Still more Mutiny

The same day Bob Cordery posted on his blog about the concept of "button boxes," I received another unexpected box of Mutiny figures.

As he describes it (I hope I'm getting this right), a button box exercise serves two purposes; to organize a collection (as with the collections of most wargamers), and to provide busywork at need (whether to relieve boredom, or because you have students to keep busy). As a librarian who often does crafting, I can confirm that that this is totally a thing in more institutions than just schools.

And now I have another box of assorted minis to sort.

(Huh. Does a-sorted literally mean UNsorted? I never thought of that before!)

Let's see what we've got.

Three camels with cargo boxes (in which, I suspect, the
half-musketeers are intended to sit), and a palanquin.
Have never heard of this sort of troop.

A gun, a handful of British officers and a scenic base.
The colour is of the 78th Highlanders (Ross-shire Buffs).

Eighty assorted "badmashes" and sepoys.
A quarter are in full uniform so can be loyal in a pinch. 

Some of the latter are wearing shorts - did this occur
 among loyal units, for example when unsupplied,
or were they expected to have full-length trousers?
Those with trousers also have satchels,
presumably for ammunition or supplies.

A handful of Company cavalry.

This army is burgeoning - at this point I've got something over 350 troops (over 90% infantry) and no idea what to do with them. Will have to talk to the club, because I know someone else in it has a Mutiny collection; perhaps we can work up something.

OGRE!

 Some years ago I picked up this retro reproduction of a hex-and-counter game, first produced the year I was born:

This classic is clearly based on Keith Laumer's excellent Bolo novels, which I read in childhood and have been reprinted and new stories published by the SF publisher Baen. For the uninitiated, they're military SF, but the heroes are artificial intelligences in massive supertanks, occasionally supplemented by human crew. The conceit is that the intelligence is real; despite the combat and significant nods to esprit de corps (the Bolo tanks have their own Dinochrome Brigade and unit traditions), the plots usually focus on the characters of the tanks themselves, and how they react to intangible values like honor, loyalty and bravery. Despite their sheer power, the battles are rarely one-sided, and when they are, there is something else at stake, like time or innocents.

The game doesn't focus on character, though. It focuses on the massive battles between freakin' huge tanks and perfectly ordinary (if nuclear-armed) tanks and armored infantry.

It does have a solo mode, of sorts - tips for programming units are provided, mostly along the lines of "unit moves directly towards target." Given the sheer power of the Ogre, moving into its range is practically suicidal, which explains why the basic scenario is one Ogre counter versus approximately twenty "conventional" counters. An Ogre has (at least) seven powerful weapons and 45 "hits" before its tracks are disabled and it can't move; tanks can move generally faster, come with a single weapon apiece, but can combine for greater chances of damage. Infantry has a move of two, short range and combat strength according to the number of infantry present.

I played this whilst on vacation, for two reasons:

• I have so much junk in my apartment (books, games, modeling bitz) that a clear table is hard to find;
• One of my cats is young, playful and sees all that stuff on the table as something to step on or nudge. This is especially problematic when I want to take a break and come back to the game later. (Or the model - I came home to find out she'd scattered the Paperboys I was working on and had left on the table.) Just for example, I must work on this post in between her stepping on the 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
  
  +
  000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The board - 8x13". Lines represent
ridges, and black hexes impassable
craters.

Initial deployment, with good view of many typical units.
The typical scenario requires the Ogre to take out the CP
at top (Command Post), and either escape the board
(Victory) or wipe out all units (Total Victory).

And redeployment, after I reread the scenario and
realized twenty points worth of counters could be 
placed forward of the "line of departure."

There is a single Combat Result Table, which relies on relative attack strength vs. Defense strength. (4:1, 3:1, 2:1, 1;1, 1:2) Pretty easy to grok, with a couple exceptions such as that hitting the Ogre's track units is always done at 1:1. Tanks and infantry can be disabled (taking them out for one turn), but the parts of the Ogre are either destroyed or continue at full effect. Even a disarmed Ogre can continue rolling over the field, ramming its opponents, but losing track points in the process - lose all and it is immobilized.

Turn 1 - I used both the expendable
missiles from the Ogre to kill two vehicles.

In Turn 2, the Ogre killed two more tanks, one by ramming (losing two of its track points), and lost its main battery to a tank hit.

Turn 3 - tanks are getting close enough to combine fire
on the Ogre (the first number at the bottom of a counter
is attack strength, the second is range in hexes). They kill 
two of the Ogre's four secondary weapons, but lose two
more vehicles.

Turn 4 - lost my howitzer (longest-range unit on the
board, but immobile), and a missile tank. The mostly
intact Ogre is past my main line, in the clear, and I
clearly need to slow it down because most of my units
can only move two spaces while it can still move three.

Turn 5: three infantry counters
threw themselves at the Ogre
and died to no effect.

No pics of Turn 6, wherein the Ogre overruns and destroys the CP. Now it must turn about and either escape off the bottom of the board, or kill everything. That doesn't sound difficult.

Turn 7: The Ogre drove over the next-to-last
tank, now reduced to a move of two.
I spread out the remaining "conventional"
units (see next photo).

At this point, I took a break to take a sunset boat tour on Blackwater Sound near Key Largo:

This is one of the perks of (uninterrupted) solo play. After I got back to the hotel...

Turn 8: Carnage. Ogre finishes crushing the disabled tank
it's sitting atop here, destroys the last tank, kills one more infantry.

Turn 9 - Ogre killed two more infantry
with secondaries.

Final turn. There's one infantry
counter left, but it is out of 
range and has the same movement
as the Ogre. Hence, it can't be 
killed and the Ogre is limited
to a normal victory. I think.

A fairly simple game (the booklet is 20 pages long), but clearly with plenty of scope for expansion. There are movable command posts, more powerful Ogres, and several different scenarios, whether between Ogres, Ogres and conventional units, or Ogres and conventional units vs. Ogres and conventional units. (There is also just playing the conventional units against each other, but that might be missing the point of the genre.)

Playing always helps me "grok" a game better than simply reading it, and I now feel confident that I can run it again. Quick to play, easy to set up, the sheer fun of blasting through enemies; what's not to like?

The complex 17th Century

Helion, which publishes Peter Dennis' fantastic Paperboys of which I have far too many, has been inching towards making more of its material available as ebooks. They've finally got around to digitizing their own series of wargaming rules and guides, so I picked up a couple volumes that have interested me since their publication.

Reading ebooks is frustrating when you have a cat and a touchscreen.

Every Bullet Has Its Billet by Barry Hilton (author of Beneath the Lily Banners) is a short but punchy guide to wargaming the late 17th century, including an overview of many different conflicts. This is a period that I know almost nothing about, barring a bit about the Monmouth Rebellion, Glorious Revolution, and Irish-and-Scottish reactions to the latter. (An artifact of having read primarily British sources and listened to almost nothing but traditional folk music in childhood.

Notes and takeaways:

• Learned that the Cameronian regiment descended from Covenanters, and a bit more about their role. Would be a useful "extra" period to use my small ECW and '45 collection in.
• The Turkish-Christian conflict of the late 1600s (of which I only knew of the 1683 siege of Vienna) was one of the great upheavals of history.
• Many of the conflicts are described as "colorful," with a wide variety of antagonists and units even in fairly small conflicts, and diverse scenario opportunities. This is always useful in a setting.
• There was so much international "churn" among mercenaries that Hilton calls it an "ecosystem" of tactical innovation and experience. He seems keen to note that every rule and regulation had its exceptions in part because an officer who had fought the Ottomans might next find himself in Ireland. The same goes for the uniforms; while every veteran unit ends up with a motley of clothing, it sounds like there were fewer rules at this point, where the modern "regiment" was still coalescing. By the end of the period, the "traditional" look was there, but it took a long time.
• On the other hand, like the armies, that allows for plenty of variety in painting and modeling, too. As I use small-scale Paperboys, that may not be all that useful... the many different color schemes means that it's possible to rehome a regiment by simply switching out the command bases.
• The proportion of troop types (generally 3:1 or 4:1 Infantry:Cavalry) is important to get right. With too many infantry, the game is slow and dice-driven (by the infantry shooting), while with more cavalry the game is more fluid. (This might seem obvious, but the point he makes here is that players must watch their flank more when there is a possibility of it being ridden down!) Artillery has little combat effect, but much morale effect.
• The Danish army was incredibly varied in color, particularly the contingents sent to Ireland which had not switched to grey coats yet. I am reminded of Charles Grant Sr's famous Vereinigtestaadt army, composed of whatever colors he fancied, so this could be a fine basis for an Imaginations force.
• French elite troops saw more active service than those of other countries, and there were lots of them, so Guards regiments and the like can form a fair proportion of an army.

A few rules-neutral scenarios are provided; I like the Ride of the Kentish Knock, a small naval scenario from 1652 which I could probably recreate with Junior General Trafalgar rules, and The Bogside, a "stealing supplies" scenario which is presented for Donnybrook but I imagine could work for Sharp Practice or even The Sword and the Flame (hm, British trapped in an outpost and a herd of goats just standing there outside the gate?).

The book concludes with a handful of useful basing, painting and rules tips. Training was at such a low level that only the most basic infantry maneuvers were possible - another reason for having plenty of cavalry to add tactical interest. One curious element of Hilton's games (in particular because I keep a travel journal) is that he tracks every unit in his games, writing down their successes and failures for posterity. A charming addition normally reserved for campaigns, but I can agree that this sort of writing can bind up a lot of memories. Perhaps that's why I started this blog.

Interesting battles I haven't heard about: Bass Rock, Hudson's Bay

Games that sound interesting: Donnybrook, Mad For War, Beneath the Lily Banners (all by Barry Hilton), Free Fast Play Naval Rules for Anglo-Dutch Wars by legio-wargames.com, and Victory Without Quarter (also free) by Quindia Studios.

A fine overview, one that makes me fear getting dragged into another period. He writes, "A last word on collecting either land or naval forces, focus!"

Farewell to Monarchs

 First off, my tribute of sorts to current events:

Work was so busy today that this was literally relaxation.
And I only finished two of four Dragoon Guards and zero
of twelve Grenadier Guards - might co-opt the teens into helping
me finish them next week.

I also had three books for the display - one had been removed by
the time I took this picture, which I suppose is a good sign.

I've just (finally) finished The Last King of America: the Misunderstood Reign of George III (the American title; the original is George III: the Life and Reign of Britain's Most Misunderstood Monarch). And, timely, it gave me an insight into the latest Queen Regnant.

I feel the author's politics and obvious bias hurt it a little. OK, I expect anyone has to be obsessed with their subject to write a biography in the first place, but it turns out Andrew Roberts has, ahem, a reputation. I may be a touch biased myself what with two history degrees, but let's start with saying I don't think George III has quite as bad a reputation in the US as Roberts seems to think.

The heart of the book, I feel, is the depiction of George as a typical and actually rather quiet and unassuming Hanoverian king.

See, monarchs don't really DO anything substantial anymore.

I follow one particular liberal/skeptical/science blog, where the posters are pouring scorn on Liz for being the beneficiary of a (literally) rich heritage of colonial oppression, and for not just dissolving the useless monarchy. But honestly, I don't think she ever had a choice. She had no power. Giving royal assent doesn't mean quite as much when, if you don't give it, you cause a constitutional crisis. If she had declared publically that, say, Britain should leave Kenya, there'd probably have been a riot. And the crown jewels may technically belong to the monarchy, but there'd be a lot of diplomatic work before you could just carve off the Koh-i-noor Diamond and return it to the Punjab - which the monarch wouldn't have any part of. Just because something belongs to you doesn't make it easy to give away.

Society is entrenched, which is why there are still monarchs in the first place.

The thing about her reputation is that it's effectively built on air, because her constitutional duty was essentially to sit there.

And so was George's, for much of his reign.

It's easy to impute values to someone who, in a practical sense, cannot speak her true mind. (Did she have the right to vote?) The "fount of honour" is a symbolic thing - a fountain doesn't actually move or control the water that passes through it. There's also the meme, "be quiet and be thought wise, or open your mouth and remove all doubt." Some members of the royal family manage to keep to the former, others the latter. 

The conventional wisdom in popular media might be that George and Charles are similar - slightly flaky types without obvious substance; the truth is that George was more like Elizabeth in his rectitude (the only Hanoverian king not to cheat on his wife), his religious faith, his incredible sense of duty, and his general determination (despite later propaganda) to play a less, well, commanding role. He had the ability to choose and dismiss ministers (and had a talent for choosing reluctant ones), but like Liz he stuck to the letter of the law and generally let Parliament do its thing without hindrance. Perhaps Americans' attitudes about monarchy are rooted in misconceptions about how it works? ;)

Andrew Roberts' most telling counters to the claims of tyranny are the cases in which George had to accept governments and ministers he despised, or be libeled and satirized by a baying press. Heck, he went to bat for several attempted assassins, who ended up in asylums rather than on the scaffold. To me, this sounds a lot like Liz. (Not to mention just generally keeping one's cool when offered something surprising to eat, or being treated with disrespect by a foreign dignitary or even a civilian).

Some monarchs (and presidents) travel through life with absolute grace, which in context means being unruffled and invariably polite. (Though this is probably much easier when you have dozens of handlers and guards, and therein, perhaps, lies one of the roots of republicanism.)

Some are gaffe-prone or generally awkward or perhaps (like Lincoln) rough-hewn, but work hard and remain dedicated.

And some just don't care.

George drifted through all three of these in the course of his life (the final stage wasn't his fault). He did have enough influence to build up or tear down a couple governments, but generally let those governments do their thing once they were in place. He didn't, for example, lead during the Napoleonic Wars - but he became, at least for the first half, the rock around which the nation rallied. His son would have done far worse (and boy, are George IV's faults listed here). In fact, an incident is mentioned where George jr demanded a generalship and an army to command and had to be reminded that his place was near the King; his brothers got to command, but not him.

Society was entrenched for him, too, and (like Edward VIII) stepping out of control created enormous scandal.

Sometimes I think the discredited Great Man of History theory still has a point. It absolutely is the lower classes that do all the work, but there is still some value in looking at decision points. And who makes the decisions? So-called Great Men.

In the 18th century UK, prime ministers made those decisions. Kings didn't. 

George III was extremely serious about his oaths, which meant he knew and accepted that he was subordinate to Parliament. Americans, and some liberal politicians, thought otherwise, but they were wrong. (George wrote a LOT of letters for historians to pore over, excellent insight into his thinking.) Without acceptance of Parliament's role, his great-grandfather could not have come from Hanover. He owed his place to Parliament's toleration. 

A monarch is just a cypher. 

In more ways than one.

(Edit: I don't mean that in the sense of a rubber stamp; the monarch (and any head of state that isn't also head of government) can be a constitutional "backstop" of last resort. I'm thinking more in terms of a unifying symbol - as symbolized by the actual cypher, money, badges, etc - and also unknowable thoughts that make it easier to accept the symbol and accept its quiet influence.)

What she DOES or THINKS doesn't seem to have mattered quite as much as that she was THERE. She doesn't have to be anything else to be regarded as important or special. Conflicts can and have arisen that way, when others don't regard "sacred cows" or unquestioned truths the same way. The American colonists' dispute with George was partly a cultural misunderstanding, because the Americans were becoming increasingly far from the British mainstream. And many independent countries today have good reasons to reconsider the relevance of the Commonwealth that Elizabeth wasn't, but represented.

Today, Parliament is a different beast, less oligarchical; even the House of Lords has a smaller role. The US is the same way. Suffrage is far wider, so that ordinary people have a greater say in what happens. And since they do, they also have more say in what the monarchy's role should be. I'll be interested to see how attitudes change after this first outburst of national grief and pride...

Up the Whatsit Valley

 Having watched Sgt Guinness' campaign for a while, I'm seriously thinking about running one of my own set in the Northwest Frontier. Since I'll be doing it solo, my best bet is to use Charles S. Grant's classic Programmed Wargames Scenarios. The obvious scenarios are from the final chapter, Reconnaissance in Strength, in which a Blue "player" force marches upcountry against a programmed Red force. My first thought, given the Great-Game-gone-hot feel of my Wofun collection, was to have an Afghan force in the center of a valley, with Russians and British both coming at him from opposite ends. After they meet in the middle, having between them vanquished the locals, they would have one big fight to settle who holds the entire pass.

The catch is that Red force needs nine infantry units, four cavalry and two gun batteries, while Blue has five infantry, three cavalry and two batteries. The artillery provided in the "complete" set is actually very ample for all three, no problem there. But for the rest:

Afghans - four infantry units, one and a half cavalry units.

Indian Army - three infantry units, two cavalry units.

Russians - three infantry units, three and a half cavalry units.

These are on the order of 15-20 infantry or 8-10 cavalry apiece. To field the appropriate numbers, I'd need to break them down into half-units. Easy enough, and there are options for that in both The Sword and the Flame and The Men Who Would be Kings, but it might still seem a little small. Perhaps the scenarios can be modified. I also needn't stick quite to the suggested proportions - a Russian army with lots of cavalry seems appropriate! One issue is that Blue ends the series with not only his "standard" force, but the survivors from previous scenarios, thus having to be larger. Of course we could just have a standard campaign, with two of these allied against the other. Russians and their Afghan allies invading the Raj?

Another possibility is Bob Cordery's Bundock and Bayonet, in which companies are represented by five figures. That would work alright.

On the other hand, I'm reading the "Gordon Expedition" chapter of Mike Snook's Into the Jaws of Death right now, and I have plenty of River War minis... this "scenario-string" would work just fine for that, too, with some fiddling with the numbers since in TSATF the natives should always significantly outnumber the Europeans. Perhaps simply doubling Blue's assigned assets?

Thoughts and suggestions welcomed.

Visiting Fort Abercrombie

 No gaming this week because I spent it visiting Kodiak, Alaska, where my sister's working for the summer. (Well, there was a game store with 40K and RPGs, but I didn't get to visit for game night...) Saw lots of wildlife, including bears, salmon, eagles, kingfishers, etc. and some nice local museums, as well as walking, air and boat tours! (a busy week!) I'm posting here because there is a small but impressive little museum on Miller Point at the north end of Kodiak Island from the Aleutian Campaign of WWII.

Diorama of 8" gun emplacement.

The "Rufe" (floatplane Zero) is fanciful, as Kodiak
was never raided. Rumor has it that one attempt was
scrubbed by weather.

Electrical station (left) and searchlight shelter (right).

Some of the equipment and bunkers are still there, accessible via hiking trails:

8" gun barrel

Destroyed in situ.

Former emplacement.

Ready ammo bunker, now a museum.

Some of the models and displays inside the museum:

A Japanese fire hydrant

P-38 wing.

Working HAM Radio...

... and teletype.

Grenades made from pottery!

A few souvenirs from Iraq

My sister inside the generator room.

No idea what this is.

Searchlight shelter, with tracks to roll them out.

Last but not least, an ivory C130 at the Alutiiq (native) museum!
A tempting souvenir...

I did spend some time reading, mostly on the flights to and fro. Two Mike Snook histories which I'll probably have something to say about shortly. See you then!