Going Small – Reducing Your Miniatures

Part 6 of the Lazy Gamer’s Guide
Over the past few weeks I’ve been discussing ways to reduce gaming preparations by going small. In this edition, let’s discuss going small by reducing the size of your miniatures.

As I mentioned last time, I began my miniature wargaming career with a couple of boxes of 1/72 scale Napoleonic figures. I never got them on the battlefield because it took so long to paint them. I then tried going down a size with some 15mm American Revolution miniatures. I finished a pack of the British before that project fizzled out. Next was 10mm Civil War. I managed to complete 2 small armies before I switched gears again and went with Heroics & Ros 6mm (truly 5mm). I actually built up several DBA sized armies (1 base per unit with 1 strip per base). I had Romans vs Carthaginians, American Civil War, Seven Year’s War, Saxons vs. Romans, British Colonial, and World War 2. With 6mm, I was finally able to get armies onto the battlefield.

The lesson stuck – for me at least, smaller is better .

Later, I tried 2mm in order to reduce periods. I wanted to paint generic horse & musket armies that could fill in for multiple different armies. For example, the blue army could be American Revolution Continentals, French Napoleonic, or American Civil War Union. Ironically I never used them in that fashion; instead I went down the imagi-nations path. The blue army thus became the Army of the Kingdom of Bluderia.

One of the difficulties with smaller miniatures is that they can get a little harder to paint as I grow older and my eyes grow weaker. My 2mm armies from the early 2000s had painted trousers, shoes, and rifle. When I got back into miniature gaming in 2013 I realized I could not paint such detail so I tried to go up to 15mm. Well that plan failed; I just could not finish the armies. Attempts at 10mm and even 6mm failed. Once again I realized that for me, smaller is better.

Gaming in 2mm (ca 2013)

I have since finished a few 2mm armies. A key was not to worry about painting details. After all, those details are not really noticeable when playing the game. All the player sees are flashes of the main colors (e.g. red-coated Brits). I went with a strategy of painting a one-color uniform, with black hats and a dash of flesh for the face. This method works fine for games.

There are some drawbacks to 2mm. In particular, it can be difficult to differentiate unit types. In his guide to 2mm ancients, Tony Hughes even recommends using colored marks to differentiate. Because of this drawback I have also experimented with 3mm. I find it a little easier to distinguish the troops.

Some of my 3mm troops

I still debate my set-up. For blogging (which has become one of my favorite parts of the hobby), somewhat bigger figures would help. As a result, I am considering going up a size. Nevertheless, I still intend to keep it small (10mm or smaller).

NEXT
I want to continue my discussion of miniature size with a run-down of the pros and cons of different sizes/scales.

It's Been A Quiet (Wargaming Week)

My posts, and activities, with regards to wargames have tailed off considerably recently. I do have a couple more installments of the Lazy Gamer's Guide to post. I hope to get to it soon.

Recently my leisure time has been consumed with a new LARP project. I am actually creating a brand new LARP system.

It's called Enchanted Realms

I found this on Wikipedia and am using it as a banner for Enchanted Realms

I have been getting a little bored with my time in Amtgard. We primarily do battlegames and have very little actual roleplaying. There are some interesting, full-immersion LARPs a few hours away from me, but it is very hard for me to travel due to my crazy schedule. So I decided that if I can't go to one, I will make one.

The goal is to create an afternoon where players actually play their characters. I plan to rent a pavilion in a park and set it up as a "tavern" where the players can find quests. There will be a couple of adventures that the players can undertake.

Anyway, this is keeping me very busy. I could not find rules that I like (most are way too complicated) so I am writing my own. I am also writing the quests and making all the plans to bring our fictional realm to life. Thus, wargaming posts will likely be few and far between for the time being.

Going Small - Reducing Army Size

Part 5 of the Lazy Gamer’s Guide

When I first started dabbling with miniature wargaming in the 1980s most wargames seemed to adopt the standard of infantry units consisting of 20 – 24 miniatures. I purchased a box each of 1/72 scale British and French Napoleonic soldiers. It probably took me a year before I managed to finish painting them, and if I wanted a full army I needed a bunch more units, not to mention cavalry and artillery. By that time, I had lost interest in Napoleonic wargames!

As the story above illustrates, one of the impediments I faced with becoming a miniatures wargamer was preparing the armies. It was a revelation to me when the De Bellis Antiquitatis rules were released; an entire army could consist of fewer than 50 figures. Since then, I have been a proponent of smaller army sizes – it takes far less work to get the army prepared for battle.

There are two methods I use to reduce the size of my army:

• Reduce the number of miniatures per unit
• Reduce the number of units per army

Reducing the Number of Miniatures per Unit
Not so long ago I had a grandiose vision of creating units akin to the Command & Colors series, meaning that infantry would consist of 4 bases of miniatures. In my version, each base would consist of 3 to 4 figures. This meant that I would need 12 to 16 figures per unit and probably over a hundred figures per army. Naturally, these plans fizzled out.

I then realized that De Bellis Antiquitatis held the key to my predicament – use just one base per unit. Even if I kept the standard of 3 to 4 figures per base, I would now need less than 50 figures to complete my army. Viola, I have reduced my preparations workload by 75%!

Reducing the Number of Units per Army
I also tried to emulate the DBA standard of 12 units per army. Even though that number is small, I struggled to meet that standard. Then I started playing scenarios from Neil Thomas’s One Hour Wargames. His scenarios feature 4 to 6 units per army. Despite the reduced army size, I found the scenarios to be very enjoyable. Also, set up was easier and less space was needed. I realized that I could further reduce my army size!

My New Standard
I have since adopted the One Hour Wargames' approach of fielding 6-unit armies. Thomas does allow for some variation by using random army composition – 3-4 infantry plus 0-2 skirmishers, cavalry, and artillery per army. To account for all variations I need a maximum of 10 units per army. Still quite doable.

I have also adopted the standard of 1 base of figures = 1 unit.

With my latest rules, this is a complete 6-unit army (general not shown)

This can be a little limiting; I cannot represent formation changes. Nevertheless, that does not matter to me. My rules are more grand tactical in nature. Formation changes would feature at lower levels of command but are not really appropriate for grand tactical. Thus, my approach works fine for me. Furthermore, this means that I can build an entire army with just 10 bases!

NEXT
Another way to reduce your preparations is to go with smaller sized miniatures. I’ll discuss this method next time.

The Griswold Massacre

Introduction to the Sikamuki Campaign
The Grayrockian sea captain was mad, or so said the court. Yet King Henrik of Bluderia listened to his tales intently. The ancient mariner told of a vast land across the sea to the west. Peopled by savages, yet it was a land of great wealth and splendor. With a determined band of adventurers one could win great wealth.

Shortly thereafter, Captain Hareld Havinger found himself in command of a three-ship flotilla, bound for the legendary western continent. After months of harsh conditions, his command landed upon the shores of "New Bluderia" (the natives called this island Sikamuki). Alas, the natives did not welcome the Bluderians, and skirmishes erupted.

As a result, Havinger sent a party under the command of Lt. Griswold to reconnoiter.

Griswold's Expedition
Lt. Griswold embarked with a band of riflemen, 3 platoons of regular infantry, and a small cannon.

Griswold's party (bottom left) advanced along a native path while various tribesmen gathered.

A band of native spearmen attack the Bluderian column. Massed firepower wipes them out.

Native skirmishers strike. Griswold sends in his best troops with a bayonet charge. Alas, the natives just melted into the forest and sniped at the infantry with their bows.

First platoon took serious casualties.

Meanwhile, the riflemen advanced to a river crossing where they got ambushed.

They didn't last long. Neither did Third Platoon.

Griswold withdrew to a large clearing and got his artillery into action. It temporarily halted the native advance.

Temporarily. The natives used their woodcraft to approach closer and snipe at Griswold's command. Casualties mounted.

First Platoon fell.

Then Second Platoon.

The natives surrounded Griswold and the gun, then rushed in for the kill.

That night, there was a great feast at the native village. Griswold's severed head was the "guest of honor." Meanwhile, a lone survivor, who was wounded and left for dead, made it back to Havinger's camp, bringing the dreadful news.

Notes

•  I have started a new campaign. This time it is a colonial campaign, loosely based on the conquest of the New World. There is a continent to the west of Francesia that has attracted the attention of the Bluderians.
• It is not looking well for Bluderia - they are now 0-1 in the campaign.
• For this battle, the Bluderians were restricted to the path while the natives could move through the forest. This allowed them to flank the invaders, with devastating effect.
• This was the first outing for my new block artillery and leader. The artillery features a stylized cannon while the leader is a flag.
• I used my latest version of my lazy gamer rules. I am still tweaking them.

Tweaking My Blocks

A couple of weeks ago, I stated that I had some ideas to improve the look of my block armies. I ran a brief game to test them out.

First, I added small bits of craft stick to each block and painted them different colors. The idea was that the sticks would represent unit flags. You can see my first trial on my blue units.

The "flags" allow me to identify the units by color. Above, 3 companies of Bluderian infantry (Red, White, and Blue Companies) are beset by native tribesmen in the Hottendri Desert.

Next I had an idea for casualty markers. I took some clear acrylic bases and painted brown marks on them. They are supposed to represent graves. Anyway, some have 1 mark and others have 2. In my latest rules, units break on the 3rd casualty.

As you can see above, Red Company has taken severe losses while White Company has taken minor losses.

Red and White Companies would be overrun. Severely battered, Blue Company would beat a hasty retreat.

I used black pipe cleaners to mark routed units (just because that was what I had available). I now need to come up with a routed marker.

Engagement at Dundorf

A previously unrecorded engagement of the Tweenwater War
While most of the action during the Tweenwater War occurred on the east and west borders between Redgrave and the Empire, there was some desultory fighting in Middle March, the center of the line.

A small Redgravian army seized the Imperial town of Draycourt. An advanced artillery position was set up in the little village of Dundorf.

A mixed Bluderian (blue) and Imperial (white) force advances against the invaders. The Royal Artillery in Dundorf opens fire, disconcerting the lead Bluderians.

Slowly, the lines form and long range fire begins. One Bluderian battalion takes to its heels. Meanwhile, on the Bluderian left, a cavalry regiment drives back some artillery and engages an infantry battalion on the hill.

As the battle rages, the Imperial Cuirassiers strike through a gap in the Redgravian line.

Routing a Redgravian battalion. At the same time, the Bluderian cavalry routs, allowing the Redgravians on the hill to engage the Bluderian flank.

However, the Cuirassiers rumble forth. Pressed by infantry and the Imperial horsemen, another enemy battalion flees the field.

The Cuirassiers then chase away the artillery on the hill.

The remaining Redgravian battalion withdraws. The Royal Infantry finds itself surrounded and ultimately surrenders.

This action preserved the center for the Bluderian/Imperial alliance. Alas, as we have seen, the alliance fared poorly in the main theaters.

Game Notes

• This game was an experiment of my latest horse & musket rules. As such, it was a one-off battle rather than part of a campaign. I just used the Tweenwater War as a setting for the narrative.
• The rules themselves are progressing. I would like a couple more experiments before I share them.

Going Small - Reducing Your Periods

Part 4 of the Lazy Gamer's Guide to Wargaming

Last time I introduced my overall strategy to lazy gaming, which I called the Three S’s. The first principle was to go Small.

There are multiple ways to go small, to reduce the scale of your gaming so that it takes less effort to prepare and play. Some ways include:

• Focus on a small number of periods.
• Keep armies small
• Keep the battlefield small
• Use smaller miniatures

I am going to cover each of these in a separate post. For today, I’ll cover going small with the number of periods.

Going Small by Specializing
One approach is to specialize in one or two periods. This is to choose a particular period, say American Revolution, and restrict all my gaming to this particular period. I would only collect miniatures for the Continental or British armies (or both). All my games would be set in that milieu. I would only have to build terrain that would fit an 18th century American environment. This approach would certainly allow me to focus and to minimize effort because I wouldn’t be flitting among multiple periods. It would work if I could discipline myself to stay within the bounds of one period.

Unfortunately, such specialization is hard for me to achieve because I like to dabble around in a variety of different periods. While I do enjoy a good horse & musket game, there are times when I want to get medieval and play games where my troops are hacking and slashing at each other. Other times I want to see tanks rumble across the battlefield. Specialization prevents this jumping around. In essence, specialization would hamper one of my important values – flexibility. Clearly another approach is in order.

Going Small by Reduction
Fortunately, Joseph Morschauser, author of How to Play War Games in Miniature (published in 1962), has provided the solution for me. 

He categorized the whole scope of land warfare into 3 periods – shock  (ancient/ medieval), horse & musket, and modern. By following his approach, I have reduced the number of periods I would need to prepare. I don’t need Marlburian, Frederican, American Revolution, Napoleonic, American Civil War, etc. armies if I want horse & musket battles. I just need two generic horse & musket armies. Similarly, I can build a pair of shock period armies and a pair of modern armies. Thus, I can cover a wide swath of military history with just 6 armies.

This approach works for me because flexibility is more important to me than strict historical accuracy. Thus, I have no issues with substitution, using miniatures from a different era to fill in for ones I don’t have. I would have no issue playing Waterloo or Gettysburg with tricorn-wearing figures. I’m not creating a museum showpiece or precise simulation. I derive entertainment with a historically based intellectual challenge. The challenge does not change if the figures are “wrong.”

The use of imaginary nations (imagi-nations) greatly assist with my particular brand of wargaming heresy. Having a degree in history, I do get a twinge of guilt if things aren’t historically accurate. I can avoid that if I am doing a fictional battle in a fictional setting. While I might worry if my Continental Army regulars have the correct color turnbacks, it is not an issue when I am parading the Redgravian Rifles on my battlefield. Using imagi-nations, I can replicate any horse & musket conflict as part of the never-ending saga of warfare between Red and Blue armies while blissfully ignoring any concerns about uniform inaccuracies.

Fantasy and science fiction also offer opportunities for flexibility. A pair of generic fantasy armies can be used to represent actual forces from a wide swath of ancient and medieval history. For modern battles, I like to use science fiction troops. I can replicate battles during the World Wars, Vietnam, the Middle East, etc. by substituting just two generic science fiction armies. Note that I can do the same with air and naval combat. Spaceships can dogfight in outer space or they can be battleships ready for fleet actions.

Thus, the principle of reduction maximizes my flexibility. I can play games based on practically any conflict in history. I have to compromise a bit – I won’t have historically accurate miniatures. However, I previously mentioned that I am willing to sacrifice accuracy for flexibility. Use of imagi-nations, fantasy, and science fiction provides the avenue whereby I can be flexible without too much historian’s guilt. This strategy enables me to accomplish my mission - derive maximum enjoyment playing miniature wargames in multiple eras/settings with minimal preparation and effort.

Aside - now if I could just discipline myself to follow my strategy I might save myself some unnecessary "work." Sometimes I just succumb to temptation, as with my recent purchase of ships for World War 2 coastal actions. Oh well, such is the life of a gamer with GADD (Gamer's Attention Deficit Disorder).

NEXT
Another way to go small is to reduce army sizes. I’ll discuss ways that I accomplished this.