Air Power in WW II Skirmish Gaming

WI 259

Today, I'm throwing out some ideas on how I would handle the occasional strafing and dive-bombing in a World War II skirmish game. As the teaser mentioned yesterday, I have some more conceptual food-for-thought kind of ideas as well, but I'll probably go into that later.

Right now, let's get to the mechanics of a limited air attack. This one should probably really have a random out-of-the-players' hands feel to it. Neil Smith recommended a random events table in his "Skirmish Envelope" article in WI 259 and I think this may be the right way to bring in air attacks into a skirmish game. The scenario designer/referee can certainly tweak the probabilities of having air support arrive as well as WHOSE air support arrives. Of course, there's such vagaries as misidentifying aircraft and troops on the ground by both parties, so there's a chance to throw in some friendly fire into the mix.

Frankly, I think all of the above concerns are big IFs and I suppose the designer can make them as simple, complicated, or random as desired. The most devious thing I could think would be to have a plane show up - doesn't matter whose side it is on - and make a random check (you might could weight the probability for one side or the other) for what section, gun team, or vehicle takes a pounding with bombs or rockets - and it might be worth clarifying a priority target list here as well. Simply use mortar or artillery templates for effects.

Offhand, I would recommend that a strafing attack simply require a tape measure, yard stick, or wooden dowel to be placed at the selected attack point and set across the table as desired. The kill zone could probably measure 2 or 3 inches on either side (giving a 4 - 6 inch swath of destruction), with a knockdown or pin zone of equal distance beyond. I guess 3 feet would be about the extent of the strafing run, but 2 feet might work as well; I think 12" seems a bit short, but I suppose it would be worth researching minimum strafing fields of fire before coming down against it.

Now I suppose if you decide on using the random ground attack method mentioned previously the referee could use scatter dice to determine the axis of the strafing run. This could certainly result in attacks on both sides.
To represent a strafing attack, I suppose you could use a scale model of a suitable aircraft. If we assume that 1 inch represents about 5 feet, then it's probably not too crazy to have the model suspended over the tabletop by 18" or 24" (90 or 120 feet altitude) - which seems close to treetop level. You could also put them in at an angle. I would say that attack/descent altitude be handled abstractly by ground fire - ie. the plane isn't actually 18" above them. Offhand, I'd say any AA weapons should treat strafing aircraft as medium or long range shots (and assuming they aren't surprised and can react).

Alternately, I think it might be kind of cool to make a silhouette out of card of foamcore and place it directly on the table. I think this even more appropriate if you are handling a bombing action. I'm taking a nod from the Combat Mission computer game here - whenever aircraft show up, you just see passing shadows - and there's always a chance of friendly fire.



All right, that's it for today. Next time around we'll take a look at some historical data on Luftwaffe air-to-ground attacks and see how that can play a role in scenario design.

Coming Up: Air Power in WW II Skirmish Gaming

OK, I know I said I would post next on artillery fire in WW II skirmish gaming, but I stumbled across some great data on German Air-to-Ground tactics compiled by the US Army (can't remember the source right now, although I think it was an armored division in the 3rd Army) and it has made me think of some tabletop gaming and modeling ideas that I have never considered before. I had some mechanic ideas already in mind, but these may give some scenario-building considerations and a nod towards aesthetics.

Out of the Blue - more on mortars in skirmish gaming

WI 259

This post is part of a series regarding combined arms in skirmish level games (primarily World War II and taking inspiration from Neil Smith's "Skirmish Envelope" article in Wargames Illustrated 259). This one in particular picks up from a guest post made by Neil Smith. You can follow the whole thing from his post or simply roll back a couple weeks.

I think Neil brings an important fact to light regarding mortar attacks - or more specifically, opening a combat encounter with a mortar attack. The falling rounds give little or no warning, giving them the advantage of ambush - ie. taking the targets by surprise. I'd also have to agree with Neil's suggestion that falling mortar rounds in the midst of an already-hot combat kind of loses some of its impact since the targets are already taking some sort of evasive action if possible.

I think this probably should translate into an increased chance to pin, suppress, or kill with the opening salvo (which might only be one round). Going beyond mortars here, I think the ambush concept of applying bonuses to initial attack rolls for any kind of fire ought to apply - and this thought is probably not a stranger to most rules systems.

Another point Neil mentioned is that for game purposes one side shouldn't be allowed to simply pound the other with mortar rounds right after another - ie. the targets should get a chance to act. I agree with this certainly. In an I-Go-You-Go game this can be done by simply requiring a check for suppressed figures to take some action (maybe at some reduced mobility). I kind of like how Arty Conliffe's Crossfire handles one-sided pounding - if the attacker can't achieve significant results (ie. suppression or kills), then the targets get a chance to do something besides take a shellacking.

Finally, I think skirmish games do benefit from interrupting actions - things that come under such names as opportunity fire or overwatch - and I believe mortars ought to get those kind of options. I think this mode of fire typically applies only to direct fire, but I can really see it working for a local mortar team, self-spotting or with a spotter.

Out of the Blue – mortar attacks on infantry (Neil Smith guest blog)

[This guest post by WI regular contributor Neil Smith is in response to some recent posts on combined arms in skirmish wargaming: here and here.]

WI 259

As Paul was kind enough to mention my Skirmish Envelope article in WI259, I thought I would respond with some thoughts of my own and jump into what I think is a fascinating thread, how to replicate skirmish combat in miniature. For the most part I agree with Paul’s assessment and as always I bow to his superior knowledge on rules and rules mechanisms, what I want to do though is get into the weeds on how to frame a mortar attack. So, without further ado...

I’ve never been under mortar fire, nor would I want to be. My reading of such an event tells me that to do so would be worse in some ways than coming under long-range artillery fire for a couple of reasons. First, a mortar attack comes with no warning, unless the target is close enough to hear the tell-tale “puff” of the round being expelled from the mortar tube. Otherwise, the first the target knows about a mortar attack is the detonation. The second reason is the sensation of being specifically targeted: the enemy firing the mortars must be close to know the location of the target if only approximately. Both of those add an element of terror to coming under mortar fire that doesn’t exist with the equally terrifying but more random lightning-strike quality of artillery fire. At least that is the assumption I operate under when considering how to replicate mortar fire on the table-top.

Mortar fire, depending on circumstances, creates two levels of reaction, voluntary and involuntary – the dominant circumstance is whether or not the mortar fire begins an attack, or is part of a broader enemy response to the presence of hostile troops. Assume it is the former event; your infantry are moving forward into enemy territory and a mortar round lands, what do they do? I suspect the normal reaction, around which most rules should be written, is to instinctively duck or seek some sort of safety. Hearing the round land would be enough to prompt that reaction; therefore, in the scale of a skirmish game, I suggest that every soldier on the receiving end takes some sort of instant evasive action and should be moved or repositioned accordingly, say within 50mm of their current position if cover is that close.

The conscious reaction follows on from the initial movement – will your soldier under mortar fire take an action or stay put? If the mortar round detonates within sight or is close enough for the soldier to reason that another round is on the way and has a good chance of landing close by, then the odds of staying put are quite high. I think it is quite reasonable, therefore, to demand that a figure within a 125mm radius of the detonation, or any figure with line of sight to the detonation to a distance of 250mm, requires a 6 on a d6 to take any action for the rest of that turn – figures in front of the detonation would probably be less consumed by fear, I think, so only those closer than 125mm would be affected beyond their instinctive reaction.

I would ignore the psychological reaction to mortar fire if the target infantry comes under fire as part of a larger assault on the grounds they probably already have bigger problems to deal with from direct fire.

As for the physical effect of a mortar round detonation, I think there is no way past using a template or a quick spin of the tape-measure from the point of explosion. For the sake of argument, I assume the round lands where the firer intends, although that does not necessarily result in any casualties within the blast radius. I would also halve the effects of mortars both psychological and physical in built-up areas or jungles/forests.

I think also because skirmish games are generally one-to-one for figure scale, the mortar should be on table and each model fires only one round/turn like any other single shot weapon. Mortar ammunition should also be severely restricted, maybe three rounds/scenario/mortar. Finally, in keeping with my Skirmish Envelope idea, once a mortar (or mortars in the case of more than one being present and allowed to fire in salvo) is fired, the initiative immediately transfers to the receiving side. Those measures would hopefully prevent the rules lawyers for laying down continuous mortar fire and operating unopposed for the rest of the turn.

Thank you Paul for letting me squeeze into the driving seat for a while. I’m already looking forward to your thoughts on the big guns.

WW II Skirmish Gaming: Mortars

WI 259

In my last post I mentioned talking about my thoughts on bringing in the heavy guns (indirect/off-board artillery fire, naval gunnery, and air support), but it occurs to me that before I tackle that I should say a few things about the kind of localized firepower that might not seem quite as random or overwhelming to a platoon or so of infantry - at least if they are somewhat aware that their commander can access the firepower of an integral or attached heavy weapons platoon.

Battleground World War II offered templates for explosion bursts for grenades, small mortars, and larger weapons. Furthermore, it gave guidelines for calling in assorted patterns of fire - ie. how to lay down multiple rounds. These seemed pretty good ideas for how to handle grenades and mortar fire (on table or off). Now compare that to the blanket area templates used in Flames of War - which, by the way, seems quite appropriate for a game that represents multiple figures (sections, teams) on each base. Now, at some point I think a skirmish game crosses the line from individual rounds to the blanket effect, depending on the amount of firepower that ranges in. When is a good time to try for something that may be a bit more abstract that may still provide the same net effect as plotting numerous incoming HE rounds (and maybe save some time)?

For me, I think if I'm playing a game with multiple tubes - and especially if they are off-table - then I'd go with marking a center point on the table and doing a simple radius - something between 6" and 12". It's easy enough to mark the incoming rounds' total area of effect with dice, and then simply make attacks or suppression checks as desired. But what about the guys that might not have been hit by an individual round? Well, I don't think soldiers necessarily have to be within a spray of shrapnel to be effected by the very real danger surrounding them. Also, that's why I think pin/suppression should be a more likely result than outright wounds or death - and that's another point in favor in Arty Conliffe's Crossfire where destroying a unit (a stand equaled a squad) happens with a mix of shock and degrading fire; wiping out a stand on the first try might happen, but it is not likely without overwhelming force.

Now all that said, I'm still in favor of small burst radii from a limited number of on-table mortars. Even the best team won't lay down the area saturation provided by three or more tubes. There is a more immediate feel to close indirect support - and least on the tabletop where the players can all see the figures firing and moving.

Next time, we'll take a look at artillery effects and game mechanisms. I'll say this offhand - I don't think they should be limited to seeming like a really, really, big mortar attack.

[At right - the cover to Wargames Illustrated 259, which featured Neil Smith's "Skirmish Envelope," which inspired some thinking on recent topic of combined arms]

Coming Up: World War II Skirmish Gaming With Combined Arms

WI 259

I'm working on a post or two regarding ideas on how to integrate combined arms into skirmish-level World War II gaming (ie. where opposing sides have no more than a platoon or so to put on the table). I'm not talking armor or company level heavy support, I'm talking high level assets and other branches of service (air, naval).

In the meantime, I would like to draw your attention to Neil Smith's "The Skirmish Envelope" from Wargames Illustrated 259.Neil brings some sample mechanics and scenario to the piece (British and German squads near a farmhouse, if I recall). What's more, he brings a philosophy of how randomness, isolation, and a break down of command & control can be used to tweak anyone's favorite rules. I'm drawing a lot of inspiration from the article and some historical accounts of how heavy firepower (even - especially - friendly fire) really made things difficult for the men on the ground.

Essentially, I think it all comes down to controlling what does not seem controllable from the grounds eye view - and how best to adopt such a feeling for players who are supposed to be limited to making decisions than only a platoon or section leader could make.

More later...

El Cid at Pine Wood of Tevar (WI 283)

El Cid!

Seriously, I have been remiss for not mentioning this great article by James Morris (another favorite historical wargaming author of mine) from WI 283 (the Gallipoli issue) before now. He and Andy Hawes put on show regarding this 'Forgotten Battle' of the great El Cid at Partizan and the result is we are treated to a visual spectacle to accompany a rather intriguing bit of history and cool scenario. It's a big article - and worth every page.

Check out the WI website here for some great pics. While you are at it, check out Andy Hawes' blog pages on Pine Wood as well here and here. Also here. If you browse Andy's blog, I'm pretty sure you will find some more El Cid army pics, not to mention Late Roman/Arthurians and a Thin Lizzy reference or two. It's always a treat to see what he does.

WI 283: Jacob's Trench Scenario Playtest

WI 283

Well, sometimes it takes awhile to search, copy, and paste. Following is my battle report for the Jacob's Trench scenario from WI's big Gallipoli issue. For you solo gamers out there - this made a good one without having to program responses/initiatives for either side, although I suppose it could be easily done.

Again, I must say that John Bianchi did a great job not only with the narratives, but the games as well.

****
This one was a nail-biter. I played it solo using Crossfire rules (essentially using sections as platoons, which meant groups of about 4 figures functioned as a unit).

Game Narrative
Symon's lost 1/3 of his force taking the trenches, but reinforced to full strength before Turk counterattack. I held the rest of the ANZACs in reserve to reinforce or counter-attack. Two sections held the dugout while one (with Symons) covered the secondary (unroofed) trench.

The first Turk platoons were incredibly unlucky; one against the the secondary trench took 50% casualties on the approach, giving the defenders a chance to wheel on the platoon attempting to blindside the dugout, pinning them.

With the arrival of the third Turk platoon, the easy times were over and the ANZAC HMGs mowed down the pinned second platoon. The fourth platoon - replacing the second on the dugout blindside - was absolutely cut to pieces. Third platoon (after the secondary trench) got in for close combat, but broke.

Fifth and Sixth platoons came for the secondary trench. The ANZAC HMGs failed to catch them on the approach and the next thing that happened was a drawn-out firefight between in the open trenches - there were pockets of ANZACS between the Turk platoons and a reserve section of ANZACs piled into the mess. The Turk close assaults were rough, but the ANZACS managed to wear them down with defensive fire. The Turks reached the dugout once.

I did not use the 18pdr; the best chance to catch the Turks packed in together was achieved in spades by the two support HMGs.

Some Thoughts
I like the idea of the staggered Turk attacks, which allows the Turk player to decide whether or not to make the most of a worn platoon or withdraw it for a fresh one. There were times where I really had to think about whether I wanted to give up with a depleted force or take a risk on grabbing the advantage elsewhere.

The leadership values are critical. Crossfire allows leaders to confer close combat bonuses and/or rally bonuses. The Turks only got close combat bonuses, while the ANZACs got both. I also borrowed a close combat rule for Russians and Japanese - the Turks ignored pin results when charging into close combat, but suppression killed them.

Great scenario. Probably my favorite of the three. Lots of replay potential and easy to game with a modest collection of figures who can be recycled as needed.
****

All Quiet on the Gaming Front

The aftermath of a number of time-sensitive projects have left me with little time for the blog recently. I expect to get back on track with another Gallipoli gaming report and some other items next week.

WI 283: Lone Pine Scenario #1 - Playstest/After Action Report

WI 283 cover

John Bianchi asked me to playtest his Lone Pine scenarios that he planned to use in Wargames Illustrated's Gallipoli issue. Keep in mind we did not have a map at the time but constructed the battlefield using a map we found of Lone Pine online. As it turns out, this is the map source John used and when I got a look at the Lone Pine table created by Grand Manner (a great work of art) in the magazine, its layout appeared much as I expected - however, its beauty surpassed all expectations!

I believe there may have been some changes to the original draft we played. Regardless, if you read (and hopefully play!) the scenario, the playtest might come in handy for what to expect. The first scenario is a brigade-level game - ie. units represented companies. We took some ideas from Too Fat Lardies' If the Lord Should Spare Us and applied them to Memoir '44 game mechanics. All the World War I gaming blogs I made earlier this year/late last year were pretty much based on getting rules in shape for these scenario playtests. So, without further ado...the After Action Report on Lone Pine Scenario #1:


****
The playtest went well. The ANZACs came close twice to breaking into the second line of trenches, but just couldn't pull it off. Some of it came down to luck, so it seemed pretty balanced to us. Oh - and the game was quite fun!

I did not see a map with the scenario, so we made one based on a historical map of Lone Pine trench networks we found on the Australia War Memorial:
http://dev.links.com.au/diorama/lp_history.asp

The scale seemed to work well; we pretty much based the game around 40+ yard increments.


Some notes:
The roofed nature of the Turk main trenches made it hard for those troops to provide mutual support for each other, at least from the first line of trenches. This makes for some interesting choices for both sides.

I tried to play the ANZACs according to the plan - first companies bypass first trench line, second companies assault first trench line, third companies provide close support. The Turk player kept a company from each battalion in reserve; good move - once the ANZACs got past, it was hard to chase them and man the line.

HMG and trench mortar support played a big role, as did the occasional off-board bombardment. Turk MGs were nasty and the ANZAC mortar concentrated fire on them fairly often.

Most of the Turk casualties occurred in the fight for the second trench line. Again, due to the nature of their trenches and the time limits of the game, the ANZAC player is encouraged to get on with it and not worry some much about wiping out all the Turks in the front trenches. These two game conditions really make the game.

We liked the dubious nature of the wire. As luck had it, my ANZACs never encountered impediments.

Tweaks
If you include options for tweaking the scenario, consider adding something like this:

"If the Turks consistently win the Lone Pine scenario, reduce the number of HMGs by one or two."

I'm not sure what to do if the ANZACs consistently win (and I don't expect they will), but I'd start by making the wire and dugout roofs a little bit tougher (by no more than +1) - and I think the wire may be more important. I don't think increasing Turkish troop numbers is the real answer; maybe increasing chances to rally or improving morale according to chosen ruleset.

Again, great scenario. Looking forward to the others.
****

Normal Service Will Shortly Be Resumed

I've been delayed a bit from blogging due to lose of electricity for nearly 48 hours. I'm quite thankful, because outside of the loss of power and a bit of tree branch cutting and removal, my family has not suffered very much in the terrible storms that hit the Tennessee Valley. It was the scariest storm I've been through that I can recall - and I can't believe we couldn't hear the large trees in the woods crashing down.

Anyway, I plan to pick up on the Wargames Illustrated 'Gallipoli Issue' coverage next week. I happened to notice that some of the Ottoman/Memoir 44 for Great War posts had made the Top 10 read posts for the week. Well, if you suspected that some of that material is related to the playtests me and few of my wargaming friends did for John Bianchi's scenarios, then you are correct. The scenarios gave us the perfect excuse to mess about with perfectly good rules and see if we could get them to do something with a little different taste. More later...

Wargames Illustrated: The Gallipoli Issue

Here's a glimpse of WI 283, the Gallipoli issue. You can get a full preview over at the Flames of War website here.

This was one of the coolest projects I've got to work on in the past year. However, most of the credit goes to veteran WWI article writer John Bianchi and Francophile Tom Downs (you'll be seeing more of him, I'm sure). They know their stuff and showed me a gateway to understanding the Gallipoli campaign far better than I ever had. Check out that awesome battle cover - I think the supporting campaign, battle, and army articles capture the whole venture in that kind of way - unabashedly brutal; as I like to say and do - I believe we called 'em like we saw 'em. I came away amazed at the big and small pictures of the naval, land, and - just as important - the political battles that shaped the miserable meatgrinder fought on the cheap by the Allies and the Turks.

It's hard to read any of the primary sources and not feel humbled by the sacrifice and courage of the men who had to fight for their countries in the Dardanelles during those nine months of terrible bloodletting, hunger, and disease.

More later this week - and I will likely include a battle report or two that I submitted to John regarding his multiple Lone Pine scenarios. Those were some great games. I'll tell you right now - two of them very closely matched and one just an outright nail-biter.

Dungeons & Dragons and Me: 30 years on

D&D Basic Set box cover art

Dungeons & Dragons has been around for a little longer than 30 years; I think something close to 35 year or older if you count Chainmail and the other early works by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. It was around Easter in 1981 that I got a copy of the D&D Basic Set. This was at a time when the D&D game was published under a couple of different rules/brands. The short of it is that Basic D&D (and its follow up companion, Expert D&D), is that it was simpler than the regular game (called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons), although it they shared core mechanics. The biggest thing that comes to mind is that it combined race and class into one class. All dwarves would probably translate into dwarven fighters in AD&D; elves would be like elven fighter/magic-users (ie. wizards); halflings were like halfling thieves or maybe fighter/thieves. Fighters, clerics, and magic-users were all human.

It was a major epiphany for me to play this game - it was like nothing else. No board, no pieces - just paper, pencils, and maps (that you might not be able to look at). You played a character in a fantasy setting - which was already kind of out there for me. I hadn't really read any fantasy at that time, and about all I could relate it to was The Hobbit animated film I had seen around Thanksgiving back in 1977. 

Speaking of art - dig that picture on the box cover to the Basic D&D Set, which included a rulebook and The Keep on the Borderlands adventure module. That's Erol Otus - one of the signature artists that defined the look of the game in the late 70s/early 80s.

The game itself sometimes had a pulp fantasy feel to it (at least what I recognize as such in hindsight) - and it felt great. Time to pick up some dice soon, and kick off some new campaigns and revisit some old ones. 

Hail Caesar released at Salute 2011

I suppose it was no big surprise that Warlord Games released their new ancients wargame title at Salute this weekend. Now that it's out, I know I've got to have a copy. When that happens, I'll be sure to post about it on this blog.

In the meantime, check out the PDF reference sheet downloads available at Warlord here (full color) and here (b&w). Talk about your troop types - it looks like 20 or so infantry classifications and another 20 split between all sorts of mounted, plus specials such as elephants and artillery.

I suppose as far as that goes, you might want to check out the previews and all that kind of stuff on the Hail Caesar page.

FOW Project: Just Add Tufts

I have added Army Painter winter tufts to my US heavy weapons teams, and I like how they turned out. I tried out the model railroad straw stuff about 20 years ago and only managed to get a lot of straw glued to my hands. For $6, I think I got a good value for 20+ tufts that only require me to use a set of tweezers and some glue.

While I was able to get the tufts through my local gaming store, you can take a loot at them on the Warlord Games' Army Painter Battlefield Basing page here. There are winter, swamp, jungle, and Highland tufts available. 

I'll probably work in some swamp or Highland tufts in some of my other FOW models. Frankly, mixing tuft shades ought to be a good idea, just like mixing turf and flock shades - I see plenty of pastures and open fields that are not uniform in color or height, with patches of new, old, and dried grass/weeds all about.

FOW Project: Flakpanzer 38 - conversion gun shields

Flakpanzer 38 with card shield

I got a chance to catch up on some of my Flames of War miniature projects this weekend. First up are the Flak Panzer 38s.

Of my two models, only one had half a gun shield by the time I got around to assembling them. I attached the metal half-shield previously and then decided to use some thin card to do the rest of the work. Obviously, they look a little bit irregular in size/shape (and the full shield is glued on crooked...sigh) - but I think they will pass muster once painted and on the table.

Flakpanzer 38 with metal and card shield

I had originally thought about trying to work something up using plastic styrene, but thin card had a lot going for it: it was easy to bend, easy to find the right thickness (cracker box thickness), and cheap - something headed for the recycling bin. I think the thin card works really well at the  15mm scale and would recommend it to anyone needing to make a fix or conversion on something that won't likely get handled too much.
 

WI Artillery Issue: ACW to WWI

cover WI 281

Neil Smith fires a couple of impressive salvos in the WI artillery issue, covering the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the edge of World War I.


"Bridge to the Future" reviews the industrial capacity and tactical impetus that put artillery firmly in the American arsenal during the Civil War. Beyond that, we get some down-to-earth advice on wargaming applications for such topics as smoothbore v. rifled cannons and differences in artillery organization/utility between the North and the South. A very good point was made in regards to how Confederate command ability, the changing nature of the war (entrenchments v. open field battles) and terrain considerations in general could offset the the Union Army's superiority in number and quality of artillery. A scenario based on the encounter at Brawner's Farm (at Second Manassas) helps bring it all home to the tabletop.

Neil's second artillery article is "Imperial Long Shots," which gets to grips with the Franco-Prussian War, demonstrating how the differences in doctrines served the Germans well (massed artillery) and not so well for the French (artillery reserves). Yes, there's more to it than that - differences in range, accuracy, and the like. It's on these principles - tactical and technical - that see the evolution of artillery as a truly overpowering combat arm not long into the Great War. For me, the icing on the cake was the sidebar 'The British Detour', which expounds upon the lessons learned in the Boer War. The article really helped me to understand the how's and why's artillery made the leaps it did between the American Civil War and the First World War.

For those interested in the rest of the WI Artillery Issue theme, check out the Napoleonic, Medieval, and Ancient article reviews on this blog.

WI Artillery Issue: Napoleonic Horse Artillery

cover WI 281

Dr. Stephen Summerfield gives readers a one-stop look at Napoleonic horse artillery, and goes just beyond the highlights of weapons/limbers, tactics, and organization for the major players in the period's conflicts. I'm not at all familiar with the era except in a most superficial way, nor am I familiar with Summerfield's extensive work on the subject - but I can say the article packs a lot into a few pages.

The supporting graphic sidebars of cutaway cannons and TOEs really bring the piece around from a gaming perspective. Id' say the TOEs are worth a good look for those building scenarios for the era and trying to build batteries of the correct proportion (and flexibility) for the British, French, Austrians, Prussians, and Russians. Offhand, it should serve as a quick resource for those planning a game around the very tweak-able Black Powder. There's a few anecdotal bits in the piece that might lend themselves towards special rules for deployment, role, or even hitting power in certain battles/years as well. Again, I think Black Powder players might benefit if building army list/abilities from scratch or using the game's templates as jumping off points. Frankly, I imagine that anyone who even has a set of beloved Napoleonic rules will find the article worth reading as well. They should certainly be ready to ask themselves whether or not their games capture the flavor, potential, and drawbacks of the emerging arm of horse artillery in their tabletop games.

WI Artillery Issue: Medieval Guns

Cover of WI 281

Picking up from the last review of Wargames Illustrated's Artillery Issue (#281), we move onto the late medieval period. While I have a general notion of artillery's growing role in military and social trends of the era preceding the dawn of the nation states (and some of that might very well be oversimplified myth by now...), I had no real idea of how it all really got started - nor how complicated and interesting it truly was.

Jim Graham's "Extensive Knowledge of Powder" really does the trick. He gives us a good look at the mercenary nature of the early gunsmiths and how they plied their trade between the Ottoman Empire and Scotland. The reader gets a treat of sidebars on the gunsmith, his patron, and the weapons he creates.

Jim gives us right-sized bits on the scientific, tactical, and political applications (and ramifications) of medieval gunnery.  The article finishes with a 'Siege of Orleans, 1428' scenario.

Right off I see that the article should give sneaky scenario designers some ideas on the iffy nature of medieval guns.  You know, things like increasing the chance for a catastrophic failure for attempting to fire at (or possibly exceed?) long range. Then there's the problem with the gunsmiths offering their services to the highest bidders - easily something worked into a campaign game. It also makes me think that in a campaign game that it might not be easy to replace lost artillery.

Anyway, I've come away with a lot of cool ideas that embrace the dicey nature of the medieval artillery game. Anyone who regularly plays with medieval guns in their tabletop games will get their money's worth out of Jim's insights and have every excuse to make their miniature artillery and even more exciting prospect.

Later This Month: Gallipoli

Anyone with a copy of Wargames Illustrated #282 can see that Gallipoli takes the spotlight theme for the May issue (you know, on the last page of the mag where they post a sneak peak). I got to play a supporting role in that venture, thanks to the always amiable John Bianchi. Once the issue has had a chance to make the online preview at the WI website, I will talk more about the material. I can tell you this right now - when I saw the plans that John drew up for the Gallipoli coverage, I knew it was going to be an absolute winner.

In the meantime, I recommend that anyone interested in the campaign should take a look at Alan Moorehead's classic account on the subject.