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! 

The Second Spanish Foot Battery

I'm very pleased to have a second regular foot battery for the Spanish Nationalist army, very kindly - and delightfully - painted for me by Lee, in return for introducing him to Commands & Colors and providing some uniform info. I think I came out of that exchange handsomely ahead - thank you, Lee, once again.

These guys have been sitting around in my spares box for a while, and they are now ready to join Morillo's new 2nd Divn of the Spanish army. Excellent - a real bonus.

Thus my Spanish army is complete now, apart from a few generals. Well, actually, apart from a few generals and some more cavalry. All right - a few generals, some more cavalry and a couple of limber crews.

And maybe a couple more units of voluntarios. You can never have too many voluntarios.

The castings are of Frenchmen, tweaked and modded a little here and there. The guns and the crews are by NapoleoN Miniatures, the officer with the telescope is yet another of Art Miniaturen's little gems. The Gribeauval system 8pdrs are completely authentic - Spain was a Bourbon kingdom before Napoleon, and all Bourbon kingdoms used the Gribeauval system. Spanish guns were either grey or - as in this case - stained timber with black ironwork.

Solo Campaign - ...and his Nephew

Now ready for The Cupboard, the Earl is joined by his ADC.

Captain John Edward Falconer, of Rufford, Lancashire, is the Earl's nephew. 22 years of age, he recently exchanged into the 4th Regt of Foot (The King's Own). He is described as "a flawless horseman, and exceeding polite" by his former regiment, and expresses himself delighted to be appointed to support the Earl's new adventure. The Earl's only concern over the arrangement (allegedly) is that, at 6 feet 4 inches, young Falconer is almost exactly a foot taller than him.

To make sure there is no confusion, the gaffer is on the right, the gopher on the left. I knew that frisky horse for Tarleton was a mistake.

Our family holiday starts in a few days, so it will be a week or two before these gentlemen are seen in action.

Solo Campaign - The Earl of Aigburth

Still on the milk bottle top, and with his varnish still a little too bright, here is the new C-in-C of the Anglo-Portuguese army. May I introduce General Sir Banastre Tarleton, Earl of Aigburth, more or less ready to join his troops in Portugal.

You see him mounted on his favourite horse, Philadelphia, and dressed as Colonel-in-Chief of his beloved 21st (Yorkshire) Light Dragoons. Yes - the hat - had to be.

The 21st, of course, are currently in South Africa, not in the Peninsula at all, and experts might observe that in 1808 the regiment's facings were changed to pink - ah well - according to my trusty Franklin, the new facings were not well received, and the regiment continued to wear its pre-1808 yellow facings until the new (French-style) uniforms were received in 1814, at which point the facings became black.

So there you have it.

He has still to be joined by his ADC - Captain JE Falconer of the 4th Foot, who is, in fact, his nephew (being his sister Bridget's boy - I hope you are taking notes). The family were very keen that Falconer serve in this capacity, though who is going to look after whom is a matter of debate. The Captain is on another bottle top, and will be along shortly.

If anyone cares, the figure of Tarleton is what as a boy I would have called a bitza (bitza this, bitza that). He started life as a Minifigs S-Range figure of Eugene de Beauharnais, but has a new head (from a NapoleoN light dragoon officer) and a horse supplied by Art Miniaturen.

In his baggage for his voyage to Lisbon is a letter for the Quartermaster General which contains the following passage:

It is my intention to leave responsibility for the whereabouts of individual mules and supply wagons in the hands of the QMG's staff. I intend to focus primarily on the disposition of the fighting army. I should not express a view on whether this will be a change of recent practice, but this is my aim.