Monday 2nd November - DBM - Huns versus Late Roman - once again the Hun army was declared 'illegal' so a 'friendly' game ensued.
The dice gods did not favour our side with Andy throwing below average combat dice whereas mine were abysmal (plenty of ones). I threw high against shooting but even my general was a pacifist at heart. On the other side Al's dice were amazing (plenty of sixes).
The result was one broken command on our side - so a loss but not as bad as it had threatened to be.
Thursday 5th November - DBM - preparing an army for next Monday. Settled on Carolingian in Charlemagne's reign - list 3.28. Breaking down the army list was ok until I hit the last section entitled "Only if Aquitanian C-in-C before 779 AD or from 830 AD to 838 AD or commanded by Aquitanian ally- or sub-general."
In the blurb at the bottom of the page are two clauses - (1) "Charlemagne cannot use more than 1 Aquitanian general..." & (2) "Frankish allies cannot be used by an Aquitanian C-in-C, and only by any other C-in-C".
There is also a comment - "Aquitaine was not brought decisively under central control until the defeat of Hunald II in 769; it was then only briefly independent in rebellion from 830 to 838."
For the time being I will set aside this section (which has some desperately needed Lh(O) in it) as I don't know what constitutes an 'Aquitanian'. Some research will have to be carried out!
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Thursday, 29 October 2015
Victorian Steel
Sunday 25th October - Fiasco @ Leeds - helping out with a participation game (Napoleonic). Bought some MDF bases and a new set of rules:These (left) seem straight-forward and fun....and at only £5 it wasn't a big investment. Hopefully I will get a chance to try them out!!!
Fiasco was lively at the start but soon trailed off after lunch. Too many empty tables where demo or traders had failed to turn up. Perhaps the nightmare of finding somewhere to park put them off! I spent 20-25 mins touring around and eventually parked 2/3 of a mile away. Of course I could have used the Armouries car park at Rip Off prices.
Monday 26th October - DBM - Arabo-Aramaean versus Maccabaean Jewish. Another close run thing with few casualties. Al's centre command was within 2 elements of defeat but the other command was untouched. Jim (guest general) lost one element right at the end (as did I). The only consolation was that Al was getting most of the lousy movement dice and not me.
On the other tables - "Hammer of the Scots" boardgame with Andrew & Ian - WW2 scrap between Germans and Russians with 6 playing.
Tuesday 27th October - after being shaken out of bed by hammering and drilling coming from next door I found myself shut in my bedroom with the radio on and a paintbrush in hand. My new DBA-RRR army is taking shape - only 2 naked horses left - everything else has some degree of covering. Hopefully the first of them can be photographed soon (today would have been impossible anyway - thick fog in the morning only thinning a bit after 1400 hrs).
Thursday 29th October - 2 bases/elements of my new DBA-RRR army ready to be photographed. As miserable grey weather prevails the camera stays snug and warm in its case.
Have managed to find my De Bello book "Le Guerre Colonali Italiiane 1885/1900" so 'Victorian Steel' may get an outing soon. It's now just a question of finding those colonial soldiers........................
Thursday, 22 October 2015
Dunbar or Bust!
Saturday 17th October - FoG Renaissance - I turned up around midday to see Chris and Al still playing the battle of Dunbar. I took over the English (hiss! boo!) and developed the cavalry attack on the Scots. I had to make whatever headway I could as soon as possible. If I didn't the Scots foot (twice the number I had) would fall upon my pbi. As it happened we drew stumps at 16:00 when I had just attacked a foot unit in the flank. There had been much consulting of the rules and head scratching. Looks like we all need to become a lot more familiar with this particular rule set!
Wednesday 21st October - finished another book:
This volume is all about the slowly developing American colonies - English, Dutch, French, Swedish & Danish. The period is characterised by religious intolerance (yet again) and empire building. For those who play "Muskets & Tomahawks" there is a mass of information about real and projected conflicts. The natives fought for and against various colonial powers sometimes as allies and occassionally as the dominant partner.
It becomes clear that political in-fighting meant that 'paper' strengths did not translate into boots on the ground. Even if these theoretical numbers were achieved some garrisons were still tiny (and the guns in poor condition). No surprise then as to how many times forts, outposts and minor colonies changed hands or were destroyed.
This volume does suffer from some rather poor english but does not become unreadable.
I shall take a break from factual books and go back to Star Trek or Star Wars - just to give my brain a rest.
Sunday 25th October I will be Fiasco (Leeds) as I have voluntered to help out at a demonstration game - more of that next week.
Wednesday 21st October - finished another book:
This volume is all about the slowly developing American colonies - English, Dutch, French, Swedish & Danish. The period is characterised by religious intolerance (yet again) and empire building. For those who play "Muskets & Tomahawks" there is a mass of information about real and projected conflicts. The natives fought for and against various colonial powers sometimes as allies and occassionally as the dominant partner.
It becomes clear that political in-fighting meant that 'paper' strengths did not translate into boots on the ground. Even if these theoretical numbers were achieved some garrisons were still tiny (and the guns in poor condition). No surprise then as to how many times forts, outposts and minor colonies changed hands or were destroyed.
This volume does suffer from some rather poor english but does not become unreadable.
I shall take a break from factual books and go back to Star Trek or Star Wars - just to give my brain a rest.
Sunday 25th October I will be Fiasco (Leeds) as I have voluntered to help out at a demonstration game - more of that next week.
Thursday, 15 October 2015
An Ignominious Defeat
Monday 12th - DBM - Lydian versus Early Aechemenid Persian
The terrain fell not entirely to my benefit but I could live with it. The Persians threw reasonable dice and pressed forward. My starting dice were 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 (luckily the 2 was for my allied command). The (movement) dice gods were not in our favour as I threw 1 - 1 - 3 - 4 on my next go.
Fighting dice were pretty even so no complaints there but on the last round of the night I had one broken command and looking at a 6:4 defeat. I only had to hold onto one last Lh not to loose half my army - guess what happened!
Well my deployment wasn't the best and my heart wasn't in the game from the start but did I deserve such a drubbing?
One minor niggle was Andy's exocet guided missiles. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with Expendables under DBM. I have always thought of them as a 'point and go' weapon not a formation dance troop. Being able to manouvre them into the best possible position just feels at odds with reality! Maybe I should look at the DBMM rules to see if there have been any improvements.
The terrain fell not entirely to my benefit but I could live with it. The Persians threw reasonable dice and pressed forward. My starting dice were 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 (luckily the 2 was for my allied command). The (movement) dice gods were not in our favour as I threw 1 - 1 - 3 - 4 on my next go.
Fighting dice were pretty even so no complaints there but on the last round of the night I had one broken command and looking at a 6:4 defeat. I only had to hold onto one last Lh not to loose half my army - guess what happened!
Well my deployment wasn't the best and my heart wasn't in the game from the start but did I deserve such a drubbing?
One minor niggle was Andy's exocet guided missiles. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with Expendables under DBM. I have always thought of them as a 'point and go' weapon not a formation dance troop. Being able to manouvre them into the best possible position just feels at odds with reality! Maybe I should look at the DBMM rules to see if there have been any improvements.
Thursday, 8 October 2015
Another Close Run Thing
Monday - DBM - Jurchen Chin v Early Crusader.
The JC presented a solid centre of Bw, Reg Bd(F) and Art(S). The flanks were mostly Lh(S) with some supporting Kn(F) on the right. I managed to keep my Lh under control and (just) out of trouble. The centre pivoted but didn't do much else. Chris had the main scrap opposite Andy with both commands taking hits.
The EC central command sat on, and behind, a steep hill. Everything else was formed up on their left flank. AL tried to get his Bw over the hill to support his Kn(F) but it was a slow business.
So while the 'plodders' messed about in the centre a fierce fight ensued between Chris and Andy. At close of play our C-in-C's command was one off breaking and so was Andy's. Had we continued it would have been a 6:4 win to the opposition. As it was the score was yet another 5:5 draw (like round one).
Next Monday I have to choose the army so I'm going to take a force that will either win spectacularly or blow away with the first puff of wind. I care not which way it goes - I'm fed up with 5:5 / 6:4 / 5:5 results.
The JC presented a solid centre of Bw, Reg Bd(F) and Art(S). The flanks were mostly Lh(S) with some supporting Kn(F) on the right. I managed to keep my Lh under control and (just) out of trouble. The centre pivoted but didn't do much else. Chris had the main scrap opposite Andy with both commands taking hits.
The EC central command sat on, and behind, a steep hill. Everything else was formed up on their left flank. AL tried to get his Bw over the hill to support his Kn(F) but it was a slow business.
So while the 'plodders' messed about in the centre a fierce fight ensued between Chris and Andy. At close of play our C-in-C's command was one off breaking and so was Andy's. Had we continued it would have been a 6:4 win to the opposition. As it was the score was yet another 5:5 draw (like round one).
Next Monday I have to choose the army so I'm going to take a force that will either win spectacularly or blow away with the first puff of wind. I care not which way it goes - I'm fed up with 5:5 / 6:4 / 5:5 results.
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Dutch & Moldavians
First off ...... it's actually Thursday here in the UK (00.10 hrs to be precise).
Monday - no car so no action....well not for me anyway. A DBM game did take place between Wars of the Roses (Andy/Al) and Medieval Spanish (Chris). It could not be a 'championship' game as the WoR army list used was declared to be 'illegal'. Looks like a re-match will be on for the next meeting!
Wednesday - Dutch & Moldavians
At last I have finished 6 bases....and in the process 2 x DBA-RRR armies.
First: Dutch Rebellion - 1 x General (Pi) and 1 x Kn (Huguenots). The Huguenots carry 3 different guidons. The general's flag is the 9-stripe version (you can have 3,7,9 & 11 stripes if you like). Waterloo 1815 Cromwell's Cavalry being used yet again. I will replace the general himself when a better figure turns up.
Second: Moldavian (or Wallachian) - 1 x General (Kn), 1 x Kn, 1 x Lh and 1 x Lh (Szekely). The Kn are Zvezda Russians (the Persians in this period were the great armour makers who exported all over Eastern Europe (and others copied thier style). More Orion cossacks being put to use as Lh (I already have one painted element). The Szekely are Lucky Toys Huns but I think that they look the part! Finally the general was lifted from a Hussite war wagon set. The standard is the Wallachian "army and naval war ensign before 1830". The cossacks are there until something more suitable is manufactured.
If I want to turn out a Transylvanian army I need to remove the 2 x Wb and substitute 1 x Sh plus 1 x Sk (peasants with arquebus). I already have an extra painted Sh element so only the skirmishers (and maybe another general) need to be built.
This leaves me wondering where I am going next with my DBA-RRR armies? Perhaps I will take a break as Tony Aguilar is in the process of updating the rules to reflect version 3.0 of DBA. He may well decide to tweak the army lists as well!
Postscript: turns out my use of Huns wasn't too far fetched - "The Székely historically claim descent from Attila’s Huns..." [http://greentransylvania.com/about-transylvania/szekely-history/] I also found a few pictures of a Great Kurultaj (cultural event come horse meet) - http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Great_Kurult%C3%A1j
Truth is often stranger than fiction.......
Thursday, 24 September 2015
Yes I'ts Thursday
It seemed like a good idea at the time - blog every Thursday. Trouble is you get weeks that just crowd wargaming out.
My other hobby (country dancing) meant me calling Tuesday evening and Wednesday afternoon. I also danced on Friday and Monday.
On top of that my loft cover came crashing down yesterday - it's a good job that no person or animal was anywhere near! So now I have a gaping hole into my loft and a cold wind blowing into my bedroom. Such is life.......
Oh yes,,,,Saturday's wargaming: I took some of my DBA-RRR armies along. The other table was happily playing Age of Eagles (Neapolitans v French) and I waited for my opponents. At 15.00 hrs we alll packed up.
On the plus side my solo game meant that I could set up and try out a 'house rule' for DBA-RRR.
HAMLETS
The last time we played with a BUA getting established troops out was impossible. The 'standard' rules give +3 to the defenders. Now this is probably ok for a town with brick walls and substantial buildings but what about the lesser fry?
I was thinking about this as I drove through Cold Hiendly - a hamlet near where I live - it has approximatley 8 houses (brick built), one winding road through, hedges and two small barns. So this would, maybe, count as a large hamlet and defenders could be given a +2.
Old 18th century maps show only 4 buildings, a track and some small sheds or barns. None of the current buildings pre-date the 19th century so Cold Hiendly, at that time, would have been little more than a blip on the landscape. Perhaps it should only rate a +1 for defenders.
I therefore propose that scenario setters could be more flexible in how they rate BUAs. Hamlets could be from, say, 1 to 2, Villages 3 to 4, and larger areas as appropriate (even being split up into differntly rated sectors).
First trial:
Setup was as per a scenario in 'One Hour Wargame' with a village at the centre of the board, a hill in one corner and a wood in the opposite diagonal corner. I designated the BUA as value +2. Half the DBA-RRR armies (Swedes v Danes) would march up the road towards the BUA. One force was 5x foot + 1 Lh. The other was 5x mounted + 1 dragoons. Mounted would receive no bonus within the village. After 5 turns the other halves would turn up (over the hill or out of the wood).
In the battle the Danes rushed their mounted into the village. The enemy foot plodded forward. One unit of dragoons was not enough to hold out against 4x muskets. But just as the Swedes were celebrating the other forces arrived. This time, after 15 moves, the Swedes could not be shifted.
Maybe when I play it again with 'real people' I will have to put terrain in all four corners (wargamers are always suspiscious of terrain). That way each player could decide where the 'second half' emerges from. It would add more uncertainty.
If anybody tries this out please add a comment.
My other hobby (country dancing) meant me calling Tuesday evening and Wednesday afternoon. I also danced on Friday and Monday.
On top of that my loft cover came crashing down yesterday - it's a good job that no person or animal was anywhere near! So now I have a gaping hole into my loft and a cold wind blowing into my bedroom. Such is life.......
Oh yes,,,,Saturday's wargaming: I took some of my DBA-RRR armies along. The other table was happily playing Age of Eagles (Neapolitans v French) and I waited for my opponents. At 15.00 hrs we alll packed up.
On the plus side my solo game meant that I could set up and try out a 'house rule' for DBA-RRR.
HAMLETS
The last time we played with a BUA getting established troops out was impossible. The 'standard' rules give +3 to the defenders. Now this is probably ok for a town with brick walls and substantial buildings but what about the lesser fry?
I was thinking about this as I drove through Cold Hiendly - a hamlet near where I live - it has approximatley 8 houses (brick built), one winding road through, hedges and two small barns. So this would, maybe, count as a large hamlet and defenders could be given a +2.
Old 18th century maps show only 4 buildings, a track and some small sheds or barns. None of the current buildings pre-date the 19th century so Cold Hiendly, at that time, would have been little more than a blip on the landscape. Perhaps it should only rate a +1 for defenders.
I therefore propose that scenario setters could be more flexible in how they rate BUAs. Hamlets could be from, say, 1 to 2, Villages 3 to 4, and larger areas as appropriate (even being split up into differntly rated sectors).
First trial:
Setup was as per a scenario in 'One Hour Wargame' with a village at the centre of the board, a hill in one corner and a wood in the opposite diagonal corner. I designated the BUA as value +2. Half the DBA-RRR armies (Swedes v Danes) would march up the road towards the BUA. One force was 5x foot + 1 Lh. The other was 5x mounted + 1 dragoons. Mounted would receive no bonus within the village. After 5 turns the other halves would turn up (over the hill or out of the wood).
In the battle the Danes rushed their mounted into the village. The enemy foot plodded forward. One unit of dragoons was not enough to hold out against 4x muskets. But just as the Swedes were celebrating the other forces arrived. This time, after 15 moves, the Swedes could not be shifted.
Maybe when I play it again with 'real people' I will have to put terrain in all four corners (wargamers are always suspiscious of terrain). That way each player could decide where the 'second half' emerges from. It would add more uncertainty.
If anybody tries this out please add a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)