Sunday 3 November 2024

Pavia inspiration and a trip to Fiasco

Last weekend saw a trip to the Fiasco wargames show and the Royal Armouries in Leeds.

Fiasco was disappointing; the games were mostly small with a lot of fantasy and sci-fi, the venue itself (across from the Armouries) a bit gloomy. Trade stands were OK and I came away with some paints and brushes. I noted a couple of tables where games had failed tom turn up (never a good look) but on the whole it had more of the feel of a club night.

While I have complained about large demonstration games, this was the opposite, small niche games or 5mm /15mm often on plain cloth. The biggest was a Battletech game with very nice scenery.

I think somewhere in between club type games and elaborate demonstration games is the answer with some of the others mixed in. At least a lot appeared to be participation.

The only temptation was Anschluss' 1:144 armour, but I resisted.

Naval landing skirmish





Cthulu Mountains of Madness




VBCW

Castles in the Sky Agean sky battle


What a Cowboy


Cold War turns Hot


Battletech Big Red Button



The Armouries was busy, and a bit dark for photos. A lot of reflected light.

Pavia














Sunday 20 October 2024

Solo wargaming - some thoughts

A departure for me as normally my posts are concerned with what I've done, though occasionally I may explain a little of how and why I've got to where I am. This post will try to concentrate on a specific topic - solo wargaming.

A couple of things have prompted this; my chat with David of the Ragged Soldier blog (https://russetcoatcpt.blogspot.com/) and a discussion on the Polemarch blog (https://ancientrules.blogspot.com/) about his recently published book:

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/David-Heading/a/5916

I'm not going to review the book or comment directly on it, as I think that's proper to his blog. Instead, I want to put down my thoughts on solo wargaming.

The above book is another in a list of titles looking at solo wargaming, from Donald Featherstone, Stuart Asquith and others. There is a society dedicated to this aspect (https://lonewarriorswa.com/). Most of these cover the topic in more detail than can be expected in a blog post, so I will concentrate on my thoughts.

During my chat with David, we touched on solo wargaming; David does a lot. I'm not currently gaming due to absence of anywhere to do it! The dining table is out of commission, the garage full of clutter and the best I'd manage is a card table for something like DBA. 

I briefly mentioned "mechanisms" and also explained that once I'd finished painting my SK armies, I wanted to start the campaign solo to get things ironed out before potentially inviting real people to participate .

I don't want to get involved in the "why" or debates on whether a real live opponent is preferable- most of this is personal choice - and wrapped up in issues around not what game you play but who you play it with. I'd argue under the right circumstances both can be equally pleasurable or conversely, disappointing.

Instead, it's the "how" you go about it I want to look at.

The most obvious drawback is that you control both armies, know what troops are available and can see both sides of the table. The first thing to decide is how much of the unknown you wish to introduce. It is perfectly possible to simply play both sides, planning deployment and plan of attack or defence; the problem is of course it's difficult to both be impartial and unbiased as well as able to forget what you have planned for the other side. It's also unlikely you will be surprised at any stage, something a real opponent will provide when they do the unexpected. Hidden units provide a real challenge.

Many gamers simply play both sides as fairly as they can; some rulesets lend themselves to this through the inbuilt friction. Commands and Colors for example relies on cards for movement and actions; you can either play as they are drawn or attempt to use the cards in the best way for both sides. Other types of rules introduce friction via phased movement or disruption such as BP's "blunder" rule. Some people hate such rules, others love them.

The alternative, is to either completely randomise both sides plans and deployment or to rely on some form of pre-programming, such as CS Grant's Programmed scenarios. Or, refight a historical battle drawing each side's deployment from the historical and then deciding whether either or both sides follow the historical aims and plan.

Whichever approach you take there are certain aspects you will need to consider and possibly devise mechanisms for. My view is they sit under the following headings:

Deployment

Touched on above; do you randomise or deploy sensibly? Cavalry facing a marsh is going to be a problem - do you then allow some reorganisation? Or have standard deployments decided by a dice. Do you have characteristics for you generals? Would an incompetent general deploy cavalry behind a marsh - stranger things have happened in history. How do you handle hidden troops or the problems of the 2000 foot general? The latter of course is not confined to solo gaming - the issue is reacting to things you would know nothing about - is it simply a question of honesty? Perhaps easier when playing solo.

Movement

Not just how far you move, but when or if at all. Most rules are either predictable or have a degree of randomisation. At one end of that spectrum, you know each move how far that unit can move and if you choose to move it, it will unless there are other factors such ad command radii and or morale. The other extreme is where what acts (and when or if) is determined by cards or dice, the ultimate being also the actual distance moved being also randomised. Many critics point out that you are simply reacting to circumstances from move to move, rather than following a plan and that skill is replaced by luck. For the solo player, it does allow some detachment, assuming you play each side equally. The less randomisation, the more cerebral the game, but that predictability will make for few surprises.

Command decisions

The most difficult issue in many ways. Unless as above, you as the player are simply reacting to events, it is very difficult if not impossible to split yourself in two and act fairly for both sides. Unconscious or conscious bias will play a part. Do you characterise your generals? How far do you go and how far down the chain of command do you go? Again the question revolves around how much randomisation are you introducing? Is the aim to remove control from your hands entirely and place it under that of the general's character? Is it "rash", "bold" and "cautious" or to the level of " timid, dithering dypsomaniac"? Some of this can be taken out of your hands by cards which determine which wing or unit can act, as above. Or do you attempt to put yourself in the persona of th general and role play to some extent? Or simply throw dice for different choices options? - 1 or 2 withdraw, 3+ counterattack?

End point

Unless you have rules that determine the end of a game (objectives, victory tokens) or a scenario that gives a result, then the decision on whether to continue playing come down to the player themselves. Some players become so demoralised or dislike the rules, they will quit even when there's a chance to win. Others will fight to the last man, unless prevented from doing so by victory conditions or similar. It's more difficult for the solo player as he is the general for both sides; it's simply not possible to psychologically influence yourself! Campaigns are interesting in that they add a different dimension to when to end a battle. Do you save the army or fight bitterly for that city? What losses can you sustain?

So where do I sit within all this? Well my Soldier King armies have generals with random characteristics down to brigade / column level. I've tried to translate the major characteristics into a set of values from 2 to 8 which give some sort of score against which to role. I have not cracked random deployment or how to have each side deploy independently as well as take account of terrain, let alone hidden units and deployment. I'd love to introduce random movement, somehow influenced by character or the army 's training, but fear it would slow things down excessively.

What it boils down to are mechanisms you can bolt onto existing rules or exploit the mechanisms in existing rules that remove control from the player. So far, the books I've seen give some hints or suggestions, but often little by way of actual mechanics that can be adapted.

Sunday 13 October 2024

T'Other Partizan

Flying visit to Partizan today. Only spent about 2 1/4 hours there, so it was a bit of a rush to go around trade stands , photograph games and anything else.

I confess I spent most of my time there having a very enjoyable chat with David Barnes of The Ragged Soldier" blog:

https://russetcoatcpt.blogspot.com/

It was nice to finally meet David in person, especially after the last time when I accosted his body double who reacted in  no uncertain fashion! We had a good old chat waiting for David's friends to arrive.

I will post a selection of photos; when I arrived it was extremely busy - I cannot say I have ever seen it that crowded before - hence it was quite difficult to get photos and several were not very well signed so it was difficult to identify them - the lack of a hard copy floor plan doesn't help. Some listed games I never saw and many I saw did not appear to be listed on the floorplan! Once upon a time they used to give you such things.....no bands this time so how they policed it I cannot say.

All Hell Let Loose 6mm Omaha D-Day


Not Quite Mechanised Tunisia - hoped to have a chat with Chris but was fully engaged in chatting each time I passed.


Old Pikey's Hell's Highway with intriguing paper buildings



Forest Outlaws French & Indian War March on Montreal 1760



The very busy and at times noisy Morris & Chums Battle of 5 Armies from the Hobbit




League of Extraordinary Kriegspielers Lutzen TYW 1632 with burning town



Simon Miller To the Strongest Wars Louis XIV




Yarkshire Gamer Italian Wars relief of Forli





Bramley Barn Wargames Club RCW



Vietnam

Like a Stonewall Poltava Redoubts Great Norther War



Chesterfield Old Boys Oudenarde (?) Marlburian



I have tried to credit where I could work out who had put on the game and what it was, there were others I took photos of which I simply cannot attribute to period or players.

Apart from the crowds and lack of adequate signs or paper floorplan, there was a startling absence of castles this year.....some city walls was it.....perhaps they got the memo or decided everyone will do a castle so let's be different....
A lot of C20th and Horse and Musket, some fantasy but only one ancients game. I'm sure there were many others I simply missed in my rush.

Purchases were minimal - casualty bases and some 20mm French for Syria 1941

Monday 7 October 2024

Going Operational

Not much progress on the modelling and painting front since the last post. Did clean up and prime some more figures for the Swiss, but that's as far as I got. Work has left me drained last couple of weekends.

I have recently purchased a couple of rule sets. In older posts on this blog, I have hinted at a move towards "Operational" level rules. Well two sets have recently been published , and both Frank Chadwick and Bruce Weigle have WW2 operational sets due for release at some time.

First, we have Not Quite Mechanised or "NQM" by Chris Kemp.

https://notquitemechanised.wordpress.com/chris-kemps-not-quite-mechanised-rules-nqm2-latest-draft/

A4 softbound, print on demand, 63 pages including playsheet. These rules have been a long time in development and I've followed Chris several versions published free on the internet. These have the benefit of having been cleaned up and organised for publication (previous versions were difficult to understand in places).

They are comprehensive and cover, well everything as far as I can see apart from Naval / amphibious landings. Several different levels of play are possible, some more tactical than operational it has to be said. I think this is a hang over from previous versions, but does allow games at a smaller level using the same basic rules.

They are written for hexes which may put some people off; also squares are possible. Originally, no grid was used, then squares and now hexagons. All arms are represented, including medical and repair. The reconnaissance rules are clever and give a use for such troops. Markers are required and it can get busy in this respect. Base sizes are agnostic, although some suggested sizes are mentioned. It's worth noting there is a stacking limit of 7 SP# (or 9 if using optional rules) per hex. In practical terms that will limit how you base and the size of hex used.

#As corrected by Martin in comments below. SP per stand is normally 3 for fighting stands but what this represents varies according to level, front, corps, division or regiment. 9SP is where quality is tied to SP on base, not the command stand.

I have found myself quite inspired by these rules, not only for WW2 but also AIW and SCW.

Then out of the blue comes another set, Sam Mustafa' s Eisenhower.

https://sammustafa.com/eisenhower

Somewhere between UK A4 and A5, softbound, print on demand from Amazon. 112 pages.

I was unaware this was in development and its publication came out of the blue. It clearly follows Rommel by the same author and like that set uses a square / rectangular grid. Bases are battalion sized and a player controls a "command" of roughly corps size comprising 2 -6 division sized units. Thus, the scale is much larger than Rommel whic itself was originally aimed at having battalion, not company size stands.

Only infantry (leg, motorised and mechanised) and armour stands form a division, with cavalry and tank destroyers being specialist versions. Artillery are represented by dice and recce, engineers, flak etc are not represented but are assumed to be part of other stands "getting on with their job". The website has downloads for command sheet and cards for advanced game and several scenarios.

I have not finished reading these, but find them a bit "bland" so far. I'm puzzled by some of the decisions; German reconnaissance battalions were equipped for fighting and were used as ad-hoc combat fire brigades in Normandy. Lots of German kampfgruppes were depleted remnants, but which took on battalion sized combats. For example, much of the German forces for Market Garden would not be represented in Eisenhower - Graebner' s Aufklarungsabt for example and the cobbled together armour formations, flak detachments etc.

It may be the advanced rules cover this, but to me, it seems that a decision to restrict the type of stands is flawed. I could not see any recommended base sizes; the standard 6' x 4' layout uses 150mm / 6" squares with a stacking limit of 3 units - a battalion sized stand per square which will limit base size. Some of the terrain is odd - no roads for example, it being assumed a campaign will only take place where there is a road net.

I will continue reading and it may be only playing will reveal how they work, but so far I'm unimpressed with some of the decisions taken. 

Sunday 22 September 2024

Swiss and desert distractions

Decided to check how the various Swiss contingents I had painted matched with each other colour wise and what they would look like all together.

There are rather a lot of  Swiss now.....



Some shots of massed pike



In the attack


Flankers


Must get the bases painted and the figures varnished and based properly.

Having obtained my copy of "Not Quite Mechanised" by Chris Kemp:

https://notquitemechanised.blogspot.com/

https://notquitemechanised.blogspot.com/2021/06/follow-not-quite-mechanised-on.html

I have been thinking of Western Desert WW2 as well as how well they will work for Arab-Israeli 1967 (to say nothing of Indo-Pak 1965). This has mostly consisted of digging out boxes of stuff, mulling over orbats and wrestling with how many infantry to put on a base.....

I thought I was going down the Megablitz route which in 20mm has two figures in a 40mm square base. NQM is more agnostic on base size and it seems Chris happily uses all sorts together. As NQM is hex based, it's more about how many SPs are allowed in a hex, each standard battalion having 3sp, with maximum occupancy 7-9 SP.

For Megablitz (starting with AIW) I had moved to the idea of 2 mechanised or 3 foot infantry on a 40mm square base.Now I'm contemplating 50mm wide bases with 4-5 figures, partly due to realising how quick I can paint up 20mm plastics and aesthetics (I think 4-5 infantry look nicer). However, I have to think about what will fir in a hex. Most of my hex cloths use a 100mm / 4" hex which means 50mm width is probably the max - it also has to fit with vehicle bases which are likely to be 40-50mm depending on the vehicle; experiments with card and figures is inconclusive. 50mm starts to look crowded, so I'm now  dithering between 3 on a 40mm base or going for something like 60x30mm and 4-5 but that takes up a lot of space.....

Decisions, decisions..... 

Sunday 15 September 2024

Zinnfiguren progress

A bit of a photo dump this time. The (hopefully) last of the Swiss....

Command /flag stands - since these photos I have fettled obsessively with the flags and added more flesh highlights and corrections....








Pike












Zweihander







Arquebus






Pavia inspiration and a trip to Fiasco

Last weekend saw a trip to the Fiasco wargames show and the Royal Armouries in Leeds. Fiasco was disappointing; the games were mostly small ...