A blog dedicated to wargaming, mainly concerned with battles using 6mm toy soldiers set in a variety of different historical periods. "Make the game fit the figures" - Conrad Kinch
Heretical Gaming is my blog about my gaming life, featuring small skirmishes and big battles from many historical periods (and some in the mythic past or the far future too). The focus is on battle reports using a wide variety of rules, with the occasional rules review, book review and odd musing about the gaming and history. Most of the battles use 6mm-sized figures and vehicles, but occasionally 15mm and 28mm figures appear too.
Monday, 29 December 2014
A Really Useful Link If You Are Writing WW2 Rules
John D Salt gets another entry in "best forum posts", this time on "The Wargames Website", where he discusses the armour piercing qualities of various weapons and the thickness/effectiveness of armour on many WW2-era AFVs: here and here.
Saturday, 27 December 2014
Boxing Day DBA - Mohacs Re-Imagined
My plans for Boxing Day gaming had revolved around Star Wars and Formula De, but "events" got in the way, as is their wont! I did however manage to get a DBA game in, having received a copy of the new version of the rulebook as a Christmas Present:
For the battle, I used the Battle of Mohacs 1526 scenario from Miniature Wargames #2.
I don't have either Hungarian or Ottoman armies, so I used my Wars of the Roses figures. The respective armies used were:
"Hungarians": 3 x Knights, 3 x Light Horse, 2 x Pikemen, 1 x Blades, 2 x Hordes, 1 x Skirmishers
"Ottomans": 7 x Cavalry, 4 x Light Horse, 2 x Bowmen, 3 x Psiloi, 2 x Artillery
The photographs aren't very good, but here goes:
I used the historical tactics of both sides and was rewarded with a pretty similar result: the Hungarian Knights and German Pikemen just aren't quite strong enough to overcome the Ottoman advantages of numbers and terrain. Unusually perhaps, quite a lot of the combats went on for quite a long time with a little to-ing and fro-ing.
The new DBA is similar in gameplay to the old as far as I can tell - although I am sure the veteran players will notice large differences. I would like to say though that the rulebook is brilliant: lots of clear explanatory diagrams and lots of interesting Army lists covering 4000BC upto the early 1500s, with the right amount of historical information without adding pointless fluff/pages. I have found it amongst the best written rules, perhaps not quite as good as Sam Mustafa's offerings, but up at the top. Although a couple of sentences require some concentration, the rules themselves are very short so you don't have to remember how different rules inter-relate and the diagrams are excellent, anticipating the majority of situations likely to arise in a game. I will try and review properly when I've played a few more games and used a few more armies.
For the battle, I used the Battle of Mohacs 1526 scenario from Miniature Wargames #2.
I don't have either Hungarian or Ottoman armies, so I used my Wars of the Roses figures. The respective armies used were:
"Hungarians": 3 x Knights, 3 x Light Horse, 2 x Pikemen, 1 x Blades, 2 x Hordes, 1 x Skirmishers
"Ottomans": 7 x Cavalry, 4 x Light Horse, 2 x Bowmen, 3 x Psiloi, 2 x Artillery
The photographs aren't very good, but here goes:
![]() |
| More or less historical deployment, seen from behind the Hungarian Army. |
![]() |
| On this high-angled shot, you can just make out the large Ottoman reserves hidden behind the crest. |
![]() |
| Those Pikemen did eventually defeat the Ottoman cavalry, but the Hungarian right is under severe pressure from the flanking Ottoman Cavalry and this led to the Hungarians suffering defeat. |
I used the historical tactics of both sides and was rewarded with a pretty similar result: the Hungarian Knights and German Pikemen just aren't quite strong enough to overcome the Ottoman advantages of numbers and terrain. Unusually perhaps, quite a lot of the combats went on for quite a long time with a little to-ing and fro-ing.
The new DBA is similar in gameplay to the old as far as I can tell - although I am sure the veteran players will notice large differences. I would like to say though that the rulebook is brilliant: lots of clear explanatory diagrams and lots of interesting Army lists covering 4000BC upto the early 1500s, with the right amount of historical information without adding pointless fluff/pages. I have found it amongst the best written rules, perhaps not quite as good as Sam Mustafa's offerings, but up at the top. Although a couple of sentences require some concentration, the rules themselves are very short so you don't have to remember how different rules inter-relate and the diagrams are excellent, anticipating the majority of situations likely to arise in a game. I will try and review properly when I've played a few more games and used a few more armies.
Friday, 26 December 2014
Peninsular War Campaign - end of December 1808
As a result of space issues, I've transferred the campaign game onto VASSAL until such time as I can set-up the game free from juvenile and feline interference! So, the actual game map of the current campaign situation (asat 31 Dec 1808):
Hopefully this illustrates the main areas of action well:
The main French army pursuing the Anglo-Spanish forces as they retreat from their positions east of Salamanca around the Duoro towards the Southwest.
The advance of Soult to Astorga and the retreat of his opponent, Mahy, into the mountains of Northwest Spain.
The efforts of St-Cyr to reduce the remaining Spanish garrisons in Catalonia, whilst threatened by small Spanish forces advancing up the coast from their bases in Tarragona and Tortosa.
All of the units are on the map, but I'm still working out the best way of showing some of the game markers (especially depots) at the moment. However, this isn't enough of a problem to actually stop me playing, so I'm looking forward to resuming play in the very near future.
The main French army pursuing the Anglo-Spanish forces as they retreat from their positions east of Salamanca around the Duoro towards the Southwest.
The advance of Soult to Astorga and the retreat of his opponent, Mahy, into the mountains of Northwest Spain.
The efforts of St-Cyr to reduce the remaining Spanish garrisons in Catalonia, whilst threatened by small Spanish forces advancing up the coast from their bases in Tarragona and Tortosa.
All of the units are on the map, but I'm still working out the best way of showing some of the game markers (especially depots) at the moment. However, this isn't enough of a problem to actually stop me playing, so I'm looking forward to resuming play in the very near future.
Labels:
Peninsular Campaign
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
My First Ever Games of DBA
I have finally got round to playing Phil Barker's DBA (there is a good summary of its philosophy here). I know that there is a new version out v.3, but I played the original version, which until recently was available as a free download from WRG's History Page.
I really enjoyed it, I thought it was very cleverly designed. I used it to-refight Degastan c.606 AD, with a Bernician army taking on a Scots confederation, based on an article written by Guy Halsall for Miniature Wargames #3. The Scots confederation consisted of 10 Spearmen elements, plus an element of Psiloi (skirmishers) and Light Horse. The Bernician army consisted of 7 elements of Warband plus an element of Psiloi. In accordance with the suggestion of the article, I gave a +1 bonus to all the Bernician rolls to reflect their better morale and equipment. I can see that there is a lot of subtlety to the system which only more experience in using all the different troop types can give. I didn't find it that hard to understand the rules, although I did have to concentrate properly upon a couple of sentences.
Interestingly, it played out a lot more quickly than Neil Thomas' One Hour Wargames, probably because of the attritional combat system he uses, whereas in DBA all the results are essentially either retreats or destruction. I liked the simple 'command pips' system, I thought it gives interesting choices (especially as both sides were rolling very low scores!) but I'm familiar with the idea from Horse, Foot and Guns and in slightly different form, the Polemos system (pips plus bidding).
My initial reaction is that DBA is the (slightly) better game by having more period richness, but I need to play more of both games to be sure. The design idea is different anyway, with OHW being firmly aimed at beginners, who will appreciate the more conversational writing style, the wide variety of periods covered, the extra simplicity and all the scenarios. More experienced wargamers might prefer the extra substance and detail in DBA,
I really enjoyed it, I thought it was very cleverly designed. I used it to-refight Degastan c.606 AD, with a Bernician army taking on a Scots confederation, based on an article written by Guy Halsall for Miniature Wargames #3. The Scots confederation consisted of 10 Spearmen elements, plus an element of Psiloi (skirmishers) and Light Horse. The Bernician army consisted of 7 elements of Warband plus an element of Psiloi. In accordance with the suggestion of the article, I gave a +1 bonus to all the Bernician rolls to reflect their better morale and equipment. I can see that there is a lot of subtlety to the system which only more experience in using all the different troop types can give. I didn't find it that hard to understand the rules, although I did have to concentrate properly upon a couple of sentences.
![]() |
| The initial set-up: Bernicians to the south (bottom), Scots' Confederation to the north of the stream. |
![]() |
| Initial position with different angle, to include the last Scots' spearmen and some Bernician archers. |
Interestingly, it played out a lot more quickly than Neil Thomas' One Hour Wargames, probably because of the attritional combat system he uses, whereas in DBA all the results are essentially either retreats or destruction. I liked the simple 'command pips' system, I thought it gives interesting choices (especially as both sides were rolling very low scores!) but I'm familiar with the idea from Horse, Foot and Guns and in slightly different form, the Polemos system (pips plus bidding).
My initial reaction is that DBA is the (slightly) better game by having more period richness, but I need to play more of both games to be sure. The design idea is different anyway, with OHW being firmly aimed at beginners, who will appreciate the more conversational writing style, the wide variety of periods covered, the extra simplicity and all the scenarios. More experienced wargamers might prefer the extra substance and detail in DBA,
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Miniature Wargames Scenario - Battle of Teugn-Hausen
The latest issue of Miniature Wargames features a Command challenge scenario written by veteran wargamer Steve Jones based on the Battle of Teugn-Hausen, which took place during the war between Napoleonic France and Imperial Austria in 1809. I've never gamed a battle from this campaign before but I've been fascinated by it ever since I first read a copy of Petre's Napoleon and the Archduke Charles many moons ago.
Details of the scenario can obviously be found in the magazine, but they basically pit an Austrian Corps consisting of two infantry divisions and a small vanguard division against a French Corps of two infantry divisions. The second French division arrives as soon as serious combat begins. The Austrians have a little cavalry and the French have none, but unlike in many rules, the French are not unduly penalized by this in Polemos.
Game Notes: An excellent scenario which I thoroughly enjoyed - I was quite disappointed that the battle led to a relatively early French defeat, but my miniature Davout's ability to fluff the key rolls was uncanny! The French have a key advantage in this scenario - their infantry are much better. In Polemos terms, they are 'Veteran SK2 or SK1' against Austrian musketeers mainly rated as 'Trained SK0'. This basically translates as a +3/+4 advantage on opposed D6 die rolls (the basic combat mechanic of the game). The Austrians maximized their use of the slopes, the woods and mutual support - and were bold enough to take a gamble on offensive action when the opportunity presented itself - and, in this game, were duly rewarded. It was a pity that Davout failed his force morale role when St. Hilaire's division was spent - another key failed roll.
There was a long discussion on The Wargames Website recently concerning historical movement rates. Polemos doesn't really specify time scales, but I think that based on the move distances involved a turn should be considered to be about 5 minutes. The game took 15 turns overall, which seems about right for essentially a divisional action (since the French only got one division into action).
As ever, I really enjoyed using the Polemos Napoleonic rules and they continue to give good games: find my review here.
Update: Austrian Napoleonic expert Dave Hollins has kindly let me know that the terrain is wrong for an historical refight of this battle. I have very roughly sketched the very nice scenario map in the actual magazine so that anyone viewing the blog can see what the terrain should look like according to the scenario writer as I only approximately followed the guidelines (to fit with the first hills that came out of the box...):
Details of the scenario can obviously be found in the magazine, but they basically pit an Austrian Corps consisting of two infantry divisions and a small vanguard division against a French Corps of two infantry divisions. The second French division arrives as soon as serious combat begins. The Austrians have a little cavalry and the French have none, but unlike in many rules, the French are not unduly penalized by this in Polemos.
| Another shot of the set-up. |
| The view from the Austrian grenzers' position on the central ridge, looking down into Teugn. |
| Same position. |
| A wider shot of the same situation. |
| Which saw the Kaiserliks send the French fleeing back through the trees, their battle over. |
| A wider view of the position at this moment. St. Hilaire's division is in some disarray, but he has hopes that his flanking maneouvre may change the situation radically. |
| But nothing is going right for the French now. Their veteran light infantry has been held and driven back by the Austrian musketeers! |
| Another shot of the same situation. |
| The position on the Austrian right (East). Friant's Division never quite got to grips with St Julien's brigades before the rest of the the French packed up. |
There was a long discussion on The Wargames Website recently concerning historical movement rates. Polemos doesn't really specify time scales, but I think that based on the move distances involved a turn should be considered to be about 5 minutes. The game took 15 turns overall, which seems about right for essentially a divisional action (since the French only got one division into action).
As ever, I really enjoyed using the Polemos Napoleonic rules and they continue to give good games: find my review here.
Update: Austrian Napoleonic expert Dave Hollins has kindly let me know that the terrain is wrong for an historical refight of this battle. I have very roughly sketched the very nice scenario map in the actual magazine so that anyone viewing the blog can see what the terrain should look like according to the scenario writer as I only approximately followed the guidelines (to fit with the first hills that came out of the box...):
![]() |
| Grey rectangles = towns; black lines = roads; grey shapes = woods; green/brown lines = contours |
Failed Game
I tried to play a game yesterday but it all turned out quite badly. I'm not really sure why. The scenario seemed interesting (an 1809 scenario from Miniature Wargames). I was giving my Napoleonic Austrians a rare run-out against the French. The terrain looked okay, certainly not worse than my usual offerings. I was using my normal ruleset for Napoleonics - the Polemos set. But for whatever reason, the game just didn't click, I quickly got bored and frustrated and packed it in. Maybe I am jaded with the rules? I don't cosciously feel that. It was very disappointing though, as I'd been looking forward to playing all week - and it didn't feel like I was just not in the mood for gaming, on the contrary I really wanted to play. Perhaps it was the very expectation that caused the problem, I'm not sure. Or maybe it was just a general sense of feeling down.
Anyway, I'm hoping that the stars will align better today.
Anyway, I'm hoping that the stars will align better today.
Friday, 24 October 2014
Arnhem Timewaster
I suppose many gamers have battles that somehow fascinate them and like many, I have Operation Market Garden/Battle of Arnhem high on my list. One reason I became interested in it was exposure to a fine computer game about the campaign made in the 1980s and I spent many happy hours playing it on an Amstrad against a mate whilst at school. Anyway, I discovered a version on the internet and I've had a couple of games this week. Obviously everything looks pretty basic, but I found that the addictive gameplay is still there, not least because the solitaire version forces you to play the Allies and their task in some of the scenarios is quite tricky - particularly 1st Airborne Division's mission! I can usually win the other scenarios though and advance the Guards Armoured rather faster than in real-life, so that makes 1st Airborne's task rather easier in those scenarios which cover more of the operation.
Anyway, here is the link if you fancy a game: Arnhem
Anyway, here is the link if you fancy a game: Arnhem
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)




