[Guy Farrish]

Think of it as a ‘Heritage Wargaming Experience’

(For an extra fiver they’ll wait 28 days and then send you the wrong figures because the ‘n’ and ‘m’ in the order numbers all look alike on the Banda sheet)

[This is a joke and is NO reflection on Bac Ninh, from whom I have never ordered but are no doubt caring and considerate retailers]

[Guy Farrish]

I’m left with a sense of wonder (and possibly dread) that somewhere in MIT a team is designing (or has designed?) its way to producing one of the more unlikely types of AI to control (or not) autonomous drones in Auftragstaktik.

Artificial Narrow Intelligence may not be so bad I suppose, but perhaps not well suited to mission oriented decision making. AGI and ASI (Artificial General Intelligence and Artificial Super Intelligence) sound much more likely to succeed in that, but probably also intelligent enough to say ‘I don’t think so, I’ve got a better idea.’

Fortunately those appear to be a very long way off.

But if Auftragstaktik is to be more than the US tendency to mangle the concept into a more efficient set of orders rather than a more cultural approach to mission solving, that means an intelligent AI driving autonomous drones also appears to be a long way off.

Someone will bring out a version (some people say it is already being used) that looks as if it might teach itself how to fulfil its missions and may simulate some ability to learn what the mission might be. It very probably will be fooling some of the people some of the time and will fail spectacularly when left to its own devices. I think I prefer that to a genuinely autonomous drone that can be told to defeat the enemy in a certain area and go and successfully work out how to do that.

If we did achieve that, it sounds as if it might be much better at playing a wargame as well and perhaps the only answer is as Dr Falken’s Joshua works out, the way to win is not to play. I’m not sure I’m ready to give up wargaming just yet.

[Guy Farrish]

Great write up Norm!

This looks to have been a brilliantly immersive game for everyone concerned (and a lot of work for the Umpire!).

Dealing with the hindsight of everyone knowing (roughly at least) what is going on over at Mont St Jean/Belle Alliance is a problem but the VP changes seem to have worked to solve this. It does somewhat mean that the French have their options of strategic choice artificially limited (but in the light of Ney’s ear chewing after Quatre Bras/Ligny Grouchy did stick to the letter of his orders) and then the Prussians (not being told of the change in VPs) blinded to what may have been obvious to their actual counterparts. No matter – the greater picture was well served by the look of things.

Congratulations to all involved and thanks for such an enjoyable aar Norm.

[Guy Farrish]

Yes, I think John had it right.

Worth noting that one reading of the RUSI piece suggests they tend to be throw away pieces of kit. There aren’t pilots involved so people tend to regard them as expendable assets. You do have to replace them however and if you read the RUSI article the attrition rate probably had significant effects on UAF performance at times.

The other things is – define your ‘drone’ – cheap quadcopter bodged from Amazon doing tactical recce, or multimillion fixed wing high flyer?

[Guy Farrish]

‘Drones in games, how would you model them?’

Despite the importance of UAVs to remaining competitive, their attrition rates were extremely high. Of all UAVs used by the UAF in the first three phases of the war covered by this study, around 90% were destroyed. The average life expectancy of a quadcopter remained around three flights. The average life expectancy of a fixed-wing UAV was around six flights.

https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf

I like the (low tech) idea of having both (all) players sitting down with eyes at table level  unless and until they launch or net into a feed from a drone. Then they can stand up and look but they need to throw on a dice to remain standing for the turn. If they fail – drone shot down and they sit again making decisions from the memory of where things were.

You can see why manufacturers like selling these, great income stream.

A related fun game might be a group of ‘cyber warfare’ manufacturers and software houses trying to flog their latest set of emperor’s clothes to the Pentagon – lots of room for lobbyists, Congresspersons and other Beltway shenanigans.

[Guy Farrish]

Very nice Willz, I wish I could make it. Otherwise engaged on the Saturday unfortunately, using my wargaming pass to go to the Lincombe Barn Tabletop Sale on Sunday.

Hope its a great day in Exeter, looks like it will be.

Best wishes

Guy.

[Guy Farrish]

I simply found it peculiar anyone would renew the domain name when the owner and all the mods have long ago rowed off to Hispaniola with their doubloons and left the hulk to the spam rats. Odd one.

 

[Guy Farrish]

Just checked the domain as it was the anniversary of when someone ‘on another site’ said it was going to die – just been renewed for another year. Full of juvenile spam bot crap. No sign of admin or mods. Odd way to spend cash.

[Guy Farrish]

Sean Clark wrote:

I’m saying interpret the word as a the average person in the street would interpret the word. I don’t think it’s a complex concept to grasp.

You know you’ll get #3 in the list above if you do that, right?

[Guy Farrish]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

Blimey, it’s true what they say about wargamers

Suave, debonair, handsome with a rapier like intellect you mean?

Yes, I get that a lot.

[Guy Farrish]

Thanks Ivan, that really was all I was after.

Now I know I’m not sure I do have anything that I think fits the bill. I play games that seem simple to play to me, (but obviously not all) but which definitely don’t feel unremarkable. If they didn’t produce what I wanted I’d ditch them and try some others or write my own.

I like your No End In Sight which don’t feel like a workhorse – they feel much more of a thoroughbred experience.

 

[Guy Farrish]

Hmmm?

Sean Clark wrote:

If we can’t take a phrase like workhorse and find a common understanding of the word, then agreement, consensus or otherwise is nigh on impossible when discussing the merits of individual  sets of rules and their mechanisms.

I’d like a common understanding of the word, then I could find out if I agree or disagree with it.

I understand the concept in terms of mechanisms or rules but not the whole shebang.

[Guy Farrish]

Tiny point – Charles Grant didn’t write the book ‘Charge!’ (or the rules in it). Young and Lawton.

Or ‘The War Game’ by Grant.

[Guy Farrish]

I think we had this difference of opinion on V&B before – I meant to ask, and never did – is it V&B Road to Glory’ you find too fiddly – with the slightly insane emphasis on skirmish tactics shoehorned into an Army level game with the brigade as the smallest unit?

Or is it the original as well?

And if so, what would you strip out to make it less ‘fiddly’? I still use it quite a lot and don’t normally have any problems but I’m always open to improvements.

 

[Guy Farrish]

I thought that was our erstwhile Chancellor of the Exchequer at the top left of the ad for a moment. Scary thought.

[Guy Farrish]

Andy Callan came up with Dark Age Infantry Slog (which has been morphed into slightly more traditional game formats by various people) to make an interesting game of a period and warfare where the height of tactical sophistication is often portrayed as line up and hit each other.

I think it worked pretty well, but after a few games the gloss of the system wore through a little – not because it didn’t work at representing what it was trying to represent but because it did it so well that you yearned for a bit of unrealistic helicopter viewpoint and Bowman (or Clansman at the time of design) to contact the far end of the line. There was basically no manoeuvre and your influence once battle commenced was your hearth guard and the immediate neighbouring mobs (I don’t think you could dignify them with the name units).

I’m pretty sure it’s online somewhere – it will be in a Nugget but I’m pretty sure the early ones aren’t online – wait a min… Yes they are on the Wyre Forest site: DAIS

Players do like to feel they are controlling something though – possibly one of the reasons many of us like games, knowing that, unlike real life, our actions matter in them (bit of a jaded view I know).

I sold B17 Queen of the Skies (Avalon Hill version) after I’d played well short of my 25 missions. I decided I might as well flip a coin and see if I survived and spend the money on something life affirming like Stolichnaya or Black Bush.

 

[Guy Farrish]

John, I wish I’d posted the original thing I’d written  –  specifically the bit where I said I liked the concept of workhorse mechanisms vice rule sets. The same, or very similar, mechanisms turn up again and again doing good solid work whereas I find it difficult to reconcile the concept of a ‘workhorse set’ with how rule sets address the aim of enabling the recreation of particular periods of warfare.

As for DBA, I thought you might think I’d gone mad. When I saw it at COW prior to publication I loved it (and still do) but I was immediately struck by the idea it’s a great game but not necessarily the best representation of ancient battle. I just dug out my (rather fluffy) March 1990 copy and am struck by its neatness, brevity and simplicity. I have an uncomfortable feeling I may have been a little harsh.

It was certainly a ‘paradigm shift’ compared to what preceded it. The PIP mechanism was a great idea to limit command efficacy (perhaps not enough for an ancient battle) and I can see why it, in various disguises, has become one of those workhorse mechanisms.

The 12 elements each side, moving to contact and shuffling to base edge and corner to corner contact with no part element overlaps, all troops of a type being exactly the same just feels a little too stylised for me.

Although Phil rightly says that most wargamers (certainly then) placed too much emphasis on weapon differences, it still feels as if weapon and shield combinations still count for more than the character of the people behind them.

I like the fact casualties are not the determining factor of a long drawn out morale calculation like earlier WRG sets.

I suspect my main gripe is that ancient battles are intrinsically boring if done correctly. The command decisions are largely made in the alignment for battle and the main(only?) influence the commander retains once battle starts is in control of a small uncommitted reserve and his perception of the best time to release/lead them to victory is at best limited.

I remain unclear what a workhorse set of rules is but am ecstatic that workhorse mechanisms are a thing.

 

(I will now meditate for some days to consider other wargamerisms for your rage inducing delectation)

[Guy Farrish]

I confess to being completely confused by this  concept.

‘Workhorse’ means someone or thing which does a lot of routine, boring work reliably without complaint. I don’t see how a rule set can do this .

Workaday perhaps makes sense – not special or interesting – rules which do a job but don’t enthuse you?

Or do you mean a ‘go to’ set that you know and like but which has no/few bells and whistles?

DBA was all  bells and whistles when it came out (it still is – but it’s a good game with no resemblance to ancient warfare – which is why you can call the ‘units’ anything you like and the same stone paper scissors calculations work whether ancients, napoleonics or fantasy).

Nimitz sounds like it is a good game and possibly ‘elegant’ in achieving a fair amount of the feel of naval warfare without the mind crushing boredom of ticking off flotation boxes, damage points and checking to see if damage to your signal lamps have cut your comms to the fleet.

If  however the definition of ‘workhorse’ is a set of rules that can cover warfare from Chariot era to Merkava (think about it) then there is  no defence for them. Down with workhorses!

[Guy Farrish]

Pumice stone (for exfoliating). No the expensive stuff on ropes etc – get the cheap end of bin – these were/are 50p each. As is or spray painted and dry brushed.

[Guy Farrish]

Dave, that wayback link doesn’t seem to work for me.

Is this any help?

1799-1815 L’Histoire autrement

[Coppens died 5.9.2020 – Site Web de Bernard Coppens]

Guy

[Guy Farrish]

Interesting run through again Vincent.

I like the look of some facets of the game but I hate the ‘fate’ card thing.

The two battalion charge on the village by the Prussians to evict the French being foiled by a fate card really grinds. If they failed an initiative test or a fate card was randomly drawn every turn I might feel more accepting of the failure but the idea that the French player can save this card and play it as a magic spell at the time of their choosing seems … jolly annoying and unrealistic.

If you want to introduce ‘friction’ in this sort of manner (which feels far to neat for the side playing the card – no friction there) then it should have a chance of blow back. Say the French play the confusion card they have saved, but they have to test for whether it applies to the enemy or to them. If it applies to them, the unit in the town is disordered and mills about in confusion unable to defend itself, looting and pillaging. That may cool their General’s ardour for calling down the vicissitudes of fate!

Apart from that I like the look of them.

(By the way, do you have something against Prussians? They always seem to miss a dice roll for artillery or something! Mind you I often miss bits of rules when playing solo so I shouldn’t be picky.)

Thanks for these posts on the rules.

[Guy Farrish]

British Sections/NATO and US squads have varied from around that 6+ leader to c16.

12 ish seems to be a number that works for the amount of close personal relationships in a group that is easy to maintain and produce useful interaction (many sports teams, focus groups, apostles as well as small military units).

I can’t see modern comms increasing this too much – much depends on bonds built up before combat as much as tactical interaction. Improved personal comms can tend towards micromanaging and information overload as well as increased situational awareness. So I suspect (lets do lots of experiments in field conditions) that there is a human cognitive limiting factor in there as well as tech capability for small unit leadership.

[Guy Farrish]

Good stuff John, thanks for posting this.

Now someone needs to write a set of rules where ‘the unexpected event which usually occurs.’ can happen so that ‘every commander should start with a unit or units retained under his control to deal with new situations.’ and be suitably rewarded. Often harbouring a reserve simply means losing a chunk of firepower in a game where having everything in the shop window pays dividends.

Generating those situations is difficult without an umpire and hidden movement. Cards often produce friction but does the type of friction bear any relation to the situations you keep a reserve for, and can the reserve react to them? Too often card system friction seems to throw random embuggerance in – which may happen as well – but seldom rewards the maintenance of an uninvolved reserve to counter such situations.

[Hardly the stuff one might expect in the Blackadder school of infantry tactics. Lord Melchett would be spinning in his chateau! It’s almost as if the British Army might have won the Great War!]

 

[Guy Farrish]

Some rather lovely figures on that stream Dave, thanks for the link.

[Guy Farrish]

I am not sure if you are more interested in his uniform than bio but this may be of interest re the latter:

Souvenirs de lieutenant general comte Mathieu Dumas

Livre Onzieme is about the period you are interested in.

Hope it isn’t a wild goose chase!

[Guy Farrish]

I have some metal horse guards and Uhlans somewhere in the attic. My father bought them from a toy shop which was moving premises and they were clearing old stock from their attic. I was about eight I suppose and didn’t really appreciate what they were.

What surprised me then, and surprises me still, is how bad the modelling of most toy soldier figures is. I know materials were very different than now, but honestly half the time unless you had the catalogue in front of you, you would have no idea what it was you were buying.

[Guy Farrish]

I’m pretty sure I agree with Jim here.

‘Rout’ implies not just a falling back or retirement to regroup and reorganise but an indisciplined and uncontrolled flight to the rear. Stopping and turning such a mob around may be impossible, even with the use of bayonets, swords or fire, with Napoleon in the way. (If you can, it probably wasn’t a rout in the first place.)

On the other hand many rule sets use the word to reflect everything from a tactical pull back to a complete broken flight.

Volley & Bayonet has a routing unit moving one move directly backwards away from the enemy it is in combat with and disordering any friendly unit contacted and routing them if they are already disordered.  However they then stop and look gormless, but ready to be rallied without test if a senior officer arrives. They remain permanently disordered but can then return to the fray. As this takes a couple of turns and each turn is an hour it isn’t quite as ‘rubbery’ as it may seem at first.  A routed unit also immediately loses a strength point so while theoretically it could keep bouncing back it is unlikely to do so very often, given that units seldom exceed 4 strength points. Also there aren’t that many senior officers wandering around – given the need to keep units in command radius if you want them to do anything useful.

I would quibble with the terminology but admire the effect in V&B.

(I tried to post on your blog but didn’t get as far as the ‘press the button four times’ I’m afraid – it didn’t recognise my google log in and I didn’t want to be ‘anonymous’).

[Guy Farrish]

Guy Farrish wrote:

I’m a bit suspicious of some of the reduction of warfare to numbers because except in say logistics (I know! That’s what wins wars!)…

Do I win a coconut?

[Guy Farrish]

Looks like a great game!

Reminds me of a Dark Age back to back game in the early 90s(?) where the players were moving at night to do something on Beltane. In the dark most players saw trees and rocks and huts and opposing bands of warriors appear on their tables while the odd player got a monster or demon or Banshee in the mix.

Chaotic as people tried to work out what the **** was happening and amusing for the umpire (and most players). And instructive about what you imagine is out in the dark.

Video – like the appearance of woodland dpm in the mix (not the Afghan Army – the British odds and sods) now produce figures painted like that and see how long before you’re told you painted them wrong. 

Talking of which; what colour do I paint my afghan leopards?

[Guy Farrish]

I don’t know what the business rates are like these days but they weren’t that great for smaller businesses when I started mine.

I remember Royal Mail saying I could have a lower rate with a franking machine (we are talking some time ago!) or I could print my own labels from their web site (so not that long ago) – which I did. The saving was marginal unless, and they were quite keen on this, I could pay up front for a notional volume and if I exceeded this in a year those extras would be at a much lower rate or free. Regrettably (not really given the business model I wanted to run) I never hit those volumes so never bothered.

I doubt many wargames sellers get anywhere near the volumes required to make noticeable scale savings on postal charges.

[Edit]

@NCS – you’ve got Covid? First time I’ve felt sorry for the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Doesn’t know what it’s let itself in for!

Get well soon.

[Guy Farrish]

I was thinking about the war being gamed that prompted Chris’ question.

In 73 and in 67, and more so in 48, the numbers were massively stacked on the Arab side and quality (of armaments at least) was on their side in 48 and not so clear cut as some commentators may suggest in the former two. Troop training and morale and commitment is another thing and one of the problem areas in quantifying war.

But who won the battles? Generally Israel, although the start of Yom Kippur was not so good for them.

And who won the wars? Is the war over? This may seem like an irrelevant question if we take the discrete series of battles in each period as ‘a war’. But the casus belli remains and is all conflict between Arab nations and Israel part of the same long war? If so we don’t know the outcome so maybe numbers will tell.  If not and the outbreaks of war were continuations of political and diplomatic differences by other means, perhaps the wars were won by the qualitatively superior force and maybe diplomacy can produce a modus vivendi eventually.

I’m not sure what that does to the initial hypothesis, but it suggests perhaps it may have at least some variation.

[Guy Farrish]

One of the things that makes me do the same as NCS (the real reason is I love getting the ‘Did you know you’ve left something in your “cart”‘ emails for weeks afterwards, makes me feel needed) is the ‘SURPRISE!’ element. Put the charges somewhere up front or at least nearer than the last bit before you actually pay.

I take your point about packaging and postal services Mike.

I think the problem is something that all small scale online suppliers have increasingly faced since the Big River model swamped retail. If you can bung the postal service enough cash for a volume sales deal you can offer free p&p and play at being NASA.

To offset certainty of income at reduced rates from big players, postal services up the rate for the low volume user and the disparity in postage charges gets increasingly prohibitive for the corner shop player. And irritating at least for those of us wanting to buy niche items rather than something from a Nottingham Polygon based conglomerate.

[Guy Farrish]

Good game which conformed to accepted readings of that war in many ways. But then giving the Israelis a +2 would do that I guess. I’m not saying it’s wrong but it probably hard wires the result to an extent.

As for ‘Quality wins battles. Numbers win wars.’* it has a snappy ring to it which surely must have been coined in some US military papers somewhere? I can’t currently find the phrase however, and if it doesn’t exist I’m prepared to Trade Mark it and copyright protect it before you get there!

Is it true? I don’t know. Its sounds like something Lanchester and/or Dupuy would have come up with or possibly Martin van Creveld. I’m a bit suspicious of some of the reduction of warfare to numbers because except in say logistics (I know! That’s what wins wars!) the numbers you plug in turn out to be somewhat arbitrary if you dig a bit. Christopher Lawrence in War by Numbers: Understanding Conventional Combat (Potomac Books, 2017) takes up Dupuy’s (and I suppose Clausewitz’) torch of mathematical study of combat. I haven’t read properly it I confess – it’s on the list: if only because it promises to be more comprehensible than ‘Numbers Predictions and War’ – but reviews suggest he takes a few pops at previous certainties (including Dupuy’s. He worked with Dupuy and is the President of the Dupuy Institute). He is honest about the quality and quantity of data used in the past, and the few conclusions he does come up with raise a few eyebrows if not hackles. Combat in urban areas results in fewer casualties and smaller resource expenditure than open warfare for one. I can already think of a few reasons. I must read the damn’ thing!

I’m sure John (Mr Picky- or online encyclopaedic superbrain as I prefer to think of him) will have access to, and understand, all the relevant publications and numbers – come on John, help us here!

*It has a delightfully faux Stalinist ring to it.

[Guy Farrish]

Interesting report, thanks.

I was wondering at first if the command problems for the Austrians were going to be so overwhelming as to finish the game very early. In the event the result seemed believable.

I’m impressed you have recovered a good game from Black Powder which I find unreadable. I have suspected there may be a game in there but I’ve never managed to read far enough to find out.

[Guy Farrish]

Superb bit of modelling.

The use of the roller is just so satisfying to watch. I want one too. Despite the fact I am never going to build anything in this scale!

Thanks for posting this Javier, absolutely brilliant to watch.

[Guy Farrish]

Oh I don’t know…

It shows you why various enemies mistook each other for friendly forces and vice versa – Waterloo Prussians perhaps?

And at least you know you’ve painted them incorrectly, albeit for very good reasons, whereas before, in 1972 you (alright, I) accidentally painted the French Imperial Guard Grenadiers in Humbrol gloss enamel midnight blue (didn’t fall for that ‘French Blue’ nonsense!). Well I didn’t know did I? All my metal toy soldiers to that point had been shiny.

I’d like to say after that first contact with other Napoleonic gamers a few weeks later, I rushed home and stripped them and repainted in matt paint. But actually they were still shiny (and as bright as when painted) when I sold them in 2010.

 

[Guy Farrish]

V Cool!

And so neat!

Happy gaming.

[Guy Farrish]

Stop that right now!

[Guy Farrish]

Scarred by the Charleville pattern musket v Brown Bess wars of the 1970s, you should pity them not judge them.

And never rise to any mention of methods of adjusting the position of, moving or resiting unlimbered artillery pieces, it’s a trap!

[Guy Farrish]

Interesting game and look forward to more game reports.

Quick note – it’s Ia (‘EeYa’) not La Drang – it’s right in the blog.

[Author]

Posts