Sunday 16 April 2023

Wargame Rules Review


Campaign wargame map

All of my wargames are fighting battles from my 1813 campaign.   It is critical that the table is a replica of the wargames map.   The campaign battle area is three squares by three squares.   The wargame table is three squares by three squares.   One day in the campaign is 12 hours, each wargame is a maximum of 12 moves. 

When I started the campaign in 2009 I was using Le Feu Sacre rules by Too Fat Lardies.   I had to amend them slightly to fit the campaign requirements, but the mechanics were retained.   I did, and still do, regard them as an excellent set of wargame rules.   Over the years they have been amended time and again to suit my particular type of wargame.   I game against my wife Jan, and we game most days.   So we quickly gained a mastery of the fine points of the rules.   Few, if any, rules would stand up to this amount of play.   We quickly found bits which we did not like and which did not provide the type of fast moving and fun wargame.   However they still remain retain many, if not most, of the original rules.

However lately I have found that wargames are not completed satisfactorily in the maximum 12 moves.   This is partly because we both know the rules so well that  we can counter each move.    I usually take the offensive role, and I          have mastered what works and what  does not.   Jan has developed counter measures which usually result in a draw.   Most often I simply run out of time.    I “win” the battle, but fail to take the objective.  So, of course, I actually “lose” the battle.   Winning and losing does not matter, but the indecisive result does.   The campaign relies on a distinct winner and loser of each battle.   Remember that the aim of each battle is to provide an enjoyable wargame.   This is not the same as playing a realistic historical campaign.

So there is a pressing need for major change.  However I do not want to “throw the baby out with the bath water”.

I have a rough outline of what I want to achieve, but will take as long as it takes to play test  the result before I apply the new rules to the campaign.


Wargame Table

The main objective is to provide a more decisive result, but to keep the fast flowing and fun feel to the rules.   This is much more difficult to achieve than it sounds.  I have found so often in the past that any amendments to wargame rules produce many unanticipated and unwelcome problems.   You solve one problem but produce two more.

I feel that the need is to simplify the basic outcome of each combat, but maintain the overall balance of the rules.   However to do so I will need to alter the overall balance in order to adjust any minor problems of game play.

There are three major aspects I want to review

First combat in general

Second towns and woods

Third hills

At present combat is resolved by a table which confirms the outcome.  For example the winner breaks contact, it is a draw or the loser breaks contact.    Too often it is a draw, both sides suffer casualties, but the combat continues for two or three moves.

Towns are very difficult to take.   It takes a long time for the attacker to reach the building, and the fighting can then go on for two or three moves.   Most often the defender gets pushed back, but the attacker runs out of time.

Hills are particularly difficult to take.   Infantry can hide behind the crest and artillery dominates the approach.   The attacker has to reduce solve the artillery problem by cavalry or counter battery before the infantry can stand any reasonable chance of taking the hill.

That is the task.   Now all I have to do is solve the problem!

15 comments:

  1. You present yourself with more one problem to solve!

    You make a very good point on rules surviving close and repeated scrutiny. I think that in today’s society rules tend to fall out of favor as soon as a new set hits the market. Little chance for the rules to be digested properly and exercised completely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Johathan

      Thanks for your comment

      Our current rules have served us well, but the problem with always playhing against the same opponent (in this case my wife) regularly you soon learn a counter to each others game. This is a nice problem to have, but it now means that too many games end in a draw.

      There are also a few really annoying problems, outlines above, which have proved difficult or impossible to resolve.

      Last, but not least, I am ready for a new project for the hot summer months here in Spain.

      regards

      Paul

      Delete
    2. Agreed! One needs an interesting puzzle to tackle in the cool shade of a hot summer sun.

      Delete
  2. Thistlebarrow,

    I think that you are taking on quite a task … but I’m sure that you’ll enjoy the process.

    A set of rules that stand the test of time are a rarity and I think that you and Jan have done well to stick with a basic set for so long, amending them as you used them to suit your particular requirements.

    I look forward to following your progress with this project,

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bob

      Thanks for your comment

      You may well be right, I may well come to regret it. But out games have becoming a little predictable lately and I am looking forward to the challenge. However I am keeping a copy of my old rules - just in case !

      regards

      Paul

      Delete
  3. It sounds like you have a tricky balancing act with amending your combat rules (to be less predicable?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Peter

      Thanks for your comments

      I think the answer may be to get the rules as balanced as possible, and then use less dice to decide the winner. In this way results should be more extreme. And if things are not working out will be easier to adjust. That is the first step. Time, and play testing, will confirm whether I am right or not

      regards

      Paul

      Delete
  4. Thistlebarrow -
    I do like your set-up and the battles look interesting (but could do with more pictures!), but I wonder after all this time maybe your battles are become a little stereotyped. That was one of the problems I had with the DB* game systems.

    I'd suggest an incremental approach beginning with your battle victory criteria. Towns - at least towns made from masonry - and hills ought to be hard to take. But supposing you have a defending enemy on the run, but still to be shifted from the town they are holding. What is the state of the army overall? Are they likely - unattacked - to remain there overnight? The town might be taken without requiring a storm.

    If the defending army is being driven in at 'nightfall', but retains its cohesion (by and large), then maybe the assault has indeed failed. But if it is clear that the defenders are overall broken (excepting whoever garrisons the town) then perhaps one can decide
    (a) that the enemy will abandon the place overnight, losing the action or
    (b) the attackers will try to storm the place at dusk, with a short space of added time allowed to succeed. One often hears of fighting continuing until well after dark. I would limit this to 3 or even just 2 moves to bring about a result.

    Apart from perhaps bringing in rules for night fighting (mostly restricting artillery to short ranges, I suspect), you would not have done (too much) violence to your rule set of choice.
    Just some thoughts
    Ion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JP

      Thanks for your considered and constructive comments.

      First lack of photos. Is this based on this blog, or on my 1813 campaign diary? On the latter there is a more detailed battle report and one photo at the end of two moves. I used to do one for each move, but thought that might be boring for anyone reading the report.

      I think my current rules follow pretty well what you have suggested. In particular I tend to force the defender to retreat overnight, even if they still hold the game objective (usually the town) at the end of the game, but have lost the actual battle.

      I want to achieve a clear result at the end of 12 moves. This is so that the wargame will transfer back to the campaign within one campaign day, which is 12 hours.

      I could introduce night fighting, but I think that was pretty unusual in Napoleonic campaigns.

      I have considered short sieges. This would be easy to do without setting up a battle. A town could just hold for as many days as it has supplies. But the whole concept of the campaign was to produce short, interesting and fun wargames. A siege goes against this principle.

      regards

      Paul














      Delete
  5. For what it's worth, historically my reading seems to indicate that any close combats were usually resolved very quickly in the Napoleonic period. Fighting for towns and villages for example usually resulted in the attack causing the defenders to quickly retreat, or the attack to be repulsed. The defeated side when then regroup and attack again or counter attack. The same was true for fighting in woods. These combats were usually took several rounds of attack and counter attack to be resolved, and even then it was often because the position was out flanked. Maybe try a combat results table where most of the results also force one side or the other to retreat, and both sides to be disordered. This would give the overall advantage to the side with uncommitted troops at hand an edge. I like Bob Cordery's portable wargames system for hills, they have a disadvantage for troops shooting or attacking up them but confer no advantage to the defenders. As for combat in general prolonged fire fights did not take place all that often, perhaps adding more results to your table that cause one side or the other to retreat might speed things up a bit and lead to more decisive results. I'm very interested in seeing how all of this plays out and enjoy reading your campaign and battle reports.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mark

      Thanks very much for your constructive comments

      I may be wrong, but my reading would suggest that BUA fighting often went on for a considerable period. With both sides committing more and more reserves. Hougoumont would be one example, but there are many more such as Austerlitz. My current rules do not handle this well, and it will be one important aspect of the review.

      I am undecided about the strength of the attacker v defender. At present I allow a bonus to the defender, which is balanced if the attacker can bring odds of 2 to 1. However he can only attack one side with each brigade. So he has to drive back any enemy supports befoe he can attack two or three sides at once.

      I will try to explore this in more detail as I review the rules. And I would welcome any comments you may have as they develop

      regards

      Paul

      Delete
    2. I agree, fighting for towns and woods was usually a prolonged, back and forth process that tended to draw in more and more troops. Here's a thought, maybe instead of giving the defender an advantage, give the attacker a disadvantage instead. Then allow a second Brigade, positioned directly behind the attacking Brigade to support the attack and reduce or cancel the disadvantage. This could represent the presence of fresh troops to be thrown into the attack and overwhelme the defenders. If the defender has unengaged troops next to the town they could chose to feed them into the struggle giving an advantage to the counter attack.
      I also wouldn't mind more photos with your battle reports.
      In any case it's a tricky thing to amend a set of rules without throwing them out of balance, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your tinkering.

      Delete
    3. Hi Mark

      I have struggled for a long time trying to find a realistic rule system for BUA and woods. Its finding a smooth way to feed in reinforcements that I find difficult to do. For my games the basic infantry unit is the brigade. A small town has two sections and a city four sections. One brigade is needed to garrison each section. I have tried putting the reserve in the centre of the section, or behind it. In both cases they usually break when the garrison is routed.

      The garrison has a bonus of plus 2 in melee. The attacker has a bonus of 1 in the first round of melee (for impetus/charge). Thus if the garrison holds for the first round of melee, he will have an advantage in subsequent rounds.

      Only one brigade can attack each side of the town section. So if the attacker can attack two or more sides at the same time he gains a big advantage. Obviously the defender deploys his supports to counter this option.

      It all works reasonably well. But I have to find a smoother way to reinforce the garrison.

      I could not agree with you more about throwing rules out of balance. I have experienced this with every set of commercial rules I have used. But I do find that with "house rules" it is less of a problem. This is because I understand exactly what I want to achieve with each rule. This is harder to understand when someone else has written them.

      regards

      Paul

      Delete
  6. That is an interesting set of problems. A few thoughts occur:
    1 - Make defending towns slightly more risky, particularly making defeat more costly (defending units defeated in towns prone to surrender en masse)
    2 - Increase randomness in the mechanics more generally
    3 - Make the game length slightly more random (potentially add 0-2 turns of 'dusk' fighting and/or 0-1 'dawn' turns)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JWH

      Thanks for your comments.

      I will make the defence more risky and costly by the long term campaign effects of any casualties received. For example an elite brigade defending a town who received 10% casualties will carry them for the remainder of the campaign. This will in effect reduce him to a trained brigade in terms of morale and combat effectiveness. There is only one elite brigade per corps, so they can only be used effectively for one battle in each campaign phase.

      I agree about the increased randomness. I plan to achieve this by reducing dice from two for morale and combat to just one. Thus a 6 or 1 will have dramatic result. 5 or 2 will not be conclusive. 4 or 3 will be a draw.

      Because the wargame is linked to the campaign it is not possible to adjust the daylight hours available to fight. There are 12 hours in a campaign day and 12 moves in a wargame.

      regards

      Paul

      Delete

I have set the settings for comments to come to me before posting so that I will not miss any