Playtesting From Shako to Coal-scuttle

Started by Leman, 17 January 2019, 03:31:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Leman

Having at last got the living room sorted I have been able to set up a wargames table again, at waist height as well  #:-S. I decided to christen it with a playtest of Ivan Sorensen's C19th rules, From Shako to Coal-scuttle, available as a down load from Nordic Weasle. He is upfront that these rules have been influenced by Neil Thomas' rules, but they are more nuanced at the basic level, can have other elements added to them and have scenario and campaign ideas included, as well as  period specific army ideas (not army lists as such). There are two types of army building systems as well, and all in 50 pages, so Black Powder this is not.

My initial attraction to these rules was the unusual role that the dice play. Each army has a number of command dice to use at the start of the turn (I-GO-U-GO) determined by type of army and status of the commander. Units are limited - 12 to 15. The command dice are rolled at the start of the turn and all 1s and 6s are allocated to the commander. The 6s are used to recover disarray (or permit rapid fire); the 1s are used to enable shock action: cross difficult terrain, allow cavalry to move more quickly, initiate a charge, recover silenced guns, form up dispersed troops. As one dice can only be allocated to one unit some difficult choices have to be made. Some units will be left stranded on the wrong side of difficult terrain because an opportunity has arisen to deal a devastating charge at the enemy with other units.

After these actions have been taken normal movement and firing takes place. From my reading of the rules this can be done in any order I assume because this allows for the movement of a blocking unit to enable another unit to fire. Units cannot both move and fire. Movement is pretty standard dependent on formation, and crossing light terrain (a marsh requires shock action to cross, whereas a ploughed field only requires a dice roll which may knock one or more inches off the move).

It is firing and combat where the dice rolls influence the direction and pace of the battle. E.g. Prussian 1870 artillery fires with four dice. 2,3,4, have no effect, but 6 will remove a base, 5 will cause one point of disarray and 1 will result in a 2" fall back. Multiple 6s etc are cumulative, so 1,4,6,6 will result in 2 base losses and a 2" push back, but no disarray. The same results occur in charge combat. However, this is the only occasion where the passive player gets to intervene, being able to fire to stop a charge, throw the enemy back and disarray him. This time it is with a score of 6, and again 6s are cumulative.

To enable the game to flow smoothly the sequence of play chart should be followed and each unit does everything it should before another unit acts, so first units can rally off one or more points of disarray, then a unit using shock action is activated. Let's suppose it declares a charge, then everything to do with that charge is carried out before another unit can be activated, including the combat if the charge goes in.

My thoughts on the game so far. After 6 moves (12 maximum is suggested) I am enjoying this novel approach, and it certainly makes for an uncomplicated solo game. I set up a typical FPW scenario of French defending a town behind a ridge. The Prussians, as per usual, have a better quality army and commander, with more command dice, more cavalry and more artillery. The French though have caused a few problems for the Prussians whose initial approach foundered under chassepot and mitrailleuse fire, falling back while more artillery was brought up to pound the French position, causing disarray, French fall backs and the elimination of the mitrailleuse. Thus far giving an historical feel to this fracas.

My only gripe is with the amount of info one is expected to hold in one's head, which could have been included on the QRS, e.g. the different shock actions,  the effects of disarray, counter battery fire and halting a charge. I think there is enough space on the QRS for me to do a little cut and paste to solve this problem. The alternative is to note on the QRS the page numbers where this info is to be found (preferably before laminating the sheet).  :-[

Conclusion: if you like the brevity of Neil Thomas' style but would like a little more meat on the bones plus some campaign ideas, then these rules are ideal for this period. However, if you want to play a specific historical scenario then BBB is still the best bet (plus AoF for the ACW). I would envisage using these rules at battalion or regimental level in conjunction with something like the Grant/Asquith scenarios.









The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

fsn

Interesting.

One of the things I have a problem with in some rule systems is the removal of basic initaitive from local commanders. For example, why should a battallion commander not put his unit into a square when he is menaced by enemy cavalry?  Surely a local commander would be doing his utmost to reform a disorded unit?

To my mind there are some actions that should be the automatic response of a unit commander. Being attacked by cavalry? Form square. Being shot at? Shoot back. Where the command comes in is for the higher echelon commander to tell the infantry to stay in line (Yes, I'm looking at you, Orange), or to charge instead of shoot.

The fact that the Saxon Cuirassiers on the other side of the battlefield want to go out in a blaze of glory is not going to stop me pulling my battallion back into column. That's my job as a battallion commander. If the Brigadier wants to trot over with a few "huzzahs!" and a "well done boys", that might help things on a bit, but I won't wait for orders to do what's right for my lads.
Lord Oik of Runcorn (You may refer to me as Milord Oik)

Oik of the Year 2013, 2014; Prize for originality and 'having a go, bless him', 2015
3 votes in the 2016 Painting Competition!; 2017-2019 The Wilderness years
Oik of the Year 2020; 7 votes in the 2021 Painting Competition
11 votes in the 2022 Painting Competition (Double figures!)
2023 - the year of Gerald:
2024 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Leman

TBH these rules are not designed for those who wish to throw out skirmish lines, form square, form double line, form an attack column etc. (an aspect of wargaming that doesn't appeal to me and one reason I didn't play Napoleonic for 5 decades). In FSTC there are only three formations - advancing, which allows a unit to move quickly but reduces firepower, battle which reduces speed but increases firepower, and dispersed which is a stationary, defensive formation. During a movement phase the battalion/regimental commander has the opportunity to adopt the appropriate formation for his situation, thus the player needs to anticipate what his opponent may be intending to do next move. The shock actions are commands for only a few specified actions, which for the vast majority of troops on the table are to initiate a charge or to move through difficult terrain. The unit commander who has not been given a shock action still has the opportunity to change formation and move or fire. See photo 4 above - the Prussian unit commander became aware of approaching French cavalry to his right flank. He used his move to change formation to battle and then face the flank. In the next move the French Chasseurs d'Afrique charged. The Prussian used defensive fire (3 dice) and rolled one 6. This threw the cavalry back half their charge move and caused one point of disarray. In the Prussian turn the unit elected to fire (5 dice and rolled two 5s and a 6. This resulted in the C d A losing one stand and receiving two more points of disarray. In the next French turn the Chasseurs a Cheval got one shock action to charge (the only command 6 achieved that turn). I interpreted this as the C a C coming to the rescue of the C d A. Unfortunately once again the Prussian defensive fire was good enough to achieve a 6, throwing them back and giving them one point of disarray. Sounds to me like the Prussian unit commander has the situation well under control.
The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

Techno

How DO you pronounce Shako ?

Shay - co...... Or

Shack -Oh ?

Cheers - Some one who is close to putting the MIL in a home, whether she likes it or not. (I've totally  had enough). ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X(

fsn

Quote from: Techno on 17 January 2019, 05:17:12 PM
How DO you pronounce Shako ?

Shay - co...... Or

Shack -Oh ?

Cheers - Some one who is close to putting the MIL in a home, whether she likes it or not. (I've totally  had enough). ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X( ~X(
I would say Shack-oh. If you ask Google it says Shay-co.


Sorry, Leman, I was making a more general point, using Napoleonics because after 1815, I don't really start to get interested until 1939. Also, I'm not having a go at these rules per se, just trying to make a point that batallion commanders are not without their own initiative. I can understand commanders being a benefit to rallying, and literally spurring on, but there are some actions that IMHO a battalion commander should be allowed to undertake without orders from above.  To me a battallion commander will try and rally his troops without sanction from above, may choose to order rapid fire, and will cross a marsh ... just slowly.


Lord Oik of Runcorn (You may refer to me as Milord Oik)

Oik of the Year 2013, 2014; Prize for originality and 'having a go, bless him', 2015
3 votes in the 2016 Painting Competition!; 2017-2019 The Wilderness years
Oik of the Year 2020; 7 votes in the 2021 Painting Competition
11 votes in the 2022 Painting Competition (Double figures!)
2023 - the year of Gerald:
2024 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Leman

I think part of the problem is that most wargame rules, certainly in the past, have been somewhat formulaic, with orders being passed down the chain of command. Perhaps if I quote verbatim it will give a clearer idea of the author's intention :

"Shock actions reflect two things in particular:
First, they reflect actions that it takes significant skill, determination or local leadership to pull off in the heat of battle.
Second, they reflect actions that are frequently decisive and tend to occur at pivotal moments of battle.

As such players are severely limited in how many they can carry out"


The 1s and 6s on the command dice rolling is simply a mechanism to enable the above to happen, rather than have every unit dashing about doing exactly what it wants a la DBM. The mechanisms of these rules are also designed so that a decision can be reached in a reasonable length of time without having  the situation where  a single turn can last an hour or more. That style of game suits certain types of gamers. I am not of that type. To paraphrase Greg Wagman in his design philosophy appendix in AoF - if you don't like speed and simplicity in a game, then you will probably not enjoy this one.
The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

Leman

I am of the shack-o persuasion. But who is to say which is correct; after all we have Vietnam and Vietnaarm, pleese and poh-leese, zebra and zeebra, etc. not to mention the infamous scone - is it sconn or scone? Is it Shrewsbury or Shrowsbury? One thing's for absolute certain though - nobody, but nobody, says potahto.
The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

Malbork

Thnaks for the interesting review Leman. 

I may give these a closer look. Iave Nordic Weasel's rules for the Russian Civil War period (October Hammer) and they give an enjoyable game which seems reasonably realistic (whatever that might mean) to me. And i think that is the main thing; Just need to get some more figures to bulk the forces out as they look a bit thin on the ground - which again may be realistic but which I don't find aesthetically pleasing ! :'(

Last Hussar

How basing independent are they? What does the basic unit represent? Also why am I looking at ANOTHER set of rules given that I've just ordered £70 of bases from Leon for Fields of Glory? ;D :'(
I have neither the time or the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

GNU PTerry

Duke Speedy of Leighton

You may refer to me as: Your Grace, Duke Speedy of Leighton.
2016 Pendraken Painting Competion Participation Prize  (Lucky Dip Catagory) Winner

Last Hussar

 (/ ˈ ʃ æ k oʊ /, / ˈ ʃ eɪ k oʊ /, or / ˈ ʃ ɑː k oʊ /)
I have neither the time or the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

GNU PTerry

Last Hussar

I have neither the time or the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

GNU PTerry

Leman

Quote from: Last Hussar on 18 January 2019, 04:13:42 PM
How basing independent are they? What does the basic unit represent? Also why am I looking at ANOTHER set of rules given that I've just ordered £70 of bases from Leon for Fields of Glory? ;D :'(
The rules suggest between 1" to 2" frontage and from half depth to square. Also suggests that either one gun on a wider base than other troops, or, if like me, the frontage is already the same, then put two pieces together to make one unit. The abstract compromise is that a unit is what you want it to be (this totally wrecks some players minds if they insist on footprint v ranges and movement). Movement/ranges given in inches, but there may be some who would prefer to use centimetres on smaller tables or if the unit is a brigade for example. I only intend to use these rules with battalion level units, and I may try to develop a going to ground rule for the later period.
The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!