Dale's Wargames

Drums and Shakos Large Battles Playtest

2012-01-30T21:04:00.003-07:00

As always, let me start off by welcoming new reader TasminP. I hope you enjoy the read.

As I threatened in my blog entry about Drums and Shakos Large Battles (DSLB) being released, I am wary to completely grade a set of rules on just a reading; so many times I have found what looks good on paper does not always work on the tabletop. I have equally found that subtleties in a rule missed in reading suddenly dawn on you when you get whacked with their significance during a critical moment. I can start by saying that there were no negatives for me, but more than a few whacks on the fanny during the game.

The Scenario

I decided to play the Battle of Eckau (18 or 19 July, 1812 depending upon the source), which is about 6,500 men versus 5,500 men – just the right size to try out the rules. George Nafzinger has a write-up of the battle in his book Napoleon's Invasion of Russia and there is an excellent map on a Latvian re-enactment web site. I also used Digby Smith's The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book for the order of battle.

First off, this is an unusual Napoleonic scenario in that it is Prussians attacking the Russians in what is modern-day Latvia (southwest of Riga). The Prussians (and Austrians) were part of Napoleon's Grande Armee in 1812 and were on the northern attack route. What is interesting is that there were several engagements and they did inflict casualties on one another. So, why did I choose this? To be honest it was that my French are way too far from being re-based, but my Austrians, Russians, and Prussians were not, so I dug through Digby and up came a battle just the right size. Historically the Prussians won, but the number of casualties was roughly the same (depending on the source) and relatively low.

Let's start with the map (click to zoom). As you can see, the Prussians (in blue) are attacking from both the southwest and the northeast, with the Russians (in green) in the central position and eventually retreating northward. (By the way, if you want to look at this area in Google Earth – and see how little it has changed – search for Iecava, Latvia, which is its modern name.)

According to the map, the river (creek?) is sunken and the ground slopes upwards away from it.

In translating this map to the tabletop I counted the water as difficult to cross – Nafzinger's description does not mention any particular problems with the Prussians crossing nor with being forced to assault across the bridge. The "town" (built-up area in DSLB) is on the Russian's left flank and includes a prominently large building (a school, I believe). Other prominent features include a hill to the Russian rear and a small knoll by the bridge.

The Forces

Prussian

Unit	No.	Q	C	Sk	Special	Notes
Musketeers	4	4	4	2	Drilled	Jagers add 1 to Sk
Fusilier	2	4	4	2	Light	-
Jagers	1	-	-	-	-	Jagers added to Musketeers
Dragoons	2	3	4	-	-	-1 to C for small size
Hussars	2	4	3	-	Élan, Scout	-1 to C for small size
Horse Artillery	2	4	-	-	Light, Horse Artillery	-
Light Artillery	1	4	-	-	Light	-
Medium Artillery	1	4	-	-	Medium	-

The 1st Brigade was composed of the four Musketeer battalions and the Jagers (deployed as skirmishers). The Jager deployment was not historical – it was actually in the woods in the northeast corner – but the map shows a 1/2 Fusilier battalion that is not in Smith's OOB. That combined with the fact that I had not completed painting the Jagers convinced me to deploy them out!

The 2nd Brigade was composed of the two Fusilier battalions, the two Hussar regiments, and the two Horse Artillery batteries. Note that the Hussars are small regiments, two squadrons each, so they are penalized -1 C, as indicated in the rules (page 34).

The Reserve is composed of the two Dragoon regiments, the Light Foot Artillery, and the Medium Foot Artillery. As with the Hussars, the Dragoon regiments are penalized -1 C as they are two squadron regiments.

Given the size of the forces involved, the Prussian certainly seem to possess a lot of artillery, even if it is mostly light.

I intentionally chose to give the Prussians two small Dragoon and two small Hussar regiments, rather than combining both and making two standard sized regiments, as I wanted to see the effect of more but weaker units versus fewer but stronger ones.

Russian

Unit	No.	Q	C	Sk	Special	Notes
Musketeers	4	4	4	0	Drilled	-
Jagers	1	4	4	1	Light	-
Militia	3	5	3	0	Militia	-
Dragoons	1	3	5	-	-	-
Uhlans	1	4	4	-	Lance	-
Cossacks	1	?	5	-	Lance, Light, Opportunistic, Scout, Unpredictable, Wavering	+1 to C for large size
Heavy Artillery	2	4	-	-	Heavy	-

The Russian 1st Brigade consisted of one Heavy Artillery battery (on the knoll), three Militia battalions, and one Dragoon regiment. This mixture of militia infantry and cavalry is unusual and was only done because of the positions shown on the map. (I now realize that the unit positions may not reflect starting positions, but some unknown point within the battle, which may account for reserves being committed and Brigades intermingling.)

The Russian 2nd Brigade consisted of the Russian jager battalion and three Russian musketeer battalions. The Jagers and one Musketeer battalion are isolated from the rest of the Brigade as they are stationed in Eckau and the school.

The Reserve consisted of one Heavy Artillery battery, one musketeer battalion, the Uhlan regiment, and the Cossack pulk (regiment). Note that at 500 men, the Cossacks are a large unit, so they have an unusually high C. I made them Unpredictable, as the author suggests, rather than giving them a Q of 5. I added a few other special rules – Scout, Opportunistic, and Wavering – as I felt they fit. Opportunistic would offset a Q of 5, but seems deadly with Unpredictable, which I do not think fits. Wavering properly reflects their reluctance to Approach on the battlefield.

Deployment

Deployment was as indicated on the original map, save that the Prussian Jagers were dispersed amongst the Musketeer battalions, as previously noted, and the Prussian Reserve was allowed to choose whether to appear behind the 1st or 2nd Prussian Brigades. My opponent, Don, chose to put them behind the 1st Brigade, in the southwest corner of the board.

The Russian deployment is a bit muddled on the original map. The 1st Brigade was deployed forward and towards the southwest while the 2nd Brigade covered Eckau and the east. The Reserve was to the north and quite some way behind the lines.

Here is how the original map translated to the OOB I used from Smith.

The Battle

As the Prussians were the attackers historically, and they actually surprised the Russians to some extent, so they moved first.

The Prussian Fusiliers attacked into the town of Eckau and drove out the Jagers from the first BUA sector with some hot die rolling (and a misinterpretation of the rules on my part). The horse artillery unlimbered are started bombarding Eckau from long range with little effect.

This was largely due to my having mis-/not completely read the rules on Built-Up Areas, so the Jagers yielded the town much too easily.

On the opposing flank the Prussian attack immediately stalled when the Russian heavy battery opened fire. One Prussian battalion took heavy fire as did the limbered reserve artillery behind it.

The Russians were able to bombard in reaction and then immediately reload and bombard in their turn. The dice for the Prussians did not help either. The battalion quickly accumulated DIS and with bounce-throughs and the retreating infantry, one battery to the rear accumulated DIS2.

The Russians, in turn, were able to move the Uhlans up from reserve while advancing their 2nd Brigade towards the bombarding horse artillery batteries.

One quickly finds out just how far cavalry can charge if the get a good roll. One Russian musketeer battalion had been sneaking up on a horse artillery battery (with a successful reaction roll) when the Prussian Hussars charged and rolled over the infantry, caught in attack column.

DSLB, like Command and Colors: Napoleonics, is pretty unforgiving of infantry caught in the open in line or column by cavalry. They stand a chance (less so in attack column), but the odds are against them, even if they have taken no DIS.

With a battalion of regulars quickly lost, the Russian left flank enters square in the face of two Hussar regiments. Unfortunately, this is also in the face of two horse artillery batteries (though at long range). In the 1st Brigade, the Dragoons move to try an flank the Fusiliers moving to secure Eckau, but it is too late, the Prussian Fusiliers chase down the Russian Jagers and drive them off at the point of a bayonet. The Jagers rout.

Suddenly, with a roar the Prussian infantry pushes up the hill and attacks the unloaded Russian battery on the knoll. With little effort they overrun the Russian position, ending up with their right flank behind the Russian Dragoon regiment. The Russians quickly react and turn their unit around, ready to charge the Prussians in the flank ... but somehow the Russians cannot muster the courage.

This is one of those "oh boy" moments when you have a great move and the dice just will not co-operate. The Dragoons, with a Quality of 3, and within Command Span of their Leader, need only a 2 or better to activate. I grab three dice and roll ... three 1's! The Dragoons and the whole Brigade stands frozen.

On the left flank the Russians realize that if they do not remove the cavalry threat their squares will get torn apart by the horse artillery. The Uhlans charge the first Hussar regiment and ride it down. In their breakthrough they charge the closest horse artillery battery, but are told off by canister.

Technically, a cavalry breakthrough puts the cavalry unit directly into Contact, bypassing the Approach, but my dice failed me and not my opponent's so it sounds better that I was told off by canister than to admit that my troopers were beaten by ramrod-wielding men!

As the Uhlans were recalled in great disorder, the Cossacks were finally committed to that flank in order to stop the remaining Hussar regiment from wreaking any havoc on the infantry. At this point the Russian 2nd Brigade is shaken. I only have a single heavy artillery battery in reserve now.

The Prussian advance at the bridge continues, with the Dragoons leading. The Russian Dragoons finally receive their orders and charge the still-exposed flank of the line infantry on the knoll, destroying them. The Russian Dragoons are then recalled to a position behind the knoll just as the Prussian artillery starts to site the position for fire.

The Prussian Dragoons stall at the river (they cannot use the bridge as they are deployed in line) while their artillery limber up and move towards the bridge. The Russians know that if the Prussians get past the bridge the position will be lost. The Brigadier orders the Russian Dragoons to charge, and save the command.

The combat between the Dragoon regiments is hardly a contest as the Russians have the upslope and the Prussians are caught in the water and a smaller regiment. The Russians cut through the Prussian Dragoons, routing them, then breakthrough into the limbered artillery on the road directly behind them, also destroying them. However, the Russians are recalled in great disorder, which confuses the Russian militia into thinking that the Dragoons are routing and a general panic ensues. The entire Russian line retreats, ending the battle.

Note that a recall cannot caused a rout, this is just literary license. What happened was that I had pushed the Dragoons into one combat too many and they were recalled with DIS3 on them, which tipped the Brigade over the edge and caused it to be Shaken, which tipped the Division over the edge and caused it to reach its Breakpoint. I lost because I won. How ironic!

Summary of the Game

I really enjoyed the game even though it felt a bit slow at first. I attribute that to our not being used to the rules, the unusual setup (surrounded on two sides, split commands versus interior lines, etc.), and to getting used to the Reaction rule.

Let's start with that rule. Essentially, in Ganesha Games designs the player gambles by deciding whether to use 1, 2, or 3 dice to activate, then rolling them against a target number to count successes and failures. In other designs, the number of failures is significant only if you roll two or more; in DSLB every failure is significant in that the opponent gets to roll a number of dice equal to the failures to see if he can activate to react to the opportunity of your failure. (Two or more failures also represents a turnover by that Brigade.)

This "reaction to the opportunity of your failure" is abstract, however. The unit testing to react does not have to have any relation to the unit failing. For example, it does not need to be the unit or Brigade acted against, within a certain of the failing unit, or even within line of sight. It is not even restricted to reacting to the unit that failed. Simply put, the acting player gambled and lost, and the reacting player can take some action in consequence. It is a simple extension of the risk versus reward decision that the player has to make every turn for every unit acting.

The reason this rule is significant is because it makes game play very fluid. Most activations, unless lucky or using few dice, fail at least once, giving your opponent something to do (if only to pick a unit and roll). This made it feel much less like an IGO-UGO game. As I stated in my initial rules review, a reaction die might allow a player to form a hasty square in the face of a cavalry charge or allow the defender to launch a counter-charge to block a charge against a particularly vulnerable unit. In short, it relieves the author from writing a score of special case rules (like forming emergency squares, counter-charging, closing fire on a charge, charge evasion, etc.) by providing one simple elegant solution.

All that said, my opponent definitely did not like the rule, at least not the aspect of the reaction could be taken by any unit anywhere. In correspondence with the author, he indicated that some of his "old school" gamers initially objected to the rule too, but eventually saw the utility of the rule and accepted it.

Final Analysis

Naturally, with any new rules you need to get used to them. The second game will generally always be better than the first as you will in all likelihood play the rules more consistently as you correct your mistakes. This was the Heads Up rating given in the initial review.

So, to review my review let's go down the points I raised and the final ratings.

I've discussed the reaction rules above and I think my initial assessment was correct in that this solves more problems than it creates. It saves the author from writing, and the player from remembering, a rash of special rules to deal with the problems of a traditional IGO-UGO turn sequence. The Lasalle rules addressed this by turning the traditional Move-Fire-Melee turn sequence on its ear; DSLB shows that there is another, more elegant method. (Now all I have to do is convince my opponent of the superiority of it without diluting its effectiveness too much by adding house rules limiting its use.)

Movement is an area where the players must be scrupulous in execution, otherwise the game is thrown off. Oblique moves maintain facing, wheels only turn the front and have no straight movement, and pivots simply change the direction faced. If you move 'sloppy' like the free movement with a DBA element, you essentially blur the distinction between a line and a column, thus giving the line a tremendous advantage. This is especially true of the Approach and Contact moves; these must be straight ahead only, so if a unit is not pointed 'dead on' you must burn an action pivoting or wheeling to line up correctly. This can make the difference between a successful charge or not, but can also often negate the cavalry's ability to overrun skirmishers (which must be done in the first action).

So there you have it. In actual game play, it rarely came up, except when a unit is forced to retreat through another unit (it usually cannot clear the unit and 2VS in one retreat move).

Combat - Bombardment, Approach, and Contact - went very smoothly. Once you understand the basics, and the number of Combat Dice to throw, you really don't need the reference charts. The number of modifiers are few and are easy to remember. That said, I still had not gotten the hang of what winning the first, second, or third die meant by the end of the game. Probably in another game I will. What makes for some issues are the special cases: Cavalry automatically takes a DIS after contact if it did not acquire one during combat, who retreats how much, infantry takes the position on winning but cavalry does not, etc. Eventually it will become second-nature, so let's just call this a learning curve. Not at all steep, but one nonetheless.

Design Choices

I noted in the initial review that I wanted to discuss the Proximity Rule with the author, and here is what he wrote:

I made some design choices, to reflect what I consider to be a "wrong" way to play, and is allowed by all rules out there. The Proximity rule is about this. All players I know - when they attack or defend - cram every single square inch of the table with units, so that sometimes you cannot tell one unit from another. I've seen people overlapping one base with another in order to fit both in the same space. That is not what happened on the battlefields. If you want (as I wanted) to avoid this you have no other way than to write an easy rule that plainly says that players can't do that. That's what I did. By the way, many Italian players who have played the game told me that the table looks "more realistic" and "orderly" with this rule. In all, they say it's more "Napoleonic".

In other correspondence with the author he shared some of his design choices with me, which might help you determine if DSLB has the right historical flavor for you.

Attack Columns – it is the author's opinion that the proper method of attack should be using the attack column for speed, switch to line and then approach to weaken the opponent, before going in with the bayonet. If the opponent is sufficiently disordered, the attack column formation can be maintained, allowing them to keep their momentum for a minimum number of actions used.

The French predilection for close combat is modeled with the Determined special rule, which allows a re-roll of a die during Approach. This is not restricted to a particular formation.

Cavalry versus Infantry (Not in Square) – Put simply, the author believes that cavalry, especially battle cavalry (dragoons and heavy cavalry), should be greatly feared and that infantry – even those units that are fresh, in line, and facing the charge – should get into square or face destruction. The math is such that only an exceptionally lucky infantry unit can stand in line in face of a battle cavalry charge; all others will be destroyed.

As I reflect upon other rules, most recently Command and Colors: Napoleonics (CCN), this is also generally the result, so it is not an unusual perception. Perhaps what struck me is that: 1) the odds are greatly in favor of the cavalry in DSLB while it is less so in CCN; and 2) the potential distance that a cavalry unit can charge from 3L plus 1S or 62 cm, where an "average" move might be 12 cm. That is a charge five times the distance of an infantry move in column. (Please note that 62 cm is an exceptional roll, but I was caught by the equivalent of a 44 cm charge, as was my opponent.)

So, I need to add a new factor in rating rules: Fiddly Geometry. This is a rating where small measurements or angles play a role in whether some action succeeds or not. A game like Pirates of the Spanish Main rates Very High; DSLB rates Above Average. Why? Whether a charge is lined up perfectly to 'clip' a unit or an artillery unit is lined up to bombard can be by a few degrees simply because there is no 'arc'; it is straight ahead or nothing.

This is why I say that playing with 'sloppy' movement actually hurts the game. As it is relatively easy to roll two successes with heavy cavalry, burning one action to pivot and 'line up the charge' means a difference of 18 cm that the unit has to use for charging.

By the way, one other comment my opponent made was: "this might be a good game to convert to hexes." That would certainly solve all of the the Fiddly Geometry issues.

Final Grade

So, how do I rate DSLB overall? Easily four out of five stars for me, as I like the level of tactical decision making that the player is presented with, which have definite risks and rewards; no decision is without tangible consequences. The sole detraction was the Fiddly Geometry rating, which has always been the bane of my gaming. I think the fiddly nature of bombardments can easily be solved: allow a battery to pivot up to 45º when performing a Bombardment action.

As for stopping the long range cavalry charges, well, I think you just have to be a stickler with those angles. Having to burn one extra action to line up makes a world of difference. The best solution – one that will lead to the fewest arguments – is what is always recommended for Flames of War games: declare your intentions. If you intend to be lined up with a unit at the end of your move, declare it as such and ask your opponent to verify. If the enemy unit does not move during its turn, gently remind your opponent that you were lined up as you roll three successes with your Cuirassiers!

Will I game with DSLB again? Absolutely. (In fact, I know I am going to be playing this very scenario over again, as it seems like an interesting one, and one that would play differently now that I am used to some of the rules and their impact on tactics.) Given the options available, it is not a game easily taught to new players. You will probably have to figure a way to ease players into it. The rules complexity is on the lower side of Intermediate. The real draw is the uncertainty and excitement generated from activations and reactions. It takes the standard Song engine to a whole new level of decision making.

And that is a Good Thing.

Comparing Baccus Old and New 6mm Sculpts

2012-01-28T20:38:00.001-07:00

First off, let me welcome the new readers Daniel Gurule, William, Steve's Wargame Stuff, and Henry. Glad to have you aboard and I hope you enjoy the posts.

A message on The Miniatures Page asked about the old and new Russian Napoleonic sculpts from Baccus and it just so happens I had recently painted both, but had not put up pictures of the new sculpts. As shown in the pictures below, the new sculpts are on the left and the old to the right.

As you can see, the old plumes on the grenadiers are "weedy" and weak, while the new ones are much more solid. Although the old sculpts may actually be more to scale, it is the effect you are after and they need to be stiff enough not to bend so easily. (Once they get that small, bending them straight without breaking them is exceedingly hard.) Also, the muskets and bayonets are much more solid, if exaggerated a bit.

What is most noticeable between the two sculpts are the lower legs and the "texturing" on the base. The old sculpts make painting the trousers more difficult and sometimes looks like flash (see the second figure from the right on the right stand).

For the most part, the details cast on the figure do not get in the way. The shako cords on the left side can easily be picked out with a paint brush, as can the pack strap on the shoulder.

As shown in the figure above, the faces are detailed enough that you can pick out the cheeks and nose, leaving the underlying black primer as shadows and a moustache.

All in all, the new sculpts are what brought me back to 6mm, as they are easier to paint and the end result looks much nicer. I cannot wait for the French to be re-sculpted, although I will have to, as the Austrians are getting the treatment first, according to the news on the Baccus site.

By the way, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 line is excellent too. I particularly am impressed with the Bavarians.

Ganesha Games releases Drums and Shakos Large Battles

2012-01-22T20:25:00.002-07:00

First off, I would like to welcome Chris to the reader list, here and over at Solo Battles. Thanks for commenting on one of the entries over there.

Well, I've been waiting for this one for a long time: Ganesha Games has finally released the English edition of Drums and Shakos Large Battles (DSLB)! And only for a mere $8 as a PDF. So what do you get for your money? A full-color version of the rules (meant for an eBook reader), an ink saver version of the rules, separate front and back cover pages in color, and a Quick Reference Sheet (QRS).

A note on the following review: there are many cases where I gloss over exceptions to the basic rules I am describing. It is not laziness that causes me to do this, but brevity. If you have specific questions, I will answer them (but recommend you go to the forum), but this is not intended to be so in-depth that it discourages you from buying the rules! :^)

In case you have not been following the progress of these rules on the Yahoo forum or the author's blog, DSLB is "designed for Divisional-level battles where each player controls two to three Brigades and a small reserve".

Units are represented by bases of multiple figures, rather than individually based figures. (I am sure you can use movement trays to solve that issue, however.) An infantry unit is a battalion of four bases, cavalry a regiment of two bases, and artillery a battery of 2 bases. The number of figures on a base is irrelevant and the preferred basing is:

Infantry bases with a frontage of 1.5:1 to 2:1 to depth.
Infantry and cavalry bases with the same frontage.
All players using the same basing scheme.

As my wooden Napoleonic soldiers are mounted singly, on 1" bases for infantry and 1.5" bases for cavalry, it looks like my base would be 3" by 1.5" with three infantry figures to a base or two cavalry figures to a base. (Artillery remains a problem as my guns are huge. I will have to figure out how to fix that.) That makes my infantry battalion 12 figures (with two spare figures as skirmishers, which this game uses) and the cavalry regiments four figures (tiny!).

The game requires several markers: disorder 1-4, battery fired, proximity violation, and successful reaction. For measuring sticks they now use: Very Short, Short, Medium, Long, 2 x Medium, and 3 x Long.

As with previous variants with the Song engine, a unit has a Quality and a Combat score (although it indicates that artillery only has Quality). In addition, a unit tracks its Disorder level, which is from 0 to 4. The more you are disordered, the more dice your enemy will roll against you in combat. Further, disorder affects your unit's ability to approach the enemy and to count for victory purposes. An important note: once a unit is disordered (DIS1 or more), it can never rally back to DIS0. Finally, infantry units will have a Skirmish (SK) value, represented as singly based figures.

As with most Napoleonic rules where units equal battalions, the infantry can form in Line, March Column, Attack Column, and Square, cavalry can forms in Line or Column, and artillery can be Limbered or Unlimbered (deployed). Unlike some other rules, you do not have to be behind a unit's front edge to count as being on the flank; if an enemy unit starts wholly outside of a unit's front arc (which is basically straight ahead), it is considered on its flank or rear.

Command span for Leaders has changed from 1L to 2M and is not affected by line of sight. There is now a Commander in Chief, which is a Leader of Leaders (much like the Captain in Sixty-One Sixty-Five) who has a Command span of only 1L, but it allows a Leader within range to re-roll 1 failed activation dice.

The heart of the Song engine is the activation roll and the resulting number of actions. In DSLB the player still chooses to roll one, two, or three dice and compares each die to the unit's (or Leader's) Quality to determine if it is a success or failure. As with other Song rules, two or more failures is significant; however rather than ending your turn, you simply end any more chances of activation for that specific Brigade. What differs from the other rules is that a failure now allows your opponent to try a Reaction.

For each failure in activation, your opponent can throw 1D6 to attempt a reaction by one of their units. There are a number of restrictions to reactions, but suffice it to say that the primary one is that a unit can only successfully react once per turn. Reactions, however, can be performed either before the acting unit's actions, in between its actions, or after all of its actions are completed. What is slick about this reaction system is that this is how cavalry counter-charges, defensive fire against charges, evasions from charges, first volleys, etc. all can occur without complex reaction rules. Granted, it takes a failure on the part of your opponent, and then a success on your part, to pull off, but on paper it seems elegant. (I reserve judgement on whether it works until I get a game in.)

Group orders are handled much differently now. Issuing the group order uses an action by the Leader, as before, but now the activation by the group is made against the Leader's Quality, not the lowest Quality value within the group. This means that a good Leader can lead poor quality troops around rather effectively. Group orders cannot be used, however, to get within Approach (1S) range.

DSLB treats the Reserve specially. First, let me state that it is good to see rules that call out a Reserve and have a definition and a function for them. In DSLB they are essentially a pool of units under the care of the Commander-in-Chief, who doles them out to other Brigades. Units in the Reserve do not move until they are assigned out. Again, I'll have to reserve judgment until I try it to see if this really works. (Remember though, this is a Divisional Reserve and the Commander-in-Chief is the Division Commander, not Napoleon or Wellington!)

Movement in DSLB is handled a little differently than in 61-65. In the latter rules you move a specified distance, but had a limitation on the number of actions that could be used for moves, based on your formation. In DSLB you can move for as many actions as you rolled, but the formation dictates how far that move is. To be honest, I prefer the DSLB way, as it is easier to remember. Basically movement is 1S for infantry in Line and 1M for infantry in column while cavalry is 1L. Movement is within the arc of 45º to the front, anything outside of that causes a reduction of one length (e.g. 1S become 1VS, 1M becomes 1S, etc.). Maneuvers allowed are: move straight, move oblique (up to 45º), move laterally, move backwards, wheel (up to 90º), and about face. Interesting to note that a left/right face maneuver is not indicated, so the Seven Year's War tactic of marching in column then wheeling by company to the left or right by 90º, in order to form a line, is not allowed. Simple matter to add, however, although I suspect they just simply treat it as a change of formation (1 action) with a change of face thrown in. (Although it does not mention being able to change face as part of changing formation.)

There is an interesting rule in DSLB, one in which I would like to ask the author why it was included. The Proximity Rule states that a unit cannot end its movement within 1VS of another friendly unit, unless it is Approaching an enemy. I don't have a problem with the rule, I was just wondering why he chose to add gaps between the units and whether he found there was any effect on play.

Combat is represented in three ways: Bombardment, Approach, and Contact. Bombardment is only allowed to unlimbered artillery, while Approach is the range of volleys (although cavalry does get to fight in Approach). Finally, Contact is very short-ranged firefights, cavalry melees, and even the rare bayonet charge.

Unlike other Song rules, DSLB has you roll a number of Combat Dice (CD). Generally only three of them count, but if you have more, they are not completely wasted. Each side compared its dice, from highest to lowest, to determine how many (and which) wins you achieve. The number of dice you throw is affected type of combat, type of unit, formation of the unit, range (for bombardment), the enemy unit being disordered, and conditions. The nice part is that the modifiers add or subtract dice, not modify the die rolls themselves.

For Bombardment, the battery winning the first (highest) die results in the target being Disordered, but winning the second die results in the target retreating, while winning the third die allows the shot to bounce through and hit a target behind. So, as you can see, the opposed die rolls are more complex than in the general Song engine, which concerns itself with beating (even and odd), doubling, and tripling.

As Approach represents volleying and the morale threat of cavalry. As with Bombardment, Combat Dice are rolled and compared from highest to lowest. The first die can inflict disorder on the loser (to both in a draw), but the second and third die gives the winner of that comparison an action to use. Thus the attacker could have 0, 1, or 2 actions from approach while the defender could also have actions. Generally, these actions can be used to move into contact, change formation, back away from the opponent, and even cancel out one action of your opponent.

Again, it is these actions that help represent counter-charging, forming a hasty square in the face of a cavalry charge, etc. that relieves the author of writing a whole slew of special rules to cover special situations. Forming square is simply a formation change, but if you did not do it in anticipation of a cavalry charge and were caught in line when the charge was launched, you better win one of those actions in the Approach! I like it!

Contact is a consequence of Approach; you must use one of the actions from the Approach combat results to move forward into Contact. Combat in contact is much more decisive (as you might imagine). The first die determines who wins and there are a number of situations in which a loss in Contact means your unit is eliminated. Note: infantry not in square against cavalry is one of those situations. (I need to look closer at the math, because I think that cavalry might be able to break infantry in square a little too easily.)

If cavalry eliminates their enemy after Contact, and another enemy unit is within range, they can take a Breakthrough and move directly into Contact with the second enemy unit. Personally, I have always liked cavalry breakthrough moves, which is why I like Column, Line, and Square, BattleLore, and Command and Colors: Napoleonics so much. (It is the rule that needs to be added to Battle Cry!)

There are rules for Built-Up Areas (towns, etc.), table setup and deployment, grand batteries, worn units, a host of special abilities to represent different units types (Militia, Cuirass, Lance, Impetuous, etc.) and Leaders (Charismatic, Cautious, etc.), some scenarios – both historical and conjectural – rules on making your own force lists, and even an FAQ.

The last item I want to focus on are the rules for winning the battle. The two criteria are: losses and penetration into enemy territory (gaining ground).

Before the game each player calculates their Divisional Break Point (DBP), which is basically 1/2 the number of units. As units are eliminated points are accumulated and once the DBP is reached, the battle is lost. Note that in general each unit is worth one point, but some are worth more, such as Guards, Elites, Heavy Cavalry, Artillery, and Leaders. In addition, which a Brigade is Shaken (has more DIS than units in the Brigade), an additional point towards the DBP is gained.

In addition, penetrating into the enemy's territory (moving units into the enemy's Zone 1, 2, or 3) temporarily creates points towards the DBP. So, for example, a cavalry unit breaking into the rear can have an effect on a Division that might ordinarily hold a little while longer.

If both players reach their DBP in the same phase, penetration into enemy territory is treated as a tie breaker.

Summary

So, what do I think of the rules? I will be honest, I have been fooled before by rules that read well, but once you start gaming and the math comes into play, they seem to fall apart. So final judgment will come when I have a chance to play them.

That said, I clearly like the Song engine – although these taken them in new and exciting directions, rather than the tried and true – and these build on that foundation. Ross MacFarlane came up with a method of reviewing rules, so I will give that a try here.

Drama – The mechanism for activating – choosing the number of dice to roll and determining the number of successes – always adds tension for the player. It is lessened a bit by having two failures stop activation within a Brigade and not by the entire side, which is a good thing, but it is still lessened nonetheless. Conversely, tension is increased because additional actions can be converted to Combat Dice. That and not limiting the number of movement actions gives the player more of a reason to push the envelope and roll more dice. I definitely like tying one player's gambling to the opponent (i.e. activation failures give your opponent a chance to react and exploit that failure).

Uncertainty – The Song engine is all about uncertainty, as it adds a number of random factors through the rules (activation, combat, etc.). Uncertainty is increased even more, due to your opponent being able to react during your move and to the way combat is resolved.

Engaging – DSLB engages the players with meaningful decisions. One of the features that I really like about DSLB is that a number of special rules are not required for special situations. A good example is forming square. Many rules simply let the player form square if charged by cavalry (some may require a roll to succeed). In many cases that takes away the incentive for the player to form square during his own turn, in anticipation. In DSLB you could form square, for example:

During your own activation.
In reaction to an enemy cavalry unit's activation failure.
By winning an Approach action.

Forming square at each of those points has its own set of risks. Forming during your turn may cause the enemy to forego the charge and have them send in the infantry, to take advantage of your vulnerable formation. Forming during a reaction requires an enemy failure and a successful Quality check of your own, but at least you now know the cavalry is committing. But doing it then means your firing during Approach will be penalized. Waiting until winning an Approach action is clearly the riskiest proposition and would likely only occur when the infantry is clearly better quality than the cavalry (or if the player is an unrepentant gambler). Knowing when to take the risks, and knowing that the consequences change is what makes these rules so engaging.

Heads Up – This is the ability to easily memorize the rules, even to the point of playing without a QRS. This is the area that will require confirmation by playing it a bit, but my gut feel is that the increased complexity of the combat interactions, especially what modifiers come into play in the three types of combat, will lower these rules' score in this area.

Appropriately Flavored – This too I think I will have to take a pass on, until I get a few games under my belt. Largely it will be determined by the tables in the back of the rules that are used to build and purchase an army. Flavor is provided by adding combinations of Quality, Combat, and Special Rules and applying them to the units, but there is probably going to be a lot of objections from the historical purists about how easy it is to produce an "unrealistic" force.

The use of skirmishers looks simple, but effective, however I noticed there is no provision for skirmisher units, such as the British Rifles in their company-sized penny packets, battalions of Jagers or Legere in their open order, or even Revolutionary-era French units in skirmisher swarms.

Another factor that the Napoleonic purists will not like, as they complain about it with other rules, is the generic size of all units. Specifically people like to see large units (Austrians, British Guards, etc.) modeled, which DSLB does not seem to have an answer to.

Scalable – Ultimately these rules are targeted at a player controlling a Division of about 16 maneuver units. It is probably not difficult for an experienced player to handle more, but I think 24 would be about the limit. Multiple players per side would allow you to play out Corps-sized battles, but then you start running into problems with timing at the Divisional boundaries (i.e. which Division activates first). The typical method is to gloss over this problem and deal with it when the situation comes up, just so the turns keep moving. But it definitely could be a problem with a turn taking a long time, due to a lot of combat, with one Division, leaving all of the other Division commanders sitting around. Of course, that is nothing different than I dealt with when I played Column, Line, and Square.

For me the question becomes one not of scaling these rules from skirmish to Corp-level, but that of scaling the figures used through those levels. Given the flexible basing requirements, if you base your figures singly you can use them for Song of Drums and Shakos, a Napoleonic version of Sixty-One Sixty-Five, and, by using movement trays, with Song of Drums and Shakos Large Battles.

I look forward very much to giving these rules a try. I may have to give them a go using AWI figures for Napoleonics (blasphemous, I know), as I don't have anywhere near enough for a Division per side (yet, but I am working on it), so look for that soon. All in all, two thumbs up, five stars, etc.

Command and Colors variations

2012-01-16T21:04:00.003-07:00

I am sorry that I haven't written something in a while, not because you had nothing to read (after all there are a lot of good blogs out there), but because that meant I wasn't gaming! Now that I am back home from traveling and my proposal writing is almost done (we are usually done with that by the end of September), I can get back to making wooden soldiers, painting, and gaming.

Welcome to new readers Gnotta', Ivor Janci, and madaxeman. Mr. Madaxeman (sir), you have a helluva' site.

As I had little to do last week, other than sit in my hotel room and vegetate in front of the television (a rarity for me, as I don't get television shows at home; I only watch movies on DVD), I decided to take another pass at a new variation of the basic Command and Colors rules. Somewhere between BattleLore and Battle Cry!, I think, with a little bits of the other games thrown in. As indicated in my previous Command and Colors review, there are a number of factors that make each game different, so picking and choosing the bits you like can make for an interesting game.

One of the things implied in the various games is scale – as in ground and unit – with Command and Colors: Napoleonics, for example, having each hex represent more ground than in say BattleLore. This drastically affects things like the range of weapons, thus a musket in the former shoots two hexes while a simple bow in the latter shoots four hexes.

I started mulling over scale and weapons and started with some preliminary figures:

American War of Independence
Infantry with Muskets: 3-2-1
Infantry with Rifles: 2-2-1-1
Cavalry: 3
Mounted Infantry with Muskets: 2-1-1
Field Artillery: 4-3-2-1-1-1
Light Artillery: 2-2-1-1

Napoleonic Wars
Infantry with Muskets: 3-1
Infantry with Rifles: 2-1-1
Cavalry: 3
Heavy Artillery: 5-3-2-1-1-1
Field Artillery: 4-3-2-1-1
Light Artillery: 2-1-1
Horse Artillery: 3-2-1-1

American Civil War
Infantry with Smoothbore Muskets: 3-2-1
Infantry with Rifled Muskets: 4-3-2-1
Infantry with Breechloading Rifles: 5-4-2-1
Infantry with Repeating Rifles 6-5-3-1
Cavalry with Pistols and Shotguns: 3
Cavalry Carbines and Sabres: 3-2-1
Cavalry with Repeaters and Sabres: 3-2-1-1
Smoothbore Field Artillery: 6-5-3-1-1
Rifled Field Artillery: 5-4-3-2-1-1

In the data above the numbers represent the number of dice thrown by a standard unit, starting at one hex away, two hexes away, etc. Note that this method is more like Battle Cry! or Memoir '44 where the number of dice thrown diminishes with range, and less like BattleLore or Command and Colors: Napoleonics where it stays constant. What I want to try from Command and Colors: Napoleonics is the idea of reducing the die as the number of figures are reduced.

Take a simple example: the American Civil War Infantry with Rifled Musket at 4-3-2-1. Assume for a moment that the average infantry unit has four figures. If the unit throws four dice with four figures at one hex, it is easy to extrapolate that each figure generates one die of "firepower" at one hex range. At two hexes each figure would generate 0.75 die, only 0.5 die at three hexes, and just 0.25 die at four hexes. Rather than doing all the math in your head, I produced a simple table showing the number of dice rolled based on the number of figures and the range. (Actually, this is not original and was a variant for BattleLore some time ago.)

The basic die I was going to use was two Infantry faces, one Cavalry face, one Artillery face, on Sabres face, and one Flag face. The Sabres face would only hit in close combat (one hex away).

The other significant factors are Support and Battle Back. I like the idea of Support (having two or more friendly units adjacent to a unit) allowing you to ignore one Flag rolled against you, as it encourages the player to adopt formations and not run units out alone, by themselves. In addition, allowing a unit to Battle Back, if they have support and were not forced to retreat, is another good addition, again because it encourages players to operate in formations.

As with BattleLore, the ability to have troops that can Battle Back without support (if they don't retreat) is a good option; it allows for more variation. However, it should not be as common as Iron Dwarves or simply declaring everyone is Battle Savvy.

The one area that I wanted to change most was to remove the sections (left, right, and center) and make it more free-flowing, like Battles of Westeros. To that end I decided to try a radical change from all previous variants: I used no command cards or any way of restricting who was ordered. Simply put, all units are ordered every turn.

Now, you might be thinking to yourself that limiting the number of units that are ordered is a critical component of a Borg design. I certainly thought so ... at least I did until I tried it. Granted, it is only one playtest, but I am doing "straight" Command and Colors: Napoleonics (the Waterloo scenario) and it has not played out anywhere near what I thought it would. I thought units would be destroyed faster, as multiple units would pound a single attacking unit. That is true, if a single unit attacks, but as you can move all your units, fire tends to be spread a little more evenly than I first imagined.

I am still working out the kinks of this experiment, but I thought I would share it and see what comments it brought forth, if any. At the very least, it is an interesting game.

Our AWI Black Powder Game

2012-01-01T21:38:00.002-07:00

Blog entry number 201, the first of 2012, and I want to welcome new readers Lee Hadley and Itinerant! I hope you enjoy the blog.

As I previously threatened, our club was going to play a fictional American War of Independence (AWI) battle using the rules Black Powder. I had playtested the scenario and come up with a few adjustments. That said, I was a bit shocked when I got to Orbital Games and found out my terrain did not fit. The boards were 8' by 4', but apparently my board at home is not 6' by 4', but 6' by 5'! So I had to do some quick adjustments, but in the end I do not think it really mattered.

The Scenario

This is a fictional battle taking place in 1781 in South Carolina, probably while Cornwallis is racing Greene to the Dan River and definitely before Guilford Courthouse. The Patriots (Rebels, if you prefer) have made a stand at a plantation (given the animosity, probably a Loyalist plantation that they have sacked) and the Crown forces are closing in. The left side of the picture is where the Patriots will deploy; they right where the Crown forces will deploy.

The road (with ahistorical tank treads) runs between the two forces. A few crop fields and a small woods are on the side of the road where the Crown forces will enter. On the opposite side is a plantation surrounded by hedges. Inside are two orchards, a few crop fields, and two freshly plowed fields. Also on the opposite side of the road, and to the right of the plantation, are several small woods and more hedges and crop fields.

The Crown is attacking in three "columns". On the left (at the bottom right of the screen), a column of Loyalist Provincials (four battalions) are marching up the road. They are to attack the left side of the plantation defenses. The suspect Rebel forces in the woods, but are unsure how many their are. One unit starts on-board in March Column on the road while the remainder start off-board and can start marching on turn one.

On the right flank an Elite column – consisting of a British Grenadier battalion, a British Light Infantry battalion, and a small detachment of British Light Dragoons – is to attack from that direction. These troops start off-board but can march on turn one.

In the center are four British Foot battalions off-board led by the Commander-in-Chief. They can start marching on turn two.

The Patriot forces have three commands. On their right, facing the Loyalist column, is one militia rifleman unit, one militia line unit, one South Carolina Rifle battalion, and a small detachment of the Philadelphia Light Horse. (Okay, so the Philadelphia Light Horse did not serve in South Carolina. They should have been Continental Light Dragoons, but that unit is not based and this unit is painted as the PLH! So I can be ahistorical on which unit it is or on its uniform.) Their orders are to stop the Loyalist attack, cutting them off from the British.

Inside the plantation in the front hedge section are two small militia rifle detachments and two militia line regiments. Their orders are to wear down the British and fall back before they are overcome by British cold steel.

The third command, under the commander-in-chief, consists of three Continental battalions: the North Carolina Continentals, the Massachusetts Continentals, and Hall's Delaware Blues. They are the reserve of the Patriot command and are to advance to slug it out toe-to-toe with the British that make it through the militia, and give them some cold steel if necessary!

Terrain Definitions

Crop Fields: No effect on movement and does not block line of sight. However, if a Crop Field is between the firer and its target, or either is in it, the shot is not clear.

Plowed Fields: As Rough Ground in the book.

Woods: As per the book. Unit must be in Skirmish formation to move through, and then it does so at 1/2 movement rate.

Orchards: As Rough Ground in the book for movement. Does not block line of sight, but if an Orchard is between the firer and its target, or either is in it, the shot is not clear.

Hedges: As a Linear Obstacle per the book.

Road: As per the book.

Plantation: As a Building per the book. The Crown forces are attempting to drive the Patriot forces from controlling the Plantation.

Other Rule Changes
As we are using 15mm figures with four 40mm wide stands for a normal-sized unit, all measurements are scaled to 2/3rds those listed in the book (e.g. 8" move instead of 12", 4" Close range instead of 6", etc.).

For units marching on the board, if two or more units march on in the same space, the first unit loses no actions, the second unit loses one action, the third units two actions, etc. Put another way, the units coming on are in successive lines (or columns) and they are zero, one, or two moves back from that point. This stops an unrealistic event where four units come on at the exact same point and all move full moves as if they were all stacked on top of one another.

All units are considered capable of using Skirmish formation in order to move through terrain requiring it (Woods, in this scenario). However, unless the unit has the Skirmish special ability listed, they cannot fire while in skirmish formation and must reform into a legal formation as soon as they leave the terrain requiring they be in skirmish formation.

I added a new special ability called Always Skirmish, which requires a unit with this to always be in skirmish formation; it can assume no other formation. I use this largely to represent troops that are based on skirmisher bases for other game systems!

Crown Order of Battle

Unit (Number)	Type	Arms	HTH	Sh	Morale	St	Special Rules
British Grenadiers (1)	Infantry	Musket	7	3	4+	3	First Fire, Crack, Steady
British Lights (1)	Infantry	Musket	6	3	4+	3	First Fire, Crack, Steady, Skirmish
British Foot (4)	Infantry	Musket	6	3	4+	3	First Fire, Steady
Provincial Foot (3)	Infantry	Musket	6	3	4+	3	First Fire
Large Provincial Foot (1)	Infantry	Musket	8	4	4+	4	First Fire, Large
British Light Dragoons (1)	Cavalry	Carbine, Sabres	4	1	4+	2	Marauders, Skirmish, Small

Patriot Order of Battle

Unit (Number)	Type	Arms	HTH	Sh	Morale	St	Special Rules
Continentals (2)	Infantry	Musket	6	3	4+	3	First Fire, Steady
Delawares (1)	Infantry	Musket	7	3	4+	3	First Fire, Steady, Crack
Small Militia Rifles (2)	Infantry	Rifle	3	2	5+	2	Unreliable, Sharpshooter, Skirmish, Always Skirmish, Small
Militia Rifles (1)	Infantry	Rifle	5	3	5+	3	Unreliable, Sharpshooter, Skirmish, Always Skirmish
SC Rifles (1)	Infantry	Rifle	5	3	4+	3	Steady, Sharpshooter, Skirmish, Always Skirmish, Marauders
Militia Line (3)	Infantry	Musket	5	3	5+	3	Unreliable
Phil. Lt. Horse (1)	Cavalry	Sabres	4	-	4+	3	Marauders, Skirmish, Small

Early Game

The early game saw the British march the Light Infantry on their right flank and get into a position to fire down the militia rifle line.

In hindsight, this was probably not possible to make this flanking move due to the Proximity of the Enemy rule. We pretty much caught all those situations later, however.

On the left flank the Provincials got their first battalion (the large unit) into the pass into line, and reinforced it with a second line. A third battalion then positioned itself to refuse the left flank of the advance, expecting a possible attack from the Patriots.

The center brigade marches onto the baseline.

Up until this point the Patriot response has been rather tepid; only the small militia rifle unit on the left has engaged any British. However, with the Provincials now bunched up in the "pass" the militia units spring out of their hiding in the woods and lay fire into the lead Provincial battalion. Under the concentrated fire from three units, it cannot stand the pressure and casualties quickly mount. It fails its first and only break test and routs off of the table.

Meanwhile the British advance forward in splendid lines and the entire Patriot line erupts in fire, causing very little damage. With the Light Battalion flanking the position, however, the Massachusetts Continentals advance to fire on the flanking Lights. Casualties start to mount.

With the loss of the first Loyalist Provincial battalion, the remaining two (the last has still not entered the board) attempt to form a line, but continue to fail in the confusion. The longer range of the rifles starts to tell as the Patriots start working on the second Loyalist battalion.

On the British left flank the Lights start moving over the hedges. The Patriot militia rifles decide that they have fired enough rounds for the day and retire from the field. The Massachusetts Continentals advance to plug the gap by charging the Lights while the British Grenadiers attempt to sweep further around the flank. This forces the Patriot commander-in-chief to commit the Delaware Continentals to face off against the British Grenadiers. The best of the Continentals against the best of the British Army!

Back on the right flank the militia is fully engaging, giving the Loyalist Provincials a target. The final Loyalist battalion in the brigade comes on and immediately refuses the left flank, again guarding against a Patriot flank attack.

In the smoke and noise of the center, the British commander-in-chief calls for the British line to advance to the hedges, give fire to the damned Rebels, and give them the cold steel already. Only one unit complies. Firing continues unabated all along the line, the Patriots firing from behind every bush and hedge.

While the Delaware Continentals continue to exchange vollies with the British Grenadiers, the Massachusetts Continentals win their desperate struggle with the British Lights, who rout off of the table.

I believe this is where I made the first mistake with the Steady special ability. I am unsure if I had taken a break test with the British Lights up to this point; if they had then they would have automatically passed it rather than having to roll, but it would have "burned" that one-use ability. However, if the British Lights had not taken a break test up to that point, they would not have had to take the break test from the defeat in hand-to-hand combat, and would have still been in the game. Unless they had taken two break tests (one for defeat and one for casualties)... Basically, I forgot about the Steady special ability for all units in this entire battle. Even worse, I confused it with the Crack special ability for the British Foot regiments. Ah well! I am still learning; next game.

Slowly the Light Dragoons march up the British right flank, attempting to sweep around the Rebel line. An advance by the British 24th Foot (okay, so the 24th did not serve in SC, as it was in prison camps after it surrendered at Saratoga...) up to the hedge line, and subsequent volley into the already-shaken Massachusetts Continentals sent them retiring. This gave the commander-in-chief the chance to start rallying the boys.

The other British regiment at the hedge, however, attempted a bayonet charge over the top against the Rebels hiding behind but the fire coming in was tremendous (they were disordered on closing fire time and again). Meanwhile the Patriot Brigadier desperately tries to rally the right militia regiment, but each volley from the British simply disorders them again, while more run to the rear.

Back on the right flank, the militia rifles continue to pour fire into the end Loyalist battalion, but it shrugs off the fire with ease. The last battalion in the column sweeps left around the militia line and starts to pour fire into it. It now looks like fire is being concentrated on the forward Patriot line. With it wavering (Shaken status), the Loyalists prepare to charge...

The Patriot Brigadier, desperate to extract the militia line from its precarious position, orders a retreat. In the smoke and confusion, however, the unit moves out in the wrong direction and as they exit the smoke they find themselves closer to the Loyalist line! (They rolled a Blunder for their orders.) They quickly volley for all they are worth and shatter the Loyalist battalion, who routs from the field! (Damn, what luck both sides had – Patriot good and Loyalist bad!) The Loyalists flanking the position and charge in, but in all the smoke, confusion, and cheering Patriot militia, their attack is ineffective (the hand-to-hand combat is a draw).

Unfortunately, I was so busy on the opposite flank that I missed the next picture in the sequence, so I made one up from the other photos.

The Philadelphia Light Horse charge onto the flank of the engaged Loyalists – who are still entangled with the militia line that miraculously survived last turn – and cut through the Loyalists. They cannot handle the pressure any more and they rout. The Loyalists have now had three battalions rout on break tests, so Shawn has now secured the spot for Worst Luck in the Game.

At this point we quietly draw a curtain on the Colonial right/Crown left flank. Don continues to hammer away at the remaining Loyalist battalion and never succeeds in denting it.

Meanwhile, back in the center, the British finally advance with the remaining Foot battalions, hammering the militia on the right and forcing the rout of the small rifle detachment at the end of the line. With the right militia line constantly being disordered by fire, the Patriot Brigadier cannot rally the troops. It is only a matter of time... Time to start pulling back.

But it is too late. The militia line pull back from the hedges, but a charge from British eventually pushes the militia over the brink and they rout, carrying the Brigadier with them, but not before one of the British units is shot down by the SC Rifles!

As we draw a curtain to a close on the center, one British Foot regiment remains standing.

Here is where I made the worst error, which was confusing the special ability Steady with Crack. I gave all of the British infantry Steady, but I thought that was the ability to have a morale save re-roll, when it is actually that they automatically pass their first break test. In the future I will either give late war British the Crack special ability, or change the Steady special ability to apply only to the first break test caused by shooting.

Also, I played Crack wrong, as it only applies if the unit has no casualties, whereas I gave them the save throughout the battle. This lessens the ability significantly and makes early rally actions more important.

Finally, on the Colonial right/Crown left flank the commander-in-chief rallied the Massachusetts Continentals while the Delaware Continentals hammered away at the British Grenadiers. Slowly the British Light Dragoons worked its way around the left flank of the Delaware troops.

The British Light Dragoons charge the end of the Delaware Continentals – I have to read the section on charges again, as I think I got this wrong – and drew the combat. The Massachusetts Continentals then charge into the Light Dragoons and drive them off at the point of a bayonet.

At this point the curtain draws a close on the battle. The British players declare that the Patriots have bloodied the British sufficiently and driven them off.

Although there were very few losses on the Patriot right flank, the center had completely collapsed. On the Crown side the Loyalists were badly beaten and the British center did not fare much better.

All in all, however, everyone enjoyed the game, the scenario, and the rules. Even the two WW II fanatics in the group, who play a lot of Flames of War, said they would play this again. So from the club perspective, it was a great success.

Analysis

What did I get wrong with the rules? Let me count the ways:

The commander-in-chief does not command units, so I was down one Brigadier for each side.
The commander-in-chief, if giving orders, does not have to be the last commander to do so. (However, if he blunders, no other generals can give orders. So in effect he should go last, but it is not a rule that he must.)
The Crack special ability only lasts while the unit has no casualties. That lessens it effect considerably.
The Steady special ability was not used at all, so I have to remember when it triggers. In a way it is sort of a bookkeeping issue too, as you have to remember which unit has used this one-use ability and which has not. Same as with First Fire. Maybe a token that goes with each unit, or a card in the commander's hand, and when it used, the token or card is discarded.
I probably got the charge with the British Light Dragoons into the Delaware Continentals wrong, allowing a corner-to-corner contact. I think no contact should have been allowed as the charge was not coming from the flank, and therefore side contact would not have been allowed. Front contact would not have been allowed either, as the British Grenadiers were too close to allow the Light Dragoons to fit. I will have to ask on the forum.
I will also have to check what happens when both sides are touching the hedge. I suspect that it should not be allowed, unless the attacker has declared a charge. This would get rid of the issue of whether one or both sides get the cover benefit.

What should I have changed with the scenario?

There was too much firepower on the Patriot right flank. There was no easy way for the Loyalists to break through and even attempt an attack on the flank. I thought that having a Large unit in the lead would have allowed it to absorb the firepower, but I was wrong. Combined with the Patriots using rifles with two of their three infantry units and there was little way for the Loyalists to penetrate that wall of fire.
Each side needs an additional Brigadier General – to command the Continental reserve, for the Patriots, and to command the center, for the British.
The woods separating the Loyalist and British center commands should be removed. This caused a bottle-neck which did not allow the Loyalists to bring more units to bear on the Patriot rifles.
I had an 8' wide board available, but only used 6' of it; I should have used all 8'. This would have allowed the British Light Dragoons to sweep around the flank and not get 'pinned' by the Enemy in Close Proximity rule. On the opposite flank, it might have encouraged the Loyalists to sweep left and flank the Patriot position, reducing their firepower dominance.

Some of the mistakes in game play that I noted:

The Loyalists should have swept left much earlier than they did in order to put the militia off balance and to gain the hedges as cover for their own troops. (Sounds cowardly, I know.)
The British center was not aggressive enough and held back in a long-range firefight, without clear shots, against a target in cover. Because they stopped to fire, units were disordered turn after turn and it was hard to get the advance going again. That last part felt very 'realistic', I might add.
The North Carolina Continentals did absolutely nothing all game, constantly failing to get anywhere. They should have started towards the left flank much earlier than they tried to.

All in all the rules exceeded my expectations. The refinements to the basic Warmaster rules have made the game better. The one area where I am not sure I think the effect is right is with Disorder. As it stands now, a unit is disordered by fire, but there is no way to exploit that. it seems like it would be the moment to execute a charge, but the enemy gets to remove disorder before you have a chance to charge, due to the turn sequence. Perhaps I am reading something in the rules wrong, so it definitely needs more exploring. Try as I might, I really don't want to alter the core mechanics of the rules.

In conclusion ... Black Powder will definitely be on the play list in the future. I have my 15mm AWI that are based sufficiently for this system (and the always favorite Sixty-One Sixty-Five) and I am working on some 6mm Franco-Prussian War troops that will be based for this and To The Last Gaiter Button (which I am looking forward to trying out and reviewing).

AWI using Black Powder

2011-12-26T16:54:00.002-07:00

My 200th post (on this particular blog)! Not bad, even if I did get a slow start, almost five years ago. I hope you have enjoyed it, and will continue to do so.

I purchased the rules Black Powder some time again, mostly because of all of the buzz when it first came out. As I am not a fan of the Warmaster-style command and control system, and I like my rules "tournament tight", I did not think I would like these. So, why am I playing a test game and doing a battle report and review? Shawn, at our club, purchased the ancients equivalent to these rules Hail Caesar, and he wants to try them once he gets enough figures painted. He is also curious about the horse and musket period, so one way to scratch both itches is for me to pull out my AWI and give Black Powder a go. As I really don't like playing a big game when I am 'iffy' on the rules, I decided to set up a table at home and give it a go.

The Scenario

The scenario is a fictional one; something I can learn with and use some of the terrain I have been collecting and working on. I definitely wanted to use all of the hedges I have purchased (actually, bocage for 15mm Flames of War, so it is probably a bit too high for the size of hedge I want to represent in this scenario). Also, a road would look nice (even if they do have tank tread marks in them because they are also for Flames of War). So I decide to make this an attack on a plantation.

The British and Loyalists will be attacking from the South (bottom of the picture), while the Patriots will be defending the plantation.

The battle plan was relatively simple. The British would enter the board in three separate columns: left, center, and right. The left column, composed of Loyalists Provincials, would lead by marching down the road. Unbeknownst to them, the Patriots were aware of this approach and had hidden some militia and cavalry of their own in and behind the woods. Their job would be to flank the left column's attack.

The right column, composed of a converged Light Infantry battalion, a small Light Dragoon contingent, and a British Foot battalion, would approach through the woods (barely seen in the picture above) and the crops, then spring their attack as a spoiler to any attacks on the British center.

The center column, composed of British Line troops and a few small Loyalist militia units, was off of the board and unable to enter on turn one. The Commander-in-Chief figure (out of the picture) would mark where the column's center would enter, but the General would not actually be present until turn two.

Click on any pictures to enlarge.

Order of Battle

The British have three British Foot battalions, one British Light Infantry battalion, one British Light Dragoon regiment, four Loyalist Provincial battalions, and two Loyalist militia commands.

The Patriots have three militia commands, three militia rifle skirmish groups, one State rifle battalion, two Continental battalions, Hall's Delaware Blues (Continental battalion), and the Philadelphia Light Horse.

British Turn 1 - I decide to order the first Loyalist unit in the road column to advance (I indicated a spot on the table that was one move away), and change into line facing the corner of the hedges. So, with a Staff rating of '8', +2 for being in March Column on the Road, I need a '10' or less to succeed.

Great way to start and a perfect reminder about why I do not like Warmaster-style command and control systems. That, and I should not use "pink bubblegum" colored dice.

So, because the unit is in march column, it must make one move (as a free move) as that is compatible with the orders I had issued. Also, that Brigadier is now finished giving orders for the turn. Hmmm, someone must have interpreted the orders as having the first unit scout ahead!

On the opposite flank the Light Infantry are ordered forward through the woods and into the crop field in front of it. The unit is not to expose itself on the forward side of the field, but to remain hidden. I roll a '10', again barely failing. It moves forward one move and that Brigadier is finished with orders too.

As the General's figure is only on the board as a marker where the center brigade will appear, and not really on the board (he enters next turn with the last brigade), the turn is over.

Patriot Turn 1 - I just looked at the ranges again. Wow! 18" for muskets. I should probably be cutting everything down here, inches to centimeters or something, but I will go with this for the whole game. I hate changing rules before I really see their effects. As it stands, however, my unit frontages are about 2/3rds of what they suggest in the book.

I decide that I want to move my rifle unit in my right brigade out of cover into a position where it can shoot at the Loyalist militia on the road. The unit is in skirmish order, so it is really a single move to get some of the figures in a new skirmish line, and two moves to get them all sorted out (I have to move through the woods). Staff of '8' and I roll a '2'; three moves.

The militia rifles on my right (of the right brigade) also moves out, but only gets one move. I decide not to move any more of the brigade, nor any of the other brigades. Here is the situation on the Patriot right, at the end of movement.

Fire from my two units was pretty devastating. I scored four hits, none of which were saved (hard given they were caught in march column) and I rolled a '6' on hits, meaning the unit is also disordered (which is not a surprise).

Given that I inflicted exactly four hits, and no excess (this unit is a large unit), there was no Break test. Still, they are in a pretty bad way. Maybe I should have moved the Philadelphia Light Horse into position to charge after all.

A this point the Man Cave is getting too cold and it is obvious to me that I need to read the rules a little more, as I am flipping around too much looking for the answers to what I feel are basic questions. But at least I have a better idea what to look for and expect.

British Turn 2 - The first problem is the Loyalist infantry stuck on the road. As they are disordered, there is nothing I can really do (they cannot move). They will remove the disorder marker at the end of the British turn. The second Loyalist unit decides to march over the hedges and flank the right of the skirmish line. They get three orders and ... well this is why you need to measure out your moves before hand. Because I stated a long order, and got three orders, the ended up in a vulnerable position where they were still in march column, but did not have another order to change formation. This is going to hurt... The third unit in the brigade failed the roll, so that is all of the Loyalist column's movement.

The Light column started by having the Light Infantry form a line, then wheel forward to the hedge and deliver a volley into the militia. Meanwhile, the Foot Regiment continued to march in column to get around the flank. The cavalry was able to get past the hedges and execute a left face, ready to ride down the militia behind the first set of hedges. (However, they now notice the second line of militia in addition to the third line, composed of Continentals. Maybe better to wait...)

The Center column got an astounding three orders for the entire brigade, allowing them to march on all the way to the hedge line and form line of battle. The British are here!

Now it was time to fire. The British, from behind the hedges, fire at the Patriot skirmishers hiding behind their hedges. The British Foot on the left scores only one hit, but it is not saved. On the right, the British Foot and the Light Battalion fire on a single Patriot unit and score five hits, but they score an amazing four saves!

At this point it might be helpful to those that have never played Black Powder to understand how ranged combat works. Each unit has a number of dice for shooting, generally three, and to hit a 4+ is needed. There are some modifiers, both to the number of dice for firing, plus the number needed to hit. For example, the British have the First Fire ability, which grants them +1 to hit the first time the unit fires. A target in cover, or skirmishing, reduces the chance to be hit by -1. If a natural '6' is rolled, the target is disordered by the fire, even if no hits are inflicted (see morale saves below).

The target gets to attempt a save for each hit received based on the morale of the target unit. Generally the chance to save is 4+, but formation and cover can modify the chance. Being in March Column means your chance to save is worse (increasing the save number by 2 to a 6+), while being in cover decreases the save number by 1.

Once a unit equals its Stamina (generally a 3) in hits, it becomes Shaken. Once it has exceeded that value in hits it starts taking Break Tests.

Disorder is removed at the end of your player turn. Its primary penalty is that you cannot be given orders or act on initiative; you are frozen. Shaken units are penalized a die in shooting and in hand-to-hand combat.

So, with the British center engaged, we now start to see some real action.

Patriot Turn 2 - The first order on the Patriot right has got to be an attempt by the Philadelphia Light Horse to charge the Loyalists that attempted a flanking march and got stuck in March Column. I roll a '4' and ... three orders, allowing them to change formation and charge two moves! Just what I needed (two orders would have fallen short, so I was gambling)!

The skirmishing riflemen the cavalry charged through must have been surprised, as they failed their chance to receive orders.

In the left-center, the militia eye the British cavalry on the flank. They are ordered to wheel left and man the hedges to the left, giving them fire, but they think that is a damn fool idea. (They did not pass their order check)

The Continentals, meanwhile, stand pat.

As the Loyalists are in March Column, they get no Closing Fire on the charging cavalry. Meanwhile the rifle and musket fire on the right tear into the Loyalist column on the road, inflicting seven hits, of which three save. Fortunately for the Loyalists, none of the fire disordered them. Nonetheless, this causes four excess hits to be counted against their Break Test.

The chance to hit with the riflemen is a 3+, as they have +1 for being in skirmish order. Further, the rifle units are Sharpshooters so they can re-roll one miss each. With the Loyalists in March Column, they only receive a save on a '6', so they are in a bad way...

In the center, the riflemen behind the hedges open fire. The unit to the right inflicts one hit, which is not saved. The unit on the left inflicts two hits, both of which are saved. This is going to be a long firefight.

The basic odds here are that the riflemen score hits on a 3+, but can re-roll one miss each. The British, as long as they are behind the hedges, save on a 3+. If they are Crack, like the Light Battalion, they further get to re-roll failed morale saves from shooting.

With no real effect (no '6' rolled for causing Disorder), there will be no Break Tests in the center.

So now, to make the Break Test for the Loyalist unit in the center. They roll a '9', subtract -4 for the excess casualties for a total of 5. (If they had been disordered this turn they would have had an additional -1.) As they got a better than average roll, the unit was not automatically destroyed (had they rolled an '8' however...). The unit retires one move to their rear and is disordered. As they are in March Column, they automatically form into Line.

Finally, time to learn about hand-to-hand combat!

Hand-to-hand combat is much like shooting. Each unit gets a number of dice to roll, looking for a 4+ to hit. Both the number of dice and the die roll can be modified. Once the number of hits are established, morale saves are taken, except that the benefits of cover can be nullified.

In this battle the cavalry gets four dice in combat (it is a small unit), but gets +1 for charging. The infantry get six dice, but because they were caught in March Column, they only get to roll one!

The cavalry inflict three hits of which one is saved. The infantry do not inflict any hits. As the result is two hits to zero, the infantry is defeated. This forces a Break Test on the infantry, who rolls a '3' and is destroyed!

At this point the winning unit can do nothing, change formation, fall back, or make a sweeping advance, as all enemy have retired or been broken. Cavalry making a sweeping advance can charge another unit within one move (18") if they are within their front arc (45).

Unfortunately, the Loyalists that just retired in disorder is not within the front arc of the cavalry, otherwise I would push it. Also, given the Proximity of Enemy rule, any move has to be directly towards or directly away from them, which is outside of my arc. Thus, I decide to change formation to single line while also (barely) putting them in my front arc.

The turn comes to a close, but unfortunately, so does the game, as I have to pick up all the terrain and figures for my game tomorrow. This was a test of the rules and the scenario, plus getting me familiar enough to teach everyone else.

Summary

One thing I learned is that I cannot use the measurements out of the book. My units are 2/3rds the frontage of the 28mm Black Powder units, so 12" needs to be cut down to 8". This will make a 6' by 4' board feel like 9' by 6', which is a good thing.

Getting caught in March Column is deadly, which is as it should be. (I usually try out a March Column move close to the front line to test out just how bad it can be, ever since a fateful game of Napoleon's Battles.) Although the units were apart while in March Column, it is not indicative of the rules of a whole. In fact, turns seem to go in slower motion than I expected, given quick, decisive movement and long firing ranges. Unless I am doing something wrong, the basic formula is that a unit rolls three dice, needing a 4+ to inflict a hit. The enemy unit rolls to save against those hits by rolling a 4+. Three dice * 50% hit * 50% save equals about 0.75 hits a turn. With a stamina of 3, it will take about four turns of firing to match the stamina and five turns to exceed it, forcing the first break test. If the unit is Steady, it is even worse. If the unit is Crack, it is far worse. Rolling a '6' and inflicting disorder on your opponent suddenly becomes the critical tie-breaker.

Given that hand-to-hand combat has you throwing more dice, and the side that wins forces a break test regardless of how many hits have been inflicted, clearly hand-to-hand combat is the game winner. I strongly suspect that cavalry charging straight into a line is going to find the closing fire unpleasant.

I'll be honest, I was not expecting much from the rules. I figured that it would be Warmaster lightly warmed over, with a dash of Horse and Musket flavor. I think the larger distances and ranges, additional actions, and less fiddly movement rules were all refinements that appear subtle, but actually have a greater effect than you imagine when you simply read the rules. I still think their might be a problem in multi-player games, given that a bad roll early into the command phase stops you dead, so a player, regardless of the number of units he has, might be stuck doing nothing is his luck runs bad. (Again, I hearken back to a past game of Fast Play Grande Armee where I was stuck doing nothing for almost two hours. But hey, I met Justo at that game, so it was not all bad.)

I am definitely looking forward to replaying this scenario – with some appropriate changes – tomorrow.

More 6mm Napoleonics

2011-12-26T09:05:00.002-07:00

I finished some more 6mm Napoleonics, in between playing a test game of DBA 3.0, stickering my new copy of Command and Colors: Ancients Expansion Pack #6: The Spartans, leafing through my new copy of Command and Colors: Napoleonics Expansion #1: The Spanish Army, and Memoir '44's Campaign Book, Volume 2. Yeah, Santa was good to me this year, but it got Mrs. Claus muttering about "spending too much on toys".

The first two items are some that I painted, unlike most of my 6mm. On the left is the Russian Pavlov Grenadiers and the right some Russian Grenadiers. The Pavlov figures, of course, are the new sculpts and these Russian Grenadiers are the old sculpts in the shako.

The Pavlov figures are very paintable. Sometimes, however, I wish Baccus would go the old Scruby miniature route and not try and cast on the detail. For example, the bands on the back of the mitre are visible on the casting and they actually interfere with painting them freehand with a 20/0 liner brush. Minor complaint, I know, as the figure is just fantastically easy to paint.

Its brother on the right, however ... These are old sculpts, and I am seriously thinking of selling all of the unpainted ones. First, the legs tend to be malformed with random bits of metal sticking here and there. The shako plumes, which is really the key characteristic that defines these figures as being grenadiers, is weedy and weak. The bayonets were where the vent holes were apparently, so they are weak and ill-formed. They definitely have to be clipped in order to give them any shape.

All that said, I think they both turned out rather well. The Pavlov Grenadiers definitely look the part of Ms(E)!

Next are some Prussian Landwehr light cavalry, painted by DJD Miniatures Painting Service. The eight figure units are definitely growing on me, plus I now have one figure, painted correctly to match the unit, as a marker.

The DJD brush work is simply top-notch. The shako cords, cross belt, and straps on the bed roll are crisp and pop right off of the figure. Unfortunately, DJD has taken to basing the figures on the Polemos system, so I cannot buy them on eBay anymore when they pop up.

I am starting to look at the 6mm Napoleonics on Reinforcements by Post. Apparently they paint some stock but don't immediately base, so they may be able to send me some unbased. If I get them, I will definitely post the results here, in case anyone else is interested in them.

6mm Napoleonics

2011-12-22T21:12:00.004-07:00

Well, I threatened to start re-basing my 6mm Napoleonics and that is what I have been doing in my spare time. I decided that I wanted them to be on 40mm wide hexes, as I would be able to use them for games that use 40mm frontage for 15mm figures; I would just be using more figures. Also, 40mm bases fit comfortably in a Heroscape hex, and I want to get back to grid-based wargaming. (Bending over the table and measuring is affecting my back! )

I will start with a single base equals a "unit" (whatever that might be, depending upon the rules). There are some new hex-based Napoleonics rules I want to try and a base is a battalion. For De Bellis Napoleonicis a single base is a brigade. Either way, 40mm by 20mm works for infantry, 40mm by 30mm works for cavalry, and 40mm square works for artillery.

First up are some Russian Cossacks. I've used nine figures on a 40mm by 30mm Litko 3mm thick, wooden base. I placed them about randomly so I could tell that they are rated as Irregular Cavalry in DBN.

The fact that I did not paint black dots for the eyes is starkly apparent in this magnified photograph, but it is not when you look at them at half arm's length.

Next are Russian Dragoons on the left and Prussian Dragoons on the right. Same size base. The Russians have nine figures and you can see that leaves you with uneven ranks. Why nine? Well, Baccus cavalry is sold with nine cavalry being the standard unit size. With the Prussians I decided to try eight figures and I can say I like the effect just as well. As all of my cavalry is painted in sets of nine, I thought about using the extra figure as a marker for that particular unit. I could put it on a 1/2" square base, for example. Some rules that might indicate disorder, or blown horses after a charge, could use this unit-specific marker for that purpose.

So, I've resolved that I will now base my units in groups of eights. Rather than re-basing the three Russian stands I just based, I will probably use delicate surgery and extract one figure, then use some clump foliage to fide the "hole" – or maybe even paint it as a hole in the ground!

Next up is the Russian infantry (musketeers). They are on 40mm by 20mm bases, 16 figures to the base. Baccus sells them as units of 24, so at some point I will have extra units without flags, which is fine.

Although I only have four bases showing, I have based up eight so far.

By the way, all of the 6mm miniatures shown have been painted by DJD Miniature Painting Service. I have bought French, Austrian, Russian, and Prussian 6mm Napoleonic armies from DJD, along with quite a few 15mm AWI units, and even a few 15mm Napoleonic units (for skirmish gaming). I have been tempted to buy more painted 6mm troops from them, but they are now selling them pre-based to the Polemos basing system (60mm by 30mm), which I do not use.

My plan is to start with a single base as a unit, then work up to two bases per unit so I can show formations, then four bases per unit so I can use them for Lasalle and Neil Thomas' Napoleonic Wargaming, both of which use four bases per unit. I will probably not go to six bases per unit, except for the Austrian large units. This means that the units will be on the small side for Black Powder, but for now I am limiting those rules to the AWI and FPW (the latter in 6mm also).

Right now I have enough musketeer units based up for a basic 12 AP Russian list. All I need are a couple of Elite Musket units (Grenadiers or Guards), Light Infantry units (Jagers), and artillery. I have the artillery already painted, and heavy cavalry (cuirassiers) if I need them, but have to paint the Grenadiers and Jagers. I recently ordered more Baccus Russians from Scale Creep Miniatures, but this time I got the new Russian sculpts. As I had just finished painting some Russian Grenadiers that were the old sculpts, I can honestly say that the difference is tremendous, especially in the area of paintability. I am strongly tempted to sell my unpainted Russians that are the old sculpts! I will probably never get to them anyway, as I am now painting the new sculpts first.

As an aside, I also painted some Baccus 6mm Bavarian infantry from the Franco-Prussian War line, and those are some of the best Baccus sculpts I have seen. So easy to paint. For the FPW I am basing one strip (four figures) onto a 1" by 1/2" base, six formed bases to a unit, plus three skirmisher bases (two figures on a 1/2" square base) added. That makes each unit 36 figures – 24 formed and 12 skirmisher – and a 6" frontage. Much more spaced out than the Napoleonics, but still has mass. I will be using these with Black Powder. If those rules don't work out then I may blow the dust off of my copies of 1870, They Died for Glory, and Chassepot and Needlegun and finally give them a try. Although, it might be cool to convert Square Bashing to the FPW.

Once the basic Russian DBN list is done I will switch to the French so I can get down to playing some games!

Review of Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures: War at Sea

2011-12-18T15:04:00.001-07:00

I have a friend from work visiting and he is a real WW I and WW II naval buff, but he has not really been able to find rules that suit him. We went down to a local hobby shop (Orbital Games, if you must know) to show some support and run through a game or three of the test version of De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) 3.0 and maybe a game of Command and Colors: Napoleonics when lo and behold, there was a copy of Axis and Allies Naval Miniatures: War at Sea on the shelf for Chris to buy.

I was vague acquainted with the game, but not the rules, as I had seen the game on other hobby shops' shelves for some time now. I first began to wonder about the game itself, however, when I saw it being played at the MAG-Con II convention in Houston, TX. I was rather surprised to see it being played, and by so many people (about six, if I recall). I asked one of the convention organizers about the game and he indicated that yes, it was popular, as far a 'light' wargames go. This had me mildly intrigued, as I always like light wargames for certain moods, but I have never been a big naval fan, and less so for post-'Age of Sail', so I never picked it up when I saw it.

Chris cracked open the starter box, which contains two double-sided maps, two 'big boys' (heavy cruisers, battleships, I don't remember), two smaller (light cruisers, I believe), aircraft, submarines, counters, four dice, and stat cards for everything. Note that the starter box does not contain random miniatures, like the booster boxes do.

We played the starter scenario, which does not include movement, and basically just fired at each other, turn after turn, until someone sank. (What do you expect for a starter, learning scenario?) Shooting is fairly simple: your ships are rated for the number of dice to throw at a given range (play in on an offset square grid), with gunnery scoring 1 hit for each '4' or '5' thrown and 2 hits for each '6'. Compare the number of hits to the target's armor to see if you score one damage to the hull. If you score hits equal to the target's vital armor, the ship is destroyed. Once a ship is lowered to one remaining hull it is crippled; once it drops to zero it is destroyed and sunk.

There are additional types of weapons, torpedoes, bombs, ASW, anti-air, and so on, and each of these have their own mechanisms but fall along the same lines as gunnery. Torpedoes, for example, only hit on a '6', but score two hull hits automatically. There are also a number of special rules that modify the basic mechanics, such as torpedo defense, which lowers the hull hit to one, or long-lance torpedoes, which increases the hull hits to three, slow movement, troop carrying, escort fighters and so one.

The game includes a point system, which is also used for determining victory, and a basic game is 100 points of ships per side and 150 victory points to win (you can score victory points by being the first to take objectives on the board). Using the point system you can buy a fleet and try out different combinations. On our third game Chris used a battleship and an aircraft carrier with fighter bombers and torpedo bombers. My task force was a battleship, two cruisers, a landing craft, a submarine, and land-based bombers. It was an interesting mix and it really showed us a lot of the game mechanics in action.

When I first read the rules I thought that the game would simply be a die-rolling contest. In a one ship-on-one ship game, it obviously is. But when you start to get to two ships per side, unless both ships have equal characteristics (which is boring) you do start to get some tactical play. You tend to play more defensively when you've lost the initiative and spring your ambushes when you have won it.

What makes this game good, mechanically, is that it is not your traditional IGO-UGO sequence, which leads to "Gotcha'" gaming (games where you can move and attack before the defender has a chance to react, leading to situations of gotcha'!). Players roll for initiative each turn, with the highest roller going second. Each phase is then conducted with the initiative loser going first and the initiative winner going second. The key, however, is that no effect occur until the end of the phase, so if the first player sinks a ship in the Surface Action phase, the second player still attacks at the full capability it had at the start of the phase.

Being a collectible miniatures game, and one that comes out with successive editions, however, leads me to believe that it will turn out like all before it, eventually degenerating into certain killer units that are always purchased and that beat all comers a greater percentage of the time, thereby rendering the purchase of the non-super units a waste of time and money. Word on the forums is that the Axis units don't have as good a selection of super units as the Allies do, so the Axis will probably lose the majority of the time given their lack of access.

The problem might lie with the inability of the medium-sized units to take down the big boys at all. After all, that is a classic match-up – quantity versus quality – so if the rules favor quality over quantity (or vice versa) the strategy of unit selection is probably already decided. Maybe I am being too pessimistic.

All of that said, generally it is great fun finding out the best strategy and units until you do find that breaking point, and the rules do seem to recognize common design problems and overcome them. I can see myself playing this a fair bit, but not in investing in it. As it stands, there is a Vassal module for the game, so the purchase of the miniatures is not strictly necessary. That is probably how I will play it in the future, especially as Chris lives in Ohio and only visits about once every two or three months.

So, final assessment is that it is a fun game, but probably one of those that you don't want to play all of that often so you don't hit upon the super strategy too soon.

Started the Solo Battles Blog

2011-12-08T07:53:00.001-07:00

In an attempt to focus this blog more - I like using it for rules reviews, rules discussions, battle reports, and general gaming discussions - I have decide to move all of my solo gaming efforts to my new blog Solo Battles. This blog will be dedicated to my solo gaming efforts - save for the specific effort of solo gaming development for DBA - whether it be battle reports or the development of solo gaming mechanism. It is my intent to discuss solo gaming mechanisms - applied to commercial or freely available rule sets, both miniatures and board games - then show them in practice in later battle reports. So expect battle reports there to be more 'mechanical' in description, than entertaining (although I will still try to make them an interesting read).

For the most part that means no real change to the content here. I have posted several battle reports here played solo, but I have not really stressed the solo aspect of the games at all. So, if you think you might be interested in reading about solo gaming mechanisms, head on over to my new blog. I've already gotten started by looking at gaming solo with the Command and Colors family of board games (Battle Card Driven and Hand Management systems).

Time to Re-Base the 6mm Napoleonics

2011-11-27T19:21:00.001-07:00

Time to re-base my 6mm Napoleonics, because in their current configuration:

They do not get used enough.

Too many different basing schemes I started, but did not finish.
Many schemes are not compatible with enough rules I am interested in trying.

Those rules that the basing schemes are compatible with – rules that allow "any" basing scheme – play better if the "recommended" scheme is used.
Of the three schemes currently in use: one uses bases too small for what I want; one uses bases too large for what I want; and one looks too thin and scraggly for 6mm.

So, it is time to re-base (or sell them, which I cannot bear the thought of doing). I am looking about about 1,200 infantry, 400 cavalry, and maybe 20 artillery (no limbers). Who knows how many Commanders.

I have decided to use 40mm wide by 20mm deep bases for infantry, 40mm square for artillery, and possibly 40mm wide by 30mm deep for cavalry (still thinking on that last one). A 40mm stand allows me to have eight files wide and two ranks deep (16 figures) for the infantry. Three ranks deep would look strange because the ratio of unit frontage to depth would be way off for most rules. This allows a Baccus "unit" to be stretched to 1 1/2 bases with the new scheme. It also allows me to use 40mm or 2" hexes (the former is the size of Heroscape hexes) and the units will fit inside nicely.

The rules I am looking to use are:

De Bellis Napoleonicus (DBN) - 1 base per element/unit
Lasalle - 4 bases per battalion (six for Austrian "big" battalions)
Black Powder - probably four bases per battalion also (three for small and six for large)
A Borg-inspired design of my own
Possibly even Napoleon at War - I have purchased, but not received these yet. Heard good things about them, however.

I'll post pictures as I get some bases done. As it is 6mm, and the bases are so small, you cannot really get very "dioramic" with them, as I did in the past.

If I like Black Powder I may do the same thing with my 6mm collection of American Civil War, which has never seen a game. Still looking for a set of rules for the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Wasn't keen on 1870 or They Died for Glory. Still looking.

The Fine Art of Writing Battle Reports

2011-11-19T08:49:00.001-07:00

Disclaimer: all of the following is, of course, simply my opinion of magazines and journals and their content, and the entertainment or practical value of that content. You may not agree, and if so, sound off. That said, I also realize that my own battle reports do not always meet up the the ideals I list below.

The subject of writing battle reports (or after action reports - AARs) was raised a few months back on the Old School Wargaming forum on Yahoo and I did an entry in response, and I recently ranted a little more about it on the Solo Wargame forum, with regards to battle reports in magazines, so I thought I would elaborate a little more here.

The subject came up due to a open forum question about whether I was a subscriber to Lone Warrior magazine and if not, why not. I had subscribed to that journal (I hesitate to call it a magazine, and it is more substantial than a newsletter) for several years, but after awhile I found myself disappointed after I read each new issue. There was usually at least one interesting item, but it often seemed that there was rarely anything usable. Having read a number of back issues from MAGWEB (when it had been up and running), it seemed like the content of the journal had drifted over time.

I know this is starting to sound like a knock, but it is not intended to be. Lone Warrior actually did pretty good for basically being written by a small core of the subscribers in what is a very niche part of the wargaming hobby, which many might consider itself niche. Where this is all leading is that Lone Warrior (LW), like another wargaming journal I tried out, Classic Wargamer's Journal (CWJ) both were comprised largely of one type of article: battle (or campaign) reports. And that is where this entry's subject comes in.

First off, one wonders whether battle reports should even be fodder for a wargaming magazine or a journal. Generally, one's games are pretty personal and the ability of the author to convey the sense of "being there" is usually pretty limited. That is why, for me, a battle report that is simply a narrative has little value.

So, what constitutes a good battle report - one that would get me to read it? Consider the following elements:

Narrative
Maps
Scenario
Pictures
Game Mechanics
Analysis

Narrative

A good narrative (story) makes for interesting reading. But, unless you are looking for a little historical fiction at whatever level the author is writing at, a good story is just not enough. As I am a competitive sort I am always looking at the decisions gamers make at critical points in a game. Why did you advance into range there? What were you thinking the result would be before the move? Was your thinking correct? What should you have done or considered first? As I am also an inquisitive sort that looks at battle reports using rules I don't know, narratives typically tell me nothing about the rules themselves because a narrative itself should probably be "rules agnostic".

So, does a narrative have a place in battle reports? Yes. From the reader's perspective anything that helps you "get into the game" is positive. That said a narrative does not need to be a fictional account of the characters on the table top, it can be of the players itself. I have seen more swings in a battle from the player's morale being broken than from a mass rout by the figures on the table. Sometimes recording that actually helps the reader understand just why it all fell apart. Of course, if your opponent's read your blog, you might not want to say "It was at this point my opponent burst into tears like a little girl."

Maps

Maps are incredibly important for helping the reader understand the action, especially in a very fluid game where it is hard to keep track of who is where. For example, in Flames of War a doubling Fast or Light tank could move 32", which is pretty darn far on a standard 6' by 4' table. So a reference like "the Stuarts on the left flank doubled" on one turn might be "the Stuarts attacked on the right" the next turn after having moved 32" + 16" in the course of the two turns.

So, maps help the reader understand the lay of the land, what might be challenging in a scenario, where action occurs from turn-to-turn, and act as an aid in re-creating the action for themselves.

Scenario

To me, including the necessary information for the reader to recreate the action for themselves - publishing the necessary scenario information - is what sets Battlegames and Wargames Illustrated apart from the other magazines and journals. In Battlegames you have Charles Grant's Tabletop Teasers and in Wargames Illustrated you usually have a historical scenario for Flames of War.

Sometimes just describing the scenario, if it is a standard mission, is helpful for those reading the report but who do not play the rules you used, as they can get a better sense as to why the players might have made specific decisions during game play.

Pictures

Pictures have always been an interesting topic for me, as I am never sure exactly what I should be taking a picture of. I used to take pictures of just the whole board, so the reader can get an idea of the entire battle. But then I got suggestions to add "action" pictures that focused in on a specific part of the battle, so the figures could be seen better. I admit that with some of my earlier battle reports, you couldn't really tell what happened from turn-to-turn unless you were flipping back and forth between the pictures. (That lead me to once try a stop-motion picture sequence to show off a battle.)

One thing I do not like is using stock photographs of battles, but not of the one you are describing. Either show an overview of the battle or show a specific combat up close. Beyond that, I am not really sure what works.

Game Mechanic

A friend of mine used to say about the rules Column, Line, and Square, "Don't look at the mechanics of the rules, look at the end results." I like it when a battle report points out how the effects of a game mechanic elegantly reflects (our perception of) how it is "really supposed to be". Also, a discussion of tweaking the mechanics is always thought-provoking and interesting, even if I don't agree with the change. For those that don't know the rules and are curious about how the play, mechanics discussions usually help. That said, referring to the mechanics over and over in battle report after battle report can get tedious, for both the reader and the author. Maybe it is best to write a one-time review of the rules you use and provide a link in your battle reports. Food for thought...

Analysis

Being an analytical sort of guy it naturally comes out in my writing. I also like it in the battle reports that I read. A lot of it is "what if?" but the main thing is that it leads to discussion. One of my most popular battle reports (by page view count and comment count) was Königstiger versus Strelkovy. This generated a lot of comment on this blog and on the forums where I posted the link. A lot of it centered around the flaws in my analysis but it was still good discussion!

Summary

So, there you have it. My favorite elements to a good battle report. You can be the judge on my ability to meet that bar. I know that I often do not include all of these elements, which makes me question why bother doing it if I am not going to do it right.

While writing this blog entry I decided to look back and see how some of my battle reports did, in terms of page views and comments. Here is a list, as of 20 November, 2011.

Battle Report	Comments	Views
DBAWI Game	2	112
DBAWI Game #2	1	4
Two More DBAWI Games	0	48
DBA Game: Early Libyans versus Early Bedouins	0	58
Another DB-AWI Game	0	14
First HOTR Game	0	4
DB-AWI Version 2 - Battle Report	0	79
DBA Solo Hoplite Campaign - Game 1	0	219
DBA Solo Hoplite Campaign - Game 2	0	47
DBA Hoplite Campaign - Spring 479 B.C. - Spartan Move	0	186
Stop-Motion DBA Battle	1	42
DBA Hoplite Campaign - Spring 479 B.C. - Thessalian Move	1	40
American War of Independence Wargaming	0	243
DBA Solo Game - Baltic Greeks vs. Skythians	4	674
Solo Memoir '44 Game - Pacific Theater #49 - Wake Island	0	273
Oinking Good Fun	0	25
DBA Battle Report using Battle Chronicler	0	102
NUTS! Battle Report	0	758
Flying Lead Game at MAG-Con II	2	436
Mixing Flying Lead and NUTS!	0	79
Flying Lead - Western Union	0	47
Command and Colors: Napoleonics - Vimiero	5	192
Playtest - Easting the White Dog	1	44
Playtest - New AWI Rules	2	183
AWI Playtest using Ganesha Games' Sixty-One Sixty-Five (Part 1)	0	351
AWI Playtest using "Sixty-One Sixty-Five" (Part 2)	0	107
TWTUD Playtest	0	38
TWTUD Playtest Part 2	2	33
TWTUD Playtest Part 3	0	35
The Battle of Trautenau¹	1	123
Task Force A List in Flames of War	0	112
Interesting FOW Game (1)	0	33
Interesting FOW Game (2)	0	19
Interesting FOW Game (3)	0	29
Interesting FOW Game (Summary)	0	30
Battle of Burtki (Korsun Pocket Campaign)	2	30
German Maneuvers: A Blue-on-Blue Game of FOW	0	66
Königstiger versus Strelkovy	6	537
Infantry Aces Cassino Game 01	2	74
Infantry Aces Cassino Game 02	0	47
Infantry Aces Cassino Game 03	0	49
BattleLore on the Tabletop (Part 1)	6	222
BattleLore on the Tabletop (Part 2)	0	92
Here Comes the Red Dragon	0	61
Here Comes the Red Dragon (Part 2)	2	42
Skirmish in the Spanish Countryside	0	312

¹ This was a guest blogger report and not one done by me.

As I review the list above, something becomes quite obvious: pageview count is directly related not to the quality of the battle report, but to how widely you publicize the battle report in other forums.

Well, now you have the list. You can judge for yourself how many times I myself didn't meet my own exacting standards!

Skirmish in the Spanish Countryside

2011-11-11T13:43:00.001-07:00

Today is not only Veteran's Day in the United States of America, but it is Solo Gaming Appreciation Day (11/11/11 - all ones, get it?), so I have decided to celebrate both, and give me a little inspiration to get back to building more wooden soldiers by playing a game of Napoleonics using the rules Song of Drums and Shakos by Ganesha Games.

Changes to the Rules

This game I will experiment with the activation and turn-over rule changes I previously discussed. In a nutshell those changes are that two or three failures does not turn-over, but rather forfeits the next turn fort the figure (or group!) that failed.

The Scenario

My scenario is a simple one: A British party is moving supplies to local Spaniards in order to encourage them to actively attack the French in the area. They are to leave extra ammunition at a local's house when they come out of a gully and blunder into the French, who have arrived at the house ahead of the British and are searching for contraband. The scene starts with two sentries on a hill, guarding against suspected Spanish guerrillas while the remainder of the French ransack the house. The regimental vivandiere has come out provide the sentries refreshments (that she conveniently found in the house) when the British stumble out of the gully.

The two sides.

Although this shows British Light Dragoons, they never made it into the game.

The left picture is the view from the French side; the center from the British side. On the right it shows the French sentries and the vivandiere serving them.

The Game

The British truly do stumble out of the brush, as they are essentially divided into three clusters: those that moved two moves (five men), those that moved one move (four men and the Sergeant), and those that moved none.

For simplicity I allowed those British that failed twice to simply not move this turn, but still allow them another chance next turn. In exchange for that, no British figure could roll three dice for activation on the first turn. After the first turn, however, the rule changes would be in effect...

The French sentry easily spotted the British thrashing around noisily in the tall grass, called out the alarm, and fired off a shot (missing however). The second sentry, quickly handing the vivandiere back the cup of Spanish wine, raced up the slope to see what was happening.

The British Sergeant, calling orders from the rear while yelling at the stragglers behind, order the forward group to form line and volley fire upon the sentry. With a roar from five muskets, the French sentry goes down, instantly killed. The remaining British troops quicken their pace, knowing that this is no longer going to be a simple task of handing out information and trying to impress the local senoritas...

The surviving sentry quickly fires his musket at the British line, luckily winging one private (who is knocked down), before retiring behind the safety of the hill.

With the alarm raised the French officer inside the house calls to the drummer to beat out Assembly. The French private quickly stream out the door and form line ... right in front of the British who have just finished firing their volley and are quickly attempting to reload.

Continuing to shout orders, the British Sergeant tells the second group to swing to the left and give the French a volley, which they do. One more French private goes down (although he is only out of action.) Apparently the right group was waiting for orders as, other the the private knocked down and who got up, all failed to reload their muskets!

The French officer runs out of the house screaming "Pour l'Empereur, de charge!" (forgive my Google French), and away charges four of his privates, heading straight for the British line.

This turn saw the French desperately gamble and roll three dice for practically every figure and group. Three figures, including the French sergeant, turned over, however, indicating they will lose their next turn completely.

The Sergeant screams "Fire at will!" and promptly steps into a hole, distracting him.

I rolled three dice for every British private, but only rolled two for the Sergeant and yet he still turned over!

All along the line the British reload and fire. One of the French privates goes down and two flinch, but still they come on. Notably, however, the French group is now broken (figures no longer touching), so they cannot receive a group order.

The French charge the end of the line, but the distance is too much of a strain; the British are able to stave off the French bayonets, even looking grim for the French next turn.

The British counter-attack was weak on the flank, but in the center the privates advanced forward, bayoneting the downed French private and even taking a pot shot at the French officer, knocking him to the ground with the blast of the powder charge.

The French officer is merely fazed, however, as he leaps to his feet and (foolishly) charges into combat - and promptly knocked down again. (This is a much deadlier situation, however. I can see now that the Officer should probably be Combat of 3 if I am going to throw him into hand-to-hand combat.)

The British mercilessly bayonet the downed French officer (it took two to get him), forcing a morale check. The drummer boy, who was defending the officer when he was killed, failed morale completely and ran from the combat. Four men (and one woman) retreated in all, but the French Sergeant was steadfast. (No really, he has the skill Steadfast!)

With the French having five out of 12 men dead, it looks like it is time to beat a hasty retreat. Amazingly, the one private in hand-to-hand combat makes his roll for two actions and survives the free hack. The French Sergeant heroically charges the end of the line and takes a powerful swing with his deadly halberd - and barely survives being knocked down despite being +3 to the dice and his opponent only being +1!

Summary

It has been awhile since I have played any skirmish games, especially Song of Drums and Shakos, so I forgot some of the "do's and don'ts". For example, don't put your leader out there in danger. In fact, don't commit him to combat at all. He is there just to give group orders and add 1 to the Quality checks of everyone else within a Long.

Even a combat "monster" like the French Sergeant can't go into hand-to-hand combat unsupported. Even having a halberd, a Combat of 3, and Strong (+1 to Combat in hand-to-hand) can't overcome two or three average soldiers (Combat of 2) in hand-to-hand.

Where the French attack broke apart was basically from the start. The French were piecemeal and the British were concentrated. Rather than moving so far forward with the French group it should have assembled farther back and awaited the Officer and Sergeant to bring up the rear before attacking. I just felt like "quick, charge before they reload". Problem was, they had those little pointy things at the end of their unloaded muskets, and in the final analysis, the French were no better in hand-to-hand than were the British. Ah well, that is what you get for rushing (in more ways than one). I still enjoyed it and I got to pull off my Solo Gaming Appreciation Day game.

Memoir '44 Variant

2011-11-10T14:53:00.001-07:00

I thought I would post this idea from the Days of Wonder forum.

A battle die result of Grenade only hits when in Close Combat (in an adjacent hex) or against an Artillery unit.

When I first read that, I thought that it "makes sense"; grenades represent short-range combat. Of course, the designer had mathematically taken into account that Grenades would always hit, but some discussion has surrounded the idea that the hit rate is too high as it is. With that, I agree; M44 is very bloody, and because you throw so few dice, hitting on an additional face means it is very luck oriented. (See my previous blog entry on what that is.)

What this does, of course, is makes Close Combat that much more powerful than it is now. Infantry not only get three dice instead of one or two, but their chance to hit would now be 16% higher (because ranged fire would be lowered),distorting the importance of assault even more.

I will give it a try, probably using VASSAL to do the testing - so it doesn't take so much time to setup and tear down games - and report back here.

Battlegames and the Future of Paper Magazines

2011-11-07T15:50:00.001-07:00

First off, before I start my rant, I want to say hello to the new readers, something I've not done before. So hello Brent, Big Lee, Danjou's Hands, and Ben Boersma, all whom have joined in the last week. Of course, welcome back to all the other readers. I wished I had thought of acknowledging you back when I started this blog.

It was with heavy heart that I read my email from Henry Hyde of Battlegames magazine. (If you are wondering what I am referring to, follow the link above and read the news on the front page. In brief, his print edition of the magazine is running at a financial loss and there are not enough subscribers to continue with a digital version.) My favorite wargaming magazine, bar none, was possibly going down the tubes.

To start, I took the survey he asked all subscribers to take and I was direct: raise the price if necessary, go digital, and pass the cost of printing on to the user. For me, I am willing to accept that in order to continue receiving great content.

The magazine's content catered to the old school wargamer, and although I like a lot of the principles that they follow (fun game, easy to remember rules), I don't consider myself one because of some of their other gaming principles (I like 'tournament tight' rules, not frameworks to build upon).

Second, I emailed Henry and told him that I just needed a process to change my subscription to digital, as he seems to have taken down all subscription options from his web site. For me, I was a paper subscriber because that is all he offered when I started, he didn't have an obvious process for me to convert, and there wasn't enough of an incentive to convert from paper to digital. Had he sent me an email six months ago and said "Dale, I have to raise prices on the paper subscriptions 100%, but I can convert you to digital at no cost, just tell me what you want", I would have converted then and there. As it was, I bought two issues digitally because the UK postal system was late in delivering the paper copy and "I want it now"! (Of course, duplicate digital copies were only $1, so there was incentive to get it early in those cases. I never printed them out.)

One of the reasons this is so distressing is because I was interested in the Classic Wargamer's Journal and it too is no longer publishing. I received the pilot issue as a PDF and wanted to keep getting digital issues, but he only did subscriptions, and I was still not sure if I liked the format (it had a lot of battle reports, which I am not too keen on, unless it gives me enough information to replay it myself). What is it that is causing this meltdown? I see Wargames Illustrated and it appears to be doing well (but so did Battlegames, to be honest); Miniature Wargaming has been around for a long time, and although it was not my cup of tea, it was definitely a survivor. As for Wargames, Soldiers, and Strategy magazine, I had collected back issues whenever I came across them, but never subscribed. Great eye candy, but I cannot say I ever used the information in their articles; not even for scenarios. That said, they went bust (but were resurrected by another magazine publishing house), which shows the weakness of this market.

I personally do not think it is the market, per se, that is saturated. Henry spoke of the advertisers leaving when WSS started back up. Companies knew BG was niche and so probably decided to spend their advertising dollars in the bigger magazines that got broader distribution. Spencer-Smith Miniatures, for example, admitted that they really did not know if advertising with BG brought in more sales, but they knew that it was "their kind" of magazine and that a general wargaming magazine is probably not the way to go.

So, are niche magazines and journals doomed to forego the paper route and be digital, or not at all? I for one, hope so. I hope they can show that digital publishing is the way to stay alive. If they succeed in getting people to pay for niche wargaming content in a digital format, we may get more people to try that, getting richer products. For me, whenever I see a new digital magazine, I want to buy (or get for free) a recent issue so that I can see whether it is for me or not. If it is, I will go ahead and subscribe.

What I don't like are unprintable digital issues. If you use Flash animation and such, to me that is a turn-off. I would want the copy that would normally be sent to the printer, and preferably an option to have a "printer-friendly" version without heavy artwork and backgrounds.

My hope is to see Battlegames continue on in a digital-only format. Quarterly journals are an interesting idea, but I don't really need the paper, and if I do, I can deal with printing it out myself, as I do with back issues of Slingshot magazine, that I have on CD.

Command and Colors Variants

2011-11-01T16:29:00.003-07:00

So, I played a game of Memoir '44 with Don this weekend while waiting for a program to finish installing and, let's just say it was sort of a shock. Don and I used to play a lot of it, so I was pretty used to how it played. But now that I have had a steady diet of BattleLore of late (really, reacquainting myself with the rules), and Command and Colors: Napoleonics prior to that, I must say I was shocked at how "primitive" the Memoir '44 rules felt. Immediately after that I started playing Memoir '44 Online and I can say the feeling did not go away.

So, for me the progression of being introduced to Richard Borg's games was as follows:

Command and Colors: Ancients
Memoir '44
BattleLore
Every Memoir '44 expansion, as they came out
Battle Cry! (Avalon Hill, not the 2010 Hasbro re-issue)
Every Command and Colors: Ancients expansion
Every Battlelore expansion, save the last three
Command and Colors: Napoleonics
The last three BattleLore expansions

I am at the point now that I pretty much buy every expansion as they come out, but I honestly have not played every scenario of every game. Given the situation with copies being scarce, out-of-print, and/or not being re-printed, once I know I like a system, I pretty much get the expansions "just in case". (It helps to have a lot of storage space available when you are afflicted with such mental disorders.)

By the way, I haven't even mentioned the games that are Borg-like, such as Battle of Westeros or Clash for a Continent (Hold the Line). Fortunately, I have not gotten the expansion bug for Battle of Westeros (yet) despite the fact that I like the game.

It was as I was recovering from my shock at how Memoir '44 played (compared to BattleLore) that I started to go over in my mind the differences between each game system. These were the areas that I thought about:

Number of limited resources to manage
Ratio of movement to combat range
Terrain effects
Number of dice thrown (in battle)
Dice thrown reduced by range?
The Odds of Hitting
Battle back?
Evading combat
Dice thrown reduced by "casualties"?

It is the combination of how each of these elements are modeled that makes each game unique. And it is the model, or lack thereof, that makes some of these games surprisingly different.

Number of Limited Resources to Manage

What I mean by 'limited resources' is the number of game mechanisms that require management by the player, giving them strategic or tactical choices. The Command card hand is the primary example. All of the games in this series have that element in common. Also, all have the players manage about four to six Command cards in a typical game, although that can rise with Epic/Overlord sized games, or games with allies.

However, Memoir '44 also has Combat cards (Urban and Winter, so far) as an additional resource for the player to manage, offering richer play. BattleLore is by far the leader, with Command cards, Lore cards, and Lore tokens to manage (the last in both a common pool and associated with special units). With the Heroes expansion, the play gets even richer.

Ratio of Movement to Combat Range

This aspect determines how effective ranged combat (any combat that occurs between non-adjacent units) is in comparison to close combat (any combat that occurs between adjacent units). Another way of looking at it is whether the game is played in slow motion or not.

Memoir '44 has a combat range of 3 hexes for infantry and a movement of one to three hexes. This gives a ratio of Movement to Combat Range of 1:3 for typical units and 2:3 for elite units. BattleLore, on the other hand, typically has a ratio of 1:2 for archers (however it is more like 1:4 for heavy infantry). Command and Colors: Napoleonics also has a 1:2 ratio. Battle Cry!, on the other hand, has a ratio of 1:4!

So, what does all of this mean? Well, the lower the ratio, the more effect ranged combat has on the game than close combat does. It is not the sole factor, of course, and other elements may make ranged combat more or less effective, altering the game balance between ranged and close combat. Another effect of a lower ratio is that it feels more like it is running in slower motion. A game that requires you undergo three rounds of ranged combat before you get into close combat will feel slower than if you only undergo one round of ranged combat first.

Terrain Effects

This is probably the hardest part of switching between the games. Terrain typically has two effect: movement, and combat. Movement effects, if any, are forcing the unit to stop upon entering the terrain feature. Woods are a good example of consistency, when it comes to movement, in that you have to stop when entering this terrain (although there are exceptions by unit type, in most games). Where the games typically differ is in the effect on combat. In general, there are two combat effects: line of sight and battle dice reduction.

Again, line of sight is pretty consistent between versions, with only Battle Cry¹ being different with regards to hills. The greatest differences are in battle dice reductions. In most terrain in Memoir '44, for example, a unit moving into terrain cannot battle on the turn it moved. There are some exceptions, of course, but for most terrain that holds true. In BattleLore, however, it is the exact opposite; being forced to stop on terrain rarely causes the unit to forego an attack.

The reduction in battle dice, however, is not equally applied. For example, a hill in Memoir '44 causes the reduction of a single battle die, unless going from hill to hill. In BattleLore, however, as the average dice thrown is between two and four dice, fighting uphill causes between zero and two dice lost while fighting downhill or across can cause up to one die lost (but rarely any). Woods are even worse.

Terrain probably has the greatest effect in Command and Colors: Napoleonics, especially against cavalry. There are typically effects for fighting into and out of terrain, so fighting from woods to woods, for example, carries the effect of the attacker fighting out of their hex and fighting into the defender's hex. Terrain frequently reduces cavalry attacks to zero dice, which makes terrain much more dominant in battle than in say, Memoir '44.

¹ Here I am referring to the older Avalon Hill version in the blue and gray box. Not the newer version published in 2010.

Number of Dice Thrown in Battle

The number of dice thrown generally indicates how fast units are removed. Memoir 44, for example, generally throws one to three dice. Command or Combat cards can raise that up, but usually only by a single die. BattleLore and Command and Colors: Ancients on the other hand use throw dice based on the color of the unit, so the number is typically two to four dice thrown. BattleLore in particular can often have this number increased substantially by weapons, Command cards, or Lore cards. In a recent game I saw an arbalest shot throw seven dice, due to Command and Lore card modifications. (Ironically, it only inflicted one hit!)

Are Battle Dice Reduced by Range?

This is one factor that differentiates Memoir '44 and Battle Cry! from BattleLore and Command and Colors: Ancients or Napoleonics. The first two dictate the number of dice according to the range of the combat, while the remainder do not (although they may differentiate between ranged and close combat).

This factor, along with the number of dice thrown, tends to make Memoir '44 the game that throws the fewest dice in combat. It would be the least bloody game, if not for the next factor.

The Odds of Hitting

The basic chance to hit in ranged or close combat dramatically affects the speed of the game. In Memoir '44, the most common unit is infantry, which is hit 50% of the time. Even armor is hit 33% of the time, so despite this game throwing the fewest dice on average, it tends to be bloodier. (Artillery is tough to kill, having only a 16% to hit it.) In BattleLore and Command and Colors: Ancients the basic chance of hitting infantry is 33% and mounted generally even less².

Command and Colors: Napoleonics is a little different, in that close combat is deadlier. Generally the chance is 33% in ranged combat and 50% in close combat, while cavalry and artillery are 16% for ranged and 33% for close combat. But, like Memoir '44, it singles out infantry for a higher ratio of loss than in the color-oriented battle systems.

² Mounted generally can ignore one Shield hit, which occurs 16% of the time on each die. As they cannot avoid all Shield hits, it is hard to calculate the average chance to hit a mounted unit.

How Does Battle Back Work?

Most people will say that the battle back mechanism is probably the greatest differentiation between the systems. There are basically three battle back mechanisms:

You cannot battle back. All battles occur because you played a card and ordered a unit.
You can battle back, but only under certain conditions. Ensuring those conditions exist as often as possible becomes strategy for play.
You can always battle back (assuming you are not destroyed or forced to retreat).

The ability to battle back is probably one of the most fundamental differences in how the game mechanics affects strategy, in this series. In Command and Colors: Ancients (or when using the Battle Savvy rules in BattleLore) you have a tendency to be more careful in the attack, as a failed attack (i.e. one that does not destroy the enemy or force him to retreat) can hit you back for free. In BattleLore, without the Battle Savvy rules (or using the Iron Dwarves), unsupported units tend to draw a lot of attacks, including from units that are themselves unsupported.

In Memoir '44, where neither battle back nor support (the ability to ignore retreats due to having adjacent friendly units) exists, units tend to do the opposite, they do not cluster up (as blocked retreat paths cause extra casualties) and they tend to attack unsupported with much greater frequency.

Can You Evade Combat?

Another nuance with the rules is the ability to evade close combat, generally with mounted units from foot units. Both Command and Colors (Ancients and Napoleonics) support the concept, but ironically BattleLore does not directly (it does support it through the play of Lore cards). I think this mechanic allows players to be more aggressive with their mounted troops against enemy foot troops.

Are Battle Dice Reduced by Unit Casualties?

This is, of course, what makes Command and Colors: Napoleonics unique, as it is the only rules in this series which reduces the number of battle dice thrown due to taking casualties (i.e. losing figures in a unit). A number of people have complained that they all don't do this, but there have been some pretty good discussions about why the 'constant power'. (Here is one on the Command and Colors: Ancients forum on BoardGameGeek.)

Bottom line, if you don't like constant power, Command and Colors: Napoleonics is your only option ... unless you play any number of decreasing power variants for all of the other games out there.

Summary

Well, this started out as a rant about how much less I like Memoir '44, now that I have played a lot more BattleLore. That said, Memoir '44 Online is pretty addictive, even if it does cost about $0.08 to $0.12 a game (it truly does beat Vassal in most regards), so I guess I won't be giving up Memoir '44 anytime soon. It might be interesting to try some variants using the factors listed above and mixing and matching them with existing games. Memoir '44 with battle back, anyone?

Here Comes the Red Dragon (Part 2)

2011-10-22T10:55:00.002-07:00

When I left off, my left flank was being pounded. My poor move with the blue infantry resulted in it being reduced to 1, trying to cover the green goblin archers, which were also at 1. It was time to call for a retreat, and hope my opponent did not have any more cards to follow up.

But, he did have the cards. It was too late. My opponent had scored the first victory and was poised to get another victory banner, if he continued to have cards on that flank. It was now 0-1.

I like games that are learning experiences. For my opponent, this was one. He had forgotten that dragons (and creatures in general) can move out-of-section. What's better is that when you get an Advance card and have a high Command value (six, in my case) you often throw away orders as you don't have enough units in that particular section. Creatures also help in using up excess orders. So, I played Advance Right and moved forward my battle line. I also moved the dragon forward, chomped on the enemy's green swordsman, but wouldn't you know it, he rolled two Flags and again my red dragon was forced to retreat!

As I kept drawing center cards I realized that meant that he had to have the flank cards. The green goblin archer I had been trying to protect all along finally went down. It was now 0-2.

Even worse, his blue infantry attack scores heavily on my green goblin lizard riders. They exact revenge in battle back, however, but it looks like a third victory banner is in the making unless I stop this attack.

Using my Mounted Charge card, I attacked with both Lizard Rider units against the weakened blue infantry, and destroyed it. The score was now 1-2.

On the opposite flank my Red Cavalry had charged in an destroyed the weakened green archer unit, then in follow-up has weakened the blue swords on the end of the line. The score was now tied at 2-2, and things started looking less anxious again. But, I knew that the Lizard Riders on my left flank were easy pickings, if my opponent had another right flank card...

Which of course, he did. The score was now 2-3.

My opponent played a Foot Onslaught card and pressed forward with this battle line. Darn! My whole plan of using the red dragon to flame that line just disappeared. I had waited too long, doing too many other things, so the opportunity had passed.

It was at this point that a critical error occurred. The enemy blue swords attack the green archers and get two Flags (of course!). The green archer can ignore one flag, but it has to take the other. I mistakenly take a hit and battle back, but as you can see, a retreat path is actually open for him. In fact, he should have simply taken both flags, getting him out of that death trap. Ah well, the heat of the battle prevails...

In the end, that error cost me dearly, probably the game. Although it fought fiercely and killed two blue and 1 red in battle backs, it went down to the third attack and making the game a precarious 2-4.

I bring my red dragon back into play, set the red infantry alight (again with two tokens!) and land in the sweet spot. From there I can either breathe on the two cavalry and land back in the woods, or breathe on two infantry (red and blue) and land back in the woods.

Meanwhile, my two attacking blue infantry finish off the weakened enemy blue infantry at the end of the line. But not before he battles back hard, weakening my first attacking unit.

The score is now 3-4, and his weakened red infantry is alight with two Fire tokens.

My opponent is close to victory - two victory banners away - and clearly he can taste it. He launches his weakened blue unit against mine, killing it with help from the Leadership card. He Takes Ground, putting the unit out of reach of my red dragon and a breath attack!

The score is now 3-5 and the tension is palpable. (You know I just had to say that!)

I drew a brilliant card - Forward, my opponent's favorite - and I turtle up with my units on my left. This will force my opponent to play two cards (on average) to get his red infantry back into play.

Next, I set the cavalry on fire. I only got one Fire token on each, but that is four lore to put them out. As you can see in the picture, the red infantry is at 1 figure remaining, so he will be destroyed next turn, bringing the score up to 4-5. That means if I can destroy two weakened units this turn, that is game, and a victory to me. Considering I have been behind the entire game, that would be sweet.

And here are the two I need to kill, the blue swords and the green swords, both at two figures remaining.

Two dice from my green infantry against his green infantry is 11% to destroy the unit and 44% chance to get only one hit. If I get a retreat (31% chance) it would mean I won't win this turn.

Three dice from my blue infantry gives a 26% chance of wiping the unit out and a 44% chance of getting only a single hit.

I decide to risk it and attack with the green and the blue first, then let the red cavalry mop up the weakened units. As long as no one retreats, I could get them both right here.

That hurt. The green attack failed to score any damage, but brought my own unit down badly in battle back.

The blue attack weakened the enemy further, but in battle back I was forced to retreat, leaving my red cavalry out of support.

My red cavalry did finish off the blue swords, making the game 4-5, but in the Bonus Melee Attack the green swords held out. I was not going to win at the beginning of next turn. And with that green sword of mine at a very weakened state, he would be vulnerable, and likely to be destroyed, losing me the game.

At the start of the next turn the hapless red infantry goes up in smoke, bringing the game to 5-5.

Clearly my opponent had been saving up for this one. He later confided that he had been holding the Enchanted Mass Might since the beginning of the game. Combined with the Mounted Charge card, his units would be +2 battle dice in combat. Further, now that the cavalry were ordered, he could put out their fires. With the lore card and the removal of the Fire tokens it cost his 11 lore; exactly what he had. If only I had gotten two Fire tokens on at least one of them...

This was a great play and now he was going to be able to make a power move against me, with cavalry, much as I had done to him many times before. Payback is a pain...

He administers the coup de grâce, ending the game 5-6. So close...

Summary

This was a good game although for me it never really felt close until the end. I always felt behind and on the defensive, which is something I try not to do. I prefer to act rather than react, and make my opponent address my game, rather than address his.

Sometimes, of course, you have to address when you are taking it on the chin, but it should be the minimum necessary if the section being played is not your strong one. The best example is when my green Goblin archers were unexpectedly reduced to 1 figure from a single salve from the enemy archers. I needed to shield them, but I only had one card on that flank, and it was for two orders. Rather than play as I did, I should have done what is shown in the picture.

When I played Blue Banners, I should have opened the line with the single unit moving one hex. This would have placed it away from the hill and outside of the one-move reach of the enemy red swords unit. I should have immediately followed up, as I did in the game, with the play of the Patrol Left card, allowing the green Goblin archers to duck into the rear, and the blue swords seal the line. From this position the green Goblin archers still serve a very useful purpose - they provide support for the green Goblin Lizard Riders.

Considering that my original plan was to essentially refuse that flank, my move aggressively forward was indefensible. It broke the line of support and allowed my opponent to use fewer cards to get his attacks. Granted, he had more than enough cards to attack with, but in the end it cost me three victory banners. It was this early action where the battle was lost. No matter what the subsequent rolls at the end, I cannot blame luck.

All in all it was a great game and my opponent played well. It was tense at the end and came down to who would make their die rolls. It made for a fun night.

If you want to try BattleLore on Vassal, or any other in the Command and Colors series, drop me an email.

Here Comes the Red Dragon

2011-10-21T07:09:00.003-07:00

A friend and I have been playing a lot of BattleLore over Vassal (as he is in Ohio and I am in Arizona) and the one thing he wanted to try out were the dragons. We've played two scenarios so far - the one with the single Green Dragon and the other with the single Red Dragon - and both times I beat them. In fact, I did it by largely ignoring the dragons and just concentrating on destroying the accompanying forces. So, I thought to myself, are these really any good? So, we had a re-match, playing scenario 65 - The Fires above France, 1362 - only this time I got the red dragon.

Click to enlarge the map.

The scenario, shown above, consists of a strong flank and a weak one for each player. The Pennant player (top), who also has the dragon, has a strong right flank, but it faces a line of hills, which if the Standard player (bottom) can get his blue infantry on, will have a strong position, hard to breach. (Trust me, my opponent tried that in his last game and it is largely why he lost.)

On the opposite flank the Pennant forces have four Goblinoid units facing off against two red infantry. They may hold with support, but if they run, the flank will crumble, given the Goblin Run rule.

The center is a key, as it is where the dragon is, and the Standard player has some powerful cavalry to oppose it, along with the red infantry straddling the center and right flank sections. It was here that I focused for my battle plan.

The first step in setting up this game is to select your War Council. For the Pennant player, you automatically spend three of your six points on the red dragon. That means if you have any Lore Masters you will weaken your Commander and thus have fewer Command Cards. I did a little research and found that the average cost of Lore cards is around 4 1/2 lore. So, if you bought an equivalent level three Lore Master, you would get to fire, on average, one lore card for every 4 1/2 lore points. Looking at the red dragon, you can breathe for 3 lore points and move out-of-section for 3 lore points, so a dragon is actually pretty efficient in lore usage compared to a Lore Master.But, here is the problem: when my opponent played the red dragon he also chose a level 1 Lore Master and ended up splitting his lore usage between the two. In fact, he probably used the Lore Master more.

So, the first part of my strategy was to forego a Lore Master. I did not want any distractions to using lore for anything other than the dragon. He was going to be burning the enemy as much as possible.

It is important to understand just what the red dragon's breathe does, in order to understand the strategy. When you fly over an enemy unit, you roll 4 dice and for each Lore rolled, you place a Fire token on the unit. That unit's move is limited to one hex and only battles with 2 dice for as long as it is on fire. Further, it takes one hit a turn until the fire is put out, or the unit is destroyed. In order to put out the fire, you must order the unit and spend two Lore per Fire token. As a dragon can fly up to four hexes, it can flame up to three enemy units, all for the cost of three lore!

To make this work, as Fire does not in and of itself cause a lot of damage, I would have to bring up my troops in support of the dragon, and they would bash away at the flaming enemy. If the enemy battled back, it would only be for two dice.

So, not only would I focus using lore on creating fire, I would force my opponent to use lore in order to put out the fires, draining away his chances at using some fancy lore card to kill the dragon.

With the first part settled, I chose a War Council of a Level 3 Commander, granting me six Command Cards, and a Red Dragon. The extra Command Cards would increase my opportunities to move the right units while increasing the number of units that could move certain cards.

The second part of the strategy was in how to conduct the attacks, and where.

As shown in the map above, there is a woods right in the heart of the Standard player's center command. From that point the dragon could launch an attack and flame down the battle line, landing in the woods just inside the left section, then return back to the original woods. Making this circuit, even once, would set a number of units alight, forcing my opponent to focus orders and lore on keeping his units alive; essentially reacting to me, not the other way around. By grabbing two lore per turn I would be ready to start flaming by the start of turn three, so I would need to make my move to the woods by turn two. That would mean that I would only get one turn to prepare, which would be to move infantry units towards the battle line in the center, so they could exploit the burning enemy. All this presumed getting the right cards in the first place, of course. If I did not get the right cards at the start the basic plan was to fly from terrain to terrain, flaming units as I went.

So, why hop from terrain to terrain, especially woods? Mostly it was to limit the damage my opponent could inflict on me in counter-attack. With only two dice to attack into woods, both would have to hit (11%), which would translate into only one chance for a critical hit (17%) or a total chance for a kill of about 2%. My battle back of two dice would then have about a 56% chance of getting one or more hits. It was critical that I keep the dragon in defensive terrain as much as possible, as losing the dragon meant losing the equivalent of a Level 3 Lore Master.

Game Setup

My opponent setup his War Council and chose a Level 3 Cleric, a Level 1 Wizard, a Level 1 Rogue, and a Level 1 Commander (4 Command Cards). Personally, I would have dropped a level of Lore Master to add a level to the Commander in order to get 5 Command Cards. But as will be seen later, this was a prescient choice.

My opponent's choice of a Cleric for his highest level Lore Master is an interesting one. Generally speaking, the Cleric is probably one of the more powerful Lore Masters, given his ability to hit hard. But most of those effects come from lore cards centered around terrain, and in this scenario the terrain was mostly on his side of the board. Myself, I would have gone for the Wizard being Level 3 and dropped the Cleric to get a Level 2 Commander.

After drawing my Command Cards, I had the following starting hand: 2 x Blue Banners; Mounted Charge; Patrol Left (2); Patrol Center (2); and Advance Right (6). My opponent confided after the game that he had drawn: 2 x Darken the Skies; Mounted Charge; and Red Banners. That Mounted Charge card will be significant, as he held that card until the last turn of the game...

The Game

Rather than give a turn-by-turn description, I will show the highlights.

On my opponent's first turn he darkened the sky with arrows, making my goblin archer unit a pin cushion. That forced me to consider pulling that unit out and moving that flank earlier than I had hoped. With only one card for that flank, I was not quite eager to use it as yet.

So, I responded with a bad counter.

Why was it a bad move? Well, I now had a blue infantry facing a hill. If my opponent moved forward on the hill, he would strike with three dice while I battled back with two. I should have only moved the one blue infantry forward one hex, creating a hole for the goblin archers to escape through (while simultaneously creating a supported formation). Oh well, maybe he won't...

I got off easy. (I subsequently battled back and forced him to retreat.)

I began to notice something; every card I was drawing was coming up Center. I now had three in my hand. So my chance to strike with the dragon was here.

The red dragon flew to the woods, roasting the enemy red infantry with two Fire tokens! So, for a cost of three lore, I was going to cause (at least) one hit and four lore to put out the fire. Now that is what I call a nice exchange! Although I did not have units ready to attack the flaming enemy (my archers fired, but had no effect with their one die), my red cavalry was poised for a charge next turn, and the archers could pour in supporting fire, while the fire dragon hopped to the next woods and flamed the three enemy infantry in the battle line, as I had another Attack Center (3) card. This would be sweet! Except...

Wouldn't you know it, he rolled two flags against me, forcing me to leave my comfortable spot! (By the way, this was the third battle so far in which he had rolled two flags against me.) Meanwhile, to reinforce that I had previously made a bad move...

My blue infantry unit was getting slaughtered, so I now had two potential victory points against me. It was time to burn my card and retreat the units away from the hill. It was probably too late, however.

To be continued...

BattleLore on the Tabletop (Part 2)

2011-10-13T17:43:00.001-07:00

Continuing on with the battle from the last blog entry, I probably should have counted the casualties on each side first, as I was only one unit away from the Human-Elven (HE) side breaking...

The picture below shows where the crack appeared: the Human-Dwarven (HD) Knights charged into the HE battle line, each side lost a Knightly unit, and the game was over, 10-6 in favor of the Human-Dwarven side. (I seem to have lost the picture where I lost the ninth HE casualty...)

Here was the battlefield at the end of the game (click to enlarge).

Summary

I really liked using this method. So you have a few stacks of colored tokens around; it is not really messy and it makes for a happy medium between full control over every unit every turn, and the more random nature card draws.

So, what would I change? For starters, I was using a single leader with a Leadership Rating equal to the Command Rating. I did that for simplicity for the initial test; I think a Leadership Rating of 6 is way too high. Rather, I envision:

Using more leaders per side, each with a lower rating (2 or 3 is right; a 4 would be an exceptional leader).
Close proximity to a leader takes fewer orders than if the unit is far away.
Possibly special tactical abilities for leaders. (Something to explore as the system gets refined.)

An example of this would have been to provide two leaders per side, one Human and one allied (either Elven or Dwarven, depending upon the side). Each side would have a Command Rating of 6, but each leader would have a Leadership Rating of, say, 3.

The first question would be how to differentiate between "in close proximity of the leader" and not. The Battle of Westeros rules indicate that within two hexes of the leader unit another unit can be ordered as part of the leader's tactical card. As I am not (yet) using tactical cards, something similar might be that you can use a token to order the leader, and additional units can be ordered without using additional tokens.

For example, if the Elven leader - a Blue Cavalry unit - has a Leadership Rating of three, then for one Blue (or Purple) token, the leader and two other units (of any color) could be ordered. This would certainly encourage the use of leaders, for starters, and would amply show the price to be paid for ordering units scattered all over the board.

So, in the end, does all of this add to the game? I think so. I get to use my hexes (or hex mats), which I love because they regulate all measurements and don't reduce free-form games to micro-measurements (and the attendant arguments). I get to have larger board with more varied terrain (multiple elevation levels, for example). I can use much larger armies, and they allow my DBA miniatures to pull double duty. I still have resource management choices to make, although it is questionable that moving from cards to dice have made my games more or less dependent on chance. I feel like I have more control, but not too much. Pretty much just what I was looking for.

I look forward to trying this out again, especially against another player.

BattleLore on the Tabletop (Part 1)

2011-10-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

In a previous blog entry I pondered how to bring the Command and Colors series of games to the tabletop. It is relatively easy, if you design a hex board of the appropriate size and divide it into three sections, per the standard rules. However, I wanted more of a free-form game system, similar to Battles of Westeros.

The basic system is to assign a certain number to each side, indicating the number of dice to roll, which in turn would indicate the number and type of units that could move that turn. (These number was called the Command Rating.) Unused dice could be saved and used in a future turn. This would allow you much greater freedom in which units could move, and in what part of the board, but there would still be a luck element representing the chaos of the battlefield.

That blog entry had some ideas about making groups of orders and changing the color of the dice, etc. and that was all well and good, but when I started to test it, I pitched it all out as it adding complexity (bookkeeping) while giving little advantage at all.

The second idea I had was to allow the player to either play the dice rolled or use tokens from the pool, but mechanically that failed miserably as I tried to sort out which token was this turn's and which was in the pool.

So, here are the basic rules:

Roll the number of dice indicated by the Command Rating.
For every Red banner rolled, take a Red token. Likewise Blue banners are exchanged for blue tokens, Green banners for green tokens, and Lore for purple tokens.
Place all of your tokens into your Token Pool.
You may then play up to your Leadership Rating in tokens, using red tokens to order a Red unit, blue tokens to order a Blue unit, a green token for a Green unit, and a purple token for any unit of your choice. (Note that in the Basic Game, your army's Command Rating and Leadership Rating are the same.)
Now play out the turn just as you would had you played the appropriate card(s) to order the units.

So, the basic idea is roll dice to get colors, play colors as you see fit (and have tokens for) and have jolly good fun. So, let's test it out.

Humans and Elves versus Humans and Dwarves

Nothing like a good battle with Elves and Dwarves at each others' throats, except BattleLore does not really have Elves. Here are my rules for them:

Unit	Color	Move	Battle	Weapon	Special
Swords	Blue	As Blue	As Blue	Long Sword	As weapon
Spears	Blue	As Blue	As Blue	Spear	As weapon
Bows	Green	As Green	2 if moved, 3 if stood ¹	Elven Bow	Hits on Bonus if Ranged; range of 4
Riders	Green	As mounted Green	As Green	Javelin	Range 2, does not hit on Bonus
Knights	Blue	As mounted Blue	As Blue	Long Sword	As weapon

¹ During the test game I made them 2 dice, whether they moved or not. I decided later that they should be better when standing.

Click on the picture to the right to enlarge. The Humans/Dwarves (HD) are on the right (the Dwarves on the right flank, or the top of the picture) while the Humans/Elves (HE) are on the left of the picture (with the Elves on the left flank, opposite the Dwarves). There are about 25 units per side.

So, to start off the game, the HD commander rolls 6 dice, representing his Command Rating. The picture below shows the roll: Blue, Green, two Lore, and two Shield.

This converts to the four tokens shown below: 1 green, 1 blue, and 2 purple, allowing the HD side to move up to one Green unit, one Blue unit, and two units of any color.

I decided to play only a single blue token, and stored away the remainder for a future turn.

The HE commander rolls six dice (also with a Command Rating of 6), and gets a much better roll!

After a few turns of play, you see that a commander's piles of tokens start stacking up for a future turn. Here the HD player has three purple, 1 red, 1 blue, and 1 green saved. In a given turn the player can only play tokens equal to the Leadership Rating of their leaders. In this scenario, both sides have a single leader with a Leadership Rating of 6. (There will be further discussion on Leaders later.)

Finally, the first attack comes in. The Elven archers (on the left) take a shot at the left-most Dwarven unit, but misses. (The Dwarven unit is Blue.)

The Elves are the first to reach the summit, and they arrive in force, with two formations (each consisting of a Green Archers unit, a Blue Swords unit, and a Blue Spears unit), and an additional Archer unit. Facing them are two Dwarven Blue Sword units, and one Dwarven Red Sword unit (in the rear with the banner).

The Dwarves charge up the hill and score the first kill, taking out the Elven Swords. HD 1-0.

The second Elvish formation crashes into the Dwarves, and a Dwarven (Blue) Sword unit is defeated. HD tied at 1-1.

More Dwarves arrive on the hill to contest the summit and two Elven units go down. HD leading 3-1.

More Elven units arrive, including the Riders, which drive the Dwarven crossbows back across the hilltop. With the Dwarven Red Swords in play, things are looking grim for the Elves. (Of course, fighting from hill to hill is not generally the work of Red units, given that they only get three dice maximum.)

With the Riders attacking from the flanks, while the Elven Swords and Spears press from the front, the Dwarven units are starting to wear down.

But the Elven Swords are the first to fall! HD leading 4-1.

A lucky shot from the Elven Archers take out the Dwarven Blue Swords. HD still leading at 4-2.

The Elves drop back into a proper supported formation and pour fire into the Dwarves. The Dwarven Red Swords finally fall and it is 4-3, with the HD still leading.

The Dwarves keep throwing troops up the hill and enlist the aid of a Human Green Lancer unit to attack the rear of the Elven formation.

The Elven formation starts to crack and the last of the hand-to-hand fighters fall. The HD leads with 5-3.

The Elvish Riders flank the Human Green Lancers, but it is too late; an Elvish Archer unit falls while the other retreats down the hill. The HD leads 6-3.

The weakened Dwarven Sword unit is shot down by the Elven Archers, after the Elven Knights failed to run down the Dwarven Crossbows. HD still leading at 6-4.

Finally moving away from the struggle on the hill, the HE Knights sweep around the hill and crash into the HD Knights, supported by the Green Lancers. Very little in the way of casualties resulted.

The HD Knightly counter-charge, however, absolutely wrecks the HE Knightly formation. Not pictured is the HD crossbowmen firing into the flank of the HE Knights, which definitely helped matters along. HD now leads 8-4.

Surrounding the small remaining force of Dwarves on the hill with missiles, the Dwarven Crossbows finally go down in a hail of arrows and javelins. HD leads 8-5.

Intermission

I needed to stop, as I had a (face-to-face) game to go to and I needed a bit of a stretch, as I had been sitting down all morning. So, here is where the game was left off at.

As shown in the picture above (click to enlarge), the Human/Dwarves are on the right and the Human/Elves on the left. The Elves have largely been wiped out by the Dwarves, but those Dwarves on the hill are slowly falling to the superior missiles of the Elves.

In the center, the HE Knights were crushed by the HD Knights, but the HE forces have mustered swordsmen and archers to back up the remaining Knight while Knightly reinforcements are brought to the left.

The picture above shows a close-up of the Knightly clash in the center. KD forces are on the right. The picture below shows a close-up of the Dwarven-Elven clash on the hill. Only the two units in the center are Dwarven.

So far it has been a very interesting game. Slow to develop, to be sure, but fun nonetheless. I think these rules lose nothing by allowing the player to pick and choose units from here and there all over the field, however there needs to be some incentive to having leaders, and to using orders to apply to groups. I'll explore that next time.

Deployment in FOW can be critical

2011-09-27T14:40:00.000-07:00

We had a large Flames of War game this weekend, and to say that it was anti-climactic would be an understatement: 2,000 points per side resolved in three turns. I did not even get to push any lead (I was the Reserves commander), but I did get to roll a single die (for Reserves; I failed). All this leads to the subject: why deployment in Flames of War is so critical.

Basically the scenario was Late War, Eastern Front, with both sides choosing armored forces. I am not quite sure which list the Germans used - either Bake Regiment or Ostfront Panzers, it was a PDF - but the Soviets used the Self-Propelled Artillery list from River of Heroes. The problem was the mission - we rolled up Encounter - so 1/2 of both sides forces were in Reserve and the reserves were both Delayed and Scattered.

Maybe saying the mission was the problem is wrong. The Soviets only had five platoons (companies), while the Germans had six. (Yes, the Soviets had a pretty elite force.) So that meant that only two Soviet platoons could be deployed at the start. The Soviets had the following (as best as I can remember):

ISU-122 Battalion Commander
IS-2 x 3
ISU-122 x 3 (with Rat)
ISU-152 x 3
Katyusha Rocket Launchers x 4 with extra crews
Sapper platoon (5 stands?)
Priority Air Support (Shturmovik II-2 TIP)

What to deploy? The Soviet commander chose the Katyushas and the IS-2 company.

The Germans had the following:

Company Commander and Second in Command, both in Panthers
Panthers x 3
Panzer IV H x 3
King Tiger x 1
Light AA Halftracks x 3
Panzerwerfer Rocket Launchers x 3 with extra crews
Recon platoon in haltracks

The Germans chose to bring on the Panthers, Panzer IVs, and the light AA.

The battle report is short and bloody, but it points out three key lessons to learn from.

The Soviets got the first move and the IS-2 company moved forward and blasted away at the Panthers. All missed. (Giving that the mission was Encounter, the Mobile Battle special rule was in effect, so the Soviet takes were going to have a hard time hitting and the Katyushas could not bombard on the first turn.) The Battalion Commander missed. Even the flight of two Shturmoviks, who had three tanks under their template, missed all targets. The Panthers counter-attacked and destroyed two of the three IS-2s. Despite being Fearless they failed their Platoon Morale Check. The Panzer IVs meanwhile blasted a single Katyusha rocket launcher. That was turn 1.

On turn 2 Don only had the Katyusha's and the Battalion Commander. The former failed to range in and the latter took out a Panzer IV. The air support came in again, but again their bombs failed to find their target. In the German turn the Battalion Commander was taken out and the Katyusha's lost one stand shy of a morale check. The Panther platoon double-timed towards the Soviet objective uncovered by the routing IS-2 company.

So, at this point the Soviets are one stand away from taking a morale check, and if they fail it, they will automatically fail the Company Morale Check, thus losing the game. And facing them are five Panthers, two Panzer IV, and three light AA halftracks. The only thing that could save them are Reserves - rolling a '5' or a '6'.

It was at this point that the Dice Gods decided to smile on the Soviets. The reserves came in - an ISU-122 company - and they came in randomly right in front of the double-timing Panthers. Six shots at 5+ and they get four hits, resulting in all three Panthers in the platoon being destroyed! (The air and the rockets miss.) The Germans fail their Reserves roll (my only roll of the game), the Panther 2iC and Panzer IV obliterate the Katyushas, and the game is over with a German 5-2 victory.

So, what were the three lessons? We will start with the easiest ones first:

1. The Soviets could have not lost on turn 3 if they had remembered to run the Soviet Katyushas off of their baseline. This would have resulted in one platoon dead, one alive, and one not counted, meaning 50% casualties, not > 50%. This was a critical rule forgotten.

2. Although the odds were not great that the Soviet Reserves would come on that turn (33%), the fact was that the double-timing Panthers resulted in no advantage, even if no Soviet reserves came on. They were not within 4" of the objective, so they could not have claimed a win at the start of German turn 3. So, the Germans risked all for no gain, and lost.

3. What you choose for deployment critically affects the outcome of the game. The Katyushas could not bombard on turn one unless the Soviets lost the First Move die roll and as the Soviets had fewer platoons to deploy, the odds were that they were going to be the attackers. Secondly, the Katyushas have an AT rating of 2, meaning that stand little chance of bailing a tank, and no chance of destroying it outright. Finally, given that they were a soft target, they stood a real chance of dying. The Katyushas never should have been selected as part of the two critical platoons to start the game on-board. My recommendation was that the Soviets should have started with two assault gun companies, plus the commander (7 tanks).

Some discussion resulted in whether the Germans should have selected the King Tiger instead of the AA. Given the Shturmoviks being most abundant at the beginning of a game, I thought it was very important to keep them off of the Panthers. Putting a KT out there would have just given the aircraft more undefended, high value targets to choose from. The AA needed to be there, in my opinion.

Bad day for the Soviets!

Bringing the Command and Colors Design to the Tabletop

2011-09-19T06:51:00.003-07:00

Now, I am not the first one to discuss turning Ricard Borg's Command and Color (CC) series of board games into a miniatures game. In fact, Richard himself apparently starts out designing these games using miniatures on hex grid mats before turning them into board game designs. But, that is not quite what I am talking about.

Fantasy Flight Games, in their Borg-inspired Battlelore: Battle of Westeros (BoW) series come the closest to what I am thinking of. In BoW each player gets two forms of command elements: tokens and dice. The number of command tokens available per turn is dictated by scenario, just as the Command Card count is dictated by scenario in CC. These tokens are played on leaders, allowing them to order groups of units together (with group membership being defined as any unit within 2 hexes of the leader unit being eligible). However, each player also rolls a certain number of battle dice each turn to indicate the number of additional units that can be ordered, above those ordered by group moves. Thus, if a group has more members than a leader can normally control, or a unit is outside of the command radius of all friendly leaders, the dice can be used to order units individually. This mechanism of command and control allows the board to be devoid of sections, and adds a leadership component the way Command and Colors: Ancients and Command and Colors: Napoleonics do. Actually, in BoW leaders are extremely important.

So, if you imagine a table with a hex grid, no section lines, and a bunch of models, how could you go about using 'straight' CC rules without the Command Card deck? Everything else would still be the same - in Memoir 44, for example, the armor would still have a three-hex range and the same number of battle dice - you would just get rid of the card aspect of the game and replace it with another mechanism. Now I realize that removing the section lines and replacing it with "PIPs" changes the game. Allowing you to move units anywhere on the board gives you a lot of flexibility that the games currently do not have. I experienced that when I played a game similar to CC: Clash for a Continent by Worthington Games. So, unless you like that sort of thing, it cannot be a simple "roll for PIPs" kind of command and control system.

My idea was to take the ideas from BoW and convert it to a single game mechanism: roll dice for command, then allow the player to use the rolls in different ways, which allow for different options. Let's start with the basic mechanic, so it becomes a little more concrete.

Imagine we are doing this for Memoir '44 (M44). I use the battle dice that came with the game (two sides show infantry, one side armor, one side a grenade, one side a flag, and one side a star) to determine what units may be ordered each turn. The scenario would dictate how many dice are to be rolled - no reason not to use the number of Command Cards as a starting point for this discussion - with the unit symbol indicating the type of unit that can be ordered and the grenade (or star, if you prefer) indicating the player has a choice. Basically treat it like the Command Card In Their Finest Hour, except you don't get the bonus die in battle.

At its simplest level, you basically move a number of units equal to about 2/3rds of your Command Card allotment (1-4 units). However it is possible to move no units in a turn, something that generally does not happen in M44. So far, so good, but a little too simple and flexible. Rather than create a penalty for choosing units all over the board, I want to create an incentive for:

Keeping your units grouped together ².
Not ordering the maximum number of units every turn (i.e. "Use them or lose them").
Giving the players choices to make that exchange risk for reward.

² By "grouped together" I mean an approach similar to BoW where units within a certain range of a key unit are considered part of the group, and thus can benefit from a group order. This range could change based upon the period you are playing, the nationality, or other special circumstances you define in a scenario.

Grouping

Given the math above - that, on average, rolling dice will probably produce fewer units that can move than if you used the Command Cards - the goal of groups is to offset the reduction in the number of units that can act each turn by giving you a mechanism to order a group of units as if it were a single unit. BoW has two command mechanisms: use tokens to order groups and use dice to order individual units. Each mechanic, rolling dice or collecting tokens, however, has its own rating in a BoW scenario. What I am proposing is to use a single mechanic, rolling dice, and allowing the player to use a die to either order a unit or to be converted into a group move.

So, how to convert a die to a group order, and what exactly does a group order mean?

Die Conversion

Simply put, a die is converted to a group order by withholding the use of the die and at the end of the Orders Phase, exchanging the unused die for a token, representing a future group move. The token it is converted to is either of the same symbol (infantry, armor, Red, Green, Blue, etc. – called a Group Leader token) or it is converted to a Group Member token that is stacked with a Group Leader token you already have. This stack of a Group Leader token and one or more Group Member tokens is called a Group Order.

Imagine you are playing Battlelore and you only have a Command Rating of four, so you roll the following four dice for orders:

You have some moves for a Green unit that you would like to take, same with a Blue unit, but you want to save the Lore die (any unit) and the Red die. When you convert the Lore and Red dice, you decide to exchange the Lore die for a Lore Group Leader token (i.e. any unit can be a group leader) and the Red die for a Group Member token. As Group Members can only be stacked with a Group Leader token, you have to add it to the Lore Group Leader token, as that is the only Group Leader token you have.

A player can have any number of Group Leader tokens or Group Orders at one time, but each Group Order can consist of no more tokens (one of which must be a Group Leader token) than the player's Command Rating. So, in the example above, the Group Order currently consists of two tokens, and because the player's Command Rating is four, only two more Group Member tokens can be added to it.

Group Orders

So, what do you do with those Group Orders you've collected? Use them to order groups of units; one unit for each token in the group. Note, however, that one unit must be designated as the Group Leader, and its type must match the symbol on the Group Leader token. All other units in the group must be within a certain range of the Group Leader in order to be eligible as a Group Member. (Rules on unit eligibility will largely depend upon the period being played.)

Only one Group Order may be played per turn. The player may roll for Command dice that turn, but if a Group Order is played, all of the Command dice must be converted.

Continuing our example above, the player whiffs his Command dice roll and gets four dice with either Flags or Shields, indicating no units can be moved, so he decides to use his Group Order. As the Group Leader token is Lore, he can choose any unit on the board as the Group Leader and one other eligible unit to move as part of the group.

Summary

Next post I will try and post an example of play that better illustrates the concept.

What's Happening

2011-09-15T10:38:00.002-07:00

Well, our Infantry Aces Cassino campaign is winding down. Although I have not gotten a turn three game in yet (work has taken over), I have gotten some gaming in of late, just not Flames of War. The campaign went as I expected it would. The campaign was played over too long a period of time (each turn lasted a month), meaning it was hard to sustain the enthusiasm. One turn should have lasted a week; two weeks each at the most. People cannot take playing (effectively) the same list for three solid months. Oh well.

As I indicated, I have been gaming however. Of late I have been playing a lot of Battlelore (BL) by Days of Wonder/Fantasy Flight Games, mostly over the internet using VASSAL, but some of it solo. This has gotten me to go and pick up the remaining expansions (Creatures, Horrific Hordes, Bearded Brave, and Code of Chivalry) that did not buy before, as I wasn't playing it anymore. All of this came about because I introduced a good friend to Command and Colors: Napoleonics (CCN) and we started playing it at night over VASSAL. He started as the British and lost every time. We never did get through all of the scenarios. We then flipped sides and he started winning almost all of the scenarios. Although he liked winning, I think it sparked a realization in both of us that CCN was broken (see previous post). So, one night I rattled off all of the variants of this system to him, describing how they differed, and when I came on BL, he said "let's try that", as he is an avid fantasy fan.

After the first session, he was hooked. He pointed out succinctly why BL is "better" than CCN: the missile units really have range. Granted, BL plays at a smaller scale than CCN, but even so, muskets feel like pilum or throwing axes in CCN (e.g. a pre-melee, one-shot weapon), rather than a weapon that you firefight with. Archers and crossbowmen in BL definitely feel like missile units.

So, I bought all the remaining expansions (although I am still holding off on buying all of the Battlelore: Battle of Westeros expansions) and am playing that, looking at ways to turn in into an army-level fantasy campaign. Maybe setup several Imagi-Nations like those old school Seven Years Wars enthusiasts do. This may even get me to figure out how to do more in VASSAL.

Is anyone still playing Command and Colors Napoleonics?

2011-09-03T00:41:00.001-07:00

I wonder if anyone is still playing Command and Colors: Napoleonics (CCN)? I know I could post this on some forum, but to be honest, I don't want to appear like a troll. I am sure someone really likes it, but for me, this is the title in Borg's series that does not really work.

So, why doesn't it work? The basic problem is that melee trumps firepower and the turns are not granular enough. What do I mean by that?

Melee combat trumps firepower in that moving and fighting is not penalized for melee, but it is for firing. So, if a unit moves into melee range and fights, its fighting is not penalized while someone who moves and shoots is penalized. Once a unit enters melee range and engages a unit, the opposing unit cannot easily disengage and turn the contest back to firepower.

This has a severe impact in British versus French games. The British want to stay at range and fire away, while the French want to close and turn the contest into one of melee. In this regard, the French will almost always win (dice and card play being equal). As the French advance, they will get moving fire (2 dice) while the British will return with 5 dice (assuming no casualties). Following that, the French melee with 5 dice and the British with 4 (again, assuming no casualties as of yet).

All theoretical, of course, but the basic problem is that when the unit gets within melee range, the enemy cannot easily get back out. As the British, you can stand there and melee at 1D per block or back up and fire at 1/2D per block. If you succeed in backing away, you get an advantage in firing, but that is assuming that the French cannot simply counter by advancing and meleeing you at 1D per block +1.

And that is the crux of the matter. The French can advance at 1D6 per block +1 while the British retreat at 1/2D6 per block or stand there at 1D6 per block. Either way, the French have the upper hand.

Add in factors like using terrain or other units to shield your units when advancing under British fire, or the numerous cards that allow your infantry to move two and bypass the British fire completely.

The second part is that the combat sequence is not granular enough. The basic British tactic – the one that won them battles in the Peninsula and at Waterloo – was defending the reverse slope. This does not work in CCN largely because the hexes cover too large an area. You are either on the hill or off; you cano never be on the hill, but behind the crest line and thus out of line of fire.

If you play this tactic as the British are off the hill and behind, the British need a card at a critical moment, when the French advance to three hexes away, by advancing onto the hill and firing at the French. However, as noted above, this is ineffective as the British are moving and firing, so do so at 1/2 dice and with no British bonus. Forget the timing issues of needing the right card in response to the French card play. And if the French play a tactics card that allows them to advance two or more hexes, the tactic does not work at all.

One way to handle this is to simulate the British "fire and charge" tactic, whereby they held off behind the crest and while the French advanced up the slope, they came over the crest, fired a volley at 30-50 yards, then charged into the French before they could recover. From the aspect of modifying the game without adding new mechanics, that would mean that the British are +1 in melee and the French not. However, that does not sit very well with the Anglophiles that believe all Napoleonics rules have to have the British better at firing and the French better at melee.

A better option is to allow a British infantry unit (or a Cavalry unit of any nation) on a hill to declare itself "behind the crest" (use a marker or some such to denote it) thus rendering it invulnerable to musket fire and -1 to artillery fire. The unit may crest when ordered or when charged. Rather than allowing the unit to battle back, it should instead get to fire before the charging unit. Whether it does so at normal values or a minus would have to be playtested. Nonetheless, this should produce the proper result, which is that the British fire would often break up the French attack, but if it did not, the French might be able to carry the hill on the point of a bayonet. As it stands now, the French frequently roll over the hills.

Well, I don't play CCN anymore (can't get anyone to give it a go, now that they found the British don't really work). That said, I still have the Spanish pre-ordered. :^)

Infantry Aces Cassino Game 03

2011-08-18T21:09:00.000-07:00

This report is of my Game 3 of our Infantry Aces Cassino campaign. As it was Turn 1 still, the forces are at 500 points. It was also the first time I played a new player in our area, John.

My list was the same as in Game 2, which is reproduced here:

Company HQ with CiC and 2iC and no options
Two Platoons of 3 Squads of Reichsgrenadiers each and no options
HMG Platoon of 2 Sections
Panzer II Turret
Two HMG Nests
Three Trench sections

My opponent used the 3rd Infantry Division list from Dogs and Devils, but had a slightly different composition with two Rifle Platoons and an 81mm Mortar Platoon.

This mission was Fighting Withdrawal, which meant that starting on turn three I could start losing units, as they retreated off of the board, and the objectives would start being pulled off on turn 6, and the game ending at the end of turn 8.

Setup

The Americans are at the bottom of the map and the Germans at the top. In the south the only terrain that played a role in the game was the river. This was ruled as Very Difficult, with a ford as Difficult, and units could "dig in" (representing them hugging the banks of the river). (Hey, I did not define the terrain here, so don't blame me.) In the north the terrain that played a role was the village on a hill on the west side and a single, two-story house on the east side. Although there was a hill on the east side and four orchards in the center of the southern half, they never came into play.

The objectives were in the northwestern village (two, one forward and west, one back and center) and behind the two-story farmhouse in the east. This setup made the two objectives to the west the most likely targets, so I stationed a platoon of Grenadiers in the village with the HMG platoon behind. In hindsight I probably should have setup those two platoons intermixed, with the Grenadiers on the bottom floor and an HMG team on the top floor of each building.

A turret guarded the center building, ensuring the Americans would have to go through it in order to get to the second objective. Further, if they tried to double-envelope the second objective they would hit an HMG nest and part of the second Grenadier platoon.

The eastern objective was guarded by the last HMG nest and the majority of the second Grenadier platoon. The trenches were all in this section, around the area of the objective. (Guess which objective I placed?)

Initial American Attack

The Americans started by bombarding the village, pinning the Grenadiers, and moving the first Rifle platoon forward to assault. The second platoon (in the center) moved forward to assault the turret, but was quickly repulsed. Immediately following, the first platoon prepared to assault, but were pinned in an unfortunate burst from the Grenadiers (and an HMG or two). The second platoon recovered first and diverted around the turret to attack the first house in the village from the flank, taking it, but being repulsed by the counter-attacking Grenadiers from the surrounding houses. (Miraculous rolls on my part. I usually botch the Motivation checks in assault.) With the casualties from the first failed assault against the turret, the defensive fire from the Grenadiers, and the counter-attack, the second platoon had had enough and quit the field.

The German Counter-Attack

When the center American platoon diverted to attacking the village, I pushed my eastern Grenadier platoon towards the flank of the Americans in order to blunt and stall their attack. Although the Germans ultimately had to retreat back towards their objective, they achieved their result. The remaining American platoon momentarily dug in into the river (it looked funny, let me tell you, seeing foxhole markers on teams fully in the water) before beating the Grenadiers back.

Final American Attack

With the Germans in retreat, the American platoon resumed their attack on the village (and the closest objective). By the time that they took the village, however, turn six had arrived and the first objective was removed. By the time they fought through the turret to get at the second objective, it too was removed. Still the Americans slogged on. The game ended with the Americans moving into the center buildings, but too late. Turn eight had arrived and the Germans were intact. They retreated off of the board in victory.

The numbers 1, 2, and 3 represent the three successive attacks made by the Americans on turns 6, 7, and 8 respectively. The numbers 6 and 7 represent the turn the indicated objective was pulled off.

Summary

As always, most decisive games show a concentration of force and movement with purpose. The Americans started somewhat concentrated, leaving 1/3 to 1/2 of the board unoccupied. By the time the attack started rolling, they had concentrated down to all forces being in about 1/3 of the board. Normally that is good, however they were concentrated on the opposite end of board from the objective placed by the defender.

The Fighting Withdrawal mission has one key footnote, one that I typically forget: the defender can only remove objectives placed by the attacker; he cannot remove the objective he placed. That means that if the attacker does not initially aim for the objective the defender placed, it really is a race against time, a race that it is questionable that foot-slogging infantry can win. Granted, had John attacked towards my objective, he would have been going into the killing fields of the HMG nests. However, I am not convinced yet that I had them placed properly.

John had some bad luck with rallying from pinning, which is always a bad thing in a race for time. Given that, it is understandable that he switched his flank platoon from a "guarding the flank" mission to "attack the objective". But it was that switch that lost the game for him. I am not saying it was a bad move. Had they pushed the Germans out of the village in the initial assault, John would have won the game by turn 4 or 5. The question is whether, after being battered unsuccessfully assaulting the turret, they had enough strength to push a full-strength German platoon - Trained or otherwise - out of their houses. Personally, I don't think they did, but it was close. So I think it was a gamble, but not too bad of one.

My counter-attack was timely, and deliberate. With the flanking platoon not only out of position, but subsequently destroyed, this opened the American flank up and allowed me the create a critical delay, which ultimately the Americans could never make up.

All in all a very intense and exciting game! Thanks John for the fun.

With that game my Infantry Ace earned enough points to get a second medal. I decided to wait to cash them in, allowing me to spend it on a Turn 2 ability. (I chose the one that allowed me to call in a free 10.5cm bombardment, once per game.)

More '61-'65 Q&A

2011-08-13T15:12:00.000-07:00

There have been a few questions answered on the Yahoo forum for the Ganesha Games rules Sixty-One Sixty-Five ('61-'65) and as I posted mine here previously, I thought I would add the others.

1. Page 3. Organization. Second paragraph. "Each Regiment comprised 10 Companies identified with letters from A to K."

Q: A to K is 11 Companies. Should this read: A to J?

A: Although there were Company J's in some ACW regiments, there were generally not, by tradition. J was intentionally skipped because of its similarity to I when hand-written. Or so the story goes... Ain’t No Company “J” in This Man’s Army

2. Page 14. Skirmishers. First paragraph. "Skirmishers always operate in pairs and must always be 1S from one another. "

Q: Do Skirmishers always have to be exactly 1S from one another or do they operate within 1S from one another?

A: "Within" 1S is the correct interpretation.

3. Page 17. Rout of a Squad. Third and Fourth paragraphs. "Routed soldiers remain in that position until:
1) other soldiers join them after other routs, bringing their number to 4 or more; or

2) the Captain spends one action within 1L to reform a Squad (the Squad
must comprise at least 4 and up to 8 soldiers)."

Q: The word "or" means one or the other, not both. Should this read as "and" and not "or"?

A: Both conditions must apply to rally (reform) a squad.

4. Page 24. Multiplayer Battles.

Q: This whole section makes little sense as written and is difficult to understand. Should it be re-written as:

"'61-'65 can easily be played by multiple players. Four players can command a Platoon each (4 Squads), eight players can command a Section (2 Squads) each. For intermediate numbers of players, each may
command 2-3 Squads.

To determine the order of Activation you may use a deck of playing cards. Remove the Face Cards and Jokers. Each player (he may command a Platoon/Section/ Squad - it depends on the level you are playing) is identified by a card. Remove the unused cards.

The remaining cards are shuffled and then one is drawn: that is the active player.

When all the cards in the deck have been drawn, shuffle them again and draw a card to start a new turn.

If there are many players, an unlucky first dice roll can have you waiting for a long time before you play again and this can be frustrating. To limit this, we use something we call the Giant Rule.

Take something bigger than the miniatures you are playing with (we use a 54mm flag bearer figure): this is the Giant. Add the Queen of Hearts to the deck.

Whenever a player rolls a turnover on his first dice roll of a turn, he gets the Giant. Go on playing as normal, drawing another card.

When the Queen of Hearts is drawn, the player who has the Giant can play as if his card was drawn, and the Giant is put back on the table. If the Queen is drawn and nobody has the Giant, nothing happens.

Put the Giant back on the table also if your normal card is drawn before the Queen of Hearts. Note that if another player gets a turnover on his first dice roll before the Queen is out, the Giant goes to that player.

A: Yes, that is a reasonable version of the section.

5. Page 25. 1861: First Blood. Forces. "CSA Company: 5 Squads at full strength (8), 4 Volunteer Militia, 1 Veteran."

Q: Appendix 1 on page 29 has no listing in the 1861/62 table for a CSA Veteran Squad. What Squad should be used?

A: Insert a line for Veteran in the 1861/62 list that matches the Veteran line in the 1863 chart.

6. Page 27. 1865: Fighting Against Time. Forces. "US Company: 5 Squads at full strength (8): 2 Veteran and 3 Regulars, 1 cavalry Squad (6 mounted)."

Q: Appendix 1 on page 30 has no listing in the 1864-65 table for a USA Regular Squad. What Squad should be used?

A: The USA Volunteers line in the 1864-65 chart can represent the Regulars (both draft and volunteer).

7. Page 28. Appendix 1. Staff Table (Officers and NCOs).

Q: There is no listing for Junior 2nd Lieutenants. When are Junior 2nd Lieutenants used?

A: Having a Green Officer is quite a detriment. A Junior 2nd Lieutenant should only be used when indicated by a scenario.

8. Page 28. Limits. Second Column. First Paragraph. "A Company will therefore have a maximum of 90 figures (10 staff, 64 soldiers, 16 Skirmishers) that counting the 8 corporals included in the Squads gives a total of 98 men."

Q: 10 (Officers and Staff) + 64 (8 Squads) + 16 (Skirmishers for 8 Squads) = 90 Men, not 98, correct?

A: Yes. That is a typographical error.

This page may be updated with corrections, as we are waiting for Sergio to return from vacation and answer some of these definitively.

9. Q: Does every figure in a squad have to be in the Command Range of a Leader to get the Leader Bonus? Last paragraph, bottom left of page 6 - "Therefore a soldier is in command if..."

A: Only one figure in the Squad needs to be in command range of a Leader to receive the Leader Bonus.

10. Q: Does the size of squads in the scenarios include skirmishers, or are they an automatic extra so an 8 strong squad will need 10 figures?

A: No, the size of the squad is excluding skirmishers. Therefore an 8 men squad will need 10 figures.

11. Q: If a squad rolls 2 dice and passes only one of the dice. Can it use that action to reload one of the two required actions needed to reload, then next turn it will only require one more action to reload before firing?

A: No, you need 2 action in the same turn to reload.

12. Q Is declaring actions done after determining number of succeses rolled?

A: There is no need of declaring action before rolling the dice, and you can use the successes get in any way you choose.

13. Q: If a unit needs to fall back due to losing a close combat encounter, does the unit still maintain its current facing?

A: Yes.

14. Q: If a unit needs to fall back due to a Rout because of a failed morale test, does the unit still maintain its current facing?

A: Yes.

15. Q: When return fire is declared the rules say that both sides may encounter losses, however the combat results do not reflect this (only one side can take damage). Perhaps I'm reading this wrong could you explain how this is to be worked out?

A: When shooting, if you return fire, either squads can take losses. If you don't (or you can't) return fire, only the shooter can damage the target, but only if they win the roll.

16. Q: Do NCO's add +2 to close combat?

A: No, only Officers can give the +2 bonus in CC.

17. Q: If a unit is loaded can it Fire at Will at any time during an enemy move, or just to return fire if it is shot at?

A: Only to return fire.

18. Q: Does wheeling – by any amount – take up a full stick of movement, or can it be combined with straight movement (either before or after the wheel)? Put another way, if I get two actions and I wish to wheel 1/2M in distance, then move 1/2M straight does it cost me 1 action or 2? I could see it being either way.

A: Wheeling any amount uses up all your action.

19. Q: How do you treat a unit that has four models, but has 1 or more Shaken models? It seems as the unit still has 4+ models, so it does not Rout, but when shot at Shaken soldiers don't count, so the Squad size is 3 or below.

A: A Squad with 4 models, with 1 Shaken soldier does not rout. It simply counts as having 3 models for shooting (and it is therefore a "Small" squad) and close combat (which is important when calculating the modifier for the number). We wanted to keep it simple in this case and in real terms there is no difference when shooting if you have from 5 down to 1 active models (i.e. not Shaken).

20. Q: Is there any advantage in being in double line? If you are contacted you fight at half strength. Is it better to stay in single line?

A: It allows you to mass firepower at a point in the battle line. You essentially have two squads facing off against the one. Just another little tool in the tactical bag of tricks.

21. Q: When counting figures for morale are the Drummer and Standard Bearer figures with the Captain counted?

A: Yes.

Well, that's all the questions and answers I could find from the Yahoo forum.

Infantry Aces Cassino at 700 points - Final

2011-08-11T07:47:00.000-07:00

Well, final until I play and change the list, that is.

After much thinking, and reading an Infantry Aces battle report where the other player was caught by taking an FJ platoon and remembering (too late) that Support platoons cannot take or contest objectives, I decided I had to dump the Fallschirmjagers. If I wanted them, I should have selected them as my company choice.

Secondly, looking at the list I see that three Nebelwerfers cost about the same (105 points versus 100 points) as four 81mm mortars, but the former are much tougher, it made sense to go with the rockets. I have to remember, however, that the Nebelwerfers cannot contest an objective, so I still need to keep my Combat and Weapons platoons alive and near the objectives.

As the Nebelwerfers don't have gun shields I figured I would buy them some equivalents: Gun Pits. Three only cost 15 points, so it seems like a good deal. Throw in an additional trench for the command team for 5 points and the whole battery cost only 125 points. That should help keep them alive from counter-battery fire.

So, the first 700 point list I will try is:

Company HQ (CiC and 2iC)
Reichsgrenadier Platoon of 3 Squads
Reichsgrenadier Platoon of 3 Squads
HMG Platoon of 2 Sections
15cm Nebelwerfer Battery of 1 Section
7.5cm Infantry Gun Platoon
2 Panzer II turrets
2 HMG Nests
3 Gun Pits
3 Trenches

The Infantry Gun Platoon is only 50 points, brings me up to six platoons (so three can start on-board, at a minimum), and I have the models. Jumping from four platoons to six allows me to start with the fortifications, the Nebelwerfers in their gun pits, and either an HMG platoon in the trenches or a Reichsgrenadier platoon guarding an objective.

I'll have to look at the missions and see if it is possible that I could end up as attacker, but with Reserves. If so, I would make for some very difficult choices.

Infantry Aces Cassino up to 700 points

2011-08-06T16:19:00.002-07:00

Well we are in turn two of our Infantry Aces Cassino campaign. We can now buy up to 700 points and add Support elements, however Tank and Transport teams are still not allowed. Further, Support elements cannot take or hold objectives.

So I started thinking about what I would take for my force. Here was my last 500 point force:

Company HQ with CiC and 2iC
Grenadier Platoon with three squads
Grenadier Platoon with three squads
HMG Platoon with two sections
Panzer II turret
HMG Nest
HMG Nest
Three trench sections (24")

So far, I was happy with everything except the trench sections. There had usually been enough terrain that it was unnecessary to start in them. (Plus, I was trying the trick to dig in within 6" of the trenches so that when I broke off from assault, I would be able to retreat into the trenches.) So, I never really knew what to do with them. Need more practice, clearly.

For starters I have to figure out if I want to continue defending all of the time or not. If not, the fortifications have to go, but I need something with punch to attack with. Confident Trained Grenadiers are probably not going to do it.

I definitely need more reliable pinning than simply throwing lead and hoping to get five hits. So the choice is mortar or sniper (4 tubes versus 2 snipers). With the Germans the mortar also gives me smoke, so it seems like the more reasonable choice, especially if I am going to attack. But, with only one battery, I cannot both smoke and pin, so combining the two options does have merit. And they cost exactly 200 points, which is the force limit increase. So, switching out the HMG platoon for the 8cm mortar platoon would give me pinning power.

But, that still leaves me assaulting with Confident Trained, which is less likely to hit in assault (4+) and less likely to counterattack (4+) if the enemy does not break in the first round. Oh for some Fearless Veterans ... like the Fallschirmjager platoon I can take as Support!

I could take a two squad (seven team) platoon and, combined with the mortars and the sniper, have a smoke and pin force. At least against one enemy platoon... Once that platoon is taken out, the sniper is unlikely to be able to reach a second platoon, so that means taking a second sniper. Now 200 points have been committed to the pinning and smoking support, leaving me with only enough points to get the smalle FJ platoon.

Another problem with this idea is that the sniper may not be able to reach the enemy objective with fire. As he can only setup in my deployment area of No Man's Land (which typically goes as far as the center line, if the objective can be more than 16" from the center line then its fire could possibly not reach the defending platoon sitting behind it.

Another option is to stay with defense, but give myself some counter-punch. The FJ platoon would fill the bill nicely in that it is unlikely to falter in Motivation. With them at 185 points, and the 15 points from the trenches, I could buy a second Panzer II turret, which game everyone so many fits last time. (Besides, I have a 6' board to protect this time.)

With the HMG platoon and the 8cm mortar platoon the same price, I can pretty much choose either one, depending upon the mission. If I go defensive, it seems like the HMGs would be better suited, especially as my Infantry Ace will be able to throw down one 8cm template and one 10.5cm template per game.

A lot to think about. Looks like I will finally get my Fallschirmjagers onto the table, however!

Infantry Aces Cassino Game 02

2011-07-30T08:18:00.001-07:00

For my second game in the Infantry Aces Cassino campaign I decided to mix it up a bit. I wanted to ensure that I was the defender* so I took the Cassino Fortifications option. This required that I purchase a Turret and two HMG Nests or HMG Pillboxes, at a minimum, for 110 points. At that cost I would lose a Weapons platoon, but gain a "fortifications platoon" (i.e. a set of fortifications that count as a platoon for deployment and victory point purposes).

* To be perfectly honest the idea of attacking and assaulting with Confident Trained platoons of seven teams seems like a no-win situation, especially against Veteran Allied troops.

My new list was as follows:

Company HQ with CiC and 2iC and no options
Two Platoons of 3 Squads of Reichsgrenadiers each and no options
HMG Platoon of 2 Sections
Panzer II Turret
Two HMG Nests
Three Trench sections

This still gives me four full platoons (one being the fortifications platoon) and six HMGs! Granted, I do not have a mortar platoon, but I don't see it as being as valuable when defending, especially as I would be paying for smoke that I would probably never use. The trenches were purchased simply because I had 15 points left over. Other options are one trench and one barbed wire or a bunch of panzerknackers that have the side effect of converting my command teams from Rifle/MG to SMG, which I did not want to do.

The Opponent

Don was to fight me with his 3rd Infantry Division company from Devils and Dogs. I knew about this list as he had used it two weeks prior against a different opponent,. Although he had lost with it, I am sure I would also have lost, given the mission and terrain he was forced to play, so I wasn't discounting his list in any way. His list was:

Company HQ with CiC and 2iC
Assault Platoon of 2 Squads and having two flamethrowers but no other options
Rifle Platoon of 2 Squads and no options
Weapons Platoon of 2 LMG teams and 3 60mm Mortar teams

I was looking forward to seeing just how well the 60mm mortars performed, given the comment Mike (at Battlefront) made about it being his favorite artillery piece. Would its 3+ firepower be enough to overcome the disadvantage of no smoke bombardment (or even smoke rounds)? I should also point out that Don did not combat attach the LMGs to the Combat Platoons, but kept them with the mortars.

The Mission

Per the campaign rules we are using, Don rolled up the mission and terrain (using the Mediterranean chart) and came up with No Retreat and the following map.

Excuse the "checkerboard" effect. That was simply used to measure out where the terrain would be placed. Each smaller square is 6". At the top left of the picture is a farm house with stone walls. In the top right are two olive groves in front of a rocky hill. In the bottom left was an ancient ruins (rubble). And in the bottom right is a stream with a ford. This was a very sparse board, rolled randomly.

As we were fighting in the valley, there were no significant scenario-specific rules to worry about.

The Deployment

As this was No Retreat I would get 1/2 of my platoons on board (2), of which 1 could be in ambush, and the remaining (2) in Reserve. As the fortifications count as a platoon for deployment, that was the one on-board platoon not in ambush. I decided to have a Grenadier platoon in ambush, leaving the second Grenadier platoon and the HMG platoon in Reserve.

I looked over the board (before objectives were placed) and decided that I would more than likely put my ambushing Grenadiers in the olive grove, to cover any objectives placed on that half of the board, and use my fortifications to cover the half of the board that was relatively open.

In hindsight only one of the HMG Nests should have been on the right flank. I should have moved the HMG Nest farthest on the right to the left, covering the approach around the olive grove. Due to the turret's placement Don swung wide around the grove to stay out of its fire.

Don's deployment was to place his Assault Platoon in the first wave facing the olive grove and the Rifle Platoon in the second wave. The Weapons Platoon with the three 60mm mortars and two LMGs were placed, out of range, facing the fortifications. From there he could bombard the turret and the very end of the olive grove.

The Game

The Americans started off their attack by sitting and bombarding with the 60mm mortars, in order to soften up the Germans prior to the infantry's assault. He failed to have any effect for two turns.

After the fruitless bombardment he started his advance with his infantry. Because of the stream he was unable to Move At The Double, so he had to slog his way around outside of the range of the turret. When I finally sprung my ambush (in the olive grove) I stupidly put one where it could be bombarded by the 60mm mortars and the template would also cover my CiC (Infantry Ace). So in my subsequent turn I ended up moving them out of their foxholes and retreating behind the olive groves.

The ambush went well, allowing me to blast the Assault Platoon. Don's infantry saves did not go well and he lost two teams. Although he was able to take out one of my teams with a flamethrower, my (pinned) defensive fire combined with Don's poor saves allowed me to break his platoon (he failed morale on the first roll).

With that, Don pulled back his Rifle Platoon and decided to try and soften my Grenadiers in the olive grove with his mortars before going in again. It was at this point that Don realized the difference between 60mm mortars and the 81mm mortars he typically uses: AT 1 versus AT 2. With an AT of 1 he stood no chance of penetrating the top armor of my turret. And because I had no other targets around, and you cannot target a Nest with a bombardment, he had no way to hit the HMG Nests.

But, it was too late as all of my reserves came on turn 5, charging forward and moving towards the fortifications and looking like they would attack the Weapons Platoon. Don tried one last bombardment against the reserves, failed to range in, and conceded.

More Hindsight

After watching the next game (which will be my next Infantry Aces blog entry), Don indicated that he should have probably fought on. There was no time limit on the game, so a combination of Veteran status versus Trained might have produced an advantage in a firefight, had he dug in within rifle range. But, I think the odds were against him and the decision to stop a good one. I was going to throw 2D6 per team to his 1D6, unless he could keep me pinned. With a CiC within command distance, my Confident troops stood a 75% chance of unpinning, so I think the odds were on my side. And that is not even counting that I had two platoons of Grenadiers and one of HMGs to bring to bear (although they were heading towards the Weapons Platoon to silence those mortars and get rid on the primary source for pinning). If he were to have played it out, the place to have stopped would have been after the attack on the mortars reached a conclusion. If I would have spent myself on the attack and failed, it would have made sense to stay in the game. But if I had destroyed the mortars, the game would have been over, save for outrageous luck.

I need a lot more practice with fortification placement.

Infantry Aces Cassino Game 01

2011-07-24T20:05:00.000-07:00

After Action Report for Infantry Aces Cassino Game 01

So, for my first game in the Infantry Aces Cassino campaign I played Bill Bushong, who was playing US Rifles (Italy). I was playing the Reichsgrenadiers, so it was a bit of a switch; the US were the Veterans while the Germans had the Trained troops.

Never having played this list, but having played plenty of straight-leg German Grenadiers, even of the Confident Trained variety (the Fusilierkompanie from Earth and Steel), this wasn't really a stretch for me. In fact, it allowed me to blow the dust off of troops I had painted, but never actually used before: the HMG platoon! Here was my list:

Company HQ with Panzerschreck
Grenadier Platoon (3 Squads)
Grenadier Platoon (3 Squads)
HMG Platoon
Mortar Platoon

This allowed me four platoons to the enemy's three platoons, which were:

Company HQ
Rifle Platoon (3 Squads?)
Rifle Platoon (2 Squads?)
Mortar Platoon (4 81mm mortars?)

Unfortunately, I am not really sure about their composition, except:

The mortars never re-rolled hits or misses, so there should have been 3-5 of them, which would have been 2 mortar sections.
If he had 2 mortar sections, one of the rifle platoons had to be understrength.
The rifle platoon under the 2iC was eaten up faster, and I really did not get any more hits or kills against it than against the other, but it started checking morale after the first volley and assault.

So, I think that was the composition. (We were all too disorganized to do something like hand each other lists or anything...)

Bill and I played the Town Route, so we ended up fighting at The Barracks. We rolled mission and got Fighting Withdrawal, with me as the Defender. It would be a Night Attack also. Here is the map of the board, which was 4' x 4'.

First off, you can see that Bill's terrain is just awesome. The Germans are at the bottom of the picture and the Americans are at the top. (This is actually after the first turn's movement, which explains why the American troops are so far forward and the hands are in the picture.)

I had to deploy everything first, except the ambushing platoon (one of the Grenadier platoons with the attached Panzerschreck team) and the Company HQ. I placed my mortars in the back squarely surrounding the center objective (a building, per the special scenario rules). Bill placed two objective markers, one on each flank. (These are, unfortunately, out of the picture. Our little photographer didn't think they were important. The left objective never came into play. The right objective is within 4" of the olive grove in the lower right-center of the picture, on the hill.)

My intent was to put the ambushing platoon in the vineyard, as I was sure that Bill would head for that spot given that it was the "hole" in my deployment. I placed the deployed Grenadier platoon in the town, with some elements dug-in filling the gap between the stream and the vineyard. Behind this platoon I carefully placed the CiC within 4" of where I believed the enemy assault on the town would land and also within Command Distance of the HMG platoon. Thus, when the building got assaulted, the CiC would suck in the dug-in HMG platoon into the assault, allowing them to open up with Defensive Fire. It would be sweet.

The plan started executing exactly as I expected. I stayed Gone to Ground and the enemy mortars could not spot me through the cloudy night. The first US Rifle platoon came up and opened fire on my troops and did not achieve any result.

I should point out that Bill noted that had he not fired, I would have had to roll to spot his troops in my following turn, making it possible for me to not be able to fire my mortars and HMG platoon at his surviving Rifle platoon. Good point to consider, for those that do not play Night Attack rules that often. Only shoot if you really think you can get a good result. In his case he had 9 teams firing Automatic Rifles (or a Bazooka) at Trained troops, Concealed and Gone to Ground, so he had 33% chance to hit with each, or about 3 hits, shy of the 5 needed to pin me.

The situation began to unravel for me when the enemy moved in to assault. It was at this point – and not during deployment – that I noticed that the wall facing the direction the enemy was coming from did not have any openings. This caused Bill to shift his troops laterally to go around the building and reach an opening, and this took the assaulting teams just out of 4" range (by a fraction of 1/8th of an inch!) of my CiC, meaning my HMG platoon did not get to join in on Defensive Fire! (It must have been a damn cloud that suddenly crossed in front of the moon and caused my HMG gunners to all look the other way!)

The Grenadier platoon fired (7 stands/14 shots) and with a 33% for each to hit, rather than getting five hits – slightly above the average 4.67 hits – I got four, denying me the ability to throw the US assault back. (Bill did, however, oblige and fail to save three of those four hits.) The assault went in, a few hits made it, and I failed Motivation in order to Counterattack.

Although my CiC was more than 4" away from an assaulting team, he was within 4" of one of my Grenadier teams, so I had a choice to make: throw the CiC in for the Motivation re-roll, or let them break off. I chose to throw the CiC in. The re-roll succeeded and I was able to bring the US platoon down to 2 teams plus the attached US 2iC. They made their Motivation roll, counterattacked and the hit that went against my CiC killed him. I rolled Motivation to counterattack again and failed. I then had to roll platoon morale after the assault and also failed. (I had now failed three Motivation tests and the US passed their three. Granted, different odds.) I was now down one platoon, and it was only turn 2!

In hindsight I should probably have broken off rather than getting a re-roll. I say that not because of the result I got, but because of the situation that would have been had I done that. The US platoon was the weaker one of 8 teams and it had already lost 3 teams from Defensive Fire, leaving 5 teams plus the 2iC. As there were three buildings in the town (I only had two in my possession), all six teams probably could have fit inside them.

I, on the other hand, would be pinned outside in the open with 5 teams of my own, but well within the protection of the dug-in HMG platoon. Next turn I could attach the CiC during the Starting Step and use him to help rally the pinned troops (75% chance, with the re-roll). The Grenadiers would them Go to Ground, forcing the US to start the process all over again.

Assuming the US Rifles were able to unpin, the next assault's defensive fire would be 18-24 dice from the HMG (I cannot remember whether one of the HMG teams would be able to bear) and 5-10 dice from the Grenadiers. The wild card, however, would have been the US mortars. With the US CiC and 2iC both so far forward, the odds are they could have called in the mortar fire. Then, there would be whether the mortars could range in. (Bill did not have luck with that for several turns.) Finally, could be place a template on both platoons (probably, as they would have been inter-mixed from the assault break-off) and achieve hits on them? As I said, the US mortars would have been the wild card to this scenario.

With my platoon routed, the crippled US Rifle platoon (2 teams plus the 2iC) entered the town. In my turn following I opened up with the mortars and got a lucky kill (visibility, ranged in, hit, he failed save, I made a '6' firepower roll!), causing him to check, and he failed, causing them to rout.

Meanwhile, on the right flank, my Grenadiers popped their ambush at the edge of the vineyard and let loose with the weapons into the advancing US Rifle team (3 Squads, plus the CiC). I was able to pin the platoon and achieve another three kills from that volley. (Something about Bill and missing infantry saves in threes!) But, they quickly rallied and kept coming. They assaulted and my defensive fire took its toll, but again failed to pin. (This time I had 12 dice from Rifle/MGs, 2 from a Panzerschreck, and 6 from an HMG team, but I still only got four hits! Bill failed to save an impressive number again.)

In this picture, the Americans are at the bottom and the Germans at the top, after being pushed back.

This time, however, the assault tore into my guys pretty badly. I failed the counterattack roll, of course, and had to break-off. The US assaulted again, this time with fewer dice coming at it (as my platoon failed to rally from being pinned too), but whittling them down to 2 teams and the CiC. (Sound familiar?) As for my platoon, after failing to counterattack, failing to unpin in its turn, then failing to counterattack when assaulted again, it failed it platoon morale and ran. I was now down two platoons, leaving me with the 2iC, the HMG platoon, and the mortar platoon when...

It was at this point that I misread the Strategic Withdrawal mission rule. I thought that you accrued one delay counter for each platoon you had, and when it reached 5, you pulled a platoon off. Rather, it was one delay counter per turn under 5 platoons and when platoons + delay equalled 5, you pulled a platoon off. It was this error – my error – that caused me to pull a platoon off. As the mortars were sitting on an objective and the HMG platoon was (mostly) on the flank opposite the US Rifle platoon, I chose to pull off the HMG platoon.

With the second Grenadier platoon gone, the US Rifles marched straight to the flank objective unopposed, one-half turn before I could pull off that particular one.

In the picture you can see my 2iC in the upper right, the mortar observer in the upper center, and the mortar platoon just sitting there, on the wrong objective, in the upper left.

My only chance was for my 2iC to shoot one of the US Rifle teams and hope Bill's bad luck for infantry saves held, forcing a morale check, and hopefully having him fail. (Okay, not likely given they were Veterans and had an attached CiC.) But all calculations were for naught; I failed to hit.

In hindsight I could have teamed the 2iC and the Mortar Observer and together they could have assaulted. Not good odds, but it was a chance of success greater than 0%! But, coulda' shoulda' woulda'!

So, a lot of rules mistakes on my part, but I don't think it would have changed the game. The big mistake, however, was tactical, and it was not deploying the HMG platoon close enough so it could defensive fire on turn 2 and then not moving the mortar team to cover the right objective at the end of the game. I just did not "see" it. It was definitely out of mind. Ah well!

Ideas for Song of Blades Engine

2011-07-13T21:23:00.000-07:00

I am getting a hankering for some skirmish gaming again, so I started thinking about Ganesha Games' Song of Blades and Heroes (SoBH) engine (e.g. also Flying Lead, Song of Drums and Shakos, etc.) and some of the enhancements I had been considering.

Dice Pools

I recently purchased the Die Fighting rules from Bob Jones and Repique Rules and there were some interesting mechanics in those rules that I thought could apply to the SoBH engine. Basically, Die Fighting uses the concept of dice allocation and dice pools to represent the abstract concepts of 'heart' and 'fatigue'. From the rules:

Think of these dice as elements of energy, of wisdom, boldness, courage, reliability, morale. Every army at the start of a battle possesses a cache of such intangibles spread over the quality of its troops and the effectiveness of its leaders. Every time that army commands or acts, it expends some of that supply.

In Die Fighting, a commander may direct his troops toward any objective with any action standard to the historical period. And while action are resolved through a roll of dice, what's not standard is that once rolled those particular dice are lost for the rest of the game. Not to worry, your army has a large supply of dice – of heart, if you will – and will be able to act and resolve future die rolls without problem. Until, that is, there are no dice left.

Basically put, you start out with a certain number of dice – a large number – and each time you roll those dice you throw them into a bucket, never to be used again for that game. (Okay, what you really do is keep count of the number of dice you throw and once you throw a certain number, you have no more to throw. You have lost.)

So, how to apply that concept to SoBH? The idea is that the more dice thrown, the harder the player is pushing the troops, whether the dice roll succeeds or not. If I am throwing three dice per figure, then adding an additional die for melee combat, I am pushing the troops hard, wearing them out, fatiguing them, stressing them. To me, using a dice pool seems like an excellent way to track stress and fatigue for a warband.

Recently I asked a question on about how many turns the 'average' SoBH game lasted. So far it is sounding like at about 10 turns. So let's start with that number: 10 turns. Now we have to figure out the number of dice thrown 'on average' in a turn and let that be our starting dice pool. If I ask that question I am sure the universal response will be "It depends", so rather than asking it I think I just simply need to pick a number and give it a try. If the average turn has five figures rolling on average two dice per turn, for 10 turns, that gives a warband 100 dice to start. Seems like as good a number as any!

One concept that exists in Die Fighting, that would be good to carry over, is the use of Leadership dice. These are essentially a certain number of dice that the player can use every turn, due to the presence of leaders. As they are free and renewable, they are very powerful, so should be used sparingly. At first blush I was simply thinking of giving a side one Leadership die for having a Leader, and an additional die for having an NCO.

Another interesting concept are free dice, which are simply dice you get to use that do not come from your dice pool, but are also not renewable. Usually these are granted for situations, but could also be used in lieu of combat modifiers. For example, a weapon might require you could throw one die from the dice pool and grant an additional free die when used in melee. You would then take the die of your choice to resolve that melee.

One final note: the dice use are not just for activations. As you roll dice to fight, those consume the dice in the pool too. (If you are fighting, you are getting stressed and fatigued.) So, if your opponent attacks you, the die you roll to oppose his roll comes from your dice pool. So you can use dice in your opponent's turn.

Everyone Gets a Chance

Another idea I have been toying with is how to give everyone on a side a chance to activate, but not take away the risk the player faces by pushing his troops too hard (i.e. there needs to be a consequence to rolling maximum dice all of the time). Currently, when a figure turns over, it is typically not that character that suffers as much as those that did not even get a chance to activate. The penalty largely falls on them.

My idea is to denote who failed two or more times, but allow the side to continue activating and turn over only once everyone on one side has had the chance to activate and either activated or failed with no allowable actions. So, where's the penalty? The following turn, all figures that 'turned over' cannot act at all. In essence they lose their next turn.

If you think this might be a bookkeeping nightmare, I think a simple marker on those that turned over will suffice. And when the next turn occurs, rather than activating the marker is removed. For those that don't like markers, I think you simply need to use innocuous ones. A small disc with grass or flock on it can be used to indicate that a figure has already activated for the turn (these would be removed at the end of the turn after all figures have had the chance to activate), while a small disc with a couple of rocks on it can be used to indicate that the figure will lose their next turn. During their next turn, the player would simply replace all rock tokens with grass tokens at the start of the turn, then start activating the remaining figures.

I think this change will make low Quality troops much more viable as warband members. Granted, it might change the game entirely, shifting the balance from using a few high-Quality troops to using hordes of low-Quality troops, but only time and testing will tell how drastic the shift is.

Interrupt

The Flying Lead rules have an Overwatch rule that allows a player to 'spend' two actions in his own turn in order to spend one action firing in his opponent's turn (with a number of caveats and clauses, of course). I was thinking about such a rule that allows a player to interrupt his opponents' turn, but during that turn. So, for example, Player A finishes moving a figure, indicates that he will attempt to activate another figure and Player B calls interrupt in order to attempt to activate one of his own figures first. As with Overwatch, there has to be a penalty for that flexibility, so I would suggest the loss of one action (e.g. if you rolled two successes, you only get to use one; three successes would garner two actions, etc.). Note that the loss of an action does not mean it counts as a failure, only that one of the successes does not produce an action. Once you have completed the interrupt, you would place a token showing you lose your next turn (as you have taken it during your opponent's turn, after all).

Of course, you don't want people interrupting and recklessly rolling three dice with no consequence, so in addition to the loss of one action, if they roll two or more failures, they 'fumble', taking an additional token showing they lose an additional turn. Thus, on their following turn, only one 'lose a turn' token would be removed, leaving one to be removed the turn after that.

I Choose ...

One final option to try, which would be in lieu of the Interrupt optional rule above, would be to use the activation sequence of This Very Ground. In that game players alternate making activation decisions. However, the twist is that a player can either choose to activate a figure of their own, or have their opponent attempt to activate a specific figure of theirs. Once all figures from both sides have had a chance to activate, the next turn starts (and all 'moved this turn' tokens are removed followed by exchanging one 'lose a turn' token per figure for a 'moved this turn' token).

It is possible to use this rule in conjunction with the Interrupt optional rule – the This Very Ground rules allow for a figure that already acted to interrupt, but at a much lower chance to activate – but I think it would probably be a bad idea. But who know? Maybe for a future game.

Liquitex Matte Medium versus Matte Varnish

2011-07-13T17:35:00.000-07:00

Liquitex makes two matte products: matte medium and matte varnish. Both products are designed to flatten the finish of your paint, but they actually produce different results.

Matte Medium lists that it:

Creates a matte non-reflective finish.
Dries translucent and matte.
Increases translucency, adhesion, and paint flow.
Provides a permanent, non-yellowing, flexible, and water resistant coat when dry.

Note that some of these properties (increased translucency, adhesion, and flow) come about by mixing the medium with acrylic paint, not by covering a painted, dried figure with medium.

Matte Varnish lists that it:

Provides a permanent varnish to protect surfaces.
Establishes an even, non-glare matte finish.
Protects against UV damage.
Reduces color intensity.
Provides a permanent, non-yellowing, flexible, and water resistant coat when dry.

The language between the two is similar, but the results are not. The Matte Medium has a greater tendency to whiten (ever so slightly) after drying, and will have a slightly shiny finish than the Matte Varnish. The Matte Medium is also much thicker, so does not flow as well, causing it to pool more readily in creases (which probably accounts for its increased tendency to whiten).

The photos below show two stands. Both have been block painted then washed with Magic Wash (a mixture of paint and Future Acrylic Floor Polish). This creates a shine over the figure, which is strongest where the wash's color pools. The figure on the left has received a single coat of Matte Varnish, while that on the right has not. Although it is hard to see (because the camera tries to take out the reflection and shine), the white dots in the dark pools of wash are reflections, indicating shiny spots in the paint job. The figures on the left show a large reduction in those reflections, including toning down the darkness of the wash itself. Looking at the second figure from the right on both stands gives you a good representation of how the Matte Varnish helps mute the shine and dark.

I have tried several matte finishes and this is the best so far, as far as having a lower chance of whitening, being easy to apply with a brush, and producing a matte, as opposed to a satin, finish.

Infantry Aces

2011-07-13T14:49:00.000-07:00

Well, last Saturday Don and I started in the Infantry Aces campaign being run through the Tucson Flames of War group on Facebook. He played 3rd Infantry Division from Devils and Dogs and I played Reichsgrenadiers from Cassino. I was really hoping to play Confident Trained US Rifles, but that just did not happen due to a mix-up. Oh well. I can always start over, I suppose. Only the loss of a single game (which I will report on later).

The basic campaign mechanism is simple: there are three rounds (called 'turns' by Battlefront, for some reason). During each round you can play as many games as you can squeeze in, making your infantry ace better (generally it will take only two or three games to get your medal) and accruing victories for your side (Axis or Allies). In this campaign each round is defined as a month, so all games played in July count as Turn 1, all in August as Turn 2, and all in September as Turn 3.

Turn 1 games have the limitation of being 500 point lists, with no Support selections allowed (with the exception of fortifications, if allowed in your list), nor any Tank or Transport teams. These games are also played on a 4' x 3' table.

Turn 2 uses 700 point lists, allows Support selections, but still does not allow vehicles in the list. Games go back up to using a 6' x 4' table. A big gotcha' is that only Combat and Weapons platoons can take objectives.

Turn 3 uses a 900 point list and finally allows a single platoon of up to five vehicles. Still, only Combat and Weapons platoons can take objectives.

The player can switch up his units within the list between every game, but cannot switch the list being used (e.g. if you use the "US Rifle Company" list from Festung Europa, you must stick with that list for the entire campaign; only the composition of the list changes). This is good because it provides continuity between games, even if all losses are automatically replaced each time.

The rules for playing a game are pretty easy. Pick someone to game with, see if you can agree as to which route (Mountain, Valley, or City) the battle occurs in (roll off if not), roll the mission (largely determined by the route where the battle occurs), play the mission with the special campaign rules (again, largely determined by the route where the battle occurs), and record the result.

So, how does the game change using the Infantry Aces rules? For starters, with no Support selections and no vehicles, most infantry will start moving much more freely in the open, given that you have no fear of vehicles coming along, machine-gunning and assaulting you. Assaults will win the day, as before, but with no vehicles, HMG teams and Snipers suddenly look a lot more viable to play.

The What Would Patton Do guys postulated that Infantry Aces is actually not aimed at the newcomers, but rather at injecting some fresh play into the games of the old hands, primarily because of the emphasis on assault, which is not something you want to throw at a beginner with few games under his belt. I definitely agree with that thought. Infantry Aces games will be much more nuanced than your larger games and will probably go slower than you expect, primarily because if you blow it when you only have three or four platoons, you probably cannot recover unless your opponent has also lost an equivalent amount.

So, bone up on your assault rules, start reading about how to use independent teams to draw other units into assault, and start blowing the dust off of those HMG and Sniper teams!

Feedback from the last battle report

2011-07-06T10:06:00.000-07:00

I posted links to the last battle report on The Miniatures Page and the Flames of War forum and got some really good feedback, most of which was "you should still fear the Strelkovy (just not that list)". As the discussions are sort of scattered across the bitstream, I thought I would collect some of it here.

First the terrain setup. I admit that due to my recent purchase of the Gale Force 9 river sets I really wanted to put them into play. Given that I had a fork piece, and enough footage, I put a creek on both deployment areas, making it a little more "fair" that both sides had it. As has been pointed out, that is a bit more advantageous for the King Tigers. When Don made that comment after the game, I sort of poo-poo'ed the comment as his Strelkovy really had no way of killing my tanks unless I got bailed first, etc.

In hindsight I can see that it did matter. Not being able to double time meant that to cross the two feet of No Man's Land he would have to spend four turns rather than two double-timing. As the main killer was the Panzerwerfer unit, and not the Konigstiger, and bombardments don't cause double casualties against double-timing troops, that probably would have been a safer ploy for the Soviets.

Most of the comments were centered around what the Strelkovy should have brought to the table. Again, I think it was understood by both Don and I that using Strelkovy as an "air and artillery delivery platform" would definitely be a winning strategy, but that was not the point. The idea was to win with an infantry horde list; one that someone might take to an all-comer's tournament.

I know the What Would Patton Do guys advocate taking air - hell, I do too - but not everyone does, especially at 1,500 points. Besides, the Shturmoviks are something like 200+ points if what Don told me is correct. As for going heavy on artillery: I'll have to do more research on the Army Lists board on the Flames of War forum and see what a tournament-worthy 1,500 point Strelkovy list looks like.

As for the flamethrowers, only Don can tell you why he did not purchase them. I suspect, because he bought the army painted, that he does not have the figures. That said, everyone agreed that flamethrowers were the way to go. The Soviet flamethrowers are also a little beefier having a ROF of '4'. This is sort of like the German Panzerschreck teams versus the smaller Tank Hunter teams, which also use the panzerschreck, but have different stats. Guess that is why they are 90 points for two teams (if I remember correctly from looking at the Fortress Europe book).

It was pointed out that I also got the odds wrong on the flamethrowers chance to destroy a Konigstiger. As I typically play veteran Germans I used their skill, rather than the typical Trained rating the "standard" Strelkovy had. Here is how I calculate odds; if someone sees a flaw, please let me know, as I want to get the math right. The chance to hit with a single shot is 4+ or 1/2 chance. That hit will destroy the Konigstiger on a '6', so that is 1/6 chance. Combine the two odds and it is a 1/2 * 1/6 or 1/12 or roughly 8% chance to hit and destroy the Konigstiger with a single shot. But, because I have more than one shot, and I only need one of those shots to hit and destroy, I look at the odds of missing all four shots. If the chance to hit and destroy is 8%, the chance to not hit and destroy is 92%. The chance to miss all four times would thus be 92% * 92% * 92% * 92%. That makes about 72% chance to miss all four times, whether missing the hit roll, or making the hit roll but missing the destroy roll. If there is 72% to completely miss, that makes a 28% chance to destroy the Konigstiger, having four shots at it. Again, if anyone sees that I am doing it totally wrong (very possible given how much I slept in my mathematics classes), please let me know. I want to get it right. If that number is correct, 28% is a pretty respectable number. But, it is still too low in odds to count on.

As I look back at my tank assaulting "career" in Flames of War, almost all of the kills came from bailing the tanks by some means and then assaulting with the infantry. Of course, it was all a matter of timing and support. If the enemy were bailed out, but I had no infantry within range to immediately assault, they had a chance to re-mount before I could get there. Ultimately it came down waiting for the right moment and not rushing things. Which bring me to...

"Patience is a virtue in wargaming." There was an interesting article in Battlegames magazine this month about how rules have changed over time and essentially changed the "generalship" experience for players. Part of that article was about how we have been pushing games to be faster and faster. I read some of the threads on the Flames of War forum, or listen to some of the What Would Patton Do podcasts, and there is frequent mention of "well sure, that would work if you have infinite time" or "that won't work given a time limit". The emphasis is clearly there in Flames of War to reach a conclusion relatively quickly. I suppose it is a product of our times.

Don and I have had some 1,500 and 1,750 point Flames of War games that have gone four or more hours. One game we left setup and played the conclusion the following weekend. Personally, I find these sorts of games more pleasing, which is probably why I gravitate towards solo gaming and lower aggression (or counter-punch) lists. I think this is why the Konigstiger list is so fun for me right now; it is very much a list requiring patience. Acting hastily, before everything is prepared, can get your few, precious resources eliminated. That is what makes games with that list tense and exciting. Your list is tough, but it can be cracked, and when it does crack, it is probably going to unravel.

Readers of the blog have probably noticed that I have tried several formats for battle reports. This last one has gotten the most comment, and all positive. To be honest, it is probably the least amount of work of all that I have tried. I think my next report will be the maps and symbols, as I have them in the last report, with some pertinent action shots sprinkled through. (Assuming I remember to bring my camera, and take some pictures. Sometimes I get caught up in the heat of battle...) I think I prefer reporting on the "phases" of the battle, rather than a turn-by-turn format, which I personally find harder to follow. Let me know what you think.

Königstiger versus Strelkovy

2011-07-04T21:27:00.000-07:00

As I reported on my last blog entry, I asked Don to kick my teeth in by running an Soviet infantry horde against my Königstiger list. First, the list. I struggled mightily trying to decide whether to buy an AA platoon and a infantry platoon or two infantry platoons. I finally decided that I just needed to see if I could hold an objective with the armored AA platoon or not, plus it was insurance in case Don double-crossed me when he said he would not bring air support. :^)

I also decided that it was not fair to force Don to use an Eastern Front list – which for the most part has not had its points adjusted the way Earth and Steel has – while I got to use the cheaper Western Front list. That meant my Königstigers were a little more expensive. I always thought it was because they did not have the Unreliable rule, but it is mostly because the Eastern Front Königstigers have a Front Armor of 15! (Actually, I did not think twice about needing that extra frontal armor, figuring that any tanks Don purchased would be heading for my flanks.)

Here was my list:

Company Commander in Königstiger (Henschel) - two Tiger Ace skills
Platoon of one Königstiger (Henschel) - one Tiger Ace skill
Platoon of one Königstiger (Henschel) - one Tiger Ace skill
Panzergrenadier platoon with 2 squads, panzerfaust upgrade, and field cars
Schwere Panzer Anti-Aircraft Gun platoon with 2 Unarmored Sd Kfz 7/1 (Quad 2cm)
Armored Rocket Launcher Battery with 3 Panzerwerfer 42 and extra crews

The big change was losing one armored AA team and the Bergepanther recovery vehicle. Using motorized Panzergrenadiers gave me five teams, rather than four with the Schwere Panzer Pioneers. In the end, the latter did not matter.

Don's list was:

Strelkovy Battalion Command
Strelkovy Company with Komissar
Strelkovy Company with Komissar
Maxsim HMG Company
Light Anti-Tank Gun Platoon
Field Artillery Battery with 76mm Field Guns and 122mm Howitzers
ISU-122 Platoon (of 3)

Six Soviet unit against my five small units!

The Scenario

The idea for this scenario sprang from my desire to face my fears. I figured that a Königstiger list would do very poorly against a Soviet Strelkovy horde. I mentioned on day to Don that I wanted to play against them – even though I knew I would get beaten badly – because sometimes you need to know just how bad it can get. Don, of course, said he would be more than willing to oblige as it would allow him to finally get to use those Strelkovy that have been sitting in the box.

The mission was Free-For-All, ensuring all Soviet troops would be on at the start, and 1,500 points per side. That smaller point total meant that I could not have everything I wanted (like an AA platoon and two infantry platoons and air support), so I would have to make hard choices.

I knew that Don would attack, no matter whether he rolled attacker or defender, and I figured he would not bring air support, because he likes his points on the board.

The Board

I purchased four boxes of Gale Force 9 rivers, so I just had to use them. The creek (not river...) came on the board in two places, had a ford on each branch, then merged at a split and went off the board. Although I have not put the grass on the pieces yet, they really look good. They may be expensive (I got the four sets for $80; 20% off), but they are flexible and lay flat. Really top notch product.

I also broke out all of my trees. Some were really too small, but we used them as "one-story" trees (so someone in the second story of a building could see over them to a target that was also elevated one story). There were three wooded areas and I decided not to lay felt our foam down to define the area, but rather just simply put down an outline of trees to show the boundaries. That made the table look much nicer. I think it is about time to get more or the tall evergreens from China...

Don brought his roads, hills, buildings, ruins, and walls. Although I tend not to like those hills, they really are probably better for gaming than mine. The are a simple, tall block that has a steep sided slope. They are tall enough to block line of sight to pretty much everything, including a Königstiger; they are that tall.

The roads added a nice touch to the village, but really played no part in the game. Same with the walls and buildings. They were all on the Soviet side of the board and Don deployed away from them.

The board above shows the Soviet side at the top and the German side at the bottom. The Soviet objectives are shown in red, while the German objectives are shown in blue. The woods are medium green, the hills olive green. The creek is shown in light blue with the fords in the lightest blue. The small cream squares represent standing crops, which provide concealment for infantry and gun teams, but not for vehicles larger than a Jeep. The reddish squares are buildings and the tan ribbon is the road. No walls are shown as they played no significant role in the game (but they looked nice).

Pre-Deployment Discussion

As we were going over terrain and troops (the "Talk") it starting becoming clear that Don was going to have a problem. I think he thought I was going to have a 14 armor (pretty natural, because I kept talking about it when discussing my last game against Matt) so was as surprised as I was when I told him the Eastern Front Königstigers had a frontal armor of 15. He brought three ISU-122s and their anti-tank was only a 15, so he had to get them on my flank if he was to do anything.

Also, his anti-tank guns were so weak that there was no way for them to penetrate even my side armor. (Although he did admit that they were there to kill my armored AA or some expected panzergrenadier half-tracks.) That meant he had no anti-tank assets that could take care of me frontally, and only three that could get me from the side. The greatest threat came from the one battery, that could get me from the top (they had a anti-tank of '4' against my top armor of '2'). The roll of a '1' could penetrate my armor, and a '2' could bail me.

Setup

Don won the roll for attacker, and thus got to select the baseline. He also had to start deploying first, but naturally, I had fewer platoons.

Objective placement was interesting because we both avoided one flank and placed one objective in the center (in line with the fords) and the second on the same flank as each other.

My Tiger Aces rolls were: Company Commander re-roll misses and Motivation 2+; left platoon re-roll misses; and center platoon rate of fire 3.

The basic battle plan was to follow the advice posted on the Tactica Königstiger thread on the Flames of War forum: shred the enemy from long range for as long as possible and then move in and take the objective. The main thing was to be patient and not rush to the attack. The "problem" with this tactic, or so I thought, is that this list would not have enough firepower to stop the infantry swarm, and they would just run over me like army ants. But, that was the whole point of running this game, to see how the list handled the situation.

With an objective to defend in the center (behind a ford), and one on the left flank (behind a creek), I decided to post the infantry in the surrounding terrain in the center, as I felt that the main attack would be going after that objective. The center Königstiger was hiding in the tree line, dominating the center lanes of attack. I felt that it would be better to have the faster gunner firing there as that Königstiger was unlikely to be moving until the end game.

The left flank Königstiger sat behind the river, ostensibly guarding the left objective from the Strelkovy company that would be advancing on that attack axis, but also getting a good cross-fire on any ISUs trying to sneak up on the center by using the woods a cover.

My Company Commander posted between the other two Königstigers, ready to shift to either objective that would be threatened. In the event of an advance, it could support the attack on either objective.

The Panzerwerfers were on my far right flank. That meant it would have a harder time getting to the back field on the left flank, but had excellent cover and could use the platoon's commander to provide an alternate spotting position. The primary observer position was in the center woods, beside the center Königstiger.

Finally, my armored AA platoon was in the center, behind full cover and out of sight, should the Soviets get first turn. I knew that Don was going to try and target them, as they would be a pretty easy VP if I got careless.

The Soviet setup was to stretch a single Strelkovy Company across half of the board with HMGs in front and artillery behind in support. The ISUs were to move to my right flank and work around to the rear. The second Strelkovy Company was to attack across a narrow front and capture the objective on my left flank. The anti-tank guns would defend their objective, keeping my armored AA platoon and motorized Panzergrenadier platoon away.

The Game

Don won the roll to move first. He started off by pushing his infantry forward, all across the board. The artillery observer doubled onto the hill so he could get a good look at the German line. As his ISUs were all the way to the rear (out of range, in case I had first turn), they had to plow through the ford and naturally one of the tanks bogged.

The Panzerwerfers found their mark right at the start and pounded the center Strelkovy company and the Maxsim HMG company, killing teams from both and pinning them down. I was lucky and killed the Komissar with a rocket on the first shot. Meanwhile the Königstigers simply lobbed shells into the Strelkovy and the enemy battery (which were barely in range). The armored AA moved up on my left flank in order to strafe the Strelkovy defending the town, along with the Königstiger on that flank.

The Soviets struggled and were unable to unpin, especially without a Komissar to harangue them, so they continued to weather the storm from the rockets, losing more stands. (Don was really doing bad with infantry saves in the beginning.) Slowly the ISUs moved forward, but in the interim I had pinned the Soviet artillery with a stray rocket, so again they could not counter-bombard me.

Eventually the Soviet shrugged off the effects of pinning and started to move forward again. However, it was a bit too late by that time. The rockets started finding their mark and and the Maxsims started dying in droves. It was too much for them and they broke and fled. At this point both Strelkovy companies decided to pull back and dig in (which it took a couple of turns to perform).

The ISUs, however, saw an opportunity to strike at my Panzerwerfers and lessen some of their infantry's misery. After each bombardment, and when I made a successful Stormtrooper move, I would nudge the Panzerwerfers towards the center, allowing them to help defend the center objective. As it turned out, I probably made that move prematurely as the ISUs now had a bead on them. Three shots range out and ... three misses. (I think Don rolled a '1', '2', and a '2'.) Now that the ISUs were exposed, the Königstigers made short work of them, taking out the entire platoon in a turn. (It really helps having a Königstiger with a rate of fire of 3, plus a company commander that can re-roll misses.)

The artillery was starting to have some effect – although in hindsight it was rather negligible due to Don's horrendous rolling for ranging in (over the course of the game he failed to range in three times, each of three attempts) – pinning my Panzergrenadiers and rattling the roofs of my Königstiger and Panzerwerfers. That forced me to start concentrating on taking out the observer. However, after two rocket bombardments and numerous 8.8cm rounds from the Königstiger, he was still alive and well. (That must account for his inability to range in fire, however!) When the last of the smoke cleared, the Company Commander crossed the creek and assaulted the observer, wiping his out.

Meanwhile, on the left flank, the armored AA had moved to the creek line and blasted all exposed Strelkovy, stopping their advance cold. At this point Don pulled back and dug in. The AA and the Königstiger advanced across the creek, occasionally pausing as they got stuck in the mud, and chased the Strelkovy down. Although the Königstiger had little to fear from the infantry or the anti-tank guns, one of the AA was destroyed as it rounded the corner of a building. (The unit passed morale, however.)

Just as my Panzergrenadiers started mounting their trucks in order to make the trek across the center, in preparation for the assault on the center objective, Don decided to call the game, realizing that I was going to slowly pick off his units and he really did not have anything to stop me. At that point we started talking the game over and trying to figure out what happened, and what the Soviets can do to beat this list.

So, What Happened?

The main problem with the list was that there were really only two units that could kill a Königstiger: the artillery and the ISU-122. Let's go over each unit.

Strelkovy Company: by itself, a Strelkovy Company has no real integral anti-tank assets. Each stand has Tank Assault 2, which against a Top Armor of 2, means it can do nothing. When I played Shawn, he added the PTRD anti-tank rifle and the flamethrowers to the mix (at great expense). Let's look at those:

The PTRD anti-tank rifle is AT 5, which has no chance against the Side Armor of a Königstiger, which is an 8. In assault they are a Tank Assault 3, which gives them 16% chance to force the Königstiger to bail out, effectively killing it, unless it is defended by another unit. That said, I have a tendency to call priority target against Gun teams when firing at Strelkovy, specifically to kill off the PTRD when they are present.
The flamethrower cannot fire in defensive fire so it is really only effective against a Königstiger when it is shooting. A flamethrower gets two shots, even when moving, and hits with a skill test, so has a 67% of hitting with each shot. Each shot that hits, in turn, has a 16% chance of destroying the Königstiger. Thus, the chance of destroying the Königstiger is about 30%. That is not bad. Two flamethrowers just might have the Strelkovy chasing the Königstiger off of an objective if they aren't wiped out first. (More on that later.)

ISU-122: with an AT of 15 and the Königstiger having a Front Armor of 15, the ISU-122 has not chance of taking out a Königstiger frontally. It must get onto its' flank. With the ISU-122 being a Slow Tank, just as the Königstiger is, that is going to be a tough misson. Even so, once the ISU-122 gets on the flank it will typically have a 50% chance to hit and an 83% chance to kill (42% chance total), so the Königstiger's destruction on the first (moving) shot is by no means assured. The odds are pretty high that unless the ISUs are using covered approaches, the Königstiger will take them out before they arrive on the flank.
122mm Howtizers: with an AT of 4, going against the Top Armor of a Königstiger, these guns stand a chance of killing them (16% to penetrate and 67% chance to destroy, or about 11% total), once they range in and hit. The odds lower slightly if you add in the field guns to the bombardment, but you increase the chance of hitting.
SU-100: with an AT of 16, this assault gun has a 14% chance of bailing a Königstiger when it hits. This is okay, but does not do much unless there is an infantry unit ready to pounce on the bailed tank in assault.
Shturmovik: with an AT of 12 going against the Top Armor of the Königstiger, air support remains one of the best means for taking a Königstiger out. The problem, of course, is getting the aircraft and ranging in. Anti-aircraft can upset the aircraft's plans, but it cannot be counted on to protect all of the Königstigers on the field; at best it can protect only two at once. With a top-of-the-line aircraft using cannons, it has a 33% chance of killing a Königstiger outright, after it has successfully ranged in. (That makes you think, doesn't it?)
152mm Artillery: with an AT of 5 going against the Top Armor, and a FP of 2+, if these guns range in and hit successfully, the hit will have a 28% chance of destroying the Königstiger. The good thing for the Germans is that the Soviets have to spend a lot of points to get artillery this powerful (they have to buy the 122mm howitzers first).

Unless I am missing something, the Strelkovy don't look like a good match-up to the Königstiger list, other than as an air support and artillery delivery platform. Even then, you are not really playing the list, but the support.

As Don put it, "yeah you may win these games with the Königstiger, but I won all of the others where the Königstigers aren't at". I would probably agree.

So, my fear of Strelkovy is lessened. They have been beaten with Gepanzerte Panzergrenadiers and with Königstigers, but the Grenadiers lost, badly. Maybe it is time to look at them again ... with fortifications! :^)

Königstiger List

2011-06-29T10:40:00.000-07:00

It looks like Don and I will play some Flames of War this weekend. He and I were talking and I told him that I needed to take the Königstiger list out and get its teeth kicked in by a Soviet horde list, so I would know just how bad it could get. Don said he would be more than happy to oblige me by bringing a Soviet Strelkovy list. :^)

This game will be 1,500 points. Here is the list I used last time:

Company Commander in Königstiger (Porsche) - two Tiger Ace skills
Bergepanther Recovery Vehicle
Platoon of one Königstiger (Porsche) - one Tiger Ace skill
Platoon of one Königstiger (Porsche) - one Tiger Ace skill
Schwere Panzer Pioneer platoon with 3 squads
Schwere Panzer Anti-Aircraft Gun platoon with 3 Unarmored Sd Kfz 7/1 (Quad 2cm)
Armored Rocket Launcher Battery with 3 Panzerwerfer 42 and extra crews

I found that there was too little infantry the last time I played the list. If the company has to defend two objectives, that leaves just armor defending one of those objectives. So, I have to squeeze in a second infantry formation and at 1,500 points that means dumping the AA half-tracks. Here is a possible 1,500 point list:

Company Commander in Königstiger (Porsche) - two Tiger Ace skills
Bergepanther Recovery Vehicle
Platoon of one Königstiger (Porsche) - one Tiger Ace skill
Platoon of one Königstiger (Porsche) - one Tiger Ace skill
Schwere Panzer Pioneer platoon with 3 squads
Motorized Panzergrenadier platoon with 2 squads and trucks
Armored Rocket Launcher Battery with 3 Panzerwerfer 42 and extra crews

I don't like the loss of the AA, but at 1,500 points, most players probably won't bring air support. If Don does, well, that is just one more thing to kick my teeth in and teach me a lesson. I'll just have to make sure we play the air support rules correctly this time...

The idea will be to have each KT platoon defend an objective with an infantry platoon, until the enemy is whittled down enough that the KT can go on the attack. Given the slow movement of the Königstiger, I will have to be very sure of no surprise move before I move the infantry off of an objective. The Bergepanther will operate as a leaderless platoon, led by the Company Commander when necessary.

If I get to choose a Tiger Ace skill, my first choice is to re-roll misses, with the second to have a 2+ Stormtrooper move. A 2+ Motivation is nice, but it really only comes into play for re-mounting when bailed, as the KT platoons will never take platoon morale checks. If I have to take a company morale check, it means I have either lost at least one KT and some support, or lost all of my support. That probably means I am only one turn away from losing an objective, so I see that Tiger Ace skill as being of lower value.

This should be an interesting game, and a good lesson as to why small, elite forces cannot probably win in open tournaments. The odds of running against a horde army, whether infantry or armor, is probably too high.

German Late War Gepanzerte Panzergrenadiers

2011-06-25T13:02:00.000-07:00

Continuing with basing and photographing my miniatures collection, I present my German Late War Gepanzerte Panzergrenadiers. This is a single platoon pictured, but I have a full, three platoon company available.

The half-tracks and infantry were painted by Dragon Painting Services in Hong Kong. I bought all three platoons from them on eBay, using their Best Offer method, so got a (slight) reduction from their normal price. I found out that the catch was that they never seem to sell the Panzergrenadier company headquarters, but they would be more than happy to paint that separately, at full price of course. I opted to paint those myself. (Pictures of them later.)

The quality of the painting is superb, and well worth the price to me. Their basing of infantry is consistent (I purchased other German platoons and they were the same), even if they are not the same as what I use. The only complaint I had is that the painters appear to be exact, in that all three platoons had the same numbers on the half-tracks (211, 212, 213, and 214). So, I can tell the half-tracks within the platoon apart, but had to devise a means to tell the platoons apart.

I decided to base my vehicles – in this case the half-tracks are on 3" by 1 1/2" bases – and use the basing as the consistent component between painted units I purchase. Unfortunately, I have not re-based the infantry (or tried to make them consistent), so they look a little different. I may paint the outer band around the base the same green color as the half-tracks and leave it at that.

When the Earth and Steel book came out for Flames of War I noted that the Panzergrenadiers for Panzer Lehr had one Tank Hunter team per squad, so I had to go back and add them. (Pictures of them later.) That is when I discovered that matching the basing of the DPS bases was going to be a challenge. So, if I decide to paint the outer band it will be all or nothing.

I have played these troops for about a year now and I like them. The mobility and incredible machine-gun firepower makes them impressive. The three Tank Hunter teams per platoon make the Panzer Lehr version pretty beefy against armor in assault. The ability to combat attach a half-track with a 75mm cannon (from the Heavy Platoon) means that the platoon has an armored Tank team, thus enemy infantry must roll Motivation to assault. Combine all of this with the German's Mounted Assault rule and you have a pretty good unit.

The important thing to remember about this unit is that it is not an Armored Tank team, but is a Transport team, thus it can be pinned and it can be assaulted by enemy Tank teams.

German AA Halftrack

2011-06-24T10:47:00.001-07:00

As part of my project to photograph my collection, here is the first of them that I have finished basing. There are three Sd Kfz 7/1 (Quad 2cm) armored half-tracks to protect my King Tiger and Panzergrenadier forces. Light, mobile anti-aircraft guns are great for covering a tank or half-track force as it can keep up. It also makes a good stop-gap defense supporting static infantry against assaulting infantry. With a rate of fire of 6, those 18 shots are going to hurt a Strelkovy company. And as they are armored, they cannot be pinned by enemy fire.

I bought these models from Don, who bought them painted off of eBay. They are really well painted, even though it is a simple paint job. I have them mounted on 3" by 1" bases (not a standard Flames of War size, but one I use for many half-tracks and tanks) so they are easier to grab and so the flocking adds a consistency between these and other German forces.

The figure on the left shows the small metal plate that I glued to the bottom of the gun turret, while the flat bed of the half-track contains a small rare earth magnet. This will be sufficient to keep the two stuck together during play.

A Tale of Two Hobby Shops

2011-06-24T07:58:00.000-07:00

A bit of a 'local' entry this time. I was on vacation and I decided to stop at two hobby shops in Phoenix, Arizona (USA) on my way back home and thought I would give a mini-review. But, before that ...

I noticed something about both hobby shops that contrast to others I have seen around the country in my travels. These shops seem to be thriving largely because of the focus on the younger crowd, especially late high school and early college. Now, my view is probably skewed due to when I came into the shops (early weekday), but thinking back to the hobby shops of the past, these are certainly the crowds that were usually there and patronizing them.

It is nice to think that we old codgers, with our increased disposable income, account for more dollars in support of the shops, but I don't think that is true at all. The younger generation, although they may have fewer dollars to spend, seemingly spend a greater percentage of what they have.

Ah well, on to the review.

Imperial Outpost Games

Imperial Outpost Games in Glendale, AZ (north side of Phoenix) has expanded into the adjacent storefront since the last time I was there, so the gaming space has more than doubled. Lots of tables, looks like quite a bit of store terrain, and a fair amount of activity.

Miniatures stock consists of Games Workshop (Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer 40K), Privateer Press (Warmachine), Battlefront (Flames of War), and a few other minor elements (Dystopian Wars, Malifaux, etc.). There were no 'traditional historical miniatures' for sale (e.g. ancients, Napoleonics, ACW, etc.), nor rules of that sort.

What they did have that was of interest was a pretty good selection of board games of the 'traditional historical gaming' nature, like GMT Games titles. I almost bought Combat Commander once again. Maybe next time.

Their GW selection seems pretty extensive, taking up quite a bit of shelf space, but as I was rummaging through the stock, I noticed that a lot of boxed sets had a fair layer of dust on the top, indicating either a very dusty store or the stock not moving. (I was looking at some Empire Knights for WHFB, as it happened.)

The Warmachine/Hordes selection was also very nice, with probably the second-largest amount of shelf space (devoted to miniatures). Flames of War came in a distant third.

The store also has the typical paints, sculpting tools, flock/terrain, Magic the Gathering cards, RPGs, etc. for sale there. The unusual items were a stock of foam (not too unusual considering the proximity of Battlefoam to this business) and resin scenic bases.

A Yahoo group for the North Phoenix Irregulars, uses this store for a lot of its games.

This shop has a loyalty program which gets you a checkmark on a card for every $10 spent, and when $150 is spent, you can turn the card in for a 20% discount on your next purchase (of any size). Two things to note about this discount:

According to the staff (over the telephone), the discount can be applied to items you order through them; it is not just on current stock. Note: I have not tried this to ensure it is true; this is just what I was told by an employee who might not be an owner.
When you cash in a discount card the dollars you spend do not go towards a new loyalty card. So, if you get $250 worth of stuff and use the card to get a $50 discount, you do not get $200 worth of points. (Strange, but hey it is their loyalty program, so they have the right to make whatever rules they want.)

Empire Games

Empire Games is in Mesa, AZ and is also an impressive shop. It looks like it was once a corner store for a Blockbuster Video, so it is a huge space. Lots of gaming tables with merchandise lining the walls. This shops seems more oriented towards Games Workshop, but still has an impressive collection of Privateer Press and Battlefront. In fact, although it had about as much wall space devoted to Flames of War as did Imperial Outpost Games (maybe a little more), Empire Games had far more stock crammed into that space.

Although there were board games and RPGs at Empire Games, they had far fewer.

One item they did have that Imperial Outpost Games did not have: Army Painter Flames of War spray paint. So, I should be able to start knocking out some German armor soon...

If Empire Games has a loyalty program, they don't automatically tell you about it. So, this looks like a standard retail store with straight (i.e. full) pricing.

Empire Games also has a group with a Yahoo forum that hangs out at their shop – the Arizona Desert Rats – and they have a Flames of War forum on Yahoo.

All in all it was worthwhile visiting both shops on my way back home from vacation. I picked up a boatload of river terrain, the Games Workshop gaming mat (which has gotten great reviews and is only $30, before discount), a Panzer IV H to round out my Panzer company, some Afrika Korps dice to go with my tokens (although I don't play Afrika Korps), and some Hs 129B aircraft so that I can finally have some models of my own and stop borrowing Don's.