Catching up with old projects

For reasons that will not be immediately apparent I spent a couple of hours earlier trawling over some of my past blog posts.  It became very clear to me as I swiped through the pages that I do not have a great record of following projects through!  For example Altar of Freedom has only seen two games played, Western shoot outs haven’t been followed up for eighteen months or so and it’s been several years since the last look at the Dark Ages campaign or a World War One dog fight being played.  Clearly I need to get more games in.

So with that in mind the plan is to finish the AI general project by filling in the deployment matrix and then to stop work on that.  Actually once that is done it will be pretty much ready for use and I can start playing some games to test it.  However, while that is happening I'm going to try to pick up the Dark Ages campaign again.  This may or may not involve using ADLG for a few trial games or I may just set up some test games to play under DBA and repeat with ADLG.

Meanwhile an order from Warbases has arrived which has allowed my 6mm BCW rebasing to get underway.  I may achieve one of the objectives for 2025 before the end of January if I'm lucky!

I ordered a couple more of the Antonine Miniatures Strength and Honour units while I was at it more about those once I have them painted.

One Wargamer's Library

There are some books that have really influenced what I do as a wargamer and which I wouldn't really want to part with.  I suppose we all have those books which grabbed our younger selves' attention and shaped how we saw things be they hobbies or more important stuff.  So what follows is my list of those books which really influenced my wargaming life over the last 50 years or more.

1. Battle - Charles Grant

Still worth a look even after all these years

Actually it was the Meccano Magazine series of articles from circa 1968-1969 (which when collected together became this book) which were my first step up from playing soldiers with Airfix figures to wargaming with a set of formal rules.  Not all of the rules made it into the compilation shown here but an expanded edition is available that I presume does have the missing parts.  This wasn't just a set of rules but most importantly included an explanation on why the rules worked the way they did and the thought process that led to them.  Really rather old school now but still capable of providing an enjoyable World War Two game.  

2. Discovering Wargames - John Tunstill

I'd love to get another copy for nostalgia sake

I lost my copy of this 1971 book, or rather booklet so I have parted with it but can't ignore the impact it had .  The Discovering series was intended to give an introduction to a number of hobbies, I recall Discovering Brass Rubbing as another title in the series .  In this work John Tunstill did for Ancients, Napoleonic's and American Civil War gaming what Charles Grant had done for WW2 wargames.  It provided a set of simple rules, but more importantly an explanation of how they were designed.  I still recall his explanation of how a figure's base size was linked to ground scale , how many men a single figure represented (I don't recall if it was 20, 25 or 33 by the way) and the spacings for ranks and files.  Without this and Battle I don't think it would ever have crossed my mind to play around with creating my own rules.  These gave me the toolkit that allowed me to understand the process.

3. WRG Ancient's Rules and Army Lists - Phil Barker et al

Based on a desire to play the rules in Discovering Wargames a friend of mind and I converted lots of Airfix figures into various pre-gunpowder troops (very badly to be honest) but they gave us hours of enjoyment.  Then two things happened in quick succession firstly a model shop opened in Blackburn which stocked Hinchcliffe 25mm metal figures and in my first term at university I saw a game played with an early set of WRG Ancient rules using full armies of 25mm metal figures.  These were a huge step up from previous rule sets I had used.  I think I have copies from 3rd Edition onwards.  Out of fashion now a days but for the 1970's these were the standard other rules aspired to.  The army lists were also a huge innovation as they took much of the guess work out of army creation.  They also stopped the creation of unstoppable but non historical armies as well as creating a shopping list of new must have figures!  On the other side of the coin they fostered the rise of the 'min-max' army creator mentality.

4.  WRG Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome (and all the other 'Armies of' books) - Phil Barker et al

In the world before Osprey's these were the go to reference works for any armies tied to the WRG ancients rules.  I still have a good few of these on my bookshelf and refer to them on a regular basis.  They provided almost everything needed to gain an understanding of the history, main battles, equipment and tactics of the period covered.  The only thing missing was coloured illustrations.  I went as far as getting the coloured pencils out and coloured in the Late Roman shield illustrations to see which ones I wanted to reproduce on my 25mm Hinchcliffe's.  My copy of Imperial Rome is now getting a bit battered after almost 45 years of use! They still get used as my initial reference for any new army I think about creating in the period they cover.  While a lot of more recent information has been published since these first came out they have the advantage of being a one stop shop for the information wanted by wargamers.

5. Warfare in the Classical World - John Warry

It was the cover illustration that grabbed my attention

I saw this in a tiny wargaming shop in York  in the late 1970's or early 1980's, the shop is long gone now (aren't they all) but I still have the book.  I forget how much it cost but suffice to say I was more than slightly nervous about walking into the house and facing the "and how much was that then?" question from Mrs E.  Not that I needed to have worried really.  Its a cross between a general military history of the period from (roughly) the Trojan Wars to the Fall of Rome and a look at weapon's armour and tactics as they developed during that time.  I suppose much of the detailed analysis has been superseded by more recent research but the illustrations and battlefield summaries are still worth a look.

6. Atlas of Military Strategy 1618 - 1878 - David G Chandler

Sorry about the shine from the dust jacket

Ever since I first saw a couple of pages from this book detailing the classical military strategies of antiquity I had wanted my own copy.  Once I actually laid hands on one I was not disappointed.  It really does do what it says on the cover, provide maps and analysis of strategy and tactics as applied for the pike and shot and horse and musket periods.  Well written and easy to digest with some really useful maps and plans to support the text.

There are others of course: the original version of DBA showed just how far a set of rules could be stripped back to while still being playable.  The 1970's Western Gunfight Rules provided an introduction to skirmish level wargames that is still hard to beat.  Then there are the works of fiction that make you stop and think "Ooh that would be an interesting period to game".  Yes, so many books and so little reading time (or book shelf space).

Solo Gaming & AI Generalship a short(ish) update

I am working towards a two or possibly three stage system for the AI opposition.  Stage one is the Fight or Fly decision, stage two is a deployment system and stage three will be a battlefield tactics decision, except it may not be!  This is because the deployment may be all I need, I'm currently wondering if it's going to be the case that once a deployment is decided upon by the AI the actual tactical plan is obvious.  Time will tell on that one.

Here is what I have so far for the deployment stage, the results from the fight or fly test are merged together into four deployment groups, these being:

1.  Aggressive (Fight or fly result one or two)

2. Balanced (results three, four or five)

3. Defensive, (results six or seven) and

4. Retire (results eight, nine or ten)

For each of the four deployment groups there will be ten possible deployments, imagine a grid of four columns of ten rows giving forty possible choices of deployment. To generate a deployment the column is selected that matches the fight or fly result and a single cell obtained by a di roll or card draw.  A result of one being a less aggressive deployment and a ten being the most aggressive deployment for that column.  Some of these results will be duplicated so for example the three least aggressive deployment options in the aggressive column (numbers 1-3) would be mirrored as the most aggressive deployment options of the balanced deployment options (numbers 8 - 10).  This should mean that I need 31 deployment descriptions.  Which is where you 'dear reader' come in!  It would help me enormously if you could suggest some deployments to fill the spaces in the grid.

An example of the sort of thing I am looking for is:

"No reserve line, extend cavalry wings, mass at least 70% of any shock cavalry on one wing (dice for which) deploy light infantry and cavalry to screen the assault troops balance to the weaker wing."

It might help to go back and look at the fight or fly test factors which would create the outcomes that I grouped up into the four deployment categories.  In principle the aggressive deployment group expects to simply roll over the enemy, the balanced deployment expects a fight but with an advantage to the AI, Defensive expects a stiff fight with the enemy force having advantage, and retire is an AI general having an 'Oh bugger we are in the deep do do here, what can we salvage'.  Remember that each column covers a range of fight and fly outcomes so I'm attempting to generate a range of deployments for each column.

It's worth knowing that the deployment layout uses a nine box grid taken from Rob's suggested blog site 'Grid Based Wargames' (thanks Rob I found some rather useful ideas there).  These are three lines each with a right wing, centre and left wing.  The lines from front to rear being Advance guard, main Line and Reserve.  I may add a fourth line but with only a central box for a grand reserve or similar.

Solo Gaming - down to the nitty gritty

Well the nitty certainly, perhaps not the gritty just yet.  Due to finding the work I did a decade (or possibly two) ago, I have made more progress on this project than I expected to have done.  What I have so far is a mechanism for deciding if the AI army will fight and in general terms how it will fight, it isn't clever and it's definitely not an elegant solution, but it seems to work.  It uses a set of factors to arrive at a measure of the base aggression of the army.  For the lack of anything else to call it I have termed it a fight or flight test.  It uses ten sets of factors some of which measure the difference between the AI and the player's forces while others look at a single variable.  Each factor generates a score which when added together  give a total which is checked against a table of battlefield grand tactical options.  A high positive result shows a high aggression and willingness to attack and a minus a low aggression and more likelihood of fighting defensively (or withdrawing).

Here is the Fight or Fly decision table.  The scores are from a set of factors

I have given you the results table before the ten tables of factors so you can have some sense of how I have weighted each of the following ten sets of circumstances that build up to the total.  The maximum and minimum that could be theoretically achieved are higher than plus 25 to minus 31 range represented on the table above.   In the tables which follow the green highlighted options are the commonest expected outcomes.

The first two input tables

Table 1 looks at the balance of numbers between the two armies as a ratio, it doesn't consider troop types simply overall numbers.

Table 2 deals with the ability/reputation of the two overall commanders.  It is creating a differential so an outstanding AI commander generates five points but a good player commander then deducts three points for a net comparison of plus two.  You will see this mechanism in a number of the following tables.  If in doubt assume the AI general doesn't consider the player as highly as it should and down grade the player.  Rather like Napoleon dismissing Wellington as merely a 'Sepoy General'.

Table 3 considers the relative morale of the two sides.  Again this is checking for the difference between the two sides.  You could use results from previous battles in a campaign or the morale rating from the rules of your choice or a mixture of both.

Table 4 asks what are the chances of avoiding combat.  Not whether either side wants to do so but could they.  An infantry heavy army facing a highly mobile opponent would be an example of an army where avoiding combat is impossible, although seeking better ground may be an option.

Table 5.  This is considering the effect of the overall strategic position on the AI commanders options.  Rather like Rupert at Marston Moor feeling like he had to attack because of Charles' poorly drafted instructions.  If there are no overarching orders from High Command use the Fight if victory probable option.

Table 6 looks at the relative pugnacity of the two commanders.  An aggressive general facing a defensive opponent is more likely to take the fight to them if all other factors are neutral.

The next two tables look for the effect of different levels of training and combat experience between the two armies.

Table 7 looks at the comparative levels of training of the two armies.  Untrained are civilians pressed into service with no training beyond stand there and try not to die!  Militia are troops with basic training or tribesmen with basic weapon skills as part of their culture.  Trained are Greek city hoplites called out when needed and required to drill at regular intervals during the year.  Regulars are full time professional soldiers.

Table 8 considers the amount of combat experience they have.  Raw troops have never experienced battle.  Experienced have fought at least one engagement while Veterans have fought and survived multiple combats.

Table 9 requires some creative thinking as the AI knows what re-enforcements it expects but has to guess whether the opponent will be getting more troops.  The scouting rules from your tabletop or campaign rules may help with this otherwise use your judgement.

Table 10 takes a look at the lay of the land but only in very general terms.  I'm not fully happy with this and will be playing around with it.  Ignore the player options and only use the top three options for the time being.

There is one remaining factor but it isn't a table like those above.  Its a random factor created by rolling two D6.  One dice is designated plus and one minus add the results together to get a random final figure.

As you can tell from the cut and pasted tables I use a spreadsheet, the factor used boxes are manually calculated and entered but those are picked up and totalled, along with the random factor, by the spreadsheet to give the final score for the fight or flight decision.

What I have here is more like a toolkit and concepts but it allows you guys to tinker with things.  If you don't agree with the weighting of the factors I have created change them.  Alternatively you can change the results table scores for each action.  I tested them against some actual battles treating both sides as if they were the AI side to see how close the result came to the initial plan of the actual commanders.  It gives a reasonable but not 100% match to what I think the original plan was, so it's broadly where I want it to be.  Its a case of tinkering with the balance now.  Have a play and let me know if it seems to work as you would expect.

New Years Eve 2024

Well 2024 has been the usual mixed bag.  The high spot was playing in Jolly Broom Man's English Civil War campaign at the start of the year and winning!  It was a really interesting system that left me feeling like an actual senior commander.  I made the strategic moves on the campaign map and selected the troops and gave the grand tactical orders needed to fight any battles, but after that had no input to the actual tactical level of field actions as JBM fought those solo following the remote player's plans.  What clinched it was King Charles dying early in 1643 following the defeat at Winterton Field.  I played a few solo games using my quick play Pike and Shot rules and in the aftermath of Christmas played a family game of Lord of the Ring's Risk.  If you haven't come across that game it is a different take on Risk and gives a good afternoon's fun.  I'm saying that even though I had my Ass (other equines are available) handed to me by the forces of evil.  It's a game which really deserves a post all of it's own and I will see what I can do in that respect in the New Year.  I also regained my painting Mojo which is a huge relief.

Real Life has been a bit of a bugger in 2024.  In part it's the inevitable legacy of getting older, I have lost a number of friend's from my misspent youth over the last few months.  It's to be expected I suppose, but it is an unwelcome reminder that none of us live forever!

I didn't really set myself any major objectives at the start of the year but I did say something about getting to some wargame shows, playing more games, posting more on the blog and painting more figures.  I got to a show so I'm calling that done, I posted slightly less than 2023 but hey that's close enough for Jazz, I don't have the data on games played over the two years but I was involved in a fair few this year.  Painting was an overall win as I end the year with less unpainted stuff than I started with so that's a result.

The big question of course is what objectives am I setting for 2025?  In no particular order then:

• Complete the following DBA armies and ideally extend them to ADLG size: Early Byzantine Army (its about half way there), Goths (Ostro and Visi),  Hunnic and some infantry based Germanic types probably Franks.  EDIT - I forgot to put Moors on this list!
• Finish the year with less unpainted stuff than I started with!
• Rebase my 6mm British Civil war troops
• Build a couple of 2mm armies for Strength and Honour and get a game or two in.
• Play some ADLG
• Put together some sort of AI system for use in solo games

Last and very much not least.  Thanks for stopping by and reading my ramblings.  I wish all of you a very Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year for 2025.

Giving ADLG a proper go

I only have the edition of ADLG prior to the current one and other than a couple of games against Paul Dawson I haven't really played many games with these, or the current version of the rules.  However, I got to thinking (dangerous as always) that building a couple or three 120pt armies from my existing troops wasn't too much of a stretch after building a standard DBA Army.  This is also known as rampant expansionism, mission creep or a simple 'ooh shiny complex'.  The only issue I can see is the almost automatic urge to just add a few more options to cover all the bases to build a standard 200pt ADLG army.  Before you know it I could be up to DBM/DBMM figure counts!

The difference between the figure counts is less pronounced with cavalry heavy armies as these use a single base in both ADLG and DBA.  Infantry heavy armies with two bases for heavy and medium infantry in ADLG are where things really show up.  Lets have a look at the difference using a Late Imperial Roman force as an example (because it is somewhere in the middle as a 'combined arms force).

There isn't a great deal in the way of alternatives in the DBA army list for the Western Late Imperials.  Two legionary elements, three auxilia, two light cavalry and two cavalry (which include the general) are mandatory which covers 75% of the army!  The remaining three elements provide options as follow.  Firstly two of Auxilia Palatina or Velites (can be one of each), then lastly one from Clibanarii (3Kn), Catafractarii/Alans (4Kn), legionaries, bolt shooters, Lanciarii (3Bd) or warband .  So optional choices are limited.  For my last three elements I went with options of 1 x Auxilia Palatina, 1 x Velites and 1 x Catafracts (4Kn).  Oh and for what it's worth the Eastern Empires options are even less flexible!

Late Imperial Romans as a 12 Element DBA 3.0 army plus camp

One thing I have noted is that the Late Imperial Roman army list defines Clibanarii as 4Kn and Catafracts as 3Kn, I think this is the wrong way around as most lists show cataphracts as 4Kn which is why I changed them in the last paragraph! 

Late Imperial Romans as a 200pt ADLG force with two commands

Next lets look at the ADLG version, I excluded Foederati (Huns, Goths etc) to make the comparison closer, My selection still only has 12 units. However, it looks bigger as it has separate bases for it's two generals and of course the heavy and medium infantry are double based. What is less obvious is that this army has two commands so it's more like Big Battle DBA, it also has a fortified camp which prevents Light Cavalry raids on it. On top of which it has paid points for special capabilities for some units.

The Final selections were; First command   a brilliant general, 1 x Elite Heavy cavalry (Impact), 1 x Equites Sagittarii Light cavalry, 1 x Elite Cataphracts, 1 x Equites Heavy Cavalry (Impact)1 x Elite Legionaries (Impact, Armour, Missile Support), 1 x Elite Auxilia Palatina (Impact, Missile Support).  Second command, an ordinary general,  2 x Legionaries (Armour, Impact, Missile Support),  2 x Auxilia Palatina (Impact, Missile support), 2 x  Light Infantry Archers.  Plus a Fortified Camp.

 

A better view of the ADLG army

ADLG differs from DBA in that it has a points based army creation system so it has those interesting moments of self doubt about making choices, just like the old WRG ancients army list quandaries.   You know, the should I make those Hun horse archers elite or take a unit of light infantry archers instead kind of thing, rather than the straight 12 element choice of DBA.   It also has special capabilities (as shown above) in some lists.  So the Legionaries above can have armour, missile support and elite status as options. Me being, well, me I have gone for armour and missile support for the Legionaries, impact is mandatory  For the auxilia again missile support and mandatory impact.  The mounted command also took the elite option for it's the infantry reserve.

ADLG has other things going for it too that I like, light infantry and cavalry archers actually shoot at stuff, and units degrade rather than die in an all or nothing way.  Why I haven't used the rules more I really don't know, as I do really like 'chrome' within the rules of a game and the extra figures gives the whole army a better appearance.  

Any way as a result of all of this thinking my painting table is now packed again, after I did really well in November in clearing stuff down.  The western gunfight figures are on the back burner (or is that the left side burner as per the picture), as masses of Baccus 6mm horsemen take centre stage. These are mostly Late Roman/Early Byzantine horse archers and Hunnic heavy cavalry who will be proxying as Byzantine Boukellarioi.  It's a good thing I like painting horses.

I haven't imposed the mess which is my painting table on you for a while!

As you can probably tell I'm having a bit of an upsurge with my painting mojo after a fairly slow year.  I cleared 128 infantry and 30 cavalry figures from the lead pile in November and at this rate will be ahead by a couple of hundred figures compared to January 1st.  Retirement eh, what is it good for?  Well painting teeny tiny soldiers apparently!

Solo Gaming - What should Generals be doing?

I suppose we have all seen players who, as the commanding General,  micro manage every aspect of their wargames army.  It's almost a built in requirement of most rules as there is no one else available to move units, decide who they attack and all the myriad of other decisions needed for combat units.  As a result the player ends up covering every level of the chain of command at the same time.  In the worst cases the micro management is down to moving exact distances to avoid the other side being in shooting range or charge reach.  In my experience, limited I grant you to re-enactment and reading military history, that isn't how things happened in reality.  Real life isn't so cut and dried, generals couldn't be certain how far a unit could advance, or how close they could get to the enemy and still be safe,  In fact they often couldn't even see all of their troops to know what they were doing!  We shouldn't have that level of control either as the player or in the form of an AI opponent.

Against, not with, that's..AGAINST Yourself!

I tried to reduce the control available in my detailed pike and shot rules by using a standard system of orders for each unit.  These set an objective; either a location or an enemy unit, an action when they reach the objective and the speed of movement towards the objective, either fast or slow.  Lastly a delay can be set before starting to move.  As an alternative a support order can be given where a unit simply follows another and assist or takes over that unit's objective if they cannot complete it.  So an order would be something like this:  Advance quickly to  Rabbit Warren Hill and take it by close assault and then hold that position.  After that new orders would be sent or the unit would continue to Hold and other troops would continue the action.  It's assumed in the rules that units will attempt to follow orders until either; they are completed, or they get new orders, or they change orders by using their initiative (via a reaction test).  I think that this goes a long way towards reflecting the reality of command and control for pre 20th century warfare.

A commanding general is only one man, perhaps with a few messengers and aides to assist him, but he can't do everything himself.  Time and space conspire against him if he tries (unless the Army is on the small side).  If he tries to micro manage every unit he can't react to every change in circumstances for every unit, he doesn't have the time.  He cannot get new orders to a unit  from where he is to where they are with any certainty that the situation on receipt won't have changed while they were in transit.  So to balance those problems armies delegate command responsibility.  Hence the chain of command springs into being.  This balances speed of reaction to changes against lack of overall control.  At Battalion level the colonel has to react to the immediate combat situation and may amend the overall plan while still attempting to fulfil his part in it.  At Brigade the Brigadier reacts to the situation the battalions of his brigade are facing and perhaps to the situation of the Brigades alongside his own and so it goes.  Each commander has limited autonomy and is supposed to be following the larger plan (or in some cases not!).

While all of the above may be interesting, it should also have an impact on solo rule mechanisms.  It shows how the AI army should behave; it should have delay built in at higher levels but be capable of reacting to tactical changes at lower levels fairly quickly, unless the officer concerned is of limited capabilities, by some form of reaction test.  These limited capability chaps do exist, consider Byron at Marston Moor charging his cavalry wing over the ground Rupert instructed him to force Cromwell to cross to disrupt their formation!  Or as Brigadier Peter Young once reported on a junior officer "Sir if that man was a horse, I should hesitate to breed from him!"  I'd like an AI system that can throw up this sort of inconsistency.  Much of the reaction at front line level should be included in your rules of choice but that isn't automatically the case.  I'd almost goo as far as saying that rules should cover these issues be they solo or not.

So I'm now at the point of thinking that there should be an opening stage where the Commander in Chief carries out his comparison of forces and considers the strategic overview to determine if he will fight and if so what style of action to fight - attack, spoiling attack, hold and counter attack, defend or withdraw.  The second stage is to look at the ground and craft a plan based on how the terrain constrains tactical options for each side.  This is the stage at which the details of the action are thrashed out.  Hold the left advance the centre and hook around the right level of tactics plus creating a deployment plan.  I like the idea of giving commanders some personality traits which would have an effect at this stage. I'm also thinking that the orders should be to the top tier formations so wings, centre and or reserve in pike and shot fights or brigades.  I'm currently a bit stuck on how to convert these to orders for individual units, but I will get there.  As a bonus I found my spreadsheet from my last attempt to create something so I have a start compared to where I thought I was.