[Prince Rhys]

Mike – your 6mm sci-fi town is amazing. I really enjoyed reading your progress on building it and how you made it and using the steel squares as a modular expansion for each part of the town – brilliant. I am much in awe of your model making and painting skills.

Paul – i would love to see your original Necromunda figures – got any pics you can share?

OB – Right, that’s it, the next lot of miniatures (more 28mm WW2 Soviets) will be converted using green stuff in some small ways – to start with. There are some specific and unique poses i have thought i would like to create but haven’t had the right pieces ( using Warlord plastics) but i think I could with some good old green stuff conversion work. I am also just contemplating my Xmas order from money gifts from people who said just buy the miniatures you want – we will give you the money 🙂

 

[Prince Rhys]

OB – superb work on the conversions and painting – I’ve never really done any conversion work – just filling with green stuff but might give it a go now – I think it’s about time! Having unique miniatures on the tabletop must be quite a satisfying thing.

Mike – your work is outstanding. I love the detail you painting especially those rugs. The attention to detail and care taken is inspiring. But of course the sheep are the stars!

I have come to think that an oft neglected part of wargaming is creating depth of realism with supporting characters/civilians and realistic portrayals of buildings/settlements and their everyday look and everyday inhabitants who struggle on as best they can. It creates deep period flavour and a real sense of atmosphere.

[Prince Rhys]

I would very much like to see those sheep being part Welsh! And of course the conversion mania!

[Prince Rhys]

Superb work, thanks for sharing.

[Prince Rhys]

Superb battle report. Chars were awesome tanks for their time as was the Somua.

[Prince Rhys]

So I’ve recently become a sponsoring member and thought I would contribute to this excellent thread as I am pleased with my progress over the last month. I’m not a brilliant painter but I’ve learnt it’s much more important to do your best but get your figures painted and based and actually play games with them. So here are my World War 2 Soviets, painted and in prigress.

There are many shades/colours that I have seen in various sources and I wanted to represent this.

Ill just post a link to the album.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yWqWJayWGnbp6tdi2

[Prince Rhys]

Yeah I would be interested.

[Prince Rhys]

They seem like an excellent set of rules. I have owned them for a while but not yet gamed with them. I have a feudal English army in the process of being painted up and will be fighting the Scottish, Welsh, Irish armies in time. Although I wont be entering tournaments – they just seem like a really good evolution of the DBx system.

 

[Prince Rhys]

Superb work!

[Prince Rhys]

Great work – thanks.

[Prince Rhys]

That’s a good idea about just using 6” movements. I think I will be investing in the near future!

[Prince Rhys]

Yeah those bases are superb and I’m very inspired by your project!

[Prince Rhys]

How about the Krusties, the Kra’Vak or the Ixx from GZG?

What about a robot/automaton force?

Or the Prang army from the Ion Age?

 

 

[Prince Rhys]

That was an excellent report. Thank you for sharing. I really like the sound of the Rommel rule set.

[Prince Rhys]

Tanks for sharing – great looking figures and models. Not sure about the rules though.

[Prince Rhys]

Very nice indeed – good work.

[Prince Rhys]

I really like the idea of just dropping paper chits or have them deployed from a box that passed over the table at a certain height. That’s probably how I would do it although I have never wargamed a full airborne operation before.

[Prince Rhys]

Oh, this reminds me, I need to get my basing on!

[Prince Rhys]

Awesome work! Very impressive!

[Prince Rhys]

Like Mr. Average says, tank destroyers were easier and cheaper to manufacture and were excellent ambush weapons. Think of them as mechanised anti-tank guns at a time when anti-tank guns were a common feature of armies, able to support rather than lead rapid advances and fighting rearguards during retreats from ambush positions.

[Prince Rhys]

If I were to do ECW again I would probably go for either Blue Moon or Peter Pig – Blue Moon are large 18mm figures Peter Pig are true 15’s I.e. much smaller but therefore faster to paint up and paint up very nicely indeed.

 

if you went 28mm you can’t beat Old Glory for value and quality!

 

[Prince Rhys]

I highly recommend Adler infantry with GHQ. That’s the way I went when I did Eastern Front in 6mm. I’m not sure if Bacchus infantry would fit well with GHQ tanks. Bacchus figures are sort of fat 8mm figures.

[Prince Rhys]

Hello Glenn,

i have to say your games do sound good fun and adopt an approach I am sure I would appreciate.

I am likely, if personally planning and designing a scenario to use very similar methods to frame a scenario and inform the players. I am however, more likely to use fictional scenarios particularly as my current gaming is focusing on platoon level battles on the Eastern Front of World War 2 from 1943 to 1945. I understand your view points a lot better thanks to your patient explanations.

However, I think if you play more modern games, the need for geographic locations as leverage for deciding victory become much more important as the weapons of war become much more advanced with rifles and steel rifled breech loading artillery and also the evolution of accurate indirect fire at greater and greater ranges. Especially when tactics completely failed to evolve anywhere near the rate of weaponry.

During the Russo-Turkish war for example, of 1877 to 1878, the Russians were often found, as an aggressive invader, to be assaulting Turkish field fortifications and prepared positions with a dispersed assault column that, even in the age of the Bolt Action rifle (Turks were using Mausers), had a doctrine of keeping the bayonet fixed at all times on the field of battle so they can always be ready for a close assault. Therefore, an initial Russian assault on day 1 of a battle rarely succeeded.

Now, I am sure, you can see the problem of not measuring Russian physical progress across Turkish positions will always result in a terrible loss for the Russians as the initial forces available for day 1 of the battle would take horrendous casualties.

You cannot create a historic battle of the first battle of Plevna (there were three separate battles during what turned into a siege) without giving the Russians credit for achieving some measure of capture of geographic locations compared to their historic counterpart. Otherwise playing the Russians at Plevna would be miserable. And I think this is where Chris Pringle may well have been thinking of. But then again may be not.

I have Chris’ excellent rules and scenario book but in the conflicts covered it is often necessary for one side or both to have victory conditions defined by including the capture of geographic locations upon the battlefield.

I think it may have been a little rash of you to shoot Chris down in advance of understanding his view point and his area of expertise.

My interest is the age of the rifle so probably from 1850 to 1945. But I have played games at all levels and all periods. I think it seems to some that you have steered the conversation solely around the horse and musket period and excluded any thoughts of how victories were historically defined in other, typically later periods because you simply have limited or no knowledge or understanding of them whereas this is a general discussion about victory conditions and how they are used and how they affect different players, different periods/wars and the different conditions used.

[Prince Rhys]

I will buy this! Please keep us updated!

[Prince Rhys]

Also another example of armed forces conducting an offensive through difficult terrain – the German Ardennes offensive 1944.

[Prince Rhys]

To GP

thanks very much for taking the time to reply to my riposte and elaborating. I now have a much better understanding of your view point and I don’t think we are too far away.

I do agree that intelligent scenario design shouldn’t need strict victory conditions that may include points being attributed to terrain pieces. I think it is very subjective and unhelpful as well as  being un-realistic.

However, the sole objective of a stand along battle, in my opinion, does not work as simply being the destruction of the opposing army. Perhaps causing the demoralisation army is a better term. In a campaign, even after a major set piece battle where won side is considered to have lost and the other side considered to have won, quite often, it was the case that both sides still had capable armies in the field on campaign and the loser would with draw to re-organise, re-in force, re-supply etc and the winning side would do the same in place at the site of victory before probably conducting a pursuit.

Regardless of whether or not an army could still be considered effective in the field, a lost battle or a series of lost battles and manoeuvrings in a campaign could result in the high command and or the government at home becoming so demoralised regardless of the actual real condition of its armed forces, that it may sue for peace and accept the campaign as being lost. All without their effective field forces being destroyed. The object of a battle therefore as seen as part of a larger campaign is to gain the advantage in the on-going campaign, to demoralise, out-manoeuvre, and seriously threaten the opposing sides forces/government/country.

In summary, your extreme over-simplification of victory conditions irked me a little.

I hope my somewhat direct tone didn’t seem rude or irk you.

I am also assuming that if you game World War One, you don’t game the whole of the western front in 1917 in one go in one evening with painted and based miniatures all on the same table.

Therefore, you will be acting as a subordinate commander with objectives that could be considered subjective, irrelevant, and even plain foolish. But that is a war in which success became measured in metres out of desperation of a horrendous stalemate.

I assume you play games outside of your horse and musket comfort zone? Have you ever played a World War Two Eastern Front scenario? Were you in charge of the entire forces for the Germans or Russians along the whole of the eastern front? I assume that you weren’t.

I assume if you’ve ever played a World War Two game you were in charge of a company maybe? A battalion or regiment perhaps  as the biggest individual player command.

So if you were designing for example a scenario whereby a company of Russians have been charged with crossing a river and establishing a bridge head in front of  weakened enemy lines like an under strength German platoon.

So the Russian victory conditions/objectives are to establish a river crossing and create a bridgehead from which further Soviet assaults may be launched.

The German victory conditions/ objectives are to prevent the establishment of a major soviet bridgehead in the area by whatever means possible. A withdrawal is not an option.

(base it around the Soviet crossings of the Dnepr in 1944).

So Glenn, how would you feel about the scenario roughly outlined above? What would you do differently to frame the same scenario? How would you decide on the winner and loser? What criteria would you use to define a winner and a loser in this scenario?

[Prince Rhys]

Pretty much since the beginning of time there has only been one objective in battle and that’s to clobber/destroy/break/kill, the other guy.

This is simply not true – the destruction of an enemy army in the field is one of the primary goals of a campaign and not a battle and this needs to be carefully defined. In 1870, Prussia and its German allied states defeated every army in the field of the Imperial French army and still did not win the war!

The period I know best is the Horse & Musket era where armies generally deployed in the open for large battles in an attempt to achieve that objective.

Again this is simply not true – ever heard of a delaying action or a reconnaissance in force battle?

Knowing that they will generally be fighting in the open the armies were designed to support that activity. They were often broken down into battalions/regiments of 500 men with their primary fighting formation being what is called a line. These were subsequently organized into higher formations of Brigades, Divisions, Corps and Armies. Who also often deployed in lines or a series of lines. Whenever possible an army would hold a “council of war” prior to a battle at which time a “plan of action” would be developed. From there orders would be issued and every unit/command would be assigned to a location for the coming battle and if possible a briefing on what they were expected to do.

So basically you agree that a large command, that may well be represented on the table battlefield as an action on its own will have a geographic location and objectives to achieve according to its command briefings and written orders to be carried out in that geographic location by said command?

Sometimes the actual plan of the battle remained in the commanders head and was only executed on his command during the battle. If an army had decided that it would adopt a defensive position it would generally form up in a line of battle. This is generally just a long line that could cover miles and every unit was expected to be close enough to its neighbour to protect their flanks and/or rears. The better commanders would often use a town/village/farm etc. to anchor the flanks of the army or act as a strong point in advance of or part of the main line. A strong point can serve two purposes. The simple one is it will just break up the attackers line of battle when he attacks, thus channelling his attacks into a zone that the defender can better defend. The more complicated one is a necessity to potentially launch a local counter attack or to use it as an actual anchor in the main line.

So you agree physical/geographic locations become important to local commands which are often the ones being represented as an isolated battle on the tabletop?

As the actual battle unfolds the importance of all “terrain features” can, will and often do change. What happens if a defending commander decides to go on the offensive? All previous “terrain features” are no longer of any value to him.

Yes, a counter-attack was usually launched either to re-take a physical location after losing to an enemy force assaulting the physical location. Or, the enemy have been so cut up by trying to assault said location that a counter-attack will hopefully act as the final nail in the coffin and destroy the enemy after they tired to take their objective!

An offensive army will rarely occupy any “terrain features” beyond the obvious such as a hill, river bank, etc. They will often deploy into a line of battle as well that generally matches the frontage of the defender. Their commander will often place his troops as close to the enemy as possible that he plans to attack. The planned attack could be extremely complex depending on how sophisticated the commander was and what troops he had at his disposal. It was not uncommon for a commander to maintain control over exactly how, when, and where attacks were made. He had to also be on guard for any unexpected counter or flank attacks that the defender might launch. Once an attacker has roughly established the defenders line of battle he now has to shore up his attack plan to see if he can be successful in rupturing the enemies line. The normal weak points are the flanks followed by any areas in the main line that look vulnerable. Traditionally these are the exposed areas in the open where artillery, infantry and cavalry attacks can be used to their best advantage. And are of course easiest to maneuver to. The defender also goes through a similar exercise except he is trying to ensure that all of his vulnerable areas are as secure as possible and can be reinforced if necessary. He also knows that the battle can develop in a number of unlimited ways. Being prepared to move his flanks or pull his army back in part or in full can do a lot to help him defend his position and maintain his line of battle. If possible or as part of his plan counter attacks or a major offensive is also well served when planned in advance. So as you can see the actual dynamics of major warfare in this period can be very fluid and is often referred to as the ebb and flow of battle.

You have just described any major battle ever in history… we are all aware that there is an ebb and flow to a battle that does nothing to prove your narrow and singular point.

Once you limit the game to certain “victory conditions” the ebb and flow is generally restricted to those pre defined areas. So it becomes hamstrung. Once a scenario designer introduces “victory conditions” that are dependent on “terrain features” and generally enhanced with “victory points” the entire natural development of an army, its thinking and its effectiveness has been severely ruptured. It actually turns things upside down.

You have missed the point entirely here and have got it backwards. Victory conditions do not in any way limit the potential of a game and certainly doesn’t hamstring it. Objectives and victory conditions give you a goal – something to generally aim for. How to achieve these is entirely down to the player and how they interpret or in deed misinterpret these is all part of the fun and very historically accurate – and unless you can give me an example of a major set-piece battle where the chain of command did not get something wrong at some point then this just goes to show that fumbles and misinterpretations are all part of re-creating historical battles – the human element is in the player. If a player tries to achieve their victory conditions simply moving straight up the battlefield and trying to assault them with no manoeuvring then they will, 99% of the time come a cropper, but in all battles there is also an element of luck also and sometimes a player will get lucky just as commanders did! 

Are you trying to tell us that it is much more satisfying to just watch to armies pointlessly slugging out on the tabletop for hours taking vast un-realistic casualties without any regard for historical narrative or imperative?

The attackers focus is no longer on the vulnerable points of the enemies line of battle. The objective has changed from destroying the enemies army at its weakest points to taking his strong points! He is also now obligated to force his army into generally tight positions that are hard to maneuver in and make it extremely difficult for him to utilize his combined forces to their maximum effect. Cavalry are generally useless in most defined “terrain features” and the artillery effect is often greatly reduced as well. Even the classic close order infantry attack is often rendered useless.

Battle of the Wilderness whereby the confederates chose to attack in difficult terrain as a deliberate command decision ring any bells? Again your view seems to be extremely narrow and singular as to exclude most of history’s military campaigns and battles.

So the attacker has lost all of his advantages. Well this is now paradise for the defender as he knows exactly where the attacker will strike. Shore up those strong points even more and ensure that reinforcements are handy and the jobs done! A piece of cake. The defender has now enhanced all of his advantages. Since a lot of “terrain features” were fought over and are often highlighted in narratives of battles some scenario writers have mistakenly seized on these as critical objectives of a given battle. When in fact they were generally just short term objectives at best that could just as easily have played no part in the battle.

But they did play a part in the battle so therefore they did matter and it was an historical objective that was aimed for, for a part of the battle by that command which may well be represented on the table top as part of an historical re-fight. You seem to be constantly tripping over your own points in terms of wargaming historical actions. 

To force players into this narrow matrix of “terrain features” defies all military logic. As previously stated I’ve played a lot of various “victory condition” games and everyone of them has fallen flat. I was unable to find any satisfaction or realisms in these games. They are just too contrived for my taste. Everyone in my group greatly enjoy the games that I put on as everyone is able to test their skills to the maximum without any fabricated scenario objectives and know when the game is over that their victory or defeat was a direct result of their skills and not a matter of an elaborate scavenger hunt. Since Norm Smith has brought up Waterloo 1815 and Hougoumont, I’ll use that battle as an example. The battlefield itself is textbook material and Wellington chose it wisely. It blocks the main road which any attacker must use to push his army forward.

So you are saying Wellington chose a favourable defensive position to block the road, therefore the terrain in this area was a favourable geographic location to prevent Napoleon from achieving his objective!?

It contains a complicated hill/ridge system that gives a number of advantages to a defending army. There are chateaus on both flanks and in the center. The ones on both flanks will serve to help protect his main battle line from easily being disrupted by a flank attack. The ones in the center will break up any attack on the center of his army. Obviously his entire army can’t hide in these chateaus so only an extremely small fraction of his army is allocated to these.

So wellington used these terrain features to his advantage by deploying troops in these terrain features that became indirectly an objective for French forces – I am sure Napoleon did not see these at strategic objectives in terms of the overall battle but the local commanders in that area did as part of achieving their objectives.

Fearing that Napoleon might try to outflank him on his extreme right he places a large force there blocking another road. They are however, not part of his main battle line at Waterloo. Napoleon deploys his army also in a textbook fashion. One infantry corps is placed on either side of the main road supported by cavalry formations. In the center he places another smaller infantry corps supported by the guard and more cavalry. Napoleon thinks that he will win this battle by executing a “masse de rupture“. That’s “breaking the enemy’s line of battle”. Certainly not by capturing all the chateaus.

Right, so Napoleon is trying to do what all attacking army commanders have ever tried to do…

He has very little if any concern about any of the chateaus other then where he plans to make his main attack they will restrict the scope of his attack. He also can’t easily launch an effective attack on Wellingtons center as it is protected by a couple of chateaus.

They have no strategic value but they do have local tactical value, two very different things that you seem to be getting confused with.

He would have to swing his attacking force around the center chateaus exposing the attack to all kinds of counterattacks. The attack will proceed whether or not he controls the chateaus. Napoleon has selected the “open area” on his right to be the main target of his attack. His entire army has been deployed to either or attack or support that position. They are in no way shape or fashion deployed to take as many “terrain features” as possible. To weaken the actual “open area” that Napoleon plans to attack he orders a diversionary attack against Hougoumont. The intention is that Wellington will be forced to draw troops away from the “open area” that Napoleon actually plans to attack. Actually holding Hougoumont is not important to Napoleon.

You are absolutely right – it has no strategic value to Napoleon, but commanders in the area need to take it into account as part of their plans to achieve Napoleons vision.

Napoleon forms a “grand battery” drawing on the resources of his artillery from a number of commands to commence a bombardment of the “open area” he plans to attack. This weakens the striking power of these various commands. Once he thinks the battery has done its job an entire infantry corps attacks across the front of the “open area”. This is critical as some believe that the more units you can cram into a given attack area increases your chances of success. Provided of course that it can maintain order and deliver an assault uniformly. The down side is the bigger the force the greater the potential for things to go wrong. Once the infantry assault breaches the main enemy line (masse de rupture) cavalry and reserves are planned to be pushed in where they will spread out and roll up the enemy line in both directions.

If Napoleons plan had succeeded holding every chateau on the battlefield would not have saved Wellingtons army from total destruction.

This sentence doesn’t make any sense to me? Please could you elaborate this point so that I may understand it better?

We have been playing games without artificial “victory conditions”, “terrain features”, “victory points” for years and players can’t get enough of them.

So you have been pointlessly slugging it out regardless of casualties, objectives or victory conditions until one side has absolutely no forces left on the table after hours and hours of wargaming?

Norm, we also don’t directly count casualties as a representative of performance. Entire units and their respective Brigades are used as part of an overall evaluation system. When we finish a game there is never any dispute over who won. The only objective has been obtained. One side has either acknowledged that the other side has won, or they announce that they are withdrawing. Any post game talk centers around why one side won or lost. It’s usually an acknowledgement that one side had a poor plan, poor execution or was simply out manoeuvred. The discussion is never wasted away on who should have had more or better “victory objectives” , “points” or “terrain objectives”.

Again: So you have been pointlessly slugging it out regardless of casualties, objectives or victory conditions until one side has absolutely no forces left on the table after hours and hours of wargaming?

[Prince Rhys]

I think this is a very fascinating and excellent discussion and every single poster has made excellent points and contributed to the discussion, and I am going to try to live up to this trend. However, these are my own personal opinions from my experience as a wargamer, and also an amateur fan of military history.

First of all I think some loose definitions would help.

Objective: In this context a geographic location upon the battlefield table (wargames specific) that would be desirous for one or both sides to capture and/or hold for the remainder of the game and render significant advantage to the side that occupies this point in terms of offering a certain degree of domination of this area of the battlefield. It would also allow for additional leverage to the side who holds it without any contestation whatsoever by the opposing side. Could be considered a firm objective for one or both sides by the scenario designer. However, another objective could be to engage and distract a particular opposing command, or conduct a reconnaissance in force, against the opposing side in the area facing your command. Or, even to conduct an assault against a specified enemy command and clear them out but this would usually be associated with a geographical point. These types of objectives are hard to quantify, and therefore need careful consideration by both sides post game – this where an effective umpire or games master comes into their own. They also need to know how to have fun and should ideally be the scenario creator.

Further personal opinion upon the subject of objectives: Should scenarios and scenario designers include objectives as decisive victory conditions for one side or another? I don’t believe it is necessary. Dominating terrain is obvious to wargamers who will quickly be able to assess its importance and relevance to how they should play the game with the forces available to them. However, an objective, at the end of the game, if dominated by one side or another, should then give leverage to that sides argument for victory. However, the argument for victory should be weighted with a number of factors and not the simplistic term of I hold 4 points worth of objectives. In my opinion objectives should not be assigned points to be counted up and measured (quantified) as victory conditions as this, I believe, does detract from the scenario and its historical importance. Even if it is a fictitious historical encounter. There should always be some sort of narrative behind any historical encounter (i.e. the use of historical opponents) whether based on an actual encounter or a fictional encounter.

Strategic Objective: This can also be a geographic point, but as Chris Pringle points out typically it is the overarching desire for an army or armies on campaign to reach a major, or even, capital city. Usually reaching and entering a capital city after pushing the enemy so far back would result in a total loss of confidence of the command and governement of said forces who would then sue for peace after occupation of a major or capital city. However, in 1812, Napoleon failed to achieve this as Glenn Pearce notes and left a dangerous army in the field that ravaged arguably the finest army Napoleon ever commanded.

Further personal opinion upon the subject of Strategic objectives: The strategic objective, will not typically be on the battlefield of a tabletop wargame – usually. It is a primary objective, of which there may be a singular or multiple primary objectives, of an army on campaign and to consider this strategic objective as relevant you must, in my opinion, be fighting an going historical campaign to consider its relevance to both armies and where they are on the path to victory. A campaign game must consider a major, or capital city as a strategic objective but it must not be exclusive of the destruction of the opposing army. To consider only one or the other will result in a lopsided and unrealistic campaign. Simply rushing to pre-arranged objectives will not on its own bring about victory and you will fall into the traps and mistakes made by German commanders at the Wacht Am Rhein Ardennes offensive. However, this does prove that there are historical instances of armies believing subjectively that this will achieve victory. With the gift of historical hindsight we know this not to be true.

Battlefield Victory Conditions: This is specifically aimed at stand alone wargames that are not played as part of a larger campaign. I imagine this applies to the majority of the games we all play and are talking about. First of all, if you are not assuming the overall command of an army i.e. you are commanding a world war two company, or a Union brigade in 1863, A Prussian division in 1870, or a British brigade in 1809, you are a subordinate commander who will have been to briefings and received written orders for the day of battle ahead. Therefore all commanders have pre-set orders to carry out that are perceived will help the army as a whole to achieve favourable conditions for said army. Therefore, all scenarios where you act as a subordinate commander i.e. not an army commander, will need a set of initial battlefield objectives, they can be geographical points on the battlefield, or, as previously discussed, a tactical manoeuvre against a certain enemy command. However, these often changed quickly in a battle as aid de camps and messengers, as well, as runners, carrier pigeons, telegraphers, heliograph operators, and radio operators, relayed messages across the battlefield to various commanders to do something else that differs slightly or significantly to their original orders as result of fumbles, incompetence, mis-communication, desperation, and exploiting sudden breakthroughs as quickly as possible. Therefore, assessing victory or victory conditions on initial orders alone is dangerous and completely out of context. But neither should it be completely discarded. Once again it should be factored in and measured with all other factors at the end of a battle assuming a battle has been fought to a close. This is where I believe Chris Pringle is correct, as a subordinate, you will have clear objectives to achieve but must be considered along with the whole battle.

If assuming the role of an army commander in a stand alone game, then your over arching goal is to destroy as much of the enemy as possible without your own force becoming too demoralised and routing resulting in defeat. This is where I believe Glenn Pierce is correct. Your only requirement here is destruction. If dominating a particular piece of terrain assists you in this and indeed adds expediency to the destruction of the enemy then it is obviously advantageous and take that particular piece of terrain along with any others across your front that will render your army the same service. So long as dominating it does not cost so great a price as to result in your own forces suffering massive casualties that you have a hole open up in your line and/or your force becomes demoralised and starts to rout.

Further personal opinion upon the subject of Victory Conditions:

Therefore, victory conditions are,m I believe both different to battlefield or tactical objectives, and, also, strategic objectives as part of a campaign as well as battles.

Victory conditions for a stand alone battle must be a very carefully considered subject. In my preference a scenario will have some sort of objectives as well as an outline to what each side should aim to achieve, however, these be purposefully ambiguous to allow mis-interpretations as well as allowing a historical flavour for the period to show through. But don’t forget, all commanders, even army commanders had severe restrictions when commanding in the field. So many thing could and did go wrong. But there was also a significant amount of luck. There are also historical examples of armies subjectively pursuing geographical objectives and the hope this would bring about victory with dire consequences for said armies.

I do believe that utilising an umpire or games master, preferably the scenario designer, can help to determine the victory conditions and direct the post-mortem discussions to ultimately decide which side fulfilled most decisively their original goals along side who inflicted the most casualties, as well as who dominated the battlefield the most consistently as well as at the end of the battle. Therefore, in conclusion, I think victory conditions should not be so, i.e. they should not be pre-conditions. The points to determine victory should be decided as part of a gentlemanly discussion at the end of the battle raising all points with all sides.

As previously discussed though, all scenarios whether fictional historical encounters or historical historical encounters, should have a preconceived narrative, as well as carefully but ambiguous scenario perimeters which frames and subtly directs the battle without dictating exactly how each side should fight.

Victory conditions therefore, should not be dictated prior to the battle being fought and have strict objectives, or points to calculate. Leave that to the tournament players. There is no need for that in a friendly club game or an encounter between friends in their man-cave, shed, basement, bedroom, lounge, dining room, – wherever. It is only tournament play with no narrative or historical context that need strictly defined victory pre-conditions.

I thing Glenn, and Chris both raise excellent points but should not be considered exclusive of each other as both point out in their own unique ways. Also, I consider everyone else has made excellent points that has made me think more about scenario design and ensuring that it is fun, engaging, realistic, and, win, lose, or draw, everyone feels welcomed and listened to.

The one victory condition that no one can argue with is that both sides players should have fun – if everyone enjoys the game then it is a successful battle and scenario!

It is always helpful to run a critique of the scenario itself and feedback to the creator/designer how they felt the scenario played and any changes that may be considered. But this shouldn’t be seen as a failing of a scenario. Evolving rules, house rules, and scenarios, and eventually campaigns with a bunch of like minded people is all part of the fun. And different people bring many different ideas and perspectives to the thing which can only be a good thing like this discussion.

However, I don’t think any of the ideas and points brought to this discussion should be considered exclusive of each other, but as part of a whole for determining how well each side fared.

Anyway, I’ve rambled on too much already.

 

 

[Prince Rhys]

Thanks Steve, much appreciated!

[Prince Rhys]

Thanks Shandy, appreciated.

[Prince Rhys]

Thanks – it does very much 🙂

[Prince Rhys]

Ha ha yeah but I’m gonna present an argument as to why it is still very relevant 😉

Otherwise why would you bother collecting books to wargame the periods you are passionate about!? Why not just rely on Wikipedia and Google Images!?

For me print in war gaming is important in all it’s mediums and to have something about wargames, by wargamers for wargamers should be embraced.

Also the article is now a full concept with a good title.

Although I wasn’t a big fan of the previous choppy who edited MW.

[Prince Rhys]

Thanks Ivan – much appreciated!

[Prince Rhys]

I have to admit that it was the first time I had listened to your podcast after seeing it on but will deffo be listening to the rest whilst painting.

[Prince Rhys]

Just listened to this whilst painting – great stuff, keep up the good work and congratulations as well.

[Prince Rhys]

Hi Patrice,

I agree, that is a much easier and smoother way of doing it but my only problem with that is that there is a chance you will have two fresh Prussian corps on the table at the start of the game. One being directly in the flank of the French. Whilst I’m all for challenging games, it might be of limited enjoyment to the French player.

Whereas if you only start rolling from between turn 4 to turn 6 for the arrival, the French get a few turns to make use of their wonderful Chassepot’s, with which the French infantry were superb shots. The starting Prussian corps gets mauled, the fresh Prussian corps then becomes the primary focus on the flank and the French are forced to urgently re-organise on the fresh division and even make desperate localised counter-attacks or stalling cavalry charges to buy time for their re-deployment. If this occurred, then it would be a true reflection of the events of 1870 and present the same challenges faced by the historical commanders for both players.

A French victory could also be called if the French are able to secure one of the roads leading off on the Prussian deployment long edge. A draw would be called if the Prussians control one village and the French are deemed as at least contesting the remaining village.

Rhys

[Prince Rhys]

Hi Henry,

Absolutely, it would be a privilege. Drop me an email: [email protected]

Hi Sparker – I remember playing PoW Napoleonics and enjoyed it very much out of the many sets we played at the club in my formative war gaming years as a teenager. However, as I recall, they still used multiple base battalions. I believe they are now also out of print.

My focus has been on rules that are readily available.

Rhys

[Prince Rhys]

Photos now added!

[Prince Rhys]

New post is up:

http://witaoasffar.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/so-progress-has-been-little-slower-last.html

Rhys

[Prince Rhys]

Hi Henry,

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I have just put a new post up, though I am currently having an argument with Google+ and Blogger as they won’t let me upload my latest photos which is somewhat annoying.

as for scale, if I was to start again, I would in all likelihood go with Pendraken 10mm stuff. A very complete range with all units available including Brunswickers who only accounted for a couple of regiment in the German army of 1870. It is unlikely they will make their money back on those codes but they did it anyway! Gotta love that!

Given the size of the field armies in the latter half of the 19th century, it would be advisable to with 2mm to 10mm figs as corp plus sized engagements were common in this period.

as for rules, well, where to start.

i believe a single rule set is perfectly capable of covering this whole era. Two examples of this (and in my collection) are Field of Battle 2nd Edition and Zouave II (1861-1871).

both are very good sets and Zouave II is my preference because it deals with the fog of war of such large armies of this period very well. Zouave II strives to remove the absolute control and compensate for the clear helicopter view of the entire battlefield and all forces thereby arrayed in a very clever but easy manner. Yes it is card-driven I suppose which some seem irked by but I think it adds to the games and gives you an edge of the seat experience.

one of the default requirement I have for any rule set for any era, is that it should allow a sizeable wargame to be fought to a decisive conclusion within a 3 to 4 hour period, or, a typical club night. I think this is very important. As a young teenager going to my nearest and most excellent club (no mean feat for I was under the age of driving and public transport in the evening, especially late evening, in the rural area in which I lived, was appalling), I became frustrated with the wargames we played as we rarely were abe to fight a wargame to a proper or decisive conclusion. The adult gamers would then stand around for a bit after declaring time, discussing the possible outcomes with the forces that were left on the table ( usually nearly all of the starting forces). I thought this seemed rather pointless, which I think is why in the 90’s, Fire & Fury was such a revelation along with DBA.

Bruce Weigles are also very excellent sets, with each set covering the aforementioned periods separately apart from 1859 which also covers 1864. However, I think the reasons that these are separate rule sets is a different reason to the one suggested. Zouave II covers and has templates and advice for gaming the ACW, Maximilian adventure (France in Mexico), the Austro-Prussian War and, the Franco-Prussian war and handles these significantly different conflicts very effectively.

Bruce Weigles rules are as much rule sets as they are source books. Bruce Weigles rules include quotes, drawing, photos and paintings specific to the conflict covered by each set as well as detailed information on each weapon used by each nation and full orders of battle and chronological timeline histories. Hence the reason they are separate rather than one volume. This would be nigh on impossible with all the information contained in each rule set.

the reason I veered away from FoB is because I wanted 1 base to represent one battalion. Whereas in FoB, a battalion is represented by 4 small square bases of figures. But I will still be trying them out with adjustments being made accordingly.

there are a couple of rule sets conspicuous by their absence in my rules library currently. The first set is To The Last Gaiter Button by Realtime Wargames. From what I have read and been told directly, these may become my go to set once I have purchased a copy. They have one thing that Bruce Weigles rules, FoB 2 and, ZII don’t have. A comprehensive campaign system which I feel for the FPW is necessary to really enjoy war gaming the FPW period and get a proper feel and flavour.

So once pay day arrives once more, an order will be made and I will post a review once I have had a flick through.

The other set is Blackpowder, though this is low on my purchase list due to cost and I don’t believe it will be my cup of tea either.

Polemos FPW also seem to be a good system from a read through and will deffo be giving these a try. I am hoping, and probably in vain, for a Polemos companion to their FPW rules which will help with campaigns etc.

i have numerous other sets and happy to discuss further if anyone is interested but I’ve only dealt with what I feel are the best sets for this period for dealing with large battles in the smaller scales. I looked at Furia Francese which a free F&F based system but it wasn’t my cup of tea for this period.

also, there are 1/72nd plastics available for this period, but I still remember the paint flaking of my Airfix, Esci and Revell figures and will never go back. Also, I don’t think 1/72nd is the best scale to get the most out of war gaming this period.

i also have ideas for my own system for this period for big, bloody fast paced battles and campaigns that model the fog of war effectively but with minimal book keeping or card turning.

an easy way to do this with a standard set of rules, however, is employing an umpire who then designs a scenario (if playing a one off battle) and only relaying or revealing scenario information to either player slowly as the scenario/battle unfolds on the table top.

for example, a simple and typical engagement of the FPW period might go something like this:

Each player is given a corps.

The French are defending a ridge line, with villages on either flank and interspersed woods on the ridges. A road links the two village running parallel to the long table edge on the French side and exiting either flanks. A road also runs from each village back to and exiting the Prussian deployment long edge.

the Prussians have to attack across the open ground and roads leading to the ridge line and villages. To win the Prussians have to occupy both villages.

Unbeknownst to the Prussian or French player, only the umpire, the Prussians have another corps matching to their aide (good old Moltke and Prussian doctrine of marching to the sound of the guns copied from the French). The umpire, each phase or turn dices from turn 4 or so onwards (as the Prussians should begin to be mauled if the French know what they are about), to see if the Prussian corps will arrive the following phase or turn. The first time this dice is rolled a 6 is needed. Then for each successive turn, you minus 1 to the chance of the additional Prussian corps arriving.

Keep rolling until it arrives.

When it does arrive, roll 1D6 1-3 it arrives on the road one flank in the French deployment zone approaching the village 4-6 the opposite side. The turn it arrives it may conduct a turn as per the normal rules. The same turn the Prussian corps arrives, throw another D6. On anything but a 1 a French division that has been kept in reserve arrives to aid the struggling French corps already deployed. The French player may deploy this additional division anywhere they like within their deployment zone.

This will make for a very interesting game.

The French should be able to still contest one of the villages if they make a good fighting withdrawal to a defensive salient around the village on the side the Prussian corps didn’t common.

The chief problem I see with FPW wargames in particular is that the French are able to deploy their Miltrailleuses up front with their infantry. In the imperial phase French artillery and Miltrailleuses were poorly used. Miltrailleuses were typically deployed with the artillery that typically deployed and opposed the Prussians at long ranges with pre-set fuse shells rather than impact fuses.

This means one of the earliest machine gunsel was never utilised properly and had a limited impact on the war.

I consistently see in AAR reports of the FPW, French victories. I believe this is because:

a) games aren’t fought as part and therefore not generated from an overall campaign game that is being played out and;

b) The scenarios are poorly designed but might be a result of;

c) lack of man power resulting in the lack of availability of an umpire who is not simply an umpire but also the wargames God dictating and cleverly evolving a scenario as it is played out on the table top.

Ok, that turned into a bit of a rant, apologies. Mind you this is better than my latest blog post… Oh well!

Rhys

 

[Author]

Posts