Modern Period Game

I've just completed a cool game set in the late 1970's between a BAOR formation
arrayed in a defensive posture vs an advance guard of the Soviet invasion force.
With Centurions and T-55's the cutting edge in tank design I was looking forward
to an exciting contest.

I fully utilised my solo rules so I was more an observer than participant. Both
commanders were competent leaders, the Soviet commander rated excellent but also
rash. This proved interesting in the way his aggressive style determined Soviet
engagement policy.

The game required the capture of a couple of villages held by the British. They
had partially entrenched their positions and I brought in a couple of new
special rules. The first gave them improved concealment from observation by
troops in front of the positions. This was my NATO entrenchment rule. The second
was Cautious NATO movement which allowed the unit to count as in cover in the
open for observation if it moved up to half it's move. Both were influential in
the ensuing game.

The Russians swept onto the board but had a couple of reserve issues with two
units performing a flank move which wouldn't enter the board until turn 3 and a
couple of motorised infantry units and a heavy weapons unit still off the board.

Initial advances were hampered by a couple of freak control tests which stalled
some of the motorised infantry. The British centurions started to advance to
engage the T-55's and in the following couple of rounds the T-55s were reduced
to one remaining unit. This proved to be decisive as the Soviet's had little in
the way of remaining armour and so their spearhead assault no longer had much
punch.

There was an interesting development in the British position on turn 2 when they
rolled an aggressive posture for the battle plan which forced some of their
units to advance on the Soviets and lose some of the integrity of their
position. This seemed to unhinge their strategy but a successful round of firing
on Soviet troops caught in the open sealed the victory and compensated for the
tactical error.

All in all an engrossing contest if rather disappointing for the Soviets.

Eastern Front Game

I've just completed a short game set in 1943 on the Eastern Front. This was
quick due to the rather bloody nature of the initial clash which gave the German
side a significant advantage in armour and ground troops.

Both sides were arrayed in opposing formations with objectives set in each
others base zones. Both commanders were aggressive in their initial moves. The
Soviet side rushed forward a little too quickly and incurred some rather
disasterous consequences from German tank and anti-tank fire. With his armour
reduced by 50% in one turn he immediately was put on the back foot and made a
desperate gambit to equalise the armour odds.

This only partially paid off and with his armour being neutralised and still
facing a couple of Pz IV's and Stug III his infantry decided to dig in and
weather the German assault. This later transformed into a fighting withdrawl. In
the end the Soviets managed to extricate most of their infantry intact but left
the field to the Germans.

A good, exciting encounter with loads of armour. Rules as usual held up well and
gave lots of interesting outcomes.

Great Northern War Playtest

I finally got around to completing my playests for the Renaissance Pike & Shot
Rules. This time a venture into the icy north with a close encounter between the
aggressive Swedish Army of General Sverige and the Grand Duke Kasarov's Russian
contingent.

Both sides deployed in their regular formations. Specific rules impacting this
playtest were the Swedish Ga pa tactic and steadfast classification for firing
casualties. The Russians had more shot stands per unit but not the same
resilience to both shooting and close combat casualties.

The Swedes took the initiative and swept their Horse around the left flank,
surprising a cumbersome Russian Guard's unit trying to redeploy into the centre
and a lone Dragoon Grenadier unit. In the ensuing combats the Swedes prevailed
and managed to eliminate the Russian artillery, poorly sighted to the right of
the battle line.

Elsewhere the Russians were doing OK but the Swedish advance of four infantry
units (including Guards) looked thoroughly menacing. As the lines collided the
Ga pa rules kicked in giving the Swedes a first round edge or compensating for
Russian defensive deployments - in future I think I'll give them more redoubts
and linear obstacles. The higher proportion of pike stands also helped the
Swedes despite the heavier fire they had to endure in the approach.

There was a gradual run of outcomes to the Swedish side with some very bloody
fighting as represented by extremely high hit rolls - both for shooting and
melees.

The Russians reduced to two units conceded. The Swedes held the field with five
remaining units.

An excellent simulation - looked good - the units look nice with neat ranks of
shot and the occasional pike base. Lots of fir trees and some high dice rolls
made this an exciting and bloody encounter.

SIP Game: Napoleonic

I've just completed a massive SIP Game set at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. I
used the Shako scenario book Fields of Glory and chose the Plancenoit, Waterloo
1815 scenario which involved 28 French units vs 45 Prussian. I had to enlist
some of my Confederate ACW infantry to simulate landwher infantry - there were
so many four stand units!

The setup looked impressive with the French ranged in a sweeping defensive
formation supported by the elite Young Guard and the even more elite Old Guard.
Both had distinctive advantages re DPs and I made the Old Guard particularly
well bestowed with positive factors to reflect their perceived invincibility.
That being said one of their battalions was eliminated but this took a while and
overwhelming numbers to achieve.

The Prussian corp was in a very deep march column and the problem of getting
their combat power deployed was a key factor early on.

The French typically seized the initiative and made an aggressive move to
outflank the Prussians and pincer their advance between the village and the left
flank.

This didn't go too well - the French consistently had poorer rolls especially
throughout the early stages of the game and so were unable to make any decisive
inroad against the Prussian flank. The Prussian cavalry won the cavalry duel and
the tables were reversed. Superior numbers began to tell and the French defences
around the village started to falter. The Young Guard was hampered by a narrow
deployment frontage, otherwise the inclusion of these elite troops earlier might
have been decisive. After a further few rounds of heavy fighting the Prussians
managed to remove the 14th French unit which I deemed to be the breakpoint for
the French.

The rules worked really well. The game was big, yet combat resolution was quick.
Melee is decisive. I've decided to allow interpenetration for retreats but now
inflict 1DP. There were a few other tweaks I might build in. The rules are so
simple a few additional refinements shouldn't cause any problems.

First Crusade Game

I played a First Crusade game this evening with an Early Crusader army ranged
against a Seljuk Turk force blocking the progress of the Christians to Antioch.

The Commander of the Crusaders, Lord Tancred had at his disposal a hardened
force of three mounted and two dismounted knight units supported by a couple of
units of solid infantry, sporting some crossbows aswell as spears and a massed
rabble of pilgrims.

The Seljuk Caliph had a far more mobile force of Cavalry and Turkoman Light
Cavalry with a couple of heavy archers. Loads of missiles.

The tactics seemed clear but got a bit blurred as the Seljuk Caliph decided to
press forward a bit too much and allowed the Crusaders to engage with their
shock troops. This is exactly what the Christians wanted. All their units were
heavily armoured and with elite status and for the mounted additional first
round impetus, really started to carve up the Muslim forces.

With the collapse of the Caliphs heavy cavalry and elite troops and the mowing
down of the remaining archers the game was up. The Crusaders in contrast were
largely intact having only lost one unit surrounded by Turkomans. This, however,
was a risky tactic for the Muslim general to allow their fast and mobile horse
archers to be lured into close combat.

Overall a convincing display of the power of the Crusader lineup. It proved to
be a bit one-sided as the Crusaders had some remarkable dice rolls while the
Muslims were only favourable in the use of activation dice - I took the idea of
2D4 rolls to activate units for movement at the start of the turn. It generated
some interesting initial moves and choices over which unit to activate.

Next on the list of to do's is the Great Northern War - I still haven't tested
my Ga Pa rules yet.

Skirmish Game: Sci-Fi

While playing my recent Skirmish Game set in late WWII, I had noticed an absence
of the effects of suppression and high volumes of fire restricting enemy
movement etc. Having corrected this with some suppression, pinning and rallying
rules, I needed to playtest these.

I've just completed a successful playtest of them using my Sci-Fi universe based
on Mark Ratner's Space Marines. On the planet Kasarian IV the Hiss were making
another land grab expansion. Only a few Terran elite Guard units stood in their
path. The specific scenario was set on an arid plain with scattered dunes,
depressions and rocky outcrops. A couple of research facility buildings and an
oasis were the only elements of colour in this otherwise desolate landscape.

The forces involved were a Hiss Claw composed of five Talons on two bases each
and a couple of PML Teams in support. They were armed with outmoded cone rifles
but were fast, tough, with incredible morale due to their disregard for
sacrifice. Their tactics were clear - rush the enemy, overcome them by weight of
numbers, destroy them hand to hand (or claw to claw in their case). The Terran
Union had one Guard Infantry Platoon. Although far fewer in numbers, these were
elite troops, equipped with cutting edge technology: power armour, power rifles
and superior vision aids.

The Hiss started the game making a rush for the research station. The Terrans
had similar objectives but decided to peel off their flank squads to provide
fire support to their central thrust on the Research Station. The rules started
to kick in really well here with the high volume of fire from the power rifles
suppressing and pinning the Hiss advance at several key points. The Hiss did
surprisingly well to continue their rush and make the Terran line engaging in a
couple of critical house to house battles, however, the Terrans had the edge in
defence, with the power armour giving them considerable endurance despite Hiss
numbers.

After an exciting exchange of fire and close combats the Hiss finally reached a
50% morale check with enough of the remaining bases having to be removed and
forcing the Hiss Claw Master to concede to the Terrans.

The rules worked very well and I liked how this added an additional dimension
based on the high fire volumes of automatic weapons.

Long Live the Union!

Skirmish Game: WWII

I played a skirmish game today using the rules in Introduction modified by my
amendments for the Modern period. The game was set in late WWII with a US
Infantry platoon trying to capture a bridge crossing - Pont De La Croix - from
an under strength German Infantry platoon.

The Bridge was defended with an implaced MG42 within a bunker to the side. This
proved to be a tough strong-point for the Americans to take.

Initially the American forces advanced rapidly covered by HMG and mortar fire. A
few of the German defenders emerged from cover and delivered a withering fire on
the probing central US unit which had to retreat out of firing range. This
seemed to stall the US advance but a bold outflanking move on the right where C
squad waded the river and then raced across the open to get within reach of the
occupied village seemed to turn the tide in the US favour.

Despite this the German determination to hold at all cost paid off with a couple
of key removals of the US HMG and the failure of A Squad to overrun the bunker
and thus eliminate the main obstacle to occupying the town.

With his forces depleted and further assaults looking fruitless, the US
Commander conceded.

This was a great little game where the modern amendments stood up well and
enriched my gaming experience. I introduced some command and control, additional
action awards and sub-unit morale tests. All worked well and gave me a nice
little simulation. This also was a second stage in my WWII mini-campaign where
the scale of the scenario suggested a skirmish rules option rather than the
standard rules.

Nine Years War: 1692

I've just completed a fascinating encounter battle between a French Army of the

Sun King and an Allied Army composed of Dutch and British units.

Both commanders were ranged out against each other in standard battle formation. The battlefield itself was very cluttered with terrain - lots of rough ground, woods, hills and fields / walls / hedges. It actually took me a couple of days to start this game as it was quite a pleasant experience to have this setup. Both armies looked good with a mix of pike and musket stands.

There were subtle differences between the two armies which became evident during the course of the game. This is where the envelope of the P&S classification is pushed to the margin. The use of integrated pikes still felt a P&S treatment was appropriate. I did bring in more musket features to promote the increasing doctrinal dependency on firepower.

Both armies moved rather cautiously towards each other. There was quite a bit of marching and counter-marching by a few Horse units to get these deployed in superior numbers on the flanks. The game started to become polarised between the two flanks with a lesser engagement unfolding on the French left while the main conflict played out in the centre and right. The French tried to move aggressively on the Allied left and once engaged with more pike and a first round impetuous charge rule, did inflict a great deal of damage. The Allied firepower was also effective where they deployed a steady firing line as they had more musket stands in their units and the adoption of Dutch drill / platoon fire by all units on the Allied side allowed re-rolls for misses.

The French gradually waxed on their stronger flank and with superior cavalry, in

greater numbers, forced the Allied general to submit and retire his forces.

A good game with lots of period flavour, dash and colour. I liked the specific period rules and how subtle changes can result in tangible outcomes. I'm going to make some updates to my lists in the P&S rules in the Files Section to reflect my playtest findings.

Biblical Game: Assyrians v Babylonians

I decided to roll out my Assyrian Army and settle old scores with a Babylonian
lineup.

The terrain was dominated by hills and woodland to the south with a long river
running east to west dividing the board in two. This provided the Babylonian
General a good defensive position. He'd need it if he was going to face the
highly rated Assyrian host arrayed before him.

The Assyrians made a rapid dash to the river using missile discharges to cover
their relentless advance. Meanwhile the Babylonians remained motionless behind
the river waiting rather nervously as the Assyrians approached.

The intial clashes were on the flanks. By that time there were already a great
number of accumulated missile casualties so first base removal was rather rapid.
That and the devastating impact of the terror rule gave the Assyrians a distinct
advantage in getting on top of combats quickly.

That being said the Babylonians were putting up a very credible resistance and
actually started to win on both flanks eliminating chariot and cavalry units.

It was only the successful central thrust by the Assyrian heavy infantry which
eliminated their opponents and allowed them to race for the Babylonian camp and
thereby neutralise four units and win the contest.

Overall a much closer game than I'd initially thought would happen. The
Babylonian army was identical in composition but apart from chariots were one
morale class lower. They also were victims of the terror rule, but despite these
disadvantages managed to fight toe to toe - assisted by the riverbank.

A good game with lots of hard fighting and heroic action.

Seven Years War: Prussia v Russia

Another tricorne period playtest for my linear adaptations for the 18th Century
period.

It proved to be a gripping contest between two determined opponents. The
Prussians were superb, their infantry even better in the SYW incarnation than
the Austrian Succession army I used last time. The relentless advance of their
infantry lines producing a steady fire was fun to deploy.

The Russians were rather impressive counters to the Prussian advance and put up
a dogged resistance all the way through. Early on it looked a bit poorly for the
Russians as their heavy cavalry were soundly beaten in the cavalry contest and
it looked as though the Prussians were getting an advantage on both flanks.
Despite this the Russians fought on and managed to win some local victories in
the centre and on the other flank where they managed to contain a couple of
Prussian units. Their cossacks were also a real menace inflicting missile
casualties all over the place.

In the final analysis the Russians prevailed - only just, winning by one unit.
It's probably the closest game I've played for a while. The Russians, despite
inferior infantry and cavalry units managed to pull off a superb victory.

War of the Austrian Succession Playtest

Here is a short battle report of a game I played set in the War of the Austrian
Succession using the Napoleonic rules modified with my Linear Warfare rule
modifications and the specific Prussian and Austrian army list special rules for
the period.

The Prussians were the aggressor and were led by a competent if rather rash
General Reinhard. The Austrians were under von Steich who was a more reserved
but experienced General who had a good eye for the defensive and had deployed
his forces in favourable positions along a line of hills, using a meandering
river to split the route of Prussian advance.

The Prussians made a poor start in the initial cavalry battle on each flank with
their charging cavalry faring poorly vs the firepower doctrine Austrian cavalry.
I might make their firepower less effective in future games as this seems to
give a significant initial advantage allowing them to benefit for both defensive
and offensive fire using a 4-6 hit. I think I'll change this to a 5-6 hit score.

With the cavalry out of action, Reinhard focused on using his superb infantry to
punch a hole in the centre and hopefully force through the line and roll up a
flank or two.

The Prussian infantry performed excellently. Deployed in a line of three units
supported by a Grenadier unit they advanced issuing fire and managed to whittle
down a couple of defending Austrian battalions on one of the hills. The drill
rule which stopped the Prussians from having to check after the loss of the
first base to firing was another useful rule for the Prussians allowing them to
maintain unit cohesion and staying power.

That being said and despite some local Prussian victories in the centre, the
Austrians were prevalent on the flanks and performed the coup de grace on the
Grenadier unit held in reserve by attacking from front and rear thus eliminating
it and allowing the Austrians to achieve a narrow victory.

My Linear rules worked OK but I felt they were a bit too narrow in their
requirements and I'll modify them in future tricorne games to looser criteria
for flank and rear support. The depoloyed lines did look good and the presence
of a second line was pleasing to the eye as well as historically accurate.

18th Century Linear Warfare

I've been formulating some linear warfare modifications to the core Napoleonic ruleset and have been play testing these using the War of the Austrian Succession as a test period. I'm quite pleased with the results so far and will post my updates to the files section. The key aspect I was trying to simulate were the benefits of a linear deployment through supported flanks and a second line. I've also introduced battalion guns and some specific features of the period into the army lists. As with all the Thomas rule sets, the army lists are the best way to introduce period chrome and not overburden the core rules with a multitude of exceptions and "specials". This, to me seemed, to infect the WRG rules development resulting in technical manuals. I'm quite warmed by the spirit that's emerging in wargaming just now where there is a retrospective viewpoint being taken back to the simple, playable and collegiate rules.

Teutonic Order vs Early Polish

I've just completed an exciting encounter between a Teutonic Order Army and an
Early Polish force. Both were increased to ten units as I wanted to expand on
the number of additional troop types available.

The Order's Grandmaster made a bold advance on the Poles who were deployed in
what appeared to be a strong defensive position of a hill with a marsh to their
right.

The Knights of the Order and the supporting crusader knights wreaked initial
havoc on the Polish flanks, catching the Lithuanian cavalry of the Polish
general off-balance and forcing a supporting unit of Polish Knights to retreat.
Using his superiority in mounted forces, the archers of the Polish line were
gradually broken, leaving the central spearmen for the slowly advancing Teutonic
infantry units. The crossbowmen did considerable damage as the Order approached
the hill. By the time the forces engaged a couple of units were weakened and
this proved critical in the early stages of the infantry assault where two spear
units faced two spear units. Despite being uphill the Poles suffered poor dice
rolls and as a result were pushed back from the ridge line and gradually
destroyed in the ensuing turns.

With the cavalry wings imploding, the Polish general sensed that the game was up
and acknowledged defeat: 7 units v 4 remaining Polish units.

A good game with plenty of medieval atmosphere. Fanatic knights are potent
weapons and with an army stuffed with this type of assault force it takes a
great deal of tenacity to deflect the juggernaut. The Poles did put up a
credible defence and their knights performed a stout duty on the flanks but the
preponderance of both heavy and light cavalry combined with the success of the
infantry assault, assured a clear victory for the crusaders.

Milestone

With the completion of my last game I reached a bit of a personal milestone with
my 50th wargame using the Neil Thomas rules system.

Since May 2010 I've played 13 Ancients & Medieval, 5 Pike & Shot, 17 Horse &
Musket, 13 Modern and 2 Skirmish games.

All of these were a pleasure to play and I've thoroughly enjoyed developing all
the supplementary rule materials in tandem with the gameplay.

Now onto the next 50.

Battle of Holville Church 1863

I've just had another venture into the ACW using the rules from Introduction
with an encounter battle between an elite Confederate Army and a regular Union
force.

Both were fighting over a strategic bridge (Trent Bridge) and Holville Church,
towards the right flank of the Union advance.

Both sides started well with a rapid advance towards the strategic objectives.
The Confederates momentarily halted which gave the Union time to bring on
several reserve units but gradually the Rebels gained the required positions and
managed to exert a concerted fire along their right and centre where they had a
local superiority. Both sides were hampered by a table cluttered in terrain and
linear obstacles. Mobility and visibility was pretty restricted as a consequence
and this stoked up the sense of battlefield chaos.

Initially it looked favourable for the Union side with a numerical superiority,
however, the quality of the Rebel forces began to tell and some judicious use
of the rallying rules managed to get a couple of their battle weary units back
into action.

Meanwhile the Union was suffering along their whole line and the victorious
Confederate right flank commenced an encirclement which snuffed out the
remainder of the Union resistance.

A great game which lasted a couple of hours and was full of excitement right to
the end. The cavalry on both sides were hampered by terrain and couldn't use
mobility as effectively as I've seen in other games. The artillery was important
but the decider for me was the superior morale status of the Rebel forces which
helped them in morale checks and rallying.

Western Desert 1940

Here is a battle report of a recent game using the Second World War Rules from
Introduction with my supplementary overlays and solo Command & Control rules.

At last this was a chance to field my Italian Libyian Desert force and take on
an Eighth Army formation under the illustrious Brigadier McDonald.

The Italian commander General Alvintzi was set a defensive task of holding a
long line of hills which overlooked a key desert highway running North which the
British wished to secure and utilise to move their armoured units forward.

The British had nine units on table, albeit a fair distance from the Italian
positions. In contrast the Italians only fielded five units on table, the rest
held in Reserve and released piecemeal under the reserve rules. This was to
prove significant as an early deployment of reserves, particularly armour
support to counter the British would have been timely.

The British made steady progress, the Italians remaining concealed on the ridge
and adopting prone positions where possible. The first decisive engagement was
with the Italian AFVs and in a short time they had lost a Recon and Tank unit.
Despite holding up the British advance with heavy casualties on the carrier
unit, the British managed to exert increasing offensive pressure on the ridge
line finally forcing the Italians by turn six to move into highly defensive
positions and keep their heads down. It looked doomed to mass prisoner capture
but the Italian commander had a brief flash of brilliance and managed to
extricate a couple of units of infantry and a tank. This was played out through
my solo Command & Control rules which worked very well throughout, creating a
number of interesting and, actually, quite logical situations to develop.

Overall another superb game. The Italians were not outclassed but the overall
quality of the British seemed to manifest itself throughout. With German backing
the Italians should be good in the defensive in entrenched or covered positions.

Dark Age Game

I've been watching a few programes on Discovery about the Vikings and their
warrior ethos. This got me enthused to play a good old Dark Age slugging match
with their traditional enemies the Anglo-Saxons.

Both lined up and looked pretty similar, however, the armies have subtle
differences. On one side the rush of the warband, more mobility and the
integrated bondi archers. On the other the shieldwall (which in this game proved
to be decisive).

The Viking charge was concluded with the huscarls crashing into the Anglo-Saxon
nobles, however, the bondi held off and performed some rather useful initial
fire on the Saxon fyrdmen which was designed to soften them up a bit to get the
decisive base removal in the first round and perhaps trigger a morale collapse.
As it transpired the initial luck on missile fire was not consolidated in the
close combat rounds that followed and the superiority of the shieldwall as a
defence grew as the battle raged on.

I modified my pushback rules which are now simpler - the difference in bases at
the end of a close combat is the number the lesser unit is pushed back in base
depths. Worked well and made that snake like ripple up and down the battle line.

Back to the contest despite the Vikings getting one of their bondi to the other
side and forcing the Saxon general to make some hard choices regarding the two
units to remove, the Anglo-Saxons still had a preponderance in active units to
defeat the remaining Vikings 5:2 in the next couple of turns.

Great game, nice representation of a rush and attack tactic vs a solid defence.
In future games the Viking mobility should feature more with strategems to flank
or use terrain better. This would seem to adhere to their style where they
weren't renowned for seeking pitched battles but preferred applying their
seaborne strategy of surprise and speed to their land operations.

Battle of Trimsos

I decided to put on a pet project of recreating the inspirational battle of
Trimsos, the one depicted in Wargaming which uses the Tony Bath derived Rules.
This I now played using the AMW Classical rules.

My Hyrkanians were based on a Persian Army, my Hyperboreans looked distinctly
Greek.

Both were deployed as per the photographs in the book and I used my reversed
borard and desert terrain to give the game an arid look and feel.

The game was great. I initially plumped to play the Hyperborean commander but as
things developed and the lines started to clash I decided to become a more
neutral party. The Hyperboreans fought some great set piece actions but didn't
seem to have the overall strategy right. In contrast the Hyrkanian general
exerted a steady superiority on his right flank and centre with the elephants
crushing the Hyperborean centre. The Hyperboreans sent two units to take the New
Bridge and this proved a wasteful use of the mobile elements in their force. The
Hyrkanian general had two static infantry units which helped to keep their
opponents out of the main battle where they would have proved very useful
countering the Hrykanian mounted threat.

As the game progressed the Hyperboreans were gradually reduced and encircled,
the chariots arriving too late to help their comrades now reduced to one
remaining unit.

The Hyrkanians had five units left and just like the Wargames battle shared the
same result of a convincing victory.

Great game and scenario - certainly got my Old School fix from this game.

War of 1812 Game

I used the Bank Holiday weekend to fit in a game using one of my period
adaptations. This time an escalating engagement between a defensively postured
American Force under the General Buckley against a probing assault force under
General Arnott.

The rules used were my AWI Rules based on NPW with War of 1812 lists.

I fully deployed my solo, command and control and incorporated some scenario
setup features, up to now restricted to my modern simulations. I'm also going
through the Charles Grant Programmed Wargames book to pick out features and
ideas to use. I picked up on the Chance card concept and built this into the
game. Taken together I had a very interesting encounter develop.

The British had the initiative and maintained this throughout the engagement.
Both sides started with three units deployed on table with a Reserve release
rule in play to allow units to appear on the baseline during the course of the
game. Throughout the British scored better rolls and had a steady stream of
reinforcements. The Americans in contrast had a dearth of reserve units until
the end. By that stage it was too late as their front line units were depleted
to the extent that they started a general retreat. With the British objective to
reach the American base line, this was achieved by a unit of line by Turn 7.

I deliberately proceeded at a slow and deliberate pace keeping note in my battle
diary of events, die rolls and following the sequence to the letter. This paid
dividends as a truly unique gaming simulation emerged. It had the pleasing feel
of watching a game being simulated where I was involved but not in control.

Russian Civil War Playtest

After a good session in the garden I managed to fit in a playtest I've had set
up in my wargaming room for a while. It was to try out my RCW amendments to the
WW2 Rules.

Lined up were nine units each of my Red and White army lists. Both were
beneficiaries of an armoured car. The Whites had marginally better cavalry and
were in a more favourable position, however, the Red general was better rated
which helped considerably with some of the tactical options and unit
activations. I was using my solo command and control rules to the full with some
additional enhancements I'd factored in over the past couple of playtests.

After a short time the Whites were retreating on several sectors and the Reds
followed up with a convincing win. The Whites were able to withdraw in
reasonable order but they had failed to reach any of their objectives while the
Reds were well placed to achieve complete success in the next couple of moves.

The rules like all my previous ventures into alternative periods using these
core WW2 Rules, worked very well and I was pleased with all the unit
interactions, the look of the armies and the impact of some one of my specials -
the commissar rules for example.

The rifle units were 12 figures which gave a punishing volley at short range.
The casualties were nicely balanced by the additional tactical options I
introduced with my prone and crawling rules and the greater emphasis I now have
built in for visibility, detection and cover. As this was more an open game of
movement the speed of advance and co-ordinated firepower were important
influences. The Reds had this well synochronised with good support weapon
deployment and flanking moves which constricted the Whites position.

Overall a good game.

I've spent a while away from the table to concentrate on a rush of rule, new
period and army list developments.

I've looked at:
- some alternative theatres in WWI - Eastern Front, Balkans and Italian Front.
- The Balkans War 1912-13
- The Russo-Japanese War 1904-05
- The Spanish Civil War - can't wait to try out these early war Soviet and
German tanks
- Operation Barbarosa Army lists - again some interesting early Russian tanks -
bit obsolete but fun to roll out and play with
- Korean War 1950-53
- Vietnam 1965-72 - developed some helicopter rules I'm looking forward to try
out
- Falklands War - again a pet interest - I was 16 or so when this broke out and
it left a deep impression.
- I've also done a stack of lists for the Ancient & Medieval Rules -
particularly focusing on the Medieval Eastern Europe: Teutonics etc., the early
Italian period of the Etruscan League, Carolingian Europe and some early Feudal
armies - English, French, Scottish and Welsh.

Now to find the time to get around to gaming these!

Mexican-American War Playtest

I tried out my period rules for the Mexican-American War this evening with a
line-up of my 1846-48 lists.

The Mexicans were in the more defensive position but decided to take the fight
to the Americans with a rather rash commander dictating the pace. This strategy
seemed to work at first and put the Americans under quite a bit of pressure,
however, as the units engaged and the superior American firepower came to bear,
the Mexicans were worn down and cracks started to appear along the line.

More importantly this depleted their ability to amount an assault of any
significance. Losing their lancer units, which struggled with the colt armed
American dragoons and volunteer rifle units, the Mexicans were reduced to one
unit and conceded. The US were left with five - most a bit mauled but still
functional.

These rules worked very well. I think the colt armed dragoons were a bit
overpowered in melee so I might tone their advantage down a bit to give the
lancers a greater chance to beat them. Cuirassiers might have been a better
choice to take these horsemen out. The game also looked good with a visual
effect of Napoleonic meets American Civil War which was really quite pleasing.

I've also developed lists for the Texan War of Independence included in this
rules extension. I've been creating some very basic fortification rule
conventions, with sections of fortification equivalent to a town for firing and
defensive effect and with an extra dice to the defender, frontages shrunk to two
bases for units etc. All in aid to do an Alamo style re-fight. Mexicans should
do better here as the US don't have as many period advantages although maybe I
should inject a special Alamo factor for morale throws!

Victory to the Republic!

New World: Conquistadors vs Aztecs

Gave my modifications to the P&S Rules a road test today. They worked great
although in future Spanish v Native games I'll give the indigenous population
more units to make it a bit less one-sided.

The Spanish under their rather rash conquistador general had an impressive
line-up of four sword and buckler units, a unit of arquebusiers, one of
crossbowmen, artillery and the glamour unit of lancers.

Facing them was a massed Aztec army of four clan warriors units(hordes under my
modifications - behave much like medieval peasants in close combat), a couple of
suit wearer warrior units, some slingers and a unit of Cuachic shock troops
(warband classification).

I fully deployed my solo and command / control rules and they worked well giving
me an interesting twist to the initial confrontation which I assumed to be an
Aztec rush but instead the Spanish gained the initative and mounted their own
charge along the line.

The special rules added a lot of period colour and made things distinctly
awkward for the Aztecs.

Superior technology (iron weapons and armour), Spanish ferocity and native
dislike of horses all conspired to scythe through engaged units. The only units
that put up a credible resistance were the suit wearers and shock troops. Used
with overlaps and in volume is the way the Aztecs can tackle the Spanish. On a
one to one they are hopeless and the clan warriors melted under the sword and
buckler onslaught.

That said there were a few times that the Aztecs did eliminate some stands and
they expertly swamped the exposed arquebusier unit on their right flank but by
then it was too late and the Spanish held the field largely intact.

Overall I really enjoyed it but it was rather one-sided. Taught me plenty of
lessons for future games and native v native games might be interesting. The
lists I've drafted have a lot of variation between the combatants.

The Aztec have swordsmen, warband and hordes, the Tlaxcalan rely on archers, the
Mixtec on atlatl dart throwers, while I can also employ mass warbands with a
fair compliment of missile troops for the Mayans.

All in all a fascinating sub-period. Looked good aswell. The Spanish only
fielded four bases to their infantry units, while I allowed the Aztecs six. This
gave a realistic representation with the lean Spanish line facing a massed
native opposition. Looked big in figure terms but regarding units I think I need
to have a ratio of 1:1.5 to get a fairer fight.

Some More Alternative Periods

I've been doing a lot of work recently in exploring some alternative periods I
hadn't looked at in detail the first time I tried to go through all the period
adaptations I was interested in at that stage.

This has thrown up quite a number of interesting sub-periods that I've created
alternative rulsets based on AMW, NPW and Introduction or additional army lists
with Special Rules.

Great Northern war, American-Mexican War, Jacobite Rebellion, Dutch Wars / Nine
Years War, War of the Austrian Succession, War of 1812, American Plains Wars.

One that I'm particularly involved with now and am trying to organise some
figures to play a few test games is the New World / Conquest of Mexico time
period. I've created a number of period specific rules which I'm quite pleased
with and Army Lists for all the Mexican area combatants in the Renaissance
Period adaptation in Introduction, including Conquistadors, Spanish Colonial
etc.

I was wondering if anyone in the Group has experience of this period and could
recommend some good sources, resource sites on the net, blogs etc.

I already have Ian Heath's book dealing with these armies on my Amazon wishlist.

Sci-Fi Game: WW2 Adaptation

I managed to put my Future Wars forces to the test yesterday with a classic
lineup (for me at least) of the old enemies the Terran Union v the
expansionistic and aggressive Azuriach Imperium.

Set on a semi-arid world with a climate similar to Northern Africa, the two
armies were deployed on roughly equal terms. Both had the services of some very
useful heavy infantry units and a fair compliment of AFVs and Personnel
Carriers.

The Terrans had a slight terrain advantage having occupied a small settlement
and thrown up some hasty field defences. The Azzies by contrast had to advance
across open plains, only occassionaly interspersed with low dunes and rocky
outcrops.

As the sun glinted off the black powered armoured Imperials, the Terrans were
able to get in a quick first strike with a Guard's unit hidden in a local form
of hardy desert tree / cactus field.

The Azzies, however, were moving forwards quickly and were able to engage the
Terrans on a wide front, pulling in their reserves and forcing them to adjust
the defensive line to their right flank which was under the most pressure.

The defence of the settlement and wooded region saw some real heroics from the
units involved. The Guards unit managed to rush an Imperial recon vehicle which
had strayed a little too close to their position and forced their crew to fight
hand-to-hand. A fanatical Azzie Heavy unit also advanced through a withering
fire to close assault the Terran defenders of the settlement and were poised to
complete a local victory, however, the rest of the force was faring less well.
The Azzie armour and vehicle stock had been largely eliminated while the Terrans
retained a couple of immobilised AFVs which could still exert some local
superiority. That backed up with a couple of fresh light infantry units, allowed
them to mop up the remaining resistance on their left flank and force the Azzies
to retire on their recently advanced centre - right sector.

This was a great game. It looked really cool with lots of units dashing around
the table, plenty of fire-fight action and heroics and some interesting and
deadly armour exchanges.

The WW2 Rules are a great way for me to play out all my "Modern" and Sci-Fi
ideas using the core concepts. That's all of my adaptations, apart from the RCW,
that I've now playtested.

I might extend this to some more Sci-Fi genres such as Victorian Sci-Fi, War of
the Worlds Martian Invasion, Modern Alien Invasion (very much in vogue just
now), English Civil War (1938), Dr Who Cyberman Invasion!

I've got figures that I can use for all of these and the rules are flexible
enough to use the core and inject the chrome through the period specific
amendments. It works for me on the Colonial Rules where I've three periods
represented: Zulu War, Boer War and Plains Wars - all use the core set but the
local variations still give a distinctively unique period game for me.

I think I might be reaching my wargaming Nirvannah: right rules, right scale and
access to all periods and genres.

Hurrah the Union!

Dark Age Game: Late Imperial Roman (West) v Gothic Army

At last I managed to get my Late Imperial Roman army out and fight some
barbarian opposition. I used the line-ups suggested in the AMW rulebook with
identical deployments.

There wasn't much terrain but a wood managed to divide the battle up into two
areas with a cavalry battle raging in one sector and the main infantry /
all-arms confrontation in the centre-left section.

The Romans out-fought their barbarian opposition. The cataphracts were grinding
and the abundance of other Roman cavalry provided a very flexible response to
the Gothic mounted menace. The Gothic infantry performed very well and one last
warband unit performed a heroic one stand defense against two encircling
auxiliary units.

Overall a very satisfying game which I enjoyed immensely. I love playing the
Late Romans and they really won this battle comprehensively.

Lets see how they square up to another Dark Age Army. In an earlier game they
wiped out a Hun / Goth Alliance but it was the first time I'd used the earlier
version of the rules and I completely mis-played my Hunnic Light Cavalry.

Long live the Empire!

Plains War: 1870's Playtest

I completed a playtest last night involving an American force against a Plains Indians army. It was to try out my recently completed lists for this era that I'd developed as part of the series of lists to support the Colonial Rules modifications I've made to the original WW2 Ruleset.

The Apache Nation had eight units of mounted warriors, the majority rifle armed, but including a group of fanatic warriors that only had "charge the pale skins" on their mind.

The Americans sported a mixed force of four cavalry units, 2 line infantry units

and one light artillery battery.

The battle was focused on obtaining control of a ford which made a deep creek

passable without movement restrictions.

The rules played out very well. I felt that the native troops were a bit too effective with their rifle fire so I might penalise them a bit in future, however, I'll need to research as to how good at shooting they were.

I've ruled that troops can only inflict effective fire if dismounted so there was a lot of mounting / dismounting activity throughout the contest.

The native forces eventually overwhelmed the Americans, who despite an initial foray in the offensive, were forced back on the defensive by the aggressive use of native mounted attacks. These still proved costly to the Americans despite restrictions on assaulting formed dismounted American units.

I'm not all that familiar with this period but it had all the right feel for me, which is the important factor, so I think the assumptions I'd factored into the modifications worked.

It was an exciting little battle with a real feeling of rapid movement and swirling action.

I was a bit short of Indian figures so had to dragoon in some ancients stand-ins for the mounted versions of units - amazing what your imagination can do with Numidian light cavalry.

World War I: Trench Warfare Scenario

I've just completed a rewarding foray into trench warfare using a modified
version of the WWII rules and my specific Trench Warfare amendments.

The game involved quite a number of units. The German defenders had nine vs the
British offensive lineup of eighteen. There is a stipulation that the aggressor
must exceed the defender by 2:1. The defender can only deploy 2/3 of its forces
on the table at the start. The attacker can come on with 2/3 and holds a further
1/3 in the second wave. These rules conventions played out nicely as did the
allocation of German pillboxes and bunkers, manned with HMG Teams.

The British started well with four tanks advancing on the first trench line with
columns of infantry sheltering behind. Barrage and field gun fire did a lot to
disrupt the defenders and in some cases suppress their return fire. The Germans
had a couple of anti-tank rifles which succeeded to eliminate one tank. Another
was taken out by the solitary German field gun. This seemed to herald a German
rally as their reserves started to move on. But it was too little too late and
the British growing strength in numbers gradually came to bear during the next
two turns.

With the situation looking dire the German general indicated a cessation to
hostilities.

I really enjoyed this scenario. It was great to have units swarming over the
trench lines. I'd recently been constructing trench and barbed wire sections
with a few bunkers and pillboxes. This created as much a visual treat as a
wargaming one.

Napoleonic Game: Super-size

I've just completed a mega Napoleonic game which ranged 21 French units against
18 Austrian. The scenario was based on an inspirational youtube video I saw
which was entitled the Road to Eggmuehl. This was set in 1809 and simulated a
French assault on two towns and a central ridge line. The victor needed to hold
two objectives, one of which had to be the ridge.

The Austrians were on the defensive while the French were arrayed in three
brigades each one tasked with assaulting and taking one of these objectives.

Right from the start the French had the initiative and started to infict a heavy
toll on the Austrian resistance. The Austrians tried a few counters with their
cavalry and some brave charges by the grenadiers to scatter the French lights
but most of their moves were repulsed and the French started to wrap up the
flanks and press in on the central ridge position.

With units collapsing around about him the Austrian commander, General Dedovich,
decided enough was enough and threw in the towel.

Observations:
1. The rules easily handled having loads of units on the table.
2. I didn't use my command and control rules or solo amendments as I just wanted
to get on without much complication. The vanilla rules still generated a few
surprises as combat outcomes.
3. The French were fast, had more mobility and tactical flexibility with their
numerous light units and the artillery was very effective. With the addition of
some good cavalry, this meant that the Austrians were out fought and didn't have
their defensive positions fully utilised to mount a real hindrance to the French
advance.
4. I had a lot of formation changes, squares and sweeping cavalry charges. The
game was exciting enough that I lost track of time and was late making dinner!
5. I did have some pass through fire events but I was happy to accept that with
all that smoke and battlefield fog of war, this would limit effective fire and
as it was fast light cavalry all the more reason.

Overall - another great game and the largest I've played to date.

Vive la France!

War in the Pacific: US v Japan (Escalating Engagement Scenario)

I decided to put to use some of my recent purchases of Japanese and US WWII
figures and vehicles to stage a WWII game using the rules in Introduction to
Wargaming.

I selected the escalating engagement scenario and randomly determined all the
deployment and terrain elements using my solo rules. Each side had 9 units with
three each deployed on the table.

Both commanders were rated poor with average command structures. The Japanese
commander was marginally better in quality being rated bold as opposed to the US
commander, who was cautious.

As it turned out the respective ratings did seem to manifest themselves in the
way the game played out. The US side had no luck whatsoever and consistently
failed to get a reserve unit each turn until turn 7 and then that was too late.

Meanwhile the Japanese built up their forces each turn and while having to
traverse the table were able to deploy enough combat fighting power at the US
strongpoints and defensive lines.

The Chi-Ha tank actually took out the last gambit Stuart which charged on in
turn 7 to try to lift the US force, with a direct hit.

End of story.

One modification I did adopt for this game - I decided to make infantry units a
bit more reflective of the underlying compliment of firepower. In this scenario
my Japanese units were composed of 8 riflemen and one LMG - no SMGs as I don't
believe their line infantry ever used this weapon. This made them marginally
more effective at longer ranges. I like this mix rule to determine firepower as
you could load later war German units with assault weapons and MP42s to beef up
their limited manpower resources. The other modification you could employ is to
change the number of figures within a unit. The Japanese could be raised to 12,
however, I felt that changing the firepower composition was enough.

The game, despite its one-sided nature, was actually quite enjoyable as it
provided a great deal of wonderment and interest in the way the dice managed to
play out the scenario's course. It really was quite fascinating to see how the
Japanese could build up their strength and exert relentless pressure on a
battleline depleted of reserves and hampered by poor command and control.

Short but sweet.

Banzai!

Rome v Carthage: Second Punic War

I've just finished an exciting encounter between a Republican Roman army vs a
Carthaginian(non-Hannibal)army.

The game looked good for starters. Both sides lined up in the deployments and
compositions suggested by Neil in the AMW Rulebook. The Romans looked compact
and menacing, the Carthaginians far more diverse, flexible and maneoverable.

An interseting tactical confrontation was in the offing. It didn't disappoint.

I decided to be a bit more methodical in applying the rules in the prescribed
order and not make the mistakes which have featured in previous games where the
rush of battle has carried me away a few times or I've made snap decisions and
judgements. I also played my solo rules with the command and control dimension
to the letter to see how this would pan out. It actually produced a few
unexpected events which enriched the experience without dominating the game with
random chance factors.

The game started with the Carthaginians obtaining the intitative and in many
ways they maintained the tactical pressure on the Romans all the way through the
game. The Romans in response were not quite as aggressive as they should have
been - the rules kicking in restricting them to more defensive moves in a couple
of turns. This helped the Carthaginians to get into better flanking positions
and use all that extra mobility. The elephant unit was also pretty frightening
in the way it smashed through the Roman lines and even routed the second line
Triarii unit before being eliminated by a flank assault which paid off for the
Romans but only just. By then their General lay dead and in the next move they
were reduced to two units. The Carthagininans had only three so it was as close
as that in the end.

Observations:
1. The African phalanx rule worked really well. They are very effective until
they lose a base. After that they just need to hang on and pray for some help.
2. The Roman close support rule also worked really well, however, the effect was
limited by my house rule of push backs where if you double hits on opponents you
push them back a base depth. This sometimes carried the unit beyond the 4cm
support range. Either I keep this and have this as a realistic impact of the
battlefield chaos that would preside or I allow supporting units to follow up in
sympathy. I think I'd go for the latter to reflect the drill and formation.
3. Just to re-iterate - elephants are really frightening when they are not going
beserk. Particularly effective in smashing up heavy battle lines - 8 hit dice
and no saves! What I needed was some more lights to harrass them before they
could engage the Roman heavies - nothing much in the tactical locker for that
with only one velites unit.

For two very diverse armies the game was pretty well balanced and could have
gone either way. The Romans were solid and resilient to punishment, the
Carthaginians were mobile, flexible and imaginitative in their types of troop
combinations and assault possibilities. I could see how a Cannae type game could
convincingly be simulated with these rules with a weak warband centre luring in
the Romans and the African infantry pincer like hitting the flanks and
benefiting from cohesion, the cavalry sweeping round and closing the lid on the
trap.

Great game.

Long live Carthage!

WW II Mini Campaign

I thought I'd try out a mini-campaign format using the WWII Rules from
Introduction. I've made a considerable number of additional house rules to get
them where I want them to be. My playtesting is now flushing out refinements and clarifications for me to rule on and satisfy my own understanding of the rule
procedures.

The campaign was based on an example from Miniature Wargaming where a contributor showed 7 linked scenarios which together formed a linear mini-campaign. It was based on a US mixed arm contingent in late 1944 trying to winkle out a determined German formation, low on armour but pretty well equipped with anti-tank and anti-personnel weaponry.

The first game which I've just completed was a real eye opener for me. It came
as a real surprise to the US commander who naively expected an easy victory. The
opposite was the case. The Americans had game units representing A and B company
and a couple of Shermans. The Germans had no armour but possessed a Pak 40 and
two MMG positions in addition to their rifle units. They were tasked with
defending the Twin Farms which was near their baseline, behind a stream and
bridged at the village, defended by most of the German forces. They also had an
advanced formation deployed on Hill 219 within a ruined building and some
dispersed woodland.

The Germans managed to keep themselves concealed and ambush the US advance. With
some great die rolls they decimated the attackers. The Pak 40 made a good kill
on one of the Shermans while the concealed Panzerfaust Team performed the
classic side knock out of the other Sherman using the reserved fire rule.

With their armour eliminated, no HE capability and yet with a couple of
pillboxes to reduce, the US commander conceded defeat and managed to extricate
his remaining armoured infantry units.

The game highlighted a few rules to clarify - but no major changes like my
previous playtests - so I think I'm getting much happier with them. I
particularly like the flexibility they seem to support. This was a small scale
encounter - 7 US units v 4 German - and the rules perfectly supported this
smaller scale level.

Next game is the crossing at Pont-De-La-Croix. Hopefully my US commander has
learned a couple of things from the first game.

Dark Age Rules: Norman v Anglo-Saxon Game

I haven't played as many Dark Age games as I'd planned so I thought I'd start
putting this to right by having a classic line-up I always enjoy simulating.
This was a Norman v Anglo-Saxon battle based on the Hastings format.

Both armies looked pretty menacing. The Saxons were well positioned on two long
hills with a good compliment of steady, reliable foot, deployed in shieldwall.
In contrast the Normans decided to maximise their foot and archer contingents to
perform the initial assault. This, with hindsight had some consequences for
their performance, and significantly diminished their key advantage of mobility
and shock impact.

I also should have made one of their archer units crossbowmen. The Saxon
shieldwall was very resilient to hits and more penetrative power would have been
useful in weakening the defenders prior to the infantry assault.

The Normans were a bit hesitant in their advance. Again I should have really
used the cavalry to menace the flanks more. The Saxons on the hill proved to be
too hard a nut to crack. Despite some good flanking moves later in the game, the
Normans had already lost the infantry contest and the Saxons retained too much
defensive power to be removed from their position.

It was a good game but I felt the Norman generals frustration and there will be
lessons learned for a future contest. The use of Retainers as light cavalry was
interesting – in future I'll either have more to menace the flanks and get round
the shieldwall or promote these to Heavy Cavalry as the optional rules indicate
to get more shock impact. There really wasn't enough cavalry for the Normans to
shine.

On reflection I think I was having a bad hair day regarding my Hastings
re-enactment.

I was giving the Saxons far too much advantage. Not only were they on hills
which gave them first round benefit, I forgot to stop using the +1 dice for
integrated archers after the first round. I also allowed their shieldwalls the
superior save even if charged in flank or rear.

There is no ruling that states this shouldn't be the case but checking out some
other rules and reflecting logically on this I don't feel this should be allowed
as the interlocking of shields is to the front of the unit. If anything there
might be more chaos when attacked in the rear / flank. For missile fire I would
also limit this +1 dice for frontal assaults which aligns to the arc of fire.

My simulated William was right to curse the fates as he was too handicapped by
his enemy's positional strength and some cranky rules interpretations. A
re-match is on the cards.

English Civil War Using the Pike & Shot Rules From Introduction

Thought I'd have a venture into the late Renaissance with an early ECW encounter between a veteran Royalist force and Early Parliamentarian army.

I adopted a later Renaissance unit configuration for infantry with bases arranged 3 wide by 2 deep. This seemed more in keeping with the look of the period with the shot arranged on the respective flanks. It did cause some maneover problems but I quite like these constraints on moving around - reminds me of Armati which does limit your movement options and penalises poor deployment. This seems to ba a cardinal sin of a commander to not visualise where his units will be in the next couple of moves. Bit like chess. I'm afraid I'm not possessed of this foresight - which is a mixed blessing. As I play solo I make mistakes and can't over plan the army moves which adds to the chaos.

The game played rather faster than I thought it would. The Parliamentarians performed much better on the day. The Royalists just didn't seem to have their hearts in the contest with generally lower dice rolls and an unwillingness to commit their combat power. With piecemeal success the Parliamentarians suddenly found themselves three units ahead and closed in on the remaining Royalists who still had a spirited defence but were eventually contained and reduced to two units. Parliament was also poised to start looting the baggage in the rear so Royalist collapse was inevitable.

Observations from the contest. My first venture using the rules in the ECW. It didn't dissapoint. Gave me a quick and realistic game with some nice looking units, interesting battlefield restrictions due to the clumsy unwieldy formations and some dashing displays of cavalry tactics. The additional shot element in the Parliamentarian units gave them some slight advantages and made a firefight more alluring. The Royalists tactic became apparent with a need to get to grips with the enemy and use that pike advantage. This was particularly useful vs the enemy reiters and cuirassiers where pikes use 3 dice. Get them on the flanks in a pincer and despite some medium / heavy armour they usually vapourise.

A good game. Long live Parliament!

Brian

French Revolution Period Game

I decided the other day to try out an early Revolutionary encounter between a
French Republican force and an Old Regime Austrian army. I also wanted a big
game so I doubled the size of forces giving me 16 French v 12 Austrian. The
latter were governed by the small is beautiful rule which limits these forces to
six units. By the way they did look rather nice with neat lines of deployed
infantry and cavalry.

The French in contrast had four masses of brooding hordes. This was the first
time I'd played with hordes and was looking forward to see how they would fare
in the game.

The battle moved fast with both the French and Austrians advancing to gain some
positional advantage. The French then drove heavily on the left flank and used
their skirmishers in a massed cloud to mask their advancing hordes and
interspersed regular regiments.

The advance really felt quite authentic as the cavalry worked around the
Austrian flank and the hordes unleashed themselves on the weakened Austrian
lines. Hordes have quite a punch when they get to grips. At full strength that
is a minimum of 16 dice for hits. They managed to blow away a couple of lines
which seemed quite realistic. The counter to Hordes was pretty limited and
seemed to hinge on getting as many morale instances pre-contact to invoke the
double morale test which on a couple of occassions really hurt. Overall I did
like the Hordes unit type and how it was simulated.

Back to the battle and the French managed to constrict the Austrians around
their central position. With the left flank being rolled up the centre pinned
and the right threatened by fresh French troops the valiant Austrian General put
up a brave rearguard action but seemed doomed to defeat which finally occurred
after some 16 turns of intensive fighting. The end result was 9 v 2, however,
the French were pretty depleted regarding their remaining units.

On reflection a great game, plenty of period flavour which the simulation
brought out. Hordes look good en masse and with four of these 8 stand beasts I
had quite an aesthetic effect and pleasant contrast to the neat and ordered
Austrian lines.

I did find that maneovre of lines was a real headache, as I would imagine the
real battle commanders would have found. This particularly hindered the
Austrians who were unable to deploy all their muskets to best effect in their
firing lines.

Vive la Révolution!

Brian

Desert War Wargame using WWII Rules from Introduction

I felt the urge to put some more of my Xmas purchases to good use with a confrontation I'd been contemplating for some time. I got some H&R 8th Army and Afrika Corps and combined with the armour I already had this amounted to enough fighting power to put on a good sized Desert War game.

I used to play a lot of this in 20mm and used rules such as Operation Warboard. Before that I experimented with the John Sandars rules in An Introduction to Wargaming. These really captured the feel of the conflict for me and combined with some inspiring pictures of his scratch built tanks and airfix figures and models it still strikes a very nostaligic cord.

So I recreated something along the lines of the battle in the book using the WWII Rules in the Introduction volume. Not quite the Jock Column against the German recce unit but more a full on battalion sized engagement involving some Matilda and PzIII armour support.

The British were set the enviable task of securing a sparsely occupied ridge and

driving through to the end of the board. I had the long edge as the sides so the

battle was a bit different from my usual setup.

The British started well and got better as the game went on. The luck factor was

evident or should I say the lack of it on the German side. They lost a clear chance to stamp their dominance early by losing their 88m gun. This was spotted by advancing infantry and once located fell prey to a host of small arms and mortar fire with very poor saving throws eliminating the entire crew before it had fired a shot. Worse was to come when a long range Matilda shot took out one of the PzIII advancing in the open from the German base line.

The Germans tried to regain the initiative but the superior numbers of British forces were starting to tell. They had more units deployed up front and within firing range while the Germans still had two armoured infantry units and a PzIII

moving up from the rear.

The Germans managed to hang on for another couple of turns but soon it was clear, once they were reduced to two effective units and no armour support, that

the British, who still retained all their vehicles were going to prevail and comprehensively achieve their objective.

This was a bit of a surprising result as the British looked as though they were going to have a real tough time advancing on the German forces, however, the early elimination of the rather exposed 88 position which wasn't adequately protected and losing a tank proved to be decisive factors in what eventually became a bit of a rout.

Hurrah to the British, however, I'll play the Germans a bit more thoughtfully next time. Better anti-tank preparation seems to be in order.

This was a great game and I was playing it on my reversed sand coloured board

with homemade dunes and rocky patches. I'll get round to producing some desert scrub and the odd dwelling for future games. The rules as always played well. These are probably the ones I've modified the most and I'm reaching the point now where I'm very comfortable with them

Cheers

Brian

More Biblical

I've just completed my third venture into the Biblical period. This time a New
Kingdom Egyptian v Hittite Kingdom encounter.

I decided to use my solo rules so I was the Egyptian and the NPG the Hittite
commander. He proved to be a better general than I and soundly whipped my army.
I didn't exploit the Egyptian mobility and he quickly managed to pin me down and
force me into a fist fight which I was doomed to lose.

Both armies had distinctive strengths and advantages. The Hittites were good in
a straight fight with their heavy chariots which were battlefield resilient.
Their poor infantry were good at supporting the chariots once the fighting
started. My Egyptian light chariots had all the potential to whizz around the
battlefield but apart from one successful unit, were forced into combat with the
Hittites. They could break away but were taking heavy casualties.

Overall another excellent game. Nice and fast with missile firepower a potent
battle winning element and speeding up the disruption of the armies.

Cheers

Brian

Biblical Take Two

Hot on the heels of my battle last night I set up a fresh encounter, once again
set in the Biblical period. This was another indulgence as I was itching to play
a Mycenean army - one from the later period where troops looked more Greek than
Summerian and which I don't have suitable figures for yet.

Opponents - I decided on the Sea Peoples. It proved a fun match up with a fast,
bloody, full on clash developing. Some minor manoeuvring from the Myceneans gave
a slight advantage early on but the Sea Peoples managed to close down their line
pretty quickly - all those auxilia in a full 12cm dash forward - quite a sight.

Both sides bows were effective, the Myceneans particularly so. The Light
Infantry also proved useful in flank attacks on Sea People warrior units when
they charged the Mycenean spear. Overall the Myceneans fought in a more
consistent fashion - better dice rolls, despite having the close quarter odds
slightly stacked against them with Sea People morale and armour advantages.

The Heavy Chariots were particularly effective in neutralising a couple of Sea
People units and were great at absorbing hits with their superior saving rolls.

Overall a cracker of a contest and most enjoyable. I had the Rome Total War
music on Youtube playing in the background so it was like playing an episode of
Time Commanders!

Cheers

Brian

First Biblical Game

I treated myself to a venture into the Biblical period for army purchases this
Christmas and got myself some nice 6mm Egyptian and Hittite figures to allow me
to pursue an aspect of warfare I've always had an urge to look into in more
depth.

Many of my early games with toy soldiers contained Egyptian chariots, Assyrian
siege engines and Mycenean heroes, and it is these fond memories which I hope to
re-kindle with this move into the period.

My first pitched battle was a treat. It proved a rather one sided affair in the
end but did play exactly the way I wanted it to and gave me all the character
and feel of a pacy Biblical encounter.

The forces were slightly out of timeline in that it ranged a New Kingdom
Egyptian against an Assyrian Empire army. The latter is a very cool combat
operation. A bit like a Biblical panzer division in its offensive capability.
Looks great aswell with a potent mix of chariots, cavalry and infantry.

The Egyptians put up a pretty valiant fight but were overwhelmed by the Assyrian
surge forward. The terror rule combined with mixed units, heavy infantry and
better armour gave a fundamental edge to any Assyrian attacks. Despite this the
Assyrians were reduced to five units vs 2 Egyptian so it wasn't a walkover.

I've got plans now to go through all the major combatants I'm interested in and
in scanning the list, it does present a suprising amount of variety in
composition and tactical fighting style.

I've figures to cover:
- New Kingdom Egyptian
- Hittite Empire
- Assyrian Empire
- Cimmerians
- Sea Peoples
- Myceneans
- Trojans

This will keep me occupied for a time. One final comment, the Biblical rules
were spot on in my estimation of the ideal good game and satisfying simulation.

Cheers

Brian