Pages

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

Review: Thomas' Wargaming 19th Century Europe - Redux

 Neil Thomas' WARGAMING NINETEENTH CENTURY EUROPE 1815-1878

Given David's recent musings on contemplating embarking upon a Risorgimento project in 6mm and Neil Thomas' Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878 (see Imperfect Painting), my thoughts returned to this classic work and the rules, themselves.  Tossed into this inspirational mix is Keith's move to resurrect or recycle old posts (see An "Almost" Anniversary Post).  Seems that the pair of posts from David and Keith converged to nudge me in a similar direction.  Call it serendipity.

With their inspirations, I resurrect a post from the very early days of Palouse Wargaming Journal.  Reproduced below is the 29 OCT 2012 post on my overview of Thomas' book.  Hard to believe this review was published a dozen years ago.  At the time, my review garnered a grand total of one comment.

Thomas' Wargaming 19th Century Europe book remains one of my Top 10 all-time wargaming books.  I might even push it into my Top 5.  Even with the passage of a dozen years, my appreciation for this book is unwavering.  While I do not use these rules for my own Risorgimento wargaming, perhaps I should give it a try?  Typically, my adaptation to Fields of Honor is my "go to" choice for gaming the period.  In fact, I tend to use Fields of Honor for many horse and musket periods.

What might be interesting is to offer a side-by side comparison of both rulesets to investigate any similarities and differences.  Will a comparison between the two cause a change in perception of Thomas?  For now, below is the republication of my review of Thomas' book from 2012 (see original post at Review: Thomas' Wargaming 19th Century Europe).

Hope you enjoy this look back down memory lane.  I did.

--- Original Post from 29 OCT 2012 ---    

Having an interest in 19th Century warfare in general and the Second Italian War of Independence in particular, I recently bought Thomas' book.  Wargaming 19th Century Europe is my first Thomas wargaming book so I didn't know what to expect.  Existing reviews are lacking the detail needed to make an informed decision but I plunged ahead anyway on the road to discovery.


Although the book covers a wide span of history (some might argue too large since weapons and tactics evolved throughout this period), Thomas justifies his position by reminding the reader that the mindset of commanders during this period remained practically unchanged.  That is, commanders continued employing Napoleonic tactics over this 60-year span.  This same argument could be made for the American Civil War as well.  

Thomas provides a comprehensive examination from a wargaming perspective.  Thomas breaks the book into a number of manageable chunks.  These components include sections on:
  • Historical background
  • Design notes
  • Wargame rules
  • Generic scenarios
  • Army lists
  • Historical scenarios
  • Appendices listing bibliography, scales and figure discussion, and wargame related vendors
The rules, themselves, only take up eight pages and cover,
  • Units and Formations
  • Basing
  • Sequence of Play
  • Changes of Formation
  • The Charge Sequence
  • Movement
  • Firing
  • Hand-to-Hand Combat
  • Morale
The rules' mechanisms lean decidedly towards the simple end of the wargame complexity scale and Thomas defends this approach throughout his design notes chapter (entitled, Nineteenth-Century Wargaming).  Thomas emphasizes the "simple" rules' design approach to allow players to focus on the game rather than the rules.  The rules have no specified time or figure scale. 

All units of the same type are the same size regardless of historical doctrine.  Unit size is,
  • Infantry - four bases
  • Skirmishers - two bases
  • Cavalry and Dragoons - four bases
  • Artillery - one base
Basing guidelines are provided but any basing scheme should work as long as both combatants are based similarly.  

One interesting step in the Sequence of Play is that formation change is a separate step and that infantry may not move in line.  The result is that infantry may only charge to contact while in column.  Only infantry and artillery may change formation.

In the Charge Sequence, Thomas provides a matrix for easily determining whether a charging unit may contact a defending unit.  Conditional charges are allowed provided that the charging unit outnumbers the target.  If attacked frontally, defenders may fire at the attacker before hand-to-hand combat is resolved.  

In the Fire Phase, firing units throw a number of dice per stand dependent upon unit type (rate of fire).  Ranges are singular per weapon type with the exception that smoothbore guns have both a short and long range, and skirmishers add 8cm to weapons' range.  Hits are cross-referenced with respect to firing unit and target.  For example, an infantry unit firing in line against an infantry in close order line needs 4-6 on each D6 to score one hit.  Each base may take four hits before removing one base.  Saving throws are allowed for provided the target unit is either in cover (woods or towns) or armed with breechloading weapons.  The rationale for the breechloading saving throw is to model the tendency for breechloading armed troops to "go to ground" when under heavy fire.     

In Hand-to-Hand Combat Phase, each unit totals the number of dice it throws against its opponent with each stand receiving a set number of dice dependent upon the attacking and defending unit types.  Like fire, saving throws are allowed for units in woods or towns.  The side taking the largest number of hits retreats after Hand-to-Hand. 

During the Morale Phase, only three conditions trigger a morale test.  These conditions are:
  • Losing a base through fire combat
  • Charging cavalry takes fire from defending target
  • Losing Hand-to-Hand combat
Notice that in the case of a cavalry charge, the defender does not necessarily have to cause casualties to trigger this morale test.  Thomas argues that the process of taking fire during a cavalry charge was often enough to cause 'extreme' disorder within the charging cavalry's ranks.  Units are rated in five distinct morale classifications.  These are, 
  • Fanatic
  • Elite
  • Average
  • Levy
  • Rabble
with each classification given a set range of values on 1D6 for passing the morale test.  Fanatics fail only a on a roll of '1' while Rabble fail on any roll other than a '6'.

To me, the most interesting portion of Thomas' book is contained in his design notes in chapter 2.  This chapter allows the reader insight into Thomas' rationale for designing the rules as written.  Some thought provoking ideas are surfaced within and prompts me to consider some of my own gaming designs.  Thomas' rules definitely possess the flavor of classic, Old School wargames as handed down from the pioneers of Featherstone, Grant, Wesencraft, and Morschauser.

54 comments:

  1. An enjoyable read, I like Neil Thomas books I must admit and that is a good review of a decent set of rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Donnie! This is my favorite of Thomas’ works.

      Delete
  2. Hi Jon, well I am glad to have helped provoked you into a re-visit to this excellent book! I was slightly interested in the period before, but reading Neil's book really lit the fuse..
    The rules around moving/firing/charging are very interesting, it looks like infantry commanders basically have a choice between (a) advance in column to within musket range, shake out into line and start a firefight, and (b) stay in attack column and go in with the bayonet (the French 'elan' approach, no doubt!)...
    Now you have highlighted my post to your many readers, I had better get on with this project! thanks for the nudge, and the 'plug'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you provided inspiration to revisit this topic and this book. Perhaps you would be interested in seeing the rules in action. Although my basing is not same as Thomas, my basing should work with a few adjustments.

      Now, get cracking on your new project!

      Delete
  3. With only two comments, thus far, my comment count already surpasses commentary from the original post. Now, that is progress!

    ReplyDelete
  4. 3 comments! Now. Interesting review Jon. I must have read the book around the same time as your review and played one game. I really enjoyed it and also admired the design notes and the idea of keeping core rules simple but with minor scenario/sub-period tweaks. I can see the same design ethic in your house rules.
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! Three comments now!

      Thomas' Design Notes are my favorite parts of the book. Every ruleset should have a designer's wargame philosophy illuminated as Thomas has done in this book. Keeping core rules simple, repeatable, and adaptable are tenets of good design. Well, they are at least in my mind.

      Thanks for your comments, Chris!

      Delete
  5. I think I actually read your review before purchasing my copy. I have only used them for a few First Carlist War games. I may look at adapting them to try a game with my War of the Triple Alliance collection at some point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Phil! Good to see that you have been around for a long time! I don't see why the rules would not work suitably for the War of the Triple Alliance.

      Delete
  6. I bought the Neil Thomas books mostly because people were reporting using or adapting them, and giving positive reviews. I confess to doing little more than flicking through them. I did start to read one and it felt like going back to read Featherstone or similar when I was starting out (sadly without any of the nostalgia).
    My impression is good ideas, although perhaps not fully tested, at least that's the impression I get from all the adaptions people make!
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Neil. To which Thomas do you refer? All of them, generally, or specific titles? Some of the titles contain rules in which leave unanswered loopholes. Others are more complete but all seem like toolkits to me. Perhaps that is why you see such individual adaptations? The Design Notes in the 19th Century title definitely remind me of the classics.

      Delete
    2. I like his rules and love reading his design decisions, but you often feel that there's a lot of the basics of the rules still in his head, and the reader is left to solve various issues for themselves..

      And yet people manage to happily game with them, so they are either solving those issues or it's just me missing the blatantly obvious :)

      Delete
    3. I think I started to read the Ancient title.
      I'm not a big fan of the "toolkit" approach as it can encompass everything from "incomplete" to several variants of mechanisms.
      It only works for solo or where opponents are willing to agree on grey areas.
      It's easy to write rules; what's hard is writing them so that a person reading them can play as you intended, without you being present to explain what you mean!
      Playtesting is essential, however critical the feedback you receive. The problem is where the rules have holes and were insufficiently tightly written; this leads to amendments to cover those lacunae, which end up doubling the size of the rules....
      Neil

      Delete
    4. KK, being able to read an author's design decisions is an important element for me. Armed with this knowledge, a gamer can quickly determine if the designer's game philosophy fits with his own bias and preconceptions. I agree that it often seems some important bits are left for the reader to answer.

      Delete
    5. Neil, "toolkits" have their place in wargaming especially if one tends toward rule tinkerer. I reckon that unless a gamer plays the Rules As Written, most rulesets are toolkits to some extent.

      Quite right about the difficulty in writing clear and concise rules with little ambiguity. I often wonder what percentage of published rules are actually played as the author intended.

      Delete
    6. I thorughly agree with design notes - I must do it more often! Transferability of wargame rules is always a problem. I think it's why some rules come across as far too long/involved because the author is trying to make them 'gamer proof'. My usual answer to people who will try to play the rules, not the period is not to play with those people. After all, you're not going to ejoy yourself. I'm always interested in how boardgames try to tackle the problem of transfer but really, if you're enjoying the game but not using the rules intended, it doesn't really matter.

      Delete
    7. Brian, I encourage any author, rules' designer/developer, or home rules' tinkerer to document the thought process behind the decisions made, the route taken, and the rationale for doing so. For me, it is important to buy into a design philosophy before acceptance.

      Delete
  7. A great review Jonathan. I do like Mr. Thomas's OHW rules & scenarios so may look to get a copy of these rules as they seem simple enough for me.

    Have you reviewed his Napoleonic rules?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Ben! I do not own a copy of Thomas' Napoleonic rules. I recommend the 19th C. book if you have any interest in the periods covered.

      Delete
  8. Well, the comment count is getting up there now, Jon! This seemed like a post well worth a second airing - I like the sound of the rules and the philosophy behind the design notes - I am more and more a believer in "less is more " or KISS as far as rules go - as you may have noticed from some of the games I play, particularly the solo ones using our mate Andrews home brew set! One side benefit of very simple rules is they provide less fodder for everyone's favourite character, the rules lawyer!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the comment count is rising! Recycling a review of one of my favorite wargaming books seemed a reasonable path especially since it received so little attention on the first time around. I am in the camp of "less is more" too but it all boils down to the level of abstraction one can tolerate. Some can tolerate mor abstraction than others.

      Delete
  9. Such a good book and always worth re-reading.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have this book too. Like Neil all I did was to flick through it . I took it off the shelf recently for a longer read with a view to seein* if it might be a way forward with 1848 , possibly set in the Duchy of Tradgardland. Still thinking…
    Alan Tradgardland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alan, you could do much worse than giving the rules contained therein a try on the table.

      Delete
  11. Some nice ideas in there Jonathan. I can see the trend toward simplicity repeated in many sets that have since emerged. It's quite noticeable how rules come out, create a real buzz around them and then recede leaving a few die-hard adherents, those with whom the rules really resonated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From my viewpoint, wargamers tend to be a fickle lot. New rules are published and quickly build excitement and a following only to be supplanted later by the next "latest and greatest". It must be a subset of the Oh Shiny" syndrome. I still play many old rulesets adapted to my own needs and preferences but I am no trendsetter nor trend follower.

      Delete
  12. Enjoyed reading your review Jonathan. Well worth the "recycle".

    ReplyDelete
  13. I quite like Neil Thomas' rules too and, as an inveterate rules tinkerer, like the toolkit approach. I used a modified version of AMW for a time. One Hour Wargames seems to be the one that has the longest run, perhaps because of the scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like you, I am a confirmed rules' tinkerer so the toolkit approach suits me fine in most situations. Now if I was a competition gamer, this approach would not work so well.

      Delete
  14. To clarify, in light of Neil's comments above, toolkits work for me as a solo gamer. I agree with him about the greater difficulty of writing something that works among strangers or in competitive settings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. I agree that the gaming setting drives whether or not the toolkit approach is a viable option.

      Delete
  15. As I said on Keith's blog: I *personally* don't love the idea of reposting. I don't really understand the point. I have an archive and a label system on my blog (as do you, as do many others) if someone wants to do a deep dive into anything.
    I don't want to come off as negative or mean, I think it's better to skip a post in a grueling 3 times a week schedule than go back to reruns.
    It might be, just be me. I'll think on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand your point, Stew, but my repost was specifically triggered by David's interest in the rules and his possible launch of a period-relevant project. My repost was not due to lack of new material but a timing opportunity to bring this review to light. I always have a back log of stuff to post. sometimes, I just can't get to it.

      This post did trigger a comment from you, so that is good whether encouraging or discouraging.

      Delete
    2. yeah well I would of commented on Anything, as I'm in the habit of commenting on all your posts no matter the content, as you're in the habit of commenting on mine (at least, until recently... hint hint 😁😆😆). I starting to think that it's more the relationship / interaction of two people that drives comments, and less the actual content.
      Still something to just think about in my mind.
      But I really don't want to be DIScouraging. So take everything I'm writing as a penny dropped into a fountain. 😁

      Delete
    3. I can’t believe I missed a comment on one of your posts. I must have missed the post altogether.

      Delete
    4. Well I was just being cheeky. 😀
      Honestly, you support SO many blogs with positive comments (there’s hardly a blog that I comment on that you don’t also) that we shouldn’t begrudge you missing the occasional post. 😀

      Delete
  16. Great period of "Gentlemens" warfare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One attraction for me is that this is a period where technology is evolving faster than tactics.

      Delete
  17. A great blast from the past - good to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good use of time to explain something. Old articles are not very old, even in part s barely covered in an old post. Interesting stuff that the rules are evolving over time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think it is my favourite of all of his books Jon. I like the fact his sets out his stall right at the start, so you understand his reasoning before you get to the rules themselves. I've tried a game or two many years ago, but couldn't quite get over some of the ambiguity in the rules. I dug the book out though when you posted this to give them a re-read and maybe a decent run out with my mdf figures. I think the force lists can easily be translated to other rulesets (I'm thinking BPII here) and the scenarios are interesting too. Plenty to think about...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, this book is certainly near the top of my list. Not sure how I would rank my favorites. Ranking my favorites might make an interesting exercise. Thomas' rules have plenty of ambiguities but having comprehensive design notes helps one puzzle through his thinking. At least, his design notes help me to understand his thinking.

      Delete
  20. Hi Jon
    The last paragraph of the review is very insightful - one of the most important parts of any ruleset is the designer’s “reasoning”. Thomas tells us exactly what he’s trying to achieve, while many other authors don’t, and assume we’ll all guess what they were driving at. (Dan Mersey tends to do as Thomas did…give us all a big clue as to ‘why’ he’s written it this way). I have found that is us usually those gamers who skip or ignore the design notes who are the least satisfied with the game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin, you and I are both in agreement on the importance and value in including a comprehensive set of Design Notes.

      Delete
  21. Stepping back from the subject for a moment, it is interesting to reflect on the single initial comment v. the getting on for 50 for the replay. What does this say to other bloggers about developing their blogs? Perseverance. Quality content. Variety. Pro-active in engaging with other bloggers and forming networks. Reply to comments. Good work, Jon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Anthony, for highlighting the keys to blogging and offering this blog as a good example. Very much appreciated! Perseverance is important, for sure, as are networking, support for others, and content. If I could add one more attribute of success to your list, I would add regular updates to content.

      Delete
  22. I rate this one of the best rulesets ever! Conditional charges are genius. They force you to soften targets and keep reserves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No disagreement from me! This may be my favorite wargaming book of all time.

      Delete