Quantcast
Channel: Here's no great matter
Viewing all 501 articles
Browse latest View live

Author of the Month: Patrick O'Brian

$
0
0
Picture borrowed from The World of Patrick O'Brian website.

As a kid I used to enjoy reading tales of adventure and derring-do on the high seas. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, tall tales about various pirates, books on men-of-war - HMS Victory in particular - and accounts of Trafalgar all passed before the eyes at one point or another.

But sometime during the teenage years my tastes changed and gradually I forgot most of what I had read and even why I had read it in the first place.

An interest in stories naval was however recently rekindled when, after my wife gave me a well-known e-reader as a Christmas present, I discovered the Aubrey/Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian amongst a massive stash of mobi-format books sent by a friend.

I hadn't read any of the books before, but having heard them mentioned favourably I started reading "Master and Commander".

It was an immediately engaging book. Witty and at times genuinely funny, O'Brian employed an array of voices and beautifully drawn actors to portray the character of a ship and the men who sailed and fought her. I was hooked from the beginning.

Over the next few months I read through the books one after another, rejoicing in Aubrey and Maturin's triumphs, laughing at their quirks and feeling their tragedies. I came to know them both: their loves and their families; their interests, hobby-horses, idiosyncrasies and struggles; their ships, shipmates, and enemies; and, as far as you can with fictional persons, what was in their hearts.

Last week I finished the last of the series, "Blue at the Mizzen", and have been pining a little, in the way you can when something that you don't want to end eventually must.

If the books are taken as single items they are not going to come across as masterpieces. But when read as part of a whole they have a cumulative effect that is wonderful. I can't remember having laughed as much at any books since I was a kid reading Billy Bunter, nor having been as deeply moved by scenes since I first read Lord of the Rings way back when I was ten.

Although I'm writing this as an author of the month post, in Patrick O'Brian's case it should really be author of the year.

Roman Civil War in 90 minutes

$
0
0
I've got the game Caesar XL by Victory Point Games on my table at the moment.  It's a two-player strategic-level take on the battle for supremacy between Caesar and Pompey.

Using only 40 counters, a small sized map and a number of cards it doesn't take up much space to play. The rules are easy to figure out and seem to be complete to this point (ie, I've had no questions that the rules don't answer), which is a lot rarer than one might think!

It's turning out to be a fine little game, even when played solo, which is especially good for me. There are some lovely little touches such as legions being able to increase in experience over time and the cards add in some nice twists and a bit of historical flavour, usually manifested in the ability to recruit extra forces, fill up the coffers, or up performance in a battle.

One credibility strain is that leaders (aside from the big two themselves) arrive throughout the game by card draw, so Cato can end up fighting for Caesar or Antony throwing in his lot with Pompey.  To balance this quibble, the victory conditions are quite clever and add an extra level of decision making to the whole.

I do wish that the counters had been die-cut more evenly and the map image was higher resolution, but as VPG is a small operation such things are easily forgivable, especially when they don't detract from play.



I'm only one play in but indications are it will be a keeper. You never know, on candlelit occasions with the kids in bed I may even be able to convince my wife to give it a go!



SoA Slingshot Journal Giveaway.

$
0
0
The Society of Ancients has a giveaway on, with five copies of the latest issue of Slingshot (292) up for grabs.  You need to send in your entry by Saturday, so if you are interested you should get in quick!

Details on how to enter (just an email and answer to a simple question) are on the SoA blog, here.

Poets who were also wargamers

$
0
0
In this piece we shall look at the work of a number of poets who were closet wargamers. Quite why they kept their interest in wargaming secret we can only speculate, but the evidence of their love of the little tin men is there in the texts for all to see.

We start with a close reading of Good-by by the great American Transcendentalist, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882).
Before the show

Good-by, proud world, I'm going home,
Thou'rt not my friend, and I'm not thine;
Long through thy weary crowds I roam;
A river-ark on the ocean brine,
Long I've been tossed like the driven foam,
But now, proud world, I'm going home.

This stanza finds the poet dissatisfied after a long day at a wargames show. Sadly, it is now impossible to be sure which show it was, but it is likely to have been put on by prototypical French Symbolists. The essential facts are clear nevertheless: our poet has copped a hiding in the participation game, the overpriced pastry he got for lunch was stale, and he missed out on those nicely painted Gordon Highlanders at the bring-and-buy after Edgar Allen Poe edged in front of him, the magpie.

The remainder of the poem is a passive-aggressive wish-fulfillment fantasy in which the speaker ruminates on a final return to nature after the crowds of sweaty bodies, dubious air-conditioning and unfair victory conditions.

Walt Whitman (1819-1892) also fell hard for the table, with the scene of his epiphany powerfully related in As I Ponder'd in Silence.

As I ponder’d in silence,
Returning upon my poems, considering, lingering long,
A Phantom arose before me, with distrustful aspect,
Terrible in beauty, age, and power,
The genius of poets of old lands,
As to me directing like flame its eyes,
With finger pointing to many immortal songs,
And menacing voice, What singest thou? it said;
Know’st thou not, there is but one theme for ever-enduring bards?
And that is the theme of War, the fortune of battles,
The making of perfect soldiers?


Wargamer and Poet
Whitman's later career was characterised by extreme hobby confusion and the sense that he could only hint publicly at what he privately felt, yet in this brave, unguarded verse the Phantom represents what is surely Whitman's own True Voice. To paraphase, only tabletop battles, the writing of after action reports and the casting of accurately proportioned, historically authentic but not overly bendable tin soldiers are things truly worthy of a poet's attention.

Wargaming - this whisper roars - is the true Stuff of Life.

With that we turn east to the olympian Irishman William Butler Yeats (1865-1939) and his apocalyptic vision, The Second Coming.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The slayer from Sligo
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

In an age-old lament prefiguring the great Games Workshop debates by nearly a century, we here find the poet bemoaning a rules change which he clearly felt would have dire repercussions for future tournament play, and probably even for isolated house-ruling cliques. Not only are the rule writers out of touch with the reality of the games table, he charges, but they empower the tournament gamer at the expense of the genuine history enthusiast.

The end results of this particular revision are not recorded, but a reading of the second verse does not give the impression that the cracks could be easily papered over. Exactly who the rough beast of the second stanza is is a contentious question, but Aleister Crowley is surely a prime candidate.

With WRG 1st Edition
T.S. Eliot (1888-1965) is another famous - if dry - poet who quaffed from the wargaming bucket. Initially a wargame skeptic, his conversion to Anglicanism allowed him to see wargaming in a new light, as an exercise in futile world-creation. This was fertile soil indeed for an inveterate pessimist.

We meet him, appropriately enough, in The Waste Land (V - What the Thunder Said).


Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road
The road winding above among the mountains
Which are mountains of rock without water
If there were water we should stop and drink
Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think
Sweat is dry and feet are in the sand
If there were only water amongst the rock
Dead mountain mouth of carious teeth that cannot spit
Here one can neither stand nor lie nor sit
There is not even silence in the mountains
But dry sterile thunder without rain
There is not even solitude in the mountains
But red sullen faces sneer and snarl
From doors of mudcracked houses

Here we have a verbatim record of Eliot's narrator in the role of gamesmaster, describing in visceral detail the terrain features of his J.G. Frazer derived "kill the king, devour the queen, spear the children under this red rock or die in the attempt" skirmish scenario. Regard his repetitive use of negative forms: "no", "without", "neither" and "not", which combine to lend a mythic quality to the task. As an aside, we have good reason to believe that at this time the players may well have been Gertrude Stein and the enigmatic Alice.

Although publicly austere, W.H. Auden's (1907-1973) work suggests that he was more fantastical in regards to his private wargaming tastes. Witness his August 1968:
Orcs or Goblins?

The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master Speech:
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.

The scene presents itself larger than life. His Men of Eastfold overmatched with a min-maxed 8th edition Ogre army, the narrator is forced to fall back upon racist stereotyping to disguise the hurt and humiliation that attends defeat. It is easier to insult the Ogre than it is to admit his own shortcomings as a commander.

Auden once again shows himself the master of employing brevity and spareness to present an underlying psychological truth more forcefully.

Space precludes us continuing further, but this short study alone makes it abundantly clear that the extensive cabal of wargaming poets has had great influence, dominating both the cannon and the canon.

Notes:

Looking into a writer's life for clues about the possible meaning of his work is a practice now much frowned upon, yet research has thrown up what I consider to be relevant biographical information, so I shall include it, for those who may be curious.

- Ralph "Wargame" Emerson was a secret devotee of such enthusiam that he wanted to convert an isolated shack in the woods into a storage / gaming room and call it "Walled In". Thoreau thought he was taking the mickey and forced him to settle for an attic, like everyone else.

- "Whiff" Whitman was so famous for fluffing his artillery rolls that people would stand on desks and recite "Oh Captain, My Captain" if he ever hit. This was the inspiration behind the memorable moment in the later film, Dead Poets Society, featuring "Rob 'em" Williams, who is as well known for stealing battles as he is scenes.

- William Butler "Bleats" was infamous for complaining about his poor dice (game room tradition has it he is a distant relation of the author of this piece).

- "B.S." Eliot had a reputation for constant, critical table talk. During one of Hemingway's famous WWI Italian Front game days Eliot told Papa that it was ludicrous for the ambulance corps to be represented on-table in 1/72 scale. Hemingway whacked him one and dared him to say it again. The situation would have turned ugly if F. Scott Fitzgerald had not chosen that moment to rise from the floor and shout "absinthe makes the heart grow fonder."

- "Warhammer" Auden, it is said, as well as an eye for the fantastic, possessed a penchant for lost causes, always preferring to take the side of the underdog. Funeral Blues, for instance, is rumoured to have been inspired by a singularly traumatic refight of Thermopylae.




Review of Labyrinth: the War on Terror 2001-?

$
0
0
I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of GMT Games' recent 50% off sale and, having watched a few documentaries on the Royal Marines in Afghanistan, thought I'd like to try a game from the COIN series just to see what the system is like (and what the fuss is about).  A Distant Plain was sold out, so I went for Labyrinth: The War on Terror, 2001-? as it seemed to be in the same ball park.

To be fair and open, historical moderns is not really my thing. I enjoy hypothetical Cold-War-goes-hot stuff, but actual recent or ongoing conflicts feel raw to me and I find it a little uncomfortable thinking about gaming them. 

It was therefore with slight wariness that I approached Labyrinth, which takes as its subject the post-9/11 war on terrorism. Please keep this in mind while reading this review.

Anyway, let's take a look at the game itself.

The first thing you notice is that it is played on a beautiful, hard-mounted map. The featured countries are classed as either Muslim or non-Muslim, and they are tracked differently depending upon which category they fall into. Muslim countries have governance (Islamic rule, poor, fair or good) and stance vis-a-vis the US (ally, neutral or adversary) noted, while non-Muslim countries have a counter for posture (hard/soft), indicating whether or not they support the use of force against extremism.

Countries may also harbour terrorist cells, US troops, or a combination of the two.

The game board, clearly enough...
To win the game the US must keep its prestige high and use 'war of ideas' plays to ensure good governance in Muslim states. The Jihadist player must try to keep funding levels high, reduce US prestige - and therefore its ability to influence other nations - and look to foment Islamic rule in Muslim states or set off a WMD in the US itself.

The game revolves around card play, with each card being able to be used as an event or as an operations play. Sometimes, if the card is an enemy event, you might have to play it as both an operation for you and an event for the enemy, so how best to use the cards dominates decision-making.

US operations options include 'war of ideas' in which the US gets, under certain conditions, to roll to improve the governance or stance of a Muslim country.  The lower US prestige, and the greater the difference between US posture (hard/soft) and the posture of the rest of the non-Muslim world, the smaller the chance of this roll succeeding.

The US may also attempt a 'war of ideas' operation to get a non-Muslim country to change its posture from hard to soft, or vice versa.  Again, this depends on a die roll.

The US may opt to use an operations turn to disrupt terrorist cells, foil a terrorist plot, or deploy troops. Troops can generally only be deployed to allied Muslim nations, but the US does have a game-changer option: regime change, whereby the US may order regime change against any country under Islamic rule. This immediately changes the governance of the country to poor ally and brings a significant troop commitment while the US attempts, over time, to end Jihadist resistance and bring the governance level up to good.

The US player has a sort of firefighter role - he or she must look to keep prestige high, maintain alliances, disrupt terrorist cells, use force where needed, promote good governance in Muslim nations, uncover plots and, above all, prevent a WMD attack on US soil.

Naturally enough, the Jihadist player also has a number of options. These include being able to recruit terrorist cells in certain areas, send cells to other nations, set up plots and use either of two different types of jihad to disrupt governance in Muslim countries in an attempt to bring these states closer to or under Islamic rule.

The US is powerful, but can't do everything at once, so the Jihadist player must try to stretch the US as much as possible, lower its prestige, and make it difficult to respond to every threat.

The game also includes solitaire rules (a key feature for me - most of my play is solo), which see the Jihadist side played by an automated system. Apparently there are plans to bring out rules to automate the US side which will be made available through a future edition of GMT Games's house magazine, C3i.

We've been talking so far about operations, but as one of the prime uses of cards is for events, I'd better mention them as well. In fact, it's with these events that things get really interesting (and tricky). There are 120 event cards, and over a turn each player must use the eight or nine cards in his or her hand judiciously. Some events are more useful than others at certain times, or require conditions to be right, or are at their best used before or after the play of other particular events. Learning the card deck is probably the most important thing if you want to become a competitive player of these types of games.

Sample cards showing events, who they favour, and operations value (OpV # in box)

Now, in most card-driven games, this is where things start to get less appealing for me. I don't really want to have to learn a card deck and associated optimal plays to be able to do all right in a game. If I want to play cards, I'll play a traditional card game. But the way that Labyrinth approaches card play seems fresh and does not result in the sense of frustration that I've had with some other games in the genre. I've been happy just to play through the cards as they come, hand by hand, and haven't felt that I'm missing anything on a macro level by not knowing optimal plays.

That said, I'm still ambivalent about the game itself. As I said before, I'm not very comfortable with modern conflicts - especially ongoing ones - and that is a major difficulty for me. It's nothing I didn't know already however, so I'm not going to hold that against the game.

I find that the game mechanisms are clever, but the treatment (necessarily, of course) is at times simplistic and does not go into deeper causes or ramifications, and therefore any understanding that may be generated is, to me, undercut by the feeling that the game is presented from the US side of the divide. As a way to understand a US narrative of an approach to fighting extremism it may be a reasonable approximation, but as a way to come to grips with the wider nuances I think it is of less value.

As an example, we have the Predator card:


This is a positive card for the US if played as an event. However, what it does not show is the anecdotal real-world negative effect that the use of drones has on perceptions of US moral authority and is one example of how the game misses the double-edged nature of much of the goings on in the war against extremism.  That it misses this is due I think to a) it being designed within a particular paradigm, b) us finding that the real world has outgrown the game, and c) the unavoidable imperative to simplify things to fit within a playable game system.

So, points in favour: it's challenging; it has asymmetrical sides; there is plenty of room for player skill; and it is beautifully produced. Points not in favour: the simplifications reduce the value it might have in terms of understanding the conflict; it attempts to quantify a lot of unknowns, some of which have been or will inevitably be overtaken by events; and there is a sense that it is not distanced enough from its subject to be able to see causes, events, and results entirely objectively, even though the intent to be objective is there.

In conclusion I would say that it is an attractive introduction to modern card-driven game systems, has historical interest as a snapshot of 2011 US insider thinking around the war on Islamic extremism, and is likely to prove to be very interesting as a game. But if you are looking for a definitive treatment of this murky ongoing conflict you will have to wait a bit longer.


Useful readings on the Hannibalic War

$
0
0
I'm doing a spot of research at the moment and have been giving the Second Punic War collection a bit of a time off the shelf.  This is a list of what I've been using.

Please feel free to comment, and extra points are yours to command if you add in your own favourite sources for this period!



Hannibal's War by J.F. Lazenby.  Excellent overview.  Gives his sources and is not controversial.  As far as I'm concerned is still the starting point for all investigations.

The War With Hannibal by Titus Livius.  An excerpt from Livy's history.  Essential, along with Polybius.

A History of the Roman World by H.H. Scullard.  Good source looking at the wider context. Not as in- depth for this period as Lazenby, but worth checking to see what he has to say.

Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy.  General coverage of the Roman approach to war.  Summarises rather than presents.  Has decent suggestions for further reading.

The Fall of Carthage by Adrian Goldsworthy.  A good single book history of the three wars against Carthage.  Very readable and includes copious notes.  This and Lazenby are the two books most focussed on the Hannibalic period.

In the Name of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy.  Again, another readable book from Goldsworthy.  Gives military biographies of quintessential Roman generals.  Includes Fabius, Marcellus and Scipio Africanus from our period.

Cavalry Operations in the Ancient World by Robert E. Gaebel.  A very interesting look at the development of cavalry warfare.  Not especially necessary for the Second Punic War however.

Warfare in Antiquity by Hans Delbruck.  Dated but still formidable.  Spends a lot of his time savaging contemporaries and pointing out flaws or inconsistencies in the ancient evidence.  Still, worth referencing as a strong, opinionated and perhaps instructive voice.

Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars by Duncan Head (drawings by Ian Heath).  The ancient wargamer's bible.

Soldiers and Ghosts by J.E. Lendon.  Quite an unusual treatment.  Contends that warfare in a Greek and Roman context was an emulation of heroic myth or legend and an embodiment of cultural attitudes.  I don't agree with everything he says but it's a brilliant and imaginative re-interpretation.  Again, not essential reading as far as the Hannibalic period goes, but not off-topic either.

Lost Battles by Philip Sabin.  Gives good overviews of the main clashes including troop numbers, terrain, and general course of the fighting.  Also touches on some of the scholarly debates around the battles themselves.



I've been using some online sources as well - Polybius especially (and wikipedia when I'm cheating) - but it's nice to have hard copies in front of you. So much time is spent on a computer these days it's almost relaxing to go back to pen and paper for a spell!

Anyway, that's me done.  Feel free to comment and add to the list.  It's always good to be introduced to new books on this topic and on ancient warfare in general.




Touch and go on the Ticinus

$
0
0
I'm currently putting together a research article (hopefully for Slingshot) and Lost Battles scenario for a not-so-well-covered battle from the 2nd Punic War and did a quick play test last night.

As it turned out, quick was the operative word!

This is a summary of the action.  Note that the text is positioned below the relevant photograph.


Rome (on the left hand side of the table) deploys first, utilising a light infantry screen with heavy cavalry in support.  Carthage responds by advancing its heavy cavalry in the centre and putting the Numidians on the flanks.



Rome gets first attack, and makes it count.  She scores five hits, curdling the cream of the enemy cavalry straight out of the pail (I know; sorry for inflicting that one on you...).



Carthage in return manages only two hits.  A low command roll prevents her from advancing the Numidian cavalry as speedily as would normally be desirable.



Rome continues to attack with devastating effect - one unit is shattered in the Carthaginian centre and those around it panic and flee.  Rome has a breakthrough almost immediately!  Elsewhere, the Carthaginians lose another unit on the left and the velites score a hit on the advancing light cavalry.



The Carthaginian cavalry begins to inflict some damage of its own, shattering a unit of velites on the Roman left and leaving most of the forward Roman units spent.  She also gets the Numidians in position to envelop the Roman line.



The Romans appear exhausted by their breakthrough: they are unable to press the attack with any success at all this turn.  The enemy commander manages to rally the only hit that is made and the Carthaginians can scarcely believe their good fortune.  Moloch will no doubt be expecting due reward!



Carthage seizes the initiative and with it the advantage: her attack panics and scatters the Roman left just as the Numidians get in behind the Roman right.



The enemy numbers are starting to tell but Rome is not quite done yet.  The cavalry of the right break through as well, driving off the Carthaginian left centre.  Rome now controls the middle of the field, but the enemy commander is still alive and the Numidians are marauding with intent...



The Carthaginian commander now turns inwards to attack the Roman centre: he shatters a fourth Roman unit, and this, combined with a low morale roll, is enough to see the Roman survivors head for the safety of the camp while they still may.

Points tally:

Carthage shattered 3 light infantry units and a heavy cavalry unit for 24 points.  She routed 6 heavy cavalry units and a light infantry unit for another 28 points.  She forced the withdrawal of 2 more light infantry units, another 2 heavy cavalry units and the commander for a further 15 points.

Carthage then scored 67 points.

Rome shattered 3 heavy cavalry and 1 light cavalry unit for 24 points.  She routed 4 heavy cavalry and 2 light cavalry units for a further 24 points.  An enemy light cavalry unit was left spent, for another 3 points.

Rome scored 51 points and gained another 30 on handicap. The total of 81 is enough to give her the game victory.


Unpainted figures in beer boxes

$
0
0
Just a wee reminder to myself that I really do need to get back painting again at some stage. Realistically, winning the lottery and sending them all to Sri Lanka is looking more and more like the best option!  

exhibit A
exhibit B

exhibit C
exhibit D



Game day - Raphia

$
0
0
I was fortunate enough to have Luke make the trip down for a game day on Sunday.  He brought down his impressive collection of Naismith Macedonians mounted on 80x80 bases and the plan was to do a Successor battle or two and discuss a few things that he's been working on for his own projects.

First up we did a Raphia refight using Lost Battles.  Luke took the Ptolemies and I the Seleucids under Antiochus III. We used the 'historical' deployment and got straight into the action.

Under the Lost Battles rules, The Seleucid forces are represented thusly:

3 units of Indian elephants equating to 120 beasts and 6000 supporting light infantry.
2 unit of veteran heavy cavalry with an average leader (Antiochus and his guard) for 2000 men.
2 units of average heavy cavalry for 4000 men.
1 unit of average light infantry for 4000 men.
7 units of average phalangites for to 28,000 men.
2 units of levy phalangites for 16,000 men.
2 units of levy heavy infantry equalling 16,000 troops.

And the Ptolemaic forces come out like this:

1 average commander (Ptolemy).
1 unit of veteran heavy cavalry for 1000 men.
1 unit of average heavy cavalry for 2000 men.
1 unit of average light cavalry for 2000 men.
2 units of African elephants representing 80 beasts and 4000 skirmishers.
1 unit of veteran phalangites for 2000 men.
11 units of average phalangites equating to 44,000 men.
2 units of levy phalangies for 16,000 men.
1 unit of average heavy infantry for 4000 men.


Deployment, with a smiling Ptolemy Philopater
The Seleucids start with a refused left and the bulk of the phalanx in a strong central position.  The elephants are on each wing and Antiochus is on the far right leading his veteran cavalry.

Ptolemy has advanced on the centre left and on the right.

Ptolemy has first move, which he uses to bring up the phalanx and advance on his right to engage the refused flank.  His attacks are not especially successful, resulting in only two hits.

During the 2nd turn

The Seleucids press the attack on the right and apply as much pressure as they can in the centre and against Ptolemy's zone.  They score seven hits and an all-out attack, which is a pretty good return if I do say so myself.

After the 2nd Seleucid turn
The Ptolemaic forces hit back as strongly as they can, but only three hits register.  Importantly, two of them are against elephant units.

After the 3rd Ptolemaic turn
Antiochus now breaks through on the right and the phalanx continues to make good ground against the enemy.  Four hits are scored, and one unit is shattered.

After the 3rd Seleucid turn

Pressure on the Seleucid left tells and a unit of levy heavy infantry is shattered.  With two other hits also scored, the Seleucid left is now looking vulnerable.

After the 4th Ptolemaic turn
Antiochus advances around the rear of the Ptolemaic forces.  With the enemy both in front and behind them the light and mounted troops in Ptolemy's zone flee in the face of another successful attack.

In an attempt to preserve the left the cavalry takes off on what is euphemistically called an 'outflanking' manoeuvre.


After the 4th Seleucid turn

A strong showing sees four hits scored by the Ptolemaic centre and centre right, but they cannot break through just yet.  The veteran infantry on the left, threatened with overwhelming odds, begin to march off the field.

After the 5th Ptolemaic turn. Ptolemy has wisely repositioned himself.
Antiochus sends a unit to sack the enemy camp and turns himself into the rear of Ptolemy's centre.  The phalanx continues to push and under this pressure the remainder of the enemy army breaks and runs, with thousands presumed slaughtered in the pursuit.

After the Ptolemaic collapse. The man himself has vanished...

It was an entertaining but pretty one-sided game. There were some tense moments on the Seleucid left, but more than anything this was a battle decided by dice and (I'd like to think!) by the judicious positioning of Antiochus' victorious cavalry to have maximum impact on the Ptolemaic morale.

The final victory points favoured Antiochus 111 to 34, but the return match would not be such an unhappy one for our guest...


Game day part 2 - Ipsus

$
0
0
The second game that Luke and I got through on Sunday was Ipsus.  We used the scenario from Strategos I, but changed it a little based on Luke's reading of the battle.

The Antigonids, commanded by Luke, consisted of the following:

8 units of average phalangites for 40,000 men
1 unit of average heavy infantry for 5,000 men
1 unit of levy heavy infantry for 10,000 men
1 unit of levy light infantry for 10,000 men
1 unit of average light infantry for 5000 men
1 unit of average light cavalry for 2,500 men
4 units of veteran heavy cavalry with an average leader (Demetrius)  for 5,000 men.
1 unit of average heavy cavalry for 2,500 men
1 unit of Indian elephants for a total of 50 elephants
1 average commander, Antigonus.

The allies, under yours truly, were thus composed:

2  units of veteran heavy cavalry for 2,500 men
1 units of average heavy cavalry for 2,500 men
1 unit of levy heavy cavalry for 5,000 men
2 units of average light cavalry for 5,000 men
1 unit of Indian elephants for 50 elephants
4 units of inexperienced Indian elephants (we classed them as African jumbos) for 200 elephants
2 units of average heavy infantry for 10,000 men
7 units of average phalangites for 28,000 men
2 units of levy light infantry for 20,000 men
1 unit of scythed chariots for c.125 chariots
2 average commanders in the persons of  Seleucus and Lysimachus

We used our own deployments rather than attempting any historical one.

Moving first, the Antigonids put out a strong centre of phalangites and a combined arms force in the left centre. Light infantry and elephants were thrown forward in an effort to dominate the middle of the battlefield, and the heavy cavalry was split three left and two right. Demetrius commanded the cavalry on the left and Antigonus was in the centre.

The allies deployed light infantry and elephant screens forward in the centre and centre left, sending most of the cavalry to the right in an effort to counter the influence of Demetrius. The phalanx formed up to match the enemy line, with the scythed chariots deployed centre right.

Deployment, with the Antigonids on the right of picture
The Antigonids advanced in the centre and on the extreme wings.  The left centre was kept back due to a poor command roll; nonetheless, the initial attacks were successful, scoring two hits and shattering a unit of levy light infantry which, caught without heavy infantry support, was unable to negate the second hit.

After 2nd Antigonid turn
The allies replied by advancing to attack with the cavalry on the right. For all their efforts, only one hit was scored on Demetrius' force.  The enemy skirmishers were driven off in the centre, but the scythed chariots were notably ineffective.  With commands running short, on the left a decision was made to extend the line wider rather than advance in support of the forward elephants.  Three hits were made this turn.

After 2nd allied turn
The failure to support the elephants was seized upon by the Antigonids.  The elephant screen was shattered immediately and this galvanised the attack all along the line.  Demetrius, putting himself in the forefront, oversaw a devastating attack on Lysimachus in the cavalry battle on the left.  There were six hits and one shatter this turn.

After 3rd Antigonid turn
With the battle in the balance Lysimachus threw everything into an attack on Demetrius, but the gods were smiling upon the latter and the allied cavalry were ineffective.  Elsewhere, two hits were scored.

After 3rd allied turn
Twin assaults at opposite ends of the field now struck vital blows against the allied cause.  Lysimachus was killed in an attempt to rally hits on his zone, which caused a general panic, carrying off the cavalry and in a cascading effect, the fragile elephants nearby.  In their centre right the combined arms force made a crushing attack, leaving only one enemy unit on the field, and that spent. Five hits were scored this turn, including a shatter and a general killed.

After 4th Antigonid turn
Rousing themselves at last, the allies drove into the central phalanx and the redeployed elephants made short work of the enemy left wing. Five hits and two shatters were scored.

After 4th allied turn
Demetrius now sent the cavalry around to encircle the enemy phalanx and put the fear of death into them. Two more hits saw two more shattered units, and this was enough to send the entire allied army into headlong flight.

The allied army at the time of its collapse
It was another one-sided battle, this time 114 to 39 to Luke and his gallant men.  Dice were again a major factor, but as we were in charge of our own deployments, I cannot help but feel that I left my left weaker than it should have been and made a couple of decisions which, in hindsight, look suspiciously like tactical mistakes!

Again, a thoroughly enjoyable battle, and one-all was pretty fair reflection of the day's play.

Here also is Luke's take on the action, which will give a slightly different perspective!




A Star Wars bargain

$
0
0
It's not often I find a really good bargain on hobby related stuff in Japan, but I did today.  I popped into the second hand store down the road to have a look at the guitars they have in at the moment and serendipitously happened upon these in a corner at a ridiculously low price.  They are from 1998, unopened in the original packaging, and each costing about the same as an ice cream.

I'm not actually much of a Star Wars buff, but I know a few people that are, and if they don't want them I'm sure my boy will when he gets a bit older.


Now, I just have to find some space to store them!

New Rules

$
0
0
Have had a fair bit on the old plate of late, but am pleased to report some good sets of ancients rules either just released or going through playtesting. William Butler's Scutarii, Simon Miller's To the Strongest, and Mark Lewis'Sword and Spear have all caught my eye for one reason or another.

Hopefully more to see on these here sooner rather than later.

Start of my gaming week

$
0
0
We have a bit of a break this week, so I've gone for something of slightly longer duration that usual.  Not sure how far through I'll get, but we'll see...




Robin Williams

$
0
0
Feeling a bit crap tonight. When I turned on the computer this morning one of my facebook buddies had posted a comment and link to the effect that Robin Williams had died, most likely by his own hand.

It registered as a "wow,that's sad" moment, and then I continued on with all the things that fill a morning when you're on holiday and have got to help get the kids ready for a family outing.

As the day went on and I had some time to think it dawned on me that Robin Williams - the inspirational school teacher, the deliverer of Will Hunting, the mad comic, the dad who wanted to see his kids, the guy like a crazy uncle who you sometimes didn't know how to take, but whose presence you took for granted - had died, and by his own hand.

I guess when you've got to a certain age most of us have had a few run-ins with suicide. People we know, friends, family members, family members of friends, friends of family members, kids who lived down the street, old school mates and so on.

In dark moments we might even have thought about it - more or less abstractly - ourselves.

What makes this one so hard to bear is that had it been someone else who was in despair you know Robin Williams the man would have been right there urging that someone to get help, to make a call, to wait another day, to laugh or cry, to give themselves time to let things get better.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he couldn't do that himself, and if even Robin Williams can succumb, how much harder is it going to be to convince others who are struggling with life that it really is worth living?

What a sad day, what a terrible loss, and what a hard lesson.

Europe aflame!

$
0
0
There hasn't been a huge amount of gaming going on here of late, but I do have Europe Engulfed on the table and have been playing through 1939 in a (very) desultory fashion.

So far the poor old Poles have been wiped out. It was not unexpected, but they took such a hammering that the French behind their fortifications bestirred themselves and attacked the Rhineland.

Unfortunately, an offensive spirit did not bless them with a great deal of success, and there will be hell to pay once the panzers get back from Warsaw...

A new approach to figures

$
0
0
This year has been pretty heavy going on the painting front. I really enjoy putting finished units and armies on the table, but I've not painted anything for months, and when I have sat down and tried to, I simply haven't been able to bring myself to put in the effort required.

I will, for example, pull out my three-quarters done Samnites and find I simply don't want to do the work. The paint jobs are uninspired, what I've done on the body armour looks shoddy, I hate to think about what approach to take for shields, there are areas that my block painting has missed, and the feeling that I'm not sure if I can get the figures looking as good as I want them to has become strangely insurmountable.

It's not usually my style to baulk at finishing figures off - starting them has always been more my problem - so I haven't been quite sure what to do.

And it's a similar story for all the other partly or nearly finished figures I have lying around - the 380 Caesarian Romans, the DBA Saxons, the extra cataphracts for Magnesia, the 6mm WWII armies, and a few other bits and pieces.

In short, as far as motivation and imagination go, I'm running on the smell of an oily rag.

Some of this stems from my last trip back to NZ, when it was brought home to me that I only have a limited time to make the most of work and self-improvement options, and spending the evenings locked away with a paint brush and mornings scouring the web for new figures is not a productive use of time and energy right at this moment.

So, what to do?

I want to be able to continue gaming, so it seems to me that the only thing for it is to send some of the things away to get painted.  I've found it hard to justify the expense in the past but I think that now it just has to be done.

To this end I've taken up a small extra job writing columns for a webzine and am going to use the income from that, and savings from halting all unnecessary hobby purchases, to pay to get the figures done.

Funnily enough I find it far easier putting together a 1000 word article than I do painting figures, so hopefully it will be a win-win situation.

Also, getting the bulk of the figures done professionally will ideally enable me to later attend to the partly-painted ones at my leisure and perhaps with a returning sense of enjoyment rather than a surfeit of subconscious guilt!

We'll see how it goes, anyway...




Alexander versus Hannibal

$
0
0
On TMP a while ago someone posited a what-if scenario pitting Hannibal's army from Cannae against Alexander's from Gaugamela.

Trebian from Wargaming for Grown-ups gamed out the battle using the AMW rules and I decided I'd like to try the same with Lost Battles.

The catch is that I don't really have the right cavalry or mercenary foot for Alexander's army, but I've decided that I may as well just do the battlet anyway. Who will really care if the Prodromoi are played by Thracian lights and the Companions are from another era? (don't answer that - it's a rhetorical question!)

I'm going to use Alexander's army as writ in Lost Battles, and have adjusted Hannibal's units to allow them to fit into a troop multiple of 6 rather than the multiple of 8 that is used at Cannae. In practice, this means that Hannibal's army gets three units more than it has in the Lost Battles roster for Cannae.

How do the forces stack up?  Let's take a look.

Both Alexander and Hannibal are 40,000 strong in infantry, but Hannibal has numerical superiority in the cavalry arm, fielding 10,000 to Alexander's 7,000.

Alexander has two units of Hypaspists, classed as veteran heavy infantry, and three units of foot companions, classed as average phalangites. The mercenary and Thracian foot become six units of average heavy infantry and the reluctant Greeks are classed as levy heavy infantry. The Agrianians and archers merge into one unit of veteran light infantry while the Cretans and Illyrians combine into one average unit.

The Thessalians and Companions become five units of veteran heavy cavalry, the Greeks Thracians and mercenaries make another average unit, and the Prodromoi and Paeonians make up a single unit of average light infantry.

Alexander joins the Companions as a brilliant leader and Parmenion controls the foot as an average commander.

Turning now to Hannibal, his Libyans are represented by five units of veteran heavy infantry, his Celts and Spanish by seven units of average heavy infantry, and his assorted light foot become two units of average light infantry.

The Spanish cavalry take the field as two units of veteran heavies, the Celts and remaining Spanish make up three units of average heavies and the Numidians provide two units of average lights (the cavalry numbers are a little fudged here - I've gone with three units of average heavy cavalry, but the third unit could equally well be classed as light cavalry).

Hasdrubal commands the cavalry as an average leader and Hannibal prowls the infantry line as a brilliant commander.

Both sides therefore have twelve units of heavy foot, two units of light foot and seven units of cavalry, with Hannibal fielding two as light cavalry to Alexander's one.

Both sides are exactly equal in fighting value with 94 points each. Hannibal has better quality in the infantry and Alexander the edge in cavalry.

My crystal ball tells me that Hannibal will deploy fairly symmetrically, as at Trebbia, whereas Alexander will refuse a flank and try to stack one wing.

It should be an almighty tussle!!

Breaking the duck

$
0
0
Well, it's been a very long while, but I've actually got a bit of painting done. Nothing to get especially excited about, but it's a start.

These are from the first batch of my late Republican Romans made up of Old Glory figures bought some time ago already painted from a TMPer, touched up, with command figures from the Quick Reaction Force range added in, and (eventually) to be brought up to strength with a few more OG figures I'll paint myself.



As you can see, the effect is intended to be one of mass rather than of superbly skilled painting. I'd like to say that is by choice, but I must face facts: I'm more workman than artist!


They've been sitting in a box for a long time. This is what they looked like before:



There is actually quite a bit of work needed to get them ready for basing. They were roughly done originally, with most having some obvious flaw (eg, flesh not painted on the arms, bottom of the tunic not painted, cheek guards of the helmet flesh and so on), but with flaws different on each figure. Also the small details were not done (belts, boots, scabbards, sword handles etc) so to standardize them takes quite a lot of time spent checking, sorting and touching them up individually to make sure that they all end up looking similar enough to go in the same unit.

The good thing is that I don't have to worry about cleaning them up or undercoating them, so on the whole it was worth it getting them like this rather than starting completely from scratch.

And this is how many are left from the original batch.


It feels good to have made a (small) start on them!



Agreeable Clutter and Opportunistic Purchasing

$
0
0
The hobby table is still getting a bit of use and progress on the Caesarian & Pompeian hordes is being made. Nothing quite like painting clutter and the smell of thinner...



In other news, while picking up a pair of gifts for my brother and sister through The Book Depository I came across a couple of sets of rules, One Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas and Dux Bellorum by Dan Mersey. Not quite sure what happened, but they seemed to find their way into the shopping cart as well.


Is this a prufrock thing or a wargamer thing? Do others go to buy a gift for someone else and end up with several purchases for yourselves as well? That sense that this is probably your only chance to get X, so get it now leads to, in myself at least, a certain opportunistic selfishness that I find almost impossible to resist.

Pompeians continue apace.

$
0
0
Am now a quarter of the way through the Pompeians (or, as required, the blue army). Still need to be flocked, obviously.



This is what's left to complete the blues. I hope to take advantage of my recent good run and get through them before I take off for NZ next week, but that may be a little optimistic. We'll have to see how the stocks of gin and soda water hold out!


And the Caesarians (or, as the case may be, the Red army) still to do. Pshaw! Almost finished ;-)


Viewing all 501 articles
Browse latest View live