Big-Battle One-Hour Wargames Game: P3, Lessons

As usual, I forgot to take pics since I was in the midst of GMing - rats!

The host did a solid job setting up, and I dropped by earlier in the day to check on and adjust things so we weren't rushed that evening. The board is 12x6', and we played ona 9x3' of it, with three of the 3x3' scenarios. This is how it looks - be mindful that while one can fill up the blank spaces with lots of cool looking terrain items, for the purpose of a demo, simple is best!

Scenario 4: "Take the High Ground" [left]


Scenario 8: "Melee" [center]


Scenario 10: "Late Arrivals" [right] note this is a mirror image to the layout in the book. The impassible hill now divides this scenario from its neighbor more easily.


Results. Both the Welsh defenders in #4 and #8 lost to the Feudal English attackers. Knight armies are just easier to figure out than counter-attack and denial armies like the Welsh. On the right, #10, one player brought his Pre-Feudal Scots and played two sides of that, with:
- Attackers: 2 Knights, 2 Freemen, 2 Brigans
- Defenders: 1 Serjeants, 3 freemen, 2 Brigans
This was the most even fight. The Attacker chose to hold his knights in reserve, and let his infantry lead the advance. This made for a slower attack. The Defender started with a unit of Brigans in the woods to harass the advance, which he did successfully. In the open, he had a unit of Freemen, who eventually attacked a unit advancing up the road and again slowed the advance up, but of course he was overwhelmed on the flanks. 

On Turn 5, Defender brought in his Serjeants and a Freemen. He put the former next to the Camp and the Freemen in the camp. Both therefore took half hits, so he essentially chose to make the unit of Freemen as good as Serjeants by having them hold the camp. The alternative is to put the Serjeants in the camp, where they get 1/4 hits! But the Freemen would then be in the open, die faster, and the Serjeants would be flanked.

Attacker ended up attacking the camp and and its supporting units, with a Freemen and Brigan entering turn 10 and distracting his knights. However, Attacker just managed to take the camp on the last turn. A tense fight with lots of small decisions by both players that ultimately shaped the game's outcome more than the dice.

Player Feedback
- several said they had fun, which is always good!
- requests for more guidance in setup and scenario tactics.
- "knight are unstoppable!" [if only this were true for mine!]
- running out of missiles is "not fun".
- explanation of rules was good.

Detailed feedback from player / Host:

1. The game worked well.   
2. I liked splitting it into 3 one-on-one games.
3. Mid-game clarifications were few...and expected.    
4. The rules were very straightforward.   
5. Your basing works nicely.   
6. The terrain layout was properly scaled to the game.   
7. Your use of only a portion of my table worked for the game/scenarios.

Detailed feedback from player / prolific game designer / tinkerer:

1. the game played quickly and simply. 
2. the units stats were so simple as to do away with distinction between national armies.    Partly this may be a reflection of the small number of real men each unit represented. I can believe that as numbers go down national differences decrease.  
3. this does make the game more dependent on good scenario design and on making the best  opening move.  Playing on such a small board makes the opening turn...critical.  I see this especially in Early Warhammer Fantasy and Kings of War games where armies may start as close as 2 feet. 
4. Winning or losing can be dependent on deployment. 
5. As an occasional change of pace the game might be fun to play but I can't see it ever replacing, for me, a more sophisticated Medieval Warfare game. 

Obviously, perspective is part of the comments. I edited them a little to make them clearer as I comprehended the comment. I may be mistaken in a place or two.

Lessons for running newbies through a game

Changes:

1. The QRS worked fine, but I didn't realize - the printer faded on some of the color headers, so "print a day before and check results better"!
2. Make all initial decisions for the player - they don't know the game well enough to make them on their own. This includes deploying the initial units.
3. Nearly identical forces on both sides is easier. Next time I'd have Welsh v. Welsh, Feudal English v. Feudal English, and Pre-Feudal Scots v. Pre-Feudal Scots. One of the benefits is both players can help the opponent remember his troop types.
4. The "Red v. Blue" explanation from the book were confusing - next time I'll make my own.
5. Also, I didn't realize it but in two of the scenarios the Attacker went second, and in #10 they go first! This was needlessly confusing.
6. For a demo, just keep the scenarios totally separate, and let players play turns at their own pace. If someone finishes quickly, they can always play again.

Sustains:

1. The three separate games alongside each other worked well.
2. Keeping to the most basic rules - no optional or advanced.
3. Keeping to related scenarios provides mission focus for each player, rather than just the entire side. Makes for some good variety without complicating things much.
4. The rules are easy to grasp - resist requests and temptation to add differentiation.

I hope to run a 3 v. 3 or 4 v. 4 big historical game in the future. Maybe a "not hastings" battle, or perhaps the Battle of Lincoln. I think these will enable a group to get through the battle completely within a reasonable evening time limit.

Big-Battle One-Hour Wargames Game: P2, Playtests

Still planning for tomorrow's "big battle One-Hour Wargames game". Been tinkering with the forces, and decided I had to play out some of the compositions. My goal is to minimize randomness and give everyone an equal chance at glorious victory [or disastrous defeat!] so I'm _somewhat_ going against the OHW structure and not rolling up forces. Don't get me wrong, I personally love to have a tough challenge, either solo or with a willing opponent, but tomorrow's the intro of a brand new paradigm to my old gaming group.

They've been playing rules with "loads 'o modifiers" for decades [no exaggeration], and where the game scenario is almost secondary - an afterthought - to the rules and modifier charts. Tomorrow I hope to intro them to the reverse, where just a few decisions are crucial to victory and the rules are pretty clean-cut. Also, where bad luck or trying to get a "gotcha!" in some way aren't very important. To that end I tried out the following scenario forces:

Scenario 4 "Take the High Ground" [left side of battlefield] for this I ran with:

Red Defenders, N. Welsh: 1 Cav, 1 Brigans [mtd], 1 Brigans, 3 Freemen

Blue Attackers, Feudal English: 2 Knight, 2 Bowmen, 2 Freemen

My thought was that the Freemen would hold the hill until the mounted forces relieved them, and the Brigans would affect the battle by being in the woods. But, NOPE, that wasn't it...

Turn 3, attacking Blue Knights trashing Freemen on hill. Red Freemen and Brigans moving down road while Blue Bowmen dominate the center and Freemen reinforce the hill...

Turn 4, Red loses both Freemen, and the hill, while Blue loses a knight. Roadway is dominated by a Red Freemen and their Brigans are entering the woods [ I'm such a dip - I moved the Brigans at the wrong rate the whole time...5" instead of 7.5"]. 

Turn 5. Blue Knights on road are nearly spent, but their Freemen hold the hill, while Bowmen are ready to hold their flank. Red side is spread out and not contesting, oops.

Top of Turn 6. Red shatters two Blue Knights, but Blue is nicely set up, despite both Bowmen being out of missiles, along with the Red Cavalry.

Bottom of Turn 6. Blue Freemen hit flank of Red Cavalry. Red Freemn along road rout. Red Brigans can't quite hit Blue Bowmen [shown by ruler, needing 5"].

Turn 7. Hope is lost for the Red defenders. Their Cavalry are almost done, and a fresh Red Bowmen [out of missiles, and thus able to charge] is moving onto the hill. Red Brigans are held off in the woods by Blue Bowmen on the road. Put a fork in it...

So I thought the attackers had it too easy - I could strengthen the defense with a unit of Serjeants [a Warlord's Teulu] on the hill, but I'm going to swap out a Knight for a Freeman:

Red Defenders, N. Welsh: 1 Cav, 1 Brigans [mtd], 4 Freemen

Blue Attackers, Feudal English: 2 Knight, 2 Bowmen, 2 Freemen

The center scenario I thought would be pretty clear cut, and used the following:

Scenario 8 "Melee" center

 Red Defenders, S. Welsh: 1 Cav, 1 Brigans [mtd], 1 Brigans, 3 Bowmen,

 Blue Attackers, Feudal English: 2 Knight, 2 Bowmen, 2 Freemen

Turn 1, Starting Positions. Red Units hold hill. Brigans are ready to hold woods.

Bottom of Turn 1. Blue Knight and two Bowmen advance on the Hill.

Turn 2. Red Units have little to do, but Brigans move into the woods. Blue forces close in. 

Turn 3, no Surprises: Blue charges in. Brigans are at woods edge to have Line of Sight to Knights [or else they can't charge]. But they can be shot at, taking 4 Hits [halved in woods].

Turn 4. Red Brigans hit Knights Flank. Blue Bowmen shoot away, tearing up the Brigans. Red Mounted Brigans distract on the road, but are countered by Blue Freemen entering the board, and Bowmen turning to face.

Top of Turn 5. Red beats down Blue Knights - the risk didn't pan out... double enveloped, Blue Knights flee with 16 hits. It should be noted that the Red units are pretty weak - Cav are 3x2=6 Hits, but Bowmen are 4-2=2 Hits, and Brigans are 3-1x2=2 Hits. But they do it.

Bottom of Turn 5. Red Brigans [mtd] distract two Blue Units. Blue moves on hill.

Turn 6. Doesn't look good for blue. At Right, Freemen work forward with support from Bowmen against Red Brigans [mtd], at left, hope remains in Freemen and Bowmen.

Turn 7. Blue Freemen and Bowmen go for the hill while Knights rally off hits. In the woods, Red Brigans rally Hits also. At the road, the Brigans [mtd] distract two Blue units. 

Turn 9. The tipping point. Red Bowmen and Cavalry tear up Blue Knights. Red Bowmen hold hill against Blue. Blue doesn't win skirmishing contest on right, as the Bowmen / Brigans combination is more than enough to handle the Freeman - Bowmen combo to right.

Turn10: Blue Bowmen and other Units falter. Nothing is going to be won, here.

Well, that was pretty lop-sided. Clearly, the attackers needed a bit more edge! Here, I'm going with upgrading the attackers a bit, to:

 Red Defenders, S. Welsh: 1 Cav, 1 Brigans [mtd], 1 Brigans, 3 Bowmen,

 Blue Attackers, Feudal English: 3 Knight, 1 Bowmen, 2 Freemen

The last scenario I don't know if I'll be able to play test. We'll see. At the moment, I'm uncertain what will be the forces, as they're supposed to be brought by one of the players. I think this is important since his armies are all WRG/DBx mounted, and I'd like to have two of them play off against each other.

Hopefully, this pans out. It is important as a gaming community that we address the issues of our community and play INTO them rather than AROUND them, and that includes addressing the issues of very complicated [and dated] rule sets, and low-fun gaming, IMHO.

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.