I had never played any of the Portable Wargame series before although I have followed the progress of the project with interest and I have looked at his Colonial Wars rules too, which look pretty good. I have also always wanted to give his SCW rules which were published years ago in Wargames Illustrated a go at some point There are four distinct games within the book, but the only one that suits my existing set-up without at least a little modification was the final game: the Big Battle rules, since that used a board of roughly 8-9x8-9 squares or hexes and single base units. There is an example battle in the book, "The Battle of Twee Heuvels", which features an Allied Corps facing a French Corps in Belgium 1815 and since I have all the becessary forces, I selected that for my first test.
The Forces:
The French Corps:
C-in-C: Marshal Gerard
3 x Infantry Divisions each of 3 Brigades (2 divisions are of 'Average' quality the other is 'Poor')
1 x Cavalry Division of 2 Brigades
1 x Artillery unit
The Allied Corps:
C-in-C: Gen Harman
1 x Infantry Division (1 x Veteran brigade, 2 x Average brigades)
1 x Infantry Divsion (1 x Veteran brigade, 2 x Poor brigades)
1 x Infantry Division (3 x Average brigades)
1 x Cavalry Bde (Poor)
1 x Artillery unit
The Battle:
The hills are the two-square offset tiles in the centre, with the farm in between them. |
Another view. The Allies are to enter from the North (top), the French from the South (bottom). |
Gen Harman and some Hanoverian cavalry enter. |
Another shot. |
Bourgogne's Cavalry Division enters, with Marshal Gerard looking on (bottom) |
The first French infantry division arrives |
Bourgogne's French cavalry has pushed on through the farm (centre) and is facing the Hanoverian cavalry plus Crook's Allied infantry division (top) |
The Hanoverian cavalry put in a flank attack on the French cuirassiers (centre) |
Having been forced back, the French Cavalry are then able to put in a flank attack on the Hanoverian cavalry on the high ground, which destroys them |
The French cavalry charge up the hill to attack a Hanoverian infantry brigade; the Allied artillery has finally arrived (top) |
The French foot and guns move up to support the French cavalry attack |
French infantry force the Hanoverians out of the farm (right); Kemp's Dutch brigade have moved closer to support Crook's hard-pressed infantry (left) |
The Allies re-occupy the farm, whilst the combat still ranges along the line... |
Not put off, Marbot's infantry storm the farm again and once again its Hanoverian defenders are destroyed in the process... |
Continuous French bombardment has also destroyed the leading Brunswick Bde in von Gow's division... |
Coignet's Division has moved up and launched an attack on the Allied left! However, Marbot has lost two brigades to Allied counter-attacks around the farmhouse... |
Position at the end of the battle |
Command problems are simulated by using orders (a simple written instruction or a counter) and a die roll to simulate whether the formation or individual base acts upon that order, with the chances of doing so reducing the further away from the commander. Movement is very simple and quick - the prime benefit of using a gridded system. Combat is based on a single modified D6 roll per side, which is mercifully fast. Interestingly these rolls are not opposed but are independent: each side is rolling to see if it suffers casualties. The modifiers are certainly arguable and in practice having immediate support and a general present were sufficient to ward off most disadvantageous circumstances. Controversially (unless I am missing something) the most effective way of attacking entrenched infantry is with massed cavalry (!). Whilst a clever mechanism, I am not sure how far I agree with it. Troop quality is mainly reflected in how much punishment troops can take: poorer quality troops suffer heavier losses more easily and become hors de combat sooner. There is very little other 'chrome' in the basic rules: no light infantry, no 'classes' of cavalry or artillery, no differentiation of 'quality' for generals, although the author positively encourages tinkering and adaptation.
There were a couple of situations where I didn't understand the rules. It wasn't clear to me what to do if a base moved adjacent to enemies occupying two or more different squares. I didn't understand if a unit 'initiated' combat each turn it fought, or only in the first turn of combat (combats typically last more than a single round). Did units have to fight in subsequent turns where they remained adjacent? Can units retreat to a flank? Can cavalry units withdraw from a combat then attack the same unit in the flank in the same turn? If a commander is with a unit that is destroyed but is himself uninjured, what happens - can he be fought or shot at? It wasn't always clear to me in the rules when they were referring to the commanding general and when to all of the generals.
The rules are easy to read and generally clear. I wish I had had access to a ruleset like this when I was starting out: they show a satisfying way to do big battles without needing lots of resources. On first look, they appeal to me more than Neil Thomas' similar offerings, since the author really tries to capture, in very simple but effective and playable form, the kind of things that Napoleonic generals might think about it at a defined level of play. Neil Thomas, in my opinion, is by contrast an author in the Charles Grant tradition: he creates a refined small-scale model in which 5 battalions do the work of 15, so the tabletop general is a kind of hybrid between an army, a corps/wing and a division commander at once. I am looking forward to exploring these rules further. The author makes clear his debt to the late Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun rules and although the debt is clear, I think Bob Cordery's rules are actually better, at least in terms of playability and logic.
Figures by Baccus 6mm, buildings by Leven.
Thanks for your early insights into the recently released rules, especially as you come from the direction of Polemos. Really like your textured board.
ReplyDeleteThat old thing? Knocked it up from some spare flock, static grass and an old Monopoly board in an hour...
DeleteSeriously, many thanks. I will try to get a few more game of this set in in the near future, plus a go at a couple of the other sets of rules within the book. I think I will need to do a little bit of re-basing to make them work first.
Thank you for your very balanced review of my rules. I will try to answer the questions you pose as soon as I can.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime e, I hope you have a chance to try the other rules in the book.
All the best,
Bob
You are very welcome - your book looks very interesting with some stimulating designs in there. I am looking forward to playing some more games when I get the chance.
DeleteAll the best
John
I hope that the following Q & A is of assistance:
DeleteQ. There were a couple of situations where I didn't understand the rules.
A. I hope that the following will make things clearer.
Q. It wasn't clear to me what to do if a base moved adjacent to enemies occupying two or more different squares.
A. In the lower-level rules in the book, I state that it is a matter of choice which of the enemy units the moving unit turns to face. I felt that it was up to the commander of the moving unit to decide, but did not state this specifically in the Big Battle rules.
Q. I didn't understand if a unit 'initiated' combat each turn it fought, or only in the first turn of combat (combats typically last more than a single round).
A. If side A moves a unit into contact with an enemy unit and Close Combat takes place, side A has initiated that combat. When it is side B’s turn to activate units and a second round of combat takes place, side B is deemed to have initiated it … and so on.
Q. Did units have to fight in subsequent turns where they remained adjacent?
A. Units do not have to continue fighting during their turn if they do not wish to BUT if they are still adjacent when it is the other side’s turn, the enemy might well choose to resume the fighting.
Q. Can units retreat to a flank?
A. I assume that you are asking if a unit can move sideways when it is forced to retreat? If so, then the answer is no, it cannot. I have not specifically stated this because to me retreat means to fall back or retire, neither of which implies a sideways movement. That said, I’d leave that interpretation up to the individual players because there may well be occasions where a sideways movement might be the only option open to the retreating unit.
Q. Can cavalry units withdraw from a combat then attack the same unit in the flank in the same turn?
A. Yes, they can … just as a unit that has been forced to retreat during one turn can charge forward and re-engage the enemy the next time it is activated. They will, however, require orders to do so.
Q. If a commander is with a unit that is destroyed but is himself uninjured, what happens - can he be fought or shot at?
A. If a commander/subordinate commander is with a unit that is destroyed but he remains unharmed, he can be attacked if he does not move to a place of safety. (In all the play-testing, this never happened!)
Q. It wasn't always clear to me in the rules when they were referring to the commanding general and when to all of the generals.
A. I’ve tried to ensure that in most cases the term commander applies to the commanding general and subordinate commander to the figure commanding a unit or group of figure bases. Therefore, the commanding general issues orders and the subordinate commanders act on them.
I hope that the above clarifies the situation.
Many thanks for taking the time to do that Bob, I very much appreciate it.
DeleteJust to clarify the "retreat" question, a French unit advanced past the farm, which was then occupied by a second French unit (and thus there was no space left in the square). The lead unit was attacked on both sides and got a retreat result. The only empty adjacent square therefore was then to the French unit's right flank. I ruled at the time it could not retreat, since it was moving away from its comrades and baseline. However, I can imagine circumstances when it might have been reasonable to do so.
You seem to have completely understood the basic concepts behind how I wanted the rules to work. You have adjudicated the situation outlined above exactly as I would have done.
DeleteAll the best,
Bob
Good review and play-through. I especially enjoyed your design style comparison and contrast with Cordery, Grant, Thomas, and Griffith.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jonathan.
DeleteI find grouping rules and rules writers into informal "families" helps me to see the linkages between the concepts in certain sets. It is an over-simplified picture of course but it identifies certain currents in approaches to wargames design.
Cataloging and categorizing author attributes into a matrix for comparison purposes might be an interesting exercise. I think results would be enlightening.
DeleteI may get round to doing this at some point...
DeleteFantastic, Jim, thanks for the batrep and review, and so quick! I was just perusing these on the internet yesterday, I think you’ve given me a shove.
ReplyDeleteV/R,
Jack
And John, my apologies, somehow I put Jim in. I’m blaming my phone! ;)
DeleteV/R,
Jack
Null sweat...
DeleteI think you might like these, they are very simple but gave a good game. There are other rules in there too which would suit your basing schemes as well.
Interesting post and discussion. The board looks nice but gives the impression of wargames mixed with checkers. Not necessarily a bad thing but different, and probably comes with the design of boardgame elements included in a miniature game. 😀
ReplyDeleteYes, you are quite right. If you have a look at Bob Cordery's blog, the whole portable wargame concept started off with his re-purposing of a broken old chessboard, so I wanted to kind of nod to that.
DeleteGreat review and game. I've just ordered these rules, so good to see some of the questions answered.
ReplyDeleteThanks very much Duc de G, I hope that you enjoy them.
DeleteThanks for this review, and for your FAQ with the author. My copy arrived a couple of days ago via Amazon, and I'm looking forward to trying these soon. They've given me hope that my modest Napoleonic collection might just stretch enough for a game sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteYou are very welcome. The required model count is very low, most gamers should be able to field a suitable force, or paint one up very quickly.
DeleteWhich did you enjoy (or like) most, the Army game or the Brigade game?
ReplyDeleteThere's a question!! I am going to cop out by saying that the enjoyment level was very similar between the two rules and in a way that is not surprising, since the mechanics are reasonably similar. I did like the brigade game a lot, since the attempts to do this so far have IMHO been 'noble disasters', whereas there are quite a few good-fun but well-written army games out there.
Delete