We haven't done one of our quarterly wargames days for a while, but Richard from ShedWest had the week off and resolved to run an on-line game. This game has been promised for quite a while - it's 30mm figures doing Seven Years War using Charles S Grant's "The War Game" rules, and what's more, using one of his "Table Top Teasers" as a scenario. Chris A and I were the defending Frenchies, and Phil was the attacking Hanoverians and their allies.
We had to hold the ridge line with two infantry regiments, two guns and a cavalry regiment. The Allies had quite a bit more. We had reinforcements coming however.
The first thing to note is that the units are big - 48 men in an infantry battalion - and individually based. These rules are the very definition of old school. To my mind it is using a lot of figures to get to any size of battle that is remotely realistic, but hey-ho, that's what they used to like.
Soon there were lots of Allies on the table. We were wondering how we would weather the storm. Artillery opens up, and we inflict a few casualties, as do the Allies.
The heavy cavalry in the distance charge each other. Melee is resolved by opposed die rolls. It's pretty even.
Phil sends cavalry out to turn our right flank, and more to outflank our left. He has infantry in attack column moving up to assault the ridge, once he has softened us up with infantry fire.
Reinforcements start to arrive.
A close up of the cavalry melee.
It's looking a bit worrying on this flank. The French infantry nearest us aren't having much luck. They've lost an officer and failed a morale test, so can't fire next turn. You can just see, bottom left, the head of our reserve cavalry moving up to cover the flank.
The Allies close. More fire is exchanged.
Here's a close up of the central attack....
...and the cavalry melee.
The cavalry melee has proved to be indecisive, so after two rounds, the sides part, rallying back.
For top to bottom:
1) Our cavalry rally back again
2) The Allies leading attack column charges home
3) The firefight at the right hand end of the ridge gets up close and personal.
4) The cavalry on both sides nearest the camera deploy into line
In the infantry melee at the top the writing is on the wall when the French line fails to give defensive fire. This means they lose the ensuing melee, which causes them to break.
At the other end of the ridge the other French battalion, reduced to 25%, decides to retire in good order.
With the centre collapsing, and the Allies pressing close with their centre we called it a day and an Allied victory. Our reserves had taken forever to move up, and we faced the prospect of attacking uphill against overwhelming odds.
Here's another close up of our centre running away.
I now understand why the regiments need to be so big, as the firing can be very lethal, ("That's 6 hits, remove 6 figures") although whether that's a chicken or egg situation I wouldn't want to say. The rules are interesting in terms of their place in the history of the development of rules. Rather than roll dice individually for firing, you roll for every group of 6, whereas for hand to hand you roll for each figure.
It was great to see a table groaning with figures like this. My preference would be to have smaller units and see them deployed in multiple lines, but this works as a visual experience as well.
I thought at first that the scenario was heavily one-sided. However, if we hadn't had some dreadful luck at the right hand end of the line, and been able to inflict some defensive fire at the left hand end, we'd have held the ridge for long enough to bring up reserves. I think the balance still lies with the attackers, but not so much as I originally thought.
All in all, an excellent morning's entertainment. Richard did a terrific job running his first on line game, keeping it all moving along, so full marks to him there.
Hopefully the next time we meet up, we'll actually be meeting up.
There is something special about the old Charles (S) Grant 'War Game' rule set. I've never gone for such huge units myself - the Royal Guard of Altmark-Uberheim being the biggest, with 44 figures all up - but I have played this scenario, thrice: once as a DBA game, once as Napoleonic, and once as American Civil War (27-figure units). I've defended each time.
ReplyDeleteNot once have I held the ridge line. I have stopped the enemy reaching the road junction twice, but got crushed in the DBA game.
The 18th Century rule set I use is my own, but owes a great deal to C. Grant Senior. But I use a modified form of his musketry that dies not divide the units firing into 'formal' groups of six, but into 'informal' groups of 8 plus a remainder. There are further modifications that (a) do away with subtractions for range, without changing the probabilities; and (b) to resolve 'hits' into 'losses'. A close quarter firefight will chaw up units pretty badly, but in my view that goes towards affecting players' morale. That can't be a bad thing...
The CS Grant rules certainly are a throwback, and gave me quite a shock when we played them. We used to use the "Bayonet" Napoleonic rules with 30+ man battalions, firing multiples and cones of fire for grapeshot and so on. Then we used Bruce Quarrie's rules, again with 30 man+ units. It was amazingly liberating for me when I went to university and played the WRG 1685-1845 rules and units came down to 12-16 figures. You could get so much more done in a much shorter time frame. My recollection of early games is spending ages setting up on the living room floor, playing for hours and not getting anywhere near a result.
DeleteAs for that scenario I don't think we knew exactly what the victory conditions were. I thought we had to hold the ridge, but if it was the road junction we'd have been in with a shout.
My feeling from the rules is that if I were to use them regularly I, too, would find ways to streamline them as you have done. I'd certainly do something about the melee rules.
Classic wargaming. Good quality screenshots too!
ReplyDeleteIt's "classic" in the way some cars are "classic cars". They're great for taking out for a spin every so often, but you soon start to notice the lack of aircon, powered steering and so on. We did a "classic car" ride in Cuba. Great in the sunshine with the top down, but you did realise how much you were taking your life in your hands. No seat belts, no head restraints, no safety cage.
DeleteThe screen shot quality is probably because Richard got a top of the range camera, allied to the wide HD screen I have on my PC. And he focussed close up on only half of the table most of the time.
My definition of “classic” too. Looks good from afar but no longer state of the art and technology. Like us, I suppose!
DeleteHey! I look good close up too! At least Mrs T says so. BTW I met Charles S Grant on several occasions at WD COWs. Never played in any of his games, but he was my senior officer in at least one of Paddy's large staff style games (knew what he was doing - army officer) . He played in a game I ran with a friend, Bankinista, about the assassination of William Rufus. I remember him sidling up to me and asking "Can I kill him yet?". Quite a thrill for a 20 year old being asked for permission by a wargaming great.
DeleteSorry about that! I should have been speaking only for my own situation...
DeleteI think short sighted, balding with slightly strawberry blond hair colour is a cool lock.
DeleteGreat stuff!
ReplyDeleteBest Regards,
Stokes
Thanks. Impressive looking isn't it.
DeleteThe Grant rules are a 'classic' example of 'bottom up' design, starting with the individual real - or toy - soldier or gun and working up from that to create a battle game, resulting in a game that may be quite realistic in many of its outcomes (though there seems to be too much emphasis on infantry melee, IMHO) but is cumbersome and slow to administer. Fine if one has the miniature troops, space, time and patience for such games.
ReplyDeleteI prefer Brigadier Young's Charge! and have managed to create a Portable Wargame version of it to work with fewer figures, less space and time, and far fewer die rolls, using a gridded battlefield to measure manoeuvres and ranges. However, when I tried to achieve the same thing with The War Game I had to admit defeat and give up. Rereading Grant senior's The Napoleonic Wargame recently, I felt it was largely a rehash of the 18th century rules with the addition of infantry squares.
Yes, I hadn't thought of it like that, but you hit the nail on the head. It's very much "what can I do with my toys" rather than "how do I model a conflict". The cumbersome nature of it was helped by having a lot of dice to hand, to keep track of wins and loses in the big melees (roll a d 6, put it to one side if it's a win and so on). "Back in the day" we only had two or three dice in the house and they were all filched from Waddington board games. I have a copy of "Charge!" rules somewhere - the Terry wise reprint. Perhaps I should dig them out.
DeleteI've emailed you a copy of my Portable Charge! rules. Enjoy!
DeleteThanks. I shall look out for them.
Delete