Hobby Update: Boardgames - Europe's Agony; Battle Ravens; Achtung Spitfire! & Squad Leader

Although I haven't been doing much blogging recently, I have been doing a reasonable amount of gaming.  For some reason what I have been doing hasn't really lent itself to reviews, AARs or analysis, so I thought I would just summarize my recent activity here, as a marker for myself as much as anything.

Thirty Years War

 The main gaming with miniatures has been more horse-and-musket gaming with Simplicity in Practice: I will deal with that in a separate post.  Boardgame-wise, the main focus has been on playing Thirty Years War: Europe in Agony:

 As far as Thirty Years War games go, this one seems to have been reasonably popular and supported.  A couple of rules questions were answered on the BGG forum quite quickly after I posted them, so some people are definitely still interested.  I am still feeling my way through this game, not so much for the rules as for how the basic strategies of the game work.

Showing the scope of the game - the play area is bounded by Holland - Brandenburg - Franche-Comte - Hungary.  That covers the majority of the Thirty Years War theatres with the remainder being handled by cards.

The area around Bohemia, Austria and Hungary sees a lot of action early on, as the Imperial forces try to defeat a powerful rebellion in Bohemia and a less powerful rebellion in Hungary.

Bavarian forces face some relatively weak opposition around Ulm, but intervening here will cause a negative political reaction in Germany; plus, do these troops need to be sent to Vienna or Prague instead?

Spinola's Spanish are the single most potent military force in existence in Europe at the beginning of the Thirty Years War. Combat in Holland is slightly abstracted by the way and uses a card-driven set of events rather than the usual battle/campaign/siege model in the rest of the game.

My first few games (covering the early years of the war) have been good fun and have shown considerable promise for use as the 'engine' for my proposed Thirty Years War re-fight.  Some very rough, initial observations:

1 - The initial set-up (both in the published game and in the many proposed variants - there is too much chance of easy Protestant dominance in the published set-up, and the variants still seem quite generous to me).  The slight worry here is that the number of forces on the board at the beginning of the campaign are pretty small and the rules quite attritional, so it is very easy to get into some quite odd and one-sided situations very early on.  I don't know how much I should worry about this, but it is noticeable.  Contrast this with the game in the last campaign: Caesar's Gallic War.  That game had some similarities in terms of mechanics, but there was very little Caesar or Ariovistus could do in the first turn to achieve a large degree of dominance.

2 - Sieges seem quite easy to succeed in.

3 - Battles in the game system can be quite mutually bloody: I got three total mutual destruction results in the first three turns!  Nothing about the odds involved makes me think that this would be a real outlier result.  I would be surprised if miniature games replicated those kind of loss levels, so I wonder if that would change the dynamic of the game too much.

4 - The card play is quite important for the strategic framework of the game (new powers intervening, support from foreign powers, generals being recalled, and so on).  There has been some scepticism online about how much some of the cards will get used, although playing solitaire with single sequential draw, it hasn't been too much of an issue in practice for me.

So, some things to think about, but all looking very promising as a game in its own right and as a workable campaign engine for re-fighting the Thirty Years War in 2022.

WW2 Air Wargaming

The air wargames The Portable (Air) Wargame & Achtung Spitfire! have both got to the table recently.  Nothing much to say about either of them: the former is my simple, flawed but IMHO quite enjoyable variant of the air rules from Bob Cordery's Developing the Portable Wargame.  The latter is a comprehensive but for my tastes over-complicated and slow game of WW2 air combat; however, it does seem to produce pretty accurate results and has some great scenarios in.

This is probably the single wargames scenario that I have played the most: two Bf109Es with a slight height advantage take on 3 Hurricanes over France, March 1940.  It is such a great test scenario for WW2 air combat.

The historical result again in this one: one of the 109s is shot down, whilst one of the Hurricane's is damaged (the second 109 escaped easily after this image).

Another great favourite of mine: a simple solo scenario, with PO Richey in the the Hurricane trying to shoot down a lone Dornier 17 at low level in France...

Having damaged it earlier, Richey lines up for one last attack before the Dornier escapes...

And on this occasion, brings it down - just!

The two scenarios above are really good for testing purposes, because they can be played out with Achtung Spitfire! and then compared with simpler sets of rules to see if the simple rules allow things which are simply impossible in AS.  If that happens, it is probably time to change the rules to bring them back to AS outcomes, without introducing AS complexity.  That is basically why I have played them so often!

The third scenario: Blenheim IFs patrolling over France...

About to tangle with Bf110s. Eek!

I think...flying the Blenheim IFs in this one is always going to feel a slightly masochistic exercise...

I often think of this engagement when I hear/read someone riffing on "it isn't the equipment, it is the pilot/crew/soldier" a bit too hard...

Anyway, like a pack of hounds on a wounded fox, the last Blenheim IF goes down...

The same again, but with a larger (double-size) scenario, six Blenheim IFs against eight 110s.

Anyway, all very interesting with AS! and very fun with my much slimmer rules. I must get those rules properly written up and posted (although to be fair, they haven't evolved that much since I last put them up); I am experimenting with some slightly different numbers though, and using d10 rather than d6.

WW2 Tactical Ground Combat:

On a nostalgic whim, I asked for a copy of the classic Squad Leader for Christmas:

I don't think I have much particularly interesting to say about this at this time, except that the basic rules and structure came back really quickly, even though I can't have played for well over 20 years; and that it really was good to get back to Colonel Berki and his boys braving the German machineguns!  Entirely coincidentally, Henry Hyde (from Battlechat podcast, although this particular comment was on a Patrons only Patreon-Q&A session) mentioned that he too had recently bought a copy on a nostalgic whim, although in his case he doubted he would ever get it to the table...I have managed to overcome that particular hurdle, at least.

The initial attack goes in, and despite the usual losses, Berki and some of his riflemen have managed to get across the street...

Lots of fighting across the board now...

 

I didn't take any more pictures of this one, but you get the idea!  I loved it, and have played the Guards' Counter-Attack a couple of times now.
 

Battle Ravens:

Over the Christmas holidays, I also managed to get out Battle Ravens, finally.

This one definitely falls on the 'game' rather than 'simulation' side of the fence: to be honest, one could replace the counters with warriors on for a few different coloured stones and it would work just fine as an abstract boardgame.  The mechanics are really good, give an exciting game and my 11-year old grasped this one without any dramas.  Highly recommended as a game, although it isn't going to replace Comitatus, Dark Age Infantry Slog or even DBM for the wargamer of the period!

Very nice board and counters.  The paper figures are in exactly the same style as the Peter Dennis 'paperboys' which have been doing the rounds for the last few years, and none the worse for that.

Developing the Portable Air Wargame - Amendments Summary

A couple of people have expressed some interest in a consolidated list of changes I have made to Bob Cordery's air rules in his Developing the Portable Wargame in order to make a fast, simple and intuitive air combat wargame (Bob Cordery's original rules are designed as an adjunct to his ground combat wargame).

There are plenty of examples on the blog already  and I will get around to posting some more in due course.

These are the changes:

1 - Aircraft have individual stat lines rather than generic ones, but roughly speaking the SPEED/MOVE characteristic has been halved so an "average" fighter has SPEED 6 & DAMAGE 4.

2 - Aircraft must move their entire SPEED each turn.  All moves are of 1 hex.  Every other move after the first may be a turn, when an aircraft changes facing by 60 degrees (i.e. one hex side) instead of moving.  Firing fixed forward guns cost 1 hex of movement.

2a (Experimental Rule) - I am currently experimenting with Green pilots having -1 SPEED.

3 - Bomber aircraft can only turn a hex-side after every 2 hexes moved.

4 - Turns are strictly alternate.  If one side has achieved a bounce, it chooses whether to move first or second.   If one side is escorting bombers, the other side chooses whether to move first or second.  Otherwise roll, high score chooses whether to go first or second.

5 - Aircraft may start the game with extra energy points.  These may be converted to extra speed as necessary, with a maximum of 3 points being expended as such per turn.  This represents aircraft starting at higher speed or at greater altitude than their enemies (typically 1000ft of altitude or 50mph of starting speed).

6 - Aircraft may fire fixed forward guns at any point in their turn after the first move.  Defensive guns fire when an aircraft is fired upon or when an enemy aircraft ends its move in range of a defensive gun.

7 - A single die is rolled to determine hits.  Fixed forward firing guns hit on:
4-6 in the 6 o'clock position, 5-6 in the 12, 4-5 & 7-8 o'clock positions, 6 in the 9-11 & 1-3 o'clock positions.  Defensive guns always need a  6.  Elite pilots add 1 to their die roll, green pilots subtract 1 (but 6 always hits).

Optional rule - USN pilots hit on 5-6 from 9-11 & 1-3 o'clock rather than 6.

8 - Aircraft are armed with light machineguns, heavy machineguns and/or cannons.  These have the following characteristics:

LMGs - Range: 3 hexes; Damage caused (d6) 1-3:0 points, 4-5 1 point, 6 1 points*
HMGs - Range: 4 hexes:  Damage caused (d6) 1-2:0 points, 3-5 1 point, 6 2 points*
Cannons - Range: 5 hexes: Damage caused (d-6) 1-2: 0 points, 3-4, 1 point, 5-6 2 points*

*-allows another roll for damage, and this sequence can go on indefinitely. 

I use differently coloured dice when aircraft have more than one weapon.

9 - Both individual aircraft and formations are subject to morale: when an aircraft is damaged to a third or more of its damage points, it must break off and head for the nearest (safe) map edge.  When a formation of aircraft has lost more than one third of its total damage points, all aircraft must break off.  

10 - Example Stat Lines:

A6M2 Zero: Speed-7, Damage-3, 1xCannon, 1xLMG
Ki43-IIa Oscar: Speed-7, Damage-3, 1xHMG
D3A2 Val: Speed-5, Damage-4, 1xLMG, 1xLMG rear gun
B5N2 Kate: Speed-5, Damage-4, 1xLMG rear gun
G4M1 Betty: Speed-5, Damage-6, 1xLMG front, left, right guns; 1xCannon rear gun
F2A3 Buffalo: Speed-6, Damage-5, 2xHMG
F4F3 Wildcat: Speed-7, Damage-5, 2xHMG
F4F4 Wildcat: Speed-6, Damage-5, 3xHMG
P39D Airacobra: Speed-7, Damage-6, 1xCannon, 3xHMG
P40E Warhawk: Speed-7, Damage-6, 3xHMG
TBD1 Devastator: Speed-4, Damage-5, 1xLMG, 1xLMG rear gun
SBD3 Dauntless: Speed-5, Damage-6, 1xHMG,1xLMG rear gun

It will be noted that these ratings suggest that even early on in the war in the Pacific, US aircraft were as good or better than their Japanese opponents, with the exception of the fairly wretched Devastator - unless I am badly misreading the performance data. This implies that the early Japanese advantages were heavily dependent on situational and environmental factors.  US pilots, especially army pilots, need to be penalized early on.

Portable Air Wargame in the Pacific - Fighter Sweep

Fight Three in this small "tribute series" to Just Jack's Island Hopping with The Old Breed blog uses this scenario of Wildcats contesting a fighter sweep by three Zeros over Palembang.  As ever, the rules used are my development of Bob Cordery's rules for air wargaming in his Developing the Portable Wargame.

Aircraft:
Three Zeros SPEED 7, DAMAGE 3, WEAPONS 2 red, 1 white
Four Wildcats SPEED 6, DAMAGE 5, WEAPONS 2 red

Neither side has any energy chips.  I can't actually remember putting in any rule changes for this one (it has been a little while since I played this scenario and my notes don't mention any...), so it is all pretty straightforward.

Three Zeros (centre) are going head on for a pair of Wildcats (top-right); unfortunately for the IJN pilots, its a trap: there is a second (unspotted) pair behind them (bottom-left)

The unspotted pair of Wildcats

The three-ship Zero flight

The other Wildcat pair

...approach the Zeros head on

The Zeros turn in to the head-on pass: both the leading Zero and Wildcat take some damage

The Wildcats pull a variant on a Thatch-weave to get in position and inflict damage on the first two Zeros (remember this is mid-move for Wildcat 3)

The Zeros and Wildcats enter a turning fight with neither side gaining advantage yet (right); the other Wildcat pair approaches (left)

The wingman in the Wildcat pair in the furball gets in position to inflict more damage (right); this convinces the Zero leader to bug out...which is very, very dangerous in the current position

The Zeros (bottom) run for the farm

The Wildcats get into firing position

And one of the Zeros disintegrates!

The Wildcats gunning for another Zero...

And the Zero leader goes down too!

The remaining Zero has got the legs to escape the Wildcats and reach safety...

Game Notes: Short game but worked okay - the Wildcats' improvised weave worked quite well, plus they were shooting pretty well too, whereas the Zeros were hitting but causing relatively little damage.  One point to note about the morale rules is that the Zeros are very vulnerable to just this situation, since they have so few damage points per plane, they can end up feeling the need to run for home relatively early.  They were just very unluckly that they did so just when the second pair were merging into the fight...

Portable Air Wargaming Over The Pacific - Fight Two

For the next run out of the Portable Air Wargame from Bob Cordery's Developing the Portable Wargame, I again pinched used an imaginary scenario from Just Jack's Island Hopping With The Old Lead Breed blog.  This time, it features a USAAF squadron assigned to ABDA for the defence of Palembang.  Equpped with P-40s, they have been ordered up to intercept an incoming escorted Japanese bombing raid.

Aircraft Statistics:
Four P-40Es: SPEED 7, DAMAGE 5, WEAPONS 3 red
Three A6M2 Zeros: SPEED 7, DAMAGE 3, WEAPONS 2 red, 1 white
Three G4M1 Bettys: SPEED 5, DAMAGE 6, WEAPONS: front: 1 white*, left: 1 white*, right: 1 white*, rear: 1 red, 1 white*

P-40Es Nos.3 & 4 had one energy chip each and all the Zeros had two.

The P-40E and the Bf110C have been the two aircraft so far that on the pure performance figures look much better than their typical opponents (Zeros and Hurricanes respectively) but in ways that don't seem to reflect the historical record.  With the Bf110C vs Hurricane match-up, it seems to have been a combination of advantages in wing-loading, rate of roll and acceleration that enabled the latter to do well, whereas I am not quite sure why the P-40s should have ended up being considered worse than the Zero.  Were early USAAF fighter tactics inappropriate against Zeros?  On paper, a P-40E looks much better than an F4F-3 Wildcat.  Educate me...

The change I tested in this game was to allow fighters to turn and move at the same time rather than spend a movement point turning without moving a hex.


The Game:

I stuck closely to Jack's original scenario, except made the Bettys fly the full width of the table, because the speed differential between the P-40s and the Bettys is smaller (the P-40s wouldn't have been able to intercept them at all if I had stuck with the same directions).

The first of two pairs of P-40s sent to intercept...

And the second.

The Bettys flying in tight formation

The Zeros head in to intercept the interceptors...

The first pair closes in...

But the Zeros (left) try for a head-on intercept...

The lead P-40 dukes it out with the Betty's powerful rear-facing guns...

...as does his wingman (right)

The Zeros break into the P-40s, causing some damage to the wingman...

Leaving the P-40s a choice: enter the dogfight or try and get a quick kill of a Betty or two...

For better or worse, the USAAF Captain continues on against the bombers...

And is joined by his wingman.  Both the P-40s and their targets suffer some damage in the exchange, but not enough to bring anyone down

The Zero leader gets in on the P-40s six...

And down goes the P-40!  The other Zeros attempt to destroy the P-40 leader, but miss

The leader of the second P-40 pair takes a head-on shot, but does no significant damage

The other P-40s join in but still the Bettys keep on going, as the only holes appear in the fuselage, not in the fuel tanks or engines...

The Zeros are still on the tail of the P-40s

And more line up to take a shot

And down goes a second P-40!

The remaining P-40s race for safety... (top-centre & bottom-centre), whilst the Bettys fly serenely on (right)

But the P-40s were in a terrible position and the Zeros easily get onto the six of one of them

And down goes another one!

One of the Zeros gets just into range of the remaining P-40, but misses and the American leader escapes!

Game Notes:
"So, how do you feel that went?"...
Well, the rules worked well, although on balance I am inclined to reject the turning and moving idea, since it seemed to enable the fighters to avoid choices about speed vs turn as the best use of energy (which is what the game should basically be about).  The Americans made a choice to concentrate on the bombers and hope to bring one or two down quickly.  Unfortunately their shooting was both poor and unlucky and the Zeros pounced.  I still felt this was a successful game since it all played out very quickly and the American fighters were made to pay for their arguably poor tactical choice very quickly (I would never have made the same decision if playing a flight sim!).

The current state of development is discussed on this thread on TMP. I will write it up more clearly and comprehensively and post it on the blog at some point soon.