Godinot's brigade have a think about their diversionary attack on the village - Von Alten with the KGL light infantry are in residence... |
The tweaked rules are currently still in a state of flux - the main features are that they do not use the C&CN cards (they use a dice-based activation/initiative system), and they do not enforce strict alternation of moves, but they do use (most of) the main C&CN movement and combat systems. Until they are more stable, I don't really want to say too much about the rules themselves, though I will make some observations of a general nature at the end of this post. The important thing I wish to make clear at the moment is that the tweaked version is not intended as an improvement on original C&CN, nor a correction; it is merely a modified cousin of the game to suit specific kinds of wargames that I seem to be very interested in, so there is no need for anyone to rush to defend the original game, nor to pitch in from the other side, to write it off. Oh yes - my working title for the modified game is "Ramekin". This has no special significance or merit apart from the fact that it amuses me, and it stops me calling it "Vive l'Empereur" or "The Vivandiere's Moustache" or similar.
These rules, in their evolving form, were recently used for the Eggmuhl game here, and for the demo game I set up for my aunt (yes, all right, all right).
This midweek I had planned to set up a solitaire playtest game to do some more refinement (or, as is often the case, to abandon some of the most recent brilliant innovations, since they might simply be a waste of time!). Playtesting is a necessary investment of effort, of course, but playtesting on a solo basis has hazards of its own, since the writer knows what he intended the rules to mean, and how they were supposed to work, and will tend to fail to spot the big holes in them during solo play. Thus I was doubly delighted to have a collaborator yesterday - Count Goya came to help out.
I set up a biggish game based on Albuera, which is a battle of which I had limited understanding previously, and one which is noted for the intensity of the fighting, and the fact that it could have worked out in a number of ways - in fact you might say that it was several different battles, fought successively, in different directions.
I did a lot of reading (so did Goya), and set up a game on my bigger (10'4" x 5', 17 hexes x 9) tabletop. I did some work to sort out which bits of the complex OOBs actually appeared in the field, and - though the numbers of units I fielded didn't match the original battle, the implied numbers of troops were pretty close. [Thus, for example, Girard's Division in my game was 5 battalions, which is about 4000 men, which is correct, though in the original battle these men were spread over 9 battalions.]
I read over, but did not use, the published C&CN Albuera scenario. My game was somewhat larger, and my map was rather more closely based on fact (again, this is not a criticism of anything). We started the game at the point where Beresford (or someone on Beresford's staff) notices that the French are not really serious about attacking the town of Albuera itself - this is a diversion, and the main part of Soult's army has performed a smart left hook, so the principal attack is on the Spanish troops on the Allied right. Thus Stewart's 2nd Division, with Colborne's brigade in front, are sent marching to the right, to cover the Spaniards' exposed flank.
Albuera is renowned for having some key incidents which may not fit with normal wargame rules. Most famously, the French light cavalry - notably the Vistula Lancers - wrecked Colborne's troops, who failed to form square (because Stewart and/or Beresford ordered them to stay in line to maximise firepower, or because there may or may not have been a violent rainstorm which obscured their view and damped their powder, or because they didn't expect the cavalry to be out there on the flank, or for some other reason). It is possible to incorporate some chance card type decision point - I confess I don't care for rigging a game in that way. As a gesture towards history, we adopted a simple dice-test for any infantry wishing to form square - just for the day.
I'm not going to step through the AAR in more detail than comes from the photos - we were not attempting to re-enact anything - Albuera served primarily as an entertaining context for some playtesting. There were some interesting historical parallels in the game - some worked the opposite way to the real battle, of course, and some worked the "correct" way, if in a slightly different manner. We ran out of time, though the French appeared to be winning when it was time for dinner. Whether or not the Allies realised they were beaten, of course, is the critical issue...
Pin-up unit - the dreaded Vistula Lancers. In fact they had a remarkably bad day, and were eliminated very quickly. So much for history. |
Over on the Allied left, and in the centre, the Portuguese still haven't moved, neither have Myers' brigade from Cole's force, and Stewart's boys are making very slow progress towards the right. |
Early stages - Allies slightly ahead - 1 VP for holding the village, and one of the others must be for whacking the lancers. 11 VPs for the win was the order of the day. |
Allied right flank isn't looking very clever, and Cole and the Portuguese are still mostly rooted to the spot on the far side. After a slow start, Girard is pressing the Spanish infantry. |
Gazan's Division, behind Girard's, watches the attack develop in front. Both Girard and Gazan are prominent hat-wavers. Famous for it. |
That's enough about that, I think - you'll hear more of the Ramekin soon, I'm sure.
I may looking forward to further updates on this. With a further rationalisation of my collections due to a forthcoming house move then C &C has moved to the fore for use with my 20mm the variant certainly sounds intriguing.
ReplyDeleteAlbuerra is a tough battle for the Allies they have to react quick if the French are to be stopped/defeated. I have refought this battle three times now and it's always been a close fought game.
The experimental dice-initiative system is based on the abilities of each commander. In our game we rated Soult as "Good" but Beresford - partly because of his lack of field experience but mostly because of the complicated command structure of his army - was "Poor", which meant that old Sir William was constantly struggling to get the first turn, and usually had rather less order chips to play with. We are trying to scale down the overall effectiveness of musketry at 2-hex range - not quite right yet, but getting better! Hard to get this just right - official C&CN makes it difficult to attack - a regular feature of the games is that a superior attacking force gets shot to bits at 2 hexes. Pegging that back a bit without completely destroying the balance of the various arms is an interesting challenge!
DeleteRespect to General Loy - looks like my dice throwing skills were missed!
ReplyDeleteGeneral Loy will need a few weeks holiday to recover, I would think. The dragoons are keen to get back in action, since they feel they can never do as badly again.
DeleteYour dice-mojo would have been more than useful - dreadful rolls at times. The game had a couple of additional bits since Eggmuhl, but some of the additional uses for order chips need more work! The labs will be onto it straight away...
Hi Tony, intrigued to hear more. Incidentally I love the scoreboard and the working title.
ReplyDeleteYoung sir - I'll send some details once the rules settle down a bit!
DeleteI imagine moving from cards to dice for activation is strangely liberating.
ReplyDeleteEspecially at Albuera, where, if you do the whole action, the fighting fronts swing through almost 180 degrees - find me a left flank out of that lot! For a really big game (bigger than this one?), the draw of the cards can be a problem - you can find yourself constantly trying to make something (anything!) of the cards you have, rather than trying to develop an actual plan. A while ago here we did a biggish version of Talavera, and the card play was tweaked so that eacj side could play two Command Cards - that does make the game easier, but it also makes it less reliant on luck. It seems odd that moving from two cards to no cards at all makes it easier still, but it does. I am a fan of the C&CN activation systems, absolutely, but they work best for actions of a certain style and a certain size. I guess that's why the real devotees are so obsessed with set scenarios, which is something I've always been so-so about.
DeleteFine looking action!
ReplyDeleteIt looked better than I expected - it is rather an open field - unusually so for Spain. I'm pleased with the scenario layout - I'd like to try it again.
DeleteNice report!
ReplyDeleteNow that I have a suitable Spanish collection, Albuera is on my list to do eventually, although with FoB2.
Interesting developments and I will certainly look forward to reading more in due course. I fully understand where you are coming from here as I had been thinking along similar lines, no cards but a simple (in my case) dice activation roll replacing them. I have no issue playing the scenarios 'as is' but my aim is to play through the 'One hour wargame' scenarios on the C&C board, thus the need to need to break from the 'left/centre/right' play, and replace it with activation to allow entry in accordance with the OHW scenarios. When Bob Cordery published his Portable Wargames book I suggested an alternative activation system that I think he quite liked. Red dice and Blue dice in a bag (Bolt Action stylee!) a blind draw followed by a dice roll, 1,2 = activate any 2 units, 3.4 = activate any 3 units, and 5,6 = activate any 4 units, simple as that. After that it's basic C&C N play. It negates the need for sector cards and allows the action to swing unpredictably dependent on the colour of dice drawn, so one side could in theory get a run of 2,3 activations before it swings back. I'll be interested to read more on your quality of commander rule, I'm thinking that requires a command distance rule, with the possibility of more or less activations available or something along those lines? I could of course be totally wrong here and meantime will try the OHW scenarios with my basic 'tweak'. Excellent pics as usual.
ReplyDeleteHi Lee - thanks for this - I'll try to email you over the weekend, with some ideas and thoughts on other rule sets. Regards - Tony
DeleteCool looking battle!
ReplyDeleteHi Ray. I think our version was not quite such a bloodbath as the original, but it wasn't far off. I was trying to remember why I've never had a bash at Albuera before, and I remembered that for many years I had no Spaniards. Well, who would want Spaniards...?
DeleteA lovely looking game Tony
ReplyDeleteAnd as always an informative and enjoyable read.
All the best. Aly
Thank you Aly - I always find these games quite educational. As I regularly say here, I feel privileged to be present at a bit of fake history - to see what happens! This probably is a consequemce of many years of solo gaming, and the fact that my involvement in wargaming was an extension of my interest in military history rather than the legacy of a boyhood spent gluing together Airfix Spitfires (a phase which I seem to have missed out on). The games here at Chateau Foy are usually engaging but quite relaxed. I am something of a voyeur rather than a fierce competitor - a facilitator as much as anything!
DeleteAlbuera, one of my favorite Peninsular War battles to refight.
ReplyDeleteYour game looks superb; clean and elegant. Your Banners Won scoring device is genius. Everyone will want one!
Thanks Jon - I had a rather awkward week or two eliminating woodworm from the scoreboard - I think I've succeeded. Unwelcome guests!
DeleteAt least I now know what a ramekin is (or once againmost likely ).
ReplyDeleteWe had real problems with the C&C/Memoir style card activation when mixed with scenarios designed for other systems but had a successful experiment in which we allowed players to use any card for any sector. That way the limits and bonuses of the cards remained but players could form their battle plans based on terrain and scenario.
I like old fashioned playing cards but usually just use them to track turns, act as 'chance cards' and determine which side goes first each turn but I have played some interesting games using a system from Bob Cordery's Portable Wargame in which a deck is formed in which the colour and number indicate how many units of that side can act. The value of the cards selected to form the deck are based around the number of units in an army and can be adjusted up or down to reflect command capability.
When the Ramekin game is a bit firmer (or is a more stable prototype), which means when Foy stops having wacky ideas for add-ons which bog us down in extra effort without any extra advantage to the game, I'll write a quick summary of what we've got.
DeleteI have become a little impatient with C&CN gamers' relentless fixation with published scenarios, but I understand it a little better now. The Ancient version (and also my own ECW variation) lends itself well to its period, since armies tended to set themselves up close together, very formal lay-out, ready to start fighting. The published C&C Napoleonic scenarios are all of already developed situations - i.e. the armies are almost within musket range, the positioning and the grand tactical bit has already been done before the game starts. To me, that's the hole - if, as part of a campaign (say), you wish to have one or both armies marching onto the table, or have reserves coming along later, C&CN doesn't handle that very well. That's the bit I'm trying to address here - a more mobile system which lends itself to a wider range of situations.
Having said which, I guess that the ACW "Battle Cry" game must have been pretty similar to the Napoleonic one - whatever, I have no experience of that.
As a rule of thumb (and this is of general application, not just Napoleonics, and certainly not just C&C), I think it's a useful thing to listen during the game. If you find that most of the chat is about what the rules mean (or where in the manual that rare situation which just cropped up is covered), rather than the military situation and what's going on in the world of the little men on the table, then something may be wrong - usually a mismatch between the game scale and the type of rules, but all sorts of possibilities.
"As a rule of thumb (and this is of general application, not just Napoleonics, and certainly not just C&C), I think it's a useful thing to listen during the game. If you find that most of the chat is about what the rules mean (or where in the manual that rare situation which just cropped up is covered), rather than the military situation and what's going on in the world of the little men on the table, then something may be wrong - usually a mismatch between the game scale and the type of rules, but all sorts of possibilities."
ReplyDeleteThe above is a brilliant observation, Tony! Something for a game designer to note very well.