Saturday, November 8, 2014

Bring-n-buy and Political Demos..

Minifigs French 8pr guns.  Minifigs gunners.  I think the ramrod
man in the distance was adapted from a grenadier figure.

Saturday was an unusual day: a war games club bring-and-buy in the morning (and meeting up with friends and acquaintances I haven't seen for quite a while), and an afternoon march against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (so-called).  A lot of walking!  I don't drive, and as Karen was on the phone to a friend in need, I walked down the the Woolston Club.  Nice day; pleasant walk; 25, maybe 30 minutes.  Fitness level not great, but adequate; ticker still in good nick.  No worries.   Karen was to pick me up at 12:15, then off to the demo 'to get my fair share of abuse.'  Actually, not a lot of abuse to go round, as it turned out.

Bring and Buy at the Club.
Not a bad score at the bring-and-buy: 
1.  A box of 20 (actually 21) assorted Napoleonic Spanish.  It turned out 3 were Minifigs Austrian Grenadiers, but that,s OK: they can beef up one of my under-strength Austrian grenadier units.  I think a couple of French grenadier officers snuck in there as well, but they can be adapted, I think.
Assorted Spanish figures, give or take the officers.  Less the 3 Austrian
grenadiers who will be recruited into my Austrian Army.

2.  A box of 3 Minifigs Napoleonic artillery with 4-man crews.  One Russian (?) howitzer...
Russian gun crew.  Not sure about the piece, though.  

 ... two French (8pr field guns).
These 8pr guns were 'mint in pack' when bought.
 I knocked them together last night whilst watching an old
'Touch of Frost' episode on TV.
3.  A box of 33 Minifigs Napoleonic British Guards infantry (with bearskins - historical licence there)
It turned out that according to the Minifigs Catalogue (I obtained a copy 30-odd years ago, and it's still 'current'), about 2/3 of these were Fusiliers.  But as the figure design differs only in the angle of the musket held (so far as I can tell), Guards they will (probably) be.
Thirty-three Minifigs 'Guards' figures. With one or two spare
figures already in my possession, we might have 2 small
battalions here.
They have all been painted, though left unfinished, I suspect according to some Imagi-Nations scheme.  Actually I quite like them as they are, but... well...

 4.  A pack of ground-cover 'flocking'.

Which is the Guardsman?
I was hoping for some 'Army Men' type vehicles, but nothing doing.  Never mind.

The middle guy is the Guardsman, the other two Fusiliers.
Who knew?  As there is nothing really to distinguish
between them, they will be two Guards battalions, or, maybe
one Guards and one Fusiliers.

"I went down to the demonstration..."
So it was Ho! for the Demo, on the other side of Christchurch.  This was to do with a major plank of the Barack Obama's second term of office - a push for a Pacific-wide trading bloc subject in effect to Corporate hegemony.  Quite why New Zealand's two major political parties (National and Labour) are pushing this I can surmise only in terms of their collective Cargo Cult mentality - some exogenous factor will save us from our Neo-Con economic stupidity of the last 30 years.  But rather than canvass the issue here I'll simply post this LINK to give you some idea - if you choose to look - of what the thing is all about, and why I object to it.  The interesting bit starts about 12 minutes in.

Let me just predict that the reasons why ratifying the TPPA would be simply stupid will be demonstrated soon enough after the Government ratifies the TPPA.  

Having marched in leisurely and moderately noisy fashion from Shand Crescent Reserve, down Riccarton Road and a little past Victoria Lake in Hagley Park - maybe a mile and a half - we then half-listened to the band, chatted to Karen's friend and her dogs and knocked back a hot dog and chips. Even as a half-grown female pup, a pit-bull terrier carries an air of menace about it, but it was a very polite dog, graciously accepting its share - and only its share - of the chips.  The other dog got a fair bite of the spud.

Then we walked back to the car - a mile and a half the other way.  I suggested that another time we park the car half-way between where the demo starts and where it fetches up.  Silly notion, of course: makes no difference. On the way, Karen suggested we might look into Scorpio Books ('Yeah, all right,' says I). And look what I found!  Decorating a bookshelf as they were, I wasn't even sure they were for sale. Two years ago I bought a couple of these things during a visit to the West Coast (Hokitika), and rather regretted not getting the other two.  Now, four of them gives me a medium tank company in the service of the Imperial Raesharn Army.  
Serendipity!  A casual post-demonstration drop into a
bookshop unearthed these beauties. $10.99 apiece.

New additions for my
Army Men project.

It's an ill wind ... but I still reckon the TPPA - like its previous incarnation, the MAI (Multi-lateral Agreement on Investments) is a dumb-arse scheme.  The Neo-Rentier class will love it, of course.

A company of Raesharn medium tanks advancing
across the plains of Kiivar.
Welcome to the 112th follower of this blog: the Plastic Hussar.  Check out his blogspot The Plastic Pelisse.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Big Battles for Small Tables - A Little Play Test.

Two Hungarian Divisions close in upon the French
14th Division.
The early stages of the Rhinelands campaign in April 18** had not gone well for the French.  Left without the Emperor's guiding hand, Marshal the Prince of Neuchatel had botched the operation. Marshal Dubonnet's Corps had been left isolated 'in the air', and came near to being cut off, surrounded and destroyed by the advancing Austrian Army.  Fortunately seeing the danger betimes, Dubonnet had ordered a retreat by the only available road.  But to safeguard that retreat, he required General Morlot's 14th Division to stand flank guard at the hamlet of Inkheim, there to watch the Ingolstadt road.

It was as well he did, for the redoubtable Feldmarschall Sax, commanding the Austrian II Corps, was advancing up that very road to cut off the French retreat.  Coming upon Morlot's command at Inkheim, two divisions of II Corps were quickly engaged.  Morlot had deployed in two lines behind a screen of voltigeurs between the hamlet itself and a nearby wood.  The Feldmarschall, for his part, disdained finesse for a straightforward columnar attack.

The French skirmishers suffer heavily and are driven in.

The early exchanges went rather well for Sax's Hungarians.  The French skirmishers failed to register a single hit (one die per figure, needing 6s - yep: this is fistsful of dice country), but even at 2 dice per 3 shooting and ignoring first hits, in two turns the Hungarians had inflicted 2 hits upon the enemy. Reduced by 50%, the remaining light infantry fell back onto the leading close-order line.
The Hungarians prepare to engage the forward
French line.

The Hungarians now closed up to bring the 14th Division main body into action.  
Pressing close...

At this point, the voltigeurs having joined the line, the French could bring as many muskets to bear as the Hungarians, 12 figures apiece. But of course the latter had huge reserves upon which to draw.
As the Hungarians closed the range, losses on both sides began to mount.  Having so far 14 figures engaged - the 4 voltigeurs and the 10 figures of the first line - the French line could take 4 more hits before a fifth hit (i.e. totalling 7 of the 14 engaged) forced them back onto the final line.
So it happened.  Despite giving somewhat better than they received in the close quarter action, the French were forced back.
The Hungarians drive French forward line in upon
its supports.
All this was taking time, however.  A good five or six turns had gone by - as many hours - and the French were still holding out against double their numbers.  Once driven back upon their last reserves, moreover, the final French line became a formidable obstacle.  The 10 figures of the 'reserve brigade', plus the 7 survivors from the action so far, meant the French could bring 17 figures into the final stand.  Remaining in their divisional columns the Hungarians could bring 12 only.
For all that, it was a brittle line that faced the Hungarians - 5 hits would reduce it to 12 figures, whereat the French would have to retreat.  There was no danger of the Hungarians being halted. This was due to my decision that morale is represented solely by the 50% rule.  But there seems to be a need to assess the results of the close combat move by move - a reaction test. Given such a test, the French might well have stopped the Hungarians.  I know: I'm probably reinventing the wheel a bit with all this, but for mine it bears thinking about.

The extra French firepower cost the Hungarians heavily - 8 figures in two turns.  But the Hungarian return fire - 5 hits - was enough.  Reduced to 12 figures, 50% of their original strength, the French made off to rejoin the retreat of Dubonnet's IV Corps.  The overall Hungarian losses, amounting to 6 figures from one division and 7 from the other, slightly exceeded the French.  Considering that the voltigeurs were driven in without loss, that was quite a good performance by the French.

The final stand of 14th Division.  Though giving better
 than they receive, it is not enough.
This gamelet, played upon my overturned chessboard (of less than 19 inches square), Involved 1 French Division (14th from IV Corps) against two Hungarian, all of 24 figures each.  It was intended partly to test out my proposed 'fistful of dice' musketry, but mainly to try out the proposed supported linear formation of the French Division against a columnar attack. 

On the whole it went the way I hoped it would.  As the leading lines fell back upon the supports, the rear lines thus augmented grew the stronger in firepower, but more brittle as well.  The Division became less able to absorb further losses.  
The defeated French Division makes off.

Having said that, I need game mechanics to produce results a little more quickly than what was achieved in this test.  The whole thing took seven or eight moves to complete.  It is true that in similar circumstances in April 1809 a Division from Davout's III Corps held up strong Austrian attacks for the best part of a day.  But, professional soldier as he was, Marshal Davout devoted a lot of time to keeping his troops at the peak of efficiency.  One imagines that not every French Division could have achieved such a feat.  At most I want the average Division to hold for three or four moves - about the expectation of a Division fighting on its own hook against odds.

In my last posting Ross Mac had (among other things) this to say:
British Division  in line, covered by light infantry and
a detachment of 5/60th Rifles.  The lead French Division
is in a rather peculiar T-shaped ordre-mixte formation.
However, coming at last to the post in hand, noting that you have skipped over the division in line, which will be needed for Brits at least, I think whether or not you need to show a line of battalion columns vs a column/mass of lines is whether you have away to show the added flexibility of the series of small columns vs the solid mass. (Actually I've never seen evidence of any advantage of the solid mass and have trouble figuring out why it was ever used, esp by competent commanders)
Did I miss how you are going to do squares? For some reason my attempts to respond timed out.  I have no idea why.

Now, my first thought about this was, yes, I did omit single the divisional line, and I had reasons for this. But, without going into them, they seem on reflection to be less than compelling.  For one thing, it is known that at the Medellin battle (28 March 1809), the Spanish were drawn up in a long thin line.  The attacks by the French V Corps and Werle's brigade at Albuera (16 May 1811) were met by similarly shallow formations of Spanish and British muskets.
These two pictures are to illustrate the sort of situation that arose
at Albuera with the attack of the V Corps.  Of course there ought to be
a Spanish Division in place of the British, with the latter hurrying to
their aid...  But the question is this: is it war game-able?

And here we run into a problem.  In effect V Corps attacked with successive Divisions, Girard leading in a T-shaped ordre-mixte formation, and Gazan following so closely as to present a whole mass of 8000 soldiers.  In effect this was met by my 'supported line' formation, this comprising a first line of Zayas's and Ballesteros's commands, with Stewart's Division forming a second line.  This was somewhat complicated by Colborne's Brigade placing itself on the flank of the French column, whereat a close quarter firefight ensued, with heavy losses on both sides.

A French Division in a single square.
How do we effect this kind of action on the table top?  One way is to use the methods of Paddy Griffith or Col Wilbur Gray: determine the win-loss outcome, and then adjudicate the losses.  It has the virtue of convenience, sure.  But I would prefer to determine losses and then reaction to those losses - the 'perception of risk' thing.   Work is still needed on this, and decisions made as to method.  The musketry thing I like, as being not especially decisive in itself.  To obtain results, one has to get 'up close and personal.'  Mr Griffith and Col Gray have shown the way there!

A French Division in Brigade squares.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Big Battles for Small tables: Divisional Formations

15th Division, V Army Corps (represented by 17th Light Infantry)
marching in a Division column.  The carabiniers on the right
and voltigeurs on the left are intended to  give the impression
that the column comprises successive 'battalions' in line. 
 It is considered a war games 'truth' that one should depict in the table the level of detail not more than two grades below the overall command level.  If it's an army level game, then your tactical units are Divisions, or, as Army Corps are miniature armies, we might at a stretch go to Brigade level.  If you want your tactical unit to be the individual man, then what you are looking at is a platoon level game - a skirmish game, withal.
The column of 15th Division advancing with
skirmishing voltigeurs thrown forward.
Figures are Front Rank.
It is one of those 'truths' that has always irritated me.  It seems to me that what is being popularly prescribed for miniatures war games are the restrictions imposed by board war games.   Your cardboard counter, or other form of unit, and the scope of the playing surface - battlefield or strategic map - implies a kind of 'grain' to the game.  Board games by and large are coarse grained.  In a game like Axis and Allies a tank represents an army or, more likely, an army group.
As this Division is represented by a light infantry unit, I
am allowing it double my standard skirmishing capability.
Here, the voltigeur skirmishers have been reinforced by the carabiniers.

My own Big Battles for Small Tables concept is also 'coarse grained'.  That the proposed figure scale is 1:200 right off obviates depicting units below regimental or battalion level.  I could have a formal organisation of 4-figure battalions, but I'm disinclined to do this.  Rather, I am looking to depicting what can happen inside an infantry Division without any formal lower organisation.  This series of pictures shows what I mean: Divisional columns, with and without skirmishers deployed forward;  a Division deployed in successive lines, with skirmishers deployed; and a possible ordre-mixte formation.
15th Division deployed in successive lines, again with a
heavy cloud of skirmishers to the fore.  How this will work in action
I hope to show in my next posting.

One of several possible Divisional ordre-mixte formations.
One formation that doesn't seem to 'work' is the 24-figure Division broken down into 'battalion' columns.  There I have to accept the 'fudge' - much as is done with the Age of Eagles rule set, and allow the single block to stand for all columnar formations.  Or, alternatively, field two 10-figure brigade columns behind the skirmish screen.
An attempt to depict the Division deployed in battalion,
 Regimental or Brigade columns.  Not a very good look in my view.
What in effect I am attempting here is to depict, within the constraints imposed by my figure, ground, and time scales, the internal workings of a Division, but without a formal organization below the Divisional tactical unit.  What I hope this will achieve is that the soldiers themselves carry the information to the Army Commander what it is doing and how it stands.  
11th Division (a.k.a. 33rd Line Infantry), IV Army Corps,
deployed in brigade columns with a screen of skirmishers.
This doesn't look so bad, but I still don't know whether I want
this sort of thing.  First generation Minifigs figures.

11th Division in Brigade columns.

Recent Acquisition:
1. I must welcome the 111th 'follower' of this blog spot.  Unfortunately, I can't tell who that is!  At any rate, I do hope you enjoy what you find herein.

2. I recently acquired (two or three weeks ago now), through the good offices of Brent, who always has his eye on what's being offered on TradeMe, a fine metal battery of Prussian artillery.  A couple of years ago, I rescued a half-finished plastic Prussian Army (Revell, I think) that was about to be 'deep-sixed' by a friend, and offered it a good home.  To this I've added a couple of cavalry units (I've only begun painting these guys - horrible figures, which doesn't help the motivation).  And then came this windfall.  The 'buy now' price was right for me (no percentage in haggling) and here they are.
My Prussian guns, as they were about a fortnight ago.
Not sure of their manufacture.  Possibly Hinchliffe?
 Not much work needed on these at all.  Here I've already begun a refurb of the tyres and metal furnishings of the guns.  since these pics were taken, I've painted all three cannon a lightish mid-blue, and given the gun barrels a light ink touch-up to highlight the details.   I've yet to apply a blue ink overwash to the woodwork.
The guns look like 2x3pr and a 6pr piece.  Not that I'll
concern myself overmuch with that!
 As for the figures, aside from the basing and flocking (now done), there is little more to do on these figures. I did add a little of my gloss-black-and-silver mix to represent churned up water in the bucket (see the battery's right hand gun), and I'm thinking of adding a little yellow and red the the lighted end of the slow matches, but that's about it really.
3 guns, 12 gunners and an artillery officer.  Just the thing.
Of course, for my BB4ST rule set, each gun will represent a Corps Reserve artillery park.  But as it stands, it is a fine looking unit - just right for my Corsican Ogre rule set.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

Down at the Club...

War Games fantasy is not really my thing, but the gadgetry and
large monstrous creatures do have a certain appeal.
You know, it is quite 10 months since I last visited the Woolston Club and its war games section.  I'm no longer a financial member, as you can imagine.  But as a friend who had acquired for me on TradeMe some second hand Napoleonic Prussian Artillery (which my army lacked) had a game on, I thought I'd drop by.  Naturally, I had to reimburse the cost of the 3 pieces plus 13 gunners, and my hope that Brent would have brought the merchandise with him was realised as well.

While I was there I figured I'd take a few pictures of the sort of thing one might see at the club. fantasy in one form or another has always been strongly represented, and there were a couple of FoG (Fields of Glory) games as well.

Basil's bat-dragon thing apparently choking on an equine bone...
The picture doesn't do it justice: the thing had a considerable ...
cachet ... on the battlefield...

...along with the wraith-like dude behind the massed infantry.
Meanwhile, check out those dwarfish assault guns.  They would
not look out of place in a Steam Punk sort of game.

Over the years you see more often 'finished' armies and terrain
pieces - great to see! 

One of the two FoG games.  I didn't enquire into the actual armies,
though they all looked Middle to Far Eastern to me. 

Nice-looking armies...

I have always figured that if you are going to have elephants,
you should have lots of them.  Brian Sowman's sub-continental
army taking on Brent's Chinese.

Watching over Brian's army, this fine, pachydermous
deity.  Eat your heart out Cthulhu.
After the action.  I took this picture as an example of the sort
layout I really like: well finished terrain (without going nuts about it)
and imaginatively laid out.  Excellent!

A bit of a quiet day 'at the office', really, but what was there to see was worth a look.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Big Battles for Small Tables: Battle casualties and morale.

Really by way of prettying up this posting: an attacking French Army Corps
(Ist) at double (half?) the scale proposed for BB4ST: 48-figure divisions;
ground scale 1:1800; 1 turn represents 40-45 minutes.

This posting has been sitting in the draft for so long it has probably gone cold. It was inspired by another bloggers' ('Ross Mac's') observations of what Brigadier Peter Young - co-author of the classic Charge! - or How to Play War Games - had to say about the application of morale in war games. Check it out.

The Brigadier's view was that as much as possible, the moral effect of close action, the need to take quick decisions and the pressure of losses, should be held in the mind of the player.  In my experience, players do respond very differently to the pressures of war games battle.  Not only do you get the stoic, the mercurial, the rash, the deliberate, the cautious, the active... you get differences in sensitivity to battle losses, to unexpected events, and to surprise.

In reply to Ross's posting I said: YES!! Brig Young's ideas on morale rules I have shared as long as I have been a war gamer.  At that they have been confirmed from observation.  It is surprising how many war gamers will give up a fight long before there is any real call to do so.  I've even seen the battlefield quit - this in a campaign game - when the army under command was getting the better of it.  On occasions when I have been feeling a bit below par, my own stoicism in the face of losses has failed to stand the test.

Associated with this is my adherence to figure removal by way of casualties.  Many players are probably unaware of the difference that apparently primitive and unsophisticated game mechanic can make.  I know one gamer - beautiful painter of troops - who quite openly admitted to me that he couldn't stand seeing his troops physically whittled away once they got into a fight.  This was on the occasion of a refight of the Redinha rearguard action (1811), in which I handled the French.  He was making heavy weather of it, despite his skilled handling of the British attackers, bemoaning losses I would have considered fairly trivial - and he was giving as good as he was taking into the bargain. He won the game (well, it was really that kind of scenario: although driven from the field, I was happy to have inflicted as much loss to the British as I took myself, and got my people off in good order), but I formed the impression he found it a harrowing experience.
A Division in square, forming two Brigade squares.  The enemy
Attack is expected from the right of the picture...

Then I foreshadowed elaborating this in a future posting (this one).  That was seven or eight weeks ago - not a good look.  I hope what I have to say here will have been worth the wait...

In my proposed Big Battles for Small Tables rule set, I believe that something as simple as the Young and Lawford game mechanic is called for, given the organisational building block is the 24-figure Infantry Division, and 12-figure Cavalry Brigade.  This went simply: a unit that retains more than 50% of the strength with which it began the battle, may behave normally.  This system will apply to my 'unit-formations' - Divisions and Brigades. There will be other occasions in which unit-formations will slip from a commander's control.  These will be occasioned by events, and the effects of those will be temporary.  Once a unit-formation has reached 50% losses, it suffers for the remainder of the battle from loss of morale - that is to say: its effects are permanent.
A single Divisional square under heavy attack from
Austrian cavalry: dragoons and cuirassiers.

Having lost morale, such a unit:
1.  It said to have 'broken' and, to use Young and Lawford's terminology: is also 'understrength';
2.  Must retreat for at least one full move, or into cover outside musketry range of the enemy;
3.  Must then spend at least one move, stationary and disordered, rallying;
4.  Henceforth are permanently disadvantaged in all fire and close combat (The notions of 'advantage' and 'disadvantage' in combat will be elaborated upon in a future posting on combat mechanics for BB4ST);
5. May be converged with other understrength unit-formations (of the same type, of course; horse with horse, foot with foot), but the moral effects still remain with the converged unit-formation.

This loss of morale is permanent for the duration of the action for understrength units, converged or otherwise.  But there will be occasions in which loss of morale will occur to unit-formations not yet understrength, and in consequence will be temporary.  This really is more by way of an uncontrolled reaction to adverse events.  The sole 'adverse event' that will cause this in war games terms will be this: defeat in close combat.

V Army Corps: 17th Division deployed in successive lines,
skirmishers out.  How will morale and reaction apply to
The Division deployed in this way?  See next time.

Close combat in game terms will occur when the skirmishing screens have been driven in, and the unit-formations' main bodies have pressed closer than outer musketry range (tentatively 3" or 7.5cm) into close musketry range (1" - 2.5cm - or less).  I say 'less than 1 inch' as players might elect to depict the close combat by bringing the opposing forces into contact.  I'm inclined to go with Paddy Griffith on this (Napoleonic Wargames for Fun), and maintain a small gap, depicting not so much a crossing of bayonets as a frantic fire-fight at very close range, or maybe simply the action of both forces, the one by edging closer, the other by standing its ground, in attempting to intimidate the enemy.

Having been defeated, a unit 'breaks' and retires at least one full move rearward, where it must spend a whole further move rallying (I have yet to decide whether this takes place in the same or the following turn.  I'm leaning towards the latter at present).  The victorious unit-formation may then occupy the ground won, possibly even exploit onto targets further on, or even rally back.  Until it has spent a move stationary, that unit remains disordered.  Disorder places a unit at a disadvantage in combat until the unit-formation has been rallied....
IV Army Corps: 11th Division.  The pictures in this article foreshadow
 the topic of the next in this series: Division deployments and
how morale and reaction effects will apply to them.

May I extend my welcome to Follower #110: Vasiliy Levashov.  Thanks for joining.