Combined arms in White Mountain

The last few play tests seem to have confirmed that the basic direction for White Mountain hex and block 30YW wargame are sound. The general behviour of the units in movement and combat broadly confrom to our expectations (let’s be honest: our far-removed from experience fantasy of what the results may have been).

Now it is time to think about how to represent the combined arms formations that were far more common than one might think.  These formations had one or more companies of infantry interspersed between one or more squadrons of cavalry. The intention was to produce a system which could inflict disruption on an enemy force, and then have sufficient speed and weight on hand to exploit immediately. Caracoling cavalry did not have the firepower of infantry, and infantry alone were not fast and heavy enough – did not have the shock effect – of cavalry.

At its simplest we want to see mixed blocks within the one hex – say two cavalry blocks and one infantry. But what does this mean for the stats? There has to be benefits and there have to be risks. Infantry mixed with cavalry will not have the firepower of solid infantry, nor will they have the protective strength of the pike. Cavalry in mixed units will not have the cohesion of very large formations.

These are questions to be answered, and playtests to be conducted.

Teddies of the Caribbean: Hunt for the Golden Honeypot

Teddies of the Caribbean: Hunt for the Golden Honeypot was the game I ran at Little Wars Melbourne 2009 for Eureka Miniatures.  It was more of a small scale game compared to  games in past year, but I was kinda pleased with it.  It was originally going to be proper pirate ships, but during playtesting it ended up as teddies playing toy pirates on rafts made of paddle-pop sticks.  This was largely a time/cost saving thing!  but it fitted nicely into the toy theme of the game. It attracted lots of kids, not surprising, but ended up a nice alternative for families with kids who were visiting. The games day version was simplified down from earlier playtest versions – but I’ve included the more tactical and interesting version in the download . You can find the rules to download  in the Miniatures Rules page.  You can also see some photos of the game taken on the day here.   Enjoy!  -   Greg

Banzai!

OK, that’s a loyalist cry, but what the heck!

I’ve jumped back into That Samurai Game development. I’ve got too many changes to report on all, but here’s a list:

Gambits now have their own cards. I’ve included one for your viewing pleasure. It’s actually a photo taken during a recent solo playtest. You’ll notice the three little mon at the bottom of the card. They link to time shifts in the game. Get 3 Oda timeshifts (in this case) and you are eligible to conduct this Gambit. You can also see a hint of an Action card next to it. These are much simpler now, with only an Order and a Strategem on them.

I’ve also simplified the resolution mechanics for orders. Now, for all orders bar those in combat, cards are played to beat a target number that is generally a fixed value with some modifiers for circumstances. Because this is all deterministic, you know when you play a move order how far your unit will move (unless someone disrupts you with a strategem they hold) or when you play a recover order how much cohesion you’ll regain. Combat is a little different. Fire combat (shooting things with arrows, guns or cannon) and melee use the opposed roll system I’ve spoken about before, with one significant change: players draw their combat ‘roll’ from the draw deck (a bit like in Combat Commander). This randomness flies in the face of what I was trying to achieve, but at this stage it seems the only way to manage combat without having fists full of cards. Still, it isn’t quite pure randomness, but you’ll have to see the next iteration of the rules to understand what I mean. I’m very happy with it.

The unit blocks themselves have also been simplified and the mechanisms for managing units in the game made more coherent. Each block has the unit type, unit quality and, in some instances, an indication of whether the unit is Aggressive or Timid. Leaders are separate blocks (small ones that sit nicely on the unit blocks) with their own quality value. You can use the leader’s quality rating as a substitute for the unit with which he’s stacked. The values are mostly hidden in the pictures here, but they were taken from a playtest where counters were recording outcomes. A stack represents the complete unit. A stack of two blocks has the quality of the block on top and a momentum of 2 (for the two blocks in the stack). Think of momentum as roughly the number of men times the velocity they can muster; momentum times quality is then the basic combat value of the unit.

Other elements that have been added or modified include:

1. Units must now be motivated to act. This reflects the degree of autonomy prevalent in the period. Clans acted semi-independently of one another, making coordinaion and command and control a challenge. The need to motivate units mimicks all those messengers flitting around the battlefield.

2. Units always have one of two dispositions: omote (open) or kage (shadow). Omote units are more willing to move and attack; Kage units are more patient, ready to defend and to recover. The disposition doesn’t prevent a unit from performing any order, but it leans the outcomes in a certain direction (and without lots of fiddly work being done by the players). Think of Takeda Katsuyori at Nagashino. He was aggressive, determined to take the initiative, to fight. Nobunaga waited patiently, relying on clever defence. This disposition rule allows the player to reflect the emphasis for his forces without hamstringing himself.

3. The game phases (opening, middle, end) are now linked into the amount of combat that has occurred. Every time an opposed roll is called for, a time shift may occur. Each action card has a little symbol on the bottom of it. If they match in the opposed roll, a timeshift occurs. The symbols are the mon for the Tokugawa, Hideyoshi, the Oda, the Takeda and the Imperial family. And they match the mon on the bottom of the Gambit cards. If, for example, three timeshifts occur because the Oda mon was paired three times in opposed rolls, any Gambit with 3 Oda symbols is eligible to use. The number of time shifts determines what phase the game is in, and each phase changes the nature of the Gambits that are available to play. So, towards the end of the game, you strategic manoeuvring to envelope the enemy comes into effect (think of Kawanakajima).

4. I’ve introduced the concept of Shock Melee. Actually, I have to thank Richard Berg for the idea. When two moving units come into contact, the first thing they do is undergo Shock Melee. No one takes hits, but the result of the impact can cause a loss of cohesion. If it’s big enough, the smaller unit can stumble and break.

5. Finally, and perhaps most obviously, I’ve gone back to a hex system. This means it’s a board game, but there is no reason why it can’t be played with miniatures. Personally, the blocks and the cards–wait till you see the cards–provide a beautiful aesthetic that more than makes up for a lack of miniatures. And, to be frank, I like the clarity of a board. No measuring, no arguing.

So, I hope that is enough to pique your interest. The new draft of the rules are being worked as I type, but they aren’t available yet. And my ambitions: a VASSAL module that you can play on. Now, to find someone who knows something about VASSAL. I’m trying to convince my partners (Andrew and Greg) to play test soon–I have the 4th battle of Kawanakajima ready to go, and my plan is for Uesugi Kenshin to scrub the floor with the Takeda. I’ll put a report up on that when it happens. Otherwise, Kampai!

Simon

Kurassiers, Arkebusiers, Trotters, and Gallopers

Line cavalry at the start of the Thirty Years War could be divided simply into the kurassiers – clothed in three quarter armour and armed with long wheel lock pistols, and arkebusiers – clothed in lighter armour and armed with a shortened matchlock, effectively a carbine. Both of these types used the caracole as their main tactical doctrine. The kurassiers were the heavies, and the arkebusiers were medium cavalry.

Depending on the views of the organising commander, kurassiers and arkebusiers  could be mixed together in the same regiment, or could be separated into distinct regiments. In mixed regiments the arkebusiers would have been brought to the fore because of their longer range, but would have migrated to the back of the formation when it came to contact, leaving this role to the heavy kurassiers.

In White Mountain, a mixed kurassier and arkebusier regiment uses stats as if it were a pure kurassier regiment. Pure arkebusier regiments have slightly different stats.

Mixed cavalry regiment 4 /1

Kurassier 4 /1

Arkebusier 3 /2

By the middle of the war, Gustavus Adolphus and others were experimenting with the direct cavalry charge, discarding the caracole. Gradually the caracole was phased out in favour of the shock tactics. Opinions differed as to whether the trot (either slow or fast) up to the target and then discharging pistols before contact, or a charge at the gallop and neglecting the pistol until contact was made was better.

The Imperials preferred the trot, the Swedes the gallop.

Both had advantages and disadvantages. The trot arguably compressed the caracole and the exploitation charge into one continuous committed movement. But the shock effect was lessened because of the controlled pace. The gallop had great morale shock effect and over time became the default tactic for cavalry in Europe for a good 200 years. However it also tended to shatter the attacking unit. Considerable time and effort was required to pull them back into any order for them to take any further part in the battle. But the aim was for the charge to be decisive.

Ironically this was rediscovering old tactics, not inventing new ones. The mounted charge was the main tactic of the medieval knights. The pike armed infantryman evolved to keep the long lance armed horsemen away. As firepower improved, increased emphasis was put into this arm and the number of pikemen in a regiment gradually decreased. The average length of the pike itself reduced as well. In this climate the cavalry began to reclaim the opportunity to charge home.

To represent trotters and gallopers in White Mountain use the following rules:

Trotters 5/0 (the 5 melee dice are for the first round of melee only. This represents the discharge of pistols at point blank range before contact).

Gallopers 4/0 (gallopers automatically inflict 1 disruption token on their target when they make contact, in addition to anything they inflict through roll for attack. However, gallopers automatically receive an additional disruption token when they attack due to the disorganising effects of their charge. Therefore gallopers receive 2 disruptions whenever they are the attacker).

White Mountain – Battle report – Beernsdorft 1622

This is a record of the play test of the current version of the White Mountain rules for block, hex and card games modeling the Thirty Years War. Simon played the Catholics and Imperials, and I played the Protestants.

This was scenario set in the Palatinate or German war phase. The Imperials and Catholics are still using the traditional Spanish tercio, and the German Protestants are using shallow battalions based on the Dutch model. Historically the Protestants got the worst of it in these encounters. This has raised questions in my mind as to why alternatives were sought to the tercio, but this is a digression.

We used the Bohemian Revolt army generator to get the starting forces and terrain layout (battle-of-beerndorft) to get the forces. Simon was superior in cavalry, but I had a distinct advantage in artillery – much good as it did me in the end. This gave the following terrain layout on a standard 13×10 hex board (this one from the Epic set of BattleLore).And here is a representation of the forces overlaid.

We tried to use all the rules available to us so far, and I think we only missed one late in the game when a regiment failed to retreat after losing combat. But I believe this is all that was missed. Virtually all of the tactics that were available to the unit types were used, including caracole, and so I think this was a fair test of the system.

The battle opened with Simon pushing his right wing straight up the Beernsdorft stream. Despite harassment from my artillery both the Martinez and Salazar kurassiers closed on the hill held by a detached shot regiment and ejected them. A strong counter attack regained the hill, supported by the Schmid kurassiers, but it was not enough. The arrival of the Imperial Schmitt tercio and the Hahn regiment of kurassiers sealed the fate of the protestant left. Battered and forced back the shot regiment collapsed and fled the field, closely followed by the Weber infantry regiment. Schmid’s kurassiers put up a stout defense, but even with the exhaustion and collapse of the imperial Salazar kurassiers Simon’s troops looked ready to roll up the protestant flank.

This action was a brutal seesaw affair with commanders lost on both sides and the gradual build up of disruption on the participating regiments. At times Simon was weighing the risks of continuing the assault and continuing to build up disruption or retreat to reform and lose this initiative. This was exactly the decision we were trying to model. In the end several (protestant – grinding teeth) regiments collapsed because they had too many disruption tokens (that is: they routed).

After realigning what was left on my protestant left flank I decided to shift the focus to the centre where I had artillery superiority. This caused some discomfort to the Imperial Soto and Mendez tercios, but only seemed to spur Simon into action. The Imperial army launched a general advance in the centre and covered the 700 metres in an alarmingly short period of time. My 24 great guns belched at the advancing papists but did little to deter them.

Conceiving a master stroke, I swept my Protestant right wing forward to envelop the exposed advancing tercios. Kaiser, Hoffman and Schwarz kurassiers caracoled against Mendez tercio, achieved the hoped for disruption and closed for the slaughter – only to be bounced at great cost. The tercios continued their inexorable march while the badly cut up Protestant horse retired.

Guns face up have been abandoned by their crews and are now silent and ready for capture.

And at that moment as I saw that virtually all my horse had gone and almost every cannon had been silenced. I conceded victory even though I still had several fresh infantry regiments. In real life I would be detailing a couple of regiments to stall the advancing Imperials and Catholics while I tried to save the rest of the Protestant army for another day.

Key test findings:

Accumulating Disruption modeling morale and cohesion. The goal was to simulate that armies of this time disintegrated from the back – that is: a regiment was more likely to be destroyed through the men fleeing rather than being slaughtered. A further goal was to simulate this without complex ‘morale’ rules requiring extra calculations and dice rolls. Finally, this mechanism was designed to allow you to manage the problem, effectively giving you choices. This seems to have been fulfilled. In attack, Simon had a choice whether to risk continuing in the push and possibly fall apart, or halt and reform and lose initiative.

Total game time was somewhere around an hour and a half. Simulated time was in the vicinity of 3 hours, allowing for a move representing roughly 20 minutes.

Overall, the basic rules capture the appropriate flavour. Another test with this base set of rules is needed, then I want to add in the extra unique flavour events such as exploding powder, misunderstood retreats, secret movement and so on.

White Mountain army generator

I have created an excel spreadsheet that randomly generates armies for the Bohemian phase of the Thirty Years war consistent with the forces described in the White Mountain rules.

Unfortunately, WordPress does not allow me to publish .xls files here. If you want a copy, drop me an email at Bozzie99@gmail.com and I’ll send it to you.

The spreadsheet allows you to set the proportion of each type of regiment that could be present in a typical Catholic/Imperial or Protestant army. It then generates a 20 regiments a side, divided into left, centre and right zones plus a reserve. This is about the right number of units to populate a typical 13 x 10 hex board.  It also tells you how many blocks are each regiment and, using the underlying calculations, then tells you the real manpower so you can get a feel for the actual battle scale. The spreadsheet gives force sizes typically between 10,000 and 20,000 men.

Simon and I recently tested this and other parts of the game. This write up will follow, along with cut images of the army generator output.

White Mountain – rules update – infantry vs cavalry

Q:   If an infantry regiment is within movement range of a cavalry regiment unit in its turn (say if the cavalry were caracoling on their turn), can the infantry unit charge the cavalry and engage?

A:   No, sort of. It is unrealistic for infantry to ‘charge’ cavalry as the cavalry can simply move faster than the infantry and avoid contact if they choose to.  So how do we reflect this in the rules?

If infantry use their movement to advance on the cavalry, the cavalry can automatically, out of turn, maintain their distance (the same hex separation) and move away. There are two other possible outcomes from this:

1) the cavalry can stay in place and engage in melee, but this is not the infantry charging the cavalry as we are assuming that the cavalry are countercharging in response

2) if the cavalry cannot move away because their path is blocked by other units then melee occurs. Again we are assuming that the cavalry are countercharging.

In all cases where melee occurs the infantry are considered the ‘attacker’ and roll dice first, but this is just a sequencing convenience.

The Thirty Years War project

The set of rules we are designing and refining for the Thirty Years War is inspired by the now virtually standard hex board popularised by games such as Batttlecry, Commands & Colors and Memoir 44. At first it was no more than an expansion or modification, but as time has gone on what we have can truly be said to be new, but using those same elements: hex board and card driven.

The rules and units have been designed to closely model what we hold as the ‘feel’ of the period. The scales chosen allow us to play at the same operational level as the commanders of the day. that is: a unit, or regiment, on the board models a specific regiment with each block (or group of miniatures if you like) representing a historically probable number of men. Command and staff structures were primitive at that time. The commander asked individual regiments to do individual tasks and it was up to their own genius about how they achieved coordination. This informs both the scale of the game board, the unit representation, and the cards employed to model those limitations.

This set of rules and supporting material is a labour of love. Our findings and tools are free. We make them because we want to play the very best game about the topic: fast playing and easy to understand that captures the feeling of early 17th century warfare.

Over time complete card, counter, rule and supporting material will be placed in the Miniature Rules page. In addition we will give information on various regiments and formations, have commentary on tactics and strategy, analyze historical battles and campaigns, provide specific orders of battle and set up instructions for refights of historical battles, and present randomisation tables that will create historically reasonable armies and battlefields for simple competition.

If this period interests you then please drop us a line with your comments. If it doesn’t then don’t despair: Simon will be back soon with updates on the new and exciting That Samurai Game, and Greg will be placing more information on skirmish games and rules as we lead up to Little Wars 2009.

Andrew

Thirty Years War in context

Historical events really only become clear later when historians look back and try to understand what caused all the fuss. As people live through the turmoil it is never quite so clear. As the saying goes, “If it makes sense, you clearly don’t understand it.”

From the perspective of 400 years we can divide the conflict known as the Thirty Years War into the following phases:

The Bohemian Revolt: 1618 – 1620.
The Palatinate phase. 1621 – 1624.
The Danish intervention. 1625 – 1629.
The Swedish intervention. 1630 – 1635.
The French intervention. 1636 – 1648.

Each of these phases has its own character with regard to the combant forces involved, the orginsation of the forces and therefore their fighting characteristics, and also the commanders involved.

Introduction to Kurassiers

The French called them Cuirassiers and this name continuied to be used into the 19th century. Oliver Cromwell’s Ironsides were Kurassiers. Most cavalry of the Thirty Years War period were Kurassiers.

These horsemen evolved from the earlier Gendarme, or true knight. They were still the priveleged arm because everyone was self-equipped. The horse and armour were very expensive still. These people continued to see themselves as the elite of the battlefield. However, their role as Queen of the battlefield had been eclipsed by the infantrymen armed with pike and musket. Gradually kurassiers had given up their lances and replaced them with a pair, or more, of long wheel lock pistols. They no longer anticipated charging directly into the infantry because bitter experience had taught that disciplined blocks could not be broken and the pike kept them at bay. Only when a block was shaken was there any hope of surviving the impact. But once inside, then the nobleman on horseback could do what he did best: slaughter.

The tactic evolved in Europe to break a block of infantry before contact was the caracole. In the caracole a regiment of kurassiers would advance toward their opponents and halt. The front rank would advance, sometimes as close as 50 metres, turn their horses to the left, extend their pistols to the right with the mechanism on the top (so turned on its side just as punk gangsters do in movies today) and let rip. Then they would retreat to the back of the formation to reload while the next rank had a shot. And this would go on for a while until either the target formation showed signs of weakening, or the kurassiers had had enough and would retire. If gaps in the ranks started to appear, or if the infantry blocks gave any signs that they were upset by the attention and started to shuffle away, the kurassiers would ideally launched straight into an attack. At this range such an attack could only be at a trot, if that. Often the horsemen would just retire, having satisfactorily shot up the infantry without following up with contact.

During the course of the war military theorists, and this is generally attributed to Gustavus Adolphus but it is unlikely that he had the idea by himself, came to criticise the caracole. It was felt that it was not decisive enough. And this may be true. But in the context of largely amateur armies and unsteady finances a commander’s primary concern was probably trying to preserve what forces they had rather than risking them in all-or-nothing gambles.

This change in perception saw a change in tactics. Instead of the caracole kurassiers were trained to reserve their fire until they were close to contact. A contact that occured at the trot, that had already been committed to beforehand. It required a new kind of bravery, and a lot of training. Chances are it appealed to the vanity of the men on the horses. After all, here they were charging again, just like the old days. As the war progressed this became the more popular tactic on all sides.

The English labelled kurassiers that used this tactic ‘trotters’.

Crimson Cutlass – Pirate Skirmish Rules

 Crimson Cutlass is a set of rules I’m currently working on for Eureka Miniatures, for the new 40mm pirates that Mike Broadbent has designed. As you no doubt remember, Mike did the superb 40mm Musketeers for Eureka.  The rules are inspired by “And One For All”, the Musketeer rules – I’m hoping they will be a “new improved version”. 

Even though I’m  designing them for Mike’s 40mm pirates, Crimson Cutlass will be aplicable to 28mm as well.  “And One For All” seemed to capture  people’s imaginations – I’m hoping Crimson Cutlass will do the same. 

And no, the rules  not related to  the 1989 roleplaying game of the same name    

Cheers Greg

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?