Big-Battle One-Hour Wargames Game: P1, Concepts

Periodically we want to expand our gaming horizon beyond what we typically play. 

While "One-Hour Wargames" is written for simple, quick-playing, 2-person games [that also do well solo] sometimes we've extra people show up or just want to throw a big battle - perhaps an historical one - or just a large throw-down with all the figures we and everyone we know has! Or perhaps its a culminating campaign game where all the forces and players are going to be present [a wargamers dream!]. 

Yet, often these games become disasters. They get bogged down in poor planning, logistical problems, or lopsided encounters where a couple of clever people trash the other side and the game either ends before everyone gets playing or drags on forever while some people have already had their command terminated. What to do?

"Gentlemen, that covers the rules overview, here are your dice and QRS"
"I think the knights should enter the table here - no wait! over here, I think"
"Are your troops even in the battle yet?" "No, I think I'll eat lunch while I wait"
"Hey, what's the modifier for skirmishers hitting a flank?" "CAN skirmishers charge??"
"Sire, what are these figures over here - reinforcements or dead?" "Pass the pretzels."

Early big battle wargame being played with less than total success...
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bouvines

After lots of years at the gaming table, I can assure you I have participated in or worse - planned - a number of less than excellent large games. But, it is worth trying to throw a bigger event periodically as it galvanizes the group, gives everyone a goal to participate in and of course helps us to hurry up and finish those figures that need just a little more work!

The "One-Hour Wargames" approach can work for large battles as well as small ones, I believe. In fact, it is probably better suited to a large multi-pplayer game than the vast majority of more complicated yet difficult to understand rule sets that are out there. I think part of the key is that it is a scenario-driven game system rather than a rules-driven game system. 

My experience of about 40 plays of the various scenarios with various of the rules sets, modified and unmodified - RAW - is that player understanding of the victory conditions and their decisions towards them reward the better player with victory 3-4 out of 5 games. It is still possible to roll your way to victory - or defeat - but over a few games the better players win solidly in the majority of plays. And knowing the rules helps, but is not the determining factor once you've tried them out just a couple of times.

So to my mind, since two people can play out this battle in an hour or less...

There's no reason why we can't put together several of these...

...and make a game for six people to play in about an hour!

Above, scenarios 4, 8 & 10 mega-battle. Note that the #10 map is reversed.

So, I'm planning for 5-8 people to attend the game, but don't know who specifically. With 18 Units a side, 6 / scenario, and me playing or not playing, I can GM for 5-6 easy, and split a couple of commands [while I don't play] with a novice player and an experienced player.

The overall scenario is that the Blue side [bottom] is trying to seize a number of terrain objectives, specifically two hills that dominate roads [left and center] and a tight gap between an impassible hill and a large wood [at right]. If they succeed in two of the three scenarios, they will win overall, as the final enemy force will be forced to retreat with their allies. If the two hills and the pass are controlled, then the defenders will be successfully besieged.

No force is allowed to help another force win their scenario unless they totally wipe out their opponent. So it is most likely that there will be three totally separate games being played alongside one another, except that they will stay on the same turn sequence [which is not necessarily mandatory, for player who all know how to play the game themselves]. I'm hoping that there'll be time enough to play twice in one evening.

For an early medieval game, this battle has good historical feel. Each of the commands is full of warlords who don't necessarily trust each other much more than the opposing warlords. I want the players to play three full games, alongside one another, but without intruding into each other's games. 

For time, I'm budgeting about 30 minutes for everyone to settle in and get an overview of the rules, 90 minutes to play the first time, and under 60 minutes to play a second time, altho depending on who shows up they may very well play in 60 and 45 minutes each time, since the rules are so straight forward.

I won't be using a number of optional rules I have, few of which add much time to the game, but they all add a little more complexity. I want the players to concentrate on making decisions that will win the scenario, each side of which has about three important decisions to make, creating a matrix of about nine possible ways for the game to develop. That's plenty of playing, so I'm glad that the scenarios are only about an hour each!

Tune in for the results later...

Basing [6]: Unbasing & Rebasing...ugh!

Keeping with the push I've been making to base onto single-unit bases instead of 4 WRG / DBx size bases, as related in the previous post, I re-based a bunch of Saxon Fyrd. These were easily removed as they were on thin bases with just a thin layer of Elmer's Wood Fill. All I had to do was bend the bases and the figures started to come off - praise the Lord! 

This was a relief and I quickly set them up and glued them into two unit bases, which had plenty of space to keep all their spears and such within the borders of the base itself and also they can be placed next to each other for a "double-diorama effect". Left side...

Center...

...and right side.


With this under my belt, I turned to a mass of 60 Welsh spearmen. They are from the Old Glory line, sometimes seen as part of the "Revenge" series, and are later period Welsh "knifemen" from the 100 Years War or Wars of the Roses. They come with shields but don't necessarily use them, and have both a spear-holding hand and often a small sword / long knife in the other. They could be made as javelinmen, but I chose the long spear approach, which suited the later period I intended for them.

In the back, are the first half, that I glued straight onto the wood bases I made with Elmer's. This is a good glue to use, IMHO as it dries hard and brittle, so it snaps and breaks. This means that it is pretty easy to remove figures when you want. Softer glues are tough to work with and stretch and cling to fig bases.

In the front are the bases I made using wood fill. This gave the bases more shape and texture. But it is chalky and fairly strong, so has to be removed with a steady hand and the right tools.

Also noteworthy in the above pic, is the double-bases for AUX in the DBx system. Instead of two bases of three figs, you can see I did one of six. Ergo, every two bases is actually a full unit of 12 figs. By doubling the bases, I could also use them as AUX(X) or longspear that are Auxilia more resistant to cavalry. Overall, they're a pretty interesting army, with the right rule set. Unfortunately, it is the tendency of rules to ignore the less well documented and flashy armies in favor of the usual Rome, Byzantines, 100YW English & French, etc., and then lump together barbarian armies as 1-2 junky troop types.

Overall, I think these look OK, but the figs look a bit cramped - I'm looking forward to seeing the final result with whole unit bases. Also, they'll be better protected and easier to handle.

Closeup of the two bases - you can see the texturing from the wood fill up front, and the plain green flocking of the back bases. The figures' bases are also visible in shape and shadow, compared to the ones with wood fill that you can build up a bit.


Implements of destruction: large Buck wood chisel [sharp-edged], heavy wire clippers [to squeeze and pop figure bases off the wood base and tap the chisel] and X-acto blade to clean the bottom of the figure's base so they will stand up reasonably straight.


Work begins: note how easily the Elmer's glue figs pop off at back. The wood fill figs have to be gently chiseled off. I place the chisel at the edge, tap with the wire clippers, and it bites deep enough that the figs fall off as I work my way down the base - takes a couple minutes.


Sometimes you have to search for the right angle to start chiseling away...


With figs removed, I base them in groups of 11-13, looking for a bit of variety. Every unit has one leader-fig, which was included in the OG pack, I think [check website to be sure].


Some final results. These are clustered in a bit of a defensive posture, 2-3 deep; note that all their spears are within the base edges - this means units can be put into contact without worrying if the metal spears will scratch or damage other figures. Note also that the extra space gives some better flow to the group of figs, they just look more "natural".


Total time for rebasing the 60 figs - 5 new units - was about 60-90 minutes over a few days. It actually wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I'm really glad I thought of the big chisel, and it will definitely be on hand for my gaming tools in the years to come!

I'm going to be needing these units in a few days as I throw a big multi-scenario OHW Medievals game for my old gaming club. Stick around for more posts that show how OHW is not just a book for a small, 2-player game, but multiple scenarios can be placed side-by-side for much larger historical games.

Basing [5]: Results of Evaluation, prep, etc

Ah yes, "the eternal question of BASING" one's figures...


Been working with the "One-Hour Wargames" rules for a couple years now, including the positive effects those rules have on basing. My exploration of this popular topic began in OCT 2015. If you'd like to review those four posts, and see the pics and diagrams, they are HERE.

Now, after extensive thought, planning, and actual playing and experimenting, I've some definite thoughts on Basing:

1. Basing and Rules must be directly related, and to the physicality of playing the rules.
2. Basing in larger groups looks great!
3. Basing in large groups is more practical - better for durability, handling, safety, everything.
4. The only thing one loses is the ability to "change formation" shape with the bases.

Point 1: Rules and Basing. 

1. The base itself should make game play easier, not harder. Mine have a 2-1 ratio Front to Side, and that Base Width v. Base Depth ratio is used for my rules, for all measurements. 
2. This has the pleasant side effect of making the rules more universal - regardless of the scale or present basing of someone's collection, they can use my RAW as long as they have a sabot to put their little bases on.
3. The Purpose of the Rules can be better served. If you want a faster playing set of rules, then fewer bases is definitely the way to go. It gives players a lot less fiddling time and keeps things moving, something more and more important in younger people - they like a quicker pace of entertainment!

Point 2: Large-Group Basing looks great! 

With a larger base you can create little dioramas on every base, or on certain special bases [perhaps with commanders, etc]. With a little thought, the larger grouping of the army's bases can have a net large-diorama effect, also. This increases the "gee-whiz" factor of the army, an important part of miniatures gaming, anyway. If you aren't into this, why not just use a boardgame or big counters with nice graphics??

Point 3: Group Basing is more practical.

1. Small bases result in figs banging into each other, with spears, horse tails, etc, getting damaged especially with metal figs. Single-rank 25mm figs on WRG / DBx size bases fall over especially when interacting with terrain pieces like Hills.
2. A single larger base has the same appearance but all figs are completely within the base edges, protecting the figs. 
3. If the base is 3-5mm / 1/4" high or so, people can just handle the base itself. With most plastic figs, and with the softer metal figs, this is important for durability! I will say that many of the expensive pewter-mix "white metal" figs are much stronger than the Old Glory type figs.
4. A big base is easy to pick up, and prevents big fat fingers from squashing your figs, or at least reduces handling.
5. Reduced handling is also safer, depending on what you make spears out of and how pointy they are! You can put a flag on the base which increases depth perception ability of players, also, reducing chance of a stabbing incident.

Point 4: You only lose "formation changes"

1. First of all, very few ancient armies used formations, anyway. Granted, these are some of the more popular ones [mostly b/c they are both better documented and b/c gamers usually are seeking an advantage over other players by using them - bleh!] but smart rule-writing can abstract these "formations" anyway.
2. Also, during a battle, there would rarely be "formation changes" anyway. Heck, changing formation in the face of the enemy [what a game battle is, right??] wasn't popular in the Seven Year's War, so they sure as heck aren't doing it in ancient times!
3. Rules that feature small-base movement have a strong tendency towards a-historical actions by players, and waste a lot of time as players try to fiddle about with their little bases. Sometimes, they even do that on purpose [avoid those players!] but many gamers are just overwhelmed by the fiddliness of the rules and the options available.

With all this in mind, I've been working on some re-basing:

First up, an experiment to figure out how vulnerable these bases are to wet - whether sitting in spilled beverage or as a result of rain / flooding damage in storage. Below, I soaked a trimmed piece of the basing material in water for a day:

Note some curvature and curling at the edges - not the end of the world, but still...

Another view, different lighting.

I'm hopeful that if allowed to thoroughly dry, these bases would be OK on their edges. However, I think it is best to seal the bases I've already made, and flip over the ones on which I'm working now.

Sprayed the bases on cardboard outside, put them in the furnace room [very warm and dry] overnight, then let sit in my cool office for another 24 hours before storing them away:

Note that I'm now flipping over the bases, so this spray-painted side is now the bottom.

Project overview: heavy scissors to cut the corrugated cardboard, cheap white glue / PVA, and Elmer's Wood Filler to shape the ground on which the figs will stand.

Flipped bases. The "Make it Suade!" spray paint will now be on the bottom, thoroughly protecting the base. The white floor covering will be covered in Wood Fill anyway, so it will also be sealed. You can see how the cardboard shapes the ground of the base, giving it more depth and realism.

Below, 3-step process [right to left]. Prepared Base, figs glued on with PVA glue, base sculpted with Wood Fill.

Below, the old WRG/DBx basing system. This is a Unit of Gothic archers in loose order [I actually used them for Terry Gore's "Medieval Warfare"]. They aren't bad - I tried to give them some dynamics, but it puts them near the base edges.

Next to left is the new base, then with some Foundry cross-bows on it, then sculpted with Elmer's Wood Fill at the left.

Below three pics show the greater depth on the big bases:

They're also a mm or so taller, easier to grab.

I hope this is useful in helping your thinking about basing your armies, whether you agree / use my suggestions or not!

More figs and basing will be posted soon.

Medieval Book Resources, Reviews, P.1

It's always great to get another look at a big picture, yet one that has a focus on warfare. It helps us to keep our games from being just "games" and bringing the mechanics, and scenarios into the larger context of history for a touch more realism. In a gaming genre that tends to be marked by sweeping generalizations, e.g. A Knight is a Knight is a Knight, articles that helps us discern what makes Italian warfare in the 1200s different from NW France and its war and battles is great stuff. So when we WANT to make those distinctions, we are able to do so. I think this is especially important in the area of scenario generation, and of course critical to historical campaigns.

So I was pleased to stumble across "Medieval Warfare: A History" ed. Maurice Keen,  in a bibliography elsewhere, and discover it in my local public library. 
Thought: DO use your public library to sample books before you spend $$ on them at Amazon - it never hurts to figure out if a book is genuinely worth having or not and the gaming budget can be saved or spent elsewhere!

This book is pretty recent, from 1999, and has a series of articles brought together by scholars across the field. I read through a couple of the articles that were in periods or on topics with which I'm familiar and have read other authors, and these seem like very reasonable overviews. In other words, the generalizations and conclusions seem to be well-informed, neither the work of a young author who is just trying to cause a stir, nor a jaded old geezer who is careless or dated in his scholarship.





The "phases" are more like "eras and areas" of medieval warfare. As both geography and culture impact warfare, I found it useful to have the book organized thus.

The "further reading" section is excellent - organized by topics such as naval warfare and military orders or by geographic areas. Worth take a pic of and keeping for future use! The Chronology also helps give a big picture and a grasp of sequential developments.


I hope you're able to find this, but if not it seems pretty available at Amazon for about $6 + $4 shipping, so $10. I think I can recommend it heartily for anyone interested in gaming this period, either a newbie or a veteran.

How to Contact? That's the question...

Yep, the Welsh Teulu's been contacted alright...

"Contact" feudal style...flank & rear on the Teulu, frontal on the Serjeants

from my Dark Ages blog, HERE

Interesting post query in the AMW yahoogroup: 

"How does one make contact in the NT rules - conform in full edge to edge contact, or stop at initial point of contact?"  NOTE: This would be a corner unless one started exactly parallel to the Charge Target Unit.

There are actually a number of interesting game design questions that orient around this issue.

1. What does melee represent in the game? in the earlier periods, it means actually getting up close and stabbing people - in the later periods, it means firing muskets up close and then charging a wavering opponent who promptly scampers off.

2. Do the mechanics have unintended consequences? as in does conforming result in a change of direction for a retreat from the melee, perhaps to the advantage of one side? Should they get this advantage?

3. How complex should this be to reflect reality as we understand it? as in do we need two pages of rules and 7 diagrams to explain it??

4. Can I explain this to a newbie / does it makes sense to a normal person?

It should be noted that none of NT's rules I have - and the only set I don't have is Napoleonic Wargaming - explain it or say anything besides "contact the enemy unit". It seems to me that it sometimes matters, and sometimes doesn’t, and the NT thing is probably to let players wing it! So what are some issues around it?

First, is the period Ancients through Pike and Shot where NT has melee being one of the primary means of resolving combat? Or is it a period where firepower is more dominant? In the former, I think one can make a good argument that it is more realistic looking to have them be in full contact, and that generally the attacker will conform to the defender as their object is to get fully into contact.

For the latter periods, “melee” is really more “getting threateningly close until the one side or the other blinks and scampers off”. In that case, I don’t conform them as I think they’re not really in physical hand-to-hand combat. However, if the defender was in a fixed position like a town or breastwork, then I’d conform them since I imagine the attacker having to get very very close to have any encroaching effect on the defender.

For One-Hour Wargames, the cavalry in Horse & Musket / Rifle and Saber charge and bounce if they fail to destroy their target. For that case, I think you can argue that the attacker can just choose as it’s up to the cavalry commander to decide to where he wants his squadron to rally back.  Also, it’s sorta realistic to give cavalry that extra movement and option to be very mobile. So there I’d let the player decide if he wanted to conform or not, and therefore set up a possible bounce to take him where he wants to go. It shouldn't get abused much as it's only 6" back, which is half shooting range, so using this as a move option for a unit that has a 12" move anyway doesn't seem tempting.

Presently, I’m playing a lot of the “Wargaming: An Introduction” ACW rules. There, I do NOT conform them as the detailed mechanics of charging just have it make a lot more sense to resolve the whole thing as more of a morale clash. Again, if they were attacking a fortification or breastworks, I’d probably force the attacker to conform.

My next venture will be Simplicity in Practice, his set of "generic" horse & musket rules, which I will most likely pursue as a “first corner or point of contact” and not conform them.

OHW: Scenario #12, "An Unfortunate Oversight"

The battle's T.12 climax - who will hold the hill, and therefore the river crossings??


Having done the most deliberate simplification of the rules in a while, it was time to playtest them. I changed all measurements to Base Widths [BW] and Base Depths [BD] which as I play them are 5" and 2.5" [a BD needs to be 1/2 of a BW].  Note that these are also the size of my single bases.  I shifted diced movement [which I quite like] to optional rules.

I'm quite pleased with them, the combination of a single base that is easy to handle, pleasant to look at [a little diorama] and simplifying a few things got some games down to 30-40 minutes.  This is about what I can squeeze in on a typical weeknight after the Little Man goes to bed and before it is my bedtime.

I've now played this scenario about 8 times. I played it once just like this so this is technically the second playtest of these rules and scenario; wanted to make certain that there was nothing seriously wrong before I spent all the time taking pics and such. This scenario presents a number of challenges to both sides. For Red:

• holding the town and how best to use it as a flank support is important - the game is easily long enough to allow the Blue player to attack on the level ground,
• to dismount the knights and where to put them - on the flat or the hill,
• related decision - keeping one mounted knight in reserve or just a Freeman.

Blue has a few important game decisions as well:

• how best to challenge the town and its river crossing. I've attacked with dismounted knights supported by a hero and banner, or just threatened with Brigans,
• To attack the hill directly or screen the hill while attacking the level ground between the town and the hill instead,
• placing the one Bowmen - shooting into the flat or crossing at the ford in support.

The combination of decisions and their interaction shaped all the previous 7 games I played. I tried numerous combinations, and have to say that how Red sets up shapes everything after - how Blue counters it and then attacks. Red then has a short opportunity to prepare for a response, and the rest comes down to some dice results and mid-game decisions. These boil down to Blue retreating Knights to rally v. Red advancing to threaten them while they do so. The scenario has never been dull and only one-sided a couple of times.

As always, my rules offer a choice between the D6 [more variable] and the D5 average die [2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5 sides] so I refer to the die rolls as "Dx". I choose the D5 as more average and rewarding skill and decisions more than luck, but that's my style.

The book's scenario 12 below. Red sets up first, Blue moves first but can't shoot on Turn 1. Length is 15 turns as always, with 6 Units per side.

Red Force. Rolled a '1' on my variation of NT's force dice. This resulted in only 2 Knights, but 2 Bowmen, and 2 Freemen. As they are outnumbered 2-1 in Knights, Red wisely chooses to dismount them as Serjeants. In these rules, that means they inflict melee Hits equal to Dx same as Freemen, but take 1/2 Hits due to armor and cohesion. The Bowmen shoot Dx but melee at Dx-2. Freemen are just plain average performers.

This force represents a quick mobilization with few mercenaries by a lord defending against a raider or invader. Hence it has some knights, bowmen from castle garrisons and the better of the freemen or continuously employed mercenaries, and then two units of local Freemen one might consider the best of the militia, or "select Fyrd". Figures are Old Glory Welsh archers and spearmen, with OG Swabians and Gripping Beast late Romans to front [some of you might recognize the banner of the Welsh Lord and his teulu!]. In my mind, this is a Welsh force trying to hold a river crossing against a raiding force of Anglo-Normans.

Blue Force. With a '5' they get 4 Knights, a Bowmen and a Brigan. I left the Knights mounted as they need the mobility and Dx+2 melee dice. This is a fast-moving force, perfect for this scenario as the Brigans move almost as fast as Knights. The Bowmen could be fielded as mercenary crossbow as depicted, shooting at a +1 and the lesser knights to left could melee at only Dx+1 to even it out, but I ended up just fighting them all straight up. 

The crossbowmen are Foundry, the rest Old Glory.

SETUP. Red must set up within 12" of the town - they've made "an unfortunate oversight" and missed the ford that flanks them. Red decides to defend the crossing with a Bowmen, defend the valley with a Freemen and a Bowmen supported by the second Freemen. The two Serjeants will take and hold the hill. Their armor and being uphill means they take 1/4 Hits, a pretty powerful help that will make them last a long time unless they're flanked. 

Blue threatens the town crossing with Brigans supported by Bowmen, who can also shoot across the river into the Red Freemen. Stacked at the flanking ford are all four Knights. There's no move penalty to cross the ford, but defenders on the riverbank take 1/2 Hits - this means the bowmen in the village take 1/4 melee Hits, 1/2 defending the ford, 1/2 defending the town. For shooting, the ford doesn't help, so they'll take 1/2 Hits. 

Turn 1. Blue shoots and does some damage, but the Bowmen run out of missiles. The Knights begin crossing. Red moves onto the hill, and advances both valley Units since the Blue Bowmen have no missiles. This allows them to threaten the crossing knights with missiles but at no danger to the Freemen being torn up by missiles. Small things can make a big difference when it comes to decisions!

Turn 1 Shooting. Ok, I forgot that Blue wasn't supposed to shoot at all. But if they'd done this in Turn 2, there wouldn't be much difference. Blue rolled a natural '5' and the Bowmen get 5 hits but run out of missiles - these are halved and rounded up due to the village cover and results in 3 Hits net. The Brigans throw some javelins and at Dx-2 get 2 Hits, halved to1 Hit. Red Bowmen inflict 3 Hits on the Brigans who are a bigger threat than Blue Bowmen with no missiles. Overall, this exchange was something of a waste for Blue.

Turn 2. Blue Knights continue to advance. They face the lead Knight to threaten the lead Red Serjeant with a charge. The other three are still maneuvering. Blue Bowmen start heading to the ford - without missiles, they aren't much use south of the river. Red occupies the hill and prepares in the valley, but Blue is still out of missile range.

Turn 3. Blue finished deploying into threat range. All four Knights can charge to contact. Welsh Bowmen inflict 4 Hits on opposing Knights - probably just angers them! The Welsh Bowmen in the town hit the Brigans for 4 then 5 Hits, going out of missiles also. This has encouraged the Brigans to depart bow range lest they be destroyed. As there's an option to recover 1-2 Hits a turn, they'll be using that on the South side of the river.

Turns 4-5. Calculated risks... Blue Knights 3 charges the Welsh Bowmen in the valley. Knights 1 & 2 support by threatening a flank charge on Red Serjeants 2 if they charge the flank of Knights 3. Tempting, but the victory condition is the hill, so Red Serjeants opt to advance a little into charge range, threatening to charge off the hill and get the first blow. The Bowmen do little damage in the melee, while the Freemen roll 4 Hits twice. Still, not enough to defeat the Knights, they will most likely die next turn. I'm now realizing that I should've already turned the Welsh Bowmen in the town to flank and positioned them on the edge of the town ready to move out. The Brigans sit still and rally some Hits off.

Turn 6 Blue. The Red Units in the valley are destroyed. Altho they've a second line of Freemen, the fact that there are two Knights available puts them in an awkward position; the choice is to charge in and get the first blow, which may allow them to destroy the Knights in front of them who have 6 Hits, or to pull back and protect their own flank. I choose to go after the Knights. This is where having the Bowmen ready to move would've helped!

Decision Point. Taking the Knights in the flank is NOT a good idea...when a unit of knights can charge your rear while the other your flank [Dx+2 x 2 x 1/2, still pretty bad]. The ruler shows the 10" [2xBW] move range of the Knights...just enough.

But a small, threatening advance IS. Again, threatening to charge off hill, get first blow.

Turn 7, Blue. The Red Welsh Bowmen don't make it into contact range. The Blue Knights hit the flank, roll a '4' +2 = 6 x 2 = 12 Hits. The Freemen are destroyed and the valley is looking pretty empty. A single Bowmen with no missiles isn't much use, really. Altho they can now charge since they're out of missiles, they're melee isn't very good and they're alone. For this game, the failure to switch the Red Bowmen to face the valley a turn sooner will be the critical failure of leadership for Red. The 5" Base Width charge is just out, shown by the position of the blank base.

Turn 7. Red moves Bowmen into flank charge range, but out of the Blue Knight's "charge to flank" range, which are 5" and 2.5" respectively [Base Width v. Base Depth illustrated by the blank base]. Running out of options, Red decides to hang onto the hill for dear life and Retreats a BD with both Serjeants who, after all, are sitting on a win at the moment. Anticipating all this, the somewhat recovered Brigans are moving to cross the river even as the crossbows cross the ford.

Turn 8. The weakened Knight 3 retreats to recover some Hits while Knight 4 faces the threatening Welsh Bowmen. Having lost three Units and with Blue closing in with additional Units, Red decides that it is time to get a bit offensive. Neither Serjeant can be hit in the flank, and they threaten to charge next turn. The weakened Knight 4 just may lose to the Bowmen in a straight up melee, depending on the dice - they've 8 Hits.

Turn 9 & Blue 10. Blue can't abide being goaded, and charges Knight 1 into the lead Serjeant, covering with the awkwardly positioned Knight 2. Knight 3 was supposed to spend time rallying. Red challenged this by going for the flank of knight 1, which necessitated that Knight 2 & 3 charge in support. Charges on the Serjeant are doubled for flank/rear, halved for armor, so they take 10 Hits but drive Knight 1 to 13, almost dead [15 Hits].

Red Turn 10. Red faces Serjeant 2 against Knight 3 and now only has one Knight to flank - he may survive - and rolls a '4' driving Knight 4 to 14 Hits. Serjeant 1 destroys Knight 1 with 3 more Hits. It's getting quite hairy in that center area, anything might happen.

Turn 11. Red cleared out the center and has gained some honors, but has to retreat to the hilltop and its defensive bonuses - note that the hill + armor - rear leaves them at a net halving of Hits, so it is worth getting up on the hill. Blue has Knight 3 almost dead, but knight 2 is pristine. The Welsh Bowmen and Knight 4 are in a standoff thus far. The Blue Bowmen aren't very dangerous, but their mere existence is a long-term threat to Red, so getting away from them is a good move.

Turn 12. Blue must charge, and does so, inflicting a net '5' Hits, while the Serjeants blow their roll and inflict '2' back. Knights 4 positions for the flank charge.


Turn 13 Blue, and Scenario End. Well, it was hard-fought. But even with hill bonuses, the flank charge results in the destruction of Serjeants 1.

Interestingly, the fundamental decision points that resulted in Red's loss came about early in the game. I should've moved the Bowmen to help in the valley sooner, and perhaps not tried to wipe out the Brigans with shooting [but it was too tempting, I got them to 12 Hits, only one more shot would've done it...] since they ran out of missiles and then weren't nearly as much help in the valley battle that determined the outcome.

Another great scenario, it proved interesting over many plays and the rules delivered just what I want - plenty of interesting decision points and lots of play in a short time, under one hour per the original intent of the "One-Hour Wargame" rules. Yet, my variation has both better defined mechanics and some additional historical nuance. Worth the effort!

Now that the rules are where they need to be, I'll have to finish drafting the optional rules and the army lists, which are leaning towards using the same matrix as NT does, with just a few more variations on the core Units.