What's In A Name?

After seeing the above book mentioned on Peter's blog (see A New Book...) and listening to the authors' podcasts, I placed an order.  Book arrived quickly and was read just as quickly.  I won't repeat the contents of the book since Peter did that and Table of Contents can be seen on Amazon.

What I do want to discuss is the authors' wrestling with the renaming of the gaming aspect of the hobby that we enjoy.  Many of us likely refer to this hobby as miniatures wargaming or playing a miniatures game.  Really, I lump all facets of the hobby simply into the catch-all, wargaming. 

The authors' take a different tack, however.  They state their rationale for first dismissing the use of tabletop games, then dismissing miniatures games, then dismissing miniatures wargames, before settling onto the term of non-discrete miniatures games. 

The name, non-discrete miniatures game is chosen since the authors argue that,

• Games are not necessarily about war.
• Spatial relationships between miniatures and terrain are crucial.
• Any physical object can be introduced into the game and have meaning in game terms (non-discrete components).
• Movement and positioning are not limited to fixed increments or grid spaces (non-discrete positioning).

Non-discrete is an interesting term to choose and returns me to the days of studying mathematics.  Typically, one sees a bifurcation between discrete and continuous but not between discrete and non-discrete.  I suppose if the term, continuous was utilized as in continuous miniatures game, readers might conclude that we game non-stop!      

Moving on, the authors define these games by their unique spatial characteristics in that,

• Precise physical positioning matters.  That is, movement and placement are analog (and continuous) and not grid-based.
• Players can bring any object to the game table and game systems must accommodate an infinite variability of components.

One example given of discrete movement and figure (marker) placement is the game of Monopoly.  A playing piece can only be in one of the grid spaces on the playing board at any one time and not between two spaces.  In a non-discrete game, movement is governed by a measuring device with a miniature able to move anywhere along that vector and stop anywhere short of the maximum move distance allowed.  This non-discrete movement criterion seems to not only explicitly exclude grid-based games from inclusion into non-discrete miniatures game by definition but implicitly as well with the continuous nature of measured movement along a vector. 

In later chapters, the authors relax the condition for non-griddedness.  Games having gridded movement or zoned movement may fit into the structure of building a non-discrete miniatures game as long as the focus on the design remains on the spatial relationships within the game and the infinite variety of components.  Given that discrete positioning and movement criteria are later relaxed, the grid vs non-grid distinction should be dropped from the definition altogether.

With the argument for excluding gridded games jettisoned, what remains the focus of non-discrete miniatures gaming?  What remains constant is the reliance upon the external components brought into the game system.

What distinguishes many boxed miniatures games from the non-discrete miniatures games that the authors describe?  The difference is that the former is self-contained with the rules and all of the components necessary for play while the latter is similar to a toolkit with a programmed game engine requiring any number of external inputs provided by the player(s).  These external inputs could include figures, terrain, army lists, dice, measuring devices, etc.

       

Is the classification still between discrete vs non-discrete miniatures games or is a better fitting distinction between endogenous vs exogenous miniatures games?  I suggest that the latter terminology may be a better fit if one agrees with the authors that the deciding attribute is bringing external inputs into the system.  Still, it is all wargaming to me.

There is much more to be pulled from this book of interest to wargamers and wargame designers whether focusing on non-discrete miniatures gaming or not.  I have only brought up the main thesis of Chapter 1!  With so much to consider, I may non-discretely dip back into this text on occasion.

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.

Muskets and Springfields

When I first saw these rules announced, my thought was, "these look interesting."  Played on a grid with no figure removal, Muskets and Springfields (M&S) looked right up my alley.  Now, with my experience with the recent hit and miss nature of books and rules released from the seemingly factory-line quick publishing of some companies, I am a bit wary.  This time, I threw caution to the wind and placed an order, sight unseen.

Having played many rules (see for example the different rulesets played in 2022 alone at Year in Review: Games Played) playtested others, and read many, many more rules across more than 50 years of wargaming, a read from cover to cover with a return to reinforce concepts often provides a good grasp of the mechanisms.  Including a QRS close by as reference helps too.  Hopefully, a core design philosophy can be extracted as well.  

After reading the rules through twice with several returns to reread crucial sections, I had many questions.  Questions arose not only in the rules, themselves, but to the author's understanding of the period.  Given these reservations, I went in search of reviews.  One of the few reviews found was Colin's impression at Carryings On

Up the Dale.  Colin enjoyed the rules with no mention of the mechanisms I found troubling.  Next up was the author's (Nigel Emsen) Design Notes.   

Both Colin and Nigel provide an overview and feel for the flow of the rules.  I make no review of the rules, themselves.  Rules' metadata can be found elsewhere.  As I read the rules, stopping to reflect often, there were many facets that simply either did not make sense or were (in my mind) in error.

Where to begin?

Let's start with the title, itself.  Muskets and Springfields is an odd choice for a title.  First, Springfields were muskets; rifled muskets but still muskets.  Perhaps Smoothbores and Springfields would have been a better title choice?  Second, "...because M&S sits at the operational level, there is no separation between smoothbore and rifle armed small arms" why this title at all, then?  With a ground scale of one square equaling 300 yards and no distinction between smoothbore and rifles, the title has no relevance.

This brings up my second point.  Operational level?  With a ground scale of 300 yards, basic maneuver unit (BMU) of a brigade, and all of the scenarios depicting small ACW battles or only portions of large battles, the rules are tactical not operational.  Perhaps our definitions of "operational level" differ but to me, operational invokes campaigns not refighting portions of battles.  The inclusion of capturing and spiking guns is a bit much when players take roles of Army down to Division command. 

Even setting the basic unit in the game as a brigade is not without ambiguity.  In the six scenarios provided, this basic unit seems to vary.  In some scenarios the BMU is a brigade.  In others, a brigade is composed of multiple regiments.  Still in another, a brigade is composed of a number of stands.  There is no consistency that a BMU is, in fact, a brigade.  Perhaps, "brigade-equivalent" may have been a better term?

Speaking of terminology, each unit carries a Morale State that can be in one of three states.  These are either "Unknown", "Steady", or "Nervous".  A unit's Morale State is not known until it first takes damage.  The author calls this rule, the "fight or flight" rule.  "Fight or flight"?  Why not use the period expression of "Seeing the elephant"?  Even the phrase of "first takes damage" is misleading since the next section in the rules under Attrition states that a unit must receive at least two hits in any one turn to trigger this event.  Another oddity is the use of the term "Shooting and Scooting" for evading.  I have never read of any ACW units "shooting and scooting" as a charge bears down.  Is the use of a deck of cards for activation really a "bag-pull" system?

What about troop types? Any challenges there?  Yes! Zouaves (and Native American warbands) in melee are easier to hit (-2 modifier) and fight with 4D10.  Regular infantry melee with 6D10s.  Why?  Oh, Zouaves and warbands are immune to Morale Tests!  Makes me wonder if the author knows what a Zouave was in the ACW.

In shooting and melee a unit rolls a specified number of D10s looking for successes but nowhere does it specify if the roll must exceed or fall under the target number.  Do the modifiers adjust the Base Number or the die roll?  The answer can be worked out by studying the modifier table but this should be explicit to avoid confusion.  Similarly, nowhere is it mentioned how a melee ends.  Does the losing unit retire from the square if neither is eliminated?

Finally, the scenario maps have issues.  Given that this is a grid-based game, the maps carry no grid.  Typos are frequent.  At Cedar Mountain, one of the Confederate commanders is shown as "C. SWINDERS" and a farm is shown as "Crillenden."  Good grief.

First impressions are that this work requires more development.  When one ambiguity surfaces, I question that one exception.  When ambiguities abound, I begin to question everything.  There may be some good ideas in here somewhere but getting to them is a chore.

Sumerian Serendipity

While work has begun on a Sumerian project inspired by Graham Evan's To Ur is Human rules (see my First Impressions here), many questions remain unclear as I dive into a new, and unfamiliar period.

Imagine my relief when an advert for the above book recently popped into my Inbox.  This looks promising!  Well, little surprise that I quickly ordered a copy of this Soldiershop book from Amazon.  Being available in Kindle format, I received near instant gratification after having pressed the "Buy" button.

The author, Chris Flaherty, has produced a very interesting primer on the period.

The book is divided into the following thirteen chapters:

• Chapter 1: Selecting Soldiers
• Chapter 2: Role, Organization, and Maneuver of Armies
• Chapter 3: Battle
• Chapter 4: Kings and Military Leaders
• Chapter 5: Priests and God Idols
• Chapter 6: Hunters and Herder-Warriors
• Chapter 7: Shield-Bearers and Spearmen
• Chapter 8: Storage Pots, Water and Land Transport
• Chapter 9: Fortifications and Siege Craft
• Chapter 10: The Sumerian War Cart
• Chapter 11: War Cart's Battle Use
• Chapter 12: King Sargon's Standing Army 
• Chapter 13: Amorite, Elamite, and Lullabi Warriors

A quick reading of this 218 page book has clarified a number of questions I had and given me as many questions to ponder.  Some of these chapters are directly applicable to wargamers whether painting and organizing armies or gaming.  I will be re-examining Graham's wargame rules in a new light.

Very useful addition to a wargamer's library on an often overlooked period. 

Player's Note: Activation and Resource Management

For Whom The Dice Rolls
Player Notes: Activation and Resource Management

Having been involved in some of the playtesting before publication and game play after publication, my appreciation for the ingenuity of the rules has grown.  Since Graham offers a very good summary of the rules on the For Whom The Dice Rolls homepage and Amazon.com offers a Look Inside including a Table of Contents and several reviews from readers, I will not venture down the review road.  What I offer today is a quick look at the interactions between unit activation and resource management.  I suppose, this could be considered my Player’s Notes.  I suspect more of my thoughts on game player may be forthcoming.

In miniatures’ rules, the turn sequence can be defined in a number of ways although most utilize one of only a handful of tried and tested methods for activating units.  Once the turn sequence method is chosen, an explanation is given on activating units and resolving actions in a linear fashion.  Other game sub-systems may be synchronous or asynchronous.  In a game system as this, play can become routine and one-dimensional.  Not so with For Whom The Dice Rolls (FWTDR).  FWTDR offers a multi-dimensional and non-linear approach to turn sequencing and process control.  In addition, FWTDR presents many opportunities for nuanced, optimized play.  Clever.

What does this mean?

To begin, the two driving principles of accomplishing tasks and goals within the game are unit activation and resource management.  Unit activation and resource management are both controlled by a hand of playing cards.  A brief primer on these two system processes is helpful.  Some of the foundational components to unit activation and resource (hand) management are:

• Activation is governed by the playing of a card from a regular, 52 card deck with or without jokers.
• Jokers are added into the 52 card deck to denote the arrival of Off-Table Assets.  The number of jokers available and viable missions vary by scenario.
• Hand size is governed by the sum of Army Effectiveness, number of units in play, and an initiative die roll.  The player with the largest sum of these three components is awarded the initiative for the turn.
• A player’s impulse is limited to either the playing of one joker or the lesser of Army Effectiveness and the number of cards in one suit.
• When a player exhausts all cards in hand, the opponent is allowed one more impulse before the turn ends.
• Factions may only activate on specified playing card suits.  Some may activate on all suits. Others may activate only on one or two suits.  Better troops may activate on more suits.
• Each card played allows one unit to activate one time.
• A unit may activate up to three times per turn.  Notice distinction between “impulse” and “turn” in this context.
• Activations need not be sequential whereby one unit performs all of its activations before another unit is activated.
• There are never enough resources to accomplish everything on every impulse or turn.

The above list of bullets is a lot to consider.  Where to begin? An example, of course!

Standard Activation Table by Type and Suit 

Suppose one army is composed of Spanish Foreign Legion and Moroccan factions with four units on table.  With the Legion and Moroccans being highly trained and motivated, one might expect Army Effectiveness to be high.  In this situation it is, with the Nationalists having an Army Effectiveness of ‘6’.  With a 1D6 roll of ‘4’, the Nationalists’ hand size for this turn is ‘14’ (6+4+4).  Foreign Legion/Moroccans can activate on all suits.

The Nationalists are opposed by a mixed force of Anarchist Militia and Communist Militia each having three units.  The Republican army in this case has an Army Effectiveness of ‘4’.  With a 1D6 die roll of ‘3’, the Republicans have a hand size for this turn of ‘13’ (4+6+3).  The anarchists may only activate on hearts and diamonds.  The communists may activate only on clubs and diamonds.  The Nationalists will hold the initiative for this turn.

Suppose that in this example, suits are distributed evenly within each hand.  The Nationalists will have four cards in two of the suits and three cards in the other two suits.  The Republicans will have four cards in one suit and three cards in each of the remaining suits.

Since the Nationalist factions may activate on any suit, all cards will be usable by all units and the Foreign Legion and Moroccans will be able to coordinate actions with one another within the same impulse.  In contrast, the Republican militias have a much more difficult task activating and conducting coordinated actions. Neither the communists nor anarchists may activate on spades.  That makes one-fourth of the cards in hand unplayable in this impulse.  To compound this constraint, diamonds are the only suit in which the two militia may coordinate activities.  Only communists will be activating on hearts and only anarchists will be activating on clubs.  One quickly discovers that playing the Republicans in this scenario offers up a much different experience and challenge than does playing the Nationalists.  The use of suit activation tailored to faction provides a very interesting and asymmetrical set of problems for one player over the other.  This simple, game mechanism offers much depth to game play.  Brilliant!

With a player’s impulse limited to at most four cards in this example, is it advisable to activate one unit three times?  Three activations would exhaust that unit’s capabilities for the turn (and impulse).  Would it be more advantageous to activate several units one or two times each?  Does the active player exhaust the suit in this impulse or save some cards for play in a later impulse?  These decisions are situation dependent and introduce even more decision-making into the process.  As the Nationalist player, perhaps, coordination among units within an impulse is top priority rather than a prolonged, three-activation strike by one unit?  Can a player take the risk of holding cards back for later impulses when the opponent may run out of playable cards before all of his own cards in this turn can be played?  More decisions to keep in mind.

This look at activation and resource management only scratches the surface of the array of decisions players face in FWTDR.  Much more can be explored on this topic alone.  For now, I end this Player Note with the conclusion that FWTDR offers up a decision-rich environment that handles the complications of activating and coordinating disparate forces in a parsimonious manner.  When one pulls back the layers and looks a little deeper, there is much interesting and thoughtful design work behind the scenes.  Perhaps an element of Poker and risk management thrown in for good measure.

If these insights are of interest to even those not familiar with the rules, please post a comment.  If not, I may keep these ramblings to myself.

Thanks for reading!

To Ur is Human - First Impressions

Having purchased the rules, To Ur is Human (To Ur), one year ago and having finally fought a Sumerian battle among the irrigation ditches of the Fertile Crescent two weeks ago, time for a First Impressions of the rules.  The game mentioned was fought under the guidance of the author, Graham Evans.  To Ur states that it is a set of Tabletop Wargame Rules for Conflict in Sumerian Mesopotamia.  What does that mean?  We will find out.

To Ur measures in at 29 pages in length.  Typeface is large so the rules' content is shorter in length than suggested by the page length.  The back cover of the book contains a QRS.  Publishing the QRS on the back cover is a very useful practice.  Unlike Graham’s later, Its Getting a Bit Chile, To Ur features only the core rules without sections describing figure availability, painting guides, scenarios, etc..

To Ur features an Igo-Ugo system played on a grid.  Sure, play could be adapted to free-form movement and measurements but a grid allows for effortless resolution and little ambiguity.  Well, more on ambiguity later when movement, missile fire, and charging are discussed.  With no ground scale nor figure-to-man ratio given, To Ur represents combat in ancient Sumeria abstractly.  A Basic Maneuver Unit (BMU) consists of four bases for infantry and two bases for battle carts.  The number of figures per base is not important.  Any number of figures will do.  Each base can suffer four hits before its removal.  Given that, a four stand unit can absorb 16 hits before removal to due casualties.

Movement is most often one grid per turn unless charging.  Missile troops may fire up to three grids for bows.  Facing within a grid is important.  A unit may position itself in one of eight attitudes within the grid (four facing grid sides and four facing grid corners).  With the plodding rate of advance, an attacking unit may suffer several turns of missile fire before coming to grips with an adversary.  Light infantry can move and shoot. In fact, light missile troops may advance one square, shoot, and then retire one square.   A very handy attribute! Each unit is classified by Type (Heavy Infantry, Medium Infantry, Light Infantry, and Battle Carts) and by Training (Elite, Trained, Levy). Each side has one Big Man or Lugal.

The Turn Sequence is typical of many Igo-Ugo wargame rules. The sequence is,

• Move CiC (Lugal)
• Charge Declaration
• Movement
• Shooting
• Hand-to-Hand Combat
• Rally
• Assess victory conditions

What is at the heart of the design philosophy for To Ur?  Strip away all but the essential elements and the players are left with a psychological test of wills between adversaries.  Whether or not units will close or run is governed by a Fear Test.  A unit can be in one of three morale states: Fight, Fright, or Flight.   Units take this test when charging, after a round of Hand-to-Hand combat, or attempting to rally.  This test features an opposed roll by the two combatants.  Each side rolls 1D6 and adds only a handful of modifiers.  As a result of this computed differential, each participating unit’s morale state may remain the same, go down or up.  A player may attempt to maximize chances for success but there is enough variability built into the Fear Table that each contest contains inherent risk.  Whoever can manage this risk more effectively over the course of battle may win the day.   An interesting twist to the use of the Fear Table and opposed die rolls is that this same mechanism is used for rallying. Imagine that. An opponent with a hot hand may prevent your unit from rallying!

One complexity and ambiguity with many grid-based games is diagonal measurement across the grid whether for movement or for missile fire.  Different rules approach this challenge differently by employing different distance metrics.   To Ur tackles this by stating measurement criteria but then offering multiple examples of both movement and missile fire. The process can be confusing but enough examples are included to work through most situations.  I appreciate that foresight.  I am sure some of these complicated measurements will become second nature with repeated playings but for now, complex moves, charges, and missile fire may require extra effort at first.

As for combat resolution, both missile fire and hand-to-hand (HtH) combat use D6’s.  Each unit is awarded a number of dice per base. For missile fire, this could be up to two dice per base or 8D6 for a full four-stand unit. For HtH, units can throw as many as four dice per base for a total up to 16D6. Modifiers can add even more D6s per base.  A bucket of dice can be thrown in HtH combat. Typically, 5s and 6s hit for most unit types although light infantry hit on 4+.

Production quality is good and the price very inexpensive.  I paid less than USD$10 post paid from Amazon.  The rules are well diagrammed to illustrate a number of the subtleties.  As noted earlier, examples of play are numerous.

With only one game under my belt, has this tempted me into beginning a new project?  Of course, it has!  I have spent considerable time pouring over the catalogs from Wargames Foundry and Newline Designs comparing their 28mm Sumerian offerings.  I may already have too many projects on my plate so a more measured and prudent approach may be to try modifying the rules to accommodate my later Bronze Age armies. The main change would center on the tactical differences between Sumerian battle carts and later chariots. That should not pose too tough of a hurdle to overcome.

As for rules' complexity and completeness, the rules are medium complexity primarily due to the constraints imposed by a grid.  Even only playing the game one time, I found the answer to every question within the rules.  That sounds complete.  Could I have absorbed the rules on my own without the author present as my guide?  Eventually, sure, but having Graham lead me through the rules helped tremendously.  An enjoyable gaming session for us all, I think!   Looking forward to my next encounter in ancient Mesopotamia.

Well done, Graham!

For more information on To Ur is Human, please contact Graham at Wargaming for Grown-Ups.

Steve's Simple Wargaming Q&A for Fields of Honor

Homework time.  Steve's Sound Officers Call blog recently featured a post on the Allure of Simple Wargaming.  In that post, Steve presented a case for simple wargaming and proposed a closer look into that genre of quick to learn, easy to play rules.  A handful of rulesets were identified as likely candidates and a list of post-battle questions posited to apply to each of the games played in his experimental study.

I took up the challenge and applied Steve’s questions to my recent games of Fields of Battle: AWI.  See battle report, Action at Mill Creek Redux for a blow-by-blow presentation of the battle used in completing the following Q&A.

Steve's post-battle questions (and a few of my own) with my responses follow:

• Rules: Fields of Honor: AWI.
• Rules' complexity: Simple.
• Period: American War of Independence.
• Gridded/Open:  Both GRIDDED and OPEN rules are included.  I used GRIDDED with four inch hexes.  Any conversion between hex and open form is easy.
• Figure size: 15mm.
• Table size: Small with a grid of 8x6 4 inches hexes. 
• Method of play: Solo.
• Scenario: Action at Mill Creek.
• Scenario Author:  Derived from Norm's scenario of the same name as found in his Two Flags - One Nation rules.  Modified slightly and transported back into time for the AWI.
• Victory conditions:  British player must take the bridge and have two regiments on the heights before sustaining 50% units lost. 
• Game duration: About one and a half hours including note taking and photos.
• Number of in-game rules' consultations:  Two.  One to check on leader casualty procedure and the second to confirm mechanisms for multiple attackers vs a single defender in melee.  No more than two minutes to find and interpret the answer in each case.
• Battle victor: American defenders in a closely contested battle that went down to the wire.
• Contributing factors to victory:  Attacking is hard work especially when only slightly outnumbering defenders in good ground.  The British suffered heavy casualties in the first fire exchange losing one regiment and having two others damaged.  Later, Smallwood's regiment destroyed two regiments in quick succession.  Having the American officer only wounded rather than killed by a sniper may have prevented an American defeat.  Although the British were clearing Rebels from the American right rapidly, it was too little too late. 
• Game satisfaction (0-None to 5-Complete): 4.
• Reason for satisfaction score:
• Pros: Sequence of Play is straightforward without complication.  With nine units per side in this small battle, play was quick.  Only a handful of modifiers needed for each of FIRE/MELEE/MORALE resolution.  Not all modifiers are applicable in every situation and quickly can be committed to memory.  Resolution of each interaction is fast.  Unit quality modifiers highlight the differences between the various troop types.  British line definitely fight with different attributes than do American militia.  Unit attributes easily adaptable by Quality Modifiers to account for a wide variety of troop traits.  Total possible combinations of unique unit qualities is 125 (5x5x5).  Sequencing of the turn phases lends to dynamic game play.  A feel for a tense battle ebb and flow as each combatant takes a turn putting the enemy off balance before the turn reverts to the opponent.  The Events Table adds some uncertainty and creative randomness into the battle.  These events can aid in driving an interesting narrative.  The in-game narrative developed during play was engaging especially with the battle hanging in the balance on every turn.  System uses 1D10 having uniform distribution but in this case, 1D10 variability is no issue since there are no opposed differential computations.  Solitaire suitability very high.  Game was very enjoy as a solo exercise.  Rules work well with my single element BMUs.  
• Cons: Rules have some ambiguity and are not as complete for all situations but omissions are easily resolved.  Leaders are all rated the same with a +1 DRM for FIRE/MELEE/MORALE CHECKS when attached.  When faced by a high ratio of leaders to units, leaders may become too effective in driving an attack or defense.  With sections of the rules written for both hex/counter and miniatures, there is some confusion and overlap.  Some inconsistency in the tabled values between text and back cover QRS.  

• Extraordinary, noteworthy, heroic, or cowardly events:  See battle report linked above for a fully detailed examination of the action.  A few notable events include:
• Pennsylvanians on first turn discover they are low on ammo with a Calamity Event.  They will remain so for the entire battle.
• With the British left hitting the 7th Penn hard near the bridge with six hits and needing only three hits to destroy the unit, the PA boys shrugged off four of those hits to remain on the battlefield.
• With the American right reeling under heavy pressure from the attacking British, Smallwood's regiment marches up the hill to plug the gap created by the retreating Americans.  Smallwood then proceeds to scatter the British 9th Foot before descending the hill to destroy the British 4th Foot and retake the bridge.

Having gotten Fields of Honor out onto the gaming table for two games, I plan to keep this easy to play game in my back pocket for days in which I want a light but satisfying gaming experience.  With the Fields of Honor AWI version fresh in mind, I am tempted to use the older and more detailed, colonial version to tackle the Spanish-American War.  I ought to capitalize on the groundwork laid learning the AWI version.  

Fields of Honor: AWI - First Look

A first look, twenty years late!

Fields of Honor - The American War of Independence (FoH-AWI) was published back in 2000 by Pinnacle Entertainment Group.  The American War of Independence version of the rules is a descendant of the 1994 Fields of Honor (FoH) rules covering warfare in the 19th Century.  Since the original FoH's publication 25 years ago, I have continued to hold the rules with much fondness.  Even though I have not played them in many, many years, FoH still represents a comprehensive and well developed ruleset.  Given this provenance, I was quick to buy FoH-AWI when it was published twenty years ago.  

FoH-AWI was unique in that it not only included rules and playing pieces for a traditional hex and counter game but also rules for use with miniatures.  While I tried the hex and counter version upon publication, putting the miniatures' rules into play did not occur.  Until now, that is.

As a brief overview, FoH-AWI has a simple turn sequence using an IGO-UGO mechanism.  The Turn Sequence has four phases.  Attacker movement, Attacker combat, Defender movement, and Defender combat.  For combat, a unit may either fire or melee but not both.

Each unit has a Quality Rating for each of Fire/Melee/Morale.  This rating has five values (A,B,C,D,E) and is independent for each of the three attributes.  Quality Rating acts as a die roll modifier for each of the Fire/Melee/Morale attributes.  The die roll modifiers range from +2 (A) to -2 (E).  With five possible values for each of three distinct attributes, each unit's characteristic can be fine tuned to suit the scenario or situation. 

With only four phases in a turn and a limited number of modifiers to consider for each of the Fire/Melee/Morale play is fast since the few modifiers are easily remembered after a few turns.  Attached leaders may add bonuses for Fire/Melee/Morale but may become casualties if the unit is destroyed.

One interesting twist to the rules is the inclusion of random FORTUNE and CALAMITY tables.  At the beginning of each turn, each player rolls 1D10.  On a '1' the player receives a Calamity such as Out of Ammo, Demoralization, or eight other events. On a '0' the player receives a Fortune Event such as Captured Orders, Inspiration, or eight other events.  The inclusion of events keeps scenario replayability high.  None of the events are game stopping.  

How does the game play?  Well, wanting a small scenario as an initial test, I reached for a scenario played several times from Norm's Two Flags - One Nation ACW ruleset.  The scenario chosen was Action at Mill Creek (see Action at Mill Creek) and transported back in time to the AWI.   

The British win this contest if they can place two regiments onto the hill and be the last to hold the bridge.  The Americans have positioned their medium gun and two militia regiments onto the heights.  Two Continentals foot regiments are covering the bridge and three regiments will be arriving as reinforcements. 

Let's see how it played.

British troops begin the advance upon
 the American positions

The Lights lead the way to the bridge

The Long Red Line

General advance as British take fire from artillery

The Lights splash into the creek

The Americans opt for HOLD orders (OP FIRE)
to wait to see the whites of their eyes

British right reinforces the attack
upon the militia on the heights

Colonial militia take heavy casualties as one regiment
scatters  and a second withdraws from the heights

British take the right most hillock

Continentals reinforce the hill

but perhaps not for long as the position is outflanked

Colonial guns deliver pain but the Redcoats stand firm.

Not able to stall the assault on the guns,
the guns are destroyed

Colonial reinforcements arrive pouring murderous
 fire into the British but success is short-lived.

With pressure mounting against the hill, a
third infantry regiment is scattered on the Colonial right.

With the American force reduced to 50% strength, I put an end to the bloodshed.  The bridge was firmly in British hands and the heights held two British regiments.  Given one or two more turns, the remaining Rebels would have been driven from the heights and likely the field.  Tactical victory to the British.

In six turns, the British were able to march up and blast the Americans from their positions.  The British dished out more than they took with only light casualties inflicted against the King's troops.  The militia got off a couple of volleys but the British line infantry were not shaken.  When pressed by regulars, the colonial militia buckled.  This battlefield trial seemed one-sided but was that pre-destined?  The battle deserves another go, at least.

The Events did not come into play in this battle.  It would have been interesting to see some of these enter into the game.  Perhaps, an event could have pushed the British onto a back foot to allow just a little time for the Americans to regroup.  One thing I discovered too late was the power of placing the Americans on HOLD orders until the British came up into range.  A HOLD would allow an American unit to interrupt the British move/attack sequence and get off the first volley.  Also to consider is placing Continentals on the hill and militia in the woods.  Perhaps allow the colonial reinforcements to enter earlier too?

Merrill's Marauders

Merrill’s Marauders: Commandos in Burma 1943-1944 - Decision Games. 
Merrill’s Marauders is a solitaire game covering missions behind Japanese lines in the Burmese jungle. The player has to carry out one of four missions, or string all four together in a campaign game.

The game uses the Commando series rules. Each mission card grants the player a specified number of operations points to reach certain objectives. Operations points are expended to recruit the special ops team, then to move and attack on the map. A deck of event cards controls the opposition forces (OPFOR). Combat is resolved using a quasi-tactical system with opposing units taking turns firing at one another. Victory can increase the number of operations points available, but heavy losses can reduce them. The game ends when the player runs out of points.

Game Contents:
• 11 x 17” map
• 40 die-cut counters• 18 mini cards
• Scenario Instructions
• Four page rule booklet
MSRP $12.95

Merrill's Marauders (MM) came to me as a recent ebay purchase bonus.  With no interest in this campaign, this small mini-folio game was set aside.  When I finally returned for a closer examination, I was pleasantly surprised by what I found.

The rules are short having only four pages of series rules and two pages of scenario rules.  The game is a solitaire game with the active player coordinating and carrying out commando raids deep into Japanese held territory.  Opposition forces (OPFOR) are run by a nifty artificial intelligence (AI) engine that actually works.

At the start of a game, the player selects one of four Mission Cards.  On this card are listed the situation, mission, number of Operation Points (OPs) available, number of Recruit Points (RPs) available, and C2 (stacking limits and any leaders present).  Each mission is different but primarily consist of recovery or base building and KIA count differential.

Operation Points govern the length of each mission.  When OPs fall to zero, the game is over.  OPs can be gained or lost throughout the game by performing operations, winning or losing battles, or as a result of an Event card.  With a need to typically complete more than one objective within a mission, OPs are dear.  

To accomplish a mission, a player builds his task forces through the use of expending Recruit Points.  With a limited number of RPs available, the player must construct his task forces carefully.  Part of the fun of MM is that each task force can be composed from a variety of assets.  With limits on both stacking and RPs, a player can be faced with tough decisions on how to construct a force.  With a need to typically field more than one force per mission, tough and interesting choices abound.  Assets that may be included in a task force are infantry, airborne, scouts, heavy weapons, engineers, supply columns, airstrikes, and air supply.  Each asset category has its advantages and disadvantages.

sample playing pieces

Given the Mission card chosen, the player places a number of unknown objective chits on randomly determined areas of the map.  Some of the objectives are real while others represent ambushes.  The game is point-to-point, area movement with most of the tables needed for play printed onto the map in a very organized manner.  

game map

Once recruitment is completed and selected objectives are placed (face-down so that their true value is unknown), play begins.

Each operation (turn) consists of selecting one task force, expending one OP, moving the stack, and drawing an Event card.  A force may only move as fast as its slowest component.  Once moved, one Event card is drawn from the deck of fourteen OPFOR Event cards.  While many of the event cards trigger the appearance of OPFOR units, some cards are beneficial.  If an Event card is drawn bringing forth OPFOR units, a battle is fought.

Moving task forces toward objectives

The number of required OPFOR units are selected randomly with their values unknown.  Combat values for OPFOR units range from a force strength of two up to eight.  Drawing the OPFOR=8 unit is a tough blow since the value of the chit equals the number of dice thrown in combat.  The battle begins by determining tactical advantage.  If the player's force stack contains a leader then he receives a +1 to this die roll.  Highest total attacks first which is a big advantage.  In a very simple series of back and forth exchanges, one side is destroyed.  Luck can play a role in combat.  The player has the option of calling in an air strike to bolster his combat capability if the odds are unfavorable.  Of course, an air strike would have been allocated in the early recruitment phase.  Based upon the number of units killed or panicked, the KIA marker is moved on the KIA Track to reflect the current tally.  In addition to either recovering real objectives or building bases, the value of the KIA Track at the end of the mission is important.

These continuous interactions between player and the games' AI provide suspense and produce many tense moments as the player attempts to complete each mission.  With variability in each facet of the game from selecting a mission, to building a force, to objective location, to Event card play, game replayability is high.  No two games play out the same.  With the Event deck containing only fourteen cards, one could go through the deck in one game.  Given that possibility of knowing which cards may be forthcoming, I only use ten of the fourteen cards with each pass through the Event deck.  That way, I never know with certainty which cards remain. 

The game is challenging but not too challenging although having completed three games, I have yet to win.

In the first game, the mission selected was Operation Longcloth.  I succeeded in the recovery mission and made it back to base intact but the KIA goal was not met.  I needed a higher body count of enemy.

In the second game, I repeated Operation Longcloth.  On the return from a successful recovery mission, my last task force was cut down in an ambush.  KIA totals favored the Japanese OPFOR.

In the third game, I chose the Operation Mars mission.  In that mission, I needed to find the two real objectives out of the four on map and build bases on these objectives.  I found the two real objectives, built bases upon them, and then went off on search and destroy missions to raise the KIA count to a winning margin.  Unfortunately, one of the Event cards drawn was a Japanese raid on one of my forward bases.  With an insufficient garrison, my forward base fell into enemy hands.  Without enough OPs remaining to mount a counterattack, the game was lost.  Still great fun but lost.  

While I ended up losing all three of these games, victory was within my grasp in each.  This is a great little game that offers a solid solitaire experience in a small package.  Components are first rate including the small card decks and playing pieces.  As I mentioned early on, the AI in MM is superb and offers an endless challenge for the gamer with an hour or two on hand.  Perhaps, MM could be used as a solitaire engine for a miniatures game?  MM might be a perfect little game to tuck away for travel.

Salem Church: East of Chancellorsville

The wargame, Salem Church: East of Chancellorsville (2013) is one of Decision Games' (DG) entries into the Quick Play Musket & Saber series.  The battle is fought over an 11" x 7" map using only 40 counters.  Scale is 352 yards per hex with 90 minute turns.  Units represent brigades.  With many units having either five or six movement points, this is really a battle of maneuver.  Although locking EZOCs exist, flanking maneuvers are easily accomplished unless great care is taken in building a cordon of interlocking EZOCs.

After reading Norm's replay and review of Salem Church (see Salem Church 1863), I was intrigued and ordered myself a copy of the game.  I encourage a diversion to Norm's blog to read his battle report and thoughts on Salem Church.  A longtime fan of The Gamers' Civil War Brigade (CWB) series, I looked forward to giving this DG brigade series a try.  Having a small footprint and only a few pages of rules, Salem Church seemed a good entry point.  The CWB has a different time and ground scale with 30 minute turns and 200 yards/hex.

The game follows an IGO-UGO sequence with,

1. First Player Movement
2. First Player Combat
3. Second Player Movement
4. Second Player Combat

Within this sequence, there is no interaction between players with the exception that a non-phasing player's unit that was adjacent to a phasing player's unit, not attacked during combat, may launch a counterattack at double its printed strength. This is an interesting rule! Not attacking all adjacent enemy units can carry heavy retribution. Norm makes the comment in his review linked to above as, "it prevents a player making ‘silly attacks, just because they can'." I say it does the opposite in that the counterattack rule encourages silly attacks from the attacker to prevent a possible devastating counterattack!  Norm reinforces this notion of encouraging silly attacks when he retells the account of Wilson at Salem Church launching an attack to pre-empt such a counterattack. There are a number of similarly interesting rules in both the System Rules and Scenario rules.

To attain a Major Victory, the Federal player must exit the Federal train and hold either Banks' Ford or the entry to Fredericksburg.  For the Confederate player, he must hold Bank's Ford and the entrances to Fredericksburg or capture the Federal train.  For any other outcome, the decision is decided on points.  As for tallying Victory Points for lost steps, the rules do not state if points are tallied at game end or accrued throughout the game as steps are lost.  As lost steps can be returned as reinforcement later, this can have an impact on the Victory Conditions. 

Another interesting rule is the functioning of the Federal Army.  On the morning of the second day of battle (May 4) and all subsequent turns, the Federal player must roll for initiative.  This is a Draconian measure for the Federal commander and does much to snuff out the offensive capability of Federal forces on Day 2 of the battle.  Each turn, the Federal player rolls for initiative.  On a 1-2, Federal forces operate under Full Initiative.  On 3-6, Federal forces operate under Low Initiative.  When under Low Initiative, only a Federal stack with a leader may enter into an EZOC.  To do so, the leader must pass a morale check.  If he passes, he may enter the EZOC.  If not, well, he cannot.  To even further stall Federal attacks, once in an EZOC, the primary attacking unit must make a morale check.  If failed, the attack is called off.  Harsh!  If the Federal Army wants to win the battle, it better get moving and try to make good progress on Day 1.  On Day 2, a sustained effort is much more difficult if not impossible.  

Leaders are important in Salem Church. Leaders may increase movement of units stacked with him and disrupted units may enter EZOCs when stacked with a leader.  A leader's Morale Rating can aid one unit to which he is stacked.  A leader may add his Combat Factor to a unit to which he is stacked and disrupted units are not halved in combat.  Leaders are very useful pieces! 

Artillery is important in this system as well.  Artillery is the only ranged weapon.  Artillery has the ability to fire at a four hex range without worry of retribution.  Artillery bombardments, alone, or in combined arms attacks with infantry offer opportunities to soften the enemy and perhaps drive it from its position without much effort.  

Combat is based upon a Combat Factor differential between the attacker(s) and defender.  The CRT ranges from '-5 or less' to '+10 or more' with seven gradients in between.  The CRT is relatively bloodless.  Results rarely result in a loss although exchanges are possible but rare.  Some results carry a secondary result.  If the loser takes a morale check and fails, the primary result is in effect.  If the morale check is passed then the secondary result is in effect.  The secondary result often requires a second morale check.  The construction of the CRT does not lend itself to easy memorization.  A little clumsy, I think.  Even after two games, I still needed to carefully consult the CRT and results' description to resolve the combat.

The loser of a combat often has the choice to either become disrupted or retreat (for less severe results) to taking a loss or retreating disrupted for more severe results.  Losses are taken in steps.  Most infantry units have two steps.  Artillery and a few detachments have one step only.  With the ability to replace two steps  per turn, each side will be able to replace most attrition suffered during a turn.  Replacements can return to their parent if outside of an EZOC or at one of the designated board edges.

Moving and fighting in woods is interesting.  Movement through light woods is one Movement Point the same cost as open terrain.  Units and entire divisions can pass through woods with little difficulty.  An attacker is halved in value when attacking into light woods from across a clear hexside but no penalty when attacking from light woods to light woods.  My interpretation of this is that firefights, wholly in woods, are undertaken at much closer range.  Therefore, neither combatant holds any tactical advantage.  Now, the halving for attacks across clear hexside into woods could be debated.   

Even with the most current Errata and Clarifications in hand, the rules left several holes to plug.  In addition to gaps, many of the rules could use a careful rewording to bring clarity from confusion.  For example, in Disruption Recovery, a unit may recover from disruption "if not in an EZOC and not eligible for march movement."  How about "if it remains at least two hexes from an enemy unit"  as a simplification? 

Given the large movement values and no hindrance to movement through woods, Salem Church is a game of maneuver and flanking.  If interlocking EZOCs do not extend across the map, outflanking an enemy position is not a difficult task to accomplish.  Given that enemy replacements may return behind your lines, no position is ever unassailable or secure.

Does this system feel like one is fighting an ACW battle?  Not to me at Salem Church.  Seems more akin to a small unit tactical game rather than BMUs of brigades.  Perhaps, I need to reread the historical account?  After that reading, I may change my tune.  With low loss rates and generous replacements, Salem Church offers a surprisingly balanced game.  

Having fought through two playings of Salem Church, I will recap one of those replays next time.