Field of Battle 2nd Edition Cover Peek and Other Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.