Thursday, April 16

"Battles with Model Soldiers" - "Game 2" - Setup and Game

..it was this version
I had on almost permanent loan from
the library as a much younger
Steve the Wargamer; now in my
collection
Back in the day I was glued to this book almost as much as I was "War Games", an absolutely pivotal moment for me was the chapter 'Three Basic Battles' where Don played a simple game three times, each time introducing new troop types.. seems stupidly simplistic now, but at the time, for me it was exciting stuff - it showed how a wargame worked, what the thought processes were, and what was being done - sounds stupid I know, but back then not a lot of us knew what a wargame was, or how it was done..  55 years later and I'm still here... 

So it was that in March 2010 I played Game 1 [clicky] as I was right at the beginning of the American Civil War project, and these three games had featured American Civil War forces, it had seemed like a good idea to use the scenario as a simple play test of the 'Regimental Fire and Fury' rules I was proposing to use for the project..

Fast forward (or rather slow forward given it's taken 10 years!) and in the interim I came to the conclusion that I simply couldn't devote the time and energy required to learn how to play 'Regimental Fire and Fury' well ..  they are a lovely set of rules, but simply too complicated for my tastes..  every unit had several moral grades, several strength possibilities, several choices of armament - just too much to keep track of, and I don't play often enough not to have to re-learn the rules every time I play them.

So I tried Ross McFarlane's [clicky] "Hearts of Tin" a few times (I like them), but then a year or two ago DG and I were playing one of the One Hour Wargame scenario's and we decided to use the rules direct from the book - after the game we had one of our usual excellent back and forth's about how we could 'improve' the rules, and as a result now have a set that I like very much... at their heart they have a dice driven activation mechanism, that with one small change, also makes them excellent for solo games..

...and then a recent post by Norm [clicky] finally stung me into action.. time to play game 2!!

Game 2 then - same battlefield as Game 1, just add cavalry for this game.. Union at bottom, Confederates at the top..  a lone Union supply wagon realises they have got caught up in the middle of something they don't want to be mixed up in... 


End Turn 1 (in each case following):

Infantry have deployed to march column to allow quicker movement. The Union cavalry are better placed to occupy the wall and have darted forward..  the wagon is legging it...


End Turn 2:

With the benefit of a better initiative the Confederate cavalry has reached the wall but currently still mounted... the Union cavalry opens fire but at that range have little chance of doing any serious damage...


End Turn 3:

Confederate cavalry have dismounted into the shelter of the wall - both sides are attemting an outflanking manoeuvre..


End Turn 4:

Fire-fight! Neither side can summon up the enthusiasm to charge home... Union shooting is good..


End Turn 5:

That Confederate outflanking manoeuvre is looking good - in the meanwhile though the lead continues to fly with varying levels of accuracy..


End Turn 6:

The Confederates have drawn off at least one of the Union regiments but can they take advantage of it?


End Turn 7:

Fire-fight.. the Confederate zouaves have broken and run..


End Turn 8:

The departure of the Confederate zouaves triggers an advance by the Union infantry regiment, funnily enough the Confederate infantry do the same - in a one on one fire-fight with a zouave regiment they are already disadvantaged (I give zouave regiments a +1 on firing)


End Turn 9:

The Confederates know they've lost - this was about the sixth or seventh turn in a row where they lost initiative..  the Confederate cavalry pull back before they are broken..


End Turn 10:

The Union cavalry mounts as faces off - not as stupid as it sounds as the two units were within a point of each other in terms of strength.


End Turn 11:

It's not obvious but there has been a fierce cavalry melee in this turn - both sides have inflicted casualties, but neither have inflicted enough, and so have withdrawn to draw breath


...and at that point the Confederate commander ceded the day, and the battlefield, and withdrew...  a fun little tussle!

...and just for fun, and because the battlefield was already set up I also played a "Game 4" with two infantry and the artillery...  there's a surprising amount of fun to be had on a four foot table and just a small handful of units...   given we're on lockdown, and I'm working from home, it's also nice to just swivel my chair round and do a game move when I feel like it!
  • .
  • .

20 comments:

  1. Thanks Steve, enjoyed (that slide show is a nifty thing). It is just nice to dip back into that book and reminisce. I have been browsing the book while waiting for some cavalry to pass through the painting table and it surprising how much of the text is familiar, especially with the WWII rules, which I used a lot, those many years ago - good post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hiya Norm - thanks to you for the mental kick to go and put some metal on the table, and revisit the book after way too long.. me too on the WW2 rules. I still remember some of the attack values and defence values now, oh, and pouring over Purnell's History of the Second World War to come up with values for tanks he hadn't included.. good fun.. stay safe, matey.

      Delete
  2. Steve many thanks for posting this and the link to the game Norm did. Both are excellent and I enjoyed them very much. I will be trying this out myself soon with my son.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark, kudos to Norm for giving me the mental flip to go and do it... please post on that battle when you play it! :o)

      Delete
  3. That Featherstone book has been on my nightstand for a long time. Your slide show is a nifty bit of technology. As for RF&F, the game is not that difficult to learn and play. Once a game or two is under your belt, it seems like second nature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jonathan... I was trying to figure out when I first read it.. I'm going to guess I was about 11 or 12??? That makes it 48 years ago roughly.. where does the time go? RF&F is an elegant set of rules, and my on;y issue with them is trying to keep track of all the factors.. I like roster sheets, and I don't like table clutter, and the constant to'ing and fro'ing was driving me nuts... I know DG still plays them with his local club, but the older I get the more willing I am to relinquish detail, for simple.. the grail for me is "simple with period flavour"...

      For you and Norm - the slider code came from here : https://www.kimsixbloggersupport.com/2016/07/how-to-add-image-slider-to-posts-on.html

      I'm a nerd and I love stuff like this.. it's a little bit of a faff, but basically all you do is load the pictures as normal, make them bullets, and then put a specific kind of un-ordered list in front.. what I'd like to know how to do is slow the transition down, but it was fun to play with...

      Delete
  4. The times I played that game with my Airfix soldiers! Great memories.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A good bit of nostalgia does none of us any harm Steve, I really enjoyed reading that. I don't know what happened to my copy, probably went on ebay or something years ago, which is a shame. You mentioned RF&F - I never got into those but still love the original version and keep my eyes out for a copy. About 4 years ago I bought a reprint from Caliver but it was terrible, the print quality was dreadful (I speak as an ex lithographic printer of 30 years, I would have been out the door if I had produced cr*p like that), and most of the half tone image were so dark I could not see anything. Cost me £20 and I just binned it :( so if you ever happen to come across the original book please let me know Steve, I'm prepared to pay a decent price to get my hands on it.

    Keep safe and keep putting up the posts,

    Lee.

    PS: any beer involved?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lee - RF&F is an excellent set of rules but the sheer quantity of tags/tokens/labels and etc I needed so as to be able to keep track of who was what, in the end drove me away.. I think I played both of these while supposedly at work so no beer was involved... :o))

      PS. Second edition of F&F is out - they're calling it Brigade Fire and Fury to differentiate it - would that do the trick for you?? http://www.fireandfury.com/products/desc_bff2.shtml

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that link Steve, I just had a read. I was not aware that they had published a second edition, I would still love to get my hands on an original edition though in good condition. Re tokens and markers, with the labels placed on the bottom of the command bases showing effectiveness levels, unit quality etc and actual models to represent disorder etc it's possible to keep the table clear of clutter, something that is also important to me. I'm so tempted to give it another go in 6mm scale.

      Delete
  6. As you say Steve - a lot of fun from a small game. I seem to have missed that book - don't know how. Can I also cast a vote for RFF (and Brigade). I find they are good for solo play and, not liking rosters, I put up with the clutter of little cards (3/4 inch by 1/2 inch)in those small stands. I use 'smoke' to show the status of the units as you seem to. The clutter is a trade off for playability I suppose.
    Jim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hiya Jim - I reckon that is one of the three or four core books that Featherstone wrote... it was certainly good to reacquaint myself with it...

      Delete
  7. Wonderful book and a very nice version of the 2nd basic battle. I like the lone supply waggon making a dash for it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Maudlin.. I do like a little table colour... ;o)

      Delete
  8. Great fun to read. Back in the 90's we played the original F&F for a year and then our own Nappy adaptation for another one. But I got tired of the endless looking at the chart and adding and subtracting factors to the die roll for each of a dozen+ units twice every turn. As my eyes and memory got worse, using them got less attractive.

    Have you included the mods to OHW in a post or elsewhere? Mostly out of curiosity. The rules have gotten more clever over the couple of years since I was given the book and have started making more sense to me though I still insist on at least 2 tactical options for troops that had options (like cavalry that historically used both dismounted fire and mounted sabre and pistol charges). Still I noticed the other day that some of the simple, don't sweat the small stuff attitude was starting to creep into my design philosophy although it hasn't fully triumphed yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ross.. not published them, but if people are interested I can do, but they are very much a work in progress...

      PS. Enjoying your run of albums on Farcebook - there's some classics in there...

      Delete
    2. Hello Steve. I have looked back through the OHW posts so know at least some of what you have done but would also be interested to hear if there is more. Thanks. Jim

      Delete
  9. Ah, memories! Battles With Model Soldiers is also an old friend of mine - I also remember ordering it from the library multiple times.

    Your reaction to RF&F exactly mirrors my own thoughts on rules in general. Rule set after rule set is published, and there's hardly a 'major' set which I wouldn't describe as over-complex. Like you say, too much to learn, too much to remember. There always seems to be the temptation to put in that extra layer of complexity or 'chrome'.

    Thanks for the report!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Keith - I think the issue is that there is nothing really new under the sun - most of the rule mechanisms have already been written, so there is a need to try and make the rule set different and therefore sell'able... you do that by adding chrome... the wargaming grognards though come from a time when we were encouraged to write our own, so I am always comparing rule sets to what I think I could do with them, LOL!

      Delete