Kilsyth 1645: Wargame Homework - Facts and Legends

 I am preparing for a Zoom wargame, to take place in a little over 2 weeks - I shall host it and I'll be the umpire, which is a situation I enjoy very much, though the experience of the remote generals is heavily dependant on the technology and the picture-quality at their end!

I once had a solo game which was (sort of) based on the Battle of Kilsyth, which in reality took place on 15th August 1645. The game was interesting and a great deal of fun, and I've had a hankering to try it again, with some changes based on things which I've read subsequently, and on aspects of that first attempt which I'd do slightly differently now.

Kilsyth? Well, you may know a great deal about the battle, maybe not. It took place in Lanarkshire, not far from Glasgow, during one of the Scottish bits of the ECW. It featured the Covenanter army, in which I am very interested, and (of course) James Graham, the Marquis of Montrose. Montrose is a fascinating character - to this day there is still an active society to preserve and enhance his legend; in its way, this is a warning sign - the central personality can get in the way of any kind of impartial study. Trying to get some facts about the campaigns of the Marquis is not unlike trying to find some factual history about Robin Hood. The ghost of Walt Disney never seems far away.

I'm having a great time preparing for my Zoom game - I have a lot of books here, most of them excellent, and there is some good stuff online, but there are some surprises for the amateur student. First of all, we have the first-hand narrative of the General in command of the Covenant troops, William Baillie, which - since he was badly beaten - is bound to be something of an exercise in self-justification, but overall it's not a terrible account. We also have the version of the tale which comes from George Wishart, who was Montrose's personal chaplain, and later his biographer - this is adulatory throughout. This theme goes through all the subsequent secondary works. 

Dame CV Wedgwood (Montrose - 1952) and Nigel Tranter (Montrose: The Captain-General - 1973) are both historical novels, really, written in homage to the handsome, brilliant, tragic hero. The good guys are perfect - brave, and breathtakingly wise and just - and the bad guys are - well, ugly, and evil. Boo. Tranter has Montrose and his chums speaking like the lads from a GA Henty novel, and there is much reference to keen eyes, and frowns upon noble brows.

Vol.2 of SR Gardiner's marvellous History of the Great Civil War is heavily pro-Royalist (which was seen as a patriotic position to take, it goes without saying). Again, the references to Montrose and his short career emphasise that he is a heroic character who can do little wrong, and the sizes of the forces involved are tweaked throughout to polish the legend - Gardiner's numbers for Kilsyth look very unlikely. His estimate of 6000 Foot for the Covenant forces seems far too high, and the statement that all but 100 of them were killed is preposterous.

John Buchan (Montrose - 1928) admits in his foreword that the book is really about his fascination with the central character - it is not primarily a historical record, it is the splendid tale of Montrose's adventures. I have no problem with this - it's an excellent read, but it's as well to be aware of where it is coming from.

And so on. The big discord comes with the modern works of Stuart Reid, of which I am a big fan. Reid is a thorough, nuts and bolts military historian, but he, also, seems a bit partial. Stuart gives the impression of having been irritated by the traditional representation of Montrose as a god-like martyr, and strives to present the flaws as well - maybe he pushes too hard the other way - but this is a good starting place from which to construct my game.

A couple of trivia facts - you may disagree with them - if you do, then it's OK - I'm sure you are right.

* Montrose's campaigns of 1644-45, though regarded as part of the Civil War, were not primarily driven by support for King Charles. Charles eventually saw some advantages for his failing war effort in Montrose's success, but this was opportunist rather than planned. The main drivers were clan-based rivalries of great age - the MacDonalds, the Ogilvies, the Gordons and various others vs the Campbells and the Hamiltons and their allies. The Covenant (and, no doubt, the Presbyterian vs Catholic struggles) gave a context, but this was fundamentally older stuff 

* It is interesting to observe that in my reading of the last week or so I have seen both sides described as "rebels".  Royalists considered that Montrose was fighting against the Covenant "rebels", who were allied with the English Parliamentarian "rebels", but a more logical view is that Montrose was leading a rebellion against the armies of the Scottish Parliament. However you view this, the Campbells vs The Rest thing is always there.

* Montrose himself was a signatory to the Covenant, and fought against King Charles in the Bishops Wars of 1639 and 1640. His change of allegiance had a great deal to do with the fact that his personal standing in Scotland was leapfrogged by the rise of the Marquis of Argyll (Archibald Campbell) - there was ambition and a personal feud in here as well. When Montrose first went to join with the King, Charles was neither interested nor welcoming.

OK - this is rambling on a bit. I now have a decent grasp of the OOBs I'm going to use for my tabletop Kilsyth. These are, I hope, based on fact, but they are also drawn up to give a decent game. The next point of interest is the battlefield itself. There is a good overall description in the Battlefields Trust's section on Kilsyth, but there are a few big holes in our knowledge. Much of what the BT sets out is the reasons we know surprisingly little.

Again, Stuart Reid is a useful source, but there are many things which are not clear. Partly because the battlefield has never been properly examined, and partly because some of it has now been altered by coal and ironstone workings, and by the creation of a man-made lake, Banton Loch, which covers at least part of the centre of the fight. We know where the battle took place (roughly), and there are some definite identifiers in Baillie's account, for example, but there are still arguments about exactly where the armies were, and maybe even about which way they were facing. None of this is a problem, by the way, I will happily set out a battle on my table!

Here a few random photos of the Kilsyth battlefield - not mine, by the way.

I confess to something of a blind spot when it comes to looking at battlefields. I can read a map, I think, and I can understand a toy battle laid out on a table, but place me on the ground and I will struggle; for a start, I am very poor at judging distances! This was brought home to me very forcibly when I spent a day on a guided tour of Eggmühl, a few years ago. I had a great time, but spent the day nodding rather dumbly and trying to relate what I was seeing to the map! 

Having said which, I did get a lot of valuable understanding in preparation for another wargame, a few years ago, when I walked the full width of Marston Moor (in the pouring rain). I may use this approach again - if there's a suitable day next week, I live about 80 minutes' drive from Kilsyth. I could go and have a look at it. Rain is not essential.

Hmmm.

You will hear more of Kilsyth before long. This has just been a little explanation about why I am so busy (and enjoying myself very thoroughly) during the homework phase!

Update to my C&C-based ECW Rules

This post is overdue - I was working on some changes back in April, but hadn't got the links formalised for Google Drive.

The latest version is 3.01 - as always, there is some typo-fixing, and I've simplified some rules because the (imagined) added cleverness proved to be outweighed by the extra complexity (constant theme).

One of the big changes is that I've now included a more-or-less coherent note on the use of my optional, dice-based Ramekin activation system with the ECW rules. This does a number of things, the chief of which is removal of the Command Cards from the game. Ver 3.01 of the rules also uses a coloured font to identify the parts of the rules which are changed in the absence of the Cards. I have been surprised to learn that a number of people actually use these rules now, and it is only right and proper that I should try to ensure that the "official" downloads are up to date.

The downloadable documents should now allow use of Ver 3.01 with the Command and Chaunce Cards or, as an alternative, the Ramekin system. In passing, Ramekin has proved (fortuitously!) to be absolutely invaluable for playing C&C Napoleonic games remotely, via Zoom, which is an accidental bonus I had not planned for!

As ever, please bear in mind that these rules are primarily for my own use, they are supported and maintained on an occasional, best-endeavours basis, and I don't really wish to hear how awful they are(!) - I'm delighted to discuss them if anyone has any suggestions which are consistent with what I have tried to achieve with them. Also - of course - if the links don't work properly, please do let me know! Google Docs and its offspring have always been pretty much intuitive in use, but I use them so infrequently that I have a tendency to forget best practice!

If you are interested, or want to update the versions you have, you will find the link in the top right corner of this screen.

Guest Appearance - Steve Cooney

Prompted by my brief return to matters ECW, Steve very kindly sent me some more photos of figures from his own collection - I'm always keen on a little reflected glory so here they are.

Steve says, "Whilst you’re in ECW mode, some photos attached which you might like. They are of Sir William Waller’s Parliamentarian Regiment of Foot, Regiment of Horse and Artillery, all Hinton Hunt figures with a few Les Higgins conversions (this is regiment number 24!!). The mortar is a Lancer Miniatures."

Thanks very much, Steve - I do like them - very much, in fact.

Nantwich - Lord Molyneux's Purple Day

The arranged Nantwich game took place yesterday. Since the field layout for this battle doesn't really work well with the conventional Commands & Colors Left/Centre/Right activation system, we used a Ramekin-based mod for the C&C game, with dice-based activation.

Near the end of the day, Parliament's right flank consisted of Rigby's Regt of Foot and an artillery battery. They saw off some earlier attention from Royalist Horse, and were still holding their ground when we finished.

The game started with the Parliamentary army coming onto the field from the north. Because one of the chief bridges over the River Weaver was wrecked, Lord Byron had most of his Royalist troops on the wrong side of the river, so they arrived, very short of breath, after a detour through Shrewbridge, shortly after Fairfax's boys appeared on the Chester road opposite.

The Royalists already had a regiment of Foot and some medium sakers in place at Acton Church, and a body of musketeers from Fulk Huncke's regiment in the grounds of Dorfold Hall. The Parliament troops had a garrison of 800 muskets in the Nantwich suburb of Welsh Row, which had been strengthened with earthworks. The Nantwich garrison were classed as "raw".

On paper, the Royalists looked stronger - they had a lot of "veteran" units, and their Horse were generally superior tactically to their opponents.

In our game, Byron (that was Stryker and me) set about getting troops up to Acton Church, but realised fairly quickly that Fairfax (Goya and the Archduke) had swerved left and was heading towards Nantwich. Most of the subsequent action took place in the fields around Henhull Farm.

Byron rushes on to the field from the right of the picture, he may be late but he'll be up-to-date when he can shimmy like his sister Kate. He has troops already in the middle of the table, under Richard Gibson. Acton Church is smack in the middle of the photo, Dorfold Hall on the right edge of the table, with Nantwich beyond it, in the corner. Henhull Farm, where most of the fighting took place, is near the top edge of the photo, about one-third from the right.

It becomes obvious fairly quickly that Fairfax plans to avoid the church and head left over towards Nantwich. Sneaky.

With the Parliament troops making for Henhull (right of centre at the top of the picture), Byron attempts to react to this by moving forward with his own right flank.

Near the enclosure just to the west of Henhull, Earnley's Regt of Foot (in the foreground) are attacked by Parliament Horse. Earnley's was one of the numerous veteran units on the King's side this day (see the "V" on the bases), and they had a light gun with them. With confidence appropriate to their veteran status, they declined the opportunity to form a hedgehog - and were promptly ridden down! After a slow start, the Victory Points score was suddenly 3-1 to Fairfax's forces (7 for the win). 

Now there was violent conflict in the open ground around Henhull. Although we had expected this would be a quiet day for horse (assuming that the fighting would take place, historically, around Acton Church), there was some spectacular cavalry action - predictably bloody. At this stage the VP score had reached 4-3 for Parliament.

In a desperate attempt to get a few more VPs, the Royalists attacked on their left. This is Tyldesley's RoH attacking - they were forced to withdraw.

After the Horse, Tyldesley's and Robert Byron's Regts of Foot commenced an attack. It was now 5-4 for Parliament, and Stryker and I were not feeling too confident...

...when suddenly, on the other flank, Lord Richard Molyneux's Horse routed a Parliament unit of Horse, then broke through and destroyed John Booth's RoF, killing Sir Wm Brereton in the process. That's 3 VPs in a single turn, folks, and we'd snatched it 7-5. The picture shows Molyneux's boys getting their breath back, on Welshman's Lane, after their greatest day ever. Lancashire lads, you see?

I'm the first to admit that our victory was more than a little streaky, but I shall enjoy it anyway. At the end of the day, Gibson's RoF and the sakers are just where they started, by the Church of St Mary Acton, having had a relatively quiet time.

 As ever, my compliments and thanks to my colleagues, for their company and excellent humour. Thanks in particular to the Archduke, for his brave circumnavigation of Edinburgh. I'm sure we'll be back to Napoleonics for our next meeting, but the change of period was refreshing!

Fighting Next Week - Nantwich (again)

Next week it is my turn to host a wargame with what has now become the usual crew, and very nice too. For a little change of context, this time I'm staging the Battle of Nantwich (January 1644), which I fought once before - more than 6 years ago, I'm astounded to learn. Since then my tabletop has been repainted with the hexes the "correct" way round, so the battlefield has been re-engineered a bit.

The battle is interesting; like a good many of the smaller, regional actions from the First ECW, it is not just a straight Grand Bash in open countryside, everyone lined up in their best togs with the cavalry on the flanks and all that - it is more of an encounter, albeit an encounter on well-worn ground, as part of a campaign. I'll post some more notes before the game (probably).

This is what my Battle of Nantwich looks like before the soldiers arrive.

General view of the battlefield from the South East, with the town of Nantwich in the foreground. The place is important by this date in the ECW because it is the last town in Cheshire held by Parliament, and it has an important bridge over the River Weaver. The river is unfordable, particularly this January of 1644, when there has been a sudden thaw of snow.

Close up of part of the town - across the bridge is the suburb of Welsh Row. In the interests of scenic accuracy, I may add some humble earthworks to the town's defences. The river is really a no-go area - effectively off the table. In the distance you can see Dorfold Hall, the home (if it matters) of Sir Roger Wilbraham and his family.

And here you are - Dorfold Hall. In the right background you can see Acton Church, which was the centre of the real battle of Nantwich.

The Church of St Mary, Acton - still standing today. Traditional thematic joke: note that Wellington's Tree appears here, visible behind the church tower - presumably this is Byron's Tree for the day.

Ah - now here's a problem - downstream of Nantwich, the next useful bridge is usually Beam Bridge, but the Nantwich garrison have demolished it, and a temporary bridge constructed by the Royalists has been wrecked in the flood caused by the thaw. This means that Lord John Byron, who has been half-heartedly besieging the town for a few weeks, has troops on both sides of the River Weaver, but no handy way of joining them together. [Historical spoiler alert] 

General view from the South-West - the relieving Parliamentary force, Tom Fairfax at the head, will arrive along the road from Chester and Delamere, which is at the left edge of the photo. There are a few enclosures, which are mostly a problem for Horse. The church is in the centre of the picture - beyond it is the farm at Henhull, with the thatched roofs; on the right is Dorfold Hall, with Nantwich in the far right corner.

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

Earthworks - I've been reading a few extra bits and pieces, and - despite protests from the Tourist Board - have now added some earthworks and a couple of "sconces" to the Welsh Row (western) section of Nantwich. The town had been under attack off and on for a year or so, and the governor, George Booth, had enthusiastically instigated a lot of work to strengthen the place. Here you see my attempt to fortify Welsh Row - viewed from inside and out, obviously with the help of a drone.

They would have heavy chains across the road-ends. The earth banks are by Fat Frank, can't remember where I got the gun emplacements. If you have exceptional eyesight you will see the town pillory on the edge of the suburb. I stopped short of flowerbeds, though it was a near thing.

There is more to be done. Tom Fairfax records that his forces came under fire from Royalist guns in "works" to the north of Acton Church, so I may have another look at that tomorrow.

******************* 

Guest Appearance: More ECW Hinton Hunts

I received a very nice email from Steve Cooney, who sent me some pictures of soldiers in his collection. Always worth sharing, I think.

Steve describes them thus:

Meanwhile if you want to have a break from all those Napoleonics, I have attached some pics of Sir Thomas Blackwell's ECW Royalist Regiment of Foote; all Hinton Hunt figures except for the modified Les Higgins drummer and the thinned-down SHQ Officer on foot.

Hope you like them.

Steve, I like them - thank you!

For King and Parliament - At Last a Proper Try-Out Game

Last week I finally (finally) managed to set up a range-finder game of For King and Parliament - Count Goya was kind enough to travel down from his estates up North to take part.

What follows is not a serious critical review of FK&P - since the game is becoming very successful and popular, and is played enthusiastically by a number of people whose taste and judgement I respect, anything I write here is likely to say more about me than it does about the game, and much has already been expressed about its merits. If you have not played it yourself, there is a good chance you will have seen one of the spectacular demonstration games at wargame shows in recent months. On the other hand, whether or not it suits me is - inescapably - an important personal criterion.

I did have some concurrent distractions going on in the Real World, which is a lame excuse really, but I found it quite difficult to get up to speed with the rules. I had no background involvement with its Ancient and Medieval father, To the Strongest (and I still reckon that makes a big difference to understanding the concepts). I found a lot of excellent ideas in it, and I very much liked the spirit in which the rules were written and presented. I have also benefitted, I must add, from some very kind after-sales consultancy from the co-authors, and from on-line friends and blog contacts who have played it already, so I have little or no justification for being obtuse.

It's not that the game is complex - it is a little unusual, maybe even quirky, in some respects, but that's all grist to the wassname. I found there was a lot to remember - a lot of exceptional combinations of things which need to be jotted down somewhere [example - although I thought I was OK with this one, I suddenly had a wobbly moment during our game - I was sure that when "Dutch" style horse attack "Swedish" style, the melee has to switch around so that the defenders become the attackers (in rule terms). Damned if I could find it in the rule-book in the heat of the moment, so we had to fix up a Convention of the Day. I was disappointed with myself...]

With all due respect, I have to say that the official QRS is among the three or four worst I have ever seen - it is verbose, yet it seems to avoid saying anything about combat, for example. I was very grateful for the inclusion of a very good index in the book though - I'd have been in big trouble without it.

I had real problems getting my head around the Activation Penalties rules, but it turned out that I was confused by a couple of errors in the worked examples in the book. I know that Ver 1.1 of the rules has these slips corrected. I have no problems at all with the gridded battlefield, that's all pleasingly straightforward (though Morschauser followers may object to the fact that I find square-based terrain a lot more alien than my usual hexes). The use of playing cards did not alarm me, provided I could keep the tabletop clutter down to acceptable levels - I have bought in supplies of half-sized patience cards, which helps a lot, and have tried to develop a very OCD regime for tidying up after each turn. One thing which is actually suggested in the rule book, and to which we should have attached more weight, is the need to keep the "To Hit" and "Save" cards physically separated from the "Activation" cards - it is important to keep the former on your baseline, and tidy them away immediately after play, and to keep the latter on the table, placed tidily alongside the unit or leader to whom they apply. My newly-developed house protocols also require the cards to be tidied and placed face down with each brigade when its activation is complete (so you can see which brigades haven't done anything yet this turn), and we tidy all cards away and shuffle them back into the deck when the player's turn is finished. This game includes a lot of potential for making a real mess with the playing equipment, which is aesthetically suboptimal and especially so if you use small figures like mine. You have to be able to take photos of your game, after all...

On the same theme, there is a lot of information to be carried around with the units. I was a bit alarmed at the outset with the potential for the game to become buried in counters. The systems are well thought out, no doubt, but I think it is necessary for each player to decide for himself how he keeps track of the unit info. I have a long-held hatred of off-table rosters, which I find distracting and which disrupt the on-table flow. I am also famously cack-handed when it comes to knocking over piles of tiddlywinks, or leaving the things adjacent to the wrong unit, which may be explained as the Fog of War, but doesn't help the already-confused.

I got a lot of help and good ideas from a number of people (to whom I have offered my thanks previously), and I adopted (to some extent pinched) a system of small, attached labels, laminated, on which records may be maintained in dry-wipe whiteboard pen. The labels actually worked out pretty well, though the magnetic attachment system proved unreliable - labels kept getting separated from their units, which was fiddly and inconvenient. I had hoped to avoid it, but I think I had better make proper sabots for the units to stand on - it will simplify moving, and tidy things up a lot. That's sort of pencilled in as a must-do.

One aspect of the game which I appreciated (perversely, maybe) is that to some extent it is an ideas toolkit - it is not overly prescriptive - there is a need for each player adopting the game to think seriously about how he will set it up physically - what size squares, how (and if) he uses playing cards, or chits-in-a-bag, or decimal dice, how he adopts (or adapts) the information counters system to suit his scales and his sense of aesthetics (and level of OCD).

I set up a decent-looking game the night before the arranged date, and spent some of the night worrying about it, so that first thing the next morning I came downstairs and cut the size of the game down by about half. That was a sound idea - we played very slowly, since we spent a lot of time with our heads in the book, but we did OK. As units collected "disorder" markers, their fighting effectiveness fell away, and for a while there was the impression of a relentless (occasionally bewildering) series of card drawings which for the most part didn't achieve anything. With more time and experience (and wisdom), of course, we'd have put more effort into pulling units back out of the action and attempting to rally them back into shape, in a more soldierly manner. The card play is entertaining - in a social game, there is good scope for associated banter and mock applause, etc, but for a solo game I am not so sure. It might be a grunt.

We didn't finish the game, but that wasn't the point. I am left with a recollection that, even in a small game, each player's turn is quite long, and it is easy to forget where you are up to, especially when units are fighting back in melee, or returning fire - I think I might try to add a little jotter system to remind me whose turn it is. We didn't use Victory Medals (though I strongly fancy the chocolate coins idea) - we counted backwards on my ex-billiards scoreboard.

Unfortunately, my period of induction to the game has coincided with some issues elsewhere, but for a couple of months the rulebook has accompanied me on train journeys and so on, and has been my bedtime reading matter. It is a genuine relief to have advanced as far as playing a game - I have a better feel for what is involved now, I can put some more focused effort into setting up the next game. I can also put the bloody book away for a few weeks and think about something else!

The game is good - it is not the life-changing experience some might have hoped for, but it will doubtless become more familiar and more intuitive. My first impressions are a bit mixed, but overall probably more favourable than my first efforts at Commands & Colors, which has become a way of life for me now!

Some pictures follow - I won't attempt any kind of logical narrative, since it was a rules try-out, and there isn't one. Apologies for the cut-price scenery - I'm working on it.

The trial game - if the cards behave themselves, and co-operate, you can get a lot done in a single turn, and move some of your units a long way

Horse - we adopted a convention that "Swedish"-style (galloper) horse deployed as a line of 3 bases, and "Dutch"-style as a column of 4

Foot getting up close

General view - our trial game was a little sparse (intentionally so) - note the face-down cards, tidily denoting that each brigade has finished its business for this turn, and the little pile on the left is the used "To Hit" and "Save" cards - very confusing if these get mixed up. Parliament on the left here, with the red cards.

No Victory Medals for us - too mean, for one thing - just the old scoreboard waiting patiently for some action

This and the remainder of the photos are here under false pretence - this is the original, larger game I set up the night before, which would have been nice to look at but a really bad idea for getting to grips with the rules.

 

In passing, note that the ploughed fields were cut from a pair of needle-cord trousers I had in about 1970. Astonishing that I cut them to fit the square grid I would adopt for this game nearly 50 years later. What planning has gone into this hobby, now I think about it.

As always, I use undersized buildings to help with the ground-scale anomalies - 15mm Hovels buildings here, with 20mm men, laid out on 7.5-inch squares (or boxes, as we say in FK&P). Plenty of wine handy, but the Puritans won't touch it, of course. The rules are within easy reach, too - the "corners-only" phantom grid markings work nicely.

 

For King & Parliament - Infrastructure Prototyping

I have made lamentably slow progress with my solo practice sessions for FK&P - one thing that has been holding me back [dodgy alibi] is the need for a practicable way to keep track of unit information in a simple but effective way, in keeping with my minimalist toy soldier style presentation, without burying the troops in counters.

This morning I have produced something which appears to fit the bill. My sincere thanks to Simon Miller and Gonsalvo for useful suggestions, and especially to Andrew Brentnall and The Jolly Broom Man for actual examples, which I have adapted (not to say stolen) to fit my basing systems.

I had a happy couple of hours fiddling around with MS Publisher, and I've set up a decent infantry template, which I can reproduce and amend quickly and easily. I ran off some trial sheets of info labels, laminated them and cut them to size. Here are the results to date.

Never happier than when fiddling about

Here are the first trial batch - these for some of my Parliamentarian foote. I'd have preferred to use matt plastic laminating pouches, but the glossy ones are better for allowing successful removal of white-board pen annotations. Note the little strip of white steel paper at the top of each label - these strips may need to be larger

Exciting picture of a flying base, showing how the little label attaches. My bases are all underlaid with magnetic sheet anyway, to allow them to live safely in their box files. The sliver of steel paper on the label allows it to attach underneath the base, without glue or anything messy

Here you go - volunteer demonstration by Richard Shuttleworth's RoF (of Blackburn Hundred) - these chaps were originally the Blackburn town Trained Band, and the yellow square on the right indicates that they are classed as "raw". Old Richard in his best crimson coat is proud of them anyway. The 17th Century font is a bit of an extravagance, since I will have to draw it to people's attention, but it is not inappropriate, since my laminating machine must date from approximately the same period

From the front, the new label is quite discreet

Thus far, this looks promising. If it works (or can be made to work) then I should be able to manage without any major investment in sabots, and the labels are cheap, easy to make and easily edited if I successfully keep the template samples handy. In today's trial, movement on the cork sheet (which might be grippier than the painted battle boards) suggests that the label tends to shift a bit in action. It won't come adrift, but it can get a bit - you know how it is - not quite straight [OCD alert]. I was hoping to be able to use the same size labels for the foote, the horse and the dismounted dragoon bases (which last are only half the depth), but I may have to change to bigger labels with bigger patches of steel paper.

I might buy some better quality laminating pouches - I'm down to a pack of Woolworth's own brand, which illustrates the house focus on economy and making things last. Better pouches will stick on the paper more firmly.

Work continues. There should be some pictures of actual test games once the record-keeping labels are working nicely.