Uclés - Set-Up (2)

This is an approximate kick-off position for Saturday's game. The French are on the right hand side, marching on to the field at 8am - Marshal Victor will probably wish to adjust his positions a bit, and he still has another division to appear on his left sometime later. From left to right on the French side you see Latour-Maubourg's dragoon division, and Pacthod's and Puthod's brigades of Villatte's division. The backward-facing artillery are on the march (I may sneak a limber team on there, for appearances).

The Spanish army has an advanced detachment in and around the small village of Tribaldos (historically they fell back on to the main position pretty smartly once the French appeared - they may well do the same again). The deployment on the ridge line is a reasonable representation of where they were - Laporte has their right flank, Senra the left and the commander, Venegas, the centre. The odd positioning of the cavalry is authentic, though Venegas might reconsider it this time.

So this is a tweakable approximation to our starting situation on Saturday.

The white plastic ruler on the far side of the table is an accidental attempt to pacify proper wargamers, to distract the eye from all those dreadful hexes. Just count your beads, sisters.

Update to my C&C-based ECW Rules - Ver 2.67

Following extensive discussions about 30YW rules last year with Peter Brekelmans, and some very useful recent exchanges with The Jolly Broom Man, I've produced another update to the rules booklet for my CC_ECW game, which is now up to Version 2.67 and may be accessed/downloaded via the link on the right hand side of this screen.

The main change is a more comprehensive treatment of "Volatile" and "Rash" Galloper cavalry - which includes the possibility of their leaving the table out of control if they get overexcited - and some tidying up of the rule whereby units being attacked in melee by more than one opponent simultaneously will suffer a deduction from the number of Combat Dice to allow for distraction and diversion of effort.

I've also removed Firelocks as a distinct troop class, since there wasn't really any need. Oh - and units Battling Back in melee now get a minimum of 1 die to do it with!

I had considered making the Volatile/Rash Horse thing an optional rule, but I don't care for optional rules - it is in any case possible to declare that a particular scenario does not involve any such units of horse, and you have exercised just such an option. After much pondering, and after watching my Pegasus DVD of Edgehill for the umpteenth time, I am pretty much convinced that lack of control of Royalist cavalry in the First Civil War was a regular contributor to the day's outcome!

The downloadable QRS sheet is now in need of an update to bring everything back into line - I'll get to it. If you have problems accessing the revised rules booklet (because I have set sharing rights incorrectly, which is my usual Google Docs cock-up when I update these rules), or if I have made some horrible error, please let me know, so I can fix things.

****** Late Edit ******

...and ...and ...light guns now exist only as an attachment to a unit of foot, and medium and heavy guns can move only until they fire or are attacked - in either case the draught crews will leave them to get on with it at that point.

****** Late Late Edit ******

...and ...QRS now updated to match Ver 2.67 - as at 29th March.

Number 6 - An Expansion Too Far?

Sometimes you get a sort of sign – admittedly, some of us are so blooming dense that it takes a good shove to make the point, but I seem to have got there in the end.

I am a big fan of Commands & Colors: Napoleonics, the GMT boardgame, which I play with miniatures – in fact this is the basis of almost all my wargaming now. In the past I have considered each of the expansion sets as they were announced – the only one I’ve invested in was #5, the Generals, Marshals and Tacticians set, which provides a new card pack, some upgraded rules and a rather richer game.

I’ve always been excited by the prospect of playing bigger C&CN games, on a bigger tabletop, so have been waiting for some time for the new Expansion #6, which allows Epic or La Grande Battle [sic] sized games on a bigger board. When it was announced, in March, I put my name down for pre-order in a state of some excitement, which qualified me for a discounted price, and I received an email receipt. Splendid.

And only then did I start to think about it more carefully.

Let me see – the new expansion gives you a couple of new playing boards (wasted on me, since I don’t play it as a boardgame), a book of new scenarios, using the bigger format, with some new scenery tiles and unit blocks (also wasted on me, for the same reason, and since many of the scenarios are for nations and campaigns which I do not play), a revised rule book (good, though I am aware that I need some new tabletops and, preferably, a church hall somewhere to play Epic games with miniatures in my scale) – no new card pack, though. The cost of the expansion is $75 plus postage, less about one-third discount for pre-ordering (plus UK VAT and Royal Mail handling charges).

The expansion was delayed for some reason, but shipping eventually commenced on 13^th December. I have received nothing, and I was not convinced that I had actually paid anything, so I began to suspect that GMT had not sent me anything. Hmmm.

I sent an email yesterday, just to check where we are up to. GMT are good, and efficient, and the excellent Deb replied to me today, to say that, since they did not have up-to-date credit card information for me, they had not processed my order. If I wish to update my account information, they can sort things out. They could maybe have told me there was a problem, but they didn't.

Once again, hmmm. Was this the final sign?

Apart from anything else the pound Sterling has gone on a mighty slide since March – this game is getting more expensive, and more marginal, by the moment. I made a decision which surprised me, though I feel somewhat relieved having made it. I cancelled my order. I am confident that Expansion #6 is an excellent product, and that players all over the world will thoroughly enjoy it. But not for me. If I can piece together how the rule revisions work, I can probably make some tweaks to my own miniatures games to allow bigger, multiplayer games, and that’s really all I want. The shiny big box full of redundant bits and pieces would have been a folly – I can see that now.

It took me a while, but I got there. I may be enthusiastic, but I am not easy. Marketing departments, please note.

ECW Rules - documentation update for new version 2.65

Having received a comment from Paul about the rules, and a couple of email enquiries, I've updated the documentation on Google Docs. If you follow the link at top right for "My Own CCN-based ECW Rules", you'll get to the placeholder post which should now link to the new version. The changes are to the Rules Booklet and the QRS, and they bring it up to Ver.2.65, dated yesterday.

The changes reflect some previously-undocumented tweaks which I have been using, plus some typo-fixes, plus a few changes which are a result of my discussions with Peter Brekelmans about his 30YW variant.

Specific mods in the game include some amendments to Battling Back in Melee Combat, corrections to the Terrain Effects, and Light Artillery (by which I mean frame-guns and similar tactical, mobile pieces) now appears on the field only as attachments to units of Foot - light guns cannot be deployed as standalone units. Also, losses of artillery units no longer count for Victory Banners.

As ever, I think I've tested the links - if they don't work, or you are still getting the old versions, please let me know - many thanks.

I hope that some semi-formal documentation should also appear soon for the ECW siege game which I tested a few months ago - I'm a bit busy elsewhere at present, but it's in the pipeline!

My Own CCN-based rules for the English Civil War

The latest test version of these rules is maintained on Google Docs - if you wish to download them for personal use, these links will get you to the Rules Booklet, a Quick Reference Chart, a Stand of Pikes tracker, the Command Cards the "Chaunce" Cards and details of the "Ramekin" system for activation.

The last page of each of the card sets is to be printed on the reverse side of the sheets, to provide card backs.

The full Commands & Colors: Napoleonics rules, which are available to download from the GMT Games website, are also useful background reading, and give good worked examples and diagrams.

These rules are still being developed, so I am pleased to receive feedback on any play experience you have with them. Please do not distribute any of this material without contacting me, and I would expect to be credited with authorship if the stuff is shared. If you don't like the game, please don't slag me off in some arcane corner of the Social Media - helpful suggestions will be welcome! Courtesy never cost anything...

[This post is simply a place-marker, to tidy up some of the chaos in my layouts!]

Current version is 3.01, updated April 2020 - QRS sheet and a note on the alternative "Ramekin" activation system are new for Ver 3.01

Peter Brekelmans' Thirty Years War Variant for Commands & Colors - Latest V 2.2

Back in June I made reference to a Thirty Years War variant of Commands & Colors which I had been discussing with the chap who was developing it. During the course of what, for me, for family reasons, has been a rather fragmented Summer, Peter Brekelmans and I exchanged a great deal of correspondence, which I have enjoyed greatly, and from which I learned a good deal. Peter, like me, felt that it should be possible to develop a decent 17^th Century variant from the existing GMT Commands & Colors games – his starting place was my own attempt at an ECW game, but he wished to extend the scope to cover the Thirty Years War more completely and – unlike me – he wished to commit a proper effort to developing some scenarios.

Peter uses the concepts of Command and "Chaunce" cards, as did I, but his card sets are rather different from mine. He also was keen to amend the game so that melee combat was simultaneous, rather than the C&C system of attack-and-then-battle-back. We spent some time working with this, and developed systems which would make simultaneous melee blows possible, but we had concerns that the fundamental balance of advantage in the game might be distorted (in favour of the defenders, I believe), so Peter has retained the 2-stage C&C-style melee combat, and offers simultaneous melee as a game option.

My own ECW variant has been in use for some years now, though I confess the current documentation is a little out of date; Peter’s game has been well thought through, but we have lacked the opportunity to do any proper playtesting. Since Peter is running out of enthusiasm to develop this further, in the absence of a potential audience, we’ve agreed that I should make the game available on this blog. I can claim the best of both worlds here – if there is any reflected glory going, then I was a contributor, but if you wish to take issue with any of it, don’t come to me – it wasn’t my game anyway!

I think the game, as presented, is a very nice package – certainly it is thought provoking and a useful education to people like me who know little of the TYW. I shall persist with my own ECW game, though I shall certainly incorporate a couple of new tweaks which came from our discussions, and I hope to get a chance to do some proper testing of Peter’s rules when opportunity presents itself.

*** Update - as from 9th April 2017, the rules and the scenarios have been revised to V 2.2. The presentation of the Command and Chaunce Cards has also been greatly simplified. ***

 You can download the sheets from Google Docs – you will find

Rules Booklet

Army Reference Sheets

Calculation Sheet

Terrain Effects

Chaunce Cards

Command Section Cards

Command Tactics Cards

Scenarios

I shall keep this post linked from some panel near the top of my blog display, so that you can find it easily, and we’ll also set up a specific email address so that you may contact Peter about his rules.

I hope you will join me in complimenting Peter on his efforts, his knowledge of the period and his splendid rule-writing style.

Peter wishes to emphasise that the scenarios, in particular, are really drafts - in some cases almost discussion frameworks - and, in particular, have not been properly game tested. They provide a valuable reference as suggestions for games, but they come with no guarantee that they are quite ready for use as a rewarding social event!

Peter may be contacted at ga1632<CURL>rogers.com (replace <CURL> with the usual email AT symbol) if you wish to give him some feedback on his game or your experiences with it, or any general discussion points on the Thirty Years War.

Battle of Montgomery - 18th Sept 1644 - Another Really Bad Day for Lord John

Lord John, just checking that those chaps over by the river are the Other
Lot - his groom is saying nothing...

Well, since the hoped-for guest general is still missing, presumed to be on vacation, Max No-Mates decided to go it alone, and the battle has duly been fought this evening, to the aforementioned hybrid C&C-cum-allsorts rules.

The game lasted about one and a half hours, and I have a sad bit of news for all my Royalist readers - Lord John Byron blew it once again. The real battle swung in the balance for a little while, before the King's men collapsed; my version of it went the same way, but it was never very close...

I started the action at the point where the Parliamentarians have realised that they are outnumbered, and therefore in a bit of trouble, so they decide they must sit tight, while Lord Byron launches his men into a glorious attack, keeping a little reserve back to watch over the siegeworks at Montgomery Castle (and taking personal command of this reserve, naturally).

The activation rules allow spare activation counters to be hoarded (to a maximum of 5), and Byron's best bet would have been to advance slowly and steadily, keep his forces organised and the supports close at hand, and save up a little cache of extra counters to help out in moments of stress, later. He didn't get very good activation dice, that is for sure, but a slower advance would have been a sound idea - the Parliamentarians were not in a position to do much beyond standing and waiting. 5 Victory Points was all that were needed, and the Royalists had scope for gaining an extra 2 if they captured the Salt Bridge, the only Roundhead retreat across the River Camlad (or Kemlett, as John Speed's map says).

The Royalist attack gets moving, concentrating (historically) on the better ground on their right.

Meldrum does a bit of shuffling, to get his defence organised.

General view of the start of the attack - the rough ground is in the Y of the roads, far left.

Meldrum is ready, and salting away spare activation counters for later use.

So they stand and wait...

With the counter cache accumulating.

And the Royalists get nearer...

...and nearer...[really milking this]...

...and by the time they make contact Byron's second line is starting to get out of touch.

Of course, a cavalry fight broke out on the flank.

At last, Meldrum's foot got off what had to be a decisive musket volley - dreadful!
- they hit nothing at all in their big moment! - this was a high point for
the Royalists - things really looked quite promising.

But when the troops got into melee combat, the Parlies did very well indeed.

The cavalry battle was nasty, but Wm Fairfax with the Parliamentarian
horse gradually got the best of it, and also forced Michael Ernle's RoF into
Stand of Pikes (hedgehog, whatever).

Lord John suddenly has a vision.

And now we have it, as the combined cavalry of Myddleton's Brigade and the
Derbyshire Horse swept into Robert Broughton's Foot, coming up in support
- the Reaction Test required Broughton's lot [Class 3] to roll a 3 to get
themselves into Stand of Pikes, but they failed, leaving them unformed and
pretty much helpless. They took heavy losses and were forced to retreat 4 hexes,
which effectively put them out of action for the rest of the day. 

Now Myddleton's horse crashed on into Henry Warren's Foot, which was
also wrecked, Warren himself being captured  

Suddenly very short of troops, Byron sent up the remainder of his Horse, but
the day was lost. Michael Ernle's regiment, still in Stand of Pikes, was destroyed
by musketry, and surrendered. The 5 VPs were accomplished. 

Situation at the end, seen from behind the Parliamentarian position.

Sir John Meldrum - job done - no celebration and certainly no hat-waving.
He has to get back to running the Siege of Liverpool in the morning.

Overall losses - Meldrum's Parliamentarian Army numbered about 1500 horse and 1500 foot; they lost about 400 horse, 200 foot. Byron's Royalist Army had about 1500 horse and 3000 foot; they lost about 700 horse, 2200 foot, and Col Henry Warren was wounded and taken prisoner. OOBs can be found in the earlier "preamble" post, here.

The real battle ended with the broken Royalist force being pursued right off the field, to the south, which is where they suffered most of their loss (500 killed and 1500 prisoners, I believe, overwhelmingly from the Foot). This evening's version did not continue to play out the pursuit, but I have a simple dice system to simulate the situation at the end of the day. This reflects the state of the respective armies - in particular the balance of effective cavalry remaining. In this action, the Parliament army held the field, with moderate initial losses and the troops still fairly fresh, while the Royalist cavalry was not in a desperate state, but was battered. The system is crude but works OK - the winning side roll 1D6 for each base lost (red "loss" counter - I don't remove actual bases) - any base which rolls 4, 5 or 6 can return to the ranks in the morning - they were just lost somewhere in the general excitement; the bases on the losing side are only rescued by a 6 - those that avoided death and capture are heading homewards, thank you very much.

In my game, poor old Byron should have advanced more carefully, keeping his force better co-ordinated, storing up extra activation counters wherever possible and using his greater numbers of foot to gain superiority in a focused area. He would also have done well to keep his shakier units (Class 3 - yellow markers) out of the front line - this was probably compromised, both in the game and in the real battle, by the fact that the senior officers in the Foot (notably Ernle) were from the Shrewsbury garrison, so the most jaundiced troops were to the fore. There were two particular occasions where lack of enthusiasm caused problems: part of Tom Tyldesley's horse were forced to take the necessary double retreat as the result of a reverse in the cavalry skirmish, which removed them from the action, and - especially -  Broughton's foot failed the reaction test needed to redeploy when attacked by Myddleton's horse, were badly beaten and ran a long way from the action, leaving Myddleton's men to continue to roll up the Royalist left.

In an action of this size there are few second chances - when the day starts to swing one way, lack of fresh reserves and lack of opportunity to withdraw damaged units are decisive - and quickly. The real Battle of Montgomery lasted about an hour - my version must have been fairly similar. Without the Homeric narrative of the rally of the Cheshire Foot and the Yorkshire Horse, the story is simple enough - the King's troops attacked, it did not go well for them and they retreated from the field, losing a great many in killed and captured on the retreat.

Battle of Montgomery - rule tweaks

Because of the relatively small size of the forthcoming battle, I am intending to allow a little more tactical detail in the rules. The combat will remain pretty much straight Commands & Colors, but units will have a front, flanks and a rear, and will be able to do some (limited) changing of formation - thus the activation and movement rules will be different, and there will be a "reaction" test (based upon the quality of a unit) to allow emergency changes of front or configuration during the opponent's turn. [As ever, I hasten to add that this is not intended as an improved version of the published game - it is merely that C&C is rather a blunt instrument with which to fight a very small battle!]

This is all lifted straight from a rather long-winded (though much read) post I put up here about a year ago, Manoeuvring in Hexes; the only problem is that that note was about Napoleonic games, and extensions to Commands & Colors: Napoleonic - I've never actually written down how this translates to the ECW variant. I shall not attempt to batter through all the discussion in that post - please follow the link if you can be bothered, if not, just assume that I have thought about this before!

In the tactical extension to my ECW game, the recognised formations for Foot will be:

Column of March - essential if you wish to get anywhere in a hurry
(especially on roads - columns of march get a bonus hex of movement on a road)
but can't fight at all - not even a bit.

Formed Line of Battle (or battalia - choose your own jargon) - muskets on
the flanks, pikes correctly in the centre -  optimal fighting formation, but
moves slowly, cannot fire on the move.

This rather stylised arrangement of bases represents Stand of Pikes -
Renaissance equivalent of a Napoleonic square - this formation cannot
move, has no front, flanks or rear, has limited combat power but is good
defensively against Horse

Unformed - no formation, minimal combat ability - units which fail to
redeploy are in this form (with their original front), also units occupying
villages, woods or enclosures will normally be unformed, which is a useful
reminder that they must stop to reform as they emerge!

Units of Foot may be seen in this form, simply because their commander
has not got around to specifying what they are doing - this is just a
default "don't know" formation - to an extent, they are assumed to be getting
on with things, but must move at slowest rate, and if involved in combat
will be Unformed unless they shape up, or pass a reaction test

For Horse, things are less complicated:

This is a general purpose formation in which Horse can fight or move
- the front is defined, intuitively...

Column of March is almost a cosmetic device - it probably looks good to move
Horse around in this formation, and is essential if you wish to claim road bonus,
but remember they can't fight like this!

What else? Oh yes - for the purposes of the Reaction Test, the forces at Montgomery will all be Class 2, apart from the rather war-weary "Irish" Royalist foot units from the Shrewsbury garrison, and Tyldesley's two units of Royalist Horse, which will be Class 3 - which means that they are rather less likely to carry out emergency manoeuvres on the battlefield, and are subject to double retreats if things go badly.

The details about turning rates and all that are in the Napoleonic post from last year, if you have the stamina.

The units of Horse will all be of Trotter type, which means they have a standard move of 3, but advance to contact is limited to 2 (because of all the fiddling about with pistols).

The only other thing I can think of at present is that, since this particular game is to be played end-to-end of the table, temporary rules are needed to force units to face the flat side of a hex, rather than a vertex, which involves some intuitive, minor alterations to movement rules, firing arcs, definitions of flanks and permitted retreat directions. Easy peasy.

That's quite enough about that. Oh yes - artillery? There wasn't any. That was easiest of all.


*****Late Edit*****

Not so fast....

I received an email from Jack Mortimer, asking me if I would publish the full rules, or at least send him a copy by reply. The answer to both these questions is no, but I can set out a bit more of the detail.

Foot move 1 hex in line, 2 in column or unformed, + 1 hex bonus for a column of march which spends entire turn on a road. Cannot move and fire in same turn. Stand of Pikes cannot move. Terrain rules are pretty much as C&C. Units entering a new hex may turn 60 degrees without penalty; any larger turn, or any stationary turn (which includes a turn BEFORE moving) takes a full move. Any ordered change of formation takes a full move; any change of front or formation in reaction to opponent action is instantaneous, but requires the unit to pass a Reaction Test (q.v.).

Horse move 3 hexes, but only 2 if advancing to contact. Horse have negligible (i.e. no) range combat ability - pistol fire is abstracted into melee. Non-free turns and formation changes take 1 hex of movement (not a full move), otherwise movement rules as Foot. Charge to contact must be in a straight line - i.e. any necessary turns must be carried out (with necessary penalties) before final charge. Column of march gets 1 hex road bonus, as for Foot.

Units can only fire within defined frontal arc. Units attacked in flank/rear who fail reaction test and do not turn about do not get to battle back in melee, and opponents get an extra combat die. Horse in melee with Stand of Pikes roll just 1 die, the SoP itself also rolls just 1. Since a SoP cannot move, any retreat it suffers must be taken as casualties instead of movement.

Reaction Test - units are ranked Class 1 to Class 4 (elite to dross). When required, unit may take Test in reaction to enemy action; to pass, must roll 1D6 >= (Class + 1 for each loss counter - 1 if general attached); natural roll of 1 is always a failure, natural 6 always a pass.

Otherwise, the game is basically my CC_ECW variant!

Battle of Montgomery - the set up

Looking south, from the Parliamentarian position on the (unfordable)
River Camlad toward the town and castle of Montgomery. The Salt Bridge in
the foreground is rather more grand than the original.

I've now set up the battlefield for Montgomery (18th Sept 1644), as discussed a few posts ago. I hope to play the game this weekend, though one of my pencilled-in visiting generals appears to have vanished without trace - the scouts are out. If necessary, I'll play the game solo, though that hadn't been the intention.

It's a fairly small action, by my usual standards, so I intend to use a tweaked version of my CC_ECW game, with extensions to allow for some elements of tactical manoeuvre. The Command Cards will not be used, since the game is to be played end-to-end of the table (on the larger, 17 x 9 grid) - I'll use a dice-based activation system.

More soon.

Sir John Meldrum's Parliamentarian army - initial position, with Sir Wm
Fairfax on the left flank with the cavalry (which initially was to push
through to the castle with provisions).

Lord John Byron's Royalist force, near the town and castle. The road to
Welshpool snakes down the length of the table - note Col Mytton's
Parliamentarian garrison peeking over the battlements! The area 
of the table between the roads and the river (far left in this picture) is 
classified as rough ground, since it contained many hummocks and boggy 
streams - slow going here.

Col Washington's dragoons, who fought as commanded shot

Royalist horse

Near-contemporary town plan - north (and the river) is to the right

View of the battlefield, from St Nicholas' church - the town had some walls,
but they were in a bad state of disrepair, so I have omitted them from the scenery.

The Battle of Montgomery, 18th Sept 1644 - Preamble

Aerial view of battle area - the photo came to me with incorrect 
details - please see Ubique Matt's comment below for orientation [thanks Matt!]

For a while now, I’ve been intrigued by this battle from the English Civil War. Within the last 3 years I have failed twice to visit the battlefield – just a little far from home for the time available on each occasion – so I have decided that the next best thing would be to have a go on the tabletop.

Not as a walkthrough - I have no appetite for that at all, but as a game which involves something like the correct forces and – more challenging – has a chance of reproducing the strange events of the real battle.

Strange? Well, the action is pretty much ignored in the standard histories, though, since it involved something close to 8000 men, it was by far the largest ECW battle to take place in Wales, and its result – a surprising and catastrophic defeat for the Royalist side - effectively ended Royalist influence in Wales, and had far-reaching consequences for the war elsewhere.

Max Foy’s Potted History of Montgomery:

(1) Royalists besieged Montgomery Castle – they had about 1500 horse, 3000 foot. Since they had no serious artillery, the siege was more a blockade than an attempt to break in.
(2) Parliamentarians arrived with about 1500 horse, 1500 foot, and, having seriously underestimated the Royalist numbers, set about pushing through a mounted force, to re-provision the garrison.
(3) Royalists attacked – downhill, across pretty open ground, and pushed their outnumbered opponents back towards the River Camlad, which could only be crossed at a single bridge on the Welshpool road.
(4) As they prepared to drive the enemy into the River, the Royalist forces suddenly suffered a major collapse of morale, and were routed from the field, losing all but about 100 of their foot troops in the pursuit.

Hmmm. The action is well documented, there are eye-witness reports and commentaries from individuals on both sides. The Royalist army was experienced and well officered, though their recent experience had been unhappy. Parliamentarian accounts claim the influence of the hand of God (which might explain a few things), but give great credit to the leadership efforts of a few of the senior officers, and, in particular, to the courage and vigour of Wm Fairfax’s Horse and Sir Wm Brereton’s Cheshire Regiment of Foot, who rallied with such ferocity that they turned the day. The Royalist writers take the opportunity to blame each other, and name specific units which broke and ran in a shameful manner. The message is consistent, if the details vary a little: one moment the  Royalists were on the brink of victory, then within a very short time they panicked and ran. The Battle of Montgomery is said to have lasted little more than an hour.

Interesting. I am currently on holiday (far away...) – I have some of my reading material with me, so homework can continue to an extent. I am focusing at present on the battlefield, and how best to represent it on the tabletop, on the OOBs (of which more in a moment) and how to allow for the kind of events which destroyed the Royalist attack.

Let’s look at this last bit first.

If I set up the armies as they appear on paper, and the Royalists proceed to push the (outnumbered) Parliament lot back into the River Camlad, few people would give the Parlies much chance. One way to give history a slight chance of repeating itself would be to allow some kind of fancy Chance Card event or a nuclear dice throw to stand the battle on its head. I don’t like this – the game is then obviously rigged, and it’s rigged in a manner which makes it pretty clear that there is something fundamentally wrong with my rules. I’d prefer it if there was some way of allowing for an inherent fragility in the Royalist army, veteran or not, and play the game as normal.

My rules, as ever, will be Commands & Colors based, though on this occasion the shape of the battlefield suggests to me that the forces will fight from the ends of the table rather than the long sides (which means I shall substitute a dice-based activation system for the Command Cards), and, since I am keen to have the town and castle at one end, I’ll use my bigger table size - 17 hexes by 9. At 200 paces across a hex, that’s pretty close to my estimate of 1.5 miles x 1 mile for the main field. My rules do allow for troops to be classified as Veteran or Raw, and maybe this gives me a way to address the problem. The regiments which are known to have disgraced themselves were all veterans, in the sense that they had been fighting for years, but the “Irish” [sic] units which came from the Shrewsbury garrison had mostly been badly mauled at both Nantwich and Marston Moor, and Tom Tyldesley’s horse had been through both of these and Ormskirk, where they had suffered considerably.

Given the hardships they must have been under and the big proportion of replacement recruits that must have been needed to make up the numbers, my inclination is to take a bit of a radical step, and mark a number of supposedly experienced units as Raw, which could well introduce the element of fragility I am looking for.

I’ll think further about this, but at least I can see a way ahead for the moment.

Order of Battle (with approximate strengths)

Royalist Army (John, Lord Byron of Rochdale)

Horse (Col. Mark Trevor)

Col Trevor’s RoH (500) – [from Chester Garrison]
Sir Wm Vaughan’s RoH (500)
Sir Thos Tydesley’s (Lancashire) RoH (500)

[I propose to rationalise this into 4 standard-size units of horse – Trevor’s, Vaughan’s and half of Tyldesley’s were with the main advance, on the right flank, while Byron kept part of Tyldesley’s back as a reserve, partly to defend the siegeworks near the castle]

Foot (Sir Michael Ernle)

Regts present from the Shrewsbury garrison were those of Col Robt Broughton, Col Henry Tillier, Col Henry Warren, Sir Michael Ernle and Sir Fulke Hunk – (total about 1500)

Col Robt Ellice’s (Welsh) RoF, Sir Michael Woodhouse’s ('Prince of Wales Regt') RoF and Col Henry Washington’s Dragoons (who fought on foot) – some of these were from the Chester garrison, brought by Byron (total about another 1500)

[it is thought that the Shrewsbury troops were combined into 2 battalia, with Hunk’s regiment as a reserve; I shall field 5 standard foot regiments, plus 1 of dragoons, serving as foot musketeers]

Parliamentary Army (Sir John Meldrum was nominal commander, but evidence suggests that the field command was a joint effort between Meldrum, Sir Wm Brereton and Sir Thos Myddleton)

Garrison of Montgomery (Col Thomas Mytton)

A few hundred foot from Mytton’s own regiment and that of Sir Thos Myddleton

Horse (Sir Wm Fairfax)

Sir Wm Fairfax’s (Yorkshire) RoH (400)
Lancashire Horse (Col. Nicholas Shuttleworth) (400)
Cheshire Horse (Maj. Jerome Zankey) (400)
Sir Thos Myddleton’s “brigade” (150)
Derbyshire Horse (Maj. Thos Sanders) (150)

[I’ll represent this lot by 4 standard regiments of horse – Myddleton’s and the Derbyshire Horse were probably merged]

Foot (Maj. James Lothian)

Sir Wm Brereton’s (Cheshire) RoF (500)
Col Geo Booth’s RoF (Cheshire) (500)
Col Henry Mainwaring’s RoF (500)

[on the face of it, this looks like 3 standard units of foot, though I am considering sneaking in a 4th unit to represent the “hand of God”!]

It seems that neither side had any significant artillery present – I shall ignore artillery, though the castle might have a gun or two, and the garrison of the castle certainly had plenty of ammunition.


I’ll describe the battlefield in more detail when I have better graphics facilities available!

That’s about as far as I’ve got, and that’s probably more than enough to be going on with. I am aware that the bold Jonathan Freitag, wargamer, cyclist and blogger extraordinaire, wrote up a couple of reports on a Montgomery game recently, so I’ll certainly check those out. I have found that searches for the Battle of Montgomery on Google produce an overwhelming amount of information about El Alamein!

The Defence of Bassaro, December 1813

Yesterday I had a visitor here at the Chateau. My good friend Goya came, to give his Austrian army a first run out, and we took the opportunity to try the Commands & Colors Expansion #5, Generals, Marshals and Tacticians, with its amended set of Command cards, which has been sitting undisturbed since it arrived some months ago.

I have never been involved in a miniatures game involving Austrians at any time since I started wargaming 200 years ago, so I put a lot of thought into drawing up a scenario, such as would grace the auspicious occasion. Since the Austrian force, though growing quickly, is still rather small for one side of a C&CN game, we chose a format where the Kaiserlichs would be defending a strong position against a considerably larger French force, and we chose Eugène Beauharnais’ campaign in Northern Italy in 1813-14. This is suitable for Goya’s late-war uniforms, and it meant that we could use my Spanish/Italian buildings without too much embarrassment.

Research revealed that, apart from Dr GF Nafziger’s invaluable volume on this campaign, there is almost nothing in the English-language history books. David Chandler glides seamlessly from Leipzig/Hanau to Brienne, F Loraine Petre includes a single paragraph (to the effect that Eugène was pretty much banished to the Army of Italy because the Emperor had “had enough of his stepson’s incapacity”), and the Elting & Esposito atlas has an arrow pointing off the main map of 1813, indicating that Eugène was over here somewhere, facing the Austrians. The reason? – quite simple; neither Napoleon nor Wellington was present, so who could be interested?

I found some Austrian sources in Google Books, but overall was surprised at the paucity of material. I finished up with an action at the mythical village of Bassaro, not far from Ferrara (or possibly somewhere else), which apparently commanded a couple of important crossings over the River Adige. The timing, the location and the personnel are not dissimilar to the action around Castagnaro, so there is a rough whiff of authenticity about some of what we were doing. Thank you, yet again, Dr Nafziger.

So Goya’s Austrians were installed in Bassaro and its environs – there were some very important-looking generals present, one of whom had a passing resemblance to Archduke Charles, but they were there only as observers – the Austrian commander on the field was Generalmajor Sutterheim, assisted by Generals Stahremberg, Eckhardt and Wrede (no – not the Bavarian). They had available the 9^th Jäger Regt, the Gradiscaner Grenzer Regt, the infantry regiments Kerpen, Bianchi and Jellachich, the Grenadier battalions Purcell and Welsperg and two 6pdr foot batteries, supported by the Radetzky Hussars and the Dragoon regiments Savoy and Hohenlohe – that’s a total of 7 battalions (two of which were light infantry), 3 cavalry units and 2 artillery.

Austrians have a few national characteristics in C&CN. The line infantry battalions are big – 5 blocks – and  have the unique ability to adopt a solid square formation (Bataillonmasse) against cavalry, which behaves like a normal square as far as the rules are concerned, but does not require a Command card to be held hostage on the Square Tracker. The line infantry and the Grenzers suffer double retreats if things go against them, otherwise things are pretty much standard C&CN – troops firing on the move have the half-effect rounded down, and there are the usual advantages for light troops and grenadiers.

Their opposition for the day came from the Division of General Marcognet, who had the French infantry brigades of De Conchy and Jeanin (both names familiar to me, as these were distinguished battalion commanders from the Peninsula) and the Italian brigade of St Paul (another old friend), with, between them, a total of 14 battalions, of which 4 were lights, and there was also a cavalry brigade comprising 2 French regiments of Chasseurs à Cheval and some Italian dragoons, and an Italian foot battery and a French horse battery.

I, of course, was Marcognet, since it was only right that Goya should command his shiny new army. Scenario specifics were that each commander had 5 Command cards and an initial hand of 3 Tactician cards, and that 7 Victory Points would decide the day. There were extra VPs available to the French for each village hex they occupied, and for each of the bridge and the 2 fords which they held. If things became too difficult to hold the position, the Austrians’ only retreat was over the river by this same bridge or the fords (the river being otherwise out of bounds), and they could reduce the French VP holding by 1 for every 2 units or leaders they retreated off the table – such units and leaders could not return, but they would not count as VPs for the French. The only other rule of the day was that any unit which spent an entire move on the road – starting and ending their move upon it, and not involved in any combat – could have an extra hex of movement. In the event neither the road nor the extra VP rules came into play.

To set up, the Austrian commander could place his units anywhere in his half of the table (including the centre line). Having seen the initial defensive position, the French commander could place his entire army within 3 hexes of his baseline – for both armies, leaders could be placed with units if desired. Thereafter, the Austrians could move 3 units or leaders, the French could then move 2, and – finally – the Austrians could move 1 – still restricted to their own half. At that point, we dealt the cards, and the French started the first turn.

My plan, such as it was, given my big superiority in infantry and the cover provided by the central ridge, was to march my main force over the ridge in as much mass as I could manage, overrun the batteries, punch through to the west (my left) of the village and attack the fords. Meanwhile, the French light infantry would advance through the woods to demonstrate against the bridge. The Italians and the cavalry were in reserve on my left, the intention being that they would pile into the attack on the fords as support for the main attack.

The tricky bit was making the extra numbers pay off before I lost enough troops to fulfill the Austrian victory requirements. It was obviously going to be messy, but it seemed possible.  A quick mass advance in the centre, shielded from artillery by the ridge, started things off well, but after that it got progressively more disastrous.

First thing is, these big Austrian line battalions have a lot of firepower, and the double retreats never counted for anything, since I didn’t manage to dislodge anybody. Beyond that difficulty, it’s all down to me. The advance in the centre was delayed by lack of suitable cards, true, but also because I had been too cautious with the deployment of my general officers – if I had been braver, and attached them to the leading units, a couple of cards turned up which would have used their presence to speed up my attack. I also made a mess of the placement of my light infantry, so that the attack through the woods made very little progress – I wasted a lot of time trying to pull battered units out of the way so that they could be replaced by fresh ones, and it all took too long – the bridge was never threatened. When the main attack did reach the central ridge it was disjointed and had little cohesion, the Austrian infantry were ready and used bonus cards well to maximise their fire effect.

Elsewhere – on my left – the Italians were a poor relation, since I could never spare enough orders to get them properly involved. My cavalry was outmatched by the Austrian heavies (my Italian dragoons melted away like snowballs in Hades) and, as a result of a stupid miscalculation of move distances for the cavalry, an otherwise inspired pincer attack with my mounted troops failed dismally and also cost me the Italian artillery. Drat.

In the end, I just ran out of men – the Austrians achieved their 7 VPs and the day was lost – I still had enough troops left to threaten the village, but it had all been too slow, and I had not managed to hold the line together well enough for the units to provide the mutual support which is necessary to stop them falling back.

A most enjoyable day – my compliments and thanks to my noble opponent, not least for driving an hour and a half out here to the Front of Beyond with his precious troops. After a fairly slow start we did, in fact, get the bloodbath I feared we might. The lesson was familiar, but clear – attacking in Commands & Colors is a challenge, especially if you are timid with your positioning of leaders, and if the cards refuse to co-operate with your Grand Scheme.

Great fun!

The battlefield, viewed from the northern (Austrian) side - the village of Bassaro
nestles in a bend of the River Adige - the fords can be seen on the table edge

Things get under way - French on the left, Austrian Jägers in the woods near the bridge 

French left - the cavalry promised little and delivered less, though the brigadier
led a charmed life, and they managed to leave the Italian battery exposed with predictable results

Sutterheim sorts out his defence

Marcognet makes heavy weather of his advance at the far end, while the
Italians and the cavalry wait for their moment at this end

As the Command cards played out, a couple of general officers with the French advance
would really have got things going much quicker - oh well...

Stirring sight - the Austrian cavalry performed excellently, including a couple
of successful bonus (follow-up) melées which did a lot of damage [please
ignore any Spanish unit titles on the borrowed sabots]

Grenzers in the woods - they had a fine view of the cavalry proceedings, but
otherwise were not called upon to do very much

At this point, Marcognet's attack was already going badly - the single unit on the
ridge should have been four units all supporting each other - there will be questions asked...

This was as far as the attack through the woods got - too late, and the Austrians
(noted for their famous bridge balancing act) had organised enough firepower to
prevent anyone emerging from the trees

This looks like a lot of troops, but the boys with all the casualty markers are being withdrawn

This photo captures a point at which the main, central attack has started to fizzle out,
and the cavalry scrap is about to start

...and here it begins, with the French horse outmatched and in any case unable to combine properly

So much for the cavalry - Marcognet has one last push in the centre...

...but the Kaiserlichs are ready, and Victory Points are mounting up!

Another view of the end of the day