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.