What the last rules set you played in 2022

[Ithoriel]

"I wouldn't give tuppence for all the rest"

[Westmarcher]

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Honours of War
2) What armies were confronted? - Prussia vs Austria (Seven Years War)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, even though a while since we last played them.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Two. Steve Holmes (Prussians) and me (Austrians)
6) What went well? - The whole scenario went quite well (see below)
7) What could have been improved? - Other than perhaps refine the supply wagon rule that we added, not a lot really.

We played C S Grant's "Bridge Demolition" Table Top Teaser. The background was that the Austrians had caught the Prussians off balance and were advancing down two roads towards a vital bridge with the aim of capturing it intact. Meanwhile, a Prussian rear guard with engineer support had arrived with orders to demolish it.

At the start of the game, every Prussian unit was on the field. The only Austrian units were 4 scouting squadrons of hussars.  Austrian reinforcements were expected to arrive at two entry points over the course of the first 6 turns - but, because of the confusion of marching overnight, which units will arrive where, and when, is unknown. This was covered by writing the names of each unit down, shoving them in an envelope and then throwing two D6; one D6 determined the Turn number and the other (odd or even) which entry point. It was like the oscars as we opened the envelopes on each turn.

In our game, the engineers expected to be ready to destroy the bridge by the end of Turn 12. However, to add to the excitement the Prussians had a supply wagon which, if it could arrive with more powder before this, they might be able to destroy the bridge sooner. In another extra rule, we decreed that if the engineers were hit by small arms fire on the bridge, a D6 would be thrown to see if a stray shot would set the charges off!

As host and organiser, I was concerned that the scenario might prove to be a damp squib because, as C S Grant pointed out, the game would have little purpose if it is too easy for either side to achieve their aim so the number of turns chosen to prepare the bridge for demolition was obviously going to be critical. Fortunately, thanks to the author's suggestions, it all worked out well and we had a thoroughly enjoyable game, even though I was beaten yet again by Steve.
[Not fair! They're my toys and I should be allowed to win at least once!      ]

P.s. If you're a member of the Honours of War forum, a full report with photos has been posted (if you're not a member, why not join just to see some SYW eye-candy in various scales?)

Honours of War Forum
 

[T13A]

Hi

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Age of Honor (Age of Eagles (AoE) derivative) SYW.
2) What armies were confronted? - Prussia vs Austria/Saxons
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Three
6) What went well? - Flowed pretty well, fortunately the others were familiar with the Fire and Fury rules which these are based on.
7) What could have been improved? Takes quite along time to work through the hand-to-hand die roll modifiers but will come with practice.

A couple of photos:





Cheers Paul

[FierceKitty]

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Iacta Alea Est! with mini-campaign supplement
2) What armies were confronted? - Persian Civil War (Anabasis)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Two. Not quite a standard game, however; I deliberately made mistakes to help the game resemble the battle of Cunuxa, and shall be controlling various forces in the next few linked battles.
6) What went well? - Things turned out pretty authentically. If Cyrus had won and become king, it would have been a very brief campaign.
7) What could have been improved? - There was no chocolate cake!

[T13A]

Hi

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Twilight of the Soldier King SYW.
2) What armies were confronted? - Hanoverians/Hessians/Prussians v French (Battle of Krefeld)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - No. First trial game for all of us.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - yes
5) How many players were in the game? - Four
6) What went well? - Well, I did like the fact that it was harder to unlimber artillery than limber it up.
7) What could have been improved? To be honest these rules were not my cup of tea, I thought several of the game mechanics 'fiddly' and some simply not right. That said we are giving them another go next week.

A couple of photos:





Cheers Paul

[steve_holmes_11]

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Irregular Wars
2) What armies were confronted? - Hollanders (Myself) attacking and East Indies Sultanate (Westmarcher)
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, but got confused with a couple of minor interpretations - next time will be perfect.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Two.
6) What went well? - The East Indies infantry were handled superbly.
7) What could have been improved? - Slow setup (Mainly my poor logistics) and the "Sodden ground" chance card really slowing the action.

It's been a very busy couple of weeks since the game, the summary is therefore extremely brief.

A naval landing party pushed inland, while the locals waited in ambush.
The naval guns could not keep up with the advance, so were left with an escort of sailors.
Local elephant forces harried the advance guard with light artillery, while their infantry crouched behind terrain in ambush.

Then the rain came leaving the ground sodden and all terrain rough.

Combat continued, through very slowly.
A flanking move by the Sultan's horse and some tribal scouts eliminated the cannon, their guard and captured the preacher.
The Hollanders defeated the elephants, and the ambushing native infantry won a tough battle against the Hollanders musketeers.

With mobility limited, and both sides badly reduced, the Hollanders marched back to their ships without pursuit.

An attritional draw, rather spoiled by the effects of the sodden ground card.

[Raider4]

. . . next time will be perfect . . .

A bold claim! 

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Anmd very unlikley 

[Hwiccee]

To be honest these rules were not my cup of tea, I thought several of the game mechanics 'fiddly' and some simply not right. That said we are giving them another go next week.

Paul can I ask which mechanics you found 'fiddly'? Also which were not right?

[T13A]

Hi Hwiccee

I hope this can give you an idea of where I am coming from.

Units can be Standard, large, small or tiny each representing approximately 3000 men for a large unit, to 1250 for a tiny unit, but they all have the same 'footprint' on the table. That seems odd to me.

Our 10mm SYW units (Pendraken of course!) have a frontage of approximately 10cms which meant that a 'base width' was 5cms. As a normal infantry move in line is one base width (within 'tactical' distance) that meant a normal move was just 5cms, and that is just moving straight forward. Pretty much any other move including wheeling requires a successful 'action test' (i.e. a die roll and on occasion several, one after the other). Moving in any sort of 'bad going' is half a base width i.e. 2.5cms in our case. There are occasions after combat where units are required to move a quarter of a base width i.e. 12.5mm in our case. There is an example in the rules of a unit with 'standard' mobility having to take 3 separate moves and two action tests to 'oblique' forward one move. I see from the rules that they recommend (kind of) a 'base width' of 6cms, but even if we had used that I do not think it would have made any material difference, to me that all felt 'fiddly'.

When moving into contact with an enemy unit the move can only be in a straight line (no wheeling etc.) and an 'action test' is required. Units are then moved so that they align exactly with the unit they are opposing (which unit actually moves to align depends on whether it is infantry or cavalry). Any units in 'rear support' from either side can also be moved to align with the unit they are supporting (and as far as I can see this can be any number of units in line one behind the other). The above means that you can easily have the situation that a unit moving forward into contact with an enemy unit that just 'clips' the very end of the opposing unit, successfully contacts it, and then either they or their opponents are moved bodily to conform/align with each other, moving a considerable distance from where the initial contact was made. That just does not feel right to me.

When a 'wing' (i.e. left, centre, right, reserve etc.) loses half or more of its units it has to take a morale test. Fair enough, but as far as I can see in the rules the strength of a 'wing' cannot change during a game. I can understand that the units in a 'corps' in the Napoleonic period (for example) might not change during a battle but I'm pretty sure that there were times in the Seven Years War period when a 'wing' was sent reinforcements of a number of battalions and or squadrons from another part of the field and thereby changing the original strength of the wing. Doesn't feel very Seven Years War 'ish' to me.

The above are the main issues I personally had with the rules as written, and as I mentioned we are planning on giving them another go next week. As this was our first outing with the rules I am sure we got some things wrong and I would be happily corrected if any of the above is wrong.

Cheers Paul

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Isn't practicing considered akin to cheating in some circles

No but as I said before it ruins the fun !

[Hwiccee]

Paul,

Thanks for your detailed reply. I know the system so I will try to explain the idea behind the things you mention.

I think the first thing to mention is that in these rules a 'unit' is a brigade of many battalions and squadrons which are often the units in other rules. This means you can do big battles easily but also means that you do somethings differently to rules that us a battalion as a unit. For example the first thing you mention.

Units can be Standard, large, small or tiny each representing approximately 3000 men for a large unit, to 1250 for a tiny unit, but they all have the same 'footprint' on the table. That seems odd to me.

The idea here is that a unit's footprint represents the area occupied by the battalions/squadrons represented but also the gaps between them for manoeuvre, smaller bits of terrain not worth putting on the table, etc. It is in effect the 'footprint' of a portion of the army's front. Whether a game unit is Standard/Small/Large represents how many troops are put into this area and not always the frontage of the units involved.

You also need this as in reality a single battalion would face up to a single opposing battalion even if the two are of different real sizes.

Our 10mm SYW units (Pendraken of course!) have a frontage of approximately 10cms which meant that a 'base width' was 5cms. As a normal infantry move in line is one base width (within 'tactical' distance) that meant a normal move was just 5cms, and that is just moving straight forward. Pretty much any other move including wheeling requires a successful 'action test' (i.e. a die roll and on occasion several, one after the other). Moving in any sort of 'bad going' is half a base width i.e. 2.5cms in our case. There are occasions after combat where units are required to move a quarter of a base width i.e. 12.5mm in our case. There is an example in the rules of a unit with 'standard' mobility having to take 3 separate moves and two action tests to 'oblique' forward one move. I see from the rules that they recommend (kind of) a 'base width' of 6cms, but even if we had used that I do not think it would have made any material difference, to me that all felt 'fiddly'.

The movement rules are intend to reflect the realities of linear warfare and unfortunately this is often not the case in other rules. So moving straight forward in the open is easy, doing anything else is difficult and/or risky.

You are right that infantry only move 5cm, in line, in your set up but they can make multiple moves in a turn if they wish. The Commanders can use their skill points to potentially give extra moves. Plus you might want to risk going in march column and/or using roads. Clearly moving through areas of bad going are going to slow so 'Line' units should, as in reality, avoid them or at worst go through in march column and on a road if possible.
The ¼ BW move is really just move the minimum so there is a gap between the opposing units. The exact distance doesn't effect anything.

On the action tests and manoeuvre the reality was that in linear warfare for most standard troops manoeuvring was, as mentioned, difficult and/or risky. Again something that is not often reflected in rules. Most rules allow too much manoeuvrability for this era and, for example, moving oblique forward was not to be undertaken lightly for most units. The example you mention is to show a possible sequence to try to do this but is really saying it is only to be undertaken when you are desperate & is likely to fail. But again Commanders can help here as they can give extra chances to pass action tests or give extra moves.
Generally though the early moves in a game should be fairly quickly done as units move into position, although this probably wouldn't be the case in early games you play. Similarly players should soon realise that, like in reality, you should stay in line and doing something else is a risk. You should find that the first moves will be quick as the units make simple moves and most games will take 3 to 4 hours.

When moving into contact with an enemy unit the move can only be in a straight line (no wheeling etc.) and an 'action test' is required. Units are then moved so that they align exactly with the unit they are opposing (which unit actually moves to align depends on whether it is infantry or cavalry). Any units in 'rear support' from either side can also be moved to align with the unit they are supporting (and as far as I can see this can be any number of units in line one behind the other). The above means that you can easily have the situation that a unit moving forward into contact with an enemy unit that just 'clips' the very end of the opposing unit, successfully contacts it, and then either they or their opponents are moved bodily to conform/align with each other, moving a considerable distance from where the initial contact was made. That just does not feel right to me.

This is partly practical game reasons and partly to reflect normal practice. So in reality if the units are basically coming from the front, you don't do this if the come from the flank/rear, then as they advanced they would face up 1 to 1 against there opponents. If they didn't do this then they were basically potentially giving the opponent a free open flank to attack. So while the on table move is straight ahead the individual battalions/squadrons will be 'angling across' to confront the opposing battalions/squadrons & stop non confronted enemy units from having a golden opportunity.

As far as the game is concerned you could just leave the units where they are and assume that the frontline battalions/squadrons have matched up but leave all the rest in place. Yet this then creates other problems like what if the supporting lines are now in the way. This is a problem with having brigades as units and this is a solution to this.

So think of this as the units show the general area the battalions/squadrons are operating in and the moves show the general direct. But if you could 'zoom in' to see the battalions/squadrons then they would be doing different things – like drifting. It is a similar idea with 'combat'. When 2 units are in contact the individual battalions/squadrons are not all in melee. Some might be but some will but it is assumed to be a series of actions that includes individual battalions/squadrons firing, resting, rallying, pursuing/being pursued, etc.

When a 'wing' (i.e. left, centre, right, reserve etc.) loses half or more of its units it has to take a morale test. Fair enough, but as far as I can see in the rules the strength of a 'wing' cannot change during a game. I can understand that the units in a 'corps' in the Napoleonic period (for example) might not change during a battle but I'm pretty sure that there were times in the Seven Years War period when a 'wing' was sent reinforcements of a number of battalions and or squadrons from another part of the field and thereby changing the original strength of the wing. Doesn't feel very Seven Years War 'ish' to me.

I think generally that Napoleonic armies are a lot more flexible than SYW armies. This was why 'Corps' were used and also there is more promotion on merit than in earlier times. So I would say doing this is at least as difficult as in Napoleonic times and probably a lot more difficult.
I am also struggling to think of any occasions when this actually happened in the SYW. That doesn't mean it didn't but I can't think of an occasion – can you think of one?

It is fairly common in games that units or groups of units are switched from one location to another. Ideally these will be some kind of 'Command or Wing' but could be just an individual unit/individual units. Often it is a good idea, if you can, to move a senior commander, the Army Commander perhaps, to help with this move.

In any case assuming it happened I think it is OK to swap 'wings' with a unit if you want to. There would have to be a procedure. So perhaps a Commander would have to use one of his 'command points' to switch the unit/units. They would then take an action test and if hey pass they are 'switched'. The Wing break values should then be recalculated.

The above are the main issues I personally had with the rules as written, and as I mentioned we are planning on giving them another go next week. As this was our first outing with the rules I am sure we got some things wrong and I would be happily corrected if any of the above is wrong.

I hope I have helped a little with your issues and I do think that if you play more then it will make more sense. The rules are a little different to most others and do take a few games for players to 'get it'. That said of course no one set of rules is going to be liked by everyone ☹

[Chad]

Nick & Paul

I hope you won't mind a small comment. I think one of the issues Paul is finding (and I may be wrong) is switching from a battalion based game to a brigade based game. For example, units in Soldier King will generally represent about 4 battalions in line abreast. So to wheel the brigade means that the battalion on the relevant flank will in effect have further to move than the battalions inside it. Add to that will be the need to maintain a solid front of the 4 battalions and dress lines. The need for an action test becomes a reflection of the difficulty of performing such a difficult task for a brigade as a whole. The same criteria are applicable to moving obliquely reflecting the difficulty of performing such a manouevre by 4 battalions simultaneously.

Hope that helps.

[T13A]

Hi Nick and Chad

Nick - many thanks for the detailed reply above.

Just for the record I have been playing 'brigade level' wargames (including ones that have different unit 'footprints' depending on the numbers represented) since the early 1990's (at least, and wargaming in general since the 1960's) so 'switching from a battalion based game to a brigade based game' is hardly an issue.

Regarding the difficulty of moving troops in line, I take your point (and I personally have a certain amount of prartical experience, as my ex-Sargeant Major can attest to  ), but that in itself does not mean that the method used on the wargames table to represent that has to be 'fiddly' to use my term.

but they can make multiple moves in a turn if they wish

This may well be an area that we got wrong, we were under the impression that units could only make more than one move by using the 'skill level rating' of a  general. Grateful if you could clarify the point.

Cheers Paul

 

[Hwiccee]

Paul,

Regarding the difficulty of moving troops in line, I take your point (and I personally have a certain amount of prartical experience, as my ex-Sargeant Major can attest to  ), but that in itself does not mean that the method used on the wargames table to represent that has to be 'fiddly' to use my term.

Ah so you have experience of this. The thing to bear in mind is that at this time they are just starting to do the kind of marching that is standard now. So in the game the 'Improved Mobility' guys are capable of doing something like you would have done. In most cases not as well or with as many techniques, procedures, etc. So probably not as efficiently as you managed and of course you would probably doing this kind of stuff on a nice level parade ground. They would be doing it over bumpy muddy fields with odd rocks, trees, bushes, etc in - not to mention people shooting at them and smoke everywhere. The 'Standard Mobility' units wouldn't even have many of the techniques, etc, you had and many of the things you used to manoeuvre were literally not in their drill book.

It must have been a nightmare, even compared to modern drill

On the 'fiddly' hopefully this will disappear after a few games.

This may well be an area that we got wrong, we were under the impression that units could only make more than one move by using the 'skill level rating' of a  general. Grateful if you could clarify the point.

Yes that is right.

In any case I hope you enjoy the next game you play more.


All the best,


Nick

[T13A]

Hi

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Live Free or Die, AWI.
2) What armies were confronted? - British vs Rebels. Battle of Harlem Heights.
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Pretty much, now have some answers from the authors where the rules were a bit ambiguous.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo.
6) What went well? - Despite being a relatively simple set of rules (only 4 pages) they give a good 'feel (IMHO) for the period. Very enjoyable game.
7) What could have been improved? The British light infantry were rubbish despite being elite (must have been on the bottle the night before)! 

Some photos:


British Light infantry being 'flanked' by rebel riflemen.


The 'gallant Forty-Twa! Apologies for being a bit out of focus.


His Majesty's 33rd Regiment of foot with a battalion of combined Grenadiers in column behind.


Rebels! The Hudson River in the distance behind the trees and keeping a lookout for low flying aircraft!

Cheers Paul

[Steve J]

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Black Powder II with Glory Hallelujah! supplements tweaks.
2) What armies were confronted? - Ruskian vs Ruthenia, mid 19thC imaginations.
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Pretty much,but a bit rusty in places as it's been a while since we played.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Two.
6) What went well? - The Ruthenia defence of a redoubt and wheat field, where two regiments and an artillery battery held off two Brigades for around 4-5 Turns. Very enjoyable game too.
7) What could have been improved? - Not a lot really as we enjoyed ourselves. Ruskian die rolls could have been better early on though.

[paulr]

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Big Battle DBA
2) What armies were confronted? - Two II/32a Later Carthaginian & one II/9a Syracuse in Sicily v two II/33 Polybian Roman & one II/11 Gallic
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Yes, but we hadn't played them since May
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Four
6) What went well? - A very tight enjoyable game
7) What could have been improved? - The initial charge by the Gallic cavalry

3 Gallic cavalry charged 2 Carthagian cavalry and a Numidian light horse. Expected result some recoiled elements and maybe killing the light horse. Actual result, 2 dead Gallic cavalry leaving their cavalry General facing 2 Carthagian cavalry and a Numidian light horse With the support of a couple of Roman Equites he managed to survive until the end of the game, unlike his warband

[Steve J]

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Black Powder II with Glory Hallelujah! amendments
2) What armies were confronted? - 19thC ImagiNations Europe.
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Getting back into them after a break, but pretty happy so far.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - No
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo.
6) What went well? - For a quickly knocked together game, not bad at all.
7) What could have been improved? - Both sides shooting was poor at times. Still not sure on a few rules, but all will become clearer after more games.

[collegialhoagie]

1) What ruleset did you use in your last game? - Gå På Wargames Rules for the age of Marlborough, Eugene and Charles XII, 2nd ed.
2) What armies were confronted? - Swedish vs Danish
3) Did you feel comfortable with the ruleset? - Reasonably, I've had a decent readthrough of the rules in advance, and have "rolled through" out different aspects of the mechanics.
4) and... was this the first time you used this ruleset? - Yes
5) How many players were in the game? - Solo.
6) What went well? - Two things I really enjoyed; the "command & control mechanics make for a game in itself, and are very enjoyable. I also really liked how the ebbs and flows of cavalry vs cavlary combat turned out(charges, counter-charges, a lull in hte fighting so the commanders can try to redress the ranks and try again). Plays very well for solo play fwiw
7) What could have been improved? A few situations got pretty complex rules-wise, had to go through certain aspects but will be a lesser problem next time I play them.