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!
Wednesday 30 March 2011
Tuesday 29 March 2011
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.
Sunday 27 March 2011
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.
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.
Thursday 17 March 2011
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!
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!
Sunday 13 March 2011
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!
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!
Friday 11 March 2011
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)