Playtesting

In the latest issue of Wargames Soldiers & Strategy (issue 136), Rich Clarke of Too Fat Lardies has some interesting thoughts to share on playtesting wargaming rules. I will not repeat the entire column here (buy the magazine!), but one thing struck me in his opening paragraph.

 

He describes the setup in which rules dynamically evolve over many gaming sessions, and the master document after each game is updated to reflect the experience and insights from the last game. As such, the rules are a "living document", slightly morphing each time. 

It struck a chord with me because that's precisely how I develop my own house rules. I've always been a fan of developing one's own rules, rather than using commercially published rules (although I of course also do the latter!). But it's  an approach that only works in a closed gaming group, with one person clearly in control of the rules.

After each game in which our house rules are used, we usually have a short debriefing session. What worked? What didn't work? What's unnecessary chrome? What is missing? Etc. Over the years, we have evolved towards rulesets that fit our preferred playing style perfectly. But it is a moving target ... rules we were in favour of let's say 5 years ago might not work anymore due to changes in gaming preference, influence from other rules, changing types of scenarios, etc.

Nevertheless, it's an approach that works well. Rather than casting the rules in stone, wargaming rules should be a dynamic. It's completely in sync with the DIY ethos in miniature wargaming. 

ACW House Rules: latest version

The latest and updated version of our ACW house rules can be found on the ACW page.

Commander-based vs unit-based activation

As a small follow-up to my ongoing game report, I did a little analysis on how many units one can activate on average using a roll-for-activation mechanisms. You can read it on our sister-blog, Wargaming Mechanics.

I use an activation system in my ACW house rules. For a long time, we have used activations based on commander rolls, an idea we borrowed from game such as Black Powder. Each turn, a commander can issue an order to a unit by rolling vs its activation number, and if he fails, that commander is done for the turn, but other commanders still can issue further orders. Typically, each commander also has a "command radius" . Units outside this radius cannot be activated. I used some fix for that (you can activate one unit per turn anywhere on the table), but it never felt quite right.

Therefore, I decided to switch to unit-activation: units have an activation number (usually 7+ on 2D6), and you roll for any unit you want to activate. A failed die roll still stops the turn. Commanders can give a bonus if they are within their command radius. It is a nuance, but it does make a difference in actual play. Instead of looping over commanders, a player loops over units, with commanders merely providing some bonus.

I use cards for commanders, to be drawn at random at the start of the game. Different commanders have different modifiers for different type of orders, and hence, it's up to the players to use his commanders as he sees fit.

A selection of cards for my ACW commanders. I have  10 cards per side, players draw typically 3 or 4 at random at the start of the game. Modifiers are for move, fire and charge order. Cards are from Dixie (Columbia Games), but are only used for illustrative purposes.

 So why my analysis?

• I wanted to know how many units one can activate on average using activation-based systems;
• I wanted to know whether a bonus of +3 for some command rolls wasn't a bit too generous.

So, if you want to find out, read about it here yourself :-)

Why I write my own rules ...

I like writing my own rules ...

... because I think that wargaming as a hobby is about designing your own game, not playing someone else's game.
Just as we hunt for the perfect figures to use, paint them ourselves and engage in building scenery, I feel that constructing your own rules is part of the wargaming experience. A wargamer should design and build the entire game himself. But of course, one should not be too dogmatic about this philosophy. After all, I don't sculpt and cast my own figures, nor do I carve my own dice out of wood.


... because published rules also contain quite a lot of arbitrary design choices.
When I started out my career as a wargamer in my late teens and early twenties, I slavishly followed published rules. My impression at the time was that wargaming rules were the perfect representation of how battles had happened, and that rules designers spend years honing and polishing their rulesets, based on original research. However, after a couple years, you start to learn that published rulesets do contain a lot of arbitrary design decisions, ranging from game mechanics to army lists to point values to die modifiers; and that the "deep research" is not so deep after all. Once you realize that a published ruleset is just written up by another fellow wargamer instead of an all-knowing demi-god - the step towards modifying published rules or writing your own suddenly becomes much smaller.

... because wargaming is about telling stories, not simulating war.
Although I know that some wargamers see a wargame as something that should recreate the commander's experience, I see a wargame more as a tool to tell stories inspired by military history.  I understand that if you consider wargaming as a way to simulate (for lack of a better word) a real battle, a well-researched ruleset is a necessity. But I have evolved towards another approach, in which the purpose of a wargame is not to learn something about how battles were conducted, but as a way to tell stories inspired by military history. In that sense, the rules should support storytelling, and should not support the idea of running a simulation. This provides much more freedom in writing rules and injecting elements that are not aimed for historical recreation, but are aimed at providing drama at the gaming table. As such, one should not be too worried about the historical validity of wargaming rules. As long as the rules provides an exciting game, it's ok.
 
... because developing rules is fun.
I like tinkering with game mechanisms. I like playtesting various ideas. I like the creativity. That's why I like wargaming as a hobby so much!

It's the figures, not the rules!

This past weekend I spent some time cleaning up and repairing an old army of mine. The army in question are Oldhammer Orcs & Goblins (I will post some pictures later), but this particular detail is irrelevant for this post.

I almost never repaint miniatures - except visible damage - but I do rework the bases. More than the paint-job of the figure itself, it is often the base that provides a common look-and-feel of all the figures in an army. If all the bases are visually similar, it provides a much larger visual cohesion on the battlefield.

The bases for the models in this particular army were in a dire state. Initially, figures were based individually (most are Citadel slottabase figures, but not all), and the bases were painted black. Then, grey flock was added. Later on, figures were based in groups of 4 on 6cm by 6cm bases to adjust to a particular ruleset that we were using at the time. Since I thought this was the best ruleset ever, the bases were superglued to cardboard and given another layer of paint. When that ruleset fell out of favour (duh!), I removed the figures again, but now leaving glue marks on the slottabases, and some of the flock came loose in the process.

So, I redid the bases this weekend, all figures were left individually based. The bases were again covered in grey flock (not what I would today, but no choice given the history of these figures), and adorned by rocks, tufts of grass, etc. At last these figures are "showable" again on the tabletop.

What I realized (once again) is that if you are a long-time wargamer, rules do not really matter, but figures do.

As a starting wargamer, it is quite natural that you acquire figure that go with your ruleset of choice. Your budget might be limited, and you don't always know where to start. Hence, following the recommendations made by the ruleset, or buying the figures that are sold specifically for the ruleset, is the best course of action.
But of course, rulesets lose their popularity due to a myriad of reasons. Some of these are external: the ruleset is no longer "supported". As a wargamer, one develops different preferences over the years. Rules that seemed so clever and fun, might feel like a pure random engine several years later. Social reasons might also play a part. There's no use in clinging to a ruleset if all your friends hate it. And lastly, there is also innovation in the design of wargames themselves. Rulesets do become better over the years (but not always! :).

The turnover frequency of rulesets is often not matched by the turnover frequency of figures. It is quite easy to change rulesets; it is much harder to buy and paint a completely new set of figures. Hence, the figures in a collection often outlive the use of any particular ruleset, and it makes no sense to adapt the basing of figures to a particular ruleset.

I have been wargaming for over 30 years, and I have come to realize that the constant factor during all these gaming years is a good and solid collection of figures, not any particular ruleset. 10 years from now, I might use rules that don't even exist yet. But very likely, I will use figures of which a large fraction are already in my collection today.

Schild & Vriend ACW House Rules

In our gaming group, we have been developing our ACW rules for many years. I am a strong proponent of the idea that developing your own rules is an integral part of the hobby, and that it allows you to try out many experimental rules mechanisms that otherwise would probably never be used on the gaming table.

We started with this ACW ruleset somewhere in 2006. Before that, we used very often the Brother against Brother rules by HG Walls. This is a rather simple ruleset, originally designed for fast convention games. The basic unit is designated a squad. Squads were activated by drawing cards, and combat strength for each unit was directly proportional to the number of figures. Our rules are still called "Brother against Brother" - we should probably change that sooner or later.

However, to our tastes, BaB was a bit too simplistic and too much geared towards 'fast effects'. So we started to tweak the rules over the years. One of the first things was to streamline the morale system, and we replaced the morale cards with three different tables depending on the situation in which a unit finds itself. Roll a D20, cross-reference the with the current combat strength, and you see the result.

Another major change was the activation system. Drawing a card every turn to indicate what unit can move is all well for games in open fields, but that mechanic can create choke points during movement, and it is difficult to coordinate multi-unit actions. We experimented with Piquet-like activation systems; with written orders; but finally settled on an activation sequence similar to Black Powder / Warmaster / Blitzkrieg Commander. It has served us for many years, and now really forms the heart of the rules.

Unit sizes are not specified. We still refer to unit as 'squads', but sometimes our scenarios do much more have the feel of skirmish games, sometimes the are closer to big battles. It strongly depends on the scenario setup. In this respect, we are very similar to the philosophy in games like Black Powder or Hail Caesar, two rulesets we also happen to play quite often.

Other changes made over they years are the elimination of many modifiers in the combat resolution engine. I strongly believe in the idea that wargame rules should be as simple as possible (but not simpler :-)). There is no challenge in writing a ruleset with plenty of complicated rules, plenty of die roll modifiers, separate procedures for all sorts of actions. Anyone can do that. It's much more challenging in designing a ruleset that is as simple as possible, but still creates the look-and-feel of the period in question.

Is this ruleset able to recreate ACW actions ina  plausible manner? Honestly, I do not have a good idea. It is probably too simple for connoisseurs of the period. But for all the players in my gaming group, which are well versed in military history (ACW is just not one of our fortes), it is an acceptable, fun, and reliable ruleset. It allows us to finish a game with 10-20 units on each side within a single evening, a VERY important advantage. And we are having fun. In the end, that is what really counts.

So, below are the rules. Please download them, and let us know what you think.

==> (update October 22, 2014): Please refer to the ACW House Rules page where you can find the latest developments.

Great Northern Powder

27 April 2016: links updated, and downloadable document restored.

As reported here earlier we played a Great Northern War scenario using Black Powder as the ruleset. As the Great Northern war falls just outside of the purview of these rules -- not in chronology but rather in weaponry and tactics -- we used a number of adaptations to the rules.

The below document, now christened _Great Northern Powder_, repeats these adaptations, with a few modifications brought upon by the experience of the game and with everything dolled up a bit as well.

Great Northern Powder (606Kb)

Differences with the earlier version are:

• Slight rewording
• Further clarified pike rules
• Upped cavalry HtH stats
• Included sample unit stats 

Feel free to use and adapt these in your own games. The version linked above is the low resolution version. If you want to print it, send me an email and I'll send the hires version (though be warned that that's a lot bigger).

Black Powder adaptations for Great Northern War

We're planning a Great Northern War scenario soon, and we intend to use the [Black Powder rules](http://www.warlordgames.co.uk/?p=3177). These rules cover the entire horse and musket period, basically the era in which the musket was the most important infantry weapon.

I feel the Great Northern War falls just outside of the range for these rules. This war, more so than the contemporary War of Spanish Succession (the Marlburian wars), really straddles the 'pike and shot' era on the one had and the 'horse and musket' on the other. Both parties still carried around pikes, yet the units they were organised in were classic horse and musket battalions as opposed to pike and shot tercios or their later Protestant versions, and the musketeers had bayonets.

So, a number of adaptations are necessary to use the Black Powder rules for this period. This post will list them. This is very much a first stab at this, as next Tuesday's game will undoubtedly provide more insight into whether they work or not.

That said, here goes:

### Units

Our infantry battalions are based 18-20 on three stands. A 'standard' infantry unit is thus in this range of figures (18-20). Cavalry squadrons are based 6 to two bases. A 'standard' cavalry unit is thus 6 figures.

There are no skirmishers in this period. Undoubtedly, units did fight in skirmish order, but the concept of formal skirmishers or light troops did not exist yet. So, no skirmishers.

### Formations

There are only two formations for infantry and cavalry: line and march column. There are no attack columns or squares (but see pikes).

### Firing

One die of firing per musket stand. For our troops, that works out as two dice for the Swedish and three for the Russians. If your troops are based differently, it also works out as the ratio of musket to pike in the units. Swedish had a third of their battalions as pikes, so they get 2 thirds of normal fire, i.e. 2 dice.

Units that are all musket armed get +1 on their fire (so would without other circumstances hit on 3+ instead of 4+).

As the fact that you're firing from a live firing platform that tends to shy away from loud noises is much more important than what you're actually firing with, I'm giving cavalry on both sides (most of which were armed with a carbine) the standard 1 dice in fire.

### Melee

This is an area where it is important to differentiate the Swedish and Russians correctly to keep the historical flavour. For those unfamiliar with the period, the main Swedish characteristic in this war (apart from a propensity for half -- or fully -- rotten fish) is their aggressiveness: they trained to close with their enemy and engage in hand to hand, as opposed to the linear firefight type of combat all other infantry was trained for. So that needs to be reflected. Pikes, which both sides still used, also add to the hand to hand capability of a unit.

I decided to give Swedish infantry a 7 for hand to hand combat value, and Russian infantry a 6. Further differentiation can be done using unit special properties. I selected 7 vs 6 as opposed to 6 vs 5 for two reasons: the pikes and the fact that I like things to move on, and I'm guessing they will with higher factors.

Cavalry in this period, again with the exceptions of the Swedish, were not intended to be battle winning chargers. Their main function was to eliminate the other side's cavalry and then fall upon the flanks of the infantry line. Only the Swedish cavalry was trained to aggressively close with and destroy the enemy. So, I'm giving Swedish cavalry the standard 7 in hand to hand and downgrading the Russian to 6. I'm also not differentiating between different types of cavalry. Whether they were termed 'Horse' or 'Dragoons' or whatever did not matter much - they pretty much performed the same function on the battlefield.

### Pikes

Initially I had thought these to be the hardest part of these adaptations. However, I've kept it quite simple (though that might change after the game :) ): on the one hand, pikes give the higher HtH factor mentioned above. On the other, they enable to unit to function as a square. While a pike armed unit does not actually form square, when it is frontally attacked by cavalry, it can form up with pikes in an anti-cavalry formation (i.e. spread out over the entire frontage instead of only in the center). The rule for this is exactly the same as that for 'Form Square' (p.75 of the rulebook). So, essentially, the unit tests and if it succeeds, it forms an anti cavalry formation with the exact same advantages as a square (for the frontal fight).

There are only two differences with the Form Square rule:

* A unit that is Disordered can _not_ form up pikes
* Forming up pikes is always optional. The unit may choose to deliver closing fire instead of forming up in an anti cavalry formation.

### Special unit rules

Infantry units on both sides have First Fire. Swedish infantry have Ferocious Charge. These are the standard special rules I'll try for all units. Others such as Guards on both sides will of course have other special rules.

A final word of warning: giving these units such good hand to hand factors only makes sense within their own period. If you plan to use them out of period, you will unbalance things. Gentlemen would never do that, of course.

And that's it. We'll see whether this all makes sense soon - stay tuned.

_Update_: a new version, incorporating what we learned when playing the game, is [here](http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/archives/000388.html).

Te Wapen Revisited

A [recent blog post](http://awargamingodyssey.blogspot.com/2010/09/lord-of-rings-hotts-and-memoir-44.html) at 'A Wargaming Odyssey' (with a [follow-up posting](http://awargamingodyssey.blogspot.com/2010/09/te-wapen-fantasy-rules-by-phil-dutre.html) as well), brought the ruleset *Te Wapen* back to my attention. *Te Wapen* is a fantasy ruleset, heavily inspired by the game engine of [Battlecry](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/551/battle-cry) and [Memoir 44](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10630/memoir-44), both excellent boardgames. I wrote these rules a couple of years ago, as part of my neverending quest for the perfect rules to fight fantasy battles with miniatures. This obsession started when I first read *Lord of the Rings* many moons ago, and over the years, as driven many of my miniature wargaming endeavours. Needless to say, I don't think *Warhammer* is a ruleset that appeals to the needs of the discerning wargamer, but let us not open that can of proverbial worms.

*Te Wapen* (most recent rules, dated 2007, can be found on the Yahoo group) is actually fairly simple. It uses a hexgrid for movement and ranges, and the combat resolution is a direct derivative from the games mentioned above. The command and control mechanism went through some iterations, though. The original *Battlecry* gave the player some command cards, with which you could activate units. The next turn, those very same units could be activated again. This works well if all units are more or less the same in strength, but in fantasy games, where one unit can be a tiny battalion of goblins, and another a mighty dragon, this doesn't work that well. Nothing stops a player from activating the dragon over and over again. Moreover, the *Battlecry* or *Memoir 44* system also doesn't work that well when each side has a different amount of units (e.g. in an attack-defence scenario), since it implies that units on the numerous weaker side get much more activations on average compared to units on the stronger side.

Hence, I started looking into alternatives: more cards per turn; activation counters with each unit (a unit cannot be activated again until everything else has), etc. Also, I had to find an alternative for the 3 fronts commonly used in *Battlecry*. Many scenarios do not adapt well to the three front battlefield.

The final version of the rules uses generals (each of a certain color, and partly inspired by [**Rudi Geudens' variant rules**](http://www.tsoa.be/html/fuseliers.html)), that can command any unit in their vicinity (replacing the three fronts), and a counter activation system that prevents activating units over and over again. This worked well, and I remember we played a couple of (very bloody) battles using these rules. If I would do the whole exercise all over again, I would probably look into the command&control system made popular by *Blitzkrieg Commander* or *Warmaster*.

However, in 2006, [Battlelore](http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25417/battlelore) was published, and development on *Te Wapen* sort of stopped. My own interest also shifted back towards more historical periods, resulting again in self-developed rulesets (ACW skirmish, Napoleonics, Infantry firefights), but I will keep a discussion of these for a future posting.

Painting log: 12 Bavarians, and some musing on wargame unit structure

I finished 12 Bavarians last evening (well 11 Bavarians and one -- presumable -- Bavarian horse), which until about a week ago would have completed the 1st Battalion of the 1st Regiment, _König_ or _Leib_.

However, I decided that 24 figures is a bit meager for a single unit, and that at the 'classical' 1:20 ratio 36 figures better represent a battalion: the average Bavarian battalion that entered Russia in 1812 had about 750 men (they came back with a lot less, of course -- the Russian campaign was a disaster for the Bavarian army), which at 1:20 is 37,5 figures, close enough to 36 to not matter. So, both of my 'finished' battalions will be expanded with another three stands of 4 figures to bring them up to 36 figures each.

As to basing, I'm going to keep them as 4 figures to a base of 30x40mm (15mm frontage per figure). The rules I'm eyeing, [Republic to Empire](http://www.leagueofaugsburg.com), work with 'combat groups' of four figures, which fits perfectly with that basing, and it would also mean no rebasing of the figures (which I already did once for the first unit -- they were initially based on 20mm frontage but looked, in the words of a member of the [Steve Dean](http://www.steve-dean.co.uk) forum, looked like a skirmish line instead of a ranked unit).

Another advantage is that a number of formations in the rules actually look pretty good when executed with 4 figure stands. More on that later.

The disadvantage of staying with 4 figure bases is that this no longer reflects the theoretical company structure (6 companies, 4 of fusiliers, 1 of grenadiers and 1 of lights) of a Bavarian battalion -- 6 figure stands would reflect this perfectly. But as not all battalions would have adopted this company structure, and real life military units of course varied wildly from theoretical establishments, I don't feel that weighs heavily enough to abandon the 4 figure basing.

So, that's 12 points for January. Up next is another battalion of GNW Swedes, and probably the first GNW Russians after that (the Preobrazhenski Guard Grenadiers).

Yes! Warhol was right.

Everyone gets their fifteen minutes of fame. Here's mine:



Sam Mustafa's [Lasalle rules](http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/modules-games/lasalle/) have a new Bavarian (or, as he correctly refers to them, 'sausage heads') supplement, featuring some [familiar people](http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/archives/000359.html).

Schild en Vriend for world domination! :)

Napoleon rules by Wargames Foundry

Some time ago I bought the [Napoleon rules](http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/books/MATTNAP.asp) by [Wargames Foundry](http://www.wargamesfoundry.com) and have been promising a review of them for quite a while now. This is that review :).

Having previously bought Kevin Dallimore's painting book from them, and having seen some full colour samples on their website, I knew that, at least in terms of amount of 'wargames porn', the book would be worth its fairly steep price of €37.

In that respect, I was not disappointed. The book is well laid out, with full colour pages throughout the book and one or more photos of well painted miniatures on the vast majority of pages. In addition to photographs of just painted miniatures, there are also dozens of photos of (probably posed) games in full swing -- both very inspirational and reassuring to the army painter amongs us as these show figures that have been painted to a much more sensible table top standard. As to sheer visual impression alone, I would even hazard to put forward the opinion that the book is worth its prize (an opinion that, given what is to follow a few paragraphs further down, might be seen as slightly surprising and even contradictory).

One area I particularly liked, a bit contrary to my expectation, is the tutorial section on painting. It shows a figure (a French Old Guard grenadier, arguably the iconic figure of the period) being painted by Kevin Dallimore in full-on three layer style with good close ups showing the 'difficult bits' such as the face. Educating stuff, and in my opinion even better than in his own painting book (that, I felt, was occasionally somewhat lacking in this last respect). Even better, in addition to Mr. Dallimore's tutorial there's also a nice bit by the author himself on his style of army painting. Not that this is much more than 'first do this on twenty figures, than that and after that another thing', but is nevertheless refreshing to see a section on army painting in a general wargames book.

Now to the quality of the ruleset contained in the book. Unencumbered, unphased and even undaunted by my [earlier record](http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/archives/000041.html) in [reviewing rulesets unplayed](http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/archives/000058.html), I will continue to offer bold statements totally denuded of any practical background and say that the rules as written are unplayable. From the way the rules are written and presented, it would certainly seem that they were never playtested in an environment where the rules author or someone familiar with the rules was not present. While it is easy to explain in person what the idea behind a certain rule is or how to handle a certain situation on the tabletop, it is something else entirely to have to write this down in a way that makes that same intent clear to someone who has only the words as written as a guide, and might even be a complete newcomer to the Napoleonic period or even wargaming in general. I think (though I can never be sure until I play them - they might miraculously turn out to be of the utmost
clarity) that these rules as written fail in that respect.

This is just an impression from two readings of the rules, and I'm not an expert on the Napoleonic period, so I'm willing to be proven wrong on playing these rules, as always.

However, I do have a big issue with the book in an area that I *am* somewhat familiar with - that of painted miniatures, and photographs thereof. The (often half-heartedly finished but nevertheless quite instructive in places) reference section is larded with pictures of large (for contemporary gaming, not the old style big battalion games) units of well painted figures. Of course, Foundry being a miniatures company, they want to sell miniatures, which is a big part of the reason these photographs are in there. And while the reference section sometimes skirts dangerously close to the line between reference and miniatures catalog (or, for some of the belligerents represented, leaves the line dwindling in the distance, well and truly crossed), _in se_ this is fine. They are a miniatures company and get their profit from selling miniatures. Nothing wrong there.

So, when I first browsed through and subsequently read the reference section, I ogled those pictures and admired the effort that must have gone into painting so many figures (an effort that I can now appreciate even better, being in the process of painting Napoleonic Bavarians). And then I looked again. And again. And felt cheated. Every single photo of a unit that I subsequently examined has had copy paste work done. For example, if a unit consists of 6 bases -- one command, 3 fusilier, 1 grenadier and 1 light of flank -- in all of the photographs that I examined (and I'd almost say all of them - though I haven't checked) the similar bases (e.g. the three fusilier companies) are identical to the pixel. _They have been copy pasted in a photo editing program_.

And it gets worse. There are pictures, e.g. the unit of early Austrian "German" infantry on page 159, where even within an individual base, _every single figure is a copy of the same figure_. The photo mentioned has exactly four individual painted figures on it, the remaining 28 are copy paste clones of the same figure.

Now, I might be wrong about this (though I doubt it). The reason I think these are copy paste clones is twofold:

•  If you look closely at some of the photos, you can see the cropping artefacts one gets when cropping the background out of a photo
• Every figure on these bases is painted exactly (and I mean _exactly_) the same, with every paint stroke at exactly the same place with exactly the same thicknes and exactly the same hue. Unless these were painted by a machine (and even then) that seems impossible.

So, we have here a company that is so eager to sell its miniatures that it rushes out a rulebook advocating large(ish) units (nothing wrong with that in itself) but subsequently cheating (in my view) their customers by not even bothering to paint (or, more precisely, have painted) these figures themselves. Instead, they paint a few and then copy paste their way to full units. This is not good in my opinion.

Now, while that has not stopped me to buy Foundry miniatures (hey, one has to keep feeding the habit, and they had a sale on) or even to play the rules, it nevertheless is something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's not a capital crime, but it nevertheless is further proof that Foundry has well and truly fallen from its perch as the nec plus ultra of historical 28mm figures.

Feel free to discuss in the comments :)

Free Kriegsspiel

I have always been interested in Kriegsspiel, the wargaming exercises developed by the Prussian Military in 19th century.

For several years, I did own a copy of a translation of the original kriegsspiel rules, but I never used them, since I didn't have appropriate maps. However, last year I bought the mapsets from Too Fat Lardies. Alas, we didn't find the time yet to try them out. One of the reasons for that is that the rules of Kriegsspiel themselves are somewhat arcane and complicated, and it wouldn't pay off to invest time in learning a game with a steep learning curve.

So, I was very much interested to see that John Curry has republished the 'Beitrag Zum Kriegsspiel by the Prussian General J. von Verdy du Vernois. Published after Von Reissewitz' version of kriegsspiel, the booke xplains why playing kriegsspiel with a minimum of rules - and more in a freeform manner - makes a lot of sense. I haven't read the book yet, but will do so the coming days.

In some way, free kriegsspiel is very much related to gamesmastering, something most wargamers are familiar with through roleplaying. We also employed the concept in a demonstration game at Crisis 2005, and of course matrix games are also based on the same idea.

To the members of my gaming group: be prepared for a kriegsspiel scenario!

Experimental Command & Control

I've been toying with a 'new' C&C system over the past few weeks. I haven't playtested it yet, but maybe I can sollicit some constructive criticism here.

To start with, the system is not entirely new, of course, but is based on previous published systems. Maybe it already even exists, so be it.

Some motivation:

The C&C system is based on the idea that you can only activate a limited number of units each turn. Other rules already do this, in various formats: roll a dice to see how many pips (or impetus points ...) you have, and activate that number of units; roll a dice with decreasing probability to succeed each time you want to activate an additional unit etc.

Although I've been a fan of the latter (e.g. Blitzkrieg Commander, Warmaster, ...), it creates some frustration because you never know exactly how many units you can activate. Rolling for a number of points at the start of your turn moves this problem to the start of your turn, but adds some certainty to the player as to how many things he can do in his entire turn. On the other hand, these systems limit intervention by your opponent. In some sense, intervention by the enemy is built in since you never know exactly when the opponent will have his turn by randomizing the amount of units you can activate.

So, I want to combine the following:
- knowing how many pips/command points/units you have available in each turn
- allowing for intervention by your opponent.
I got some inispiration from the cardgame Magic the Gathering, in which each player has 'mana points' available to cast spells. However, your opponent can also use his mana points to interrupt your spells, which you can interrupt again etc.

Here's my C&C system:

1. Every player has a number of command points, which he can use in his turn + the opponent's turn. The number of points can be fixed for the whole army (e.g. you get 10 points every turn), or can be the sum of command ratings of individual commanders on the battlefield (e.g. you have 3 commanders with command rating 4, 3, 3, which adds up to 10 points). The latter allows modifications for killed commanders (command points decrease).

2. During his turn, a player can activate a unit (or group of adjacent units, depending on underlying framework of rules), to perform an action (actions again depend on underlying framework of movement, combat resolution, morale checks etc.). He has to spend 1 cp (command point) for such an order, but he has the option to spend more (see later). The amount of cp you spend on an order is an indication of the 'urgency' of the command, the quality of the transmission of the order etc. A player can give multiple orders during his turn, by spending the appropriate amount of cp. (note that further modifications are possible here: units far from the commander cost more cp's; multiple units cost more cp's etc.)

3. When an order has been given (and the player has spend the relevant amount of cp's, plus any additional cp's he sees fit), the opponent now has the opportunity to 'interrupt' your order with an order of his own. He has to spend at least one cp more than yoy did in order to do this. Again, the amount of cp your opponent spends indicates the urgency, the outsmarting, the effectiveness of his commander to provide an order to one of his units.
E.g. suppose you give an order to one of your troops, and you want to move them forward to occupy a farmhouse. You spent 1 cp for this order. Now your opponent can spend 2 cp to act before you do, possibly because he wants to occupy the farmhouse first. By spending the 2cp, he makes sure he acts before your troops, and your unit gets 'suprised' by finding out that the farm is already occupied when they get there.

4. You can interrupt your opponent's interruption again (by a different unit, and by paying 1 cp more than his last order). All interruptions are resolved in reverse order. Note that you can voluntarily spend more cp's on an order, to increase the probability or likelyhood that your opponent will interrupt.

5. At the end of your turn, your pool of cp's is replenished. So, you start with a full allotment of cp's when your opponent starts his turn. THis hopefully encourages players to interrupt when they think it's crucial, but at the same time keep enough cp's to use during their own turn. In essence, there's no real difference in turns anymore, except for who has the initiative to start a sequence of orders and interrupts.

As I said before, I haven't playtested this yet, but I think it might have some potential. As with any C&C system, it is crucial that the players have the right mindset, and know exactly what cp's and interrupts represent. An interrupt does not mean that your unit sees another unit moving towards the farm, and quickly decides to move there too, but should be interpreted as if your unit was on its way already, except that your opponent wasn't aware of it yet.

The pool of cp's you can spend on orders and interrupts might also force the players to put some thinking in what parts of the battle are really important to them, so they can decide how many cp's certain orders are worth. Given that the amount of cp's is known beforehand, players might also feel less frustrated by varying die rolls as in some other systems.

Why I like Warhammer Ancient Battles

I can't hide it anymore - I like [Warhammer Ancient Battles](http://www.warhammer-historical.com). Yes, its name starts with Warhammer, and yes, it comes from what many think of as the Evil Empire (capitalisation intentional) of miniature wargaming, but I think it's exactly the right ruleset to play ancients with for me. Let me explain why.

Way back when, I used to play DBM. Even though I became moderately good at it, and still have a large amount of 15mm Ancients figures collected with DBM in mind, I could never escape a certain feeling of unease at it (read more [here](/snv/ttm/archives/000023.html)). Was it the 'equal points and line up' attitude, the fact that armies from a time span of well over twenty centuries were supposed to fight each other (although that's a general ancients period thing, not strictly DBM), the competitive streak DBM seems to bring out in a certain type of gamer (yes, I have participated in competitions too), I do not know. Whatever it was, I think it is telling that the period I was heavily involved in DBM was that in which the Schild en Vriend crowd was in hibernation in various parts of the world - I just haven't figured out quite what it is telling me though :)

All that changed with the arrival of WAB. It took me a while to play it, for various reasons, but I liked what I saw when I did. For the rest of this entry, I'll list some of the reasons why I like the ruleset.

### Figure scale

Of course, as with any ruleset including DBM, WAB can be played with any scale of figures you want, but the prevailing culture in WAB land is to play with 28mm figures, the One True Scale. While other scales can provide a more realistic look of massed armies (6mm comes to mind, with its collection of [evangelists](http://www.baccus6mm.com)) or better tradeoff between cost and visual appeal (15mm), the King of scales for me remains 28mm. There's a particular appeal to having a bunch of 28mils on the table that I find particularly attractive. 15mm and lower does not do the same for me. And if you like the painting side of the hobby, 28mils are more satisfying as well.

### Supplements

Ah, supplements - a touchy subject. One of the reasons GW is maligned in certain corners is its rampant 'supplementitis'. There's a supplement for every army, and they're usually updated every few years, locking you into a buy-buy-buy circle just to stay up to date. WAB also has supplements for various periods. The basic rulebook gives you just some stats for Romans and 'Barbarians' (Celts for the rest of us), plus a few armies that used to be in Armies of Antiquity but are not (yet) covered by their own supplement. Other than that, there's the supplements.

WAB supplements tend to be organised along periods: there's a supplement for chariot age (middle eastern bronze age) warfare, one on the Byzantine period, one on the Late Roman period, etc. Each supplement, though later more than earlier, has lots of interesting information in addition to the army lists for the various armies represented: bits on the history of the period (albeit in severely potted form), collecting and painting appropriate figures, wargaming tactics and usually some scenarios and other things. The latest supplement, Age of Arthur, is particularly good in this regard (though that's for another post).

Nothing new so far, but the real refreshing thing with these supplements is the fact that the armies in them are intended to be balanced *only against each other*. Disadvantages of points systems aside (yet another post, there), you can expect an X point army from supplement A to be more or less evenly matched against another X point army from supplement A but not against an X point army from supplement B. This, combined with the period focus of the supplements results in a wargame culture where, instead of Bronze Age Egyptians taking the field against Later Burgundian Ordonnance lobsters, focus is on in period gaming, something that can only be applauded IMO.

### Production

As compared to the majority of rules publications on 'our side' of the hobby, the production quality of the books is just stunning, with good printing, good layout and stunning photographs (wargamer's porn) abound. Granted, not everyone has the same amount of financial oomph as GW, but when even a single person such as Pete Jones can produce good quality rulebooks ([Blitzkrieg and Cold War Commander](http://www.blitzkrieg-commander.com)), the monochrome, dense type, not an illustration in sight type of publication is a real let down for a bunch of wargamers for whom 'Visual Appeal is Everything'.

### It's oodles of fun

The main reason I like WAB however, is that it's quite simply a good game of toy soldiers. Face it, we're only pretending to recreate history through simulated engagements on the table top or studying models of nation state interactions in times of crisis. In reality, we're all just boys (and girls) playing with our toy soldiers again. And that's just what WAB provides: a game of toy soldiers with an historical flavour.

Right, that's it - comments are open (although the commenter going by the nom de plume of _wet thong_ is asked to kindly refrain from commenting)!

BattleLore

I've been a big fan of the Battlecry gaming engine ever since it was published. Likewise, I also like Memoir44 and C&C Ancients, exactly because they use the same engine. This gaming systems were developed by Richard Borg, and they have drawn quite some attention over the years.

Even my own Te Wapen fantasy rules are based on the ideas found in these games.

I was therefore pleasantly surprised that Days of Wonder will publish a fantasy version, called Battlelore. More info on:

http://blog.battlelore.com/en/

http://www.battleloremaster.com/

Wings of War hex modifications

These are the basic modifications we used for our hex based version of Wings of War. Obviously, they lack the principal item -- the hex based cards themselves. This is for two reasons:

• The cards for the small tables are not done yet
• I'm not sure whether I can publish these cards, copyright wise -- but I'll check.

For now, here's the few modifications we used:

Movement

Movement is done using the new hex based maneuver cards. There are two sets of cards:

• A version for small tables (or tables with large hexes)
• A version for bigger tables

The two versions differ in the single fact that the small table cards have had the first hex of all movement arrows removed, so in a pinch the bigger table version can be used for a smaller table by ignoring the first red (or blue in the case of a Split S) hex.

Planes are always oriented towards hex sides, not vertices.

Firing range

Short range is 3 hexes, long range is 6 hexes.

Firing arc

The firing arc is found by drawing two lines from the center of the hex out through the vertices left and right of the hex side towards which the plane is facing. Hexes bisected by this line count as part of the firing arc.

The firing arc for rear gunners is the same from the rear of the hex, but excluding the hexes directly behind the plane.

__Update__: the up to date version of these rules now live on the main site [here](http://www.nirya.be/snv/rules/wings_of_war_hexified_1.html)

Full Thrust takes off

As of today [Ground Zero Games](http://www.gzg.com) is providing [free PDF copies](http://www.gtns.co.uk/store1/commerce.cgi?page=downloads.html&cart_id=9772990.19950) of their Full Thrust rules -- the rulebook itself and both Fleet Books. While I own the three books mentioned in hardcopy, I will definitely download the PDF versions.

As to why the rules are now available for free -- as are the other OOP rulesets by GZG -- John of GZG mentions that the books are either out of print or getting there fast. I think the tacit acknowledgement is that the expected return from reprinting the books would be less than the cost of the reprint, hence this generous gift. Another factor in the decision might be the fact that GZG, as most miniatures outfits that produce rules and supporting miniatures, probably makes a lot more money selling the figures than the rules themselves (a business reality that [GW](http://uk.games-workshop.com) was probably one of the first to recognize and use to great advantage), so giving away the rules once they are no longer profitable makes good business sense.

And as an aside, this is the 100th post on Tiny Tin Men. Congratulations to us :)

Wings of War

World War 1 Dogfighting has always been a favorite of mine (see the galleries at SNV). I think there's something very romantic about this early period af aerial combat (probably the people who were actually involved disagree), that is not really present in other periods of air-to-air combat.

Last weeked I tried a little boardgame "Wings of War" (published by various labels, here's the site of Fantasy Flight games that publishes it for the US market). Although some reviews are not very favourable (see reviews and pictures on Boardgame Geek), these have more to do with the mix of components in the gamebox, rather than with the game mechanics themselves.

The gameplay is very smooth. One plane is represented by a little card on the table, indicating on the card it's vital statistics including a graphical depiction of its firing arc.

During a turn, players lay 3 maneuvring cards face down. Each of these cards displays various maneuvers (sidelslip, turn, Immelman, ...), and the mix of cards is different for each type of plane. One by one the cards are revealed, and you can actually use the maneuver cards to reposition your plane on the table. On each card an arrow indicates the starting position and end position of the plane, and the card itself acts as a template to reposition your plane. So no fiddling with rulers, turning templates etc.

After each maneuver, you can shoot other planes within your firing arc and distance, and depending on your stats, you draw a card from 2 different damage decks. This card indicates the amount of damage, but also can list critical damage, which can limit the type of maneuvers you can perform in subsequent turns.

We played 2 scenarios in a single hour. The first scenario was a typical dogfight with 2 planes on each side, and the 2nd scenario was a bombing mission. The rules can be explained in under 10 minutes.

Although some might say the game is a little bit simple, it actually does a good job in capturing the same tactical feel I had in previous WW1 dogfighting games. You have to think about out-maneuvring your opponent, and take shots whenever the opportunity presents itself. Altitude of the planes, however, does not play a role, and that's the one main point missing!

Although all the planes in the game are represented as cards, it can be played very easily with miniatures, providing you use a base of the correct size.

For those of you who are interested: the rules are available for free from the Fantasy Flight website mentioned above.

A good example of how the game works can be seen on this picture.

Battle of the 5 Armies

Previously, during the discussion about how to promote historical gaming, the issue of starter packs came up (See: Foundry Antics). I mentioned that GW was planning the release of 'Battle of 5 Armies' (GW BoFA webpage). This has happened by now, and I own a copy!

I will not go into a full review of the game, except to say that the rules are basically the same as Warmaster GW's game of epic fantasy, the miniatures are 10mm and of very high quality, and that the game portrays the famous battle at the end of Tolkien's The Hobbit.

What I would like to highlight is that this game does a very good job of selling a 'Battle in a Box'. Everything for this particular battle, including rules, scenery and figures is in the box. Granted, the scenery consists of a number of cardboard pieces for the Running River, two plastic hills that can be clicked together into one big hill, and some ruins to represent Dale, the city that was ruined by Smaug. So in some sense it is minimalistic, but it is enough. The only thing that is still missing is that the miniatures come unpainted to make it fully a "Battle in a Box', but I feel this will only be a matter of time.

In my view, I feel that GW has explored succesfully (on GW's website the game is already out-of-stock) a new possibility of marketing miniature wargaming. By providing all playing pieces to put a well-known battle on your table, the beginning player has no need to buy seperate sets of miniatures, nor design his or her own scenarios. Of course, this was possible before, but most miniature games 'in a box' always have been very generic.

I feel this should work for historicals too. It should be possible to produce boxes with the correct figures and scenery and rules to portray a single, famous battle, whether it be Waterloo, Rorke's Drift, OK Corral, Austerlitz, or the Raid on Zeebrugge. The magazine Miniature Wargames has starter packs available, but these are boxes of some figures + a back-issue of MW containing a ruleset + some cardboard buildings, only specifying a period and no set battle. Although this is a very worthwhile attempt, I think it misses the point. A good "Battle in a Box' should focus on a single battle, and provide everything for that one battle, and nothing more (although the rulebook could contain some suggestions on how to expand it to other battles -- which is also what GW has done with its Battle of 5 Armies, with additional figures being available).

I'm very enthusiastic about this approach, so I hope that GW will do more in these series, and that others will follow. The subtitle of Battle of 5 Armies is "Great Battles of Middle Earth", so I hope that GW will produce more games along these lines.