Desperate measures

The War of 1812 was pretty much a wash for the United States, two years of fighting settling nothing really, but it was a successful and important period for the US Navy. It's professionalism was cemented by the successes it earned in battle against the premiere naval power of its day, the Royal Navy. In particular, a series of single-ship action in the war's first months mortified the British and boosted American morale.

But some of that success came close to never happening on this date, 200 years ago, as the USS Constitution was nearly trapped by a far superior force of British warships. It was only through exceptional seamanship that the ship escaped.

The official Website

Anniversary refight of the Battle of New Orleans, Napoleon's War

Young General and Old Warrior took a break from BattleLore action on a snowy January afternoon to refight a battle that also took place on a January some 196 years ago, although there's no evidence the ground was snowy in the least.

The second "Battle Pack" for the Napoleon's War system features four battles from America's "Napoleonic" war, the War of 1812. Now this is familiar ground for Worthington Games, as this topic had previously been done as part of For Honor & Glory. In the case of the New Orleans battle, the new version takes advantage of the dedicated maps to render a somewhat more faithful representation of the battlefield, which was kind of sketchy in the earlier game's somewhat more generic treatment.

It still appears to be a tough row to hoe for the British, however, as they're forced into a brutal frontal assault across open ground against a fortified enemy who had superior numbers of guns. The only advantage the British have is the superior quality of their infantry: Two +2 Elites, two +1 elites and three regular four figure infantry for a total of 34 MP. In contrast the more numerous American forces have just two four figure regulars and nine 2-figure militia for only 26 MP. Both sides have a 2 figure cavalry unit which is of minimal use because of the special rules for the America's War battle pack that prohibit them from using shock combat. Basically they're a speedy but very weak combat unit.

Where the US had a big edge is in guns -- three units compared to just one British. The British also have a rocket unit which is weaker (just 2 dice of fire) but has the advantage of being able to fire over obstacles and units. One important special rule for this scenario is that all the artillery and rockets have an extended range of six hexes, hitting on a 6. Instead of the standard rule which allows the guns to hit on a 5 or 6 out to 2 hexes, in this scenario a 5 is only a hit when adjacent. The Americans also had a slight edge in leaders, a pair of +2 (Jackson and Coffee) while the Brits had a +2 (Packenham, who deployed on the right) and a +1 (Gibbs, left). The British had a slight edge in CAP (4 of 3) but given that the American force was strictly on he defensive this seemed even.

If were an open field fight the American edge in guns wouldn't be so important given the poor quality of their troops, but it's not an open field fight. While the British have some redoubts and trenches to shelter it, the burden of attack is on them. They have to scope 6 VP in 20 turns or less. While there is a 2 VP objective hex behind the US line, I see little chance the British can get there. No, they need to kill US units and while the 2-MP militia are pretty easy to make go away, there is the problem of that line of entrenchments -- behind a canal!

The British advance is further constricted by a large Cypress swamp on their right flank which forces any advance to stay within US artillery range.

Naturally Old Warrior took the British side. The plan was to advance on the right and carry the works on that side, which seemed somewhat more doable than the left. The British would make some demonstration on that side as well, looking for a chance to rush in if artillery fire created a weak spot.

The good news was the the advance on the Right was able to make it to the wall and get across, eliminating all three militia units there. The bad news was that it was enormously costly, with the +2 elite reduced to a single MP and the +1 elite to 2 MP. This force was too weak to try rolling up the US line in the face of the guns and troops in the center. While this had been going on a West Indian infantry unit that had ventured forth on the left was gunned down in a single turn by those sharpshooting pirate gunners. It appeared the British were going to have to try their luck on the left after all. The presence of a road on the left flank promised a possibility of developing an attack quickly and minimizing the time under the US guns, but even has the British started to form up they started taking noticeable losses and the 4-figure regular British unit in the center barely made it across the line of departure before getting wiped out.

The first wave of British attackers to make it to the wall included the +1 elite and the surviving West Indian unit. The elites were wiped out in fierce close-quarter fighting with the US regulars and gunners but the West Indian unit was finally able to force the US troops back. A counterattack wiped out the West Indian regiment and it was up to the British cavalry and the last elite and Gibbs to carry the day. They came within 1 die roll of making it, as a volley from the elites finished off the US regulars and left just one gun standing -- the score was 5-all.

It wasn't meant to be, however, as that surviving gun was able to wipe out the horsemen for the 6th US VP and a shot from the other US regular felled Gibbs for the 7th and winning VP.

Compared to the actual event, of course, this was a closer affair, but it still ended up a British defeat. There were very few British figures left on the board -- a total of nine spread between five units. Young General resisted the impulse to be aggressive despite some taunting and made full use of his powerful defensive position to emerge victorious. Darn it.

Chesapeake vs. Shannon

Today is the anniversary of two notable naval victories by the Royal Navy.

The more recent of the two was the 1813 duel between the American frigate Chesapeake and the British frigate Shannon which has been the topic of several posts already.

The earlier one was the British naval battle known as the Glorious First of June, where a British fleet defeated a French fleet in 1794.

Game Expedition report -- A Bad Day for the British

Well, the inimitable Mark K. and I got in a full day of gaming, and as Mark's suggested Blog Post title hints, it wasn't a good day for the British.

We started out with a match of Hold the Line, playing the Montmorency Falls scenario. This battle was fought on July 31, 1759. It was Wolfe's first attempt to attack the French army near Quebec and the historical result was a bloody repulse for the British.

The set up is shown below:



The French army is ensconced in a strong position atop hills, behind a stream and in some redoubts. The British have to either fight their way across the stream or ashore from boats.

Our first game saw Mark's British elites gamely battle their way through the French right flank despite heavy losses. My French troops concentrated on reducing the Elites down to 1 Mp instead of trying to finish them off, on the theory that it was more important to reduce their chances of passing morale checks for close assaults. This generally succeeded, but it meant that the British firepower was not reduced and it got really close at the end, with the British getting 5 of the 6 VPs needed to win (1 VP marker, 2 militia, 2 regulars) . I was worried that a lucky shot might pick off a leader and give the Brits the win, so I pulled the leaders out of range. Hindering the British effort considerably were casualties among their leaders as both Wolfe and Townshend fell.

The flip side game was much less competitive, as every effort my British made to advance was met with a hail of effective fair. As a matter of fact, my British ended up taking 23 hits from the French before finally inflicting one. Needless to say, I wasn't able to dig my way out of that hole and the British went down to a resounding defeat, scoring no VPs at all while losing 7 units.

Our main event was our mutual first game of Twilight Struggle. I'm not sure how to frame the narrative for that one, as I'm still digesting the game. It's very interesting, however, and I expect to play it again. Mark did win our first game as the Soviets in the Mid-war period (and so the British were on the losing side again).

Dessert was a match of Columbia's War of 1812. I took the first game as the United States, where the war went well in the West while both sides danced around a bit on the New York front. Losses were relatively low and the game ended up being decide by a vary large battle in New York, with the US winning by 11 points. The second game was much bloodier and wild all around, which tended to help Mark's Americans, although 1812 went well for the British, who were able to capture Albany. They were, however, unable to hold it and Mark's Americans were able to battle back from the 1812 deficit. My chances for a coming back to force a draw suffered blow when my big 1814 reinforcement army brought just one 4-factor British regular and no less than 4 militia!. Meanwhile the Americans had taken Detroit and swept through the West. An American army fought its way from Albany to Quebec. The British were able to destroy it, but chasing them down cost valuable time and the game ended up with Mark's American having exactly 10 more victory points and the win.

The final result was three wins for Mark, two for me and a fine afternoon and evening of strategy.

Veterans Day battle - Crysler's Farm Nov. 11, 1813

For Veterans Day Young General and Old Warrior took a break from BattleLore to refight a historical action, in this case the Battle of Crysler's Farm from the For Honor and Glory game, which happened to be on Nov. 11, 1813. It would be anachronistic to refer to this as a Veterans Day fight, but it had the virtue of being a familiar game system for both of us and relatively quick playing.

The set up is as shown below:


The Americans have the advantage in numbers, with eight regular infantry units, a unit of dragoons and an artillery battery, with two leaders. Their main challenge is that they have a low Command level (just a 2, which means they will get to move from 3-5 units per turn, or no more than half their force) and a long way to go to reach most of the victory objectives.

The British are fewer, but have a definite edge in quality, with two leaders, two elite infantry units, two light infantry units, an artillery battery, a band of Indians and a gunboat on the river flank. They also have an advantage in command quality, with a Command level of 4. This will allow for 5-7 units to act per turn, conceivably 100 percent of the force!

Young General, being a true blue Patriot, wanted to play the Americans. He started with a tentative advance, quickly losing a unit to very accurate fire from the light infantry and Indians in the woods. Tempted by the two Victory Points for sinking the gunboat, he also moved up his guns, escorted by the dragoons. He was rewarded with a hit on the gunboat, which prompted the vessel to start pulling back. Rashly, Young General followed and found his gunners under fire from the right flank light infantry, who also proved to be good marksmen as they eliminated the artillery unit in one long-range volley.

All was not lost for Young General, who has the the spirit of Jeb Stuart. Seeing as his dragoons were also in a forward position he made a dash for the victory point objectives along the river, scooping both of them up while taking just one hit on the way. Unfortunately, the brave troopers found their way back from enemy lines blocked and the last of them fell victim to some Elite infantry, although the dragoons inflicted a hit as they died.

At this point the gunboat, now safe from counter fire, moved back towards the riverbank. Young General, meanwhile, became aware that time was starting to run out and he made an effort to start a coordinated push forward with several regulars accompanied by the two leaders. Also playing for time, the British light infantry and Indians fell back to join the Elites defending the remaining pair of Victory hexes.

Time did indeed ran out for Young General, and when regulation play ended on Turn 25 he was locked in firefights with the Elites, lights, Indians and cannons near the objectives. He did manage a lucky shot that took out one of the British commanders, but the final score was 3 victory points for the U.S. (2 objectives and a leader) for 5 for the British (artillery, dragoon and three regulars), so the British won on time.

Young General's blood was up, and he asked that the battle continue to Turn 30. He did manage to inflict some more losses on the British -- one of the British Elites only survived because it made two successful "saving rolls." Two more US regulars were eliminated, while the Indians also left the board, so the additional time didn't bring the Americans more overall success.

It was an interesting fight. Historically the Americans suffered a defeat and the scenario does seem to be pretty challenging for them. The nature of the game system makes it hard to bring superior numbers to bear, especially when they are not well-led.

Session Report For Honor and Glory Lawrence vs. Broke

I've always thought that a good wargame should be able to recreate not just the historical outcome but the means achieved to get there. At a bare minimum it should be possible to physically copy the actual movements and battles of the actual event, but ideally it should also be plausible in game terms.

It's amazing to me how often wargames fail to do this. For one simple, yet obvious example that should be familiar for most wargamers, in the introductory wargame Napoleon at Waterloo the chateau at Hougoumont always automatically falls on the first turn, freeing up the French corps attacking that site for further action elsewhere. In the actual event, of course, Hougoumont held out for the entire day and tied up that French corps during the critical phase of the battle.

So I thought I'd try a little experiment and see how a few wargames tack up when put to the test of recreating the course and outcome of a historical battle, in this case the naval engagement between the USS Chesapeake and the HMS Shannon during the War of 1812.

I selected this engagement for several reasons. It's a famous and well-documented battle with little controversy over how it was fought. It's a standard scenario in most naval games covering the period. It was very quick, the decisive phase lasting just 15 minutes and small, there were just the two ships involved. Finally, it was not a complicated battle with a lot of maneuvering. Both captains were eager to come to grips with each other directly.


The opposing sides


My primary source for the historical course of events is Theodore Roosevelt's highly regarded 1882 work The Naval War of 1812, with supplementary use of the Osprey title American Light and Medium Frigates 1794-1836 by Mark Landas.

The USS Chesapeake and the HMS Shannon were very evenly matched ships, at least on paper. Both were rated as 5th-rate frigates in the style of the times.

The Chesapeake was one of the original six frigates of the new U.S. Navy. Laid down as a 44-gun frigate in 1798, although of a lighter build than the famous Joshua Humphreys designs, the Chesapeake was was re-rated as a 36-gun frigate by the War of 1812. During her engagement with the Shannon the Chesapeake carried 50 guns, mostly 18-lb long guns and 32-lb carronades, with a couple of smaller guns. Her broadside weight was 542 pounds of metal according to Roosevelt, who said American cannonballs during the era tended to be underweight. 379 men were aboard.

The Shannon was a fairly standard 38-gun Royal Navy frigate in design. She carried 52 guns, also mostly 18-lb long guns and 32-lb carronades, with a few smaller guns. The weight of her broadside was 550 pounds and she carried 330 men.

The biggest difference between the two ships was the experience level of the crew. The Chesapeake sailed into battle with a brand new crew, although many of the individuals had served on other ships. There was no time drill the crew in their duties beforehand, however, which probably reduced the effectiveness of the crew somewhat. The Shannon, on the other hand, had a well-drilled crew that had mostly served for a long time on the ship. The British ship's captain had drilled his crew extensively in gunnery, which was unusual among British ships at the time. This would prove to be an important factor in the fight.

The two captains were both highly skilled, competent and aggressive leaders. Captain Philip Broke of the HMS Shannon had, as has been mentioned, drilled his crew extensively in gunnery with much firing at targets. To our 21st century sensibilities this is simple common sense, but ammunition was expensive in the 19th century and the military sciences rudimentary, so Broke's attention to training was definitely progressive.

Captain James Lawrence was newly promoted to frigate command, having already won fame in a single-ship duel as commander of the brig USS Hornet when it captured the brig HMS Peacock. Both ships were very evenly matched, but the Peacock got much the worse of the affair.

The Shannon had been cruising off Boston for a considerable time, attempting to goad the Americans into sending the Chesapeake out. Broke had even gone to the trouble of sending a letter to Lawrence, challenging him to come out and fight. The letter never reached Lawrence, however, as he needed no goading. In fact, he was already on his way out of the harbor and the two ships closed for action on June 1, 1813.

Roosevelt's account includes a diagram of the action, reproduced below:

The notable aspects of the fight, as can be seen in the diagram, is the limited maneuvering involved and the extremely short duration of the fight. Roosevelt's diagram picks up the action as the first broadsides were exchanged and shows both ships running before the wind, with the Chesapeake to windward.

The rules

The naval rules in For Honor and Glory do not specify a scale, but as guns are allowed to fire just two hexes and most naval gunnery of the time was effective out to around 800 yards we can probably assign a hex scale of 300-400 yards and a time scale of about 5 minutes per turn.

The initial setup given in For Honor and Glory doesn't match Roosevelt's account, showing the two ships beating before the wind with neither ship having a clear advantage in wind position.



For Honor and Glory's naval rules system is extremely simple. Ships can move in any direction, with the distance determined by how many "plotted moves" are available. In this case, each side had three, for an effective base movement rate of 3 hexes. Ships that start their turn with the wind coming from their rear three hexsides get a bonus of one more plotted move to use, and if only one ship has the wind behind it that ship gets the "weather gauge" and moves second. If both ships or neither ship have the wind to their back then the ship with "commander's advantage" moves second. In this scenario the Shannon has the commander's advantage.

Firing is handled by rolling a number of d6 based on the ship's "Gun rating." Both ships, unsurprisingly, have the same gun rating here, a "two." The effectiveness of the guns depends on the range and whether or not the target's "T" is crossed. The least effective shot is a 2-hex broadside to broadside one, which hits on a 6 only. The best position is a one-hex T-crossing shot which hits on a 4, 5 or 6. Intermediate situations hit on a 5 or 6. Crossing the T is strictly defined, being achieved only by firing ships directly ahead or behind the target.

The damage-absorbing ability of the ships is expressed by a damage rating, which is how many hits the ship can take before destruction. In this case both ships are a "6." A ship that takes hits equalling half its value is penalized by losing one plotted move per turn and firing at one less die.

The final important rule concerns boarding. Ships that end up in the same hex may get involved in a boarding action. A dice roll is involved, with a larger ship having an advantage in either boarding of avoiding a boarding action. If a boarding action begins it's resolved by having the two ships' "Marines" fire at each other sequentially (defender first) with 6's being a hit. Each Marine factor allows one die roll and each hit reduces the Marines by 1. If reduced to "0" the defending ship is captured. The attacking ship has the option of calling off the attack, which otherwise continues to the bitter end. Here the British ship has an unexpected advantage, with a Marine factor of 4 compared to the American ship's 3. I can only assume these numbers were assigned based on the historical outcome, because the Shannon actually had a smaller crew than the Chesapeake, including fewer marines.

The Battle

Turn 1

The Chesapeake begins in Hex 3L facing in direction 3, with the HMS Shannon three hexes ahead of it in Hex 6L also facing in direction 3.

The two ships closed on each other under reduced sail, according to Roosevelt's account, although the breeze still allowed both ships to move pretty fast. The details of the sail states are not reflected in For Honor and Glory's rules however and the bottom line is that both captains' aim was the same, to get in close.

So we will assume that both ships will turn immediately, with the Shannon making the tighter turn in order to close the distance quickly, so Chesapeake orders are 1 straight, right turn and then 1 straight to end up in Hex 5L facing direction 4. Shannon's orders are Right turn, 1 hex forward and then another Right turn to end up in hex in 7L facing in direction 5. Under the rules a chip can fire at any point in its move and the Shannon is in a position to fire at range 2. In FHAG there's no penalty for firing at every opportunity, but in the actual event the Shannon's crw had been orderd to hold fire until the range was much closer. Here's where we find our first major departure from the historical event. While in the game the player isn't forced to fire, there's no reason NOT to and a player would naturally fire. We will assume the Shannon fires its two dice but fails to roll a 6 on either one.


Turn 2

Both ships have the wind to their rear, and so are allowed 4 plotted moves, but the British ship retains the initiative because of the commander's advantage.

At this point Roosevelt informs us that "Broke was afraid that Lawrence would pass under the Shannon's stern, rake her and engage her on the quarter."

This is a real danger in the game, as well, and so Shannon's orders will reflect this fear, with plotted moves of "X" (no move), 1 straight, 1 again and 1 straight, ending in Hex 7J facing direction 5.

Roosevelt tells us, however, that "either overlooking or waiving this advantage, the American captain luffed up within 50 yards upon the Shannons's starboard quarter." We will reflect this with this series of plotted moves for the Chesapeake, 1 straight, right turn, X and finally 1 straight, putting the US ship in 6J facing direction 5.

The British captain will elect not to fire when the US first comes adjacent, hoping for a better shot later, but by the final hex both captains will realize no better shot is in the offing and will open fire.

Now, as it turns out, despite the fact that the British ship was noted for its gunnery, the Chesapeake's fire was also very effective and before the short battle was over 83 members of the Shannon's crew were killed or wounded, for a casualty rate of about 25 percent! Roosevelt's account states that over the course of the whole battle the Shannon was hit 158 times and the Chesapeake was hit 363 times, for about a 2-1 ratio. Both ships roll two dice with 5s and 6s being hits, so we will credit the Chesapeake with a good roll that includes one 6 but the Shannon with an even better roll of a 5 and a 6 for 2 hits.

Turn 3

For the next turn both ships will continue ahead slowly. Roosevelt informs us that "at 5:53, Lawrence, finding he was forging ahead, hauled up a little." The Chesapeake moves X, 1 straight, X and 1 straight to end up in Hex 6H facing direction 5 and the Shannon moves X, 1 straight, X and X. to end in 7I facing direction 5. Both ships continue to fire with effect and we will assume that each score 1 hit. This reduces the Chesapeake to half damage.

Turn 4

The next turn finds us in difficulty again, as the game doesn't really lend itself to recreating the historical events. Roosevelt account says that "at 5:56, having had her jib sheet and foretop-sail tie shot away, and her spanker brails loosened so that the sail blew out, the Chesapeake came up into the wind somewhat, so as to expose her quarter to her antagonist's broadside."

In game terms this requires us to have the Chesapeake move 1 straight, turn right and then X., ending up in Hex 6G facing Direction 6. (Due to damage the Chesapeake is only entitled to three plotted moves). The Shannon's move has to be 1 straight, followed by X,X,X., which is somewhat risky in game terms because it would have allowed the Chesapeake to cut ahead of her for a rake. It's no great stretch to award the Shannon another hit on the Chesapeake with a stern rake by two guns with a 4-6 hitting. The Shannon ends up in 7H facing direction 5.

Turn 5

Our difficulties reflecting the actual course of events accurately in game terms continue, as the best move for the Shannon at this point would be to keep the range long, having a 4 to 2 advantage in remaining hull points and now a 2-1 advantage in firing dice. And indeed, Broke did attempt to delay the boarding action, Roosevelt tells us, but the wind blew the Chesapeake backwards into the Shannon so that her rear port quarter collided with the Shannon, leaving Chesapeake unable to fire while the Shannon could stern rake her. There's no way for this to happen in FHAG because there are no rules for drifting.

Instead we must assume that the player Lawrence would turn his ship right, and then X. X. to remain in 6G but now facing Direction 1. And we must assume that our aggressive player Broke would move X (to get in another rake -- we'll score another hit without being at all generous to Shannon), turn right (to pursue in case Lawrence tries to open the range) 1 straight and finally an X (to avoid potentially overshooting the US position) therefore also ending up in 6G, but facing in direction 6.

Given the grim situation (Chesapeake gravely damaged, unable to fire and raked), it's no surprise in either real-life or in game terms that Lawrence would attempt to board, it being his one chance at victory. The real Lawrence, however, never got the chance, being cut down by a musket ball at this point and mortally wounded. We can assume the player Lawrence, being immune, would however order a boarding anyway. The real-life Broke did not hesitate to order his crew to form boarders and led them over the side. In game terms a player Broke might be tempted to avoid a boarding action, given his solid advantage in the game, but the player might fear losing the boarding roll and prefer to be the attacker able to call off the attack if it's not going well rather than being the defender and forced to stick it out. So our player Broke will copy the real-life one and announce he will board also.

Under the rules the players compare the current damage rating of the two ships. In this case the Shannon is a 4 and the Chesapeake a 1, for a difference of 3. The Shannon rolls two dice and adds the difference in the damage rating to the roll. In this case we will assume a quality roll of a 9 plus 3 for a final result of a 12. The weaker ship then rolls 2 dice straight, and we will give the Chesapeake a slightly below average roll of a 6. If the difference had been less than 7 there would have been no boarding action, which would suit the Shannon just fine. As it turns out the difference is exactly 7 and we move to the boarding procedure. Because there' s boarding action each player now rolls two dice again with the stronger player again adding the difference between the damage ratings to his roll. The Shannon would win a tie due to commander advantage. We will assume both players roll near average, a 6 for Shannon, boosted to 9 and a 7 for the Chesapeake so the Shannon is the attacker. This still suits Broke as Shannon now has a chance to end the battle right away and yet can call off the attack if it starts to go bad.

Finally we have the boarding phase, The defending American marines number 3 factors and on the first turn can get hits with a 5 or a 6. We will assume they roll average and get 1 hit on the Shannon boarders. The Shannon still has three marines left, after losing one, so Broke decides to push his luck and continue the atatck for now. He's rewarded with a hit. The remaining US mariens now only hit with 6s and their 2 dice miss. Broke's three boarders fire again and get another hit. The final US marine factor, having no choice fire again and gets a hit! At this point we may note that Broke was wounded badly. The player Broke, however, being unhurt, and well tempted by the fact that one more hit will end the battle elects to stay for another round and hits again with one of his 2 dice, reducing the US Marines to 0 and taking the ship!.

Conclusion

Overall, For Honor and Glory can't really replicate the course of the historical action very well. The simple movement system is simply unable to capture the subtle maneuvers that affected the action. The simple combat system also has trouble capturing the action. Our illustrative replay gave the Shannon good, if not exceptional luck, while not cutting the Chesapeake much slack. But in reality there's very little to choose from between the two ships and in a solitaire run-through I tried without regard to the historical account the Chesapeake actually emerged victorious by having better luck in gunnery and fending off a boarding attempt by the Shannon. That engagement also lasted much longer than five turns, with much more maneuvering by the two ships as they tried to get unanswered broadsides. I don't think many players would either "overlook" or "waive" the chance to rake the enemy like Lawrence did.

The final verdict is that For Honor And Glory, while achieving its goal of being very simple, probably overshoots the mark so much so that it can't be considered a good simulation. Historical decisions don't make sense in game terms and often are not even physically possible.

Twilight's Last Gleaming 2 -- review

Twilight's Last Gleaming 2 is the issue game from Strategy & Tactics No. 225, designed by Ty Bomba based on an earlier game by other designers in S&T No. 184 titled, naturally, Twilight's Last Gleaming.

The game scale is 100 meters per hex, each strength point represents about 50 soldiers or an artillery piece and every turn is 15 minutes to an hour.

There are three battles from the War of 1812 depicted, the Battle of the Thames on Oct. 5, 1813, Chippewa from July 5th, 1814 and Lundy's Lane from July 25th, 1814.

TWG2 at first glance appears to be a standard pseudo-Napoleon at War system basic wargame with locking zones of control, mandatory attacking and no stacking. It adds a couple of twists to that standard game system, however, to create a game that plays a bit different from that standard.

Perhaps the most significant departure from standard practice is that retreating units are allowed to retreat into an enemy ZOC if they have no other path available. This means that the usual SPI standard tactic of killing units by preventing them from retreating doesn't apply except in restrictive conditions such as when a unit is completely surrounded.

Another important departure from usual practice is found in the combat results. Exchange-type results (here called "BL" -- both lose) are based on steps lost, instead of combat strengths, which makes it possible to exchange a weak, 1-point unit for half the strength of a 12-point unit (which is flipped to its 6 SP side).

The combination of these two rules rewards very tactical and careful factor-counting play that sets up clever exchanges and forced counter attacks, although none of it resembles actual 19th century tactics very much.

Twilight's Last Gleaming would probably be just another forgettable magazine wargame, rarely played and mostly of interest to subject matter fans, except for the fact that it was chosen to be one of the games offered by the Hexwar.com online service.

Unusually for a magazine game, this means there's an extensive record of plays which reveals the flaws and features of the games.

The Hexwar experience reveals that the Thames is a flawed scenario. While the historical result was a crushing military victory for the United States and the game will almost certainly see most of the Anglo-Canadian-Indian force destroyed, the victory conditions require the Americans to completely wipe out the ACI army. With proper play the ACI player can virtually guarantee this result. Only excellent U.S. play, ACI mistakes and very good luck for the Americans will give them a shot. So long as the ACI make sure to send a couple of Indian bands running off into the woods the U.S. can't win. Given that the U.S. side was the historical winner, this is a very odd state of affairs.

While The Thames is broken, the Chippewa scenario is a nicely-balanced little gem of a game. Only five turns long and free-wheeling, it's an exciting contest between quality and quantity. The British force has a few very strong units supported by a handful of weaker ones. The U.S. force is larger, but each individual unit is weaker and because there's no stacking, the American player will have trouble concentrating his fighting power. The bane for the British is the BL result, so a bad die roll or two can quickly gut their combat power. Not only do their strong regiments lose half their strength, but when reduced they lose a special "bayonet charge" bonus that is worth a two-column shift on the CRT.

The third battle has the potential for being the most interesting, but no Hexwar.com version has appeared as yet. Lundy's Lane was one of the bloodiest battles fought in North America before the Civil War. It was a knock-down, drag-out fight between two evenly matched armies.

While both sides are similar in strength (69 US vs. 66 ACI) and steps (25 US vs. 28 ACI) they differ considerably in the distribution of those factors.

The American force is fairly consistent, with all but one of the infantry regiments having 4-9 SPs. There's just one 1SP infantry unit, along with a 2 SP dragoon and three artillery sections with 2 SP each.

The Anglo-Canadian-Indian army, in contrast, is an army of extremes. It has a core of five strong regiments with 6 or 8 strength points, but most of the army's infantry is made up of 1 or 2 SP 1-step militia units (an even dozen of them) Rounding out the OB is a 3 SP 1-step infantry unit, a 5 SP 1-step Indian, a couple of 1-step dragoons and two artillery units, one of which is immobile.

The victory conditions are straightforward and brutal: whoever holds the hex with the immobile British battery wins. Losses are irrelevant.

It's unfortunate that the Thames scenario is broken and that Hexwar doesn't yet offer Lundy's Lane, because the game does have potential. Currently that potential is only realized by the Chippewa scenario, which provides an interesting and balanced short game.

For Honor and Glory -- a review

For Honor and Glory is the War of 1812 edition of Worthington Games' Wars for America series.

These games have more than a passing resemblance to Borg';s Commands & Colors system.

Some of the differences are really just in style. For example, In FHAG firing units roll the same number of dice no matter what the range is, but with a reduced chance of hitting per die, in C&C the chance of hitting remains the same, but longer range fire uses fewer dice. The end results are similar.

Other differences are more substantive. While both game systems limit the number of units a player can order. C&C does it using cards that are usually keyed to a portion of the battlefield, while FHAG uses a die roll that determines how many "Action Points" the player has to activate units, but those action points can be spent anywhere on the map.

In both games the physical presentation of the units serves to disguise their real nature, which is as entities which firing and move characteristics varying by type and possessing the ability to take 1-4 hits.

The game is fairly straightforward and of low complexity. During his turn a player uses action points to activate units to perform movement and combat activities. Most activities cost one AP, although there are a few special actions such as close combat that cost 2 AP. All combat is handled the same way. The attacking unit rolls dice (generally three) with hits occurring depending on the range and the type of firing unit. For example, an artillery unit firing at an adjacent unit hits on a 4,5 or 6. An infantry unit firing at a range of 2 hexes hits only on a 6. Terrain effects can reduce the hit numbers and some have movement effects.

Like the C&C games, FHAG is a scenario based system with battlefields constructed using terrain tiles added to the plain map. Victory is usually measured in VPs, with one VP earned per eliminated unit (similar to the "flags" of C&C-series games) or for holding terrain (also similar to many C&C games)

Physically the game is roughly similar in presentation to the Columbia Games standard, which is usually considered pretty good by wargame standards, although it's worth noting that Worthington Games has raised the bar significantly with its latest War of America series game (Hold the Line) which is made in Germany to euro standards.

For Honor and Glory includes four card-stock maps (two land and two ocean) that create a 9 by 13 (land) or 11 by 13 (sea) playing surface, although some battles modify this further. Terrain tiles are a thin card stock.

The rules and scenarios are contained in three booklets, all printed in two colors.

The playing pieces are wooden block with stickers affixed. Unlike Columbia-style block games, the wooden blocks are not used to create any fog-of-war, instead they basically create thick, sturdy counters. Pieces are used laying flat on the map and are turned around and/or flipped to represent step losses.

Units are mostly regular and elite infantry, with militia, light infantry, marines, Indian warbands, artillery and dragoons making an appearance.


There are 10 well-chosen scenarios depicting most of the war's major battles and providing a good mix of different game experiences.

The game also includes a naval system and 11 scenarios for that, but this portion of the system is definitely very simplistic. Ships are rated for firepower and ability to take hits. Boarding actions are fought between marine contingents, also with a hit-based combat system. Movement is ordered using order markers (specially marked regular infantry units doing double-duty) with wind direction having a minor effect. The naval scenarios comprise a mix of single-ship duels, some 2- and 3-1 gang ups and two squadron actions based on two of the big Lake battles (Erie and Champlain).

Overall I rate For Honor and Glory as a success as land warfare game, prov ding an entertaining game while being reasonably historically accurate . The naval game is too simplistic, however.

Changes in the new version of War of 1812

The War of 1812 is a venerable senior citizen in the wargame world, having been more or less continuously in print since 1973. Unlike it's slightly older sister game, Quebec 1759, the War of 1812 has seen some significant rules changes over the years, although nothing so drastic as to change the character of the game.

That character is a game that's an excellent introductory level wargame with quite a bit of scope for bluff and strategy, although kept tense by a fairly high luck factor. Unlike most Columbia block games, which mitigate the luck factor through a high volume of rolls that tend to make things even out, War of 1812 is subject to wild swings of fortune. It's not uncommon for a critical battle that may determine the status of a large swath of territory to be battled out between a single pair of blocks. When you're just rolling a few dice there's less chances for luck to even out. While the odds still favor a strength 4 block against a strength 2 block, all it takes is one "snake eyes" to suddenly change it into a free-for-all.

The biggest change in the newest (2008) edition of the game is in the naval rules, which scrap the unique system that's been used in the game virtually unchanged for three-and-a-half decades in favor of a new system that's consistent with the combat system used in all the other Columbia games. Now fleets are built a step at a time and each step fires at "F1" (which means it hits on a roll of a 1) in a simultaneous exchange of broadsides. Gone are the two-step building process, distinction between "operational" and "nonoperational" ships and deciding the battle with one grand roll of the dice.

A smaller, although still significant change in the naval rules, provides fleets an option to escape capture if an enemy army attacks its port. Under the old rule the fleet's fate depended entirely on the outcome of the battle, but now the ships can attempt to sortie while the ground forces cover them. Of course, a proper tactic is to make sure a powerful fleet is already on the lake waiting for the escapees, but they at least have a hope of doing some damage.

Changes in the land game are more incremental. The dragoons introduced in the last major revision have now been expanded in number and now fight at F2 all the time, making them more powerful. Their strength of 2 keeps them from being too dominant.

A new branch is introduced, with each side having a couple of artillery units in their draw pool. These also fight at F2 and have a CV of up to 3, so they provide a bit of punch these small armies. Rolling hits on a 1 or a 2 is a big edge when there are so few dice being rolled.

Each of the army blocks has an individual name, now, which is also a change and should make PBeM easier. The game also distinguishes between militia and regular troops. This has no game effect for the Anglo-Canadians but a significant impact on American operations, in a Good New/Bad News way.

The Good News is that now the American player knows ahead of time which of his pieces are militiamen who may balk at crossing the border into Canada. The Bad News is that now there's a 50% chance the militia will hew closely to their military obligation to serve only in the US. Under the old rules there was a 1/6 chance for any US unit to refuse to cross.

It doesn't appear that these changes will change game strategy much and they have the virtue of being a bit more realistic at a very low cost in complexity. Indeed, I think the new naval rules are simpler than the old ones, so the net change may very will be nil.

Review: The Complete Brigadier

The Complete Brigadier is, in many ways, a very old-fashioned kind of miniatures wargame covering the black powder era, from 1680 to 1880. It's more reminiscent of Little Wars or Charge! than many newer sets of rules.
It has a ruthless focus on the brigadier's fight, unlike most popular rules of recent vintage which try to cover whole battles.
No, in The Complete Brigadier the objective is immediate. Take that hill, flank that line, defend along this creek, and so on.
The player represents a brigade commander, generally in charge of a four or five battalions of infantry, a battery of guns and an attached regiment of horse. Each figure represents 20 men. The game concerns itself with formations, orders and weapons in direct and explicit ways.
There are no fancy interactive phases or abstract shortcuts.
Brigadiers first write up orders for their units, using specific commands drawn from historically based options, specifying formation, direction and rate of march.
Next, melee battles initiated the turn before are resolved, using a deterministic process that considers morale, numbers, weapons, formation and terrain.
Units then move in accordance with their previously written orders, reacting automatically to unexpected encounters based on historical doctrine. For example, an infantry unit encountering enemy cavalry may form a square.
Then units engage in fire, selecting targets based on a formula that again is based on historical practices. Unlike most games, firing is not generally optional. Unless specifically ordered not to shoot, a unit will fire on targets within range. The results of fire combat are determined by formula without any dice, but taking into account weapons, morale and various other factors.
After resolving all fire units check morale, based on quality, losses and local circumstances, again with no roll of the die involved.
Finally, based on actions taken that turn, units expend some of their limited pool of "stamina." Firing, meleeing and moving at anything faster than a slow walk all cost stamina. As one might expect, it's easier to expend stamina than replenish it, and better troops have more of it than poor troops.
The game includes all sorts of special rules for special cases such as burning buildings, moving on boats, irregular troops, building fieldworks and most anything else one might expect to see affecting a brigade level fight.
Probably the hardest thing for most wargamers to get used to is the lack of any luck element. While the designer lays out his case for the historicity of his approach, the main reason for minimizing the role of luck is to maximize the extent that The Complete Brigadier can be a duel of skill between two brigadiers. The only pure luck element in the entire game is a fate roll for the chances of the brigadier himself getting hit, and if hit, how badly hit. A couple of D6 rolls will determine his fate, although only two consecutive sixes will "seriously wound" the brigadier, resulting in him being "carried from the field by his staff" and replaced by his previously identified second-in-command.
The game includes many clever and entertaining illustrations, a well-organized and well-indexed set of rules, and entire booklet devoted to explaining how to get into miniature gaming with tips for making terrain, painting troops and organizing scenarios. It has references and suggestions for fielding armies throughout the era from 1680 to 1880. It includes five scenarios, all based on battles in North America: Plains of Abraham, 1759; Guilford Courthouse, 1781; Crysler's Farm, 1813; Palo Alto, 1846 and Mill Springs, 1862. Information for troops and weapons from throughout the period are included, however, and there's really no limits on what setting can be used.
While my usual and favorite era for the game is the American Revolution, I've also organized games from the American Civil War, the War of 1812 and the Zulu War of 1879.
The game can be used with any scale figures. Distances are measured in "spaces" which represent 20 yards on the ground. Based on figure scale a space can be anywhere from 3/4-inch (for 9mm figures) to 2 inches (30mm figures). A space is one inch for the most popular scale, 15mm, and also for my preferred scale 20mm.
Unlike many miniatures games, a game master or umpire is not required. The game can be played by just two, although I would highly recommend players play in the the proper spirit of traditional miniatures wargaming, as exemplified by the accounts in Little Wars and Charge! Rules lawyers, Munchkins and people who would rather win than be a proper gentleman or gentle lady are advised to play something else, or at least avail themselves of an umpire.
As a game master I generally only make minor modifications to the rules. I add a small luck element by allowing players to roll for fractional hits instead of rounding up or down as per the rules. This seems a minor concession to player expectations and historical accuracy without changing the game in any significant way. I also generally allow players more leeway with their Follow Me command (when they attach themselves directly to a unit) than a strict interpretation of the rules as written would allow.
Other than that, I play the game by the book and have done so for more than 20 years now. It's been an excellent investment, resulting in many hours of fun for me and my friends.
It's still one of my all-time favorites, despite more than two decades of competition from newer stuff.

Featured game: War of 1812, differences between editions

War of 1812, differences between the Gamma Two edition and current Columbia game.

The Map
The Gamma Two edition is mounted and has very dull artwork. The new map is on cardstock with completely new artwork. Besides being more attractive the new map shows the naval bases for each side, which you had to remember in the Gamma Two Game. The Victory Point values of Detroit and Sackett's Harbor have been changed, with Detroit going from a "2" to a "3" and Sackett's Harbor from "3" to "2"
Effect on play: Small. Having the naval bases marked is an improvement. Detroit was already a major target for the British, but they can now winter a larger army there.

The Units
The Gamma Two edition has stylized ship silhouettes printed on 12 brown blocks. The Columbia edition has more realistic ship silhouettes on stickers to affix to seven blocks for each side.
Effect on play: Moderate. Instead of being drawn from one pool each nationality now has its own pool of ships, so there's less chance for one side to create an artificial shortage of ships.

The Gamma Two edition has the unit information printed on clear plastic stickers to affix to the blocks. CV is represented by 2-4 squares along each side. In the Columbia version the unit information is printed on stickers to affix to the blocks. Unit types are now shown with crossed rifles, sabers or tomahawks. CV is depicted with arabic numerals along the side.
Effect on play: Minimal, although the newer presentation is somewhat more attractive.

The land order of battle in both versions is similar with two exceptions. On the British side, the formerly green Indian unit is now red like the rest of the army, allowing more fog of war. And both sides now a 2 CV dragoon unit.
Effect on play: Small. The British can now hide the location of the indians and the dragoons add a speedier, if weak unit to each army.

The Rules
The Gamma Two edition rules run a little over two pages while the Columbia edition's rewritten, indexed and numbered rules run about four pages, excluding the cover and historical notes.
Effect on Play: Large, the new rules are easier to read and understand while not being any more complex. In the Gamma Two edition all land movement was from town to town.

The Columbia version adds a force marching ability which gives a unit a 50 percent chance to move a second area. Failure costs the unit a step. British units get +1 to the die roll, Indians get a +2, increasing their chances of success.
Effect on Play: Large. Armies are much more flexible.

Victory Conditions
In the Gamma Two game control of a lake is worth 1 VP, in the new game this is increased to 2VPs per lake.
Effect on play: Large. Control of the lakes is much more important.

Sequence of Play
In the Gamma Two game the players alternate movement turns. In the Columbia edition players dice for initiative each turn, with the winner choosing who goes first. There is also an optional rules for simultaneous movement with written orders.
Effect on Play: Large, there is less predictability. Combined with the greater mobility of the units there is much more scope for surprise by having force marches on double moves.

Reinforcements
In the Gamma Two edition if a reinforcement city was occupied the reinforcements could not be brought on until the city was vacated. In the Columbia game the reinforcements can now fight their way onto the map later during a campaign move if the city is occupied during the reinforcement phase.
Effect on Play: Large. The U.S. can no longer block the large mass of late-game British reinforcements with a small army in Quebec.

Overall
While the Gamma Two edition was a fine little game, the new edition improves the game considerably. Game play and strategy remains much the same, although there is somewhat more scope for strategems due to the increase in movement options.