tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post645195639726204154..comments2024-03-29T10:07:43.170+00:00Comments on <p align="right">Steve's Random <br>Musings on Wargaming <br>and other stuff...</p>: Raid on St Michel - Game 1 - "Bridgehead"..Steve-the-Wargamerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07077311120172727690noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-65959693358875880302009-09-26T10:31:21.826+00:002009-09-26T10:31:21.826+00:00Good thoughts Jeff - yes, the cavalry decision was...Good thoughts Jeff - yes, the cavalry decision was based on those I had available - I reckon that as long as their is a differentiation then shifting the "weight" of the cavalry up or down the scales by one or two is not so important..<br /><br />The woods question is interesting - I'd be interested in peoples views on why they don't allow guns in woods - bear in mind that in this case the woods were classed as "open" (so not dense), and in my rules artillery is only excluded to "dense"...<br /><br />W.r.t the holding force I think my (v. mild) issue is that the commander is given nothing to make his judgement on - given that this is a campaign setting, I would have expected some kind of guidance for the umpire/referee?? As it is I did what you suggested... I told DG what the total forces arrayed against him were, showed him what Phil had done in the refight, and he then based his decision on that..Steve-the-Wargamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07077311120172727690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-36492726914432168632009-09-26T00:54:20.078+00:002009-09-26T00:54:20.078+00:00Steve,
As always your table and figures look grea...Steve,<br /><br />As always your table and figures look great . . . and your write-ups and post battle notes are interesting reads.<br /><br />As with most others, my own house rules would not have permitted the artillery in the woods.<br /><br />I think that I would have substituted Dragoons for both of the "light" units in your period . . . but, of course this depends upon what troops you had available to draw upon.<br /><br />Yes, this is a tough situation for the French . . . after all, they are not expecting an attack. Their goals are to alert other commands (that's why messengers are sent off at the top of the encounter), to inflict as much damage upon the invaders as possible; and, finally, to preserve as much of their assets as possible.<br /><br />As for DG's "holding force", that would be up to him. He should know that messengers were sent to adjoining commands . . . so the question he needs to consider is, "what do I need to hold this position from an expected counter attack from a force similar to what was holding it?"; and secondarily, "what will I need to accomplish my mission?"<br /><br />These are the sorts of questions that commanders had to make in the field. <br /><br />I would probably have let him know that the last word they had, St Michel was guarded by x units of cav and y units of foot . . . but roll a die for each with something like, 3 or 4 = actual number; 1 = 2 fewer units, 2 = 1 less unit; 5 = 1 more unit; and 6 = 2 more units.<br /><br />As a further complication, when I run it, I'm going to ask the invader what he plans to do with his wounded. Will he just leave them beside the road or what? Also what will he do with prisoners? I will ask this prior to the campaign so that he can bring more wagons if he so chooses.<br /><br />In any event, I'm looking forward to your further posts on this campaign.<br /><br /><br />-- JeffBluebear Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07595975572873838050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-76423638242722973142009-09-24T11:59:00.334+00:002009-09-24T11:59:00.334+00:00Hi Steve - like the others said, great write up an...Hi Steve - like the others said, great write up and pics.<br />I played the St Michel campaign over the easter hols using modified "The War Game" rules with 15mm figs and all the scenarios were great fun - I guess it helps that I was using the same rules in the same period as the authors?<br /><br />I'd agree to some extent about the lack of real options for the defender in this scenario - you're going to lose and just have to extract a high price from the attackers. I found the second scenario to give more options for the defender and managed to cause some serious losses while getting my rearguard away almost scot free!<br /><br /><br />I'm looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.<br />Good Gaming<br /><br />IanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-7337141902053034992009-09-24T08:58:01.548+00:002009-09-24T08:58:01.548+00:00Many thanks for the full and comprehensive respons...Many thanks for the full and comprehensive responses, chaps….<br /><br />John - as per DG’s update - all woods were classed as “open” which would allow guns to deploy in them (I’m guessing it must have happened in reality or the French would have had problems at Malplaquet, for example… :o) ) <br /><br />There are movement reductions but I *am* contemplating some changes following discussion with DG after the game - nothing that would have fundamentally altered the outcome, however..<br /><br />“How about putting the guns on the hill enfilading the bridge and hold back only attacking once the first units have crossed?” Yes - fair plan - but with the ability to deploy in woods, DG’s plan with his artillery was entirely sound… there doesn’t seem to be any doubt in my mind that the artillery are the battle winner in this scenario so the French response is how to minimize damage on themselves, whilst still being able to meet the scenario winning criteria - hold the bridge as long as possible.<br /><br />Ross - <br /><br />~ you’re right about the Teasers and rule variations - my favourite (?!) bug bear are the Teasers where it states you only have a specific number of moves to complete. Without knowing how many minutes or hours their turn represents it makes it difficult to extrapolate all sorts of things!<br /> <br />~ Good idea about the fake retreat though - in fact the only point that I really felt like I was making a difference was when, towards the end of the game, DG sent Meredith’s and Schomberg’s over the bridge at the same time, and got them a bit “entangled” while on the bridge - but even then DG had a clear enfilade with his artillery as I crossed the small amount of open ground to engage….<br /><br />~ Yes… the French cavalry are Roundway - good spot!<br /><br />Grimsby - I did toy with the idea of painting up some Dragoons as light horse but came to the conclusion that as the Teasers only contain Light and Heavy cavalry - then “mediums” were a fair swap for lights as I have the heavy’s available in the form of cuirassiers… just for interest do you differentiate for cuirassiers in your games??<br /><br />Steve T. - I keep trying…. :o)Steve-the-Wargamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07077311120172727690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-73374983031558198002009-09-24T07:21:21.346+00:002009-09-24T07:21:21.346+00:00Enjoyed the write up Steve, and I love your terrai...Enjoyed the write up Steve, and I love your terrain & figures. More please.<br /><br />Steve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-54860940777299833672009-09-24T06:23:42.026+00:002009-09-24T06:23:42.026+00:00More agreement from me about artillery deploying i...More agreement from me about artillery deploying in woods.<br />I'm struggling with this series myself for the WSS. My plans were to replace the light horse with dragoons (who have a dismounted option as well) since we - at Grimsby - only recognise horse &dragoons as the two mounted classes for the WSS. <br />All the same I look forward to the next installement.marinergrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01393687295535460527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-73467132303374496422009-09-24T01:07:22.541+00:002009-09-24T01:07:22.541+00:00Hi Steve, enjoyed this report and look forward to ...Hi Steve, enjoyed this report and look forward to the rest. I do find some Teasers/rules are more susceptible than others to rules variations than others, esp wrt to ranges and movement rates. I'll 2nd John wrt to surprise to read of the artillery advanicng through and deploying in the woods but suspect that they them seem quite powerful and may have decided the issue anyway. I would also have been tempted to allow the British to cross the bridge and then try to throw them back with a counter attack. <br />btw are those some Roundway miniatures I see?<br />RossRoss Macfarlanehttp://www.lochsloy.ca/macduff.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-47964279192449397262009-09-24T00:26:08.217+00:002009-09-24T00:26:08.217+00:00The rules define two classes of woods, "open&...The rules define two classes of woods, "open" and "dense". All troops can move through "open" woods and only foot through "dense" woods. Had they been defined as "dense" then getting good angles of fire on the defenders would have been tough. Then the only option I can think off would be to protect the artillery closely with infantry battalions [cannon fodder] until the guns can deploy. But the infantry cost would be high ... DGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33041938.post-73480008251366794552009-09-23T22:16:33.859+00:002009-09-23T22:16:33.859+00:00Now that is what I would call an interesting post!...Now that is what I would call an interesting post! Also a very nice looking game with some splendid figures and scenery.<br /><br />So to start the ball rolling I will make a few stupid suggestions.<br /><br />Firstly, I was surprised that Guns can deploy in woods under your rules? So there is the first argument started before even a dice is thrown! I think under the rules used by Charles and Phil they cannot.<br /><br />The aim of the attackers is not so much to take the bridge as it is to do so without casualties.<br /><br />How about putting the guns on the hill enfilading the brideg and hold back only attacking once the first units have crossed?<br /><br />I say these things in the certainty that I would have done worse than either of you.johnpreecehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05548014163096067684noreply@blogger.com