Squaring off The War of 1812 (Amended)

I am intrigued by Bob Cordery's Portable 20thC Wargame and have decided to use it as a base for a simple, gridded, War of 1812 wargame. Obviously there are some major differences between 1812 and 1912 so I am going to need to make a few changes to troop capabilities but I don't want to get too far from the original game.  Since Bob's game was inspired by  Joe Morschauser who was also the main inspiration behind what became Hearts of Tin, I have decided to keep that inspiration and go back to Morschauser where possible.

The first thing I wanted to do is see what sort of scale the grid represented. I decided to start by looking at War of 1812 battlefields. Considering the small number of troops involved, some of the battlefields need to be surprisingly large. After careful consideration, and keeping my policy of flexible scales in mind (otherwise know as fudging or cheating),  I have decided to assume that if using an 8x8 grid, then each square represents an average of 150 yds and each unit will represent around 400 to 500 infantry or 1/2 that number of cavalry or light infantry. Each gun will represent 4 to 6 guns.

This means that each square can comfortably hold a battalion. It also means that effective musket fire can only reach into the adjacent square in front of a unit. This means that line infantry will be capable of close combat only. I find the deadly close combat power of 20thC infantry a bit much for 1812 games and consulting Morschauser's Horse & Musket period, I see that he agrees and so I will drop it back to 3.
However, one feature of the war is that well trained infantry seems to have been more effective than most and some militia seems to have been been very weak. I have long liked to have 3 grades of troops and will reflect this varying quality by lowering the Close CombatPower of Militia to 2 while raising that of veteran units to 4..

Light Infantry are the next to be addressed. The difference between the capabilities of drilled close order troops and light troops operating as a swarm of individuals is an important feature of horse and musket games in North America. Lets look at how light troops were used. Primarily they seem to have operated in the many forested areas where close order formations don't function well, as well as operating as outposts either seeking out the enemy if attacking or as an early warning system if defending. Unlike contemporary European warfare, light troops don't often seem to be used to soften up the enemy before an attack although this could happen, Quebec 1759 comes to mind.

How can we reflect this role in our game? In Morschauser's rules, Light Infantry move slightly  faster but have a lower close combat power.  It is easy enough to lower their close combat power by 1 to reflect their looser formation but this makes attempting to harass the enemy a very questionable proposition. Since some lioght troops were rifle armed and most supposedly had better marksmanship than volley firing line infantry, I will allow them to fire as normal. In order to reflect the superior performance of riflemen in this task, I will allow them to hit on the standard 5 or 6 but will reduce musket fire to hitting on a 6 only.

Moving faster is more problematic. Since infantry only moves 1 square in Bob's game, I can only see 5 options:
1) there is no difference in movement
2) make light infantry double the speed of line infantry or as fast as cavalry
3) allow light infantry to move diagonally making them more flexible if not faster.
4) allow light infantry to move twice if an extra activation point is used.
5) revisit all of the movement.

Oddly, the last option seems the simplest as it allows me to easily address another facet of the difference between light and line infantry, the ability of the former to operate effectively in woods. Longer moves may also make the game more dramatic (or, possibly, make it too quick!).

The proposal then is to redefine movement as follows:
Line Infantry, Artillery  2 squares
Light Infantry 3 squares
Cavalry and horse artillery, 4 squares.

 When it comes to woods, light infantry will be unaffected, artillery will be unable to enter a woods square and all other troops will restricted to entering 1 woods square per turn.

I think the river fording penalties are a little steep but I'm going to allow them to stand as it not a question of the effect being different in this era.

What about artillery. The rules taken, I believe, from the Frontier wargame, are suggestive of artillery firing high explosive shells rather than  cannister or  shot & shell. Referring back to Morschauser's original Horse& Musket rules, I will therefore, drop the accuracy roll and simply roll for effect. At a ranges of 2 squares a 3,4,5 or 6 will hit, at a range of 3,4 or 5 a 5or 6 will hit.  These scores will be reduced by 1 for a target in cover. Morschauser is quite harsh in his assessment of the close combat value of artillery. Since a battery might well be attacked before getting a chance to shoot in game terms, I consider that its close combat value reflects point blank canister fire and treat them like a machine gun in close combat, in other words, they will have a value of 4. Best to attack artillery from a couple of directions or be willing to sacrifice a unit to silence them!

Cavalry is problematic. It was only present in small numbers and the terrain was rarely optimal for cavalry charges so it is no surprise that those that were undertaken had little effect. On the other hand, there is no real reason to suspect that they would be less effective than their counterparts in Europe given the opportunity. The simplest solution is just to lower their close combat power to 3. If someone wants to deploy heavy cavalry then these will have a close combat power of 4 but will only move 3 squares. The usual elite or militia close combat bonus will apply. I will use the standard artillery rules for rockets..
 .
The last issue is slightly more drastic. I am not very comfortable with the all or nothing feel of combat where each hit destroys a unit but during the 20th Century where each stand might be a company, I can live with it. Since  my scale results in each unit being a battalion of some 400 men, having them destroyed by a single cannon shot will make it very difficult to get a believable result. I'm not a big fan of rosters though I do mark casualties when needed and am happy removing bases, Having decided that I needed to make my squares 4" across in order to allow 40mm troops to co-exist with even scant terrain pieces, I noticed that 2 of my 2" wide bases are easily accommodated in a square. Rather than treating each base as a unit and allowing 2 in a  square, I will instead borrow and adapt Morschauser's roster system. Each unit will have 2 bases. The unit is a unit for all purposes, it moves as one and the bases must face the same direction but when fighting, each base rolls 1 die and when it suffers a hit, 1 base is removed. This means it will take more than 1 lucky hit to destroy a unit and that a defending unit can be "softened up" by artillery or light infantry fire as opposed to only being destroyed. It also means an attack might inflict a casualty but still be repulsed rather than destroyed. Understrength units will be represented by a single base only. For artillery, I may mount the gun and 2 crew on one base and 2 more gunners as singles as a 2nd base.

I did consider such details as infantry forming square or column but in the end decided this is a unit commander issue, not one for the army commander. Units normally adopt the best formation for their situation. If they are destroyed in combat then perhaps their Colonel chose poorly?

All other rules are as for the latest version of the 20thC  rules for a chess board game. If it goes well I will investigate playing the game with more troops on a larger grid and will add rules for Irregular cavalry, elephants and the like. Yes a trip to India in the 1840's.

But first a play test of the original game.

_ _______________________________________________________
I should probably have put this afterthought in a separate post but for future reference wanted it grouped with the other rule changes. The command elements in the 20thC game appear to be a combination of the command capabilities of an HQ with the combat potential of its escort. In the War of 1812, it would usually represent a single general with a few aides. He might inspire  troops but on its own such a staff element has no combat ability.

The following rules will apply to my  game.

Each side has 1 General. When calculating activation dice, add 1 die if the army has a general. If he is killed or captured then his army no longer gets an extra die.

Generals do not count as a unit. They may be represented by a single officer figure, usually mounted on a horse or by such a figure plus an ensign with a flag. If a General is in a square with one of his units then he is attached otherwise he is not attached.

A General who is attached at the start of a turn may move with that unit without paying any extra activation points. A General who is not attached at the start of a turn or who wishes to leave a unit that he is attached to, must pay an activation point to move and may move 4 squares.

 If a General is attached to a unit then its close combat power is temporarily increased by one. It may never be increased to more than 5 regardless of how many modifiers it has. 

If a General is attached to a unit which is destroyed by shooting or in close combat or which is forced to retreat from close combat then the General is wounded and removed from the game,

A General who is not attached may not be shot at. If a General who is not attached to a unit moves into a square orthogonally adjacent to an enemy unit or if an enemy unit moves to a square orthogonally adjacent  to him, then the General is immediately captured and removed from the game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





.







Artillery

Honey, I shrank the game

Travis (William B unofficially, Ch. Grayson's I'm Your Man Kabecca officially). Seven generations on from Kathy's original hound, Jack (Am. Can, Ch. Chipwill's Great Expectaions).
It was Jack who first discovered my potential as a water boy and doorman. 

I have drawn dog, cat, bunny, bird and granny sitting duties again this weekend. On the downside this means no block of free time longer than 3 hours, no travelling in to town for a game and so forth but on the upside, no renovations while I'm on my own so the plumbing of my wife's new grooming shop can wait and I should be able to manage several blocks of guilt free hobby time in addition to  DVD time with the Iggy's in the evening. (Iggy = Italian Greyhound)

Some of the pack of Iggys enjoying the sun last fall.  It was one of this breed that was known to ride with Frederick the Great, tucked under his cloak.  The legs fold up nicely allowing them to cuddle under blankets while pumping out body heat, one of their main functions in past centuries, sort of a precursor to hot water bottles and heating pads.

This should be a perfect opportunity to test out Bob Cordery's 20thC portable wargame, I may even set up a card table down in the family room if I spend too much of the quiet time on rearranging my room, painting miniatures and making terrain. 

My original plan was just to test out the 20thC version with my 1/72nd Russian Civil War troops and I still intend to do this, but 2 other options have cropped up spontaneously and refused to be dismissed so I intend to play at least 3 different games. 

The first variant to rear its head was the result of testing my 40mm troops on the table. It  happened that I had just finished rebasing some 1812 troops (The US forces having had a reprieve when I remembered that I had built them using my own, smaller toy soldier-ish heads) and decided to see how they fit on the grid. It struck me that one could use the framework to design a series of stylized games based on historical War of 1812 battles. (Why? I'm not sure, do I really need a reason?) It wasn't long before I was shrinking Crysler's Farm again, this time onto an 8x8 grid of 3" squares and laying out troops, 8 British vs 12 American.  This doesn't seem to be exactly what Bob was aiming for but its not far off and based on a quick trial the idea has promise. It just needs a few tweaks to adjust the game to the period and purpose.

It was while I was clearing away the Crsyler's Farm game that I opened another box to put away some other items that had been used as props in a photo and another Farm came to mind. One from just before the Great War, when wars were smaller. I'll leave it there but I hope it will an enjoyable surprise. 

Bringing up the Big Guns

Blue artillerymen prepare to fire their 4.7" gun. The Bombardier is taking one last check through the telescope before giving the order to fire which will be done by the gunner jerking the lanyard attached to the trigger which will release the spring loaded breech, sending a metal shell hurtling across the table.

The Zvezda 1/72nd Russians are marvelous little figures a tribute to what can be done in way of sculpting and molding. However, I didn't enjoy trying to trim and plug in the teeny tiny little arms on the first fellow and assembling a Hat 75mm gun had me muttering under my breath (I breathe rather loudly on occasion). On the other hand the suggestion that a 4.7" gun would not look out of place beside 40mm figures lead me to set up this shot and had me grinning widely. Certainly looks like a BIG GUN but for a Toy Soldier game, not out of place at all.

A 54mm figure from Armies in Plastic, an original Britain's Naval Officer in Standard size and an Irregular Miniatures 42mm Guardsman. 

The evolution of toy soldiers?  You could believe that the last 2 figures standing beside each other, one being either really tall or the other really small depending on what size the rest of the figures were but the AIP fellow.would be a true monster with a head the size of men's chests if stood in the middle of a company of old Britain's. No wonder that the gun which was after all a toy designed to go with Standard sized figures, looks only a little over sized next to the 40mm figures. After all, it WAS a BIG gun. See some of the pictures of the real thing as well as the original toy here. I suppose for the Boer War, I'll need to track down an original without the gun shield, an affordable one, yeah, could take a while.  

In the meantime, what else could I do but see if the 40's would fit on my experimental battle mat? This was an old wargame table cloth designed for draping over hills. It was just a cheap remnant of drab cloth over sprayed lightly years ago. I did think of cutting a wooden board but this seemed easier to make, store and carry and anyway I haven't decided on a final design yet. 

Free standing or on 60mm bases, these 40mm troops fit nicely on the board, at least as long as the trees don;t get in the way.

Rather than drawing on the full grid, I have drawn the outside and marked the corners of each square. The result is a bit wonky since 'draughtsman' and 'patience' are two of the many attributes that I lack.  It looks more like a conventional table than a chess board but its still easy to see the grid. One advantage of the cheap cloth is that one could actually paint on roads, rivers etc for specific historical battles or scenarios and just store them away. Each cloth would only cost $2 or $3  and take little space. That was actually my original idea but the only one I did was the first. In 1998 I did a mat for the Battle of Chateuguay. I only fought the battle 3 times but the cloth has done sterling service over the years in many scenarios. (see Ambushed)

 Another thought, for the lazy among us (yes 'lazy'  is one of my attributes),  is that by adjusting the grid to 10 squares by 14, one could easily scale down the many Grant and Asquith scenarios designed for 5x7 table using a square = 6",  This wouldn't be an easy travelling board unless you used small squares but it would be compact, 2'6" by 3'6" if using 3" squares. and would have all the ease of set up and play of a gridded game.

 I need to make some hills, for now I have some scraps of nominal 1"x3" strapping which look promising. I'll give them these a quick wash of paint but they'll need a bit more design thought to achieve a finished look. Single trees are also in short supply and only a few of my buildings will fit even a 3" grid so that also needs to be addressed. Depending on the period, ruins or flat topped houses are both attractive options but I've been wanting to build some more small footprint houses that will hold a stand of troops so its just a matter of shrinking the foot print a little more to fit the grid. (or increasing the grid to 4"). 

Perhaps the 1/72nd toys do look slightly more at home on the 3" grid.

The decision which way to go for a final gameboard, along with the size and style of the figures and scenery,  is a design decision to be put off until I see how much I enjoy the game.