When we think of past games some of them just tend to stick out, while others are simply forgotten. These games, which make it onto your memory hard drive, are sometimes the results of good planning and a clever scenario twist by the gamemaster but sometimes they are simply the result of dismal bad or freaky good luck. Here are some of my favourite moments:
BartV had planned a WWII desert game in which two players would look over the table, spot the enemy and do the minor manoeuvring while two other players acted as supreme commanders, sitting in an adjacent room who planned general manoeuvring, off board artillery fire etc. Before the game each team had bitter little time to draft a crude map of the terrain board on which the commander could direct his moves. I acted as commander in the field and together with my general we decided at the last instant to ad markers at key points on the map so we could easily assign artillery fire. Communication between office and field went by brief notes which passed through the game master (who rolled and checked if the message arrived in time, got delayed or got lost)
Anyway, at some point during the game my opponent positioned his troops on one of our preassigned artillery spots (point alpha) so I sent in a request for artillery fire. The next turn nothing happened so, presuming the order got lost or delayed, I repeated my request. In the mean time my own troops were coming under heavy artillery fire so I was getting desperate! My opponent was still firmly lodged on point alpha though so yet again I called in artillery hoping that this time the order would pass after already 2 failed attempts! But yet again, no artillery shells were hitting my opponent while my troops took some more enemy fire... this was when I realised that I was positioned on our preassigned point x (yes we named them x,y,z and alpha, beta, gamma, we were in a hurry remember) and my general had mistaken my hastily scribbled alpha for an x ! Never again was the fog of war this well captured :-)
Again during a WWII game I was playing the German commander. I was a happy German commander as among my troops was the dreaded annihilator of tin cans, the infamous flak88 gun. When this beauty entered the field (on my left side of the table) right on the spot where my opponent was planning his major tank putsch I could see the colour strip from his face. He immediately started to do some frantic major redeploying while I did some major gloating. The gloating lasted till turn two when the umpire (BartV you bastard ;-)) passed me an order from my NPC supreme commander stating that the flak88 should strengthen the (off-board) eastern front immediately!. The entire game the flak88 was seen making its way to the right side of the board. Causing serious bewilderment to my opponent who was franticly trying to make out what the hell I was planning, all the time adapting his plans to the ever changing flak88’s position... until it disappeared off board that is. The look on his face was priceless :-)
So what are your memorable moments?
Thursday, 8 February 2007
Oops
It seems that in a flurry of spam fighting, I accidentally deleted the last 10 real comments to this blog. No sinister doings going on, nor is censorship being applied. Just me pushing buttons before a decent dose of caffeine has entered my bloodstream. Sorry about that.
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
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)!
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)!
Tuesday, 30 January 2007
Surely the sky must be falling down...
... when I've stopped painting eyes on my miniatures.
Case in point is this miniature, and the ones before it in my [Flickr photostream](http://www.flickr.com/photos/robartes):
As noted in the comments on one of my earlier pictures, I've finally crossed a final frontier in painting. Over the years, I've always tried to paint each and every miniature as if it was going to end up in a painting competition (and most of them eventually did), but as many a wargamer knows, if you want to actually play with your painted toy soldiers, that standard of painting is not compatible with getting lots of figures on the tabletop.
So, in order to change this, I have gradually lowered the standard of painting for my figures, starting with 15 mils, then 20 mm figures and now, finally, I have crossed the final frontier and started painting the big boys to a tabletop standard as opposed to a competition standard. This evolution is inevitable if you want to actually play with your toy soldiers, and I still think of myself more as a wargamer than as a figure painter.
First indication of this was when I, after ten years, did not enter a figure in the Crisis painting competition -- a trend that seems to be general as the organisers complained about a lack of historical subjects in the competition. This is normal, as the competition [has moved](http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/archives/000134.html) towards a competition for painters, no longer for wargamers.
Now what is different about the 'tabletop' painting standard? For one, I don't paint eyes anymore. It's only a few minutes gained, but every minute counts. I also lower the number of layers to the minimum I can get a way with. On large areas, such as the above figure's cloak, I still do three layers, but the vast majority of areas get only two (e.g. the skin and trousers of the figure). Detail stuff, such as the belt get only a single layer, and I often don't even bother painting the shoes (they just get a drybrush of the color of the base over the undercoat).
Another 'trick' I use, which is nothing new of course, is to have number of figures on the go. That way, whenever I take a color, I apply it to various figures, e.g. this figure's cloak is blue, that one's trouses will be blue, and that one's tunic. This way, you get some of the benefit from an assembly line painting system without some of the disadvantages.
And does it work? Well, over the last three weeks or so, I painted over 10 figures, which is not much by some standards, but is significantly more than my previous output.
Case in point is this miniature, and the ones before it in my [Flickr photostream](http://www.flickr.com/photos/robartes):
As noted in the comments on one of my earlier pictures, I've finally crossed a final frontier in painting. Over the years, I've always tried to paint each and every miniature as if it was going to end up in a painting competition (and most of them eventually did), but as many a wargamer knows, if you want to actually play with your painted toy soldiers, that standard of painting is not compatible with getting lots of figures on the tabletop.
So, in order to change this, I have gradually lowered the standard of painting for my figures, starting with 15 mils, then 20 mm figures and now, finally, I have crossed the final frontier and started painting the big boys to a tabletop standard as opposed to a competition standard. This evolution is inevitable if you want to actually play with your toy soldiers, and I still think of myself more as a wargamer than as a figure painter.
First indication of this was when I, after ten years, did not enter a figure in the Crisis painting competition -- a trend that seems to be general as the organisers complained about a lack of historical subjects in the competition. This is normal, as the competition [has moved](http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/archives/000134.html) towards a competition for painters, no longer for wargamers.
Now what is different about the 'tabletop' painting standard? For one, I don't paint eyes anymore. It's only a few minutes gained, but every minute counts. I also lower the number of layers to the minimum I can get a way with. On large areas, such as the above figure's cloak, I still do three layers, but the vast majority of areas get only two (e.g. the skin and trousers of the figure). Detail stuff, such as the belt get only a single layer, and I often don't even bother painting the shoes (they just get a drybrush of the color of the base over the undercoat).
Another 'trick' I use, which is nothing new of course, is to have number of figures on the go. That way, whenever I take a color, I apply it to various figures, e.g. this figure's cloak is blue, that one's trouses will be blue, and that one's tunic. This way, you get some of the benefit from an assembly line painting system without some of the disadvantages.
And does it work? Well, over the last three weeks or so, I painted over 10 figures, which is not much by some standards, but is significantly more than my previous output.
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
Battle of The Angle (ACW)
Yesterday we played another 'back to basics' ACW game, using floppy plastic figures and hexified Brother against Brother. The game was based on scenario n° 2 _Threat to the Flank_ from _Scenarios for all ages_ (Grant & Asquith), with the Union troops being the attacking troops in the face of Confederate resistance.
The Union troops needed to throw the Confederate forces off a hill on the way south 'before nightfall'. Said hill lay behind a river, the part of which immediately in front of the hill was fordable, while the rest was uncrossable, except by a bridge off towards the edge of the table. To accomplish their goal, the Union had sent a sizable force (2 infantry units, two cavalry squadrons and a gun battery) on a flanking march towards the bridge with the intent of outflanking the main Confederate position. Unlucky for them, a Confederate scout had detected the flanking movement and the Confederate commander had responded by sending his own detachment of 1 infantry unit, 2 cavalry squadrons and a gun battery towards the same bridge. That was the starting point of the scenario.
In our game, the Union side was played by Eddy and Phil, while Koen and Bart played the Confederates. As one of the Confederate players, I'll describe the battle from that viewpoint.
The Union advanced fairly cautiously, making good use of intervening hedges for cover on the way to the central hill. On the flank, two Union cavalry squadrons rushed over the bridge, while their infantry attempted to infiltrate in the woods across the river from our artillery battery.
The Union artillery deserves special mention in this phase. Both batteries were virtually wiped out without firing a shot by turn 3. The battery on the Union left side (opposite the main hill and The Angle) was devestated by Confederate musketry causing 80% casualties with one volley of one infantry unit (go 1st Maryland!), while the flanking artillery attempted to set up on a hill opposite the Confederate 7th Georgia, which wiped it out of existence with two volleys. Some of the loudest cheers in the game thereafter were heard when the two remaining gunners of the hill battery managed to load their gun and let of a shot :).
Also deserving special mention was the 2nd New Jersey Infantry which, in a mad display of inspiredness, charged out of cover, across the river and up to the hedge at The Angle while the rest of the Union troops were still moves away. Amazingly, the 2nd New Jersey would survive till just before the end of the game, always being the furthest advanced northern unit in the game.
In the center, The Angle became the Bloody Angle. Union infantry moved up close and started reducing the Confederate infantry behind the hedge by fire (although they also took casualties proportionally from the return fire). When the line was weakened enough, a Union cavalry squadron charged in to break the line. It succeeded, destroying the last remaining Confederate infantry, but was itself promptly counter charged by the Confederate cavalry squadron that had been deployed behind the infantry line all game patiently waiting for this opportunity to counterattack. Add in another Union cavalry squadron and after a few turns the space behind the hedges resembles nothing less than an abattoir. Bloody Angle indeed.
Unlucky for the Union troops however, the various cavalry charges and musketry exchanges going on had knocked out all three of their officers, leading to the entire army being out of command and having to take a forced pause.
At this point, it was near midnight real time, so we decided to call it a day.
It was a very enjoyable game, with particularly the swirling cavalry melee on the flank and the bloody fighting around the Angle 'feeling right'. I think everyone had great fun (of course, Phil's bottle of champagne before the game might have helped there). The BaB rules have proven their worth again, and with a small bit of tweaking in the cavalry hex conversion rules and a rather larger bit of tweaking in the melee rules (which can be cumbersome), they'll serve us well for many games to come.
The Union troops needed to throw the Confederate forces off a hill on the way south 'before nightfall'. Said hill lay behind a river, the part of which immediately in front of the hill was fordable, while the rest was uncrossable, except by a bridge off towards the edge of the table. To accomplish their goal, the Union had sent a sizable force (2 infantry units, two cavalry squadrons and a gun battery) on a flanking march towards the bridge with the intent of outflanking the main Confederate position. Unlucky for them, a Confederate scout had detected the flanking movement and the Confederate commander had responded by sending his own detachment of 1 infantry unit, 2 cavalry squadrons and a gun battery towards the same bridge. That was the starting point of the scenario.
In our game, the Union side was played by Eddy and Phil, while Koen and Bart played the Confederates. As one of the Confederate players, I'll describe the battle from that viewpoint.
The plan
Our plan was fairly straight forward. We wanted to defend the hill slightly forward of it, behind an angled row of hedges (soon to become a Bloody Angle of our own) with an artillery battery on the hill behind it. The flanking force was to deploy its battery well forward to a spot where it was covered by woods on the flank and with a clear field of fire to the bridge. The infantry unit (the 7th Georgia) was to provide fire support on the flank of the battery, while the cavalry squadrons would charge anything crossing the bridge.Phase 1: Union approach
The initial turns of the game saw our planned deployments developing satisfactorily: the infantry units moving up to the hedge at 'The Angle' received some long range musketry but reached the hedge more or less intact while the artillery battery on the hill inflicted some casualties on the opposing Union troops. On the flank, the artillery and infantry quickly reached their appointed positions, while the cavalry cautiously moved up to a stream on the way to the bridge.The Union advanced fairly cautiously, making good use of intervening hedges for cover on the way to the central hill. On the flank, two Union cavalry squadrons rushed over the bridge, while their infantry attempted to infiltrate in the woods across the river from our artillery battery.
The Union artillery deserves special mention in this phase. Both batteries were virtually wiped out without firing a shot by turn 3. The battery on the Union left side (opposite the main hill and The Angle) was devestated by Confederate musketry causing 80% casualties with one volley of one infantry unit (go 1st Maryland!), while the flanking artillery attempted to set up on a hill opposite the Confederate 7th Georgia, which wiped it out of existence with two volleys. Some of the loudest cheers in the game thereafter were heard when the two remaining gunners of the hill battery managed to load their gun and let of a shot :).
Also deserving special mention was the 2nd New Jersey Infantry which, in a mad display of inspiredness, charged out of cover, across the river and up to the hedge at The Angle while the rest of the Union troops were still moves away. Amazingly, the 2nd New Jersey would survive till just before the end of the game, always being the furthest advanced northern unit in the game.
Phase 2: The crunch
All of this preparatory maneuvring led up to the crunch a few turns later. On the flank the Confederate artillery and infantry eventually redeployed to help their beleaguered colleagues near The Angle, but the real fight there was between gentlemen: the four cavalry squadrons (two on each side) got into a big swirling cavalry melee lasting a few turns. When the dust had settled, only two horsemen on each side were left standing, being out of command or retreating.In the center, The Angle became the Bloody Angle. Union infantry moved up close and started reducing the Confederate infantry behind the hedge by fire (although they also took casualties proportionally from the return fire). When the line was weakened enough, a Union cavalry squadron charged in to break the line. It succeeded, destroying the last remaining Confederate infantry, but was itself promptly counter charged by the Confederate cavalry squadron that had been deployed behind the infantry line all game patiently waiting for this opportunity to counterattack. Add in another Union cavalry squadron and after a few turns the space behind the hedges resembles nothing less than an abattoir. Bloody Angle indeed.
Unlucky for the Union troops however, the various cavalry charges and musketry exchanges going on had knocked out all three of their officers, leading to the entire army being out of command and having to take a forced pause.
At this point, it was near midnight real time, so we decided to call it a day.
Analysis
As to the result of the game, the consensus was that the Union would probably have succeeded in getting over the hill (there was by then only one full Confederate infantry unit left on the hill -- the redoubtable 1st Maryland), although given the fact that they had some reorganising to do and they were currently leaderless, they would not have succeeded 'before nightfall'. The exact definition of 'before nightfall' is not mentioned in the scenario, however, so there is some room for discussion there :)It was a very enjoyable game, with particularly the swirling cavalry melee on the flank and the bloody fighting around the Angle 'feeling right'. I think everyone had great fun (of course, Phil's bottle of champagne before the game might have helped there). The BaB rules have proven their worth again, and with a small bit of tweaking in the cavalry hex conversion rules and a rather larger bit of tweaking in the melee rules (which can be cumbersome), they'll serve us well for many games to come.
Monday, 8 January 2007
Dude, where's my sand?
Whilst idly browsing [Ebay](http://www.ebay.co.uk) (as one does), I came across this auction:
That's right: you can buy a handful of sand. The same stuff that's outside everyone's door, in every backyard and every gutter, or that -- if you live in Alaska and it's minus seventy or so -- you can buy from your local DIY store by the 50kg bag for the same price as this auction's meagre 100 grams.
Anyway, if you're looking for sand, [look no further](http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SALE-BASING-SAND-Wargames-Figures-Scenery-15mm-28mm-DBA_W0QQitemZ180068966955QQihZ008QQcategoryZ123863QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem). I really don't know where to start here. There is the use of a number of totally irrelevant (28mm sand, anyone?) but high scoring keywords in the auction title -- certain to be appreciated by the discerning bidder. Or the fact that one of the first lines in the description mentions 'over inflated prices' at hobby stores -- probably as opposed to merely inflated on this offer. Or the implication that just by buying this sand (not any other, mind you) will lead you to the ultimate in figure basing.
Ah, Ebay :)
That's right: you can buy a handful of sand. The same stuff that's outside everyone's door, in every backyard and every gutter, or that -- if you live in Alaska and it's minus seventy or so -- you can buy from your local DIY store by the 50kg bag for the same price as this auction's meagre 100 grams.
Anyway, if you're looking for sand, [look no further](http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SALE-BASING-SAND-Wargames-Figures-Scenery-15mm-28mm-DBA_W0QQitemZ180068966955QQihZ008QQcategoryZ123863QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem). I really don't know where to start here. There is the use of a number of totally irrelevant (28mm sand, anyone?) but high scoring keywords in the auction title -- certain to be appreciated by the discerning bidder. Or the fact that one of the first lines in the description mentions 'over inflated prices' at hobby stores -- probably as opposed to merely inflated on this offer. Or the implication that just by buying this sand (not any other, mind you) will lead you to the ultimate in figure basing.
Ah, Ebay :)
Wednesday, 3 January 2007
A new 'painting tray'
Those of you who follow me less than regular [workbench photos](http://www.flickr.com/photos/robartes/sets/72057594098116252/), have seen that I put figures on champagne type corks (lots of those around these days), using a bit of blue tack (which is white in Belgium) while painting them. The corks are hefty enough to handle comfortably and keep me from handling the possibly freshly painted figures.
On the [painting station](http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/archives/000006.html), the corks are held down using blue tack again. This is a workable system, except that during painting sessions, I set the corks on the table next to the painting station. As that very same table is used by my wife when she is working on her laptop or correcting papers and exams (she teaches chemistry), it tends to wobble unpredictably on occasion. This has predictably led to several of the figure and cork stacks tumbling down to a messy end on the floor. Not ideal.
The solution is, of course simple:
The box is a simple shoebox (albeit of children's shoes), while the dividers are 5mm balsa wood. I had built this box originally to accomodate a type of 'matrix painting' but it only recently dawned on me (I'm slow sometimes) that it can be used to hold the corks and figures for normal painting sessions too.
So there you have it, a [Hyun](http://www.weetoysoldiers.com) style contraption to ease a wargamer's life :).
On the [painting station](http://www.nirya.be/snv/ttm/archives/000006.html), the corks are held down using blue tack again. This is a workable system, except that during painting sessions, I set the corks on the table next to the painting station. As that very same table is used by my wife when she is working on her laptop or correcting papers and exams (she teaches chemistry), it tends to wobble unpredictably on occasion. This has predictably led to several of the figure and cork stacks tumbling down to a messy end on the floor. Not ideal.
The solution is, of course simple:
The box is a simple shoebox (albeit of children's shoes), while the dividers are 5mm balsa wood. I had built this box originally to accomodate a type of 'matrix painting' but it only recently dawned on me (I'm slow sometimes) that it can be used to hold the corks and figures for normal painting sessions too.
So there you have it, a [Hyun](http://www.weetoysoldiers.com) style contraption to ease a wargamer's life :).
Wednesday, 13 December 2006
The Bridge at Springfield, ACW
The december game played in Phil's Attic in the series Schild en Vriend Revival Games was set up in back-to-basics philosophy, and this because of 2 reasons:
1. We used unpainted, plastic 20mm ACW figures. This is a throwback to our old days when we just started with miniature wargaming. But in some way, I do feel there is something very attractive playing with these figures -- as long as there is a nice terrain setup.
2. The scenario came out of BattleGames issue #2, a magazine that regularly prides itself on its 'Old School Wargaming Spirit'.
For the ruleset, Brother Against Brother was used, but hexified of course, since we use the Kallistra terrain as our terrain of choice. The rules can be used as-is, dividing all ranges given in inches by 4 to get a range in hexes.
The scenario saw a force of Confederate rebels against an army of Union soldiers. The Union's mission was to capture a bridge, whilst the Confederacy had to defend it. Eddy and Frank played the Union, while Phil and Bart took the roles of the Confederate commanders.
After the initial deployment of the defenders, the Union had to divide their force in three attack columns. Each force has an officer, able to give orders to squads belonging to that company.
The game started pretty smoothly. The first Union troops where shot at by a Southern artillery battery placed on the centre hill near Devil's Rock. On the Union left flank, progress was smooth, with a Confederate cavalry squad wiped out after a gallant charge by the latter. The central artillery battery near Devil's Rock was routed by return fire, and the Union right flank exchanged shots with Southern troops cleverly hidden in woods on the Southern left flank.
This was all without the involvement of the defense line of Confederate infantry near the Springfield Bridge, which Engineers were busy preparing for demolition.
Alas, near turn 10 a morale card had to be drawn by a squad on the Union left flank, indicating their Officer was shot by a sniper. THWACK. This meant all squads could only load and fire, as long as no replacement officer was found (30% each turn). Unfortunately, all the Union squads were in cover and unable to exchange shots with the Confederate troops, which led to much frustration on and near the battlefield. In the mean time, the central Cavalry of the Southern Rebels, led by Jubal Early, wanted to charge over the central hill. After some initial hesitation, they were unable to reach their intended target, an out-of-command Union Cavalry squad, so they took out their carabines, effectively causing their opponents to skeedaddle.
This was the final straw, and the Union conceded -- sort of -- since it was late already in real time.
Everyone agreed it was a fun game, and the BaB rules are really working well, but in hindsight, the Officer Thwack morale card was the wrong card at the wrong time, and probably too devastating as a random effect.
1. We used unpainted, plastic 20mm ACW figures. This is a throwback to our old days when we just started with miniature wargaming. But in some way, I do feel there is something very attractive playing with these figures -- as long as there is a nice terrain setup.
2. The scenario came out of BattleGames issue #2, a magazine that regularly prides itself on its 'Old School Wargaming Spirit'.
For the ruleset, Brother Against Brother was used, but hexified of course, since we use the Kallistra terrain as our terrain of choice. The rules can be used as-is, dividing all ranges given in inches by 4 to get a range in hexes.
The scenario saw a force of Confederate rebels against an army of Union soldiers. The Union's mission was to capture a bridge, whilst the Confederacy had to defend it. Eddy and Frank played the Union, while Phil and Bart took the roles of the Confederate commanders.
After the initial deployment of the defenders, the Union had to divide their force in three attack columns. Each force has an officer, able to give orders to squads belonging to that company.
The game started pretty smoothly. The first Union troops where shot at by a Southern artillery battery placed on the centre hill near Devil's Rock. On the Union left flank, progress was smooth, with a Confederate cavalry squad wiped out after a gallant charge by the latter. The central artillery battery near Devil's Rock was routed by return fire, and the Union right flank exchanged shots with Southern troops cleverly hidden in woods on the Southern left flank.
This was all without the involvement of the defense line of Confederate infantry near the Springfield Bridge, which Engineers were busy preparing for demolition.
Alas, near turn 10 a morale card had to be drawn by a squad on the Union left flank, indicating their Officer was shot by a sniper. THWACK. This meant all squads could only load and fire, as long as no replacement officer was found (30% each turn). Unfortunately, all the Union squads were in cover and unable to exchange shots with the Confederate troops, which led to much frustration on and near the battlefield. In the mean time, the central Cavalry of the Southern Rebels, led by Jubal Early, wanted to charge over the central hill. After some initial hesitation, they were unable to reach their intended target, an out-of-command Union Cavalry squad, so they took out their carabines, effectively causing their opponents to skeedaddle.
This was the final straw, and the Union conceded -- sort of -- since it was late already in real time.
Everyone agreed it was a fun game, and the BaB rules are really working well, but in hindsight, the Officer Thwack morale card was the wrong card at the wrong time, and probably too devastating as a random effect.
Sunday, 10 December 2006
You can't start young enough...
... as this here picture proves:
Of course, she destroyed the plane five seconds later, so perhaps I'll keep her away from toy soldiers for a little while longer :)
Of course, she destroyed the plane five seconds later, so perhaps I'll keep her away from toy soldiers for a little while longer :)
Thursday, 7 December 2006
Celtic figures
The other day, a gaming friend interested in getting some Celtic figures asked me about what manufacturer my Celts are from. Here's my answer:
As a bit of gratuitous self promotion (hey, it's my blog after all), you can ogle my Celts [here](http://www.flickr.com/photos/robartes/sets/72057594075245680/).
TT tags: miniatures wargaming
Well, for Celtic figures, you're spoilt for choice if nothing else.
Because Celts are the figures featured in the WAB book, just about
everyone and his dog do a Celtic range.As to my Celts - they're mostly Foundry, with a few Renegade and Old
Glory chariots and Old Glory infantry. The vast majority is Foundry
however, bought way back when they were just putting their stock into
packs and selling off the non-pack-packaged stock at ridicilously low
prices. They're good figures, and I would recommend them, except for the
price of course. However, it is rare you can not get any sort of
discount on Foundry stuff, and I believe they're doing their usual horde
deals for Christmas again, although that would mean buying *a lot* of
figures to get a good price per figure.The Old Glory figures I have for infantry are the older Caesar's War in
Gaul (CGW or CWG) range, not the newer Celtic range (Update: it turns out these figures are now the PPC range). The figures are on
the good side of the Old Glory spectrum, but still suffer from the
typical Old Glory 'awkwardness'.The Renegade stuff is truly chunky: they outmass just about any other
figure on the table, and the swords are indeed as massive as they look
on the website. I've only got a few of their chariots, so that doesn't
matter that much, but I would not combine Renegade infantry in a unit
with another manufacturer's figures. They're good figures though, on a
par or even better as Foundry's, except for the chunkiness.All that aside, would I want to start over, I'd have a good look at
Gripping Beast. They suffer from a few flaws (typical poses, impossible
poses to stick spears on with a few of the spearmen), but they look
gorgeous on the website.
As a bit of gratuitous self promotion (hey, it's my blog after all), you can ogle my Celts [here](http://www.flickr.com/photos/robartes/sets/72057594075245680/).
TT tags: miniatures wargaming
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)