Marshal Victor and his young men decide what to do first |
To put this into context, she is a very tough egg indeed. She travels a lot, drives over to France to visit her brother a couple of times a year, and has destroyed all her former hill-walking colleagues, who have all given up trying to keep pace with her. She was on her way home from a tour of the Highlands - particularly castles and the battlefield at Culloden - and took the opportunity to visit us, and thus to visit my mother, who is in a local care home.
Recently, I sent my aunt some pictures of my miniature Battle of Marston Moor, and she was so fascinated that she asked if it would be possible to invite someone in while she was visiting, to put on another wargame, so she could witness it at first hand. Hmmm. I thought long and hard about this, being pretty certain that there would be a very short queue indeed of people volunteering to come out here simply to demonstrate a wargame for my elderly aunt. I decided the best thing to do would be to stage what would in effect be a collaborative solo game - she and I would play out a game together to see what happened. Saturday morning was pencilled in for the occasion.
I dreamed up a fictitious but credible action from Central Spain in Spring 1809, and we used a cut-down version of Commands & Colors:Napoleonics which I have used successfully in the past for very large games. Our game was sort of medium-sized. Everything went well - we had about half an hour's discussion of the situation and the rules, then the game played to a conclusion in just over 90 minutes. The French won easily, which is as it should be, and my aunt thinks that wargames are fantastic. Does anyone know of a more unlikely debutante at a wargame?
The battle takes place somewhere between Madrid and Cuenca. The initial Spanish defensive set-up was decided by a couple of dice rolls, to select from a variety of possibilities. There were a few surprising choices made as a result - choosing to set up in front of a river seemed questionable, but it gave us a nice vigorous game. The Spanish troops included a proportion of Milicias Provinciales, who were kept to the rear, and (because they are colourful and excellent fun on the battlefield, and they don't get out much) a force of guerrilleros led by the dodgy-looking Don Pedro de Gentusa.
The narrative, very briefly, is that General Cuesta has sent forward an advance guard under the Conde de Belvedere, to deny the French the crossing over the Rio Mezquino at Santiago Martir. There are a good bridge and a couple of fords; wagons and artillery cannot use the fords, so the French will save a lot of time if they can capture the bridge. Bonus Victory Points (VPs) are available to the French for possession of any part of the town, the bridge and for each ford. The French will not gain VPs for the elimination of any of the guerrillero units. 9 points wins the day.
The French are commanded by Marshal Victor, Duc de Belluno (or "General Perrin" as he is known here), and he has brought forward his own advance guard in attempt to secure the river crossing. Imagine his disappointment when he arrives and learns that Belvedere is already there...
Victor has the infantry divisions of Leval (Germans) and Sebastiani (French) from IV Corps, and some cavalry from the Reserve under La Tour-Mauburg. Belvedere has the divisions of Del Parque and Portago and a brigade of cavalry under Ramos de Silva, plus Gentusa's fragile irregulars.
Victor has 15000 infantry, 1000 cavalry and 16 guns; Belvedere has 10400 infantry, 1000 cavalry and 12 guns, plus about 1600 irregulars, whom he sticks behind his left flank, to help out if everything else collapses...
Along the French line, from their left. The infantry on this side are Sebastiani's division, Leval's Germans at the far end. |
...so he commenced a demonstration against the (stronger) Spanish right flank, to discourage Belvedere from shifting any troops to support his left... |
At this point, the French only had to march forward; taking possession of the two fords would be enough to get up to 9 VPs and win the day |
Excellent story. I assume that you are introducing Shirley to Field of Battle this weekend ? :)
ReplyDeleteNay - she went back home on the 10:27 this morning. I was pleased to see her, but I have to rest a while now - I really wish I had her energy.
DeleteOn the FoB front, there is indeed a battle scheduled for a few weeks hence. More soon...
Lovely game and nice to see Shirley take such an interest.
ReplyDeleteHi Norm - yes - it was fun. I've had a lot going on lately, and there hasn't been much wargaming. Hope to get in another game next week.
DeleteFunny thing playing with deliberately simple rules - it's mostly huge fun - not because it's a brainless bash, but because you don't get bogged down, and everything moves along fast enough to maintain the excitement. I think that's why I took up the hobby, though I can hardly remember. I was reading a magazine article this week by a guy who claims that the most important thing in wargaming is historical realism. Now I can't just flatly disagree with the writer, but it occurred to me that I've been through all that before, and it just about killed my interest. First off, the "realism" is usually either illusory or else reflects the players' incomplete idea of what it should be like. [To misquote Howard Whitehouse, if the game does not threaten to disembowel the players, drown them in swollen rivers or give them dysentery then it isn't realistic anyway...]. Secondly, warfare is enormously complicated - to make it into a game which reflects everything sounds like an impossibility to me, though it might be a useful direction to push in. I am much happier with the phrase "historically reasonable" than "realistic"!
Anyway, on Saturday it was a good, fast, lowbrow game capable of being understood by a complete novice, it was very entertaining and involving, and the narrative it generated is pretty much "historically reasonable" in my book!
Hope things good with you. MSF.
A smart looking game, and playing both sides is always a good move to more or less guarantee a win. Hats off to Shirley!
ReplyDeleteHi Ian - yes, it was good fun. I suspect that I am more than capable of failing to win even if I play both sides. This scenario was a bit suicidal for the Spanish, but with a few tweaks it is maybe worth keeping in the pile for the future! The stripped down version of CCN is deliberately minimalist, but for very big games it is very useful. If/when we do Big Salamanca this would be a recommendation for rules. The game just flies.
DeleteDavid from Suffolk appears to be having some grief with his Google account - he emailed this comment:
ReplyDelete“Yes what a nice looking game, a lovely showpiece! What was the audience reaction?
Regarding rules, surely the holy grail is to keep them as simple as possible, while retaining that 'realistic' feel.
'The secret of rule-writing lies in the ability to be able to take a detail of movement, fire effect, etc, study it, stretch it to its ultimate in an effort to cover all possibilities and then to simplify if until a playable rule emerges. So often, this simplification is ignored.'
( Charles Wesencraft - of course! ) “
Hi David - my visitor had never seen a wargame before - she was pretty much bowled over by most aspects of the whole deal, and I think the visual aspect was part of that. She appeared very intrigued by the figure:men ratio - the idea that this group of toys on the table represented 30-odd thousand real men put things into proportion. I guess I'm sufficiently familiar with this idea for it to have lost its novelty a bit.
DeleteWesencraft - yes indeed. I'm a big sympathiser with the simplification idea. The classic quote (and I can't even remember who it was from - maybe Peter Young?) was about rifle ranges: if your rifles should fire a bit further than your muskets, let them fire a little further; it doesn't actually matter exactly HOW MUCH further as long as the game gives sensible results - our data is almost certainly unreliable anyway.
I also received an email from Tattie Bogle, who wishes to make the important point that this game had nothing to do with wargaming, and that if I choose to play trivial kids' boardgames that is my privilege, but I am doing nobody any favours by claiming they are proper wargames. Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteI think there may be a problem with the references to Peter Young and Charles Wesencraft. Whatever, I am grateful for his opinion, and am happy to announce that he is in no danger of being invited to any kind of game here, so he may continue on his True Path, untroubled. Respect, bro.
Good on you Foy. What a wonderful reason for a fine looking game. French victory too, no wonder she is a convert, haha!!
ReplyDelete