cavalry to break and
disrupt and a generally cautious and patient battleplan but decisive strikes
once the enemy wavers or weakens in a sector. Or maybe its the Dice!

Franco-Austrian War Playtest

Last weekend I only had the chance to play one game. I chose to try out my recently completed amendments for the Franco-Austrian War of 1859.

I detetermined the terrain and force composition and then allowed the Austrian side (under Archduke Granz) a more defensive deployment. The French (led by Baron Jomini) had the edge in artillery effectiveness and the overall quality of their infantry vs some poorer Austrian grenzers.

They proceeded to move towards a couple of hills where the Austrians were positioned in strength. Surprisingly their attacks and the movements this prompted from the Austrian General forced most of the fighting into the open areas between the hills and outwith the settled areas (composed of towns, orchards and vineyards).

An initial gamble for the French proved to be a costly mistake in the long run. They charged their Hussars in a spirited rush on the flank of Austrian uhlans but unexpectedly lost the melee and had their retreat blocked by some French Chasseurs. The unit, already reduced by the melee was then completely eliminated by the illegal interpenetration.

After this the French stepped up their main attack and did force the Austrian centre to respond and launch their reserves in support. The French musketry was close to breaking the Austrian centre but the larger numbers of Austrian units and the encroaching menace of the superior cavalry on the French right flank meant that the French reached a high water mark and were then forced back on a defensive line. With units starting to be eliminated by patient Austrian artillery and some nimble Jaeger firing the French were reduced to their Garde Imperiale and a depleted Line Infantry unit.

The Archduke had six remaing units. A couple such as his Grenadiers and Dragoons were largely intact as the had not been involved in the major action, the others were far more battle weary.

Overall a great game in what I always find to be an exciting conflict to simulate. The dash of two H&M armies with Napoleonic perceptions, using evolving technology.

One of the consistent perceptions I'm getting playing now my 20th game over a number of periods is the feeling that the battles have the ebb and flow you would expect. What would appear to be a forgone conclusion can quite easily unravel and move the opposite way. The opponents wax and wane throughout the game. I think it must be down to the combined impact of the game mechanisms on the battle. On the surface these would seem to generate consistent results, however, the outcomes that do arise can be surprisingly variable and this is where the fluidity is injected into proceedings. I really like this being a solo gamer. It means I don't have to impose too many mechanisms to invoke some sponteneity.

One area I did think about was the timing of morale tests in the H&M games. Based on the Napoleonic Rules these are not numbered in the sequence of play. Ive assumed that they are resolved at the end of the player turn although I can perform them earlier if they have no impact on subsequent phases. Anyone else have other interpretations eg. strainght after firing for tests to firing casualties?

Regards

Brian

Modern Playtest: Queries re Unit Firing Resolution

I use 6mm figures. For this game my infantry units were 3, three figure bases
which dismounted from either a BTR-60 or FV432 MICV. There were 8 rifles and one
GPMG with facility to use one M72 LAW or one RPG-7 by a rifleman.

I group the entire unit for firing and fire one unit at a time. I don't combine
units and I don't split firing units between separate targets. For every firing
declaration, the results from one attack are resolved before declaring the next
fire.

I toyed with the idea of including attached support weapons but I just roll
these as a separate firing attack. The only exception are MICVs which can be
placed behind dismounted platoons and count as part of that formation allowing
the MIVC to support the fire of the infantry with its VMG (at the same target).
The MICV can still be targeted as a separate element of the unit.

For targeting units I target the whole unit and fire is performed 1 unit v 1
unit. Again, for target units there are no sub-groups within a unit or combined
unit groups. This applies to all fire including artillery and mortars. You could
argue that the latter weapons cover an area which might include more than one
unit, however, the simplicity of using a 1:1 relationship between firer and
target outweighs the effort for me. Artillery and mortar fire is still quite
variable and I like the random hits piece prior to hit resolution. A few high
rolls and there goes your dismounted platoon!

Glad you don't mind me hogging the airwaves with my developments. I'm really
enjoying going through my figures collection period by period using these rules.
Each game confirms that 1. I'm enjoying the style and level of these games and
2. They are giving me a period result I'm happy with. I haven't had a
disappointing game yet. I've been contemplating recently extending say a
Napoleonic or Classical game to 12 or even 16 units and seeing what that does to
the overall dynamic and pace. I think that what I sometimes feel in 8 unit games
are that there are not quite enough units to exploit successes and function as a
true reserve. 12 or 16 units would seem to offer this possibility.

30YW Playtest

I've just completed a 30YW game using an Imperialist v Sweden setup and the Pike
and Shot Rules in Introduction (aligned to the latest A&M Rules in A&M
Wargaming).

The Imperialist force looked impressive with two massive mixed units occupying a
dense block in the centre and flanked by rather menacing looking cuirassier
units. It was, however, the potential lurking in the Swedish deployment which
determined the shape and end result of the battle to follow. Elite units,
battalion guns, chevaliers - these were all distinctive factors which gave their
more maneouverable army the vital edge.

The Imperialists started boldly with a quick flank cavalry charge from mounted
arquebusiers and reiters. Meanwhile the infantry pounded forward in a menacing
mass. The cavalry exchange bogged down a bit and our budding Gustavus started to
regain the initiative by deploying his reserve over to his weakened flank and
launching a chevalier charge on the Imperialists uncommitted flank. The battle
started to wax towards the Swedes where their superior fire drill and a few high
artillery hit rolls were putting significant pressure on the Imperialist
infantry. That being said these big units can take a lot of punishment and for
close combat still retained a good compliment of pikes to engage the Swedish
battle line.

Unfortunately for our Wallenstein, he didn't have quite enough combat power left
and the Swedes, victorious on the wings with their cavalry, commenced an
encirclement on the remaining Imperialist units in the centre, after which the
result was academic.

Observations from this game. My first late Renaissance jaunt and it felt much as
I thought it would. The Imperialists were a plodding aggressive mass with
limitations on tactical flexibility. The Swedes in contrast had flexible, fast
and highly effective units at their disposal.

If the Imperialists can get to grips quicker and /or use their massed musketry
more effectively their big unit composition gives them a great deal of endurance
and decisive combat power. This scenario just didn't bring out these particular
features but did allow the Swedes to shine.

My next foray will be into the Late Medieval Period to try out the Medieval
Rules again with a War of the Roses game.

FPW Game

Played a FPW scenario last Sunday which I'd been wanting to game to try out my
period modifications. It was based on a fictional scenario in the Miniature
Wargaming Magazine involving two advance formations fighting it out over a
strategic railway junction.

Both forces were deployed in march column to allow rapid movement up the
approach roads. The French were able to deploy first and the bold use of their
cavalry forced the Prussian lead units to halt their advance. The French also
seized an opportunity to catch a Prussian infantry unit in March column and with
a quick charge eliminated it. The Prussian cavalry did come in and chase the
cuirassiers away and a rear attack from a unit of uhlans finished the French off
but it was a gallant use of battle cavalry which seemed in keeping with the way
this arm was still viewed in a tactical sense.

I was expecting the game to settle down a bit more after this initial exchange,
however, the fluid deployment of both forces lead to a more cut and thrust
approach, particularly for the Prussians who used their superior artillery to
pound the French infantry and allow the Prussians to exploit a couple of gaps in
the French lines.

The French valiantly tried to hold onto a central hill but were forced back and
with the Prussian cavalry menacing their weaker flank and the Prussian artillery
in full swing, were forced to withdraw, conceding a defeat.

The difference between the needle gun and chassepot was an area I might want to
change. The effectiveness of the former was greater but the ranges didn't feel
right – I think I might reduce the Prussian rifles to half the range of the
French – I was working on a 20cm v 30cm convention.

Overall a very satisfying game where both sides displayed the élan and dash
associated with the period. The formality of formations, battle cavalry and
tactics contrasted with the superior technology and lethality of weapons, making
frontal assaults costly and more preparation a necessity.

Modern Playtest

Played a game this Saturday to try out my Modern amendments.

It was a NATO v Warsaw Pact encounter set in the early 1980's. It was based on a scenario in the Wargamers Newsletter and involved a British force defending the village of Althaus against a Soviet advance formation.

The British were in a strong defensive position occupying a number of the village buildings with a couple of chieftans in support.

The Russians advanced on two fronts. The first main assault was a frontal attack. The second a flanking move to hit the British in a less defended sector and distract the tank support from the frontal assault.

Early success with mortar and tank fire on the British turned to heavy Russian losses as some concealed units: one Milan ATGW and a unit of infantry put down a punishing fire taking out one T-62 and a swathe of dismounted infantry.

I had already noted that the Russian infantry out of cover were very exposed when dismounted and in future assaults I'll ensure that units are spotted more effectively, troops dismount nearer the objective and there is more covering fire from mortars and support weapons.

The concealment rules worked well giving the British a distinct advantage in retaining units in hidden positions ready to ambush the attacking force.

Things only got worse for the Soviet forces as the chieftans rolled into action and started to take out the Russian flanking attack. They were very effective in stopping the Russian armour and with favourable rolls made the infantry dismount where they fell victim to British support weapons.

The Soviets never really got to grips with the British and failed to achieve any of their objectives. A convincing British victory but I think the Russian side was penalised by my inexperience with the rules and the lethality of support weapons and the rifle platoons using stationary GPMGs which classified as HMGs for game purposes. The Soviets should have had at least three additional units and the use of off-table artillery support was a feature that should have really been deployed if I was following a more doctrinal approach. Lessons learned for future games.

That being said I did enjoy this game despite its limited game-time. I look forward to more modern battles.

Let's get this blog started

I've decided to start posting to my blog and use it to chart the progress of my current wargaming activities.

I've been using the Neil Thomas rules in his A&M Wargaming, Napoleonic Wargaming and Introduction to Wargaming.

I find them a very satisfying combination of simplicity, fun with credible outcomes which capture the feel of whatever period I play.

I've made several period adaptations and all of these have worked well.

Couple More Games

Played a couple of A&M games this week as I've been wanting to play two of my
favourite periods for some time.

First was a Macedonian v Celt (Gallic) encounter using the Classical Rules and
modelled on the Battle of the Celtic Hills in the Airfix Guide to Ancient
Wargaming. The Macedonians fielded a strong force arrayed against a Celtic
opponent using the terrain to great advantage. This proved to be integral to his
battle strategy.

To the Macedonian general's discomfort he had to split his battle line due to a
large wood which occupied the centre of his deployment zone. This meant some
pretty fancy wheeling prior to engaging with the Celtic warbands. The Celtic
commander did exploit this and with a fast rush moved out of cover to try to
disrupt the Macedonians before they could fully muster and commence the steam
roller tactics.

This was rather successful, however, the Macedonians were subsequently able to
stabilise the situation and wear the warbands down.

The end result was a narrow Macedonian victory.

On reflection I liked the way the warbands operated with the ability to rush
from cover and do all that first round impetus stuff they are feared for. The
Macedonian phalanx rule was pretty potent aswell and the Celtic general made
several calls to the higher powers to grant him a first base removal!

Second game and move forward a few centuries to a late 13th Century contest
between Scots and English using the Medieval Rules. I modified the English HYW
list a little to get a better representation of an early English army and had
less archers and more billmen. Knights were mounted and I didn't include stakes
for the longbow units. I was going to reduce armour but left it a heavy.

The encounter was a fast and bloody affair with the Scottish schiltrons
performing excellently, particularly against the bill units who were at a
distinct disadavantage in a frontal engagement. The English archers were a
potent force and if they had been in larger numbers could have "shot up" the
Scots quite nicely prior to an infantry assault in the centre and cavalry round
the flanks. As it transpired the missile casualties didn't disrupt the waiting
schiltrons too much and the English had to go in against a solid battle line.
With some favourable outcomes this quickly became disrupted and towards the left
flank it collapsed entirely. This gave the English the opportunity to use their
mobility to roll up the rest of the Scottish force. It might sound a clear
English victory, however, in the final tally the English were actually down to
four units: one of Knights, a full unit of archers and two depleted bill units.

This game was great fun and I actually got my daughter to watch a bit of this as
she wandered into my room claiming she was bored. She particularly liked the
vast quantities of dice I was rolling to simulate the combat!

American War of Independence Play Test

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My First Post

This is my first post to my own personal Blog. I'm looking forward to start talking about the hobby I enjoy.