NAVCON 26 - naval wargaming convention in Picton

I have just returned from the second NAVCON annual naval wargaming convention, organised by the indefatigable Paul Dalley, in the (usually) peaceful, scenic town of Picton.

As with the first NAVCON, the centrepiece of the event was a series of games of Littoral Commander, this time the new Australian expansion, but there were other games played as well.

Arriving just before lunch on Saturday (fortified by a 150 minute drive over the hill from Nelson), I found Chase and Richard engaged in a game of the Avalon Hill classic Midway. It's a game I remember fondly from a couple of sessions with Pat Hirtle, and it was just at the point the action was moving from the campaign map to the battle boards. Paul was umpiring it in true double-blind fashion, and as the first torpedoes launched and the first dive-bombers wheeled onto target, I pushed off to pick up Darryl, who was getting to the ferry terminal after coming over from Wellington. He had started his day at 4:30am, which put my drive into perspective!

After lunch Darryl and I played a moderns miniatures game pitting my Spruance and Oliver Hazard Perry classes against his Kashin and Kara. Richard ran the game, using a set of rules whose name I forgot to jot down, and employed his 1/3000 models. Richard is a talented and prolific 3d model designer, and hopefully we will get to see more of his creations before too long. His are some of the nicest I have seen in this scale. 

Mine

Darryl's

The rules were somewhat dense, and Richard manfully took to the task of explaining them. There was an interesting and tense period of radar cat-and-mouse (to use or not to use was the question) and it was Darryl who turned his on first. He failed to find me but I was able to get a bearing on him and fire off a pair of harpoons. The rules searching got more intense the closer the harpoons got to target, and as the day drew to a close we found that the table used to resolve AA against the incoming harpoons seemed to have some issues. Both harpoons were shot down, and the others that I had sent after them would have no prospect of getting through the Soviet AA guns either. Something did not quite add up. The upside of this was that it has given Richard more incentive to put together his own set of rules to use with these exquisite models.

Sea-skimming harpoons about to be shot out of the sky by the Kara's AA guns.

On the other table Paul and Chase were playing out a game of U-Boat. It is a co-operative game that used an app to drive the action, and there were periods of hurry-up-and-wait interspersed with loud alarums and frantic responses to incoming attacks. At close of day they were dealing with a concussion to the engineer, four dead or wounded after being caught on the surface by an air attack, and a likely boat-wide bout of dysentary due to the cook being diagnosed with the same shortly after having served the crew a meal! 

Who would be a submariner?

Das boot

The men respond to an air attack

The venue for NAVCON is a museum, and as there was a cruise ship in port we were frequently approached during the day by folk wandering through and wanting to know what on earth we were doing. It was quite amusing as various members of our party grappled with inquisitive museum visitors, imposing rule books, insistent apps, and duties of care to all concerned. I had taken a spot in the back, so all I had to do was smile, wave, and occasionally confirm that the day was indeed sunny, the displayed artifacts from another time, or that the visitor was quite right that the wind had picked up a bit as the day had worn on. 

Day one came to a natural conclusion as the harried museum volunteers singly and in chorus reminded us of their closing time. Accordingly we headed off for dinner and a review of the day.

Following dinner I had the great pleasure of spending the evening with my old mate Nige (who also has editing rights to this blog) and his family in nearby Rarangi. We had a wine or two (we are in Marlborough, wine central, after all!), righted many of the world's wrongs, and listened to the correct music until my sofa bed was engaged around 1, 1:30, or 2, depending on which couch cushion you talk to. We had learned from last year and called it a night before 3am!

With a bacon sandwich and a couple of hot drinks in me I hit the road back to Picton Sunday morning for the Littoral Commander games.

Chase and I played the first Australia expansion scenario while Darryl and Richard did a scenario with submarines. This allowed all of us to get back into a Littoral Commander rhythm for the afternoon multiplayer game.

My People's Republic of China forces managed to give Chase's Aussies a bloody nose, but given we had forgotten to apply terrain modifiers in a crucial ground attack, the win was somewhat hollow. It was a scenario designed to familiarise players with the new 'dismounted' troops types. In this it succeeded, and Chase displayed canny tactics bombarding Port Moresby for victory points while I tried to find where he had hidden his men. In the other game Darryl lost a pair of Virginia class submarines to Iron Bottom Sound in a close-run fight that came down I believe to a last 50/50 die roll. I was too engrossed in our game to pay much attention to what was happening in theirs, I regret to say, but it was clear from the conversations that both games generated tense narratives and opportunities to reflect on strategy and tactics.

PRC units and the damage to Port Moresby's infrastructure from the Aussie bombardment. One group of the Australians has been found and dealt with, but where is the other?

For the afternoon game Paul and Richard's PRC took on Darryl's Americans and Chase's Australians in a pure naval encounter with each player controlling three vessels each. The winner would be the side that best preserved its forces. 

Both sides closed to visual range early: the PRC dangled one vessel as bait, and then struck the American taskforce with almost everything it had while the Australians looked on aghast. The allies faced 'interoperability' challenges (this added a negative die roll modifier to certain actions such as using Australian missiles to defend against incoming attacks on US ships) which the PRC exploited adroitly to give them the best chance to overwhelm allied defences. 

PRC about to strike the Americans with missiles.

Once the American strike power had been destroyed, the allies were reduced to calling in assets from other arms to support them, but it was not enough and the PRC was victorious 22 points to 10.

Day two was very good and it is to be hoped that next year will be just as enjoyable. Many thanks again to Paul for his generous hospitality and to the players for travelling to the event. It was for all of us the first opportunity to get Littoral Commander: Australia to the table and I look forward to exploring it further.

There was no official MVP this year, but if it were up to me Richard and Paul would share the honours. 

It was good to meet up with some of the same folk from last year and nice to see hard evidence that there are other wargaming freaks around the country!

Thanks again to Paul. Until next time!

Dominion of the Blue and Grey session

I've got about eight of the Dominion of the X books from Ork Publishing but have not actually spent all that much time playing the games. That is mainly because I hadn't found a satisfactory way of representing the units on the table. You can play the game using pen and paper (and I have) but because I like to use pieces, I don't find that very enjoyable.

I hit on the idea of employing dominos and stickers and over the weekend did up blue and red armies. I'm not sure of the genesis of this idea - I may well have seen something similar on a blog somewhere and stored it away, but I don't know. Be that as it may, now suitably prepped for pieces, I've decided to start playing through the Eastern ACW battles from the Dominion of the Blue and Grey expansion.

See Martin Rapier's blog here for another take on this set, but using figures.

Battles in this version of the game are won by reducing the enemy to two or fewer units remaining and having more units than that oneself.  

First Bull Run.

Symbols represent infantry, cavalry and artillery; letters designate attributes (elite, defender, unreliable). The dice show a victory for the Confederates in the first encounter.

This was a hard-fought battle. The Union began badly, losing on their left in the first round, but fought back through the middle turns, generally giving as good as they got. Reliability roll failures from the Confederates (2 out of 3), rally successes (2 for the Union, 1 for the Confederates) and commander influence actions played their part in keeping the contest tight. It seemed the Union had worn the Confederates down when they reduced them to three units with four of their own remaining, but they could not land a killing blow. Finally, in the eighth turn, the Confederates broke the Union artillery to win the battle 3-2. 

Seven Pines

Seven Pines at start.

The attacking Confederates had an interesting mix of troops. Longstreet's flank marchers, for example, were rated elite, defender, and unreliable! The Union had troops in defensive positions but half of their force was unreliable, adding to their fragility. 

The initial Confederate attack came through the centre. The unreliable Federal unit stood, but was defeated in the fighting. At the end of the turn it was successfully rallied back into the Union reserve.

The next attack was on the Union right, and there the lead unit failed the reliability roll and was removed. The Union struck from the left and defeated Longstreet at the first attempt. Johnstone was unable to rally him. Inconclusive fighting followed until a Union attack on the Confederate right saw both units removed exhausted. The Confederate unit rallied, but the Union one did not. The Federals were now down to three units against five, and on the next turn the Confederate artillery saw off another unit and the Union was defeated again, 5-2.

Gaines Mill

This was another tight battle but over in just three turns: The Rebels scored two hits on the first turn, one on the Union right courtesy of Stonewall Jackons and one on the centre. The Union rallied one infantry unit back into the reserves. 

Stonewall's sector was busy again as both sides traded hits. Neither unit could be rallied. 

The Confederate advantage was pulled back by another successful attack from the Union right, but the Confederates overran the guns on the other flank to win 3-2. Three in a row for the South. 

A note on photos - I'm sure I took photos of all of the battle set ups but some of them seem to have disappeared! Not sure if there are gremlins afflicting the camera or I am going nuts, but I expect we will find out over the next few weeks.

Second Bull Run

This battle finds a Union army of a single artillery unit and five infantry attacking three Confederate infantry and an artillery unit, mostly in strong defensive positions. Neither side has any unreliable units.

Both sides scored hits in the early fighting but both those hits were rallied, with the Confederates using command influence to add one to the dice as they could ill-afford to lose any units. In turn two both sides inflicted hits again, and once more both sides rallied successfully.

Over the next three turns the Rebels scored three hits against one from the Federals. Both sides had three units each remaining and next hit would be decisive as neither army had any rally actions left. The Union launched an infantry attack againt the artillery in the centre, but were repelled with a hit and the Southerners won yet again. 

Antietam

The Union again go in here with a five infantry and one artillery unit mix, while the Rebels are all infantry - two with defensive advantage on the left and the right and two unreliable in reserve (A.P. Hill's reinforcements).

The fighting began in the centre and remained there for the first three rounds. The contest was even at first, with both sides losing two units and rallying one. Then there was a period of attritition in which neither side could make headway. Pressure finally told and the Union collapsed to lose 1-4.

These Rebels are proving hard to beat!  

Fredericksburg

Frederickburg, of all places, is where the tide turned. The usual five / one mix of Federals stormed the heights on the left of the Confederate line and sucked the reserve infantry into the meatgrinder. The Rebels were defeated by the end of turn four. Lincoln finally has his victory!

The Rebels, soundly beaten, withdraw.

The Blue and Grey booklet introduces some new (to me) rules - rally and commander influence. This brings in a little more decisionmaking to this mainly automated solitaire game and while the battles are still very quick by normal wargame standards, they do allow a bit more strategy, and the choice of when to use commander influence decided at least one of the battles. 

The author is extremely prolific and I greatly appreciate how he adds in new elements so that the system keeps developing and evolving and the different eras become more distinctive through the use of new rules and changed troop categorisatios without losing any of its clean simplicity.

Stephen Parker is a clever fellow and astute game developer. It is one of those systems where you think I wish I had thought of that! Well done to him.

I will look forward to fighing out the remaining Eastern battles when time permits. 

Thinking about game systems

Five years ago, if I thought about how much I'd invested into games systems, I would have said that Commands & Colors: Ancients was top of the heap. I have the base game and all the expansions bar the Spartan one, so six altogether. By the time the Spartan expansion had come out I'd realised that while I loved the game I resented buying wooden blocks when nine times out of ten I was going to play the game with miniatures or on VASSAL anyway, and that in terms of game play I was getting diminishing returns from the series. Of course, now I wish I had just got the damned thing, but it's too late for that!

Naturally, C&C:A is not the only system I've bought into. I have four of the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War series by the Gamers / MMP, three of the GMT Musket and Pike series, and three of the Gamers / MMP Civil War Brigade Series. The card-driven point-to-point area control games derived from We The People all share common features, but whether you would call them a distinct system I'm not sure - I guess Hannibal, Successors, For the People and Barbarossa to Berlin probably are linearly connected, but Sword of Rome, Twilight Struggle and Labyrinth are not so clearly among them. I suppose at a pinch I could claim those first four games as part of a system.

The A Victory Lost stable is represented in casa Prufrock by four games as well, along with four of the Undaunted series and three from the recent Littoral Commander system. 

But as I pushed an order through for a couple of Memoir '44 expanions last night, I found that Memoir '44 had overtaken them all. 

I did a quick inventory: two sets of the base game, the Mediterranean, Pacific and Eastern Front expansions, the Overlord and Breakthrough expansions, the Terrain Pack, the Equipment Pack, the winter/desert board, The Winter Wars expansion, and of the battle maps Through Jungle and Desert, Khalkin Gol and Tigers in the Snow. I can now add to those Sword of Stalingrad and the Dieppe Disaster (well, I will be able to when they arrive in the post!). So sixteen items altogether, and probably somewhere in the region of $1200 spent.

It is bizarre that I will now baulk at paying $140 for a GMT hex-and-counter or card-driven game, but will pay that for two Memoir battle map expansions. It is especially bizarre given that I had for various reasons refused to have anything to do with Memoir '44 until a few years ago.

It made me wonder what has changed in the way that I collect, play and evaluate the relative worth (to me) of board games and board game series.

I think it comes down to a combination of circumstance, stage of life, and time in the hobby. 

When I first got back into board wargaming I was living in Japan. I got games from the US, from the Japanese version of ebay, or had them given to me by the very generous Pat Hirtle. At this time I was still discovering what I liked, and would often choose games because they were available rather than because they were something I had a particular burning interest in. This was a great introduction to the hobby, and while there were some hits and there were some misses, that process is vital to discovering one's tastes.

The longer I have been gaming the more I appreciate those games that actually get played. As much as I like the idea of having Grant in the Wilderness nearby, and of Barbarossa on three maps, Marston Moor or Breitenfeld there for when the moment is right, the reality is, for a busy person with a family, those moments come seldom. When there is an exploratory text on a Thursday for a game day on Saturday or Sunday, realistically, choices come down to games that you know, that you can set up and take down fast, and that can be played to completion in three hours.

Another factor I've come to consider is system longevity. Most of the successful boardgame systems eventually get updates or reissues. There are new editions with new counters, rules, cards, maps; either you update or you are stuck with a first edition in a second (or third) edition world. It doesn't mean you can't still play the games, but player aids, errata, glitch-fixes, living rules and the like are now not a straight fit. 

Ironically of course, Memoir has out a new edition of the base game, but as it is a modular system and fully compatible with previous versions it is not the issue it is with, say, the Great Battles of History series, where you might have to replace a map or a bunch of counters to play the revised version of a scenario. 

So what am I trying to say here? I guess the point is that I've surprised myself by investing so much into a system at which I previously turned up my nose. Why I've done it is essentially the same reason that I painted up all my 15mm figures: I will use them. I hope that one day I will get to play out the scenarios in 2nd Fleet, that I will get my hordes of 28mm fantasy figures painted, that I will be able to set up Siege of Jerusalem or War in Europe, but I know that I will play the Memoir '44 expansions I just ordered, and at this stage of my experience in the hobby, that is something I value.

I would love to hear how others think about the way they invest in games systems, so please feel free to leave a comment! 

Desert mini-campaign

There was some time on Saturday afternoon for SP to come over for a spot of gaming. I'd had a hankering for something WWII after our recent ancients binges and decided to turn to the Memoir '44 Mediterranean expansion. SP has got Memoir '44 down and does not need any coaching whatsover so I thought it was a good chance to try out the quick-and-dirty campaign rules. SP was also of a mind to give these a go and as per usual took the Germans, We got things started just after 2:00.

First game was Sidi Rezegh Airfield. The scenario goes to five victory medals with five command cards for the Germans and four for the British. I had eight units of tanks versus six for SP who also had two units of infantry, one with the airfield in the central sector and one entrenched in Sidi Rezegh itself. 

The British have no troops at all in the left section, and Murphy's Law being what it is, three of my four initial cards were for that section!

One out of four ain't bad!

It didn't matter anyway: SP drove in on my centre with his armour and decimated it, winning 5-2 in just five turns (and I was fortunate to get the 2!).

The second scenario was Dug in at Sidi Omar. I had six infantry units and one artillery section entrenched in hills on my left and left centre, and a force of four tank units in the right rear. Against this the Germans had five infantry, one artillery and seven tank units. Both sides had five command cards and to win six medals were needed.

As part of the campaign, SP rolled six dice (five for the banners he won last game and another for winning the game) which forced me to remove four tank figures, one infantry figure, and to retreat one unit. I rolled two dice, which forced SP to remove an artillery figure and a tank figure. The artillery figure was a significant loss for SP and a great stroke of luck for me.

This was a tougher fight for the Germans: they were at a disadvantage when attacking my entrenched infantry and in the fight with my armour on the right did not get the results hoped. It ended up a 6-2 win for the British. 

The last scenario was Flanking Maneuver at Bir Hakeim. Again the Eighth Army was on the defensive. Mines and wire protected the three infantry and one artillery units of my right, while entrenchments and hills protected the four infantry on the left. I also had two tank units in reserve, but they were much reduced by the pre-game campaign dice rolls. 

SP had three units of Italian tanks and two of Italian foot on his left, and across the centre and right five units of German infantry, one of artillery, and three of tanks. He had six command cards to my five, and the game was to five medals. 

This game was very tight, and it turned on my managing to drive off the attack of the Italian tanks who tried to skirt the minefields, come down through the centre and feast on the infantry. Helpful cards gave me strong options and the Eighth Army prevailed 5-3, though it felt closer than that.

It was another good day of gaming and the three linked scenarios kept things connected and interesting. We usually play overlord (two boards together) scenarios, but playing through these showed how good the standard game is as well.

Thanks to SP for a fun and challenging session. 

Trebia - the fight

Without further ado, here is the report of our Lost Battles playthrough of Trebia from the other weekend. SP took Rome, DS took Carthage, and I was umpire (preparatory post is here).

The battle begins with the Roman turn, but there are a few factors to note first. Hannibal, as a brilliant general, is able once in the game to reverse the turn order and take a second turn in succession to reflect his genius as a commander. The limitation with this is that no zone can be attacked out of in both turns. 

There are two obvious ways to use the 'flip-flop' (as it is termed by Lost Battles players): one is to employ it early in the battle to bring all units into contact with the enemy and attack from all zones on the flip-flop turn; the other is to declare it after a breakthrough on one or both wings, and use the flip-flop turn to get cavalry in behind the Roman line. In Lost Battles, this not only allows combat advantage when attacking the infantry but also reduces local morale (zones with enemy to front and rear or on left and right suffer a -1 in morale tests and also lose their lead unit bonus when attacking).

Legionaries are difficult to beat in these rules for a number of reasons. Heavy infantry units facing fresh legionaries lose their +1 attack bonus meaning it is more difficult to hit them. They also have a morale bonus meaning that it is harder to rout them. Facing Romans you have to look for every combat and morale modifier advantage you can get: that means trying to surround them, trying to force them out of their key zone, trying to shatter 4 and then 8 of them, and trying to reduce the units left on field until you outnumber them 2-1.

An advantage the Carthaginians have at Trebia is that the Romans are fatigued. Fatigue has no impact when units are fresh, but spent units have a -1 applied to their attack rolls. 

There is a lot for players to consider tactically in this scenario, and for the Carthaginians especially.  

With that out of the way, let us commence the commentary.

(Photo with additional info - lines, etc)

Rome begins by attacking the enemy skirmishers in the central zone. They have no success. Rome then brings the legionaries forward into all three central zones. One unit on each wing of the legions is kept in the rear zone in reserve. The cavalry units on each wing turn to face the enemy.

Carthage holds back in the centre and centre right, but advances the elephants and Libyans of the centre left into contact. On the wings the Numidian light cavalry skirmish with the enemy, with the heavy cavalry following up behind them. The right wing scores a hit on the the Roman cavalry. The skirmishers in the centre see off the Roman light infantry who retreat behind the legions, but as the Carthaginian lights have no heavy infantry support they will be extremely vulnerable themselves to attack by the Romans on the next turn.

In turn three the Romans attack in the centre and on both cavalry wings. The Carthaginian failure to support the light troops with their heavier cousins results in the Numidian cavalry on the left and the skirmishers in the centre being shattered. The Carthaginans are half the way to the '4+ shattered' morale effect and have already lost their key zone in the centre (also a negative morale effect) as the Romans advance into the pocket. On the right wing the cavalry do not advance, to buy further time on the flanks. In anticipation of the coming fight the Roman infantry in reserve turn to face the flanks.

Carthage, now realising the seriousness of the situation, uses Mago to reinforce the right centre and also bring the infantry up from the rear. The rest of the cavalry attacks on both flanks, but the -1 to their attacks for charging in from two zones away saves the Roman cavalry from any damage.

Rome attacks again, with great success. There are four successful hits across the five zones engaged in combat. The Carthaginians respond, shattering a cavalry unit on each flank. Carthage clears the Roman left wing zone and advances.

Hannibal now declares his flip flop: all zones can move this turn, but only the victorious advancing cavalry of the right can attack. The remaining Numidian cavalry turns to prepare to attack the Roman left centre next turn; the victorious cavalry attack and shatter the reserve unit of Roman legionaries, despite the minus for attacking after turning. Carthaginian prospects are improving!

In the Roman portion of the turn (we had to keep reminding ourselves that the turns were now reversed), they take their steady toll on the enemy. The single remaining cavalry unit scores a double-hit on the Carthaginian cavalry, leaving them all spent on the Carthaginian left. In the infantry battle the Romans score another two hits. The Carthaginian centre is now entirely spent and has nowhere to retreat to. The Romans just keep grinding them down. 

Carthage loads up with combat bonuses where it can and continues the attack. The cavalry gets into position behind the Roman lines to prepare to attack next turn and to affect the Roman morale. On the left the cavalry is successful (all Roman units are now spent, including the reinforcing legionaries) but they cannot quite manage to finish the job and shatter a unit. The elephants score a hit in the left centre, and the Libyans a hit in the right centre, but the centre itself is too disorganised to inflict any damage on their opposition.

The Roman efforts now begin to pay off. The cavalry scores a double hit on the Carthaginian cavalry, shattering two and routing the other. The Carthaginian left flank is defeated and opened up for the Romans to advance. Another unit is shattered in the centre, but high morale roles keep the rest of the army on the field. 

In a desperate attempt to turn the tide Mago himself leads the attack from the Roman centre right, leading his guard unit with two combat bonuses. His charge is a success, and with attacks on that same zone from the flank and the rear, the Romans there are now entirely spent. The cavalry shatter the levy light infantry holding the Roman centre, and advance into the Roman key zone, removing the key zone morale penalty that the Carthaginians had been facing.

But Sempronius is not done: an attack in the centre sees a unit there shattered, and the other routs in sympathy, as do the light infantry and the elephants. The Romans advance two units into the vacated zone. 

Carthage now has some success: they shatter two units in the Roman left centre, but the Romans remain steadfast and do not rout. The Romans advance to surround the remaining Carthaginian infantry blocks to reduce local morale, and the centre turns to drive off the Carthaginian horse to their rear, who retreat on their next turn.

The Carthaginians cannot cause another shatter and the Romans advance into space. An attack is made on Hannibal's zone: a unit is routed, Hannibal fails to rally the hit, and the zone routs. At this, the army routs.

Sempronius has won a battlefield victory!

****

In what was a profound reversal of the historical result, Rome won the field as well as winning the points victory. It was an unusual outcome, and interesting to analyse. Inexperience with the rules played a part in DS's struggles to make headway against the Romans, particularly with the early failure to reinforce the light troops, leaving them exposed to Roman attack and also preventing Carthage from being able to being force to bear efficiently in their own attacks. This was partly my fault as umpire. My approach was to give both players access to their options at all times, but not to recommend any course of action. I probably did not quite emphasise enough the potential negative impacts of leaving light troops unsupported. That said, DS did have a definite plan and I did not want to interfere with the prosecution of that plan. 

The other issue for DS in only his second Lost Battles game was how best to use the flip-flop rule. While it can offer a great advantage when used at the right time, it probably requires a little more experience to know what those advantages are. In hindsight, it might have been better to give SP the task of commanding the Carthaginians and wrestling with the nuances of flip-flop strategy. That said, SP had not yet encountered a brilliant general either, so he would also have been flying somewhat blind.

As it turned out, DS missed out on about 6 potential attack rolls with the non-reinforcement of the light troops early in the piece, and on the flip-flop turn missed out on another potential 11 attacks. 

Still, both players will now have a bit more experience with what sort of play the rules encourage and discourage, and this should stand them in good stead in the future.

It was a really good day and personally I get just as much enjoyment from acting as umpire / scribe as I do playing.  

The battle has weather effects and fatigue to worry about as well as the brilliant commander considerations, so there is a lot going on for players. We did not use the 'favour of the gods' rule but did use the revised scoring (not that it was needed!). 

Always good to get a game on the table!

Battle at Ellis Park

I have a Trebia report to write up but have been somewhat distracted by the ongoing All Blacks' tour of South Africa (the Springboks being the holders of the World Cup and the best rugby team in the world over the past four years). The tour is composed of four provincial games and three test matches. The most recent full tour of South Africa by New Zealand was in 1996, in which the All Blacks triumphed 2-1, taking their first test series victory on South African soil in seventy-five years of trying. It was a highlight of my university years to wake up in the small hours (or stay out until the games began, which happened on one or two occasions!) and watch those epic affairs.

South Africa's traditional strength is in the forwards. Their game is to kick long and force teams into set-piece plays (lineouts and scrums) deep in their own territory where every mistake is punished by deadly kickers knocking 3-point penalties through the posts or by forward drives aiming to batter the defenders until they get over the line to score a 5-point try (followed by a 2-point conversion attempt). In addition to these 120kg monsters in the forward pack, the Springboks have hard-running centres and supremely quick outside backs who specialise in pressuring defending teams with judiciously hoisted kicks and a swarming chase, in intercepting loose passes between unwary opposition players, and in creating overlaps and using speed to outrun cover defenders to score tries. 

The All Blacks employ a different style. They prefer to use passing (and sometimes kick-passing) to put ball-runners through gaps in the defending line and then use supporting players to exploit holes behind the defence, outrun covering defenders, or, if caught, to recycle the ball quickly from tackle situations to take advantage of fractured defences and score tries. They try to do this from almost everywhere on the field. 

While the Springboks want to crush teams with inexorable forward power to win with penalty kicks and close-quarter tries, the All Blacks want to use their ball-handling skills and passing game to put runners into space and score tries from distance. 

Of course, there are some overlaps in style (the All Blacks also have bruising forwards and decent kickers, and the Springboks also have running and passing skills) but generally speaking these are the general approaches of the two teams.

Both sides believe that they are the most storied rugby teams in the world. Other nations are satisfied with good performances; for All Blacks and Springboks the only currency is victory. Both sides believe it is their divine right to win every game they play, and that they ARE rugby. The All Blacks point to their win percentage of 76% against all comers versus 64% for the Springboks to prove their superiority; the Springboks point to four World Cups and never having lost a World Cup final compared to three World Cups and two World Cup final defeats (both to guess who!) for New Zealand. 

In the professional era the All Blacks have set the standard for rugby excellence, but the Springboks have a pesky habit of winning that World Cup. And under their genius coach Rassie Erasmus they have beaten the New Zealanders in five of their last six encounters, including an embarrassing (for New Zealand) thrashing of the All Blacks in Wellington last year in which the New Zealanders were so badly mauled that they appeared to have no answer and gave up. This attitude had never before been observed in the All Blacks. It has been said that you can score more points than the New Zealanders, but you never beat them. The Wellington shellacking changed that.  

In response to this, the New Zealand Rugby Union used the off-season to sack the coach who oversaw that humiliation and install a seasoned, hard-nosed individual with a quintessentially kiwi name, Dave Rennie, as the new head coach.

Rennie's arrival has seen the All Blacks appoint a new captain and in the space of just three months rediscover their style, self-belief and attacking flair (a Renniessance, if you will....)

So this series will decide which of the two teams is currently the best in the world. Three tests in South Africa and one in neutral Baltimore: four matches to find the strongest team in the game. 

Sunday morning our time was the first match, at Ellis Park.

The New Zealanders go into the test battle-hardened. They have had three provincial games to settle combinations, acclimatise, and formulate their plan. The South Africans played a warm-up test against Argentina - won unconvincingly - but did not field their strongest team. Both sides have had injuries to important players, and South Africa go in with their inspirational captain, Siya Kolisi, absent thanks to a bung hamstring. Fortunately for them, they can replace him as captain with the brilliant flank forward Pieter-Steph du Toit, two-time world player of the year.

The game begins with punishing runs and powerful defence. The Springboks take an early lead with a penalty kick, but strong counter-play by the All Blacks sees them isolate the Springbok winger and score in the corner. 3-5 to the All Blacks.

The Springboks lose a winger to a head injury. The giant replacement back Esterhuizen finishes off a period of dominant Springbok play by brushing off a defender and scoring for South Africa. The conversion is successful - 10-5 to South Africa. 

It is not until the 16th minute of the game that the first scrum is set. The South Africans are strong. Even so, New Zealand threatens the South African line. In attempting to recycle the ball the All Black lock Holland performs a dangerous move, and a penalty relieves the pressure on South Africa.

But the next score nevertheless is to New Zealand - from a lineout the ball is sent to the wing where flank forward Vaa'i gallops down the sideline, passing infield as he is tackled, for the winger Moorby to evade the defence and run in the try. New Zealand convert: 10-12 to the All Blacks. 

Now the South African scrum begins to come into its own. As the first half comes towards its conclusion, the All Black scrum begins to struggle. In the 26th minute, the All Blacks give up a scrum penalty which the Springboks kick for three more points. 13-12 to South Africa. 

In the scrum the All Blacks are being pushed backwards and on their own feed cannot clear their ball; on South African feed they are being shunted backwards so far it leads to penalties. It is looking ominous for the New Zealanders. They cannot match the power of the South African forwards. The South African route to victory is clear: kick to the New Zealand 22 yard line, force a knock on, win a scrum penalty. They can then decide to take another scrum or a lineout close to the New Zealand line (to continue to assert dominance and make the referee consider a yellow card as an increasingly desperate All Black forward pack resorts to illegal tactics to avoid being overwhelmed), or to simply kick the penalty for three points each time.

The Springboks opt to keep the ball in play and 4 minutes from half time are rewarded by driving over the try line with the veteran Malcolm Marx in possession of the ball. But incredibly an All Black - one of the three Barrett brothers - gets a hand in to dislodge the ball as Marx attempts to place it for the score. No try! Scrum New Zealand ball, five metres from the line. The Springboks push with all their might, but the All Black number 8 and captain, Ardie Savea, clears the ball to a support player before the scrum collapses, and a kick downfield takes the play out of the danger area for New Zealand. Crisis averted!

But the Springboks return. Another attack into the New Zealand 22 yard line sees the referee blow his whistle - two of the All Black forwards have clashed heads attempting a tackle on the same South African. Play stops as their respective states are assessed. Both are taken from the field and replaced. 

New Zealand survive another scrum, and hold the South Africans out until half time is called. The Springbok number 8 Jasper Wiese has been immense, breaking tackles at will. For New Zealand, the trysaver, Jordie Barrett, has been outstanding on defence. 

The Springboks lead 13-12. It is 3:50 am in New Zealand and for twenty minutes it has been so tense I have not been able to sit down. That the South Africans do not lead by more is a miracle. The score could easily be 24-12. 

The second half commences. South Africa is immediately on attack. High kicks into the air which our defenders struggle to field; scrum dominance leads to another penalty. 16-12 to South Africa. 

From the restart New Zealand kicks long. The South Africans field the ball, Wiese drives forward and a ruck is formed some 20 metres from the South African line. The South Africans will kick to the sideline and force a lineout at half way. But the Dutch-born All Black lock, Fabian Holland, anticipates the kick, moves forward and leaps in the air to charge it down, gathers the loose ball, evades a defender, and falls across the line. The conversion is successful: 16-19 to New Zealand. 

The play from the restart is taken into the All Black half. Wiese again leads the charge. The All Blacks are awarded a scrum 15 metres from their own line. The All Black scrum is penalised. The South Africans continue the play and are held up just short of the All Black line. They come back for the penalty. South Africa elects to take it as a scrum. The match is in the balance, South Africa is on the march, New Zealand are holding on just. 

The scrum is 5 metres out from the New Zealand line. The Springboks have the feed: they can elect to keep the ball in the scrum and push the All Blacks back to force a pushover try, or another penalty (and perhaps a yellow card); they can use Jasper Wiese to run the ball off the back of the scrum for the line; they can elect to pass the ball through the backline, either to score, or to set up a ruck for another attack.

Six minutes into the half, with everything on the line, the All Black scrum holds. Not only does it hold, it forces a penalty. The South Africans cannot believe it, but the referee has seen illegal play in the South African scrum. New Zealand kicks for the touchline to relieve pressure. 

From the next plays the New Zealanders find a gap, their fullback runs up the field, gets almost within touching distance of the South African line. The play breaks down as the Springboks prevent him passing successfully to support, but it is now the South Africans who are defending, and the All Blacks who have the scrum feed 5 metres from the South African line. The All Black scrum is now solid. The replacement props have brought new confidence. Off the back of the scrum the number 8 runs; from the ruck New Zealand scores. 16-26 to New Zealand.

And with that New Zealand has put themselves in a position to win. The final twenty minutes of the game are now immaterial: the All Blacks weathered the period of South African dominance, held out, and took a lead which South Africa did not have the gameplan to make up.

16-33 to the All Blacks is the final score. New Zealand has beaten the world champions at their spiritual home and there are three tests more to play.

A glorious test match, and rugby at its best. The scoreline alone would indicate an easy victory but it was far from that. The All Black style prevailed this time, but the Springboks could easily have crushed the men from New Zealand by half time had things gone slightly more in their favour.  

Three more tests to go. Whatever the result, it will be a series to remember. 

Trebia preparation

It has been a very pleasant Friday evening spent setting up a Trebia battlefield for tomorrow. SP and DS are coming over for a game of Lost Battles, this time a scenario with some extra chrome - a brilliant general in Hannibal, wet weather, and a fatigued Roman army. 

Trebia as a battle of course needs no introduction from me, but the Lost Battles scenario has the following units involved:

Rome

1 x uninspired commander (Sempronius)

1 x levy light infantry (velites) 

8 x veteran legionaries

6 x average legionaries

1 x average heavy infantry (Cenomani)

3 x average heavy cavalry.

The Roman fighting value is 73.

Carthage

1 x brilliant commander (Hannibal)

1 x African elephants

2 x average light infantry (Balearics, Iberians, Africans)

7 x average heavy infantry (Africans, Gauls, Iberians)

5 x average heavy cavalry (Gauls and Iberians)

2 x veteran light cavalry (Numidians) and 1 x average leader (Mago)

2 x average light cavalry (Numidians)

The Carthaginian fighting value is 83.

Although I have made the battlefield 5 zones by 5 instead of 5 by 4, the first row on the Roman side, with the river, is just for show, to remind us all that the Romans are fatigued from having crossed it (without any weetbix) prior to the battle.

The Roman infantry, with the Cenomani in the foreground. 

The field from behind the Carthaginian line.

From behind the Roman line. 

Hopefully it will be an enjoyable and thought-provoking game, as Lost Battles usually is. If time permits we will try to play it twice, with the second time around allowing free deployment.