↧
More counter sorting...
↧
Crossfire infantry rules summary
Scale.
Fighting bases are 30mm square, with each one representing a squad, an HMG or a mortar. In addition, commanders (company and platoon) and forward observers are represented on table.
A platoon is represented by 3 rifle stands, a PC (platoon commander) stand and perhaps an attached HMG stand. There is no fixed ground scale.
Actions and Initiative.
The side with the initiative can perform any one of the following actions:
1) Move a squad or group straight ahead any distance (may pivot first) but may not enter and exit the same terrain feature in the same move and must stop if pinned by reaction fire.
2) Order a squad or group in open ground to 'ground hug' which confers a 'target in protective cover' benefit.
3) Order a squad or group in open ground which is ground hugging to stand up.
4) Order a squad or group to do a retreat move. Stands in a retreat move cannot be attacked by reactive fire in the terrain feature they begin the move in.
5) A squad or group may shoot at an enemy squad, or fire at a terrain feature for 'recon by fire'.
6) Attempt to rally a pinned or suppressed unit.
If an action fails, if a moving squad is suppressed by reactive fire, or if the phasing player gives up his turn, the initiative passes to the opposing player. Otherwise, the phasing player may continue to activate other or the same squads, HMGs, commanders or groups for subsequent actions as long as he retains the initiative.
Command and Control.
German squads can move at at any time. An American squad can only move if it begins its move with line of sight to its platoon commander.
Group moves can be undertaken by squads from the same platoon who are in close proximity to one another.
To move as a group, one squad/HMG, platoon commander or company commander is designated the group leader. All other stands from the same platoon within one stand of the group leader are then also able to move in conjunction with it.
Terrain Features.
The board is made up of open ground overlaid with terrain features. Movement does not rely on rulers, but is limited by entering a new terrain feature, by being fired upon and pinned, or by player choice.
Some terrain blocks line of sight, other types provide protective cover, others hinder movement.
As a general rule squads in adjacent terrain features can see each other, but intervening terrain may block LOS.
Depressions - do not block LOS. Troops in a depression can only be shot at by troops on higher ground or by troops also in the depression.
Hedges/walls - squads must stop when contacting a hedge or wall. It takes one move action to cross to the other side, and on a third action may continue moving normally. Hedges block LOS; walls do not.
Woods - block LOS and provide protective cover for all fire (-1 attacking dice).
Hills / crests - intervening hills block LOS: crests block LOS unless squad is touching crest. Both hills provide protective cover from direct fire only.
Rough ground - does not block LOS. Provides protective cover from all fire.
Fields - block LOS in season; do not block LOS if out of season. Provide protective cover from direct fire only.
Orchards - in season function as woods; out of season as rough ground.
Direct Fire.
Ordered stands roll a number of dice (typically 2, 3 or 4). Hits are scored on a 5-6, and fire is by individual squad or weapon. One hit causes a pin result, 2 hits a suppression, and 3 hits a kill. A suppressed squad that is suppressed again is killed.
There are three kinds of direct fire: single squad/weapon fire, fire group fire, or crossfire. Fire group fire requires a fire group leader to be designated, with other stands within 30mm of that stand also allowed to fire at the same target. A crossfire requires a PC or CC to direct the fire of two or more squads or HMGs from one platoon to fire on the same target.
Rifles roll 3 dice, SMGs 2 (4 at point blank range), and HMGs 4 dice.
Indirect Fire.
Mortars can be called in by forward observers to fire or land smoke. They roll a number of dice depending on the weapon and hit on 5s and 6s, and may have an area effect.
Close Combat.
Attacking stands which move to touch a target squad will perform close combat. Attacker and defender roll a die, add applicable modifiers, and the high die wins. Commanders can influence combat and more than one attacking or defending stand can take part. Defeated stands are eliminated.
Fighting bases are 30mm square, with each one representing a squad, an HMG or a mortar. In addition, commanders (company and platoon) and forward observers are represented on table.
A platoon is represented by 3 rifle stands, a PC (platoon commander) stand and perhaps an attached HMG stand. There is no fixed ground scale.
Actions and Initiative.
The side with the initiative can perform any one of the following actions:
1) Move a squad or group straight ahead any distance (may pivot first) but may not enter and exit the same terrain feature in the same move and must stop if pinned by reaction fire.
2) Order a squad or group in open ground to 'ground hug' which confers a 'target in protective cover' benefit.
3) Order a squad or group in open ground which is ground hugging to stand up.
4) Order a squad or group to do a retreat move. Stands in a retreat move cannot be attacked by reactive fire in the terrain feature they begin the move in.
5) A squad or group may shoot at an enemy squad, or fire at a terrain feature for 'recon by fire'.
6) Attempt to rally a pinned or suppressed unit.
If an action fails, if a moving squad is suppressed by reactive fire, or if the phasing player gives up his turn, the initiative passes to the opposing player. Otherwise, the phasing player may continue to activate other or the same squads, HMGs, commanders or groups for subsequent actions as long as he retains the initiative.
Command and Control.
German squads can move at at any time. An American squad can only move if it begins its move with line of sight to its platoon commander.
Group moves can be undertaken by squads from the same platoon who are in close proximity to one another.
To move as a group, one squad/HMG, platoon commander or company commander is designated the group leader. All other stands from the same platoon within one stand of the group leader are then also able to move in conjunction with it.
Terrain Features.
The board is made up of open ground overlaid with terrain features. Movement does not rely on rulers, but is limited by entering a new terrain feature, by being fired upon and pinned, or by player choice.
Some terrain blocks line of sight, other types provide protective cover, others hinder movement.
As a general rule squads in adjacent terrain features can see each other, but intervening terrain may block LOS.
Depressions - do not block LOS. Troops in a depression can only be shot at by troops on higher ground or by troops also in the depression.
Hedges/walls - squads must stop when contacting a hedge or wall. It takes one move action to cross to the other side, and on a third action may continue moving normally. Hedges block LOS; walls do not.
Woods - block LOS and provide protective cover for all fire (-1 attacking dice).
Hills / crests - intervening hills block LOS: crests block LOS unless squad is touching crest. Both hills provide protective cover from direct fire only.
Rough ground - does not block LOS. Provides protective cover from all fire.
Fields - block LOS in season; do not block LOS if out of season. Provide protective cover from direct fire only.
Orchards - in season function as woods; out of season as rough ground.
Direct Fire.
Ordered stands roll a number of dice (typically 2, 3 or 4). Hits are scored on a 5-6, and fire is by individual squad or weapon. One hit causes a pin result, 2 hits a suppression, and 3 hits a kill. A suppressed squad that is suppressed again is killed.
There are three kinds of direct fire: single squad/weapon fire, fire group fire, or crossfire. Fire group fire requires a fire group leader to be designated, with other stands within 30mm of that stand also allowed to fire at the same target. A crossfire requires a PC or CC to direct the fire of two or more squads or HMGs from one platoon to fire on the same target.
Rifles roll 3 dice, SMGs 2 (4 at point blank range), and HMGs 4 dice.
Indirect Fire.
Mortars can be called in by forward observers to fire or land smoke. They roll a number of dice depending on the weapon and hit on 5s and 6s, and may have an area effect.
Close Combat.
Attacking stands which move to touch a target squad will perform close combat. Attacker and defender roll a die, add applicable modifiers, and the high die wins. Commanders can influence combat and more than one attacking or defending stand can take part. Defeated stands are eliminated.
↧
↧
6mm figs for Crossfire painted
With a Crossfire game coming up on Sunday I've been trying to get a couple of companies of 6mm figs painted up quickly. I'm still a bit unsure of the best colours for the uniforms etc. but I've done what I can in the time I've had available.
First up, Germans.
These are meant to be 1944-ish. I undercoated them a light grey-green and then applied a series of washes. One was the Tamiya field grey, another was the Mr. Hobby field grey, which is rather browner. I still need to give the trousers a grey highlight and paint some of the kit (as well as flock the bases, of course!).
Next up, Americans.
These (also supposed to be 1944-ish) have been painted to the same recipe as my modern Americans. They need a bit of olive drab in there, so I'll try to get a brush to trousers and shirts as well as kit if I have time. It's likely however that, for the time being, undercoat with flesh and weapons picked out will probably have to do!
I'm quite keen about the game actually; I've not played Crossfire before and am really looking forward to seeing how it goes.
The next task is to do up some terrain pieces and finish learning the rules...
First up, Germans.
These are meant to be 1944-ish. I undercoated them a light grey-green and then applied a series of washes. One was the Tamiya field grey, another was the Mr. Hobby field grey, which is rather browner. I still need to give the trousers a grey highlight and paint some of the kit (as well as flock the bases, of course!).
Next up, Americans.
These (also supposed to be 1944-ish) have been painted to the same recipe as my modern Americans. They need a bit of olive drab in there, so I'll try to get a brush to trousers and shirts as well as kit if I have time. It's likely however that, for the time being, undercoat with flesh and weapons picked out will probably have to do!
I'm quite keen about the game actually; I've not played Crossfire before and am really looking forward to seeing how it goes.
The next task is to do up some terrain pieces and finish learning the rules...
↧
Sunday Crossfire
Luke and Pat came down for a game of Crossfire on the weekend and we ended up getting through two battles. I umpired, but probably did more to confuse things than to clarify them!
The table was not of a very high standard as I don't have dedicated 6mm terrain (yet), but being gentlemen, Luke and Pat tried to downplay that as best they could.
The scenario we used was taken from Steven Thomas' site, and pitted a company of attacking US troops against two platoons of Germans.
The first game was a bit of a write-off for the German player because I read the victory conditions wrong and the US had an easier time of taking the objective than they should have. That said, I don't think the result would have changed; the boldness of the attacker rushing the objective under cover of smoke paid off against the defender's concern to reinforce his north flank and defend the objective with fire rather than occupancy.
In this shot (looking from the east) we can see the objective in the middle ground with a platoon of Germans lined up on the crest to its right as the Americans in the distance steel themselves to make their assault.
This shot (looking from the north) shows the result of the attack - the Americans have taken the hill, and although they've been somewhat cut up in the north, the diversionary attack drew off the German reserve and left no one available for a counter-attack.
For the second game the German employed a more central defence. He occupied the hill with a squad, platoon commander and forward observer, put a platoon in reserve behind it, a squad covering the field to the south, another the crest to the north, and the HMG in a field to the rear covering the approaches from the south east.
This game was much tighter. The American rushed the field to the south of the hill and got badly mauled by the single squad of Germans behind it. The defenders pinned one squad with reactive fire, suppressed another, and then killed the close-assaulting third squad and platoon commander in close combat. Not a bad effort from those men.
This photo shows the attack through the field: a textbook approach confounded by thedice heroism of the German squad. Their heroism was not enough so save them from later American fire, however! But leaderless and exposed, the remaining two squads from the American platoon now began to take fire from the German HMG.
Meanwhile, the American commander remained undaunted by the close-combat prowess of the Germans, and ordered his second platoon to assault the hill in identical fashion. This time his close assault was more successful.
Here you can see the Americans attack, again under cover of smoke. The Germans were quickly swept away by the assault, but the defenders behind the hill then began to lay down some effective fire.
Although time was running out for retaking the hill, the Americans were very near their breaking point, and on the last initiative of the game the Germans were left with the task of killing two suppressed squads to win. The first squad was killed, but the second, on the last roll of the game, survived the fire of the deadly HMG.
It was a torrid battle, and I think really showcased how well Crossfire works. The rules are fairly simple, but the results are believable - as are the way that we get to them - and the players are able to concentrate on gaining (or squandering!) advantage through tactics rather than by applying the rules better than the other fellow.
That said, there were a few murky areas in the rules when we got into some unusual situations, so some house ruling might be required here and there. We were also a little iffy about how direct fire with mortars worked (though I may have read the rules wrong here) so a wee tweak or two might be in order with this, but we shall see.
Thanks to my comrades in (miniatures) arms I now see that Crossfire should work fine for solo play as well, so I'm looking forward to a few more sessions, and perhaps even a campaign.
So, a great day had, and many thanks to Luke and Pat for making the trip down.
But I really do need to get some better terrain...
The table was not of a very high standard as I don't have dedicated 6mm terrain (yet), but being gentlemen, Luke and Pat tried to downplay that as best they could.
The scenario we used was taken from Steven Thomas' site, and pitted a company of attacking US troops against two platoons of Germans.
The first game was a bit of a write-off for the German player because I read the victory conditions wrong and the US had an easier time of taking the objective than they should have. That said, I don't think the result would have changed; the boldness of the attacker rushing the objective under cover of smoke paid off against the defender's concern to reinforce his north flank and defend the objective with fire rather than occupancy.
All photos courtesy of Pat Hirtle. |
This shot (looking from the north) shows the result of the attack - the Americans have taken the hill, and although they've been somewhat cut up in the north, the diversionary attack drew off the German reserve and left no one available for a counter-attack.
For the second game the German employed a more central defence. He occupied the hill with a squad, platoon commander and forward observer, put a platoon in reserve behind it, a squad covering the field to the south, another the crest to the north, and the HMG in a field to the rear covering the approaches from the south east.
This game was much tighter. The American rushed the field to the south of the hill and got badly mauled by the single squad of Germans behind it. The defenders pinned one squad with reactive fire, suppressed another, and then killed the close-assaulting third squad and platoon commander in close combat. Not a bad effort from those men.
This photo shows the attack through the field: a textbook approach confounded by the
Meanwhile, the American commander remained undaunted by the close-combat prowess of the Germans, and ordered his second platoon to assault the hill in identical fashion. This time his close assault was more successful.
Here you can see the Americans attack, again under cover of smoke. The Germans were quickly swept away by the assault, but the defenders behind the hill then began to lay down some effective fire.
Although time was running out for retaking the hill, the Americans were very near their breaking point, and on the last initiative of the game the Germans were left with the task of killing two suppressed squads to win. The first squad was killed, but the second, on the last roll of the game, survived the fire of the deadly HMG.
It was a torrid battle, and I think really showcased how well Crossfire works. The rules are fairly simple, but the results are believable - as are the way that we get to them - and the players are able to concentrate on gaining (or squandering!) advantage through tactics rather than by applying the rules better than the other fellow.
That said, there were a few murky areas in the rules when we got into some unusual situations, so some house ruling might be required here and there. We were also a little iffy about how direct fire with mortars worked (though I may have read the rules wrong here) so a wee tweak or two might be in order with this, but we shall see.
Thanks to my comrades in (miniatures) arms I now see that Crossfire should work fine for solo play as well, so I'm looking forward to a few more sessions, and perhaps even a campaign.
So, a great day had, and many thanks to Luke and Pat for making the trip down.
But I really do need to get some better terrain...
↧
6mm painting guides: WWII infantry
German infantry.
Undercoat the figures Mr. Hobby Color Spray No. 117, RLM76 Light Blue.
Paint weapons black.
Paint helmets Hobby Color H32 Field Gray 1
Mix two different washes, one based on Field Gray XF-65, and the other on a H32. Apply washes in different strengths to different figures. Finish up with a strong XF-65 wash and use that to paint the bases of the miniatures.
Dab flesh areas with Turner Acryl Gouache Apricot.
Paint gas mask cases H36 Dark Green.
Paint entrenchment tool handles and pistol holsters Turner Burnt Sienna.
Paint jackboots, officers' gloves and entrenchment tool holders black.
Highlight trousers and officer caps in Turner Neutral Gray 5 or Tamiya XF54 Dark Sea Gray.
US infantry.
Undercoat the figures Mr. Hobby Color Spray No.70, Dark Green.
Paint weapons black.
Dab flesh areas with Turner Apricot.
Paint helmets XF-62 Olive Drab.
Paint webbing XF 60 Dark Yellow
Paint webbing, entrenchment tool handles and pistol holsters Turner Burnt Sienna.
Paint trousers XF-49 Khaki.
Paint every 3rd or 4th tunic as a jacket using XF-57 Buff.
(Figures are all from the Heroics and Ros ranges)
Undercoat the figures Mr. Hobby Color Spray No. 117, RLM76 Light Blue.
Paint weapons black.
Paint helmets Hobby Color H32 Field Gray 1
Mix two different washes, one based on Field Gray XF-65, and the other on a H32. Apply washes in different strengths to different figures. Finish up with a strong XF-65 wash and use that to paint the bases of the miniatures.
Dab flesh areas with Turner Acryl Gouache Apricot.
Paint gas mask cases H36 Dark Green.
Paint entrenchment tool handles and pistol holsters Turner Burnt Sienna.
Paint jackboots, officers' gloves and entrenchment tool holders black.
Highlight trousers and officer caps in Turner Neutral Gray 5 or Tamiya XF54 Dark Sea Gray.
US infantry.
Undercoat the figures Mr. Hobby Color Spray No.70, Dark Green.
Paint weapons black.
Dab flesh areas with Turner Apricot.
Paint helmets XF-62 Olive Drab.
Paint webbing XF 60 Dark Yellow
Paint webbing, entrenchment tool handles and pistol holsters Turner Burnt Sienna.
Paint trousers XF-49 Khaki.
Paint every 3rd or 4th tunic as a jacket using XF-57 Buff.
(Figures are all from the Heroics and Ros ranges)
↧
↧
Cannae commences...
I've got a solo game of Cannae on the go using Lost Battles. I'm not making much progress due mainly to cricketing distractions, but here are a couple of shots of the 'historical' deployment anyway.
And after the Romans' first turn, in which they scored a couple of hits on the enemy and advanced the infantry, while - in a nod to hindsight - leaving one unit of triarii to react to potential cavalry breakthroughs.
↧
Cannae continues
In the breaks in the cricket, Cannae continues from the earlier post... Here Hasdrubal unleashes the Gallic cavalry who immediately score a double hit, destroying the equites opposing them and opening up the flank.
The infantry skirmish in the centre without doing any damage, but the rest of the Gauls advance into contact.
Hannibal now declares his flip flop* and moves again. He can only mount attacks from the zones he didn't attack from in the previous turn, but these each score two hits on the ends of the Roman infantry line. The heavy cavalry of Hasdrubal's wing continues its advance until halted by the triarii.
On the Carthaginian right the Numidian light cavalry holds back to avoid allowing the Roman infantry to extend the line.
In their turn the Romans turn the triarii to meet the threat and these score a hit, knocking Hasdrubal's Gauls off their stride. If they can hold for another turn they may be able to do some real damage to the Carthaginian cause.
On the left Varro accepts the inevitable and charges the Numidians. Despite the negative modifiers for charging at distance, a hit is scored.
The infantry score another hit on the right...
And one more on the left.
The Romans appear to have absorbed the worst of the flip-flop attacks and are hitting back well.
* For those unfamiliar with Lost Battles terminology, a flip-flop turn allows a 'brilliant' general to reverse the turn order, effectively allowing an exploitation turn. Attacks cannot be made from the same zone in two successive turns, so flip flops are usually used to attack after moving into contact or after making a breakthrough.
The infantry skirmish in the centre without doing any damage, but the rest of the Gauls advance into contact.
Hannibal now declares his flip flop* and moves again. He can only mount attacks from the zones he didn't attack from in the previous turn, but these each score two hits on the ends of the Roman infantry line. The heavy cavalry of Hasdrubal's wing continues its advance until halted by the triarii.
On the Carthaginian right the Numidian light cavalry holds back to avoid allowing the Roman infantry to extend the line.
In their turn the Romans turn the triarii to meet the threat and these score a hit, knocking Hasdrubal's Gauls off their stride. If they can hold for another turn they may be able to do some real damage to the Carthaginian cause.
On the left Varro accepts the inevitable and charges the Numidians. Despite the negative modifiers for charging at distance, a hit is scored.
The infantry score another hit on the right...
And one more on the left.
The Romans appear to have absorbed the worst of the flip-flop attacks and are hitting back well.
* For those unfamiliar with Lost Battles terminology, a flip-flop turn allows a 'brilliant' general to reverse the turn order, effectively allowing an exploitation turn. Attacks cannot be made from the same zone in two successive turns, so flip flops are usually used to attack after moving into contact or after making a breakthrough.
↧
The Grail Arrives...
↧
Cannae carries on...
Turn four begins with Hasdrubal charging into the waiting triarii. He has the advantage of momentum and numbers, but if he cannot break though now then the triarii will hit back hard, and may even shatter a unit. He therefore decides to lead the attack himself, and puts everything into it.
... and the dice are kind. The double hit shatters the triarii and there is nothing left to oppose Hasdrubal's advance.
On the right, the Numidians take their turn.
After the three hits they scored with their mightily effective skirmishing, Varro's wing is also in trouble.
It has been a decisive turn for Carthage, and as the heavy cavalry envelop the infantry line it is hard to see how Rome can come back from this. The only thing in their favour is that - the Roman right aside - the infantry is still in pretty good shape. The question is, if they can break through, will it be in time?
So Varro leads off with urgency and scores a hit on the Numidians, who are now all spent. If Varro can survive the counter attack and score another hit next turn, it might be enough to put the Numidians to flight and go some way towards turning the tide.
The legionaries now get into their work, and as they grind their way forward they begin to inflict some serious damage.
Five hits by the Romans this turn have brought them back, but they will need staunch defense next turn and will require a breakthrough soon - in Hannibal's zone if at all possible, as it is all spent bar one unit of Gauls.
Rome's success is dependent on ifs; Carthage's on whens.
Turn five sees Carthage drive in on the Roman right. The appearance of the Carthaginian veteran infantry from behind the Gallic host incites panic. They score a hit, and on a morale roll of one rout the remainder of the wing.
The heavy cavalry continues its advance, even going so far as to fall in behind Varro's cavalry.
But the infantry attacks are ineffective and most of the Romans still in the line are fresh.
On its own turn Rome attacks first in the centre, scoring one more hit. It is not enough to force a shatter in Hannibal's zone, but his units there are now all spent, so he will have to make a decision next turn on whether to stand - risking heavy losses and personal injury - or to fall back and give up his key zone.
Varro makes another gallant attack, but the dice speak for themselves...
And so, at the end of turn five, the Romans have lost four units shattered and another four to rout, with Paulus among them. Surely they cannot last much longer?
... and the dice are kind. The double hit shatters the triarii and there is nothing left to oppose Hasdrubal's advance.
Despite the great mass of the legions appearing to still be in fine fighting fettle, the Roman rear is now vulnerable.
On the right, the Numidians take their turn.
After the three hits they scored with their mightily effective skirmishing, Varro's wing is also in trouble.
It has been a decisive turn for Carthage, and as the heavy cavalry envelop the infantry line it is hard to see how Rome can come back from this. The only thing in their favour is that - the Roman right aside - the infantry is still in pretty good shape. The question is, if they can break through, will it be in time?
So Varro leads off with urgency and scores a hit on the Numidians, who are now all spent. If Varro can survive the counter attack and score another hit next turn, it might be enough to put the Numidians to flight and go some way towards turning the tide.
The legionaries now get into their work, and as they grind their way forward they begin to inflict some serious damage.
Five hits by the Romans this turn have brought them back, but they will need staunch defense next turn and will require a breakthrough soon - in Hannibal's zone if at all possible, as it is all spent bar one unit of Gauls.
Rome's success is dependent on ifs; Carthage's on whens.
Turn five sees Carthage drive in on the Roman right. The appearance of the Carthaginian veteran infantry from behind the Gallic host incites panic. They score a hit, and on a morale roll of one rout the remainder of the wing.
The heavy cavalry continues its advance, even going so far as to fall in behind Varro's cavalry.
But the infantry attacks are ineffective and most of the Romans still in the line are fresh.
On its own turn Rome attacks first in the centre, scoring one more hit. It is not enough to force a shatter in Hannibal's zone, but his units there are now all spent, so he will have to make a decision next turn on whether to stand - risking heavy losses and personal injury - or to fall back and give up his key zone.
Varro makes another gallant attack, but the dice speak for themselves...
And so, at the end of turn five, the Romans have lost four units shattered and another four to rout, with Paulus among them. Surely they cannot last much longer?
↧
↧
Cannae concludes
On turn six the Carthaginians began by using the cavalry to attack the Roman rear.
The Gauls score one hit on the Roman centre...
and Hasdrubal muffs his chance.
But the Numidians atone for their reluctance last turn by shattering Varro's guard.
Things look very ominous for Rome.
The morale die is cast with the army at -3: -1 or four or more units shattered; -1 for two or more uninspired generals withdrawn; -1 for having enemy to front and rear.
But these are legionaries. They get a +1 for being heavy infantry, and a further by reason of their virtus. A high morale roll will see them through.
But it doesn't come - for the second time in the battle they roll a one, and the entire force streams off the field!
And so it comes time to tally the results.
The Romans start with a fighting value of 70 compared to the Carthaginians' 84, so they have a handicap of 42. They have left eleven average quality Carthaginians units and one veteran spent, which adds 37 points to their tally. They total 79 points.
The Romans have fled early, which is a mixed blessing. Carthage has scored only five shatters, for a total of 30 points, but the Carthaginians have not suffered any themselves. They can add another 30 points from routed units and 21 from units withdrawn (withdrawn units being fresh units who rout in sympathy).
So the victory points stand at 79 for Rome and 81 for Carthage, giving Hannibal a very tight victory. If Rome had scored just one more hit during the battle, the points victory would have gone the other way.
This game is yet another mark in favour of Phil Sabin's excellent handicap system, which gives both sides a good chance of victory, even though in the field battle the odds may be stacked.
While there were a number of key moments in the game, the timing of Carthage's success was always slightly ahead of the 'battlefield clock', and this allowed enough depresssion of Roman morale to cause a rout before the fragile Carthaginian front began to fold under pressure. But as the point results show, it was very close. Ifs indeed!
It was a great game, and after a long time between (lost) battles, it has proved a timely reminder of the gaming I've been missing.
The Gauls score one hit on the Roman centre...
and Hasdrubal muffs his chance.
But the Numidians atone for their reluctance last turn by shattering Varro's guard.
Things look very ominous for Rome.
The morale die is cast with the army at -3: -1 or four or more units shattered; -1 for two or more uninspired generals withdrawn; -1 for having enemy to front and rear.
But these are legionaries. They get a +1 for being heavy infantry, and a further by reason of their virtus. A high morale roll will see them through.
But it doesn't come - for the second time in the battle they roll a one, and the entire force streams off the field!
And so it comes time to tally the results.
The Romans start with a fighting value of 70 compared to the Carthaginians' 84, so they have a handicap of 42. They have left eleven average quality Carthaginians units and one veteran spent, which adds 37 points to their tally. They total 79 points.
The Romans have fled early, which is a mixed blessing. Carthage has scored only five shatters, for a total of 30 points, but the Carthaginians have not suffered any themselves. They can add another 30 points from routed units and 21 from units withdrawn (withdrawn units being fresh units who rout in sympathy).
So the victory points stand at 79 for Rome and 81 for Carthage, giving Hannibal a very tight victory. If Rome had scored just one more hit during the battle, the points victory would have gone the other way.
This game is yet another mark in favour of Phil Sabin's excellent handicap system, which gives both sides a good chance of victory, even though in the field battle the odds may be stacked.
While there were a number of key moments in the game, the timing of Carthage's success was always slightly ahead of the 'battlefield clock', and this allowed enough depresssion of Roman morale to cause a rout before the fragile Carthaginian front began to fold under pressure. But as the point results show, it was very close. Ifs indeed!
It was a great game, and after a long time between (lost) battles, it has proved a timely reminder of the gaming I've been missing.
↧
Gaming hiatus
Hello all, my apologies, but I'm taking a bit of a hiatus from gaming for a while. Hope to be back when the batteries are recharged.
Best wishes,
Prufrock.
Best wishes,
Prufrock.
↧
Getting that mojo working.
Have been slowly getting my enthusiasm back after a couple of months of low gaming libido.
The catalyst has been my reading of the Aubrey/Maturin series from Patrick O'Brian. With Flying Colors and its expansion, Ship of the Line, on my shelves, the novels had had me eyeing up learning the system, but without finding the will to actually sit down to do so.
But I finally plonked myself at the table other night and have now played through a couple of one-on-one ship battles in an attempt to get the basics of manoeuvre and combat fixed in my head. This seems to have gone well, and I began to enjoy it enough to try a larger scenario, Dogger Bank, 1781.
For this naval combat newbie the system has enough detail to feel as if you are playing an age of sail game - and are learning something - but not so much that you get bogged down in minutiae or that there are so many things to consider that you can't with a bit of thought tell a good course of action from a dud one. I'm still working on the latter, but it's not overwhelming.
Here are a couple of shots of the progress in the first five turns.
The British, with the wind gauge, are bearing down upon the Dutch line.
Forming into line to fire on the Dutch.
The Dutch are hoping to tack back and gain the wind themselves for a second pass, but it's not going too well at the moment. Perhaps my tactics are to blame - as one instance I should probably have had the Dutch target the rigging instead of the hulls in order to break up the continuity of the British line.
Anyway, it's nice to be enjoying a game again!
The catalyst has been my reading of the Aubrey/Maturin series from Patrick O'Brian. With Flying Colors and its expansion, Ship of the Line, on my shelves, the novels had had me eyeing up learning the system, but without finding the will to actually sit down to do so.
But I finally plonked myself at the table other night and have now played through a couple of one-on-one ship battles in an attempt to get the basics of manoeuvre and combat fixed in my head. This seems to have gone well, and I began to enjoy it enough to try a larger scenario, Dogger Bank, 1781.
For this naval combat newbie the system has enough detail to feel as if you are playing an age of sail game - and are learning something - but not so much that you get bogged down in minutiae or that there are so many things to consider that you can't with a bit of thought tell a good course of action from a dud one. I'm still working on the latter, but it's not overwhelming.
Here are a couple of shots of the progress in the first five turns.
The British, with the wind gauge, are bearing down upon the Dutch line.
Forming into line to fire on the Dutch.
The Dutch are hoping to tack back and gain the wind themselves for a second pass, but it's not going too well at the moment. Perhaps my tactics are to blame - as one instance I should probably have had the Dutch target the rigging instead of the hulls in order to break up the continuity of the British line.
Anyway, it's nice to be enjoying a game again!
↧
Succour
As readers may have noticed, I've been feeling a bit low on the wargaming front lately. This was mainly due to extra-hobbatical events, but also partly as a result of the non-arrival of a trade parcel I'd been expecting from the UK. It was sent in May, had not been sighted here, and I'd given it up for lost.
But yesterday, when hope was at least a month gone, my wife banged on the door of the school with a big smile on her face, pointing to a large cardboard box that read:
While the gift part was more to appease customs, it was a welcome message!
Later, I opened it:
and after the kids went to bed I spent a happy few hours sorting through the goodies, with this result:
Basically, it's a massive collection of Soviet vehicles with some air thrown in (but not shown in these pics) and a pretty decent attempt at providing some NATO opposition.
Here are some close ups:
So a big thank you is due to Martin K, and to the post office for finally tracking the parcel down and delivering it.
I hope I can now say that I'm out of my funk...
But yesterday, when hope was at least a month gone, my wife banged on the door of the school with a big smile on her face, pointing to a large cardboard box that read:
While the gift part was more to appease customs, it was a welcome message!
Later, I opened it:
and after the kids went to bed I spent a happy few hours sorting through the goodies, with this result:
Basically, it's a massive collection of Soviet vehicles with some air thrown in (but not shown in these pics) and a pretty decent attempt at providing some NATO opposition.
Here are some close ups:
So a big thank you is due to Martin K, and to the post office for finally tracking the parcel down and delivering it.
I hope I can now say that I'm out of my funk...
↧
↧
Dertosa with 'To The Strongest!'
A TMP and blogging buddy who is probably known to the majority of readers here has, for the last while, been putting together a set of ancients rules called To The Strongest!
He has been kindly keeping me updated as his ideas solidify. Like my own nascent set, his uses squares and cards; unlike mine his has been written up into presentable form and has been fairly extensively play-tested!
I read through the latest version of his 'lite' variant the other week and was so enthused by the new changes that I set up a game the next evening, based upon Dertosa 215 BC, the battle in which Hasdrubal Barca near the Ebro signally failed to emulate his brother's great victory on the Aufidus, this due mainly to an over-reliance on some flighty allies. What follows is an account of the action, though I must apologise in advance for the mistakes I made before and during the game...
To start with, here are a few observations on the armies involved.
Given the limitations of my littler table (12 squares by 8) I had to pare down the historical forces to achieve manageable levels. While I would have preferred to dedicate eight columns to the infantry this would not have given enough room on the flanks, so I went with six columns in two or three ranks, thus leaving three columns on either side for the cavalry and elephants to run about in.
Roman units:
6 x velites, 6 x hastati, 6 x principes, 2 x triarii, 4 x equites, general and 3 sub-generals. The army is commanded by the brothers Gn. and P. Cornelius Scipio, and is comprised of around 22,000 infantry and approx. 2200 cavalry.
Carthaginian units:
6 x Libyan heavy infantry, 8 x Iberian scutarii and 3 x caetrati, 1 x slingers, 2 x elephants, 3 x Numidian light cavalry, 2 x heavy cavalry, general and 3 sub-generals. The army is commanded by Hasdrubal Barca and is composed of around 21,000 infantry, 2,900 cavalry and 20 elephants.
Note: Hasdrubal should have been given two extra units of heavy cavalry to reflect his historical numerical superiority - closer to 7 to 4 than the 5 to 4 I gave him here - more accurately. In my hurry to set up I misread my notes and omitted 900 of the heavy cavalry - there should have been around 3,700 Carthaginian horse (*blush*).
Both sides have four commands: two in the centres and one for each wing. In these rules armies activate by command, and once a command fails in an activation attempt that command is finished for the turn, meaning that no other units within that command may activate.
As in the historical battle, the Romans formed up in the centre with their cavalry on the wings and the Carthaginians put their weaker Spanish in the centre and the veteran Punic infantry outside them. Hasdrubal enjoyed cavalry superiority due to the presence of Numidian light cavalry (but [see above] not as much of a superiority as he should have had...) and boasted a couple of units of elephants as well.
The Romans advanced on turn one and pushed forward to skirmish with their velites where commands allowed. The skirmishing - as the name implies - was inconclusive.
The Carthaginians held back on their right flank and advanced vigorously on the left, where they had a distinct cavalry advantage. The infantry however were not so keen to get involved (command activation failures).
On turn two the Romans closed in the centre and the skirmishers engaged along the line.
The Carthaginians still held the advantage on the left but again their infantry was reluctant to press the assault (command failures). The Punic cavalry engaged in melee and traded hits with the Romans while their Spanish allies tried to position themselves on the Roman flank.
On the right the Numidian cavalry skirmished, but made little headway against their stalwart opposites (their shooting missed).
Next turn the Romans tried a death-or-glory assault on the right (they had already taken a hit; another would destroy them), and succeeded in breaking the Punic cavalry, who took the sub-general with them off the field (it was a cruel blow - the Carthaginians lost 4 of their 13 victory banners at once).
On the Roman left the elephants and Numidians prove a formidable combination, but the equites did commence to force one unit of Africans backwards (charge/evade sequence).
Things were pretty tight in the centre. A quite atrocious combination of poor card draws (and a rules misread) prevented the light troops from dispersing as they ought to have.
Hefty ancient types with swords and spears were everywhere...
...except in the very centre, where the line was noticeably thinner on the Carthaginian side.
Over the next few turns both sides tried to push on where they had the advantage and shore up their weak points.
As the fighting intensified it became apparent that the Spanish infantry could not compete against the legionaries. The Libyans could hold their own, but if Hasdrubal's cavalry could not turn the Roman flanks quickly the day would be lost.
The key battle for Carthage was on the left. Eventually they managed to remove the Roman cavalry from the field, gain a positional objective and ready themselves to fall on the Roman flank (this took about two turns longer than expected due to command failures and poor attacks).
But in the centre the combat was highly attritional. With three units of scutarii destroyed and others in difficulty, the Libyan reserves were forced to come inwards to close the gaps about to open up.
The scutarii tried to make rally attempts before doing any attacks but usually they failed at both. They would perhaps have been better served exchanging lines or falling back, but when they did attempt that they failed their activation attempts. An entirely historically appropriate lethargy was approximated!
On the Roman left the cavalry managed to simultaneously hold off the elephants and drive back the Numidians, but their own destruction was never more than one hit away (they tried to keep the pressure on the Numidians by forcing them to evade, at some risk to themselves).
The Carthaginian efforts to turn the Roman right flank were frustrated by poor command cards, but on the right the Numidians finally landed a decisive volley of javelins, and one unit of equites fled. The other determinedly held on against the elephants in a tense exchange (the cavalry and general drew two successive saves to preserve themselves - and perhaps the army - from destruction).
With the gaps in the centre becoming too large to plug, the Iberians attempted to pull back and bring the Libyan reserve up in support.
But the next Roman attack destroyed the retreating unit, and the Carthaginians had no victory banners left.
Game over!
The casualties:
Rome: three units of equites, one of hastati, one of velites, one general comes to 11 banners lost.
Carthage: five units of scutarii, one of cavalry, one of lights and a general for 15 banners lost (but a territorial objective won kept them in the game longer).
It turned out to be a fight which Carthage could have won given a little more luck and better decisions on my part. The error with the number of Carthaginian cavalry units at deployment was probably made up for by a mistake with the skirmishers, to whom I initially attributed a greater staying power than the rules permitted. Thus, relatively speaking, the decisive or potentially decisive elements - the heavies of the Roman centre and the flanking units of the Carthaginian left - both got into their work relatively late, and at about the same time, so we still saw a close-to-historical result.
Well, so much for the battle, and my imperfect prosecution of it; it's now time for some comments on the rules themselves.
While there are some subtleties to the rules that I did not thoroughly explore - the evade rules, the line exchange abilities, the proper use of skirmishers and the best way to use sub-generals - the object of the exercise was to get a handle on the general flow of the game and observe how the various elements work together.
There are some nice smooth mechanisms in the rules. They play well now and will no doubt play even better as the author fine-tunes how best to realise his vision on the tabletop.
The rules look as though they will be easy to customise, by which I mean that troop types can be fairly simply differentiated by tweaking abilities here and there, which is a great advantage when looking at the ancient world, where differences between broadly similar types of troops are an important way to add depth and interest to a grand-tactical game.
There is scope for generalship but just enough reliance on luck to keep everyone interested. In this respect I think they channel one of the best features of Commands and Colors: Ancients; namely that the better players will have an advantage, but not so much so that there is no point anyone else having a crack at them. The rules combine old and new school techniques, and they will give an enjoyable game if players get into the spirit of things. Importantly for sustaining player interest and loyalty over a longer period, I'm pleased to report that going by how they handled Dertosa it looks as if they will be able to give results that are satisfying and plausible on the historical level.
Well, I think I'll leave it there before I start overstaying my welcome (if I haven't already!). I enjoyed the game, will follow the author's progress with interest, and touch wood this will not be the last report using these rules to be posted here on the blog!
He has been kindly keeping me updated as his ideas solidify. Like my own nascent set, his uses squares and cards; unlike mine his has been written up into presentable form and has been fairly extensively play-tested!
I read through the latest version of his 'lite' variant the other week and was so enthused by the new changes that I set up a game the next evening, based upon Dertosa 215 BC, the battle in which Hasdrubal Barca near the Ebro signally failed to emulate his brother's great victory on the Aufidus, this due mainly to an over-reliance on some flighty allies. What follows is an account of the action, though I must apologise in advance for the mistakes I made before and during the game...
To start with, here are a few observations on the armies involved.
Orders of Battle
Given the limitations of my littler table (12 squares by 8) I had to pare down the historical forces to achieve manageable levels. While I would have preferred to dedicate eight columns to the infantry this would not have given enough room on the flanks, so I went with six columns in two or three ranks, thus leaving three columns on either side for the cavalry and elephants to run about in.
Roman units:
6 x velites, 6 x hastati, 6 x principes, 2 x triarii, 4 x equites, general and 3 sub-generals. The army is commanded by the brothers Gn. and P. Cornelius Scipio, and is comprised of around 22,000 infantry and approx. 2200 cavalry.
Carthaginian units:
6 x Libyan heavy infantry, 8 x Iberian scutarii and 3 x caetrati, 1 x slingers, 2 x elephants, 3 x Numidian light cavalry, 2 x heavy cavalry, general and 3 sub-generals. The army is commanded by Hasdrubal Barca and is composed of around 21,000 infantry, 2,900 cavalry and 20 elephants.
Note: Hasdrubal should have been given two extra units of heavy cavalry to reflect his historical numerical superiority - closer to 7 to 4 than the 5 to 4 I gave him here - more accurately. In my hurry to set up I misread my notes and omitted 900 of the heavy cavalry - there should have been around 3,700 Carthaginian horse (*blush*).
Deployment
Both sides have four commands: two in the centres and one for each wing. In these rules armies activate by command, and once a command fails in an activation attempt that command is finished for the turn, meaning that no other units within that command may activate.
As in the historical battle, the Romans formed up in the centre with their cavalry on the wings and the Carthaginians put their weaker Spanish in the centre and the veteran Punic infantry outside them. Hasdrubal enjoyed cavalry superiority due to the presence of Numidian light cavalry (but [see above] not as much of a superiority as he should have had...) and boasted a couple of units of elephants as well.
Deployment, looking from behind the Carthaginian left. |
The Romans advanced on turn one and pushed forward to skirmish with their velites where commands allowed. The skirmishing - as the name implies - was inconclusive.
The Carthaginians held back on their right flank and advanced vigorously on the left, where they had a distinct cavalry advantage. The infantry however were not so keen to get involved (command activation failures).
On turn two the Romans closed in the centre and the skirmishers engaged along the line.
The Carthaginians still held the advantage on the left but again their infantry was reluctant to press the assault (command failures). The Punic cavalry engaged in melee and traded hits with the Romans while their Spanish allies tried to position themselves on the Roman flank.
On the left the Punic cavalry attack while the Spanish manoeuvre towards the flank of the equites. |
On the right the Numidian cavalry skirmished, but made little headway against their stalwart opposites (their shooting missed).
Next turn the Romans tried a death-or-glory assault on the right (they had already taken a hit; another would destroy them), and succeeded in breaking the Punic cavalry, who took the sub-general with them off the field (it was a cruel blow - the Carthaginians lost 4 of their 13 victory banners at once).
On the Roman left the elephants and Numidians prove a formidable combination, but the equites did commence to force one unit of Africans backwards (charge/evade sequence).
Things were pretty tight in the centre. A quite atrocious combination of poor card draws (and a rules misread) prevented the light troops from dispersing as they ought to have.
Hefty ancient types with swords and spears were everywhere...
...except in the very centre, where the line was noticeably thinner on the Carthaginian side.
At least some of the Spanish are eager to get to grips... |
Over the next few turns both sides tried to push on where they had the advantage and shore up their weak points.
Carthaginians trying to see off the Roman cavalry for good. |
The heavy infantry close and the fight begins in earnest. |
As the fighting intensified it became apparent that the Spanish infantry could not compete against the legionaries. The Libyans could hold their own, but if Hasdrubal's cavalry could not turn the Roman flanks quickly the day would be lost.
The key battle for Carthage was on the left. Eventually they managed to remove the Roman cavalry from the field, gain a positional objective and ready themselves to fall on the Roman flank (this took about two turns longer than expected due to command failures and poor attacks).
But in the centre the combat was highly attritional. With three units of scutarii destroyed and others in difficulty, the Libyan reserves were forced to come inwards to close the gaps about to open up.
The scutarii tried to make rally attempts before doing any attacks but usually they failed at both. They would perhaps have been better served exchanging lines or falling back, but when they did attempt that they failed their activation attempts. An entirely historically appropriate lethargy was approximated!
One gap, opening up! |
On the Roman left the cavalry managed to simultaneously hold off the elephants and drive back the Numidians, but their own destruction was never more than one hit away (they tried to keep the pressure on the Numidians by forcing them to evade, at some risk to themselves).
The Carthaginian veterans begin to exert pressure on the Roman lines. |
The Carthaginian efforts to turn the Roman right flank were frustrated by poor command cards, but on the right the Numidians finally landed a decisive volley of javelins, and one unit of equites fled. The other determinedly held on against the elephants in a tense exchange (the cavalry and general drew two successive saves to preserve themselves - and perhaps the army - from destruction).
With the gaps in the centre becoming too large to plug, the Iberians attempted to pull back and bring the Libyan reserve up in support.
But the next Roman attack destroyed the retreating unit, and the Carthaginians had no victory banners left.
Caught on the hop... |
The casualties:
Rome: three units of equites, one of hastati, one of velites, one general comes to 11 banners lost.
Carthage: five units of scutarii, one of cavalry, one of lights and a general for 15 banners lost (but a territorial objective won kept them in the game longer).
It turned out to be a fight which Carthage could have won given a little more luck and better decisions on my part. The error with the number of Carthaginian cavalry units at deployment was probably made up for by a mistake with the skirmishers, to whom I initially attributed a greater staying power than the rules permitted. Thus, relatively speaking, the decisive or potentially decisive elements - the heavies of the Roman centre and the flanking units of the Carthaginian left - both got into their work relatively late, and at about the same time, so we still saw a close-to-historical result.
Well, so much for the battle, and my imperfect prosecution of it; it's now time for some comments on the rules themselves.
Rules Thoughts.
While there are some subtleties to the rules that I did not thoroughly explore - the evade rules, the line exchange abilities, the proper use of skirmishers and the best way to use sub-generals - the object of the exercise was to get a handle on the general flow of the game and observe how the various elements work together.
There are some nice smooth mechanisms in the rules. They play well now and will no doubt play even better as the author fine-tunes how best to realise his vision on the tabletop.
The rules look as though they will be easy to customise, by which I mean that troop types can be fairly simply differentiated by tweaking abilities here and there, which is a great advantage when looking at the ancient world, where differences between broadly similar types of troops are an important way to add depth and interest to a grand-tactical game.
There is scope for generalship but just enough reliance on luck to keep everyone interested. In this respect I think they channel one of the best features of Commands and Colors: Ancients; namely that the better players will have an advantage, but not so much so that there is no point anyone else having a crack at them. The rules combine old and new school techniques, and they will give an enjoyable game if players get into the spirit of things. Importantly for sustaining player interest and loyalty over a longer period, I'm pleased to report that going by how they handled Dertosa it looks as if they will be able to give results that are satisfying and plausible on the historical level.
Well, I think I'll leave it there before I start overstaying my welcome (if I haven't already!). I enjoyed the game, will follow the author's progress with interest, and touch wood this will not be the last report using these rules to be posted here on the blog!
↧
Modern battle tactics
As I gear up to play some Modern Spearhead using the models I recently acquired, I realised that it's probably a good idea to brush up on / get some kind of grounding (whichever the case may be!) in real world tactics.
To this end I've been looking through the US army's field manuals, some of which can be found here.
Of particular interest for the scenario I'm working on now has been Field Manual 71-1, "Tank and Mechanized Infantry Combat Team". It is a very useful resource and includes many handy diagrams, such as this one from the chapter on defensive positions.
For a US interpretation of Soviet tactics we also have the FM 100-2 series, which is again gold for a novice like me, even if, as some have said, not everything is 100% correct.
But illustrations like this example from FM 100-2-1 really help set the tone for the kind of fictional Cold War encounters I aim to play out.
As the small table will be in use for these games, most battles will see only one to three battalions per side, and the kind of information these field manuals provide is just what I need.
To this end I've been looking through the US army's field manuals, some of which can be found here.
Of particular interest for the scenario I'm working on now has been Field Manual 71-1, "Tank and Mechanized Infantry Combat Team". It is a very useful resource and includes many handy diagrams, such as this one from the chapter on defensive positions.
For a US interpretation of Soviet tactics we also have the FM 100-2 series, which is again gold for a novice like me, even if, as some have said, not everything is 100% correct.
But illustrations like this example from FM 100-2-1 really help set the tone for the kind of fictional Cold War encounters I aim to play out.
As the small table will be in use for these games, most battles will see only one to three battalions per side, and the kind of information these field manuals provide is just what I need.
↧
Need assistance identifying some modern models
These models were in the lot I got recently and while I am reliably informed that they are all from the Heroics and Ros range it would be good to know exactly what they represent, so if anyone can help identify these for me it would be much appreciated.
BTW, please excuse the annoying finger mark on the top left of the camera lens. One of my little ones must have got hold of the camera during the school sports day yesterday!
A) This is a BTR of some description. BTR-60 PB perhaps? BTR-70
B) This is another. BTR-70? BTR-60PB
C) BMD-1 perhaps? BMD-1
D) No real idea about this one at all. Saracen APC
F) T-72? T-72
H) T-62 or a T-72 variant? T-62M
I) T-64? T-80
Thanks to Rhys, AHunt and the chaps at TMP for putting me right.
BTW, please excuse the annoying finger mark on the top left of the camera lens. One of my little ones must have got hold of the camera during the school sports day yesterday!
A) This is a BTR of some description. BTR-60 PB perhaps? BTR-70
B) This is another. BTR-70? BTR-60PB
C) BMD-1 perhaps? BMD-1
D) No real idea about this one at all. Saracen APC
E) BRDM-2 perhaps? BRDM-2
F) T-72? T-72
G) T-55? T-55
H) T-62 or a T-72 variant? T-62M
I) T-64? T-80
Thanks to Rhys, AHunt and the chaps at TMP for putting me right.
↧
Diplomacy World fanzine available
Those who remember the classic Avalon Hill game Diplomacy may be interested in the free PDF fanzine "Diplomacy World" available here.
This edition (#128) includes articles on strategy and tactics, convention reports, feature articles and more besides.
I used to play a bit years ago and after a quick browse through this it makes me want to play again. Time to sit down with a cup of tea, I think!
This edition (#128) includes articles on strategy and tactics, convention reports, feature articles and more besides.
I used to play a bit years ago and after a quick browse through this it makes me want to play again. Time to sit down with a cup of tea, I think!
↧
↧
JSTOR limited membership
JSTOR, the repository of academic journals on the web, now has a free limited membership option which allows you to keep up to three readable articles at once on a private 'shelf' for no charge. The articles will be available to you for fourteen days after which you can replace them with others.
It's great news if you like to do a bit of research here and there.
It's great news if you like to do a bit of research here and there.
↧
Musings on projects: their start, middle, and end.
A few days ago, while reading one of fellow ancients enthusiast Trebian's updates on how his Classical Indian army is progressing, I professed admiration for a work ethic that could see figures bought, painted, based and recorded on the blog within the month, and contrasted my own feeble attempts at starting a project with the powerful record he exhibits on army completion.
He kindly offered to outline his method on getting projects underway and completed, and has been as good as his word, as this post shows.
While I read it with trepidation, his post actually makes me feel quite a lot better. Not only is it full of useful tips (set aside family time being one that my wife might appreciate!), but it helped me to realise that I approach this whole caper from a different angle, this being that 'I started late and have a lot of catching up to do'.
I know very well that my biggest problem is the time lag between the buying of lead and the getting of it onto the painting table. Trebian's solution is to not buy until you complete your current project, but this would not work for me, for my wargaming mostly is one project: the Classical era Mediterranean!
What I have tended to do is keep an eye out for good deals on the figures I need to advance thiscrazy scheme, and have bought when the yen was strong and/or the price good, and (thank the Old Ones) when international shipping was more reasonable. My Macedonians, Successors and Achaemenid Persians, for example, were picked up at between 20% and 60% of what I would be paying for them now, and that does not include the recently greatly increased shipping costs.
So I think I can safely say that (aside from getting sidetracked with moderns, Crossfire or ACW from time to time...) this approach has been a sensible one in financial terms, and I can also just about square it with Trebian's method. As I said before, the Classical Med. is (technically...) one project, isn't it?
As far as painting goes, when I do paint I use the production line method. I paint in large batches, and usually choose these to augment the armies that I already have. I will do a whole consular army, or expand the Spanish, Gauls or Numidians of my Carthaginian army into a force in their own right, or perhaps enough Successor cavalry to allow me to do Magnesia, or some other similar mid-term target. So I do set myself goals; it's just that it takes a particular set of circumstances to force me to meet them.
I have to admit though that there are a number of things that will stop me picking up a paint brush and/or do get me out of rhythm, and I cannot match Trebian's discipline in this regard!
1) The seasons in Japan. Some times of the year are just not good for painting, priming or dull-coating. It's too humid, too hot, and the paint / spray doesn't like it. Summer is basically a write-off, and it can take me a long time to get back on the horse once I fall off it.
2) Whims. I have a lot of them, and they tend to be all or nothing. I'll get back to playing the guitar, or exercising, or writing, or painting, or studying, or gaming, or following the (mis)fortunes of the NZ cricket team, or commenting on yahoo groups, but I can't seem to do much more than two at once.
3) Existential questions. Sometimes I feel guilty about gaming. I know it sounds a bit odd, but I do occasionally feel that I could be doing something more worthwhile, like writing more seriously, or actually getting good at Japanese, or building up some skills that will allow me to bring the family back to New Zealand one day. These do cause the chain to drag at times.
4) Painting issues. I'm afraid that I do fuss about a bit with my painting. Unfamiliar armies can give me a bit of a headache, and as I've had to redo a large number of figures because I was a very crappy painter when I started out I now like to try harder to get it right first time. I will therefore mutter to myself about paint schemes, or research new techniques, and sometimes I just get nervous that I won't do the figures justice and so put things off.
All of these things mean that there are times that it's quite an effort to get started. On the plus side, once I do get underway I usually get a lot done in a relatively short space of time, even if I start to go a bit nutty while doing so.
Moving on to project completion, I have to say that to this point there hasn't been too much of it in the Trebian sense. I have nearly finished my 6mm Americans, but not quite; I have finished my Ancient Spanish, but even with these there are some command stands to do. I guess I see progress in terms of steps (ah, I can now do Cannae, or Dertosa, or Zama, or Pydna, or Magnesia, or lose gloriously to Luke's '70s Czechs with my own models), rather than in 'army done' terms.
So, thanks to Trebian, I've sat down and thought it over, and while it may not be obvious, I actually feel a bit encouraged. I may still take a long time to get things done and to get things done right, but on the whole I don't perhaps do as badly as I sometimes like to think!
He kindly offered to outline his method on getting projects underway and completed, and has been as good as his word, as this post shows.
While I read it with trepidation, his post actually makes me feel quite a lot better. Not only is it full of useful tips (set aside family time being one that my wife might appreciate!), but it helped me to realise that I approach this whole caper from a different angle, this being that 'I started late and have a lot of catching up to do'.
I know very well that my biggest problem is the time lag between the buying of lead and the getting of it onto the painting table. Trebian's solution is to not buy until you complete your current project, but this would not work for me, for my wargaming mostly is one project: the Classical era Mediterranean!
What I have tended to do is keep an eye out for good deals on the figures I need to advance this
So I think I can safely say that (aside from getting sidetracked with moderns, Crossfire or ACW from time to time...) this approach has been a sensible one in financial terms, and I can also just about square it with Trebian's method. As I said before, the Classical Med. is (technically...) one project, isn't it?
As far as painting goes, when I do paint I use the production line method. I paint in large batches, and usually choose these to augment the armies that I already have. I will do a whole consular army, or expand the Spanish, Gauls or Numidians of my Carthaginian army into a force in their own right, or perhaps enough Successor cavalry to allow me to do Magnesia, or some other similar mid-term target. So I do set myself goals; it's just that it takes a particular set of circumstances to force me to meet them.
I have to admit though that there are a number of things that will stop me picking up a paint brush and/or do get me out of rhythm, and I cannot match Trebian's discipline in this regard!
1) The seasons in Japan. Some times of the year are just not good for painting, priming or dull-coating. It's too humid, too hot, and the paint / spray doesn't like it. Summer is basically a write-off, and it can take me a long time to get back on the horse once I fall off it.
2) Whims. I have a lot of them, and they tend to be all or nothing. I'll get back to playing the guitar, or exercising, or writing, or painting, or studying, or gaming, or following the (mis)fortunes of the NZ cricket team, or commenting on yahoo groups, but I can't seem to do much more than two at once.
3) Existential questions. Sometimes I feel guilty about gaming. I know it sounds a bit odd, but I do occasionally feel that I could be doing something more worthwhile, like writing more seriously, or actually getting good at Japanese, or building up some skills that will allow me to bring the family back to New Zealand one day. These do cause the chain to drag at times.
4) Painting issues. I'm afraid that I do fuss about a bit with my painting. Unfamiliar armies can give me a bit of a headache, and as I've had to redo a large number of figures because I was a very crappy painter when I started out I now like to try harder to get it right first time. I will therefore mutter to myself about paint schemes, or research new techniques, and sometimes I just get nervous that I won't do the figures justice and so put things off.
All of these things mean that there are times that it's quite an effort to get started. On the plus side, once I do get underway I usually get a lot done in a relatively short space of time, even if I start to go a bit nutty while doing so.
Moving on to project completion, I have to say that to this point there hasn't been too much of it in the Trebian sense. I have nearly finished my 6mm Americans, but not quite; I have finished my Ancient Spanish, but even with these there are some command stands to do. I guess I see progress in terms of steps (ah, I can now do Cannae, or Dertosa, or Zama, or Pydna, or Magnesia, or lose gloriously to Luke's '70s Czechs with my own models), rather than in 'army done' terms.
So, thanks to Trebian, I've sat down and thought it over, and while it may not be obvious, I actually feel a bit encouraged. I may still take a long time to get things done and to get things done right, but on the whole I don't perhaps do as badly as I sometimes like to think!
↧
An old friend and a wargame
This week I was lucky enough to have an old friend come to stay for a couple of days. He teaches history at an international school and in making a visit to Taiwan decided to tack on a quick trip to Japan.
He arrived on Tuesday and left this morning, so we spent a few days catching up with what's happened in the ten years since we last met, playing a bit of guitar, reminiscing about old school friends, feeding up on the local tucker and having the odd beer or ten.
It has been a good week for the soul.
At one point we were talking about our teaching experiences and I asked him if he ever used games in his classes. We talked about how they could be a good way to bring history to life for students and I explained that if I go into 'real' (as opposed to EFL) teaching later on, using games in the classroom would be something I'd like to explore.
The conversation moved on, but on his last night here I showed him the hobby room and we chatted a bit about games that could be useful for the classes he teaches. As one of the topics he covers is WWII, he asked if I had any games on that. Of the ones I had, Axis and Allies caught his eye. Although he'd not really played wargames before other than the odd thing on the computer, he was keen to give it a crack, and after the kids were asleep we set it up and got through about five turns before calling it a night.
He threw himself in at the deep end by taking Germany and Japan and while it took him a little time to see how the turn order fitted together, by the end he had that sorted out and had started to devise and implement some strategies.
It was a really enjoyable evening, and he loved the game. I'm not sure if Axis and Allies would be the best choice to use in a classroom setting, but it has the advantage of being entertaining and reasonably simple to learn while still giving a broad sense of how the various types of units interact and the importance of planning and manufacturing.
The main thing of course was that it was great to spend a bit of time with an old friend, but it's also nice to think that in years to come we might be able to enjoy the odd game together as well.
As I sign off, I will also note that it's always something of a relief to see one less unplayed game on the shelf!
He arrived on Tuesday and left this morning, so we spent a few days catching up with what's happened in the ten years since we last met, playing a bit of guitar, reminiscing about old school friends, feeding up on the local tucker and having the odd beer or ten.
It has been a good week for the soul.
At one point we were talking about our teaching experiences and I asked him if he ever used games in his classes. We talked about how they could be a good way to bring history to life for students and I explained that if I go into 'real' (as opposed to EFL) teaching later on, using games in the classroom would be something I'd like to explore.
The conversation moved on, but on his last night here I showed him the hobby room and we chatted a bit about games that could be useful for the classes he teaches. As one of the topics he covers is WWII, he asked if I had any games on that. Of the ones I had, Axis and Allies caught his eye. Although he'd not really played wargames before other than the odd thing on the computer, he was keen to give it a crack, and after the kids were asleep we set it up and got through about five turns before calling it a night.
He threw himself in at the deep end by taking Germany and Japan and while it took him a little time to see how the turn order fitted together, by the end he had that sorted out and had started to devise and implement some strategies.
It was a really enjoyable evening, and he loved the game. I'm not sure if Axis and Allies would be the best choice to use in a classroom setting, but it has the advantage of being entertaining and reasonably simple to learn while still giving a broad sense of how the various types of units interact and the importance of planning and manufacturing.
The main thing of course was that it was great to spend a bit of time with an old friend, but it's also nice to think that in years to come we might be able to enjoy the odd game together as well.
As I sign off, I will also note that it's always something of a relief to see one less unplayed game on the shelf!
↧