More Testing

As I noted last time, I'm a little frustrated by combat dragging out in Micro Battle. I decided to do some more combat testing.

Some Revelations

As I experimented with combat mechanisms, I came to a couple revelations.

• Opposed die rolls are too slow. I can only adjudicate one combat at a time. My older mechanism tested if the attacker hit, which allowed me to roll multiple attackers at once.
• I need to go with a single roll to determine hits and retreats, for the same reason as above.

Changing these mechanisms will reduce dice rolls and speed play.

On Combat Resolution

The issue with a single "to-hit" roll is that you can get into an indecisive stalemate where neither side hits in its turn. Opposed die rolls worked better because one side usually wins.

To mitigate the issue, I'm going to experiment with a system where the attacking unit is defeated if it fails to hit. This should speed things up.

On Hits and Retreats

My initial mechanism allowed a unit defeated in combat to test whether it takes casualties or retreats. These were separate dice rolls. I based the mechanism on the concept that a defeated unit will either

• take minimal casualties and stand firm
• retreat with minimal casualties
• stand firm despite casualties, or
• take casualties and retreat. 

Testing casualties separately from retreats seemed the best way to cover all possibilities.

To speed things up, though, I want to merge these into a single roll. I'm not keen on having a binary system of retreat or take casualties. I want results to be more decisive. Therefore, I decided to test a 2-tier system where a defeated unit either (a) takes casualties or (b) takes casualties and retreats. 

Note that units can only take 2 casualties. This should make combat far more decisive. Perhaps too decisive. I will experiment with rallies.

The Test

I decided to do a simple test with a small battle line on flat terrain.

Red has the initiative and attacks. All things being the same, Red needs a 4+ to win a combat.

It succeeds on the left and center but fails on the right.

Roll for results - Blue takes casualties but holds firm on the left and center. Red takes casualties and retreats on the right.

I experimented with rallies. On the right, the Red unit rallies.

Blue counterattacks, with its rightmost unit hitting Red's flank. I treat the flank attack as support for the main combat.

Blue succeeds on the left and inflicts a casualty. Despites its flanking attack, Blue fails on the right. The main unit takes a second casualty and routs from the field.

Red's turn to attack. It fails on the left and loses a unit. It double-teams blue on the right but loses miserably and takes a casualty.

Blue's turn. Both attacks fail. Blue loses a unit and the other must retreat with a casualty.

I think I missed a turn. Anyway, Blue has rallied and attacks Red, causing a casualty.

More missing turns. Blue destroys a Red unit then takes on the last remaining Red. Blue wins!

Assessment

The whole test took about 14 minutes to run. Hard to say if that is slow or fast; I need to do a full-blown battle to assess. Still, I like where this is going. Will need to experiment some more.

3 x 3 Redux

Last year I made some unsatisfactory experiments with the 3 x 3 system. I shelved the concept at the time but now I have come back to it. In my most recent MicroBattle game, I noticed that the battle essentially devolved into left, center, and right sectors. Just like 3 x 3, I thought.

I did a little more digging into 3 x 3 and found some variants where they allow flank marches. So effectively it becomes like a 5 x 5 grid. I decided to try it out.

I'm doing a generic horse & musket battle. The armies, let's call them France (blue( and Austria (white), form up on a 3-square front.

I allow troops to move into the edge squares, expanding the field to 5. I don't have reserves for this test so I don't have a reserve area.

By now, France has the upper hand.

But the Austrians advance on the left.

At this point, I stopped the battle. I used a variant of my MicroBattle rules designed to make combat more decisive. The problem was that it wasn't - the sides kept making saving throws so combat kind of ground to a stalemate. I wanted something more fast-paced than standard MicroBattle, but this version wasn't delivering. So back to the drawing board.

Vienna 1683 - Part One

I decided to try another test of Fast Play MicroBattle (FPMB).

This time I'm replaying a historical scenario. Wargames Illustrated # 204 features a scenario for the relief of Vienna in 1683. I then split it into 3 scenarios covering each flank and the center.

PART 1 - THE ALLIED LEFT FLANK

Set Up

The allied Imperial and Polish forces advance from the west (bottom). The Turks defend a ridge line, with their flanks anchored on the village.

The opposing forces are:

• Turks (Ibrahim) - 2 brigades of Janissaries, 3 brigades of light cavalry, a battery of artillery, and a brigade of Azab light infantry.
• Allies (Charles of Lorraine) - 2 brigades of Cuirassier heavy cavalry, 1 brigade of Imperial musketeers, battery of artillery, 1 brigade of Polish musketeers, 1 brigade of Polish hussars

The Battle

The Turkish cavalry charges from the ridge, overruns the Austrian musketeers, and kills Charles of Lorraine.

The Imperial Cuirassiers flee but the Polish reserves hold firm.

The Polish cavalry chase away the Turkish horse.

The Cuirassiers charge the Azabs in the village but the Turkish artillery blasts them.

The Polish infantry advance on the ridge.

But the Turkish guns drive them off.

The Turks are victorious on the left. Next we'll see how they do in the center.

Analysis

I was satisfied with this test.

• The game took about 20 minutes, a bit longer than my target but still reasonable.
• This time I added artillery. Rules for guns are a little different than the standard combat rules.
• Artillery may fire up to 4 squares
• Need a 5-6 to hit at short range (2 squares) or 6 at long range (3-4 squares)
• Close combat with adjacent targets follows the standard combat procedure
• If hit with a ranged bombardment, the target makes Morale and Retreat Tests at an advantage
• In this battle, the Turkish artillery was effective. The Imperial artillery, well not so much.
• By the way, you may notice that I'm using a different grid. I flipped the mat over and did a grid with 30mm squares. I ended up with a 6 x 6 grid with a column of half squares (which I don't use).

Well That Was FAST

I experimented with Fast Play MicroBattle last weekend.

Set Up

I decided to pull out my white army for this battle. They represent the Imperialists. So I guess blue represents the Turks.

I rolled randomly to determine the order of battle: 3-4 infantry, 1-2 cavalry, and 0-1 artillery.

The Imperialist rolled poorly and ended up with an army of 3 infantry and 1 cavalry.

The Turks have 4 infantry and 2 cavalry.

Because they are outnumbered, I set up the Imperialists as the defenders.

The Battle

The Turks advance their wings and assault the Imperialists. In both attacks, the Turks destroy their adversaries.

Already down to half strength, the Imperial army loses heart and flees.

Game over.

Analysis

That battle may seem like a failure for FPMB, but I'm satisfied. At least it shows that I achieved my objective. The system surely is fast play.

That being said, there are some lessons to learn.

• Understrength, 1-stand divisions are fragile. Don't count on them lasting very long.
• I can probably handle slightly bigger armies. In a defense scenario like this, the defenders should start with 6 units and the attackers could have 8 or 9. Guess I need to make more counters.
• Defenders could really use some artillery.

Speaking of artillery, you may notice a lack of artillery in my games so far. Skirmishers, too. This is because I envision the game as grand tactical in scale. I assume that supporting artillery and skirmishers are part of the infantry and cavalry units. An artillery counter would represent a grand battery. Possible but not necessary for an army to have.

What about skirmisher counters? I don't envision having entire divisions of skirmishers so I may use my skirmisher bases as irregular or poor infantry.

The Onyx Rule

With the battle over so quickly, I felt I had time for another. I decided to set up a sequel.

But then my cat Onyx discovered the game and started playing with the dice. This invoked the Onyx rule - "When the cat sits on the board, the game is over."

Nevertheless, I plan to experiment some more. Stay tuned!