Design for Glory: 4th Battalion, 19th US Infantry

 At the rate I'm snipping and gluing, it'll be a while before I have a paper regiment ready to play Glory:1861. But that needn't stop me from designing it. Glory:1861 is deliberately similar to roleplaying games in that the "character" of the regiment is paramount. Its background, skills and experience all must be determined both beforehand and in the course of play. And character creation is a key part of any RPG; it is in fact a lead-in to play, because the mere act of rolling dice and writing down the results feels like play to newbies.

I chose to build a (fictional) US regular battalion because I recently read two volumes about the Regulars in the Civil War. These were That Body of Brave Men, on the Regular Brigade in the West, and Sykes' Regular Infantry Division 1861-1864, on the Regular Division in the East. 

These were both formed from newly raised infantry regiments, the 11th through 19th, authorized in 1861 to, in theory, triple the size of the US Army. This was because, instead of the ten-company, single-battalion organization of the first ten US Infantry regiments and the militia which became the US Volunteers, they were composed of three eight-company battalions. In practice, not only were 27 battalions never raised, but the ones that were rarely got up to eight companies or even full strength. Both books spend considerable pages on the extreme difficulty of recruiting for the regular army:

• Volunteer regiments had lighter discipline, better promotion prospects, and a commonality of culture as troops were from the same state.
• Volunteer regiments paid more, particularly from mid-war as bounties appeared and the draft encouraged more to enlist.
• Officers had to leave the battalion for extended periods to raise troops, train them and transport them back to the battalion, leading to a paucity of leadership in the active elements of the unit.

On the other hand, they had greater esprit de corps and experience based on their prewar officer and NCO corps, and (unlike most volunteer regiments) actively recruited and reinforced so that rookie troops were backed by stolid veterans. This made them somewhat more reliable than volunteers.

While normally regiments start off as green, there is an option to make regulars "competent" rather than poor or inexperienced. This appears to require nine months experience and five training bonuses. Initial upgrades may apply to the entire regiment, but future ones are purchased by company.

A battalion has eight companies, at four points per company. The field officers cost two points, and the standard bearer and drummer will cost two more, for a total of 36 points spent and 14 left over, which I'll spend on training bonuses and other characteristics, including rerolls. This will also come out to thirty-three eight-man bases (one of them a command base), and two individual officer bases. There is a free band available at helion.com, so I might build one and count it as the musician and the command base as the standard bearer.

Basically I'm losing two companies and one field officer (the battalion would not have a colonel), in exchange for better quality. The field officers (let's call them Lt. Col. Smith and Major Jones) begin with the following characteristics:

Command range of 18", Initiative of 4, and Combat Experience of 2. Since I only have the two officers, I'm going to roll to improve their command range. Smith's increases to 27". (Given my small figure scale and table, I'll probably reduce distances - perhaps to cm rather than inches.)

Each also receives one random characteristic on a D66 chart. I roll 45 for Smith and 15 for Jones. Smith is Humanitarian, meaning that no company may be Unrestrained, and Jones is Wheezy, meaning he must rest for one turn in every five. He must be pretty old, or maybe he got shot in the chest with an arrow during the Seminole Wars.

The battalion has eight companies, A through H, and of course eight Captains to command them. Each rolls on a quality table.

• A - Captain Able (Useless Slow)
• B - Captain Baker (Slow Overeager)
• C - Captain Carle (Overeager)
• D - Captain Doggett (Useless Heroic)
• E - Captain Easy (Useless Slow)
• F - Captain Fox (Tolerated)
• G - Captain Goff (Tolerated)
• H - Captain Howell (Tolerated)

Useless means a 1/3 chance of orders being ignored. Slow means an extra turn for orders to be followed. Tolerated means no bonus or detriment, and Overeager means that a unit taking a morale test may advance 2d6". Out of eight dice, I rolled a four or better once. I'll pay two points for four rerolls: 2, 6, 4 and 2. That upgrades Able and Easy to Slow, Baker to Overeager and Doggett becomes the only competent CO in the battalion, with a +1 to morale throws.

Next, I need to characterize the companies. Cowardly companies have -2 to morale throws, Reluctant ones require a field officer nearby to advance, Resolute has no effect, and Unrestrained, like Overeager, provides a chance of advancing further. As my CO is Humanitarian, I reroll Unrestrained. I also rerolled D Company's result, leaving me with ten points; out of twenty dice so far, I've rolled a single 5.

• A - Reluctant
• B - Unrestrained Resolute
• C - Resolute
• D - Cowardly Resolute
• E - Reluctant
• F - Reluctant
• G - Resolute
• H - Unrestrained Cowardly Fired Up

Now to training upgrades. Initial ones may apply to the entire regiment; after the first game they apply only to individual companies. So best use them now. Based on the sample regiments provided, I'll choose:

• Move - units always move at least 3" per die.
• Rally - unit can attempt to rally in one phase.
• Load - reloading takes one phase.
• Fire - bonus on firing modifier.
• Fix/remove bayonet - Unit can ... fix or remove bayonets.
• Skirmish Order - Unit can skirmish.
• Close Order - Unit can ... move in close order.

Out of points now.

The regiment, being US Regulars, is one of the only types that can choose rifled muskets, so gets the 1855 Springfield:

This provides greater range.

Beyond the Session Zero "character creation" phase, I've cut out twenty-one bases today to attach the paper figures to. Still inching forward... Even at 30mm wide, 32 bases will stretch the limits of my five-foot table. Need to think about increasing my table space.

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.

Brawner's Farm, Fields of Honor, and remote gaming

 I had the opportunity today to play a remote ACW game, representing the action of Brawner's Farm, August 28, 1862. It was against Ivan Edwards, and presented by Jon Freitag of the Palouse Wargaming Journal. 

I was particularly eager to try this for two reasons. 1) As a librarian, I want to learn about remote gaming, as live programming is off-limits at my workplace for the foreseeable future. 2) I got to play the Iron Brigade, which I am building in paper for a try at Glory: 1861. (They'll represent a US Regular battalion, being in the same uniform.) In between rolls, I was cutting out more strips; I seem to like doing something with my hands while conversing on Zoom.

In both cases, I was fully satisfied.

The American Civil War was the genesis of my interest in history; I visited Gettysburg at the age of six and bought my first copy (of three!) of the Golden Book History of the Civil War, which had these awesome maps in it:

I agree with another blogger that this is the most influential
book on the Civil War, and for the same reason.

But while I became an amateur authority on the Civil War in first grade, Brawner's Farm, a sort of prequel to Second Bull Run, was never on my radar. The first I learned about it was from A Brotherhood of Valor by Jeffry D. Wert, which I read last year and is a parallel history of the Stonewall and Iron Brigades. Brawner's Farm was the latter's baptism of fire.

It was also my baptism of fire into wargaming online, and the ruleset Fields of Honor, as ably gamemastered by Jon Freitag. I've been following Jon both on his own blog and on Wargaming for Grownups, where he also participates in remote games as well as running his own. He was concerned about this particular game because the figures are only 10mm, so this was a bit of an experiment for him as well as for us.

The field of battle.

I played the Union, which is why this view has them at the "bottom." The Iron Brigade (Gibbon's) is to the right, Doubleday's to the left, one battery in the center and three more to the right off-camera. It took a while before I got used to taking screenshots, and I'm sure Jon's own report will have much better pictures. He was taking closeups, and while he had a "floating" webcam for closeups we never actually used it. Which suggests that the overhead system worked well. Even at the small figure scale, the Union units are easily identifiable.

Union right flank, first turn,

Here the Iron Brigade has moved off the road (but still sheltered by the woods, which turned out to have the same light-cover designation as the fence lines). Artillery is also visible, and exchanging fire as the Rebels started with only artillery on the board. The small base behind an infantry regiment represents the brigade commander, while the guns have limbers. Each gun base represents a section of two cannon, with three making a battery with appropriate bonuses to rolls. The Rebels got bonuses for having two batteries in the same hex, as their standard size was four guns rather than six.

Doubleday's brigade on the left also moves off the road.

After turn two, the flank Rebel guns are eliminated,
but infantry reinforcements are coming on table.

Units are rated by weapon type (muskets, rifles, smoothbore or rifled guns, howitzers) and morale rating. This last provides bonuses to D10 rolls and saves. I had a Union-blue sparkly ten-sider (picked up at Supercon a couple weeks ago) which I ended up rolling for most everything and was remarkably lucky at shooting and saving throws, to the point that I wouldn't have blamed my opponent or the GM for being suspicious. It should be noted, however, that the "standard" throw in these rules is 5+, and the Iron Brigade all got +1.

"Rebels, Sir! Thousands of 'em!"

By turn three, I'd moved the Iron Brigade into the defensible position of the trees, and advanced Gibbons up the table, but my left-hand artillery were still out of position. I am easily torn by dilemmas, which can be frustrating for my opponents as I take forever to choose. Here I could leave my guns in the open, but masked by Gibbon's infantry. Or I could move them slowly into the woods, where they would be in cover but even less able to contribute.

The center holds, as an attack on Brawner's Farm develops.

As it turned out, it was possible for them to move through the woods and unlimber in a turn, so I moved them that way. It also turned out they were howitzers and could fire on the now-occupied farm, even though it was beyond the "military crest." Negatives to the roll, of course. As the two farms were the game objectives, and my guns held the one on the right, my intent was to bombard Brawner's, take it with infantry, and hold it against all comers.

Unfortunately, the Rebels had more troops, and they were closer to the farm than I was.

"Up and onward o'er the slope
Comrades lie around me slain"
-- Alasdair MacDonald

I also tried sending a regiment after the last guns on my right:

If it weren't for my lucky Union die, this would have been suicidal.

This turned out to be the Second Wisconsin, about to write a fictional page in history no less incredible than the one they actually wrote on the day.

They charged down the guns, and on the way took a charge of canister and the shared volleys of no less than five Confederate regiments. With their commander, they had a good saving throw - but they had to make around fifteen saves.

It helped that, in these rules, the firing side must effectively be behind its target to enfilade it. (Jon will change this for the next go-around.) The Second didn't make every save - but they didn't fail any either until the very last volley.

Gibbon's Brigade at this time was trying desperately to take Brawner's farm in the center-left. Both combats went on for another two phases, and still failed to dislodge the Rebels. In the end, I was driven back.

Charges on both flanks ultimately failed.

My Union-blue die was lucky only so long as I was rolling for firing and saves from firing. In melee, it choked every time.

I can't really blame the dice. I really did overextend myself. The end result:

My center is okay, but I hold nothing else save the farm.
And what's that to the upper right?...

We gave up at this point. The Rebs can be seen sweeping around my left. My right is still free, but the fresh Rebel brigade in the corner is in marching column. They will probably reach their second, winning, objective (my guns in the right-hand farm) before my battered Iron Brigade can get there. My gambles had failed.

I was way outnumbered, of course!

The game was a fine test of the rules, and of remotely playing a game on this scale. I certainly learned a bit. From my own perspective, hoping to GM games like this myself, I have greater understanding of what it takes to present the game to the players. By the end even my slow mind was internalizing the rules, but Jon's GMing practically made that unnecessary. He provided options and provided the targets for rolling. He also did some of the rolling himself; I might use something like rolldicewithfriends.com for a game like this. In an educational sense, this game worked because the players didn't need to think about the mechanisms, and could focus on our maneuvers.

Ivan commented that it felt more like a boardgame than a wargame, and I'm inclined to agree. This is mostly, I think, because of the top-down view and the fact we rarely used closeups; the units (each of three elements) look more like blocks than like groups of figures. Gamewise this is not a bad thing, but it's a bit cautionary for me; if I try something like this it will be with Paperboys, which I suspect from overhead will be virtually unidentifiable. A lower angle, something like my earlier FKR game may be better, especially because the figures are what I hope will most interest and attract my newbie players.

Closeups:

Iron Brigade at the fence.

The Confederate view.

It also felt like the divisional game it was, because from the player's view we couldn't identify our regiments - their names and stats were visible to Jon but not us. We saw them as brigades, and the simple game mechanisms supported this. At this scale, the commander cares less about his units' formation, range, cover, etc and more about the overall effect - Did I win or lose? How well or badly? (This is the same way I run simple roleplaying games - it works just as well on a small scale!) Paddy Griffith discusses this in his book Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun, which notably uses the same four elements to represent a regiment, brigade or division, and decreases the battle resolution as games grow "larger."

A good, fun game that wound up in around three hours. Well done to Jon, and congratulations to my opponent, Ivan! Jon gave the impression he will run this again with some modifications; maybe I'll try it again and see if I can do better. See you then.

Glory:1861, and slow progress

 I spotted a cartoon on Facebook today. It was of an inchworm. The caption was something along the lines of, "Even the smallest step forward ... is still a step forward."

I bring this up because that's how I tend to do wargaming projects. I force myself to do something. Anything, just to progress. Even if it's only one step towards the end.

I've been doing that lately.

These are "ACW18s" - 18mm Paperboys by Peter Dennis. They're smaller and more numerous than in his original 28mm Civil War book published by Helion, which I also have. Given the size of my gaming table, however, the 18s work well and don't need resizing (though there is some automatically, given that they are designed for A4 paper and I am in the US where the slightly-smaller 8.5x11 inch is standard).

I have several projects in mind for these chaps. One I am eager for is a version of Fort Wagner and the 54th Massachusetts as depicted in the film Glory. The ACW18 collection includes fortress elements that can be worked to resemble the fort, and it would be appropriate for Black History Month in February. Rules and even presentation are up in the air; at the rate we're going I might have to try running the game over Zoom, which is one reason I hope to join in on some of Jon Freitag's games at the Palouse Wargaming Journal blog. I've also been following online games at Wargaming For Grownups, which Jon has participated in.

Another project, and the point of this blog post, is Glory:1861.

I see an Uncanny Valley effect to this cover.
I think it's Stonewall Jackson, but vaguely disturbing.
Granted, TJ himself was vaguely disturbing...

Glory:1861 has strong overtones of a roleplaying game, because the pre-game phase of "building" your army (a ten-company-strong infantry regiment) is intricate and absorbing. The author recommends using singly-based figures: four per company, plus three field officers, two color-bearers and a musician, for 46 models. But the rules are model-agnostic, and it's entirely possible to use four multi-bases to represent a company - also more representative, as you could use 6mm figures in bases of twenty to represent every man in the unit. I've chosen a happy medium - four bases of eight men each, on 30x20mm bases. Peter Dennis' 18s are intended for groups of around 14 to a 40mm base; but I've become used to eight 18s on a 30mm base due to collecting many Wofun figures, which reduce Peter's 28mms nicely and are small enough to play an almost-normal battle on my small table. (I'll talk space and size when I get to trying Peter's English Civil War rules!)

This means that I need forty (count 'em) bases of troops. One strip of nine is enough to make one base.

Well, actually, I need thirty-two, as I am planning this first regiment to be US Regulars. Hence the choice of Iron Brigade figures. The "new" regiments formed by the US Army at the start of the Civil War were, unusually, of three battalions rather than one, and of eight companies each rather than ten. The 11th through 19th US Regulars thus were battalions. This means my "regiment" will be smaller than normal, but that also means I have more room to trick it out.

As a roleplayer, I can affirm that one of the best parts of RPGs is creating characters - even ones you never get to play. "Statting up" fictional characters - James T. Kirk, Indiana Jones, Gandalf - is practically a cottage industry, and arguments abound online about what feats and abilities this or that character should accurately have. Luckily, there weren't many famous regiment commanders during the American Civil War, at least early on as Glory:1861 is limited to. And the commanders don't have all that many bonuses - at the beginning.

So at least I'll be able to design the regiment before it ever takes to the field. Not to mention its opponent. 

I'll have to, because as I implied way back at the beginning of this post, my building rate is slow.

I have seventeen strips cut out. And most of the bases folded and glued.

I'm cutting out roughly one or two strips a day, mostly while watching Youtube.

And after that, I'll need to cut each in half (carefully trimming around the edges). Then attach each half to a base. Then paste each base to a 20x30mm bit of card. Then make a command base and two officers (major and lieutenant colonel).

And then go through the same process for a Confederate regiment.

See where I'm coming from?

And with Paperboys, this is lightning-fast compared to the traditional method of buying and assembling metal or plastic, undercoating, painting, basing... Even with Peter's lovely art to look at, and the relaxing process of assembly, there's a reason I purchase figures ready-to-play.

A decade ago, I'd probably have given up on a project like this. At the rate I'm going, it'll be the turn of the year before I have enough completed to try a game. But that's no longer the point.

I may never play. That's certainly my end goal, but if you've read this far you know I'm so easily distracted I can barely stick to one century, much less one game system. But that's alright, because the journey is the destination.

There are games where I do have a specific endgame (heh) planned, complete with deadline. My Picacho Pass scenario, for example; I would like to run it for my group in April of next year, exactly 160 years after the actual battle. A battle for Black History Month next February is another goal; at some point I'll need to pick either Olustee or Fort Wagner, buckle down and go at it.

Glory:1861 is different. While I might demo it for my adult group at some point, it's more of a solo project. And one of the nice things about solo projects is that you can take them at your own pace. The roleplaying aspect only accentuates this; design and planning is half the fun!

So, actually, is writing this blog post. I could have spent the last hour cutting out several more strips of paper soldiers, but instead I'm doing this. The gaming hobby is so much more than just throwing down on the tabletop. I relearned that today when I directed a boy to Dewey 793 on the library shelves, where I found him three books on Minecraft and two on Dungeons and Dragons. He may not be playing tonight, but I bet he's reading.

And dreaming of his next project.

Test of Resolve ... test

Having a quiet Sunday and decided to try Test of Resolve, a War of the Roses-specific ruleset with some simple but innovative mechanics.

I'm trying the first scenario in the book. Each side has five units of two bases each; two archers, two retinue (billmen) and one household (men at arms, includes command base). Household are rated Superior, the others Average. Each melee unit has four Resolve Points, each archer unit three. I mark these with dice.

I kept pausing to post questions on the Test of Resolve Facebook page; luckily several members and one author lurked, ready to answer them swiftly. Great community!

I start the game with a play deck of mixed red and blue cards relating to each side. The first two cards drawn are red. The first, Move and Melee, means I can move all units D12", and fight at the end of the move if possible. Since the units are 20" apart, that won't happen. I rolled one inch. The second card is Milling Around, which means just what it says.

• Next, Blue gets a go. Another Move and Melee; one battle only, but as there is only one battle (ie division) on the board... I roll a three. 

• Next, Red draws an Event card (which it turns out is only for special scenarios, so I ignore it) and a Missile Supply Card. I roll eight, and the Red archers still have plenty of arrows to shoot with. Then Red draws Flabbergasted!, which impacts the next card: Milling Around, which changes to Move and Melee. I roll six, and the Red battle surges forward. I'm now in shooting range. Then I draw Flummoxed! This normally means that the inactive side (Blue in this case) gets to use the next three Red cards, but that was actually the last one.
• Blue's next and only card is Flabbergasted, which effectively makes it "dead" as there are no more Blue cards to boost with it.
• Red draws a Fire/Strengthen Resolve card. Time to try the shooting rules. My two "wide" companies are 11" out, so roll at -1. They target the enemy archers and roll 9+ to hit, but both miss.
• Blue goes next, with Move/Melee and a roll of 8". Interpenetration is allowed, but there's not quite enough room for the melee troops behind the archers to pass through, so I nudge up to the 9" standoff line. My command base fits neatly between the archers, though this makes it a target for Red... Blue gets two more cards; the first Fire and the second Move and Melee. Both volleys miss again.  I roll 8" for the move and pass the melee troops through the archers, then reform the archers into "mass" formation (losing 3" of movement, but that's okay as they're now behind the melee guys anyway.
• Red archers fire now, at close range but still -1 for targets wearing plate armor, and miss. Bugger this for a game of soldiers. 
• Blue draws a Fire/Strengthen Resolve (but no targets at the moment) and a Flummoxed!.
• Red Move/Melees 4"; the archers, fed up, reform into mass formation.
• Blue draws Move/Melee, for two inches, then End Turn. Time to shuffle the deck.

So close!

• Red draws Move/Melee. At an inch apart, no need to roll. Let's get stuck in.

In the first combat, two retinue units face off. The Red side gets +1 for Shock (attacking) and rolls 12 to Blue's 10, thus winning by three and causing one Resolve Point loss. OK.

In the second, the Household companies collide, but Red is attacking, Superior and Outnumbering, so rolls at +3 to Blue's +1. Blue rolls a 12, Red a 6. 13-9 is 4, so Red's Household loses one RP.

The third is retinue vs. retinue again, with Red outnumbering, so +2. Red rolls 6 and Blue 8; tied.

Better resolve this fight quickly!

Losing companies take Resolve Tests. For the Superior Red Household, I need to roll a one or better, +1 for Superior, +1 for Commander present and -1 for losing one RP. Natural ones auto-fail. I pass with a five. The Blue Retinue is average, so rolls with -1, thus needing 2+. I rolled 7.

Each side loses one Morale Point for each Resolve Point lost; both are down to 10. Down to zero and you break.

If melees are not ongoing, the loser can Turn Tail or fight another round. Let's try the latter.

First combat: Blue is at -1 for having lost a Resolve Point, but rolls a 9 to Red's 8. Ongoing.

Second combat: Outnumbering and Superior Red rolls 11(+2) to Superior Blue's 6(+1). Beaten by 6, Blue loses two RP. They need a 2+ for resolve, +1 for Superior and -2 for RP loss, so 3+, and roll a 12.

Third combat: Red outnumbers Blue but lost a Resolve Point last turn - straight roll off. Blue rolls 8 to Red's 3; Red loses 1 RP. Red requires 2+ for resolve, -2 for lost resolve, so 4+, and also rolls a 12!

Blue now has eight Morale Points, Red nine. Let's have the Blue command company Turn Tail, D12 inches - 11! That's not good, but at least the enemy mayn't catch up. The other combats go on. Since companies that win may pivot, Red flanks the combats to either side.

First combat: Blue loses by one due to being flanked and outnumbered; ongoing. Third combat: Red wins by three thanks to the flanking and outnumbering, so Blue loses another point. They pass the 2+ Resolve roll easily. Blue is down to seven Morale Points.

This is becoming a slog, so I'm going to have both Blue units Turn Tail and try to open this game up again. They roll low and must go around the archers behind them, so settle down not far away.

• Not positive at this point what happens, I return to drawing cards. Luckily Blue gets to move and melee next. Turning around costs three inches, and I rolled a six. This enables the melee chaps to form into line, facing forward, behind the archers, who charge in to flank the Red troops who are caught flat-footed. Them's the breaks.

One archer unit tackles the enemy Superior Plate-Armoured command, so that'll be a straight roll-off. Oh, except the command company lost an RP earlier, so is actually at -1! The other Blue archers hit Red archers, at effectively +2 for flanking and Shock. 

In the Archer-Archer combat, Blue rolled 10 and Red 1! That's Red eliminated AND down three Morale Points. In the Archer-Command combat, Red wins by two despite the -1. Morale Points are six-all. The Blue Archers retreat three inches.

• Red's turn to fire and Strengthen Resolve. Neither unit is in a position to fire, so let's check out the Strengthen Resolve Table:

There doesn't seem to be a way to flip this; sorry!

The command base passes and gets a point back; the archers were at -2 and rolled a 9, so failed.

• Next, Blue passes a Missile Supply check, and then gets to Strengthen Resolve; Blue command gets a point back.
• Red Mills Around, then Moves and Melees. The combats are inconclusive, but Blue loses another point.

More combat. Each side loses a point. We're at four (Blue) to five (Red) Morale here. I think. Several units retreat. Red draws a Strengthen Resolve card, but the retreating archers roll a one and thus are eliminated. At this point the (second!) turn mercifully ends.

The sides are tied for morale, but Red has lost all its archers and Blue is still down four Resolve points, though Red's surviving units are all at full health. 

• Red moves and melees again. It is at this point I realize archers have a -2 in combat. They still manage to beat men at arms in melee, but the outnumbered Blue side loses two points and barely passes its Resolve test, then runs. Blue, I think, is down to two Morale and Red to three. A continued combat causes Blue to lose two more points and run. Zero Morale; another check and Blue may lose the battle.
• Blue Strengthens Resolve, then Turn 3 ends.
• Red Moves, but not fast enough to Melee. Both sides fail to Strengthen Resolve, then turn ends again.
• A Blue unit rolls a 1 on Strengthen Resolve and is eliminated! Blue rolls a 2 on the Battle Morale table and disintegrates! Game over - though Red actually has taken more casualties. (They were archer-peons, so probably not important.)

Finally, my losing Blue commander rolls a 4 and then a 12 on the Fate table. He's captured ... and changes sides!

Messy endgame.

While (having had the encouraging assistance of David Knight and several others on the Facebook group) I feel I could run this game through much quicker next time, it was another disillusioning mess of close combats, and the next game I may try to retreat from combat more often and keep the game more free. It does, however, seem to match the historical records of internecine combat that could go on longer than one might expect.

The rules themselves are, I think, easy enough once one gets used to them. Where I got hung up was edge cases - pivoting, whether units could flank or move past each other, and so on. Combats are slightly easier in that effectively only one company is fighting on each side, with all else providing modifiers. It felt complex while I was running it; a lot of games do for me, especially when I am doing them solo and with constant interruptions. This is not a slur on the authors of the game, but on my own stick-to-it-iveness. And I must give a shoutout to the Facebook community, who jumped to my assistance to the point that I barely had to pause the game between answers!

The complexity seems to lie in tracking the Morale and Resolve points, and I could see simplifying the table a bit to change them to either "retreat" or "break" in a more Free-Kriegspielish form. The cards, on the other hand, provided excellent solo guidance. Despite the work, I found the game fun and will try it again after a break. See you next time...

My Colonial Collection, Part 2: Mahdists, Brits and more Egyptians

 Found some more of my Colonial minis, buried at the bottom of a drawer. Again, most of the River War models aren't ready for play, needing pennies for basing. I don't tend towards strictness in basing; pennies match brownish ground well enough as is, and I'd rather get to playing than spend time and effort on detailing. I am not an artist, which is one reason why I find painting a chore - I'd rather get the figures on the table and cut to the game. Perhaps I'm more old-style, preferring basic green table, foam hills and "found" buildings.

Two dozen camelry.

35 Mahdists with firearms.

Seventy with spears.

And ninety-six Beja "fuzzy-wuzzies."

Roughly ten units (for TSATF) of infantry and two of cavalry. The recommendation in the book is for a quarter of these to have rifles, plus cavalry and maybe a Krupp gun, which I have to spare.

Also in the box were some more Egyptians and Brits:

47 Egyptians, so another battalion-worth.

And 32 Brits in classic khaki.

Buildings for the River War are fairly easy to mock up. Suggested by Man of Tin, I bought some biodegradable plant pots which have just the right color and texture. But here's another I made years ago with construction paper for a demo at work, based on a tutorial from the old Major General's Page:

While I still like TSATF for the rules, I intend to experiment with The Men Who Would Be Kings as well, for its "solo mode" if nothing else. See you then!

Solo Over the Hills and Far Away

I was browsing the Solo Wargaming Facebook group recently and spotted a post by Ian D. Denyer. He is experimenting with using elements from a Jim Wallman ruleset solo here. That reminded me of Wallman's Over the Hills and Far Away, which I've always wanted to try.

A few generations removed. There are many versions
of the classic song; my favorite is by Connie Dover.

Since I won't have a chance to run it with my own group anytime soon, maybe ever, I'm going to try to run it solo. It's more role-playing game than wargame, so this is tricky, but the "character-building" aspect is one of the things I've always loved about RPGs. There will probably be more focus on the regiment and combat than on the social stuff ... unless commenters want to chime in and make suggestions for the other non-player-character colonels! I feel as though the social element of the game might even work best over play-by-post or play-by-email; only the battles need to be at the table.

There are similarities to Glory:1861 here, though that is less social and delves deeper into the specifics of the regiment's size and training, in ways that Over the Hills glosses over. Over the Hills leans more towards the RPG side of things, while Glory:1861 leans towards the wargame side. Of course this means I should be doing Glory:1861 too (which I intend) and that it would probably be a better solo subject. But we've already seen how much of a hobby butterfly I am. I've effectively promised to try For Whom the Dice Rolls (Spanish Civil War) and Test of Resolve (War of the Roses). Next week then... Toy soldiers, being lead, pewter or bright plastic, are perhaps best suited to the "Ooh, shiny!" meme.

So to start:

• Colonels are already "persons of note;" in this era, they couldn't otherwise have the influence to be colonels in the first place. So my Colonel is Sir John Stanley, of Bordeaux Hall in the County of Cornwall.
• Roll for age - 20+D20: 30. Middling.
• Roll for married status, 5+ on D6: 4. He's a bachelor.
• Roll for political status, 5+ on D6: 3. He's no MP, yet!
• Political party - I could choose, but I'll toss for it - 1-3 Whig, 4-6 Tory. 1, so he's a Whig.

• He starts with a fortune of 1000+(d6x100) pounds. I rolled a 4, so £1,400 in the bank. I can spend up to 1,000 on "Political Influence Points" at 10 pounds a PIP. The catch being that these are mostly used against your fellow players, and I haven't any. I'd choose an average amount, but I don't know what that would be; I'll roll D100 for it. I rolled 52, so I spend £520, leaving me with 880 to spend on ... stuff, and I have 52 PIP. That seems an awful lot, given that there is little to spend PIP on other than screwing over your fellow Colonels, trying to become an MP and getting married. Since I am neither of the latter two, those will probably be my goals for the campaign beyond just going to exotic places and killing people. It costs a surprising lot to build and train a regiment, though, and my fortune has been reduced by more than a third to get this far. Of course, I don't have to be one of those conscientious colonels...

• Not being able to bid on my regiment number against other players, I'll just dice for it at D20+2: 8. I command the 8th Regiment of Foot, the Wessex Regiment. Just to give myself other regiments to compete against (and use in battle), I'll roll for three more: 16th, 12th, and 4th. Well, the commander of the 4th is senior to me.

My men are paid at the rate of 10 pounds per company per month. My colonel gets 20 pounds a month for his own expenses.

Unless I spend PIP or gain lots of glory overseas, I can't have a Royal regiment, so blue is out for a facing. I'll take white. A full ten companies is represented in-game by four bases:

Took a couple tries; at 18mm scale it's really easy to miss if figures
are facing the wrong way! But they really are beautiful up close.

My brand new regiment begins with the following statistics:

• Drill - 1
• Musketry - 1
• Effectiveness - 1

It is difficult to improve these, but easy for them to get worse, so training (especially drill) is essential. Players must spend turns (months) training a unit in order for it to not deteriorate, and may roll a 6 on a d6 to improve by one point. If the Colonel focuses on one aspect, that aspect may roll a 5+ to improve. Of course, this also costs money (for powder, etc), and at some point Sir John will have to spend turns transacting business in London.

I'll start with six months to test the training mechanism. This will give me £1000 to work with. As for other "social" activities... I'll randomize, like so:

D6 roll: 4. The fourth month will feature a social event. Choosing between generic socializing, ball, racing, or wedding, I toss a D4: 2. Second option, there's a ball. D3: 1, it is given by the Colonel of the 4th Regiment. I shall have to attend.

• January, 174-: Train in Drill and Musketry (Effectiveness ie Maneuvres costs a lot!), with Colonel Stanley focusing on Drill. Cost: £30. Both rolls failed.
• February, 174-: Train Drill and Musketry, with Colonel Stanley focusing on Musketry. Cost: £30. Both rolls failed.
• March, 174-: Train all three attributes, with Colonel Stanley focusing on Effectiveness. Cost: £80. All three rolls failed! That's me out £140, but at least Sir John is keeping his lads in shape. He will, however, visit the nearest gaming den to obtain new dice.
• April, 174-: I shall attend, of course, as I must ingratiate myself with my potential brigade commander (let's call him Sir Quartus Smith-Masterson). The other two will attend on rolls of 4+. The colonel of the 16th attends, that of the 12th is on his own affairs. At least I rolled higher than a three this time! Smith-Masterson, of course, spends £10 on his ball - the next must cost more, to upstage him. Because the colonel of the 12th is the only one not attending, he loses 10 PIP. I have no idea how many he has to start with, but we'll factor that in later.
• Remember, I am looking to find a wife. The lady most obviously available would be Sir Quartus' daughter, Quartina, and I'd like to be "in" with my senior in the service. Let's roll her stats:
• Influence: 1. He must have lots of children.
• Dowry: 6x100 - £600. Tempting. Given the other stats, her parents must be desperate to marry her off.
• Housekeeping: 1. This is how many pounds per month she saves through good management. She must not have learned her sums.
• Star Quality: 2. A multiplier to the PIP earned from any ball she hosts. Speaking of which, I imagine her mother is hosting tonight: 6! A stunning, vivacious lady (surprising, given how many kids she's had) who gains Sir Quartus 30 PIP! I only get five for attending... plus six for Lady Smith-Masterson.
• Given her daughter's low influence, I can give up four PIP to roll on the rightmost column of the chart. With a 2, she is Mildly Interested. We'll see what happens at the next ball...

I entered "18th century rich young lady"
into an art algorithm, and this is what I got.
It's fun to play with, but not always accurate.

• May, 174-: Supervising my regiment in Drill and Musketry once more (very enthusiastic soldier, I am), and focusing on Drill: 4 and 4. <sigh>
• June, 174-: One more go, this time looking over the shoulders of the musketeers and rolling yet another die: 6! And 4. Up to 2 in Drill.

Oh, but I spent one month NOT drilling, so must roll to not have my troops forget what they've learned. And... a one!

After the first six months, my regiment has not improved beyond the start and I have spent two hundred pounds on them. This soldiering lark is expensive! I am at least up to 63 PIP.

Next time, maybe I'll try a small expedition against rebels or rioters.