Russian Revolution game at Little Wars 2008

The game was played with the Toofatlardies’ rules ‘Triumph of the will’.  This allows units to enter the game on blinds and gives players a chance to scout out terrain and opponents before closing for combat.  Our two players took very different approaches to the use of these rules.  David of the White Russian army was keen to try and uncover the downed pilot (the objective for both players).  His small but elite force spread itself very thin in an effort to track down the missing airman. 

On the other side, Bolshevik David was content to adopt a ‘big push’ tactic and hold the ground in the middle of the table.  This tactic was compounded by a small group of partisans that he found loitering around the downed biplane.  These hapless militiamen were no match for the Red conscripts in a fire-fight but it was amusing to see their affect on the entire Bolshevik line.

As fate would have it, the straightforward approach of the Red army succeeded in securing the terrain where the pilot was holed up.  With the Whites spread across the entire table, Red sailors were able to secure their man and begin the foot race back to their deployment zone.  This looked futile as Cossack horsemen began to cut a swathe through the middle of the battlefield.  Red cavalry and infantry alike were mown down as the ex-Czarist cavalrymen closed in on their prey.  In the end however, the sheer numbers of Red conscripts counted against them and the unit was reduced to fewer and fewer men (a function of the game that reflects morale- as a unit loses models so it becomes more difficult for them to perform any useful actions.)

The last hope of the White leader was his elite ‘colour’ unit of ex-officers.  Following in the wake of the Cossack advance, these fanatical fighters got to within charge range of the retreating sailors.  In a game where units are activated randomly, it came down to the last turn of cards to determine who would get to act first.  With the colour unit preparing to wade into combat, it was the Red commissar whose card was first turned over.  He was able to activate the sailors and safely (and bravely) see them off the table.

The game flowed very well from start to end and the fast and simple rules proved easy to pick up for first time gamers.  It was great to be able to put on an exhibition game like this and many thanks must go to Ara, Nic and all the others involved in planning and running the day.  Thanks also to Paul Hewitt for all of his help with miniatures and helping to run the game.

That Samurai Game–Play Test Summary

Aim: To evaluate some of the essential mechanics of the game.

Situation: A RED force comprised of three contingents, with limited cavalry and ashigaru. A BLUE force, with three contingents, with a stronger cavalry emphasis but also with teppo armed ashigaru. The field was an 8 x 8 square grid, with a river cutting across approximately centrally and ahill to one side.

Events: As a test game, the main purpose here was not to simulate an historical event, but to provide a forum for testing some of the main game mechanisms. including but not limited to:

• the movement rules: Were the movement point values roughly right? Did the mechanism for dealing with obstacles and terrain make sense? was it easy to implement?
• the combat rules: Are the attack values currently used on the blocks reasonable? Did the CRT produce reasonable results? Was the general mechanic easy and smooth to implement? Did the break and cohesion mechanics work well? 
• the use of the action cards: Was it fairly straightforward to select action cards from the draw deck each turn? Was a draw deck size of approximately 50 points suitable? Were there enough of each card type available when building the draw deck? 
• the process of countering: Was it straightforward? Did it encourage weighing the benefits of countering versus the cost of sacrificing an order card?

Summary of Results: The BLUE force took an early advantage when the cavalry contingent on the right flank moved swiftly to engage a smaller and less well-trained RED force ashigaru contingent. The only hiccup was an ‘Unexpected Terrain’ stratagem played by RED to disrupt the cavalry movement. BLUE also began to advance the cavalry contingent on its left flank, but this was very quickly stalled when RED played one of his two Gambits, ‘Treacherous General’. Given the significance of this gambit, both sides played high value cards in the ensuing Counter, with RED wining and taking control of the treacherous BLUE contingent. This forced BLUE to commit his centre contingent to engaging the traitors and gave RED time to counter BLUE’s initial cavalry charge and to begin an advance of his own. Interestingly, the battle swung back towards BLUE because of tighter card management. RED, suffering from a bit of hand planning disarray, ended up with very few useful orders and cards of low value, and BLUE was able to support some of his units more effectively in melee. So, all in all, it ended with BLUE once more in the ascendency.                                                                                    

   

Evaluation:

• Movement worked quite well. No real changes necessary at this stage. Obstacles have the effect of disrupting units, which reflects disturbing their formation and coherence. It feels about right–only a small amount of damage–and is very easy to implement. 
• Combat was, in the main, fine, with a few exceptions. The range of attack values is probably too large. The numbers reflect quality, but a range of 1 to 10 is probably a bit of a stretch and it had the effect of making shifts for unit type on the CRT less significant. Quality should produce about the same magnitude as the most significant difference in units types, which means a range of 1 to 5 at the most. The CRT itself worked reasonably well, but units were reduced and broke very quickly, which indicates that the cohesion rating on the units are a little small. They could probably be doubled. Breaking was simple without being too simplistic. The effect of a breaking unit on other adjacent units wasn’t really tested, but this will need to be tweaked to reflect any change in the cohesion rating. Otherwise, combat was very straightforward, requiring reference to only three tables in total.
• The action cards need some cleaning up. They don’t reflect the evolution of the rules since they were produced, and they are too wordy. In addition, several of the stratagems don’t really work, including “A Leader’s Prayer”, which is too powerful and should probably just cause a shift on the CRT. Several stratagems are now gambits. Choosing cards at the end of each turn wasn’t hard at all once the game got into swing. However, selecting cards for both their orders and stratagems wasn’t as easy as just selecting for orders, and I found myself purely selecting orders and maybe one targetted stratagem. Consolidation of orders should be done. For example, HALT is unnecessary: It simply costs an action to remove a MOVE from a unit, signified by discarding one card held in the hand; ENGAGE and FIRE could be combined; If a unit is moved into an enemy unit’s square, the player moving the unit should probably be allowed to immediately halt the unit; I also haven’t really considered what happens when a contingent under a standing order has another order given to a unit within that contingent. One issue with the cards is what to do when a player reaches the end of his deck. Do both player’s reshuffle, or only one? Maybe it depends on the particular goal of a player.
• I really like countering. It is simple, it introduces a degree of uncertainty and guesswork, and it forces a player to make choices about whether or not to preserve his hand. More trials are needed, but at the moment countering seems like a very elegant way to introduce dynamics into a game that has no randomness.

The Alamo at Little Wars 2008

Greg Blake tells us about his beautifully presented game at Little Wars 2008 in Melbourne. Contact Greg at gregoryblake@bigpond.com if you would like more information on the figures, the terrain, or the rules. Or even more on the history, I expect. Thanks, Greg for putting on a great game.

The Alamo is one of the iconic and legendary to the last man last stand battles of history. In the actual event, a force of about 200-armed Texian defenders inside the Alamo resisted a siege by several thousand soldiers of the Mexican army under the command of General and President of Mexico Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna for thirteen days. Eventually tiring of the whole affair Santa Anna launched his men against the Alamo. In an overwhelming pre-dawn assault the Alamo was stormed. The Texians fought to the last wreaking a terrible toll on the attackers, but the Alamo fell and the garrison died to the last man. Thus was born an event that has long since become the stuff legend and myth.

What better battle to play as a game at Little Wars 2008. Players had a choice to either join the numberless and ever oncoming ranks of the Mexican army or be one of the Alamo’s defenders fighting side by side with such legendary figures as Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and William Travis. It did not seem to matter to those who played Texian that there was very little hope of them winning this contest - although it has been done twice in the Alamo games I have run. My line to those who considered playing Texian was that by so doing they could “die gloriously and become a legend”. This seemed to work as everyone who played Texian did just that with gusto.

The setting for the game is my 25mm Hudson and Allen scale model of the Alamo. More than 300 painted 25mm figures. All the figures are provided by Cannon Fodder miniatures, which is my company, and painted to an excellent standard by the members of the Western Suburbs Wargames Association. The game is set to last for two and half hours, but it is a rare event if it lasts this long. On turn one slightly more than 240 figures of the Mexican army are deployed just within Texian rifle range in their historic attack positions. The 60 Texian figures may placed anywhere within the walls of the Alamo. The Texians also have 14 artillery guns which are in fixed positions including one big 18pdr in the south west corner. Texian firepower is formidable having twice the range and three times the chance to hit when compared to the Mexicans. This is compensated for though by Mexican numbers as all Mexican losses are automatically replaced until the last half hour of the game. These losses, which mount quickly, can be brought on at any point on the table’s edge. How these replacements arrive, either as individuals or en masse is left to the Mexican players discretion. Ordinary D6 dice are used and lots of them are rolled. Each rifleman or musketeers rolls one dice and the artillery roll six dice, with the exception of the 18pdr, which rolls eight dice. Turns are alternate with the Mexicans moving first. Figures can either move or fire. Hand to hand combat is simple with the highest dice winning and it is during hand-to-hand that the Mexican numbers tell. Amongst the Mexican army there are twenty-four figures representing their elite Zapadores, these get firing and hand-to-hand bonuses; they however cannot be replaced once lost. On the Texian side there are four special figures, the legendary heroes of the Alamo. These are Davy Crockett who never misses when he shoots – just point and remove a figure and fights at +1 in hand to hand. There is Jim Bowie, who although in reality was on his death bed with typhoid during the battle, we allow to be up and fighting, Jim gets a +1 in hand to hand combat. Then there is William Travis the firebrand commander of the Alamo, Travis gets a +1 for shooting. Then there is a fictitious hero named Baddawg. Baddawg is a very big, ugly and armed to the teeth mountain man. He gets a +2 in all hand to hand combat. The balance of the game works out well with Mexican numbers compensating for Texian lethality.  

As in all wargames there were moments during the Little Wars Alamo games which stood out as moments to remember. One of the most notable involved Baddawg. Finding himself in the closing moments of the second game to be one of the last of the defenders alive Baddawg withdrew into the Chapel and held the door against repeated rushes by Mexican Soldados. No matter what was thrown against him Baddawg brushed it aside and continued to do so killing at least six Soldados in hand to hand combat. With the clock ticking and realising that they needed a quick solution to the problem posed by Baddawg the Mexican players pulled back from directly assaulting the Chapel’s doorway and fired volleys into it. The third of these killed old Baddawg and the Mexicans stormed over his body and into the Chapel.

Then there was Manuel, the sole survivor of the Mexcian assault on the south wall during the first game. Manuel had begun the day accompanied by about 90 other figures when he had set out to attack the south wall on turn one. Such was the storm of lead thrown out the Alamo defenders of that wall that by the time the assault got to the wall barely a dozen Soldados remained on their feet. Try as they might those few remaining brave Soldados could not effect an escalation of the south wall and eventually only Manuel was left. Realising his best option was to remain unnoticed Manuel spent a great deal of time very sensibly sheltering out of sight beneath the archway of the gate house where he remained until very close to the end of the game.

In contrast, during the first game the defenders of the north wall seemed to be immune to throwing any dice higher than a ‘3’. As they needed a 4, 5 or 6 to hit this resulted in far too many Mexicans arriving at the north wall very early in the game. Thus, given their numbers, the north wall was stormed by the Mexicans with relative ease and its defenders either retreated post haste or fell beneath the tidal wave of thrusting Soldados bayonets.

Then there was the story from the second game of the brave defenders of the Chapel, who along with Baddawg were the last four defenders of the Alamo. With the rest of the Alamo overrun and its defenders eliminated, these stalwarts manned two 6pdrs on the artillery ramp inside the chapel. This was while Baddawg held the Chapel door. Blasting at point blank range these heroes cut down swathes of Soldados attempting to clamber over roof tops to get at them. We gave up counting how many roof top climbing Soldados fell to those guns, at least 40 figures, probably more. Eventually though with Baddawg fallen Mexican musketry began to play on the gunners until there was only one left, the sole surviving defender of the Alamo. Firing one last blast from his gun this hero also fell and the game was over.

The Alamo game is all about playing a wargame on a great looking table, shifting about vast numbers of nicely painted and good-looking figures, rolling lots of dice while all the time indulging in boisterous spirited banter. It is also about reliving a legend, and challenging the impossible. For the Texian player it is about trying to snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat and by so doing earn legendary status, and if failing to do so at least taking as many of the attackers with you as you can. For the Mexican it is about destroying the garrison as quickly as possible, which at first glance appears to be an easy thing to do but which one realises very quickly is not so.

I enjoy running the Alamo as a game and everyone who plays in it has a great time. If you see my game at future wargames shows and open days come on over, pick up a fist full of dice and join in!

Little Wars 2008

Photos from this prestigious inaugral event can be found on this page: http://anubisstudios.wordpress.com/little-wars-2008/

I will add some more detail to threse photos as time goes on to give the background to the games. For now, just enjoy the images.

A Gambit and a Stratagem

A taste of a Gambit (Treacherous General) and a Stratagem (The Standard Has Fallen) from That Samurai Game (I really should think of a better name). And soon to come, a play test report…

Treacherous General

Phase: Opening

Reveal this stratagem to turn any one leader and his contingent to your side. This can only be played if the contingent has not yet been engaged and has not yet engaged any other unit in melee or ranged combat. You immediately take control of the leader and his contingent, but must immediately reduce the lowest value unit stack within this contingent. This may mean that a unit stack is removed. Any unit blocks removed as a result of this reduction are given back to their original owner. Any unit blocks subsequently removed from this treacherous contingent can’t be used for reinforcements for either side.

The Standard Has Fallen

The standard of one of the opponent’s leaders is captured.

If an opponent’s unit suffers a loss in melee, you may play this stratagem to capture the opponent’s standard. While holding the opponent’s standard, you gain a bonus to morale and attack value equal to the value of the standard.

This event may be countered. A countering card is treated as 1/2 value unless it is a The Standard Has Fallen stratagem, in which case it is treated as having the stratagem’s value. A successful counter makes the unit who lost the standard fanatical until they recover it. Mark with a fanatic counter.

Phasing in That Samurai Game

This is a tricky area of the rules that I’ve been struggling with for a week or so now. To introduce the problem, it is necessary to understand an element of the rules I haven’t much elaborated on: Gambits.

Gambits are strategic or operational actions that impact on the tactical battle, but that aren’t appropriate for ‘playing out’ on board. They are actions that, by their nature, span multiple turns and that are better off not represented tactically. A typical gambit is ‘Treacherous General’–we all know about Sekigahara, don’t we? Such an event is a product of strategic actions, secret communiques, bribes or even hostages. The tactical conditions on the battlefield merely enable such treachery, they don’t produce it. Gambits are played in the game by selecting a small number of gambits, placing them face down, and then revealing them at the appropriate time in the battle. Gambits are not guaranteed to be successful, and the likelihood of their success is a function of conditions in the game.

So, back to my problem. Gambits are big things with big impacts, so they are infrequent. In addition, they are tied to the life-cycle of the battle. Some gambits can only really happy early on, others later on, and still others at any time. I want to represent this life-cycle in the game and capture the relationship between life-cycle and gambits. I’m proposing to do this by having an opening, middle and closing phase in each game. The trick is how to do this mechanically.

In discussion with Andrew this morning, a few ideas/concepts were clarified, and I thought I’d put them up for comment:

1. There must be tangible benefits to a player of remaining in the current phase or moving onto the next phase. 
2. It must be possible to prevent transition into the next phase, but once there it can not be possible to go back (this will likely use the ‘countering’ mechanic already in the game).
3. Victory objectives must somehow relate to the concept of phases and behaviour should be shaped by victory considerations vis a vis point 2 above (for example, if one player has a secret objective of delay, then maintaining a long opening phase, in which skirmish and non-decisive engagements are more common and withdrawal from melee is easier, is an advantage and will increase his chance of victory).
4. There needs to be enough potential gambits in each phase to maintain unpredictability, regardless of what phase the game is in.
5. Not all gambits should be executable in all phases.
6. The three phases should vary in length from game to game and this length must not be prescribed.
7. Different actions will be easier/harder in different phases (for example, it is easier to withdraw from melee in the opening phase, when both sides are jockeying for position rather than trying to force resolution AND it is harder to resist a rout when in the end game phase).

Anyway, these are some thoughts. Any feedback would be most welcome.

 

A basic primer (part 2)

A few more of the historical units that will be represented in the game.

Ikko-ikki

The iiko-ikki was an order of fanatical Buddhist monks associated with the jodo shinshu sect of Buddhism. The ikko-ikki sect was based on Hongan-ji, and ceased to be a major political force by the late-1500s (following the massacre at Mount Hiei). While not formally trained, the ikko-ikki demonstrated considerable military nous, including developing the use of volley fire with the teppo, a tactic that Oda Nobunaga first observed when he assaulted Ishiyama Hongan-ji. Nobunaga employed a similar volley-fire method at Nagashino (1575)… and the rest is history.

Flag bearers and standards

Flag bearers were an important element of every Japanese army, and were attended by their own bodyguard. The flag or standard (uma jirushi, lit. ‘horse standard’) represented the psychological epicentre of a clan’s forces in the field. It was often as not a three-dimensional object and not just a flag. To lose this standard was to suffer humiliation, and it was typical that such an event would either undermine or galavanise the men whose clan it symbolized.

So-taisho

The supreme general, the so-taisho commanded the combined forces of a particular faction or side in the field. He was served and protected by a contingent of his own and issued orders from his honjin using both messengers (tsukai-ban) and signals, such as drums (played by drummers—the taiko yaku).

Busho

Contingents on the battlefield were led by the busho, the samurai lords. Busho were skilled in the theory and practice of war, and they came from the amongst the family, retainers and allies of the so-taisho. They brought their own forces, both foot and mounted, to fight for their lord, but retained command of these forces within the broader command structure of the armies they had joined with. In many cases, busho fought for the promise of reward and not simply from a sense of duty.

Heroes

Not really an historical unit, but nevertheless…Heroes represent key individuals on the battlefield who rise to the occasion, distinguishing themselves through deeds of honour and courage. In Japanese mythology, the heroic failure is as noble as the heroic success (some might say more worthy), and so many heroes exemplify the notion of personal self-sacrifice in the pursuit of duty and obligation. Heroes emerge at key points in battles, and so are not represented by specific counters, but instead by events born out through the action cards.

A basic primer for medieval Japan

By the sengoku jidai, Japanese armies exemplified the well-trained, well drilled medieval fighting force—remember, this was a country in which the martial discipline had prevailed and been exercised for four hundred years. Forces were constructed of missile and melee units, often used in combination as combined arms, with well-organised and drilled formations and extensive use and exploitation of volley fire with teppo (muskets introduced by Portuguese traders in 1543 and further developed and refined by the Japanese). As such, the units in the game represent complex collections of very capable cavalry and infantry.

Japanese cavalry were a true combined arms force: foot infantry directly supported mounted warriors in melee engagements, running alongside them as they charged into combat. Combined arms was also seen between various foot soldiers, so that teppo were often supported by ranks of pike wielding infantry, as made famous at the barricades of Nagashino.  Of course, not all forces on the battlefield were formally trained as professional or even semi-professional soldiers. The warrior monks were an amateur, but highly potent, military force, and their eradication became an obsession of the Oda Nobunaga, culminating in the devastation of Mount Hiei and its great fortress-monastery.

With all this in mind, each unit in the That Samurai Game brings distinct qualities and functions to a conflict. These units are described in some detail in the rules, both in their historical and game contexts, but keep in mind that the taxonomy offered reflects a representation of medieval Japan and its forces, not the final or only interpretation. 

I have included some more detail on two key units in That Samurai Game here:

Samurai Cavalry (light and heavy)

These units consist of heavily armed samurai cavalry supported by foot soldiers [Note: because of the combined arms nature of these units, their charge distance is limited]. Up until the mid-1500s, these cavalry units relied primarily on the yumi to engage enemy units, and as such they tended to skirmish with opposing forces rather than engage them in melee. Later, their main weapon of choice shifted to the long-spear, which was used much like a lance for thrusting and slashing, although their attendants could furnish them with bows as needed. Samurai cavalry are therefore divided into light and heavy cavalry, with the division reflecting a general transition in their use from bow wielding warriors to warriors armed with spears and intended to engage in melee with foot soldiers.

Ashigaru

‘Light feet’ were initially effectively disorganised conscripted infantry with little skill or organisation, but by the mid-1500s they had developed into a disciplined and well-trained fighting force. Ashigaru were typically armed with spears (the pike-like, 15 foot long nagaeyari), but were also equipped with teppo and yumi. Yumi ashigaru (common from the 14^th century onwards) required considerable effort to train, but could lay down accurate fire with their bows. They were frequently used as skirmishers. Teppo ashigaru (present after the introduction of the arquebus in 1543) were considerably easier to train, and the teppo had a longer effective range than the bow, although its fire rate remained relatively low until the introduction of the cartridge in the late 1500s. Teppo ashigaru came to replace yumi ashigaru over the course of the 16^th century, but they were seen operating together in formations of missile troops through to 1550s.

It is important to note that ashigaru formations were not the tight, ordered ranks exemplified by the Swiss ‘press of pike’. Instead, they were looser structures that would adopt a Defensive hedge against cavalry but break up to conduct vigorous pursuit.  This was ideally suited to the rugged, broken terrain typical in Japan.

Suitors

A Euro-style game played on a Chess-board-like field, in which 2-4 players (princes) vie for the affections of a princess by playing tiles that direct her movement towards their pieces. Each tile on the 9×9 board consists of a suit (hearts, diamonds, clubs and spades) and a number (0-9) OR a face piece (jester, jack, queen or king). The face pieces have very specific effects on the movement of the four princes. No dice or cards are used, but tiles are drawn randomly and used to replace tiles that already exist on the board. For more information, scan the Suitors draft rules.

This is meant to be a simple game that recalls the ballroom of a renaissance court, but is fundamentally a landscape evolution game (that is, a game where players manipulate the terrain or landscape to win). Is this a new type of game?

That Samurai Wargame

I’m currently in the throws of putting together the final draft for ‘That Samurai Wargame’, a working title (obviously). This is the (draft) introduction to the rules, outlining the concepts and motivations behind the design. The draft rules can be accessed as an attachment.

“This game is driven by a single vision and two underlying concepts of war.

The vision that drives this game is that there is no chance. All processes in the game are deterministic. No random dice rolls or random card draws occur. The closest the game gets to any stochastic mechanism is in the construction of units, which (as you will see) is done by selecting from a set of face down (and therefore hidden) blocks. Only a general indication of the value of a block is known during this process. In this sense, this game has almost no element of luck.

The two underlying concepts that have driven design are uncertainty and command decision. Uncertainty generates the sense of events happening outside one’s control. Uncertainty in the game replaces random die rolls and card draws. You don’t feel in complete control because you don’t know everything there is to know, even though everything there is to know (such as the composition of your units) is predetermined before the game begins. Command decision drives the actions that occur during the game. These actions determine the trajectory of events and outcomes, and therefore the game result. Again, the fact that your opponent will do things that you can’t predict or didn’t expect gives the game the sense of some sort of unpredictability, but this unpredictability isn’t stochastic in nature. This deterministic quality may seem a little strange: combat is resolved solely by the forces committed to it and not by any die roll or card draw; morale failure is likewise purely a function of the amount of damage and shock a unit experiences; even the cards in your hand are chosen by you, the player, to support your specific strategy. There are no surprises about what you hold for each turn, but you are forced to make judicious use of your hand and to select hands that allow you to enact your strategy while mitigating your opponent’s.

The setting of this game—medieval Japan, the sengoku jidai—is a favourite of mine, but it is merely the context for the broader concepts of uncertainty and command decision and the principle of ‘no chance’ articulated earlier. Nevertheless, the game is designed to reflect the qualities of warfare in medieval Japan, and you’ll find plenty of flavour to go along with the underlying mechanics. So, play and enjoy. And know that, if you win, you win not by the hands of fickle fate, but by out-thinking your opponent.” 

Terrible Passage rules breakdown

This is how I roughly envisage the rules thus far:

1 page:  general intro

2-3 pages  background to the period

2- 5 pages  core concepts and mechanics of CoT (not sure how much will go into this..)

5 pages - one page for each troop type,  half of which is historical background as to what it did, and the other half is how they work in CoT..

 so thats 10-14 pages that covers the main rules n stuff….

then there’s:  optional rules(if any) , rules for individual scale, scenarios, glossary, tidbits.. shall we say 10-15 pages, depending on how many scenarios , and how detailed..

so at this stage, the rules will be a minimum 20 pages, max 30 ish….

 

Terrible Passage progress

Recently, Greg and I threw around design ideas for the rules for the French Revolutionary period being contemplated by Eureka.

We settled the scale, or at least the scale principals, and agreed on the specific actions that the rules were to model.

In brief:

Scale: figure scale to model company tactics, but sliding to allow lower level light infantry tactics as well. The manoeuvre element is the 8 to 12 model Company. Figures are single based, moving in clumps. Formations such as line, column and square are not relevant as these occur at higher levels of organisation where several companies cooperate. Crudely we may say that the man to model scale is 1:20, but this might best be seen as the top point of a bell curve depending on the specific instance.

The specific actions we wish to model would be house to house fighting, bridge assaults (Napoleon at Lodi, for example), light company encounters before the main battle line, task force incursions, and so on. We really have to make it clear that these rules are not for modelling Valmy. There are other rules already available for that.

Movement is measured and conventional (curses! No grids!). A single model house represents a single real house.

The core mechanic is based on the Cast of Thousands (CoT) system, already employed for many of Anubis/Eureka offerings. This might appear to be a lazy cop-out, but Greg and I did discuss many mechanisms with the aim of finding the one that correctly modelled what we wanted to do.

Finally, the new working title for these rules is ‘Terrible Passage’, echoing Napoleon’s observations of his bridge encounter.

Next steps: 1) Greg and I need to get a closer understanding of the regional/cultural differences in the protagonists of the period in order to build the factors that will differentiate the sides in the game. 2) We need to do some more reading on the minor tactics of the day and double check that our core mechanism can be extended to cover them without making the rules a joke. 3) As figures become available we must have a sufficient and growing quantity painted up to rigorously test the system. In the meantime Greg and I have figures we can push around. But we want to get the real thing, with camera in hand, so that we can simulataneously capture scenarios for illustrative purposes in the rules.

It’s looking good.

Combatants in the French Revolutionary Wars

Revolutionary France		Opponents
French Republic		Austria
United Irishmen		Prussia
Polish Legions		Great Britain
Denmark - Norway		Russia
French client republics of Italy	Republic of Boulon (1794 - 1795)	French Royalist
	Republic of Alba (1796 - 1801), annexed to the French Empire	Spain
	Ligurian Republic (1796 - 1805), annexed to the French Empire	Portugal
	Bolognese Republic (1796), annexed to the Cispadane Republic	Sardinia
	Cispadane Republic (1796 - 1797), formed the Cisalpine Republic	Naples and Sicily
	Transpadane Republic (1797), formed the Cisalpine Republic	Ottoman Empire
	Republic of Bergamo (1797), formed the Cisalpine Republic	Dutch Republic
	Republic of Bergamo (1797), formed the Cisalpine Republic
	Cisalpine Republic (1797 - 1802) transformed into the Italian Republic
	Republic of Brescia (1797)
	Republic of Crema (1797)
	Republic of Ancona (1797 - 1798), joined Roman Republic
	Roman Republic (1798 - 1800)
	Tiberina Republic (1798 - 1799) capital Perugia, joined Roman Republic
	Lémanique Republic (1798), today Vaud canton
	Etruscan Republic (1799)
	Republic of Pescara (1799)
	Parthenopaean Republic (1799) capital Naples
Republic of Rauracia (Raurakische Republik/Republique Rauracienne), revolutionary French republic in Basel (1792 - 1793)
Republic of Mainz revolutionary French republic in Rheinhessen and Pfalz (1793)
Batavian Republic (1795 - 1806), Netherlands
Cisrhenian Republic (1797), Germany
Republic of Connaught (1798), accompanying Humbert’s Irish expedition
Helvetic Republic (1798 - 1803), Switzerland

Here is a list of the nations, factions and republics (newly created) that took part in the French Revolutionary wars. The lists just go to Wikipedia at this stage.

A potted history of the French Revolutionary Wars

1792 France declares war on Austria. Austria allies with Prussia, Hess, Piedmont and French émigrés. Combined allied army invades France. Battle of Valmy results in French victory. France conquers Savoy and Nice. French raid into Germany captures Maintz and reaches Frankfort.

1793  Formation of the ‘First Coalition’ against France. France declares war of Great Britain and the Netherlands. France invades Netherlands. Austrians win in Belgium in battles at Aix-la-Chapelle and Liege. Rebellion in Lyon and Marseilles. The Vendée uprising. Spanish armies invade France, as do Sardinian and Austrian. Counter revolutionary forces hand over the port of Toulon to the British. British defeated at Hondschoote.

1794 Action against the Spanish. Action against the Austrians in Belgium. French armies drive Austrians, British and Dutch beyond the Rhine. Prussian counter attack is largely ineffective.

1795 France occupies the Netherlands, which joins the revolution and becomes the Batavian Republic. Prussia leaves the First Coalition. French continue into Spain, who make peace. British landing at Quiberon to support counter revolutionaries fails.

1796 Only Great Britain and Austria remain as part of the First Coalition. Napoleon takes over command of the army of Italy, where he achieves a number of stunning victories. French cross the Rhine for a number of encounters with Austrian forces.

1797 Napoleon continues his success in Italy. Austria attempts to assist in Italy but are defeated. French pushes across the Rhine cause Austria to sue for peace. Only Britain remains opposed to the French Republic. First Coalition ends.

1798 French invade Egypt as a way to disrupt British Mediterranean trade, led by Napoleon. French invade Switzerland and establish the Helvetic Republic. France tries to invade Ireland but fail. France occupies Rome and establishing Roman Republic. Revolt in Belgium against French rule. At the end of the year the Second Coalition is formed of Austria, Great Britain, Russia, French Royalists, Portugal, Naples and Sicily, and the Ottoman Empire.

1799 Napoleon abandons army in Egypt to prop up rule at home. British and Russians invade Batavian Republic, resulting in failure. Much fighting in Italy. By the end of the year French troops had almost been totally driven out. More fighting around the Rhine against Austria, who were successful in expelling the French back across the Rhine. Battles in Switzerland against Austria. Russia leaves Second Coalition.

1800 Austrian attacks in Italy. Napoleon takes command and leads a strategic outflanking action. Austrians leave Italy. Another Rhine crossing into Germany. Austrians again defeated, leading them to sue for peace. Battles in Egypt.

1801 Exhausted French in Egypt surrender. Second Coalition collapses without Austria. Most action is at sea against the British.

Treaty of Amiens in 1802 ends war between Great Britain and France. Some semblance of peace at the macro scale exists until 1804, when Prime Minister Pitt of Great Britain forges the Third Coalition and, with napoleon now Emperor, the Revolutionary Wars are over and the Napoleonic Wars begin.

Science fantasy weapons of the 20’s and 30’s

The following is a list of imaginative weapons described in science fiction writing during or before the period of our Jurassic Reich game. These weapons must be accounted for in our rules, and modelled to follow the available descriptions.

For example, the word Laser was not coined until the 60’s. What we had in the 30’s was a ‘raygun’, and the rays had lots of different effects. Similarly, the word ‘gauss’ is a very modern one to describe projecting a bullet through electromagnetic force instead of explosive combustion. At the time it would have been called an Electric Gun - though not to be confused with the Electric Rifle, an entirely different beast designed by the heroic character of the age, Tom Swift.

This list is the starting point of our investigations into this period of technological fantasy.

Name	Author (Publication Date)
Annihilator Beam	L.F. Stone (1931 )
Atomic Bomb - very early reference	Robert Cromie (1895 )
Biological Warfare - first use of the concept in fiction	H.G. Wells (1898 )
Blast Rifle	Frank Belknap Long, Jr. (1937 )
Blaster - a deadly energy weapon.	Nictzin Dyalhis (1925 )
Concentrated Light - predicts the laser	Nat Schachner (1937 )
De-atomizing Ray - a disintegration beam	Edmund Hamilton (1928 )
Demagnitizing Ray	George Griffith (1911 )
Disintegrator	Garrett P. Serviss (1898 )
Disruptor Tube - pale beam of destruction	Nat Schachner (w. AL Zagat) (1931 )
Electric Machine Gun (Railgun) - electromagnetic acceleration	John W. Campbell (1933 )
Electric Rifle - Tom Swift’s weapon of choice	Victor Appleton (1911 )
Electrify the Rail - repel boarders!	Jules Verne (1875 )
Heat Ray - concept of the laser	H.G. Wells (1898 )
Invisibility - now you see it -	H.G. Wells (1897 )
Joystick Controls w/Remote Display	H.G. Wells (1903 )
Leyden Ball - grandfather of the taser	Jules Verne (1875 )
Needle Pipe - needle gun	Ray Cummings (1928 )
Pain-Producer	Edmund Hamilton (1928 )
Paralyzing Ray - early use	Ray Cummings (1931 )
Pencil Heat Ray - narrow beam	Ray Cummings (1931 )
Pentavalent Nitrogen - most powerful chemical explosive.	E.E. ‘Doc’ Smith (1931 )
Proton Pistol (Proton Beam) - beams of fury	Raymond Z. Gallun (1937 )
Ray Gun	John W. Campbell (1930 )
Rocket Gun	Philip Frances Nowlan (1928 )
Standish - a mean beam of energy	E.E. ‘Doc’ Smith (1934 )
War-Balloon (Navigable Aerostat)	George Griffith (1893 )
Zero-Ray	Clark Ashton Smith (1931 )

JR - broad proposals on Monday

Here are some more proposals for Jurassic Reich. Please confirm or refute them point by point.

1) Space travel to the planets by rocket is commonplace and has been steadily improving since the days of Verne.

2) People can freely expect to travel to the planets of the solar system and do so with the same ease and frequency as they historically travelled on ocean liners.

3) Travel times between the planets is comparable to oceanic travel. So we are talking hours to the Moon, a few days to the closest planets, and a few weeks to the outer planets. Must check for time-dilation effects here: Einstein had published by this time.

4) Only the planets known in the 1930’s exist in the game (Pluto was discovered in 1930 - this would make it a mystery world). All planets are habitable.

5) Space is filled with air, because that is what everyone at the time believed. So it is possible to ’step out on deck’ when on a space voyage. This is problematic with regard to implied speeds because of Aerodynamics and friction effects (both of which were well understood at the time. The speed of sound was known and believed to be unbreakable. ) . This clause alone may give us a lot of trouble.

6) The Great War (1914 - 1918 ) occured for much the same reasons, and had much the same result, except that the conflict spread through the planetary colonies as well. As a result of the crushing economic effects of this war, the Great Depression has still occured, and the revolutions in Germany and Russia have still occured, all with the same effects as those of genuine history.

7) Stargates, or Himmeltors, have only very recently been discovered, offering instant travel between locations on Earth and the planets. This is a strategic enabler, shortcutting travel times and threatening to upset the balance of power. Nazi Germany, particularly, is quick to recognise the ability to lauch surprise attacks.

8.) With the recognition that ancient or mysterious artefacts are real and can directly impact the political life of mankind, the race is on to secure these artefacts, or at least to prevent them from falling into the hands of one’s ideological enemies.

9) The world of Jurassic Reich looks very much like the world that the people of the thirties dreamed of. This setting is their fantasy come true.

JR - to get the ball rolling

I propose that the core themes of this setting are to be found in the art and stories of or directly inspired by the 1920’s and 1930’s.