Pushing Myself (and Pike)

8am Eastern time: I've been working this week on building the For King and Country starter set for Pike and Shotte. As of right now, I have about thirty figures left to make. I'll finish them today, and the readers may learn a bit about how I procrastinate!

Doesn't help that Artemis II is on its way home with 240,000 miles to go at 1,200 miles an hour. Let's see how far it gets by the time I'm finished.

Step one, go get breakfast and groceries, cleaning the litterboxes as I leave.

See?

10am: Back, after breakfast at Starbucks, a few groceries, cat litter and filling the gas tank.

Then 25 minutes of leisurely putting stuff away and self-refreshing before getting down to work.

Finally, some painting videos to keep me from getting bored while my hands are busy. We'll try some Duncan Rhodes Empire (as close as Warhammer Fantasy gets to 17th century) and then some WWII and Konflict '47 as a reminder to get onto those kits after this one.

10:28am, and I'm off!

11am: First video done, also six musketeers without bases. A good start! But... nap time. Excuse? Morning meds cause drowsiness.

1pm: Up again. Read a bit of science fiction until...

1:30: When I start again with a second video. 

2:00: Total done so far - sixteen figures, four without bases and two hats.

Then a ten-minute break for blog-prep, restroom break, and cat-coaxing. (My flighty calico has been under the couch for 24 hours straight, since the three-hour visit of a patient but clearly absolutely terrifying pair of apartment cleaners.)

2:40: Four more musketeers assembled to accompaniment of a German Grenadier video, with four more bodies clipped, behatted and ready to arm. Where's Artemis? 232,000 miles out, good for them.

3:10: After a painting video for a US Ranger as played by Tom Hanks, I have twelve more figures done, complete with bases. Just six figures to go!

231,000 miles for Artemis. Time for a snack and reading break - more of a 1979 SF magazine.

There's a story and article in there about moon colonies, by Jerry Pournelle. I also just finished listening to the latest Warhammer 30K novel, which is largely about an invasion of the Moon. Good timing, huh?

4:15: Three command figures built - two musicians and a standard bearer.

The rest will need to be officers. The command sprue has three figures on it but enough leftover bitz to make a fourth out of one of the pikemen. Since there are four pikes on the infantry sprue, but five bodies in pike-carrying poses, this causes the leftover "sergeant" to end up in an odd pose:

The video this time was of a Konflict '47 "Firefly" US jump trooper. Next is a "Stahltruppen" - basically a Nazi in power armor.

4:45: One and a half more. (There are a LOT of left-over bits to pick from). Trying to convert a chap to hold a spear (or is it a partizan?) two handed. This is probably not a smart idea, a more officer-like type might be better.

Holding it straight-ish 'til dried.

Next painting video is a firelock figure by 7th Son.

By 5:20, I've watched three 7th Son videos, and built and based all 82 (!) figures. Just some hats to add - to fit them, all the heads on these guys look like Shakespeare in the Folio. OK, so we could have one or two balding gentlemen, but the rest need headgear.

Before doing that, I'll look up 0200 Hours, as one of the videos was for Wargames Atlantic German Sentries... also, I think my stomach is trying to tell me something.

Ooh, the Stalag Luft III escapees look like they'd make good character minis for VBCW... down another rabbit hole I go!

Had supper and watched a video. Looks a bit complex for my taste, and I don't like custom dice. Kill Team will work just fine for this scale. But the minis do look great.

6:33: Done! I think...

And (almost) everyone has hats.

Artemis and crew? Under 225,000 miles away as of 8pm. Safe flying to them. It has been a bouncy week in the news, and following the flight and building toy soldiers keeps me sane and happy. Good luck to all those reading this, hope your day was as peaceful as mine.

Five more blissful days off!

The cat is still under the couch.

On an ECW Kick

Not sure how I got onto this. Might have been when I idly googled Warhammer Historical, and turned up 1644 and its derivation Warhammer Historical English Civil War. I always preferred the turn-of-century style of GW games - not just the rules but the style of writing and illustration. So I read both of these. And then...

• Pike and Shotte
• To Kill a King (Pike and Shotte supplement)
• The Pikeman's Lament
• From Pike to Shot 1685-1720 (by Charles S. Grant)
• Ironsides (by Howard Whitehouse)
• Regiment of Foote (by Peter Pig)
• Dominion of Pike and Shot
• Wargaming Pike and Shot (by Donald Featherstone)

Not all of these are yet received or read, but ... yeah. I have half a mind to order the Pike and Shotte starter box and try Pikeman's Lament with it. (It would provide an opportunity to use the 28mm Warhammer walls I just got.) 

Curiously, I can't find out exactly what's in the box! There are 58 pike and shot figures in addition to cavalry and "forlorn hope"/commanded shot, but the regiment shown in the pictures has 36 figures (12 pike, 24 shot). Two of those would be a lot more than 58 - and if it is a two-player starter, there ought to be two full regiments at the very least, which would mean each might number twenty-four plus some sort of command... All the reviews I can find focus on the rules rather than the minis, which seems unusual for starter sets.

Anyway, whatever there is ought to be enough for two small Pikeman's Lament forces. A lot of people (including my local gaming group) dislike the activation system of this series of rulesets, since there is a very good chance that some or even all of your units will just skip their turn, repeatedly. However, I think I have a way around that - specifically, the way Bob Cordery does it in Bundok and Bayonet. This is to allow the order to go through when failed, but any movement must be away from the enemy.

Partly it's just because it's the last one I've read, but the Dominion ruleset is my current focus. There is a lot of buzz on the Facebook Portable Wargame group about the series, and the fact that it is solo, quick and can be played with my small Wofun ECW collection is appealing. I printed it out and in the process discovered that material can be sent to the printer in "booklet" form - even more useful as I have been asked to make club copies of the 1981 Charge! too.

Speaking of the club, the annual "regatta" is tomorrow at the new location, and I hope to be there and provide a battle report and pics afterward. Hope your holidays and gaming gifts are as good as mine are shaping up to be. Til next time!

Trying Solitaire ECW: Edgehill

Today I tried Mike Lambo's popular "solitaire" wargame rules. I'm using the first scenario, Edgehill.

Like Charles S. Grant's scenarios, the opposing side is randomly programmed. The rules are straightforward, and I hope to play quicker in future. I did discover that it is harder to win than it looks! There is a certain range at which units can be effective, and they are driven to attack the nearest; I learned to be cautious rather than aggressive.

Because a hex holds a single base, there is no "mix" of pike and shot as you'd normally have. Effectively, these are thus smaller skirmishes, though I suppose you could still assume each regiment has a preponderance of one or the other weapon. At this scale, the scenarios are more "inspired by" than re-enactments. But it's still pretty effective, and fun!

Starting positions. The opposing Parliamentarians have
randomly reinforced their right flank.

Here's why; the rules for placing
and playing units are pretty clear.
You could play both sides easily.

First turn. Rolled three attacks and four moves for my army on the dice. Three of the move were '3's, and thus could have been rerolled, but as firing range is only three spaces, there was no point. I can only fire the cannon, which has unlimited range 'up' its column. I moved my muskets and cavalry, but forgot to move my pikes out of sight of the opposing gun (I think I was thinking of simultaneous movement rather than moving one of the nearby units, then the pikes). My own gun required a 9+ to hit the cavalry ahead of it, and scored an 8.

I enlarged the "board" to A3; this is still not quite
large enough for the 30mm bases, but not unplayable.
The guns are deeper, but as they're limited to the
back line, they're not in the way..

The Royalist gun fired on my pikes. Requiring an 8+, it rolled a 10. This means my pikes must retreat two hexes... but they're on the first hex, so they're off the board! A cavalry unit moved forward to attack mine, and got a +1 bonus as a musketeer unit could also reach me. My cavalry fell back. The second cav fail to move, needing a 3+. The Royalist musketeers moved. The pikes all moved towards my right-hand cav.

Second turn. I rolled six dice this time - a six, five, two threes and two ones. I can use the six to rally, the five to shoot, and the other four to move. Since I hope to shoot with my muskets I rerolled the '3's but didn't upgrade to 'attack.' Because my cav rallied, its activation ends, so it traps my gun, which either shoots or cannot move. So I gave it my one 'attack' die, then shot at cavalry again and missed. My other cavalry I pulled back, as charging pikes is contraindicated. 

The opposing gun has no target so must move; I randomly selected left. Cavalry attacks my musketeers who have stupidly moved into range; they are in a forest (disadvantage to attacker) but in range of a supporting musketeer unit (advantage to attacker). The cav required 6+ to hit and scored 7, so my musketeers retreated one space and are demoralized. One more cav, and three of the six Royalist infantry units, move.

Third turn. Rallied my musketeers and missed with my gun again. (Must move it to target other than cavalry!) Next to test advantage for myself. I moved cavalry to attack opposing cav, but since two musketeer units were in range, I got +2 to the roll. This meant I needed 6+, and since I rolled '7', the support made the difference! Because two units were behind the Royalist cav, they had to pass through and were now two hexes from being off-board. (There are no rules for intermeshing, firing thru units or passing on demoralization to other units, possibly because each hex is stated to represent one or two square kilometers.) I then fired musketeers at musketeers, beating them by 1 again because of support, and because there were no clear hexes behind them, they fell back off the board! Lucky me, that the Royalists are piled up.

The Royalist gun fired on my victorious musketeers through trees (-1) and missed. Cavalry charged and drove mine back. Pikes attacked my musketeers and drove them off the board. Not doing too well here, given I have to wipe out my opponents before they wipe out me.

Fourth turn. Because I needed to rally a unit, I rerolled two fives to no luck. They fell back but at least were not yet off the board. My gun finally managed to drive back the cavalry with support from nearby muskets. In a pike-on-pike combat, I equaled my to-hit, forcing demoralization but not fallback. A second hit, however, would eliminate the unit, and I had two more to attack with. Cavalry vs. pikes normally isn't good, but I rolled a ten when I needed a 7 due to support. Clearly they were unready to fight charging cav. My musketeers were suddenly without a target, but that's okay.

You'll notice that opposing units face me, and my units
face away; but demoralized units, such as the cavalry
on my second column, face their board edge. There
is a marker for demoralized units, but it wouldn't fit.

The demoralized Royalist cav fled the board. The gun fired on my musketeers - through a forest for -1 - and missed. Musketeers fired on my cav and demoralized them, but didn't beat the required score so failed to drive them back. As they're three hexes from my back line, I have two turns to rally.

I was worried after last turn, but now I'm feeling more confident. I'm still outnumbered (and two units are falling back)...

Fifth Turn. Stopped one unit falling back off the board. My gun eliminated the fleeing Royalist cav. I decided to retreat my pike rather than getting into a two-on-one fight, and my muskets are out of range (in retrospect, I should have given them a movement die to get out of the way of the opposing gun, which...

... thankfully misses. The rest of the Royalists move towards one of my cavalry.

Sixth turn. Rallied my second cav (by rerolling three '2's). Moved cav forward, shifted my gun into the spot where the cav had been, and fired my musketeers at a pike unit (not the musketeers ahead of me, as I'd have to shoot through a forest). Drove them back.

Just realized the musketeers are still in LOS of the Royalist gun, but at this point, that's okay, given how effective the musketeers have been. They're hit, but thanks to the forest '-1' they don't flee off the board. Pikes face off, but I'm not hit.

Seventh turn. Rallied again. (Woo!) Then used the support rules for exactly what they're there for and destroyed a Royalist pike unit (see next photo).

Charged with cav 1, rolled on +1 for the supporting pikes and missed.
Charged with cav 2, rolled on +2 for the supporting pikes and cav,
and hit exactly (demoralizing the Royalist pikes but trapping them still
next to my pikes). Attacked with pikes at +2,
and destroyed the enemy pikes.

Enemy demoralized pikes routed. Gun missed my musketeers. Musketeers missed my cavalry.

I'm winning, but I only have three turns to wipe the board.

Eighth turn. moved my musketeers so that I could shift my gun towards a target. Probably a mistake as I could have instead charged musketeers with my cavalry.

Luckily, my gun is missed. So is my cavalry.

Ninth turn. Running out of time here. Rolled four moves and one attack. I assign the attack to my gun and two of the moves to my cavalry. Eliminated one musketeer unit and missed the other. My gun duel also fared badly. Luckily, my opponents also missed me.

Last turn. Barring extreme luck, I won't win. I eliminate the last musketeer, but the cavalry facing them can't move - and even if it could, can't reach the gun. My only hope is to fire my own gun at it. I need an 8 to hit, 9 to force them off the board.

I roll a 7.

The Royalist gun fires back. I've forgotten that it gets a +1 for being on higher ground than target... but it misses. So at least insult is not added to injury.

Game over. The key may have been turn 8, where if I'd chosen my moves better I'd have been in position to charge the gun on the last turn. No dice...

Had there been one more turn (and for beginners,
this is permissible) I could have charged the
Parliamentarian gun and likely won the game.

Losing on the final turn suggests to me that this is a fairly balanced game. I can look back and recognize my mistakes, which were:

Moving forward aggressively, and (for example) putting my cavalry near pikes.

Choosing my actions and their order poorly. I wouldn't be surprised if the guns (which can't leave the back line) are often the last unit left on the board - pikes will only rarely reach them, so musketeers and cavalry should be conserved.

It looks possible to "game" the system, by considering the required moves of opposing units. For example, simply not leaving a unit in the same column as opposing artillery will force that artillery to move rather than shoot, and if you can spare a unit to keep moving in and out of LOS, the gun will never get to fire. On the other hand, the fields are compressed enough that there will be times when units are backed up - this can be bad if the one in front must retreat, since it will be "bounced" all the way to the back and possibly off the board.

I missed a couple bonuses during the game - in particular, the opposing gun was on a hill and should have had +1 for its rolls, while my gun for part of the game was on a forest hex which gave it a defense bonus (I didn't notice because the base covered the hex). I've learned enough to play faster and more accurately next time.

I like this system very much. I'll definitely try the other scenarios. Worth a try, especially since you don't need much in the way of troops.

Peter Dennis's ECW rules

 I've ordered several of Wofun's small "starter" collections. The English Civil War one, based on Peter Dennis's first Helion "Paperboys" book, is almost exactly the right size to play his two-page "Rules for Absolute Beginners." It's just missing two cavalry regiments, though I was given an extra sheet of New Army infantry; one of the nice things about Wofun is they sometimes toss in extra freebies.

The redcoats are of course the Parliamentarian New Model Army, while the yellow and blue regiments represent the Royalists.

Royalists left.

Royalists right.

 

Parliamentarian left.

Parliamentarian right.

In this introductory scenario, units start 60cm (24") apart. Moves are 16cm (6") for infantry and 32cm (12") for cavalry, while gun range is 72cm (27"), musketry 32cm (12") and close range for both 16cm (6"). Not having cm on my rulers, I'm using inches, and also reducing all distances by a third - partly because of the narrow width of my table, and partly because I went for the 18mm figures rather than the 28s.

Turn phases, in order, are Firing, Fighting and Fear Tests. Which side goes first is random each turn, and the Royalists fire first here. The only units in range are guns - both as shooters and as targets. Hits (both firing and CC) are usually 6 on a D6, often requiring a second roll of 4+ to "confirm." I score a hit on one New Army gun, who will have to take a Fear Test. Return fire misses.

During the first move, the Royalists head straight forward as fast as they can, while the New Army keeps in steady line and their left-hand cavalry charges the Cavaliers. I had to backstep because I'd forgotten to reduce the moves by a third (4" for infantry, 8" for cavalry). The Parliamentarian general took the wound off his gun - he has two abilities, the other being allowing the unit he's with to reroll all dice. The one combat (between two horse regiments on the right) is a draw.

During Turn 2, firing is inconclusive; the infantry shuffle to within 6" of each other (recall that movement and short-range fire are only 4"). The larger cavalry action on the Royalist left, however, has some serious fighting. 

One Royalist regiment is driven back, while the other draws but both units there fail their Fear Tests and are disordered. For a Fear test, a D6 is rolled, minus however many hits the unit has taken that turn. On a one or two, the unit is disordered and only receives 1 die in future combats (rather than one per base); on a zero or less, it breaks.

In Turn 3, firing starts to cause a few casualties, but it is in CC where we see how ongoing combats get worse for the losing side. The more hits you take, the more shots your opponent gets at you next turn and the more likely you are to disorder or break. I might have to risk the generals here to either turn things around, or ensure victory.

In this example, the Roundheads will get six dice in CC
and the Cavaliers only one.

In the Fear phase, a Roundhead infantry regiment finally broke, rolling a 1 after taking a single casualty. The Roundhead horse, however, rolling at -5, got a six and stayed in the game! 

In the next turn, both sides lost combats, and the Roundhead cavalry finally broke - not by failing a check but by taking six casualties which would force a failed check.

Scrums, scrums in the deep.

A Cavalier infantry regiment was eliminated, despite its commander's reroll. There is no rule for what happens to the general in this case, so I rolled as when the unit takes casualties. He survived, and will have to move next turn.

A Roundhead gun was eliminated by fire; the other has no line of sight due to combats. The Roundhead right is free to move and starts sweeping around to flank the Cavaliers.

Surrounded Roundheads are slowly beaten down,
as a Royalist unit led by its general defeats
another Roundhead regiment. But the
Roundheads are in position to take a gun.

After a couple more combats, both sides are down to four of their initial seven regiments. All shooting and fighting is inconclusive, except for the two flank horse regiments who have been going at it all game. They tie, but cause casualties, and both fail their Fear Tests (you only avoid taking one if you win). Mutual kill, and tie game.

Though a) the Roundheads were flanking the Cavaliers, and b) as I was putting the figures away I realized I had mistaken a Cavalier regiment for a Roundhead one:

Royalists left, Parliamentarians right.

Oops. I guess a unit turned traitor at some point during the game.

A good and fun set of basic rules, and attractively presented by Peter too! 

His illustrations (distinctly different from his usual realistic work on historical books) remind me very much of one of my favorite illustrators, Peter Spier. I would use this at work, if I could think of an excuse to run English Civil War in an American educational context. "This is what the colonists were fleeing," perhaps?

I've noticed that this, Test of Resolve and Field of Honor all have similarities to Donald Featherstone's later rules, in which casualties aren't removed from the board but each regiment effectively has a given number of hit points. Losses can effect the unit's abilities, but bases or figures are not removed from the table until the unit entire is destroyed. Black Powder has similar mechanisms too. This is a useful design since units can be presented on multi-bases and the game as a whole looks better, instead of having a unit ground down to a handful of men who, in reality, would not hang around to fight.

I enjoy shorter, simpler rules like this, and have become used to multibases now. They make it easier to line up units and thus create the "spectacle" of a tabletop battlefield that attracts players. I've been reading more of Paddy Griffith, who eventually "went off" miniatures on the grounds that they detract from the historical lessons that gaming can provide. I disagree, because I think there are still lessons to be learned from even a simple and "fun" game like this. Players can recognize the two sides, the basic unit types, and their abilities. From my perspective playing with beginners, that's as educational as it gets - games can teach facts perhaps better than they can teach skills. (Full disclosure: I got that from this essay by game designer Dr. Richard Bartle, and I'll probably return to it at some point.) Games don't have to be accurate and complex to be fun and teachable. I'll happily play this one again.

Rules tinkering, rambling, and game-space tinkering too. Also rambling...

 I experimented yesterday, all too briefly, with a "solo ECW" article from a volume of Wally Simon's essays. Unfortunately, it was a bit rambling; it reminds me distinctly of Donald Featherstone, in fact. Like Featherstone, Simon was a charming, friendly sort of writer, but also like Featherstone, he tended to ramble. The articles, while they are mostly about rules mechanisms and their modifications, are also  reminisces of who knows how many decades of play and camaraderie. Featherstone doesn't write much about his opponents, but in Simon's writing you can hear the banter across the table. And like Featherstone, the rules are often spread across a chapter, and missing important elements. 

I'm not saying he's a bad writer, but it's not always easy to follow the rulesets he writes. Mostly because he often focuses on specific elements, often of someone else's rulesets. Or an entire article will be on different methods of counting initiative (I'll come back to this one when I get around to my Picacho Peak game). Or a pleasant, but rules-lite recounting of crewing an X-class submarine made out of a batch of chairs in Paddy Griffith's living room, which reminds me of Jim Wallman's equally cramped Tank Duel. In that one, players sit or crouch together in the relative positions of a tank crew, and have to stay there while operating a tabletop tank. I intend to run it for my own group the moment the pandemic's over and I don't have to worry about infecting a bunch of gamers old enough to be my father. I think kids would get a real kick out of it too.

Like Simon and Featherstone, I ramble...

In this case the missing element was morale. The ruleset in question is for a relatively small game, with units represented by a single base. For my quick test run-through, I took two bases of pike, two of muskets, and one of cavalry a side, on a new 2x4 foot folding table I picked up to be able to isolate in the bedroom. I am considering further remote games, you see, and when one must wait for the players to send in their moves, leaving a table set with minis and terrain for days on end, one cannot leave the table vulnerable to pouncing cats.

This was all very well, except for the lighting. Something I hadn't realized about my play in the living room is that I have an overhead light there; I don't in the bedroom. This is not so bad, except that I want to be able to take pictures, or maybe even video (she said, envious of certain youtube channels. Seriously, check out the overhead camera in this guy's battle reports). And the lighting in the bedroom is poor, even in daylight with a window open - and I will be rarely playing in daytime as I'm a night owl.

Rambling again. Back to the playtest. So I ran through the rules. There are six elements to a turn, and more than a few interesting mechanisms in them:

- Active player tosses a D10. When cycle-upon-cycle throws add up to 15, the turn is over, and Victory Points are toted up.

- Active player moves both infantry and cavalry up to ten inches. No mention of terrain modifiers here, though the battle report is set among hills and manors.

- Non-active player fires, but draws a variable number of cards from a "fire deck" first, looking for pairs of Fire and Load cards - each pair allows a single unit to fire. There are also Misfire cards. I tossed a D12, but could have used, perhaps, three suits of cards (or two plus the Jokers). units with casualties roll for morale - losers retreat to a "Rally Zone." Interestingly, pike elements may also fire, on the assumption that they are typical regiments of the period with a 1:2 ratio of pikes to muskets, so the muskets are "concealed" among the pikes and actually fire with near the same chance of hitting as the musketeer elements.

- Active player chooses two units, which fire. (For some reason, he doesn't draw cards.) Confusion was attained by the fact this was also a battle report between the Active player, the Earl of Cratchett, and the non-Active player, Lord Flocke, and at this point the Earl is named as the non-Active player.

- Non-Active cavalry move ten inches. I like this, incidentally - it gives the non-active player another thing to do (something that Wally seems to approve in his other articles) at the same time that it enables the cavalry to move faster than infantry like it should. The entire turn cycle is intriguingly "semi-simultaneous."

- Melees are fought. Losing stands again retreat to the Rally Zone. At this point, all such units roll to see if they return to the field. This feels akin to the rallying mechanism in the Perrys' TravelBattle - losing units retreat to their baseline, then either fail to rally or are retrieved by a command figure. While Heavy and Light Cavalry are listed in the army writeups, as well as a unit armed with swords and bucklers, there is no comment on their impact in close combat - do cavalry roll higher, or get extra dice?

Now here's the problem. The morale-check mechanism for casualties from fire is not there.

And of course I didn't notice this until I needed to roll a morale check. This is, also of course, the reason I ran a hasty small game in the first place - to catch things like that. Or so I reassure myself.

The morale check mechanism for melees is there, but I'm not sure it would apply to the firing phase. Sides add up stands in combat and casualties inflicted (so one stand that inflicts one casualty on its opponent makes two) and multiply this number by a D10. Again akin to Featherstone, where survivors (not casualties) are multiplied by a D6, and the side with a lower number retreats.

In most rulesets, the side that takes casualties by fire rolls alone, against a set number. It didn't occur to me at the time to roll off between units in the same way as melee; at the time I think I felt the fired-on unit would be much likelier to lose (since the firer hasn't taken casualties yet), and this didn't seem realistic. In hindsight, though, I could see it, in part because the Active player gets to fire back, possibly with units that took casualties in the immediate-prior phase, thus enabling the opponent to roll higher. (Is this making any sense?)

See if you can figure out morale from fire-casualties from this!

An earlier article in the book, Encounter at Lennard Manor: Loss Threshold, describes a similar ruleset and melee-morale mechanic, but still does not describe how morale works when units are not in melee.

I may try again, using the same mechanic for firing-morale as for CC-morale. On a 2x4foot table with five bases a side, it goes quickly enough. There are the bones of an interesting and light system here, but as with Featherstone's, I'll have to build on them. Of course that's half the fun!