Wednesday, April 12, 2023

The Hundred Minutes Campaign

A misnomer, as it took a whole lot more than 100 minutes just to prepare, but this is, as the title might lead you to guess, a cut down, laid back, bathtub in a shoebox version of the Hundred Days' Campaign. On one table. The whole thing. There was even a 'Battle of Quatre Bras' and  'Battle of Waterloo'. But there were a fair few other combats besides. This was another indulgence of an idea that has been with me now for several years.  

   

French Army about to launch itself across the Sambre and 
into Belgium


Actually - not quite the whole thing. My table map (see below) was a cropped version of a hex-grid campaign map I put together some months ago. It excludes Ghent in the west and Liege in the east, where begin two of the Allied Army Corps, but I believe it includes all the likely battlefields. The excluded Corps, the IInd Anglo-Dutch and IV Prussian Corps, will both require 2 full game turns to arrive into the map area at Alost and Huy respectively.


Map and Table Set-up:

The table was set up on the basis of this hex-map.  There were some changes, mostly simplifications of road and river networks.  Only the Meuse and Sambre Rivers actually appeared on the table; I really need more river sections! I think the map could have used a River Dyle, running past Wavre, not that it would have impacted on the campaign as it played out. 
My table map.

The Armies:

In terms of figures, I had the idea of much larger army corps in terms of figures than I eventually ended up with.  But 9-12 infantry, 2 cavalry and 2 gunners for a 'standard' French Army Corps, though it could just 'fit' a hex grid area, was really too large, especially as the Allied formations (my thinking ran) would have to be larger.  There is another problem with this concept using figures: even at maybe half a dozen figures and a model cannon, the battles would be really be single army corps facing off.  But what that led to was plenty of action!

Anglo-Dutch:
General Officer Commanding (GOC): Duke of Wellington


I Army Corps (at Enghien): 6 infantry, 1cannon, 1 gunner 
II Army Corps (off map, at Ghent): 6 infantry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
Reserve Corps (at Brussels): 6 infantry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
Cavalry Corps (at Ninove): 6 cavalry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner

Anglo-Dutch Totals:
18 infantry, 6 cavalry, 4 cannon, 4 gunners, plus the Iron Duke himself.

The Anglo-Dutch - looking uncommon Anglo-Saxon -
at their starting points.  II Corps is off the board 
to the right of Alost


Prussian:
General Officer Commanding: General-Feldmarschall Prinz Blucher
I Army Corps (at Fleurus): 4 infantry, 1 cavalry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
II Army Corps (at Namur): 4 infantry, 1 cavalry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
III Army Corps (1 hex south of Ciney): 4 infantry, 1 cavalry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
IV Army Corps (off map, at Liege): 4 infantry, 1 cavalry, 1 cannon, 2 gunners...

Prussian Totals:
16 infantry, 4 cavalry, 4 cannon, 5 gunners, plus Marschall Vorwaerts himself

Allied Totals:
34 infantry, 10 cavalry, 8 cannon, 9 gunners 



Prussians at their starting points.  IV Corps 
is off the board east of Huy.


French Army:
In Command: Emperor Napoleon
I Army Corps (at Mauberge): 4 infantry, 1 light cavalry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
II Army Corps (north of Beaumont): 4 infantry, 1 light cavalry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
III Army Corps (at Beaumont): 4 infantry, 1 light cavalry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
IV Army Corps (at Laneffe): 4 infantry, 1 light cavalry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
VI Army Corps (entering table on road south of Beaumont): 4 infantry, 1 cannon, 1 gunner
Imperial Guard (on road just south of Beaumont): 4 infantry, 2 cavalry, 1 cannon, 2 gunners
I Cavalry Corps: 2 light cavalry
II Cavalry Corps: 2 medium cavalry (dragoons)
III Cavalry Corps: 2 heavy cavalry (cuirassiers)
IV Cavalry Corps: 2 heavy cavalry (cuirassiers)

French Totals: 24 infantry, 14 cavalry, 6 cannon, 6 gunners.


In terms of figures, the French are relatively over-represented, on reflection, perhaps too much so.  I blame those tiny French Cavalry Corps, but I was not going to limit them to a single figure each. On the other hand, I got a pretty balanced sort of game out of it!  
Overall view of the campaign theatre.


The French right wing, north of Philippeville.


The rule set I used for this campaign was one I have used before to test the idea of 'map war gaming' with figures.  Its inspiration of course comes from the Command and Colours/ Memoir '44 types of games.  Here's the link to that article - Sluggard Valley campaign - but as I have made a few small adjustments to the rules - most notably the inclusion of Army Commanders, I'll revisit them here.

Hundred Minute Campaign Rule Set:

1. Movement IGoUGo but each turn, dice for who goes first. (Optional. For this 'Hundred Minute' Campaign I made it simple IGoUGo, the French beginning).

2. Army Corps moved a maximum of 2 hexes along a road (1 hex cross country if forced to do so). Cavalry Corps move a maximum of 3 hexes along a road. They moved 'en bloc' occupying just the one grid area, even when on the march.

3. Combat is joined by opposing forces in adjacent hexes.

4. Engaging or attacking the enemy counts as a 1-grid area move, as one side 'moves' into an enemy occupied grid area. The 'move' is notional, the attacking side remaining in the grid area it occupies at the outset of the battle. So if an army corps moves 2 hexes to a point adjacent to an enemy held hex, there is no battle. 
 
5. Each side rolls one die per figure, plus one for each arm represented. If an army commander is present, add one further die to the combat allocation

    Examples:
(i) An army corps of 4 infantry, 1 cavalry and 1 cannon (with gunner) rolls 9 dice: 1 for each of the 6 figures, plus 3 for the 3 separate arms represented.  
(ii) A French cavalry corps of 2 mounted figures rolls 3 dice: 1 for each of the mounted figures, plus 1 for the cavalry arm represented.
(iii) General-Marschall von Blucher, accompanying II Corps engages the enemy. II Corps then receives 4 (infantry) + 1 (cavalry) + 1 (cannon) + 3 (3 arms represented) + 1 (Blucher) = 10 combat dice.

5A. An army attempting to force a river crossing halves its standard allocation of combat dice (rounded up).  For this campaign, there was no bonus for defending or penalty for attacking a 'town' grid area. (I did consider that perhaps some such rule might have applied to attacking Mons, Charleroi, Namur and Brussels, but decided that the battles would take place, as it were, in the fields outside of town. As it was there was considerable action around Charleroi.)

6. Combat
Combats are competitive; both sides roll -
A roll of '1' = enemy artillery hit
A roll of '2' = enemy cavalry hit



A roll of '3' = enemy cavalry hit
A roll of '4' = enemy infantry hit
A roll of '5' = enemy infantry hit
A roll of '6' = enemy Army Commander hit

Having rolled the dice, each die pip score is cancelled by a same pip score by the other, until only the unmatched scores remain. The remaining hits then result in figures being removed. A roll of '4' is not cancelled by a '5' roll, and both sides stand to lose an infantryman.

7 (Recommended, but not used for this campaign). 
At the end of each move, or perhaps a fixed number of moves (IGoUGo pairs), the losses are totted up on both sides, and each receives back, for each arm, the lesser of of the respective sides' losses.  These are distributed among the units as the player sees fit.  There ought to be some maximum that a unit can not exceed.  I suggest 4 infantry, 2 cavalry and 2 guns for an 'Army Corps', and 5 cavalry for a 'Cavalry Corps'.  (I didn't actually use this rule, but it might serve to reduce the attritional effects.  See also the end of this posting).

8.  Units that receive more losses than they inflict in terms of numbers of units, must retreat two grid areas. The reason for this is to allow defeated units to break clear of the victorious enemy, which, following up can reach the adjacent grid area, but not bring on an immediate battle.  See Rule 4.

9. Victory Conditions -
To be decided when I 'call' the campaign!









29 comments:

  1. Great stuff! I've been toying with a similar idea but using a town to town map and a stripped down version of the Portable wargame to fight battles, based on the old Columbia games Napoleon. I love your idea of using the table top as the map board. I have alot of the Warlord epic Napoleonics, I think they might be just the thing to use. Maybe I'll give it a go this June.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark -
      I'll be looking forward to reading your account! It was certainly an interesting experiment!
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  2. Excellent! I may give this a go myself, and many thanks for the rule summary. I've been struggling with Army level Napoleonic rules recently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin -
      This little project has been very much a sideline, but you remind me that it might not be that bad an idea to formalise the concept into something more coherent. The thing is quite a lot of fun!

      Of course, I have adapted Bob Cordery's Portable Napoleonic into an army level game, and my 'Big Battles for Small Tables' is still an ongoing project (see my retreat from Smolensk battles).

      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  3. Some excellent ideas! Interesting that you are more likely to see actual strategic Corps manouvres on the tabletop instead of what normally passes for such due to the increase in ground scale.
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neil -
      On the score of Corps manoeuvres, it is true there were no subdivisions into constituent Divisions or other sub-formations. But whether the game reflected 'army operations' might be judged, possibly, from the narrative. I suspect the concept runs into limitations on that score.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  4. Fabulous, a great project and something easily transferred to other battlefields.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norm -
      Too right! Several years ago I tried some tests of prototype American Civil War and 19th century warfare games. I do like to keep things very simple, but as they stand, attrition is a bit of a problem.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  5. Great game Archduke - I like the idea of representing a very large space on a table rather than a 2D map

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maudlin Jack -
      I have to admit to finding counters and other representations a trifle soulless. I also admit to being very much taken with the 'Campaigns in a Day' that features from time to time on the 'Blunders on the Danube' blog. Unable to 'do' the multi-table/ multi-player type of game, I've had to come up with something like this.
      Cheers,
      Ion.

      Delete
  6. Very nice Ion. Your artwork is, as ever, impressive. Lovely caricatures.
    How did you decide the “size” of the hexes for your map? For example, if it takes infantry 2 days to march from point X to point Y did you simply decide this would be, say, 4 hexes? Does each move represent a day?
    Apologies if I’m asking “obvious” questions, but I’m just trying to make sure I’m understanding things correctly. Time to read through the Sluggardly Valley link methinks 😉😎
    Cheers,
    Geoff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should be Sluggard Valley of course (pay attention dear “auto correct” - I know what I mean) 😉

      Delete
    2. To be honest, Geoff, I didn't really look too closely into ground and time scales. Sort of a bit like the Memoir '44 systems, which also gloss over scales. One move per day seems about right. It is very approximately 30 miles from Charleroi to Brussels - 3 days' foot march without over-exertion; perhaps could be done in 2 if pushed. At 2 hexes the move the distance on the map can be covered in 3 turns.

      You might enjoy the Sluggard Valley campaign - it is fairly quickly told. You will find some differences in the rules used for that project and the 'Hundred Minutes''.

      Any question that seeks information is not a stupid question.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  7. Clever ideas well displayed on your map / table top. The buildings alone are worth the jprice of admission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pancerni -
      The thing seems to caught readers' imagination - so many positive comments. Thank you!
      Ion

      Delete
  8. Fabulous - as Martin R says above, we'll definitely give it a go!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim -
      It looks as though I might be forced to tidy up the rule set and make them more easily accessible. There's a few little things that need tidying up and formalising, I think. Thanks for you encouragement!
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
    2. I'm not very clear about section 7 (loss replacement). I don't understand what 'the lesser of each sides losses' means, but I can probably make something plausible up. My usual rule of thumb for the nineteenth century is that half the losses are recoverable and half permanent, through some sort of reorganisation option.

      Delete
    3. Martin -
      I give an example in my Sluggard Valley narrative (there's a link in the text here). In brief, for each arm, the lesser of each side's losses are replaced. Suppose RED loses 5 infantry, 3 cavalry and 2 gunners, and BLUE loses 4 infantry, 5 cavalry and 1 gunner. RED receives back 4 infantry, 3 cavalry and a gunner (net loss 1 infantry and 1 gunner), and BLUE receives back 4 infantry, 3 cavalry and 1 gunner (net loss 2 cavalry).

      This might be at the end of a campaign or operation before starting another. For this Hundred Minutes' campaign, I didn't use this rule, but it would have been feasible at the end of each turn. It would have prolonged the game, though (probably), but I also hadn't made up my mind then just how I would allocate the replacements, given the scope and scale. But it ought not have been too difficult, as the corps with the most losses would receive the most replacements.

      I'm thinking of revisiting this little project some time, and bring in replacement losses, and tighten up the whole game system. Judging by my own gut feeling and the responses I've been receiving, this whole concept is looking very promising!

      By the way, suggestions for improvement are always welcome!
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  9. this is inspiring and has given me food for thought. can i ask ,on their turn can each side move all their corps or only one per turn. are combats done after each move or are all moves completed first then resulting combats resolved.
    regards john.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You raise an good question on game mechanics. For this campaign I used a simple IGoUGo, but there would have been a lot said for rolling activation dice or priority chits. I decided against rolling for activation, mainly because the Allies had just 8 formations to the French 10. I have considered perhaps subordinating the Division-sized French Cavalry Corps to the same numbered Army Corps, but I'm not sure about that one.

      If one has 'priority chits' numbering up to 16 (for each formation) or possibly 19 (to include the Army commanders), then the game takes on a whole new dynamic. Now that I think about it, I ought to have included in the French army the two Wing Commanders, Marshals Ney and Grouchy. Allocating the chits to each formation (and possibly army or wing commander), you start with 1 and work both sides until you reach the end.

      I'm thinking that chits allocated to an army/ wing commander allow him to move between formations OR, use a low number to allow a formation he is currently with to 'jump the queue', as it were.

      Combats were really part of moves, so that as you move a corps to engage the enemy, the combat was resolved at once. I contrast to the Memoir '44 game system, my combats are immediately contestable: both sides roll dice for effect.

      Thanks for your questions, as they helped clarify my thinking, but also brought some other interesting points to mind.

      It looks as though I will be forced to run this thing again!
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  10. A very interesting approach to the Waterloo Campaign that I shall certainly experiment with myself when I have time. Thanks for posting this inspiring piece and your updated rules. I, too, will have to go back and reread Sluggard Valley!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm beginning to think, Arthur, that I might have to redo this campaign, as a whole bunch of new ideas have been brought to mind by the comments so far!
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  11. Archduke Piccolo,

    Wow! I can see this idea developing into something that will appeal to lots of wargamers who want to fight campaigns on a tabletop but who don’t want to use board games. The rules are simple and should be very easy for players to memorise so that they can concentrate on moving and controlling their forces and bringing their opponents to battle.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob -
      I have been impressed and gratified by the responses I have received to this project. The objective was for something quick and playable, and, once one gets going, I think the game mechanics come easily. Several points and questions raised do lead me perhaps to add a wee bit more 'chrome'(?) to the game mechanics, such as priority chits or maybe movement allocation.

      As a campaign limited in time and space, the Hundred Days' lends itself well to this sort of treatment. The question is what other campaigns would be suitable? One possibility, if I can find out more about it, is the Junot vs Kiemmayer campaign in Bohemia and southern Saxony in 1809, or possibly Archduke Ferdinand's operations in Poland in the same war. As the campaigns are much smaller in scale than the Waterloo campaign, formations would have to be Divisions or Brigades.

      Food for thought!
      Regards,
      Ion

      Delete
  12. What a simple but brilliant idea! As Bob has said, a good way to run a campaign that isn't a boardgame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Steve -
      It certainly offers a quick and easy war game with very little outlay. The concept is not exactly original, though my first experiments began many years ago, before I discovered this might be a 'thing'.
      This and the article following shows some of my early thoughts on this topic...
      http://archdukepiccolo.blogspot.com/2013/09/fin-de-siecle-nn.html
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
  13. Hello there Archduke,

    I really enjoyed reading this and the whole idea is marvellous! As you right say the 100 days lends itself well to this sort of treatment although I can see other uses for it absolutely! Funnily enough the opening moves of the Great War sprung to mind.

    Cracking job old chap!

    All the best,

    DC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers, David -
      I reckon the opening moves of the Great War would be an ambitious undertaking! But you have planted in my mind something of the sort between my Ruberian and Azurian armies. The 'Army manoeuvres of 1912' springs to mind, but with a 'real' invasion by Azuria upon the Norfolkland coast...
      Something to think about, anyhow!
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete