Friday, May 17, 2019

Infernal machines...

A saker - this one is in the Château du Haut-Kœnigsbourg
So, having re-read my notes on artillery [clicky] just to refresh my brain, it was time to add some artillery to the English Civil War project...

Choice for these was Peter Pig, which I had the chance of seeing in the flesh at Salute, so bought there and then - the guns are lovely, the crews are as characterful as the infantry and cavalry..  not surprisingly.. 

What I was looking for at this point was mediums..  there's scope, and I will definitely add, some lighter battalion level pieces later, but for the moment I wanted some battle level assets..  these represent saker/demi-culverin/culverin type ordnance.

I also thought about limbers, but that's a lot of painting for something that wouldn't usually appear on the table so I decided to forego - if there is a scenario specific requirement at some time in the future I'll add then.. ..

So on to the guns..  four of them (Peter Pig Medium gun), with crew (16 figures - one pack Gun Crew Firing, one pack Gun Crew Loading) allocated two of them per side..

I researched but didn't find any specifics about gun carriages being coloured/painted, so went with natural wood for the carriages, the guns are bronze as per the example above - in all reality, on campaign they would probably not have been polished, the barrels may even have been blacked, but artillery barrels are always this colour in my armies (except when I know they're iron )

Two part bases - the crew are mounted on 30x30 as per the infantry, with space left for the cannon trail. The cannon are mounted on a separate 15x30.

The idea being that the cannon can be left in situ when the crew are destroyed, or they leave the gun to seek refuge with the nearest pike block, or for any other reason..

Painted in a variety of muted colours, grey and brown predominate, 16 figures, four guns, painted May 2019.

Next on the painting table, 'dragooners'!

Monday, May 13, 2019

Clearing some of the pile...

...having decided to go with 15mm on the English Civil War project, that leaves me with a small pile of 20mm lead to divest myself of...

If anyone is interested these are the Fleabay links... 

Charles Gerrad's :

Various officers:

Assorted Les Higgins:

Tumbling Dice regiment in waiting:

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Lord Brooke’s Regiment of Foote... the "Dyers"

...couldn't help myself and went slightly off piste for these guys (rather than completing brigades I'd already started), purely so I could use that splendid new Vallejo purple I found at Salute..

The Brooke in question was a fascinating man..  enjoyed the research on him very much.. more properly known as Robert Greville, he was a cousin of, and the adopted son of, his unmarried uncle Fulke Greville, first Baron Brooke who clearly needed an heir.

Educated at the universities of Leiden and Paris he travelled extensively until on the death of his uncle (murdered by one of his servants in 1628*), he inherited the title and became 2nd Baron Brooke.

He married Katherine Russell, daughter of the Earl of Bedford three years later, and it was through Bedford (or was that why he married Katherine, as he was already that way inclined??) that he was introduced to the group of puritan aristocracy opposed to the King's religious reforms and leanings (Lord Saye and Seale was one of the leaders).
The man himself.. an etching by
William Henry Mote

During the Bishops War's he (and Saye and Seale) refused to provide support to the King and were imprisoned briefly. The year after the wears ended he wrote A Discourse on Episcopacy in which he attacked the political power of the bishops and the established church. Nailing his colours to the mast I think... When the Long Parliament met in 1640, Brooke was prominent in demands for the exclusion of bishops from the House of Lords.

After the "first Army Plot" of April 1641 (an alleged attempt by the army to take over Parliament and also free Stafford from the Tower as a result of discontent over Parliament sending money to the Scottish army rather than the English army it was intended for), Brooke began to stockpile weapons and ammunition.

In March 1642, he was appointed lord-lieutenant of Warwickshire, secured the county magazine at Coventry and fortified his ancestral home, Warwick Castle but came into conflict with the Earl of Northampton, the King's commissioner of array. Northampton captured a convoy of artillery that Brooke was bringing up from London and used it to besiege Warwick Castle in August. Brooke led the relieving force, that succeeded in driving back Lord Northampton and securing control of Warwickshire for Parliament.

In December 1642, he was appointed commander of Parliament's Midlands Association and proved to be a popular leader. He drove the Royalists out of Stratford-upon-Avon in February 1643 and advanced on the city of Lichfield.

During this siege, Brooke was shot dead on the 2nd March by a Royalist sniper stationed on the central tower of Lichfield Cathedral (possibly/supposedly/allegedly the first ever recorded death by sniper fire). This was a serious loss to the Parliamentary cause, many saw him as the potential replacement for the Earl of Essex.

Anyway - on to the regiment in question...  On Thursday, July 28th, 1642, volunteers from London and the Southwark of Essex registered at the New Artillery Gardens (from the Thomason Tracts E109). On August 1st, 1642, these volunteers were divided into companies and regiments for the Earl of Essex's Army, with officers appointed over them (Thomason Tracts E109) some of these were ear marked for Brooke.  At the same time Brooke was recruiting in Warwickshire in 1642, but there is some confusion, as Brooke received monies from Parliament for two separate regiments, and it's unknown whether these recruits were for a separate regiment to the same one of his name in Essex's army (recruited in London).

By the time of the compilation of “The list of the Army …..”# in early September, however, they seem to have been combined into one regiment with 6 London and 4 Warwickshire companies. Their theoretical strength from the same list was 1200 [clicky], but I would have thought it unlikely they were anywhere near that and Giglio quotes from  the Calendar of State Papers Domestic Series that on August 22nd, 1642, there was a warrant for 740 sets of clothing issued..

# "The list of the army raised under the command of his Excellency, Robert Earle of Essex and Ewe, Viscount Hereford, Lord Ferrers of Chartley, Bourcheir and Lovaine: appointed captaine generall of the army, imployed for the defence of the Protestant religion, the safety of his Majesties Person, and of the Parliament; the preservation of the lawes, liberties, and peace of the kingdom, and protection of his Majesties subjects from violence and oppression. With the names of severall officers belonging to the army". The author of this, snappily entitled, tome was George Glover....

The regiment probably mustered for review on September 20th near Coventry (Thomason Tracts E239). The regiment then departed en-route to Oxford. While en-route to Sherbourne on September 22nd, 1642, it stopped to pillage one of the Queen's servants at Uxbridge on the 23rd. They were diverted, so as to reach Oxford by the 27th, along with Granthams Regiment of Foot. It appears that the regiment was about 1,000 strong at this period.

In October 1642, when the King moved towards London, the Earl of Essex's Army followed, which resulted in the Battle of Edgehill (Oct. 23rd, 1642). Lord Brooke's Regiment of Foot was part of Thomas Ballard's brigade, which acted as the reserve in the center rear of the Parliamentarian order of battle. One company, however, were left to garrison Warwick Castle. The strength of the regiment for the Battle of Edgehill appears to have been about 740 strong.

The outcome of the battle left the King's Army in possession of the field since four of the foot regiments of the Earl of Essex's Army (the whole left wing) routed from the field when the Royalists advanced, although the other foot regiments (including Lord Brooke's Regt.) fought valiantly. This has been attributed to the fact that the Earl of Essex's Army was well armed with muskets and pikes (about 2:1 ratio) with a lot of the pikemen wearing corselets of armor. Whereas the King's forces were badly armed at this time (in addition, there was help from two parliament horse units as well).

Only ten battle scarred foot regiments of the Earl of Essex's Army managed to return to London after the battle. Lord Brooke's Regiment of Foot suffered heavy losses at the Battle of Edgehill, being reduced to 480 strong by mid-November, when it was stationed at Brentford along with Holle's Regiment of Foot.

Freikorps figures, for a change from the purely Peter Pig I've used up to now...

Prince Rupert attacked Brentford on November 12th, 1642, while the King was in peace negotiations with Parliament. After a stubborn resistance by Lord Brooke's and Holle's regiments, which were short of "musket, pike or powder", the barricades were stormed by the Royalists, and the parliamentarians forced onto the plain beyond Brentford, where Captain John Lilburne rallied the remnants of both regiments. The Royalists described the two regiments as butchers and dyers playing on their red and purple coats. Some were eventually forced into the Thames River, where many drowned, and Lilburne captured. Both regiments lost over 200 casualties each at Brentford.

The regiment apparently went into winter quarters after Brentford, and in 1643 took part in the siege of Lichfield, where Brooke died. The regiment did not survive long after his death, eventually being disbanded in mid-March. Although officers were retained on half pay, and at least two were sent to Baronett Northcote's Regiment at Plymouth on the 20th and 30th of March, 1643. 

Uniquely, as far as is known, Brooke’s regiment wore purple coats. In September 1642 a regiment carrying purple flags differenced by stars (mullets) marched through Oxford. A student, Anthony Wood, who wrote, witnessed their entry in Oxford on the 27th; "there were 8 or 10 auntient (standard) of them, of a purple colour, with the arms of England and 7 stars in the field. Every auntient had a hundred men under it (i.e. 100 men per company)." This is generally assumed to have been Brooke's due to the use of purple. The colour of stars was not recorded, but likely was white or yellow. "It is unknown but probably unlikely that the Warwick companies were issued any uniform never mind purple ones".

NB. Brooke had five sons. The eldest, Francis, succeeded to the title, but dying unmarried was succeeded by his brother Robert Greville, 4th Baron Brooke, who also dying without male issue the title devolved upon his younger brother Fulke, who became 5th Baron Brooke. Fulke happily did his marital duties... 

* He was murdered by one, Ralph Haywood, who believed that he had been cheated in his master's will. Haywood then turned the knife on himself. Greville's physicians treated his wounds by filling them with pig fat rather than disinfecting them, the pig fat turned rancid and infected the wounds, and he died in agony four weeks after the attack. Yikes...

24 figures - Freikorps 15mm - painted April/May 2019


Thursday, May 02, 2019

Sir John Gramson's Regiment of Horse..

The man himself (caught in perhaps one of the
first selfies), while serving in the low countries
By way of a bit of fun..  here's the next regiment to join the Parliamentary ranks.. 

Bawdy, cowardly, and courageous by turns, Sir John (known to his closer acquaintances, and a fair few ladies, as Lee) Gramson was a seventeenth century gentleman who over the course of his lifetime was caught between, and served,  various allegiances, and who at separate times had to either bludgeon, lie, or bed his way out of a number of troubles.

Born in 1601, Sir Lee's family’s fortunes came from his Scottish father’s boyhood friendship with King Charles, and as the heir to Gramson House, the family mansion on the Thames near Richmond, he always believed himself  destined for greater things.

As a young man, he was sent to Oxford University, where he spent three years deciding that he was not interested either in continuing academic life. or entering one of the professions—law, the Church, or medicine. An uninspired scholar, his time appears to have been sent mostly at "The Vulgar Unicorn", a public house of ill repute where he was usually to be found (when not upstairs with Meg, Lill, Kate, and/or Beth) in a corner of the bar with friends.

While he was at university, his father died and he inherited..

Sometime around 1626 (his memoirs are unclear, possibly due to his life-long prodigious appetite for Sack and Malmsey), he lost the house and inheritance in a game of Cribbage. Subsequent accusations that the game was rigged were unproven, yet resulted in a life long enmity for the man  he believed to have deprived him of his fortune (Sir Mamaduke Forstescue).

Much taken with the two "yellow duns" (really..) in the middle..

With no money, and pursued by debtors and ladies of ill repute, Gramson crossed the Channel and after minor adventures on the road, arrived in Paris. Facts are unclear but his subsequent early departure from Paris may have been due to him killing a man in a duel and needing to avoid the authorities.

He journeyed to Italy and travelled there for some time, arriving in Vienna in 1631 and then going on into Bavaria. In Germany, he was witness the fighting between the Protestant Germans, led by the Elector-Duke of Saxony, and the Catholic forces headed by Emperor Ferdinand. Needing money he took a commission as a volunteer officer in the Protestant forces and was present at the siege of Magdeburg where the Gramson coffers were replenished again by the looting that followed.

Love that uniform blue..

After the fall of Magdeburg, Gramson was introduced to Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, who had joined the Protestant Germans against Emperor Ferdinand and was apparently impressed enough that he took service with the Swedes as a gentlemen volunteer and was present (but not conspicuous) at both Lutzen and Breitenfeld, and where the coffers were added to again.

On the death of Adolphus he again surrendered his commission, and returned to France via Holland, before eventually returning to England, when the news of the troubles (that were to lead to the English Civil War) reached him.

As a hardened veteran of the wars in the Low Countries, his memoirs also make clear that he is still also seeking revenge on Forstescue, the man who he believed cheated him, but who is serving Charles. Driven by revenge then, rather than a conviction to serve Parliament’s cause, he takes service with Parliament and is given a commission to raise a regiment of horse, and passes the time while doing this, cheating at cards, living off his wealthy and attractive mistress, and plotting the death of Forstescue.

Gramson died in 1662, childless, possibly as a result of cirrhosis of the liver following a lifetime of Sack and Malmsey intake (right up to his death his usual breakfast was a dozen oysters washed down with a jug of Malmsey).

Forstescue outlived him ()

Figures Peter Pig - painted March '19 (but not by me - as can clearly be seen!) - love them, cheers, Lee!

The real stuff:

The vast majority of the above is of course scurrilous nonsense, but it was fun inventing it, and I wanted a way of marking Lee's kindness in painting these two regiments of horse for me and this seemed as good a way as any.. 

The following however, are actually true..

Sunday, April 28, 2019

Sir John Byron's Regiment of Horse

The man himself.. stunning picture - fans of Stuart Reid
may recognise this from the cover of his book..
the scar on his cheek was a legacy from a skirmish in
January '43, when he was wounded by a halberd
More cavalry joins the project..  and thereby hangs a tale..  or should that be tail?

While talking to ex-pat Lee [clicky], about the progress of the English Civil war project (which Lee has some experience of, having painted an astonishingly good collection you can drool over here [clicky]) he mentioned that he would quite like to paint up a couple of regiments of horse, as I was using Peter Pig, and he loves the sculpts (as do I).. It didn't take 30 seconds for me to get an order in to Mr. Pig and soon enough, there were enough figures for two regiments on their way to deepest darkest sunny and brightest Spain...  and back, stupidly quickly considering, came this bunch (half of the haul!) - absolutely exquisite....

There's not a huge amount of information on the regiment itself as they are kind of overshadowed by their commanding officer, but the Byron in question was the eldest of seven sons of Sir John Byron (who died in 1623) - somewhat interestingly (ie. I am a geek and found it fascinating) I read somewhere that all seven of them were present and fighting for the King at Edgehill...

Potted CV. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and was elected as MP for Nottingham in 1624 and 1626. He was knighted in 1626 and was then elected as knight of the shire (MP) for Nottinghamshire in 1628. Charles created him Baron Byron in October 1643 after he'd distinguished himself at the First Battle of Newbury.

Byron was a Royalist from the very beginning of the First Civil War. He was commissioned colonel of this, the first Royalist cavalry regiment to be raised, in August 1642, and was sent with it to secure the city of Oxford in the King's name - which he did.

For the lack of anything to say otherwise I agreed with Lee we would go mix of red coats and buff for this regiment..
 At the approach of superior Parliamentarian forces, Byron, whose force was loaded up on looted college silver and plate, retreated to Worcester with the aim of getting to Shrewsbury to rejoin the King and the army mustering there, where the cash would undoubtedly have been welcomed. Rupert covered Byron's withdrawal from Worcester, resulting in the first significant skirmish of the English Civil War at Powick Bridge.

The following month, Byron's regiment took part in the battle of Edgehill - their strength is noted as 250 men in 6 troops ("Edgehill: The Battle Reinterpreted By Christopher L. Scott, Alan Turton, Eric Gruber von Arni").

The regiment was posted in the second line of Prince Rupert's (cavalry) command, on the right of the Royalist line, where they were in line with the Lifeguards and behind Rupert's regiments in th first line...  a number of sources I have read indicate that Byron could be held partly responsible for the Royalists not winning this battle, as during the initial opening moves of the battle when Rupert charged, Byron and the second line went with him rather than holding back as the reserve they were meant to be..  OK Rupert might also be held accountable for not having good instructions, but Byron was no new'by and should have known.. it looks like either he got carried away, or the Royalist horse under his command got carried away, and an opportunity to have had a good  reserve of horse for the later stages of the battle was lost...  lessons learned by both sides, and notably Byron, in time for Roundway...

The regiment (under Byron) went on to serve throughout the war before eventually surrendering at Carnarvon Castle in 1646 - they were present at Roundway Down, 1st Newbury, Marston Moor, and Rowton Heath, but were involved in and present at a score of other smaller actions and less well known battles...  true veterans.

Lord Byron died in 1652, childless, in exile in Paris, and was succeeded by his next eldest brother.

Figures Peter Pig - painted March '19 (but not by me - as can clearly be seen!) - love them, cheers, Lee!

Monday, April 22, 2019


"They ought to be taught to give fire on horseback, but their service is on foot," in a very occasional series..

The name possibly derives from an early weapon, a short wheel-lock called a 'dragon', because the first dragoons raised in France had their carbine's muzzle decorated with a dragon's head.

It has also been suggested that the name derives from the German "tragen" or the Dutch "dragen", both being the verb "to carry" in their respective languages.

(By the by, slightly less believably, I have also read that the name is descended from the Latin Draconarius - the standard bearer in Roman cavalry carrying the Draco, the open mouthed dragon headed standard, and also I've read that they got their name from the fact that a galloping infantryman with his loose coat and the burning match resembled a dragon ).

The practice of mounting musketeers for greater mobility probably originated during the late 16th century in the French Huguenot armies of Henri of Navarre. Dragoons were used in the Dutch armies of Prince Maurice of Nassau

Monck recommended that an army have as many troops of dragoons as regiments of horse (ie from one-fifth to one-quarter the strength of the horse)


If we've learned anything by now it's that uniforms weren't ..errr... uniform..  

Their usual attire would have have been that of an infantry musketeer, apart from the fact they would have worn boots and spurs instead of shoes. Helmets were sometimes worn, but even so, not much protection, and they were unsuited to cavalry on cavalry action.

They had swords, but only the officers carried pistols, the rest having either a 'dragon' (a musket-bore firelock with a 16 inch barrel) or a shortened but wide-bore firelock musket, both were normally slung from a swivel on a broad leather shoulder-belt. Ideally these would be firelocks/flintlock/wheel lock, but occasionally they would be match lock (more likely on the Royalist side) and this would affect the ability to fire from horseback.

Dragoons rode small horses or 'cobs' to move into position and then fought on foot.

Reenactor pic courtesy Wars of Louis
XIV blog link below..
Supplied with inferior horses and more basic equipment, the dragoon regiments were cheaper to recruit and maintain than the expensive regiments of cavalry.

Their standards or 'guidons' were a cross between infantry colours and cavalry cornets - about two feet square - and the fringes which some of them feature. What made dragoon guidons really distinctive, however, was their swallow-tailed shape.


Early dragoons were not organised in squadrons or troops as were cavalry, but in companies like the infantry: their officers and non-commissioned officers bore infantry ranks.

The basic building block was a file of  11 men, of whom ten dismounted to fight while the 11th held their horses. A company (I have seen them also called troops despite the previous statement) numbered approximately a hundred and ten men each - five troops seem ordinarily to have sufficed for a regiment, but the New Model (being different) had ten - see below..

Dragoon regiments used drummers, not buglers, to communicate orders on the battlefield.

The New Model had one Dragoon Regiment, with ten 100 man companies, it played a significant role in the early stages of the battle of Naseby by disrupting Prince Rupert's cavalry on the Royalist right wing. In most major encounters of the Civil War each side had one or two Dragoon regiments. 

Initially, dragoons were organised in distinct regiments, but as the wars progressed, the practice grew of attaching a company of dragoons to some of the larger cavalry regiments to provide supporting fire in action and to act as sentries.
From Pinterest but clearly copyright Osprey


Dragoons were mounted infantrymen who rode small horses or cobs to move into position and then fought on foot. Typical dragoon actions during the civil wars were to cover the approaches to a position or to guard the flank, screening flanks or retreats, seizing strategically placed patches of cover ahead of the main army, or giving mobile fire support to the cavalry..

In the closing stages of the Battle of Naseby Okey's Dragoons, who had started the action as dismounted musketeers, got on their horses and charged, possibly the first time this was done.

A single dragoon troop or company was sometimes incorporated into a cavalry regiment, though separate regiments, usually of five or six troops or companies, were probably more usual.

Dragoons were trained to 'give fire on horseback' and very occasionally did deliver mounted charges, but they were still essentially mounted infantry and had not yet managed to assimilate themselves into the cavalry. Without pikes, they would have also have had a hard time trying to stand against attack on foot.

Not surprisingly, dismounted behind a hedge was their favourite battlefield station.

Enough I think..  I'm planning to add at least a regiment per side for this project..


Gush Renaissance Warfare [clicky]

Stay tuned - Brooks is on the painting table, and I have regular cavalry at the basing stage..

Monday, April 15, 2019

"One Hour Wargames" - Scenario 18 - "Counter Attack" - Game

A portent of things to come...! My first throw... there's
a 0.08% chance of getting that result ..apparently... a little delayed (I blame Salute, and getting Sparrow ready for the water), but herewith the results of the game DG and I played on Salute-eve, the setup of which was described in this post [clicky]..

So by way of a quick recap - American War of Independence - 12 units a side (1 cavalry, 2 guns, 8 line infantry, 1 light infantry) - objective for the winner is to control the town and the bridge..

DG opted to be the "defender" with the Anglo Hessian force, I was the 'damned Colonials'..

As nominal "attacker" I have three advantages - one I start the game with all my forces on the table (the defender only has two units on the table at start),  two, I am aware of the existence of, and can use, the two fords, and three, I can occupy one of the two objectives - the town - immediately (on the plus side for the defender, they hold the other objective).. my plan of attack was 'divide and rule' since DG's starting force blockades the bridge, and he can't be in three paces at the same time, the fords are key..

We decided on the evening to dice for DG's main force arriving from turn 3 with a reducing throw required of 5 on turn 3, 4 on turn 4 etc. so theoretically) I had 4 moves to play with..

Dividing my line infantry into two brigades the plan was to use one of them to demonstrate against the bridge and keep/hold DG's forces there, while the other column used the ford on my right to (hopefully) outflank..   I sent the lights and the cavalry to the ford on my left..

I would say about move two or three..  DG is about to start dicing for the arrival of his main force..

Same move, other flank - cavalry hoping to make a nuisance of themselves..

Damn sightseer's...

My centre brigade coming on nicely - bridge and defenders in the background..
At which point - tea consumed - and the Americans in a relaxed frame of mind, it being turn 3, DG threw for the arrival of his main force, and they turned up that move...  the dice gods had turned, and my first throw was not a portent for me, but DG.. 

First he moved his cavalry to the ford where mine were, effectively blocking mine from crossing - with finite resources its an even throw, and I didn't want to waste my cavalry, so there they stayed..

Focus switched to the other flank..

Four battalions crossed the ford on my right, swung wide, and then lined up to roll up the British flank...  to give DG something to think about I launched my central brigade across the bridge in column - always a risky manoeuvre, but I was hoping to suck in some of his infantry so that they weren't facing the flank attack...

Bridge assault!
On the other flank - DG had reinforced the cavalry with a couple of battalions of foot...   my cavalry and lights were holding up two line and his cavalry - I considered that a fair deal..!    Both sides artillery, throughout all of this pounded away on targets of opportunity..

A Proper Job indeed... high water mark of the American effort..
...and then it all started to unravel for the American's..  in the centre despite limited success, poor morale throws led to all three battalions being thrown back in disarray and rout..  I managed to dislodge one of DG's battalions, but the other hung on grimly...

One down (routing - top left), one to go - but he was a sticker and my battalions are about to melt away like snow on a sunny day...
I had high hopes on the right flank - four against two - fair odds and I thought a good demonstration of how my multiple attacks had caused DG to spread his units thinly....

Four against two..  what could possibly go wrong..?  
Left flank (next picture) - still a stand off - but DG has sent one of the two foot battalions to where it is needed more...

...and so (next picture) I do the same with my lights and throw them into the bridge assault - last throw of the dice as the first two battalions stream past in rout....

...and on the right flank (next picture)? First charge goes in and is held, as are all the others, and then poor morale throws, and my assault is no more.. I think one of the charges actually went home but was thrown back..  superior musketry on DG's part and poor morale throws on mine did for it in the end..

End of game - it was late so we ended (we had an early start to get to Salute) - both sides battered but on balance I think DG could win this game fairly easily in half a dozen moves by just standing off and pounding my remaining units with his artillery, so in my mind he has the victory..

....and meanwhile, faithful to the end..   
Post Match Analysis
  • a toast was drunk - RIP, John...
  • the fords are an interesting and tactically important part of the scenario - inevitably the town player becomes attacker, purely because of them and the fact all his units start on the table at the beginning... 
  • the fact that the fords are only available to the attacker is something DG struggled with throughout the game - he couldn't understand why he couldn't use them after 'I'd showed him where they were'..
  • my plan was good - I still think that - it was however one of those evenings where Lady Luck was dining out in my case (over at DG's place!) and my assaults fell apart mostly through poor morale checks  more than anything else..
  • beer on the evening was the excellent "Proper Job" - a citra based American IPA style ale - snacks were Salt and Vinegar Hoola Hoops (other starch based snacks are available)