Followers

Tuesday, 6 April 2021

Napoleonic Spring

So it looks like you lucky wargamers will have three (I say again, 3) new Napoleonic rule books coming your way in the next month or so. The even better news is that they serve different preferences for game type, so there's no need to worry about choosing. You can just buy all three!

At the skirmish end, there's the Napoleonic supplement for the well-regarded Muskets and Tomahawks FIW rules. The supplement is called Shakos and Bayonets:


Of course, the solid middle ground (the product for those discerning wargamers who prefer the 'classic' game) is covered by Shadow of the Eagles. Should be on sale in a week or two:



And at the 'big battle' end, we have Absolute Emperor from Osprey. It's good to have another book in the Osprey Wargames series that takes on an historical subject, and the author should be congratulated in fitting a set of Napoleonic rules into a 64 page book costing £12.99:



Calling All Grognards
So, instead of asking "Does the wargaming world really need a new Napoleonic rulebook?", certain people will now be asking "Does the wargaming world really need three new Napoleonic rulebooks?". 

The answer, of course, is "Yes". The question was answered way back in 1962 by Donald Featherstone, who wrote in War Games, 'there are almost as many rule books as there are wargamers'. Our hobby is made up of a collection of individuals - or in other words, this is a bottom-up hobby. We create it for ourselves. People who want to write some rules go ahead and do it, and in the digital world they can throw their hat in the ring and see if other people will like (and buy) their work. 

Worried about the fragmentation of the hobby? Well, news just in, the hobby has always been fragmented. That is its nature. It's nothing new. So revel in the choice available. No matter how many rule books are out there, you will quickly find your group of friends or your club will settle on 2 or 3, and you can (or should) enjoy comparing and contrasting the games you have with them. Who knows, you might even settle on just one. For a while.

And so of course, in a year or two, Shadow of the Eagles will probably be forgotten and the next new rule book will be on the market. C'est la vie. Why did I write a set of Napoleonic rules? Because it was fun, and I enjoyed doing it, and I enjoyed the process of bringing it to market and seeing it commercially published. I have a feeling that most rule books come into existence for the same or similar reasons. 

And, I have a copy of Absolute Emperor on order. I'll probably never play a game, but I'll enjoy seeing how the author solved his particular set of challenges. And my knowledge and enjoyment of the hobby will be enhanced. So there.

Rant over - 'til next time!

Wednesday, 17 March 2021

Shadow of the Eagles - nearly there!

Well, the manuscript is with the printers, the cover is designed, and you can buy a 'rules only' PDF from Wargame Vault right now. In about 3 weeks the full, hardback rulebook will be available for purchase at £29.95. That's a bit more than I first expected, (it's more of a book than I first expected), but Partizan have pushed the boat out to produce a really nice publication that should live up to the expectations of 21st century wargamers. 

Update as of 31st March - a new cover has been decided upon!

The watermarked PDF is $27.50, around £20 depending on the exchange rate. 'Rules only'? Well, like it says, you only get the rules. The 'Wars and Campaigns' section, which is a more narrative and friendly way of having army lists, is not present, and the examples of play and the notes expanding and explaining the rules are also only in the hardback book. But if you're a Napoleonic grognard who already knows it all and can pick up a set of gaming rules easily, then you can save a bit of money and avoid the P&P. Please note that the PDF is NON-PRINTABLE.

The PDF is, paradoxically, a bit of Old School publishing, allowing gamers to just have the rules, like in the 1970s and 80s before army lists and coffee table rule books were thought of. I think it's quite an interesting marketing idea.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to having the book in my hand in the not too distant future. If you're thinking of buying, rest assured the rules will be supported by a website which will include a forum and a blog, along with the facility for free downloads of any supporting material that might come along post-publication. So all your questions can be answered, and you can find out how other gamers are getting along with the rules. The site is live now. To access the forum and blog you'll need to sign up, but that should be pretty painless. Let me know of any glitches:


You can also check a brief teaser on the Caliver Books Facebook page.

Exciting times! 

'Til next time.

Friday, 26 February 2021

A WW2 Rules Revolution

How does a new project start? It's often hard to pin down. But a week or two ago something made me get these old WRG rules down from the shelf, where they have lingered for at least 40 years. With a couple of house moves in recent years prompting the need to slim down the bookshelves, many of my old rule sets have made their way into landfill. But these guys have always been retained. 


I can't claim to have ever been a big player of these rules, but I did play a game or two back in the day. Even then they seemed like a set that had potential, rather than a really finished product. I ended up developing my own WW2 rules, which eventually got over-complex and were dropped in favour of the old Peter Pig rules, Abteilung. Since then it's been a succession of commercial sets, leading to my present use of the Battlegroup rules.

Back To The Future
Battlegroup have always been good fun, and I've had some excellent games with them. But I have always had some reservations. I won't bore you with the details, but overall I often had the feeling they were just a bit too much. Big coffee-table books, with lots of special rules and detail that could produce interesting game play but were also easy to forget about if you didn't play regularly. These rules had chrome with a capital 'C'. The other main thing was that they were, at heart, a set for individually based figures of at least 20mm size, which had an alienating effect for someone using 15mm figures based in groups of four. And I never really worked out the difference between Points Values and Battle Ratings. 

A recent small-scale solo test, from the German side.

And so one evening, there I was with a copy of the 1973 WRG set in my hand. Hmmm, these look pretty simple. And the whole set (covering everything from the Spanish Civil War to the Korean War) is about 35 pages in a book smaller than A4. Perhaps there might be something here for the occasional WW2 gamer.

The main thing I remembered was the 50mm infantry move. Just 2 inches? Right from my first reading of the rules all those years ago, that simple fact had told me that these couldn't really be a serious prospect for proper wargaming. But giving them a good re-read (or two) convinced me that there was an absorbing project here - revising the rules to my own satisfaction for a more straightforward WW2 gaming experience. And the first thing I would do was simply change that 50mm move to 100mm.

Over the years I've been pretty disparaging about a lot of WRG rule books - in recent times, the old 'ancients' books in particular. The successor to the 1973 WW2 rules, which came out in 1988, I found to be genuinely and grimly unplayable. They went to the council dump many moons ago. But the 1973 book always had the feel of a classic that perhaps I didn't fully appreciate, but might do one day. That day appears to have come. Here I would like to quote the man himself, Phil Barker, from a 1980s article in Miniature Wargames magazine:

"It does a rule writer no credit to fail to acknowledge his debt [to older rule sets], or even to blackguard his predecessors. Something can be learned from all of them, even if only what to avoid".

Indeed. It is easy to pick holes in forty-year-old rule sets with the benefit of hindsight. But on the other hand, it can't be denied that 'what to avoid' is sometimes only too apparent. However, enough of that.

The above scene from the perspective of the Polish defenders.

Forward To The Past
And so off I go. I've started my re-write, and played a single test game (solo of course). I believe I may be on to a winner. There is much I will change, but there is also much to admire; like the simple fire-before-moving sequence which makes excellent sense in a WW2 game, and the straightforward yet mostly satisfying firing procedures. And one particularly brilliant aspect is the absence of any kind of 'melee' or 'close combat' rules. They are simply completely absent, with the possibility of such processes unmentioned. So close encounters between opposing troops are simply resolved by the standard firing rules, which seems to work very well. And as we all know, that's exactly what resolved 'close combat' in WW2 encounters - firing at very close range. The final clincher may well be that this is a set of rules firmly based on infantry 'elements', meaning groups of 4 figures mounted on a single base. That's more like it!

I'll keep you posted. And rest assured, if I develop anything like a workable set, it will be shared online. Right up to the point when they become the top-selling set of rules for WW2 miniatures!

'Til next time!

Monday, 8 February 2021

Why We Wargame

Do any of you enjoy the odd glass of wine? Or appreciate a pint of ale? Maybe some of you might also partake of the odd spliff. I think most of us would say, no harm in that. But if you find your friend looking at a bottle of wine and saying "that's my escape", alarm bells would surely start to ring. So why does it seem such a comfortable cliché to talk about wargaming (or any other hobby for that matter) as an 'escape'? I want to argue that we ought to avoid that cliché and think a bit harder, and perhaps as a result see the hobby in a clearer and better light. And maybe even avoid a bit of damage along the way.

Where is this coming from? Well, I've been checking out the trailer for the documentary 'Miniature Wargaming - The Movie. Sadly, the film is not yet released in the UK, which is disappointing as it's essentially a British production; but one presumes there are valid reasons for the delay. Nevertheless, some of the comments from the main participants in the trailer are very interesting.

First, there's the idea that wargaming and 'the real world' are different things - that your hobby is somehow separate from your 'real life'. "In this world, you're a general on the battlefield". I've used this idea many times myself, on this very blog, and I now think it's a mistake. When I wargame, I don't think I'm a general on a battlefield - I think I'm Keith Flint, along with some of my mates, having some fun playing with toy soldiers. This is an extension of my life which is in no way separate from any other part of it. It is me being me.

And then - "people say it's nerdy and geeky - it's just because they haven't tried it". Well, I've been trying 'it' for the last 50 years, and you know what - it is nerdy and geeky. That's the fucking point of it, you bonehead. We arrive at that realisation if we substitute some good old British English for the American slang. Let's not say nerdy - let's say 'whimsical'. Whimsy is a much underestimated approach to many aspects of life. There are some great definitions of whimsical out there - "playful and unpredictable rather than serious and practical"; "unusual and strange in a way that might be funny or annoying"; but especially "lightly fanciful". There is no better word to get to the heart of what a hobby like miniature wargaming really is. 

This explains why railway modelling is much closer to wargaming than the often mentioned and supposedly 'brother hobby' of re-enactment, which isn't really like wargaming at all. No matter how much time I spend researching the Napoleonic period, 'lightly fanciful' must be kept firmly in mind. Otherwise, we cannot properly separate our hobby from the real thing, and that way madness (and moral degeneration) lies. It is obvious from their published works that the early creators of the modern hobby (especially Don Featherstone and Charles Grant) grasped this completely. Triviality and whimsicality contribute to the peaceful nature of the hobby - and more on this below.

The trailer saves the worst for last. "Its an escape. For those few hours I can forget who I am". This comment comes (I believe) from an British Army veteran who appears to have found in wargaming some relief from his PTSD - which is great, and I don't want to be impolite here. But I've already mentioned this, and here also we return to the bottle of wine analogy. The bad news is, you can't escape from your life, and you can't escape from who you are; and it is very important to understand this.

Now then. Of course wargaming is a chance for some relaxation, for kicking back and chilling out. But it gets much better than that. The valuable (and now thankfully common) concept of mindfulness tells us that life will never give us peace - we must create our own place of peace, and carry it with us. With this in mind, wargamers can view their hobby as part of their 'place of peace'. This, however, is not somewhere we escape to, but somewhere we inhabit in a positive frame of mind. It is somewhere that should be part of our everyday life. Taking up your hobby is an advance towards yourself, not an escape from who you are. To understand your hobby is to understand yourself, or at least one part of yourself - which ultimately is the reason why I am writing this piece. 

A number of reviews of the film dwell on the fact that it's not particularly cheerful - it doesn't seem to bring out the fun of wargaming. One reviewer on TMP entertainingly remarked that if you weren't depressed when you started the film, you would be once you'd seen it. I think this derives from the film's emphasis on the 'industry' side of things. In the past I would have said that making your hobby your work is always a mistake. These days, I'd say that making your hobby your work is usually a mistake. People as driven and motivated (and talented) as Rick Priestley or the Perry twins seem able to pull the trick off, and good luck to them. Having work that you find both fulfilling and worthwhile is a great achievement. But maybe for a lot of more ordinary people it remains a bad move - all the fun very rapidly goes out of things. This seems to be the experience of one participant in the film.

I myself have earned a small amount of money from the hobby, but this was always pin money to be re-invested in buying toy soldiers and books. You can be more involved than me (say, as a small-time figure or terrain maker) and still retain the concept that it's all just part of your hobby. But if you start to rely on that income - watch out. The film seems to explore this experience, and I think that is worthwhile.

This is not a film review, but from what I have seen I really want to watch the whole movie. I think it could be really valuable in trying to illuminate what a good hobby is, what it consists of, and how people relate to it, as well as reminding us of how important hobbies can be to people and what a positive influence they can have. Paradoxically, and intentionally or otherwise, the film partly demonstrates this by introducing us to people who don't seem to understand the true nature of a pastime like wargaming with miniatures. 

You need to understand what you're dealing with to get the right result, and it's never a good idea to just accept the lazy clichés. So I will conclude by saying that wargaming has brought me many moments of peace, and it constantly reminds me who I am.


Go well everyone. 'Til next time.

Monday, 1 February 2021

The Battle of the River Elbow, 1794

Covid once again dictated that I would have to continue playtesting Shadow of the Eagles solo, using my SYW collection. For this particular game I went back to a battle I had enjoyed back in 2012, which in turn was based on a vintage game from back in 1979. The original post tells the story.

Anyway, here in 2021 I kept the same set up and number of units, but re-designated them for a playtest in the Revolutionary period. My Austrian figures would be playing themselves, just projected about 35 years into the future. My Prussians, however, faced the ignominy of representing Revolutionary French forces. Well, at least they had blue coats. The respective OOBs were:

France (attacking)
Infantry Brigade
3 infantry battalions, 1 foot battery
This was one of the new-fangled demi-brigades of 2 conscript units (rated inferior) and one regular unit.

Infantry brigade
4 infantry battalions, 1 foot battery
A slightly different make up. A combined grenadier battalion and a regular battalion led forward 2 more conscript battalions.

Cavalry Brigade
1 hussar regiment
1 dragoon regiment
1 horse battery
The dragoons were inferior

Independent cuirassier regiment
Badly deployed out on its own on the left flank. Only regular class.

Independent chasseur battalion
Deployed as skirmishers at Pampitz.

Austria (defending)
Hungarian Infantry Brigade
2 infantry battalions, 1 grenadier battalion, 1 foot battery
The heart of the Austrian force.

German Infantry Brigade
2 infantry battalions
One of the battalions is of inferior conscripts.

Light Infantry Brigade
2 battalions of skirmishing Grenzers
1 light foot battery

Cavalry Brigade
2 dragoon regiments
Both solid regular formations.

The only terrain detail worth mentioning is the state of the River Elbow. West of the bridge it was classed as impassable, then from the bridge to the centre of the table it was passable by infantry and cavalry. The final section running out of the marsh was a mere stream, easily crossable with a slight delay. 

And so without further ado, we turn to the photos to tell the story of the battle.

The initial set-up.
This must be a Revolutionary battle because the French infantry are all in columns.

The view from the Austrian centre.
The foot battery covers a genuine antique Bellona bridge.

The French cavalry have an 'inept' brigadier. They creak around to their right 
intending a flanking movement, providing their commander's nerve holds.

French left flank. The two conscript units (marked with yellow discs) are being sent forward
as cannon fodder, with the regulars behind. At least they have some artillery support.

The Grenzers await the French at Hermsdorf...

...and before they know it, some French hussars arrive and have the effrontery to try a charge!
The hussars overrun the light battery but are eventually seen off by musketry before they can get
in amongst the Grenzers with their sabres.

The French centre has crossed the Elbow and a firefight commences with the Hungarians.
The grenadiers rout the battalion opposite them.

By the bridge, a French conscript battalion breaks down under artillery fire
and retreats in skirmish order through their regular comrades.

Things aren't going too badly for the French. Note that on the right wing their
cavalry are almost back at Pampitz following a very stout defence of Hermsdorf by the Grenzers.

The French centre is commanded by an 'inspiring' brigadier. Obtaining a double move, he sends his
conscript battalion charging up the hill to take the Austrian battery. 'En avant!'

A little later in the game. The French battalion on the hill were smartly driven away from the abandoned Austrian guns by charging dragoons. In the centre, both sides have lost a further battalion. In the foreground the French cavalry push forward again, countered now by the second Austrian dragoon regiment. The French cavalry are carrying significant numbers of hits.

The Austrian dragoons have carried all before them and are approaching Pampitz.
The main fight is now on the western flank, where the French are dragging forward one of their batteries.

End game. The continuing firefight has ruined the 2 remaining French conscript battalions who have broken down into skirmish order, with orange hit dice indicating they are 'weakened'. They will be of no further use. At this point I decided the French could make no more progress and told them they had lost.


Overall an enjoyable and valuable playtest. The plan at the moment is that when the money starts rolling in from the published rules, some 15mm real Napoleonic armies will be obtained. Probably second-hand already painted units from Hinds. Yes, I'm afraid my painting days are over. A bit of re-basing and fixing-up will be quite enough work. I'm thinking 1812, French+Allies vs. the Russians. I guess we'll see.

For now, stay safe everyone. 'Til next time1

Monday, 28 December 2020

Built Up Areas - Horse and Musket Wargaming

Well, I hope everyone had a good Christmas, or as good as could be expected in the circumstances. I thought I would use the relaxing period between Christmas and New Year to reflect on the way I represent towns and villages in my Horse and Musket gaming, in the hope it might be of some use to other gamers.

Back in the day (in my case the 1960s), what we now commonly call 'built up areas' were referred to simply as 'houses' in most rules. Usually each house was treated separately, with a set number of figures allowed in each, and there were special rules for assaulting these houses and fighting over them. This could all be good fun, but could also be rather time consuming. Of course, such an approach has carried over into the present time for skirmish level gaming, where each figure is one soldier and a single house really does represent just one house.

For bigger games, it made sense to many gamers to have villages and towns represented by a set and well-defined area, including of course some house models, within which all units were deemed to be inside a BUA. The BUA could then be fought over in a more generic and quicker way, with simpler rules. It has suited some rules writers, myself included (in Honours of War) and rather more famously in Black Powder, to have BUAs of set sizes able to accommodate set numbers of units. Once again this has to do with making the gaming rules work in a straightforward way.

I personally now find that approach unnecessarily artificial, and have moved on to treating BUAs in almost exactly the same way as woods, marshes or bad ground. That is, set out an area of terrain designated as a town or village with its outline clearly indicated, and write some simple rules for moving and fighting in that type of terrain. Then, use the terrain as you would a wood, etc. - it accommodates as many units as can be physically fitted into it, with the houses, walls and trees within able to be moved around if needed to allow the placing of units conveniently for gaming. 

For the delectation of readers, I thought I would show how I construct my BUAs in practice, using a series of photos. I start by placing down one of Metcalfe's OO/HO scale cobblestone sheets, which can easily be cut to various sizes or combined to make larger areas.


Then, some house are placed down, leaving plenty of open space to deploy units.


A bit more decoration can then be added, including trees...


...and walling.


Then you're ready for the defenders to move in. As you can see I use 16 figures to represent a typical 600 man battalion, which is a figure ratio of about 1:35.


Of course, it's not necessary to limit the BUA to the exact size and shape of the original base. The area can be juggled with, extended or re-shaped by using various terrain pieces.


And that concludes the demonstration. Yeah, I know, hardly rocket science. But such an approach is easy to use in a wargame, as you can fight opposing units in the same way you fight them in open ground, having them move here and there, advancing and falling back as the fighting ebbs and flows, rather than having rather artificial and specific rules for BUAs which can become complex and need to be understood separately from those relating to other terrain pieces. 

It can be convenient to use objective markers to show clearly which side is judged to be in control of the BUA. My own rule is that one side must have at least one unit 3" or less from the marker whilst there are no enemy units 6" or less from the marker. This easy-to-use rule is borrowed ('stolen' is such an ugly word) from Battlegroup Blitzkrieg.

My only other advice would be, don't write rules or use rules that make attacking a BUA too difficult. It was common for villages to change hands several times in a large battle, and having this happen in a wargame is good fun. On the other hand, long, drawn-out fights where the chance of seizing a BUA is minimal make for dull gaming.

So there we are then. It only remains for me to wish all readers a very Happy New Year. Go well.

See you in 2021!

EDIT: 31st January 2021

Some photos below of the concept in action from a recent game of mine. They illustrate how I currently use my rules to 'play through' built up areas. BUAs have their own specific rules, but you can see how buildings and other scenery are shuffled about to accommodate the figures, whilst units aren't artificially constrained by the limits of the BUA - some of the unit can be inside, some outside.





A belated Happy New Year to everyone!

Wednesday, 2 December 2020

Some 'Honours of War' Action

Now then. I will be the first to admit that my last post wasn't the most exciting I have ever written. Unfortunately, my actual gaming exploits have been very limited of late. However, over on the Honours of War website some rather more dedicated gamers have been developing and playing out a number of excellent scenarios, which deserve a wider audience. 

Furthermore, here in the UK, today is the first day of an easing in our lockdown, and it will be possible for some face to face gaming to re-commence (depending on which tier you're in). So perhaps a bit of inspiration wouldn't go amiss. Therefore, here are links to two particularly good recent scenarios which I heartily recommend.

Now there's an original title for an 18th century wargaming scenario. This is a clever and interesting gaming idea for any Horse and Musket wargamer, and the colourful map below should certainly whet the appetite. Follow the link above for a full explanation.


Enthusiasts for the War of the Austrian Succession have long been using HoW for this conflict, and with considerable success. As you can see from the map and the many accompanying photos posted on the forum, this is a big battle game featuring lots of figures on an impressive table. It all looks tremendous fun, and should provide inspiration for any Horse and Musket gamer.


Both of these posts contain all the detail you need to re-create the featured battles. It's great to have such top-quality input continuing to appear on the HoW site, and I want to thank both of the gamers concerned for their enthusiasm and for their spirit of sharing with other wargamers.

The Medetian Wars
To my shame, I have completely missed this excellent blog until now, and so as a belated tribute I wanted to draw your attention to this lovely looking game from 2017. It certainly inspired me. I have added the blog to my blog list and will be checking it regularly. As well as the games, it was wonderful to see some wonderful RSM SYW figures painted to a much higher standard than I ever managed, and beautifully photographed.

Enjoy!