Command and Colors Tricorne: The American Revolution

It is almost embarrassing to say – especially because I like the American Revolution and Richard Borg games so much – but I bought Command & Colors Tricorne: The American Revolution (CCT) when it came out in 2017 and last Thursday was the first time I played it. (I had put on the stickers quite some time ago though.)

Gaming buddy Don and I played the first scenario, Bemis Heights, to give it a try. Here is what the components look like.

How CCT Stacks Up to Other Command & Colors Variants

If you want to look at other reviews of Command & Colors variants I have looked at, here they are:

• Battles of Westeros (Game of Thrones license)
• Command & Colors: Napoleonics (Napoleonics), expanded review, criticism, and short battle report
• My own variant for the tabletop
• Memoir '44 Variant
• Fan Variants

Comparing Versions

I also did a comparison of the various versions. Here are the game mechanics that I looked at:

• Number of Limited Resources to Manage
• Ratio of Movement to Combat Range
• Terrain Effects
• Number of Dice Thrown in Battle
• Dice Thrown Reduced by Range?
• Dice Thrown Reduced by Casualties?
• The Odds of Hitting
• Battle Back?
• Evading Combat
• Retreat Flags Ignored/Support
• Complexity

Number of Limited Resources to Manage

CCT only has two resources to manage: Command cards and Combat cards.

Like all other Command & Colors games, the number of Command cards you hold is dictated by the scenario. Interestingly, many of the Tactics cards are oriented towards ordering units that are in a string of adjacent, linked, and contiguous hexes, encouraging players to form battle lines. This gives a very good period flavor of linear combat, like it does with Command & Colors: Ancients.

Combat cards are similar to the Combat cards of Memoir '44 (Urban and Winter). They are played alongside (and sometimes in lieu of) a Command card, adding additional benefits for the player. Examples include allowing a unit to move faster or battle with additional dice. In the case of CCT, there are a different set of Combat cards for the Patriot/Rebel and British sides, giving each their own flavor.

There is one very interesting thing to point about about the Command cards in CCT; the number of Tactics cards versus Section cards. Here is a breakdown.

Rules	Section Cards	Tactics Cards	Ratio Section to Tactics
Command & Colors:Tricorne	33	27	1.22 : 1
Command & Colors: Medieval	45	20	2.25 : 1
Command & Colors: Napoleonics	48	22	2.18 : 1
Memoir '44	40	20	2 : 1

You can see that CCT has upped the ante in favoring the use of Tactics cards rather heavily. As stated previously, many of those Command cards (and Combat cards) act upon units in 'line' (in adjacent, linked, and contiguous hexes).

Ratio of Movement to Combat Range

The ratio is very similar to Memoir '44 and Command & Colors: Napoleonics in that the infantry move one hex and can battle and their range is (generally) three hexes. So a unit must brave two turns of fire before being able to engage in close combat.

Some Tactics cards in the Command deck and special cards in the Combat deck allow infantry to close the gap quicker, and playing these at a critical moment can really help you get the jump on your opponent, so don't expect every battle to feel the same, i.e. a slow, grinding slog towards the enemy.

Terrain Effects

Terrain effects are now much more nuanced. Some terrain, like forests, have differing effects for when you move onto a terrain piece versus when you are already in it. Also, the effect on battling out of terrain can differ from when you are battling into it.

In Memoir '44 a forest, for example, a unit moving into the forest must stop and they cannot battle this turn. The dice are not reduced battling out, but they are when battling in. In CCT a unit moving into the forest must also stop, but infantry can still battle, losing one die. When battling into a forest only cavalry lose dice, but the target of any ranged combat can ignore the first hit. Further, Light Infantry can ignore one flag.

So, CCT introduces the concept of reducing hits in addition to reducing dice. (Reducing hits is far worse, of course, than reducing dice.) This is similar to the effects of armor in other games like Samurai Battles and Command & Colors: Medieval.

Bottom line: if you know the terrain effects from other games off of the top of your head, you should probably have the terrain effects chart beside you for each combat involving terrain because it likely does not work the way you think it does.

Number of Dice Thrown in Battle

Battle dice in CCT follows the method in Memoir '44, which is a base number of dice, reduced by range. For example, regular infantry rolls (2)-2-1 dice or 2 dice at 1 hex (which is close combat), 2 dice at 2 hexes, and 1 die at 3 hexes. It cannot battle targets at 4 or more hexes away.

The distinction between close combat (1 hex away) and ranged combat (2 or more hexes away) is important and many terrain effects change based on the type of combat.

One additional factor in determining the number of dice is whether the unit has an attached leader and if it moved before combat. Attaching a leader to a unit grants it one additional die while 

Dice Thrown Reduced by Range?

In CCT the number of dice is reduced by range, but the reduction is not consistent. Rifles, for example shoot at (2)-2-1-1, while Regular infantry is (2)-2-1, Militia infantry is (2)-1-1, and Light Artillery is (2)-2-1-1-1.

Dice Thrown Reduced by Casualties?

CCT does not reduce dice by casualties, but work similar to the Japanese in Memoir '44 and Warriors in Command & Colors: Medieval in that a full unit is afforded 1 extra battle die in close combat, ranged combat, and rally checks (see later). I think this extra die does a good job of simulating the often-used game mechanic of 'First Fire' in Horse & Musket rules, where fresh units with clean muskets have more effective fire, while units that have been in battle awhile shoot less effective due to fouling in their firearms.

The nature of this rule is that you cannot ignore the combat power of a one- or two-block unit, and chasing those down can be just as painful as going after a fresh unit.

The Odds of Hitting

Here CCT really changed up the mix. In most other Command & Colors variants where the dice have symbols representing unit types (Memoir '44, Battle Cry, Command & Colors: Napoleonics) rather than colors, the symbols are typically two Infantry, one Cavalry (or Armor), one Artillery (Star for Memoir '44), one Crossed Sabers (Grenade in Memoir '44), and one Flag. In CCT there is only one Infantry symbol and there are two Flags.

Further, in CCT the Crossed Sabers only hit in Close Combat, and only for certain units. That used to always be a house rule for me – when I played solo – to allow Crossed Sabers/Grenades to count as hits only in Close Combat. I am glad to see it in CCT and wish it was that way in Memoir '44.

Battle Back

Battling back is the mechanic where, if a defending unit has survived a close combat attack and not retreated, it can attack the attacking unit back. This mechanic has made its way over to CCT, which I enjoy as it presents a consequence to close combat. It is what makes attacking crippled one- and two-block units so dangerous. Note that with the increased chance of retreating (see below), units will be less likely to battle back. Another concern is that because the attacker is penalized one die for moving into close combat, and the battling back defender is not, attackers might well be reluctant to enter close combat in the first place unless they have a Command or Combat card granting them a bonus.

Taking Ground

Taking ground is like all other Borg designs. If you win close combat by either eliminating the enemy unit or forcing it to retreat from the hex, the attacking unit can move into the vacated hex. Some unit, such as cavalry, Highlanders, and units with attached leader, can make a bonus close combat attack from the hex they now possess.

Evading Combat

Like Lights in Command & Colors: Ancients and cavalry in Command & Colors: Napoleonics, light infantry and cavalry in CCT can evade close combat and retreat. The mechanism is, after the attacker has declared their attack, the defender decides if they are going to Retire and Rally. The attacker then rolls the normal number of dice, but only counts the symbol (infantry, cavalry, or artillery) and none other. After inflicting the indicated number of hits the evading unit retreats two hexes and then must make a Rally Check (see below).

Because of the required Rally Check, which I will talk about more in the next section, this tactic can be quite dangerous for a weakened unit to try and yield the enemy a victory point regardless, so the player must think twice before electing to retreat.

Retreat Flags Ignored/Support

Before talking about the retreat mechanics of CCT, let's look at a new rule, the Rally Check. Put simply, after a unit is forced to retreat it must roll one die per block remaining in the unit (plus or minus any modifiers) and if it does not roll a Retreat Flag, the unit routs off of the board, yielding a victory point for your opponent. Note that all units must make this check if forced to retreat, so even full-strength units might be eliminated.

The second mechanic of note impacting retreats is that there are two Retreat Flags on the die rather than one with all other Command & Colors variants. So while it increases the chance the Rally Check will pass, it also increases the number of checks you will have to make in the first place.

Given these two mechanics the factors that allow a unit to ignore rolled Retreat Flags becomes critical. Further, unit quality can be further identified by allowing the unit to ignore flags or to roll more or fewer dice for the Rally Check.

Complexity

There were a few times I ended up scrambling for a rule and almost every one of them was a question around Leaders, i.e. what is the chance the leader is dead if…? The addition of the Combat cards definitely makes the synergies between cards important – such as a Command card that allows units to rapidly advance on an enemy while a Combat card adds an additional combat die – making surprise attacks where fortunes change hands rapidly a distinct feature of some games.

Summary

Since I started writing this post – weeks ago – Don and I have played eight separate scenarios (16 games), so we have a lot more experience with the rules now.

Dress Ranks!

If you have played Command & Colors: Ancients then you know how those occasional Line command cards allow you to move a lot of units, if you have remembered to maintain cohesion. In CCT this occurs a lot more frequently. Of the 60 cards in the Command deck there are:

1. Four cards that allow a Leader (with optionally an attached unit) and up to four other units and lone Leaders in a 'line' take a move, battling with an additional die.
2. Three cards that allow up to the number of Command cards you have, in units and Leaders in a 'line', to move with 1 additional hex of movement; no ranged combat is allowed, but infantry units may engage in close combat.
3. Four cards that allow all units and Leaders in a 'line' to move a maximum of 1 hex; they may still engage in ranged and close combat.
4. Four cards that allow all units and Leaders in a 'line' to engage in ranged combat only, with 1 additional die. No close combat or movement is allowed.

So 15, or fully 25%, of the Command cards are oriented towards the player using units in a 'line', while 8 of those have no restriction on the number of units that can be in the line.

In addition to those Command cards, the British Combat cards had one additional copy of #3 and #4 above, while the Continentals have one additional copy of #1.

You may have noticed that I keep writing 'line' and that is because the rules don't require the units to be strictly in a straight line. The rule as written states "Issue 1 order to each unit or lone Leader in adjacent linked, contiguous hexes", so the shape of the line could be anything.

One thing this really reminds me of is De Bellis Antiquitatus or DBA. You had 1-6 command points (or pips) each turn and one point could generally move all the units formed into a group. As you played your line would naturally get fragmented due to losses, advances, and retreats, thus requiring more command points to move all units every turn. Failing to get enough command points resulted in hard decisions on which units could act and which could not.

Ambush

Whereas other designs might have one or two ambush cards – cards that allow the defender to strike first in a close combat – CCT has about 5-6, two in the Command deck and 1-2 in each of the Combat decks. You can only play one Combat card in your opponent's turn, but if you happen to have one of the Command Ambush cards and one Combat Ambush cards, it is possible to hit your opponent twice in a turn with this dirty trick. (I speak from experience on that one.)

Surprise!

There are several Command and Combat cards that allow a player to move rapidly, quickly shifting the tempo of the game. For example there is Steal a March which allows a player to move a potentially large number of units several hexes all at once, moving a far away force up to your battle lines in a single turn, or moving a force around your flank. Other cards like Bayonet Attack allows you to move three infantry units two hexes each and still battle in close combat, with no movement penalty. Because there are a number of copies of these cards between the Command and Combat decks, it is quite possible to perform these surprise movements on back-to-back turns. (I speak from experience on that one too!)

Summary

In summary, CCT is an excellent Borg game design that does not simply feel like Battlecry or Command & Colors: Napoleonics with different stickers and scenarios. It definitely has its own feel and if you are a fan of this game designer's designs, you will not be disappointed in purchasing it.

Rules Read-Through: About Bonaparte

If you have perused my Wooden Warriors blog then you know that I have been working on 42mm Napoleonic wooden soldiers for some time now. (There are a lot of other projects there too. I get distracted all of the time.)

What I have not really found, however, is a set of Napoleonic rules that work well with figures of this size. (Given the girth of the figures, they are closer to 54mm in feel.) I can only do so many Napoleonic skirmish games before I end up recycling the scenarios. My plan was to use The Sword and the Flame for them, but with 24 figures for each French ligne infantry unit, that is going to take time.

So when I saw a battle report of a group in the Netherlands using 54mm Napoleonics figures I perked up. Especially when I started counting figures in the pictures and it looked  like they were using infantry units of eight figures and cavalry units of four figures. The report said they were using the rules About Bonaparte by Partizan Press and so I set about finding the rules. It turns out that I could only find them available for sale at Caliver Books in the UK (On Military Matters in the US did not have them), so I put them on my wish list and waited until I found a more compelling reason to make a larger purchase before getting them.

I have had a few frustrating bouts with the UK postal system, so I am always hesitant from ordering anything there. Now that Baccus 6mm miniatures are no longer sold in the US (Scale Creep Miniatures is no longer carrying them), if I need to expand any 6mm armies or fill out a unit, I will probably have to bite the bullet and deal with it again.

As it turned out, Cigar Box Battle Store came out with a new mat using a 6" square grid and they promoted it at the same time as promoting a new book called Tin Soldiers in Action (which I will review in a future article) by Partizan Press. This too was only sold at Caliver Books, so I decided to finally place my order and get the two rule books.

About Bonaparte

So here I am, reading the rules, and thinking "why do these rules feel familiar?" About Bonaparte (AB) uses some special dice and I looked at that again. Two faces have an 'I' for infantry, one face has a 'C' for cavalry, one face has an 'A' for artillery, one face has a Flag ... wait a minute! These are Command & Colors: Napoleonics (CCN) dice! The only difference is that the last face on the AB die is blank whereas on the CCN die it is Sabers. Let's see: infantry fire one die for each stand and it has four stands. Sounds like CCN. In fact, as I read through the rules I see Richard Borg's thumbprint all over. Combat is very much like CCN except that it is a bit more complex and has to deal with the vagaries of free movement rather than the regulated movement imposed by a hex grid.

Now AB did not include a set of Command Cards, so it can't all be the same, right? Looking through the rules I see that you collect a certain number of dice for each General, Aide de Camp, and Officer figure you have and then roll them. For each 'I' you roll you can order an infantry unit, for each 'C' you can order a cavalry unit ... wait a minute! This is how Fantasy Flight Games took Richard Borg's Battlelore rules that they bought the rights to and converted them to a cardless command and control system for their rules Battlelore: Battles of Westeros! In those rules you roll the battle dice and it comes up red, blue, green, etc. and this indicates how many red, blue, and green units (the "color" of the original Command & Colors system) are ordered! Okay, so now I am sitting there giggling because this is what I have been trying to do with WW II and Space Fantasy in the past and here they basically converted and merged two sets of rules I already have and made them into a new Napoleonics variant.

Production Quality of the Book

I have a few other Partizan Press books – Tin Soldiers in Action, the one I just bought, being a prime example – and they are all good quality in terms of printing and binding, and seem to be well edited. Not so with AB. As soon as I opened my copy of AB I could see the binding coming apart at the bottom of the book. I already have pages falling out after one reading because the glue in the binding is so cheap. No, this was not printed in China like the Battlefront Flames of War books (Hell's Highway for example) that instantly fell apart; it was printed in Malta by a small printing company.

Editing has also suffered, as you can tell that English is not the first language of the author and the editors did not always catch his grammatical or spelling errors. Nothing too serious, but once or twice I wondered what exactly he meant. That could just as easily be the English tradition of being loose with their rules, but given that the author was pretty detailed in other areas, I don't think it was that.

There are a few layout issues, where section headers start on the bottom of one page and the body is on the next. It looks and feels like the whole book was laid out in Microsoft Word. Organization of the rules is sometimes strange too as the rules of combat are split into two sections, with a section on preparing for a game stuck in the middle.

The graphics are simplistic and often comical looking. When one unit fires at another, it almost looks as if the muskets are flamethrowers in the diagrams. Worse still, many graphics use thin red text in a small font size over a green background. It is often illegible without a magnifying glass or strong lighting.

Okay, that is the "bad" and the "ugly" part out of the way. Let's get to the "good".

Basing and Unit Sizes

Most of the measurements in the rules give both centimeters and inches as options, but in basing it is in millimeters only. There are basing standards for 54mm, 40mm, 25–30mm, and 15–20mm. For 54mm troops infantry is based two figures on a 55mm square stand, cavalry a single figure on a 55mm by 110mm stand, and artillery on a 110mm square stand. Infantry can also be based singly (called half-stands) to represent skirmishers and to remove single figure losses. There is no specification for basing Generals, Officers, and Aides.

There is a provision for using figures already based using another scheme, but it basically says you need to work out how it impacts the rules. Losses are taken to figures, but when two infantry or one cavalry figures are lost, a stand is expected to be removed. Combat in the game is by stand, not by figure, except for artillery.

There is some flexibility in unit sizes in that if you need to represent especially large or small units, they can be anywhere from 2 to 5 stands in size. (Hungarian infantry during the Napoleonic period is specified as having 5 stands, for example.) Artillery always consists of a single stand, but varies the number of figures based on the weight of the artillery.

Troop Types

As indicated above, artillery is classified by weight , having light, medium, and heavy designations. Light artillery can either be foot or horse, while all other weights are foot.

Infantry is has line (standard), skirmish, and irregular troop types.

Cavalry has heavy, medium, light, lancer, and irregular troop types. Heavy cavalry can be further designated as being Armored or not.

For each of those troop types you can further classify them by morale: green or untrained, trained, veteran, and elite or guard.

Commanders are rating only by type and not by morale. They are the CIC, Generals (commanders of corps, wings, or divisions), Officers (commanders of brigades or regiments), and Staff Officers (aides and staff of CICs and Generals).

The rules recommend that you label only the central stand of a unit (which contains the standard bearer) denoting it troop type, morale, initial unit size, and where it fits in the hierarchical structure (i.e. who commands it).

Formations, Groups, and Movement

Unlike CCN, AB uses formations for the units. Infantry can form line, march column, attack column, skirmish order (may be some or all of the unit), and square. Cavalry can form line, march column, and supported line. Artillery is either limbered or deployed.In addition, there are other period-specific and nation-specific formations defined in the rules too.

Groups are essentially a means of controlling your troops better so that fewer commands are required to maneuver. The basics of command and control are that you get one or two dice for each commander in which to give orders each turn. You roll these dice to determine which unit type – infantry, artillery, or cavalry – can be ordered. It takes one order of the appropriate unit type to move each unit or group, so you can see why forming a group is important. You will have very few orders available to you each turn and you still have to roll the appropriate unit type, so you want to reduce your command down to as few groups as possible.

This reminds me of both DBA and Dux Bellorum. In DBA if you break up your formations you will quickly become "PIP starved" and you roll low and cannot move all of your units. In Dux Bellorum groups can only be formed of like types (shieldwall infantry with shieldwall infantry, warriors with warriors, etc.), limiting the number of units that can maneuver together.

Groups in AB have to be of the same unit type (i.e. infantry, cavalry or artillery), within the same command, under the direct command of an Officer, deployed in the same formation, have the same facing, and be within a certain distance of each other. As you can see, once such a group hits combat, it is likely to quickly to quickly lose its group status. But that is okay because there are actions that units can take that don't require orders. Unlike CCN, for example, units do not require orders to fire.

Note that there is a Command Radius for commanders, so units far from their commanders require additional orders to compensate for the extra distance.

All of the traditional rules for movement – formation and facing changes, unit interpenetration, wheeling, oblique, about face, withdrawing, sidestepping, deploying skirmishers, joining groups – are all in there. Be aware that formation changes take a full turn unless Veteran or Guard.

As you might expect from a set of rules designed for 54mm figures, the table sizes are probably expected to be a little deeper than normal. Deployment zones are 16" in from the baselines, infantry in line formation moves 8" per turn, and   musket range is 16". So if you are using a 6' by 4' board, troops on the deployment lines will be in musket range from the beginning and cavalry will be in charge range on Turn 1. No, no 6' x 4' tables for you with these rules!

By my rule of thumb, a "typical" Napoleonic battalion should have a shooting range of approximately the same distance as the frontage of that unit. Given that the units are roughly 8" in frontage, the ranges seem a bit long. It also does not, in my opinion, have the proper ratio of volleys until contact, or two volleys by a unit in line standing and firing at a column charging in. There is no defensive fire available against a charge coming in, same as with CCN. I guess I am too influenced by my days playing Column, Line, and Square.

Support, Firing and Melee

Another Command & Colors concept is that units not in combat can provide support to friendly units that are in combat. Support in AB provides two basic benefits: it increases the number of Flags you can ignore when fired upon, and it increases the number of dice you throw in melee. The downside of support is that if the supported unit still ends up retreating, the support can often go with it.

There are a slew of rules that help you define whether a unit is supported or not, but there is one complexity to all of this: each unit can provide support to only one unit, for one die roll each turn. I am not sure I like this as it does not provide for the strength of mutually supporting units (as was common to use in Battlelore) and makes for a bit of a guessing game ("will I use my support for the fire coming from the line unit or from the guard unit") that seems to add little value for the complexity it adds.

Firing is basically 1 die per stand, but long range fire and moving can both halve the number of dice rolled. There are also modifiers for shooting into the target's flank or rear, their formation, and the terrain they are in, and modifiers for the shooter's morale.

Melee is also basically 1 die per stand with a number of modifiers for the attacker and defender. Unlike firing, both sides roll dice in a melee. One interesting note: the defender has to conform in a melee where the attacker made contact on a corner. I can see this as a way of throwing units out of a group by changing their alignment, even if only by a few degrees (fiddly geometry).

Even if units do not run into impassable terrain, enemy units, or off of the board when retreating from rolling Flags; three flags unignored will destroy a unit and four flags will destroy your supports as well. There are a number of rules in there that double flags so we are not necessarily talking about four dice rolling flags. A cavalry unit attacking an enemy unit in the flank or rear, for example, inflicts four flags per Flag die rolled!

Regarding skirmishers: they are overpowered, no doubt about it. They are +1 die when shooting and -2 dice when being shot at. Are you kidding me?

Army Lists and Periods

AB gives you rules for all of the major powers, including the Ottomans. Each nationality has special rules, including formations that their infantry can use. Russian line fires with one less dice, British with one more, but only at point-blank range; that sort of thing. There is a point system to cost out the troops in all of their variations. There appears to be no army lists, per se, and you are expected to research out who had what troop types and so on.

AB covers more than just the Napoleonics period. There are period rules for the Age of Marlborough, the Seven Years War, the French and Indian War, the American War of Independence, the American Civil War, and the colonial wars. Given that the last encompasses breechloading rifles and gatling guns, I am surprised that they did not include the Franco-Prussian War too, as that is still a very colorful period.

Conclusion

Do I like the idea behind these rules? Of course! I love Richard Borg rules, as anyone reading this blog for a while would know. I think the only Richard Borg design I don't have is Samurai Battles (and that includes owning Abaddon). I think including a variation of the command and control mechanism from Battlelore: Battle of Westeros was also clever, and a great way of getting rid of the card mechanism. After all, I did that back in 2011, so it is natural I would like it.

All that said, I think the rules are a bit over complicated. The reason for that is simple. The author added in the following elements, any of which are sure to drive up complexity compared to CCN:

• Tracking formation by unit,
• Free-form movement rather than controlled by a grid,
• Gave Commanders a meaningful purpose in the command & control mechanic,
• Expanded the number of modifiers to firing and melee,
• Rather than increasing the distance retreated by a thrown Flag it created a whole new system for ignoring, adding and doubling flags, and then creating new combat results based on how many flags remain,
• Expanded the system of providing support, but turned it from a rule to a resource.

The list goes on. These rules could use a little Neil Thomas-style simplification.

As a set of rules, I think they are interesting. But to me, they are a start of where I think they need to be. First would be to cut down the rules and possibly move it back to a grid. Also, Partizan Press needs to take a hard look at their printer and their editor, because they failed them.

Battle Report: Auerstadt 1806 using Ein Ritter Spiel

In the last blog post I provided a review for a set of rules by Chris Engle that cover a number of periods and genres. The rules were Jabberwocky, Ritter, Fusilier, and Ein Ritter Spiel. I decided to play a game using a modified version of Ein Ritter Spiel (my game used a hex grid rather than the square grid specified by the rules), with a few additions from Fusilier due to the period being Napoleonics (I added in a troop type to represent the Cuirassiers, which never came into play).

The scenario is Auerstadt – 14 October 1806 (7 am to Noon), from GMT Games' Command & Colors: Napoleonics. The background of the scenario is as follows:

Napoleon mistakenly believed that most of the Prussian army face him at Jena, and ordered Bernadotte and Davout to concentrate and attack the Prussians from the rear. On the morning of the battle, the majority of Prussian army was marching away from Jena and towards Davout's advancing III Corps. As Gudin's infantry division advanced in a dense fog, it clashed with the Prussians in the village of Hassenhausen and drove them out. As the fog lifted, Blücher rashly led forward with the Prussian cavalry. Gudin's men formed square and repulsed the assault. Davout could now see he was greatly outnumbered and ordered Friant and Morand to march to his aid immediately. He also sent urgent appeals to Bernadotte and his I Corps to support him. Bernadotte, most likely out of professional jealousy, left Davout to fight alone. Meanwhile Emperor Frederick and Brunswick, the Prussian commanders, were surprised to find French units to their front. Their indecision delayed massing the Prussian infantry and artillery to drive the French from Hassenhausen till 10 am. By that time, Friant, with his division and the corps artillery, arrived to secure the French right and repulse the Prussians. During the attack, Brunswick was killed and Schmettau was wounded, causing more command confusion. A full hour elapsed before the next Prussian attack went in against the weak French left. Davout personally  led the counterattack, reinforced by Morand's division, whose timely arrival preserved the left flank and drove back the Prussians. The Prussian high command remained passive, and did little to bring up fresh troops. Davout on the other hand, wasted no time attacking and driving the Prussians from the field in the afternoon, winning the most signal victory of his career. For many years thereafter, the III Corps retained an aura of invincibility. Napoleon was justifiably furious with Bernadotte and meant to court-martial his, but he never did – a mistake in retrospect.

I made a game board for this scenario some time ago. Why this particular scenario has been lost over time, but the idea was that it would make game setup and teardown much easier. My gaming buddy Don and I have always liked the Memoir 44 printed maps that came with some scenario packs, like Hedgerow Hell. We thought "why don't they do this with all the scenario maps?" I would have certainly bought them. They were convenient. So one day I decided to do the same thing, only with a scenario for Command & Colors: Napoleonics. I think I just wanted to see how it would turn out. I was right. It is handy for quickly setting up a test game.

I pulled out my Baccus 6mm Napoleonic troops that I have been collecting for a while. I have had a hard time settling on which rules to use for them so they are currently in about five different basing schemes. The basing scheme I seem to use the most – 20mm squares – seems the least visually appealing. I think I am going to end up with two schemes – one dioramic with 6" x 4" bases and one with 40mm wide bases – before it is all over. My hope is that I will be able to limit my dioramic basing to the Waterloo campaign troops only with all of the other troops on 40mm wide bases. We will see. For this game I am using either four 20mm infantry bases or two 40mm infantry bases and four 20mm cavalry bases or a single 40mm cavalry base. The artillery units are all 40mm square bases.

My French are the worst when it comes to being on different basing schemes. So I had to improvise with them. I recently bought some painted French and have not been able to rebase them yet. Some are on 2" wide bases, and others on 60mm wide bases. I had to bring in my Spanish in white uniforms and bicornes to fill in as French. It is a mess, but it is all functional. The Prussians look much better. I had to improvise a little bit for the Grenadiers and Guard Grenadiers, but they never really got into the action anyway.

Here are the troops in their starting positions.

You can see the village of Hassenhausen in the center with three Prussian units (top of board) in close proximity to the French. Everything else pretty much starts on their baseline. Note that the village of Hassenhausen is worth 1 Breakpoint to the side holding the majority of the village's hexes. As the Prussians hold one hex at the start and the French hold none, the Prussians have an additional point added to their army Breakpoint.

Fusilier grants the French army with 3 Moves, 3 Attacks, and a Breakpoint of 3 while the Prussian army gets 2 Moves, 2 Attacks, and a Breakpoint of 2. This differential seems appropriate for the scenario, so I keep that as the base. However, if you are using a larger army than standard (10 units) you need to adjust those numbers. The rules indicate that the increase in army capability is not proportional to the increase in units. For every doubling of the army size the army capability only increases 50%.

The French have 23 units so the additional 13 units add (3 * 0.5) * (13 / 10) points or 1.95 (rounded up to 2) points. So the French have 5 Moves, 5 Attacks, and a Breakpoint of 5.

The Prussians have 24 units so add (2 * 0.5) * (14 / 10) points or 1.4 (rounded up to 2) points. So the Prussians have 4 Moves, 4 Attacks, and a Breakpoint of 4. I had thought about not rounding up, but rounding to the nearest, but I am glad I did not. I think only three moves and attacks would have been too hampering.

The French first turn is pretty tame, with no attacks. Although I am starting to surround Hassenhausen, and have taken one of the village hexes thereby denying the Prussians an additional Breakpoint point, I haven't quite figured out how to dislodge the Prussians from the village. Artillery will definitely do it, but they will simply retreat from the village. I need the French infantry in the village to make the attack, so it drives the infantry into the cavalry unit behind it, eliminating it. (Remember, units forced to retreat into friendly or enemy units or into terrain are destroyed. That is how you eliminate units.) Infantry needs a 3:1 ratio in forces to defeat units in towns, however, so the safest bet is to swing the infantry to the left of the village into attack position. Next turn...

The Prussians move off of the baseline, leaving behind some reserves (which also serves to create a sufficient gap for the front line troops to retreat, if necessary). The Prussian light cavalry at Hassenhausen shifts position to threaten the French flank attack on the village. Meanwhile the artillery opens fire, forcing the French infantry on the right of the town to retreat.

Now you may be wondering why I forced the French infantry to retreat. After all, it did not really do anything substantial, like eliminating it. For those of you who play DBA a retreat in that game is typically a recoil – a backwards movement, but still facing the enemy. A retreat in Ein Ritter Spiel is directly away from the enemy causing the retreat and the unit ends its movement facing away from the enemy. Further, its next movement is a Rally, so the unit can only turn about; it can't move in any other way. This has the effect of causing a much more substantial disruption in the enemy formation than in DBA. In both rules, in order to move a group of units with a single point/PIP all units must be touching and facing the same direction to be considered a group formation. Because the retreat in Ein Ritter Spiel changes the unit's facing, the group formation is broken, while in DBA it often isn't, especially if more than one unit recoils.

Another shot into that retreating French unit will force it into a friendly unit, eliminating it. Because it can only turn about, I need a way to block the shot by the Prussian artillery. The French move an infantry to block the shot even though it cannot defeat the artillery in combat. Instead I line up a French light cavalry unit on the right flank so it can charge the artillery from the flank on the following turn. Meanwhile the French move light infantry into the woods to the left of the village and together with the infantry beside it they drive off the Prussian light cavalry.

It is so easy to get tunnel vision in this game, focusing on your next turn's attack and not thinking too deeply about the enemy's potential moves. The French made two mistakes. Can you spot them?

The Prussians moved up their infantry into a position where they could flank the light infantry in the woods. As light infantry retreat two hexes, they ran straight into friendly lines and were destroyed.

On the opposite flank the Prussian artillery unit fires into the flank of the French light cavalry, who have no retreat path. (If I had moved the infantry forward and to the right one hex there would have been an open retreat path, so that was an avoidable error.)

The other Prussian artillery unit fires cannister at the French infantry forcing it to retreat. The area around Hassenhausen is jammed with French troops. This looks bad. This looks like a quick French defeat.

Friant arrives with the corps artillery and drive the Prussian artillery away. (Each artillery unit attacks in turn forcing the retreat of a single hex. By expending two attacks the French were able to destroy the unit, rather than simply force it to retreat.)

On the far right flank Friant's division is in a position to attack next turn.

The rules are pretty minimalist and do not consider topics like zones of control and whether a unit was in a flank position at the start of the turn versus at the time of attack (like many rules do), so the attack on the left flank (Prussian right flank) is perfectly legal. Despite being at melee range at the start of the turn the Prussian infantry advances and turns onto the flank of the French in the woods, which dislodges them. The Prussians pursue, taking the position, and allowing them to drive the French into the windmill (different terrain), thus destroying them.

Meanwhile, the Prussian artillery forces one of the French batteries off of the hill. Things are looking bad for the French. They are two units away from breaking, while the Prussians are still three away.



This is how quickly a game can turn. While the French corps artillery rallies the French take advantage of the five attacks. On the right three infantry units combine to destroy the Prussian infantry in the woods by the village of Speilberg. Note that by attacking with the leftmost unit and having the other two units support the unit is forced to retreat into the Prussian Cuirassiers rather than through the gap. Selecting which unit attacks and which supports is very important.

The battle in the village of Hassenhausen illustrates that idea further. First the French infantry attacked it in the flank from the right. Once the Prussian infantry was dislodged from the village the French infantry on the left fired into it, forcing it to retreat into the Prussian cavalry, destroying it. (Note that I moved a French unit into the woods by the windmill on the left. This was the same position in which the light infantry was previously flanked. Sometimes it is worth making a risky move into such a position.)

The third unit loss came when the French artillery fired into the Prussians twice, forcing them to retreat into their reserves.

With four units lost the Prussian army is in a broken state. This means that units in the army can move no closer to the enemy than any other friendly unit is, but can still attack. (That may be a little hard to explain properly. Individual units can move forward, essentially to counterattack as part of a rearguard action, but they cannot move beyond where the current "front line" is located. In this case I moved the Prussian cavalry forward in an attempt to hold off the French and allow the Prussian infantry to escape. It did not work.)

Prussian artillery pounds the French infantry in the village of Hassenhausen, catching it in a crossfire and destroying it. Unfortunately, the French breakpoint is 6 (5 for the army and 1 for having the majority of the hexes in Hassenhausen), so they are not close to breaking. Had the Prussians broken the French the game would have pretty much ended as neither side could close with the other. Nonetheless artillery can do some damage on a retreating army.

The French artillery destroys two Prussian units, pushing them into other retreating troops, while musketry from French infantry destroys another two units. The Prussians have now lost eight units – double their Breakpoint – so they are now in a Routed state. No Prussian units are allowed to move closer to the enemy or even to attack. It is not "sauve qui peut" for the Prussians. Now the game is simply about how many Prussians will survive the day for purposes of the campaign. (If you are not playing a campaign game you probably would stop here, noting that the French have achieved a major victory.)

The Prussians start moving units off of the board. That is about all they can do. Despite being in a rout state, units still rout in "formation" so trying to maintain groups allows you to move more units per Move point. (Unfortunately it is hard to see which way units are facing in these pictures. Suffice it to say that not all units were facing the rear, so this turn was an attempt to rectify that.)

The French make the last effective attack, forcing the light cavalry covering the retreat into a friendly unit. Again, which unit attacks is critical in determining the direction of the retreat.

After the Prussian turn it was obvious that there was nothing that the French could do to destroy the remaining Prussian units, so the game is called as a Decisive French Victory, pretty much as it was historically.

Points to Ponder

The following events in the rules gave me some pause.

• Artillery can move and attack in the same turn. My first thought was that horse artillery would be able to do that, but that foot artillery could not. But that would make horse artillery a super weapon, which they were not. The idea should be that artillery bombardment should get the high rating it receives in the game and that you cannot bombard if you move.
• Units cannot retreat through friendly units even though they can interpenetrate them during movement. This concept is not unique to these rules, by any stretch. All of Neil Thomas' rules are like this. It is a significant way to destroy units in those rules and a primary way in these. Eleven of the thirteen units destroyed in this game came from retreating into friendly units. Only two unit destructions were due to retreating into terrain features. If you did not destroy units when they retreated into friendly units then this game would take a lot longer to play out.
• Successive, timed attacks are powerful. Having one unit attack, forcing a unit into another hex which in turn makes it vulnerable to attack by a second unit is an exciting part of the game.
• Successive attacks by a single unit, however, feels wrong. This happened twice, once in which infantry flanked the enemy in the woods, pursued, and then attacked again and the second time in which a single artillery unit simply attacked twice. I did not like either case. In the infantry attack I felt like the second attack should not have been allowed for two reasons: 1) infantry should not be allowed to attack a second time, after a pursuit; and 2) no one should be allowed a second attack after pursuing into woods. Infantry should not be allowed to make an attack after pursuit; only cavalry should. In the artillery attack I realized that if I could make as many attacks as I had points, and because artillery in the attack defeats everything simply applying all my attacks to a single artillery piece would ensure the enemy's destruction. The only limitations would range and angle. An artillery unit should only be allowed to make a single attack in a turn. In fact, the only unit that should be allowed to attack more than once in a turn is cavalry in pursuit.
• The lack of zones of control means that units can slide around the flank of units after moving into melee range. (By the way, being in melee but not attacking does not mean that nothing is happening. It simply means that the fighting is not conclusive because neither side is pressing the issue.) I am not sure if I like this or not. This happened twice, once with the infantry in the woods and once with the infantry in the village. Both events might be justified as they both had a 2:1 ratio of troops, so you can say one unit occupied the enemy while the second made a decisive, tactical flanking move. Further, it cost 1 Move and 1 Attack, so it took a substantial number of resources. Where I think I would limit it might be that you must stop as soon as you hit a hex in the enemy's front melee range, i.e. adjacent and to their front. This would stop cavalry from charging from the front of a unit and hitting them in the flank, something we do in Richard Borg games all of the time.

All in all I really enjoyed the game and did not find it being diceless a problem at all. I might employ the optional rule of throwing 2D6 for each combat – with a '2' resulting in an inconclusive result and a '12' resulting in the winner losing – but I did not want to introduce that for this test game. I believe in the concept that you need to apply sufficient force at a point in order to ensure victory and these rules absolutely reflect that. I think too many times we rely on the luck of the dice to carry us through a poorly planned or executed attack. That just does not happen in this game.

C4ISR – Test Game 2

Another C4ISR Test Game

Today, gaming buddy Don agreed to test C4ISR (my science fiction version of Command and Colors rules). I really liked the game, but more importantly, I think we both came up with what we did and did not like.

What we tried:

• Battle dice were 10-sided, with the faces: Infantry-Infantry-Armor-Artillery-Air-Grenade-Medic-Flag-Miss-Miss. Note that the odds are reduced compared to the Memoir '44 six-sided battle dice. Also note that artillery is hit on its own symbol now.
• Grenades only hit in close combat.

• Infantry attacking Anti-Personnel (AP) Targets: dice rolled are 3-3-2-2-1-1. (That is the number of dice at each hex range, so 3 dice at 1 and 2 hexes, 2 dice at 3 and 4 hexes, etc.)
• Infantry attacking Anti-Armor (AT) Targets: 4-2-2-1.
• Mech Infantry attacking AP Targets: 3-3-2-2-1-1.
• Mech Infantry attacking AT Targets: 4-2-2-1.
• Armor attacking AP Targets: 2-3-3-2-1-1.
• Armor attacking AT Targets: 4-4-3-3-2-2-1-1
• Artillery attack AP or AT Targets: 3-2-1. Note that for artillery this is not hex count, but board section count. In other words, 3 dice for the same board section, 2 dice for an adjacent board section, and 1 die for a board section two away. (On a normal gameboard there are six board sections: Left, Center, and Right for each half of the battlefield. For a Breakthrough-sized board there are nine board sections. For Overlord-sized boards it is 12 board sections and Overlord-Breakthrough-sized it is a whopping 18 board sections!)
• All units use 1 less die if the unit has taken any number of casualties.
• Terrain was more like BattleLore than Memoir '44. Rather than subtracting dice to attack in or out, the maximum number of dice were indicated instead. Buildings were 1 die shooting in and 2 dice shooting out (1 die for Armor shooting out). Woods were 2 dice in and no restrictions out. Hills were 2 dice up, 3 dice across (hill-to-hill) or down. We did not use any other terrain types. Artillery was unaffected by the battle dice restrictions of terrain, either in or out.

• Artillery count as AP targets.
• Mech Infantry and Self-Propelled Artillery count as AT targets.

• Light Infantry move 2 hexes and Battle or 3 hexes.
• Elite Light Infantry move 3 hexes and Battle.
• Mech Infantry move 4 hexes and Battle or 6 hexes.
• Armor move 6 hexes and Battle.
• Artillery move 1 hex or Battle.
• Self-Propelled Artillery move 2 hexes and Battle or 4 hexes.
• Units must stop when they enter the first hex adjacent to an enemy unit; they cannot move through.

• Units with support ignore 1 Flag.
• Units with support can Battle Back in close assault.
• Units are supported if two friendly units can provide them support.
• A unit can provide support to a unit it is adjacent to.
• An artillery unit can provide support to a unit within two hexes of it.
• A command unit can provide support to a unit within two hexes of it.

So, although the game is based heavily on Memoir '44, it really takes elements from all of the Richard Borg games. The idea is that C4ISR is at a much lower scale; each unit is a squad or platoon, at most. Each Town hex is more like a Building hex. Using boards from Squad Leader would be more appropriate, in terms of scale.

Units move and fire much farther. The Armor units being able to move 6 and fire 8 hexes means it has a large threat zone. Of course, at this scale, sufficient cover and line-of-sight-blocking terrain is a must.

There were a few other rules that we added, but they did not come into play. For example, the ability of a unit to move through a friendly unit. I also had a few ideas, but Don was not keen on them, so we set them aside.

So, how did it play? Very interesting, I think. The ability to ignore Flags due to support meant that units often stayed in formation. This in turn meant they could battle back in close assault, making them more likely to keep their positions without burning cards.

The long ranges often came into play, then we switched to everything being close assaults, and finally we went back to firing at 2-3 hex range, in order to avoid the battle backs.

The terrain had a great impact on the game. As most infantry was holed up in buildings, most battles were with 1 die, unless it was artillery. In fact, artillery is how we dug infantry out of buildings. We may have to change Armor to getting 2 dice in close assault against buildings to represent the effect of HE in enclosed spaces, but we will see. Using 1 die for infantry fighting house-to-house was a slow, slogging process, and I was fine with it.

Another interesting effect was the penalty of a die to a unit that lost one or more figures. This has a contrary effect to how you play Command and Colors normally, which is to focus fire on a unit until it is dead, and producing a victory point. This gives you an incentive to spread the fire around, pinning units here and there (my explanation of what the -1 die represented). Don focused on that tactic, and as a result a lot of my fire was reduced (but not all – firing into a building with a full unit or reduced still only gives you 1 die). I, on the other hand, kept trying to eliminate units and get to victory.

So, what did we want to change? Most things, actually. Although the game was fun, I could see the complexity in remembering how many dice to roll based on the range was going to be a problem. I mean, in Memoir '44 it is 3-2-1 for infantry, 3-3-3 for armor, and 3-3-2-2-1-1 for artillery. Pretty easy to remember. Infantry in Battle Cry is 4-3-2-1, artillery is 5-4-3-2-1, and cavalry 3, so it is also easy to remember. This model is not (although I did get the hang of it about 75% of the time, by the end of the game). Next experiment will be with a fixed number of dice, like BattleLore, with the same terrain effects (restricting the maximum number of dice, rather than subtracting dice). Also, we will probably extend the range of weapons even farther.

I think support should be a unit within two hexes. Aesthetically it looks much better. Units are not in solid phalanxes and supporting units can be in buildings across the road (i.e. one hex between). Artillery should provide support to any unit in its board section.

Our scenario was not really representative. I am not sure which scenario we played, but it was a Memoir '44 Breakthrough board scenario. The Allies were spread out and the Axis were concentrated, so the latter just started rolling over units eventually. But the low number of dice rolled, along with changing the probabilities of getting hits, meant that it took a long time. Our game last much longer than the normal Memoir game, about twice as long, and about 50% longer than a Breakthrough-board Memoir game.

Sorry no pictures, but it would have just looked like a Memoir game as I was using those figues as proxies. Not enough 6mm science fiction troops painted up yet.

New Figures from Onslaught Miniatures

Speaking of 6mm science fiction miniatures, expect some more comparison photos of the new figures from Onslaught Miniatures. When I made my purchase, Don (of Onslaught Miniatures) only had the Prowlers, Mantis Beasts, and Overseers at the time. I knew I wanted to get the Gashers, Stalkers, and Winged Stalkers, but when the newsletter came out saying that the Abominations were now out, I knew it was time to order.

Perfect for a Genestealer Cult army in 6mm.

Although I like these, and think they will be a blast to paint, I have to be honest and say I was looking forward more to his OTC (not-Tau). But I understand his position. If you start a miniatures line you need to finish it, otherwise people will complain about starting too many lines and finishing none. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. So I will have to wait patiently for the OTC and buy and paint the Abominations in the meantime. I am sure Don won't mind. At this price, neither will my wallet.

BattleLore over Vassal Tournament Update

Well, I am proud to say that I made it by the hairs of my chinny-chin-chin into the Semi-Finals for the BattleLore over Vassal tournament. I only had one bad loss (but it was bad) in the main rounds and I thought it had knocked me out as a contender, but it turns out only one player did not have at least one bad game. Of course, that one player was the guy I had to play in the Semi-Finals!

But, we played our match on Saturday and I lost 5-6 in the first game but won 6-2 in the second, for an 11-8 win in the match, moving me to the Finals.

Today, I watched the other two semi-finalists play and the winner of the match also lost 5-6 on the first game and won the second 6-2. (Weird. Not only that, but we both lost as the Goblin player and won as the Dwarf player.) Ironically, the winner was Chris, the guy I play BattleLore all the time over Vassal. I think I taught him too well! Worse still, he knows all my tricks!

So we will start the Finals this week. Wish me luck!

As for the Samurai Battles over Vassal tournament, I think that is dying a slow death. I did complete another round (there are six, plus semi-finals and finals), but have not gotten any response from the other players. As it turns out, Samurai Battles looked much better on rice paper than it plays. Very disappointing.

The Impact of the Turn Sequence on the Solo Gamer

Over on my Solo Battles blog I wrote an article about the impact that the turn sequence of a game's rules has on the solo gamer. I only mention it because it has gotten a number of very interesting and thought-provoking comments. If you are into game design, you might want to check it out.

Other Gaming News

I finally finished making a simple gameboard with a 2" square grid so I can start playing a gridded version of De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) 3.0. I have given up that the author is going to refine the rules enough to get out the geometric tricks, so as John Acar suggested on a thread on TMP, simply go to the grid; that always gets out tricks like kinked lines and such. I know I won't be able to play in tournaments using these rules, but I think I can get the guys locally to play it. Expect to start seeing some write-ups on my Dale's DBA blog.

C4ISR

C4ISR is the modern US military acronym for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (and is actually C⁴ISR, but I am too lazy to superscript the '4' each and every time) and is an appropriate name for a science fiction variant of the Command and Colors family of games as it hints at the command and control aspect of those rules, in a modern setting.

I played my first test game today – if it really can be called that, as it was basically an all infantry fight – just to see what sort of kinks I needed to get out of the system, and areas that I needed to think about. Although I am strongly looking at the Memoir '44 style of dice symbols¹ for combat, I like the Command and Colors denotation of Red, Blue, and Green for Heavy, Medium, and Light. These designations seem to fit well with armored protection and hitting power, and I think these aspects of science fiction combat will come through.

I am considering using six combat ratings for each unit (yes six): speed, ranged firepower against soft (anti-personnel or AP) targets, assault power against soft targets, ranged firepower against hard (anti-tank or AT) targets, assault power against  hard targets, and ranged firepower against aerial (anti-aircraft or AA) targets. These will be reflected as a series of colored dots on the back of the unit's stand. The values would be:

Rating	White	Yellow	Green	Blue	Red
Speed	No movement allowed.	Move 1 or battle.	Move 2 and battle.	Move 1 and battle or move 2.	Move 1 and battle.
Ranged AP	No ranged fire allowed.	1 die	2 dice	3 dice	4 dice
Assault AP	Not allowed to initiate assault. 1 die otherwise.	1 die	2 dice	3 dice	4 dice
Ranged AT	No ranged fire allowed.	1 die	2 dice	3 dice	4 dice
Assault AT	Not allowed to initiate assault. 1 die otherwise.	1 die	2 dice	3 dice	4 dice
Ranged AA	No ranged fire allowed.	1 die	2 dice	3 dice	4 dice

Here are the initial values that I used for the Legion (not-Tyranid) troops.

Unit	Speed	Ranged AP	Assault AP	Ranged AT	Assault AT	Ranged AA
Flying Bugs	Green	Green	Green	Green	Blue	Green
Prowlers	Green	White	Blue	White	Green	White
Overseers with Swords	Green	White	Red	White	Green	White
Overseers with Guns	Blue	Red	Blue	Green	Blue	Green
Mantis Beast2	Blue	White	Red	White	Blue	White

I am using four hits for each infantry unit (with the Mantis Beast being an exception with having a single hit) and three hits for each armor unit. Infantry fire at a range of three (too short for the scale, in hindsight), but with no diminution in dice with range. (Note, however, that the Grenade symbol only hits when in Assault (adjacent).

Here are the stats for the Kraytonian soldiers.

Unit	Speed	Ranged AP	Assault AP	Ranged AT	Assault AT	Ranged AA
Light Monitors	Green	Green	Green	White	Green	Yellow
Medium Monitors	Blue	Blue	Blue	Green	Green	Yellow
Heavy Monitors	Red	Red	Blue	Blue	Red	Yellow

Please note that all of these are preliminary values. They need playtesting.

---

¹ Memoir '44 uses two Infantry symbols, one Armor symbol, one Grenade symbol, one Flag symbol, and one Star symbol for its six faces.

² The Mantis Beast is like a Tiger tank in Memoir '44 or a Creature in BattleLore in that it has a single hit, but requires that all hits scored against it be confirmed by rolling a Grenade/Sword on Shield symbol in order for the hit to take effect. Any other result on the confirming roll results in no hit being scored.

---

Playtest Game

Okay, the pictures are pretty ugly (as the miniatures are not painted), but it shows the concept as well as any Command and Colors game, and gives an idea of what it would look like with 6mm miniatures. Of course, you can always go for a game mat with larger hexes and figures and better terrain.

I flipped through the numerous Memoir '44 scenarios that I have, looking for an interesting terrain setup. Ironically I picked The Battle of Villers-Bocage just from the terrain before I recognized what the scenario was about. Villers-Bocage was an ambush by German Tiger tanks, led by the famous Tiger Ace SS-Obersturmführer Michael Wittmann against a British armored column. (I have a few books that are tactical studies of WW II battles, and The Battle of Villers-Bocage is one of those few.)

I thought that this would be a good scenario to convert to science fiction only I did not want to jump into armored combat yet, and I wanted to use the Legion figures ("the Bugs") from Onslaught Miniatures. So, the Bugs became the Tigers and the Kraytonian infantry (from Dark Realm Miniatures) became the hapless British.

In the original Memoir '44 scenario there were two less German units, but as they were Tigers, they were pretty powerful. I gave the Bugs two extra units. I substituted ½ of the British armored forces for Heavy Infantry and the remaining ½ for Medium Infantry. The British infantry forces became Light Infantry.

Originally the scenario called for a six-card German Command hand and a three-card British Command hand. I increased the Kraytonian Command hand to four and left the Bug hand at six. Also, the Germans needed to achieve only five Victory Points while the British only three, but I changed this to both sides requiring five Victory Points for this game. The Bugs would move first, just as the Germans do in this scenario.

One other key point of this scenario that is unusual is that all woods and building terrain are considered impassable. Where the Bugs start in woods, they can move out, but once out they cannot move back in.

One final note: I did not treat the Mantis Beast as indicated in the rules above for this scenario. I simply treated them as a four hit infantry unit.

The picture above shows the initial deployments. The Kraytonians (blue) are strung out along the road across the entire board. There is no left flank security whatsoever. The Bugs (red) are attacking from the top-left corner.

Turn 1: The Bugs start off with a great card, able to move all of their units on the left side of the board (their right flank). They quickly engage the Kraytonians on the road, sending one unit fleeing, leaving another crippled.

Turn 2: The Bugs continue to press on the left, getting their Overseers with Swords in amongst the rear of the column. The cripples Kraytonian Medium Infantry is eliminated, making the score 1-0 for the Bugs.

Turn 3: The Bugs attack starts to peter out under the massed fire of the Kraytonians. The Mantis Beast is felled under a hail of slugs from the Heavy and Medium Infantry in the center. The Light Infantry in the center is badly crippled forcing a second Light Infantry unit to jump into the fray with the Overseers with Guns in order to cover their retreat. The score is now tied at 1-1.

Turn 4: The Overseers with Guns back off and blast the Kraytonian Light Infantry while on the other flank the Overseers with Swords fall under a hail of slugs from massed Kraytonian fire. The score is now tied at 2-2.

Turn 5: A massive push (using the Infantry Assault card) by the Kraytonians brings a huge amount of firepower to bear, eliminating another Bug unit (the Overseers with Guns) and pushing a Prowler unit to the baseline. This ambush is not quite going the way expected… The Kraytonians lead 3-2.

Turn 6: As the out-numbered Bugs try to regroup, the Kraytonians continue to hammer the Bug units. Of the four units, one has three hits, one two, and one has one hit. On the other side, four Kraytonian units have three hits, but as the Bugs just cannot move through the wall of slugs coming at them, they cannot eliminate any of the weakened enemy units.

Turn 7: The Bugs continue to struggle and make no headway. Ironically, the Kraytonians make a heroic effort (they play the card Their Finest Hour, allowing them an extra die in combat) and eliminate the two weakest Bug units, winning 5-2.

Analysis

Until I put bigger Bugs on the board, I will probably use the Mantis Beast like a Memoir '44 Tiger unit or a BattleLore Creature. In BattleLore terms, the Mantis Beast should be something like the Giant Spider: fast, great in the woods, but not very hard hitting (relatively speaking).

The problem with the Bugs, of course, is their lack of ranged weapons. Part of that is my collection. Time to send an order to Onslaught Miniatures and get the rest of their line, which happen to be the ones that have ranged weapons. I need to find or make a Bugs leader and base up the huge Skyth so I can use them as artillery pieces and add a new component to the game.

I like Command and Colors, of course, so as a game it felt a bit better than Memoir '44, which is probably the simplest of the rules (we are speaking of the simplicity of the core mechanics; Memoir '44 has added a lot of rules in all of their expansion), but still very simple. That was largely because I was using all infantry, and a small attacking force at that. Further, using the cover of terrain was not allowed.

I don't want to change too much based on this one play. After all, it played all right, although I have to re-think the ranges. Of course, extending the ranges will make it even deadlier for the Bugs, so I may need to up the speed of the Bugs or just understand that I will need a lot more of them on their side.

Draft Inca Battle Board

Two Milestones Hit

Well, I finally made it to 250 posts! Not only that, but I hit the 100th blog reader milestone too!

So welcome to new reader Howard, who put me over the top. I hope you enjoy the "eclectic" style (read: "schizophrenic") of the subjects, and as alway, comments are always welcome. (By the way, I like your profile icon; very Tekumel looking.)

Here Come the Incas

Ralph (Bowman) has been hard at work drafting up the Incan faction rules and Saga abilities and I finally got some time to make the battle board. As always, remember this is a draft and it all needs to be play tested.

I decided to put some effort into this one, as I wanted to move away from the template provided by Tomahawk Studios and come up with a more "Mesoamerican" themed board. Also, I started standardizing fonts and element positioning. It was a lot of work, but the board looks a lot cleaner. (I dread going back and redoing the Aztec, Tlaxcaltec, and Conquistador battle boards in the same way.)

I started with searching for an Incan textile pattern. In hindsight, I probably should have blown the pattern up, making it larger, rather than using the smaller pattern and repeating it. As it is, you really have to look close to see the repeating, as so much of it is covered by the abilities.

On to the faction rules!

Saga: Inca

1. All Inca (Apu, Huaminca, and Auqua) are armed with a champi (a 5-starred stone or metal warclub) or a thrusting spear (the original Quechua term is not known), with a canipu (metal breastplate) and a polcana (shield).
2. The Apu (Warlord) may be on foot or carried in a War Palanquin. If in a palanquin he is considered Mounted. Due to the large size of the model, use the body of the palanquin for measuring. This corresponds roughly to a large Warlord base size. The figures carrying the palanquin are only for decoration and have no effect in the game.
3. You may take between one and two Huaminca (Hearthguard) units. If you decide to take two units then one unit will be from the Upper Huaminca and the other from the Lower Huaminca. (Upper and Lower pertains to the neighborhoods in Cuzco City.) These units are very competitive and antagonistic and they suffer from the Animosity Special Rule.
4. Animosity Special Rule: If during the game the two Huaminca units finish their turn within M of one another, both units instantly accrue a FATIGUE marker.
5. Huaminca soldiers are armed with a yauri (halberd), which is treated as a two-handed Danish Axe.
6. The Auqua (Warriors), in addition to the equipment listed above, are also armed with the huaraca (sling). They may fire with their slings if they do not move in their turn. (Note that not being able to move on a turn they fire is their penalty for having both ranged and melee weapons and combat values.)
7. A unit of Auqua may be exchanged for a unit of Cunti. They have no slings, but carry a two-handed macana (sword). Treat the macan as a two-handed Danish Axe.
8. Auqua may use the "Bolas" SAGA ability. A single Bolas shot strikes two foot figures or one Mounted figure within M range. Against Mounted figures, the bolas is -1 to shoot. (Note: I need clarification from Ralph on exactly what this means.) As with a sling, the bolas cannot be used if the unit has moved in the turn. Further, the unit cannot move after firing the bolas. As with a sling, using the bolas for more than one Shooting activation accrues a FATIGUE on the second and each subsequent Shooting activation.
9. The Inca warband must take at least 1 unit of Anti or Chuncho (Forest) Indian Levy.
10. A guanca (or huaca, or waka, depending upon the source) is a collection of stones that had magical and spiritual qualities that Inca soldiers could draw upon in the battle. Make some rocky terrain that is based on a Warlord-sized base (about 40mm). At the beginning of battle, before any troops are deployed, the Inca player may place the guanca on the battlefield.

Now if only I had some 25mm Incas to try these rules out with. (I do have some unpainted 15mm Incas that I received as a gift, however. No 15mm Conquistadors, however.)

Update on C4ISR – Science Fiction Command and Colors

I decided that, to start, I am going to have to use the Command deck from Memoir '44, if I want to get a game going in some reasonable amount of time (i.e. this weekend or next week). I am also probably going to have to use the Memoir '44 Combat decks, and their attendant rules, until I come up with my own science-fiction themed events and combat buffs. Not that either of these is a problem, it just won't look as good until I have it all done. (As the figures are not all painted, the cards are actually the least of my worries.)

I have been developing a list of differences between C4ISR and Memoir '44 and other Command and Colors games.

• Units will represent far smaller units, probably platoons or squads/sections.
• Units will be allowed to move through friendly units, although they cannot remain in the same hex. (There are exceptions, such as a transport unit transporting a foot unit.)
• Aerial vehicles will be units, not abstract cards.
• Aerial vehicles can be eliminated by anti-air units (whether ground- or aerial-based), eliminating the ability to call in further aerial attacks.
• Support will allow a unit to ignore one retreat.
• Artillery and Command units can provide support from farther away; they will not be required to provide support to a unit by being adjacent.
• Artillery will be easier to eliminate by direct attack.
• Close Assault will be deadlier. Actually, ranged fire will be less deadly than in Memoir '44. I am going to allow the Grenade to hit only in Close Assault, rather than always.
• Units can only ignore one Retreat, or all, depending upon circumstances. Command units, support, digging in, etc. will each grant the ability to ignore one Retreat, but unlike other Command and Colors variants, they will not stack. Other elements, like fortifications, however, might allow you to ignore all Retreat results. So it will be one, all, or nothing.
• Foot units will be able to mount transport units, which allows them to move faster and may change the unit type from Infantry to Armor or Aerial (depending upon the transport type) while being transported.

Let me know what you think, or if you have any ideas of your own.