Monday, 27 April 2020

To Add Something New...

To what so far has been a less-than-wonderful year; but not, fortunately, on the hobby front, where a lot has been happening!

Back in February, before the Great Scurvy took hold, Matt and I had scheduled in gaming day for a Sunday. Hooray, of course. 

However, what was originally supposed to be Napoleonic amphibious landing scenario using Black Powder ended up at the eleventh hour being an age of sail naval wargame instead. 
Choices, choices...
And great fun it was, too. 

 *****

The day had arrived, I had woken up early, and had already set up the table and placed the terrain- only to get a message from Matt saying he would be quite late, and that he wouldn't be able to bring any miniatures.

Basically he had gone out drinking the previous night over of the other side of Tokyo.  When he got home he realized he had left his phone at the pub; so he had to go back in the morning to get it, and then come directly here- do not pass Go, do not pick up your troops. 

Naturally he could only let me know about this after he was able to get his phone back.

Well, I didn't have enough troops to provide both sides, so BP was shelved and the terrain put away.

I definitely need to get to work on the Prussians and Russians, as this is the second time this has happened.

Struggling for an alternative, I suggested an age-of-sail naval game instead, as both of us had been keen to give the period a go. I have always been fascinated by the battles between the wooden walls, and on a trip back to Vancouver last October, I had picked up a number of- hopefully playable- sets of naval rules.

This unfortunately meant that we would have to- gasp!- use unpainted, bare-metal miniatures, along with a (mostly completed but not-yet painted) island fortress.

A cardinal sin, I know. But given the circumstances, there really was no choice. I didn't even have time to give the ships a quick coat of primer. Time was an enemy, and anyhow you have to start somewhere.

I had about an hour and a half until Matt got here, so decided on what appeared to be the simplest of the three rule sets I had available: Osprey's Fighting Sail: Fleet Actions 1775–1815 by Ryan Miller. 

I set myself to getting up to speed on the rule essentials, while at the same time quickly drawing up and cutting out the movement and arc of fire templates- by hand. As luck would have it, my printer cartridges needed replacing that weekend. 

Talk about gaming on the fly.

But with the help of a ruler, index cards and some bluetack, ultimately I was ready; British vs. French, East Indies 1782. Both sides had two third-rates each.

The French: Incontinent, 74; Malheureux, 64
 
The British: HMS Righteous Indignation, 64; HMS Forgettable, 64


The French were trying to get to the harbour at l'Isle de la Reine, and under the safety of its guns. The British, to intercept them.

"It's the cat fer ye, ye whoreson lubber!"
Each ship has a stat for the number of dice rolled; sailing, discipline, boarding, gunnery and hull. Discipline allows players to repair damage. Hull dice are basically saving throws.

We never got close enough for boarding actions, more's the pity.

As we were just getting the basics down, we decided before the game that for the sake of simplicity, once we determined its direction the wind would not change during the course of the game. As it turned out, the rules proved intuitive enough, so we will do this in future games.

The wind turned out to be blowing directly from the south. Aeolus was clearly an Anglophile, as this meant the French had it blowing directly into their bows. The RN came on with the wind off their port quarter- they very much had the weather gauge. 

Consequently the French- who rolled five D6 to the RN's four, as their ships tended to be better built- got one movement point on every roll of six. They sailed on at a crawl. 

Fortunately for me the British- who in theory should have swooped down on les Frogs like hawks on paraplegic mice as they got movement points on a roll of 4 to 6- were rolling abysmally. 

Most of the firing took place at long range as a result. For firing, you roll the number of dice allowed under the gunnery stat; at long range, 5-6's are hits. The player receiving the hits rolls the number of dice listed under the hull stat, with 4-6's being saves. 

So at long range firing is generally inconclusive, but it got a lot more lethal when we got into medium range- explosive hits mean damage re-rolls on 6's. This was bad enough- we never got into short range combat, which must have been murderous. The British get more gunnery dice than the French, so long range suited me fine, thank you very much. 

NB: the term 'explosive' seemed odd, but it was really just unfortunate terminology. In subsequent amendments this has been renamed critical hits, or something similar, which makes more sense.

I lost Incontinent early in the game, as she came under fire from both RN ships, her consort being too far out of range off her starboard beam to come to her assistance. After taking four hits in one turn, she foundered. Round one to rum and salt pork.

Now outnumbered, Malheureux slowly tacked and wore her way around the edge of the table trying to outrun her tormentors. 

Luckily the British were unable to put on any speed, and in a drawn out long-range gunnery duel I managed a magnificent firing roll of all 5's and 6's, all of which the Righteous Indignation failed dismally to save. 

She, too, went to the bottom. 

The Forgettable sought vengeance, and pursued the Malheureux relentlessly in an effort to stop me making the port, but as dreadful British movement rolls continued, it was clear that I had enough of a head start to reach the safety of the harbour and the guns of the fort.

The game ended in a bang- literally- when Forgettable carelessly got within close range of the fort's battery, and plunging heated shot detonated her magazine in true, David Beatty tradition. 

So I was able to enter harbour to the heartfelt welcome of cheers, bouquets of flowers and patriotic music, followed by a slap-up feed at the governor's table where I regaled the admiring ladies with tales of my martial prowess. I even let the governor win at vignt-et-un, such was my good humour.

The French were victorious, albeit at the cost of their most powerful man-of-war.

*****


So what of the rules? Overall, they were a big hit.

They were fast to learn and to play. There was no bookkeeping to mess about with, and we picked up the mechanics both of sailing and gunnery very quickly. The rules appear to do the job without players having to first spend some years familiarizing themselves with Norie's Epitome of Practical Navigation, and the intricacies of celestial navigation and Euclidean geometry.

We got in lots of turns, and the game was over in well under three hours. Not bad for a first outing with a new set of rules.

Naval engagements in Fighting Sail are bloody- too bloody. Three ships lost, which would have been a rarity indeed in naval combat as wooden ships were hard to sink with the weapons of the time. The loss of the Forgettable was a reasonable outcome given the circumstances, but the other two ships really should have remained afloat.

This is a criticism of Fighting Sail I have come across online- and was a result of a desire to make large multi-player fleet actions play a lot more quickly and decisively.

But there are modifications to the rules available out there that get around this- by having them strike instead of sink, for example. Given that I invariably tweak rules to suit my taste, I have no problem with this.

Gunnery and damage really are simplified; for example, a lack of bow and stern fire which would have added something to the game as we were using so few ships. There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules for this- likely a result of the games being geared towards fleet actions. Still, an easy enough fix.

In fact it seems an robust system where changes and additions to the rules won't break the basic rules engine.

Fighting Sail really plays best with at least a squadron per player. But having two ships each still produced an enjoyable game. 

We both liked the fact that these rules play so smoothly; after less than an hour we only had to consult the rule book a few times. 

Someone wanting more granularity and "sea salt" to their naval rules, or who want to do frigate actions such as HMS Shannon taking the USS Chesapeake, would probably prefer a more detailed rule set. 

I still wouldn't mind trying a few different sets for comparison- especially Blood, Bilge & Iron Balls, but I'm not sure I'll ever get the opportunity. I'm aware that Matt is no sailor, nor are most of the guys here. 

I'm not sure a more "meaty" set would appeal to them if it meant a long learning curve. If FS can engage and interest them in the genre, then I'm happy to continue with it. 

Fighting Sail are also easily available in some bookshops here, so accessibility isn't an issue.  

I know there are purists out there who really dislike the rules, and the dreaded phrase "dumbing down of the hobby", or variants thereof, has raised its head in a number of online discussions.

But hold on there one moment, mateys.

Now, I grew up voraciously reading the adventures of Hornblower, Aubrey & Maturin, Ramage and Bolitho.

Despite my landlubber credentials, I come from Hampshire and Sussex stock, with a long tradition of naval service, to whom the Royal Navy ranked second in British institutions just behind the Monarchy and a good cable's length ahead of the Church of England; beliefs which were instilled in me since childhood. 

Wouldn’t be surprised if Dad hadn't slipped a slug 'o rum into my baby formula. 

So being immersed in books and tradition, as a teenager I of course had the chance to play Wooden Ships & Iron Men at the club in high school. Later on in life I even tried rules like Action Under Sail and Hearts of Oak, (the rule set that came with the Privateers & Gentlemen role-playing game).   

Most rules like these were extremely well-detailed, and clearly labours of love.  

They were also virtually unplayable, and inevitably they never got any traction with us (Avalon Hill's classic, much-loved WS&IM excepted). 

For the most part, the rules I enjoyed most were Don’t Give Up the Ship!.  I press-ganged my younger brother into playing the French and- when I was feeling magnanimous- the Yankees. We had plenty of decent games with this one, mostly with just one or two ships involved (the games when we didn’t end up in fistfights, that is).   

So personally, I’ve been interested in wargaming the Age of Sail ever since I can remember, and have over the years developed a good- if certainly by no means expert- knowledge of the tactics and ship handling of the period.

But that’s my point. Naval warfare in the age of sail is a really complex (not to mention arcane) subject both to model and to really understand.

Rules that try to take it all into account might well end up satisfying the dedicated enthusiast, but aside from taking a long time to play, such rules would likely send newly-pressed men jumping over the side in their misery, bewildering and frustrating those who are either new or less committed to the period.

I don't do much solo wargaming; I always need to think about what would appeal to my opponents. So I can’t expect anyone in my gaming group to tolerate having to deal with the long learning curve needed to come to grips with the intricacies of late 18th C. naval warfare and sailing. Nor would they want to spend a lot of time referring to complex written record keeping, especially as it would never be a mainstream interest for most.  

The best I can reasonably hope for is to get them interested in a game that might scratch an itch after they have read or watched Master & Commander or Hornblower, and have them give a thumbs up to a set of rules that might from time to time provide a quick change of pace from their more regular gaming fare, in the same way as Wings of Glory or What a Tanker! does.

So for these reasons, I’m much more likely to get a game in if I stick with a set of rules that are simple and accessible, and which provide the opportunity to get models on the table, to roll some dice- and just focus on some good storytelling. 

That would satisfy me well enough.


*****

Now all that said, Sada here is a fan of the age of sail:
"A bloody war or a sickly season"

1/1200 Langton ships from Sada's superb collection.
He already has a magnificent collection of all the ships- British and Allied- from Trafalgar.

Unfortunately all the rules we have tried so far seemed unwieldy, and on most occasions we simply ran out of time and/ or energy. Given the number of vessels involved, it looks like Fighting Sail might do the trick.

Even then it wouldn't be a game to be undertaken lightly! In no way would my ping-pong table be big enough- a hall rental is in order post-virus.

As for my own shipbuilding program; given the breadth of Sada's collection, me going ahead building up fleets for, say, the 1805 campaign would be pointless.

Matt expressed interest in doing a Russian fleet of the era (not a bad choice, actually; I can see some "what-if" potential along the coast of the Pacific Northwest).

Fortunately however, I have long had an interest in the fascinating East Indies campaign of 1782-83, between the French admiral Suffren- a first-rate admiral (likely France's best) encumbered by having very much third-rate captains- and Admiral Sir Edward Hughes, a competent if second-rate commander with very much first-rate captains and crews.
This is a good read.
So is this; a great resource; there is not much out there on the French fleet.

Lots of fascinating detail.
Okay, they WERE all a little expensive...

Late last century I went overboard buying stuff from Rod Langton. I got most of the ships that I would need for both sides- along with various accessories like gunboats, lighthouses and harbour facilities- so it's just the trivial matter of assembling them (hah!). 

One modification the ships need is that the driver- the big fore-and-aft sail on the mizzenmast (big up-and-down pole at the back) was actually a feature of warships during the later Revolutionary/ Napoleonic wars. During the 1770’s and 1780’s, the earlier Mizzen Course was more common. 

The Langton models have the booms cast on to the drivers, which are a feature of the later settings. So the masts need some work with the clippers and files cutting off the boom at the bottom of the sail.  

Here’s a French 74 with the typical earlier mizzen rig:

Here are the mizzen masts as cast:
And modified using a fine drill and lengths of paperclips.
Fortunately, the early 1780’s were a period of transition, so not all ships need to be modified. The newer ships in both fleets will be left as is. 

This is a fun project. I already ordered some clear acrylic bases from Litko, as well as a set of playing aids for Fighting Sail. These are less hassle than having to cut them out from card- and way more robust.

The ships themselves aren't easy or quick to do- the masts in particular take time as I use slow-setting JB Weld epoxy for strength- but I really enjoy working on them. It's the modeller in me.

What with this pandemic still going strong, it will likely be a long time before I next get in a game, but when we do so I hope to have at least six ships done and ready to go.  Dreading the rigging part, but I'm sure I'll manage. 



*****

In my next post, the plan is to look at my rebooted ACW project along with some related future project possibilities.


Saturday, 25 April 2020

Time on my (carefully-washed) hands

Northern flags in south winds flutter..
Quarantine and teleworking in the Covidian Era has some advantages, one of which is that I finally have time- and moreover the inclination- to get blogging again.  

I haven't posted anything in semi-living memory, thanks to: 
  1. A dearth of wargames; while there have been games, these been relatively thin on the ground 
  2. Google messing with my log-in ID for Blogger, meaning I can only really use my desktop- and I don't use it as much as I used to.
  3. Wanting to preserve my eyesight for reading books, using the computer, or painting; choose two. 
I don't really think a lot of people were reading the blog anyway.

Not that it matters, I tend to use it for my own pleasure when I get that creative writing urge. But Google certainly haven't made it any easier for people to leave me comments on my blog, and indeed vice-versa.  

Except spammers, of course: they never seem to have any trouble. 

But all that said, I haven't been dormant and a lot has transpired on the gaming front.  There have been Napoleonic games, but also some new developments as well. 

These include (quite accidentally!) re-discovering the joy of naval actions in the age of sail using Osprey's Fighting Sail, getting back with a vengeance into the ACW with Black Powder/ Rebels & Patriots, and- at last- a serious foray into gaming the Sengokujidai period, as I finally get interested in samurai again.

Heck, I even finished a unit of Franks from the Late Roman period.

For now, some evidence showing a bit of what my brushes have been up to over the past year, as I think about how I want to organize future posts.



Sunday, 20 January 2019

Holiday Loot (and a little Rantette...)

Happy New Year! Haven't posted for a while, but I am just as much into the hobby as is usual for me.

Matt, Giovanni and I are scheduled for a Napoleonics game on 1/27 (postponed from earlier this month), so I'm looking forward to writing up both scenario and battle report.

Holiday gifts resulted in the acquisition of some rather nice Front Rank Landwehr (I had ordered a few hussars and chasseurs, as I've decided to up the size of my future cavalry units; I added the Prusskis in order to make the cost of postage worthwhile).

There was also this rather nifty and compact reference book on French Napoleonic uniforms, one that I've been coveting for over a number of years now:

The English version is long out of print and costs a small fortune. This softcover translation was the equivalent about US $25.00- and of course minimal postage costs- so it was a bargain.

I can probably just about cope with the Japanese, especially as I'm familiar enough with the subject already. It's the uniform plates by Rousselot I've been hankering for.

Another present was Rupert Degas' reading of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's  The Exploits of Brigadier Gerard.
 

Heroic Colonel of les Hussards de Conflans, the First Light Cavalryman of France, the bravest soldier, the greatest swordsman, the most accomplished horseman and the most gallant lover in Napoleon's army. A true legend in his own mind and one of my favourite literary heroes.

This is the second set in the series; I already have the first set of CDs in the Naxos series, The Adventures of Brigadier Gerard, and loved them.

What better to listen to while painting spurs, shabraques, dolman and pelisse lace, all while drinking a fine wine from Suresnes.

Right now I have these on the painting desk, not far from completion.

*****
Starting the new year with an editorial rant of sorts, having just turned my back on another Facebook wargaming page. Read no further if this kind of thing doesn't turn your crank.

This was one on naval wargaming, and while I had been uneasy with some of the borderline political commentary on current events (I don't go to hobby sites out of any interest in what the political views of its members may be), what did it for me was, yet again, bitching about wargaming rules.

I've seen it now with anything Warlord puts out these days, although to be clear it's not only them who get the flak.

Basically it tends to run like this:
  • The rules suck; you should try...
  • The rules ignore history
  • People who play the rules- clearly GW-weaned sheep- also suck
  • Kids these days suck- they are lazy and want it all spoonfed
  • Glossy publications suck
  • In my day, yadda yadda...
  • Why this scale? Why not in the scale of the miniatures I already have?
But the whole thing was certainly not unique to this particular group. I see the same going on other pages and fora as well, be it with Black Powder vs, GdB, Bolt Action vs. CoC, Lasalle vs. Empire, FoW vs. Anybody- what have you.

Now to be clear, it's not a hurt fanboy reaction on my part. There are certainly a lot of valid criticisms to be made with Warlord products, and I have reservations about a number of aspects of their rules which I could post here at some length. 

But much of it just reflects my own ideas, preferences and prejudices, and I can then just make any changes I see fit to fix what I don't like (that usually does the job). Or, should I feel it's a dead end, there are other options out there I can look at. 

These days there are many game systems, periods, and styles of play that do (and don't) float my boat; as is the case with music, sports, cars, and Brussels sprouts (the God of vegetables, BTW).

What I just honestly don't understand is why some continue to feel this urge to go online and at length denigrate not just a set of rules, but those who don't share their preferences. Or when they somehow imply that they have got it right when other sane, intelligent folk somehow haven't. I often find myself astounded by the misplaced arrogance.

The problem I have is not the criticism of a set of rules per se. But first off, when someone chooses to share pictures of their games on social media, it is inappropriate- and even plain wrong- to just blurt out an (unsolicited) opinion that the rules are "rubbish"- if the people playing the game evidently enjoyed it- well, how can it be "rubbish" to them?


And I doubt very much that anyone would get away with saying that face-to-face in a club setting; my own reply would be (indeed, has been) unfettered by any restrictive forum rules. Keyboard warriors are always the boldest. 

Now a given set of rules may not be my own cup of tea for any number of reasons that reflect my own criteria as to what makes for a good gaming experience. 

For example, rules like LFS, Empire or ESR leave me colder than a long-deceased halibut sinking to the bottom of the Sea of Murmansk. But that fact alone does not make any of them necessarily crap- they certainly aren't. But they're not what I'm looking for.

A number of commercial rule sets are indeed very sloppily written, poorly explained and/ or edited, and can be riddled with proofreading errors (a bane of our times). That's fair game and fair comment- when appropriate.

But few are actually outright, plain bad, and are likely to be even less so if they have garnered a strong following.

My main issue is that any criticism should first of all be framed within the purpose or design philosophy behind the rules to begin with- something all too often ignored.

Secondly is when the commentator goes well beyond merely critiquing the rules themselves, and ends up casting the net to include dissing the people who play them, the company who produces them (almost invariably the commercially successful ones), and for that matter just showing an overall annoyance with the modern world in general. 

Aside from the fact that the latter sentiment has been expressed since at least the time of Socrates, it's just ridiculous to attempt to pigeonhole wargamers in that way. It ignores the fact that some out there may actually be playing more than one set of rules according to the situation, and that one gamer's pet historical period may be no more than an evening's worth of light entertainment for another- and of course vice-versa. Horses for courses.

And being so unnecessarily judgmental sparks in turn a natural negative reaction from those who- surprise, surprise- resent finding themselves being summarily dismissed as the hobby's untermenschen, and who dislike being told how they should be enjoying their pastime.

No wonder the atmosphere so quickly gets poisoned.

People are different; differing hobby and time priorities, differing skill sets, differing levels of interests in, and interpretations of, history. The list goes on and on.

So if others tackle the hobby in ways that don't fit your groove- just get over it. There are choices out there; we make our own and other people are free to make theirs. As I mentioned, there's no lack of alternatives.

I can understand that some gamers may get frustrated because others in their group don't want to play the same rules that they might do (I'd love to try Republic to Empire, or GdA, or even Shako II, but for a number of very practical reasons I know they're not going to fly locally). 

But that's a fact of life in any social gathering- we go with the flow. 

Unless, of course, we prefer to be (ultimately friendless) despotic sociopaths, seeking to impose our heavy-handed will on those around us. I've met a few of those around the gaming table in my time.

I also suspect that taste in rules might be a generational thing.

But if we want to get others to buy into trying a set of rules that we fancy, then slagging these folks off for their existing choices probably isn't the best way to do it. And be prepared that even if they do give it a try, it may well fail to tick enough of the right boxes for them so that they would want to stick with it. 

This doesn't make them wrong, and we have to respect their choices too.

Getting quite fed up with it all. I honestly don't understand the tribalism and need to piss into other people's cornflakes all the time in what is just a hobby. 

My first New Year's resolution; don't waste any more time on people with a Mission.

*And don't get me started on home-grown rules! Personal experience has led me to be very wary of these. Those who go to the effort of writing their own rules can get very attached to them, seeing as their creations often reflect a very personal vision of what a game should be all about. Fine for solo gaming, but such games often end up on the rocks in a group setting as the authors often don't take kindly to criticism or suggestions for improvement if it means losing control over their "baby". 

It all too often seemed to end in tears, or at best in endless discussions and rule tinkering which come at the expense of rarely being comfortable enough with the mechanics to just enjoy the game. Eventually those participants who have suffered in silence for the sake of group harmony just get tired of it all and vote with their feet.

Saturday, 22 December 2018

Big Game Hunting, 1944

Another dreary drought in posts. I blame all the usual suspects, with work, business trips, and general life shittery all leading to great difficulty in finding any slot when were all available at the same time for a game. 

I did find time for a bit of painting here and there, along with the usual acquisition of new books and toys.  But without the spur of a game to get ready for, nothing really to show for it.

Anyway, the gaming drought eventually came to an end, so on the last Sunday of November Giovanni and I had our first game of the Lardies' What a Tanker!  Now that my winter vacation has started, I've some time for getting caught up.
We originally intended to do a Napoleonic game using Black Powder, but we were both of us feeling a bit burnt out from work and from irritating- yet persistent- everyday life issues. Instead, we decided that we would be happy just to settle for a game that didn't require a lot of setting up, was simple, and which would allow us to shoot the breeze a fair amount as we hadn't seen much of each other for a while.

And with just two tanks each, WaT was just the thing.
In the end I decided that using my  IS-2 and ISU-152 would probably be overkill.
To keep things simple, we decided to go with two identical tanks on each side. Giovanni opted for two Panther D's, while I settled on two T-34/85's.

In game terms der grossen Kats have an armour rating of 8 and a strike of 9, while the T-34/85 has armour 8 and a strike of 8. Additionally both tanks are considered fast, so are able to convert any one extra die into an additional "one", a movement die. So to all intents and purposes, the two types are pretty much equal counterparts.

We played the angled scenario, with each side coming in from opposing corners of the table. 

The table itself was set somewhere in Russia, so was covered with road crossing a river, woods, some hills that and copses that would block line of sight, and a few buildings.

I also had, for the first time on the table, the Red October Cement Works (Красный Октябрь Цементный завод)
This started life as a simple dice tower that I had made from foamboard, using a set of plans I found online. Eventually, I decided to use it as the basis for a functional terrain piece, integrating the old Airfix control tower. It's not finished, but I wanted to use it to see how practical it was in terms of size and convenience. 

Fortunately, it passed the Politburo's strict zoning regulations comfortably. 

For a long time I had been waiting on trying to source some fine scale corrugated material for use as the factory roofing. It turns out Giovanni has some plastic sheet from an architectural model shop, so that hurdle has now been overcome.

To the game; some tentative initial maneuvering resulted in a few missed shots from both sides.

Suddenly I saw an opportunity to I send one of my T-34s on a flanking march around a large hill to try to knock out one of Giovanni's Panthers from the rear.

This looked promising.
Unfortunately, I then hit a dry spell where I was making a series of completely useless die rolls- never in the history of miniatures gaming have so many 5's been rolled to so little effect. A roll of five allows the player to reload; well, I must've had every round in the tank chambered up that gun barrel. But I couldn't move very far, and didn't have the dice needed to acquire or aim on my target, let alone fire on it.

Of course, Giovanni's Panther managed to roll a cascade of 1's and 6's, thus allowing him to do basically whatever he wanted; namely to climb the hill and attack my hapless Russki broadside
Kat food: scratch one T-34.

"Aw, Crap! Commisar Putin will be really pissed off over this!- BIGLY"

Any smug Teutonic smirk was soon wiped off blond Aryan mugs when my remaining tank, now outnumbered two to one and facing a developing pincer movement, finally saw me roll a (rare) fistful of sixes in the command phase.

I was able to dart out from around the corner of a farm building and snap off a quick shot at the frontal armour of the previously victorious Panther. My luck held and I followed up with a great strike roll, more than half being 5's and- more importantly- 6's (critical hits).
Stalin's Kan Opener
He failed miserably at saving any of them. As its ammo cooked off, the Panther was duly sent to Valhalla and it's crew incinerated in a ball of super-heated flame. 

Honours now even.

The rest of the game saw the remaining two tanks basically going around a farm in circles, as they chased each other's butts trying to get in what were proving to be very elusive killing blows.
"I wasn't born yesterday, Fritz.."
On a number of occasions both of us did maneuver so that the enemy's rear was dead in our sights, only to find that we couldn't muster the dice needed to allow us to set up a shot. In the rare instances when either of us actually did manage to get a round off, it would invariably end up flying uselessly off target.
You two get a room...
Ringskis around the Roseskis
On one tantalizing occasion I did get in a significant hit, one that inflicted some permanent damage. A lucky shot knocked out his optics, meaning that from that point on not only he was he down -1 to hit, but also that he would be rolling only four, instead of five, command dice.
This was a real blow, but I wasn't ever able to really capitalize on it (although it saved my shell-shocked Socialist skin on at least two subsequent occasions).

So on balance the Russian side did more damage than what it received. However with time running out, we decided that both vehicles were running out of fuel, ammo and above all, patience. The respective commanders felt it was high time to call it a day. 

Until we meet again, Fascist swine.

Overall impressions: I liked the game, but can't quite yet say I -love- it. It has some interesting mechanisms, and certainly provided many moments of tense excitement; I do like the fact that it's not bogged down in rivet-counting detail.

Although the rules themselves are very simple and very well laid out, in some respects I felt we were probably getting it wrong; I need to go back and read them over again.

The issues I had with the game were that most of it had been spent with the two remaining tanks busily- and quite ineffectually- chasing each other's tails, while we looked down with dismay and frustration on a series of useless combinations of command die rolls. Fog of war is one thing, but being totally at the mercy of capricious Fate is another.

Tolstoy would have loved it.

Perhaps this was in part because as we were both fast tanks, we were able to convert one additional die to movement on top of any 1's that were rolled. This kept allowing us to shake off acquisition, but we both found it was then incredibly difficult getting the combination of dice that would allow us to reacquire, aim, and actually shoot at the target. 

This was really tough for Giovanni's Panther when it was down from rolling five to four command dice, but he was coming up with more than his fair share of boxcars, allowing him some good shots- only to see him then fail his "to hit" rolls with a series of disgracefully (and quite mathematically unlikely) poor throws.

Much to my relief, as I was rolling multiple fours and fives to beat the band.

Or perhaps we had just got something wrong; it was our first time with the rules, after all. Nevertheless it's a good game, and felt a bit like a simplified Saga for WWII. But very much depends on the whims of the Dice Gods; not necessarily a bad thing, but YMMV.

The only other thing has nothing to do with the rules, but with our own housekeeping habits in a game like this. We both really needed to keep the dashboards up-to-date and tidy, as we frequently forgot to update them and/or would accidentally move the markers around in the heat of combat. That was one of the issues I had with playing Saga.

But it was great to be able to dust off my Soviets again.  And overall, and based on this one experience, I would say yes, it's a game worth playing. Despite the aforementioned frustrations it was certainly engaging.

I'm not sure if I'd want a steady diet of it, but we do want to try it again, maybe with less powerful tanks. 

Something set in the early North African campaign, with such armoured leviathans as the British A-10 cruiser and Italian M-13/40, might be fun.

*****
The good news is that with the holiday here, Matt and I have a game coming up during the New Year's vacation. This time it will be back to Napoleonics and BP; he has some ungrateful Brunswickers in desperate need of just chastisement from the Emperor.

And of course, Happy Holidays, everyone.

Wednesday, 18 July 2018

Lundella's Lane, 1814

Marching to the sound of indecision
Unusually, my friend Giovanni and I both had the day off last Friday.  That gave us a rare opportunity to get in a quick Napoleonics game. 

He was anxious to try out his newly-painted infantry and dragoons from the Kingdom of Italy, so in the absence of any painted Allied troops we decided it would have to be the French putting down a revolt of treacherous Italian turncoats, who are trying to suck up to the Allies now that things have started going pear-shaped for the Little Corporal in the aftermath of Leipzig.
North Italian Rabble
I really need to paint up a critical mass of Prussians and Russians.

Anyway, it was scenario #8 out of my now well-thumbed copy of Neil Thomas' One Hour Wargames, and is loosely based on the War of 1812 Battle of Lundy’s Lane, 1814.

Now I did say it was a quick game; unfortunately, we weren't able to reach a conclusion as Giovanni could only stay until mid-afternoon- he understandably had to be home when his daughter got back from school. 

So out of the 15 turns called for in the scenario, regrettably we could only get 7 turns in 3 1/2 hours.  Matt and I could probably have gotten in a dozen turns over that time- Giovanni is a wonderful friend and fantastic painter, but he hadn't played Black Powder for a while, and anyway he is never the fastest at planning and making moves. 

Perhaps we should encourage him to do an Austrian army.

Back to the scenario; we each had six units. His were all standard-sized units with one of them being an elite Grenadier battalion of Royal Guards.   One battalion was of light infantry, two were line, and the remaining two units were a battery of artillery and his newly-mustered dragoons.

On my part I had four, large line infantry battalions, a battery of artillery and, in a touching instance of hope over experience, cavalry support in the form of my ill-starred Red Dutch Lancers of the Guard. 
Italian Guard Grenadiers in assault column
Lundy's Lane was a confused meeting engagement, very hard fought, and the scenario reflects this.  

Giovanni starts the game with two units on a hill, I come on with three; he had two further units coming on in turn three and another two in turn seven, while I had another three units- two of infantry and my lancers- come on in turn four. All marching to the sound of the guns.
The French start with three marching to the right along the road.  The Italians have two units on the hill, in this case an artillery battery and a unit of Guard Grenadiers
Despite the difficulties of the attacker having to clear a hill without clear superiority of numbers, it balanced out.  Italian support comes in in drips and drabs, and Giovanni rates as an overly-cautious commander- without there being need for any artificial rule mechanisms. 
Italians defending the prize.  The French have to be in possession  of this hill by the end of the game.  We simply ran out of time.
Like a lot of the scenarios in OHWG, it was one that would really come down to the wire, so we really needed the full fifteen moves to reach a conclusion.
Stamping out rebellion...
And of course, the lead unit takes one shot from a skirmish stand, and of course it rolls a six; disorder.
Forcing me to support it with another unit in column, one I had earmarked for a different task.  The military calls this "friction".  I call it "fucked".
Italian reinforcements enter stage right, and form into line.
Soon followed by the other half of the French army, but they would be turning off to the left and marching parallel to the hill for the assault.
Flank march!
My Guard Lancers in the lead, knowing that they would be needed to skewer some haughty Italian dragoons.  Artillery indulges in a bit of counter-battery fire.
The Prussian colour is actually a disorder marker on the Italian artillery. Good, good...
Meanwhile the lines kept up an inconclusive firefight/

One Italian battalion marches towards my flanking force.  I like those odds.

At this point we had the first unit removed from the game, as I destroyed his light infantry battalion- victim of a (un)lucky chain of fate.  A bad roll on a crucial volley he needed to win, followed by a devastatingly good one in reply from my French.  With three hits over his break point, cue the necessary morale test, where he went on to roll a modified four on the table.

Arrividerci, baby...

"Welcome to my shop, let me cut your mop"
A very pleasing gap in the line, but no time left to exploit it.
Up to this point Giovanni's left flank had been fairly secure, but with one less unit in play it opened up possibilities.  I could now put pressure on his flank while launching a frontal assault on the hill. 
The last reinforcements enter the table, Italian infantry and dragoons.  Soon after this we had to call the game.
Newly-painted unit syndrome, and the first move of the Italian dragoons was a blunder.  Nothing dramatic, unfortunately, just a move in the direction he wanted to go anyway.  I had the same thing happen to my artillery- in neither case was any harm done.

I wasn't worried about his cavalry, but I would need to draw off his only remaining fresh infantry unit.
These guys would have to go first.  Can't leave them ensconced on the hilltop.
Artillery were having a great time banging away at each other; both were near breakpoint when time was called,
Unfortunately, as mentioned we ran out of time at the seven-turn mark; I was nowhere close to seizing my objective, which would be a tough position to take.

But with eight more turns still to go a lot could happen, and I was preparing to launch a concerted attack on the hill. So under the circumstances it was decided to call it an inconclusive draw.

Quite frustrating, actually.

We had decided to use the optional rule from p.96 of the Black Powder Clash of Empires supplement, that has units in line move a lot slower, due to having to maintain formation.  In our case as we were using reduced movement, this meant they would move at only 5", and would have to roll for forming square if attacked by cavalry- no automatic square.

I feel that not only does this better reflect the difficulties of moving in line, especially in the age of conscript armies, but it also encourages more use of attack columns. These benefit from being easier to command with their +1/ +2 to command ratings, which can make all the difference when you have a less-than-stellar staff rating.

The game was also a salutary lesson in the desirability of avoiding inconclusive, attritional firefights. We had what was essentially a fair fight between two infantry battalions on either side (I had large units with four firing dice each, but one didn't have a clear field of fire, so it ended up six dice (4+2) vs. six (3+3).

Fair fights are to be avoided at all costs.

They are never a good situations to be in as it leaves way too much up to chance. And once you are disordered- which is always likely as the opponent just has to roll a 6- then you are just have to continue firing away. Historical, but it won't help you win games if you can't deal with the enemy decisively and quickly.

Making that simple modification to the Line rule should make the whole thing more "Napoleonic" than has sometimes been the case in our previous games, and the lengthy yet unproductive firefight just hammered home the fact that not only are attack columns much more flexible and easier to control than units in line, but you want to keep maneuvering to try and have more units shooting at the enemy than he has shooting at you.

I did wonder about whether in such small games we should reduce the chance of disorder, or at least make it possible for a player to get out of it. Elite units have this ability, but I wonder if all units should have at least some chance, if for no other reason than to give a player some sense of being in control, even if that roll is failed.

Something to consider. With big, Perry-sized games and enough units on the table, this really isn't an issue; but in our games with half a dozen units a side it might speed things up a bit. I'm not yet totally convinced, and the jury is still out.

But all things considered it really was a great scenario, tough and challenging for attacker and defender alike.  I really want to give it another go, and to play it out to its full conclusion. 

And of course it was good to be playing Napoleonics once again after a long absence.

Next time I'll bring a stopwatch.
These colours don't run!