 |
| Somewhere in Italy, 1943 or 44.. |
I hope they have a pleasing old-school look. I like them, at least!
Next time, some more 7YW rule choices. Meanwhile, keep safe and well.
Saturday, 30 May 2020
..In Sunny Italy
Just a quick teaser for future posts : the other day my 'D-Day Dodgers' WW2 forces saw their first action. For some of the troops, the first time in 40+ years! More to come later, but for the moment here's a glimpse of the attempt to liberate Monte Lucedelsole, Portable Wargame style..
I hope they have a pleasing old-school look. I like them, at least!
Next time, some more 7YW rule choices. Meanwhile, keep safe and well.
I hope they have a pleasing old-school look. I like them, at least!
Next time, some more 7YW rule choices. Meanwhile, keep safe and well.
Sunday, 24 May 2020
Where next with the Seven Years War? (2) Rules and Regulations
"It is the need to have every detail consistent that is the bete noir of the professional wargamer. It leads him to compile regulations that resemble Acts of Parliament in bulk, and which are only marginally more intelligible....
..our criteria therefore have been not: is this rule rigidly consistent with the rest? but rather: does the final result look correct, does the battlefield look like an 18th-century battlefield? Do correct tactics pay off? Are obviously faulty plans properly penalised? Must the principles of war be observed?" *
A few further thoughts on future Seven Years War campaigning; having got the figures, we need some rules. Now I have thoroughly enjoyed using and adapting Bob Cordery's 'Portable Wargame' and will continue to do so, but I am also quite interested in comparing different possible sets of rules. Of course we are looking for enjoyable games, but I think I am also in this to think about 'how it happened', and whether what we are doing feels like a true reflection of how the organisations and tactics of the period really might have worked. So it seems worthwhile giving a few different rules a look, and seeing how I feel about them. Despite not actually gaming for many a long year, it's funny how one still manages to pick up a surprising number of rulebooks! So, a little tour of the choice of possible rules I have to (quite literally) play with ..
First, the 'old school' : you've really got to start with Charles Grant and Young and Lawford. Grant's 'The War Game' is where it all started for me, after buying it with childhood 'holiday money' in the 1970s, and being immediately captured by the sheer style, and the deep knowledge lightly worn, with a nice element of whimsy in the use of imagi-nations. The problem for pocket-money wargamers back then was the enormous regiments - 48 men and 6 officers! I saved hard, and bought one regiment of Minifigs Prussian Infantry, which I painted appallingly badly and forced to slum it fighting aginst Airfix plastic Waterloo and AWI figures. Forty-plus years later, those Prussians may finally get their chance, and a better paint job! BUT those huge regiments, and the seven feet by five table ( even for a 'small' game ) make it sadly unlikely that my troops will march to the late Mr Grant's drum. It's still a lovely read, though, and if the house ever burns down (heaven forbid) , I'll be stood on the pavement, in the proverbial dressing gown, clutching this book.
Young and Lawford's 'Charge' , I only acquired a couple of years ago, but I have thoroughly enjoyed reading, and of course it shares a lot of the same spirit as Charles Grant's book. The 'Elementary Game' rules cover just two pages in summary and look eminently practical, and their explanatory chapter is informative, erudite and entertaining. I note that I already have enough figures to mount something on the scale of 'The Action at Blasthof Bridge'. I have only half the space available of the six feet square that they had, but I am wondering if converting to hexes and/or reducing the distances might just work. The 'Advanced Game' looks a bit heavier going, and requires much more space ( Light Cavalry move 30 inches!) so that may have to wait.
Next up, what you might call the 'mid period' : good old WRG (1979) and GDW's 'Volley and Bayonet' (1994).
My copy of WRG 'Wargames Rules 1685-1845' looks suspiciously pristine and unmarked - funny, as in my memory it had quite a lot of use. It came as a bit of a godsend because of its 40/50 men per figure scale - now you could have battalions of 14 or 16 figures, so much more affordable! The Minifgs Prussians and the Airfix plastics were based up as rather heterodox imagi-nations ( Waterloo Cuirassiers vs. 1776 British Grenadiers, anyone? ), and I think a lot of fun was had. These were a reaction to the typical 1970s book-keeping heavy rules, by introducing element-based troops and simple '4, 5, or 6 and remove one figure per hit' systems, and that was quite welcome after an interlude with Bruce Quarrie's Napoleonic rules.
Looking at this set again, there is an awful lot of detail - nearly 50 pages of closely-spaced small type! The trademark WRG Reaction Tests are very much present - there are EIGHT different tests for various circumstances. But this is really just a way to reduce the omnipotence of the player/commander and introduce 'friction', and may compare favourably with some more modern and arbitrary-feeling 'you can only move 2 units on the left if there is an R in the month' command limitations. I don't suppose it would take long to remember the tests, and run them from the playsheet. I am quite interested to give this set a go, I think it would actually be pretty playable (quite a lot of the detailed text is taken up with ideas for terrain placement etc, which could be skipped). Mind you, how about this, fairly typical of the self-confidence of the authors :
"this is not to say that all relevant factors have not been taken into account.. They have, and the range of casualties obtainable is, for the first time in any set we know of, broadly consistent with those caused in real life".
That is quite some set of assertions, when you think about it...
'Volley and Bayonet' is intriguing, because it's an attempt to portray large battles, not just a clash of half-a-dozen battalions and a few squadrons. It also covers a wide period - about 1750 to 1870. I've owned this for many years, and sadly never actually played it. But why not? The rules are very simple, and the basic unit is a brigade on a 3-inch square base, hence small numbers of figures make a large army. I do suspect it would look best with 6mm figures, where a brigade could really look like a brigade, of several battalions. Also the move distances are quite generous - 24 inches for cavalry, 16 for an infantry brigade - hmm.. I wonder if we might convert to cm? If so, would we shrink the base size too, or would it matter? I think it would give a fast and furious game , and the scenarios included look great - for example Lobositz, where the Austrians get 18 regiments of foot and 7 or 8 brigades of Cavalry, now that's an army! I do quite fancy to try larger battles, and these rules might enable that - it could be fun to compare with Bob Cordery's Division and Corps-level games, too - about which more anon.
Just for interest, I cut out some temporary bases at the recommended sizes, and tried them with some figures , so here is a regiment of ( Prussian ) infantry, and a brigade of cavalry, based for 'Volley and Bayonet'.
Now I have been chuntering on a little too long; I hear Mr Bennet intoning "That will do extremely well, child. You have delighted us long enough". And there are still three or four more 'possibles' to explore! I think they can wait for another day.
I hope all my readers are well, and enjoying a pleasant holiday weekend. Look after yourselves.
* the quotations at the head of this post are, of course, from 'Charge' by Young and Lawford.
..our criteria therefore have been not: is this rule rigidly consistent with the rest? but rather: does the final result look correct, does the battlefield look like an 18th-century battlefield? Do correct tactics pay off? Are obviously faulty plans properly penalised? Must the principles of war be observed?" *
A few further thoughts on future Seven Years War campaigning; having got the figures, we need some rules. Now I have thoroughly enjoyed using and adapting Bob Cordery's 'Portable Wargame' and will continue to do so, but I am also quite interested in comparing different possible sets of rules. Of course we are looking for enjoyable games, but I think I am also in this to think about 'how it happened', and whether what we are doing feels like a true reflection of how the organisations and tactics of the period really might have worked. So it seems worthwhile giving a few different rules a look, and seeing how I feel about them. Despite not actually gaming for many a long year, it's funny how one still manages to pick up a surprising number of rulebooks! So, a little tour of the choice of possible rules I have to (quite literally) play with ..
First, the 'old school' : you've really got to start with Charles Grant and Young and Lawford. Grant's 'The War Game' is where it all started for me, after buying it with childhood 'holiday money' in the 1970s, and being immediately captured by the sheer style, and the deep knowledge lightly worn, with a nice element of whimsy in the use of imagi-nations. The problem for pocket-money wargamers back then was the enormous regiments - 48 men and 6 officers! I saved hard, and bought one regiment of Minifigs Prussian Infantry, which I painted appallingly badly and forced to slum it fighting aginst Airfix plastic Waterloo and AWI figures. Forty-plus years later, those Prussians may finally get their chance, and a better paint job! BUT those huge regiments, and the seven feet by five table ( even for a 'small' game ) make it sadly unlikely that my troops will march to the late Mr Grant's drum. It's still a lovely read, though, and if the house ever burns down (heaven forbid) , I'll be stood on the pavement, in the proverbial dressing gown, clutching this book.
Young and Lawford's 'Charge' , I only acquired a couple of years ago, but I have thoroughly enjoyed reading, and of course it shares a lot of the same spirit as Charles Grant's book. The 'Elementary Game' rules cover just two pages in summary and look eminently practical, and their explanatory chapter is informative, erudite and entertaining. I note that I already have enough figures to mount something on the scale of 'The Action at Blasthof Bridge'. I have only half the space available of the six feet square that they had, but I am wondering if converting to hexes and/or reducing the distances might just work. The 'Advanced Game' looks a bit heavier going, and requires much more space ( Light Cavalry move 30 inches!) so that may have to wait.
Next up, what you might call the 'mid period' : good old WRG (1979) and GDW's 'Volley and Bayonet' (1994).
My copy of WRG 'Wargames Rules 1685-1845' looks suspiciously pristine and unmarked - funny, as in my memory it had quite a lot of use. It came as a bit of a godsend because of its 40/50 men per figure scale - now you could have battalions of 14 or 16 figures, so much more affordable! The Minifgs Prussians and the Airfix plastics were based up as rather heterodox imagi-nations ( Waterloo Cuirassiers vs. 1776 British Grenadiers, anyone? ), and I think a lot of fun was had. These were a reaction to the typical 1970s book-keeping heavy rules, by introducing element-based troops and simple '4, 5, or 6 and remove one figure per hit' systems, and that was quite welcome after an interlude with Bruce Quarrie's Napoleonic rules.
Looking at this set again, there is an awful lot of detail - nearly 50 pages of closely-spaced small type! The trademark WRG Reaction Tests are very much present - there are EIGHT different tests for various circumstances. But this is really just a way to reduce the omnipotence of the player/commander and introduce 'friction', and may compare favourably with some more modern and arbitrary-feeling 'you can only move 2 units on the left if there is an R in the month' command limitations. I don't suppose it would take long to remember the tests, and run them from the playsheet. I am quite interested to give this set a go, I think it would actually be pretty playable (quite a lot of the detailed text is taken up with ideas for terrain placement etc, which could be skipped). Mind you, how about this, fairly typical of the self-confidence of the authors :
"this is not to say that all relevant factors have not been taken into account.. They have, and the range of casualties obtainable is, for the first time in any set we know of, broadly consistent with those caused in real life".
That is quite some set of assertions, when you think about it...
'Volley and Bayonet' is intriguing, because it's an attempt to portray large battles, not just a clash of half-a-dozen battalions and a few squadrons. It also covers a wide period - about 1750 to 1870. I've owned this for many years, and sadly never actually played it. But why not? The rules are very simple, and the basic unit is a brigade on a 3-inch square base, hence small numbers of figures make a large army. I do suspect it would look best with 6mm figures, where a brigade could really look like a brigade, of several battalions. Also the move distances are quite generous - 24 inches for cavalry, 16 for an infantry brigade - hmm.. I wonder if we might convert to cm? If so, would we shrink the base size too, or would it matter? I think it would give a fast and furious game , and the scenarios included look great - for example Lobositz, where the Austrians get 18 regiments of foot and 7 or 8 brigades of Cavalry, now that's an army! I do quite fancy to try larger battles, and these rules might enable that - it could be fun to compare with Bob Cordery's Division and Corps-level games, too - about which more anon.
Just for interest, I cut out some temporary bases at the recommended sizes, and tried them with some figures , so here is a regiment of ( Prussian ) infantry, and a brigade of cavalry, based for 'Volley and Bayonet'.
 |
| Volley and Bayonet: Infantry Regiment, Cavalry Brigade |
Now I have been chuntering on a little too long; I hear Mr Bennet intoning "That will do extremely well, child. You have delighted us long enough". And there are still three or four more 'possibles' to explore! I think they can wait for another day.
I hope all my readers are well, and enjoying a pleasant holiday weekend. Look after yourselves.
* the quotations at the head of this post are, of course, from 'Charge' by Young and Lawford.
Saturday, 16 May 2020
Where next with The Seven Years War ? (1) Eric's Lead Mountain
 |
| Eric Knowles' Prussians - setting a high bar |
However, I think I need to expand the scope of the 'project' (if that's not too grand a word), a little, so as not to become samey. I may be guilty of very typical wargamer's megalomania, but do I think more troops are needed, The most immediately glaring hole in the battle order is that of Austrian regular infantry - it's a bit embarrasing for General Dachs to rely on dismounted Grenze Hussars, and Jagers - who are actually Prussian! They could do with some more conventional cavalry, too.
Fortunately, help is at hand. In addition to the painted figures you have seen from Eric Knowles collection, David Crook also let me have a fair number of unpainted troops. These came ready-organised and cataloged by Eric, in an eccentric variety of labelled vintage boxes, and even with notes for his planned painting schemes, which I feel rather duty bound to honour.
Actually the boxes are probably worth a picture!
 |
| Eric's boxes of delights |
Now this, I find from a little searching, will have once held some 'Alberken' figures - a firm started in 1964, and later morphed into Miniature Figurines. I know Eric was involved in the 1965 Waterloo refight at the Duke of York's Headquarters along with Don Featherstone, Tony Bath et al - I can't help wondering if this rather timeworn box originally held figures that graced that very table? Perhaps a little bit of wargaming history, in a funny sort of way.
What we have in total is roughly this:
Austrian infantry Regiment 'Botta' , both line and Grenadiers
Austrian Cuirassiers regiment 'Erzherhog Ferdinand'
Austrian FreiKorps battalion 'Loudon' with Grenadiers
Austrian Light Infantry 'Frontier Guards'
Bavarian Grenadiers 'Rummel' ( which are confusingly labelled 'Marlburian' but are clearly
Minifigs 7YW figures )
French Dragoon regiment 'Dauphin' - which may be seconded to fight alongside the Prussians.
In all, about 30-40 cavalry and over 100 foot. Despite the boxes, they are pretty much all 1970s/80s vintage Minifigs, as far as I know. Plenty to be going on with - David was very generous with what he called 'Brucie Bonuses'! The Frei Korps, Frontier Guards etc will fit in well with the existing Grenze troops and the Prussians von Kleist Frei Korps, with a leavening of more 'regular' troops on both sides. Not sure how the Bavarians will fit in!
Now, as stated before I am not a skilled painter, and this is all a bit daunting, but I am making a start. The Austrians desperately need line infantry, so first on the painting table are the Regiment 'Botta'. As you can see, Eric has left me instructions, which I feel I should honour:
 |
| That's me told - and happy to comply |
 |
| Regiment Botta - primed and ready |
Next time, perhaps a meditation on the wide choice rules for the period. In the meantime, I hope everyone is keeping well and looking out for others, of course,, wherever you are.
Friday, 8 May 2020
'We Are The D-Day Dodgers..'
Given that this is the Anniversary of VE Day, it seems appropriate to introduce a potential second string to my gaming bow.
 |
| Badger Force : off to liberate Italy |
I am certainly no painter, ( look away now, button-counters, this is certainly not the blog for you! ) but I found I could at least achieve a very simple 'old-school' style, which suits me and the figures just fine. In my toy soldier world, all boots are black, weapons brown and gunmetal, backpacks leather, and faces plain flesh - with apologies to the shade/highlight/drybrushers. I am constantly amazed by the standards many painters achieve, but I just don't have the ability to do all that, and if I could I'd still be working on the first squad.. This time, after 45 years or so, at least they were fully covered with paint! Supplemented with some MG and mortar teams from Brittannia Miniatures 20mm range, based on 1p and 2p pieces ( I feel mildly guilty about defacing the currency - I always leave the Queen's head as the unpainted underside, sorry ma'am ) in a plain old-school green, they are acceptable Ragged Soldiers for me. Each side now has six 4-man 'units' for The Portable Wargame, with supporting MGs and mortars; and being singly based, they will do for other rule sets too.
Very few vehicles or equipment items had survived the occasional loft clearances in intervening decades, but that may be all for the best given my childhood model-making standards! At various recent shows and a few model shops I have picked up some modern kits from Plastic Soldier Company, Armourfast and Zvezda, and some vintage Airfix for old times' sake, and put them together with varying degrees of ease and frustration - Armourfast and PSC are lovely, quick and easy, but vintage Airfix - how did we ever get anything built?! So, the British have a selection of Shermans and the odd Valentine, and even an M10 tank destoyer; 6-pounder and 25-pounder guns, and M3 half-tracks. The Germans have Panzer IVs, StuG 3s, 75mm PAK 40s, 105mm howitzers, and SdKfz 251 half-tracks. Again I have lept the painting very simple - from each according to his abilities - all my units seem to have tanks fresh from the factory! I did find a dilute wash of Army Painter 'Soft Tone' gave a certain something to the look - maybe I need to be a bit braver. Just don't be looking to count the rivets..
 | |
| KampfGruppe von Kleist : stubborn defenders |
Why Italy ? This is why:
I've had the privilege of hearing folk singer David Campbell ( son of Ian Campbell, who recorded it in the 1960s, and an interesting character in himself, to say the least.. ) perform his dad's classic several times, always with real feeling for the subject matter. We may be accused of reducing the suffering of our grandfathers to a mere game, and we can debate that endlessly. But I hope we can also remember, and learn.
Thursday, 30 April 2020
The Retreat to Heiligtumshugel
Now for an account of the third action in our small 'Portable Seven Years War' campaign, The Retreat to Heiligtumshugel. This occured over a week ago, but dispatches giving intelligence of the battle were delayed, either by lame horses or excellent wayside inns ( no lockdown in 1760 ) - the messengers were somewhat unclear and slurring when questioned.
After its defeat ( and loss of its commander ) at Vier Arme, the Prussian forces were retiring towards their own territory, pursued by the victorious Austrians. Reaching the river at the border, von Jemander's tired units aimed to cross at two fords and re-group on the hill known as Heiligtumshugel. But their pursuers caught up just as they reached the fords, and a sharp fight developed.
The Prussians divided into two groups, with their von Kleist Freikorps Uhlans and Foot on their right ( at the East ford ) and the two battalions of the 44th Fusiliers on the left ( West Ford ). They enjoyed one turn's head start on the Austrians, but any Prussian unit remaining North of the river at the end of Turn 2 would be judged to have been overrun and surrendered. So, over the fords they hurried - one unit per turn, so the second unit on each flank ( Uhlans and 2nd Fusiliers ) found themselves in mid-river, facing the oncoming Austrians.
In their turn the Austrians divided more or less in two, with 1st Hussars, Grenzer foot and Rifles on their left ( East ) and 2nd Hussars and both Jager battalions on the right ( West ). Without further ado the 1st Hussars, led in person by General Dachs, charged straight into the Uhlans at the East Ford. Seeing the disadvantage of his lancers fighting from mid-river, von Jemanden joined them pour encourager, so the two commanders met at the outset in close combat - and the Uhlans came off worst, losing one strength point - first blood to General Dachs.
The Prussians had decided to hold off their attackers for as long as possible at the river, and hope to make an orderly withdrawal to the hill if the Austrians gained the South shore. Regarding fordable rivers, The 'Portable Napoleonic' rules specify that :
(i) a unit moves into the river on turn A and stops,then moves one grid area out of the river on turn B
(ii) units in rivers cannot fire
(iii) in close combat a unit that is in a river reduces the D6 die roll score by 1.
So getting across the ford against determined opposition would be slow and dangerous - and so it proved.
( It's also worth mentioning that I realised I had been inadvertantly playing a 'house rule' in previous games, having not noticed that 'a unit that is firing this turn reduces its movement by one grid area' - oops. With the line formations used by 7YW infantry in battle having a movement allowance of just one, this means that they may either move or fire, not both. I think that actually reflects the inflexibility of linear formations pretty well - really should have noticed it before! )
Therefore, following that brief cavalry fight, on Turn 3 Prussian units stepped back from the fords, daring the Austrians to try to cross under fire and suffer the consequences - though the Austrian Jagers got their 'first volley' in, and 2nd Fusiliers lost one SP when unable to retreat after a hit. Losses at the end of Turn 3, therefore : Austrians 0, Prussians 2 ; with exhaustion point at only 7 SP, not a good start for the Prussians.
The Austrians felt they had no real choice but to accept the challenge - on their left, on Turn 4 the 1st Hussars splashed into East Ford and stopped, having then to fight the Uhlans at a watery disadvantage, while on the right their Jagers advanced steadily and were met by 'both barrels' from the two Prussian fusilier units. On both flanks things went in the defenders' favour this time, with 1st Hussars losing 1 SP in their amphibious melee and the 1st Jagers suffering 1 SP loss to the Fusiliers' musketry - that levelled the scores. One comfort for the Austrians was that their rifle unit was able to use its superior range to harass the von Kleist infantry from across the river, forcing it to retreat on both turn 3 and 4, leaving it out of contention for now.
The battle developed, logically enough, in two separate fights, one at each ford. At the East ford the Hussars and Uhlans fought a real ding-dong melee, with Hussars being forced back and then charging back into the ford, eventually being reduced to 1 SP. But it was an uneven fight, with the Austrians now bringing up their 2nd Hussars, and 'Grenze' infantry and Rifles sniping at the Uhlans when 1st Hussars fell back - and on turn 7 the Uhlans were destroyed. With the Von Kleist foot pulled back out of range, the East ford was open!
Meanwhile at West Ford, the Prussian Fusiliers kept up a steady fire and scored hits on the advancing Austrian Jagers, who tried to send one battalion across the river while the other provided covering fire. Prussian musketry/dice rolling proved superior, taking 2 SPs from 1st Jager and forcing 2nd Jager to retreat out of the ford. But on turn 6 Austrian fire forced 1st Fusiliers to retreat in their turn, and next turn 2nd Jagers charged onto the far bank and into close combat with 2nd Fusiliers - only to be thrown back, once again into the river, with the final indignity of another Prussian volley taking 1 SP off their strength.
At the end of Turn 7, losses were Prussians 4 SP, Austrians 5 SP.
But with East Ford now open to the Austrians and the fresh 2nd Hussars moving to cross the river, the Prussians were in danger, and needed to pull back towards the hill or be outflanked. Von Kleist's foot having already been forced back, at least found it easy to simply step back further and take a stand on the hill. At West Ford, Prussian 1st Fusilers pulled back, bravely covered by 2nd Fusiliers who stood their ground and fired with some effect, taking another 1 SP from 2nd Jager in Turn 8.
By turn 9 the Austrians had 2nd Hussars, Grenze infantry and both Jager battalions across the river, with Hussars looking threatening on the left and Jagers charging Prussian Fusliers on the right, but von Kleist's Frei Korps musketry found its mark and weakened the Hussars, taking Austiran losses to 7SP - getting dangerously close to exhaustion. Crucially the Prussians won the intiative roll on Turn 10, and their fusiliers executed a perfect fighting retreat, with the 2nd battalion pulling back while the 1st fired - and took another SP from 2nd Jagers. The Austrians now had only 1 SP between them and exhuastion. 'All or nothing!' came the cry as 2nd Hussars galloped up onto he hill and charged into the flank of the Von Kleist foot - rolled dice for close combat, and could not score a hit!
All was not lost - General Dachs won the initiative for Turn 11, and the Austrian Jagers fire scored 2 hits on Prussian fusiliers - 1 SP lost to 1st battalion, and 2nd battalion forced back, so the Prussians were under pressure on their left. The Austrian Hussars disengaged and moved to lurk behind the hill, saving themselves for another flanking charge, while their supporting infantry advanced to fix the Prussians on the hill. Prussians under pressure - but their muskets saved them. Von Kleist foot's fire forced the Austrian Grenzer infantry back, while crucially 1st Fusiliers let go another volley which finally destroyed 2nd Jager.
At the end of Turn 11, losses stood at Prussians 5 SP, Austrians 9 SP. General Dach's men had reached Exhaustion Point, and their attack ground to a halt.
All in all, a taste of bitter medicine for General Dachs after his recent sweet victory. Looking back, was he unwise? Perhaps trying to simply charge his Hussars at the Defending Uhlans was not such a good idea. He could have used his infantry firepower to shoot the Prussian cavalry down, then pour his own horse accross the river and around the Prussian flank. In effect, it was the infantry shooting which finished the Uhlans anyway. Perhaps just 'threatening' at the the other ford to keep the Prussian Fusiliers pinned there would have been preferable too, rather than making a costly assault under fire. In the end of course, the cumulative losses from the fights at the two fords put the Austrians too close to Exhaustion once they managed to get across the river, and unable to press home their final assault. I think with my General Dachs hat on, I was a bit over-confident and didn't think things through.
But of course, I had a lot of fun, and enjoyed the challenges and conundrums that the scenario gave to both sides. I hope you've enjoyed my account, too. So, here's to Neil Thomas and the late, great Don Featherstone for their inspiration!
Next time, I think a little review of where to go next with the 'Portable Seven Years War'.
After its defeat ( and loss of its commander ) at Vier Arme, the Prussian forces were retiring towards their own territory, pursued by the victorious Austrians. Reaching the river at the border, von Jemander's tired units aimed to cross at two fords and re-group on the hill known as Heiligtumshugel. But their pursuers caught up just as they reached the fords, and a sharp fight developed.
The Prussians divided into two groups, with their von Kleist Freikorps Uhlans and Foot on their right ( at the East ford ) and the two battalions of the 44th Fusiliers on the left ( West Ford ). They enjoyed one turn's head start on the Austrians, but any Prussian unit remaining North of the river at the end of Turn 2 would be judged to have been overrun and surrendered. So, over the fords they hurried - one unit per turn, so the second unit on each flank ( Uhlans and 2nd Fusiliers ) found themselves in mid-river, facing the oncoming Austrians.
In their turn the Austrians divided more or less in two, with 1st Hussars, Grenzer foot and Rifles on their left ( East ) and 2nd Hussars and both Jager battalions on the right ( West ). Without further ado the 1st Hussars, led in person by General Dachs, charged straight into the Uhlans at the East Ford. Seeing the disadvantage of his lancers fighting from mid-river, von Jemanden joined them pour encourager, so the two commanders met at the outset in close combat - and the Uhlans came off worst, losing one strength point - first blood to General Dachs.
 |
| Battle is joined - cavalry clash at East Ford (top left) |
(i) a unit moves into the river on turn A and stops,then moves one grid area out of the river on turn B
(ii) units in rivers cannot fire
(iii) in close combat a unit that is in a river reduces the D6 die roll score by 1.
So getting across the ford against determined opposition would be slow and dangerous - and so it proved.
( It's also worth mentioning that I realised I had been inadvertantly playing a 'house rule' in previous games, having not noticed that 'a unit that is firing this turn reduces its movement by one grid area' - oops. With the line formations used by 7YW infantry in battle having a movement allowance of just one, this means that they may either move or fire, not both. I think that actually reflects the inflexibility of linear formations pretty well - really should have noticed it before! )
Therefore, following that brief cavalry fight, on Turn 3 Prussian units stepped back from the fords, daring the Austrians to try to cross under fire and suffer the consequences - though the Austrian Jagers got their 'first volley' in, and 2nd Fusiliers lost one SP when unable to retreat after a hit. Losses at the end of Turn 3, therefore : Austrians 0, Prussians 2 ; with exhaustion point at only 7 SP, not a good start for the Prussians.
 |
| End of Turn 3 - 'Come on if you think...' |
The battle developed, logically enough, in two separate fights, one at each ford. At the East ford the Hussars and Uhlans fought a real ding-dong melee, with Hussars being forced back and then charging back into the ford, eventually being reduced to 1 SP. But it was an uneven fight, with the Austrians now bringing up their 2nd Hussars, and 'Grenze' infantry and Rifles sniping at the Uhlans when 1st Hussars fell back - and on turn 7 the Uhlans were destroyed. With the Von Kleist foot pulled back out of range, the East ford was open!
 |
| Not a fair fight at East Ford - Uhlans about to be destroyed |
At the end of Turn 7, losses were Prussians 4 SP, Austrians 5 SP.
 |
| West Ford - a tough crossing under fire |
But with East Ford now open to the Austrians and the fresh 2nd Hussars moving to cross the river, the Prussians were in danger, and needed to pull back towards the hill or be outflanked. Von Kleist's foot having already been forced back, at least found it easy to simply step back further and take a stand on the hill. At West Ford, Prussian 1st Fusilers pulled back, bravely covered by 2nd Fusiliers who stood their ground and fired with some effect, taking another 1 SP from 2nd Jager in Turn 8.
 |
| Turn 9 : Prussians under pressure |
 |
| Hussars charge Frei Korps in the flank - but no breakthrough! |
At the end of Turn 11, losses stood at Prussians 5 SP, Austrians 9 SP. General Dach's men had reached Exhaustion Point, and their attack ground to a halt.
 |
| Final Situation : Austrian Exaustion |
But of course, I had a lot of fun, and enjoyed the challenges and conundrums that the scenario gave to both sides. I hope you've enjoyed my account, too. So, here's to Neil Thomas and the late, great Don Featherstone for their inspiration!
Next time, I think a little review of where to go next with the 'Portable Seven Years War'.
Saturday, 25 April 2020
Fnurban #2 Tradgardmastare's Book Challenge
The other day Alan at Duchy of Tradgardland decided to "share one fiction and one non fiction books that bring the past alive for me" and challenged others to "tell us about your two books in two sentences with photos being optional".
So, here we go: though I have cheated and included three books!
Non-fiction has to be C.V. Wedgewood 'The Thirty Years War'.
This opened a whole new world to me as a young history enthusiast - I had no idea of the period before, but it triggered a life-long interest - hence the name of this blog!
Fiction: in the 'military history' area, how about (a) 'The General' by C.S. Forester.
A fantastically thought-provoking read, managing to humanise the army leadership in the Great War, while simultaneously skewering it.
But also (b) 'Private Angelo' by Eric Linklater:
Lovely picaresque , darkly comic journey through the Liberation of Italy 1943-45, with serious points to make too - 'in order to liberate your town, we must destroy it'.
OK that's the 'two (three) sentences' , but have to add a little more..
I've also read Forester's 'Death to the French' and 'The Ship' and found them equally fascinating, they are so clear-eyed and realistic about what war is really like, I think. I have a few of his 'Hornblower' books on the backlog pile, though I suspect they may be a more conventional 'adventure hero' yarns.
Eric Linklater is a favourite of mine, once best-selling but now rather overlooked, perhaps because he was sadly not really seen as 'serious literature' . Maybe his mistake was to possess a sense of humour!
He also wrote much non-fiction, including a fair amount of military history/documentary - he even wrote the official account of The Campaign in Italy 1943-1945.
So, here we go: though I have cheated and included three books!
Non-fiction has to be C.V. Wedgewood 'The Thirty Years War'.
This opened a whole new world to me as a young history enthusiast - I had no idea of the period before, but it triggered a life-long interest - hence the name of this blog!
Fiction: in the 'military history' area, how about (a) 'The General' by C.S. Forester.
A fantastically thought-provoking read, managing to humanise the army leadership in the Great War, while simultaneously skewering it.
But also (b) 'Private Angelo' by Eric Linklater:
Lovely picaresque , darkly comic journey through the Liberation of Italy 1943-45, with serious points to make too - 'in order to liberate your town, we must destroy it'.
OK that's the 'two (three) sentences' , but have to add a little more..
I've also read Forester's 'Death to the French' and 'The Ship' and found them equally fascinating, they are so clear-eyed and realistic about what war is really like, I think. I have a few of his 'Hornblower' books on the backlog pile, though I suspect they may be a more conventional 'adventure hero' yarns.
Eric Linklater is a favourite of mine, once best-selling but now rather overlooked, perhaps because he was sadly not really seen as 'serious literature' . Maybe his mistake was to possess a sense of humour!
He also wrote much non-fiction, including a fair amount of military history/documentary - he even wrote the official account of The Campaign in Italy 1943-1945.
Monday, 20 April 2020
A Fighting Retreat - by Thomas, out of Featherstone
As ever at this time, I hope everyone is keeping safe and well - at least there is no shortage of blogs to read, gamers are clearly keeping busy. A special mention to Alan 'Tradgardmastare' Gruber who seems to be posting multiple times some days - and painting, and gaming - I do like his style!
We now venture back to the not entirely factual world of The Portable Seven Years War. The Prussian invaders having been given a bloody nose at Vier Arme, and losing their leader Eric von Kleist in the process, I decided that they would attempt to withdraw in some haste to their own territory. The Austrian General Dachs, being no slouch, will not be content to watch them go. His troops will pursue, with a view to teaching the Prussians further lessons on the inadvisability of any further incursions.
Always having 'time and space' constraints in mind, I looked to Neil Thomas' One Hour Wargames for a suitable scenario, and soon found something interesting; Scenario 20, the aptly name 'Fighting Retreat'. The premise is 'The Red army has been raiding Blue Territory. The army of the latter is in hot pursuit of the raiders, who are equally determined to make their escape by crossing the river, and consolidating their position on a dominant hill'. Just the sort of thing I was looking for.
So, here is a view of the battlefield, where the retreating Prussians are overhauled by their Austrian pursuers.
As you see, the river is crossed by twin fords. The Prussians have only four units, and begin North of the river ( i.e the foreground ), with the Austrians' six units arriving on Turn 2. A special scenario rule says that any Prussian unit North of the river at the end of Turn 2 is automatically eliminated. The winner is the side controlling the hill at the far ( South ) end of the table at the end of the game, which is 15 turns maximum. For consistency with my entirely imaginary 'campaign' geography, I have reversed North and South from the book scenario.
The retreating Prussian force looks like this:
Commander : Eric von Jemanden (6 Strength Points) - hastily promoted from the
Horse Grenadiers to replace the unfortunate von Kleist.
Infantry : 1st and 2nd Battalions, 44th Line Fusiliers (each 4 SP).
1st Battalion, von Kleist Frei Korps (4 SP)
Cavalry : Von Kleist Uhlans (3 SP)
Total : 21 Strength Points, with Exhaustion Level 7 SP.
All units rated Average, except 1st Battalion Fusiliers, who are Elite.
Old Von Kleist may be gone, but in tribute to the late Eric Knowles whose figures these were, I felt the new commander had to be Eric somebody..
And their Austrian pursuers, with their polyglot, part-mercenary, but so far unbeaten forces :
Commander : General Dachs (6 SP)
Infantry : 1st and 2nd Battalion 'Wildganse' Jagers (each 4 SP)
Grenze foot (4 SP) - dismounted Hussars, who have taken to their
new role with aplomb in previous battles
'Rifles' (3SP) - more dismounted Hussars, retrained
Cavalry : 1st and 2nd Grenze Hussars (each 3 SP)
Total : 27 Strength Points, with Exhaustion Level 9 SP.
All units rated Average except the Rifles, who are Elite.
The scenario looks interesting and challenging for both sides - can the Prussians hold off their pursuers at the fords, and if not, can they reach and hang on to the sanctuary of the hill? Can the Austrians use their numerical advantage, especially in cavalry, to force their way across the river and race for the hill?
Looking around online, I found an account of a recent game of this scenario on 'Steve's Random Musings' blog here - he's been working through all the 'OHW' games, this one he played as an ECW encounter.
Also, Neil Thomas says he was inspired by acquiring a copy of Don Featherstone's Wargamer's Newsletter, no.69 from December 1967, containing an 'absolute classic' article describing a game set in the medieval period, whose setup he has borrowed and somewhat simplified. Strangely enough, the very same blog post by Steve-the-Wargamer describing his ECW game of this scenario also mentions his project to scan and upload issues of Wargamer's Newsletter, with a link to the relevant repository . And there we can find 'WN' issue 69 December 1967, and the very same original article - 'Cry God for England, Harry and St. George!' - and it is a rather nice piece of work. As Neil says, 'an example of thoroughness, precision and concision'. So, a double thank-you to Steve, and I heartily recommend a look at that archive of Wargamer's Newsletters. Judging by the example I examined, they are a fantastic snapshot of a time long gone in our hobby, which can however still be inspirational.
And so, as von Jemanden's weary Prussians approach the twin fords and look for the outline on the horizon of the Heiligtumshugel, their destination and sanctuary hill, they become aware of the dust raised by their pursuing enemy behind them..
We now venture back to the not entirely factual world of The Portable Seven Years War. The Prussian invaders having been given a bloody nose at Vier Arme, and losing their leader Eric von Kleist in the process, I decided that they would attempt to withdraw in some haste to their own territory. The Austrian General Dachs, being no slouch, will not be content to watch them go. His troops will pursue, with a view to teaching the Prussians further lessons on the inadvisability of any further incursions.
Always having 'time and space' constraints in mind, I looked to Neil Thomas' One Hour Wargames for a suitable scenario, and soon found something interesting; Scenario 20, the aptly name 'Fighting Retreat'. The premise is 'The Red army has been raiding Blue Territory. The army of the latter is in hot pursuit of the raiders, who are equally determined to make their escape by crossing the river, and consolidating their position on a dominant hill'. Just the sort of thing I was looking for.
So, here is a view of the battlefield, where the retreating Prussians are overhauled by their Austrian pursuers.
 |
| The river, the fords and the hill - viewed from the North |
The retreating Prussian force looks like this:
 |
| Prussians : weary, battered but almost home |
Commander : Eric von Jemanden (6 Strength Points) - hastily promoted from the
Horse Grenadiers to replace the unfortunate von Kleist.
Infantry : 1st and 2nd Battalions, 44th Line Fusiliers (each 4 SP).
1st Battalion, von Kleist Frei Korps (4 SP)
Cavalry : Von Kleist Uhlans (3 SP)
Total : 21 Strength Points, with Exhaustion Level 7 SP.
All units rated Average, except 1st Battalion Fusiliers, who are Elite.
Old Von Kleist may be gone, but in tribute to the late Eric Knowles whose figures these were, I felt the new commander had to be Eric somebody..
And their Austrian pursuers, with their polyglot, part-mercenary, but so far unbeaten forces :
 |
| In hot pursuit : Dachs' Grenze-heavy Austrians |
Infantry : 1st and 2nd Battalion 'Wildganse' Jagers (each 4 SP)
Grenze foot (4 SP) - dismounted Hussars, who have taken to their
new role with aplomb in previous battles
'Rifles' (3SP) - more dismounted Hussars, retrained
Cavalry : 1st and 2nd Grenze Hussars (each 3 SP)
Total : 27 Strength Points, with Exhaustion Level 9 SP.
All units rated Average except the Rifles, who are Elite.
The scenario looks interesting and challenging for both sides - can the Prussians hold off their pursuers at the fords, and if not, can they reach and hang on to the sanctuary of the hill? Can the Austrians use their numerical advantage, especially in cavalry, to force their way across the river and race for the hill?
Looking around online, I found an account of a recent game of this scenario on 'Steve's Random Musings' blog here - he's been working through all the 'OHW' games, this one he played as an ECW encounter.
Also, Neil Thomas says he was inspired by acquiring a copy of Don Featherstone's Wargamer's Newsletter, no.69 from December 1967, containing an 'absolute classic' article describing a game set in the medieval period, whose setup he has borrowed and somewhat simplified. Strangely enough, the very same blog post by Steve-the-Wargamer describing his ECW game of this scenario also mentions his project to scan and upload issues of Wargamer's Newsletter, with a link to the relevant repository . And there we can find 'WN' issue 69 December 1967, and the very same original article - 'Cry God for England, Harry and St. George!' - and it is a rather nice piece of work. As Neil says, 'an example of thoroughness, precision and concision'. So, a double thank-you to Steve, and I heartily recommend a look at that archive of Wargamer's Newsletters. Judging by the example I examined, they are a fantastic snapshot of a time long gone in our hobby, which can however still be inspirational.
And so, as von Jemanden's weary Prussians approach the twin fords and look for the outline on the horizon of the Heiligtumshugel, their destination and sanctuary hill, they become aware of the dust raised by their pursuing enemy behind them..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)