Free Kriegspiel Revolution on the (remote) Tabletop

 Read this first:

Wally's reaction to this confusion and how to quantify it? "Don't ask me."

FKR's reaction? "Don't need to."

I've recently dipped my toe into Discord, a software platform popular with gamers. Invited by Michael Raston of the Lizardman Diaries blog, I wanted to try a wargame with miniatures rather than the entirely electronic "map" games he's been having success with. He runs a channel called KriegHammer, since its games are loosely inspired by Warhammer Fantasy. Having been away from 40K and Fantasy for a long while, I wanted to try historicals in this vein too.

Michael writes about and runs "Free Kriegspiel Revolution" games, mostly roleplaying but branching out into skirmish and even campaign wargames. FKR is named for the original Prussian Free Kriegspiel of 1862, but focuses on "lite" roleplaying games like these which have become increasingly popular in the last decade or so. The R sometimes stands for "revival" instead, denoting the simplicity of the very earliest RPGs played by Arneson, Gygax and company.

I turned out to be the only historical gamer in the group, but that didn't stop a few players from expressing interest in a new genre. Which was okay with me, since any games I play on the job will be focused as much on educating the players as on the rules. A fellow who calls himself Kir took the first slot.

I set up a table and two small armies, confined my gamer kitty to the bedroom, and signed on.

Here I learned that Discord has a voice function. I had intended to take photos and type up the results in a fluffy, gamemastery fashion that would allow other viewers to follow the game in Discord, with the fringe benefit of me not having to write as much of this battle report. Kir instead suggested the voice chat, and I'm glad he did, because this way I didn't have to move betwixt table and computer and back again. The game was conducted via my cell phone. It would be possible to do it with video as well, as Wargaming for Grown-ups has been doing with a variety of rulesets. In practice, and in part because I wanted the photos for Facebook and this blog post, we used the voice chat for communication and the camera for the "map".

Kir had not played historicals before and knew nothing of the period (1740s, since I was using my collection of '45 Wofun Paperboys). I linked him to Charles Grant's introductory Waterloo, available free via Archive.org. Two brief chapters provided useful and quick background on unit types and tactics, particularly the rock-paper-scissors feel of foot, horse, guns and their formation choices. However, Kir had to "unlearn" a bit when I explained that units forming square were not common or necessary before the Napoleonic Wars. I probably should have been ahistorical and used them anyway, but he was a willing pupil nonetheless. He was at least vaguely familiar with the Jacobite Wars and, in between turns, was apparently reading the Wikipedia entry on Culloden and gaining some inspiration from it. Even though none of the Scots on the table were of the Clans!

I also provided a basic ruleset (the Charge! variant I used in my first Battle of Sawmill Village), for guidance only. It provided the basic moves and an idea of relative capabilities and speeds. Instead of counting casualties, I determined to use the dice-comparing adjudication rule SCRUD (found in Wargames Illustrated 64 and a few other places) for any serious dice-rolling. In practice, I used it for a couple close combats, while the rest were either common sense or just a roll-off ("1-3 the cav stop and use their pistols, 4-6 they charge in.")

On to the report!

"Seventeen Forty-something, somewhere in Europe.."

British and French positions respectively: 

The British have (left to right) a dragoon regiment, a gun, grenadiers and Black Watch. The French have, in same order, Royal Ecossais, Dillon's Irish Regiment, a gun and French Horse (taken from the War of Spanish Succession collection). I explained to Kir that his cavalry might be unreliable, the grenadiers were his most elite and reliable troops, while the redcoat Highlanders didn't yet have the reputation they do now - they were "regular" but perhaps untried. Oh, and since most of the artillery-shifting was done by easily-terrified civilians at this time, he might have difficulty moving his gun once it got shot at. 

As for my chaps, the Irish and Ecossais had a long and valiant history and could be regarded as elite, while the rest were fairly solid "regulars." My memory failed me on the Ecossais, which I confused with the Swiss and French Guards; the Ecossais were formed long after the Irish Brigade and, while professional, were at this point elite only perhaps in comparison with the Highland clans they served with in the '45.

Then I offered him choice of where to place his general; he picked the grenadiers, with the intention of keeping them and the Highlanders together for leadership test purposes.

(Cumberland is pretty tiny beside his Life Guard, isn't he?)

Kir moved his cavalry around the field, moved his gun forward, and formed columns of his infantry, one of which headed for the hill to his right.

(Luckily, Kfira is not a gamer kitty. She observed with regal patience, and at one point tiptoed across the field without, to my surprise, knocking anything awry.)

My chaps marched straight forward, the Ecossais bunching up rather than go over the hill. This would prove a mistake. On the other hand, Kir was alarmed to see heavy horse coming his way...

And hastily formed into line, at which point he learned that infantry masks guns:

He was okay with this, however, and picked on the Irish regiment for the rest of the game. While I didn't know it yet, I was in trouble.

The Highlanders make it atop the hill. Though they're still in column, the grenadiers are still an easier, if pointy, target for the French Horse.

For the first time, Free Kriegspiel comes into play. Kir declared a charge on the still-forming Ecossais. I messed around with rulers doing quarter-moves to see if the infantry could fan out into line before the dragoons reached them, tossed a die (it came up a 1), and decided they were not ready to receive a charge. Even fame and status wouldn't help at this point.

I didn't even bother to roll after that. The dragoons burst through, shattering the expatriate Scots and causing severe casualties.

At this point, Kir learned that noble-born cavalry are a touch unreliable, and would take some time reforming. This was good for me, since the Irish would need time to turn their facing, and their cannon rolled another one and got stuck in the road whilst trying to point at the cavalry. Another roll to rally the Ecossais at this point failed and they disintegrated.

Meanwhile, my own charge against the stolid grenadiers and their general in command came to nothing. Since the French tended not to conclude charges in favor of using their pistols, I tossed a die with penalty and declared that they would swerve instead. Another die, for direction, decided "to the viewer's right." As they passed between the Highlanders on the hill and the hastily refusing flank of the grenadiers, they took musketry from both sides; I decided that range, lack of accuracy and the Highlanders firing downhill meant there was no chance of friendly fire. The cav, like their British counterparts, would also need time to turn around.

The British cavalry reformed, and made ready to attack the Irish. The gun still failed to fire; perhaps a rammer was stuck up the spout. Kir's own gun, incidentally, was continuing to fire at the Irish, disconcerting and slowing them if nothing else.

At the other end of the revolving door, my own cavalry prepared for another charge. It was here I explained to Kir that cavalry tired quickly, or at least their horses did. One more charge was all they could hope for at this point before exhaustion took its toll.

Kir asked at this point if the musketry smoke from his infantry was filling the low ground and blocking visibility between his units. I agreed, made a simple paper cloud, and cheerfully added that this only made his Highlanders' position worse - they couldn't even see their commander now, much less take direction from him. Said commander and his grenadiers were nicely refused now.

The British cavalry exchanged pistol fire with the Irish, who were still getting shot at by Kir's cannon.

Then, horrors - the French general got blown away by that annoying gun. If the Irish were disconcerted before...

(I rolled a lot of ones in this game. Next time I think I'll try the 2d6 method to provide a bell curve!)

The dragoons charged in, seeing their chance and daring the incompetent gun crew to blast them with canister. (They missed.) I used the SCRUD method for the second time in the game, rolling one die per base and comparing, and giving the dragoons an extra die.

Oddly, it didn't help, the Irish handily won almost all the matchups. Their elite status coming to the fore, perhaps.

I decided this meant a tie rather than an outright Irish victory; both sides would be nearing exhaustion, the one by getting incessantly shot at all game, the other by blown horseflesh and the strain of even a victorious charge.

Meanwhile, the French horse surged up the hill against the Highlanders, but their own tired horses balked at the end. After a desultory clash of sword on bayonet, the French swept away, back towards their baseline:

End game:

We ended the battle here. With one regiment destroyed, another exhausted, and a third retreating, I felt the French would fall back to fight another day. As for the British, they were mostly intact (save for their bloodied cavalry) and were sitting on the objective, the crossroads. So Kir won. Or, if we treat this as the roleplaying session it mostly was, he beat the scenario with me as GM.

Managing the game via Discord was far quicker and easier than I feared; I'd be happy to try it again, perhaps with more players. The course of the game still feels realistic to me, which is pretty much the point of a "lite" freestyle RPG; if the result makes sense, you don't really need the dice. More importantly, perhaps, the interaction allowed by voice chat was key to the session's success; Kir was a patient and eager opponent, and I really appreciate his playtesting help. I think he learned a lot, too, which is good from my perspective of wanting to use this style of game as a teaching tool for kids.

If you, too, would dare, please let me know:

Jennifer's Test Game Server

Happy INWarD!

Today is the birthday of Fred T. Jane, the father of naval wargaming and founder of Jane's Information Group. Naval wargamers have begun commemorating it as International Naval Wargames Day. My library system has a reprint collection of some of the early volumes, and I've had the 1906 volume (containing the original rules) in my office for years but never had the chance to try it. Or, more realistically, copy the ship drawings and use them for simpler games.

I was hoping to run Junior General's Hampton Roads scenario today at work, for two reasons:

a) it uses Jane's firing mechanism, AKA pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

b) I constructed the ships for it on the library's own 3D printer.

Unfortunately, I had a busy and tiring day at work. So I didn't get a game in. On the other hand, by the time I got home I was totally ready to blow something up.

Honestly, sometimes, that's my entire motive for gaming.

I broke out my box of erasers and a basic ruleset I wrote in ten minutes last decade and went to sea.

With blue and red erasers, they could represent Japanese vs. Russian in 1905, British vs. German in 1916, or Japanese vs. American in 1942. Not able to think up Japanese, Russian or German names on the spur of the moment, I started a war in 1905 between the Arizona Republic and Generic Britain.

The gunboat Nogales, destroyer Tucson, and light cruiser Phoenix.

The torpedo boat River, destroyer Flower, and armoured cruiser Town.

Turn 1 - River fires a speculative shot and knocks out Tucson's aft turret. It is repaired at end of turn. All other salvos miss.

Turn 2 - Town takes a torpedo hit from Nogales, whilst Tucson sinks River with a waterline hit. Don't annoy bigger ships! I leave River afloat as a navigation hazard. Phoenix retaliates with two hits on Town, taking out her after turret and two inches of speed. Flower brackets Nogales and knocks out both her weapons systems!

Turn 3 - Tucson hits Town's bridge! She's out of control for a turn. Then Phoenix closes to within knife-range of Flower, and knocks her out of control too!

Turn 4 - Both British ships fail to repair their bridges, so Flower is going straight into the wallowing wreck of River. I decide to count this as a ram, so Flower loses a point of waterline damage and River finally goes to the bottom. The cruiser Town has no choice but to move 6" forward. At least Tucson finally takes a waterline hit, and Town's sailors patch the torpedo hit in their hull.

Turn 5 - Town, not wanting to run off the edge of Discworld the table, slews to the side and fires into Tucson, knocking out both her guns. In exchange, Phoenix crosses Flower's T and scores three hits - one of them on the waterline, so Flower finally goes down. (Having already lost one of her two hit points by ramming her own sister.)

Turn 6 - Town, now desperate to get something out of this fight, fires point-blank into the disarmed Tucson to little effect other than slowing her down a bit. Meanwhile, Phoenix coasts across Town's after end and reopens the torpedo hole with a fierce salvo. The Town fires a last pathetic parting shot at Tucson and flees the area.

A bad day for the Queen of the Seas. Or night, maybe - I had the flash on for some of these photos. Perhaps the five-minute thunderstorms of the Arizona desert put in an appearance to boost their side?

It was a fun game, won more by luck than tactics on the part of the blue side, but exciting none-the-less. I had a couple thoughts about changes. The American gunboat got hit several more times in the weapons bays, even though she'd already lost them. Perhaps rearranging the damage chart and forcing moves up and down it is in order - that would also allow for smaller vs. bigger ships, such as lighter ones taking a -1 on the chart and heavier ones a +1 to account for the penetration of their weapons. I also considered giving torpedoes the chance of more damage (double rolls on the chart) and did do that for hits on the gunboats from larger ships - when I remembered to!

Ultimately, I think it was a successful game, and the damage chart added significant interest. I think kids would have gotten a kick out of it.

Back at work tomorrow, and have been asked to demonstrate Dungeons and Dragons to the teens; then Sunday I have a special experiment to try - Remote Free Kriegspiel Napoleonics!

More new books

 Just got in three new books from Dennis Shorthouse at On Military Matters, plus a couple PDFs.

The Men Who Would Be Kings - One of Osprey's "blue" series which feature their illustrations and some innovative rules. This is actually a replacement copy - I lost my first and recently found it in my car - under an soaked umbrella I'd stuffed in there months ago, thus wrecked. I hadn't actually played it much, because the turn mechanism - passing a morale check to do anything at all - was frustrating in my test games. (There are default actions to fall back on, but if your default is "shoot" and you are out of range, well...) My regular group was also not enamored of the possibility of their units doing nothing for turns on end - but more importantly are wedded to The Sword and the Flame.

(The abbreviation - TMWWBK - also doesn't roll from the tongue as easily as TSATF!)

But I asked recently about alternative mechanisms on Facebook's Colonial Wargames group, and got some useful suggestions. One is to allow moves regardless on a failed roll, just at lesser effect - say, the unit halves its move, only half get to shoot, etc. I like this, especially as I am likely to play with easily disappointed kids.

I also like its solo mechanism, "Mr. Babbage's Instructions." Mr. Babbage (named after one of the inventors of the computer - I might rename this "Miss Lovelace's Instructions" in my own games) is not present at the club, but has left very clear instructions for his opponent. They're very straightforward, though are focused on fighting between a so-called civilized force on one side and a massive ill-equipped horde on the other, and can provide a fun game to my knowledge.

Test of Resolve - A newish game specifically on the War of the Roses, not too deep into it yet. I know almost nothing about those save what little I gleaned from reading Shakespeare and watching Blackadder. Oh, and from Peter Dennis' WotR Paperboys book which, if I ever do play this, will provide the miniatures. (My adult group has expressed enthusiasm for my Paperboys and willingness to play with them, and WotR would be atypical for our group and thus hopefully intriguing.) It's a card driven game, and would benefit from a bespoke set rather than xeroxed - or maybe I can use card sleeves. Reminds me of another thing - Dennis' WoTR and 1066 rules are both gridded, which may be easier to get by bosses at work (looks more gamelike); but the cards even without the mechanism may be useful in a Free Kriegspiel-style game. (Two interesting inclusions are a Flabbergasted card to "supercharge" the next card drawn, and a Flummoxed card that allows the inactive player to take the rest of the active player's move.) If I do ever try to run a full-fledged game, I'll probably buy the cards and one of the available scenario books to choose from - I haven't read far enough yet to see how "pickup" games work.

Glory 1861 - A wargame with significant solo and roleplaying potential. I bought it on the strength of an "author's notes" article in Wargames Illustrated. I've already spotted one repeated paragraph, but the concept seems sound. You build an ACW regiment, rolling it up in the same way as a bespoke character in Dungeons and Dragons. The field officers receive traits, as do all companies and their captains, and all of these have game effects. Might be tricky to keep track of on the battlefield! I spotted an interesting combo of dice-holder and identification slot in a demo game of Test of Resolve and am looking for them on Thingiverse - I have access to a 3D printer at work. With cats at home and kids at work, I am not enthusiastic about tracking hit points on units with easily jounced or stolen dice.

This would be so useful.

So far, I've only found the die-box, with no little Scrabble tray attached.

The illustrations are nice, except for the cover which has an "uncanny valley" effect to me. The figures used for illustration seem almost toylike, but the best thing is a handful of color illustrations by the late Bob Marriott. I was introduced to his characterful style by some of Charles S. Grant's books.

One thing that seems askance is that it is assumed regiments will fight two engagements per month. (Engagements, as in DnD, are how you gain experience.) Seems unlikely - for example, the average three-month regiment fought, at most, one engagement, then went home. There are mechanisms for reenlisting, though the reinforcement mechanic is another problem; very few regiments reinforced much at all during the ACW, their states preferring just to raise more (and thus provide more patronage to potential officers). That meant they got steadily smaller over the course of the war. But the creation phase looks quite engaging. I recently read two histories of the US Regular Infantry in the Civil War, and am considering an eight-company "new battalion." This might be considered a bit "gamey," since the regiment starts with fifty building points and spends four on each company; this would leave me with nearly twice as many points as normal to give skills and abilities to my officers and units. On the other hand, that's appropriate for Regulars, who even in the newly raised units would have a core of peacetime vets. I could in that case use the reinforcement mechanisms, as they did take new enlistments to cover casualties. But I'll have to weaken them, since from what I've read a lot of officers spent more time recruiting than they did in camp, to very little effect because volunteer regiments provided bounties!

I'll have to experiment (of course), but I wonder if this "regimental character-building" would work for the Napoleonic era as well. It also reminds me of a game by Jim Wallman I've been itching to try ever since I discovered it, Over the Hills and Far Away, which is set in the 1740s and has even more roleplaying to it. Players are colonels spending money and influence to run their own regiments, but while there are occasional "expeditions," the social life of an British officer is the focus, complete with balls, races and weddings to attend, and the temptation of pocketing the pay of more troops than you've actually enlisted. There is much jockeying for position, with a bidding mechanism that determines whether your political influence goes up or down compared to your fellows. The combat mechanism is very simple, with no more than four bases needed per regiment - but how much of your limited time and money you spent on discipline, drill and shooting practice will definitely come into play. I would love to run this for my adult group, but am not sure they would sit still for a glorified RPG session - even if it is historical.

Secrets of Wargame Design - The last two books are by Wally Simon, compilations of a wide variety of articles on rules-writing. There are around ten volumes. I ordered the first because I like tinkering with rules myself and thought I could get some ideas; I ordered the ninth because it focuses on the English Civil War and has a basic ruleset in it. Also, it was available in PDF so I could get it faster while waiting for my physical order to arrive. I'll have to see if there are more!

It was worth it; I'm glad I made the purchases. At $20 USD, $16 for the PDF, they're a touch pricey for forty pages apiece, but are A4 size and with large type. Each seems to have around thirteen assorted articles drawn mostly from an old publication called the Potomac Wargamer's Review. I was first introduced to Wally by favorable mentions of his rules mechanisms in the Paperboys books, which use an interesting "three-card" method of initiative akin to that of TSATF, and by a couple articles found in the Wargamers Digests I mentioned in my first post on this blog. His writing style is infectious, very enjoyable if a little caustic. That's probably to be expected in someone who seemingly spent his life critiquing and tinkering with rules! They are also scattered with sketchy illustrations apparently done by himself; I was reading one article at the computer the other day when the table and terrain used to illustrate a scenario caught the eye of a coworker who asked if I was going to build that. (I do a lot of crafting at work, and a lot of my projects for kids are inspired or guided by wargames books, especially Games Workshop terrain from the days when they built it from scratch.)

The first volume has articles on card movement systems and sequences of play. I can already say these will be useful, because I am planning an almost RPG-like ACW skirmish based on Picacho Pass, fought near my hometown of Tucson in 1862 between just a dozen men on each side - basically a large gunfight rather than a real battle. While there are plenty of Wild West rules that would serve, I've been struggling to work out how initiative should be handled, in part because I can't guarantee how many players I'll have when I run it for my group. It could have anywhere from four to a dozen players, meaning anywhere from two to six figures for players to handle. Wally is very much against making players wait in the UGOIGO system, and seems to like allowing them to "break" the sequence in consequence. I wonder if this is why Games Workshop is so enamored of armor saves, as they give the inactive player something to do? Another related element he clearly hates is "gotcha" rules, which bypass saves or otherwise "pin" and frustrate the inactive player, allowing him no chance to make a difference to the game. I can definitely remember that happening in my 40K games!

He has some card-driven systems, and one thing that comes up (in Test of Resolve, too) is the decisions about how many and what type of cards players should be allocated.

- In TSATF, it's one card per unit; turn over a red and the "civilized" player moves or fires a unit, on a black the native player moves or fires. It uses a standard 52-card deck.

- In Test of Resolve, the cards are specific to the game, with one that lets you move all three of your "battles" (the three main portions of your army), three that let you select just one battle to move, three that let your firing units fire or reform, etc. Each side has its own deck, they mix together, and initiative turns over when an opposing card appears.

- Wally tested a number of others, such as (in a Wild West skirmish) assigning each gunfighter a mix of shoot-n-move or blank cards, with more or less of each depending on their ability. You could go more granular than this, with very specific cards for movement, shooting and melee by specific characters, but then the players would get bored waiting for their card to turn up!

The main things I need to think about in my Picacho Pass scenario are initiative (who moves, fires and fights when) and not making players wait for their move. Luckily, there are numerous possible mechanisms suggested in these articles, and the volumes will reward careful rereading. I hope to run the game for my group around its 160th anniversary early next year, and expect to post more as I prepare it. In particular, I hope to playtest it at work, so mechanisms that don't bore or disappoint kids are a must!

Free Kriegspiel: Gaming from the seat of your pants

After my second try at a wargame with the classic "buckets-o-dice" adjudication, I'm looking for simpler ways to play - especially ones that can be easily understood by children. One such method is known as Free Kriegspiel.

I've been asked in the comments what the hell that is. It's basically loose dungeon mastering - yes, in the same style as Dungeons and Dragons. But the way the Prussians did it.

We don't usually think of the Prussians as willing to accede to the whim of a game master, but they're the ones who invented it. Standard Kriegspiel, as published first in 1824 by the von Reisswitzes (father and son), basically had pages and pages of comprehensive rules. This is Teutonic, of course, and all very realistic, but if you're not careful as you try to improve the game, you'll eventually end up with something unplayable.

We all tinker with our favorite rulesets - that's the fun of the hobby. I think all gamers have experienced the urge - and the danger - of adding complexity to their favorite rules. Classically, it came to a head with the hex-and-counter game Battle for North Africa and the Star Trek wargame Star Fleet Battles.

One takes a month for ten players to complete if they spend all their waking hours playing (God forbid a cat jumps on the table), and has an infamous rule that requires the Italians to expend more water on cooking their pasta rations.

The other has textbook-thick rules and a meme order: "Legal Officer to the Bridge!"

Kriegspiel was never quite that bad, but the rules were complex enough to get to the point where simulating a battle took longer than the actual battle. Also, games bogged down when they got to close quarters; we've all experienced a situation where three units on each side are in combat, all overlapping each other, one elite, one militia, one cavalry, all armed with different weapons, and the center of the battlefield turns into an absolute snarl. There's a reason the close-combat rules often take up more pages than the rest (and in role-playing and skirmish games, attacks of opportunity and grappling!) - there are more "edge-cases" to consider.

This was okay so long as Kriegspiel was treated as an instructional tool; by the time troops got to close quarters it was usually obvious who had won anyway, as one side would be flanked, outnumbered or otherwise clearly at a disadvantage.

So the rules worked all right, but there were dangerous signs. One was that players ended up focusing on the rules and minutiae rather than the game. Today we call this rules-lawyering, but it's also a sign that the game has lost its true purpose - education for professionals, fun for the rest of us. Professional wargames are not about winning - they are about identifying organizational issues and improving group communication. Anything that detracts from that makes the game less useful as a tool.

By the 1860s, the Prussian staff was fed up. A chap named Francois von Verdy simplified the rules. His conclusion was revolutionary: Why bother looking up tables and counting modifiers when the umpire (roleplayers would call him a game master) is experienced- and educated enough to answer the question himself? 

He does have to be educated and interested; you don't want him pronouncing results on something outside his expertise, or becoming bored. This is why the GM needs to know the rules, or at least the norms and basic organizations of the period in question. The point is that the players don't.

He can just lean over the table, suck his teeth for five seconds, and announce, "Well, the fresh Second Jager are flanking the First Uhlans, and the Uhlans have charged twice already this game so their horses are probably tired. They withdraw for ... let's say two moves."

The Uhlan player, at this point, is indignant - he's certain that Uhlans could charge three times in an hour and still be fairly effective. But it's actually not that big a deal, because a) this is only one battalion out of twenty on the field and b) this is something that would likely (not absolutely, but likely) happen in a real action. We don't need to check three tables and roll percentage dice to determine that the Jagers killed exactly thirteen Uhlans and are precisely 155 yards away; we just need to know that the Uhlans withdrew.

Here's another example, from a Warhammer 40,000 RPG:

This is just one half-page out of eight pages of critical hit tables, covering four body areas and four types of damage.

Do we really need that much?

Here's how I simplify the Dark Heresy crit tables:

Roll a D10.

1-3: Minor; bleeding, bruising, stunned etc. Take penalties to appropriate rolls at GM's option.

4-6: Serious: severe bleeding, loss of extremities, etc. Take penalties or lose a turn at GM's option.

7-8: Critical: bleeding out, loss of limbs, etc. At GM's option, roll against toughness to retain consciousness or just not die.

9: Die.

10: Die messily.

For everything else, I can make up my own effects according to the situation. I know how to describe a leg getting blown off by a bolter shell; I don't need to read it from the book. (Though granted, it is hilarious.)

I'm not tied to this, either; I can "read the room" and change things up according to the mood of the players. Maybe I feel that the poor player who just rolled an eight should be able to have a second wind, grit his teeth, and keep fighting. Or that the guy who rolled a minor injury actually got briefly knocked out because the enemy are throwing bricks at him. (This can also be catered for with appropriate bonuses or penalties to the roll.) While GMs should be consistent, they should also be ready to pick the most exciting option to keep the game going and interesting.

With this method, I can get through the same amount of gaming in an hour that most GMs get through in five.

But I haven't tried it in large-scale wargaming yet.

For some good examples of Free Kriegspiel RPGs, that could work in a pinch as the basis of one-to-one skirmish wargames, please check out this previous post. A future post will discuss my thoughts on running such games at a larger scale.

A basic, beginner's naval wargame

I wrote this ruleset a few years ago, but haven't playtested it much. It's designed for children and beginners, loosely inspired by some of the all-too-vague ones in Featherstone's Naval Wargames, and the "eraser" ships available from some "discount stores" which Man of Tin also uses. This is only lightly historical, and the categories could easily be changed up (say, torpedo boat, destroyer and cruiser for pre-WWI, or destroyer, light cruiser and cruiser for WWII games in the Mediterranean or Solomons).

I'm undecided what to do with the oversized and modern submarines - they might work as late 19th-century rams.

A fuzzy wartime photo - the Blue squadron crosses the T of the Red. A Red destroyer makes a sacrificial torpedo run. To the northeast, the fallen Colossus of Pathes is visible.

Players take turns activating a single ship at a time. 

Each ship has a full speed of 8" (12" for destroyers) and has one shot from each working turret – four for battleships, two for cruisers, one for destroyers. It need not take its full move each turn, but must move at least two inches if possible. 

A turn of 45 degrees may be made halfway or more through the move (ie, after 2" if moving 4", etc). Shots may be taken at any time during the move. 

Gun range is 36" and 6 to hit at long range, 24" and 5+ mid range, 12" and 4+ short range.  

Turret arcs:        Forward turrets may fire forward, port or starboard. 

Aft turrets may fire aft, port or starboard. 

Destroyers also carry torpedoes, which have a range of 18", one shot per turn, firing arc to port or starboard, and hit on a 4+. They always hit below the waterline, in addition to rolling for damage.

If hits are scored, dice for each. Roll twice for destroyers if hit by heavier ships. 

1 – below the waterline.  Battleships may take three hits, cruisers two, destroyers one – then they sink. 

2-3 – engine room. Speed reduced by 2”. 

4-5 - turret or torpedo-tube destroyed, choose which randomly and note on sheet. 

6 - Bridge hit. Ship out of control for next turn, continues at previous speed and may not turn or shoot.  If hit again, out of control for an extra turn. 

Ramming inflicts one point of waterline damage to each ship; ramming ship halts and may not move until rammed ship has moved past. 

If a ship moves at half speed or less into shallow water or the shore, it is aground and may not move, though it may continue to fire.  If it was moving faster when it struck, it sinks. 

At end of move, roll a die for each damaged ship.  On a 6, one damage result may be repaired (or, in the case of speed, 2" of movement may be returned). 

The Second Battle of Sawmill Village

 Having exhausted my dice in close combat, I'm repeating the game under Junior General rules. Units fight as bases and are six bases strong. As this post explains, I'm having each base stand in for two, with casualty figures to indicate odd numbers remaining. I also took fewer photos; let's try for a shorter battle report.

The rules are those in Junior General's Saratoga scenario - it has light infantry and Built-Up Area rules.

I decided to treat the first battle as the first step of a campaign, so since the French won, they start in the village and the British must come onto the field. I used different units (the originals were badly battered by the action) and also tried Charles Grant's units for his second run-through. So instead of three infantry regiments and a gun, each side had a light infantry regiment replacing one of the line regiments.

This is a good thing, since two light infantry regiments is all I've got.

The British side are the 43rd Scots, the Yorbourne Grenadiers, the 1st Loyal Highland Company and a gun, commanded by Brigadier Smith.

The Franco-Scots are the Bulkeley Regiment, Royal Ecossais, Border mercenaries and a gun, under General de Brigade Forgeron. 

The Franco-Scots hold the village with the Borderers and the gun; the regular French units will march to their assistance later, rolling a 6 on the first turn, a 5+ on the second, etc, until they both arrive.

The Brits come on in the first two turns, starting with the Highland Company.

After turn 1, the British skirmish line is halfway to the village. The French gun's line of sight is good, but out of range.

After two turns, they're even closer, but musketry range is 6", so still no firing. The Royal Ecossais come on in response to messages from the garrison, accompanied by their brigadier. As the skirmishers move at 6", the British troops follow suit and shake into line.

On the third turn, the British come into musket range, and the Highland Company's fire into the village is deadly accurate.

On the fourth, the French form into line on the left and all fire goes into the skirmishers. 17 dice and a single six to hit! The British skirmishers move to their right to give the line regiments room to charge. The battle goes poorly - despite outnumbering, having the general present, and a grenadier unit, the desperate mercenary Scots drive the British back!

On the other hand, the British gun is in position to pour fire into the village. The Scots are punished for their resistance.

Then the French line go in. Ecossais and Bulkeley, the cream of the foreigners in French service, drive the Highland Company off. 

The British gun would seem to be in trouble at this point. The Irish wheel to take it in flank ... but they fail their morale check to charge, obviously daunted by the thought of a charge of canister in the face. Instead, the gunners blast the village again, which is probably well and truly afire at this point as the skirmishers are driven out!

The British line march back into the fight, but the 43rd Highlanders take a volley from the Ecossais. The Irish pluck up courage and charge into the British gun. The luck of the Irish is with them as the gun misses! Impressively, the gunners pass morale and then hold their ground in melee.

The 43rd desperately charge the Ecossais, settling old scores with fellow Scots in the melee and their commanders urging them on. The exiles lose this one, but the Wild Geese nearby manage to eliminate the English gun.

At this point, the British have taken severe casualties, including a precious cannon. But the French have lost their skirmishers and the village. Generals Smith and Forgeron exchange haughty nods across the field. There will be another day.

A much faster and simpler game than my last try. I made enough mistakes and reversed decisions, though, that I'm even more interested in Free-Kriegspiel style now. Every game provides new ideas and seeds for the next.