Battles of Medieval Britain

Acting upon a recommendation from Geoff aka elliesdad, I ordered a copy of Battles of Medieval Britain: A Solitaire Wargame from Amazon.

It a nutshell, I'm glad that I did.

Let's take a look.

Physical Layout

Battles of Medieval Britain (hereafter BMB) comes in book form, specifically an 8.5 by 11 inch, paperback booklet with 44 pages. Not fancy but serviceable.

Contents

Inside, BMB contains two sections:

• Rules - which lay out how to play the game
• Scenarios - 12 battles from medieval British history that you can play using the rules

The Rules

The rules only take up about 10 pages and are quite simple.

Turns follow this sequence:

1. If applicable (depends on the scenario) roll for enemy reinforcements.

2. Choose a unit to activate. Roll 3 (for infantry) or 4 (for cavalry) D6s and refer to the scenario chart to determine what actions that unit can perform

Here is an example of an activation chart. Each roll corresponds to a potential action, and units will have multiple actions they can perform each turn.

3. Perform actions - you can choose the order of the actions. For example, if you rolled a 1, 3, and 6 you could move first, attack, then form a shieldwall.

To attack, roll 2D6. If the roll is greater than or equal to your unit's To Hit value, then you hit the enemy. Hits eliminate the targeted unit, which means combat is fast and bloody.

4. Repeat steps 2-3 for your remaining units.

5. Enemy units attack all your units in range.

Yes, an enemy unit will attack every single one of your units in range. If you have 4 units surrounding an enemy, it will attack 4 times in the turn! Thus, you want to make sure you position your troops to maximize your attacks while minimizing the enemy's attacks, especially since hits kill!

6. Check for victory conditions. The scenarios in this book require you either to eliminate all enemy units or kill the enemy leader, depending on the scenario.

The Scenarios
Most of the book comprises the 12 scenarios - battles from medieval British history ranging from Brunanburh (937 AD) to Shrewsbury (1403 AD).

Each scenario comprises 2 pages.

1. The first page has a very brief introduction, the charts you need for the scenario, a summary of combat modifiers, and the victory conditions.
2. The second page has the game map, like this:

What is neat about this format is that you can lay the book open on your table, set up your units, and play by referencing the adjoining page. This makes the game easy to play.

You may notice a bunch of numbers on the map. This is for random setup of the enemy forces. Each time you play the scenario, this will differ, giving each scenario variability and greater replay value.

The tracker at the bottom allows you to keep tabs on the turn. It also shows when enemy reinforcements arrive.

My Play Tests

I played the first two scenarios in my initial test of the game. In both cases (Brunanburh and Fulford Gate), I ran out of time before I could get to all the enemies. I think there were about 3 enemy units left in both games.

Game time was short, maybe 15 - 20 minutes each.

Evaluation

I suppose you could make a lot of quibbles about the rules:

• Your units' actions are limited by your dice rolls. A unit may be sitting next to a unit but if it rolls 3 move actions, it's not doing anything.
• Enemy units don't move. They just sit there passively. This is ameliorated somewhat by reinforcements, which can swoop in next to your units.
• To Hit odds are determined solely by the attacker without reference to the target (and especially the type of armor the target wears).

Nevertheless, this is a fun and challenging game. It is a bit of a puzzle to determine how to best approach and attack the enemy's dispositions. Furthermore, the optimal solution will vary depending on your dice rolls. And because of the random setup, each replay of a scenario will be different.

In all, I'm glad that I purchased BMB and expect to play it quite often.

I have one other minor complaint about BMB. There are no unit counters or markers; you need to provide your own. If you have miniatures, that's probably not a problem. It would have been nice, however, if the author provided a sheet of counters one could cut out and use.

The Series

The author, Mike Lambo, has published 6 solitaire game books. Alas, the other 5 cover World War 2, a topic in which I have very little interest. I hope he publishes rules for additional periods; I would certainly purchase them.

Addendum: More Counters

As noted above, BMB does not come with counters or markers. For my tests, I used the counters I recently created. However, they were a bit wide for the map. I decided to create some 3/4" by 1/2" counters specifically for this game.

Since I was making counters anyway, I added some more to the list - casualty markers, more ships, towns, and chariots. I placed an order with Litko for the bases. Just waiting for their arrival. 

Battle of Peirama

With this test battle, I experimented with a series of possible tweaks to MicroBattle.

Set-Up

I created random scenario, terrain, and force composition generators using a D6 roll for each.

The resulted in a force of infantry with cavalry support trying to escape from pursuing infantry.

Note - this scenario is inspired by Scenario # 13 from One Hour Wargames.

Terrain set-up is shown below. Note that I am using my mini, 5 x 7 square board.

Some Game Notes

These are some of the changes I made to MicroBattle for this experiment.

• While the board is gridded into 1 inch squares, all measurements are made in half squares. This effectively increases the size of the units and the board.
• Previous versions of MicroBattle allowed a unit to pivot freely within its square. With my movements modifications, a unit now effectively spans two spaces. Thus, I had to come up with some rules for turning. Essentially, I allowed a unit to use an activation to pivot 90 degrees.
• For activation, I rolled a D6 per unit, with the following results:
• 1 = no actions
• 2-3 = 1 action
• 4-5 = 2 actions
• 6 = 3 actions
• I did not use the S&S mechanic of giving the enemy actions for failed activations. Instead, I just rolled them as above.
• Both units rolled in melee, with any advantages or disadvantages applied as modifiers. High roll won the melee. The loser then rolled defense as per the current MicroBattle rules.
• A unit with damage (which I am calling Disorder), makes all Resolution Tests at a disadvantage.
• Light infantry damaged by heavy infantry in melee may attempt to retreat instead of suffering Disorder.
• A unit can use an activation to try to recovery from Disorder. It requires a successful Res Test.

The Backstory

A force of Gothic warriors (blue army) has raided a Roman settlement and is trying to escape with its booty. A lone unit of Roman archers blocks the path while more Roman infantry are in pursuit. 

The Goths need to get half their army to safety (off the far side of the board).

A couple of turns in. Most of the raiders have moved well onto the board. One heavy infantry unit dawdles and gets overtaken by the Romans. The Goth cavalry (right) make a break for it.

Note - The topmost warband rolled poor activations, allowing the Romans to catch up.

Roman heavy and light infantry swarm the dawdling warriors (top). The Roman archers are getting pushed off the hill.

Note - initially, I was using the standard MicroBattle melee rules, but I kept having stalemated fights. Inspired by Sellswords and Spellslingers, I tried the system outlined above. This created more interesting melees and sped up the game.

The Goths overrun the archers, drive back their pursuers, and then head for safety.

Note - It was during this fight that I instituted the rule allowing lights to try to retreat rather than suffer Disorder. It just seemed weird to me that lights would just stand and let themselves get pummeled. This has bothered me for some time but I never knew how to handle it. I came up with the rule on the spot and applied it. In this case, the lights got caught, but I can foresee times when the lights get away. Seems more plausible to me.

But the Roman light infantry catch up to the Goth warband, attack, and miraculously destroy it!

Note - This melee highlighted the benefit of the new rules. The Goth warband had a disadvantage in melee because it was disordered. It could have improved its odds by stopping to rally. I choose for the disordered warband to run for it instead, leaving it vulnerable. Still, the lights got lucky to win the melee.

I like how the new rules created a decision point. Do I use an action on movement or rallying? By moving, I left the unit disordered. However, if I stopped, the pursuing heavy infantry may have caught up. Decisions, decisions!

But the Goth lights barely manage to escape.

Technically, a narrow victory for the Goths, but the Romans are pleased to have destroyed both warbands of heavy infantry.

Thoughts on the Game

I was making adjustments on the fly, but I ended up with the rules changes described above. Overall, I think they worked well, and I will continue dabbling with them.

S&S Experiments

Previously, I mentioned experimenting with some of the mechanics from Sellswords and Spellslingers. I wanted to give a quick update.

I had actually been writing a report where I detailed all my tweaks and experiments, but I ended up deleting it. Overall, I just did not like where they were heading, and I find myself returning to square one.

Activation

A few years ago I was using the Song of Blades & Heroes activation system but dropped it because it seemed to drag out the turn. Currently, I roll a single D6 per unit, which means I can determine my entire force's activations in a single roll of 6 dice. It moves much quicker. The S&S activation is similar to SoB&H and I encountered similar problems. 

I recently had an epiphany. I translated the S&S activation odds to a single die. Assuming activation on a 4+ on a D6, I get:

• Roll of 1 = 0 activations for the player / 3 for the enemy
• 2-3 = 1 player activation / 2 for the enemy
• 4-5 = 2 player activations / 1 for the enemy
• 6 = 3 player activations / 0 for the enemy

This roughly works out the same as 3D6 per unit.

Note that the odds for S&S are better than 50/50 in favor of the players, but I think my table is fine. I can give bonuses to the roll for units with some kind of advantage.

Melee Combat

I'm still experimenting with a hit-or-be-hit melee system. Operation Last Train uses a similar system and it seems to work well for that game - you get the bug or it'll get you.

However, I'm not sure if I buy it for man vs. man combat, for 2 reasons:

• It seems plausible for both combatants to make ineffective attacks. For example, the attacker thrusts, the defender parries and ripostes, but the attacker parries the counter.
• And I have seen plenty of simultaneous hits in my fencing and LARP experience.

I guess hit-or-be-hit makes more sense at a larger scale where a turn could represent an extended period of time. But for skirmishes it seems too final. Nevertheless, I think I'll give it a try.

I recently played a battle using these tweaks. Stay tuned for a full report.

A Quick Look at Swta's War Game Rules

Over at The Wargames Website, Swta (aka Stephen Wicker) posted a link to rules that he is selling. I decided to check them out and post my impressions.

Notes:

• the author has replied to this post. See the comments for his clarifications.
• As of 2/17/22, the author removed his comments but has provided a link to his blog.

First Impressions

• On his YouTube page, Swta offers several sets, but I understand that they are all the same and all cover the period 300 - 1850 AD. This seems a bit misleading so beware.
• The rules come in a 9 page PDF. Six pages are informational tables that aren't needed to play the game. The tables seem like unnecessary padding.
• I found that the paragraph format made finding specific rules difficult. The rules need more bullet points, tables, etc. to streamline reference.

Set Up

Here is the process to get ready for the game.

• Set up a board gridded into a minimum of 32 squares (4 x 8) with additional areas on the flanks and rear.
• As desired, place terrain, which is simply classified as impassable or fortified, which provides bonuses to defenders.
• Place armies of 16 - 24 units in each rear area. Units are designated as veteran or trained. Note - raw and militia are optional.

My board. Hills represent the flank area.
The squares in between are the actual battlefield 

Ordering Units

Now let's jump into gameplay. First, you must order your units.

• On your turn, you select a unit to order, then roll a modified D6 to see if it performs as commanded. Generally, you need a 4 or more to succeed. If you fail, your turn ends. 
• I'm not fond of activation systems where failure is so common and most units don't get a chance to do anything, so I modified the order rules after just a few turns.
• If you do succeed, there are 11 different commands you can issue, although they are all some variation of move or attack.

Movement

• Units may only move to an adjacent space, with diagonals counting as adjacent. Essentially, all units have a movement rate of 1, regardless of troop type.
• Units may move into or from the flank area. This seems to represent flank marches, but it seems too easy to pull off and bypass the enemy line. It also generated some questions. For example, can opposing units both occupy a flank area or do they fight?

Combat

• Units can shoot or attack (melee), but combat resolution seems the same. Roll a modified D6. The result indicates if the attacker or defender retreats, or nothing happens. 
• Like movement, there is no differentiation based on troop type. Medieval knights will melee as well as archers.
• The rules are unclear on what happens if a shooter gets an attacker retreats result. I assume nothing happens but this is not stated.
• To destroy a unit, you must force it to retreat from its rear area. It seems like this will be hard to do because you'll need to get one of your units adjacent to the enemy's rear. You can bombard the rear with artillery, but what about armies without artillery, like my medieval forces?

Victory

There is only one victory condition - destroy all your enemy's units. 

OK, I got this wrong. You just need to get all your enemy's units to retreat to the rear area or destroy them.

No army morale or scenarios with different objectives.

Final Thought

• One poster on TWW called the rules a "toolbox" and I have to echo this sentiment. There are some interesting ideas such as flank and rear areas and supported units (which I did not discuss). Nevertheless, I feel there are too many gaps, such as troop type differentiation. Note - I'm specifically referring to differentiation between infantry and cavalry.

Inspiration from Sellswords and Spellslingers

I have been intrigued by a recent post on Lead Adventure forum that compared Ganesha Games' Sellswords and Spellslingers (S&S) to Rangers of Shadow Deep.

I have Rangers although I never played the rules. Nevertheless, I really like the background and scenarios, and have adapted them to my own RPG rules.

I've heard of S&S before but refrained from picking it up because (a) it uses D20s and (b) it uses cards. I have an aversion to both of these traits. Yet some of the comments on LAF about its solo suitability piqued my interest. I decided to get it and see.

After reading through it, I won't be playing it as is. Instead, like many games, I'll convert it to my MicroBattle rules. However, there are some aspects about its solo mechanism that I like and will look to incorporate.

• I like that you never roll activations for the NPC bad guys. Instead, failed activation rolls for your troops translate to possible enemy activations, depending on the card draw. This seems like a streamlined way to handle enemies. I may ditch the cards and create an enemy activation table instead, but I like the general concept.
• Enemies don't roll in melee. Instead, you roll for your figures. If they miss, the enemy hits instead. Again, super streamlined. I'd like to experiment with it.

I've been dabbling with these mechanisms and will post about it soon.

Which Way to Go?

 I'm already rethinking my Byzantine skirmish project.

My original thought was to build a small squad of half a dozen 10mm figures. The rules would feature:

•  Activation, movement, and combat by individual figure, and
• Figures with special abilities.

I quickly expanded the concept to a larger band of approximately 20 figures. Rules for these would feature:

• Activation and movement by unit
• Individual combat, and
• Hero figures that could act independently.

I became a bit concerned by this larger approach. I don't have a large enough board or terrain in 10mm. The project started to seem a bit daunting.

Then I started thinking about doing 6mm skirmish. This approach, however, would seem to preclude individual combat because I would most likely mount figures on stands, with each figure = 1 man. But if I have combat by unit, I'm basically playing MicroBattle. I'd like a skirmish game to have a different feel to it.

I keep going around. I think I need to experiment a bit with rules before I decide on figures.

One Ruleset to Rule Them All

I was away from home for a few days recently. During this time, I was itching for a game but did not have anything with me. It got me thinking about a travel game set.

When I got home, I started planning it out.

The Box

I haven't used it in a while, but I do have one of these Tiger Tuff boxes lying around. It is slim, under an inch in depth, so it is perfect for traveling. 

The Supplies

As shown above, I'll supply the box with a flip mat and some dry erase pens. That will take care of the battlefield and terrain.

I'm planning to go with blocks for the miniatures, as shown here

I would also like to be able to do skirmishes. I'm thinking of using meeples.

The Rules

Now this is where things are really getting crazy. I'd like to make a generic, universal kit. Big battles? Skirmish? RPG? I want to do it all with one ruleset. Impossible, right?

Well, recently I was struck by an idea for a light solo RPG ruleset. They key concept is what I call the Res (i.e. Resolution) Test. It always works the same - roll 4+ on a D6 to succeed. Specific conditions like PC level, enemy armor class, etc. will determine if the test is advantaged (bonus to attack) or disadvantaged. What makes this system so flexible is that I can assess advantages or disadvantages on the fly without a lot of math or stats.

Then it dawned on me. I already came up with this system - it's the same core rule for the latest incarnation of my MicroBattle rules.

So now I am expanding on that core, developing guidelines on how to apply the Res Test to different types of games. We'll see how that goes.

My Four Against Darkness Tweaks

With LARPing out of the question for the time being, I have developed a real itch for some fantasy gaming. I decided to reboot a campaign I had started a while back but left hanging. It involves 2 characters that I created for Four Against Darkness (4AD), an excellent solo dungeon crawl game.

Now that I am posting new adventures on this blog, I thought I would tell you a little about the campaign. This turned into a rather lengthy discourse, so I have divided it into multiple posts.

First, let me tell you about how I play 4AD. While I really enjoyed it as written, I eventually made some changes to better fit my personal preferences. Here are changes that I am employing in this campaign.

Two Against Darkness
Before 4AD, I was running some homebrew solo RPGs with 2 heroes (essentially a main character and a sidekick). I found it a little easier to control the characters and it felt a little more cinematic. I actually created Khamen and Candorra to see if 4AD would work with 2 heroes.

I have given them a little assistance here and there to compensate for the missing party members. They start each adventure with a healing potion and I will reduce the enemies to manageable numbers. Sometimes an NPC will join them. Shortening the adventures (see below) also helps.

Overall, I like the change. I feel that I can concentrate on developing the main characters more (and they have certainly taken on a life of their own - but more about that in a later post). By judicious tweaking, I have kept the challenge level appropriate. My characters meet with danger but are not completely overwhelmed. It's been a lot of fun.

Shorter Adventures
I find that I start to get bored if the adventure goes on too long. 4AD does recommend using a time limit or a smaller map if pressed for time. This just felt a little artificial to me. Therefore I took some different approaches to speed up the game and reduce the time needed to finish a dungeon.

• I restricted the map to a 4 x 3 square grid, with each grid equally a room or corridor. This means that there is a maximum of 12 encounters per adventure (although I have done some 2-part adventures). I have a rule that the boss cannot appear in the first half of the map unless the characters complete 5 other challenges. This prevents the game from ending too quickly.

An example of a 4 x 3 grid

• Because I changed the map, I also changed how to determine room shape. It's pretty quick (no shuffling through pages to find the room). I lose a little flavor; the maps tend to be more generic and less interesting than straight 4AD. But I find the gain in speed worth it.

Streamlined room layout generator

• I created an adventure sheet with the encounters listed on it. Before I start the game I fill in the potential encounters. This greatly speeds up the process of determining encounters during the game. It also allows me to create a more focused, thematic dungeon.

A blank adventure map
I fill in the possible encounters before starting

No Loot

I've written about this in a previous blog post but I will reiterate that I don't care for the RPG obsession with acquiring stuff. To me, that is not heroic. Therefore I have dispensed with looting and instead assume that my characters get needed supplies from a patron, usually the Temple (i.e. the church). This causes a couple of issues in 4AD:

• Characters don't have money to bribe monsters. I generally just ignore the reaction tables. Instead, if there is a chance for a parley, I give the party an influence roll (I generally just come up with the needed value on the fly). If they succeed they can avoid combat. In most cases, however, combat is unavoidable. For example, when the heroes met the cultists in the Library, there was no chance for negotiation. In the campaign's backstory, the cultists were deadly rivals to my characters.
• There is no chance to acquire random magic items. I alleviate this by allowing a chance of acquiring magic items after defeating the boss. The patron can also furnish items - for example, I start each character with a healing potion, courtesy of the Temple, at the start of an adventure.

Of course, I don't find these problems to be insurmountable. For me, dispensing with loot has increased my enjoyment of the game.

MicroBattle: Fire & Sword

On my Battle of Taplaea post, Oliver asked for a copy of my MicroBattle: Fire & Sword rules. I have posted them below.

I designed these rules to give me simple and quick battles using the same core rules for a large swath of history. I use them for battles from ancient times until the end of the horse & musket era (19th century). During this time major battles generally involved clashes between big blocks of troops, which I depict with stands of miniatures.

I do not claim that these rules give an  accurate depiction of battle. They are quick (under a half hour for a game) and simple (I rarely have to refer to the rules), so they meet my design specifications.

Note that these rules are a constant work-in-progress. I often fudge or change things on the fly. In particular, I often tweak the unit stats. If you try these rules, please feel free to modify things to your liking.

Set Up

• These rules are designed for a 6 x 8 gridded battlefield
• I determine terrain randomly, using terrain cards that I created (I use 4 for a 6 x 8 field)

Terrain cards in action
(Top - Woods, Clear x 2, Hill, Bottom - Clear, Hill, Clear, River)
Also have cards for rough ground and fields

• I usually use the army generation rules from One Hour Wargames. It has great scenarios, too. Well worth the purchase price.

Turn Sequence

1. Initiative - Each side rolls a D6. Winner goes first this turn
2. Payer 1 Turn
1. Roll for Activate Units
2. Take Actions (Move and/or Attack)
3. Player 2 Turn
1. Roll for Activate Units
2. Take Actions (Move and/or Attack)

Activation

• Roll two D6s. Take the higher roll.
• Can activate number of units = roll

Movement

• See unit stats for movement allowance
• Move of 1-2 or 2-3 indicates a 50% chance of being able to move the higher amount (roll 4+ on a D6)
• Movement is always orthogonal, not diagonal
• Ranged infantry may move and fire. Artillery may not
• Movement in rough
• Any unit may enter
• Heavy units must roll 4+ to exit

Attacking

• Combat may occur if a unit is within range (see unit stats)
• Range of 0 means that the attacker must be able to move into the defenders space
• Only the attacker rolls
• Each unit rolls a D6 + mods. Hit on roll of Combat Value (CV) or greater
• + or -1 if advantaged / disadvantaged (I determine this on the fly)
• -1 if SHAKEN
• Defender in melee may counterattack if attacker fails to hit

Battle Results

• For every hit taken, units roll a D6. Need to roll Defense (Def) or greater
• Unit is SHAKEN if it fails the roll
• Unit routs (remove it from the field) on a second SHAKEN result
• Unit also RETREATS on a roll of 1
• Retreat = move 1 space toward baseline
• May move diagonal
• Unit routs if it cannot retreat

Morale

• If an army drops below 50% of its initial strength, roll a D6
• Roll for each unit lost after 50%
• Roll of 4+ means that the army continues to fight. Otherwise it retreats (game ends)

Unit Stats

(Move/Range/CV/Def)

From the Shock Period (Ancient / Medieval)

• Heavy Infantry               1 / 0 /4+ /4+
• Auxilia Infantry             1-2 / 0 / 5+ / 5+
• Archers                          1 / 2 / 5+ / 5+
• Skirmishers                    1-2 / 1 / 5+ / 6+
• Warband                        1-2 / 0 / 4+* / 5+ (* 3+ when charging)
• Cavalry                           2 / 0 / 4+ / 5+
• Knights                           1-2 / 0 / 4+* / 4+ (* 3+ when charging)
• Light Cavalry                 2-3 / 0 / 5+ / 6+

From the Horse & Musket Period

• Regular Infantry            1 / 2/ 4+ / 5+
• Light Infantry                1-2 / 3 / 5+ / 6+
• Cavalry                          2 / 0 / 4+ / 5+
• Field Artillery                1 / 4 / 5+ / 6+

Notes: 

• I've been toying with ideas about making light troops a bit more resilient. Perhaps ignore a SHAKEN result if they retreat.
• I also keep toying around with rules to rally troops. In the heat of battle, however, I constantly forget to use them.

Re-Discovering In Her Majesty's Name

Finding a bit of spare time yesterday, I decided to play a little game (battle report forthcoming). This time I returned to the fantasy setting I played around with in November (described here). However, I changed up the rules and adapted the sci-fi skirmish rules from earlier this month. My experiment got me thinking more about skirmish rules systems (don't worry, I'm getting to In Her Majesty's Name)

Lately I have been perusing various skirmish rules systems for ideas. I recently picked up Galactic Heroes and have gleaned some ideas from it. Interestingly, I originally shied away from it because it uses card activation (which I dislike). However, I now see that one could easily dispense with the cards and still play the combat system. I have also been reviewing old Osprey sets that I have picked up over the years. I really have an addiction to their rules - the price is right - even if I rarely end up playing the games.

Which brings me to In Her Majesty's Name (I told you I'd get there). This is one of those Osprey rules sets I have on my e-reader. I picked it up years ago because I have an interest in Victorian science fiction (which you can probably tell from my retrospective on Space 1889).

I never bothered to play it, for a variety of reasons. I didn't have any figures and was reluctant to start up a new project. Furthermore, the rules themselves use a D10 and I am firmly in the D6 camp. Thus, it ended up in my archive - until recently.

As I mentioned, I have been perusing various skirmish sets. I took another look at IHMN and was rather surprised by what I read. Despite using a D10, there were quite a few similarities between IHMN and the skirmish rules I have been developing. Both sets give each figure a Shoot (ranged combat) and Fight (melee) values, which get added to a die roll to hit. Any figure that gets hit must then roll to determine the impact - there is a possibility that the hit will do no damage.

One difference, though, is the damage resolution. In my rules, the damage roll results in 0-2 wounds, which get marked off the figure's hit points. Most grunts only have 1-2 hp, so tracking is not too onerous. Nevertheless, I still need to track.

In contrast, IHMN features a Pluck roll. If a figure is hit, it must roll greater than the pluck roll to shake off the hit; rolling under means that the figure is out of the action. At first, this concerned me as it seems that any figure, including a hero, only has 1 hit point. But I just noticed that the Pluck values vary; heroes will have a better Pluck, allowing them to shake off more hits.

Let me illustrate. A typical goon might have a Pluck of 6+, giving the goon a 50% chance of surviving a hit. On average, it will take about 2 hits to take down a goon. A hero with a Pluck of 2+ will require an average of about 10 hits before being out of action. I realized that this system essentially provides differing hit points without having to track wounds!

There is still the problem of a lucky hit offing a hero in one shot. I think this can be addressed by giving the player a pool of hero points that can offset a failed Pluck roll. In fact, I think I read that Thud & Blunder, a fantasy rules set by the authors of IHMN, uses a similar system.

Long story short, I am very intrigued by the possibilities of a Pluck role and am thinking of experimenting with it for my skirmish rules.

My Paladin Rules - So Far

Last month I mentioned that I had a hankering for some small scale fantasy wargaming. Since then I have run a couple of experiments (such as this skirmish) using scenarios from Dragon Rampant. I'm writing my own rules and they are still in flux. I thought I'd jot down some notes about where the rules stand.

Organization
Technically, the rules use a 1:1 figure scale, meaning that an individual "figure" represents 1 man or beast. However, I am using 3mm figures which are based on stands. Each stand (which I call a lance) operates independently. In a sense, these rules are very much like Squad Hammer in that the basic unit is essentially a squad.

The good guys are based with 1 strip of figures to a stand. I am using the strips from my generic army project.

Heavy infantry (in silver armor) are 8 figures to a stand

Light infantry (in green) are 4 figures to a stand.

I also based some cavalry with 4 figures per stand.

An "army" (company? retinue?) thus equates to about 20-30 troops.

The bad guys (in black) have 2 strips per stand of heavy infantry. The idea is that the baddies are more numerous, albeit not as skilled, as the heroes.

Combat
I wanted combat to have a bit of an RPG feel to it (more about that later) but I did not want to use a D20. Thus, I have borrowed the 2D6 system used by Barbarians of Lemuria. Ironically, the system has a lot in common with Squad Hammer. To hit you need to roll 2D6 equal or greater to a target number, which will vary depending on the toughness of the enemy.

If your to-hit roll is successful, the target will have a chance to defend against it (essentially they are dodging or parrying the blow). Armor will help with defense. Still not sure how this will work but I am leaning toward a D6. That may change however.

I'm still trying to flesh out the details.

Leveling Up
When I mentioned that I wanted an RPG feel, I meant that I want to follow the careers of certain characters and have them advance in power -  i.e. level up. Again I have borrowed from Barbarians of Lemuria, which has 5 levels. Thus, I want my heroes to reach up to level 5 with commensurate increases in combat ability.

Now I don't plan on tracking individual characteristics. Instead, each lance will be named after its leader and the lance as a whole can level up. Lances will start at level 1. I still need to work out the leveling rules.

Progress
I've run a couple of games with the bare bones of this system. They have been quite fun, even if they are half baked still. Work shall continue.

One Hour Skirmish Wargames

I recently purchased One Hour Skirmish Wargames for the nook.

The rules are designed for fast-play small-unit actions for eras where firearms predominate (i.e. from the musket to the modern eras, and beyond). I've been dabbling with fast-play skirmish rules for a couple of years now so was interested to see another approach. Now that I've read through them, do I like them?

NO!
When I first learned about these rules I was taken aback by something on the cover. It says "dice-less." I found a review that pointed out that the rules use playing cards as randomizers. This was a big negative to me. I'm not a fan of using cards in mini games. It's just one more component to clutter my small table. I much prefer using dice. As such, I find it unlikely that I will use these rules as written (what else is new?). I'm not sure why I bought these rules, but then I read further.

YES!
Nevertheless, I am very glad that I did read OHSW; there are some really great ideas in it! Here are a few that struck me.

Damage
Much like Neil Thomas's One Hour Wargames,  OHSW seeks to strip out any unnecessary complexity. One way that the author, John Lambshead, does this is to get rid of tracking of wounds / damage. Instead, damage is very simple and straightforward - figures that are hit are considered Downed and a laid on their side. At the end of the turn, the player checks on the fate of any Downed figures. Any figure that fails the check is a Casualty and is removed from play.

I'm sure I've seen something similar before so it may not necessarily be completely innovative. Nevertheless, none of my current rules use this damage methodology so it is new to me. And I really like the simplicity of it; so much so that I intend to experiment with it.

Scenarios
Lambshead provides a section of core rules followed by period-specific rules for 6 eras (Musket, Rifle, Interwar, World War 2, Cold War, and Pulp). Each period includes a scenario. For example, the Rifle Era chapter has a scenario where a small British detachment defends a small redoubt from a Zulu attack. Each scenario looks interesting; I'd like to give each a try.

Campaigns
The author also include a fairly lengthy chapter on campaigns where he discusses various types of campaigns.

In one section of the chapter, he provides an example of a map campaign. It centers around a WW2 German unit trying to escape a Soviet encirclement. The Germans travel among nodes on the mode while the Soviets position their limited defending forces at certain nodes. If opposing forces meet at a node then a skirmish occurs. This example provides an interesting set-up that can easily be converted to a solo campaign!

OHSW also suggests a narrative campaign, where forces are not moved on a map but the skirmishes are linked. For example, the first skirmish involves intelligence gathering, followed by an assault, then pursuit, and finally an ambush. This example is simple, straightforward, and easy to solo, while still providing varied and interesting situations.

I found the campaigns chapter very inspirational!

FINAL VERDICT
My initial reaction was very negative due to the use of cards rather than dice. However, Lambshead won me over with some interesting and useful ideas. I am tempted to get some cards (I don't even own a deck right now) and try out the rules themselves (more likely I will try to dice-ify them). I definitely want to test out the scenarios and campaigns.

Overall, I say BUY IT. Even if you don't use the dice-less system, you may find some value to OHSW.

Learning to Krawl

Nearly five years ago I worked up a simple set of dungeon crawl rules that I called Kevin's Krawl. I eventually abandoned KK when I discovered Four Against Darkness (4AD). Recently, however, I have been taking a second look at them.

My main concern with 4AD is at the higher levels. Once you reach level 5, you move to the rules expansion in Four Against the Abyss, which drops D6s in favor of D8s. Now I am no fan of funny-shaped dice and don't want to scrounge around for any in order to play. I kept wondering if there would be a single D6 mechanic that could cover all levels of play. A little while ago I started poking around with other rules-light RPGS such as Amazing Tales (which I converted to 2D6) and PDQ. However, not much came of it all.

My interest in dungeon crawls has recently revived, thanks to a video game. My wife had been playing a lot of Darkest Dungeon.

This got me interested in playing a pen-and-paper dungeon crawl. I also got inspiration from Squad-Hammer. It struck me that the simple 2D6 mechanics of S-H could be applied to skirmish level action. I then realized that S-H was somewhat similar in execution to Kevin's Krawl. So now I'm back to KK, utilizing ideas from Amazing Tales, PDQ, and Squad-Hammer to improve my original design. I have some thoughts jotted down - I just need to collect them together and then run some playtests.

Assessing Squad-Hammer

I recently purchased and experimented with Squad-Hammer by Nordic Weasel Games. It is described as "dirt simple gaming for many settings..or all of them." In essence, it is set up as a flexible, simple set of rules that can handle multiple settings. As you can see from the cover, you can mix dinosaurs and tanks!

The author admits that the system is intended for eras relying on ranged firepower so they aren't quite universal (although they likely can be adapted for melee-era battles). The rules themselves are fairly light. As Kaptain Kobold noted on Stronghold Rebuilt: "The rules are very much a toolkit, with no clearly defined troop stats, but lots of information on how to prepare such things." Sounds like my cup of tea.

So what are my thought after my first game of S-H? Let's take a look at a couple of the core mechanics and my thoughts about them.

Activation
On his turn, the player rolls 2D6 and keeps the highest. The die score is the number of activation points available for the turn. One activation point will allow the player to act with one unit; armies typically have 4 - 6 units. Thus, it is possible for all units to activate on a turn. This is especially true because rolling 2 dice can mitigate against a bad roll. For example, a player would have a 1/6 chance of having 1 activation point per turn if only rolling 1D6 but that probability drops to 1/36 on 2 dice.

At first I was a little concerned about this mechanism. It reminded me of De Bellis Antiquitatis (roll 1D6 activation points). In my home-brew games I dropped the DBA system because it did not generate enough fog of war for my taste. If I rolled a 1, I could take a deliberately conservative move because I knew I could not move up support. Later I adapted the Song of Blade and Heroes system because it created greater uncertainty. When I moved the first unit, I did not know if any others would follow it. Thus, I could move a unit forward aggressively only to find it unsupported. Or I could be more conservative but find that I missed an opportunity. Decisions, decisions. . .

Nevertheless, there is merit in the S-H approach. First, it is very simple in application with minimal dice-rolling. Second, it mitigates frustratingly bad activation rolls. There have been many times in my solo games when one side does nothing in a turn because of bad rolling. That won't happen with S-H.

Overall, I was content with the S-H approach. Because most units could move in a turn, the game moved along at a good pace. Nevertheless, there were enough times when a side was restricted in what it could do, which forced some decision-making. Although I may try out other activation methods, I will likely continue to use this approach for the time being.

Movement
Movement is very straightforward. Typically, infantry will move 6" with other types moving relatively more or less. There are modifiers due to terrain. Pretty basic stuff, actually.

I had no issues with this in my test game. However, I prefer using a gridded battlefield so I will be considering ways to grid-ify S-H.

Combat
Combat is very simple, and perhaps a bit too vague for some. An attacking unit will roll 2D6, needing to roll at or above a target number to hit. In general, the target number is 7+ for targets in moderate range in the open. The game does not provide a long list of modifiers to account for different situations. Players need to improvise a target number from 5 to 10, although S-H does provide some general suggestions.

While some might hate the ambiguity, I absolutely love it for solo gaming. The lack of definitive modifiers certainly speeds play; I don't have to look anything up. In fact, I often roll before I determine the target number. If I roll really high or low, the target number becomes moot because the result is clear. If it is borderline, I usually just make a judgement call - "yeah, close enough" or "nah, not quite." Simple and quick!

Once a unit hits, roll for damage. Damage is typically D6 (although it could be D3 or best of 2D6). Damage is marked off and units are usually destroyed with 7 points. It is a simple system that is primarily attritional but can feature variability (a unit could sustain anywhere from 2 to 7 rounds of damage. Naturally, 2 would be most common but I had units that survived until 3 or 4 hits)

Damage was my biggest concern with the combat rules. I hate using rosters and it seems clunky for a unit to have up to 6 damage markers beside it. For my first game, I used a roster but I was not thrilled with it. My units were not identified in any way so I had to remember that the one on the left was unit 1, etc. Issues cropped up when units switched positions. Of course, I can mitigate the issue by adding ID numbers to the units. I'd rather not do that. Instead, I want to look into damage markers (Kaptain Kobold has some effective ones in this Trench Hammer battle report). This is going to take some experimenting.

Overall Thoughts

• I really haven't scratched the surface of this game yet. There are things I forgot to do (for example, a unit can withdraw and recover from some of its damage). Nevertheless, I like the base mechanics and plan on more experiments.
• I am a fan of universal mechanics and D6s. S-H offers both of these features. Thus, these rules are right in my wheelhouse.
• The activation system worked fine. I will probably use it as-is for the time being, however I may experiment with other systems at some point.
• My most immediate concern is with damage. I want to avoid rosters and I cannot use single figure removal. What are my options? I can make try to make some markers that are unobtrusive but still allow up to 6 damage points. Or I can play with the damage rules to reduce the amount of damage a unit could take. I would then need to modify the damage rolls. I may need to give this some thought.

Regardless of my quibbles, I am very pleased with this purchase. 

My evaluation - Buy Squad-Hammer now!

Follow-Up
After I wrote this assessment, I was perusing my battle report from the day prior. I realized that my sci-fi forces are still on wooden bases. I thought to myself that I should upgrade to the Litko clear bases (I've become a big Litko fan). I then had an epiphany - I could mark damage on the bases with a marker!

Below is an experiment. The infantry and tank have marked damage.

As you can see, the ink works on the bases. Furthermore, it was no trouble wiping off the marks. It seems like a good option. I'll have to re-base and test it out!

Storms of War at Sea

I did a little Age of Sail experimentation today. I didn't bother recording all the action, but I'll give you a brief synopsis.

First was a moderate sized (for me at least) battle with 4 ships a side. One Blue (bottom, with a white marker on it) and two Red ships (also with white markers) were forced to strike.

The I tried a smaller action to see if my rules would be too simplistic with few ships. I thought they worked fine. Here we say one Red frigate (bottom right) trying to overhaul two Blue merchants. One of the merchants is trying a long range shot (it missed).

 Eventually, the frigate caught one of the merchants and severely damaged it, although it took some damage too. The other merchant would escape.

I used the rules as-is for the frigate (i.e. 2D6 in combat). Obviously, a frigate does not have the same firepower as a ship of the line, but I essentially adjusted the scale accordingly. The merchants fired with a single die.

All-in-all, I have been pleased with the rules. Here is the latest incarnation.

One issue is that collisions were very frequent when one ship tried to cross another's T. The target ship had to move forward 1 space, crashing into the enemy. I may allow the target a chance to turn before movement.

Come Sail Away

Earlier this week I performed a couple of Age of Sail experiments.

Previous experiments utilized my scratch built ships (which I made in the early 1990s!)

Because of their masts, these ships don't fit well into my portable wargame boxes. I've been thinking about creating some counters, like Fantalonia's. I don't have a functioning color printer at home, so these counters have been shelved for the moment. However, I have some pieces of craft wood. A little snipping and painting later and I have 2 fleets.

I also dabbled with rules today.

First, I used an idea from Aelred Glidden's As Per Margin rules (in MWAN 109). Roll 2 dice to determine movement. Use the higher die if moving with the wind or the lower if against. Because my board is small, I halved the movement rates (e.g. a roll of 5 or 6 = 3 squares). To speed the process, I rolled per squadron instead of per ship. Overall, I felt that this was a positive experiment. It gave some variability to movement that made things interesting.

For combat, I rolled 2 dice per ship, needing a 4+ (5+ at long range) to hit. Given that ships could only take 3 hits before striking, this could get bloody fast. Thus, I added a couple of rules to lessen damage. First, ships could make repair rolls; for each hit roll 4+ remove a hit. Then halve the number of hits to determine permanent damage.

Here is a shot of my ships in action.

This was after several turns of battle (half of the Blue navy has sailed off the board without damage). Black markers indicate hits and orange represent permanent damage. After repairs, these 4 hits translated into 2 points of damage. At the end of the game, Blue had no damaged ships while Red had 3 (one seriously with 2 damage). These changes seem to be working.

Once again I had a game partner. This time Onyx watched without disturbing the pieces (although he sat on my box).

And Now The Rules

These are the rules I used for my most recent horse & musket experiment.

Preliminary Concepts

• I plan to use the rules for solo horse & musket battles using 6-unit armies (a la One Hour Wargames)
• I'll be using an 8 x 10 gridded battlefield. Each square of the grid is 1 inch. I'm using a Pathfinder flip-mat, which allows me to draw terrain on the board.
• The game is designed to be portable. I can fit the components into an A4 sized plastic box.

The Rules

• Initiative (first turn only) - roll D6 per side to determine who goes first each turn
• Side A (winner of initiative) phase
• Roll to activate units
• Choose 2 units and roll >= Quality to move
• If both fail, turn ends
• Move activated units
• Infantry can move 2 or move 1 and fight
• Skirmishers can move 2 and fight
• Cavalry can move 3 and fight
• Artillery can move 1 or fight
• Roll vs Quality to exit rough terrain
• Adjudicate combat
• Determine units in combat - includes units attacked by the active side and units of the active side that could receive return fire
• Make a morale check for each unit in combat
• Roll = D6 + mods
• +1 if advantaged, -1 if disadvantaged
• -1 for close combat (range = 1)
• -1 per morale marker
• Apply results
• 0 or less = Rout! Remove the unit from the field
• 1 - 2 = Shaken! Add a morale marker. Roll >= Quality or retreat 1 space. Units with 2-3 markers rout.
• 3 - 4 = Disordered! Subtract 1 from Quality roll next turn
• 5 or more = Steady! No effect
• Army Morale - once an army loses half its units, roll to determine if the army is demoralized. On a roll of 1 - 3, the army must retreat from the field. If it passes, it continues to fight but must recheck with each additional unit lost.
• Side B phase - same as side A

Design Notes

Activation

Recently I have been using the Song of Blades and Heroes method (roll 1-3 D6s vs. Quality; each success allows 1 action; 2 failures ends the turn) on a per unit basis. I felt that it slowed play. Furthermore, there were too many occasions where turns ended prematurely.

To speed play, I decided to roll 1D6 per unit, but roll for activation in pairs. This forces some thought in terms of activation order, still keeps the possibility of a quick end to the turn, but makes abject failure less prevalent. This new method seemed to work OK. More experimentation is needed.

Movement

Movement rules are pretty much derived from the Command & Colors series (especially Memoir '44). I added a Quality roll to exit rough terrain. This rule did not come into play during my first experiment.

Combat

Combat is inspired by Twilight of the Sun King. There is no firing or melee (these are assumed to be occurring throughout the turn). Instead, units simply roll morale if engaged in combat. 

I decided to have both sides test in a turn. I found that this speeds play considerably, and it feels right. The defenders are able to return fire rather than just standing around while the enemy attacks. This will affect scenario design (especially if I use OHW scenarios). Essentially, units experience double the amount of combat each turn, reducing the number of turns they can survive.

Looking over the TotSK rules, I was concerned about keeping track of all the modifiers to morale. I decided to simplify the rules a lot. I simply looked at the situation in an individual combat, decided which side had the advantage, and modified both sides' rolls as noted above. I found this quick and intuitive for solo play; I'm not sure how well it would work in a competitive game. I added a couple of additional modifiers for a bit more granularity. Nevertheless, the morale checks were a breeze. I usually rolled both sides at the same time (using different colored dice). It was quick and easy to adjudicate morale results.

Army Morale

I have not bothered with an army morale rule since I abandoned DBA. However, Bob Cordery's Portable Wargame and TotSK inspired me to implement a system. I may still need to tweak it, but I think it gave a realistic result.

Twilight is a New Dawn

I attempted another experiment earlier this week - a full-blown game.

I didn't finish and didn't take pics either so no battle report. However, it generated some more thoughts and a new direction.

In this experiment, a unit would roll 2D6 to melee or shoot at the enemy. However, I assumed that the enemy was fighting back. If the modified roll was below 7, the attacker actually took damage (morale loss).

In general, the rules worked, although they seemed to generate a little more dice-rolling than I'd like. More importantly, there were a couple of issues that niggled me:

• What to do if a unit was in range of the enemy but did not attack? Should the enemy get a chance to fire? I allowed it, rolled an attack, but ignored any damage on the defender.
• What to do if a unit is attacked by multiple enemies? I rolled each attack separately, with a modifier for each additional attack.

It dawned on me that I could alleviate the above concerns and reduce the number of dice rolls if I just made a morale roll for any units that could be shot at or meleed. 

Wait, where did I see that idea before?

• Ah, I found a set called Lace Wars on Free Wargames Rules that used the idea.
• LW references rules by Aelred Glidden. Aha! I had those once upon a time. They were in the old MWAN.
• A little more research and the plot thickens. Glidden's rules were based on a Stephen Simpson's rules for the American Revolution which appeared in Wargames Illustrated #75.
• Apparently, Simpson's rules inspired a set for the War of the Spanish Succession posted on the web, This set eventually became Twilight of the Sun King.

• Ironically, Kaptain Kobold discussed this very set last year! 

At the time I read KK's account but dismissed the rules. Perhaps because the good Kaptain noted some issues with the rules. I may also not have cared for the period (Malburian Wars). Nevertheless, my interest is now piqued and I have ordered the rules. Of course, I already plan to make changes - gridifying them for starters. Nevertheless, the combat system has promise. Perhaps Twilight is a new dawn for me?!

Experiment 2

After my previous experiment, I had to ponder my initial design. Rolling a modified 2D6 to determine if the defender or attacker wins that stage of the engagement effectively allowed defensive fire during the attacker's phase. This seemed to make any attack too risky. I considered only allowing a side to damage the enemy during it's own phase. However, I foresee some issues with this (it will be too easy for cavalry to get into close combat among other things).

Instead, I decided to try another tack. I kept my original design for determining if the defenders or attacker wins. However, I reduced the odds of acquiring a morale marker during the Morale Phase. How did it work out? I ran a test.

Two infantry units of the Red army attack a Blue-held hill. One unit outpaces its companion (I was making activation rolls). The first Red unit manages to get into a firefight with Blue artillery.

Ultimately, Red overruns the guns. The other unit gets into action against the Blue infantry.

 Note: orange markers indicate morale loss.

But is forced to retreat. Blue then engages the first Red unit.

Two Red infantry assault the defenders.

After a lengthy fight, the Red units are driven off with severe losses.

Overall my modifications worked well, too well in fact. At first, it was too difficult to cause a morale marker. I made an adjustment and the results seemed better. I liked that the infantry managed to get into close range, bringing a little suspense into the engagement. I think I can continue with my current framework.

My main concern with this experiment was Blue's ability to fight off double the numbers. There is a mod for fighting outnumbered but it didn't seem to help much. I'm hoping that this was an aberration. I'll have to perform some more experiments.