March 25, 2012

Back To ACW

Last Sunday, L. and I had time to run another ACW scenario from Partizan Press's scenario book "Heartland". The scenario in question, fancifully titled "Assault on Fort Donelson", depicts the assault of Federal troops on defenses in front of the fort. This attack was the offensive response of General Grant to the breakout attempt of Confederate troops, which was the topic of previous ACW scenario covered in this blog.

I don’t like that (also known as house rules)

By now I have a pretty good understanding of game mechanics in TCHAE and what I like/dislike in the ruleset. With that in mind, I decided that it was a good opportunity to start tweaking the rules to my taste. Here are the changes that I decided to apply for this game:

  • In original rules player can automatically stop troops that reached rout state by spending necessary amount of pips. I never cared for this ability to immediately restore control over broken troops, mainly because morale degradation process in TCHAE takes place gradually and there is plenty of time for the player to rectify the situation before a unit reaches the breaking point. Therefore I decided that a unit is allowed to reach rout status must perform rout movement at least once before the commander can make an attempt to rally it.
  • I also wanted to introduce the element of uncertainty into rallying process. I was never a big fan of guaranteed restoration order among broken troops, simply because there is no such thing. Just ask general Rosecrans what he thinks about the issue. :-) In this case, the solution was simple - before a unit rallies, it must pass the morale check. If it fails, you have just spent a pip and it's still running away.
  • Rule about units suffering 50 percent casualties becoming permanently defeated made me wrinkle my nose already during my first reading of the rules. It's a simple and clean enough, but I always have a negative reaction to rules that that provide guaranteed "soft kills". In this case, I decided to add a condition to the original rule - unit that suffered casualties above 50 percent and became disrupted as a result of those casualties would have to take a morale check before being able to improve its morale state. If the check failed, only then would such unit become permanently defeated.
  • Major overhaul of movement and firing ranges was the final change of the ruleset. In my previous games I always halved all the ranges and came to the conclusion movement rates were too short, which in turn made the game much slower than it should be.  So I've made a major overhaul of all ranges, reducing the original values by either 33 or 25 percent. Don't worry, the relation between unit zone of control and small arms ranges is still intact.

    Command range of officers is  the only range value that I decided to keep at 50 percent of the original value. Experience of previous games showed that it was appropriate, considering small size of my figure bases.

Preparations, and initial setup.

”Assault on Fort Donelson”  is very manageable for two players - less than ten regiments organized in two brigades and some artillery are fielded by both sides.

The twist is provided by the fact that only the weaker of Confederate brigades is deployed on the table at the start of the game. Regiments of the other brigade enter the battlefield individually on a roll of a six on D6 at the start of every turn. This aspect of the scenario created a bit of a problem, since command and control of units in TCHAE is more or less hard-wired to brigades. In the end we decided that regiments that show up in same turn would operate under shared blind and receive same orders, but that every blind could operate individually. Once deployed on the table, regiments would have to follow brigade orders. I'm sure that we played it "fast and loose" once the game picked up the pace, but since neither of us has a habit of bickering about minute details, things worked out just fine in the end.

While the Northern side has initial advantage of numbers, the terrain in this scenario is certainly a great equalizer for the Southerners. Not only are the Confederate regiments enjoying the protection of earthworks, the earthworks themselves are protected by an abatis covering entire front with the exception of the roads. This terrain feature presented me with another issue related to the ruleset - abatis is simply not covered by TCHAE. Another house rule was tried out for size - upon reaching an abatis, all troop types and formations had to stop in front of it, passing through it took one pip. Finally, upon passing through an abatis all formations except skirmishers would become disordered.

The game

The assault started badly of the blue-clad boys - for some reason the assault didn't start at predetermined time, but the activities in front of his positions alarmed Confederate CinC  Buckner about the imminent assault. He took opportunity of the delay and placed all his available forces (1/30th Tennesse, 2/30th Tennesse, 49th Tennesse and 50th Tennesse)  in the fieldworks, ready to meet the onslaught.

1_Stalled_advance59 Are you attacking or what?

In game terms, the Confederate Blinds card followed by Tea Break card in two consecutive rounds, effectively denying any advance by the Union side. L. had plenty of time to place his troops in the fieldworks, while my troops were more interested in drinking their coffee than attacking Confederate positions.

By the time Union assault force reached the abatis, the rebels were all set and ready for them. As soon as Union regiments in first line (I advanced each brigade in two lines, two regiments abreast) forced their way through abatis, they were met with salvo after salvo of small arms fire, causing them to stop in their tracks.

2_Reaching_abatis60 Reaching the abatis

Colonel Lauman's brigade on the left of Union line was hit hard, with both 2nd Iowa and 25th Indiana suffered severe losses as a result. On the right flank, Union line overlapped their opponent's flank, thus rebel fire wasn't as punishing. But regardless of lesser opposition, advance of federal troops under command of Colonel Cook also stalled as soon as his front regiments pushed past the abatis.

To add insult to injury, both the cards and the dice continued to refuse to cooperate with the me. Over next couple of rounds, coffee cards made almost immediate appearance, thus giving the rebels a chance to pour even more musket fire into disorganized Union line. At the same time, L. developed an uncanny ability to roll sixes (that's a man who claims that he always has bad luck with dice), with the result of three additional Rebel regiments making appearance on the battlefield and marching quickly to the sound of guns. The only consolation for me at that moment was in the fact that my regiments somehow gave as well as they took - casualties mounted rapidly on both sides and I could absorb them better than L.

3_Smith_Takes_Command61 General Smith takes personal command

The stalemate was finally broken by Union CinC, General C.E. Smith. Having read about the performance of this officer before his passing shortly after this battle, I decided to give him Inspirational attribute. This decision did pay dividend when Union Inspirational card turned up at an opportune moment - acting on rather desperate impulse, I let Smith take direct control of 7th Illinois and lead it forward in a bold advance that carried it past the rebel fieldworks. This action seemed to have had desired effect and mobilized other Union regiments into action. Cook's three remaining regiments, apparently awed by the brave act of their CinC, finally managed to scramble over the earthworks. At the same time, Lauman finally remembered that he was a brigade commander and ordered by now severely depleted 2dn Iowa to outflank confederate position to its front. 14th Indiana and Minnesota sharpshooters were ordered to follow in its wake and support it to the best of their ability.

4_View_from_Confederate_Side62 View from confederate side

5_Confederate_Left63 General Buckner observes advance of enemy troops

Rebel troops manning the earthworks were now threatened with very real possibility of being outflanked on both sides, a threat that L. was very well aware of. There wasn't much he could do about the Union troops pouring through unmanned fieldworks on his right, but on the left he had three regiments not yet engaged in the fight and by God, he would use them now. An order for an all out assault toward the works  was issued at the very moment Cooks blue-clad troops scrambled over them and started to form up on the other side. The result was a massive melee in which most of the Union regiments grudgingly gave up ground and were pushed back to the other side of the fieldworks. Only 7th Illinois stood their ground. Now however, they were in a very precarious position, effectively isolated from the rest of their brigade.

6_Melee64 High watermark of the battle

As it turned out, their resilience proved to be deciding factor as the events developed to Union advantage on the other flank and in the center. At the same time as the massive melee between Cook's and Brown's brigade took place, the battered 25th Indiana which got stuck in front of rebel fortifications as soon as it got through the abatis, finally gave up and stepped back in confusion. In a way, it was good news, because their retreat finally gave room for maneuver for 7th Iowa, the best regiment in Union OOB. They swiftly moved forward, did not waste time on reforming after passing the abatis and threw themselves against 2/30th Tennessee, which was already significantly weakened while trading blows with 25th Indiana. A sudden blow by fresh opponent threw the rebels back, right against the flank 7th Illinois. Seeing Union troops both in front and behind them, the rebels promptly threw down their weapons and surrendered.

8_7th_Iowa_Taking_The_Rampart65 7th Iowa taking the field works and breaking rebel line

9_Confederate_Right_Flank66 Confederate right flank at the end of engagement

Simultaneously, rest of Lauman's brigade found its way past 1/30th Tennessee on extreme confederate right flank and broke it.
With federal troops poised to roll up his right flank, a gap in the center of his line and no reserves to commit to either of those points, L. decided that the situation was irrecoverable and gave orders for general retreat. Happy with taking the works and somewhat dismayed by the problems I run into while taking them, I did not contest Confederate withdrawal.

Musings after the battle

I must say that this game was one of most enjoyable events in my wargaming "career". Not only did the scenario play out in what I would like to call historical manner, but on at least two occasions we had the fortune to experience what a friend of mine calls "cinematic effects". Smith's bold rush with single regiment, followed by huge melee and decisive advance of 7th Iowa breaking the back of confederate resistance will be remembered by both L. and me for some time to come.

I was however somewhat disappointed by the fact that I didn't get the opportunity to see the effects of my rule tweaks. Overall, the game had all the characteristics of ACW - slow, brutal grinding down of firing lines, punctured by rushes and counter-rushes in small sections of the line. However, neither line suffered overly from routs (1/30th Tennessee on confederate right did rout, but that event had no real impact on the game), nor did any of the regiments suffer more than 50 percent casualties. So I'm still ignorant about true impact of the house rules I'm experimenting with.

In our discussion after the game, L. claimed that if 2nd Kentucky, his best regiment, had managed to get to the battlefield in time, events would develop very differently. I on the other side, made a counter-claim that if the Union advance started on time... events would look rather differently. In other words, there is a pretty good chance that I will run this scenario again.

Finally, a couple of words about TCHAE. I am more convinced with every game that it's a ruleset that works best with two to four players per side. This assessment is based on the fact that the game is card-driven, which makes it rather difficult for more two players to be "active" at the same time. Regardless of that minor critique, I think it's an excellent set of rules - once all the players are familiar with the game mechanics, the gameplay flows smoothly and quickly and the game itself is really a lot of fun. In the end, that's all we can ask. :-)

March 17, 2012

Day before a game

Well, it must be said – it takes a lot of work before you can do something useful with it and it’s a true pain to set up. But if you put in the effort, GHQ Terrain System does work really well.

I’ve spent better half of the morning putting together the terrain for tomorrow’s ACW scenario. Final result can be seen below and I admit that I am pretty pleased with myself at this moment.

IMG_06961 IMG_06992

March 10, 2012

Balance Account for February 2012

New "feature" for this blog - a monthly account of my activities. The main idea is keep track of current projects and increase the number of posts with least possible effort. Why's that? Well, mainly because there isn't much going on at wargaming front at the moment. With the exception of a quick test of General De Brigade rules on bare table, I didn't manage to do any gaming whatsoever last month. Output from the painting table is also quite meager and can be beheld below - four 6mm buildings intended for the inaugural game of General De Brigade. Those few who follow this blog will recognize them as part of my purchase from Total Battle Scenics.

IMG_0664

There really isn't very much one can say about those buildnings - as can be seen on the picture, they are very nicely sculpted and there were no resin bubbles or holes in the walls that needed to be fixed before I slapped the paint on. Only minor irritation moment lies in the fact that sculpt of roof tiles is so tiny that it is difficult to get the paint to run into all crevices, which results in white dots all over the roof once the paint is dry. The trick seems to be to keep the paint really thin and add a drop of dishwashing detergent to break the water tension.

The paint job itself? Well, painting buildings isn't very exciting and as the picture clearly shows, the technique leaves a lot to desire. With afterthought, maybe I should also have selected more coherent color palette - those houses in yellow and pink will have to be put far away from each other. Oh wait, this blog is not titled "Home and garden design in miniature", so I don't have to care about esthetics! :-)

February 22, 2012

Book Review

A History of the Peninsular War, Volume II: January to September 1809:  From the Battle of Corunna to the End of the Talavera CampaignA History of the Peninsular War, Volume II: January to September 1809: From the Battle of Corunna to the End of the Talavera Campaign by Charles Oman

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


There isn't really much I can add to the praise I have given to the first volume of this seminal work about Peninsular War. Extremely detailed, meticulously referenced and written in very accessible style - as long as you have a genuine interest in the topic, it is pure pleasure to read Oman's account of this conflict.

If I would choose to nitpick, then my only reservation would be in regard of Oman's almost absolute support of Wellesley's generalship. I would suspect that not everybody will agree with author's undeniably pro-British stand. That is however question of possible differences in opinions between the author and the reader and doesn't take away from the high quality of work in this book.



View all my reviews

February 04, 2012

Troops, WEAPONS & Tactics – First Impressions

In this post I refer on several ocassions to the ruleset “I Ain’t Been Shot, Mom”. It is important for me to clarify that all of those references are done in respect of second edition of that ruleset. I am aware of the fact that a third and strongly redone edition of IABSM has been recently released by Too Fat Lardies. I am however yet to aquire that updated version and am thus unfamiliar with its contents.

Troops, Weapons & Tactics or TW&T is a ruleset for low level combat during World War 2 from one of my favorite game designing companies, Too Fat Lardies. If you are thinking “But Too Fat Lardies already have published a rather popular ruleset for low level combat during World War 2, it’s called I Ain’t Been Shot Mum”, then you are correct. What’s more, if you after a quick glance at the contents of TW&T say “Heck, this reminds me of IABSM quite a lot!”, you will also be 100% correct. The fact is that it is hard not to regard TW&T as a very close sibling of IABSM and those who are familiar with IABSM will immediately feel right at home with TW&T.

TW&T and IABSM - what’s the same?
For those not familiar either of the two rulesets, here’s a quick overview of main features shared by both of them:

  • Card-driven game mechanics. Each unit and leader is represented by his own card - once a card is drawn, unit or leader is allowed to act. Additional cards depict national characteristics, random events, etc.
  • All units start the game as unspotted and are represented by blinds (generic markers). Units under blinds enjoy some advantages, but operate under certain restrictions. Individual units are deployed on the table either voluntarily or when they are spotted by enemy.
  • Basic actions for units are spotting, movement, spotting.
  • Every unit has an inherent number of so called initiative dices, usually 3D6. Those dices are used by active unit to perform one or more actions when unit’s card comes up or if it’s activated by leader. For example if unit wants to move short distance, two out of its three dices can be rolled, the result indicates the distance in may move. One initiative dice remains to be used for something else.
  • Casualties are represented by kills (one kill = one figure) or by suppression points (called wounds) that affect the effectiveness of the unit.
  • Leaders, aka “Big Men”, may be used in different ways, for example to generate momentum for own side’s actions, improve effectiveness of individual unit or rally a unit by removing their “wounds”.
  • A game turn ends when a so called “Tea Break” card is turned over. When that happens, all units that didn’t have their card played or have unused initiative dice may perform a limited set of actions. Once that’s done, the turn ends, all cards are reshuffled and next turn begins.

TW&T and IABSM - what’s the difference?
As far as I can see, there are three things that make TW&T into a beast that is significantly different from IABSM.

The first of those differences lies in the way infantry units are represented on the table. Both rulesets try to depict low level engagements, with squads as basic manoeuvre units. However, in IABSM the representation of units is rather generic - a platoon consists most often of three or four squads, with no distinctions between them except perhaps number of soldiers in each of them. In TW&T, the platoons and squads are modelled in much more detail. Platoons consist not only of its squads; their HQ and support elements are also represented as separate entities. Squads are split into their sub-elements (most often squad leader as a Big Man, a rifle section and automatic weapon section). Squads of different nationalities can therefore be differentiated better than in IABSM. For example, German squad with MG42 LMG and bolt action Mausers has different characteristics than American squad with M1 Garands and a BAR as squad support weapon. Thanks to the higher “resolution”, players can now act more realistically with their squads and apply same doctrines that were used in real life.

This low granularity of TW&T is also reflected in changes of the card activation system. In IABSM, a card usually activated an individual leader or a platoon, thus allowing the user to act with all of its squads at once. In TW&T each squad has its own card.

Role of Big Men in TW&T is very different from that in IABSM. In IABSM, they are an abstract construction derived from qualitative differences between command&control of different units. Those differences are handled mainly by making different number of Big Men available on the table, but the ruleset does not attempt to recreate real command structures. In TW&T on the other hand, Big Men are directly anchored with “reality", so number of officers and NCO:s (i.e. Big Men) on the table is exactly the same as it would be in real life. Each squad has its own leader, each platoon has a platoon commander and so on.

The “improved realism” of command structure in TW&T doesn’t end with correct depiction of command structure. Each Big Man in TW&T is graded in four levels, with level 1 being the lowest. When Big Man’s card comes up, he is then able to perform at minimum one, but possibly more actions in that turn. Actions available for Big Men can be split into two groups - personal (such as moving from squad A to squad B, directing fire of a machine gun or giving a pep talk to a rifle section under heavy fire) or unit activations (making them use their dice for spotting, shooting or movement). His chance for multiple actions and how many of them will be available at the time his card turns up are decided by his level in combination with luck in the draw of cards. I won’t go into details of this game mechanism, but I must say that it is rather ingenious.

Last noticeable difference in TW&T when compared to IABSM lies in the fact that when a unit card comes up, it can shoot and spot, but is only allowed to move if it is activated and ordered to do so by appropriate Big Man. In other words, squads cannot normally move on their own initiative. This seemingly small change, in combination with the way Big Men operate in TW&T, has in my opinion dramatic implications on the gameplay. In fact, I would like to go as far as saying that thanks to the introduction of this restriction, the “missing link” of IABSM has finally been put into place.

Let me explain what I mean. My understanding is that the main purpose of Big Men both in IABSM as well as in TW&S is for them to act as a motor providing the momentum for the units under their command. This goal (once again in my humble opinion), was never fully achieved in IABSM, mainly because of the limitations imposed on Big Men in that ruleset. However, in TW&T the Big Men are not only the sole “source” for unit movement, but what’s even more important, the differences in leadership quality of different Big Men also have a direct impact on reaction speed and degree of coordination between different units on the table.

Testing the new ideas
Characteristics of TW&T described above had a huge impact in the test game that T. put together for us last Sunday. The idea was to have two squads of British infantry make a sudden raid on a German communication bunker defended by a small garrison of second rate troops. British side had two leaders, one of grade 4 and one of grade 3. Their opposition consisted of second grade platoon with three squads without any automatic weapons, an MMG position and a couple of AA-guns. They were led by four Big Men, all of grade 2.

Our small test run turned out to be a perfect illustration of TW&T:s strenghs. Despite being inferior in numbers and being activated less often, British platoon was able to coordinate its actions much better than the Germans and overwhelmed opposing units with fire and manoeuvre one unit at a time. It also became clear that the activation system for Big Men has a bit of a nasty streak built into it - because of the way that game mechanism works, Big Men of higher grade “soak up” possibility for multiple activities for their counterparts of lower grade. This fact put the Germans at additional disadvantage, because German Big Men never had a chance to grab initiative (in form of multiple actions) and form a coherent defensive line before their individual squads were defeated.

WP_000032 Not the best picture quality, had to use my mobile phone

WP_000038 British patrol entering the enemy territory

WP_000036 Nearing the objective

Different strokes for different folks
My personal first impression of TW&T is mostly very positive. First of all, I am a huge fan of the stuff that comes from Too Fat Lardies and I always liked IABSM, even despite the flaws that I see in that ruleset. TW&T follows in its predecessor's footsteps, but manages to avoid the issues that always bothered me when I played IABSM. Overall, the game design of TW&T seems slicker and more coherent to me than that in second edition IABSM.

T. on the other hand didn’t like TW&T at all. His opinion was that the increased detail in depiction of the squad structure and its equipment didn’t contribute much to the fun, but made the game “plotty” and slow. He also expressed a worry about games demanding too much time and frequent down-times for “not active” players, especially in larger games. His objections against Tea Break card also remained unchanged (even though we played with two of those cards in the game deck).

In other words, the verdict over TW&T seems to be a one to one split decision. Considering the fact that I currently don’t have neither figures nor terrain for WWII games, I probably won’t have opportunity to play more of TW&T for at least a good while. But it may very well be so that TW&T will be the final straw that breaks my resistance against ordering a bunch of those 10mm Pendraken minis I’ve been glancing at so often over last couple of years.

Another painting project, in yet another scale? Oh…. thanks for that one, Too Fat Lardies! :-)

January 23, 2012

Stop the presses!

It was bound to happen sooner or later – I’m actually done with a project!

Some time ago I started to paint first batch of 6mm Napoleonic French with the intention to run a test game with General De Brigade rules. Object of my interest was one of the smallest scenarios in first scenario book for abovementioned ruleset - Hilaire's  assault on Laichling villages during battle of Ekmuhl. At the time it seemed like a relatively quick job - eleven batalions for the French, ten battalions and some cavalry for the Austrian, three batteries of artillery. How long would it take to paint up those figures? I expected to be done in six or seven weeks, at the most.

Well... those six to seven weeks turned out to be closer to five years, but who's counting, right? The important thing is that I am done - all figures are painted and based, bases are flocked, flags are mounted.

Below is the first batch of pictures - eight battalions of French Line infantry, ready for action.

Widepic

At Angle Closeup2 

Closeup 

At Angle2

January 08, 2012

First look at 6mm European buildings from Total Battle Miniatures

I won't say that it's my New Year resolution, but I do hope to be more active here than I was last year. At the same time I'm a strong believer in putting the bar as low as possible (nice way to avoid disappointments), so my goal at the moment is to double the number of posts per year.

OK, with the solemn declarations out of the way, let's get to the business of the day. Sometime in 2011 a relatively new company, Total Battle Miniatures, came to my attention. Their rapidly expanding product lineup consists of terrain pieces in all main scales, but I was especially interested in their 6mm European buildings. They seemed perfect for my General de Brigade project, so a couple of weeks ago I've grabbed the entire lot and here they are.

The first picture shows the smaller buildings in "of the shelf" state. I haven't done anything with them yet. The second picture shows the larger buildings with first coat of white primer already applied.

Buildings1

Buildings2

Why white primer, you ask? Well, the guys from Total Battle Miniatures were kind enough to include a little tutorial describing their painting method with the buildings they sent to me. Their approach is to first paint the buildings white and then follow up with washes of the subsequent colors. If one is to draw conclusions from the pictures of painted buildings at their site, the end result is very subtle and realistic. Since I liked that look, I decided to skip my usual hatchet job consisting of black basecoat and old-fashioned drybrushing once-over and give their method a shot. Results of this experiment will of course be posted here in due time.

In any case, based on my impression of those very nice miniatures, Total Battle Miniatures is a very welcome addition to the relatively small group of manufacturers of 6mm terrain. The buildings I've got are of the high quality I've previously only seen in products from Timecast Models.