Wargames and Stuff

Napoleonic Game Summary!

2012-01-28T13:18:00.000-07:00

I'm a little behind on reporting on the game from last Saturday - a coalition force of British/Spanish/Portuguese (Ed, Chris, Terry) taking on a French army (Greg C, Greg R, Tony). Well - there were "supposed" to be Spanish at the battle, but pre-game scenario generation resulted in the Spanish brigade being slow in marching to the battle. This led to a complete change in plan by the Allied command, as they'd planned on the Spanish taking up positions in the town on their left flank and protecting that same flank. The French ended up getting the jump on the Allies, and deployed well forward with the bulk of their army - infantry in the center, with a grand battery on ridges in the French left/center. The majority of the fighting took place in the plain between the town and ridges, with both sides giving as well as they received. In the end, the French won, but only with 1 Army Morale point remaining! Fantastic game, down to the wire drama. On to some photos of the game:

Initial Deployments

French attack in the center plain

A quiet battle for the 95th....the French don't want to come into the woods and play

British deployed in the right center of their line

French grand battery (9 volt)

French light infantry on their left flank, electing to stay in the woods opposite of the 95th

Left to right, Genls. Chris and Greg R. position their troops in the crucible outside of the town. Genl. Tony

seems to be enjoying how things are going....

French attack stumbles as losses mount. The brigade commander (best in their army) of the largest French brigade is picked off his horse by a musket ball and the attack stalls without any command presence.

What am I supposed to be doing????

Miss Bailey and Captain Toby seem to be taking the stress of battle in stride

British regiments from their left flank virtually destroy the reserve French brigade.

More to follow later!

Plains Indian Wars

2012-01-15T12:15:00.000-07:00

I've long been interested in the Plains Indian Wars (PIW).   I suspect that most of that can be traced to growing up near a "battlefield" - the Beecher Island battlefield. To a greater extent, it has been my lifelong fascination with Custer and the Little Bighorn battle.

I just finished a novel of the LBH, titled "A Road We Do Not Know" by Frederick Chiaventone.   I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and found that it gave me a few more potential insights into the battle and personalities involved.   Chiaventone (in a Pritzker Military Library broadcast) mentions that he's been part of army staff rides at the LBH, and at every turn, the officers made decisions that matched what Custer did.

I think Custer did the "best" that he could with an impossible situation. I don't believe any of the odd and weird stories or conspiracy theories about the battle (ie Custer was a glory hound and a moron). I think he had no real clue until too late about what he was up against, did the best he could, and was overwhelmed. Combat isn't a wargame, and it isn't fair.   No matter the reputation, the personalities....sometimes it is just impossible to win, and the inevitable happens.

At any rate, I heartily recommend reading the novel mentioned above.   I'm also waiting for Chiaventone's treatment of the Fetterman fight to arrive.

As a result of all this, I'm now spinning thoughts in my mind about gaming the period.   I'm thinking the Indians are the tricky thing, as they don't really have units. More of amorphous blobs that grow, shift, slacken through an engagement. Also - no consistent mounted or dismounted tactical dispositions - it was every man for himself, with a mix of whatever worked for the individual on the ground.   I'm thinking my Indian units will be a mix of mounted and foot figures,to visually show this. Mounting and dismounting shouldn't really be a tactical decision of the leaders, as they wouldn't have that degree of control over the individuals anyway.   Lots of things to noodle on!

A couple of photos for inspiration. Old Glory figures painted by Brad Thorton.

Looks like we'll be going up to the LBH battlefield this summer for a long weekend tour. I can't wait! We'll be driving instead of riding the motorcycles. That avoids the scheduling issues that can arise with the unpredictable and sometimes dangerous weather (rain, thunderstorms, hail).

Town Sections

2012-01-14T15:27:00.000-07:00

I finished 3 town sections. These are 6" square sections, with various bushes, fence sections, and trees added. I never used this type of shrubbery before, but I just felt that my town areas were too clean and industrial looking. The sections have areas spaced for units to fit, and only fit in one or maybe two directions. In my rules (Field of Battle), I'm using a house rule that says that firing in the direction allowed by the space on the section (facing out of that side) is down 1 (primary) for firing, while firing any other direction is down 2 (secondary). That will make some nice differentiation between town sections, and add another series of tactical decisions for players.

Some photos:

Go Broncos!

Fiction, Historical Fiction, Non-Fiction?

2012-01-07T13:04:00.000-07:00

I've been pondering....

There is a noticeable number of gamers doing "imagiNation" armies, campaigns, etc.   While I admire their creativity, I find myself asking "why"?   That question is really the topic of this post.

I think there are 3 categories of games, and gamers. I limit this purely to "historical" miniatures, not SF or fantasy.   In broad terms:

Fiction gamer

Historical Fiction gamer

Non-Fiction gamer

The Fiction gamer is the realm of the guys with imagiNations.   There isn't really historical context, other than very broad strokes such as tricornes and muskets, horse and musket armies, etc.   I also put ancient tournament gamers in this category.   These are the folks that play Persians against Normans and it doesn't bother them.   I guess another way to categorize this group is that the game itself is the most important thing to them.

The Historical Fiction gamer is most likely the biggest category. These are folks that don't necessarily follow exact troop ratios, or use historical scenarios, or require that every game be exactly based on an historical incident.   I fall squarely in the group.   For example, my French Napoleonic army sports early period flags and uniforms. But I also have an 1813-1815 Prussian army that they fight.   Oh No!!!   It can't be!! Yes it can.    I rarely play games based on historical scenarios, rather choosing to create situations that are interesting.   My Confederate army all sport the Army of Northern Virginia flag, but have fought in western theatre based games.   Guard units show up in games with historically too high of a force ratio in some games.   The constant through this thread is that the games feature historical armies fighting other historical armies of roughly the same time period (only Napoleonics vs. Napoleonics, for example - regardless of whether they are early or late in the period.    My Austrian Napoleonics all have helmets, but I'm sure I'll be adding later uniforms in shakos to the army. Why?   Because they look cool, and I'm not going to duplicate an entire army for a trivial difference.

The Non-Fiction gamer is where you find the button counters, the debaters, the boardgamers, the guys that only play a game that is straight from history.   I don't have any problem with this, I just find it limiting.   Doesn't it get boring playing Gettysburg for the 53rd time?   I find it interesting that boardgamers value the scenario and not the rules. To me, that is the exact opposite of miniature gamers - who tend to be Historical Fiction gamers. Boardgame companies regularly give away their game's rules for free. The value of the game is its replayability and the game scenario that it presents. The rules are just a means to an end.

So, what's the point of this rambling post?

Not much of one, really.   I just find it interesting to see how different we all are, yet we all share a passion for military history and wargaming in all of its different variations.

Go Broncos!!!!

Next to Final Stage: Flags

2012-01-04T20:45:00.000-07:00

I got the flags printed out, cut out, and glued onto the flagpoles last night. I use the flags from warflag.com - great stuff and a huge variety - which I have modified in Paint to look shaded/painted. I'm sure they're not "professional" standard, but I like 'em. All that remains is to finish off the flag edges with paint to cover any white paper reveals, and possibly some highlights here and there on the flags. A shot of DullCote and they're ready for battle!

Bases Complete!

2012-01-02T15:04:00.001-07:00

The static grass has been highlighted, and the bases are complete! Now all that remains is completing the flags.

Basing - Grass Tufts and Static Grass

2012-01-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

Here's the next stage completed. I've glued clumps of "grass" to each stand. In reality, those clumps are just 1/4" or so sections of jute twine that I cut and stick in a blob of yellow glue. The static grass is applied to areas of yellow glue and pressed down.

Next up, after the glue dries, I'll brush off excess static grass and then drybrush on a yellow highlight.

Bases - Gray

2012-01-01T12:04:00.000-07:00

I've now drybrushed three shades of gray (dark, medium, light) onto the areas previously painted black. Next up is gluing on grass clumps, then static grass.

Close but no cigar!

2011-12-31T21:17:00.000-07:00

Well, this will be post 44 for the year, and my goal earlier in December was to meet or exceed the 45 done for last year.

One short.

The longest yard.

Missed it by that much.

Gave it the old college try.

Guess that means I didn't meet my goals and my performance evaluation will have to have that noted.

Or - yeeeeeehawwwwww!   Close enough!!!

Anyway, I've enjoyed the blur of posts, and it has put me into more of a rhythm for posting. I'll try to keep that up in 2012.

Speaking of 2012...

I for one am thrilled to see 2011 in the rear view mirror.    2011 was filled with health and accident issues that dominated the year. Being an even year, 2012 will undoubedtly be much better.

So, to end on an historical note, I usually try to listen to something while I paint. Music, documentaries, podcasts, etc.   One of the best sources is the Pritzker Military Library. There is an amazing library of archived presentations from noted (and not so noted) military historians on the site. Check 'em out and enjoy.

http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/home/default.aspx

See all y'all next year.

Brent

Bases - Black

2011-12-31T14:26:00.000-07:00

The photos show the bases at the next stage - thinned black paint on the larger rocks and rough areas. After this dries, next stage is drybrushing a dark gray, then a lighter mid gray, and finally a light gray.

Basing - Next Stage - Drybrushing

2011-12-31T13:07:00.000-07:00

The photos below show the bases with the two shades of lighter brown tones drybrushed onto the bases. Total time to do was about 1 hour. Next up is applying thinned black paint to larger rock areas and rough ballast areas, applied in a somewhat random pattern on the bases.

Basing - Stage 2

2011-12-30T17:43:00.000-07:00

Progress being made on basing the French, Spanish, and Brits. The photo shows the current stage - the sand/ballast mixture is glued on, dried, then painted (Anita's Earth Brown). The edges of the stands are now painted as well. Next up is highlighting (drybrushing) the bases (Americana Mississippi followed by Driftwood).

More to follow!

Catching up on Basing

2011-12-29T12:07:00.000-07:00

Well, since the week before Thanksgiving, I've painted or finished 12 infantry battalions and 1 artillery battery for my Napoleonic collection, an officer stand, as well as rebasing all of my ancients and medieval figures, plus basing 3 Soviet WW2 infantry companies. That means finishing up stands on 39 units! I was in a groove with the painting, so didn't want to distract that progress with finishing the bases. Next up is getting cracking on the bases.

Here's 2/3 of the Napoleonic stuff, waiting for basing beauty.

Updates to follow as I work through this mountain of basing....

Cheaters!

2011-12-27T18:20:00.000-07:00

I speak of "cheaters" for my eyes, and not wargame cheaters!

If you're like me (older than I care to admit, out of the target demographic, younger than old.....), you have reached or will reach the point where you're having problems picking up details on figures when you're painting them. I do wear glasses or contacts, but don't need them for up close details. However, this past summer I noticed that I was getting irritated painting, which was odd - I enjoy painting.

So - refusing to acknowledge time, I elected to forgo bifocals, and instead head to my trusty neighborhood pharmacy/convenience store (Walgreens!). I went to the el cheapo magnifying eyeglass section, and experimented with different strengths until I found one that clearly focused on my hands with them held at my usual painting distance from my eyes.

The result?

BINGO! Complete success!! All the details were instantly completely visible again, and my painting time was fun again.

I asked my eye doctor if the above was an acceptable solution to him - he said "absolutely!" - no long term issues or effects on my eyes.

It can be a bit irritating if something catches my attention on the TV, etc, but I've perfected looking over the top of the lenses with the stern appearance of a 3rd grade teacher eyeing undesirable student behavior....

Here's a shot of the eyeglasses. Stylish? Not really....but a great solution for around $15.

Highland Infantry

2011-12-22T19:43:00.000-07:00

Some shots of the Highland infantry unit, basing yet to be completed.

Working away on French infantry now. The total count, since my first vacation days before Thanksgiving, including some focused weekend/night work, and time in December is:

3 Spanish infantry battalions
1 Spanish General
95th Rifles
42nd Highland
1 British light infantry regiment
1 French light infantry battalion
3 French line infantry battalions
All ancient figures rebased, base finishing remains. This includes painting some extra figures to bring units up to 12 foot/8 cav per unit.

Whew! I need to make hay while the sun shines. January is already shaping up to be a very busy work month, so I doubt I'll get too much done then.

British Light Infantry - Painting Completed

2011-12-18T13:09:00.000-07:00

I finished up another British unit for my Penninsular collection - a light infantry regiment. I still need to finish bases and flags for the units I've completed, but first I think I'll get some French infantry finished off to help even up the two sides.

A short post for now. Hopefully, I'll feel inspired after a Broncos win over the Patriots to do another post tonight. (He says with more than a bit of doubt about the Broncos in this upcoming game....).

Work in Progress!

2011-12-13T18:23:00.000-07:00

So - I'm taking some days off this week, and being home alone gives me uninterrupted painting time! Well...uninterrupted except by demands from Captain Toby, Jack Russell patrol dog.

I'm making a push to add some unique units to my Penninsular war collection. So far this week I've finished painting a French light infantry unit, the 95th Rifles, and am plugging away on a Highlander unit. Not sure what will come next - possibly a British light infantry unit, possibly more French line. I'd like to add some of the minor states allied to the French, but I haven't done the research yet on uniforms/nationalities/flags for them.

Here are some WIP shots:

Marion Barber - Denver Broncos MVP

2011-12-11T19:17:00.000-07:00

This is one of those "and Stuff" posts on the old blog.

Wow.   I don't really believe what I keep seeing with Tim Tebow quarterbacking the Denver Broncos.   I've never seen a player with his poise in the 4th quarter. Its like a calm settles over him and the game slows down.   Too bad that he plays so average to below average in the 1st 3 quarters! He goes something like 3 for 16 for 50 yards in the first 3 quarters, and then goes 15 for 20 for 175 yards in the fourth quarter. HUH??

Of course, Tebow will get the acclaim, but the credit for the win should really go to the Bears' Marion Barber, Bronco MVP, Bears Goat.    Let's see - if he just runs stays in bounds on the Bears last possession in the 4th quarter, the clock runs out and the Broncos and Tebow don't even get the ball back to have a chance to tie the game. Nope...Marion Barbergoat breaks free and runs out of bounds.

Bonehead.

Overtime.   Marion Barbergoat appears to break free but isn't aware of ball security and has the ball stripped.

Bonehead.

Broncos march down the field, kick a field goal and move to 8-5.

There is a LOT to be said for poise, character, and football IQ in the NFL. Tim Tebow has it. Marion Barber....well.....THANKS MARION!!!! Denver loves you!!!!!!

Town Section Planning

2011-12-11T12:29:00.000-07:00

I'm starting work on finishing off some town sections. The town sections will be for multi-period use, and will be used to abstract unit placement inside them. Essentially, units will only have the best deployment for firing out of a town section on a limited number of sides of the town section. The arrangement of the town section (buildings on the base) will determine the available space which will define how units can face, as well as how many can be placed in the section.

Some photos from planning:

This photo shows the base (6" square) and the "building" prior to detail and assembly.

An example of placing the building to one edge, allowing units to face 3 edges.

Oriented differently; now only 2 edges of the town section are "good" for defending units.

Only two good edges, plus a tree added to the section. I'm definitely adding foliage to each section; looks much less industrial!

I'll be adding walls along edges, and detailing the building as the section is finished. More photos in upcoming posts.

Pulse of Battle Basing!

2011-12-03T17:55:00.000-07:00

After messing around with the large single stand units, I was not satisfied with the feel. For one, I noticed bent swords and loosened spears just from simple stand movements. The weight of the single stand unit seemed to create more damage from handling than from handling multiple stands per unit.

So - inspired by James Roach's blog post on basing for his Italian Wars collection, I started playing around with base sizes. I decided that I wanted all foot units to have 12 figures, and all cavalry units to have 8 figures - regardless of their weight (light, medium, heavy).

Using James' original inspiration, I started messing with base depth to differentiate by weight, which allows units to have the same frontage.

While equal frontage is not a requirement in game terms, it sure makes things easy....and if I'm about anything, I'm about easy!

So - my base sizes for PoB are:

Light Infantry: 1.5" wide, 2 1/2 " deep
Medium Infantry: 1.5" wide, 2" deep
Heavy Infantry: 1.5" wide, 1.5" deep

Light Cavalry: 1.5" wide, 3.5" deep
Medium Cavalry: 1.5" wide, 3" deep
Heavy Cavalry: 1.5" wide, 2.5" deep

Elephant: 1.5" wide, 3" deep.

The base terraining isn't completed yet, but the following pictures show the effect. I like being able to differentiate unit weight quickly by just noting the depth of the unit. To me, this makes sense, as lighter units would expand "sponge like", in depth and not necessarily width. After all, in an era where voice and visual sighting limitations would be the determining factor on how large a unit could be and still be commanded, it makes sense to me that frontages for x number of men would be somewhat equal, with lighter troops expanding deeper to looser deployments - but the cloud remaining "close" to the leader.

The 4 stand units will also let me show disorder easily (jumble the stands) and also mark losses (remove a single stand and replace with the appropriate level of UI loss stand).

I need to get to work on painting more troops, and finishing bases!

Building Section

2011-12-02T16:11:00.000-07:00

I've experimented with a new town/building section system. Previously, I used a space occupied by multiple unattached buildings. Worked well functionally, but not necessarily the best looking solution.

My new system uses a base with a building/buildings permanently attached and landscaped. The open base space is only enough to allow a set number of stands or units to be in the town area.

Here's the test section:

The open area to the front is 1.5" x 3" - the same size as my infantry stands for my WW2 rules. You can see the old town section built into the terrain tiles in the left rear of the photo.

Here's the area with a Soviet infantry squad (or company, depending on the rules) deployed. Note that the squad will be able to fire at only a minor downward modifier firing in this direction - the only direction they can be deployed. Units must be deployed facing an edge of the area. In my WW2 rules, firing to the flank/rear is an additional negative modifier. So - a pretty good defensive position if attached from this direction, not so good from the other directions.

More photos:

The building is knocked together with some solid wood pieces, cut to length/angle with a power mitre box, and some macrame (spelling??) grid for windows. The roof/shingles is from mdf with the pattern pressed on one side. Works great for mimicking a shingle effect, and the resulting roof is tough and gamer proof.

My personal goal for the remainder of 2011 is to end with more posts than in 2010. I'll need to knock out quite a few over the next month, averaging more than 1 per 2 days. Hmmmm....a challenge!

Tme Scale

2011-12-02T09:01:00.000-07:00

I was reading a boardgame newsgroup discussion of a WW2 air game the other day.   Each game turn represented 4 seconds of real time.   Not 5 seconds or 10 seconds.....exactly 4 seconds.   Typical playing time for the game, as quoted by the author "3 to 4 hours".    Uh......really????

So - let's say you get through, being generous, 20 turns.   That's 80 seconds of scale time....a lifetime in air combat.   You play 80 seconds of scale time in 3 hours.

To me, that is the height of absurdity!   In a combat situation requiring snap judgements and intuition, this game (as many air games) instead turns into an over analyzed chess match.

One poster had mentioned that he played the game via email....and he played 1 game that lasted 11 MONTHS.

Oh my.

I can tell that what I want in an air combat game must not fit at all with what the gaming community wants. I've played around with some ideas, but they all center on rapid decisions, boom boom boom activities and at most a "dogfight" is over in 5 minutes. But - that 5 minutes is full of decisions and reactions, not beard stroking and analysis.

I'm currently 60% through rebasing my ancients, as well as finishing up a house section for my tabletop.    Finished up 3 battalions of Spanish for my Pennisular collection using the new style I'm adopting to speed my painting. I finished 36 figures in about 16 hours of work.   Pretty fast to me; still have to finish off the bases.   Here's a photo of a stand right now:

And a gratuitous photo from a past WW2 game, just because I like it.

Cards in Wargames

2011-11-27T12:09:00.000-07:00

It is with a mixed sense of interest and frustration that I note all the new miniature and board games using cards to control turn sequences and/or events.

What's old is new again...

I've long used cards in my games. Many, many years ago, I subscribed to the "PW Review", a mimeographed 8 1/2 x 11 stapled monthly newsletter that featured the ramblings of Wally Simon. Wally used cards for sequence management and action allocation, and I can't remember many of his homegrown rules that didn't use them.

I tinkered with The Sword and the Flame for a while - it had cards, after all! I could never force myself to like the red/black one unit at a time activiation.   Too slow for my tastes, and it left most players to sit and watch.

Many moons ago - 12? 15?   I can't even remember - Bob Jones moved back to Denver in a career move. I'm not sure how many out there know or have met Bob, but he NEVER thinks conventionally.   Bob has to be one of the most creative thinkers and game designers to have ever have graced the wargame hobby.   When I met Bob, he was just starting to tinker with concepts that would turn into Piquet, and the associated period supplements.   Many years of debate followed, as control enthusiasts decried the randomness of Piquet and its turn sequencing using cards.   "Too random!" "No control!" "It will never work!".

Well - work it did!   Bob has since moved on to different methods of creative turn sequencing and action limitations in his Die Fighting and Zouave rules, and I've written the Field of Battle series of games, which had their genesis in Piquet.

I've never thought that Bob has ever received enough acclaim or recognition for his original and unique game designs.

Maybe imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?   I now note that many new sets use cards (gasp!) - the new set by Sam Mustafa (another great designer) uses cards for turn sequencing; multiple boardgames use cards for events; even the new series of boardgames for Victory Point Games by Frank Chadwich appear to be using cards.

Anyway - having lived through the criticism of cards as a game mechanic, its interesting to note that the new and "hot" game mechanic is to use cards.   Maybe next will be a realization of the fascinating and simple effects made possible by the use of multi-sided die types in a game....

Pulse of Battle

2011-11-22T13:25:00.000-07:00

Even though I'm working on Follow Me! right now, I'm always circling around Pulse of Battle (Ancient and Medieval ruleset). I thought I'd toss some units on the table and see how it looked.

Keep in mind that this isn't any "real" army - just some Macedonians, Romans, Gauls tossed out in a sort of representative deployment to see if I like the look of the units as composing an army.

Looks pretty good...nice sense of mass.

Each 3 x 3 inch stand is a unit. I'm still not sure if I want to do single stand units or 4 stand units. I'm intrigued by what James Roach (Olicanalad) is experimenting with for his Italian Wars collection. Single stand units offer some advantages - fewer figures required to give a sence of mass, ease of movement, diorama effect, speed of moves during play. But - you have to mark disorder and losses on the stand or behind/next to the stand. Multiple stands allows removing a stand and replacing with a loss marker, jumbling the stands for disorder. I'm wondering if multiple base units might better represent the look and feel of a messy battlefield?

So - having seen a single stand per unit "army" - any preferences/observations/comments about single vs. multiple stand units?

FoBWW2: Follow Me! Game Last Night

2011-11-20T10:51:00.000-07:00

We (Greg C., Greg R. as Germans; Terry and Tony as Russians/Soviets) played another devlopmental game of Follow Me! last night. Tony generated the scenario - a Russian force of around a company and a half, with 2 T34/85's arriving late defending a fairly open terrain - Class I hills, a couple of town areas. A tough place to make a stand....

The Germans had around 2 to 2 1/2 companies of infantry, including a PanzerGrenadier platoon mounted in halftracks, 2 Panthers, and 2 Stugs.

The Germans focused the armor and PzGrenadiers on their right flank, planning to loop through a wooded area and collapse the Soviet left flank. This worked, with some losses on the open hill top. In the end, the German force was too much for the Soviets, and the Soviet morale failed and they withdrew to fight another day.

Some game photos:

Captain Toby stands mesmerized and focused on a box of cookies brought by Greg C.

Soviet command staff (Tony, left; Terry, right) discuss the smoke in front of their forces outside the town, while noting the German assault force (right corner of the photo).

German assault force musters out of line of sight from the Soviet scum in the town.

Soviets on a hill. They would soon vacate the hill as it was saturated with artillery and mortar fire.

Assault over the hill and onto the Soviet left flank.

Single platoon of Soviet scouts facing the German assault force.

Germans mopping up the Soviet force.

Captain Toby remains at his post, attempting to use a combination of Jack Russell/Jedi Knight mind control to will the cookies to move over to him.

All in all, I'm very happy with where the rules are. A few tweaks here and there, and I think they are pretty close to done.

Finished Russians, er, Soviets, er Reds....

2011-11-13T19:42:00.000-07:00

Whatever they should "officially" be called, here are a few shots of the infantry previously discussed being painted with a change in style.

All in all, I'm very happy with the figures and the effect of the style. It certainly is quicker than black prime and 3+ shades/highlights, and at 3 foot away on the table, the styles are indistinguishable.

Up next - getting the table ready for the next game of WW2: Field of Battle "Follow Me!", the squad game in development. This will pit attacking Germans vs. Tony's newly finished Russians. Can't wait!

Painting WW2 Russians

2011-11-09T12:19:00.000-07:00

I've started using a different technique to paint WW1/WW2 era figures. I use black primer on almost everything, and use multiple highlight shades. But - that seems lost to a large degree on figures that are khaki, drab, gray green, etc. So, I took a page from the Army Painter method and modified it somewhat. I'm sure there's nothing terribly unique in my method, but here it is.

First - spray prime with a light shade of the finished basic uniform. In this case I used Rustoleum Soft Wheat from the American Accents series.

Next - block in basic colors for skin, equipment, straps/belting, etc. I also add a highlight color to the basic uniform. They look pretty ugly now. OK - very ugly now. I have to admit, that painting in this style doesn't reward you with good looking troops until they are completed, but in a way that helps drive me quicker to get them done so they look good!

Then apply clear gloss - brush or spray. In this case I brushed on Future.

Then, the key to the quick style is applied - a wash of Future and black ink. I use a pretty strong mix - 5 drops of Liquitex ink to a small amount of Future. How much future? If you have plastic dixie cups - as in the photos - the Future comes up to about the seam showing on the bottom of the cups. This shades the figures, adding depth and dimension. Still shiny, unfinished, and ugly.

I kill the gloss with DullCote, then go back over the figures. Drybrush lightly with a lighter uniform shade - in this case the same highlight that I applied after priming - Apple Barrel Antique White. This takes out some of the darkness of the figures, highlights equipment and straps, and generally brings the figure together. I then go over the figures with some additional highlights - highlight the straps, paint the weapon barrels, highlight the boots, ink line the straps, etc. The next step is to base - and they're now on their stands drying. More photos of that stage to come later.

All in all, I paint 8 figures in about 2 hours with this method. If I did the black prime/3 tone highlights, it would take me 6 hours to do 8 figures. I think the final effect works well for WW1 and later figures, where I "expect" to see a more grubby figure than a horse and musket figure.

Promise for more frequent posts!

2011-11-08T12:33:00.000-07:00

I've been lax in posting to the blog recently....well, more like most of 2011.   I'm not sure why; I enjoy the act of creating the posts.   I often just run out of time and quite frankly, just forget to update the blog.

Some items I'll be posting about:

1. Broncos beat Raiders 38-24.   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.    Did I mention how much I despise the Raiders?   The Broncos run for 299 yards, and bully the bully.   In your face Raiders!   Even better that they did it while playing in Oakland.    I have no idea how the Tim Tebow experiment will end (although I suspect it will end as an experiment), but he has more than proven that he is a very tough guy and a competitor to the end.

Guess I don't have to blog about that again.....

2.   Painting technique experiments, WW2 Soviet painting, etc.

3. Build example of my terrain squares

4. How I build houses for my games.

5. Book reviews

6. Historical movie reviews.

7. Photos of our dogs in goofy Halloween outfits.   Oh wait - see below.   Now I don't have to do that again.

WW2 Field of Battle Game

2011-10-23T19:21:00.000-06:00

Yes, that's right WW2 Field of Battle, as opposed to Field of Battle:WW2. The latter is my published WW2 game using companies as the smallest unit. The former is the under development game using squads as the smallest unit.

Does that make WW2 FoB a skirmish game? NO!!!! Most definitely not. The smallest unit for combat/morale is the squad or weapon section, or 1-2 vehicles. But - the smallest maneuver element is the platoon. So - you're really in the position to put multiple companies to a battalion plus on the table with this game scale. That allows all the interaction of troop types and weapons. Its a very fun game scale, and very "pure", without the abstraction present in Field of Battle:WW2. I still love that higher level game, but the new game opens up different game and scenario possibilities.

I was originally going to publish a 2nd edition of FoB:WW2, but I now plan on just publishing a new game, with the squad rules - WW2 FoB.

The game was played with Greg R., Greg C., John, and Chris as the attacking US team, with 2 infantry companies, a couple of Sherman platoons, and 1-2 M10's.

The Germans were played by Eric, Tony, and Terry (aka von der Korken).

An impartial international observer, said to be from neutral Sweden, was also present in the form of Bob Jones.

The Germans were in defense of a small town, with the US deployed on a ring of hills/ridges around their perimeter. The game started well for the US, with the Germans taking some pretty heavy losses. I was sure the Germans were going to lose, as they were at one point down to 0 morale points. I didn't know that the US was ALSO down to 0 morale points at the same time! Shortly after this, the tipping point was the losses in the Sherman platoon which bled off morale points to the Germans, and also seemed to sap the will of the US players. Victory to the Germans!

Some photos from the game:

Well - that's all for the photos for now. Blogger is taking forever to upload photos, so I'll do a photo only post at a different time.

Various Ramblings

2011-10-03T06:11:00.000-06:00

Looks like another long year for the Broncos. They're now 1-3, with the Chargers up next week before their bye week.   Most likely looking at a 1-4 record, with big changes implemented in the bye week. At least there is some hope that this coaching staff has a clue, as opposed to the Josh McDaniels debacle of the last 2 years.   Both McDaniels and Shanahan deserve the blame for the talent deficit the Broncos currently have - absolutely horrendous drafts over their tenure as head coaches.

Anyways, on to the wargaming!

I've been working away on the squad scale game for FoBWW2. At this scale, each infantry unit is a squad, vehicles are a unit, weapons and their crews are a unit.   Nice and simple, and "pure". I'm adding a bit more differentiation of unit types in the ratings, as well as the obvious needs like ground scale changes. I'm planning on a 1"= 25 yard ground scale, with ranges reduced from theoretical maximums to account for real world sighting and engagement realities. I'd like to give the game a go at our next game in October.

Field of Battle 2nd edition is now out and available for sale, as is Din of Battle 2nd edition. Filling customer orders has taken a substantial amount of my time, but I think I'm pretty much caught up now. Blunders on the Danube, a FoB scenario book by Peter Anderson, has been delayed due to file problems, but that should be coming out soon as well.

Terrain projects - as can be seen in game photos in past blogs, I've gone to yet another terrain system. This time, its squares!   I use 1/8" thick vinyl tile, and double them up for the base squares.   Hill sections are modular, and are comprised of 4 levels of tile for a 1/2" thick individual hill contour.   I think they look good, and very much like a contour map.   With this system, I can do pretty much any terrain I want, and it stays very functional and durable. I'm in the process of finishing up another 25 or so hill section components. It there is interest, I'll do some "how to do it" posts on the system.

I've also been playing with a painting technique that keeps my general style intact, but greatly speeds the process. In general, I prime with black, block paint, hit it with an ink/Future mixture that defines the folds in the casting. Highlight one or two layers, dullcote and BAM! Done!   I used to average about 45 minutes a figure for a complex paint job (Napoleonics). Now that's about 30 minutes.

I'll post photos of the painted figure effect in a subsequent post.

Field of Battle 2nd Edition Cover Peek and Other Thoughts

2011-08-29T20:55:00.000-06:00

Thought I'd post a preview of the cover of the new Piquet product, Field of Battle 2nd Edition.

Looks pretty cool! Its always neat to see the final touches of years of work. I should have copies very soon.

The other thoughts in the post title are regarding campaigns - miniature game campaigns in particular. I've done many through the years: Theatre of War (FPW, ACW, WW2), node movement (FPW), mapless (ACW, FPW), etc. They were all fun, for different reasons.

I'm starting to wonder if the scale and intent of campaigns is what gives me fits when I'm setting up new ones. Typically, meglomania sets in and the campaign covers a wide theatre of the conflict. Why? Because we can! If you look at most historical campaigns, they tended to be between two forces that were pretty much aware of each other's size, composition, and relative location. "Gotcha" moves, so loved by gamers, were pretty rare on the strategic scale, and would be better represented in the final move to game table or scenario set up.

Boardgames represent a perfect example of excellent campaign systems. They model campaigns in a fixed amount of tabletop space, and a very short amount of game time. Miniature campaigns are handcuffed by the need for each game played out to be done on a tabletop, which requires a gathering of the group. Theatre of War effectively gets through this problem by making most campaigns 3 games or so.

In my experience, after 3 games, gamers start to lose interest in a) the campaign, and b) the period for repeated games.

So - I'm thinking of trying a system using FoB2 (which has a scenario generation system) to create games, and link the games into a campaign of 3 games or so. The campaign would have "Campaign Points", generated in the same manner as for typical tabletop games. For a campaign, each side would roll 3 times on the Army Morale table, and the total would be their total for the 3 game campaign. Each side would deduct their AMP losses in each game. First side to 0 loses. Simple!

I'm also tinkering with allowing players to select from pre-generated tabletop terrain sets. This would introduce a bit more of a campaign feel, and give players input into the game layout.

Hmmm. More thinking to do.

ACW Game

2011-08-04T20:56:00.000-06:00

We played an ACW game last Saturday; ACW was chosen since Terry Shockey couldn't make the game. Terry, Greg Rold, and Ed Meyers were instead participating in a DBA tourney down in Colorado Springs. DBA? I think I'll give them random Down 1 modifiers in our next FoB game.

I won't go through a detailed report of the game, just some highlights. The game looked firmly in control of the Confederates, as they used aggressive movements (ie lots of Move cards before the Federals got any!) to focus on the Confederate center. The Federals managed to change the game focus to their left flank with some timely move opportunities and ended up mangling the Confederate right flank. At this point, after a back and forth contest, the Federals hit 0 army morale points. Unknown to them, the Confederates only had 3 points at that time! The Confederates launched a counterattack on their right, and severly battered the flanking Federal assault. The game ended with the Confederates at 16 morale points, the Federals at 0. A crushing victory for the Confederate cause! (guess its a good thing that Terry wasn't at the game...)

The Federal Command Team (left to right): Eric, Bob Jones, Chris

Yes, that's right - THE Bob Jones. It was great to have Bob at a game again. The universe is in balance again. He valiantly defended the Federal center with a single brigade and battery.

Confederate command watches Chris' moves with interest: Greg Cornell (center) and John Mumby (aka Mumbasa), right.

Overview of the battlefield at the start of the game. The river was actually a meandering stream, a Class I obstacle (stop at the near bank, move full after that). Confederates on the right.

Confederates approach through the woods.

Brave Federal lads brace for the assault.

Guess who's coming to dinner?

Zouaves - Redoubt figures.

Federal forces close on the Confederate right flank.

Confederates advance on the Federal right and right/center

Wargames Blather

2011-07-17T13:17:00.000-06:00

I recently read a magazine article (that I won't name) that I thought was pure self serving rules author blather.

The article discussed the "eclipse of generalship" in modern rule sets.

Normally this type of thing doesn't bother me, but when its thinly veiled criticism of mechanisms not used in an author's own set, it does bother me.   Rather than implying, or outright stating that other mechanisms are bad - let's hear why YOUR set(s) don't suck. I mean really - man up and own it.

Some of the discussions:

"Wargames Must Have Accurate and Credible Command & Control"

Huh? By whose definition?   What is "accurate and credible"? Apparently PIP systems, rolling for actions, or any card system fails to meet the author's criteria.   Blch.

Next: "Wargames Must Have Accurate and Credible Combat Mechanisms".

HUH??? That is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever read.   Accurate and Credible? By whose definition? Evidently, only his. Not that he would have let us know what is accurate and credible - just listing those that aren't.   Any thought that a game PROCEDURE/MECHANISM has to be accurate and credible is absolutely ridiculous.   Maybe we're supposed to smack each other....as soon as your opponent calls "uncle" you've won the melee.   What drivel.

Finally: "Wargames Must Have Accurate and Credible Terrain".

What can I say after the other two categories.   All wargames terrain is an abstraction, and its effect in the game is entirely dependent on that particular game's mechanisms.

I guess the overall point of the author was that modern sets are directed too much toward speed of play and having fun.   HUH??? Oh, I see - I think the hobby would be much better suited to slower playing games that aren't fun. That would be much more Accurate and Credible.

Sometimes this hobby just ticks me off.

"Huh? What is this "Accurate and Credible" garbage that you speak of? SQUIRREL!!!!"

My bike is "Accurate and Credible"

I wonder if the wargame's police think this is "Accurate and Credible"?

I think a better measurement standard from this author would instead have been:

"Credible Realistic Accurate Procedures".

I'll leave you to figure out the acronym.

Units and Game Scaling

2011-07-10T12:21:00.000-06:00

I've always been interested to read about "bathtubbing" historical actions - whether that be a single battle or a campaign. "Bathtubbing" is simply scaling down the base unit size so that the army sizes can be something manageable for playing a game.   This can distort ground scales if that sort of thing bothers you (it doesn't bother me), or can be taken too far (this figure is 12th Corps!).

I've been doodling around thinking about game scales and unit representation lately.

Typical horse and musket era games have basic infantry units that range from battalion to regiment/brigade. Gamers like the battalion scale because it gives them all of the tactical decision and color they are used to, and the brigade scale because they can play "big battles".

I'm thinking one set of rules will work for a wide variety of unit/game scales.   Let's look at the level of command and what that represents.

In most multiplayer games, one player will typically assume more of (if not all of) the overall army commander's role. This will usually mean that he decides the overall plan for the army. In my experience, this same player will wear two hats - he'll also command smaller commands in the army so he gets to play the tactical game as well.

If we look at typical game scales, some interesting things happen. I'll use Field of Battle (2 Ed) as my example.   A battalion is the basic game unit of around 500 to 1000 men (although counting men in the unit is not a part of the rules).   Players typically will command 3 to 12 units in multiple command groups, and deploy those units in a variety of tactical formations (line, column, route, skirmish, square, etc.).

The above game will typically represent somewhere around 20,000 or so men per side - say a Corps or so per side.

So - can the same rules be used to represent smaller AND larger battles?

Absolutely!

Let's say you want to play a small game (a large brigade or two up to a division per side) OR a multi-Corps game.

Use the same rules! Simply adjust the figure/man scale and you're ready to go. For small games, I'd use something like 150 to 300 men per infantry unit, and for large Corps+ games I'd use something like 2500 to 3000 men per unit. So - if you're playing a War of 1812 battle that had 4000 Americans vs. 3000 British, you'd end up with somewhere around a dozen American infantry units vs. 10 British units; if you were playing an ACW game of 80,000 Federal vs. 60,000 Confederates, use the bigger scale and you've got around 26 Federal brigades vs. 20 Confederate brigades.

Use the same rules! Ground scale is somewhat elastic and can be abstracted by considering what is being represented in the unit.   If a unit is a Brigade, that Brigade is composed of multiple battalions, in a variety of formations. A Brigade in "Line" is a Brigade that is deployed in more width than depth; a Brigade in "Attack Column" is deployed in more depth than width. The space occupied by any of these units on the table is just the core of the area occupied by the units - there is a cloud of skirmishers, a movement in space of various components of the units (whether they be battalions or brigades). If you consider the abstractions in unit representation as you scale up, its not hard to keep the same ranges in the game. Long firing ranges are just the fire being issued from extremem forward elements in the brigade, or skirmishers in the battalion scale game.

EVERYTHING doesn't have to be represented on the tabletop! That's the quickest way to painfully slow and dreary games.   At the end of the day, I'm willing to bet that a multi-Corps game using the above will feel just as "historically accurate" as a specialized grand tactical set of rules.

But that's just me.

The next update will include photos from the last game.

Napoleonic Game - French vs. Austrians

2011-06-25T13:14:00.000-06:00

We're playing another Napoleonic game tonight, using Field of Battle 2nd edition rules. We'll see if the French have better luck this time. The tabletop map is shown below.

The woods on the flanks are Class II, the L shaped woods on the French center/baseline is Class III, as is the small town of Obere Stadt. Both hills are Class II. The rivers are in fact pretty minor streams, and I'm treating them as "Class I Streams", a house rule which would force units only to stop on contact for that move segment. The streams are pretty minor...it must be the dry season around Obere Stadt.

On another topic, I've been traveling heavily in June (and out more next week), so I haven't achieved much on the painting front. But I have made some progress basing units for Pulse of Battle (the ancients version of Field of Battle). My Macedonian army is pretty much complete except for some lights and officer figures.

We've been playing European theatre games for quite a while now....I feel the need for an ACW bash coming up.

1809 Game Report

2011-06-12T21:32:00.000-06:00

Continuing on with the game report:

Austrians close in on Bavarians in woods. Trust me, that darker green area is woods. The trees have been moved to facilitate game play. Not the prettiest, but it works.

Austrians (and Hungarians...) step forward.

Hahaha! Zay are nothing but Austrian scum! We French laugh at them! (You're supposed to say that line with a classicly bad French accent, favored by wargamers the world over).

French General points the way to victory!

Austrian guns at the river pound the French next to the village.

Does anybody know why some photos are posted with this goofy rotation? I can't figure it out. Anyway, the Austrians finally reach the river on the far flank and start to cross. This is about the time things really start to turn bad for the French/Bavarian army.

Near the end of the game...French on the left flank still hold, but the army morale teeters.

Poof! The French flank begins to waver and fall back....or rout. Shortly after this, the French ran out of Army Morale Points, and promptly failed their first test, ending the game.

I really like the look and function of my new terrain system. The running joke in the group is how many terrain systems I've gone through in my search for perfection. I'll post more on the terrain in a later post.

1809 Game June 4 (FoB2) Game Start

2011-06-06T20:52:00.000-06:00

On to the game. As I mentioned in the previous post, the Austrians were in a position to catch an outnumbered Franco-Bavarian army and do some damage. Unfortunately for the Austrians, they were up against an army, that while numerically inferior, had significant leadership and troop quality advantages.

The French are stacked in and behind the town; Bavarious in the woods. The entire force is sandwiched into the left 1/3 of the table. The French decided (correctly!) that they had little business in advancing into an attack on the Austrians.

The Austrians deployment. A significant portion of their army is deployed to the far end of the table. "Time to march Boys!" A UFO hovers over the river at the center of the Austrian army...

The Austrians from that far flank muddle their way toward the river. That's just plain ugly.

Austrian Hussars lead the way for the wayward left flank force.

Austrian infantry advance. I have to admit...I love the way Austrian armies look. I have SYW and 1859/66 Austrians, and I love 'em all. The white uniforms really sparkle with the facing colors.

Austrian cavalry from the flank force makes its way forward.

The Austrian center at the river. These are my new river squares...I found that I just couldn't get used to rivers and roads on top of the ground cloth...too much sliding around and dissarray.

The French are waiting.....

More photos to follow as the battle continues.

1809 Game - June 4 (Field of Battle 2nd Ed.)

2011-06-05T21:19:00.000-06:00

Played an 1809 game last night; Austrians vs. a French/Bavarian allied army using Field of Battle 2nd Edition (whew! It feels good to be able to publicly mention FoB2). The set up favored the Austrians, giving them a decided advantage in initial set up and army strength. Pretty good considering how bad most of their officers were (nearly all D8s). The French had a quality advantage, but were outnumbered by around 30%. I'll include some photos of each army prior to the start of the game:

Bavarian Contingent

French Contingent, Infantry and Artillery

French Cavalry - Dragoons and Chasseurs

Austrian Infantry and Artillery (Hungarian regiment on the left; Grenadier battalion in upper left)

Austrian Cavalry

More game photos to follow. This was also the first game with my new terrain squares; I was really happy with how they worked and looked. More on those later as well.

We had a great, long ride today. Beautiful warm day, with no wind. Absolutely perfect weather for a ride!

Plains Indian Wars Books

2011-05-17T21:51:00.000-06:00

As I was born and grew up a few miles from the site of the battle of Beecher's Island, the Plains Indian Wars have always held a strong interest for me. I'm sure I'm not alone in being fascinated by the campaign and battle of the Little Bighorn. I've always wondered what Custer was thinking when it was obvious that something very wrong was happening....all those battles in "the war", and its going to end here on this barren slope in the middle of nowhere??

Anyway, on to some of my favorites:

Yellowstone Command, by Jerome Greene.
(Greene is a retired National Park Service historian. I've had the pleasure of listening to many of his author's talks at local bookstores. This is a representative work of his, in this case covering Miles campaign in the Great Sioux War 1876-77. He has a large volume of work; you can't go wrong with any of them. I asked him what he was going to do now that he was retired...his answer? "I'm going to read all of those books that I've bought over my lifetime!")

Life of a Soldier on the Western Frontier, by Jeremy Agnew.
(Paperback, nice summary of what life was like on the plains in the army. Covers organization, armament, enemies, ...great stuff)

Lakota Noon, The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat, by Gregory Michno.
(Michno is a proflific Indian Wars author, and I consider this book to be one of the absolute best on the LBH. Fascinating analysis of Indian testimonies; almost a time motion study of the battle.)

Great Sioux War Orders of Battle; How the United States Army Waged War on the Northern Plains, 1876-1877, by Paul Hedren.
(Great detail; not necessarily an easy read, but really interesting to follow the various deployments through the war)

With Custer at the Death, by Robert Burke
(Absolutely THE best mapped book of the LBH I've seen. Follows the battle phase by phase)

The Last Stand, by Nathaniel Philbrick.
(I also had a chance to listen to Philbrick at a local author presentation. This one was filmed for Book TV - I'm shown in the footage; a special prize to anybody who spots me! This book reads like a novel, and really captures the drama and color of that summer in 1876)

Do I game the Plains Indian Wars? Not yet....I've never found a way to resolve the proper feel of scenario. I just find the environment, tactical situations, and personalities so compelling that they are of great interest to me as a period to study.

My Favorite Franco-Prussian War Books

2011-05-16T17:40:00.000-06:00

Continuing on with the favorite book theme, today I'll go through my favorite FPW books.

Alphonse De Neuville L'epopee de la defaite from Copernic books (1979)
(This is a beautiful book with page after page of exquisite ADN artwork of the FPW. This is perfect for inspiration...no units marching in step in these illustrations!)

Tactical Deductions from the War of 1870-1871 by Albrecht von Boguslawski
(A reprint of the original 1872 work by Boguslawski, who was a Captain in the Lower Silesian Infantry Regiment No. 50. A great on the ground view of how things worked.)

The Prussian Infantry in the War of 1870-71 by Prince Kraft zu Hohenlohe Ingelfingen
(Taken from an 1889 translation. Absolutely fascinating detail of all the stuff that makes us want to wargame a period.)

The Campaign in Alsace, August 1870 by Brigadier General J.P. Du Cane
(Reprint of 1907 work. A great, detailed look at the battles of Weissenburg and Woerth)

The Battle of Spicheren, August 6th 1870 by Lieut. Col. GFR Henderson
(Reprint of 1891 work. Pretty much as above. Very detailed look at Spicheren)

The Franco-Prussian War, 1870-71 by Quintin Barry
(Maybe not the best books in the world, can be tedious at times. On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a recent 2 volume history of the FPW published? If you're interested in the period, you should have it.)

The Franco-Prussian War, by Michael Howard
(I bought this back in my college years, before I'd even heard of the FPW. Howard sets the standard for FPW works)

A Day of Battle, Mars-La-Tour 16 August 1870, by David Ascoli. After Howard, this was my next book purchased on the FPW many years ago. Excellent writing and presentation...buy this if you can find it)

The Franco-Prussian War, by Geoffrey Wawro.
(Nice general history. You either like Wawro or you don't. I like his style...a nice easy read).

I'm Baaaaaack!

2011-05-15T11:36:00.000-06:00

Sorry, no game report this time. I had knee surgery a week ago, which cancelled the usual game. Our next game is set for June 4, so a game report will follow that.

In the meantime, I thought I'd start a series of posts that list my top 10 favorite books I own for each period.

So - I'll begin with my ACW book collection.   These are just the top 10 - not in any particular order:

Last Chance for Victory; Rober E. Lee and the Gettysburg Campaign, by Scott Bowden & Bill Ward
(Fantastic book; this is on my list for regular re-reading).

Gettysburg, The Second Day by Harry Pfanz
(the 2nd day at Gettysburg is to me the most fascinating of the 3 days, full of what ifs and possibilities. If you have this book, you don't need any other for this day)

Gettysburg, a Journey in Time by William Frassanito
(Fascinating study of battlefield photos and identifying their actual content and location....great stuff)

Antietam, The Photographic Legacy of America's Bloodiest Day, by William Frassanito
(as above - GREAT book).

Landscape Turned Red, The Battle of Antietam by Stephen Sears
(My first book on Antietam, and my most often returned to.   Its odd to me that Antietam has a tiny fraction of books written about it compared to Gettysburg)

Of Sabres and Carbines: The Emergence of the Federal Dragoon, by Laurence Schiller
(Brilliant pamphlet studying Federal cavalry development and tactics)

The Quest for Annihilation, The Role and Mechanics of Battle in the American Civil War, by Christopher Perello
(This book seems to have been written specifically for wargamers. If this book doesn't grab you, you're probably not interested in the ACW)

The Union Cavalry Comes of Age, Hartwood Church to Brandy Station, 1863, by Eric Wittenberg.
(Wittenberg specializes in books covering ACW cavalry. He is a great writer, and his books are meticulously researched. I have a thing for ACW cavalry actions, and you can't go wrong with anything done by Wittenberg)

Grant Wins the War, Decision at Vicksburg, by James Arnold.
(Jim Arnold is a wargamer, and his books are universally well written and interesting. This book covers the Vicksburg campaign in a clear way that makes you want to break out the figures)

No Better Place to Die, The Battle of Stones River, by Peter Cozzens.
(I bought this many years ago during a visit to the Stones River battlefield.   Great book, as I've come to expect from Cozzens.   Buy each and every one of his books, you won't be disappointed.)

That's it for today!   The knee is doing GREAT; as the surgeon said - I'm only limited by my pain threshold. Recovery pain is a whole lot better than injury pain.

1866 Game Wrap Up

2011-04-10T17:57:00.000-06:00

Finishing up with the photos from last week's 1866 game: The Austrians massed a line of artillery in the center of the battlefield at effective range and (gasp) took time to soften up the Prussian infantry and artillery. This allowed the Austrian infantry, spearheaded by Jaeger and Grenze units, to close and crush the Prussian line. Well played by the Austrians! (John, Ed, Greg R., Brad) Maybe next time, Prussians! (Chris, Greg C., Terry).

Austrian cavalry swing toward the flank

Austrian gun line appears depleted...Prussian guns have done some damage!

Jaegers close on a Prussian battery

Austrian infantry flow through their gun line

Austrian Jaegers protect a flank near a Class II river

Defiant last stand of the Prussian center...holding on to the end...standard waving in the breeze

1866 Game - April 2

2011-04-08T19:57:00.000-06:00

I'm a bit behind - this game photo summary is of last week's Austro-Prussian 1866 game. The Austrians had a substantial numerical advantage - 24 units to 14. The Prussians held on valiantly, but the Austrians ended up steamrolling them in the center of the field.

Here come the Austrians!

Austrians come over the hill to attack the Prussian left flank

Now THAT is a gun line....facing the Prussian center

General Toby makes a new friend

Book Review: With Zeal and With Bayonets Only

2011-03-16T20:52:00.000-06:00

"With Zeal and With Bayonets Only: The British Army on Campaign in North America, 1775-1783" by Matthew H. Spring.

Its easy for me to give this book a D12+1 on the die scale for reviews (D12+1 is the highest, a D4 is the lowest).

What can I say? This is simply a magnificent work. If you have ANY interest in the AWI, you should read this.

This isn't a campaign, or battle history. Its about the inner workings of the British army, with tons of snippets sprinkled throughout to give a flavor for the action. If you want to know "how things work" - buy this book....NOW. I think its on Amazon for around $18 in paperback now.

The chapters will give you some idea of the contents:

The Army's Task
Operational Constraints
Grand Tactics
March and Deployment
Motivation
The Advance
Commanding the Battalion
Firepower
The Bayonet Charge
"Bushfighting"
Hollow Victories

I've come away with a greater appreciation for the challenges faced by the Brits, as well as the flexibility in their tactical abilities.

Buy this book - you will not be disappointed.

Franco-Prussian Game Report

2011-03-06T09:58:00.000-07:00

We had a great, unique FPW game last night. Chris' friend, Mike LaVigne was in town, and was able to make the game. I believe it was the first time he's played Field of Battle, or seen Field of Battle played.

The scenario generated by the player's decisions resulted in a Prussian force outnumbered by 20% deployed essentially across the short end of the board, primarily behind a Class II railroad embankment. The French had deployed across most of the table width, so 2/3 of their army had a long march to get to the engagement. The Prussians were outgunned, with 1/2 of their artillery not making it to the battlefield. Obviously the Prussian army was in no mood to fight...rolling up only 15 Army Morale Points, to 24 for the French.

The Prussian 2 right command groups were pushed over the railroad and toward the French left flank wood on their baseline. A stiff fight resulted between the Prussians and defending Turcos. Most of the Army Morale Points lost by both armies were lost in the fight for the woods.

The French were surprisingly fast in recovering and moving their army to attack the Prussians. The French right flank, under General "Triple Move" Mumby moved at an unbelievable speed. I've never seen so many triple move rolls in a single game. I think General "Triple Move"'s troop moved around 8 to 9 feet to crush the Prussian left flank.

By the time the French closed on the Prussian right flank (now commanded by me, as Chris and Mike had to scoot to make the start of the Colorado Avalanche vs. Edmonton Oilers game), only 3 Army Morale Points remained for the Prussians. A devastating attack by the French, multiple UI losses for the Prussians...and wouldn't you know it - the turn of the Army Morale Card! The Prussians failed on the first try, and the game ended with a decisive result in around 2 1/2 hours (19 units for the French, 15 for the Prussians).

The initial deployments. The French army is deployed across the table (left side of photo)...the Prussian army is way, way down on the end of the table...

French commands on their right flank

French commands in the woods on the French left, soon to be under attack

Prussians cross the railroad and move to the attack on the woods

French right flank leaps into action and starts to close on the Prussians

Prussians deployed behind the Class II cover of the railroad embankment

French cross at the ford

Prussian attack begins to falter as the Turcos bloody the Jaegers

A sharp looking unit of French Chasseurs

More French cross the river

The end comes quickly for the Prussian left flank as the French under Genl. "Triple Move" Mumby close in. There used to be Prussian infantry in the gap at the railroad...they're routing now, out of the photo.

The French reserves ready to crush what remains of the Prussian left flank.

Why does it always suck? Part 3

2011-02-13T11:08:00.000-07:00

On to the final report of the last game - 1809 Austria/France.

The shredding of the Austrian right flank begins. Genl. Caudill's French close on Genl. Shockey's Austrians.

Huh? What? After marching off the center ridge, the bulk of the Austrian army stops, turns around and marches back up the ridge.

Meanwhile, the French continue to pound the Austrian right flank.

Genl. "Speed Bump" Shockey's Hungarians, stiffened by artillery form square and prepare for cavalry.

Left to right: "Speed Bump" Shockey, "Woodland" Mumby, "Let it be noted that I wasn't here when this plan was made" Miller.

The final throes of Speed Bump's command.

There's fewer of Speed Bump's command than there were just a while ago...

Anyway - that's the game! The French were outnumbered by about 30% - the Austrians started with 20 army morale points and the French started with 13 army morale points. At the end of the game, the Austrians were at 0 and failed army morale, while the French still had around 10 army morale points. The Austrians fought the bulk of the battle with a badly outnumbered right flank and the mass of the army effectively sat out the battle on the ridge...then off the ridge....then back on the ridge. The Austrian left flank cavalry brigade looked to be in a threatening position, but the timely arrival of French forces staved off their assault. Another crushing French victory!

Meanwhile - my current project is a pretty massive terrain effort. More of that later.

Why does it always suck? - Part Two

2011-02-07T20:43:00.000-07:00

The French left flank and Bavarian Center

The White Horde (WH) lurches forward off of the central ridge

The French flanking force prepares to crush the WH's right flank. Bits of the WH can be seen at the top of the photo.

Form Square! French battalion forms square due to a threat from....

These guys! Austrian cavalry brigade thunders toward the hanging French right flank. The two French infantry squares can be seen in the distance.

A close up of the two French squares.

What will happen? At this point, the French appear poised to do some damage to the Austrian right, while the Austrians are beginning to muddle forward toward the French right. Stay tuned - more photos to follow!

Why does it always suck?

2011-02-06T12:01:00.000-07:00

This blog title comes directly from Eric Miller in last night's game, as he watched the Austrian army that he was part of get thrashed by an outnumbered French army (1809). Eric seems to have been on a losing run, and has seen his share of difficulties in getting his commands into action and successful. In last night's game, Eric commanded the Austrian cavalry on their left flank. Everything was going well, (on that flank) as his cavalry bore down on two lone French infantry battalions that had hurriedly deployed into square. At about that time, a mixed Command Group of one each cavalry/artillery/infantry units appeared to his left flank, arriving onto the battlefield late in the battle. After taking fire, getting meleed, and seeing the sweeping Austrian attack blunted....Eric said "Why does it always suck?".

On to the battle report!

The center of the Austrian army, deployed on a Class II ridge

French right/center - Bavarians in the woods in the center of the photo

Closeup of the Austrian artillery on the ridge in the center of the Austrian army

Austrian cavalry brigade on the Austrian left flank

The Austrians outnumbered the French by 30% at the start of the game, and had a significant Army Morale Point advantage (20 to 13).

More to follow.

Things I Like....Things I Don't Like

2011-01-28T22:27:00.000-07:00

The beauty of having a blog is that you can write as much for you as for anyone else.   There are no deadlines, no editors, no work pressures.   With that in mind, this blog post is for me!

Things I like in the hobby
    by Brent Oman

1. Mounted mapboards in boardgames. I admit it...if a boardgame has a mounted map, I'll buy it. I think it goes back to my childhood and the thrill of opening up the latest Avalon Hill game and unfolding those glorious mounted maps.   A paper or card map leaves me totally cold....but a mounted map?    Yowza - I don't even care how much the game costs...sign me up!

2. Command control in rules.   To me - this is what a game is about - the command decisions forced onto players. Do we really have the same decisions as generals? No. But - games that force tough decisions, or even better, force a choice between two bad decisions - those are the games for me. Games without any friction or command consequence leave me cold....brrrr.

3. Terrain that looks like terrain.   I appreciate those with a fine eye for detail, or more importantly, a flair for character and "pop" in their terrain. That can be done with hexes, with ground mats, with squares...doesn't matter. If the person obviously had some real soul poured into their set up, it shows. Don't ask me to say that a game on lime green painted plywood with masking tape roads looks good....

4. Figures and units with movement and animation.   I love units that look frantic, jumbled, and active. In my minds eye, thats what a combat unit looks like. Not a stately marching band appearance, all with the same pose.

5. I LOVE Old Glory's figures.   Huh? Who says that??   ME. I LOVE Old Glory's figures.   They fit everything I want in a figure, and look fantastic in units on the table. On top of that, they're an absolutely brilliant company to deal with.

6. Military history books with good maps.   I don't care what the subject of the book is - if it has good maps, I'm buying it.

Things I don't Like
     by Brent Oman

1.   Weird War, Zombie games, Mexican druglord games, gangster games....take your pick.   My life is busy, and when I game, I don't want my time to be wasted with "silly" topics. Does that mean that I'm a "serious" gamer?   Hardly - the only reason for the game is to have fun. But I think there's a huge gap between fun and silly.

2. The smell at Historicon. I admit, its been a couple of years since I've been to Hcon....but I can still remember the stench.   Ugh.   Its not that hard people.

3. People wearing period hats while playing the game.   See Historicon in 2 above.   Come on people....a size 5 hat perched on a size 11 head isn't flattering.

4. Figure scale flame wars.   Is there a more useless waste of energy? I've seen gorgeous 10mm games, brilliant 15mm games, beautiful 25mm games, breathtaking 40mm games....the choice of figure scale is entirely personal, and hardly a thing to debate. I've settled on 25mm for all my periods because of two simple controlling factors - I don't enjoy painting anything smaller than 25mm, and by keeping to one figure scale, I can keep one set of terrain.   So - if you love 6mm, or 2mm or 71mm - great! Please just make the games look nice.   See 3 above in "Things I Like".

5. Jay Cutler. Is there a bigger loser in the NFL??? Wow - did the Broncos do the right thing shipping that quitter off to the Bears.   Million dollar talent and a nickel heart.   Its like Jeff George has been cloned and is in the league again....

6. Painting "competitions".   Huh?   Since every painter has his own style, and judges have their prejudices, I hardly see the point.   Does everything have to be a competition? Why can't there just be painting displays? I'd love to see that - how many don't enter "competitions" but would be happy to enter a "display"?

Well, enough of that.   Next time, I promise....photos.

Brent

1809 Game - End Game Photos

2011-01-23T09:21:00.000-07:00

Wrapping up the game photos of our 1809 French vs. Austrian FoB game. The French crushed the Austrian right flank and converged on the hill in the center of the position. The Austrian left flank was quiet throughout the game, with the Austrians positioned on a tough Class III hill/woods position overlooking a Class II river, with the Bavarians facing them electing to stay in one piece rather than get shredded attacking such a difficult position.

Bavarians in the woods.

Bavarians next to the woods.

From left to right: John, Terry, Ed. John and Terry are showing their Austrian officers that just failed their survival tests.....Ed seems glad to be on the flank.

Bavarians by a river.

The French move in on the Austrian center while the Bavarians shield the right flank.

Crisis for the Austrians in the center.

The French crush the center. Only the gun batteries remain as the French surge up the hill.

Fun game, but the French really smacked the Austrians. The scenario generation gave the French a 30% numerical advantage. The Austrians spread their commands out fairly evenly, resulting in 1/3 of their army never being engaged. The French used their Bavarian allies to shield that portion of the army, and then methodically crushed first the Austrian right flank and then the center. A crushing victory for the French, who ended up with only 2 fewer Army Morale Points than they started the game with.

More 1809 Pictures

2011-01-16T21:00:00.000-07:00

Continuing the game report ....(sorry for the delay - a rather hectic week at work, and here it is Sunday night and another week looming!).

The strong Austrian central position. Two artillery batteries prepared to hand out some punishment.

General Toby appears to be leading from the rear.

French assault presses home on the Austrian right flank. The French infantry battalion has suffered a 1 Unit Integrity loss as indicated by the casualty marker.

French artillery gaze in wonder as giant fingers from above lift members of their army.

Austrian cavalry (well, the one regiment of three that decided to make the march and appear in the battle) rout to the rear. Why do all newly painted units perform so badly in their first battle??

The French assault closes in on the Austrian right flank. Musket fire (smoke markers) covers the battle as casualties mount.

More later!

1809 French vs. Austrian Game

2011-01-09T13:08:00.000-07:00

This is the first game of 2011, and the first game in a couple of months due to holiday and family obligations. It was the first time out of the chute for my "complete" (is there such a thing?) Austrian Napoleonic army. The terrain also featured several new terrain pieces - tree and rock terrain pieces, roads, and rivers. It made for a good looking game. As I've done before - the game report will be done through photos.

Overview of the table at the start of the game. The French plan was to sweep across the bottom of the photo and crush the Austrian right and then their central hill position, while essentially using the Bavarians as a pinning force vs. the Austrian left flank.

Austrians twittering in the woods on the Austrian left flank.

French left flank in the woods preparing to assault the Austrian right flank.

French center

Austrian left flank on Class II hill. Primarily Hungarian infantry.

Bavarians step out sharply.

Franco-Prussian War Game Photos - 2009

2010-12-28T19:59:00.000-07:00

Some photos from a Franco-Prussian War game from a year or so ago...I can't remember who won, although it was notable that the Prussians had one unit in enough of a bind that they formed square to repulse a charging French cavalry unit!

Russo-Japanese Russian Modification

2010-12-26T20:58:00.000-07:00

I'm still basking in the glow....the Broncos have fired McDaniels (a few weeks ago), Tim Tebow shows promise (played a very nice game for a rookie), and John Elway appears destined for a front office job on the football side of operations. The corner hasn't been turned, but at least they know where the corner is now.

Anyway, on to gaming.

I have a bunch of Boxer Rebellion Japanese and Russians from Old Glory (25mm) that will be used for the RJW. Unfortunately, the Russians don't have bayonets. Russians without bayonets? Say it ain't so!! The photo shows the original figures, plus the modified figures with bayonets added. The bayonets are just brass rod filed to a slight point, then cut off with clippers with the butt end filed smooth. Super glued onto the rifles and there you have it - bayonets. I like the look better. Quick and easy to do.

1:1 World War II Games

2010-12-23T10:37:00.000-07:00

The title to this post should really be "Why I don't like 1:1 WW2 games".   First - read this excerpt from a newspaper article discussing the recent passing of a WW2 Medal of Honor winner, Mr. Biddle.
>>>>>
By T. Rees Shapiro Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 22, 2010

It was late December 1944 and a ragtag company of American cooks and clerks were stranded in Hotton, Belgium, about four miles from Mr. Biddle's unit near Soy.

The Battle of the Bulge had just begun, and the troops in Hotton were surrounded and outnumbered by German forces. They needed to be rescued. Leading the stealthy advance through the snowy forests was Mr. Biddle, who took over when his unit's two lead scouts were injured in a land-mine blast.

For his courageous actions during the 20-hour rescue operation, Mr. Biddle received the Medal of Honor, the highest U.S. decoration for valor.

Mr. Biddle, 87, died of congestive heart failure Dec. 17 at his home in Anderson, Ind.

"I'm not a hero, not at all," he told USA Today in 1999. "When the Army put me out front, they put the responsibility on me, and you think about that responsibility instead of the fear."

On Dec. 23, 1944, Mr. Biddle came under enemy fire as he crawled toward Hotton through snow and underbrush. In quick succession, Mr. Biddle killed three German snipers with "unerring marksmanship," according to his Medal of Honor citation.

He continued his advance 200 more yards before coming upon an enemy machine-gun nest. After killing its two occupants, he lobbed grenades at a concealed machine-gun position nearby and killed three more German soldiers. After signaling back to his unit to advance, Mr. Biddle moved forward, shot three more Germans and tossed his last grenade into a third Nazi machine-gun emplacement.

As darkness fell over the American soldiers, German tanks rumbled in the distance. Mr. Biddle volunteered to go out alone and scout the enemy armor location. He crawled through the woods, getting so close to German sentries that one stepped on Mr. Biddle's hand. He stifled a groan of pain into the snow beneath his face and returned to his unit unscathed.
>>>

Before I type any more - what an amazing action, and a humble and brave man. We are lucky as a nation to have been served so well by our WW2 vets that are passing each day.

On to the game aspect.   As I read this, it hit me like a ton of bricks as to why I don't like 1:1 scale WW2 games - where individuals are represented with single based figures.   Read the combat summary above once again.   Sound familiar?   It sounds like EVERY single figure based 1:1 WW2 game I've read about or seen! The extreme actions, extreme bravery, extraordinary achievements are present ALL THE TIME in those games. Plus, add in an unreasonable amount of supporting weapons and armor, and it all adds up to comic book reality. So - yet another explanation as to why I won't be doing that level of WW2 game.   I am really interested in the command aspect in combat, and when you try to represent the actions and behavior of each figure/person on the table, I think the command aspect goes out the window and it turns into "blam", "boom", and "Medals of Honor for everyone!" types of games.   I know a lot of gamers (the majority of WW2 gamers, in fact) love this scale of game, but its just not for me.

Back to painting....Austrian Cheveauleger (spelling?   I could check....but does it really matter in this informal setting? I think not!)

Things that make you go "Huh?"

2010-12-17T21:04:00.000-07:00

To start off, my latest painted unit - Austrian cuirassier - waiting for basing to be finished!

I enjoy painting cavalry, but I find that I always have to work up the enthusiasm to clean up the next unit to paint. Right now, I have the next unit (Austrian dragoons) sitting on the workbench.   For some reason, I just dread cleaning up and preparing cavalry for paint. I don't like messing with the seams on horses, I don't like attaching arms...maybe I'm just lazy.

Which brings me to the title of this post: Things that make you go "Huh?"

No doubt, I'll probably tick somebody off with things that make me go "Huh?", so I apologize in advance. If you recognize yourself as any of these people - good for you, enjoy your hobby!

1. Plastic, multi-part 28mm figures.   Huh?   I just don't get it. Why on earth would I want to put that many pieces together. "Build a man" Frankenstein soldiers. Ick. I'd rather prepare lead cavalry.

2. The penchant for 1:1 WW2 games and rules. Huh? I have to believe this is tied to comic books, video games, and cheesy WW2 movies.   The common reason given for 1:1 preference is that any higher scale of representation is too abstract.   Huh? Really?   So....you play that 1:1 squad with correct tactics? The LMG is almost all the firepower? Your rules reflect that at this scale, if you're seen you're dead?  It doesn't bother you to control each individual on the battlefield? Zowie, bang, boom (insert explosion sound here).

3. ImagiNations. Huh? I really don't get this. Our hobby is all historical fiction anyway...but I'd much rather that my fiction be "historical fiction". I rather enjoy playing ACW with Confederates and Federals, rather than the "American Social War" with Corndoggians and Finials.   No purple tunics for me, thank you very much.

4. VBCW. Huh?   What's up with that? Is the allure using goofy armor? Maybe 'cause I'm not British....

5. Steam Punk.   Huh?   I don't even know what that is.

6. Buckets 'o Dice.   Huh?   Is that faster than a chart or a CRT? I don't like mangling my terrain and figures with dimples from the buckets o fun. If I want more noise in the game I'll just turn the stereo up.

7. 2mm figures. Huh? HUH?   Why not paint rice grains? I can cut a square of 60 grit sandpaper, paint it black and drybrush on some color, add a flag, and it looks just about the same..I once glued sand to a stand and did this...didn't look half bad....

8. Zombies. Huh? Now, I like a zombie movie as much as the next guy....but zombie games?   Does everything have to be a game?

9. Weird WW2.   Huh?   Isn't the real thing interesting enough? Aren't there enough fascinating technology developments in 6 years from '39 to '45 that you don't have to create an SS Tiger-Walker with a Confederate flag flying from it?

10.   Opinionated wargamers that post stuff on their blog that most people don't care about reading. Huh? Sure glad I'm not one of those guys.....

Rivers

2010-12-14T20:21:00.000-07:00

I finally decided on the look and design for my rivers. Here are some example photos of the first sections:

After many trials of design and finish, I ultimately decided on glossy, "blue-ish" water. I'm really happy with the pieces - more to finish!

I'll detail the materials and steps to make them in the next update.

Denver Debacle Fire Head Coach

2010-12-06T22:20:00.000-07:00

At last! The Broncos fired head coach Josh McDaniels late this afternoon after posting 11 wins vs. 17 losses, botching countless player personnel decisions, dragging the organization down into an ethical issue with taping a small portion of the 49ers practice....it was well overdue.

I look forward to the Broncos coming back...this is the first small step of many in transforming from the Denver Debacle back to the Denver Broncos.

Austrian Generals and Artillery

2010-12-04T13:22:00.000-07:00

Thought I'd take a few minutes to post some shots of my Austrian Napoleonic army's officer corps and artillery park. I still want to add another battery or two of artillery, but I'm now working on cavalry (cuirassier).

That's all for now...lots of other projects underway as well...rules writing, terrain building, rebasing WW2 being completed. More posts to follow.

Bunker/Dug In Markers

2010-11-30T21:20:00.000-07:00

I've been dissatisfied with the version 1 markers I made to show "bunker" units in FoBWW2. The version 1 marker was 3" wide to match the unit frontage, but beyond that it didn't do much visually for me. Its the small piece in the photo below.

Version 2 is made to just drop the infantry unit into the marker...and bingo! Instant dug in/bunker status. The entrenchment is made of 3/4" wide quarter round epoxied to a plastic base. I think they're a big step up in appearance. AT guns will use the same thing, but adjusted to fit their stand.

I've sketched out a similar construction method for things like ACW entrenchments, horse and musket redoubts, and WW1 trenches. I'll be making some up to see how they look and work.

Field of Battle WW2

2010-11-23T16:19:00.000-07:00

I'm taking the first three days this week off as vacation - I had some extra days to get in this year and thought it would be good to make some progress on some hobby stuff.

So far, I've completed Austrian Napoleonic artillery, Austrian command, created dug in/bunker "markers" for FoBW2, and rebased my entire WW2 collection, as well as created numerous terrain pieces. Unfortunately, that has been sandwiched around yet another pathetic Denver Bronco effort, but enough of that!

I decided to rebase my WW2 stuff because the previous 3" wide by 1.5" deep stands just felt to linear to me. I wanted more of the depth illusion of a company deployed 2 platoons up/1 back, etc, so I rebased all my infantry to 3x3 inch stands.

The top photo shows a US infantry battalion of 3 companies. I just love the "chunky" feeling of the bigger stand, and I think the look is what I was going for.

The markers on the stands are some experimentation on marking losses/status. The 2nd photo shows the "fired" marker, which is a round terrained piece with shell casings on it. I'm still torn between which way to go for loss (UI and Pinned) markers. I could use round markers with no stones (Pinned), 1 stone (1 UI loss), 2 stones (2 UI loss), or be more direct and use round markers with S, 1, and 2, on them. Unfortunately, the "2" example marker doesn't have terrain on it yet for the photo.

Any preferences? I think the stones would be less visually obvious, but given the fact that players need to see loss/status, maybe the numbered/alpha markers are a better method.

Table Mess!

2010-11-08T15:53:00.000-07:00

I doubt that I'm much different than most gamers...my game table becomes a catch all in between games. Here's a couple of photos of what it looks like now.

As you can see, a bit of everything. The terrain is generally set up for the next game, but not quite...need to finish some river sections. WW2 armor being rebased shares the table with some ancients (PoB) and an Austrian Napoleonic battalion crossing a "river" (or where the river will be).

I'm currently working on new tree pieces, painting Austrian Napoleonic artillery batteries, and rebasing WW2 stuff. Lots of fun, a variety of projects, and not a ton of progress on any of them!

New Team Name for Denver Broncos Proposed!

2010-10-31T14:27:00.000-06:00

Let's see. Another Sunday, another Broncos' loss. This time to the SF 49rs, quite possibly one of the most ordinary, worst teams in the league. At this point, I have to believe that the Broncos are the worst or next to worst team in the league.   I'm going to officially send a suggestion to Bronco headquarters that the team name be changed to "Denver Debacle", with a train wreck as the new logo.

I have no idea where to start....the defense is pathetic. I have no idea what the defensive philosophy is. The 49rs were starting a guy at QB that had only 2 other games under his belt, and made him look like an all pro in the 2nd half.   Knowing that the Niners wanted to run the ball, the Debacle played a vanilla 3-4 and didn't press the line of scrimmage.   It seems like any defensive coordinator with a brain cell remaining would have recognized the limitations of the Niners and played tight man coverage on the outside and 8 in the box to stop the run. Not good old Wink!   Apparently, the Debacle needed to play a soft zone due to the passing excellence of Smith, or Jones, or whatever his name is. Please.

Offensively, yet another statistically good game by Orton, who turned in an Ortonary performance on the scoreboard.   Orton specializes in racking up yards between the 20's, but seems paralyzed when it comes to pulling the trigger and making a play in the red zone. He's athletically limited, and has no chance when a play breaks down.

The Debacle goes into their bye week.   Or is that "bye bye" week to the season?

I see NO ALTERNATIVE to benching Ortonary and playing Tim Tebow.   I'm not saying he's ready to play, but he can't produce fewer wins than Orton, and the season is obviously over. Time to season Tebow for next year.

The Nuggets and Avalanche are doing well though....

France '40 Sample Figures

2010-10-26T16:45:00.000-06:00

I had a few sample Battle Honors (25mm) figures on hand, so I thought I'd toss some paint on a couple and see how I liked them. A couple of photos of the test follow below.

I "think" I like them. The Battle Honors figures have a lot of animation, but are a bit trickier to paint because of some of the extra folds and creases included on the arms and legs. My other option is to use Crusader, if I do this period. From the photos I've seen, Crusader figures look to have relatively little animation...not sure what that would look like in unit groupings on stands.

"The Fall of France" arrived yesterday (by Julian Jackson). A quick glance through it showed it to look pretty interesting. I'll add that to the reading list. Right now I'm reading "Soldiers and Ghosts" by J. E. Lendon. Subtitled "A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity", I'm using it to get in the mood to finish up work on "Pulse of Battle". Did I say finish??

Review: Denver Broncos

2010-10-24T16:00:00.000-06:00

Same rating scale as for books.

D4.

I'd go down to a D2, and possibly a D1.

The brutal fact is that the Broncos SUCK. The clock has officially started on the "Fire Josh McDaniels" watch.   I've never seen a professional football team so poorly prepared and motivated. Its halftime vs. the Raiders (BARF), and the score is Raiders 38, Broncos 7.

Any head coach that can make Tom Cable look like the 2nd coming of John Madden should be fired at halftime.   I'm embarassed to have supported McDaniels in the past.   His teams are soft, poorly disciplined, and mentally weak.

Definitely a D1.

Book Reviews and Rating Scale

2010-10-20T22:17:00.000-06:00

I'll get a bit more organized with my book reviews/recommendations from here on.   The new scale, using the sliding die size scale familiar to Piquet players:

D4: I can't recommend this book. Save your money for gasoline, figures, or another book. I won't save space on my shelf for this turkey.

D6: Some redeeming qualities. Questionable facts or conclusions. A difficult read. I'll keep it, but will probably only use it for a research resource.

D8: A solid recommendation. Not the best, not the worst. I learned something I didn't know before. Something just wasn't there that kept it from getting a higher rating - maybe bad maps, bad editing....just something that held it down. This book could be recommended for those interested in the specific topic.

D10: A really enjoyable book. Good writing, interesting topic. Good feel and appearance. Nice maps, etc.   A definite recommendation, even outside of a period you might normally be interested in.

D12: WOW! Great writing, an easy read. Inspirational - I can see the games this will lead to. Where is that figure catalog? A recommendation without reservation.   I'll read this again and again.

So - on to the first reviews!

"Inside the Nazi War Machine" by Bevin Alexander. ($26.95)

An odd title...just short of "Hitler's Mighty Army" or some such drivel. I almost didn't pick this up at the bookstore because of the title. I'm glad I did though - its about the France 1940 campaign, and the contributions to the German victory by Manstein, Guderian, and Rommel. Alexander's writing style can sometimes be a bit stilted, but it is a pretty quick read. With few books covering this period, it serves its purpose as an introduction. Not detailed at the tactical level, but there's enough meat there to come up with some scenarios.   Rather than being inspirational, I found the campaign to be depressing to me. Only the French army of 1940 could make the Army of the Potomac in 1861/62 look well led!   I had been contemplating doing France 1940 with 25mm, but now I don't think I will.   I'm not sure that the campaign holds much tactical interest for me.

Rating:   D8

"Exodus from the Alamo" by Phillip Thomas Tucker ($32.95)

This book has elicited some pretty heated opinions.   Tucker spends a good chunk of the book (maybe 25%?) discussing slavery and the possibility of economic gain as the reason for expansion into Texas. OK, OK, I get it already. Early on in the book I felt like I was getting hit over the head again and again with a pretty heavy handed message. However, I'm glad I stuck it out. About midway through the book, the study turned to the "siege" and then assault of the Alamo. Tucker makes some quite interesting statements and conclusions about the "battle" - or almost total lack of - in the final assault. His discussion of the action outside of the Alamo's walls are particularly interesting. While some have said that this is nothing new, I haven't seen it explored in this depth, or with such conviction.

Rating: D10

Common (Unfortunately) TMP Posts

2010-10-16T12:51:00.000-06:00

I enjoy The Miniatures Page (TMP). There are often posts that lead to investigations of things I wouldn't have imagined, or links to interesting sites, tips, book reviews, etc.   But....there are always the posts...you know which ones.....they go something like this:

I'm building a 28mm Napoleonic Spanish army for use with Volley and Bayonet, and I'm wondering what the best source of uniform information might be?

Spanish? Why would anyone want to collect the Spanish?

I hate Volley and Bayonet. I only play Shako.

Shako isn't any good. If you're interested in a skirmish level game, try my new set on my web. It's titled "Flashing Blades of Bloody Glory".

Skirmish?   You have to be an idiot to play skirmish games. Tactical is the only way to play.   I think you're wrong using 28mm though. Everyone knows that 10mm is the only way to go for massed games.   I use 10mm exclusively for my WW2 games.   See my blog for photos and a review I wrote myself of my new WW2 game "Hitler Drives a Big Tank".

You're all wrong! Didn't you read his original post?   I think WAB is coming out with a WW2 set that would work for him.   Just don't use WRG - they suck.

He didn't even mention ancients.   I think Osprey has a book on the French or something.

Where can I get pikes for my Macedonians?

Does anybody know why acrylic paint dries up?

And so on.....

1809 Game

2010-10-15T21:34:00.000-06:00

Menacing line of French

French attack closes in on the Austrian held town

John's Austrians advance in the (surprise!) woods

Austrian command leaps into action

French command appears overconfident..."they're deployed just like I thought they would"

How can the French assault be repulsed?

Just like that! French suffer heavy losses and the Austrians hold the town

My bike near Devil's Tower, Wyoming. Sorry...had to get a bike pic in.

1809 Game Report....ish

2010-10-14T21:36:00.000-06:00

We played an 1809 French vs. Austrian game about a month ago - sorry I don't have a complete report, but I don't remember much of the game details!

General Toby surveys the field (mmmmm....those French look tasty)

I'll try to add more photos in a later post....for some reason, Blogger doesn't want to cooperate with the file upload tonight.

I've been working on a few writing projects, but can't really talk about the details of those quite yet. I've also been working on some terrain projects that will be the subject of future posts.

This 1809 game was supposed to be the first of a campaign. I have to admit, I'm frustrated with expectations and realities of campaigns. In theory, everyone loves a campaign. In reality, there is usually not much participation except at game time. Excessive record keeping, lack of participation, time lapses between games - all combine to kill campaigns. I'm more and more convinced that the best campaigns are games that are tied together only because they're in the same period, and have random situation and force generation. In other words, you show up and do the best with what you're given. I wouldn't exactly call it a narrative campaign, and its not a ladder campaign - maybe a "thread" campaign. Over time, the thread of the series of games weaves a story itself, based on the game results and slant of the actions. We did an ACW campaign like this a couple of years ago, and it worked well.

FPW Game - Quick Report

2010-09-02T09:04:00.000-06:00

We played another FoB game this past Saturday. I didn't have the time to redo the terrain from the previous game, so we played the same scenario, but some 57 years later set in the Franco-Prussian War. We also played the grand tactical variant. The game was a reversal of the Napoleonic game - the French battered the Prussians. At the tipping point in the game, both sides were at 0 Army Morale Points, and then the French won a 10 initiative roll - and inflicted devastating casualties on the Prussians through those 10 initiatitive points and cards.

Prussian advance

French destroy the Prussian center

Prussians close in on the French right flank

French cavalry routing!

Marker Thoughts

2010-08-19T21:08:00.000-06:00

I'm very satisfied with the new UI hit/loss markers I made for the last game. Each hit marker has a single loss indicated on it..."1", "2", or "3". For the 4th UI loss, we just remove a stand.

I like the 1 hit per marker much more than having multiple hits on a single marker. Having multiple hits per marker means that the marker has to be oriented, and inevitably in the heat of battle, that orientation gets lost and the question comes up "is that a 2 or 3 UI loss:????".

The really nice thing about the single UI loss per marker is that it is a tangible, tactile event when the markers are place and or replaced. It marks a dramatic event, and serves to remind players of the loss, as well as the need to remove/lose a Morale Point. It just "feels good" to see your opponent have to take off that 1 UI marker and reach down to get a 2 UI marker and place it on the unit. Maybe its just me, but I find that much more satisying than seeing him just twirl the marker to 2 instead of 1!

Black Hills Rides

2010-08-14T21:19:00.000-06:00

Back from a week vacation riding in the Black Hills region in South Dakota....wrapped around a visit to Sturgis, SD for the rally. Lots and lots of bikes....speaking of which - have you ever seen a motorcycle with a rotary plane engine?

Looks cool, but I'm guessing it is a beast to ride!

Our bikes loaded up and parked at our first stop, first day...breakfast! Mine is the yellow RoadKing Custom, my wife's is the black and white Softail Deluxe.

My wife nervously waits (9 hours!) while her bike gets some custom paint from "The Wizard".

That's "The Wizard" with his back to the camera, loading up his airbrush. My wife's bike's front fender sits on the work stand in front of him....

Posing with the completed front fender - winged skulls are "good luck", besides looking cool on bikes....

And the back fender as well. Lisa has named him "Fred".

An interesting choice for a trailer body....

Lisa poses with Wild Bill in Deadwood, SD

My bike, near Devil's Tower in Wyoming. I LOVE my bike!

Devil's Tower (and not a UFO to be seen)

A great week of riding. 1400 miles with no incidents, no rain, clear blue skies and absolutely breathtaking scenery. Spearfish canyon, Black Hills, Wyoming - great, great riding and roads.

So - no wargaming in this update, although I did have plenty of time to think of projects I'm working on. More of that later!

Victory Conditions Are Stupid

2010-07-27T14:16:00.000-06:00

I’ve been thinking about scenario design lately. I always struggle when it comes to establishing victory conditions for each side. It just doesn’t feel right to me for each side to know that “we have to do exactly X” to win.

After working through the victory condition issue in my head, I think I’m ready to write out what I’ve come up with.

Victory Conditions are stupid.

There. I said it.

Of course, I am posting this all based on game play for battles, not skirmishes, using some sort of army morale clock that effectively runs out and forces an army to quit the field when it has suffered enough damage. Field of Battle has armies start with a randomly determined number of Army Morale Points based on the size of the army. Army Morale Points are lost for each Unit Integrity lost in the army. Simple, really – once an Army is down to 0 Army Morale Points, the tests start to see if the army quits the battle (either in small pieces or one big chunk).

Victory Conditions are stupid.

Here are my three main reasons I think VCAS (Victory Conditions Are Stupid):

Victory Conditions provide each side with a knowledge of the important location or achievement in a battle that actual participants wouldn’t have had. Did Hood know that Devil’s Den was worth 1 VP and that Little Round Top was worth 5 VP? No! Generals observed the terrain, listened to reports from scouts, and planned their actions accordingly. They knew (generally) where the enemy was, and their job was to lever them out of there, and damage them as much as possible so that they weren’t a threat to apply strategic pressure. In essence, their job was to drain the enemy’s morale point pool and make them quit. They didn’t worry about things like “if we take that road intersection, we get 3 VPs”. No – they targeted that road intersection because it might put the enemy force in an untenable position, forcing them to attack in order to keep their line of retreat/communications open. Take the hill or ridge to get 4 VPs? No – take the hill/ridge because it was a tactically commanding position and the best piece of ground to control the battle and damage the enemy.

Victory Points are vital to boardgames. Boardgames are typically focused on a single battle, and must be replayable and interesting – no matter how many times you play exactly the same battle. They purport to be a recreation of an historical action – using hindsight to emphasize what the important achievements of the actual battle were (after the fact) and making those objectives for the course of the game. Wouldn’t you like to know that if you did exactly A, followed by B, followed by M and then W, you would have a successful day tomorrow? Unfortunately, real life, and the battlefield environment, isn’t nearly so predictable. To me, it smacks of chess and checkers. Do exactly THIS, and you win. In effect, the game is set up to make the game flow in generally the same sequence of events as the real event.

The idea of having very specific goals to achieve in a battle seems to be out of scale for a battle – it just seems to be more of a skirmish focused mentality. The Lt. in charge of a platoon knows that his small, closely focused and identified task from his immediate commander is to take that building, or clear that block by noon, or hold that bridge until relieved tomorrow afternoon. I don’t think those types of specific (skirmish level) goals fit in a game that is attempting to represent a battle. See my thoughts above – I just think these types of items are far below a General’s attention. He’s worried about a multitude of items – it’s a junior officer’s job to make sure that bridge is held. He orders the army forward, emphasizing a flank attack, a delay, etc. The smaller achievements and lower level goals are lost to the macro level of achievement at the army command level.

VCAS. Now that I have that off my chest, I’ll see if I can write up the Rule of Twelve.

Hagelberg Part III

2010-07-21T23:01:00.001-06:00

Continuing the battle report:

Prussians close on the French right flank

French cavalry charges...note the losses...the cavalry didn't stick around for long

Will they make it??

French artillery faces the Prussian cavalry...the first of three separate charges

The Prussian Landwehr drives off the cavalry and moves forward

Carnage on the hill. Only 1 battery remains

End of the fight on the right flank. Not much remains of the French right...

The battle draws to a close with one remaining battery on the hill staring down one surviving Prussian cavalry regiment. (Genl. Caudill has since reminded me that "All Prussian cavalry units were on the field in good order at the close of the game. It portends a troublesome withdrawal of the French rearguard".

The battle ended with a minor Prussian victory. Overall, it mirrored the historical battle, but not quite as significant victory for the Prussians as in the real battle. Of course, my error in rating all the Prussians as Raw D4 defense die units had something to do with that!

Hagelberg Part II

2010-07-20T19:57:00.000-06:00

Continuing the account of our battle of Hagelberg:

French light cavalry spur to the assault (Sash and Saber figures)

French infantry face the Prussians on the French right flank

French cavalry commander

Prussians step out of the woods on the French right flank

Meanwhile, French infantry press the Prussians on the French left flank. Genl. Mumby WANTS those woods!

The French are pushed back!!

Prussian cavalry charge the guns on the Class I hill in the center

The fight is joined on the French right flank

More to come in Part III.

Battle of Hagelberg, 1813

2010-07-18T21:22:00.001-06:00

We played a Napoleonic game of Field of Battle last night - based on the battle of Hagelberg in 1813 between essentially a Prussian Landwehr division and a conscript French division. I've never played a game with more bad (D4 Defense Die!) troops on the table. It made for a very interesting game. In the actual battle the Prussians soundly defeated the French. Would the same hold true for our game?

Players were Chris Caudill and Greg Rold commanding the Prussians, with John Mumby and yours truly handling the French.

The Prussians had 12 infantry battalions (9 Landwehr and 3 Regular....or at least they were supposed to be Regular. Turns out I screwed up when I rated them and the Prussians had all 12 units with D4 Defence dice!), 3 cavalry regiments, and 2 artillery batteries. This was the debut of this portion of my newly based and finished Prussian army.

The French had 9 infantry battalions (5 regular and 4 Raw), 2 cavalry regiments (the studs on the table - 12+1 Combat Die for both!!), and 3 artillery batteries.

I'll use my usual photo report to follow the action....

French deployment - artillery on the central hill with infantry in support. Prussian right wing lurks in the Class II woods at the top right of the photo.

Prussian left lurking in the woods on the opposite flank. Lots of Prussians lurking....twittering away like woodland creatures in the trees...

Genl. Mumby's French on the French left roll for a triple move and close into the woods...clearing the tip of the woods and pushing the Prussians back. You can see one of the intimidating 10/4 infantry units following up into the woods.

The lead French command group is heavily engaged in the woods (right of the photo) while the reserve French command group stays....in reserve.

Meanwhile, the French (go Brent go!) face to confront the Prussian swarm in the woods. Note the two French 12+1 cavalry units, led by a 12+1 officer. That's my kind of cavalry!

Genl. Mumby's assault on the woods surges forward. Genl. Mumby will do anything to get into the woods.

Prussian Landwehr facing the French on the French right flank. Genl. Caudill ponders how to destroy my French command.

More Prussian Landwehr

More photos to follow as the game continues. I'll try to post more tomorrow.

Chantilly Part 3

2010-06-10T20:28:00.000-06:00

Before more on the Chantilly game - I went with my wife to pick up her cell phone that she forgot at her office today. As we were walking out to the car in the parking lot, the drone of 4 beautiful radial engines struck us. Looking up - what did we see? Eight tiny reindeer??? NO!!! A B-17 on its final approach into the nearby regional airport. Unbelievably cool. I'd like to take some time one of these weekends and camp out on the roof of the parking garage and get some shots of the WW2 planes flying in and out of the airport. Last year there was a B25, B17, P38, P47, and P51 over the course of the summer. Awesome!

On to the Chantilly game:

The CSA blunts the USA assault...the tide turns and the beginning of the end for the US forces

An action shot of the last US attempt to hold off the advancing CSA infantry. An unsuccessful attempt as it turned out. The CSA army went on to a glorious crushing victory (guess which side I was on).

Overall, a fun game and an interesting scenario. The US had 8 infantry and 3 artillery, with a couple of Raw infantry units and a couple of Crack artillery batteries. The CSA had 12 infantry, 4 Crack and 8 Regular. An interesting tactical situation - the CSA army had no interest in venturing into the open and suffer under the US artillery, and the woods helped turn the flank combats into bloody short range slugfests.

Chantilly Part 2

2010-06-08T21:21:00.000-06:00

After the CSA forces appeared to be gaining a significant advantage on their left flank, the US brigades on that flank rapidly advanced, blunting the CSA advance and charging into several flank attacks.

Attacked in their front, the CSA assault slows...and a US regiment starts to swing into their right flank

US advance on their left flank, past the Orchard and across the open fields towards the CSA forces waiting in the far woods

Another shot of the CSA main assault grinding to a hault as the US regiments blunt their impetus

Meanwhile, the far left CSA brigade is in position to launch the attack on the US forces. A single US regiment stands in their way.

The US attack rolls into the CSA brigade's flank and forces a complete change of plan for the CSA

The US attack across the open fields makes it to the defending CSA line

US forces facing the CSA on the CSA left as the CSA infantry gets ready to emerge from the woods

More to follow!

ACW Game - Battle of Chantilly

2010-06-07T21:22:00.000-06:00

Initial Deployments

I'm getting more and more hooked on scenario writing. This game was an adaptation of a Johnny Reb scenario based on the battle of Chantilly in 1862. A photo "report" of the game follows...

USA forces at game start

CSA deployment. CSA plan was to deploy the two left most brigades in column of route and zip through the Class II woods in order to flank the US position. Things didn't necessarily work out that way.

Feds in the woods

Feds in the center. The B&O railway lays behind the Federal center.

My far left CSA brigade gets a triple move and makes it to the Union flank, facing into their flank. Time for a rebel yell!!!

Looking good for the CSA. A brigade on the flank of the US, and 2 brigades advancing to their front

The two lead CSA regiments open fire and cause UI loss to the US regiment

More later...surprise pressure on the CSA brigade flanks!

ACW Game

2010-06-04T11:51:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow we're playing an ACW Field of Battle game, with an interesting mix of units. I can't really be more specific on the scenario now...as the players might ask too many questions!

We haven't played ACW for a while - one of our group dislikes the period (an intense hatred of Confederates). Personally, it is my favorite period. That probably stems from a lifetime of study and battlefield visits. Its just very easy to feel connected to the period for me.

A short post this time - photos to follow after the game.

One final note. We finally saw "Avatar" last weekend. I guess I'm getting old...this was supposed to be a great movie? Really?? 9 foot tall blue alien version of Dances with Wolves??? While I admire the technical achievement of the film, I can't begin to claim it remotely interested me as a movie. Too long, too....boring. I know I must be getting old....the week before we watched "Its Complicated" and I enjoyed that movie. Not a blue alien to be seen.

Another Set of Loss Markers for Field of Battle

2010-05-22T21:37:00.000-06:00

Well, to say that the group didn't care for the loss markers I used in the last game is putting it mildly. Too fiddly, to easy to misplace the side marking the loss, too easy to misinterpret in the heat of battle.

My solution?

Back to a loss stand that indicates a single step Unit Integrity loss, but with a casualty figure, and with the UI loss indicator hopefully fairly unobtrusive.

The UI loss is shown with a bead that is marked 1, 2, or 3. I get these online at http://www.beadbee.com/ . Fast service, inexpensive craft beads that serve the trick and are easy to read.

The process to make the UI loss markers is pretty easy. I glue the casualty figure to the stand first and let the glue dry. After the glue is completely dry, I drill a hole into the stand deep enough so that the top of the bead is flush with the stand surface. I use a drill press to make the depth consistent and quick and easy to hit. You could just as easily use a hand power drill and a depth limiter - mechanical or something as easy as a piece of tape wrapped around the drill bit. I should mention that I use 1/4" thick stands, so not everybody may be able to drill down as far as I do! Other than preferring the heft, appearance, and feel of the thick stands, I have a couple of practical reasons I prefer them over thinner stands. More of that in a later post....

Anyway - Once the hole is drilled, I paint the hole dark brown. Let the paint dry, put in a spot of glue on the bottom and place the bead. All that is left is to terrain and finish the stand like all the others in the army.

To use the markers, just put the stand with a 1 on it for a 1 UI loss, a 2 for a 2 UI loss, etc.

Coming soon - fire markers!!

(Great motorcycle ride today - 200 miles in 30 to 40 MPH winds. It was still absolutely beautiful to have warm weather and have the bikes out!!)

1866 Game - More Photos

2010-05-14T21:40:00.000-06:00

The Austrian command staff concentrates on command issues such as perusing the latest issue of Battlegames and playing "catch my hand" with Toby, the Jack Russell Terrier...

The White Wave rolls toward the ridgeline

Austrians crush the Prussian defence

Austrians consolidate their hold of the ridgeline

Genl. Cornell's guns finally unlimber!

End game: Prussian defence of the ridge is reduced to a small pocket, while the reserve divisions are held/pushed back at the river. Austrians win! Austrians win!

Austro-Prussian 1866 Game

2010-05-09T14:18:00.000-06:00

This game was based/influenced by the historical battle of Trautenau, but not an exact "historical" scenario - more flavor than anything else. The sides were numerically equal, but the Prussians had 1 division on the Austrian side of the river, with their 2 other divisions marching onto the table to their rear. The Austrians started with a Corps on the table and 2 brigades marching on during the battle. I won't provide an event by event report on the game....suffice it to say that the Austrians actually won a game! The Austrian plan (Greg Cornell, Ed Meyers) was to attack the Prussian division as fast as possible and put a "cork" in the access across the river. The Prussians (Greg Rold, Chris Cornell) seemed to plan on holding the central ridges on the Austrian side of the river, and moving the reinforcing divisions up as fast as possible to attack the Austrian center and left flank. Unfortunately for the Prussians, a couple of "1's" rolled for movement put a real crimp in their plans. A brutal back and forth battle for the central ridges was the central point of the game, with the Austrians eventually prevailing. The Prussians reached 0 Army Morale Points first - unknown to them, the Austrians had only 2 AMPs remaining at that point! Unfortunately for the Prussians, the next few combats were resoundingly lost by them, and the Austrian juggernaught continued to gather steam.

The game used the new Grand Tactical set of FoB rules - it has a nice GT feel, while still providing plenty of tactical decision making and tactical color to the game. I like them a lot.

Anyway, on to the photos.

Austrian Corps ready to advance

Prussian division on the central ridge

Here come the Prussians!

Here come the Austrians!

Closing to combat at the central ridge

Austrians gaining the ridge

Overview of the Austrian assault on the ridge

Hehehe...look how good I'm doing!

Flags

2010-05-06T19:26:00.000-06:00

Just a few shots and thoughts about flags.

I've tried various ways of making flags over the years. Hand drawn and painted (time consuming and laborious). Photo copied line drawings and painted (see time consuming and laborious). Printed from internet sources (varying quality and interest). Purchased (sometimes "plastic" looking, not always the size I wanted). Modified from online files (modify the file version to darker colors, paint on the main and highlight colors).

Here are some shots of the latest method I'm trying.

All of these flags were taken from a SYW site. The files are of one side of the flag. A simple "mirror" copy, print them out to the desired size, and that is the basis for the flag. Rather than focus on painting in shadows, I instead just concentrated on highlights - greys on the black, lighter blues, brighter whites. Overall, I'm pretty happy with them, and they look pretty cool on the units.

Just a couple shots of our "kids"

Time for a haircut

Am I cute enough that you won't notice the hole I just dug in the yard?

Project Update

2010-05-04T20:12:00.000-06:00

Well....I didn't put on a game last Saturday, for 2 major reasons - my wife was very ill with bronchitis, and the basement furnace/AC project took longer than expected. But - looks like a game this Saturday.

I've been basing up Napoleonic foot units, as well as messing around with some campaign ideas. I've also been playing around with ideas for an ECW version of FoB - really wouldn't be too hard to adapt.

Picked up an intriguing book the other day "Eden to Armageddon - World War 1 in the Middle East". It looks to be well written...just what I need, another project!

Other books that have arrived in the last week include:

"Trailing Clouds of Glory: Zachary Taylor's Mexican War Campaign and His
Emerging Civil War Leaders"

"The Mons Myth: A reassessment of the Battle"

"Cool Deliberate Courage: John Eager Howard in the American Revolution"

All of the above look pretty interesting. I'm tempted to pitch into the Mons book first - I have Zuber's previous book on the Ardennes 1914 battles and this looks to be an ideal companion. Its too late to save me from that project, as I have tons of WW1 Western and Eastern front figures.

The custom FoB card order is complete and will be sent in by tomorrow - these cards will be a fantastic upgrade to the FoB player's collection. Very slick!

Idle Mind Wanderings

2010-04-27T11:39:00.000-06:00

Well.....

I'm sitting here in my basement, surrounded by "stuff" usually in our storage room, which also houses the water heater and furnace/AC. I'm surrounded by all that "stuff" because when we got up yesterday, the house was a toasty 58 degrees F. No heat!

No problem, right? Just get the heating contractor in - probably just the igniter on the furnace. Ha ha ha...not so fast. Turns out that the igniter WAS broken, but there was also a leak at the control valve. Once that was all replaced, it turns out that the main board on the furnace was bad as well. Rather than sink thousands of dollars into a 20 year old furnace, and an AC unit that would run continuously to cool the house to 75 degrees in the heat of the summer, we bit the bullet and went for a brand new, high efficiency unit (furnace and AC). We're also replacing the old water heater, before it buys the farm as well. Increasing it to 50 gallons vs. the old unit's 40 gallons.

I'm looking forward to coming home after a long motorcycle ride in July or August and stepping into a nice cool house, rather than the stuffy one that we'd had the last couple of years. It will definitely be nice to not be calling the heat/ac contractor every year for service as we've had to do lately.

On to a gaming note:

Markers!

I tired of having to dig for a 1, 2, or 3 UI loss marker, so I made a set of markers that have all 3 loss states on them. You just put the side with the current loss so it is touching the command stand. Remove 1 stand of figures and replace with the marker. The musket/rifle is 1 UI (1 musket), the 2 rocks are 2 UI (2 rocks), and the 3 cannon balls are 3 UI (3...well, you get the picture).

I had also wanted to look at different ways of marking units that had fired instead of using the good old reliable white "puff balls". The puffs worked well for many years, but I'm tired of seeing troops pushing huge fuzzy medicine balls around the table. The new markers are a variation of what I use for WW2 games. The fire markers are just round markers with 3 balls on them - you can consider them cannon balls, or musket balls - whatever suits your fancy. I think they look much nicer, and less obtrusive than big white puff balls.

The next post will follow this weekend's game - assuming all the "stuff" is gone from around my game table!

Ancients/Medievals and Grand FoB

2010-04-04T21:41:00.000-06:00

A mix of topics....

We played a test game of "Grand FoB", a grand tactical adaptation of FoB, last night. It worked well, and I've made some adjustments based on the game. Essentially each infantry unit is a regiment/brigade size unit of around 3000 men. The command group is the division; players are more concerned with the employment of the assets inside their division than they are in worrying about individual brigades. I think this will be a quick playing grand tactical alternative to tactical FoB games that will allow "big" battles, while still having enough tactical decisions to interest players.

I've toyed with the scope of the new ancients game "Field of Battle: Ancients", for quite some time. I've always been fascinated with the medieval era, and I'm now planning on including both ancients and medievals into the rule set. Along with the time expansion will come a new name "Pulse of Battle". The rules will cover from Egypt/Hittite through the Wars of the Roses. As for army lists, I'll hit the major combatants, and focus on wars/combinations of armies, rather than obscure lists for flaming pig psiloi from the eastern Balkans, etc. I have to admit that the reason I've been putting off writing this set of rules is that I absolutely DETEST making up army lists. Its tiresome and tedious...but necessary in its own way.

There are a couple more reasons for the expansion of time eras covered in the new set.
1) I think its benefit to Piquet customers to consolidate the eras into a single product
2) I'm not sure I have 2 complete new rulesets worth of writing in me!

That's all for now...

Random Thoughts....And a Month without Blog Posts!

2010-03-26T22:01:00.000-06:00

Wow - a month has gone by since my last blog post....where does time go?

Stuff going on in the last month:

Played another pair of Field of Battle:Ancients test games. I think the rules are getting pretty tight, and provide a unique ancient game. I'm at the point that I have to start the rule writing process, which is always ridiculously hard to start, but pretty engrossing when I'm into it.   With a 5 month old puppy, its hard to find blocks of time to devote to writing.

I've been pondering another campaign method to generate battles, set up terrain, and provide "campaignish" feeling decision points for the players. I'm looking for something that is relatively paperwork free, fast and easy, and sustainable over the course of the campaign, while providing interesting and unique game situations. Oh - is that all???   We'll see how well that works out...

I'll be trying out a test run of "Grand FoB" next Saturday - a scaled up FoB with some minor tweaks to fit the grand tactical scale.

I read Steven Pressfield's novel "Killing Rommel" on the way home from a business trip Tuesday night (its funny how much reading you can get in when you're stuck on a plane for almost 3 hours waiting for your gate to open up as you sit parked off the main runway in a howling snowstorm). GREAT book.   I hated to see it end - highly recommended!

I've been doing some thinking about what I want to game, and what "periods" of wars interest me.   I am fascinated by WWI, but primarily 1914 and 1918. I am similarly deeply consumed by WW2, but I always seem to be reading about the Normandy campaign. Somehow, I feel guilty that I don't want to do ALL of the wars - surely there are gameable situations in 1916-17, and in Germany in 1945, or in Italy in 1944?

But - for some reason, those situations just depress me. The dreariness of the situation just beats me down at times. On the other hand, the intriguing tactical problems in 1914, and the hard fighting in the Normandy campaign (before the German army was shattered) continue to fascinate me.

I think I've reached a "eureka" moment - why do I feel an obligation to "have" to game the other periods in those, or any other wars? I don't "have" to do the whole war - I can just do what I want! While that may seem painfully obvious, for me, the collectors mentality of having to "have it all" has always meant that I had to do the whole war, if I did the war. But - if I'm just doing a part of it - I can concentrate on the part that I personally find the most interesting. Maybe my personal obligation to do "all" the war periods stems from writing rules....I write the rules, research the periods...and then feel obligated to do it "all".   Well...no more! I'm going to do the stuff I want! So that means:   1914, WW2 Normandy, and avoiding the dreariness of pure trench warfare (which is a fascinating study, but I don't necessarily want to game it) and the inevitability of winter 1944/1945 WW2 gaming.

Anyway - its my hobby, with my toys, in my basement.   I'll do it and have fun!!

Game Design Discussion

2010-02-28T13:02:00.000-07:00

Game design is an interesting topic...does a designer have a specific methodology in mind when he designs a game or set of rules?   Does he have a design philosophy?

There are many game designers that I admire, for different reasons: Frank Chadwick, Sam Mustafa, Rich Hasenauer, Buck Surdu, Phil Barker. It is sort of like movie reviewers - you may not agree with everything they write, but you value their opinion - either because it agrees with yours or you know what to avoid because they recommend it!

Chadwick I admire because of his thorough, detailed period knowledge. While I don't necessarily agree with how things are done in his rules, I completely admire his knowledge and design decisions based on his philosophy. If you ever get a chance to hear him present at an HMGS East convention, I urge you to attend.

Mustafa - I admire his rules because they are usually unique; a different way of approaching a problem. He's also a very good writer, and his meanings are pretty clear.

Hasenauer - all you have to do is say "Fire and Fury"; that says it all. One of the cleanest sets of rules out there.

Buck Surdu - the "Look Sarge No Charts" series of rules has a number of unique concepts; always interesting to me.

Phil Barker - the legend! What an evolution from the WRG ancients rules up through DBA/DBM. To me, DBA was such a radical departure from his previous work that this alone earns him the respect due a unique designer.

If you look at each of these - they had a specific vision in mind when they wrote their sets. I don't think they spent much time consciously worrying about defining those visions, they just knew what they wanted to have in their games. Is there a mechanic that is historical? Unhistorical? Valid? Invalid? Unique? Most likely, they knew where they wanted to get and just played around until they got there...I think there are not too many "eureka!" moments in game design...most games are 5% inspiration, and 95% persperation. It takes a LOT of development time to clean up mechanics, get the text clean, make sure there aren't inconsistencies.

My personal design philosophy can most easily be summed up as "Comparative Recognizable Patterny".

Recognizable Patterny means that you HAVE to include things that "feel right" for the period. For example, you HAVE to have lines, columns, and squares if you're doing a tactical Napoleonic game. You HAVE to have unit weight/usage classifications if you're doing an ancient or medieval game, you HAVE to have different gun weights and capabilities if you're doing WW2. If you're going to do a grand tactical game, you HAVE to emphasize fog of war and command decisions.

Comparative means that I select an average baseline for the "normal" troop capability, and then you rate/adjust everybody else up or down from there. Figure out the %'s that you want to have for success at any task for an "average" unit/individual/weapon, and then you're set. As an example - a Sherman's 75mm gun is better than a short 50mm gun, but worse than an 88 (duh). Crude example, but you get the idea.

I prefer results that force players into decisions - whether that is movement or combat. Random sequence decks are my preferred method of limiting the choices a player has in controlling his force at any point in time, but there are certainly other methods to do that. I prefer combat methods that incorporate morale results - I find separate morale test procedures to be tiresome and outdated. I want the players to be placed in the role of commanders and leaders - they should be involved in rallying, directing, leading...most definitely not involved in the process of testing a morale level of a unit.   There is no single rule process in a set of rules that I dislike more than a separate morale test process. Barf.

Movement - I enjoy randomization of movement, but with that movement being influenced by command and situational environments. Fixed movement I find to be boring and predictable. That has nothing to do with being "historical" or "unhistorical", but its just a personal choice. I've experimented with Horizon Movement in Les Grognards 2nd edition, and think it has some merit depending on the game period, scenario, and game group. It certainly moves games to conclusions quickly, but it doesn't give some players the "bit by bit" development of a game that they enjoy. However, it is a great game design exercise.

I also firmly believe in simple, simple, simple. It is WAY too easy to just add a modifier, or a process, to handle another bit of information. I avoid "double jeopardy" - never modify the same thing twice...for example: if you think rough terrain should slow troops, you could modify the move rate, or you could modify the leadership modifier for movement rates. BUT - DON'T do them both! That just adds time to the process, proves that you can think up modifiers and clumsy processes...avoid that!

I base my designs on a LOT of reading and research to identify "recognizable patterny" to make sure the game feels "right". While there is no absolute ruler of "historicity", you know what "feels right" when you play the game. You don't need a PHD to find that out, you don't need somebody to tell you how right or wrong this or that game process or concept is - if you like it, you'll play it. If you find a game's processes irritating or to produce results you don't agree with, you won't play it.

I don't worry about placing rule design into the category of "art", "science", or "history". Its a little bit of all. One of the most overlooked, vital aspects of rule writing is just that - the WRITING. Rule writing is not like writing a novel - its much more a technical writing exercise, once the rules concepts and processes are established. If the writing isn't clean, clear, and precise, it doesn't matter what concepts are being introduced - the result is too garbled to be useful to anyone.

It ain't rocket science!

Field of Battle: Ancients - Last Photos

2010-02-13T21:40:00.000-07:00

The Barbarian's rout! Take that!

That is a nice looking unit...back in the woods that they came from

Meanwhile, a few hundred years earlier, and 2 1/2 feet down the table, the Carthaginian elephant reaches the Roman line.

Nice!

Another view

An overview in the Late Roman Game

I'd be nervous if I was in that cavalry unit....

Roman Leader - beautiful

Field of Battle: Ancients Playtest Photos

2010-02-10T21:15:00.000-07:00

I'm too lazy to flip back and forth to identify the specific game pictures - so the game report photos will be intermixed between the 15mm Punic wars game and the 25mm Late Roman game.

Late Roman - army deployed. Note the mixed spear/armor units.

Carthaginian phalanx rolls forward

View from behind the Carthaginian forces towards the Romans (booooooo). The red pipe cleaners indicate the pilum capability of the units. I think there might be less dominating markers! In this game, each stand is a unit.

Late Roman cavalry square off. Units are multiple stands in this game.

The lighter cavalry routs!

View from behind one of the Late Roman armies. Love the look of these guys!

The Carthaginian line starts to fragment. The Roman line looks organized...and ominous.

Barbarian unit prepares to engage in shock combat against a ballista.

I'll post the balance of the photos later. The 15mm armies were provided by John Mumby and Terry Shockey; the 25mm armies were provided by Greg Cornell and Eric Miller.

Both games lasted approximately 3 hours and had a definite conclusion. I'm currently working on the FoB: Ancients rules, hoping to publish by later this year.

Field of Battle: Ancients Playtest

2010-02-07T00:03:00.001-07:00

Its late....so just a quick post for now.

The two simultaneous games of FoBA went very well. I made extensive notes on items to clean up, but overall I'm very happy with the rules right now.

One game was late Romans vs. late Romans (25mm)...I think it was 8 units vs. 9 units. The other was Roman vs. Carthaginian (15mm)...around 24 units per side.

Late Roman game at this end of table...Punic game at far end. From left to right - Romans: Greg Rold, Terry Shockey. Carthaginians: Ed Meyers, John Mumby. The line of trees in the center of the table is used to separate the two games.

Late Roman infantry. Not sure what they're late for. Maybe they should leave earlier.

(figures painted by Eric Miller)

Enough for now. More pictures and game thoughts later.

Making Rivers

2010-02-04T21:44:00.001-07:00

I use 1/8" thick heavy duty vinyl tile to make my rivers, among other things. See the previous post about this vinyl tile. It sits flat, never warps, and its pretty easy to work with. Another great benefit is that the tiles are 12" x 12", and are exactly cut. That means that you can have exact length river sections that are 12" long, and that have a finished, machined quality cut on the end so that the segments match perfectly.

This is the backside of a finished river section. Note that the piece is 12" long - the ends are the original factory cut edges. I use a bandsaw to cut the wavy edges, but you could just as easily use a utility knife.

A good sturdy utility knife with a sharp blade makes it easy to scribe the line or pattern that you want to cut. If you're cutting a straight line (for a road, for example), use a steel rule. Watch your fingers - the utility knife blade will slice through very easily if you're not careful. It's not tricky; just don't be a moron when it comes to making the scribe lines. Its better to make several shallow cuts than it is to try to make a single deep cut. You're not trying to cut all the way through the tile; just scribe it. After you've scribed the line you wish to cut along, just hold onto the tile - one hand on each side of the scribe line, and start to bend the tile along the scribe line. The tile will snap along the line. The snapped edge will leave a bit of a rough edge. You can either leave as is or just clean it up a bit with a quick pass of a piece of sandpaper.

Now that you have the basic river shape, you need to finish it. I choose to add banks to each edge of the river to give it the illusion of depth. After trying a few different methods, I settled on using caulking to form the bank shape, with sand and grit sprinkled onto the caulking to give it texture.

My narrow rivers are 1 1/2" wide, with 1/4" wide banks. This leaves 1" for the "water" section of the rivers. I mark the 1/4" out with a felt tip pen on each end, and then "eyeball" the width along the rest of the piece as I lay out a light bead of caulk along the length. Don't use too much - you can always add more. After you've squeezed out caulk along the river bank, go back with your index finger and smooth it out so it makes a nice edge on the river water side and also doesn't blob over the outside edge. While the caulk is still wet, immediately sprinkle sand/grit onto it and then put it aside and let dry.

I use Dap Kwik Seal caulk. It comes in an easy to use squeeze tube, so you don't need to use a caulking gun as you would for a standard tube of caulking. That also means you avoid the hassle of trying to control flow, and its easy to just cap it off when you're done and then take the cap off the next time and use it again without any need to remove blockages in the tube. It's acrylic, so it takes paint well. Caulk is also flexible to an extent, so it can handle drooping or bending of the vinyl tile without cracking or coming off. Great stuff.

A view of the end of the river piece. The banks are just finished with the colors and method that I use to finish my figure's bases.

Some finished river sections. The water is a blue black gloss wall and trim paint that I bought at Home Depot. Search through the paint chips until you find the color that suits your image of what a river should look like. I've tried brownish or greenish shades and didn't like them. For some reason, my brain expects water to be blue. Go figure!

As an aside, shouldn't they rename "Home Depot" as "Wargamer's Depot"? I buy quite a bit of terrain and project supplies from there...but that's another post!

To finish off the water, I apply about 3 coats of Minwax acrylic polyurethane to the river water areas. The poly is odorless and each to use and clean. I use an el cheapo brush - maybe 99 cents. Both the poly and brush are purchased at....drumroll please.......Home Depot!

And that's all that there is to it. I want to make wider sections for some major rivers to be used in WWII assault river crossings, some beach and ocean sections for amphibious actions....the sky is really the limit with what can be made.

We have a game (actually 2 games simultaneously) this Saturday night. They'll be test games of Field of Battle: Ancients. I'll post again after those games with some pictures and a report on how the rules worked.

Vinyl Tile for Terrain Items

2010-01-18T22:00:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post for now. I use heavy duty industrial grade vinyl tile (12"x12") for quite a few terrain items - roads, rivers, town sections, woods areas. I'll post separately to describe how I make the different pieces. For now, here are a couple of shots of the material.

This is the box the tiles come in. I buy mine at Home Depot. Tiles cost around $.50 each. Eat your wheaties before you pick up the box. Individually the tiles aren't heavy...but we're talking about a box full of solid vinyl. The box is heavy....

I use the tan"ish" tiles. They hold paint well and give a good base to take most colors.

1859 Battle Report - Final

2010-01-14T21:48:00.000-07:00

Continuing the battle's photo report.....

"I'm sure I used to have a Command Group over here"

Austrian infantry on Class I hill takes some UI losses and falls back

Fall back?? That's a rout!

The Austrians have broken the French defence of the ridge

Vied from the French side. That sure is a lot of white coming this way!

General Shockey needs longer arms

Austrians on the bridge! Austrians on the bridge!

Austrians stream for the bridge as the Austrian brigade clears the ridge (photo, top)

French reserves move forward to plug the hole

And....Austriams streaming to the rear!

Soon after this point, the Austrian players lost their own personal morale as their army went to 0 AMPs. The French only had 1 AMP left when the Austrians hit 0 AMP (unknown to the Austrians). The Austrians forfeited the game...and seemed surprised that they had the French so close to folding.

An interesting game. I'm getting intrigued by "bathtubbing" and scaling an historical battle down and trying to capture some key elements. I think it is more an art than a science, and I claim no expertise at this point. I look forward to getting better at it, though....

1859 Battle Report Continued

2010-01-12T21:44:00.000-07:00

Austrian Infantry Advance

Austrian Right Flank Advances Over Class I Hill

French Infantry Defending "Sunken Lane"

Austrians Pressure End of the Ridge Defending the Bridge

French Commander of Two Infantry Battalions Defending the Bridge

French Defending the Bridge (those are some BAAAAAD Dudes.....)

Austrian attack suffers losses (3 UI on front unit)

More to follow!

Family Addition and Latest Game

2010-01-10T13:47:00.001-07:00

My blog posts have been few and far between lately. On January 1, we picked up our newest family member - Toby, a 10 week old, 6.2 lb Jack Russell Terrier. He's taken a lot of attention to get him acclimated to the house, my wife and I, and our other dog (Bailey - a 9 year old West Highland Terrier). But - he's picking things up quickly! He's really a smart dog. Its a kick to watch the two dogs play. Having an older dog to teach and wear out Toby is really working out well.

Bailey (left) and Toby (right) at play

On to the game! I'd prepared a "disguised" (very poorly disguised, I admit) Antietam scenario that I ported over to the Franco-Austrian War of 1859. The table featured a sunken lane and a bridge crossing into some bluffs/wooded areas. The Austrians had a total of 24 units (16 infantry battalions, 5 artillery batteries, and 3 cavalry regiments. The French had only 10 infantry battalions and 2 artillery battalions onboard at game start, with a 3 infantry/1 artillery brigade arriving on the 5th move card. The French started with 13 morale points; the Austrians with 22 (I'm working from memory - those totals may be off by a point here or there).

The table and initial set up. Austrians on the right, French on the left.

The French defense arranged above the bridge. Class III hill and woods on the left in the picture, Class II hill and Class III woods on the right in the picture

View from the Austrian right. 2/3 of the French command look on confidently.

Austrian heavy artillery deployed on the Austrian right flank

Grenze infantry march to the attack

French defense arrayed in the class II woods on their left flank

More to follow as the battle moves forward!