A bit Chile in Shedquarters

With temperatures plunging after the unseasonably warm start to November it was a coincidence that we revisited "It's Getting a Bit Chile" this week. It has been four years since they last saw the table top, and even that was a refresh before their delayed outing at COW brought about by COVID.

Why the interest now? Well, I've always liked the rules, and I'd been wondering about their utility in respect of the Anglo-Sikh Wars project. "Taiping Era" might not suit, and there are some mechanisms in IGABC that might fit the bill. There are several unique mechanisms that give it a different flavour to conventional rule sets.

We had a full house for the first time in a while. Tim and Chris hadn't played the system before. Steve had (he may even have a copy) and Phil also. However, with Phil the game would have preceded his stroke so his recollection of how to play had a good chance of being imperfect.


Phil partnered Steve with a Bolivian and Peruvian division, respectively. Chris and Tim had a couple of Chilean divisions, to make it an evenly matched contest. We're up on the Atacama, with orders to take control of the two nitrate mines, and possibly the llama farm. (Headlines in the papers read "Llama Farmer Drama").

Turn one, and Tim (on the right of the Chilean line) marches boldly forwards. Chris has sent his cavalry out wide to the left, as he knows Phil will do the same.


Steve moves up tentatively at first.

The race for the llama farm is well and truly on.


Tim is well ahead on occupying the mine ("oficiana") nearest the camera. Phil is closer at the far end of the table.

We're getting to the business end of things at last, as armies deploy into firing lines. Age has withered my memory, and the units are overflowing the squares as I told people to lay them out incorrectly. Firing lines should have a notional skirmish line in front, then two bases in line and finally a support stand.

The cavalry at the far end have charged each other. They're evenly matched, so it's a crap shoot.

In the bottom left of the picture you can just see that Tim has occupied one of the oficianas.

The firing lines are well and truly established now. Phil is in the far oficiana, but is being pressed hard by Chris. BTW Chris is winning the cavalry crap shoot. People are playing fast and loose with the scenery items.


Tim may have occupied one of the objectives, but Steve now has a numerical advantage in the centre, and the Chileans are taking a lot of hits from their fire.


The Disorder markers are stacking up. Chris' assault column is banging its head metaphorically and ineffectively at Phil's troops in the buildings. Annoyingly a biscuit box has crept on to the table.


A view from behind the Peruvians, shows they're being clobbered too. Phil has driven off Chris' assault on his oficiana. Several Chilean units are heading for the baseline, so it looks like a win for the Alliance.

A bit rusty on the rules, but I soon warmed up. The scenario was a bit basic, which didn't do the game any favours as the artillery never got in a position to deploy effectively. However, it meant everyone got a work out on the core systems and how the game works. 

There's certainly something there that would probably translate to the way that armies performed in the Punjab in the 1840s. By fiddling around with commanders' role in rallying troops and removing disorder I can probably simulate the terrible level of casualties that the British Army took, yet still kept going. Whether players are prepared to give the development enough time when the occasion arises is another matter.

Comments

  1. I’m probably not the only person to point out that the newspaper editor missed out Atacama from the headlines.
    The Sikh Wars intrigue me. Was it a peer to peer/near peer conflict which the Khalsa should easily have won with their superior numbers, but for treachery? If so how do you work that imbalance into a wargame that the British have a reasonable chance in?
    Chris/Nundanket

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's karma, I suppose. You are right on the Sikh Wars. However, there's no treachery in the 2nd War, and the British win that one too. Even accounting for the treachery they're very passive tactically, so Gough can dictate to them. Mind you, Gough was barely competent, so maybe it all evens out.

      Delete
  2. Good to see these armies back out on table. My notes show my last playing was back in 2021, about four years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right. It was 2021. I was prepping two games for COW that hadn't made it due to lockdowns.

      Delete
  3. Good looking game and an interesting conflict, must admit the newspapers headlines made me chuckle over my morning coffee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the aesthetic of it too. It's a conflict with long term impact, which we Europeans have tended to overlook.

      Delete
  4. That was very nice to see out again. I really like your South American scenery and buildings, very atmospheric. How many llamas have you got?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bright colours make the buildings unique. If I hadn't seen Peruvian buildings close up I don't think I'd have been bold enough to go with the colour schemes. The wind turbines were a "stumble upon" find at a show from a company called "Blotz" in their 15mm Old West line. I have about a dozen llamas. They're hard to count as they keep wandering off.

      Delete
  5. Glad to see these figures getting on the table again. Having your crew learn the basics I hope you have the opportunity to play more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect we won't see them that often. One of the group doesn't like using dice with sides other than six. We differ on whether all the outcomes you could possibly ever want are available in the numbers one to six.

      Delete

Post a Comment