Anschluss Publishing – Ebb & Flow

I was sorting out my bookshelves a bit yesterday – trying to identify a bit of space for some new things, and seeing if I have any old things which I could usefully move on. In the process, as ever, I came across a number of books I didn’t even remember having bought, and some of them look pretty interesting!

One booklet which I came across again, having read it a few times, is the Diplomacy and Other Means campaign system. This was written by Ian Hinds some years ago for Anschluss Publishing. I got my copy second-hand through eBay. The book is interesting for a number of reasons – mainly for the holistic approach and the way it works. It is unlikely that I would ever actually play the game, since it does not lend itself at all to solo play and since it requires a lot of paperwork – albeit cleverly thought out paperwork.

The booklet makes reference to Anschluss's Ebb & Flow rules for miniatures wargames to cope with the combat aspcts of the campaigns. I had never heard of these, and did a bit of further research, and found they were still available, from (I think –and if this is wrong then humble apologies all round) Essex Miniatures. I phoned up and ordered the core rule system from them, plus an expansion – Module III, which covers the Peninsular Campaign of 1812-14. Sadly, I received only the expansion module – which is a series of army lists and OOBs, with some detail rule amendments for this particular campaign – plus an apology for the non-availability of the core rule booklet, which was now long out of print.

In the long history of wargame disappointments this was only a minor sadness, so I had a look at what I had received and put it away safely on the “small booklets” shelf, to be revisited periodically when I was looking for more space. I’ve kept a casual eye open for Ebb & Flow on eBay and elsewhere, just out of interest – not that I would be likely to adopt the system, but I sort of collect other people’s wargame ideas in the same way as a saxophonist friend of mine collects obscure minor scales – they might come in useful one day, but – more relevantly – I just like to read them.

Never found them, yet I still see reference to them here and there. Someone’s blog was reminiscing about Ebb & Flow the other week, and there is occasional mention on TMP. I’m still gently intrigued, if anyone has any experience of these rules, or tales to tell.

ECW - Test Days

Clive was good enough to come to stay for a couple of days to help with playtesting my ECW game based on GMT’s Commands & Colors: Napoleonics boardgame. He was also good enough to bring with him some rather splendid Swedish and Imperial 30YW armies of Revell figures, which was a considerable help, since my own ECW armies are too small to fight at present.

Hot news in North Berwick - photo courtesy David Warren/BBC

His visit coincided with the only bit of local excitement we have had in North Berwick in living memory – the fire station burned down. No-one was hurt, fortunately, but I am now a bit concerned in case the lifeboat station sinks. Clive has news that there is some Euro help on its way – two Spanish reserve fire-fighting crews have been despatched to help us in our hour of need – we understand that they are called Jose and Hose B.

Back at the wars, we started off with two Napoleonic battles, just to get us off to a comfortable start and to get Clive up to speed again on CCN.

The first Napoleonic game was an improvised action between an 1811 Spanish army and a French force consisting mainly of Confederation and Italian troops, led by King Joseph himself, no less. It finished very close – the Spaniards (Clive) won 7-6 on Victory Banners – the early failure of a couple of irregular units more than balanced by lamentable French artillery and the tragic loss of the King – struck down by remarkably lucky dice (he’ll be back). Poor old Joe was shot right through his wine bottle.

The second game was based on a scenario for Orthez published on CCNapoleonics.net. The comments on the website suggested that the French always win – well, I have news for you – I was the French and I got absolutely hammered. It isn’t as though I did anything wrong – the game hardly lasted long enough for me to do anything at all, good or bad. It would be pathetic to complain that I was unlucky again...

Then we moved on to an ECW-type battle, using my rules extensions for CCN. We played the same action over a few times, gradually refining and pruning the rules. We found that cavalry were too powerful – far more potent than my early tests and calculations had suggested – so made some changes there which produced big improvements.

To avoid an oversized unit (of horse) being unstoppable on the field, the rules now restrict the number of blocks/bases which may count for Combat Dice. There are also some reductions in the advantages gained in melee by Galloper cavalry and by “Rash” Gallopers, and some detail changes in the use of Stand of Pikes as a defensive tactic.

Lastly, I have amended the rules for Veteran units slightly. Previously, I had a simple bonus of 1 die for a veteran unit in any kind of combat. On revisiting this, I can’t see why two equally-matched veteran units would kill each other more rapidly than any other two equally-matched units, so veterans now only get an extra die when they fight Raw or Militia troops.

I’m getting there. With luck, you should find a new panel in the top right corner which will link to downloads of the latest versions of the documentation and cards for the ECW game. Thanks again to Clive for his time and his intellect (and his company, of course), and thanks to my son Nick for his usual, intriguing, rather idiosyncratic photography. The last picture with numbered counters is of an extra game we tried using Victory without Quarter rules. The game didn’t go as well as it should – our knowledge of the rules is not good, the game was not adequately prepared, my support program on the laptop did some things which looked remarkably like logic errors, and fatigue had set in by this stage!

ECW - C&C Based Rules

Over on his lovely ECW blog, Lee has published the first working version of the ECW rules which we have developed, based on Commands & Colors: Napoleonics. These have still to be properly playtested, so are likely to change a bit over coming weeks. My ECW armies are not big enough to playtest anything at all yet, so such testing as I have done has been attempted with counters on the original C&CN board.

These are the rules which came from the sketches and preliminary posts I did while on holiday (here, here, here and here), and it is only correct to thank Ross, Martin, Ludovico, Pjotr, John C, Allen De Vries and - most of all - Lee himself for suggestions and discussion which helped to shape them and make sense of them. The biggest debt of all, of course, is to Richard Borg and the guys at GMT for the original C&CN game. The extra Chaunce Cards pack also shows the influence of Tony Bath, Doc Monaghan and The Perfect Captain among a host of others - if anyone detects some of their own intellectual property in there anywhere then thanks very much - you have always been a hero of mine...

Once again, bear in mind this game is just an amateur-produced freebie - I intend to use Victory without Quarter rules as well as these, but I strongly fancied the logical feel and quick cycle time of a Richard Borg-style game for the ECW, so am pleased to have been able to get a prototype game together. If and when Mr Borg produces his mooted 30YW period C&C game, I shall be happy to see our little effort blown without trace into the undergrowth.

The Command and Chaunce cards exist as pdf sheets which can be printed and cut out, and they are designed (when the playtesting suggests that they are pretty stable) to be laminated in 95mm x 65mm laminating pouches.

This is really only a fun game intended for Lee and myself, but if anyone would like pdfs for the extensions to the C&CN rule set and for the two packs of cards, please send me a comment with your email address (mention if you don't want it published) or email me through my Blogger profile. What you will get will be the latest version - there won't be any ongoing customer support (!), though naturally I'll be very pleased to get feedback or suggestions if anyone wishes to contribute them. Please, though, don't bother to take the trouble to tell me that it is not as good as Forlorn Hope, or that I am an idiot - I already know these things.

Late edit: I hope the following links to Google Docs work for you - if not, please let me know - you should be able to download the extension to the basic C&CN rules, the Command Cards and the Chaunce Cards - if you do not have the C&CN rules they are available for download from GMT Games' website.    

Activation Systems - Again (contd)

A rare and highly-prized example of a C&CN "Tactic" Command Card 

This follows on from the previous post about Activation Rules – I got some useful input from Comments and also through email - thanks to all who contributed so positively - and I felt it probably justifies a short additional note.

The chief problem I was interested in was how to allow movement of a mass of troops in a C&C-type game, in which the Command Cards normally allow for only a small number of units to be ordered in a turn, and the fall of the cards will not normally support the movement of a large formation in a coherent manner. A classic example might be a division marching onto the battlefield, or any kind of strategic march.

First thing to note is that C&CN (the Napoleonic member of the Borg family of games) includes a Force March card – there are 2 of these in the pack, and they allow all the infantry (only infantry) in one Section (Left, Centre, Right) to be ordered together. Units with a Leader attached may march 2 hexes and battle, other infantry may march 1 hex and battle, or march 2 hexes and not battle. This is the right sort of idea, but it applies only to infantry, the 2-card allocation makes it too much of a special event, and it is quite a powerful card when it is played.

I very much liked Ross’s suggestion that an alternative meaning could be added to some of the existing Section cards. I think that marching should not be a rare or specially-privileged act. I propose to make a scenario-specific tweak, and it should be a fairly routine option with rather less inherent advantage than the Force March card – “common but not very powerful” is the aim.

The Probe cards in C&CN might be just the thing, which – again – was Ross’s idea. As an example, the Probe Left Flank card reads:

Issue an order to 2 units or Leaders on the Left Flank

and there are 4 of them – there are also 6 Probe Centre and 4 Probe Right Flank cards. My idea is that a footnote be added to these cards, similar to

Alternatively – if the scenario permits it – you may, instead, use the card to order each unit or Leader in the Section to make a normal move. This move may not bring them into contact with the enemy, they may not carry out any combat, and infantry may not form square or come out of square. Normal terrain rules apply.

Thus it does not allow any specially fast movement, but it does allow a lot of troops to be shifted together, which would be a simple enough order on the real-life battlefield. And, of course, if the opponent followed up with Counterattack, which mirrors the previous order, things would really start moving. Worth a try?

Adding a footnote is actually a physical possibility for me, since my C&CN Command Cards are in plastic sleeves, so I can put anything in there – bus tickets, you name it...

For the home-brewed ECW variant of C&C which I am working on, since I envisage the ECW as rather more static than Napoleonic warfare, I propose simply to enlarge the Command Card pack by adding (say) 3 cards which say something like

All the units and Leaders in any one Section may be ordered to make a normal move. This move may not bring them into contact with the enemy, they may not carry out any combat, and units of foot may not form (or come out of) Stand of Pikes formation. Normal terrain rules apply.

I dug out the downloadable rules for Anubis Studios’ White Mountain, which is a 30 Years War game heavily based on C&C Ancients, and, as I thought, it includes an extra rule for Standing Orders which is interesting. So that I do not misrepresent it in any way, I reproduce it here – the game is freely available from Anubis’ website anyway:

ISSUING STANDING ORDERS

A standing order is an order for a nominated group of

units who will continue to carry out that order, turn

after turn, in addition to any other orders you perform

elsewhere.

You may only have one standing order in play at any

time.

Units operating under a standing order may remain in

place or may move only toward the objective marker.

If any unit affected by the card makes a move away

from the objective marker for any reason the standing

order is broken and the Command card is removed

from play.

You may also cancel a standing order by removing the

Command card without acting on it, and then take a

normal turn instead.

To issue a standing order:

1 Play a Command card on the table in the

nominated zone (left, centre or right). This is the

order that you want to units to act on automatically

in future turns.

2 Mark each unit affected by the order with a

[blue] token.

3 Place an objective marker anywhere ahead of

the affected units in the same zone. This is the

point where the units, if they move, must move

toward.

4 The units may now be moved or otherwise

acted on in accordance with the Command card

played.

5 Draw a card to replace the one just played.

Your turn now ends.

6 On your next and all subsequent turns until the

standing order is broken, you may act with the

nominated units as if you just played the standing

Command card.

In addition to this continual order, you may play

Command cards elsewhere and act with other units as

usual.

Standing orders may not be used to manage away

disruption.

To finish off, I thought I’d repeat a point I made in my comment to Lee in the previous post. C&CN’s cards can be a bit limiting for a larger battle, but I have used – with decent results – a scenario-driven tweak which offers a two-for-one option. Instead of playing a Command card, the player may play ONE Tactic card or UP TO TWO Section cards. He may not play one of each. (Section cards are those Command cards which refer to movement in – you guessed it – a Section of the battlefield. Tactic cards are all the rest). This allows more action in each turn.

And that’s probably more than enough of that.

Activation Systems - Again

Over the last few days, an exchange of emails with Prof De Vries has touched on the well-worn topic of Command and Activation in miniatures games. As usual, I had been banging on about some aspect of this at rather tedious length, when De Vries came back to me and said “you obviously didn’t think that two years ago”. Hey, what? - but I’ve always thought that.

So the Prof kindly directed me back to a post I put up here in October 2010, and I re-read it, and I have to say that I do appear to have changed my mind. It’s not that I have done a full volte-face, you understand, more that I have changed my ideas on the priorities.

During these two years, I have been introduced to two rulesets which I like very much, and which have re-coloured my views more than a little. These are Richard Borg’s Command & Colors (published as a whole suite of boxed boardgames by GMT, but also used with miniatures) and Victory without Quarter, for the ECW, developed by Clarence Harrison. One feature of both these games is that the Activation system is heavily restrictive. In Command & Colors (C&C), each player is dealt a hand of cards at the start, and on each turn he plays a single card, as a result of which he may “order” a number of units which is normally in the range 1-4 – occasionally more. In VwQ, each turn the game is driven by drawing the top card from a shared pack. The pack contains a small number of global orders – “Reload” being an example – but otherwise consists of one card for each unit, one for each commander or brigadier (which can activate any of his subordinate units which are within a certain distance), and a card which activates all artillery for both sides. The effect is even more haphazard than C&C, but it shares the “small moves” approach. The games both consists of short, focused turns, with a fast cycle time. In C&C there is strict alternation of sides (so that you may only do a small number of things, but it will be your turn again in just a minute or so), and the strategy comes from husbanding your hand, collecting useful cards and keeping them for use at the optimum moment. This is also sometimes described as “struggling to make the best of a bad deal”, which is maybe not a bad analogy for generalship anyway. The VwQ game is much more random – the cards may come up in any order at all, yet the game still seems to hang together logically.

Cards get a mixed press. I have become a big fan of late, despite early prejudices against their artificiality, and I think this is entirely down to the fact that the playability and entertainment value of these particular games is very much enhanced by their being card-driven. One thing neither game will allow you to do is march your entire army up and down the table every move. From my point of view this is a big advantage. I have wasted a lot of time over the years watching aimless countermarching. If I had some of that time back, I could use it to paint some of the backlog of figures, or to make some inroads on the “still to be read” shelf in the big bookcase! There was a day when the fact that a medium-sized miniatures battle took a huge amount of time to complete (if it was ever completed...) was somehow taken as a point of pride – a testament to the scholarly complexity and awesome realism of the noble wargame. It is also the reason why for some years I had serious doubts about whether the enjoyment gained from the games was worth the exhausting process of playing them. The thing that took up so much time, mostly (apart from arguments), was the freedom of the generals to move everything they had every turn. The proportion of the orders given that generated an interesting action was miniscule, players became fatigued and frequently forgot where they were up to.

I worried about this stuff for years – it is, after all, a First Degree Bummer when you are no longer convinced that you like your hobby very much, especially when you have committed so much time and money to it! The whole idea of Command rules seemed to be aimed to address this – to restrict this limitless ability of battlefield commanders to change everything in every single 5 minute turn. I became interested in a number of mechanisms – especially those from Mustafa’s Grande Armeé and its Fast-Play cousin. As I believe I have said before, for my taste these didn’t quite do the job – they introduced a little sanity and forced generals to prioritise, but the overhead introduced by the Command rules was too heavy in proportion to the benefit. Maybe I never gave them enough of a chance.

My approach at this time to Command and Activation was “introduce some inconveniences – you start off with the ability to order every single unit, but some will be too far from their commander, and  some of the subordinate commanders will have characteristics which get in the way, which will cut the scope down a bit”. The idea was good, but often it was too much work to carry out – the Universal Movement grunt had been partly replaced by the Command Tests grunt, but it was still a grunt. And it was a very particular grunt if the Command rules were a lot of work but only rarely affected the game.

I think I am getting close (at long last) to the point on which I have changed my mind. I have not changed my belief that Activation type rules are a good idea, but I have come to realise that they should be approached from the opposite end of the problem – i.e. start off with the assumption that no-one can do anything and then allow a small number of units to be activated to receive orders. It’s less work, the effort is expended on the parts of the battle where something is happening, and it produces a snappier game, with short turns, better focus and less waiting around. Yes, it is artificial, but no more so than the other approaches.

It works. It works easily and effectively, and I can approach games that work in this way in the safe knowledge that I am going to enjoy them. That is a pretty fair bonus.

I accept that a lot of people will disagree – maybe very strongly. If it wasn’t in Charge! then maybe it should be viewed with suspicion – and it has to admitted that there is a snag. C&C games are usually played around published scenarios in which the armies are ready deployed, all set to go. I very rarely use other people’s scenarios (scenarii?), published or not, and many of my battles are fought as part of a campaign. If the action requires an army, or a large part of an army, to march somewhere – on to the table, for example – the standard card-driven systems don’t handle it well. In reality, a simple march order would keep a whole Division marching until they were stopped – simulating this by shifting penny packets of 2 or 3 of the units in the right direction when (and if) suitable cards come up is unsatisfactory. The card systems require extra rules in this type of action to allow the units to march about the place – something, as you will have noted, which the old free-for-all rules would have coped with, with no difficulty at all!

So – card systems such as C&C work excellently for set-pieces, but we need something extra to cope with mass marching. Anubis Studio’s White Mountain 30 Years War rules are heavily based on the C&C Ancients game, but they also allow a Command Card to be played as a Standing Order for a particular unit (or group of units), and it will remain in force until it is cancelled. I need to read that up again, but maybe something along those lines is what I’m after.

Whatever – I believe I have maybe changed my mind, after all. Some expression about old dogs and new tricks comes to mind.

A Nation Divided – into Hexes? (4) – Command Cards

Here is a very first-cut attempt at producing a Command Card pack for my proposed application of Commands & Colors: Napoleonics to the English Civil War. This gives the text for each card, and the number of each card type. The whole listing is very obviously an edited version of the corresponding section in the official CCN rule book – I hope this is neither illegal nor impertinent – regard it as a respectful tribute, if you please!

The proportions of the cards, the wording and (for example) making the cards reflect the less mobile nature of the Foot, compared with their Napoleonic equivalents, owe a lot to the original CCN cards, the Ancients version of C&C, and also White Mountain, from Anubis. The mix, however, is all my own, as is much of the content, so please don’t go blaming anyone else.

This is an Aunt Sally – please feel free to tell me what you like or dislike about it. If it becomes stable enough, and if playtesting looks promising, I hope to produce a set of card images (don't hold your breath).

Section Cards (48)

Section cards are used to order units in a specific section of the battlefield to move and/or battle. These cards indicate which section of the battlefield you may order units or leaders, and how many units or leaders you may order. An attached leader ordered by a Section Command card may be ordered to detach and move separately. Command cards that state ‘order units equal to command’ mean the number of units you may order is equal to the number of Command cards you hold including this card. Cards that are on a player’s Foot in ‘Stand of Pikes’ tracks are not counted as Command cards you are holding.

SCOUT LEFT FLANK - Issue an order to 1 unit or Leader on the Left Flank. When drawing a new Command card, draw two, choose one and discard the other. (2 cards)

SCOUT CENTER - Issue an order to 1 unit or Leader in the Center. When drawing a new Command card, draw two, choose one and discard the other. (2 cards)

SCOUT RIGHT FLANK- Issue an order to 1 unit or Leader on the Right Flank. When drawing a new Command card, draw two, choose one and discard the other. (2 cards) 

PROBE LEFT FLANK - Issue an order to 2 units or Leaders on the Left Flank. (4 cards)

PROBE CENTER - Issue an order to 2 units or Leaders in the Center. (6 cards)

PROBE RIGHT FLANK - Issue an order to 2 units or Leaders on the Right Flank. (4 cards)

ATTACK LEFT FLANK - Issue an order to 3 units or Leaders on the Left Flank. (4 cards)

ATTACK CENTER - Issue an order to 3 units or Leaders in the Center. (6 cards)

ATTACK RIGHT FLANK - Issue an order to 3 units or Leaders on the Right Flank. (4 cards)

ASSAULT LEFT FLANK - Order a number of units or leaders on the Left Flank equal to command (the number of cards held in your hand including this card). (2 cards)

ASSAULT CENTER - Order a number of units or leaders in the Center equal to command (the number of cards held in your hand including this card). (2 cards)

ASSAULT RIGHT FLANK - Order a number of units or leaders on the Right Flank equal to command (the number of cards held in your hand including this card). (2 cards) 

COORDINATED ADVANCE - Issue an order to 4 units or Leaders. Order 1 on Left Flank, 2 in the Center and 1 on the Right Flank. (2 cards)

FLANK ATTACK - Issue an order to 2 units or Leaders on each Flank. (2 cards)

REFUSE LEFT - Order a number of units or leaders on your Right Flank or in the Centre equal to command (the number of cards held in your hand including this card). (2 cards)

REFUSE RIGHT - Order a number of units or leaders on your Left Flank or in the Centre equal to command (the number of cards held in your hand including this card). (2 cards)

Tactic Cards (20) Tactic cards allow ordered units to move and/or battle in ways not normally allowed in the basic rules. Terrain movement and battle restrictions still apply when a Tactic card’s Actions take precedence over basic rules.

BOLD DRAGOONS—One unit of Dragoons may make a further complete move after firing (but may not fire a second time) – thus they may advance, dismount, fire, mount and retire, for example. If you have no dragoons, use this card to order any 1 unit of your choice. (2 cards)  

BOMBARD—Issue an order to 4 or fewer Artillery units. Ordered units may move up to 2 hexes and not battle, or may not move and battle with 1 additional dice. If you do not have any artillery units, issue an order to 1 unit of your choice. (2 cards)

CAVALRY CHARGE—Issue an order to 4 or fewer units of Horse (not Dragoons). Ordered units battle with 1 additional die the entire turn. Ordered Cuirassier and “Trotter” units may move 3 hexes and still battle. If you do not have any cavalry units, issue an order to 1 unit of your choice. (3 cards) 

COUNTER-ATTACK—Issue the same order card that your opponent just played. When you play this card it becomes a copy of the card your opponent played on the last turn. Following the instructions on that card as though you were actually playing it, except when countering a Section card. Then the right flank becomes left flank and the left flank becomes the right flank. (2 cards)  

EVADE—Play this card after opponent declares a melee attack, but before the dice roll. The attacked unit evades. The attacker does not roll dice. The defender may opt to retire 1 hex, but the attacker may not take the ground or carry out Cavalry Breakthrough. At the end of the turn, you draw a replacement Command card first. (2 cards)  

FIRE AND HOLD—Issue an order to 4 or fewer Foot or Artillery units. Ordered units will perform ranged combat with 1 additional die. Ordered units may not be adjacent to enemy troops. Units may not move before or after combat, but foot may come out of ‘stand of pikes’. If you do not have any foot or artillery units, issue an order to 1 unit of your choice. (2 cards)  

LEADERSHIP—Issue an order to all Leaders. When a Leader is attached to a unit, the unit is also ordered as long as the Leader remains with the unit. Any ordered unit shall roll 1 additional die if it battles. A Leader may detach from a unit. If a Leader moves and joins a unit, the unit is not ordered. If you do not have any Leaders, issue an order to 1 unit of your choice. (2 cards)

PUSH!—Issue an order to all units adjacent to the enemy. Ordered units may melee with 1 additional die. Ordered units may not engage in ranged combat. Units may not move before melee combat. After a successful melee, foot may Take Ground and horse may breakthrough and may make a Bonus Melee Attack with its standard number of battle dice. (1 card)  

RALLY—Roll battle dice equal to command (the number of cards held in your hand including this card). For each Foot, Horse or Artillery symbol rolled, 1 block of this type is returned to any under strength unit anywhere on the battlefield, as men return to the ranks. A unit may not gain more blocks than it started the action with. Rallied units that gain at least one block are ordered, and may move and battle as normal. (2 cards)  

THE DEVIL’S MATCH—One enemy artillery unit (dice for which – first to roll an Artillery symbol with 1 dice) suffers a powder explosion. The unit selected will roll 2 dice – an Artillery symbol or a Crossed Sabres symbol will eliminate 1 block. If either of these dice produces Crossed Sabres, the explosion is very severe – roll 1 dice for each adjacent unit (of whatever side) which is not in a town, a wood or earthworks. A Foot, Horse or Artillery symbol will remove 1 block if it matches the unit type – a Flag symbol will remove a Leader. If the enemy has no artillery, use this card to order any 1 unit or Leader of your choice. (1 card)

THE LORD IS WITH US—Roll battle dice equal to command (the number of cards held in your hand including this card). For each symbol rolled, 1 unit of this type is ordered. One unit or leader of your choice may be ordered for each Flag symbol rolled. Sabres order no units or leaders. Ordered units battle with 1 additional die the entire turn. Reshuffle the Command card deck and discard pile. (1 card)  

   

A Nation Divided – into Hexes? (3) – The Cuddies

Horse

Mounted troops I have worked on thus far are types CU, TR, GA – being respectively cuirassiers, “trotters” and “gallopers”, and there should probably be lancers and some other kind of light horse still to be thought about.

I have to come clean here and admit that, having spent some time reading about Parliamentarian cavalry early in the war advancing cautiously and using their pistols, I got completely carried away and produced some monstrous cavalry melee rules which were about as straightforward and easy to use as the inside of my grandfather’s pocket watch. Having been shocked out of my excited state by the realisation of what I was doing, I am pleased to say that I have finished up with some CCN-based rules which are much simpler – very much simpler. In case it comes in useful in 30YW contexts, I have preserved a little of my frenzied “pistol melee” efforts as a rather crude “caracole” rule, which I shall append here as something which I do not intend to use at present – and possibly as a kind of warning to other kindergarten rule-writers.

Anyway – these are the first-cut rules:

No cavalry may carry out ranged combat – all pistol and carbine capability is assumed to be covered by the melee rules.

CU move up to 2 hexes and battle, GA move up to 3 and battle, TR move up to 3, but cannot move more than 2 if they are making a melee attack. Typical units of horse in my armies will have 2-4 blocks/bases of 3 figures (on 60mm square bases – these are 20mm figures).

Melee combat: 1 dice per block/base, +1 dice for CU (heavier), +1 dice for GA in first round of a melee (more dashing), +1 dice for certain identified Royalist GA units (not more than 25% of all cavalry present) who are nominated as “rash” (crazier).

The standard CCN rule allowing cavalry attacked by infantry to carry out a manoeuvre called Retire & Reform is lifted straight into this ECW variant. Combined Arms attacks with artillery support are not allowed, since artillery of this period could not co-ordinate in this way.

In CCN, a victorious cavalry unit which eliminates its melee opponent, or forces it to vacate its hex, may take advantage of a Breakthrough rule, by which it may opt to claim the vacated hex, plus (optionally) move another hex, and may carry out an immediate Bonus Melee attack if it is now in a position to do so. My ECW variant will also allow this, but the breakthrough and bonus melee may be repeated as many times in a single turn as the general wishes. 


Rash Cavaliers: to reflect the extra difficulty of controlling successful Royalist horse, a special variation applies to Royalist GA units which are designated as “rash”. Such units must carry out a breakthrough, unless they are brought under control, and must carry it out in such a way as to create a bonus melee if it is possible to do so – the Royalist commander may choose which unit to attack if there is a choice, and he does not have to attack villages, woods or earthworks - terrain situations which put horse at a major disadvantage. If he wishes to stop the breakthrough and continued attack by such a rash unit, after any melee victory, the Royalist commander must get them under control. This is achieved by rolling a Cavalry symbol or a Flag on a single Combat Dice; if a Leader is attached to the unit, control is also gained by a roll of Crossed Sabres.

The Caracole

I fear you are not going to like this – it needs more work, and I don’t intend to use it for the time being anyway.

CU and TR units may make a special melee attack with pistols – the Caracole - and this is the subject of a special rule, as follows:

CU & TR may ride up to melee contact, and declare a Caracole attack. The attacker rolls a single Combat Dice for the whole unit. There may be terrain or other tactical situations which require a deduction from the number of dice, such that the attacker is left with no dice to roll! If they score a hit on the defenders (and crossed sabres doesn't count for this particular type of melee) or frighten them (dice turns up a flag - which can't be ignored - but defenders don't retreat yet), remove any casualties, but there is no immediate "battle back" from the defenders - what happens is the attacking CU/TR cavalry now carry out a CCN-style "bonus melee" - on the spot. So a second round of melee takes place immediately (it counts as a continuing melee, so any defending GA do not get their 1^st-round bonus dice). This melee is a normal 1-dice-per-block-plus-valid-bonuses combat.

If the single dice caracole attack does not produce a fright flag or a valid type of casualty, the defenders get to fight back with a single dice. If this causes the attacking CU/TR to retreat (or eliminates them) then that's the melee over. If it doesn't, the pistol-armed attackers may choose to retire a single hex. If they opt not to, the melee continues in future turns as a normal continuing melee combat.

Dragoons

Dragoons (DR) are neither horse nor foot, and so they require their own rules. The first complication is that I am duplicating my dragoon units so that they may appear on the table in either mounted or dismounted form. Since in their mounted form they will be on cavalry-style bases of 3 figures, it makes sense to put the dismounted dragoons onto special open-order bases of 3 figures too. When they mount or dismount, simply switch the models – it’s a hassle, but it’s less of a mess than most of the options.

Dragoons may not fire when mounted, and they are very poor in melee. Their musket range (when dismounted) is 2 hexes, same as the musketeers. Theoretically, they have a 3-hex move, which they may use to do the following things:

* if mounted, move up to 3 hexes on horseback, or up to 2 hexes and dismount

* if dismounted, up to 1 hex on foot, or mount and ride up to 2 hexes

If they are on foot at the end of the move, they can shoot (half a dice per base/block of 3 figures, rounded up) – so 3 bases get 2 dice, for example.

They can melee at the end of the move, whether on horse or on foot - but not very well (half a dice per base/block of 3 figs, mounted or not).

Unlike Foot units, Dragoons can fight as soon as they arrive, whatever the terrain.

A Nation Divided – into Hexes? (2b) – Mixed Foot Units - contd

It would probably be neater and potentially less embarrassing to do most of my thinking aloud and U-turning off-blog, but I would miss out on some valuable input if I did.

I am not back where I started – this is progress. On the subject of mixed pike & shot units I have gone from conveniently crude to more-correct-but-too-fiddly and now back to crude-but-justified, as we shall see. My thanks to Ross, again, and to email input from Ludovico.

The table produced in yesterday’s effort is not wasted – it gives a useful cross check for other approaches, and it served to remind me how much I dislike tables, when it comes down to it.

Here’s a mixed list of thoughts – some of them are useful, some are merely statements of policy (to keep me straight), some are blinding flashes of the bovinely obvious, and a few are the recording of some “doh” moments.

(1)   I don’t like look-up tables.

(2)   I don’t care much for rosters – I like to be able to see everything I need to know about a unit by looking at it, without worrying about what it used to be, or what it has lost, and without looking up any offline information.

(3)   Yesterday’s table demonstrates that shot-to-pike ratios of 3:2 and 2:1 may be regarded as effectively the same, given the rounding errors.

(4)   My foot units consist of 3 bases, usually, with 2 bases of muskets and one of pikes, so on a bases count this is 2:1, but in fact if you count the little men on the bases you will find that the pikemen are closer-packed, and provide 8 of the 20 figures in the unit, which is 3:2, I think. So take your pick – it doesn’t matter anyway. The units are structured like this because they are designed to work with Victory without Quarter rules, and because cosmetically it looks OK.

(5)   Going back to my original rules of thumb, a base of pikes gets 2 combat dice in a melee and gets none in ranged combat (firing); a base of muskets gets 1 dice for melees and one for firing.

(6)   My original idea was to allocate Casualty Markers, rather than remove bases, to denote attrition (since the troops are not homogeneous), and deduct 1 dice from any kind of combat for each such marker. The first “doh” moment was the realisation that removing a base of muskets would reduce both melee and firing dice allocations by 1, which is exactly the same as awarding one of the proposed Casualty Markers, however it might look on the table. With one stroke, that looks like the end of the Casualty Markers.

(7)   I am still left with the issue of “pike heavy” units – which I’ll define as ratios of 1:1 or less. 4-base or 2-base units can be represented in a straightforward manner, with equal numbers of pike and shot bases. Intuitively, a 3-base unit is less convenient, since the bases do not show the correct proportions of troops. The second “doh” moment was realising that a 3-base pike-heavy unit is simply a 4-base one with one base removed [cue spontaneous applause], and, courtesy of the first such moment, we know that the missing base should be a musket base. Since I probably wouldn’t have available troops to make up a unit with 2 pikes and 1 muskets, and since such a thing would look wrong, we just need to field a normal 3-base unit with some kind of marker to denote that it is pike heavy. Such a unit, as proposed by Ross a while ago, should get an extra dice in melee and lose a dice when firing.

(8)   I know that this all rather overstates the effect of casualties on firepower, but will live with it. In any case, it’s worth remembering that “firepower” means ranged combat in CCN terms, which means, in turn, fire at ranges greater than 1 hex, or maybe over 150 paces. The majority of effective fire would take place at ranges less than this, and CCN abstracts this as part of melee combat.

Right – where does that get me? The recycled rule for units of foot (FT) is:

Foot [rewrite]

In my ECW army a unit of Foot consists of 3 blocks (bases) – 2 of muskets and 1 of pikes. Other mixtures are possible, including all muskets, but the 2:1 mix appropriate to the later years of the war is the norm here. Any units which are specified as having a musket-to-pike ratio of 1:1 or less are termed pike-heavy, and are marked as such.

In CCN-speak, infantry units will be of classification FT – they may move 1 hex and Battle. In melee, pike blocks count 2 dice each, muskets 1 each; identified veteran units (which may not be more than 25% of the FT units fielded) count an extra dice. Identifed pike-heavy units get an extra dice in melee.

All losses for a mixed unit should be taken as musket bases – this is so that the fighting value reduces correctly.

In Ranged Combat (shooting), the musket blocks count 1 each, the pikes zero. Range is 2 hexes. Again, veterans may count +1 dice, and 1 dice is deducted for a designated pike-heavy unit. The number of Ranged Combat dice is not reduced if the firers moved (CCN does reduce it).

FT units which have pikes may adopt Stand of Pikes formation against cavalry – the rules and operation for this are exactly the same as for Squares in CCN.

A Nation Divided – into Hexes? (2a) – Mixed Foot Units

With thanks to Lee and Ross for their thoughts on the previous post, here’s another go at producing a simple treatment for mixed units of pike and shot, trying not to distort things as a result of oversimplification.

I am still keen to avoid look-up tables if possible. As Ross proposed, making the number of Combat Dice for melee and Ranged Combat an attribute of each unit seems to be the way to go. All of what follows can be produced by mental arithmetic, but at 2am the summary table might come in useful.

This is specifically for mixed foot units – any unit which consists of a single weapon or troop type does not require this level of detail. As suggested, I have worked out for various musket:pike ratios the required number of Combat Dice for a unit. In each case, the proportions of muskets and pikes are not necessarily as represented by the miniatures employed – though the fact that more than one type of armament is depicted indicates that the unit is mixed, and the number of bases gives an approximate numerical strength (at about 150-200 men to the base).

Losses to a mixed unit are recorded by attaching Casualty Markers, not by removing bases/blocks. A unit is eliminated when the number of Casualty Markers is equal to the number of bases.

In this new version of the draft rule, pikes count 2 dice per block in melees and 0 in Ranged Combat (firing), muskets count 1 dice per block in both melee and ranged combat – all as before. The number of dice produced is then proportioned for the specified musket:pike ratio for the unit and for the fraction which has been disabled as Casualty Markers. The result is rounded to the nearer, exact half up – this is where the rounding errors come in, but the game requires a roll of an integral number of dice! After all this, the number of dice to be rolled may still require to adjusted for the “veteran unit” bonus, and for any terrain-related or tactical bonuses or deductions (as per CCN rules).

The table which follows gives the number of dice before the last two adjustments described above. The figure before the slash applies to melees, the figure after applies to ranged combat. I have considered only the ratios 1:1, 3:2 and 2:1 – any other ratio required should be assumed to be whichever is the nearer of these 3 options.

I hope that the table makes sense, and is simple enough to be used without bogging the game down. I am still half-inclined to insist that all foot units should be 2:1, since that is what VwQ does, and since the differences are not large in any case!

Number of Combat Dice for a Mixed Foot Unit – Melee/Ranged Combat

	No.of blocks (bases) less Casualty Markers
Muskets:Pike	5	4	3	2	1
1:1	8/3	6/2	5/2	3/1	2/1
3:2	7/3	6/2	4/2	3/1	1/1
2:1	7/3	5/3	4/2	3/1	1/1

As an example, consider a 4-block unit with a musket:pike ratio of 3:2, which has acquired 1 Casualty Marker. The table shows that the unit is entitled to 4 dice in a melee and 2 dice when firing. This has to be further adjusted for any “veteran” bonus, plus any terrain or tactical adjustment.

Easy-peasy.

A Nation Divided – into Hexes? (2) – Foot & Artillery

Continuing from the previous post, this is an attempt to produce a game based on GMT’s Commands & Colors: Napoleonics (CCN) which will work successfully for ECW and (maybe) 30YW. CCN, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is a card-driven board game played on a hex grid. The game uses purpose-built Combat Dice, which are marked with special symbols – Infantry (x2), Cavalry, Artillery, Flag (used to initiate retreats) and Crossed-Sabres (which has various uses – including melee hits and hits on Leaders).

Standard CCN is played with labelled wooden blocks – typically, for example, an infantry battalion consists of 4 such blocks. The game can also be played with miniatures, using a base of figures as a “block”, or some equivalent mapping.

One immediate issue which arises for ECW infantry is that the units are mixed – muskets and pikes – and thus casualties cannot simply be removed as a block/base – the result on the mix of arms remaining would be disproportionate. First proposal, then, is that losses against infantry units will be recorded by adding Casualty Markers, which represent a proportionate reduction in all arms. This may not be necessary for other types of troops, for which the units are homogeneous, but it might be more sensible to have the same approach for all arms.

Thus the first rule is that a unit is eliminated when the number of Casualty Markers is equal to the number of blocks/bases. In what follows, the basic rules are CCN unless otherwise stated – if you are interested, you may download the CCN rules from the GMT site here.

Foot

In my ECW army – primarily because it is being built to be suitable for Victory without Quarter – a unit of Foot consists of 3 blocks – 2 of muskets and 1 of pikes. Other mixtures are possible, including all muskets, but the 2:1 mix appropriate to the later years of the war is the norm here.

In CCN-speak, infantry units will be of classification FT – they may move 1 hex and Battle. In melee, pike blocks count 2 dice each, muskets 1 each; identified veteran units (which may not be more than 25% of the FT units fielded) count an extra dice. The number of dice available is reduced by 1 for each Casualty Marker.

In Ranged Combat (shooting), the musket blocks count 1 each, the pikes zero. Range is 2 hexes. Again, veterans may count +1 dice, and 1 dice is deducted for each Casualty Marker. I decided not to halve the number of Ranged Combat dice if the firers moved (CCN does reduce it) – there may be weak historical justification for this, but firepower is so feeble anyway that it hardly seemed worth the complication.

FT units which have pikes may adopt Stand of Pikes formation against cavalry – the rules and operation for this are exactly the same as for Squares in CCN.

[I considered allowing a variation, such that some FT units might have a 1:1 muskets:pikes ratio, however the blocks fielded might look. In such a unit, the 3 blocks would really be 1.5 blocks muskets and 1.5 blocks pikes. Melee power (rounding up) would be 3 for the pikes and 2 for the muskets, and firepower would still be 2 for the muskets (rounded up), which is not reasonable given the smaller number of muskets present, so overall I decided that such a unit would appear to have too big an advantage if I bent the rules for it. A big 1:1 FT unit with 2 musket blocks and 2 pike blocks would be OK, but otherwise the guideline is that units must be mixed in the same way as the blocks fielded. If you want a 1:1 foot unit, you can have a little 2-block one or a big 4-block one, but if you’re fielding a 3-block one they have to be 2:1] 

Artillery

Units are all of type FA – I have not yet considered the issue of different weights or calibres of guns. The units consist of 1 or 2 blocks, and may move 1 hex or fire. Moving and firing is not allowed. They have zero melee capability, so may not attack, and can only battle back with zero dice! In ranged combat, each block in the unit throws 1 dice at range 2 to 4 hexes. If casualties for artillery are kept as Markers, then 1 dice is deducted for each Casualty Marker, as with infantry.

Since I think that it is very unlikely that the artillery of the day would have been able to co-ordinate with other arms, the Combined Arms Attack rule in CCN is not used in my ECW variant.

I haven’t yet decided what to do about batteries which are overrun. I assume that the civilian gunners would clear off pretty smartly if attacked, so there is maybe a case for captured guns being used by the other side – I would like to claim that I am thinking about this, but my historical knowledge is so poor in this area that what I am probably doing is sitting wondering what to do!

At the moment, I am hoping the Terrain Effects chart from CCN may be imported as is.

Next post will look at the units of Horse (including a very brief look at the Caracole, which came close to distorting the entire game), and Dragoons.

A Nation Divided – into Hexes? (1) - Preamble

Just couldn’t leave it alone, could I? Having decided on Clarence Harrison’s Victory without Quarter (VwQ) as my rules of choice for my forthcoming dalliance with the ECW, I am building armies to suit these rules, and I’ve even produced a computerised manifestation of VwQ for solo play, incorporating extensions to the rules, some of which come from Clarence’s own notes, some of which are based on mods used by Prof Longuelade and his collaborators in the Northern Wastes, and some of which I admit I came up with myself.

I did briefly consider adapting VwQ for use on a hex grid, but put the idea on hold when I considered the damage which this would do to the finely-balanced variable movement mechanisms. My only (faint) concern about VwQ in the longer term is that, since it is designed to work best with actions involving maybe 12 units a side, I am uncertain how it will handle very big battles. However, I am reliably informed by the bold John C that he has used VwQ for a battle with 40 units a side (i.e. very big), and it worked well, albeit with some modifications to the activation pack.

So that really should be an end to it. Trouble is that I have become very fond of the swing and the commonsense of Commands & Colors, and the convenience of the hexes, and I hear tales of Richard Borg running test games for an ECW relative of C&C. So – damn it – I’m interested again in a C&C style ECW game. This is not intended to replace VwQ in my affections, you understand – it’s just something to think about.

White Mountain

I tracked down what appears to be just such a thing, in Anubis Studio’s White Mountain rules for the 30 Years War. I availed myself of the free download, and spent a few days reading them. I do not propose to criticise these rules, nor find fault with them – here are my thoughts on them – in the context of how they would suit me, given what I am looking for.

(1)   The card & hex & unit structure arrangements owe a lot to CCA, though the game uses normal dice in a slightly different way.

(2)   Losses are tracked in two ways – as (red) casualty markers, which lead to block(/base) removal, and as (yellow) disruption markers, which give a disadvantage in combat – by the slightly unusual method of giving extra dice to the opponent – and ultimately put units out of action.

(3)   The C&C turn sequence is complicated by options whereby (for example) units may elect to shoot before moving – timing of events is less straightforward.

(4)   A great deal of extra complication is added in the interests of defining the facing of each unit – units may face a flat side or an angle of a hex. This is mainly intended to cope with flank and rear attacks, as far as I can see.

Right. The game is nicely presented, clearly it works and is played successfully by some kind of user group, so I am not going to say anything bad about it. I think it is not what I am looking for, since for me it is a mixture of basic CCA and some fairly detailed areas of personal interest, and I think they have sacrificed a measure of the fundamental playability of C&C in the pursuit of a few hobbyhorses. I am not saying they have got it wrong, merely that it is not what I was hoping for.

Try Something Else

I thought further about this, and I decided to have a go myself – starting with CCN (the Napoleonics game), primarily since I am most familiar with it, but also because I have a feeling that some of the Napoleonic features would work well enough with the ECW – for example, the very effective rule for using squares against cavalry should work for stands of pike with very little change.

To put this into context, my initial requirement is for enough troop types to cover the ECW, though scope to extend it to the wider 30YW would clearly not be a bad thing. I will be using it with 20mm miniatures, based to suit my version of VwQ, which means muskets mounted in 6s (3 wide x  2 deep) to a base, pikes in 8s (4 wide x 2 deep), cavalry in 3s (single row) – each base 60mm square. A base will represent a “block” in C&C type boardgame-speak.

I’m currently on holiday, so the subject gives me something useful to chew away at in odd moments, or when I’m out walking. A fair amount of this has already been run past Lee, who, as a former re-enactor and as a current perpetrator of CCN, has been kind enough to offer some very useful feedback and alternative ideas, and I must acknowledge his contribution to anything that appears in the next few instalments of this. If there’s anything which seems particularly inept or just plain dumb, that’ll be my bit!

I emphasise that this is not likely to be earthshaking – primarily a discussion of issues – but there will be some first cut rules for applying a CCN-based game to my particular interpretation of the ECW. The next post will look at foot and artillery, the one after will look at horse (which at one point threatened to get me going off on a tangent) and those pesky dragoons, who – as we know – are neither foot nor horse and need rules of their own.

If I get that far, I’ll try to consider how the Command Pack might look for such a game. It goes without saying that I shall be very pleased to get any comments or suggestions!