Napoleonic & ECW wargaming, with a load of old Hooptedoodle on this & that


Showing posts with label Campaigns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaigns. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

Solo Campaign – Nearly Time to Get Started


It would be possible to tinker about with details indefinitely, and never get under way - there is something of that in my character. I have to remind myself why I wanted to do campaigns again, and I also have to focus clearly on some of the advantages of doing it solo.

I have been involved with campaigns before, though never on my own, and they always seemed a satisfying way to generate tabletop battles. They were absorbing at many levels and, apart from setting the wargames into a more meaningful context, they also helped to encourage more general-like behaviour - in particular

(1) since the survivors of a battle will be required to continue to play a useful part in the continuing war, it is a good idea to avoid unnecessary casualties; thus the concept of a controlled retreat becomes important.

(2) armies have to be positioned so that the component parts can support each other, without starving each other to death - not everyone is going to be available all the time, and not everyone is going to be on top form.

This next bit is kind of cyclic logic - it isn't strictly speaking the reason why I have grown my armies far beyond what can fit on a single battlefield, but viewing them as the participants in a grander scale, map-based game has almost become the justification for continuing to add to them. I am impressed by Charles S Grant's recommendation that no units should appear in your campaign OOBs unless you actually have representative figures for them. There will be a need for spare, generic bataillons de marche to provide gap-fillers here and there, and some re-use is a good idea in such circumstances, but my army has built up slowly enough for me to cherish the personalities involved, However silly it might seem, it wouldn't seem right to field my 42nd Royal Highland Regt, who are mostly ancient Garrison figures and have had this ID since about 1974, and pretend for the day that they were the Gordons. Obviously I could do it if necessary, but my instinct would be to come up with another unit of highlanders for this alternative role. Given a choice, I would prefer to bend history a little. It's not just that the facing colours would be wrong (though there is that, now I come to think about it...) - it's the feeling of a slight betrayal of some old friends. Does that make any sense, doctor?

A practical example of a historical fudge is offered by my sketched-out, first-cut deployment of the French. My starting point will be loosely based on January 1812 - how loosely is still a matter for consideration. Historically, the 2-battalion Hesse-Darmstadt regiment Gross und Erbprinz should be in the garrison of Badajoz. On the other hand, I am rather fond of my little Hessians, and would like to see them on the tabletop at some point. The siege of Badajoz looks like an obvious early event in the campaign, which probably means that the units in the garrison will never be seen again if the place falls. Given the choice, I'll fill Badajoz with unspecified units (which can develop an identity later if required), and I'll put the Hessians somewhere else.

Another big selling point for a campaign is that everyone (within reason) in The Cupboard can get involved - even the siege train and the engineers and the logistics boys. Not sure about the Band of King Joseph’s Guards, mind you.

I'm running out of excuses for delay. I have a map, I have my fancy new magnetic map counters, and I have rules. Aha - the rules - they're not complete, though, are they? Well no, they aren't, but they are about 90% complete, I would estimate, and this is where the "solo" bit of the solo campaign scores heavily. There are some inherent features of solo campaigning which are obviously advantages anyway - a campaign will generate some battles which are not finely balanced (in fact, many of them will be, realistically, skewed in favour of one side or the other), and some which are not suitable for fighting on the tabletop for some reason or other - in particular, mathematical sieges are going to be pretty much devoid of anything worth looking at. None of this matters a jot for the solo game - there is no need to dignify the evening with an elegant game, supper, all that. One does not even have to look one's best, as the ancient joke goes.

But there's more - if I have to improvise or alter rules where gaps become apparent (and they will), if I have to re-run things that don't work - even if I have to give up and start all over again - then if I am on my own it is not a problem. So my 90% rules will be fine for a start.

There are 3 remaining areas where I have a little work to do before I am ready.

(1) Intelligence and scouting – it is not easy to have any level of Fog of War if I can see from my magnetic map and my spreadsheets exactly who everyone is, and where they are, complete with the minutiae of weekly strength returns, and all that. My approach to this will be that I (as the Great Panjandrum) will know everything, and will have a system for working out the imperfections in what the units know about each other. Each group commander will have orders and objectives, and a personality (historical or not). The Fog system will allow for relative proportions of cavalry, the anti-French bias of the local population, plus a few random numbers to help each local commander to act on the information he has.... Since it is my game, if I don’t like the way it shapes up, I shall cheat as necessary until I like it better.

(2) I really can’t model the whole Peninsular War – I don’t have enough model soldiers or enough brain power, so determining how to scope it and restrict the field of operations is a challenge. My current plan is to declare most of Andalusia out of bounds (by reasoning that Soult is so obsessed with the siege of Cadiz and the irregulars in the South, and so unlikely to wish to help anyone else, that this area is self contained). Similarly, I hope to ignore the East coast area around Valencia and Tortosa, since Suchet and his Spanish opponents in these parts can keep each other fully occupied. Galicia, too can be off-limits for this first campaign.

So, in my cut-down bit of the map, the French will have an Army of Portugal with, instead of the historical 8 divisions, 3 oversized ones, with artillery and cavalry in proportion. The Army of Portugal will probably be about 60% of the strength of the real one. There will be a scaled down Army of the Centre based around Madrid, and (very much a simplification of the real war) a representative Army of the North to look after the forts and communications in Navarre and Biscay.

Wellington will have an army consisting of his First, Third, Sixth, Seventh (one brigade missing) and Light Divisions, each being overstrength at the start. Cavalry and artillery, like their French equivalents, will be scaled to suit the reduced force.

The Spanish field army is not large (since I am choosing to ignore most of the areas where they were heavily involved) but does exist, and there is an arrangement whereby the irregular partisans of Castile, Navarre, Biscay and Aragon may pop up all over the place in their own province – not bound by the normal movement rules – but may not move or fight outside their own patch.

I’m doing quite a lot of work on this bit. I’ll post a detailed OOB when I’ve got it firmed up.

(3) One area of the rules I would like to test out before I start is my in-house tweaked version of Commands & Colors:Napoleonics, intended to cope with very large battles. I have not actually fought a battle with this yet, and would feel a lot more confident if I had that experience under my belt (so to speak). In this grand tactical variant of CCN, “units” are brigades, and there are still some changes being worked on to cope with Divisional artillery, which (at this moment) may be attached to a unit or detached from it in a manner very similar to Leaders in the standard CCN game.

I still have a lot of notes from my attempt to fight Los Arapiles last year, and it should be easy enough to borrow heavily from those to do it again using the CCN variant. I intend to stage that battle in the next couple of weeks, and after that the campaign should be ready to go. If the wind blows in a favourable direction, there should be an outline of the GT modifications to CCN here shortly, plus some kind of report of a Salamanca refight using them.

I do realise, of course, that much of the flexibility and informality which I would expect from doing this solo is seriously compromised by writing it up here, so I hope any readers will accept that I am feeling my way, and will cut me some slack accordingly!

Monday, 28 November 2011

...and Beads

Many thanks to Willie Morgan and his wife Megan, who make costume jewellery and know about glues. By the way, I think Megan Morgan is an excellent name.


This is the stuff. Evo-Stik Serious Glue. Leaves the tube with a jelly-like consistency, does not tend to string or run about. Stays moveable for 3 minutes, sets hard in 2 hours. Fully cured the next day. It will fill gaps, stick uneven surfaces.


I haven't done all the beads yet, but am working through them. Fiddly fiddly. This requires some care, since the little magnets will happily leap 4 or 5 inches to join a neighbour, or stick to my penknife. You need plastic tweezers for this job. Here you see a couple of finished markers on the laminated master map - a division of the Armee de Portugal in Valladolid, plus a garrison in Burgos castle to keep the supply road open.

Thursday, 24 November 2011

Baubles, Bangles

Well, beads anyway. Any glue experts out there? I could do with a little advice.

For my upcoming solo campaign (for which I hope to have a working rules draft in a week or two), I need something pretty good in the way of map markers. My map of Iberia has been printed up nicely at A3 size, and laminated. It is now on the magnetic whiteboard in my office, and I am working on creating very small magnetic markers for the combat groups.

I have thought up a design, the materials are here - all I need now is to assemble them with sufficient precision!

The counters will be 7mm acrylic "spacer" beads (as used in necklaces and friendship bracelets) which are embossed with the letters of the alphabet, and these are to be fastened to some fabulous little 4mm magnets I have obtained. There will be 3 colours of beads - one alphabet for each, to cope with the 3 armies. The beads are 3mm thick, the magnets 1mm.

The makings – a couple of beads, a magnet and Her Majesty’s head on a £1 coin, all laid out on a board marked with 5mm squares. The coin is not part of the design – it is there to give an idea of the size. You probably realised that. On this scale, my finger-ends would look like elephants’ feet.

I'm dithering over choice of glue at present. The magnets are amazingly powerful, so the glue must be strong enough to allow the markers to be removed from the map without breaking and leaving the magnets behind. The beads are rounded and have the letters embossed on both sides; if they were flat on the back, I would consider superglue, but I'm not a fan of using superglue to fill gaps or provide part of the structure. I could use Araldite, but it's messy to work with, and these are very fiddly parts - I could easily end up with the whole lot glued permanently to my workbench. I need some user-friendly glue which will stay where I put it, fill the gaps between the curved bead and the flat magnet, and dry rigid and STRONG.

I have a few ideas, but there may be something out there which is just what I am looking for.

One of the attractions of the beads and magnets is they were very cheap - the magnets were about £5 for 100, the beads came to about the same amount again in total. Slight problem with the beads is you get 150 mixed letters in a bag, so you have to do some quick maths to identify how many bags you need to be pretty sure of getting at least one complete alphabet!

Friday, 18 November 2011

Solo Campaign Rules - resolving off-table combat

Another requirement for my solo campaign rules is some means of settling battles which are too small, or otherwise unsuitable, for a tabletop game. One of the attractions of a campaign is the scope for variety – fighting skirmishes between scouting parties, for example (in fact, such instances form my entire experience of skirmish wargaming), but there will frequently be situations where pragmatism must win over self-indulgence! This is, once again, something of a sad cop-out – absolute zero-spectacle wargaming, but these things will crop up, and it is necessary to have some available means of resolving them – much less awkward than having to improvise something to order.

My requirement – as for the sieges – is that it should be simple, reasonable and broadly consistent with what would have happened if a “proper” miniatures game had taken place.

Mr Duckenfield’s system, published in Practical Wargaming for March/April 1992 (I think), is well established as a way of doing this. What follows is primarily a re-hash of his method, with a few small tweaks to suit myself, and some smoothing of the numbers. If you don’t agree with my numbers, feel free to substitute your own.

For each army, identify the relevant modifiers in Table 1, and add 1D6. Subtract the Allied total from the French total, ignoring fractions, and get the result from Table 2.

Situation
French
British & Portuguese
Spanish Regulars
Militia & Irregulars
General present (most senior only)
+ General’s rating (1,2 or 3)
Troops mostly elite/veterans
+1
0
Troops mostly inexperienced or despondent
0
-1
-2
Troops tired
-1
-2
Forced march into battle
-1
-2
Encounter battle in rough terrain (brown)
0
+1
Defender in rough terrain (brown)
+1
+2
+1
+2
Defender in open terrain (green)
+1
0
-1
For each 25% numerical advantage
+1
Out of supply
-1
-2
-1
0

Table 1 – dice modifiers

French score minus
Allied score
French vs British/Portuguese
French vs Spanish or irregular
Result
French loss %
Br/Port loss %
Result
French loss %
Sp/irreg loss %
6 or more
Br/Port routed
5
30
Sp/Irreg routed
1
60
5
7
25
1
55
4
Br/Port defeated
8
20
2.5
50
3
10
17.5
5
40
2
Drawn – Br/Port withdraw
12.5
15
6
30
1
Drawn – attackers withdraw
15
12.5
Sp/Irreg defeated
7
25
0
Drawn – French withdraw
17.5
10
8
20
-1
French defeated
20
8
9
17.5
-2
22.5
7
10
15
-3
25
6
Drawn – attackers withdraw
12.5
12.5
-4
30
5
French defeated
15
10
-5
French routed
35
5
20
7.5
-6 or less
40
4
French routed
25
5

Table 2 – outcomes


Thursday, 17 November 2011

Solo Campaign Siege System - worked example


This follows on immediately from my last posting, and this is me attempting to try it out with a historical example. To be specific, the Allied siege of Ciudad Rodrigo in January 1812, and - to be even more specific - this starts off as history, but as soon as the dice start rolling, anything can happen, as we know.

One inconvenience about real history is that it is not easy to get a handle on some of the data - at least in your own pocket campaign you would know all this stuff for certain.

Ciudad Rodrigo has a Fortress Value (FV) of 6 in my table. This also limits the garrison to 6 combat units. From the appendices in Belmas, I know that the French force consisted of a very large but raw battalion of the 34e Léger, a battalion of the 133e Ligne (who were Tuscans, I am interested to note), a couple of companies of Artillerie à Pied (12th and 13th companies of the 6th regiment), about a dozen engineers and various staff monkeys and administrators and that's about it. A bit less than 2000 men, and the Garrison Value (GV) of the 4 units is - well, 4. Barrié, the garrison commander, had succeeded to the post when the appointed commandant (Renaud?) had been captured while inspecting the fortress's herd of beef cattle (the cattle were also captured). To get back to the plot, Barrié did not wish to have the position, and is generally regarded as unimpressive - we'll regard him as officially "Poor" in the motivation/leadership department, so no bonus is added to the GV.

Wellesley's force is not so easy to pin down. It is well recorded that the actual storm was carried out by the 3rd and Light Divisions, with support from Pack's Portuguese brigade, but this siege system is more interested in all the troops Wellesley had at the siege. This will then cover everyone who was available for digging and providing a threat, and who could potentially have been involved in a storm. By this wider definition, we should include the 1st, 3rd, 4th and Light Divisions plus Pack's Portuguese. If we lump together the various attached rifle companies into an extra battalion, this gives a total of 34 battalions plus 4 divisional artillery companies; 38 divided by 4 gives an Assault Value (AV) for the Allies of 10, near enough, which we should raise to 11 in view of Wellesley (supported by Fletcher and co) rating at least "Good" on our leadership scale. Wellesley appears to have had about 18000 men in these combat formations.

The designated Allied battering train consisted of 38 heavy guns which were deployed as 5 batteries - that's quite a lot of guns for 5 batteries, but we'll go with a Battering Value (BV) of 5.

To summarise, then, the defenders have FV = 6, GV = 4, the attackers have AV = 11, BV = 5.

Week 1

Bombardment: French have GV of 4, thus roll 4D6 (I'm actually rolling dice, rather pathetically, as I type...) - they come up 5 3 1 1 - the 5 deducts 1 from the attackers' AV, but there are no 6s, so no hits on the siege guns (BV),
Simultaneously, the Allied battering guns (BV = 5) roll 5D6 - 5 4 3 3 1 (not very good shooting, maybe they get better with practice?) - no 6s, so no damage to the fortress (FV), but the 5 scores against the garrison, so 1 comes off GV.

Now FV = 6, GV = 3 (total = 9) for the French, while AV = 10, BV = 5 for the Allies. The Allies do not bother asking the fortress to surrender, since their AV of 10 is extremely marginal for a storm against the defenders’ (FV + GV) = 9. No storm

Week 2

Bombardment: French now roll 3D6 - they come up 6 4 2 - the 6 hits the battering guns, and reduces the Allies' BV by 1
Meanwhile, the Allied batteries (BV still 5 - doesn't get adjusted until the end of this phase) roll 5D6 - 6 5 3 3 2 - the 6 removes 1 from the Fortress Value, the 5 removes a further 1 from the garrison (GV).

Now FV = 5, GV = 2 (total = 7) for the French, while AV = 10, BV = 4 for the Allies. AV of 10 still looking risky for a storm against (FV + GV) = 7 - bad luck with the dice could be disastrous. The Allies don't summon the garrison to surrender, and make no attempt to storm.

Week 3

Bombardment: French now reduced to 2D6 - they come up 6 5 - cheers from the battlements - they have the range now! Allies lose 1 off each of AV and BV
Allied batteries roll 4D6 - 6 4 4 1 - that's another 1 from FV - those walls are looking a bit second-hand.

Now FV = 4, GV = 2 (total = 6) for the French, while AV = 9, BV = 3 for the Allies. The Allies still don't fancy the chances of a storm, and don't ask for a surrender.

Week 4

Bombardment: French roll 2D6 - they come up 1 1 - useless. There may be trouble about this...
Allied batteries now down to 3D6 - 5 3 4 - the walls are standing up surprisingly well, but that's another 1 off the garrison (GV)

Now FV = 4, GV = 1 (total = 5) for the French, while AV = 9, BV = 3 for the Allies. Another week might improve the situation, but Wellesley decides to storm the fort now rather than lose further time (it's only a test...).


The Storm:

Defenders' Storm Strength DSS = FV + GV + 1D6 = 4 + 1 + 2 = 7
Attackers' ditto ASS = AV + 1D6 = 9 + 5 = 14, which is no contest – Attackers win.

Thus the storm is successful. The attacking force lose 1/2 x GV = 1/2 = 1 from their AV in the assault, giving a final figure for AV of 8. The surviving garrison are taken prisoner. Total loss for the Allies during the 4-week operation is 1/10 of the %age loss in AV = 1/10 x 3/11 = 2.73% which, for a force of 18000, is about 490 men. During the storm, the French lose 1/2 of (ASS - DSS) = 3.5, which is more than enough to eliminate their last surviving GV point. Thus the French have lost 100% of their GV, and actual casualties are 1/10 of this - 10% of the original 2000 men is 200, and the balance are prisoners.

OK - that worked. I'll try a couple more to see how it goes. It's not as much fun as a tabletop siege with a model fort, though. On the other hand, it didn't take me an entire weekend.

Sieges in my Solo Campaign Rules



This is getting into serious Nerd Territory, so be warned. I’d been thinking about the subject anyway, and was prompted further by Clive’s posting of Paddy Griffith’s algorithmic system for simulating sieges.

The background to this is hinted at in my previous post on my developing solo Campaign Rules for the Peninsular War. Well – not The Actual Peninsular War, of course, but a similar sort of war in the same area, using similar troops, around the same time.

They had a lot of sieges - it was a feature of the warfare. It would be lovely to be able to trundle out my model fort and fight siege games as part of a campaign, but sadly it is not practicable. The campaign has a weekly turn, and an ongoing siege would almost certainly last a number of turns. For a while I considered the possibility of maintaining a table-top siege game while the map moves went on in another room (or something), but that stopped abruptly when I realised that two or more sieges might be running simultaneously – and what then, eh?

So - like it or not - sieges are going to have to be settled by mathematical means, off the table. I have a copy of the NapNuts campaign rules, which handle sieges by means of A Duckenfield’s rules which were first published in Practical Wargaming – in fact his rules are lifted straight in, which is probably a vote in their favour. Being an awkward sod, I decided to set up my own system, though it is on not dissimilar lines.

I need the off-table siege “game” to give realistic durations and casualty levels for the siege operations, and I need it to produce reasonable results, but to operate crudely enough to work without destroying what is left of my poor brain (or enthusiasm). My earliest drafts were far too complex – this is about the fourth redrafting, and I am sure it has some distance to go. The trend has been toward progressive simplification throughout. I have glossed over many things – some because it was convenient to do so, and – doubtless – some because I just hadn’t thought of them.

This is where I have got to. It’s not finished by a long chalk, but it’s coming along. If this is the sort of thing you like, you may well like this.


Sieges in the Campaign Rules

The turns are 1 week long.

Defenders

Certain of the Areas on the map contain towns which are fortified and have a Fortress Value (FV). This reflects the size, strength and position of the installation, plus (amongst other things) an allowance for some resident artillery. The initial FV may subsequently be reduced by a combination of factors – damage to the walls, loss of guns, being compromised by siege works and siting of batteries – anything which renders the place less formidable.

The fortresses on the map, with their FVs, are:

Abrantes (P)           4
Alicante                  8
Almeida (P)            5
Badajoz                  8
Barcelona               8
Bayonne (F)           6
Bilbao                    6                              Towns marked (P) are in Portugal, (F) are in France
Burgos                   7
Cadiz                     12                           This is not intended to be a complete historical list -
Cartagena              10                              it is drawn up simply for the game!
Ciudad Rodrigo      6
Elvas (P)                5
Figueras                 8
Gibraltar                15          
Granada                 7
Jaca                       4
La Coruna              8
Lerida                    6
Lisboa (P)              7
Pamplona               6
Perpignan (F)         6
Sagunto                 10
San Sebastian         7
Santander               6
Tarragona               8
Tortosa                  6
Valencia                 7
Vic                         7
Zaragoza                7

Fighting troops in the fortress contribute a Garrison Value (GV). The number of units stationed in a fortress may not exceed its basic FV. For this purpose, a unit is a battalion of infantry (strength usually 4 CCN “blocks”) an artillery unit (3 blocks) or cavalry regiment (3 or 4 blocks). Initial GV is equal to the number of units (though cavalry and militia count 1/2 each), and its reduction during a siege will represent both casualties and diminution in “resolve” of the garrison. GV may be increased by a further 1 if the garrison commander is an identified Leader rated as Good or Outstanding (2 or 3).

Besiegers

The besieging troops are not limited in number, though supply may be an issue. The initial Assault Value (AV) is equal to 1/4 of the number of fighting units present (rounded to the nearer, half up), and may be increased by 1 if the overall commander of the besieging force is Good or Outstanding. The Battering Value (BV) is simply the number of specialist siege batteries present – these may be battering guns, mortars or rockets.

Thus, at the start of a siege, the defenders will have a FV and a GV, and the attackers will have an AV and a BV. These factors may all be impacted subsequently by enemy action.

If FV becomes zero, the fortress can be entered at will and the garrison will surrender.
If GV becomes zero, the garrison is no longer able to resist, and any survivors will surrender.
If AV becomes zero, the besieging force is no longer able to continue.
If BV becomes zero, the attackers have no bombarding artillery available, and will normally call off the siege (unless they expect some to arrive!).

If AV + BV is less than FV + GV then the attackers will normally call off the siege.

Each turn (commencing at the end of the first week of siege), the procedure is

Bombardment phase (all bombardment is simultaneous, so don’t make any deductions for hits until both sides have fired - the dice throws include the effect of accidents and bad breaks as well as direct hits).
* Defender throws [GV]D6 (i.e. a handful of 6-sided dice, GV in number) – any 6s will put a siege battery out of action (reduce BV by 1 for each), any 5s cause loss and demoralisation to the attackers’ forces and engineering (reduce AV by 1 for each).
* Attacker throws [BV]D6 – any 6s will damage or compromise the strength of the fortress (reduce FV by 1), any 5s cause loss and damage to the garrison and their resolve (reduce GV by 1).
* Adjust FV, GV, AV and BV for bombardment.

Protocol phase
If besiegers have not abandoned the siege, and if the fortress has not automatically surrendered, the attackers may summon the fortress to surrender. If AV > FV + GV + 5, then the fortress should at least consider surrendering, since they could not withstand a storm. However, a storm would kill more of the besiegers, and, if the defenders are French, they will be aware that the Emperor has given strict orders that no fort may surrender until it has withstood at least one assault....

The besiegers may elect to storm the fortress.

Storming phase
Defenders’ Storm Strength, DSS = FV + GV + 1D6
Attackers’ Storm Strength , ASS = AV + 1D6

* If ASS >= DSS then the fortress falls and the garrison surrenders. Attackers lose a final, further ½ GV from AV.
* Otherwise, if DSS–ASS is positive, storm is repulsed; attackers lose (DSS-ASS) from AV; defenders lose ½ this amount from GV
[Remember that losses in GV and AV are not just casualties – they represent all manner of loss of ability to continue].

Whenever it is necessary, at any moment during the siege (or when the siege is broken off or completed), actual casualties may be computed as one tenth of  the %age loss of AV or GV since the start of the siege.

Example – if successful besieging force started out with AV = 8, and end with AV of 6, then they have lost one tenth of 25% = 2.5% of the total force present.

Relieving forces will cause the besiegers to break off the siege, or at least divide their forces.

Sorties are abstracted as part of the unpleasantness which the defenders can inflict during the Bombardment.

Thus far, I have not explicitly addressed the question of the defenders’ supplies....