Wing Leader: Air Combat Over China, 1942

I have owned a copy of the  aerial combat board game Wing Leader : Victories 1940-1942 for several years (pre-pandemic, at least) without really finding the time to give it a proper go. It's a very interesting game, so I've been glad to finally devote some time to it, and at least play the first couple of scenarios.

Among the aspects that I found interesting were (i) the counters represent 'units' of aircraft, specifically Flights (about 5-6 planes)  and Squadrons  (about 10-12 planes) rather than single aircraft - this seems appropriate as it was generally how air battles were run in the period concerned -   and most interesting, (ii)  the portrayal of  altitude.  

It has always seemed to me that the absolutely most important factor in portraying  air combat must be the height that the aircraft are at. Read any eyewitness account of aerial combat - having height advantage (which translates into speed advantage, for attack or escape ) is crucial. You might argue that in 1914-1918, combat once joined tended to be mainly turning fights ('dogfight' is the perfect word!),  but 1939-45 saw the triumph of height and speed against manoeuverability, as the pilots of nimble but lightly-armed and armoured Japanese and Italian fighters, for example, found to their ultimate cost against American and British aircraft built to prioritise height, speed and heavy weaponry. 

All the game systems that show aircraft moving over a map of the land, with markers denoting  altitude,  just don't look right to me: the aircraft seem to move more like ships in a sea battle game, or tanks on the land.  Things can be improved by putting the models on stands with adjustable heights, but that always seems a bit awkward too, and quite difficult to put together.  A solution was suggested 45 years ago (ulp!) by Mike Spick in his book Air Battles in Miniature - he dispensed with 'depth' on the table, and having its two dimensions represent (i) distance along the ground and (ii) distance above the ground. The model aircraft were  shown in profile, the altitude and attitude (nose up or down)  of the aircraft were perfectly represented - it looked like an air combat!  As I've mentioned before, as a youngster I was enthralled by Mike Spick's book, and a few of us fought some exciting (if completely unhistorical) mass air battles at our club using 1:72 scale models 'cut down the middle' - I can tell you that a B-17 in that scale looks pretty impressive! Happy days, indeed. 

 Therefore it was fascinating to see that the Wing Leader designer Lee Brimmicombe-Wood has taken Mike Spick's concept and used if for his game - the unit  counters show their aircraft in profile, and the board represents distance along the ground and height over the ground in the same way.  As an example, here is the intial setup for Scenario 2 'Birthday Present' which I have played through:   

And a close-up of the Japanese raiders, stalked by American P40s:

 

With apologies for variable quality of photos in this post, I hope you can see how the format works. The scenario is set in April 1942 near  the Chinese city of Lashio.  A Japanese raid is launched, with two squadrons of Japanese Ki 21 'Sally' bombers ( 12 aircraft each) escorted by 1 Squadron (12 aircraft) and 1 Flight (6 aircraft) of Ki-43 'Oscar' fighters.  American forces of 1 Squadron (8 planes) and 1 Flight (4 planes) of P-40B Warhawks, plus a Flight (4) of the improved model  P-40E  are sent to intercept, with the P-40Bs climbing from below a layer of wispy cloud toward the Japanese formations, and the P-40Es  approaching from behind.  On the counters, Squadrons are  denoted rather neatly by showing two aircraft profiles on the counter, Flights by only one. 

Movement rules are very simple - it's basically 2 movement points (MPs)  for bombers and escorts which have not yet been alerted to the presence of the enemy,  3 MPs for  fighters operating independently as interceptors or a 'sweep', and usually 1MP per square in level flight, and 1MP if changing facing by  more than 90 degrees.  If they dive, add 1 MP/square  - and climbing one level requires more MPs, depending on the aircraft type and current altiude (for example P-40Bs take 2MPs to climb 1 level starting from levels 4 to 9,  3MPs if starting from level 10 or higher).  This is quite a contrast form the old Mike Spick system, which I seem to remember involved calculating each aircraft's speed to the nearest 1mph, and moving correspondingly precise distances in mm, then re-calculating according to changes in height and throttle setting - it was all admittedly a bit like airborne Bruce Quarrie or WRG rules..! 

The game introduces the concepts of  'Vectors' and 'Tallies', markers for which can be seen on the board. Each interceptor unit starts with a 'Vector' which is the target square their ground controller has directed them to aim for,  but they can then attempt to spot enemy units, taking a die roll check which is modified for distance, weather conditions (those clouds)  etc. If successful,  the Vector counter is flipped to 'Tally' and placed on the enemy unit that was spotted, and the interceptor unit can then move to attack the enemy unit.  The sequence of movement means that the target  unit has to move first - thus if you spot ( Tally )  an enemy unit, you can follow it and move to attack.  All fighter units can Tally, and the result can be a 'chain of Tallies' which deternines the order of movement -  quite a neat system for representing the importance of spotting and tailing enemy aircraft. The poor old bombers have to just lumber along in straight lines, I'm afraid, and always move first.. 

Turn 1 : 'Tallies' obtained, action will follow..

 

In our game,  early on several Tallies were gained and had interesting effects - the P-40E ( labelled 'P') unit spotted the rearmost bombers (unit 'Y') and climbed, ready to swoop, but in turn were Tallied by the Flight of Ki-43s ( unit 'D' ),  who in their turn were spotted by P-40B Flight 'B'. So a 'chain of tallies' occurred, and that determined move order - first bombers 'Y', then P-40Es 'P', then Ki-43s 'D' and finally P-40Bs 'B' - several levels of 'cat and mouse' being played! Meanwhile the remaining P-40B squadrom 'A' had seen the leading bombers 'X' and climbed to engage, but the Ki-43 Squadron 'A' remained blissfully unaware ( and in this scenario have no common radio 'net', so can't be alerted by their comrades ) and just beetled along with the bombers, having a lovely day..

However, that squadron 'A' of Oscars woke up in the end,  spotted P-40B squadron 'A' below them, and dived to attack through the wispy clouds, while the other units were all still closing in on each other in their chain of Tallies.  Combat commendes in the bottom left of this picture, from Turn 3 : 

Turn 3 : first combat, and 'chain of tallies'

 

Once two or more opposing units reach the same square, combat ensues, and this is a bit more involved. The basic mechanism is to compare combat values for each aircraft type, work out the differential between them, then roll dice for 'hits' against a combat table where the differential denotes which column to use - so if your combat value is better, you should get more hits. The attacking unit can choose whether to use 'Turning Fight' tactics or 'Hit and Run' - different aircraft types can better at one or the other (the Oscars are better at Turning, P-40s are better at 'Hit and Run'),  and there are modifiers for 'Veteran' or 'Green' units, whether climbing (hence slower) or diving, or formation has been distrupted, etc. 

aircraft stats cards are rather nice

 

Each 'hit' then triggers another die roll, modified by 'Firepower' of the attacker  and 'Protection' of the victim - this can result in no effect, a  damaged  ( 'Straggler' ) aircraft or a 'Loss'  representing one plane destroyed - remember your unit may be a Flight of say 6, or Squadron of 12.  Obviously if all 4 or 6 in your flight become Losses, the unit is eliminated - but usually formations  will break up long before that - which leads us to unit cohesion. 

After hits and losses, there's a Cohesion check for every unit in the combat, which is rather akin to morale - after a bout  of combat,  your formation may be disrupted and therefore less effective, or it may simply break up altogether.  I quite like this idea, as it reflects the common experience of pilots reporting going into a combat where the air seems full of machines of both sides, only to suddenly find themselves seemingly  alone in the sky  as all formation has been lost, and they might as well head for home.  This has some interesting implications,  in that a unit could attack an enemy unit from a good position, roll well in the combat, score  several hits and convert them to 'kills', but then roll low in the 'cohesion ' check and become 'broken' because the pilots have lost touch with each other, and are  obliged to head for home. Flights are more likely to suffer this than Squadrons, and Fighters more than Bombers, who after all depend on keeping close together.   This mechanism can mean that combats can be rather short, and highly unpredictable!  

In my opening fight between Ki-43 Oscars and P-40Bs, the attacking Oscars chose 'Turning fight' which gave them an advantage, and gained for being 'Veteran', so rolled on the '+2' differential column - rolling 7 on 2 dice gave 1 hit on on the P-40s. In turn the Americans, at a '-2' differential , rolled '10' and also got 1 hit.  Then in the determination of losses, the Oscars rolled poorly and suffered from their poor armament ( low 'Firepower' ) - so the 'hit' had no effect, but the P-40s rolled higher and had better Firepower, and claimed the first kill of the game, as one Ki-43 went down, presumably in flames..  In the cohesion checks, both squadrons suffered one point of disruption, but remained unbroken - it takes 2 disruptions to break a squadron.  So the combat continued in the next turn  - an actual 'dogfight'.. In Turn 4, neither side could score any hits, but the unfortunate P-40 squadron 'A' rolled low in the Cohesion check, took another Disruption level and was thus 'Broken' - and out of the fight, with the small consolation of having claimed one Ki-43 'Kill'. Units are brittle in this game!

Turn 5 : Oscars, Sallys and P-40Es get stuck in

 

The other units on both sides continued stalking each other, and on Turn 4 the Flight of P-40Es ('P')  caught up with the rearmost squadron of  'Sally' bombers , shooting down one bomber , only to be caught up with on Turn 5 by  Flight 'D' of 'Oscars'.  The fighters battled it out, each Flight scoring one 'kill' on the other - but crucially the P-40 Flight failed its Cohesion roll and took one Disruption point - enough to break a Flight. So by turn 5,  two of the three US units had been Broken and forced out of the fight - actual losses standing at 1 P-40E from the US force, and 1 Ki-21 'Sally' and 2 Ki-43 'Oscar's from the Japanese. Interesting - despite more  casualties, the Japanese  formations had held together better and were gaining the upper hand. The remaining  P-40B Flight comprised 4 aircraft ( and were 'Green' pilots ) now up against about 40 Japanese planes!

Perhaps any sensible US pilots would have dived for home at this point, but I decided these guys were keen to fight - they had a Tally on Ki-43 Flight 'D', though were by now also being stalked by Ki-43 Squadron 'A'. So inevitably on Turn 6, all three units met in a climactic combat.. 

final mass brawl: 4 P-40s vs 16 Ki-43s..

 With the Ki-43 Squadron 'A' moving last they were the attackers and chose a Turning fight, which gave them the advantage, plus being Veterans against Green, and having two units agianst one - the Japanese player then rolled 11 on 2 D6, scoring 4 hits! The P-40s scored none, unsurprisingly. Those 4 hits could wipe them out - in the event, they suffered one Loss and one Straggler (damaged), thanks to the Oscars' light armament.   In the Cohesion check, the P-40 flight took one disruption point and was Broken - no suprise there! But it didn't go all the Japanese way, as the ki-43 Squadron 'A' also took one Disruption point, which added to one from the previous combat, left them Broken too.  Broken units must make for home, so with all 3 of its units now Broken, in effect the US force was finished.  

Turn 7 : P-40s dive away, but are pursued

 

Broken units can simply drop out of the game by mutual player agreement, and I had done that with all previous examples, but it's not automatic, and they may be forced to try to escape, pursued by the enemy - so I thought I would try that with my plucky 'Green' P-40 Flight. Accordingly on Turn 7, the P-40Bs dived away towards their baseline - but were pursued by the remaining Ki-43 Flight, who continued the combat with some advantage.  The 'Oscars'  scored 2 hits , which resulted in 1 more Loss to the P-40s - now reduced to just two planes, one of them damaged. They were saved finally by the Cohesion check - after several rounds of combat ( depletion of 'ammo' is tracked and this reduces cohesion ), the Ki-43 Flight failed its check, and was also required to make for home. With that, all fighter formations  on both sides had broken up and retired to base, leaving the two Japanese  bomber squadrons to continue on their mission - this being to simply reach the American baseline and release their bomb loads. With no opposition remaining this was a done deal, and the game ended.  A tot-up of Victory Points (basically 1 VP per fighter Loss, 2 VPs per bomber, and 6VPs per unbroken Bomber Squadron reaching 'target') followed.  Losses were 2 P-40Bs and 1 P-40E  (3VP) versus 1 Ki-21 and 2 Ki-43s  (4VP), but with 12VP for the unbroken bombers, the Japanese had scored enough to claim a victory - as was pretty much apparent. 

So there we are - I have strapped in, started up, taken off and flown my first  missions, and returned to terra firma relatively unscathed and with a little more confidence to face further sorties. I must admit I rather like this game system, not least because of its use of  Mike Spick's clever concept of portraying the all-important third dimension  ( I have never understood quite why other rule-writers have not followed his lead in all these years! ).  The movement rules are simple but effective, and I like the 'Tally' system.  Combat rules with their three stages of calculating advantage and hits, incurring losses, and checking cohesion took a little getting used to, but quite soon seemed to flow quite naturally. The 'Cohesion' rules did give me pause slightly, as they make fighter units (especially smaller ones)  very fragile once committed to combat - they can seem like a one-shot weapon, and combat can be pretty brief.  I did wonder if that was a bit too impactful  -  I suppose a possible 'tinker' with the rules might be to increase the number of Disruptions that cause a unit to become 'Broken'? But would that then mean long,  drawn-out combats and unrealistically high casualties?   If the Cohesion rules are giving a good version of what happened in reality - and I think they might well be - then I should be satisifed with that, perhaps. One is not playing the role of a single heroic ace fighter pilot doing battle at 'Angels One-Five',  but more likely the Wing Leader, or even the  Ground Controller watching plots moving on his radar screens and plotting tables,  committing squadrons to battle and hoping for the best as you listen to them excitedly reporting ( or not ) the outcomes over the radio..       

Now so far, of course I have only used the basic rules - there are 'Advanced' rules still to come, covering among other things Drop Tanks and fuel limits, special tactics, special weapons, Jets and Rocket Planes, Surface Units and Flak Units, Barrage Balloons,  and last but by no means least,  Bombing.  I'll try to take it slowly!   I like that the game covers 1940-1942 only - the 'early war' period is just as interesting in the air as on the ground, as the combatants are on a learning curve and pre-war concepts  and designs are tried and sometimes found wanting. Me-262s and Mustangs can wait, I want to try Gladiators and Fiat G.50s first!  There are 23 scenarios in this edition, covering China,  the Eastern Front, the Battle of Britain (of course!), Malta, Greece 1941, the Pacific, France 1940, the Western Desert, and France 1941-1942. There's a huge Dieppe 1942 scenario with about 15 units each of RAF and Luftwaffe, and a Midway scenario where 5 units of Japanese 'Zeros' have to try to deal with 3 times their number of American Fighters, Torpedo- and Dive-bombers in multiple waves - challenging stuff indeed.   On a much more modest scale the third one in the scenario book is 'Stalingrad Airlift' , whereby 2 units of He-111s acting as supply carriers have to fly very low, escorted by a single Flight of Me-109Fs  (4 machines),  and are intercepted by 2 squadrons (18 planes!) of Russian Yak-1s. The Me-109s have 'Experte' ( i.e. an Ace ) status and the Russians are 'Green', but it will be a hard one for the Germans, I suspect - they'd better do well on the Cohesion checks! 

I hope this has been interesting for anyone thinking about  WW2 aerial combat games  and looking for  a different and interesting approach -  I think you can see this fits that bill.  I am quite pleased with the game, and will try to work my way through the scenarios.   Hmmm... do you think it could work on a 'bigger scale' ?  I mean , a board with  larger  squares, and actual models for the units - perhaps 1/144 kits could be used? It could look really good at a show(!)..  Does the spirit of Mike Spick look over our shoulders..?

Now I really need to crank up the painting production line - there are 7YW, WW2, and Pike and Shot waiting for attention, and some gaming with such figures should also be lined up.  A planning session is required, and then some execution, to be shown in future posts. Until then, keep well, everyone ( that means YOU, Ray..hope you're on the mend! ).

Fnurban #28 Anarchy in Tottenham, 1909

Although my home is in Suffolk,  I am fortunate to get to spend some time in The Great Wen - specifically in the North-Eastern part of London. So I was  able to join a local guided walk yesterday,  on the 115th anniversary of the event known as 'The Tottenham Outrage'.  On 23rd January 1909, a pair of Jewish Latvian  radicals (labelled as 'Anarchists' by the media at the time) named Paul Hefeld and Jacob Lepidus staged an armed robbery in Tottenham, stealing the weekly wages (about £80) of Schnurmann's India Rubber factory (where Hefeld had been briefly employed), just off the Tottenham High Road.  It so happened that the factory was also right opposite the Tottenham Police Station - hence the alarm was very quickly raised, and the robbers pursued.  A chase ensued, which lasted at least a couple of hours and covered about 6 miles, and which caused the deaths of four people, including both of the robbers, a Police Constable and a child, and the wounding or injury of at least 20 other people including seven policemen. 

Our walk followed (most of) the route of the chase, through part of Tottenham, onto the nearby marshes, and on towards Highams Park and Hale End, pausing at various points to mark the significant events along the way. First, the site of the actual robbery, at the gates of Schnurmann's factory, where the company car with chauffeur and a young wages clerk were set upon by the robbers. 

Site of the robbery...now a car park

 

... and the Police Station (centre left), right opposite!

It seems the robbers made off with the heavy bag of money, and were also carrying quite a lot of ammunition - it is reported that over the course of the chase they fired over 400 shots at their pursuers!  The factory owner and his staff apparently gave chase in their car, but at some point a bullet hit its radiator, immobilising it.  Police from the station of course joined the chase, but only after having to smash open their weapons cabinet, because no-one could find the key!  That was just the first incident in a series which seem to give the whole affair a semi-comical Keystone Cops aspect - I found myself picturing events like the chase sequence from one of their silent movie capers, complete with gunsmoke as weapons are wildly discharged.  But of course, the gunfire was all too real, and had tragic consequences.  

The first of those consequences happened by St Mary's church in Mitchley Road, N17: 

The first fatality - a 10-year-old child

Ten-year-old Ralph Joscelyne was a baker's delivery boy, caught in the crossfire and killed. The killers kept running towards Tottenham Marshes,  but  PC William Tyler took a shortcut and confronted them at the site of a refuse incinerator - he was also shot, and subsequently died.  The refuse facility site is currently being re-developed, but its original perimeter wall still bounds the road - for now, at least.

Site of PC Tyler's fatal wounding 

 

and memorial plaque on Tottenham Police Station

 

The killers reached the edge of the built-up area ( really the edge of London at the time ) and crossed the railway tracks via the rather wonderfully-named Carbuncle Passage (which follows the Carbuncle Stream, which even today is well-named, I feel) 

possibly the best street name in London..

 Having crossed the railway, the scene changed to the open spaces of Tottenham Marshes - still undeveloped today, 

onto the Marshes..

 

At one point on the marshes, the pursuit ran across the Chalk Footbridge - at this point, one PC Nicod got close enough to take aim with his Police issue Webley revolver, which misfired. The robbers returned fire (they carried more advanced weapons, Hefeld a .32 Browning automatic pistol,  Lepidus a 6.5mm Bergmann) and wounded Nicod  in the calf and thigh. 

Chalk Footbridge - where PC Nicod was wounded

We followed the course of the chase along the River Lea Navigation and around the perimeter of the Banbury Reservoir, but skipped (access not being easy, plus we needed a lunchbreak - the cafe of Sainsbury's Low Hall branch proved convenient)  possibly the most comedic part of the chase.  In 1909 Helfeld and Lepidus commandeered a No. 9 Tram on the Chingford Road,  forcing the conductor to drive it - pursued by a policemen in a commandeered pony and trap, until the unfortunate pony was shot down, and another tram full of police oficers! The fugitives then transferred to a horse-drawn milk cart, which they turned over, then hijacked a grocer's cart, but could not release the brakes!  Finally they abandoned that and continued on foot, along the River Ching,  but ended up cornered in a dead end by a railway bridge.  Lepidus climbed a fence to escape but Helfeld could not, and shot himself as the Police closed in - he died weeks later in hospital.

River Ching railway bridge - end of the line  for one fugitive

 

Jacob Lepidus  continued running, and holed up in a cottage next to the Royal Oak pub, where he was soon surrounded. After some further slapstick moments ( he may have tried to hide in the chimney(!),  and a policeman climbing a ladder had to rapidly descend when fired on ), finally the officers broke into the house and Lepidus died in an exchange of fire - it later transpired that he had taken his own life as the police broke into the room -  and so ended the chase.  The cottage is long gone, but the pub remains ( it had been rebuilt only in 1906 but is now probably the oldest building nearby ) and has a signboard with a decent potted history of the event. 

Royal Oak pub - the cottage was next door

  

 

The pub's information board

It was a drear January day, of course, and raining at the start, the weather forecast had not been good  (in between 'named' storms), but it dried and brightened up later, so the walking was OK, admittedly not through the most picturesque parts of NE London! But it was really very interesting to follow the route of the chase and try to picture  how events had unfolded in 1909.  

Various discussion points came up - especially the motivation of the attackers.  It seemed to us present that the money was perhaps not really the crux of the matter - why stage a robbery next to a police station, robbing people who would recognise you?  And carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition, which must have been very heavy, on top of the money bag?   It seems quite possible that the aim was not to fund their political activities but perhaps to simply provoke a confrontation and draw attention to their cause - that of Jewish communities suffering Pogroms in their homelands under the  Czarist Russian regime.  They clearly were prepared to use extreme violence and did not value their own lives - does this reflect the sort of nihilistic/suicidal attitude that we have seen more recently in various actions by Al Queda/ISIS and other groups?   It seems the money bag was never recovered - did it end up in the cottage chimney, or in the river or marsh? One rumour was apparently that the grocer whose cart had been hijacked soon afterwards moved to rural Essex and opened his own shop  - had he applied the rule of 'finders keepers'?

Another point was the 'public participation' aspect  - it seems that many members of the public were willing to 'have a go' as the chase continued. From the very start, passers-by tried to intervene ( And several were shot, for their pains), one story says that a housewife threw potatoes at the fugitives! Also an 'eye-opener' was the number of members of the public who were able to produce a selection of weapons to join in the gunfights - it seems a fair number of residents had shotguns handy, and perhaps some local ex-army veterans ( with the Boer War only a few years in  the past ) may have had 'souvenir' weapons to hand. As the chase progressed onto the Marshes, a couple of gents who had been out hunting ducks were persuaded by the police to assist, and at least one of the robbers was wounded by shotgun pellets.  We worry about the level of gun and knife crimes in certain areas of London today ( hmm...including  Tottenham, perhaps? ) - but perhaps it wasn't so very different 115 years ago? It became a sort of running joke as our excellent walk leader stopped at various points to describe the events of the chase, and almost inevitably added to the list of 'joe public' appearing with various weaponry at every point! 

There is a good account of the event on Wikipedia :  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tottenham_Outrage   - well worth reading if this has interested you. But my memory was also  'nudged' by the story - I have been dimly aware of the events described for many years, and I realised that this was because I had read about it in a wargames magazine article! A little light internet searching established that this was 'Anarchy in the UK'  by Mike Bell, which had appeared in Duncan MacFarlane's Wargames World (annual  supplement to Wargames Illustrated )    number 1,  as far back as 1988!  It's even possible to download a pdf version of the magazine - free from the nice people at Wargames Illustrated using this link  https://www.wargamesillustrated.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Wargames-World-1.pdf

Perhaps even more interesting, Mike Bell's piece is actually a game, allowing us to wargame the events of January 1909, including a printable game board and pieces.  It's a gridded 'chase' game, appropriately enough, and as various squares are landed on or passed, events can be triggered and pursuers activated - reading through the details for each significant square in effect gives you the narrative of the real-life chase. It was  rather clever, I thought!  Does anyone out there remember this piece, and if so, has anyone actually played the game?    It reads pretty well, I suspect it could make an interesting game - now if you had suitable Edwardian period figures and vehicles in 28mm/40mm/54mm (anyone got a model tram?!) and say, a 6ft by 5ft table, the board could be modelled in 6-inch squares...  Could be almost 'local interest' if the SELWG show remains at its venue in Edmonton... Just a thought!!

All in all, a thoroughly interesting and enjoyable day, even if a tad cold and damp,  and thanks are due to the Leyton and Leytonstone Historical Society for organising the walk, and on the anniversary too! 

I hope this has been interesting, I really enjoyed the day and was inspired to post it  here having read several excellent 'local walk'  reports on Mr. Nundanket's  Horse and Musket Gaming blog - thanks for the idea, Chris!  

I hope to do some actual gaming, painting etc soon, honest folks! Hopefully more of that in the next post, until then keep well, everyone.

   

Fnurban #27 Postively Proustian Pocket Publications

A couple of enjoyable recent charity shop finds:  from quite a large batch of 'Ladybird' books, I couldn't resist picking up  Robert The Bruce  and The Story of Napoleon. 

Ladybirds were an extensive series ( over 300 titles ) of small hardback books for children, produced from the about the 1950s onwards, and made a deep impression on several generations of British children, me included. These two are from their 'Adventure from History' series,  and give a (surprisingly unpatronising, non-childish) biography of the subject in 24 pages of text, with 24 pages of often rather  beautiful illustrations. As a child I had a well-thumbed copy of  Robert the Bruce, and when looking through that book yesterday I was amazed by how deeply all of the pictures ( by one John Kenney) had imprinted themselves on my memory! 

'by swift campaigns Bruce beat them in the field and captured their strongholds'

 

'The army which Edward II gathered to relieve Stirling Castle must have been a fine sight'

 

'his foot-soldiers were strong and sturdy, and each was armed with a long pike'

 

'At once the English trumpets sounded for the attack'

 

'Bruce swerved aside, and as de Bohun swept past, struck him to the ground with one blow'

 The narrative is concise and clear, and seems to pull few punches - quite early on it tells of Bruce stabbing to death his rival John Comyn, who Bruce accused of betraying him to the English King.('Comyn had deserved to die for his treachery towards Bruce', says the text), and shows an illustration of Bruce sheathing his dagger while standing over the (partially concealed)  body of  Comyn. Quite strong stuff for 7-year-olds!  Looking through the book was one of those interesting moments where one wonders at the workings of the human memory - I would not have seen these pictures for probably  over 50 years, and yet I knew every one of them.  For that reason alone, I'm glad to have found this little book. I suppose I should by rights be thinking about raising colourful Scots and English armies to refight Bannockburn - but I don't think I could paint all those beautiful coats of arms!

 

I didn't have the Napoleon book as a kid, but couldn't resist it - and I reckon it will be better, at least  from a historical accuracy point of view, than Ridley Scott's recent essay on the subject(!).  Interesting that there are, however, not many battle scenes in the book, the pictures ( also by John Kenney) seem to focus much more on the man himself.  Rather an effective 'Retreat from Moscow' picture, though.  

The text is interesting in that it concentrates on Napoleon's rise to mastery of Europe, and rather hurries through his decline - the invasion of Russia and subsequent distastrous  retreat, the campaigns of 1813/14 and the 'hundred days' and Waterloo are covered by only four ( out of 25 )  pages of text. The very first page sets out its stall boldly, as perhaps he himself would have : Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the two greatest soldiers the world has ever known...   Napoleon had more energy, more intelligence and a better brain than any other man in Europe ..  Discuss?

There has not been a vast amount of hobby activity over the recent holiday period, but a pleasant time was had, and the Covid infection that I reported on last time turned out to be about the mildest possible case, I'm glad to say; I was fine again within a few days. I have been spending a little time in the world of WW2 aerial combat, which I may report on next time (Tally Ho, chaps!), and another remote gaming opportunity has been kindly offered by Jon Freitag, and gladly accepted.   I hope you all had a pleasant holiday period - it's been interesting to see many bloggers' reviews of the year just passed and plans for the year to come. I'll report on some proper gaming soon,  in the meantime keep well, and a Happy New Year to everyone.

Xmas Gifts to Self - and one Unwanted Present

I hope everyone had a good Xmas, if you have been celebrating it.  Several bloggers  have been showing off  their 'hauls' of gifts, and I thought I might join in. I do make a rule of not asking my partner to buy me hobby-related gifts, however -  so any such items are purely 'gifts to self'.  Thanks to the inevitable 'Xmas sale' at the Naval and Military Press, I acquired a couple of interesting books. The first one was definately on the 'wants list', so it was great to see it come up as a special offer at a very good price : 

 

For anyone with an interest in the Seven Years War,  Christopher Duffy's books are a must-have, and this will join an expanding collection.  Prussia's Glory focusses on one month in 1757, during which Frederick of Prussia scored his tremendous victories at Rossbach and Leuthen. Duffy's writing style is eminently readable while also highly authoritative, and the book has a very manageable 190 pages. I am very glad to have it! 

And then I thought, might as well buy something else, as the postage (for UK buyers) is a fixed fee. Had a browse around, and this caught my eye: 

Battles and Battlefields of Ancient Greece by C. Jacob Butera and Matthew A. Sears looks pretty interesting.  Sub-titled A Guide to Their History, Topography and Archaeology , the authors (professors of Classics at US and Canadian universities) introduce it as a book designed for the traveller in Greece, whether the member of a tour group, the independent adventurer, or the curious scholar.  

Twenty battles are covered, ranging from  Marathon in 490BCE to Actium 31BCE, For each battle you get a historical outline section and one describing the battlefield today, diagrammatic map superimposed on satellite image, and suggestions for further reading. It's a truly 'weighty tome',  bieng of about 380 pages which are in heavy gloss paper - maybe not quite so handy when packing luggage! 

Having made a few holiday visits over the years to the Peloponnese, Crete, Pelion and Mani regions, I have liked Greece very much, and hope to get back there now that travel is normalising again. So this looks like it might be a pretty useful book which may influence choice of destinations.. I liked a comment in the introduction : Jenny Denault, Matthew Sears's wife and travelling companion, was with us at the American School, and has visited site after site with us since. Though we frequnetly tested her patience with our enthusiasm for dusty plains, she always kept us grounded and reminded us that beaches and seaside tavernas are a vital part of visiting Greece too,  I couldn't agree more!

Overall, I am very pleased with my 'Xmas gifts to self' -  not so much with an unwanted gift that was passed to me sometime in the past few days... 

After 3 years 9 months of avoiding it, it seems I have finally lost the viral equivalent the 'Whamageddon' game, and the the dreaded lurgi has caught up with me. Oh dear, bang goes our plan to host friends on NYE, among other things. I don't actually feel too bad so far, just like a common cold, runny nose etc but it has stuck around a few days. Hopefully it won't get any worse, and will pass soon enough.  At least I have plenty of interesting books to be getting on with in the meantime. As Jon Freitag  has said,  #IntrovertsDream.. 

Have a very Happy New Year, all,  and keep well, everyone. 

 

 

DBA: First Try (at First Edition)

Having ( at last ) completed painting armies for Alexandrian Macedonians and Later Achaemenid Persians,  I have played my first game of De Bellis Antiquitatis, better known as DBA. I rather enjoyed it, I will admit. 

30+ years old - finally getting used!

 

The Macedonian army comprised the following, in DBA terminology : 

1 x 3 Kn Companions, 1 x 3 Cv Thessalians,  1 x 3 Cv Greek Allied Cavalry,  1 x  2LH Prodromoi 

4 x 4 Pk Phalangites,  1 x 4 Ax Hypaspists,   1 x 4 Sp Mercenary Hoplites,   

1 x 2 Ps Agrianians, 1 x 2 Ps Archers 

Macedonians

and the Persian force was as follows: 

1 x 3Kn Heavy Cavalry,   3 x 3Cv Medium Cavalry,  2 x 2LH Light Cavalry

2 x 4Sp Greek Mercenary Hoplites,  2 x 4Ax 'Kardakes' 

1x 4Bw 'Sparabara', 1 x 4Bw Light Archers          

and Persians

I should explain, for anyone who has not used these rules, that the types as described in the rulebook, are as follows :  

Kn = 'Knights'  - horsemen that charged at first instance without shooting..breaking through and                                     destroying enemy as much by weight and impetus as by their weapons 

Cv = 'Cavalry' - the majority of horsemen, primarily armed with javelins, bows or other missile                                     weapons but combining this with sword or lance

LH = 'Light Horse'  - who skirmished in dispersed swarms with javelin, bow or crossbow and would                                 not charge unshaken enemy

Sp = 'Spears'  - close formation infantry fighting collectively with spears in a rigid shield wall 

Pk = 'Pikes'  -   close formation infantry fighting collectively with pikes or long spears wielded                                         in both hands 

Ax = 'Auxilia' -  foot able to fight hand-to-hand but emphasising agility and flexibility rather than                                 cohesion

Ps = 'Psiloi' - dispersed skirmishers on foot with javelin, sling, staff sling, bow.. 

Bw = 'Bows'  - foot who fought  in formed bodies with bow, longbow or crossbow and relied on                                     dense shooting, light spears, stakes, pavises or shield bearers for survival at                                             close quarters instead of skirmishing or evasion

My apologies if the above is too much information : I hope it gives a hint of the famous 'Barkerese' language used in the rulebook. I did have to re-read a few sentences repeatedly to 'get' the sense of them, but on the whole I found them fine. It's worth mentioning that after the definitions of troop types, basing, terrain etc,  the actual 'Battle Rules' section occupies just three pages of the booklet - I can't fault them for simplicity. 

 

initial setup : Macedonians left, Persians right

You can see the initial game setup above - I used my 3 feet square table (with ground scale 1 inch = 50 paces) , and opted for completely clear terrain to keep things as simple as possible. To decide deployments, I borrowed from Neil Thomas'  Ancient and Medieval Wargaming book, which gives suggested battle formations for the respective armies. As a result, the Persians concentrated their heavy and medium cavalry on their right flank, with infantry in the centre and Light Horse covering the left flank.  The Macedonians  put their Pike Phalanx in the centre, with Hypaspists and then Companions to their right, and the right flank covered by Psiloi and Prodromoi Light Horse - while deploying the Thessalian and Greek Allied cavalry plus Agrianian javelinmen,  on their left,  hoping to hold off the powerful Persian cavalry. 

All set, and away we go - a roll of the dice determined that the Persians moved first, and for Turn One another roll allowed them to move six units (known as 'elements' in the rules) or groups of units. Accordingly the Persian cavalry advanced in a body on their right, similarly the Light Horse on the left, while their foot Archers unit stepped forward,  though not yet within shooting range of the enemy. No combat, as yet.   In response, the Macedonians were allowed 5 moves - their Pike phalanx, Hypaspists and Hoplites started to rumble forward, while the Promodroi and Psiloi skirmished with the Persian Light Horse on the right, and the Thessalian and Greek Cavalry rather optimisitically charged against superior numbers of Persian horsemen. 

In each player's bound, after movement comes ranged shooting by eligible units of  both sides. The Persian  Archers let fly at the Macedonian phalanx - to no effect.   No less than four close combats then ensued - these are decided by pretty simple opposed die rolls, with each element adding modifiers according to its type and that of the opposition, plus some bonuses for rear support and reductions if 'overlapped' on a flank. Highest score wins, loser suffers effects based on their type and their opposition, and things are much worse if the winner's score was double the loser's. Very simple, and quite subtle. the first few dice rolls favoured Macedonia -  on their right, one Persian Light Horse units were 'recoiled' ( retire one base depth, facing forward ) and the other rolled so badly ( against only light foot archers )  that it suffered a 'flee' result, turning tail and retreating  600 paces in disgrace. On the other flank,  the Greek Allied cavalry rolled a '6' to the Persian Purple Cavalry's '1' - which destroyed the Persian unit.  First blood to Alexander! 

end of Turn 1 : Persian LH flee in shame

 

On Turn 2, Persia rolled 3 moves - their foot archers backed away from the Macedonian phalanx, as did the remaining  Light Horse on their left - but the Heavy Cavalry saw a chance, and charged at the Greek hoplite unit covering the left of the Macedonian pike block. Meanwhile on their right, their remaining cavalry units tussled with now equal numbers of opponents, having lost their numerical advantage. The Cavalry fight was inconclusive, but the Heavy Cavalry rolled low against the Hoplites, who doubtless raised a cheer as the armoured horsemen were forced to recoil. 

Macedonia rolled '6' for moves, alllowing plenty of manoevering,  The Phalanx and Hypaspists kept advancing in the centre, while on the left the Agrianians bravely pitched into the cavalry fight. On the right, the Companions, Promodroi and Archers advanced, and finally the Greek hoplites decided to follow-up their advantage by attacking the Persian Heavy Cavalry. The forward movement allowed both Persian 'Bows' units to shoot - the Sparabaras' fire forcing a 'Recoil' for the Hypaspists. In close combat, the dice favoured the Thessalians and Agrianians, and both Persian cavalry also Recoiled - but the Hoplites' optmism was misplaced, losing their combat with the Heavy Cavalry. Checking combat results -  'Spears' losing a combat against  'Knights'  are destroyed - that left a nasty gap in the Greek line, threatened by a very nasty unit of heavy cavalry! 

Turn 2 : Unequal fights on Greek left..

  

Turn 3 - Persians rolled '4' for moves. The Heavy Cavalry took full advantage, charging into the rear of the Phalanx ( though the pikeman could simply turn about to face their assailants, if I read the rules correctly). On the left, the 'Red' and 'Blue' cavalry continued fighting against Thessalians and Agrianians, while  on the right the Persian Light Horse having re-grouped, came whirling back and skirmished against the Promodroi from front and flank. In the shooting phase the Persian Archers and Sparabara kept up their volleying against the phalanx, but the dice were not with them - no effect. Close combat followed - the Persian right-wing Cavalry did better, initially, forcing the Agrianians to 'Recoil', but the Thessalians 'rolled high' and the Persian Blue Cavalry was destroyed - very bad news, Macedonians gaining the upper hand on that wing.  The Greeks continued to do well, the Phalangites shrugging off the Heavy Cavalry attack and forcing it to Recoil, while the Promodroi did the same to one of the Persian Light Horse units. Overall, no joy for Persia!

Turn 3: looking good for Persian LH

 

..while Heavies hit the Phalanx

Macedonians again rolled '6' for moves - the Dice Gods certainly seemed to favour Alexander. His Pike Phalanx charged the Persian infantry line with all four units, joined by the Hypaspists attacking Sparabara, and Companions crashing into a unit of Kardakes. On the flanks, Psiloi and Promodroi  kept up the fight against Persian Light Horse, while Thessalians attacked the sole remaining Persian Medium Cavalry. No shooting, but fighting all along the line, no less than seven  close combats.  

The main event - Companions, Hypsaspists & Phalanx charge in!

 

The player who's 'bound' it is gets to choose the order of the combats, which can be quite advantageous if the gods are with you. In this case I simply worked from  the Greek right flank to left, with results as follows : 

- Promodroi forced Persian LH to Recoil 

- Psiloi ( archers ) vs Persian LH - a draw, no effect 

- Companions defeated Kardakes - being beaten by 'Kn', the Kardakes were destroyed, and being 'Kn' the Companions advanced one base depth in pursuit - which put them in contact with the Sparabaras flank, and..

- Hypaspists defeated Sparabaras - now 'Bw' defeated and in contact with  any mounted enemy are also destroyed, so they went as well!

- Right-hand Phalangites (2 units)  were beaten by the Persians' Mercenary Hoplites (who rolled a '6'), so the Pikes 'recoiled'.  

- Left-hand Phalangites (2 units ) defeated Persian Archers, who Recoiled

- Thessalians and Greek Allied Cavalry narrowly beat Persian 'Red' Cavalry, who Recoiled. 

The Macedonians didn't win every opposed die roll, but only lost a couple, and combat modifiers worked to their advantage. The Companion cavalry were particularly effective, and rolled a '6' - even though their Kardakes opponents also rolled  '6', the Companions as 'Kn' got better modifiers than their 'Ax' opponents, and most foot defeated by 'Kn' are destroyed. The resulting pursuit resulted in the destruction of the Sparabara too. 

end result; left-centre shattered, Persians defeated

 

Victory conditions are simple - if you destroy 4 of the enemy's 12 elements, and do not lose as many of your own, that's a win.  At the end of Turn 3 the losses were Persians 4, Macedonians 1, so a clear Macedonian win, in some style!  We may imagine  Alexander at the head of his Companions, running amok among the Persian infantry line, which has been 'pinned' by the advance of the Phalanx. Almost textbook? 

That was rather fun  -  I'll spare you any more detailed analysis, but I thought the rules worked pretty well, giving a simple and quick game that 'felt' mostly right.  The dice gods were certainly with Alexander, I felt that if the Persians had rolled better dice they might have given Alexander a much harder time, especially with that powerful right wing of cavalry. Which is a good enough reason to give the game another spin... 

I'd better leave it at that for now, we are fast approaching the table-top Xmas Truce and 'tis the season of over-eating.. Some more thoughts on DBA next time, perhaps. 

Meanwhile, I'd like to wish everyone who reads this a very Merry Xmas and a Happy gaming New Year!  Thanks for reading, and for all your brilliant friendly, supportive and informative comments over the past year  - hard to believe this is the fourth year of this blog.  Have a great break, if you are having one, and keep well, everyone.

Persians Painted - at last

Hello again all, if you are still out there.. once again a bit too much reality has been getting in the way of hobby time recently, so progress has been slow, But I have, finally, managed to finish what must be one of the slowest-painted Persian DBA armies ever! 

I finished varnishing and basing yesterday, and today they underwent a photo session in an admittedly not-very-Persian looking setting. So without further ado, here is the (small) Persian horde, 

 The force is made up of the following : 

Front left:    1 x 4Bw Light Archers

Rear Left:    1 x 3Kn Heavy Cavalry,   3 x 3Cv Medium Cavalry 

Centre:        2 x 4Sp Greek Mercenary Hoplites,  2 x 4Ax 'Kardakes'

Front Right:  2 x 2LH Light Cavalry

Rear right :   1x 4Bw 'Sparabara'           

 

**UPDATE** the above provoked some interesting discussion (see comments, many thanks to Neil and Rob) about 'Sparabara' and 'Kardakes' types. I should have said that the descriptions above are taken straight from the DBA 1st Edition rulebook, army list no.33 Later Achaemenid. From background reading the name  Sparabara seems to have meant 'shield bearers', and it appears they would have had a front rank equipped with Spara (a form of wicker shield) and spear, and other ranks armed with bows. DBA has obviously decided to treat them as mainly bow-armed, but gives them quite a shallow base, hence close-order formation. I am toying with the idea of giving them Spara, but I think it might look a bit awkward on the restricted base. I am told that later editions of DBA have them as double-depth bases with 8 figures, front rank with shields, which might look better - but of course that sort of  implies 50% carrying shields? Tricky.. 

Kardakes  are quite enigmatic - some say  the name means 'Foreign Mercenary', and it is suggested that they may have been Persian infantry equipped similarly to Greek Hoplites, which would make them 'Sp' class in DBA.  But others think they may have been more like the Greek Peltasts,  in which case the DBA class would be 'Ax'.  Clearly Phil Barker has plumped for the latter option in DBA 1st Edition, which does have the benefit of adding another variety of troops to the army, rather than just more 'Spears'.  

This is all a nice introduction to some of the uncertainty and debate which inevitably surrounds ancient armies, given the scarcity of source material for scholars. It also perhaps allows us quite a lot of 'artistic license' when forming our miniature armies! 

Having said all that, all in all it looks quite a handy force, it will be interesting to see how it does against Alexander's Phalanx and Companions.   My first attempt at a DBA game ( despite owning the 1st edition rules for about 30 years! )  will be coming up soon, and duly reported here. 

They were actually quite fun to paint, and interesting to read a bit and work out colour schemes - I think my favourites of the infantry were the Kardakes, the inspiration for which I found in the box art of the HaT  Achaemenid Persian Army set. I think I got away with painting the interesting patterns on the trousers as rather indistinct stripes - it will do fine at table distance!  But now I think about it, I suspect the HaT figures are leaning much more towards the 'Hoplite equivalent' than the 'pseudo-Peltast' theory.. 

 

Kardakes..

and Sparabara - without the 'Spara'

 

I should say, I have been rather loving seeing another and much larger Persian army being shown off by Rob Young on his Eastern Garrison blog - it really is a huge and impressive army, and I love the 'old school' style of both figures ( Garrison of course, and old Minifigs 'S' and 'PB' ranges ) and painting. I confess, I would rather like to have some of those..   

In the meantime, tonight I have the  honour to be first to represent King Emmanuele III of Piedmont-Sardinia in Jon Freitag's re-fight of  the battle of  Madonna dell' Olmo, 1744 .  It looks a daunting task, to be frank - attacking entrenched positions without superior numbers, and against wily and cunning opponents too!  Watch Jon's blog for the battle report, which should be interesting - I admit I am pretty nervous!    

I'd better get back to revising the QRS and battle breifing for that, then, so will leave it there. Hopefully some DBA action next time.. Until then keep well, everyone.