If anyone is offended by the distressing context or the strong language, I hope you will take comfort from knowing that this story is not true and is, in fact, made up.
Friday, 20 April 2012
Hooptedoodle #49a - Leaving Home
Magnus has to take drastic steps when his parents fail to take the world banana situation sufficiently seriously.
If anyone is offended by the distressing context or the strong language, I hope you will take comfort from knowing that this story is not true and is, in fact, made up.
If anyone is offended by the distressing context or the strong language, I hope you will take comfort from knowing that this story is not true and is, in fact, made up.
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Hooptedoodle #49 - The Return of the Bananas
A while ago, I did a Hooptedoodle about bananas, which was prompted by my discovery that the Italians still eat bananas that taste like what I remember bananas used to taste like, rather than the bland, disease-resistant Cavendish strain which has largely replaced them in our supermarkets.
I never did come to any worthwhile conclusions, and the post raised a few eyebrows at the time, though those of you who have kindly stuck with the programme since then will have come to understand that bananas may be about as sensible as it gets.
Anyway, Sarah kindly got in touch with me, since I am obviously concerned about the state of the world's bananas, and directed me to a website which raises our awareness of the fact that the Cavendish, in its turn, may be on the way out. You may well wish to follow this link to see what the outlook is. This is not a paid advert, by the way, just a seamless part of MSFoy's Prometheus Hooptedoodle Service. Of course, I am concerned about anything which threatens the state of the World as we know it, and I would not like to see any developing nations damaged by the failure of their banana harvest, but I would be interested to see what might succeed the pathetic Cavendish on the shelves of Tesco and elsewhere. I never did find out where the Italians got theirs...
Nationality Transplants
Yesterday I got a package from Art Miniaturen - always a pleasant experience. There were various items in the pack, including some of Herr Schmaeling's excellent French Line Artillery limber horses and drivers, which I have finally got around to ordering and which will no doubt make an appearance here in the fullness of days.
The things I was most anxious to get hold of were a couple of packets of set no JS 72/0224, the (Waterloo period) Dutch-Belgian Command set - five officers on foot plus two mounted. I've used these before, with head or hat transplants, to provide 1812-style Spanish infantry officers. Conversions are a strange area of activity for me - I do not rate my talents very highly in this area, and yet I've had surprisingly few disasters over the years. There is something very pleasing about creating a unique figure - especially if it is something which I could not have got elsewhere. It feels, admittedly, like something of a cheat - superglueing together bits of someone else's art is an easy way to get good results, and Schmaeling's figures are particularly fine. Now that I have a little more confidence I find it a little easier, but it still requires a very deep breath to bring a razor saw into contact with one of these little jewels.
The picture shows the contents of one of the Dutch-Belgian packs, ready for the surgeon. On the right you see a Minifigs S-Range SN1s (top), whch figures provide all my Spanish rank-&-file, and a Les Higgins British light infantryman (bottom), which makes an excellent hat/head donor with appropriate mods. When the bandages come off - assuming the results are presentable - the world will hear of these guys again.
A Bit of Previous - here's one I did earlier (1st Sevilla) - colonel is one of these same Art Miniaturen Belgians, with a Les Higgins head
Monday, 16 April 2012
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.
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.
Hooptedoodle #48 - Charles and Norman – today’s pointless tale
I was thinking about this last night. It is a true story, and – since almost everyone involved in it is dead – none of it really matters now. It’s a little bleak, but it is not particularly intended to be sad. There must be many stories like this – you probably have some of your own. I have never written it down or talked much about it, so the main point of setting it down here is to scratch at it a little and see how I feel about it. To maintain the appropriate measure of delicacy, of course, names and places are amended slightly.
I never had a brother. The nearest approximation to a brother I had was a boy named Norman I grew up with. We used to see a lot of each other from a very early age, since my mother used to look after him often when his own mother was at work. So Norman and I were close friends for many years.
Norman’s mum had been in the WAAF (Women’s Auxiliary Air Force) towards the end of WW2, and she was posted to an admin job in the South of England, where she met – and became friendly with – a very handsome young GI named Charles, who was involved in the supply arrangements for D-Day.
Almost immediately after VE Day, the couple married (I’ve seen the wedding photograph) and the young bride soon returned to live with her mother in a rather dismal industrial town in Lancashire, while Charles (who was required to remain for a while at his posting in the South) visited them when he could get leave. It seems it didn’t go very well. There are sad descriptions of Charles (who was from Missouri) sitting on the step of the little back yard to watch the sun setting, terminally homesick, and by the time Norman was born the next year, after one of the hardest winters on record, Charles had already gone back to the States.
Norman grew up without a father, and he and I never mentioned the fact. Elsewhere I heard disapproving mention of this terrible disappearing act, but it was not the sort of thing that got talked about in front of children, so Norman’s lack of a dad just became one more tiny human tragedy in the vast human awfulness which is the legacy of war. In adult life, prompted by greater self-assurance and beer, I once asked him if he had ever made contact with his father, and got a good-humoured but dismissive reference to “Vanishing Charlie”, so I never approached the subject again. Charles was a bad person, a loser and a betrayer, and was not talked about.
Many years passed, and Norman – who never had an awful lot of luck, come to think of it – died in very early middle age of cancer. His mother survived him by a number of years, for most of which she was in a state of dementia. When she, too, passed away, Norman’s widow went to help the Executors to sort out the mother’s estate and go through her papers.
There was a mass of stuff – mostly rubbish – but there was a sealed parcel of letters from America. It seems that for a couple of years after 1946 Charles wrote frequently to his wife of his wish to see his new son, pleading with her to come to join him in Missouri – as they “had agreed” – so that they could be a “real family”. Included in the letters were the immigration papers appropriate to a GI’s family, and forms which could be exchanged for boat tickets.
So appears The Alternative Plot, dear reader. Norman and his mum were not deserted by his father after all. The truth is that Norman’s mother had unilaterally decided not to go to join him. Maybe her decision was the correct one – who knows? – but it means that Norman lived his entire life without ever knowing the truth. In Ending B of the theoretical movie, Norman would have gone to meet his father in the New World, and they would have rushed into each other’s arms while the sun shone on the golden wheat fields and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang the big theme. Well, no – the reality is not like that. Norman never knew any of this. Perhaps it’s just as well he didn’t, but sometimes – mostly at 2am when I can’t sleep – it plays on my mind a bit.
But, eventually, none of it matters now.
I never had a brother. The nearest approximation to a brother I had was a boy named Norman I grew up with. We used to see a lot of each other from a very early age, since my mother used to look after him often when his own mother was at work. So Norman and I were close friends for many years.
Norman’s mum had been in the WAAF (Women’s Auxiliary Air Force) towards the end of WW2, and she was posted to an admin job in the South of England, where she met – and became friendly with – a very handsome young GI named Charles, who was involved in the supply arrangements for D-Day.
Almost immediately after VE Day, the couple married (I’ve seen the wedding photograph) and the young bride soon returned to live with her mother in a rather dismal industrial town in Lancashire, while Charles (who was required to remain for a while at his posting in the South) visited them when he could get leave. It seems it didn’t go very well. There are sad descriptions of Charles (who was from Missouri) sitting on the step of the little back yard to watch the sun setting, terminally homesick, and by the time Norman was born the next year, after one of the hardest winters on record, Charles had already gone back to the States.
Norman grew up without a father, and he and I never mentioned the fact. Elsewhere I heard disapproving mention of this terrible disappearing act, but it was not the sort of thing that got talked about in front of children, so Norman’s lack of a dad just became one more tiny human tragedy in the vast human awfulness which is the legacy of war. In adult life, prompted by greater self-assurance and beer, I once asked him if he had ever made contact with his father, and got a good-humoured but dismissive reference to “Vanishing Charlie”, so I never approached the subject again. Charles was a bad person, a loser and a betrayer, and was not talked about.
Many years passed, and Norman – who never had an awful lot of luck, come to think of it – died in very early middle age of cancer. His mother survived him by a number of years, for most of which she was in a state of dementia. When she, too, passed away, Norman’s widow went to help the Executors to sort out the mother’s estate and go through her papers.
There was a mass of stuff – mostly rubbish – but there was a sealed parcel of letters from America. It seems that for a couple of years after 1946 Charles wrote frequently to his wife of his wish to see his new son, pleading with her to come to join him in Missouri – as they “had agreed” – so that they could be a “real family”. Included in the letters were the immigration papers appropriate to a GI’s family, and forms which could be exchanged for boat tickets.
So appears The Alternative Plot, dear reader. Norman and his mum were not deserted by his father after all. The truth is that Norman’s mother had unilaterally decided not to go to join him. Maybe her decision was the correct one – who knows? – but it means that Norman lived his entire life without ever knowing the truth. In Ending B of the theoretical movie, Norman would have gone to meet his father in the New World, and they would have rushed into each other’s arms while the sun shone on the golden wheat fields and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang the big theme. Well, no – the reality is not like that. Norman never knew any of this. Perhaps it’s just as well he didn’t, but sometimes – mostly at 2am when I can’t sleep – it plays on my mind a bit.
But, eventually, none of it matters now.
Sunday, 15 April 2012
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.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)