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! 

ECW - VwQ Rules - Pt 3

Here's the last part of the Victory without Quarter rules, as published by Quindia Studios.

Also, offered in all humility and with no disrespect at all to the original, here are my current thoughts on a number of aspects of the rules which seem to me to need a little more detail. In my recent VwQ game with John, we found that dragoons - as we interpreted the rules - caused us a few problems. To be more accurate, they caused John problems, since my dragoons' fire effect was fearsome - ridiculous, you could say! - and was one of the few encouraging aspects of my army's performance.

The way artillery become involved in melees also seemed a little vague, so we identified a need to add some house rules to clarify that a little. Subsequently I found a few other odd things I thought would improve/clarify the game as it stands. If you find they are unnecessary, or don't actually improve anything, then no problem - don't use them, or else just regard them as my imperfect understanding of what was intended. I wish to emphasise once again that no criticism of the author (Clarence Harrison) is intended - if I didn't think the game was worth the trouble, I would not have gone into this amount of detail.

Here goes - these are all suggested changes for my use of the rules:

Dragoons. The main issue I have with dragoons is that when mounted they consitute a stand of 3 figures, so it seems most logical to keep that arrangement when they dismount. Thus a unit of 12 (say) organised as 4 stands of 3 mounted figures - one stand being command. The command stand remains mounted to represent horses and holders when the unit dismounts - the other 3 stands are replaced by open order stands of 3 standing figures. Dragoons can move 1/2 distance and mount/dismount, or mount/dismount and move 1/2 distance in a move (and still fire).

They are not allowed to fire when mounted, but otherwise will behave exactly the same as ordinary horse (ncluding charges and countercharges), but do not pursue if they win a melee. Mounted dragoons get 2D6 per stand in a melee (which is miserable), and also get the "horse" saving throw of 6+ against hits from long-range muskets.

On foot, they always count as open-order, and they fire like normal musketeers (but only get 2D6 per stand). Since 2D6 is quite generous for a half-strength stand (normal musket-armed infantry are based in sixes, and get 3D6 per stand), they do not benefit from a "volley fire" bonus, and thus do not get RELOAD markers. In melees on foot they may not charge or pursue, and count 1D6 per stand. They may Stand & Fire or Evade if charged - the firing range is calculated as for foot units, but if they Evade they are assumed to have jumped on their horses, so will have Evade and Rout distances calculated as though they are horse.

Small arms fire - additional adjustments to dice throw table: -1 if raw troops firing, +1 if veterans seems appropriate. I would expect the level of training to be particularly telling in musket fire.

Artillery – may Stand and Fire if charged (like infantry), and can be charged - if they are contacted they are eliminated without fighting back (same as Evaders and Routers).

Morale - The universal progression Steady > Shaken > Rout seems too predictable - you always know the worst that can happen. Change made such that morale tests when taking artillery hits, having a Casualty Marker allocated and losing a melee will allow a Steady Unit to go straight to Rout if the morale test result is bad enough - in these situations, a morale test total of 2D6 + adjustments < 7 will Shake a Steady unit and Rout a Shaken one (as at present) but a total of < 4 will take a Steady unit straight to Rout.

I'm not a big fan of morale tests, but I propose to add an extra one to the rules - if a unit being charged elects to "Stand & Fire" (or even just to Stand, if they are unable to fire), then it seems appropriate to test their ability to face the charge first. This becomes especially critical if the charge is coming from flank or rear.

Linear obstacles - deduct 3" from move for each, rather than "half move" penalty, which is awkward if there are 2 in a move. Artillery have to use gates.

Flank/Rear attacks in melee – Any unit allowed to charge (i.e. not dragoons on foot) may attack a steady unit in flank or rear without testing morale first - adjustments to melee combat dice throw to be +1 attacking flank, +2 attacking rear, -1 attacked in flank, -2 attacked in rear. Morale: -1 for flank, -2 for rear in morale tests for Stand & Fire (against a charge), Countercharge and Form Stand of Pikes, and also for defender who loses melee; attacker who loses a melee in which he was making a flank or rear attack (fools!) gets +1, +2 adjustment respectively in the morale test following the melee.

Cover in melees: -1 adjustment to dice if attacking troops behind soft cover, -2 if attacking hard cover. Since the rules specifically allow foot to charge foot who are defending a barricade or obstacle, it seems correct for the rules to cover that kind of melee.

ECW - VwQ Rules - Pt 2

Here's the second lot of pages (of three lots). I had originally given serious thought to producing an adaptation of the game which worked on my hex grid - this would mean a conversion of 1 hex is (about) 5 or 6 inches. I have abandoned this for the time being because

(1) the differences in movement rates and weapon ranges for the different troop types in VwQ are quite specific and subtle (and hexes, as a crude approximation, might unbalance the game), and also because

(2) the nice twiddly bits about units routing 2D6 inches (3D6 for horse) or getting off a volley at a range of 2D6 inches if charged (1D6 if charged by foot) - things which usefully help reduce predictability for a solo game - would be changed completely by rounding everything to the nearer (or more convenient) whole hex.

So I'll keep the hexes as an interesting idea to be pursued, but my initial use of the game will be in inches, as written. I shall try to ignore the hexes on my tabletop when it is appropriate to do so, or I could paint the back of my boards plain green. Or I could dig out a rather fine sheet of heavy-duty green baize that I haven't seen for a while, but it is awfully dark green baize, and I think I've gone off that idea already...

Inches are fine in any case - the VwQ game as I played it at John's home in Wales recently was untweaked and the inches were not a problem at all, though in recent years I have developed something of an aversion to tape-measures as another source of clutter and potential breakage of bayonets! This is probably due to exposure to a number of congenital button-twiddlers in the past - a spring-loaded tape-measure in the wrong hands has an effect similar to that of canister shot!

Anyway - here is the next instalment of the rules.

ECW - VwQ Rules - Pt 1

I got an email from someone asking me where he could download Clarence Harrison's Victory without Quarter miniatures rules for the English Civil War, and I had a look around and I'm no wiser. It is a damned good question. I believe that if you email Clarence he will send you them, but a couple of discussion threads I saw mentioned that he is in any case very busy with his own life, and this might be both onerous (for Clarence) and slow (for everyone). I have a pdf which was sent to me very kindly by Clive, but as far as I can see the Quindia Studios site doesn't have a download available at present. I have emailed Clarence myself, but thus far have no response.

So I thought I'd take it upon myself to put the rules up here in a series of short posts - not because they have anything to do with me directly, other than my own enthusiasm for them. I don't think this should cause any offence against copyright, since I am not selling them and since they are not offered commercially anywhere anyway. I'll put them out in three instalments, and I will also say a few things about why I like them, how I propose to use them, and about a few things I propose to build into them. If this does step on anyone's toes, or causes any problem, then please shout and I'll pull the posts as necessary. They are intended to be supportive and encouraging - the game should be widely available if it is not already.

Reviews of any sort are always a bit dodgy, since they often tell you more about the reviewer than the item under review, so I hasten to add that any criticism implied here is entirely my personal view, and that overall I think VwQ is an unusually good game. There will be the odd enthusiast who feels moved to say that I should just use Forlorn Hope, or 1644, or De Bellis Renationis, and be really cool (like them). If anyone thinks anything along these lines, then I'm sure you are right, and I will probably have a go at these other rule sets at some time in the future - I have certainly looked at and considered all of these, and a number of others going all the way back to George Gush, Terry Wise, Wm B Protz et alia. I have recently played Charlie Wesencraft's rules from his Practical Wargaming and enjoyed them, but I'm still pretty firm on VwQ as my game of choice for what is - for me - a completely new period.

Why? Well, first and foremost, I likes 'em. I like the philosophy, and I identify very strongly with Clarence's stated objectives and preferences in his own games. In particular the multiple-figure stands, the lack of rosters and record keeping (casualties are not removed), the simplified tactics are all very appealing, and the card-driven activation system is good anyway, but is eminently suitable for solo play, in which I need just the right amount of control to be be placed in the lap of the gods.

Because of my solo game interests, I have also produced a computerised management program incorporating VwQ for my own use. The program is useable in solo or non-solo contexts, of course, but is especially useful for solo stuff, in which the banter and jollity surrounding card shuffling and dice throwing duties are conspicious by their absence, and such functions can become a pain in the butt. The solo gamer (at least this particular solo gamer) is certainly looking for a pleasurable experience, but he is primarily a facilitator for a little piece of (fake) history, and some of the social traditions of miniatures gaming can become a little wretched without a room full of pals. I will trust my laptop to shuffle cards accurately, without cheating and without dropping them on the floor, and to test morale every few seconds without developing the Screaming Habdabs or losing the will to live.

So the program exists, it runs, though it still needs some debugging and the Optional Rules (notably the Event Cards) are not in there yet. Writing the program undoubtedly cements understanding, but it also revealed a few gaps in the game - things which are not covered. Clarence, in his introduction, makes no claims for originality or even completeness of his game, and there are some interesting and useful expansions on the League of Augsburg forum. I do not think it would be disloyal of me to say a little about some of these gaps, and what I have done about them - in any game of this type, there will be a good many points where the author knows what he meant, and takes as understood certain house conventions of his own which he carries in his head and which make sense of situations which are not explicitly covered - Clarence even invites gamers to add their own extensions where they think they are needed.

I'll say a bit more in later parts of this about the add-ons which I (and others) have - erm - added on, and I may even say a bit more about my computer program. In the meantime (at last), here are the first sheets of the rules. If there is some more sensible way to incorporate pdf files in a blog post, I'd be very pleased to learn of it. Oh, and Clarence - if you are out there, I'd be delighted to hear from you.

ECW - The Welsh Campaign

Now that is a wargames room...

Just back from two very enjoyable days in North Wales, as a guest of John (he of 20mm Nostalgic Revival) and Cynthia, whom I must thank once again for their wonderful kindness and hospitality.

Apart from collecting an order of Les Higgins ECW figures, one big attraction for me was the opportunity to get some experience of ECW gaming. Accordingly, we played a full game on each of the two days. I'll pass quickly over the fact that I lost both games, mumbling feebly that at one stage I thought I was winning each battle. John has an unnervingly vigorous style of generalship, which includes a fondness for sacrificing his cavalry as quickly as possible! The first game looked a tad ambitious for introducing a rookie to the period - around 1000 castings, and a battlefield which was scenically pretty complex, but it worked out fine - we deliberately used simple rules. Charles F Wesencraft's Pike & Shot period rules from his Practical Wargaming (back in print - a recommended book for those who have missed it - Wesencraft was never as fashionable as some of his contemporaries). We deliberately did not use the later rules from CFW's With Pike & Musket, which had been improved rather in the direction of contemporary WRG practice. So the rules we used are functionally very simple - for example, missile fire - you are either in range or not. The game does not bother with niceties such as short range or anything like that. The only change we made was to halve all movement rates - they are very generous in the original. I thought this might mean we had to halve the missile ranges, too, but leaving them unaltered still gave the same sort of balance you will find in other mainstream ECW rules.

The battle lasted all day, but the overall story is quickly told. Both armies were successful early on their respective right flanks, and the Royalist infantry successfully held the line of a hedged road across the middle of the table, but gradually they were worn down, and brought up their reserves, who in turn were eventually driven back and off the field. End of battle - Parliamentary victory, but a very expensive one, I have to say!

My Royalist foot hold the road, before it all turned to rat-droppings

For the second day, we fought a rather smaller action, using the Victory without Quarter rules. Our implementation of the game was definitely on the rough-and-ready side, with a partial deck of playing cards for activation and cardboard chits to identify the units and commanders on the field. Apart from the fact that early successes were on the left flanks this time, the game played out surprisingly similarly to the previous one - even down to my losing...

VwQ is a good, fun game. Considering how short the rule "book" is, we took a little time to get the hang of what is quite a different style of game from what we (well, certainly I) have been used to. Once we got into it, however, it has it's own kind of logic and swing, it becomes a simple matter to carry in your head everything you need to know, and it went well. I am still intending to make it my ECW game of choice for the time being (well - once I have armies to fight with...) , but a couple of observations might be of interest here:

(1) From the generalship point of view, we should have allocated more brigadiers in our game. Units may be given an order when their card is drawn, but when a general officer's card is drawn, all of his units within a certain distance may be given orders, which is a big help. Outlying formations on a flank can become pretty well stranded if there is no brigadier with them - this point is duly noted for the future.

(2) If the armies start off some distance from each other, and have to march into contact, it would be useful to have some kind of bulk-order cards available for a few turns, to get things moving and keep the armies in decent shape - I'm thinking about this.

(3) The rules are not claimed to be complete, but we found a couple of things which we thought need to be covered more fully. Melees involving artillery are dealt with very sketchily - I think I would like to allow artillery to stand and fire if attacked, but to have zero capability if the enemy makes contact - that seems to accord with the spirit of the rules, but is less vague. Also, flank and rear attacks needed some extra rules - certainly for morale tests, and probably for fighting the actual melees also.

There is a great deal which works well, and gives a pleasingly sensible game. Given the possible need for a couple of tweaks, then, the rules passed the test pretty well. It would benefit from a properly prepared set of unit cards, though, and some nice-looking tokens to denote casualties, the need to reload and "shaken" would be good. We used laid-down single figures as casualty markers, and this gave rise to the hilarious sight of units charging around, dragging dead men along behind them. Given a proper level of preparation, then, this is a very enjoyable game - suitable for maybe a dozen-and-a-half units a side - and well worth checking out.

Thanks again, John!