It was fifty years ago today....

 ......well not exactly today but close enough for jazz.

Last week I spent three very enjoyable days with some of the alumni of Hull University Wargames Club, the 1973 - 77 vintage.  Some of them I haven't seen since leaving university or very shortly after.  Back then the club was a mix of figure gamers and hex map board gamers, especially the SPI monster games like War in the East.  In fact it was the golden age of SPI games in some respects which made life a bit harder for the figure gamers as everyone seemed to have an SPI game they were desperate to try out!. 

The group which assembled last week was from the hex map game side of the hobby so the three main games were all of that ilk, but we also played a couple of slightly odd card games, well odd to me as I hadn't played them before.  To be honest I was so wrapped up in the occasion I only took one picture so bear with me.  So it came to pass that a rather greyer and creakier (than last time we met) bunch of wargamers gathered together comprising: Stephen Thomas, Dave Harbud, Gary Derrick (our host), John Staniforth and John Digby.  Dave H had to leave before any serious gaming got started as he had a trip abroad planned but the rest of us were there for the entire three days.

On day one we played 'Spies' a 1980's SPI game, set in the late 1930's in the run up to World War Two.  It's a typical experimental SPI game from the period, with no combat result table, no dice and no hexes.  players deploy police units to locations in their home country who try to intercept incoming spies or hunt down emplaced ones.  You also have your spies who move around Europe trying to collect secrets from other player's cities.  There are also event cards that are played by each player each turn and which may grant benefits to your side but also to the opposition.  It's an interesting concept but slightly flawed as the lack of a random element means some aspects of face offs between spies and police can be precalculated based on the known values of the police and spies.  In fact it is possible by stacking police units to create locations where a spy cannot avoid detection and can only escape capture by playing a skill chit.  Still it kept us entertained for an afternoon.

This is the one an only picture I grabbed.  Exciting isn't it.

Day two saw us play a more traditional and rather newer game from 2013 called 'Hinge of Fate'.  This covers the Poland campaign of 1939 but with a twist.  the twist being that you can choose to also play a French intervention on the Franco-German border.  While this actually did happen it was a half hearted attack that quickly fizzled out.  In this counter factual version of events the French after delaying three turns (six days) actually make a proper assault.  This puts the Germans in Poland under time pressure to capture all the Polish cities and fortified hexes before French advances start to trigger random events.  Now I know Hitler believed that a vigorous assault in the west could have defeated Germany and ended the war before it got properly underway but the possible impacts of French success in the Rhineland seem a bit extreme in this game.  Still it was a fun game and went right down to the wire.  The Soviets came into the war on the allied side and then the following turn the French also triggered a coup in Germany, Hitler was killed (yay!) and Germany lost.

The bit of the map I was playing on, no wide open plains with Panzers for me!

Day three saw us trying 2025's SPI game 'Eagles of Rome 1: Caesar', we played the opening scenario Orchomenus 85 BC, Sulla's Romans versus  the Pontic Kingdom.  The initial deployment didn't favour the Pontics as they have a big army and a restricted deployment area.  Once the legionaries get to grips they almost always force retreats or kills which cause disruption to units behind the retreating/killed front line troops.  I quite liked the system but then again I was in control of the Roman infantry.  The Pontic players seemed much less keen.  So much so that after we broke for lunch we didn't return to the game and instead played a few hands of Bandito and  6 Nimmt instead.

Eagles full map, our game used area III making it similar to a Folio game

All in all a great few days of gaming and catching up on who had done what over the last 40 - 50 years (God but that sentence makes me feel old!).  Hopefully we won't leave as long before the next get together.

The Bots are back

 If my hit rates to the blog are to be believed one of three things is going on!

1.  I have become increasingly popular as a blogger

2.  There are far less blogs to read out there, or

3.  AI bots are trawling blogs for data to use in large language model AIs.

I have gone from barely crawling into the 20 - 30 hits per post to a steady 150ish and those hits are almost instant after I hit post!

I don't really think I have become better at blogging as unlike Mary Poppins I'm not "practically perfect in every way" and the content can't be that interesting to a general reader with no interest in wargaming. I also haven't noticed a major falling off of blog posting either, which leaves me to believe that the AI web crawlers are back.

Is anyone else finding the same thing?

Looking at Command and Control again

In the comments in my first post about this topic  (You can find it here >Small but Perfectly Formed: Command and control in wargames.<) Rob pointed me in the direction of a long out of print set of rules which had looked at the same points I was mulling over.  These are 'Napoleonic Rules for a Large Scale Action with Small Scale Miniatures'.  The rules were published in 1980 and had come up with a set of mechanisms to cover pretty much the exact issues I identified.  No point reinventing the wheel I thought and promptly hunted down a copy on Scribd.  After a read through and some note taking I was in agreement with Rob, almost half a century ago the same issue had come up and been solved by smarter minds than mine!

(AI image) This is the chain of command...don't make me use it!

The rules use a variable bound mechanism which was in vogue back then and which has fallen out of use since but it doesn't make much difference to the C2 rules involved.  It listed change of situation triggers, possible reactions to those changes and who can act on the triggers.  It also gives guidance on ranges over which triggers can be identified.  The core concept is that command and control are exercised at separate points in the chain of command and no one  (other than the CinC) can simply issue orders to attack, unless it is for a counter attack to defend the subordinates formation.  

Each link in the chain of command consists of a superior who issues commands and a subordinate who must execute them but can determine how that is done.  Orders have to pass down the full chain of command between an officer who is entitled to give a command and the officer who executes it,  and that takes time.  Essentially this consists of time in transit and time to read and execute the order.  In the absence of new orders a formation simply gets on with the last instructions unless attacked when it is entitled to defend itself.  I rather like the simple underpinning concept of "If tell you to jump all you are allowed to do is ask 'how high'."

The basics of the rules are as follows.

1.  The game starts with the CinC writing orders for the overall objectives of the subordinate commands.  These are broken down by Corps, Division Brigade objectives as required.  I can see fun and games arising in multi player games where three or four players are acting as Corps or Divisional commanders and have to translate Army level orders to their own subordinates objectives.

2. These initial orders are followed unless a change of situation is seen by an Army, Corps or Divisional Commander.  Brigades and Battalions can only deviate from orders if forced to act in self defence when attacked.  In that latter case all they can do is defend and/or or seek new orders from above.  Only the CinC has full freedom of action.

3. Change of Situation triggers are restricted to ten cases, see the tables below.  Each one has a limited set of responses available (also shown on the table below).

4.  Most responses only allow the parent formation to change orders but that requires a message moving from them to the subordinate formation and in some cases vice versa all of which takes time.

5.  Units engaged in firefights or close combat cannot respond to changes in situation or seek new orders.  This means that generals need be able to see what is happening to their commands to be able to influence the fight as the units at the sharp end are locked in place.

Permitted Responses to a change in situation

These possible changes are not mutually exclusive.  They include options for both the affected unit and that units superior.  So (for example) the subordinate unit could go on the defensive and seek new orders while the superior commander seeing the situation could send orders to other units in response

Triggers and options

The rules don't take into account failures to follow orders correctly and other areas of friction as it seems to be assumed that orders are not open to interpretation and are followed to the letter.  While this may be the case in most situations there are always occasional  'outliers' where subordinates have ideas of their own, for good or ill!  They also don't appear to be written to cover Army through to Battalion chains of command or the freedom of action granted French Corps commanders (Q was that really a thing on a big battlefield or just while Corps were acting independently?)

That said, looking at the above I think I have enough to work with to create some simple C2 rules.  Lets see how it goes.

And just like that

 Like what you may wonder?  As well as what happened 'just like that'?  Or maybe not of course.  You may recall that I was bemoaning the lack of local wargaming opponents and saying how I had taken a chance on sticking my head over the parapet to ask on a local Facebook page if there were any local wargamers in my small slice of North Lincolnshire.   The answer appears to be no and that the nearest historical gaming groups are either in Hull or Grimsby.  As a result I resigned myself to solo gaming for the foreseeable future.

Well 'just like that' I had a message from an ex member of Hull University Wargaming Club firstly asking if the same chap who had been a member back in the mid 1970's.  The answer being yes I was indeed a member some fifty years ago.  It turns out the ex member (no names no pack drill applies as not everyone wants their details splashing all over the net) was still in touch with a couple of gamers from back then and that they had been getting together for games meet ups.  The amazing bit being he lives less than fifteen miles away.  As a result I have an invite to a three day gaming session later this month and I'm in touch with some friends I haven't seen in half a century!

I don't think it will be figure gaming as the people concerned were fans of the hex map strategy games especially the really huge ones.  War in Europe was a favourite although they did draw the line at SPI's Campaign for North Africa.  But hey a wargame is a wargame on a table with figures or on a hex map with counters.  Watch this space for a follow up game report towards the end of the month.

The grand parade of recycled wood dust

Also known as MDF, a strange material made of wood fibres, resin and wax.  It contains Formaldehyde which is not a pleasant substance and sanding is not recommended as the dust is potentially hazardous,  On the other hand it does make some excellent miniature figures and it's cheap (a recuring theme in my thinking you will have gathered by now!).  Once laser cut and engraved by the talented Walt of Commission Figurines, painted and based by yours truly they create a rather nice effect for not a lot of time and effort.

As always with 6mm figures the trick is to paint for the overall effect of the unit once it is based up, rather than creating individual masterpieces.  This especially so with the MDF figures and I have realised that painting them in an almost toy soldier style works well.  To be honest there is almost no scope for traditional high lights and ink washing is pointless as there is nothing to pick out.  A little creative paining of brighter shades along arms legs and shoulders some darker creases on the legs is about the best that you could do an guess what?  At arms length it hardly shows up so I didn't bother.  Even if I did I'd limit it to the front of the front rank and the rear of the rear rank and perhaps the left and right files outer sides.

So having made my excuses for a only using a limited paint scheme, here's what the result looks like massed together.

The Anglo-Spanish Army as it currently stands

The gallant losers, er,  I mean the French

Last but not least I have my first unit of French foreign troops the 4th Swiss Line Infantry.  Included in the front line of the above picture.

The Swiss, they look better at table top distance

Swiss rear view

I ran out of grenadiers in bearskins so sneaked an elite in shako figure into make up the shortfall.  I'm quite taken with the red and sky blue jackets.

All for now the next post is about something completely different. 

White Paint Pens - part two

I tried the paint pens this week.  They are not the perfect solution but they are neater than my freehand, more consistent and a lot faster.  They do need a good shaking before each use otherwise the paint and medium separate.  I was hoping for a perfect 0.7mm or 0.5mm line and that isn't what I got.  In both cases the line is thicker as the paint spreads.  In fact the 0.7mm nib gives a narrower line than the 0.5mm as it has a tapered nib while the smaller nib is more like that on a fine liner pen.  I'd say the 0.5mm gives a line closer to 2mm while the 0.7 is around 1mm. As a result both need a bit of touching up after the paint dries but not a huge amount.  The paint goes on smoothly and dries quickly and most importantly is a good solid white even over a dark base coat like Dark Prussian Blue. 

Part painted and pre touch up on the cross belt, but you can see the coverage is good

With a paint brush I can get a better result than  the above about 25% of the time.  The problem is the other 75% of attempts!  I tend to be a bit messy with the initial coats anyway and tidy up any over painting at the end so touching up cross belts is no biggie.

After a tidy up

I shall persevere with the pens as I think that with more practice I could probably get a more consistent and thinner line. The main point is that overall I'm no worse with the pen than I am with the brush and it is a lot faster in use.  The time on touch ups is still less than the faffing about trying to get a brushed line right.  So for me pens are useful, if you are younger than me and have good eyesight and coordination the paintbrush may still be the best solution.

Command and control in wargames.

I recently came across an interesting discussion on TMP about command and control (C2) in Napoleonic wargames (it's here if you want to read it [TMP] "Command and Control rules in Napoleonic Rule Sets" Topic).  Which of course got me to thinking about how this is handled in Valour and Fortitude (Spoiler Alert - it isn't covered in any detail).  For me the lack of any certainty in C2 is a key part of pre modern wargame period and as such should be included in most rule sets.  So of course I started tinkering based upon the ideas thrown up in the forum posts.  Oh it's worth bearing in mind that some of my posts are an attempt to clarify concepts I have in my mind by writing them down in way that other people (that's you BTW) can follow.  This is one of those posts!

I have written it down so there can be no confusion! Thirteen fish and chips but no salt or vinegar on mine.  Grouchy wants haddock, Ney wants sole and the rest are cod.  Ten mushy peas and three curry sauces, and bring the change back!  Do you understand the order?

As I see it the issues boil down to:

1.  Who can give orders or change orders, 
2.  What trigger events should allow the initial orders to be changed,
3.  How many orders can be issued per turn per commander,
4. What should those orders be,
5.  How long do they take to get to subordinates,
6.  How to model failures in arrival and mistakes in applying them,
7. Who can only execute the orders.

Some or all of the above have variable answers based upon the level a game is set at of course.  A game set at army level may not use individual battalions to execute orders.  Instead it may only go down to brigade level.  On the other hand a game set at corps or a division level may go down the command structure to battalion level.  This also impacts the scope for initiative to be used as a battalion commander will see less of the battlefield events than a division command as he is busy at the down and dirty end of the fight!  That means that they see less events that might trigger a change of orders, its a kind of target fixation.  

So lets look at a full army level C2 position and go through it step by step.

1. Who can give orders or change orders

Obviously the overall commander can issue orders to any subordinate.  I'd also consider that at the other end battalion commanders have no scope to change their orders, they just have to execute them.  In between those two extremes things are a bit cloudier though.  Corps, division and brigade commanders are given an objective but have some scope to decide how to achieve that, although that reduces as you move down the chain of command.  I could see an argument for brigade commanders to be in same boat as battalion commanders

2.  What trigger events should allow the initial orders to be changed

Another obvious starting point here, if a commander isn't aware of a thing it can't trigger a change.  This is linked to my comment on target fixation.  The nearer to the fighting a commander is the less he sees of the overall picture.  Also the lower down the chain of command the less they should be focussed on anything beyond their formations objective.  I'm considering some kind of situational awareness limit on what a subordinate commander can react to.

3. How many orders can be issued per turn per commander and what should they be

How many orders can be issued a turn depends on how decisive a commander is and how long a turn length is being used.  Note that decisive is not the same as good, a commander can be decisive (i.e. quick to make decisions) and still get the decisions and hence the new orders wrong!  

As for turn length V&F doesn't define things like time and ground scale, which is an issue to my mind,  I had to do it myself based on weapon ranges in the rules compared to reality.  For 6mm figures I eventually settled in 1cm to 20 yards/paces/metres (I'm not picky at 6mm scales).  From that I could approximate turn length from movement distances.  Infantry movement tuns out to be around 80 paces/turn in line which using an average of British and French normal marching pace length and rate gives just under a 90 second turn!  For an army level game this seems far too short to me.  How I wish the designer had done some math rather than using what felt right (see my note at the end)! So lets fudge the answer and call a turn 30 minutes.  So that's how long a general has to digest information and spit out any changes to orders.  

Lets also decide that generals come in only five flavours excellent, good, average, poor and bloody useless (aka atrocious).  The better the grade the more new orders can be generated each turn.

4. What should those orders be

I'm on firmer ground here as I considered this topic when writing my pike and shot rules and one suggested solution on the TMP forum matches my view.  So initial and new orders should be one of the following:

Attack an objective [a named location or formation] then once that is achieved change to defend

2.       Defend [a named location]

3.       Manoeuvre [to a named location] if attacked this changes to defend.  This includes a retire order

4.       Reserve – Standing by awaiting an order 1-3  

5. How long do they take to get to subordinates

Another fairly straight forward aspect.  Calculate the number of moves for a horse at maximum move rate to go between general and subordinate and at the end of that number of moves the messenger should arrive.  Once the new orders should be with the subordinate roll a D6 on a 1-2 they arrive straight away on a 3-6 they are delayed dice again next turn.  Remember the subordinate doesn't know new orders are coming so doesn't know they are delayed or even that the messenger was killed on route.  If after double the transit time the message hasn't arrived the commander may resend an order as the aide has not returned and can be assumed to be wounded or dead.

6. How to model failures in arrival and mistakes in applying them

If no new orders arrive the subordinate continues to follow his previous instructions unless he is entitled to issue orders to his subordinates.  If he is at the end of the food chain tough.  Carry out the last order until the morale test lets you run away!  otherwise some kind of test to see if the subordinate has the brains to see a change is needed.  A poor or atrocious commander may also misinterpret orders.  So roll a D6; on a 1 take more aggressive action, on a 2-5 follow orders and on a 6 take less aggressive action than ordered.

7. Who can only execute the orders.

As with point one this depends on the level of action being covered by the rules.  For army level games I would suggest that Battalions have no ability to change orders so can only execute the order given.  All other links in the chain have to execute their orders subject to discretion on how to do that.  That discretion should reduce the lower down the chain a subordinate is.  For example a brigade commander might be allowed to keep and decide when to release a reserve but little else.  A division commander might be able to determine what each brigade shall do to achieve his objective but can't change the overall objective.  While a Corps commander (especially a French one) is entirely free to make any decision they see fit unless given a direct order to follow.  Allied Corps should be prone to doing their own thing especially if Spanish.

Next time I will try and put some flesh on the bones of this post by creating some rule ideas for C2 for V&F.

Notes

I found a rather useful article on line on march rates here > Napoleonic Infantry March Rates – Rod's Wargaming <.  The opinion of the author, based on Dundas' drill regulations of 1792 is that lines and attack columns did not march at different rates.  So that's a popular wargames rule trope busted.