Promise for more frequent posts!

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

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

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

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.