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.
Monday 30 August 2010
Sunday 22 August 2010
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!
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!
Tuesday 17 August 2010
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)