The Joy of Dogs!

Or how to become poor in easy stages.

One of the early posts I made was on the subject of having recovered my painting mojo which had been dented by the arrival of two rescue dogs, to whit George and Barney.  At the time there was a slight doubt over whether we would keep George as initially we were an emergency foster home for him when his original adopters decided they didn't want him.  Long story short we did keep him.

George being goofy you can see why we kept him.

George on the chair, Barney on the floor

 George is a French breed once known as a Breton Spaniel and now (in the UK at least) known as a Brittany. They are a general purpose gun dog although George is a family pet pure and simple.  To describe him as 'affectionate' is a bit like describing Stephen Hawkins as 'a bit clever'.  Every where Mrs E or I go he wants to be.  He really doesn't understand that he isn't a lap dog (or even a two lap dog to be honest).  They are almost two dogs in one skin, inside the home they are cuddly and people orientated, outside they become independent and determined to explore just one more hedge line even if it's in the next county!  Its what they were bred to do; flush game where its scarce by ranging far and wide.

Mrs E trying to see around George

Barney is a little more stand offish until he decides not to be and then he wants attention NOW.  He is a Dutch breed known as a Kooikerhundje (no I can't pronounce it properly either).  From a re-encating perspective Barney is perfect as the breed existed in the early 17th century, at least in the Dutch Republic.  Apparently William the Silent was saved from Spanish Assassins by his Kooiker who barked during the night alerting him to the danger.  George looks a lot like the hunting dogs in Dutch Genre paintings so they are both good to have around a 17th century BCW event.

A Kooikerhundje in one of Jan Steen's paintings

What we didn't really grasp at the outset was how much they would change our lives.  The immediate impact was that we take a lot (I really mean a lot) of walks with them, which is good for Mrs E and I as we get older. Since having these two furry rapscallions we have had to buy a house with a larger garden as it turns out that George has the need to run around like a mad thing at any and all opportunities.  I swear that at our old house he used to do wall of death turns using the shed wall and the back fence he could get moving so fast. When we first got him he loved to take long runs in the park at every possible opportunity without that being coupled with any concept of recall, which meant that we quickly learned every trick in the book for getting him back within collar grabbing reach.  George on the other hand knew to a nicety how long a human arm is!  As a result he now has his walks on a lead and his runs in the garden or when we hire a secure paddock.  Most recently we had to buy a bigger bed so there was room for Mrs E and myself when George and/or Barney decide to come and join us in a short snooze.

When we bought the current house the main consideration was 'will the dogs like it' and not as I had thought would be the case 'is there space for a war games room', The next way to get poor are the vet bills!  After all we would have bought a new home anyway but vet's bills are a slightly unexpected extra. To be fair we expected vets to be involved but just not quite so frequently!  George it turns out has developed quite serious arthritis in his left hip and recently started to struggle to put that paw to the ground without pain relief.  This is probably due to an injury when he was a pup or a young dog.  The vet has suggested that at some point he may need a hip replacement, and the other hip looks like it could go the same way!  Don't ask about the cost I'm just grateful for pet insurance!  Barney currently has an eye infection on top of that that is needing pain relief and eye drops.

Assuming human private medical bills would be even more expensive that canine ones, it really brings home what a world without the NHS would be like.  It also leads me to wonder why didn't that nice Mr Bevin think to include dogs in the plan.  The bottom line to this post is that George is in no pain now the pain meds have kicked in, Barney's eye is getting better and I'm not buying any more toy soldiers for a couple of months!  On the plus side I might get a head start on reducing the lead mountain in 2019.

Well that's it for this year.  All that remains is to wish you all a Happy New Year.

So this is Christmas.....

 .....and (as John Lennon asked) what have you done?

For me its a short list topped by escaping the bullet marked Prostate Cancer.  If I can do nothing else for my male readers of a 'certain age' this year I would say you should learn what the symptoms are and if necessary have the blood test.  Its quick, easy and relatively painless.  BUT..it can save your life.

The other main things I have done are joining in Trebian's Monday night game club (which meets on a Tuesday).  Thanks for the invite, its very much appreciated.  Trebian writes the excellent blog Wargaming for Grown Ups which is linked to from this page, and is well worth a read.

I almost finished my 2mm ECW rules, almost finished for about the 10th year in a row but this time I really have sorted out all the loose ends and just need to type up the last few bits.  I painted more than I bought (almost).  I played some excellent games both solo and with friends.

The house is almost finished too, just need to finish converting the attached sheds and downstairs loo into a wet room and boarding out the loft space for storage.

Next year the plan is top paint the rest of the Sassanid Persians, finish the Dark Age Britain project and the WW1 dogfight project (rules and models).  Then get the Great Civil War in Lancashire campaign into gear.  Plus whatever else takes my attention (WoTR in 6mm anyone?).

So all that remains to be said is thank you for popping by and reading my stuff, and that I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

The Great Civil War in Lancashire - Random Game events

I decided that cards are the way to handle random events for the campaign rules.  I have listed out the key events that actually occurred and added a few generic events as well.  These will be divided into events that happened in a particular year and those which could happen at any time.  So for example in 1642 a Spanish ship ran aground off the North Lancashire coast and brought ashore a number of artillery pieces that were seen as a great prize by both sides.  So I have a card which could come up in 1642 or 1643 of 'A Ship in Distress'  It must be played at once and on a random dice throw it either founders at sea, reaches a safe port or is wrecked in one of the three coastal Hundreds at a random location.  Cargo is then diced for.  Other cards include Supply trains, bonuses for Digging defensive works, training troops and the like.

I have a set of general cards for use throughout the campaign plus a set of cards for specific years which are drawn as a replacement for a general use card that tells the player to draw an 'Annual Card'.  Some cards must be played at once, some can be held back subject to only holding 4 cards at any time.  Some force one particular side to carry out an action such as 'Reinforce the King' or 'Fairfax calls for Aid' no matter which player draws the card.  Others apply to the player drawing them no matter which it is.  Once I have completed the set I think I will see if my local print shop can put them onto good card stock and print a back to them to make clear if they must be played at once (to keep the players honest).  The cards should look like something like this.

Friction in command and control

In the last post I was interesting in friction in movement created by terrain effects.  In this post I'm interested in the effect of general's personalities on the way they handle the changing environment of a battlefield.

In some cases generals simply cannot get on with each other and are more keen to throw a spanner in the works than to support their colleagues.  This seems to be more of an issue in the alliances of disparate factions that come together to fight in a civil war than in wars between nation states or City States.  You only have to look at the personality clashes on both sides in the BCW to see this in action.  Goring and Prince Maurice comes to mind or  Independent and Presbyterian officers views on strategy on Parliament's side.

Another source of friction is the ability of a commander to take in the changing situation on a battlefield and react to these.  Some officers are simply 'hard of thinking' especially in periods where gaining higher command was a privilege of birth and not dependent on ability.  The level of confidence of a commander also plays a part.  Remember Hooker's famous statement in the ACW as to why he suddenly failed to push through with his strategy at Chancellorsville "To tell the truth, I just lost confidence in Joe Hooker"!

Orders are subject to interpretation too.  Prince Rupert famously interpreted King Charles orders for the relief of York as meaning that he was to bring the enemy to battle come what may.  In the same position I doubt the Earl of Essex would have viewed them in the same light.

If a set of rules can be created to handle the impact that these factors have on command decisions we have a start on friction resulting from General's personality traits.

I have used a rule in campaign games to restrict the number of subsidiary commanders or units one commander can control.  It was originally intended to prevent the situation were both sides assemble all of the available forces and fight one climactic battle which would kill the campaign off at one fell swoop.  It worked by giving each commander a 'command span' which was a number representing the number of sub commanders and/or units they could have under their control.  For my 2mm BCW rules I amended the rule it now is a measure of Command ability.  The rating is between 2 and 6 and represents how many new orders can be processed by that individual in each turn (representing 6 minutes of game time) and react to battlefield changes.  To some extent it is a measure of how fast they can handle change.  In each turn the commander has those points to spend (if required) unused points are not carried forward and the points are reset at the start of each turn.  Think of it as an allocation of thinking and reacting time. He can carry out command actions in any order the player wishes subject only to the timing of events arising.

There are three events which may need to be considered:

1.  Changes to the battlefield situation,  The commander is watching his command and sees a situation he needs to react to,
2. New orders are received from a superior commander
3. New orders are issued to a subordinate commander

Each consumes one of the commanders ability points.  So our little lead general has 4 command ability points and is commanding the Infantry centre with two subordinate commanders under his control.  The following events happen.

1. Orders are received from the CinC to commit his reserve Brigade.
2. He sees a risk to his command as enemy cavalry crest a rise on his flank.

His response is to first read the order he has received (cost 1 pt - 3 left).  He reacts to the sighting of the cavalry threat (cost 1 pt - 2 left).  Now he has to consider what commands to give with his remaining points.  He elects to order the commander of the reserve to change from hold to attack orders (1 pt- 1 left) and to order the commander of the second line to deal with the cavalry threat (1pt - 0 left).  If any other threats arise later in the turn he will not be able to respond at once as he is busy dealing with the other matters.

Another source of friction is to give an aggression or personality rating.  More aggressive commanders will react in a more aggressive way when a reaction test calls for their reaction adjustment to be used so an aggressive commander will add his factor a timid one will deduct it.  Lastly on determining when to change their command's orders from aggressive to defensive to withdrawal aggressive commands will consider the number of units still able to take aggressive action while timid ones will consider the number no longer able to take aggressive action.  This last is still more of a concept than a developed rule at the moment.  I need to play test it before finalising exactly how it will work.  Its part of the solution I'm edging towards for solving the ending the battle issue I posted about a while ago. 

The Great Civil War in Lancashire - researching for a campaign

I started doing some research about 10 days ago, which is why I haven't blogged so far in December.  I have pretty much settled on a map using point to point movement.  Each location will have an initial recruitment value and a replacements value.  This became feasible when I came across population estimates derived from Heath Tax records from 1662.

The hearth tax was an 17th century tax on wealth based upon the idea that the more fireplaces or stoves a household had the wealthier it must be.  It was first implemented after the Restoration.  Fortunately the National Archives holds the records for Lancashire from 1662.  They are at file ref E179/250/11 if anyone wants to take a look at them.  Sadly they have not yet been converted to a digital document so at some stage I need to visit the archives at Kew to obtain additional details. 

I came across these from B G Blackwood's 'The Lancashire Gentry in the Great Rebellion 1642 - 1660' (Chetham Society 1978) which I found parts of on line.  Blackwood used the Hearth Tax records to estimate the population of each of the Lancashire Hundreds and the larger towns within them, by assuming 4.5 people per household.  How he settled on a multiplier of 4.5 I have no idea, but as it derives from his university thesis I'm happy to accept that there was some logic behind it.  He further assumes that 20 years after the start of hostilities the population in Lancashire would have recovered from the deaths of the wars.  I'm happy to accept that theory as well if only due to the fact that no other equivalent records exist.  What he didn't do was publish his results for the smaller townships such as Garstang or Clitheroe which is why I'm planning a trip to the National Archives at Kew next time I'm in London.

Anyway that, coupled with the militia returns for 1639 (summarised  in Stephen Bull's book which I mentioned in the last post I published) gives me a start on the figures for estimating potential manpower.  The raw data is that the population of Lancashire was in the very close order of 150,000 with just under 17,000 living in communities of 1,000 people or more.  That breaks down as follows:

Hundred	Population
Salford	48,451.0
Blackburn	21,330.0
West Derby	31,207.0
Leyland	10,656.0
Amounderness	17,667.0
Lonsdale	21,357.0
	150,668.0

 
The major town's populations run between Manchester at 3,690 down to Lancaster at 949 souls.

So that's manpower and recruitment estimates in hand and if I look at the rest of the Hearth Tax data I should be able to set a threshold for the minimum size of township to represent on the map.  My default for that is likely to be 250 souls.  Adding any vital defensive sites and magazines mentioned in Broxup or Bull should fill out the rest of the map locations.  A bit of editing to ensure that the locations represented are spaced by travel time and the map is about there bar the art work which will probably be based on John Speed's map from 1610.

More next time on the supply, training and events generation system.