Gaming Waterloo 200: a conundrum!

I was speaking last week to a couple of friends, and it turns out that they are interested in doing a 200th Anniversary refight of Waterloo. They are not hardcore gamers, and I will not have the time or finances to get figures painted, so my tentative plan is to cobble together some rules, make up a gameboard myself, and populate it with wooden counters of the 60mm-by-30mm, 100-yen-store-hardware-section variety.

The game needs to be able to accommodate 4 to 6 players, be played to completion in 2 to 3 hours, and give a reasonable feel for the historical battle. It would also be good if it were portable and durable, as it might make a nice change to play at a local drinking establishment rather than at my place.

My first thought was to use the Neil Thomas One-Hour Wargames rules, but as they require quite a bit of book keeping for casualties, twenty or so units a side might start to get a bit unwieldy.

Another option would be to adapt the Lost Battles fresh/spent concept and pull together rules of a more abstract nature, but the danger with abstraction of course is that it may not be quite so appealing to newer players.

A third option would be to use a simple boardgame and blow up the gameboard to the right size to fit with the wooden blocks.

Anyway, plenty to think about...

Simple Zama

I had the chance to have a couple of friends come over for a game the other night and in line with recent musings about accessible rules I decided to try out a 'derivative ancients' scenario.

Units and combat were based on Commands and Colors: Ancients, but without the heavy/medium/light distinctions.

Four figures per base meant four attack dice, three figures three attack dice and so on.  All movement was by hex, as per CCA, and shooting was as javelin-armed shooting in CCA.  Unit casualties were removed in bases so it would be easy to see how strong/weak the units were.

Most of my CCA boardgame gear is back in New Zealand, so we used normal dice for fighting and although I have some cards here we used die-roll activation rather than activation by card play.

Activation pips were d4+1.  It cost one pip to activate a single unit, two pips to activate a line fighting or all moving at the speed of the slowest unit and three pips to activate a line moving or fighting at their own speeds.  Leaders gave a one pip discount to line moves, but lines could not extend across left/centre/right boundaries and nor could they exceed five units.

The activation rules were simple but they gave plenty of scope for players to do what they wanted to do while also giving them some tough decisions to make.  It also avoided adding the extra layer of complexity that using a card system for activation would have entailed.

The scenario was going to be important. I went for a famous battle that had both sides fairly evenly matched and that did not have much in the way of terrain to worry about.  Given the armies I have painted at the moment, Zama was the obvious choice.

I would umpire to give rules advice and help keep things going if the guys got bogged down with options.

To win the game would require nine victory points, with VPs to be scored by destroying enemy units.

The first picture (below) shows the game after the opening move, in which M (as Rome) advanced his light infantry to pepper the elephants and the left wing to threaten the Carthaginian right.

B (as Carthage) responded by shielding the elephants with his own lights and advancing cavalry on both flanks.

Rome took a points victory in the tentative tussles on her right but Carthage got a clear advantage on the other flank (seen below) by virtue of some bold cavalry attacks.

B opened up a 6-1 advantage in unit kills over the Romans and it seemed that Hannibal might have an easy win.

But things were not quite as one-sided as it would appear from the score alone: the Carthaginians had six units reduced to just one remaining base, so if the Romans could get in close enough they would be able to even things up reasonably quickly.

But this was the time when Rome went through a low-pip period, and her attempts to polish off enemy units with missile fire from the Numidians did not go to plan.  Still, the Roman advance got underway in the centre, which caused B to worry for his elephants again.

As M's missile volleys drew closer, B advanced troops out of the line in an attempt to drive off the offending velites. In the confusion the Romans began to score some successes against those already reduced Carthaginian units, bringing the victory count to a more respectable 6-4, and opening up the possibility of picking off some more (if only the javelin men would shoot straight!).

With the pressure building in the centre B sent forward a unit of elephants to hit the Roman heavy infantry, but he could not quite finish them off.

In the counter-attack the elephants were destroyed and two other units with them.  It was now 7-6 to Rome as her remarkable comeback gained pace.

Carthage committed a second elephant which attacked a unit of hastati and while it died in the attempt it took a Roman commander with it.  Still needing one more kill to win the game, M could not quite manage it this turn as he failed to kill off the auxiliaries.  With the score 8-7 to Rome, B and his Carthaginians took up the pip die once more.

With two unit kills needed to claim the victory for Carthage, B threw in everything he could - elephants, Spanish auxiliaries and Gallic warriors.  If they did not win they would be killed in battle back, giving Rome the victory. It was to be knife-edge stuff...

And knife-edged it proved to be: with his last two throws of the dice B managed to kill off the stragglers and claim the last victory points he needed to leapfrog his great mate M and win 9-8.

It was an exhilarating game that had a bit of everything and I was very pleased with how it all went. I think it vindicated the simple rules approach and the 'give-the-players-the-options' command rules.

Both players had a great time and are very keen to play again at some stage, so a good result all round!

Quick (and extremely derivative) Ancients rules

As I try to work myself back into gaming mode again I've been going back to an idea I had a couple of months ago for a kid-friendly, language independent miniatures game.

The plan was to base the rules on Commands & Colors and to have the table layout give the players most of the information they need to be able to play.

Infantry units would be represented by four bases and have four strength points, cavalry would be represented by three bases and have three strength points, elephants and war engines by two bases and have two strength points.

Four-figure bases would roll four attack die, two-figure bases two attack die, and so on. Missile fire would be restricted to troops armed with javelins, slings or bows, with one attack die lost if units moved before shooting.  For each strength point lost, units would have to roll a die pre-combat.  If a one was rolled they would lose one attack die.

Non-missile units would hit on fives or sixes and missile units would hit on sixes, whether using close or distance combat.  Leaders would either add an extra die or allow hits on fours.  Ones could, in some cases, cause a retreat.

Movement would be regulated by a hex grid such as a I normally use for true C&C games.

Activation would be by d4 roll, with one pip allowing a single unit to activate and two pips allowing a line of connected units to do so.

Players would be represented on table by leader figures and might be able to fight hand to hand against enemy leaders if they wanted to, a la Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

To win the game you'd need to kill a certain number of enemy units.

If used with my students I might allow a few extra rules: if they were able to remember to use certain sentences, for example, they might be able to roll an extra attack die, or move one hex farther than usual.

The main thing though is to have something fun and accessible for the cousins / kids' friends to play when they come to visit.

Rise of Rome Campaign play test

I got though a play test of the campaign game last night to assess where it was at.  I used a simple dice roll to resolve the battles, with the odds being either even stevens or +1 to one side of the other, depending on the historical situation.

This is the map used, though in play it became clear that it needs a few tweaks...

Map adapted from this one here.

Each turn is made up of three phases, which may be either a Roman or an enemy action, depending on a dice roll.  On an enemy action, the general result is that the dominant enemy faction attacks Roman or Roman contested territory.  Depending on the turn and the enemy, one side or the other may have an advantage in the battle.

On a Roman action, the Roman player can make an attack against enemy territory, build up fleet points (necessary for attacks across water), or attempt to pacify a contested territory.  Again, this will likely result in a battle, with the odds determined by the situation and the time.

When Carthage becomes active, the dominant enemy starts to play with a little more intelligence, using its actions to attack Sicily or Iberia instead of battering itself against Rome solely.

Changes to the map -

• Add a sea route between Rome and the Ebro region in Iberia.  
• Add a land route between Cisalpine Gaul and Samnium 
• Include fleet points needed for sea movement on each route.  
• Include a combat advantage marker to show which side (if either) has combat advantage at the present time.

Changes to the rules -

• Build in incentives for Carthage to conquer Sicily and Iberia, perhaps in the form of stored +1 attacks to represent Hannibal's campaigns.    
• Work out a better scheme for 'pacification' of contested territories.
• Build in better rules for Sicily.

Changes to the info -

• Better clarification of who holds battle advantage.
• Create a table to show possible divergences from the historically dominant enemy

As you can see, there is still plenty to work on!  

Regarding the game, Rome got belted early on and was unable to make much headway in Samnium and Magna Graecia against determined defence.  By the time of the First Punic War, Carthage was able to take Sicily without Roman interference (despite bad dice rolls meaning it took a long time to do so) and then consolidate in Iberia.

Rome finally completed the conquest of Southern Italy just before Hannibal appeared, and at game end, thanks to his rampage, Carthage controlled most of the board, with only Rome and Magna Graecia red, and just the Ebro region contested.  

Introducing pre-battle stratagems.

A chap called ToneW at the miniatures page recently posed this series of questions:


Are people interested in gaming pre battle strategies in order to influence the set up of the miniature battle?

If so what do you find are the best methods to achieve this? or are there any rule sets that cover this well?


This is a topic which I have thought about a bit in the past.

I've often wondered if playing a mini matrix game beforehand would not be an easy, low-rules-overhead way to introduce stratagems into an umpired game (if you are lucky enough to have an umpire, that is!).  Each player would be allowed to make one argument for a stratagem and one counter-argument against potential enemy ruses.

The umpire would consider these arguments, rate them on their merits, dice to see which, if any, of the arguments succeeded, and then decide on appropriate in-game effects.

For example, before a typical ancients equal-points field battle, Player 1 might approach the umpire and proffer a "for" argument, which could go something like this:

"I give my troops an early breakfast and deploy them at sunrise.  The enemy has no time to eat and therefore his troops will begin to suffer the effects of hunger as the battle goes on."

At the same time, and without knowing the enemy's "for" argument, he would present a "counter" argument.  Let's say this one:

"To prevent the enemy getting the jump on me, I've had scouts out during the night who will immediately report back to me any suspicious movements, such as marches towards prepared or ambush positions."

The umpire might then decide that although Player 1's "for" argument is reasonable, the enemy has a slight advantage in light troops, so this reduces the probability of such a ruse working.  He gives the argument a 33% chance of succeeding.

Player 2 then approaches him with his own"for" and "counter" arguments.  Perhaps presenting something like this:

"As we are in home territory and know the terrain well, we infiltrate light troops into the wood in the centre of the board.  The troops are able to conceal themselves there until I give the signal for them to show themselves and attack."

His "counter" argument might go something like this:

"The enemy has been relying on local guides, and they will surely get a message to our camp if the enemy has a scheme that they are working on."

The umpire might consider that Player 2's argument is sound, given the situation, and gives it a 50% chance of success.

He now dices for each argument, but let's say for example's sake that both succeed.  In such an event, the umpire would compare each "counter" argument with the successful "for" argument and see how effective it might be in hindering the stratagem.

For example, Player 1's 'early deployment causes hungry enemy' argument is quite well countered by 'the local guide reports enemy intentions', so he gives the counter-argument a 50% chance of succeeding.

Player 2's 'ambush' argument is conceivably countered by the 'scouts out' argument, but feels that local knowledge is against them, so gives the counter-argument a 16.5% chance of cancelling the stratagem.

If we assume that both counter-arguments fail, the umpire will decide the effects of the stratagems and tell the players as appropriate.

He might tell Player 2 that his infiltration plan has succeeded, and he can order those troops from turn 3 onwards, but that the rest of his army is hungry because of the enemy's early start.  He would then note down the appropriate effect in his little notebook, perhaps something like this: "from turn 4 onward, Player 2's army must dice for hunger during the morale phase.  A score of 6 means that the army attacks from then on at a -1, the troops of the ambuscade excepted."

He might tell Player 1 that the enemy is indeed hungry, but instead of mentioning the success of the enemy stratagem he will secretly note that Player 2 has two units of skirmish infantry concealed in the wood in the centre, but their cover will be blown if Player 1 moves any of his units into said wood.

It would be the umpire's job to ensure that the arguments are kept reasonable.  Rating unreasonable arguments 'impossible' would probably help to keep commanders from getting over-ambitious.  It could even be done remotely if the umpire is familiar with the scenario and the rules.  An email exchange before the battle, after which the umpire dices for results and send instructions to the players could do the trick.  Of course, some of the fog of war would be lost doing it this way, but necessity being the mother of invention, no doubt means could be found to retain it as long as possible.

More Lost Battles testing...

I played through a game of Carrhae solo last night to get a better idea of the impact that using a proposed alternate movement turn sequence would have on Lost Battles.  The Carrhae scenario was probably not the best choice actually - I don't know it that well and it's not as linear as the other scenarios in the game - but I gave it a crack, anyway.

This is the board at start of turn two, with Crassus in the foreground, Romans the white-on-black counters.

Right away it became clear that each move would be important in such a chaotic situation, and that the order of events would greatly impact on the plans of each commander.  Crassus began by using cavalry and light infantry to drive a wedge between the Parthian centre and its right wing.  The light cavalry all-out-attacked from distance to score 2 hits on the Parthian centre but did not survive the counterattack.

On the Roman right both sides tried to force the other to advance first, but in the end it was Surena who charged into contact.  Unfortunately, I made a rules error here; I momentarily forgot that cataphracts cannot move and attack in the same turn, so this was an illegal move.

On the Parthian right the light cavalry disperses to make it more difficult for the Roman centre and centre left to advance into contact with the mostly spent centre.

Observations: when commands are relatively plentiful, as they are in this scenario, there is incentive for players to do a higher proportion of single-unit moves than we might normally see.  That said, there is a lot of space on the board in this scenario and there would not be the same opportunities for this in battles where the board is more densely populated.

(Board after turn 2)

The third turn saw the Romans get in the first move, which they used to attack with the heavy cavalry on the left.  The turn proceeded with tit-for-tat attacks, culminating in Crassus Jr. rolling snake eyes while attempting a rally.

The Romans now had the semblance of a line but the right was entirely spent.

Observations: there perhaps needs to be provision for troops who wish to vacate a zone entirely to be able to move out all of their units in one go, even if it requires more than one phase to do so.   Deciding whether to prioritize attacks over movement, and if so where, adds another interesting layer of decision making to the game.

(Board at end of turn 3)

The Romans had first move again this turn, which they used to get in another attack from the unfortunate Crassus Junior's zone.  They scored another hit there before their right was eliminated.  The Romans turned their centre to meet the threat from their collapsed right, while advancing on the centre left to try and get closer to the juicy targets in the Parthian centre.

The Romans now had only three zones with troops in them, so the Parthians could easily keep out of reach of the legions if they so wished, and could move individual units around to maximise morale attack advantages.

Observations: while you would think that having first move would confer a significant advantage, as the game wears on, the extra reaction ability that moving last brings - especially when there are several unanswered moves - seems to be very effective in its own right.

(Board at the end of turn 4)

It was at this point that I realised I'd made the error I mentioned earlier with the Parthian cataphracts, so I decided that there was no need to continue as the result would be devalued and that the things I'd wanted to test had been done so satisfactorily.  It was also getting rather late by this point, so that was a factor too!

All in all, I thought alternate movement worked quite well.  Playing against a live opponent there would be room for clever play and the chance to exert a bit of psychological pressure here and there with adroit manoeuvre.  The problem of course is whether such clever play detracts from the simulation value.

As a final point, the board did not get cluttered; I used the provided 'attack made' markers to show which zones had already attacked, and when adjacent zones had both attacked I conserved said markers by placing a single marker across the borders of the two (or more) zones. 

Tweaking the Lost Battles turn sequence. Any thoughts?

Phil Sabin's Lost Battles uses a standard universal IGO-UGO turn sequence, with the potential for turn reversal if a particularly brilliant general is present or there are dodgy weather conditions.  Unusually, combat in Phil's rules is not simultaneous, and an army can only score hits on the enemy in its own turn.

There is thus considerable advantage in getting in the first attack, especially in the cavalry fights, for these tend to be bloodier and resolve more abruptly than the clash of infantry.

Balancing this first attack advantage, the player moving second will get to see what the first player does and can then react accordingly; perhaps establishing superiority in one sector of the board, refusing a flank, or setting up a defensive trap.

This works well, and makes for a grand game, but I have often thought that it would be a relatively simple matter to introduce more fluidity into the course of events by dispensing with universal IGO-UGO and using, instead, alternate movement phases.  Lost Battles employs a derivative of the pip method to control movement and combat, so the idea is that instead of Player 1 performing all of his movement and combat and then Player 2 doing the same, Player 1 could perform one movement or combat action - expending command points as usual - and then the active role could pass to Player 2, who would in turn perform a movement or combat action and then return the active role to Player 1.  This alternative move sequence would continue until both players had used up all of their command points or had both forfeited their remaining command points by passing up the chance to act.

So, how would this change the game?

1) More interaction between players and less downtime while waiting for an opponent to finish a turn.

2) The advantages of moving first or second will change over the course of the game, and players will be able to control this to some extent.

3) There will be advantage in conserving command points so that a player can get a series of moves in last.  This could lead to the use of 'filler' moves so that players can jockey to get the last phase.  In order to make this less attractive, the player who moves last in any turn should move second in the turn following.  This may not, however, be enough; some additional rules may need to be introduced to prevent filler moves.

4) The turn-reversal ability that brilliant generals have would no longer be as effective.  There may need to be some (possibly fiddly) rules concocted to bring that advantage back.

5) Tactics will change.  The current attack - reinforce sequence can be interrupted by the enemy and turned into an attack - counterattack - reinforce sequence.  There may be more incentive for players to advance en masse, or to defend in depth. 

6) The dynamics may change.  It may encourage inertia on the part of the player whose army is on the defensive.

7) It would require 'moved' markers to be used, cluttering up the board and rendering it less attractive.

8) There may be some concerns that come up about when players can declare a new lead unit.


It's one thing to do this in the abstract, and another entirely to see it in action, so I will play out a sample turn of Sentinum to illustrate how it might work.

Here is a screenshot of the historical deployment for Sentinum, with the Romans top of the screen and the Gallic/Samnite host at the bottom.  The action starts in turn 2.

As the Samnites/Gauls have 6 command points + d6 and 1 command exemption from their leader, in standard Lost Battles they would typically first move up the infantry, using 5 commands, at which point they would roll their d6.  They would use the remaining command points that die roll generated to attack from and reinforce their right, and, if there were points left over, to combine or - if they were really lucky - perhaps even advance the cavalry on the left.

In response the Romans with their 6 commands + d6 and 3 command exemptions would attack with the levy light infantry in the centre, the cavalry on their left, and advance the heavy infantry and cavalry of the left if possible.

Given average command rolls, the turn would probably end with the board looking something like this:

By way of contrast, this is what might happen with an alternate move turn.

Phase 1: Samnites use 1 command to attack with the cavalry on their right.  They roll an 8 for 1 hit on the opposing cavalry.

Phase 2: The Roman cavalry expends 1 command and Decius' exemption to counterattack.  If they can score 2 hits they will shatter the enemy horse.  They hit once.

Phase 3: The Samnites advance the heavy infantry of their right rear into the right centre, using 2 commands.

Phase 4: The Romans mirror their move, advancing into the space in front of the Samnites, also using 2 commands.

Phase 5:  Gallius Egnatius activates the heavy infantry of his zone at a cost of 1 command and his exemption to advance the infantry into the left centre space.  4 commands used.

Phase 6: The Romans mirror this move also, using the exemptions of Fabius to do so.  3 commands used.

Phase 7: The Samnites expend 1 command to advance the cavalry of their left.  With only 1 command remaining they are now allowed to roll the command die.  The result is a 5.  They have 6 commands remaining.

Phase 8: The Romans spend 2 commands to advance the average heavy cavalry against the Samnite left.  They now have 1 command left and may roll the command die.  The result is a 3.  They have 4 commands to use.

Phase 9: With a 2 command advantage, the Samnites try to prevent the Romans from getting an attack in with the levy light infantry in their central zone.  They spent 2 commands to express move the cavalry of the left rear to join their fellows in the left flank zone.  4 commands remain.

Phase 10: The Romans do their best to generate an attack for the light infantry and advance the veteran heavy cavalry on the right at a cost of 1 command.  They have 3 left.

Phase 11: The Samnites advance the cavalry of the right to join the spent cavalry in the right flank zone.  They have 2 commands remaining.

Phase 12: The Romans admit that they cannot attack with the light infantry and elect to move their heavy infantry into the central zone.  Since they have joined the light infantry, the light infantry can no longer make an attack.

Phase 13: With no attack possible from the Roman light infantry, the Samnites advance their centre, using the last of their commands to do so.

Phase 14: As they cannot attack and have moved everything they can, the Romans pass and forfeit their last command.

The turn is over, and the map looks like this:

The Romans will get first phase in turn 3 because the Samnites were last to move in turn 2.  It dawns on the Samnite player that perhaps it would have been better to have suffered an attack from the Roman light infantry if it would have given him the first attack in turn 3... 

****

We can see from the screenshots that there is little difference in the on-board situation between standard LB and the alternate move sequence; but I think it's fair to say that there has been more player interaction with the alternative move turn, and therefore more of a battle of wits.

So, is it worth pursuing?  What do you think?