Thursday, March 31, 2022

Before We Move On.

By itself, the choice of what size of grid square or hex to use on a gridded wargame table shouldn't necessarily effect how the game is played. However, if the size of the table is fixed, then the size of the individual grid areas will obviously affect the number of grid areas which will fit on the board which may affect how a scenario plays out, or at least how it looks. Less obviously, for many of us, habit and the "look of the thing" can change our perception of what is actually happening on the table. For the rules tinkerers amongst us, this sort of thing can be 'dangerous'! 

(Rule #1: Don't Panic.)

This time the cards determined that most of the ambushers were hidden behind the hill near the bridge. The convoy was also better arranged with close escorts for both wagons.

When I started playing the Blasthof Bridge scenario  as the first game on the restored 6" squares, the units seemed to be moving across the table so fast that I stopped the game and started trying to "fix it".  Naturally, part way through the game, I realized that the "fix", a reduction in movement rates, was causing new problems. The combination of the short moves, the density of troops, the unintended terrain chokepoints and the longstanding "if you move adjacent to an enemy you HAVE to not only stop but also resolve a melee" rule was making Red's job practically impossible and suggested that this might be a good time to revisit the altered rules again. 

The NorthWest Rifles were cut apart by some accurate shooting but the escorts had had the opportunity to deploy to threaten the flank of the ambushers. 

No need to bore everyone with all the false starts or the details of issues raised in two unreported test replays of the scenario, suffice it to say that some were too quick, others boring. others just 'wrong' but others helpful.  It was beginning to look like a problem beyond my ingenuity but then I remembered that the Battle In A Box mat had 6 fewer  grid squares than my current table and that that had felt like plenty of playing space. I had been focusing on the wrong bits and looking for the wrong sort of solutions.

Eventually the rocky hill was taken and the convoy could move forward with the DG Bodyguard covering the right flank with the help of the infantry. 

In the end, I finally hit on some of the smallest but most radical (philosophically) changes to the rules since I started experimenting with gridded games about a decade ago, After much thinking, experimenting and play testing,  I reduced the various numbers of combat dice per unit to just ONE per unit AND removed the compulsory mutual "melee" process for adjacent opposing units during each player turn. Instead, I made the declaration of a charge with mutual resolution a voluntary action while allowing short range shooting at that range as an option. This reflects eye witness battle reports much better and made the battlefield feel a little larger again without losing any of the tactical options. 

To be honest, I was skeptical that it would work. I was always leery of rolling 1 die per unit since that meant a binary result, you hit or you didn't and was used to rules where you might do average damage when shooting or do worse or better.  The game started off slow until I started to get used to the restored movement and increased endurance of the units given the lack of double hits that could remove a unit in as little as two turns.  

The sun was starting to sink in the west when Col MacDuff led his tired but enthusiastic Highlanders in a gallant charge. The rebels were stubborn though and when MacDuff took a hit, the Highlanders dragged the body back to safety. Things looked bleak! 

Once again, the game came down to the last throw of the dice but this time, the game raged across the entire battlefield rather than being boxed into a narrow strip. The various troop types strength and weaknesses showed up well and the advantage swayed back and forth as more troops were committed to combat and the players (me & myself) had to constantly make command decisions rather than often just rolling the dice. This time, both sides had to to strain their brain a bit and consider the effect of their deployment and manoeuvres on the enemy and vice versa before deciding what to do each turn. 

At last! This was the kind of game that I have been wanting!

As the sun sank, (the bottom half of the final turn) only desperate measures and good luck could offer even a faint hope to save the day for the convoy. They got it. The combination of accurate firing and a fierce bayonet charge did enough damage to break the rebel's morale. The road to the bridge was clear! (Phew, it didn't make it during either of the two unreported plays through!)

I'm keen to try the rules with a different scenario, but its time to give the 54's a bit of R&R while dealing with the occasional broken sword or scratched paint, adding a figure here or there, not to mention hunting down a deserter from the Mounted Rifles. There are also other recruiting drives in progress so my painting desk needs to be readied, not to mention the matter of the last game in my medieval/fantasy mini-campaign needing to be played.  

Link to The Square Brigadier 

14 comments:

  1. Looks like you are making good progress one the design aspects of the grid. In my version of Impetvs on Grid, I allow adjacent enemy units to shoot and adjacent melee is not mandatory unless declared. This seems to produce satisfactory and uncomplicated results for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it Basic Impetus you play on a grid? I would be interested in hearing more. I played BI at a local club years ago and found it interesting. I even bought the rules…

      Delete
    2. Yes, it is BI2.0. One of my latest BatReps can be found at:
      https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/2022/02/1st-azukizaka-triple-play.html
      There are more BatReps of BI on Grid if you search.

      Delete
    3. Johnathan, that is where I ended up as well. I might have got here sooner if I had stuck with the big squares or the smaller figures. I suspect that the sight of the opposing bayonets crossing physically that made it hard not to consider them in melee even if melee initially (20 yrs ago) meant "exchange of point blank fire with the possible threat of cold steel". I've found and read enough first hand accounts since then to decide that I want that separation in intent but got hung up on habit.

      Delete
  2. Sometimes 'getting it right' is a 'too much' - 'too little' iterative process rather like successive Fibonacci ratios converging upon the Golden Number. But an 'only just' victory is still a victory, and bespeaks a balanced and successful play test.

    Reading the thought processes through these recent articles is like reading a battle account in itself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Battle of the split mind!

      The games that are up for grabs till the end are the most exciting and fun. The 2 unpublished games were effectively over by about turn 3 but dragged on to turn 8 or 9 out of 15, mostly hoping for a couple of lucky dice to open up the possibility of opening up some room to manoeuvre.

      Delete
  3. Interesting to read Ross. I must give it a try…
    I constantly change my mind re grid size. I therefore have three different grid sizes ( one delineated by dots , the others by lines) on cloths so I can change my mind and try them out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've tried to squeeze all my periods into 1 grid but with more work and heartache than success. Different grids for different things has served me best.

      Delete
  4. Nice to hear you're having breakthroughs - "this is the kind of game I've been wanting" is encouraging.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is! (I hate to say it but cutting back on the number of 'periods' has helped.)

      Delete
  5. Thank you for the analysis and the link to the "new" rules!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The game looks great, anyway! Interesting about adjacent hexes/squares; I would think it's entirely possible for units to stand quite close together but not actually fight - more so in earlier periods, perhaps. Just look mean and threatening and 'psyche out' the enemy! But I suppose I would just count shooting at very close range as part of 'close combat'..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats what I used to do and with more grid areas on the table it left enough room for manouvre. A lot depends on the scale/scope of the action and the period being played though.

      In this case, it is a small skirmish with troops with breechloading rifle. One side are part time soldiers with some training in shooting who can more or less hold their own at close range, but are outshot at long range, but are also steeped in the mythos of the bayonet charge. On the other side are irregular sharpshooters who depend on their shooting for their lively hood and neither equipped nor trained for close quarter fighting so they tend to prefer running away to fight another day.
      I just needed a simple way to reflect that.

      Delete
    2. I'm impressed by how well you've thought that through! Getting simple mechanisms to reflect quite complex situations is the Holy Grail for rules-writers..

      Delete