- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
There is a subset of our group that is fascinated with 19th century European warfare (along with a lot of other things of course) but over the years, despite owning a lot of the period specific rules, and trying some of the more generic sets that seek to cover 1815 to 1900 or so, we just never really found a set of rules that appealed to our collective biases. I stumbled across Neil Thomas’ 19th Century Warfare book, and convinced/whined/browbeat my friends into reading it and then trying it. Even better, as it was new period for our group, we were able to try a new scale – 10mm from Pendraken.
Long story short – we loved them!
However, after playing quite a few games set in the 1859 Second Italian War of Liberation and losing every single one, the Austrian player was getting a trifle depressed. The rules reflect the dreadful nature of the Austrian command, and the inertia thereof, (we used the optional command rules) and give the French the advantage of “furia francese”, or the ability to charge anything they see. Quite historically accurate, but not a terribly fair game. We began discussing various methods to try and balance the game, or at least give the Austrian side somewhat of a chance, but didn’t reach any consensus.
However, I rummaged through my rules collection, and once again convinced/whined/browbeat my friends into trying another set of rules, this time Shako to Coalscuttle. We’d played a few other Nordic Weasel games that were well received, (No End in Sight, Scum of the Earth and Hammer of Democracy for the record) so it wasn’t too difficult to rope them in, although given the fact that we hadn’t found any good set of rules for this period (save for Thomas’ of course) I think they were humouring me, and they didn’t have high hopes for StCS. I didn’t play, as I was the only one who had read the rules, so I volunteered to be the gamesmaster and general all round rules explainer.
That said, let’s pop in a few images. I took some photos before I got too involved in the battle to snap more.
The left wing of the Austrian army. The infantry in the front are skirmishers. We turn the guns around to represent being limbered. I did point out that the rules don’t seem to mention limbering. Or I missed the reference more likely. I did change the rules actually for artillery. I allowed them to use the “quick time” roll, just like light infantry and cavalry, and to use the cavalry movement for the second move. Having guns move only 4″ in this period seemed odd. They were quite mobile, much more so than Napoleonic times. Guns were lighter, and horse teams were larger. The ACW and FPW saw some very aggressive use of artillery. (Although not allowing the Prussians in 1866 to use quick time for their artillery might be a good period exception). Obviously we decided to use optional two stands for artillery units rule.
Right wing of the Austrians. Figures are 10mm Pendraken, fields are Hotz and the buildings are 6mm Total Battle Miniatures. I’m rather happy with the way the buildings turned out.
And of course Pendraken figures are simply awesome! The fields I rated as “sparse” terrain, although I was tempted to rate the entire battlefield as “sparse” as the Italian countryside was densely covered with hedges and streams that broke up sight lines and made advancing difficult. The idea was actually an optional rule in Neil Thomas’ book that I was thinking of shamelessly stealing, but ultimately decided that only the fields were sparse going. Forests and towns were dense terrain. There was a forest that saw a fierce battle between the light troops, but naturally I took no photos of that. We put the stands into a 2×2 formation for “advancing” formation, rather than the single stand column, on the basis we liked the look of it better. For the record, we did the same things in Thomas’ rules. The long thin column looked too much like some sort of a march formation we felt.
The French player, who actually does have an entire army that I also managed not to take pictures of, boldly advances his cavalry seeking to outflank the sluggish Austrians. The French had better generalship and were rated as “disciplined” so got an automatic “shock” die. I gave the Austrians a couple of extra units to compensate.
Oops. A couple of turns later reveals that the bold flanking action by the French has not gone as planned. The red kind of explosion things are craft store beady dohickeys we used as disarray markers. The Austrians responded quickly to the French cavalry movement and moved his reserves that way, helped by a lot of shock dice to quick time his cavalry. The French tried to charge the Austrian infantry but the kaiserliches rolled a “six” and so the French charge was stopped, and then shot to pieces. The other French horse also charged the first Austrian cavalry, but despite the charge advantage managed to roll really, really badly.
As for the rest of the photoless battle, the French foot charged the town, and managed to maul and evict the Austrian infantry seen in the last photo, only to be evicted in turn by a counter attack by some reserve Austrian infantry. In the centre the French attacked somewhat in piecemeal, and took heavy losses to Austrian firepower, although the French artillery made a good showing. (I gave them a rifled battery, as they were experimenting with rifled muzzleloaders during this war). Seeing his centre shattered, and the Austrian horse closing in on his flank, the French commander surrendered the field.
Some rules questions cropped up. Apologies if I missed them in the rules.
- How do formation changes work? The rules explain HOW to change formation, but didn’t quite explain the consequences of such a change. Can units change formation and then move as that formation, or does the formation change take the entire move? I’ll take the blame for all the interpretations as I was the referee, so I decided that a formation change took the entire move (ie formation change OR move) but they could then fire without penalty. In retrospect, I think I was wrong. I think troops should be able to change formation, and then move as per that new formation – or not, if they wish to fire. I was worried that troops could form into an advancing formation and then charge, but since the sequence of play has shock actions occurring before movement, that can’t happen.
- Towns. How the heck do they work? I called them dense terrain, so a shock action was needed to move into them. I also allowed troops to disperse in them, as a garrison. I figured a town is somewhat of a linear obstacle, in its own special four sided way. The town in our game was also divided into three separate sections that only held one unit at a time, so to clear the town required three different charge, move and/or melee actions. Dispersed troops in the town also had no flanks, like an infantry square.
- I assumed that there is no overt artillery limbering per se in the rules, because there’s no mention of that. One player was confused by that. I figured since you can’t fire after moving, or even just turning for guns, limbering is subsumed into that, and there is no need to waste time marking artillery with a limber Even with my house rule of allowing artillery a quick time action, it still works. And on a personal note, as I hate painting and modelling limbers, I wholeheartedly approve of such a philosophy Ivan!
So, bottom line, did we like the rules, bearing in mind that we really like the Thomas rules, albeit with some increasing misgivings?
A resounding YES was the answer. Both players – and myself – really liked them, They might be a bit more “gamey” than the more “historical” Thomas rules, but that’s not a criticism of the Nordic rules at all! Playing 1866 Piedmontese, or Crimean War Russians would be an exercise in frustration for the Thomas rules, whereas in “Shako to Coal Scuttle” they would be a lot of fun! There is definitely a historical period feel to the rules, at least in our opinion, but it also gives a fun, better balanced game.
Some of the things we really liked about Nordic Weasel’s rules:
- The command system. Simple, but effective and introduces some fog of war (which we really prefer in the rules we play).
- I liked the “sparse” terrain rules. Larger units have more difficulty in moving through, and also introduces somewhat of a random movement allowance. (Something I also like).
- Everyone loved the firing table that collapsed lots of effects into one simple toss of the dice.
- Loved the whole charge/halt fire/hand to hand sequence. Adds some nice detail for very little rules dirt. It just felt right – and was fun.
- Very few modifiers – which is a difficult thing to find in rules. It’s very easy to add lots and lots of modifiers; anyone can write rules like that. But it slows play down horribly. (Ever seen the Quick Reference BOOK for “From Valmy to Waterloo” – yes BOOK. Dreadfully slow, and for little effect really).
- It promises fast play, and it certainly delivers. We played on a 4×3 foot playing area, which I am finding is increasingly my preference for all my games. It’s nice to have a non playing area to hold troops and dice, and other unsightly gaming impedimenta.
So, multiple thumbs up from us Ivan! Very clever and clean design. I think it is sadly overlooked, and deserves a better and larger audience. Needless to say, we’re going to be using these going forward. We didn’t think they be better than Neil Thomas’…but they are, in our collective humble opinions. I know at least one player bought the rules immediately, which is certainly a good sign!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
