AAR; Seljuk vs Early Crusader (S&S); 2June2021

It is 9 months since I last played an opposed wargame, so it was with great pleasure that I was invited around to Ian’s for my first game in 2021. We were playing Sword and Spear using his nicely painted Seljuk Turks versus early Crusaders. A dice roll determined that I would take the Seljuks, which would be interesting because I have very little experience with predominant light horse armies.

Ian narrowed the battlefield by placing a river, cutting off a quarter of the table, a placing a large gentle hill on which to sit his infantry. Otherwise the table was fairly bare. It was clear to me from the start that I would avoid mixing it with the Crusader spears and crossbows, instead I would manoeuvre on both flanks and utilise my better movement and archery. The major problem I faced was his heavy knights whose impact could be crushing! The initial turns saw his knights advance against my harassing horse archers, who were gradually forced back on to my supporting cavalry reserves. The Crusader knights followed up, but I had allowed a gap between my horse archers which enabled a single unit of Turkish cavalry to charge the knights. The Turks survived and effectively pinned both units of knights in place. My flanking horse archers could now swarm the knights and first one, then the other Crusader units were destroyed. At this point the battle seemed to be going to the Turks.

Ian now advanced his infantry forces to support the remaining unit of knights, who were now able to attack the Turks before they could reorganise themselves after the melee. A few units of horse archers were effectively trapped and destroyed, and some supporting Turkish infantry also died. The victorious Crusader knights pursued and were halted by the remaining Turkish heavy cavalry, and then destroyed by a poor quality Bedouin cavalry I had in reserve. At this point both armies passed their demoralisation points (i.e. a third lost), but my Turks were in the stronger position because a single unit of horse archers had finally circled the enemy and was attacking the Crusader camp. In the next couple of turns they destroyed the camp and a supporting unit of peasant pilgrims, which took the Crusaders over their defeat point total.

So, victory to the Seljuk Turks! This was a close, hard fought game that took almost 5 hours to complete. The light Turk forces have to manoeuvre carefully and avoid head-to-head conflict in order to allow their heavier supports to intervene at the correct moment. On reflection I think I did this well and I did not allow Ian’s knights to benefit from their ‘impact’ ability. I was concerned about the Crusader infantry moving forward and for this reason I sent a couple to light horse units forward on the other flank, beyond the river, to ‘pin’ at least some of the infantry. I think, with hindsight, that  Ian should have moved his infantry forward earlier, holding back his knights for a turn or two, because I had nothing to counter such a move. Crossbows can be deadly!

Overall, I am pleased with a victory and really enjoyed this game. Hopefully a rematch can be arranged soon. Thank you Ian for providing a great game, lunch and photos.

Boardgame Session; May 2021

The start of May was dominated by a prolonged session of ‘Roll for the Galaxy’. We had not played this for at least a year and had forgotten how good a game it is. It has a nice blend of thoughtful strategy mixed with a fair degree of luck with all the dice rolls. The game is also fast, taking roughly 30 minutes, so re-matches happen immediately.

 

Next, I received a delayed Christmas present of ‘Castles of Tuscany’, the Stefan Feld sequel to the classic ‘Castles of Burgundy’ (one of our all-time favourites). The obvious question is how similar are the two games? They are both are (1) tile laying (2) moving tiles from a common area into a holding area before placing on the individual player boards (3) scoring points for completed zones of identical tiles, with effectively more points for early completion (4) gaining a tile specific bonus when laying a tile (5) lack of any meaningful theme. There are some significant differences (1) no dice, instead using cards to place tiles (2) reduced options compared to Burgundy (3) faster set-up and playing time (roughly half to a third compared to Burgundy). So, is the game sufficiently different to be considered a unique game? I would say, ‘Yes’, just! But I feel it is not as good as Burgundy, and I think Tuscany has a major flaw in its design i.e. no catch-up mechanism. If at the end of the first round, a player trails by more than 1 or 2 points, then the chances of final victory are minimal. This is because first round points are effectively worth triple, when compared to those earned in the third and final round. Also, the green track is not re-set between rounds, so not only do you trail on the red (final) victory track, but you start the next round already trailing the early leader on the green track. I have yet to see a way that a player can set themselves up for a rapid, late game come-back. I am considering trying a house rule to remedy the situation: trailing players receive a bonus card for each point that they trail by at the end of each round. This would provide a small boost for the trailing players, but should not be an overwhelming bonus.

The month was finished when Val and Chris called round for a social gaming afternoon. We started with ‘Mariposas’ (the 4p game is no different to the 2p game), then ‘The King is Dead’ (a small game that packs a punch when it comes to strategy), and finally ‘Citadels’ (a classic game that is always fun, even with the ‘got you’ element). It was really great to get back playing again!

Thoughts on Battle Group NORTHAG rules

My 6mm Cold War forces (BAOR, US and Soviet) were bought back in 1980, just before I went off to university for the first time. They have made infrequent appearances on the tabletop, usually only when I purchase a potential new rule set covering the Cold War period. Initially I played using the Armoured Warfare 1950-75 rules (WRG, 1974) and the 2^nd edition (WRG, 1979) that extended the dateline to 1985. I seem to remember enjoying many games using these rules. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s a few new rules sets appeared; Corps Commander/OMG (Bruce Rea-Taylor, 1986), Command Decision (Frank Chadwick, 1992), Challenger 2000 (Rea-Taylor & Connor, 1992). Of these, I particularly liked Corps Commander/OMG and I spent many hours reorganising and basing my forces. The games played were enjoyable but rather long, and entailed considerable book-keeping (each model/unit had a strength value and deployment mode etc.). As a result, the game was not ‘club-friendly’ and could only be gamed at home as an all-day affair. The toys went back into their boxes for the next decade! The release of Cold War Commander (Pendraken, 2006) reinvigorated my interest in the period. They played much faster than other rule sets, had an interesting command/control mechanism, required little book-keeping and were very user friendly. These rules have remained my ‘go-to’ Cold War rules since, but games using the armies were still infrequent. Recently, it seems, the period has again become the focus of rules writers e.g. the publishers of Flames of War(FoW), Battlefront, released Team Yankee (TY). I was tempted by TY but resisted because, (1) I’m not a fan of FoW, and (2) the focus was on the 2^nd generation Cold War forces of the late 1980’s i.e. Abrams, Challengers, T80s, AH-64 Apache, Bradley’s etc. My forces were earlier 1^st generation types i.e. M60, Chieftain, T62 etc. and I was not going to buy more lead upgrading. In the last couple of years, I have bought two new rule sets that have come on the market: Seven Days to the River Rhine (SDTTRR) (Great Escape Games, 2019) and Battlegroup NORTHAG (BG-N) (PSC, 2020). Both rule sets cover the early 1980’s period of the Cold War, which is perfect for me! I have yet to try SDTTRR but from a read through I think these rules definitely require an opponent and would not work solo, so until lockdown ceases they will have to remain on the shelf.

I have tried a couple of solo games using BG-N. Before I give my thoughts on these rules I strongly recommend the reader to look at my earlier post on Battle Group Kursk/Overlord (Oct 2016), because all my comments (much more detailed) remain pretty much true with this modern version of the rules. The strength of these rules lies in the speed and simplicity of play; games fairly rattle along. The orders section is straight forward and I like the option to generate a random number of orders rather than going for a set number. I use poker chips to keep track of orders and their use. The ‘platoon’ and ‘company’ orders are vital to getting your forces into position. The ‘react’ orders appear to be great, but I found them to only be useful if you have a spare (quiet) turn to utilise them. Movement is fine (for my 6mm forces I used cm rather than inches) but infantry are slow, so you need to get them close before debussing. Therefore choosing the best (safest) route to the jump-off point is important as full APC’s are a juicy target! The combat mechanism is again smooth and fast, modern weaponry is deadly so the battlefield soon becomes littered with smoking wrecks. The Chieftain’s were particularly nasty, hitting and killing nearly every time, whereas the T-62’s were less efficient. Infantry proved to be difficult to eliminate and hard to shift from BUA’s, which were often battlefield objectives. Indirect (artillery) fire was also effective, but positioning of your FO’s is vital, so they have a good line of sight that ‘fits’ with your battle plan. Like the WW2 version of the rules there is no smoke options, which I find very strange! I really like the BR rating system for determining the outcome of the game, and in BG-N the taking of objectives has more significance on the result. The BAOR tank depletion rule also forces the British player to be more cautious with their MBT forces. The accumulation of random chits means the opponent is guessing about your morale and the occasional event chip can be important. From the games I played I quickly learnt that the ‘Forward Screen’ forces need to be fairly substantial, you will need recce units and some mechanised infantry to take and hold objectives, it is best to get your FO’s placed early, and it is important to have some air defence in place. In my first game a Hind helicopter gunship appeared early and the BAOR forces had nothing to counter it for the first four game turns! In my games I did not use close air support, so I cannot comment on the impact aircraft have (I look forward to trying them out). I cannot see myself using the Chemical or Nuclear options.

Overall, I enjoyed playing BG-N, much more than I enjoyed BG-K/O (I’m not quite sure why?). I’m undecided about whether these rules will take over from Cold War Commander as my preferred ‘modern’ rule set, I need more games to be sure. I look forward to the release of BG-Centag and the US lists. I would like to see some second line WARPAC forces included, with T-55’s maybe? When social gaming returns I plan to try the SDTTTRR rules.

Wargaming; April 2021

Wargaming has taken a bit of a backseat for the last few months; my garage/table is freezing in Winter (so, no gaming) and I’ve finished painting my lead pile and have not been inspired to start a new project! But Spring is here and I’m keen to get started again.

I began by rewriting some generic army lists for all my Ancient and Medieval/Renaissance forces for both Impetus v2 (Imp2), and Sword and Spear (S&S) rules, to enable me to quickly pick-up and play. This was due to the release of the ‘new’ Impetus v2 Warbook volume 1, which covers the periods up to, and including, the Punic Wars. My standard army size for 15mm forces is 400 points (with 3 commands), and for 28mm forces only 300 points (as a single command). The new lists in the Impetus Warbook do differ a bit from the earlier lists, but they seem fine to me, except the authors do favour ‘large’ units. For example, I’m not sure I like my Greek hoplites to deploy in ‘large’ phalanx-like units; this will make the army stronger on the table but it just does not look right! Of course it is not compulsory to field ‘large’ units and as I’m not a competitive gamer, I can ignore this option (anyway, I prefer to play with S&S rules when using my Greeks because I feel the game is more interesting than when using Imp2).

Next I decided to refresh my knowledge of the Imp2 rules by playing a few solo games using my 28mm armies that have been in their boxes for too long. I played two Great Italian Wars battles followed by two Samurai battles (sorry, no photos taken). In the first game the Florentines were defeated by Pisan forces; main lesson was that militia pike are rubbish. In the next game an early French army took on Neapolitan Spanish, who I thought would struggle to oppose the twin threat of Gendarmes and Swiss pike. The first phase of the battle confirmed the issue, with the Swiss driving forward and forcing the Spanish foot to retreat, and the Gendarmes smashing some Italian knights before running into some Spanish knights. At this point, with the Spanish only 1 point away from demoralisation, the Dice Gods intervened! The Swiss pursuit failed to maintain contact and a second Spanish foot counter-charged their disorganised mass and massacred them. The Gendarmes were surprisingly held by the weaker Spanish, who then with the help of some flanking Genitors routed the French nobility. Suddenly from a winning position, the French army collapsed! I really enjoyed both games and like the way Imp2 plays out. My Samurai games were both close fought, bloody affairs. Neither army had obvious weak units, and this resulted in a bit of a slogging match, with the key to victory being the positioning and timing of reinforcing units.

A week or so later I decided to continue to use some of my armies that have not seen much action recently and play a couple of games of AK-47. I was undecided about whether I preferred the new AK-47 Reloaded over the older AK-47 Republic edition? I therefore decided to play the first game with old AK-47, then the next with the newer AK-47RL rules, both featuring a Dictator force versus a Peoples Revolution force on the same table layout. Rather than describe the action, I will instead discuss how the new AK-47RL rules work compared to their older predecessor: I like the expanded range of forces available. The pregame sequence is more complex compared to the old ‘political flow chart’ mechanism, but it still works well and is easy to follow. As a house rule, I would prevent carry-over in to a following week (this will mean nothing to people who have not played AK-47RL). In the game itself, AK-47RL has a lot more going on and is significantly more complex, and is therefore slower to play. The numerous markers employed can get overlooked and forgotten. The group of 3 rule for infantry and swapping of stands within units is a bit clunky; and the 1-2 base separation between groups awkward to maintain. The core combat mechanism is constant in both sets of rules (thankfully) and is ingenious, although the ‘doubles’ rule is easy to overlook! I really like the use of ‘assets’ and the late arrive of reserves and re-enforcements. In conclusion, I think the new AK-47RL rules are better for opposed games where two brains at the table helps and, additionally, each player can focus primarily on the actions of their own forces. For a solo experience AK-47RL is too intricate, and I would prefer to use the simpler, more free-flowing, open-ended original AK-47.

Boardgame Session; March 2021

March has seen various boardgame ‘classics’ return to the table: ‘Carcassonne’, ‘Castles of Burgundy’ etc. The only new game was ‘Hardback’ which Elaine received for her birthday. Elaine enjoys word based puzzles and games, and we already have ‘Paperback’ also published by Tim Fowers Games.

We were interested to see if ‘Hardback’ was significantly different from ‘Paperback’, or whether it was simply a derivative game. Both games are deck-building word games, but ‘Hardback’ does feel significantly unique to make it stand apart. In ‘Hardback’ any card can be used as a wild by playing it face-down. This makes formation of words easier, but wilds don’t yield the benefits of the card. To form words longer than your hand size of 5, you use ink markers to add extra cards/letters but these have to be used in your word and cannot be converted to wilds (there are also ‘Tipex’ markers to cancel the ‘ink’ restrictions). Additional cards can be bought to add to your deck, each giving different benefits, and these fall into 4 ‘genres’. Using 2 cards from the same genre in your word yields bonus benefits. ‘Hardback’ is a race to 60 prestige points, so it is easier to see your progress compared to opponents, whereas in ‘Paperback’ scoring is more hidden and the game length variable. The game comes with a few expansion rules etc., we have yet to make up our minds which work best and which we will avoid. Overall, I think ‘Hardback’ is a nice addition to our games collection and is sufficiently different to ‘Paperback’.