Review of Muskets and Tomahawks

 Last year, as a project to sort through armies that were not seeing much table action, I came across approximately 60 individual figures I had acquired during the late 1970’s. My first job after leaving school was located near Chelsea barracks and I used to meet a friend in Sloane Square/Kings Road for lunchtime pints. To my surprise a wargame shop was located on Lower Sloane Street, owned by Edward Suren and selling his Willie figures. These figures were totally different to the usual Minifigs I normally bought; they were 30mm, had a more correct physiology and were made from pewter rather than white metal. They were also very expensive, so I could only buy a few at a time! I used to spend many lunchtimes chatting to Edward and bought figures from his AWI range. I never had enough figures to use, so when I left London, they were put in a box and forgotten about.

In 2012 Studio Tomahawk released their skirmish rules set in 18^th century North America written by Alex Buchel & Fred Machu (Studio Tomahawk, 2012). I immediately saw the possibility of using these rules with my unemployed Willie figures and bought a set. The rules cover both the FIW and AWI conflicts, but it was clear that I needed a few more figures to play. Luckily figure design has moved during the last 40 years and now 28mm rather than 25mm predominates. Modern 28mm match very closely the 30mm scale used for Willie figures. I therefore bought and painted a range of figures to allow me to deploy balanced armies for both conflicts. Finally, as an additional bonus, 4Ground produced a range of excellent MDF building ideal for both conflicts!

I have now played many games against different opponents to test the rules. I have played 200 and 400 point armies for both conflicts, and all scenario types have been played. When playing against an opponent new to the rules, I have tended not to use the hidden movement rules to speed up play. I should also state I have not used the waterway or artillery rules, and none of my forces have included any mounted figures.

The rules are A4 size, staple bound, with black and white illustrations and diagrams. They are clearly written, logically structured and organised. The authors use a fictional character (Ranger sergeant Benjamin Bacon) to illuminate how specific, key rules work. There is a 1-sided quick reference sheet (QRS) which I found adequate for play, and on the reverse I listed special unit characteristics as a quick reminder. Finally there are ‘army lists’ to allow players to create their forces. In addition to the rule book, a set of cards (glossy, business card sized) is included and required for play.

The key feature of the rules is the use of cards to determine unit activation. Activation (move, shoot or reload) is determined on the units nationality and type, not individual unit i.e. French Regulars, British Provincials, Indians etc. Different unit types have different number of cards in the deck, giving different number of activations e.g. Regulars have 2 cards each giving 2 activations, whereas Indians have 4 cards each 1 activation. There also a few additional cards such as Morale and Forward Boys to add to the deck. The mechanics of the rules are very simple. Movement is 4” to 6” (natives moving faster), reduced for moving through terrain. Firing is a simple D6 per figure with score required adjusted by a few modifiers (e.g. range, cover etc.). Hits are converted into kills by the firepower rating for the weapon. Kills cause morale tests for units, again a simple D6 mechanism and with the results adjusted for the unit type (e.g. regulars are more reliable than militia etc.). Failed morale tests can cause a unit to recoil, flee or rout.

Although the basic rule mechanics are very simple, the beauty of the rules lies in the ‘chrome’ which is integral to a game of Muskets and Tomahawks. Units can have individual rule characteristics which allow them to behave in different ways e.g. Regulars may form a ‘Firing Line’ which boosts their morale and allows them to deliver devastating volleys, but makes them vulnerable to long range sniping; Some units are ‘Natives’ allowing them to move rapidly through terrain and exploit cover; Other units are ‘Elite’ allowing them to act on Forward Boys cards and reroll D6 scores of 1 in morale tests etc. These characteristics immediately add a depth and colour to the rules. The next item of ‘chrome’ is the random talents for officer figures e.g. will your officer lead from the front, or will he have enhanced melee abilities? There are also 6 different missions for your force, again dependent on the predominant unit type. So if you have a mainly Indian force you may get a ‘Slaughter’ mission, whereas if your force is Regular the mission is going to be less bloodthirsty!

The best bit of ‘chrome’ is the addition of ‘Side Plots’. The senior officer for each side randomly dices for a ‘Side Plot’, and there are 36 different possibilities. This Side Plot is kept secret from the opponent. It is possible to win the game by achieving the conditions of your main mission, only to find the result downgraded because your opponent has achieved his Side Plot. Of course, if you succeed with the objectives of both main mission and Side Plot you may claim a decisive victory. The addition of these Side Plots turns the wargame from a simple game into more of a story-telling experience and, I feel, works very well. In the last game I played I had a main mission of ‘Raid’ with a Side Plot of ‘Spy’. My opponent could not understand why my officer hung back, skulking in some woods. Although I achieved my main mission objective, my opponent did (just) spot my ‘Spy’ officer, nullifying my Side Plot objective. Meanwhile he did achieve his Side Plot (killing my Indian officer in close combat), so the result was a draw, rather than a victory for me!

Overall the rules are fast, fun and easy to play. Each new opponent I have played has rapidly picked up the rules mechanisms with little confusion. The QRS is all that is required and we rarely needed to refer to the main rulebook. The card activation mechanism is not unique but does work well, and I like the differing number of activations available. There are not many significant decisions to be made in the game but in a ‘light’ skirmish game like Muskets and Tomahawks this is not a detrimental factor. The use of hidden markers for certain troop types does add a little more complexity and thought. The simple rule mechanics are fine when all the added ‘chrome’ is taken into account, and troops do therefore act according to type. The strongest selling point for these rules is the ‘story-telling’ dimension resulting from the various missions and side plots. I have found all players enjoy and fully embrace this aspect of the game. In addition, the story-telling reduces the competitive edge, with players enjoying the game itself irrespective of the final result.

To conclude, these rules are excellent, enjoyable and ideal for quick games (2-3 hours) with new opponents within a wargame club setting. I can see they will enjoy continued use and have brought a new gaming life to my old 30mm Willie figures.

Review of Red Actions by The Perfect Captain

In my previous post I briefly outlined why the Russian Civil War (RCW) appeals to me. This post continues the RCW theme by looking at the rule set I normally use to game the period.

 

There are a few sets of wargame rules that can be used to game RCW, some of which I have tried, and others which I have merely read but not gamed. A good example of the second category would be ‘Back of Beyond’ which seems to me to be aimed at armies of individually mounted 28mm figures. My armies comprise 15mm figures produced by Peter Pig. I originally based my figures for use with Principle of War rules (TM Penn, 1995), because at the time my main wargaming opponent liked these rules for a wide range of different historical games. After only a couple of games we both rapidly agreed that these rules did not capture the feel of the RCW and the games simply degenerated into long range slugging matches with little or no fluid movement of the armies. My search for a replacement set of rules began. My first attempt was to adapt the game system of Piquet (2^nd Ed; Bob Jones, 1998). In many ways Piquet is a toolbox set of rules that facilitates this sort of approach. I worked out different sequence decks for all the major protagonists and tried, with limited success, to include the ‘modern’ technological developments of tanks, armoured cars etc. I hoped the large fluctuations in command control and unit performance would fit well with the vagaries of the RCW. The final result did work (I think) but I found Piquet works best as a solo rule set, and that in opposed games the random nature of the rules, especially the command initiative, can occasionally kill an individual game. Also, Piquet is a ‘Marmite’ set of rules, players either love or hate the game system, and this tends to make it unsuitable for open access, club games. I have since also tried Field of Battle (Brent Oman, 2006) which is very similar rule system but with the command initiative fluctuation toned down, but the ‘Marmite’ flavour was still off-putting to many players. As my armies comprised Peter Pig figures, it was logical to try their Square Bashing rules (RFCM, 1997) with the ‘Proletarians, to Horse!’ supplement (RFCM, 1998). I found these rules gave a reasonable game but lacked the historical colour and fluidity I was searching for. I have played the more recent 2^nd edition rules (RFCM, 2012) using 1914 WW1 forces and liked them a lot but, although I have not tried them for RCW battles, I suspect they will again fail for the same reasons as the earlier edition. RFCM also produce a set of rules for modern African wars (AK47 Republic, 1^st Ed, RFCM, 1997) and I have downloaded a variant to convert their use to RCW games. I have yet to try them but think they might be interesting and work OK.

 

In the midst of my search I came across Red Actions by The Perfect Captain, a Canadian group of wargamers. These are a free set of rules published on the web (perfectcaptain.50megs.com) specifically targeted to the Russian Civil War. Although they are nominally free, they will cost a substantial amount when taking into account all the print cartridges required for printing. This cost is well worthwhile because the graphics are truly excellent. It would be possible to simply collate the stats for all the different units into a simple, cheap spreadsheet but this would negate one of the great attractions of the rules. The rules themselves are fairly simple and are written in a question/answer format in a style that reflects the context of the RCW and this again adds a tremendous amount of flavour. All the elements of the war are present; different unit types, different weapons, tanks, armoured cars, tchankas, Bolshevik commissars, plus armoured trains, aircraft  etc. The basic unit structure is the company each comprising 2-6 bases or platoons. Different unit types have different stats reflecting their movement, firing, elan, rally, panic etc. plus any special characteristics. Each company has a named officer (randomly drawn chit) whose individual characteristics can modify the unit stats. Heavy weapons (MG, artillery, armoured vehicles etc.) are single base units lacking an officer. The game turn uses an IGOUGO structure on an alternating unit basis. One of the major decisions faced by players is which units to activate, when, and in what order. Some actions can trigger an automatic reaction from an opposing enemy unit. Firing and combat inflict ‘Terror’ (which can be rallied) and ‘Humiliation’ (which is permanent) effects. Units rout if the number of Terror/Humiliation markers exceed the number of stands of the company. Simple morale tests are taken to enable units to rally, to charge an enemy, to receive a charge etc. As well as joy to behold, these rules work very smoothly using a QRS with little recourse to the rulebook itself. They are enjoyable and are easy to teach to gamers new to the period.

 

I have played many (100’s) of games using Red Actions. Most of the games I play are fairly small and use forces of 100-200 points per side. This is because I like the battlefield not to be too cluttered with units but to have space on the flanks for mounted troops to operate. I have not used armoured trains very much (they cost too much e.g. 70-100 points), so I cannot comment on how well the rules work for them. Overall I can find little to fault with the rules but there are some subtle nuances that new players fail to grasp in their first few games and I hope the following points may be of use:

• Machineguns (and tchankas) can appear to be devastating but because they cannot rally, they are fragile. Try to use them at long range so they are not exposed to danger unnecessarily.
• Troops can shoot at full effect and then move. If you don’t plan to close with the enemy then use ‘evasive’ movement to reduce casualties. Don’t get fixated about shooting. Charging a poor quality enemy company often results in them routing before they can even fire at you.
• Rally off ‘Terror’ markers as soon as possible because they become more and more difficult to remove as they accumulate. But don’t become obsessed by this action because it can seriously bog down your plans and surrender the initiative to your opponent.
• Players (particularly White commanders) frequently allow their elite units to get into fire fights. Although these elite units are slightly better shots, this tactic whittles away their strength. They are best used aggressively. The ‘Shock’ characteristic (forgoing a retire result by losing a stand instead) may seem drastic but can allow you to launch charges in the next turn which can devastate a weaker enemy.
• Artillery is the best (only) defence against tanks, but if you lack this defence then all is not lost. You can still easily win by taking out the enemy supporting troops (the tank will have soaked up a large number of enemy points). Armoured cars are better value (and more common) but are vulnerable to MG fire at short range.

Finally, I think the key to using these rules is to have fun, not take things too seriously, accept the vagaries of luck, and trust in revolution/mother Russia or whatever cause your faction is backing.

Why game the Russian Civil War?

The hundredth anniversary of the First World War (WW1) has stimulated considerable interest in both the general public and wargaming communities. Unfortunately from the gaming perspective the war is dominated by the slaughter on the Western front where the full horrors of the industrialisation of military technology overwhelmed the military thinking of all the major powers. An all too familiar pattern of massive artillery bombardment followed by frontal attacks on heavily fortified positions resulted in high casualties with little practical gain. This is not an inspiring subject to wargame. There are some areas of WW1 gaming that are interesting to game; aerial warfare is at its most individualistic, whilst naval warfare revolved around surface fleet actions without the dominating influence of aircraft. For land warfare you can opt for the more obscure theatres such as Mesopotamia or East Africa, and even the battles in the Autumn of 1914 on both West and East fronts are gaming possibilities. But, the main, enduring image is of stagnant trench lines and the muddy, crated strewn battlefields of Verdun and the Somme.

Contrary to the popular view, the armistice of November 1918 did not see the end of warfare in Europe. The bloody and vicious Russian Civil War continued into the early 1920’s. This particularly nasty war does provide a great opportunity for wargaming, and I will try to highlight the reasons why I am especially interested:

- The socio-political impact of the war radically changed both European and world cultures, and shaped and coloured the whole of 20^th century history. Great figures such as Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin emerged who would dominate world politics for decades. I would recommend the following books that cover this particularly well: A People’s Tragedy by Orlando Figes (Pimlico, 1996) and The Russian Civil War by Evan Mawdsley (Birlinn, 1987).

-The war was fought over a vast geographical area too big to allow static fortifications to play a significant role. Fortified trench lines were used on occasion e.g. Wrangel’s defence of the Crimea, but these were the exceptions rather than the rule. Actions can be undertaken in the wooded, steep Urals, or the open expanse of the Steppe. The war raged in the wintery Arctic and Siberia down to the desert heat of the southern Islamic regions. A good, short overview of the military flow of the war is provided in The Russian Civil War 1918-22 by David Bullock (Osprey, 2008).

-The core of most armies remained the khaki-clad infantryman supported by heavy machineguns, but units carried flags into battle which is an attraction for any wargamer. There were also more exotically dressed units; the Officer and coloured units in the white AFSR army, the Naval and Cheka units in the Bolshevik armies, the Czech Legion, and of course the national dress of the various Cossack hosts.

-Armies still fielded cavalry which conducted sabre-welding charges as well as fulfilling a mounted infantry role. The Caucasian and Cossack armies on the steppe are examples of cavalry heavy forces, and these armies fielded machineguns mounted on carts (tchancka) for mobile close support.

-Due to the vast distances, the rail and river network was strategically vital and this lead to innovations such as armoured trains and gunboats. Also modern military technology was employed in small packets; ex-WW1 tanks were supplied by western powers to the whites, armoured cars (many Russian produced) were commonly found, and aircraft played a minor role.

-The war was fought on many fronts and the armies varied considerably between fronts. This is one of the features that most attracts me to the conflict: The Armed Forces of Southern Russia (AFSR) fielded Officer and Coloured elite regiments. The Caucasian army was centred on its Cossacks. In the Caucasus’s themselves interventions by the Turks or British Empire forces can be gamed. The Czech Legion was at the heart of the early KOMUCH army, and later operated as a semi-independent army. Kolchak’s Siberian army fought from the Urals to Siberia and had many diverse elements. Also in Siberia you could field Americans based around Vladivostok, or Japanese operating from Manchuria. British and American forces supported the Whites in the Russian Arctic. Revolutionary Finland is a totally confused area of operation. The Baltic region offers great diversity of forces; in addition to the Whites, there were Estonians, Latvians and German Freicorps. Poland emerged as a significant force towards the end of the conflict, and various Ukrainian ‘states’ came and went. In the Pripet marshes and in the South-East Ukraine large Anarchist armies fought, while around Odessa there was a failed French intervention. In all theatres Red and White partisans operated. The Bolshevik Red army also changed over time. The early war Red Guards were little more than armed mobs. Trotsky’s reforms changed the army into a more ‘regular’ structure and his creation of the Red Army proper was key to the survival and success of the Bolshevik revolution.

Overall I feel the Russian Civil War offers a wonderful opportunity to the wargamer with great diversity and colour within armies that can fight over equally diverse terrain.

AAR NK Egypt v Hittite; Impetus

After Action Report; New Kingdom Egyptians versus Hittites (Impetus rules) 28 Sept 2014

The purpose of my after action reports are not to give a detailed, blow-by-blow account of a particular wargame, but rather to appraise the effectiveness of the rule set used, and the lessons to be learnt from the tactical plans employed.

Both armies in this game were supplied by myself and comprised 450 points using 15mm figures from a range of manufacturers. The rules to be used were Impetus (Lorenzo Sartori; Dadi&Piombo, 2008). My opponent, Ian, and myself are very familiar with the Impetus rules and both agree that they give a very satisfactory and enjoyable gaming experience. The primary aim of this game was to explore how well the rules covered the unique feel of late bronze age chariot warfare. To help facilitate this we both agreed to fight over a flat, open battlefield that featured only a couple of low gentle hills. Both armies had 3 generals, all rated as ‘fair’.

I commanded the Egyptians and my army comprised a large body of good quality infantry (mix of spearmen and archers), a few units of bow armed skirmishers, and 5 units of good light chariots. The Hittites had a numerical superiority of chariots (8 units), that included some heavier chariots. They also had a large body of infantry but these were lighter and poorer than the Egyptians.

I was nominated as the defender and therefore deployed first. I choose to deploy in a fairly classical manner with my chariots on either flank and an infantry dominated centre. I expected Ian to deploy a chariot heavy command of one of his flanks (which he did) but I could not predict which flank this would be. Even if I had concentrated my chariots to match his deployment, I would still be significantly outnumbered. My plan was to use my numerically weaker chariots to slow his advance by shooting and evading, allowing me time to rapidly advance my infantry and overpower his central command.

Ian did deploy all his chariots on my right flank, and unfortunately my battle plan rapidly fell apart. On the first turn I tried to activate my crucial right flank commander and threw double 1, which caused the commander to drop from ‘fair’ to ‘poor’ quality. On turn 2, amazingly I again threw double 1 for my right flank commander, dropping him down to ‘incompetent’ quality. Both armies were beginning to close with each other, and the next turn would be crucial. The importance of winning the initiative on my right flank was clear to both of us, and I was at a clear disadvantage due to the reduction in quality of my general. This time I threw a double 4, and because of the incompetence of the general, any double meant that his command failed to activate on that turn. The Hittite chariots smashed into my forces who were unable to react or evade, and as a consequence my command shattered and routed. Elsewhere on the battlefield, my left flank force did prevail over the small opposing command of Anatolian allies and routed them, but I took a surprising amount of damage in doing so (my dice rolling was poor throughout the whole game). In the centre my good quality infantry were only just getting into a position to attack his infantry, and again due to poor dice I did not inflict significant casualties with my archers. Now, because of the collapse of my right flank, I had to re-align some of my units to meet the chariot threat, whilst at the same time trying to inflict some rapid victories before my whole army broke. The only hope was to gamble that a couple of rash, unsupported charges would lead to a breakthrough in the centre. There was no reversal of luck, and my attacks failed; the left flank general was killed and my army broke.

This was a crushing, decisive victory for the Hittites commanded by Ian. With hindsight I can see that I was facing defeat from the very start because of poor deployment decisions, and although I did throw some unbelievably bad dice, I don’t think I can lay any blame on poor luck. The double downgrading of my right flank general and his subsequent failure to activate (approx 1:8000 probability) certainly did not help matters. The open battlefield did the Egyptians no favour; a few bits of difficult terrain would have helped to hinder the deployment and movement of the key Hittite chariot wing. My flank commands were too weak and needed to be bolstered by some solid infantry, which would have given my outnumbered chariots some protection. Regarding the testing of the Impetus chariot rules; I have to conclude that this battle failed to shed any light! The lack of hindering terrain allowed the Hittite chariots to move directly against me with no awkward manoeuvres required. In fact, the heavy chariots forming the Hittite second line never changed direction in the entire battle (nor were they engaged in any combat). My plan to shoot ‘n’ scoot with my light chariots also failed to occur due to the generals’ failure to activate! The one error I made with my chariots was on the other flank where I charged the opposing Anatolian foot rather than shoot at them, which would have been just as effective but would have risked little or no casualties in return. This clearly demonstrates how pressure on one part of the battlefield can distract a player making decisions on a quieter sector!

To conclude, although this wargame did not show off the chariot rules within Impetus, and it resulted in a major defeat for myself, a good enjoyable game resulted that was played to a conclusion in roughly 2.5 hours. For myself, Impetus remains the go to rule set for both Ancient and early Renaissance wargaming. Another game is planned in the near future, this time focussing on the use of the Schiltron in Feudal Scots armies during the time of ‘Braveheart’ and the ‘Bruce’ (rather