Warfare 2025 - Retail Therapy

Of course, no hobby show is complete without a little light shopping, and I did pick up a few new shiny things at Warfare last weekend. There was a pretty good range of traders present  (see Big Lee's excellent video report on his visit, which featured the trade stands quite heavily ), so plenty of opportunites. Here is a summary of my purchases, the directions they may be sending in.. 

I had pre-ordered a couple of things to collect at the show - first and most important being from Commission Figurines.  I acquired 10 packs of their 6mm MDF semi-flat figures, to increase the forces available to my 'Risorgimento' 1859 Italy armies.  A cunning combination of packs from the Napoleonic and ACW ranges should allow me to represent two divisions of Austrians and one division each of Piedmontese and French - the first time that Louis Napoleon's men have appeared. 

 A major plus point for these figures is that a packet of nearly 100 infantry costs just £2, and that will make four battalions - very economical!  I am using Napoleonic British infantry in 'Stovepipe' shako for Austrian infantry, and ACW foot and artillery in Kepis for the French, for example -  as I think my friend  Chris aka Nundanket has said 'as long as the hat looks right, you're OK'..

My second 'pre-order' was from NewLine Designs  20mm Ancients range - specifically the 'personality' set of Darius of Persia in his chariot. I already had their Alexander figure for my DBA Macedonian army, so obviously I needed Darius.  And here he is, in kit form.. 

 I am quite looking forward to assembling and painting this, along with Alexander  (albeit the latter is a simple single  mounted figure ).  

Having dug out the Macedonians and Persians the other week and tried out Dominion of the Spear rules with them,  I admit I had a hankering to add another DBA-sized army to the collection, allowing a potential three-cornered campaign - so obviously, I needed Porus and his Indians.  I was fortunately able to make good on that idea, thanks to a couple more acquisitions :

First these two HaT 1/72 packs,  which I found on the Grubby Tanks/Brittannia Miniatures stall

These will provide up to 12 cavalry and 3 chariots, which should be plenty for a DBA-size army. I was mildly disappointed that they didn't have the Elephants pack from the same range, but I'm sure they will be available for on-line ordering  somewhere - it wouldn't be  Porus' army without some elephants! 

I also spotted some appropriate infantry on the Newline Designs display, so I picked up 2 packs (4 per pack ) each of their archers and javelin men - I think they are rather nice: 

 

I am looking forward to painting these too, they are nice figures, and I have a piece of wargaming magazine nostalgia to inspire my efforts too, of which more in a future post. 

Well, the above seem to have go me well and truly into an 'ancients' mood, and that doubtless influenced a couple of purchases from The Society of Ancients stall, and the pen of Phil 'Lost Battles' Sabin :  

 

Strategos II is a set of fairly simple rules for tabletop battles, using a gridded system. Armies are a little bigger than DBA, for example, which suits my longer-term plans, and I know Phil Sabin is absolutely an expert in this field, so it will be interesting to see how these play.  Empire is 'a very simple game... simulating the struggle for imperial dominance between Carthaginians, Romans, Macedonians and Persians/Parthians, from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC'  - I am intrigued by the way that this period saw the parallel existence of all those powers, and the resulting campaigning possibilies (real or imaginary). The game has rather a nice map, too: 

 With a simple strategic game and more than one set of relatively simple 'small armies' tactical rules, I can feel  an Ancients campaign coming sometime in the future (though of course that might mean raising Roman and Carthaginian armies too!). 

And last but not least, I couldn't resist a bargain (it was the cheapest item here), from the second-hand books offered by  Stonewall Figures  - not quite directly relevant to the above purchases, but who can refuse a piece of vintage (1981)  Terry Wise, with classic illustrations by Angus McBride?  

file under 'comfort reading' 

 And that, as they say,  is about that - not a bad selection of stuff new and old, which should keep me busy in the winter months. I will need to have some regular painting sessions for the various figures, but I think I have kept them to manageable numbers which can be painted fairly quickly without boredom setting in.  

 As a quick postscript, I was fortunate last week to take part in one of Jon Freitag's remote games - this time the Reconquista battle of Zallaqah 1086.  I took the part of King Alfonso VI, leading his Knights to... well, I'll let you read about it in Jon's battle report.  A very challenging and tense game that went right down to the wire - many thanks to Jon and the other players for a great evening's gaming. The picture below shows an 'interesting' manoeuvre that I tried with Alfonso's Knights..

  

 Anyway, do read Jon's report for a flavour of the back-and-forth of a nerve-wracking game! 

Next time, perhaps an account of an interesting talk that I attended recently. Until then keep well, everyone. 

Dominion of the Spear : Gaugamela 331BC

Having tried, and enjoyed, Dominion of rules in both Pike and Shot and Bismarck  variants, I saw the 'Ancients' version  Dominion of the Spear being used at The Other Partizan show last month, by Wargame Developments for their Alexander the Brief game.  Of course, that made me think 'I have Macedonian and Persian armies for DBA, could I use them for this?' Well, of course I could!  I also liked the printed booklet edition of the rules that they were using - so I ordered myself a set of 'DotS' from Lulu.  I bought a combined book of the basic rules and army lists, plus scenarios for 36 historical battles from Megiddo (1479 BC) to Agincourt (1415 AD). 

 One of those is Gaugamela ( or Arbela ) from 331 BC,  in which Alexander The Great's Macedonians  fought Darius III's Achaemenid Persians - deciding the fate of the Persian empire.   So let's give it a go.. 

The scenario has opposing armies as follows: 

Macedonians:     1 x Elite Armoured Cavalry ( Companions )  

                            1 x Cavalry ( Thessalians) 

                            1 x Elite Armoured Pikemen ( Phalanx )

                            1 x Spearmen ( Peltasts ) 

 

Persians :             3 x Cavalry

                            1 x Chariots (scythed) 

                            1 x Horse Archers

                            1 x Archers

 

So the Macedonians are outnumbered  6 units to 4, but have two very powerful units in the Companions and Pike Phalanx.  I don't yet have a Persian Chariot unit, but in the rules they are equivalent to 'melee mounted'  cavalry, so I simply replaced them with another Cavalry unit, making 4 in all.  I set up a very minimalist table, like this: 

 

The Persians are on the left of the picture, Macedonians to the right. At the top ( Left sector )  the Persian Horse Archers face Alexander's Companion cavalry; in the Centre  we have Persian Cavalry (standing in for Chariots)  against Macedonian Pike Phalanx;   and in the Right sector (bottom of picture) another Persian Cavalry unit is up against the Thessalian  cavalry.  In reserve (far left of picture) the Persians have two further cavalry units and the foot archers,  while the Macedonians (far right) have just their single unit of  Peltasts.    These dispositions were as specified in the scenario booklet.   And so, to battle.. 

 

First of all,  I diced for Attacker/Defender roles - the Persians rolled highest, and were deemed 'Attacker',  meaning they would go first in each turn. There are no less than three suggested variants for activating units in the rules, and I chose 'Option B', whereby on each turn the Attacker chooses one of the three sectors to initiate combat, and after that combat is resolved then the Defender in their turn  gets to choose one sector to fight in (which may be the same one as the attacker chose). 

 

Turn 1 began with the Persian 'attackers' choosing to attack with their cavalry in the Right sector against the Thessalian cavalry - the least powerful front-line Macedonian formation. Both are 'melee mounted' troops, so combat is a simple opposed 1D6 die roll  with a target of 4,5 or 6 to 'hit'.   The Persians rolled a 6 (hit), the Macedonians a 3 (miss) - so the Thessalians were defeated and removed from the game - simple!   When a unit is removed, it is replaced by a unit from the Reserve, if available  - accordingly, the Macedonian Peltasts moved to the Right sector to plug the gap. 

 

After Persian turn 1 - Thessalians gone, Peltasts move up

 

In their turn, Alexander's Macedonians set their Pike Phalanx moving forward to attack the Persian cavalry in the Centre sector.  Having 'Elite' status gave the Pikes an advantage in attack, and being 'Armoured' gave an advantage in defence, so it was not too surprising when the  cavalry was scattered by the mighty Phalanx ( it didn't help that the Persians only rolled a '2' ).   Darius ordered another cavalry unit to move up from Reserve to replace their defeated comrades.  At the end of Turn 1 each side had lost one unit, leaving 5 Persians against 3 Macedonians. 

 

Macedonian Turn 1 : one less Persian Cavalry! 

 On Turn 2, Darius ordered his Cavalry in the Right sector to attack the Macedonian Peltasts, again steering clear of the Companions and Pike Phalanx.  Cavalry and Peltasts being both 'melee' types were evenly matched - this time the dice went Persians 3 (miss) , Macedonians 5 (hit), and the Persian cavalry were routed.  Darius then ordered his foot Archers forward from Reserve.   With only average units facing  'Elite Armoured' Macedonians in the other two sectors, things looked pretty tough for Darius.  And then...

 

Turn 2 : Macedonian Phalanx overthrown! 

 For his Turn 2 activation, Alexander decided to keep his Pike Phalanx rolling forward in the Centre, ordering them to attack the Persian cavalry there. With advantages for being 'Elite' and 'Armoured', it seemed likely to be a repeat of the previous turn  - until the Macedonians rolled a '2' (miss)  and the Persians a '6' (hit!).  With that, the Phalanx dissolved and routed off the field - a serious blow for Alexander!  With no more units in Reserve,  this left their Centre sector empty - a very big hole in Alexander's battle line.  At the end of Turn 2, the Persians had 4 units against the Macedonians 2. 

On Turn 3, could Darius exploit the advantage so unexpectedly gained? He ordered his Centre sector Cavalry unit to make a Flanking Attack on the Peltasts, who would not be able to fight back. Now this was also 'match point', because if the Peltasts  were to be destroyed, Alexander would have only his Companions left on the field - and the rules say that if an army has zero or one remaining unit, and fewer units  than their opponents, at the end of a turn, the battle is lost.  So, rolling for the game - the Persians' dice showed - a '1' !  The Peltasts survived, and Alexander was still in the game.

 

Persian Turn 3 : Cavalry outflank Peltasts 

 

Now Alexander really needed some success to level things up - time for the Companions to attack! Facing them were Persian Horse Archers, and the combat rules decree that these ('Missile Mounted')  would shoot first at the charging Companions ('Melee Mounted'). They did so, a difficult shot owing to the Companions 'Armoured' status  - and perhaps unsurprisingly, missed.  The Companions charging home, had a 'plus 2' on the die roll  ( Elite status and 'Melee vs Missile'), but could only roll a '1' - no result. So, Turn 3 left the overall situation unchanged.    

 

For Turn 4,  the Persians had little option but to repeat their previous attack - their Cavalry in the Centre making a flanking attack on the Peltasts. Sadly for Darius, they also repeated their die roll of '1' - no result, and the Macedonians breathed again.  In their turn, they too repeated themselves, the Companions charging again at the Persian Horse Archers.  Again, the Horse Archers shot and missed, again the Companions charged home, and this time were not to be resisted. the Horse Archers were routed, to be replaced by the last Persian Reserves, their fourth unit of Cavalry. 

 

End Turn 4 :  can Alexander hang on? 

 

Thus at  the end of Turn 4, things looked a bit more equal - 3 Persian units vs. 2 Macedonians. The Companions still a powerful threat, but the gap in the Greek centre equally dangerous.  Could Alexander save himself?  

 

For Turn 5,  the Persians again had really only one option - keep attacking those Peltasts! Accordingly, their Centre sector cavalry charged for a third time at the flank of the Peltasts - and this time the dice gods were with them. They rolled a  '6' , and the Peltasts were duly destroyed.   

 

Turn 5 : Peltasts finally routed

 

Now this spelled doom for Alexander - even if his Companions could destroy their immediate opponents, at the end of  Turn 5 he would have only one unit against two Persians, and would thus lose the battle. So I could have called the game at that point, but I thought I would give Alexander his chance to even things up a little, so I played the Macedonian round. Of course the Companions attacked the opposing Persian cavalry,  but it seems both sides were becoming tired at this point; the Macedonians rolled '2' and the Persians '3', giving no effect. That ended Turn 5, and with just one Macedonian unit facing three Persian,  a famous victory went to Darius.  Perhaps history would be re-written, as Alexander's invading force  was forced to retire and the Persian Empire lived another day..

 

Turn 5 end: Alexander's last charge can't save him

I rather enjoyed that - once again the 'Dominion of..' rules proved very simple but quite clever. Things looked very tough for the Persians at the start, with no unit really matching up to  Alexander's Companions and Pike Phalanx, all 'Elite' and 'Armoured'.  But the dice intervened and the Pike Phalanx must have become disorganised, to be broken up by Persian cavalry - after that, Darius was in with a real chance, and eventually prevailed, not without some difficulty!  I think 'Quantity has a Quality all its Own' also applied, the Persians being able to keep feeding in their cheaper  units to replace losses, stay in the game and hope the dice came up in their favour, whereas Alexander relied on fewer if higher quality units, and was thus more vulnerable to attrition.  Losing the Pike Phalanx was the real killer!      

 

Not everyone's cup of tea, I'm sure, and very much dependent on '1D6'  results, but a fast and furious game  with some tactical subtlety required when deciding where to attack and  which units to call up from Reserve. Actually having a Reserve is perhaps unusual in table-top wargames, and very welcome  (see Big Lee's recent discussion) - in that respect, does this very simple game prove more 'authentic' as a command challenge than many more complex systems? 

 

Like many a simple game, I'm sure there is scope for tinkering and  expanding - the author (Steve Parker)  discusses options for larger armies ( simply more units in reserve, or perhaps  more powerful units ), and for larger battlefields ( increase the number of sectors ), and I wonder if multiple units per sector might be interesting - I assume all these would make for a longer-lasting game and perhaps less of a 'sudden death' style.  The small numbers of units required for a basic game makes it attractive to try out different armies - I have a few very vintage  Airfix Ancient Britains , who might become a Gaulish army, and I think I bought a box of HaT  Carthaginians - so obviously I just need some Romans now.. and so the megalomania starts! 

 

I hope this has been interesting for you; it was certainly good fun for me, and I will no doubt return to the theme. The next big item on my hobby agenda is the Warfare show at Farnborough  next weekend,  which I hope to visit and will try to report on, and those vintage Minifigs 7YW/AWI armies need some proper storage and organisation - and of course, to be used in a game! Until then, keep well, everyone .

'Dominion of Risorgimento' : Palestro 1859

In between counting and photographing vintage Minifigs,  I fancied a quick and easy bit of gaming with my 6mm Risorgimento 1859 armies.  I have to thank Bob Cordery for his most timely pointing out that the latest  'Dominion of..'  rulesets to be release included  Dominion of Otto von Bismarck,  which cover the period from the Crimean to Franco-Prussian wars. at around £5 from Wargames Vault, they looked worth a try.   

As you may be aware, these are very simple rules, designed for solo play and using only about 6 units per side, so games can be played in pretty quick time - and from my experience with the Pike and Shot version, they have some interesting and subtle mechanisms. In this case, Infantry are defined as 'Line' (mainly relying on firepower)  or 'Column'  (mainly fighting in assault columns), and this seems a fair reflection of the period. Artillery can be kept in the 'reserve' area and used for bombardment in support of attacks by other units, which can be very effective.

The rules include scenarios and army lists for 24 historical battles, one of which is Palestro 1859, which suits my current  'Piedmont vs Austria'  setup (really must get some French next!),  and with  the forces  comprising five or six units each side, very easy to  find armies for.  So I gave it a go, and here is the intial deployment - Peidmontese nearest the camera. 

 

Historically, the Piedmontese had counter-attacked the invading Austrians and re-taken the village of Palestro on the River Sesia, and the Austrians then attempted to push the Piedmontese out of their defensive positions. In the suggested scenario,  Piedmont has three 'Line' Infantry units in defensive  positions  ( denoted by the walls )  as their front line, with the right-hand unit also being Elite status - these were the French 3rd Zouave regiment on the day, but I used Piedmontese Grenadiers (must get some French next!).  That unit was concealed (hence trees) and could not be bombarded by artillery until they had revealed themselves by engaging in combat.  In reserve (back line) they had two 'Column' infantry units, which were deemed 'unreliable' to simulate the uncertainty of reinforcements arriving. 'Unreliable' units have to roll a die before their first combat - they will either rout and be eliminated, or become 'regular' and fight as normal. You might have noticed that I deployed 'Column' units in a sort of T-shape formation representing the attack column with skirmishers out front, and 'Line' units in simple blocks. 

The Austrian force had three 'Column' infantry units on the front line and ready to attack, plus two more 'Column' units and one Artillery unit in Reserve - the latter being able to fire in support of attacks by the front-line units. So, they had the advantage of one extra infantry unit and supporting srtillery, but were facing 'dug in' defenders, one unit of whom had Elite status. And so, to battle..

The basic turn mechanism is for the attacker to go first and specify one sector of the table (Left, Centre or Right ) to mount an attack, with combat taking place between the opposing front-line units in that sector  ( note that since this is a solo game, it's easier to keep the same sectors as 'Left' or 'Right' for both sides - in this case, as per the photos ). Once that attack is resolved, the Defender takes their turn to attack in their specified sector. The choice of sector is decided by the active player rolling a die - they may be able to choose their attack sector, or have the choice forced upon them, depending how the die roll goes. So there's an element of uncertainty in that decision, the Commanders are not in complete control of their forces and fighting may break out in unintended places - which seems quite a reasonable, 'fog of war' effect.

Turn One opened with an Austrian attack in the Left Scctor (having rolled a high enough score to choose), where on of their 'Column' Infantry faced an entrenched  Piedmontese 'Line'. The Austrians could also have their Artillery fire on the enemy unit first - it did so, but missed.  In the subsequent combat, 'Line' units fire first (all combat rolls are one D6), but have less chance of scoring a hit, then surviving 'Column' units can charge home, with a better chance - rather subtle.  In this case the Piedmontese shooting was too good, scoring a hit and eliminating the attacking Austrians.  An eliminated unit must be replaced from Reserve - so one of the two reserved Austrian  'Column'  units stepped up.  In the Piedmontese turn, the Die decided on a 'Centre' attack;  there were no Piedmontese artillery, so no bombardment. In the combat the  tables were turned, with the Peidmontese scoring a 'miss'  and the Austrians rolling high - the Piedmontese unit was Eliminated, and had to be replaced by one of the two 'Unreliable Infantry 'Column' units from Reserve.   Each side lost one unit in Turn One, but perhaps Austria did better, knocking out a dug-in unit which was only replaced by 'Unreliable' reserves. 

Turn One: Piedmont centre weakened?

 

Turn Two started well for Austria; again getting choice of attack sector, they chose the Centre. Their artillery missed again, but the 'Unreliable' defending Piedmon unit rolled low on its reaction test, and promptly routed! It was replaced by the second, and last, also 'Unreliable' unit from reserve. Piedmontese pride was restored on their turn; the die roll forced them to attack on the Left, but their 'Line' unit there rolled high and defeated the opposing Austrian 'Column' unit. It was replaced by another 'Column', leaving only the Artillery in Austrian reserve. Losses still even at two units each, but that Piedmont centre looked quite worrying, and reserves were denuded..

Turn 2 : Front lines holding, but Reserves almost gone

On Turn Three,  fighting broke out on the Left (decided by the die roll), and the Austrian  Artillery finally got the range, scoring a hit which removed the 'Dug-In' advantage from the defending Piedmont unit.  Piedmont's 'Line' unit then missed, but so did the attacking Austrian Column, so no decision there. The Dice Gods favoured the Austrians, however, as Piedmont's roll  indicated the same Left sector again, the defending Line unit's shooting was again ineffective, and the attacking Column charged home and overran them! With no units left in Reserve, Piedmont could not replace the loss, leaving their Left sector undefended.  Things looked bad for the Italians.. 

Turn 3 : Piedmont Left gone - is it all up for them?

 Would Turn Four spell the end for the Piedmontese?  The Austrian die roll denoted fighting breaking out on the Right, where all had been quiet until then - and here lurked the Elite Piedmont Grenadiers. As noted above, these were concealed and could not be bombarded by artillery, so the Austrian Column had to fight unsupported - and were promptly shot down by the Grenadiers' musketry. This was a double blow, as it forced the Austrian artillery to come out of reserve to fill the front line gap, leaving it unable to bombard in support of other sectors AND facing an Elite enemy!  On Piedmont's turn the worst promtly  happened for Austria - the die roll decided on the Right sector again, and the artillery were sent packing by the Piedmont Grenadiers!  That Elite unit had really proved its worth. 

Now the opposing sides are each allowed one attempt to 'Rally' and bring back one routed unit, and at this point ( luckily I remembered the rule!) both sides took advantage of that  - and both sides rolled high and succeeded. The Austrians were able to rally their Artillery (hmm, perhaps an Infantry would have been better?)  and put it back in place on the Right, and Piedmont rallied one Line Infantry, and filled the gap on the Left.  With three units each left, the Piedmontese had held things together, at least, and their Grenadiers looked well placed for potential further success. 

Turn 4 : successful Rallies fill the gaps

 

Turn Five opened with  the Austrian die roll indicating combat in the Centre, where Column faced Column, so combat rolls would be simultaneous - but first the 'Unreliable' Piedmont unit must test, and failure could spell disaster.  The die was rolled - success, the Piedmont unit held its ground! Better yet for them, in the ensuing combat the Austrians were defeated, leaving their Centre wide open, no reserves available. The Dice Gods were merciless then - the Piedmont roll indicated 'Centre' again, and this allowed the unopposed  Piedmontese centre unit to attack the flank of the Austrians on the left..

Turn 5 - Piedmontese flank attack

 In a flanking attack, the attacker gains an advantage on its die roll and the defender cannot fight back - and the Piedmontese attackers rolled high. The last Austrian Infantry unit was sent routing, and with only their Artillery unit left to oppose three enemy units, Austria was soundly defeated! 

How it ended - only Artillery remain for Austria! 

 

So that was that; I rather enjoyed the game. For such a simple syatem, there are some interesting and subtle features which felt 'right', and for fans of quick games, it probably would have taken only about half an hour, had I not been taking plentiful notes and photographs.  Apart from just 'a quick game', the obvious use for this would be for a 'mini-campaign' where map moves could generate  multiple battles which could each be resolved very simply and quickly.  I also think that it would be interesting to 'tweak' and add to the rules; I think it might be worth making 'bigger' games,  perhaps increasing the number of sectors on the board and/or maybe the number of units per sector, and perhaps bringing in more terrain effects and thus enabling more 'meaningful' terrain to be placed? My only hesitation about the basic system is that  the commander's choices can feel quite limited  ( the downside of the die roll for sector choice), and there isn't really a concept of 'manouevre' - would it be good to be able to move units between sectors, to bolster weak points or reinforce successes?  I'm sure others have been thinking along some or all of these lines.

For a quick and simple game, that has set quite a few thoughts running, as well as simply  being enjoyable.  I hope my description has been of interest to you, too! 

Now I need to get back to sorting through the 'Minifigs haul' - more pictures to come soon, Probably before that happens, though, I am  lucky enought to be promised a bit of 'Face to Face' gaming this coming week, with Black Powder's  Pike and Shotte variant and Edgehill 1642 as the scenario, which promises to be interesting and fun, and will be fully reported in a future post, if possible.   Until then, keep well everyone and (if in the UK)  enjoy your holiday weekend!

Quick-Fix Gaming: Dominion of Pike and Shot

 It's been far too long since I actually set up a game on my own table - there's just been a bit too much 'real life' stuff going on. However, recently some  other bloggers (in particular,  Bob Cordery)   highlighted a very simple series of rules known as 'Dominion of...'  by Steve Parker, which allow very quick games on a 'three by four'  grid table. You don't even need figures to try the rules, you can simply play the battle out using pencil and paper.  I like simple rules and these seemed to have something about them, so I spent the huge sum of (almost)  £5  on the PDF of  Dominion of Pike and Shot  from Wargames Vault.  Typically an 'army' in the rules is up to 6 units, and there is a selection of army lists in the basic rulebook,  so it was very easy to get out my veteran 15mm Thirty Years' War figures and  create forces for list no. 63, 30YW  French and no. 56  'German Catholic'  (let's call them Imperialists),  and give the rules a try.

initial setup, veiwed  from behind the French army

 

The army lists give similar but not identical forces for the French and Imperialists: each has two  units of Cuirassiers, defined as 'Melee Mounted'  and one unit of 'Carbineers' ( I assume 'Harquebusiers' ) which are 'Missile Mounted',   and then three units of Infantry.  The variation comes in the Infantry - the French foot are defined as Pike (plus Musket) - 'Melee Foot' - and the Imperialist foot are Musket ( plus Pike ) - 'Missile Foot'.   These classifications are the equivalent of  'Pike Heavy' and 'Shot Heavy' infantry formations in other rules, so the French are 'Pike Heavy' and Imperialists 'Shot Heavy' in these lists. From my prior knowldge I admit that  I would probably have suggested the other way round!  But I wonder if the idea of these lists is to emphasise the attacking Elan of the French by making their Infantry very much melee-oriented, while Imperialist foot are a bit more ponderous and defensive-minded.  Units can be deifned as 'Armoured' or 'Elite' but I kept it simple to start with, keeping all units 'vanilla', so to speak.     

The picture above shows the two forces deployed at the start,  shown from behind the French army. In the middle, the main forces face each other with each having a unit forming each of Left Wing, Centre and Right Wing. I went for a conventional setup of Infantry Centre, Cavalry on the wings, with the French deploying both their Cuirassiers while  the Imperialists placed Cuirassiers on their right, Carbineers to their left.   The remaining three units on each side are placed in 'Reserve' - those are the lines of units nearest to (French) and furthest from (Imperial) the camera.  A die roll decides which side is 'Attacker' and which 'Defender' - the Imperialists won that honour, and as a result the French had to deploy first, an the Imperialists 'moved' first each turn.  

Front Lines at start (French nearest camera) 

True to the period, there is a Bombardment phase before the first turn, even though  no artillery units are actually included - a nice simple way of reflecting the reality, where artillery often did not play much part beyond an initial cannonade. Each side chooses a target sector to bombard - Left, Right or Centre - and rolls a dice, and a 'hit' forces an targeted Infantry unit to retire, but a  Cavalry target if 'hit' is goaded into a charge. Risky, but presumably you aim to provoke them to charge recklessly against a better unit of yours.   This phase turned out to be quite eventful - the Imperialists bombarded the Cuirassiers on the French left, and 'hit', provoking a charge at the Imperial Cuirassiers opposite them. That meant combat between the two, at which point both promptly rolled high scores, and both units were destroyed!   Quite a shock for both sides, even before the first 'proper' move!  the French bombardment, meanwhile, had no effect. 

bombardment provokes Cavalry clash!

If a unit is defeated it is removed from the game - sudden death,  indeed - and must be replaced by a unit from the reserve, if one is available.  So as a result the Imperialists brought up their second Cuirassier unit, and the French their 'Carbineers'.   

Now on to Turn 1 - each side gets to attack in one sector, with Attackers ( Imperialists) going first. Both sides elected to attack with their respective Carbineers against opposing Cuirassiers  - the logic being that Missile troops get to attack first, so the Carbineers hope to shoot well enough to drive away their opponents before being charged.  It didn't quite work out, as the both Carbineers units shooting was ineffective, and the Imperial Cuirassiers promptly charged and destroyed the Carbineers on the French left (French Infantry regiment  'Bleu' moved up from Reserve to replace them),   Each side gets one attempt to 'rally' a destroyed unit, and at this point the French tried to rally their Cuirassier unit - and failed. So losses after turn 1 were: French 2 units, Imperials 1. 

End of Turn 1 (Imperialists to the right)

Then Turn 2 was quite bloody : Imperial Carbineers on their left wing managed to shoot down the opposing French Cuirassiers ( both French Cuirassiers now gone ) but honours evened when on the French left, the newly-arrived 'Veste Bleu' regiment chased away the Imperial Cuirassiers.   The French brought up their last reserve unit - 'Veste Vert' infantry,  while the Imperialists replaced their dispersed Cuirassiers with their own Green coated infantry.   Losses now  French 3 units, Imperialists 2, and the French cavalry have all been scattered. 

Turn 2 : French Cavalry seem to have 'gorn'

Turn 3 - on the Imperial right, their 'Gruner mantel'  foot attacked the French 'Veste Bleu' regiment. The Imperialist unit being 'Missile Foot', it fired first, but missed. The French being 'Melee Foot' then got to strike back - and also failed.  In turn, in the French centre the  'Veste Rouge' regiment attacked the Imperial 'Blauer Mantel' unit. Again the 'missile' troops (Imperialists) rolled first, but to no effect, and the French promptly charged home and routed the Imperial unit.  They were replaced by the 'Roter Mantel' regiment from reserves;  the Imperialists also took the chance to try rallying one of their lost Cuirassier units, and succeeded. That left the losses at end of Turn 3  French 3,  Imperialists 2. 

Turn 4 : On the Imperial left their Carbineers attacked the French 'Veste Vert' foot, to no effect, while on the French left, the struggle between their  'Veste Bleu' regiment and the  Imperial 'Gruner Mantel' ended in defeat for the Imperial regiment.  The newly-rallied Cuirassiers stepped up from reserve. Losses at end of Turn 4 were  three units each - neck-and-neck stuff - and we have an interesting situation,  with three French Infantry units facing only one Imperial foot and two horse units. 

 

End of Turn 4 : an interesting balance

The next turn was the first one without any losses - the Imperial Carbineers and French 'Veste Verts' tangled inconclusively, as did the French 'Veste Bleu' and Imperial Curassiers on the other flank. Losses remained at  three each.

After that comparitive lull, things livened up on Turn 6. On the Imperial left, the long struggle between their Carbineers and French 'Veste Verts' foot continued without a result, while on the French left their 'Veste Bleus' tried conclusions with the Imperial Cuirassiers - and the French regiment was promptly routed!  That brought losses to French 4, Imperial 3 and crucially left the Cuirassiers unopposed,  and able to turn inwards to take the French centre in flank. 

Turn 6 : French flank in danger..

Turn 7 therefore inevitably opened with the Imperialist Cuirassiers charging into the flank of the French centre - attacking from the flank gives a +1 on the die roll, and the defending unit cannot reply if they also have opponents to their front. The dice duly favoured the Imperialists, and the 'Veste Rouge' regiment was destroyed. 

Turn 7 : Imperial Cuirassiers strike

 

and with only one unit remaining, the French on their turn facing imminent defeat,  tried a last desperate attack with their 'Veste Vert'  regiment on the Imperial Carbineers - only to be scattered by a salvo from the horsemen ( I think we can conclude that the French infantry were none too enthusiastic in their attack, and needed little encouragement to skedaddle).  Thus Turn 7 ended wth all 6 French units routed, to Imperial losses of 3 units. 

The final blow -  last French regiment routed!

 

 Well, that was rather fun.  Obviously very simple,  but quite tense and with a few surprises and subtleties in the mechanisms. I think it took about 90 minutes to play through, but that included taking detailed turn-by-turn notes, checking rules carefully and taking some photos, since it was a first try.  I think it would have probably taken less than half an hour if simply played.  Some interesting questions arise over details of the rules, which give advantage or disadvantage to units in combat in certain combinations. For example  'Missile Mounted' get +1 against 'Melee Foot' ( note that without that modifier the Melee unit would have a +1 advantage, but also that the Missile unit always fires first).  This is all quite subtle stuff, which  I will be interested to ponder over and try to decode all the ramifications of what on the face of it is a very simple combat mechanism. 

Overall, I enjoyed this - it certainly gave a very simple and quick means of 'scratching the itch' for a game, and I can see that it could be very useful for playing through mini-campaigns in short order. I note that there is a companion volume available with many scenarios recreating real battles of the period;  it may be interesting to see how White Mountain, Lutzen or Naesby translate to this small gridded-game format. Having recently bought a book about Fribourg, 1644, I wonder if I could work out a scenario for that? We shall see.  

Next, I need to 'crack on' with painting scenery for my Risorgimento 19th Century Italy project, and I feel a Portable Seven Years War  game is long overdue - and I also hope to get to the Partizan show at Newark in about a week's time, so plenty to be going on with and to generate future posts here. Until then, keep well, everyone.    

Diversionary Tactics

 David Crook recently posted on his excellent A Wargaming Odyssey blog,  about his list of current projects, to which my response was I suspect that often just after such a list is written, something completely different pops up and overtakes all the things one has carefully listed!  And so it proves.  I have been trying to concentrate my somewhat inadequate hobby efforts on Eighteenth Century,  WW2 in Italy, and Thirty Years' War periods - plenty of reading, organising, painting and gaming to be getting on with on each of them, and not enough actually being done.  But then the other morning I strolled into an Oxfam charity bookshop, made a habitual scan of the Military History shelf, and spotted this: 

 

Blimey, that's a little specialised for a charity shop! Phil Barker and Ian Heath's Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome, 4th Edition ( 1981 ).  In pretty  good condition, and fairly priced, I thought  - I couldn't leave it there, could I?  Indeed not - money changed hands and I took the book home.  It joins a small collection of books acquired fairly recently, on an 'Ancients' theme, because I've been having certain thoughts..

Charity shops started it, really, because I found a couple of vintage volumes by Peter Connolly : The Greek Armies ( 1977) and Greece and Rome at War ( 1981/2012 ). 

 

The former covers the period from the Trojan War  to Alexander The Great, and is actually a children's educational book, but none the worse for that - the writing style is clear and simple, but not in the least patronising.  Both volumes have plentiful and rather lovely illustrations. I've always had a hankering to investigate the Ancient Greek world - and the second book adds an account of Rome, up to 450AD. So, I think I've got a good set of introductory texts to work with. 

 

If this is going to lead to any gaming, then rules will be needed, and I have some options there too. Sometime in 1990 or soon after, I spent the princely sum of £2  at Leisure Games in Finchley for a copy of the latest thing in Ancient Wargaming - the first edition of  De Bellis Antiquitatis,  known to us all as DBA. For whatever reason, I never actually played it, but I kept the booklet - 'it might be useful one day'. More recently, what with certain ideas being mulled over and various special offers coming up, I have also picked up  Graham Evans/Trebian's Spartans and Successors, which are billed as Simple Tabletop Wargames Rules for the Classical Ancient Period in the Golden Age of Greece and Macedon. 

  

And finally, Neil Thomas' well-regarded Ancient and Medieval Wargaming.   Plenty of options and ideas between those three volumes, I reckon. 

Hmmm... if this is going anywhere, some armies will be needed. Although today's find is obviously all about Rome, I admit that the Greek/Persian/Macedonian wars have interested me most so far ( though of course using DBA could allow multiple armies covering various periods to be mobilised quite easily and relatively cheaply ), the triumverate of Greeks/Macedonians, Persians and Indians seems to have all sorts of possibilities and variations. 

But  this is the dilemma - what scale to choose?  Again, if going down the DBA route,  pretty much any scale could be used, for example a 25/28mm DBA force would not involve a large number of figures, and should therefore be fairly quick and cheap to recruit, while smaller scales would give a 'mass' look to the units ( which must be good if deploying Roman Legions or Greek Phalanxes ) while also being relatively inexpensive. Plastic 20mm figures are perhaps  another 'budget' option.  I could do any of  25/28mm,  1:72/20mm, 15mm, 10mm and 6mm - maybe even 2mm, though I have some reservations about those.  I admit I was sorely tempted to try buying  a few nice old-style Lamming  Greeks and Persians, but my timing is not good it seems, as their website says that they are going to stop taking orders for a couple of months due to illness. Sorry to hear that, I wish them a swift recovery and return.

So, I will have to mull over the possibilities of different scales and makes, and we'll see what if anything, comes out of that.  I'd welcome any thoughts from readers who have been down this track themselves.  At the very least, I have some pleasant and interesting  reading options to browse. Here is a bit of inspiration, courtesy of Peter Connolly : 

Also in the next few days the paintbrushes and glue really have to come out - the lead/plastic piles of 7YW, 30YW or WW2 need to be adressed!  Meanwhile, keep well, everyone.  

  

Trying out the Portable Pike and Shot

Having given my Pike and Shot armies a couple of goes recently with different rule sets and enjoyed those games, I thought I'd like to have another game in the same period. I've been reading Bob Cordery's (and friends)  book The Portable Pike and Shot Wargame, which has several sets of rules, including two variants for ECW/30YW forces. Having looked through them, I was interested by Alan Saunders' ECW variant, which seems to have some good ideas which Alan explains in his Design Notes. 

Alan's rules are strictly 'ECW', but I think they'll stretch to being used with my Thirty Years War armies representing French and Imperialists - I tend to think that by the 1640s, a lot of the features of earlier 30YW armies such as 3/4 armoured Cuirassiers, mounted Arquebusiers and larger Tercios would have fallen out of use, even if some units still carried those names. Admittedly my armies of vintage figures maybe look a bit more 1620s/1630s, but I am choosing to overlook that! 

I'm going for a simple setup, from an old favourite source: Neil Thomas One Hour Wargames. I selected Scenario 3: 'Control the River'. Neil Thomas summarises as follows The Red and Blue armies represent portions of much larger forces. Their commanding generals have ordered them to seize two strategic river corssings, as a base for future operations.   As typical for OHW, there are six units per side, which is  within my reach. It's a simple, symmetrical layout, with a river dividing the field, crossed by two bridges, control of which is the objective for both sides.  

In the spirit of keeping things simple, I've also gone for symmetry in the opposing forces - which will represent the French and the Imperialists.  Here is the Imperial contingent: 

 It consists of :

        Two  Pike and Shot Infantry Regiments ( 'Grun' and 'Blau' ),  rated 'Trained',                                             each 4 Strength Points (SP) 

        One  Pike and Shot Infantry Regiment ( 'Rot'  ), rated 'Elite', 5 SP

        One unit of  Cuirassiers  ( Horse ), rated 'Trained' , 3 SP

        One unit of Dragoons, rated 'Trained',  3SP

        One unit of Artillery, rated 'Trained', 2SP  

A total of 21 SP. Alan's rules the army has a Break Point, equal to half its total SPs rounded up. So the Break Point for this army is 11 SP. When casualties reach the Break Point, the army must test each turn to continue fighting. For those interested in such things, the figures are 15mm scale and mostly from Mike's Models, Frei Korps 15 and Minifigs - as far as I remember, given they are some decades old! 

Obviously the French force is similar, though I made a slight variation in the morale ratings - all three French infantry regiments will be 'Trained', but their cavalry unit will be 'Elite'.  I have a shortage of Dragoon figures, so I have drafted in some of MacFarlane's Scots cavalry to represent Dragoons. Here is the French force

     which consists of :

        Three Pike and Shot Infantry Regiments ( 'Rouge', 'Vert' and 'Bleu' ),  rated 'Trained',                                             each 4 Strength Points (SP) 

        One unit of  Horse ( 'Turenne' ) rated 'Elite', 4 SP

        One unit of Dragoons ( 'MacFarlane' ), rated 'Trained',  3SP

        One unit of Artillery, rated 'Trained', 2SP 

Giving a total of  21 SP and Break Point at 11 SP.  Figures mostly a bit more recent, from Essex Miniatures, except the Scots and the Artillery which  Ross told me were 'old strip Minifigs' ( I think their first 15mm range ) from the late 1970s - real veterans!  

This is a simple  'encounter battle'  - at the start, neither side has troops on the table. The French represent 'Red' who will enter from the Northern ( top ) table edge on Turn 1 , while the 'Blue' Imperialists enter from the Southern table edge at the same time. It should be a nice straightforward scenario, and I hope an easy introduction to the rules.  Next time, we'll  see how it goes. Meanwhile keep well, everyone.

Kirchendorf by Twilight: battle report

Almost a month ago I set up a game to try out Nick Dorrell's Twilight of the Divine Right rules for the Pike and Shot period, with their scenario for the Battle of Cheriton -  albeit somewhat Germanicised to a Thirty Years War conflict at the fictional 'Kirchendorf'.  Real life rather got in the way in the meantime, but this week I have finally come back to the table, and fought out the battle. The opposing Imperial and French  forces have been described in my earlier post,  now we can see their deployment on turn 1.

Starting positions: Imperialist in foreground

 

It's quite a 'busy' battlefield, but probably the most important feature is the South Spur, running roughly across the middle of the field. This is the highest point and blocks line of sight, so the main bodies of both armies cannot see each other at the start. Note the single French foot regiment ( de Lisle )  on the South Spur, holding the road, and also the body of detached Imperial musketeers placed far forward to hold the woods at top right - they will be hoping their comrades make smart progress to support them.  The Imperial main body is in the foreground, with Mauer (Waller)'s infantry and guns in the centre, and Balvier (Balfour)'s cavalry divided between left and right wings - a unit of Dragoons on the right, who may be able to assist in the woodland.  The French main body is in the distance, with sub commander Le Quatre (Forth)'s wing of two cavalry regiments to the left ( he also commands the advanced infantry on the South Spur )  and the rest under Sautville (Hopton) to  the centre and right - on the end of the line an unit of Elite musketeers (with 'Assault Tactics' characteristic of firing salvee and then charging to contact)  prepares to clear the woodland.  Most regiments started in 'march column', though the Imperial guns were deployed for firing, to bombard de Lisle's regiment on the spur.  Bombardment forces the victim to take an 'Action Test' before ANY move, in effect making it possible for them to be 'pinned down' by the cannonade.  The Imperialists had a slightly larger force and were also a little closer to the highest ground, so perhaps had an advantage, but they would have to turf out  de Lisle's unit from a good defensive position, and the French had dashing 'Swedish' style cavalry,  which may be at an advantage against the more plodding 'Dutch' style Imperial horsemen. So, all to play for..

Turn 2: Imperial guns take aim

The rules assign various characteristics to each unit, such as quality (raw/trained/elite), proportion of musket to pike, cavalry drill type  and  unit size etc - instead of drawing up a roster sheet (which I find I never quite remember to keep an eye on), I  placed small paper labels with each unit giving that information. Admittedly a bit untidy, but useful  for a trial of unfamilar rules. I suspect simple markers could be used, and these could be minimised ( for example no need to mark the cavalry types, as all the Imperialists are 'Dutch style' and all the French are 'Swedish style' ). 

Turn 4: Imperial horse crests the hill

 

By Turn 4, the Imperialist cavalry had more or less reached the high ground of the South Spur . though some units on their left had lagged behind due to their sluggishness in changing from column to line before climing the hill - most moves more complicated than straight ahead require an 'Action Test' roll of one D6, and the dice were not with Balvier's units ( commanders can be used to give an extra attempt if close enough, but even Balvier's encouragement failed this time).   In the centre, the slower Imperial foot approached the hill, where de Lisle's regiment awaited.

 

Turn 5 and battle joined

 

Turn 5 saw battle really commence, as the opposing cavalry came to grips on both flanks. Given their different fighting  styles, the French attempted to charge while the Imperialists halted and levelled their pistols, trusting to their firepower and uphill advantage. Charging to contact requires an Action Test, and the left-hand French unit failed that test, while their comrades charged home, weathering the volley of pistol shot and contacting their opponents, but not being able to push them back. On the other flank things were more messy, with the leading French regiment charging uphill into contact, but their  second regiment being caught in the flank by Imperial Dragoons, who hastily fired from the saddle. Now these rules have no 'shooting' or 'melee' mechanisms - rather, when fired on or in contact with the enemy, units must take a Morale Test to see how they fare. That French cavalry unit, both under fire and threatened from the flank, rolled low and failed the test. As a 'Large' cavalry regiment they could stand three morale fails before breaking - so, two 'lives' left.  The Dragoons' intervention, plus the rather cramped space between wood and hill, made it difficult for the French cavalry to deploy for a full-blooded attack. In the centre, the Imperial foot closed on de Lisle's regiment on the hill, who gave the leading regiment a volley, which they shrugged off. Over in the wood, the Imperial musketeers had lined the edge of the trees to fire from cover - the French musketeers advanced and gave an opening salvo, but to no effect. 

Imperial Dragoons (upper right) cause chaos

 

Turn 6 brought first blood, rather unexpectedly. On the far left, the French cavalry unit which had failed to charge was in turn charged by the opposing Imperial regiment, clearly encouraged by the Frenchmen's hestitancy. The dice gods then intervened - if the modified roll of two D6 in a Morale Test is 3 or less, the unit is routed, and the hapless French regiment scored '2' and were duly routed. That left only one French cavalry unit against three Imperial on that flank, not good news. On the other flank also the French did poorly, with their unit which had charged up the hill into melee failing their Morale Test in melee and being forced to retreat, while their comrades failed Action Tests ( including  a 're-roll' by their commander ) and were unable to charge the Dragoons, and the regiment under fire failed yet another action test and could not even retreat out of the way! Thanks to those Dragoons and the  dice gods, confusion reigned in the French ranks.  In the centre,  Imperial foot succeeded in charging de Lisle's regiment - the Imperialists had more Pikes in their 'MX' ( Mixed) category regiments than the French 'MH' ( Musket Heavy ) foot, so they needed to get into contact, while the French would have preferred to stand off and trade musket  volleys.  De Lisle took a morale fail and fell back a little, while the leading Imperial unit passed their morale test, albeit requiring their Wing commander to attach himself and give a  re-roll after an initial fail. French infantry from the main body were advancing in support of their hard-pressed comrades, but were still some way back. In the woods, the French musketeers may have been 'elite' but they couldn't roll an Action Test success, and thus could not nerve themselves to charge into melee after giving their salvos.   

Turn 7 : Dragoons swept away by French charges

 

In Turn 7, the French left-wing cavalry pulled itself together, finally rolling good enough dice for a 'Swedish style'  charge  against the plucky  Imperial dragoons. The dragoons had little chance, caught by a solid wall of 'regular' cavalry ( with  the attackers' rear support giving a further bonus ) - with a 'minus 4' on 2D6, they rolled '5' and were instantly routed. The French tested to pursue, and couldn't restrain themselves, dashing forward past the end of the Imperial line, and were joined by their rear support unit too. That left two regiments of enemy  cavalry behind the Imperial flank. and caused some consternation. The French success was tempered somewhat by another of their  cavalry units on that flank failing to charge yet again, allowing their  Imperialist opponents to plod forward and ply them with pistol balls. On the other flank the sole remaining French cavalry held on grimly in melee, as did de Lisle's foot regiment, albeit taking casulaties, while further French foot came up in support and traded volleys with Imperial foot on the hill. Finally in the wood, their much-vaunted Elite musketeers still didn't fancy getting the lace on their tunics caught up in in the branches of the trees, and failed again to charge into contact! 

If the previous turn gave the French some cause for optimism, this was to be cruelly dashed on Turn 8. First over on the left, while Le Quatre's  cavalry unit hung on, de Lisle's foot failed a final Morale Test in melee and were routed. That meant that Le Quatre's wing  had lost two out of three units, and must undergo a 'Wing Morale' test - they passed, but would have to test again every turn, and failure would put the whole army at risk. Worse still was to come on the right, where a French cavalry unit under pistol fire from Imperial cavalry failed its Morale test - the French commander Sautville ( aka Hopton )  attached himself to them and re-rolled - only for the result to cause the rout of the cavalry regiment, and Sautville's own death in the rout! Disaster for the French, losing their army commander! 

The leaderless French tried to press on in Turn 9, despite Imperial pressure all along the line - Le Quatre's  sole remaining cavalry unit failed its morale test and was forced to retreat, and an infantry regiment in the centre,  another cavalry regiment and finally the musketeers attacking the wood  also failed tests under fire - for the musketeers, it was their last 'life', and they routed. On top of all that, what was left of Le Quatre's wing now failed its morale test and was routed, removing its remaining cavalry unit. That in turn triggered a morale test for the whole army - thankfully for them, the dice came up '6' and the army held on. Realistically their best option looked to be to begin to retire, and  with three 'Swedish' cavalry regiments still active on the left flank, there was at least a good chance of covering the retreat of infantry and guns. But even that turned out to be too optimisitic, as the dice gods intervened - two of the three cavalry regiments failed their Action Tests and refused to charge. Sometimes the dice reflect the mood of the army.. At this point, I ended the game - the French army was facing a morale test each succeeding turn, requiring 5 or 6 on 1D6 to stay in the game. With three cavalry and two infantry regiments left facing six cavalry and five infantry regiments, the situation looked pretty hopeless. 

How it ended - Turn 9

So, a second  attempt at Cheriton/Kirchendorf was no more successful for the French/Royalists than the first, and also chimed with the historical outcome.  And what about the Twilight of the Divine Right rules?  I had heard varying reviews, frankly - see Nundanket's and MS Foy's blogs. I have to say, I quite liked them - but with some reservations, and I think MS Foy's analysis in his blogpost linked above puts many of those reservations pretty well.   However on the whole I did like the idea of the  'combat mechanism', whereby  no-one rolls dice for melee or shooting effects, but any unit that is in combat has to take a Morale Test, be they under fire or in close combat. Given the short range of musketry and pistol fire at this period, it seems appropriate to minimise the difference between fring and melee - though there are still defined ranges for firing, hence units can move into musket range and just fire, whereas making physical contact means a melee ( hmm, does that actually undermine  the concept of  rolling-up fire and melee into 'combat'? Pauses to suck a thoughtful tooth.. ).   The 'Action Test' mechanism was interesting, again I liked the idea, as it introduced a fair amount of uncertainty into proceedings - a unit ordered to make an extra move, charge into contact,  or make any complicated manoeuvre ( even a wheel or about face ), might fail their Action Test and remain rooted to the spot, while presumably the officers and  NCOs berated their confused or cowardly charges. Wing and army commanders could  give a limited number of units an 'extra move' - in effect allowing Action Tests to be re-rolled - so failures could sometimes be recovered from. This gave quite a few occasions when things did not go to plan in the heat of battle, which was good from a 'friction' point of view. However, I think the likelyhood of a failed  Action Test seemed too high in some circumstances - a particular example being the French army's 'Swedish style' cavalry failing repeatedly to charge against their 'Dutch Style' opponents. This was because the 'Dutch style' ability to use Defensive Fire modified  the Action Test roll, such that the 'Swedish' horse needed a 4,5 or 6 on 1D6 to charge - a 50% chance of failing the test. Now ( unless I've read the rules wrongly)  I can't really see that Prince Rupert's ECW Royalist cavalry would fail to charge the  Parliamentarian plodders of 1642/43 up to 50% of the time, just becuase of the Roundheads' ability to let off a ragged volley of pistol fire... Admittedly the 'Dutch style' cavalry would suffer a negative modifier in their morale test if they were contacted by the 'Swedish' horse, but that didn't seem to compensate, somehow. Also, I should add that the dice were really not with the French in this game - a real 'anything that can go wrong, will go wrong' situation seemed to occur whenever I rolled dice for the French player!  Anyway, I think a 'house rule' tweak is in order, to allow  'Swedish style'  cavalry to ignore defensive fire when testing to charge.     

My comment regarding reading the rules correctly is also relevant, as I'm afraid I did find these rules rather hard to understand from simply reading them!  This is perhaps  partly due to that novel combat mechanism, but in general I just found that I wasn't easily picking up the 'flow' of the game from simply reading the rules ( whereas the In Deo Veritas rules for the same period were very good in this respect).  What did help quite a lot, luckily, was a series of YouTube videos made by the Twilight  author, whereby he plays out a whole game, with many different troop types, to show how the rules work. Watching those, suddenly the scales fell from my eyes regarding the flow of the game - but of course, when playing one's own game, it's not easy to fire up your computer and then sift through a series of videos every time something in the rulebook is hard to understand. If I persist with the rules, I will need to re-read and re-watch, I think, and take some notes.  Another point ( though no fault of the rules )  was that my small table meant I had to use quite a  small 'Base Width'  of just 40mm, which meant that a regiment of two bases covered  an area of  80mm by  20mm. In 15mm,  that gave me 8 figures for a regiment, in a single line, which didn't look much like a 'Pike block'  to me.  At the recommended 60mm Base Width, I might just have fitted 24 figures in two ranks,  which would be better - but  I wonder if  6mm figures might give a better 'period'  look to the units, which are after all supposed to represent up to 1000 men for an Infantry unit.  

Having played both In DeoVeritas and Twilight of the Divine Right,  which is my preferred set? Well... I'm not sure! Both had many strengths, and both had issues that made me pause. I need to think about this, quite hard - I do think that some of my  issues with both sets would probably be solved by some 'house rules' tweaks - for example by introducing some variation in cavalry types to In Deo Veritas, and by adding some more modifiers to the  'Action Test' rolls in Twilight.   I hope my battle reports have given an idea of how the rules played out, and may have piqued some readers' interest in one or both sets.  I had fun playing both games, of course!   Other rule sets are, of course, available - and I have managed to accumulate quite a few.. There may be further trial games in the near future, though I will have to use another scenario : I think  Cheriton/Kirchendorf has been done to death now! 

We are now in that 'time speeds up' period before Xmas, where one suddenly realises just how much gift-buying and food-shopping etc still needs to be done in the next week. So I can't promise another game will be played before the big day,  though I may be able to squeeze in one more post later this week ( 'twas the night before...').  Meanwhile, I hope you've been interested in my efforts with Twilight of the Divine Right   and enjoyed reading the battle report, as I enjoyed playing the game and writing the report.  I'll sign off here - keep safe and well, everyone.