 |
| Prussian advance |
 |
| French destroy the Prussian center |
 |
Prussians close in on the French right flank |
Thursday, September 2, 2010
FPW Game - Quick Report
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.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Marker Thoughts
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!
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!
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Black Hills Rides
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!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Victory Conditions Are Stupid
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Hagelberg Part III
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!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Hagelberg Part II
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.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Battle of Hagelberg, 1813
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....
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)