Princeton revisited -- with Rebels & Redcoats

As I've been doing lately, I did a solitaire refight of a historical battle that Young General and I played using the simpler and more abstract Hold the Line with the more detailed and traditional Rebels & Redcoats game.

In this case the R&R game game to a brutally quick decision. Leaving out some secondary maneuvers and movements that didn't affect the final outcome, the key moves were an assault at 2-3 odds with a +2 die roll modifier by Mercer and his brigade of Continentals against the British 55th Regiment which resulted in a NED0 (Attacker No Effect; unmodified Defender morale check). Both halves of the 55th promptly failed their morale checks and retreated (and eventually one half even routed off the field!). This was a low probability outcome that put the British down 8 points in disruption and eliminations.

It also left Mawhood and the British 17th Regiment adjacent to Mercer and his brigade. Rather than withdraw and risk leaving half his regiment behind if it failed to disengage, Mawhood called in the Dragoon troop to help the 17th and launched a 1-1 assault with a +1 DRM on Mercer which resulted in a NE (no effect). In retrospect this was an error.

On the 0900 turn Mawhood was swarmed by all of Mercer's and Calawalader's brigades, led by Gen. Washington himself for a 3-1 assault with no modification to the die roll as Mawhood and Washington cancelled out. A die roll of 8 resulted in a DE (defender eliminated) which brought the British army far above it's disintegration level of 16. Indeed, Mawhood and the troops with him alone counted as 15 points!

This illustrates nicely a point that's often misunderstood in wargaming circles -- more dice does not equal more luck.

In the Hold the Line version of Princeton there were a total of 36 rolls of the command die between the two sides, and nearly 100 rolls of a standard die -- providing enough rolls that there's a high likelihood that the luck generally evened out. Indeed, the only real "luck roll" in that fight involved the hit on General Greene that took him out of the fight -- but even there the luck was not extreme. Washington was missed at least twice and Mawhood dodged a bullet as well.

In contrast, the traditional hex-and-counter game Rebels & Redcoats turned in dramatic fashion on just a literal handful of die rolls. In the entire 3-turn game there were just a dozen die rolls and half of those were of minor import (mostly low-factor bombardments and force marches). Seven rolls were important rolls: three assaults and four morale checks/rally attempts. Of those seven rolls fully six went against the interests of the British side and there was simply insufficient time for the rolls to even out in any way.

So despite surface appearances, Rebels & Redcoats's Princeton was much more luck dependent than Hold the Line's version of the battle.

On the other hand, R&R was closer to the actual final result than HTL, although getting there quite differently than the historical course of the action. In the R&R playing the British brigade was destroyed, where in HTL the British actually emerged victorious.

Hold the Line is a more fair scenario than Rebels & Redcoats, but probably makes it a more even fight than the historical reality would justify. Mawhood's command was seriously outnumbered and the Ameircan force was well-led with Washington, Greene and Sullivan all on the field.

Battle of Princeton -- A Hold the Line session report

Young General and Old Warrior continued our occasional series of anniversary games with a refight of the Battle of Princeton, Jan. 3, 1777, on the 233rd anniversary of that key battle from the American Revolution, using Hold the Line.

As usual, the Hold the Line scenario is a rather stylized approximation of the battle, although in this case the battlefield was recognizably Princeton. There's Fox Hollow (the river), the hill (in the center) and Princeton itself, (the town on the left.)

Young General decided to place all his hopes on an aggressive advance by a small portion of his army, led by Washington himself ( a 2/2 leader) using the four regular infantry and the artillery in the top center in an attempt to grab Princeton by Turn 18 while earning 3 victory points. This gave up the American advantage of numbers, but the closeness of the final result implied this was a viable approach. If anything, he handicapped his chances by making a late commitment of Greene and a couple of units against the British force manning the fence. More on that later.


Washington's advance succeeded in fighting across Fox Hollow within the first dozen turns, but the British were able to counter this move with a matching force comprising two regulars, the dragoons and Mawhood. Meanwhile an elite unit and the British guns occupied the hill in the center.

Interestingly, Washington himself withdrew from the flanking attack and attached himself to a single regular in the center, leading them at double-time through the center of the British position, capturing two VP markers (which had pulled away from Princeton due to the threat posed by the flankers) and fighting his way right into the first hex of Princeton! He came very close to winning at that point, with 3 VPs and 1 hex of Princeton on Turn 18. Had he moved one turn faster he might have pulled it off. As it happened, though, the British had been racking up points by knocking out American units.

And in the British half of Turn 18 they caught a lucky break which brought the battle to an end at that point, as General Greene fell alongside the last elements of his regiment against the fence fine, which gained the British the last two VPs they needed. The final score was 6-4.

A cold, hard defeat for Wintersword -- a Lost Worlds session

Amara Wintersword wasn't too concerned when she spotted the female gargoyle barring her way through the passage.

Amara figured her usual tactic of hanging back and distracting the foe with thrown daggers followed up with an axe attack would work, so she readied her magic dagger and let loose with it. The magic dagger would find its way back into her hand after being thrown, which made that a very useful tactic indeed.

Unfortunately the gargoyle was too quick and the dagger toss missed.

Next thing she knew, the gargoyle's wings and claws where flailing at her, sharp talons digging into Amara's flesh! (-3 hit) This would not do! Amara countered with a solid swing of her axe that caught the gargoyle square in the side (-8 hit). The two combatants separated, warily.

Again the gargoyle closed, thrusting with her long spear. Amara's usual luck came into play (with a 'Dull Blade' luck card) and the Gargoyle only caught her with the flat side of the spear blade. (no damage).

The gargoyle flew over Amara and try as she might, Amara couldn't seem to get out from under the slashing talons and beating wings. Again and again she was pounced on and slashed. (-3 and -4 hits) One time she manged to knock the gargoyle back (-2 hit) but Amara sensed she wasn't going to prevail this time. The tiny gargoyle was tougher than she appeared.

A final slash that tore into her arm and Amara saw the darkness closing in. (-5 hit KO) So is this what death and defeat felt like, she wondered.

Hours, maybe a day later, Amara awoke, much to her surprise. She was grievously cut and had lost a lot of blood, but she was alive. The gargoyle was gone -- and so were some of Amara's possessions -- her magic tiara, a useful potion and her very useful Defendi Min medallion. Without the Defendi Min she wouldn't have lasted as long as she did against the gargoyle as its magic reduced the sting of each hit. Amara pitied the next foe the gargoyle faced, because they'd find the little creature eve tougher to defeat. That wasn't her problem, though. It was time to drag herself back to town and find a healer.

No bones about it -- a Lost Worlds Session Report

Young General and Old Warrior begin a series of duels ... .

Young general has Sir Percival, the mounted knight, while Old warrior has the basic skeleton with scimitar and shield -- although the skeleton;s sword is the rare beserker sword Karcilabran, which provides a +5 modifier for a Wild wing attack.

"Orts"

Orts didn't remember much about his "living" life. He had a vague sense that he was once a renowned warrior -- but he had been undead so long it was hard to be sure. The mage who had reanimated his bones thought him fit to be armed with a special sword for use at his guard post. "Karcilabran" the mage had called it. "It is a berserker sword, best used with wild abandon, my fleshless friend," he had said.

Sir Percival

Orts wasn't surprised when a knight appeared at the other end of the meadow. Being deceased was such a big surprise that it had driven all the capacity for being surprised from his being -- such as it was. No doubt the mage had expected trouble, although he probably hadn't expected it likely from this direction -- or he would have posted a more formidable guard. Orts remembered enough of his training to realize that he stood little chance against a mounted man-at-arms in the open, but flight was out of the question. After all, what had he to fear? So he charged, with a silent battle cry from his long-lost life echoing in his thoughts. The knight likewise spurred his mount and closed quickly. There was the clang of metal on metal as the knight parried the skeleton's blade -- and then the crack of metal upon bone as the knights sword struck off a few ribs.( - 3 points on Orts, reducing Body to 4)





Orts knew he didn't have long to strike, so he decided this was the time to abandon caution and swing wildly with Karcilabran. The berserk blade clang right through the knight's parrying attempt and dug into his leg -- rewarding Orts with a red blade! (-3 on Sir Percival, reducing body to 11)









Had Orts been able to voice an exultation, he would have, but he hoped to follow through with a high thrust into the knight's midsection using the tactic of the "Three Bit Swing" developed by Umar Burtoss -- but the knight's steed turned around and threw a vicious hind-leg kick that scattered Orts bones all over the meadow -- dissipating his thoughts. (-5 on Orts, reducing Body to -1 for a KO)

It's a curious fact about skeleton warriors that it's fairly easy to disable them by scattering their bones -- but hard to scatter them so thoroughly that the skeleton can't eventually reassemble himself using the creating mage's magic. So it was that, some time later, enough of Orts drew together that his thoughts returned. He could see that the knight had relieved him of the sword Karcilabran and had left. Once his leg bones returned he'd go report to the mage that he had an unwanted visitor.

Unusual session of Small World

Started the New Year off just the same as the Old Year ended, with a game of Small World, but with considerably more success.

It was also an odd game, as neither the Young General nor the Old Warrior declined a race!

Yes, we went the entire 10-turn 2-player games with the same races.

In the case of the Old Warrior this seems to have been a very defensible position, as the Hill Elves were a very profitable combination. The immortality of the Elves always makes them formidable, and the Hill power added a fairly stable and easy-to achieve 2-3 coin bonus every turn. We were playing with the Expansions, including the Leaders.

The Young Warrior, meanwhile, had grabbed the Dragonmaster Orcs right off the top of the pile and was having a grand time with them. Eventually, though, it became clear that the long-term trend wasn't in their favor, as they were losing orcs occasionally while the Elves stayed as strong as ever. Additionally the Orcs were reluctant to ransom their leader from the Elves (very orcish behavior, that), no doubt wanting to avoid the cycle that the Elves fell into, of losing and ransoming their leader every turn, which was also costly.

Making it hard for the Young General was that none of the other Race/Power combos looked all that great for dealing with the Elves either, and he was wary about losing a turn to decline while the Elves were busy scoring away. Still, he probably should have done it in order to at least shake up things a bit and try to change the course of the game. As it turned out, the Hill Elves took the Old Warrior to a solid victory, earning 95 coins (might have made it to 100 if it wasn't for all the ransom paid for the Elvish leader) while the Dragonmaster Orcs ended with 73.

Heh. I'm a loser

Finished off the year with a quick 2-player game of Small World against the Young General -- and he schooled the Old Warrior. He played a very aggressive pick-on-dad's-guys game for the most part -- and it didn't hurt that he got them Ghouls, too.

Final score: Young general 66 -- Old Warrior 53.

Yeah, I'm al oser. But I'm also a Red Sox fan, if there's anything a Red Sox fan knows, it's that "there's always next year!"

Pawndering 2009

The general feeling seems to be "good riddance to 2009."

It was a difficult year for most people and the society at large, between the economy, war, terror and political bickering. I have to say that I'm looking forward to 2009 entering the archives.

Even in my game world it was a year of disappointment.

The biggest and saddest event was the sudden and shocking passing of my friend Mark Perry at age 50. Mark was a good buddy, an excellent gamer and a really fine fellow and he will be missed. The year had started out with the passing of another dear friend of mine, Patricia Paul, also at age 50, after a long illness. Trish wasn't an avid gamer, although she enjoyed a game of Lost Cities every now and then. But she, too, was a great friend and a fine person. These passings are enough to make 2009 a sad year to remember.

Although not comparing to the above, I have to say that my World Boardgames Championships trip was a big disappointment as well. I had been looking forward to it for months and yet, just as I headed down there I came down with a truly awful sinus infection. It was so debilitating that I had to cut the trip short and return home.

It wasn't all bad, of course. I was able to make some new gaming connections at the Central Connecticut Wargamers, the Connecticut Game Club and several Meetup groups. I'm hoping to expand on these contacts this coming year and get in some more games. I also enjoyed the singular honor of being named Geek of the Week on Boardgame Geek, which seemed to pelase my fellow wargamers considerably.

There were a number of great games that came out this year as well. Among the ones I was happy to get were Martin Wallace's Waterloo, the Deluxe edition of Twilight Struggle and the block games Caesar's Gallic War, 1805 and Asia Engulfed. Perhaps the one I had the most fun with was Small World.

It was a good year for expansions and additions to existing lines. I added to my collections of Axis & Allies Miniatures, War at Sea, Munchkin, Memoir '44, Commands & Colors: Ancients, Fluxx and Lost Worlds. Especially notable was the long-awaited GD'42 with the 4th edition of the TCS rules.


The coming year promises more good gaming stuff. There are a number of products on the horizon. The long-dormant Great Campaigns of the ACW seems like it will finally get an addition, The Dungeons & Dragons themed master set for Heroscape looks promising, as does the eagerly anticipated Commands & Colors: Napoleonics.

Bring it on, 2010.

Happy New Year.
The coming year promises some more

Planning another Game Day -- Heroscape this time

Pawnderings will be sponsoring another game day on Saturday, Jan. 9th at The Arkham Asylum comic and game store at 276 West Main St. in Norwich, CT. Set up will begin at 11 a.m.

We'll be playing Heroscape, the Clashing Fronts scenario from the first Master Set. Players can bring their own 300-point or 500-point armies or draft from my collection.

Quick and Dirty Check Your 6 using A and A Miniatures and some D6

P-40 in a scoring position on a Zero

I've been wanting to try out Check Your 6 for months but other things kept getting in the way, but I finally had a chance to try out the rules in a solo session this evening. This not only allowed me to try out the Check Your 6! rules but also the Hotz Mat I purchased specifically for use with the game.

Disclaimer: I received my copy of Check Your 6 from my friend Mark Fastoso, who designed the Flying Tigers mini-campaign contained in the base game rule book.

I had long wanted to have some tactical aerial warfare rules I could use with my Axis & Allies Miniatures aircraft while still keeping the aircraft available for use with A&A minis. This required a rules set that did not require modifications to the aircraft, special stands and a big investment in extra materials. Check Your 6! fits the bill perfectly.

Now one only has to look at the BoardGame Geek listing or the publisher's Website to know there's lots of ways to enhance the game and add a lot of bling and that's great. But you actually don't need it. A photocopied Move Chart, an A&A miniatures plane model and a couple of D6 and other dice and you're in business.

For instructional purposes I tried a duel between a pair of P-40Bs and a couple of Zero. I decided to mix up the pilot quality a bit in order to explore that important part oft he rules, so I made one P-40 pilot a Veteran and the wingman a Green pilot. Both Zero pilots were Skilled.

I arranged a simple head-on encounter between elements at the same Tactical Altitude Level (4) assumed to be in the Medium Combat Altitude Band. The Hotz map has 2-inch hexes, so it's a little smaller than the standard assumed by the rules (27 hexes across instead of 30). I bought a 2-inch size because I wanted to be able to use the Hotz map with other games that use 2-inch hexes such as Heroscape, Tide of Iron and Lord of the Rings: Tradeable Miniatures Game.

Both sides climbed at first and were at TAL 6 when they pulled into range for a head-on pass. At the last minute the Veteran US pilot took advantage of his edge in skill to sideslip out of the line of fire of the lead Zero. Unfortunately his Green wingman has to follow to maintain formation and ended up in front of the lead Zero at a 2-hex (Close) range. Both planes blasted away and both got hits. The Green pilot managed an airframe hit on the Zero, which would have significance later, but the Zero was able to shoot down the P-40 due to the hitting power of its cannon.

This left the Veteran facing two enemy planes, although the damaged Zero was somewhat constrained in its maneuvers.

The next several turns were spent with wild maneuvering where the superior quality of the P-40 pilot made a big difference. He wasn't able to prevent the Zeros from getting shots, but he was able to prevent them from getting good shots, and eventually the P-40 was able to use a series of Special Maneuvers to get behind the undamaged Zero for a moment. A quick shot that wasn't all that solid still managed to bring down the Zero due to it's poor Robustness.

Faced with an undamaged Veteran P-40 the surviving Skilled but damaged Zero exited the map with a quick dive. Because the P-40 had a dive advantage this counted as exiting off an "Unfriendly" edge and the plane failed the subsequent aircrew check and was considered destroyed after all.

I'm looking forward to trying this with some live opponents. It's detailed enough that I think it's most likely to interest experienced wargamers, although other gamers might like it in a group setting. I think it will work a little better with slightly bigger dogfights. I notice that most of the provided scenarios involves 4-12 aircraft per side.

The Hotz Mat worked fine. laying flat and not being difficult to move the plane models on despite the cloth surface.

Another look at Trenton, this time using Rebels & Redcoats

The Trenton Battlefield

After my session of Hold the Line I became curious how authentic a more traditional hex-and-counter wargame like Rebels & Redcoats might be dealing with this unusual battle, so I played a solitaire session of the game.

Of course, unlike the abstract unit treatment of Hold the Line, Rebels & Redcoats is very specific about the exact units involved and the telecsope is bumped up in magnification enough to capture even very small units. For example, the 20 dismounted dragoons of the 16th Lt. Dragoons rates a 1-factor counter in R&R.

The game begins with a fixed setup for the Hessians/British. Basically the Rall Regiment and half the Lossberg Regt. hold the north end of Trenton, the Knyphausen Regiment in deployed by the orchard on the southeast side of town and the Jagers cover the west side. Rall, himself, the dragoon detachment and the rest of the Lossberg regiment in the center. To represent surprise all the Hessian guns start the game disrupted. Each Hessian regiment has a gun section.

The battle opened with Greene leading the Philadelphia Dragoons, the Pennsylvania Rifles, the 1st and 3rd Virginia and Bauman's artillery down Pennington Road and around the northeast side of trenton as part of an effort to start cutting off the Hessian force. Washington led German's regiment, the Delaware company and the 1st Continental with Forrest's 2-section battery and Hamilton's artillery against the Rall element at the north end of town. Washington was bale to drive the Hessians back with an assault.

Meanwhile, from the West side of town came Gen. Sullivan with the balance of the Continental army. Most of the force maneuvered through the woods to set up a wide front attack, but a four-regiment task force drove back the Jaeger pickets at the bridge.

The Hessians used their half of the 0730 turn to consolidate their regiments roughly along Fourth Street. The Jaegers failed in their disengagement attempt and dispersed. The Rall Regiment was able to successfully retreat into a reserve position near the orchard on Second Street. At the end of the turn the disintegration levels were American 0, Hessian 4.

The 0800 turn saw Sullivan's wing push into Trenton on a wide front, successfully driving the Hessians back from King Street and along First Street to cut off the bridge. During the historical battle the Americans were able to set up their guns to sweep the streets, but the R&R rules don't allow that to happen because the town hexes block the line of sight, so this is a case where the more abstract game (Hold the Line) is actually more realistic on a detail than the hex-and-counter game. Instead Washington led the artillery with him to join Bauman's guns to the northeast of the town in hopes of getting a clear shot. Greene led his light troops, dragoons and one regiment to chase the British Dragoons out of the isolated house east of Trenton.

The Hessians spent their half of 0800 slowly falling back along Queen Street. At the end of the turn the disintegration score was American 2.5, Hessian 6.

The Americans were getting concerned at 0830 about the lack of progress and tried some bombardments, which had no effect because of town hexes and bad rolls. Greene continued to lead his lights and dragoons to the South of the town, completing the encirclement. meanwhile Washington created a grand battery in the northeast able to fire on the main Hessian position between Fourth and Third streets. Sullivan marshaled his forces in preparation for a massive push on the 0900 turn. One brigade's worth of Sullivan's troops launched an assault to secure the intersection of Queen and Third streets but was repulsed with some disruptions.

The Hessians, for their part of the turn concentrated their forces at the two ends of their line, leaving just half of the Lossberg Regiment to hold the open field in the center.

At the end of the turn the disintegration levels were American 4.5, Hessian still just 6.

The final turn, 0900 began with intense bombardment of the Lossberg field from both sides. Uncoordinated fire by four gun sections at the intersection of King and Second streets only netted one morale check, which Lossberg passed. A coordinated blast from Washington's grand battery on Fourth Street also only achieved a morale check -- which Lossberg again passed!

So now it was time for a massive, coordinated American assault across the length of Queen Street from hex 1705 to 1608 -- four hexes worth. A couple of regiments also launched a diversionary attack on the Rall Regiment, mostly to exert a zone of control.

General Greene's attack on the field portion of Lossberg was a 2-1 with a +2 for Greene, but the die roll was a measley 3, adjusted to a 5 for a NED0 (No Effect on attacker, Defender morale check) which Lossberg, naturally, passed!

The diversionary attack by the 1st Pennsylvania Rifle and Ward's regiment against Rall and the rest of Lossberg went very badly -- Attacker Eliminated.

The next attack was three stacks of Americans with no leader against Rall and his stack in 1706. This 3-1 attack was shifted to the left by two for the town, but brought back right by one for the American light infantry to a 2-1. Rall subtracted 1 from the die roll, but Washington added 2, for a total +1. The die roll of 6 became a 7 for a DR2. The Knyphausen Regiment lost half its strength in the retreat through zones of control, but most of Rall's force survived. Sullivan took the hex.

The Hessian retreat created an opportunity for the 1st and 3rd Virginia to attack Rall's force but this attack failed, and the two American units retreated, one disrupted. Several American units failed their rally rolls and left the field.

In the Hessian half of the turn Rall launched an assault on the Philadelphia Dragoons to open up an escape route. This attack succeeded in eliminating the horse unit. The other half of the Lossberg regiment joined its portion in the fields to launch an attack on Greene's force at 1-1 which ended up being repulsed with an AR2, although true to form the Lossberg Regiment only took one disruption form the multiple morale checks caused by retreating in a zone of control.

The 16th Dragoons sacrificed themselves making a diversionary attack against several stacks of American units to cover the withdrawal of Knyphausen and the guns.

So the game ended without the Hessian being driven to their disintegration level and even having a clear escape route along Second Street. The final disintegration score was American 15.5 and Hessian 19.

Although considerably more detailed, I can't say I was left feeling like Rebels & Redcoats did a better job of reflecting the actual battle than Hold the Line did.

Trenton, Dec. 26 session of Hold the Line

The Day after Christmas provided an opportunity to play an anniversary game commemorating 233 years since Washington led his bedraggled army across the Delaware in a bold bid to salvage something from his disastrous 1776 campaign.

The Young General decided he wanted the British (in this case Hessian) force, despite the historical outcome. He was impressed with the strong contingent of Elite infantry. And indeed, the Hessian force was remarkably strong, considering the historical record, with three elite Infantry units (marked 4E on the map) and five regular infantry. Rounding out the force was an artillery unit and one 2/1 General (Representing Rall -- spelled Rahl in the game notes). The effects of surprise are shown by giving the Hessians a Command Level of just 1 for the first five turns, rising to 2 after that.

The Americans did not have a huge advantage in numbers, just 9 regular infantry and three artillery units. The biggest American edge was in leadership, with Washington (2/2) and "Greene" (1/2), although by the setup Greene really should be Sullivan. The Americans have a Command Level of 3. The Americans also have a positional advantage, as can be seen from the map, with all their troops in two consolidated forces while the Hessians are spread out. The Hessians do have four hexes of town to bolster their defenses, though.

The victory conditions are interesting, with both players having a goal of 6 VPs. The Americans can get one Victory Point by taking the indicated town hex, while the Hessians can earn 2 victory points for every three units that escape across the bridge. The burden of attack is on the Americans, if the game ends without either side getting to 6, then the British win. The scenario instructions don't indicate a game length, so we assumed it was 30.

The initial turns really went well for the Americans, with multiple Action Die roll s of 3 giving the American 6 action points to work with. Hessian luck wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either, so the first five turns they had 2 or 3 action points per turn available. The Americans advanced on the bridge and generally closed along the whole line. The Hessian unit nearest the bridge was able to escape over it, and the two elite units on the Hessian left pulled back a bit in preparation for their own run for the bridge. The Americans jumped out to a 3-0 lead by eliminating the Hessian guns, the forward elite unit and the regular unit between them. So far the Hessians had inflicted just one hit on the Americans.

The next few turns saw the Americans try to push their advantage with a general advance across the front. Rall was threatened with encirclement as Washington led a regular unit to capture the victory point hex and other American units closed in. Another Hessian regular fell, at the cost of one American unit, so the score was 5-1.

The Hessians then rallied, as the Elites counterattacked the Victory Point hex and recaptured it, while Rall fought his way to them. The Americans lost the victory hex and two infantry units. This closed the gap to 4-3

Still, the press of numbers began to tell. The Americans could afford to pull badly damaged units out of the line and had enough command to rally others. The guns had been brought forward into range and Washington and "Greene" led fresh troops to the front. Both of the remaining Hessian regular units were eventually ground down and eliminated by Turn 16, making the final score 6-3. Presumably Rall and the two elite units would have surrendered at this point. Illustrating how tough the fighting was, only one of the surviving six American infantry units was still at full strength.

It was an interesting fight, although probably not a particularly authentic rendering of the battle, even by Hold the Line standards. Winning the battle with such losses would definitely have taken a bit of the shine off the trophy compared to the actual event, where no American troops died in the fighting (although some did die from the weather).

Merry Christmas!!

U.S. Army troops celebrate Christmas in 1943 in the South Pacific.

Santa placed a copy of the new Axis & Allies: Pacific 1940 under the tree, and Young General gave the Old Warrior a copy of Scrabble Slam!, I'll say more about both in coming days. The holiday was a good one, full of food, fun and family.

But I wanted to say a small prayer of thanks and remembrance for the soldiers serving far from home this holiday. Especially for American and Coalition troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not just them. Over the entire world there are sailors on watch, soldiers on guard duty and airmen dutifully monitoring radar screens today. So it is, has been and always will be.

Hopes dashed at Boulder Dash -- An Axis & Allies minis session

I've been wanting to get to this little scrap since last weekend, which would have been the 70th anniversary of the battle, but holiday tasks took priority and it was only on Christmas Eve that the Young General and the Old Warrior were able to sneak in a game of Axis & Allies Miniatures, Scenario WW-1, "Bolder Dash."


This firefight, from the Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union, depicts an action fought on Dec. 19, 1939 at Summa, Finland.


The Soviet order of battle is very straightforward, with three commissars leading 11 squads of Soviet Moison-Nagant riflemen from the 138th Rifle Division against a fortified Finnish line. Helping the troops out is a KV-1 heavy tank that arrives on the second turn. By 1939 standards the KV-1 is a monster of a tank, with a defense factor of 6 all around and the Heavy Armor special ability, which allows it to ignore the first Damage result. About the only drawback to the tank is its relatively low speed of 3, which is further reduced to a 2 by scenario special rule to account for the deep snow. On the other hand, it's a small battlefield, so even that speed is sufficient.


The defending Finns at the start are comprised of troops from the 6th Division represented by German pieces for the most part: Two MG-42 machine gun teams, one PAK 38 37mm Anti-tank gun and one light mortar. There are also three infantry units, but I replaced the German Mausers shown on the scenario sheet with three Finnish Infantry that were not available when the scenario was originally published. They have identical stats so there's no game effect from the substitution. The final element of the Finnish force are two tank hunter teams represented by German Panzerfaust pieces, although there were, of course, no Panzerfausts in 1939. "They represent the bold troops who tackled tanks with satchel charges, Molotov cocktails, and by opening hatches and tossing in grenades."


The battlefield was mostly flat, with some trees and a small knoll on the Soviet side of the map, and two larger hills on the Finnish side. The dominant terrain features were a pair of parallel lines of antitank boulders that stretched across the whole field from north to south, separated by two hexes of open ground. The Soviet objective was to capture and hold at least three hexes of the antitank boulders closest to the Finns. The boulders had no effect on troops, but the KV-1 would have to stop upon reaching one and needed to roll a 1-4 to leave a boulder hex.


Young General decided he wanted the force with the tank.


So the Old Warrior proceeded to set up, placing one machine gun team, the mortar and two infantry on the small hill on the right (South) flank, with the aim of deterring a Soviet advance on that side and having the ability to lay grazing fire down the antitank boulder line. The other machine gun, the ATG and the remaining infantry unit set up on the larger hill. By scenario special rule Finnish units that did not move received automatic "cover" against enemy fire, which basically meant they could not be killed, only disrupted. This was a powerful deterrent to Finnish movement.


As expected, Young General set up mostly on the North side of the battlefield, in front of and beside the forest.

Here is the set up:

The yellow disruption markers mark the boulder lines. The Soviet Objective Marker (from the Gale Force 9 set) shows which line is their victory condition.

And in true Soviet fashion, he made a human wave rush for the boulder line, barely stopping to pop off a shot. The Finns redeployed their riflemen behind the big hill, to form a reserve for the final turns of fighting, while the machine guns blasted away. Unfortunately the marksmanship of the machine gun teams was nothing special, even when the right flank team was able to conduct several turns of grazing fire on the Russian troops huddled among the boulders. The short range of the light mortar forced it to relocate and it ended up getting disrupted a few times, but even so its fire even eliminated a Russian rifle squad. Attempts to slow down the Russian advance by picking off commissars failed as they seemed too good at ducking and generally ended up being disrupted, when they weren't missed entirely.

The 37 mm ATG wasn't able to hurt the infantry, but the KV-1 showed up soon enough and went straight up the middle. The ATG crew must have eaten their Wheaties that morning because on two consecutive turns they managed to roll 6 hits and disrupt the KV-1! Eventually they missed, however, because covering rifle fire from the boulder line disrupted them (and the nearby machine gun team) and the KV-1 lurched forward, unslowed by the first boulder line, and joined the infantry and commissars at the boulder line.

Meanwhile the tank hunter teams had appeared, one on each flank near the first boulder line. The South team had a short career, being gunned down by the KV-1 on Turn 4, but the North team led a charmed life, passing through rifle and pistol fire unscathed to chase the KV-1.


The final act was dramatic, as the Finnish infantry counterattacked to try to drive the Russians out of two of the four boulder line hexes they occupied, with supporting fire from the machine guns and mortar. Meanwhile the ATG popped away as the tank hunter team attempted to close in on the KV-1. Both sides took very heavy losses at the end, with the Soviets cleared from one hex and the KV-1 left holding the key third hex alone. The ATG rolled 7 successes on the KV-1, but its Heavy Armor special ability kicked in, reducing the Damage result to a Disruption. Then the tank hunters attacked on the very last roll, getting just enough successes to get one hit on the KV-1, making it end the game Damaged! The Soviets ended the game holding three hexes and came away with a victory, despite their heavy losses.


The Soviets ended the game with four rifle squads and a damaged heavy tank. All three commissars and 8 squads were lost. The Finns also suffered heavily, losing all three infantry squads and both tank hunter teams.


This is the situation at the end of the game:

The markers are from the Gale Force 9 Axis & Allies marker set.

Boardgame News post that quotes Pawnderings

A link

Natanz strike a scenario in latest Naval Sitrep

A Satellite view of the Natanz facility

There's a lot of media speculation about a potential Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz, but very little hard data-based analysis is available from open sources. (We can only hope that our Intel community has done that sort of analysis already.

The latest issue of the Naval Sitrep, No. 37 (Oct. 2009), has a very extensive scenario for the Harpoon4 system and analysis of a potential Israeli strike on the Natanz nuclear site that looks extremely interesting.

The Natanz site is famous as the place where Iran has installed thousands of centrifuges to process uranium. It's an attractive target for the Israelis because it's a fairly vulnerable part of the Iranian nuclear program.

I'm going to look it over in more detail over the next few weeks, but at first glance the strike looks surprisingly doable from an operational standpoint. Its wisdom from a strategic point of view is outside the scope of the scenario, although it's the biggest question of all.

Still, it's interesting that the only deep analysis of the issue I have seen anywhere is in a wargame-related publication.

Blast from the past -- Bounty Hunter

Picked up a copy of Bounty Hunter: Shootout at the Saloon today for $5.

This is another in the series of groundbreaking picture combat books designed by Alfred Leonardi in the 1980s. Other examples include the Ace of Aces series and Lost Worlds series. These were "first person shooters" long before the video game era.

I used to have a copy of Bounty Hunter, but lost it somewhere along the line. While I liked the game, I wasn't such a big fan that I wanted to spend a lot of time tracking down a replacement copy -- but when a copy in excellent condition showed up at a local store for just $5 I went ahead and grabbed it.

The game is probably the most elaborate of the picture books, with a very detailed shot location procedure, but is also perhaps one of the more limited ones. Unlike Lost Worlds and Ace of Aces, where the players are only concerned with their relative positions, in Bounty Hunter the characters move around in the context of a fixed battlefield (the Saloon) and there are necessarily a limited number of locations in play (fifteen). Also unlike Lost Worlds with its dozens of character books and Ace of Aces with dozens of different aircraft in four different World War I book sets, Bounty Hunter has just the two characters. Apparently a second set was designed (there are references in the first set to possible expansions) but the artwork was lost and Leonardi didn't think redoing all the work was worth it.

Still, there are some interesting ideas in the game, as I recall, and I'm glad to add it back to my collection.

Tankettes and the limits of theory

One of the problems facing military force planners and doctrine writers is that they have to do most of their planning in peacetime when they can't test their musings against reality.


This drawback is inescapable, although there's reason to think modern simulation techniques and realistic training can mitigate it. Still, military planners in the interwar period were faced with an especially challenging environment. Military technology was developing at an exceptionally rapid pace for peacetime in the 1930s (less so in the 20s because there was a surplus of Great War equipment lying around and other factors slowing things down such as naval treaties and Versailles.)


So it's not surprising that there were a lot of things that sounded good on paper in the writings of military experts in the 20s and 30s that turned out to be wrong in the light of actual combat experience in World War II.


For example, what's the best way to field tanks. After World War II the major powers have settled on the Main Battle Tank idea, which is that the only tank worth the trouble is one that is powerful enough to fight other tanks, mobile enough to exploit its own breakthroughs and cheap enough to field in adequate numbers. Modern armies have a number of specialized lighter vehicles for recon, infantry transport and mobile artillery support, but they generally have just one kind of tank (although they may still field a previous generation of MBT as well).


The British, no slouches in tank thought between the wars, thought there should be a functional divide between heavily armored, but slow "Infantry" tanks and fast, but lightly armored "cruiser" tanks. Unfortunately they compromised the experiment a bit by having inadequate firepower for either, but even improved firepower in later models didn't save the concept. The French followed a similar idea.


Most of the other powers went more with a light-medium-heavy division for their tank arms. This worked better than the infantry-cruiser division of labor, but also eventually fell out of favor too as it was found that light and heavy tanks were just as much trouble as medium tanks but nowhere near as flexible.


One further notion that was already falling out of favor even before the war got going in earnest as the "tankette." All the major armored powers has already decided the concept was unworkable, but tankettes saw combat with some of the second-line armored powers such as Italy and Japan and with minor armies such as Poland. The idea was that swarms of highly mobile, 2-man tankettes with machine guns would overwhelm the enemy. It turned out that the logistic cost of the tankettes did not justify their limited combat power. And they were vulnerable to a wide variety of weapons. Anything that could kill a tank could kill them, as well as many weapons that were not powerful enough to kill a tank.


It was a cute idea, but simply didn't work. The attractiveness of the concept is illustrated by the appearance of the AT-ST "chicken walker" in the Star Wars universe, which is again a small, fast, 2-man fighting vehicle not unlike a tankette in concept. Of course, in a fictional universe anything can happen, and whatever tactical drawbacks the AT-ST might have (and they do seem to take heavy losses) are not necessarily reflected in the scripted outcomes.

But in the real-life crucible of World War II the idea was discarded.

Tankettes do not appear in large numbers in wargames, but in those games where they do appear, such as Advanced Squad Leader and Axis & Allies Miniatures they are not especially useful.

Fighting in a blizzard

We're all hunkered down this weekend after a substantial snowfall Saturday night that prompted blizzard warnings in some parts of the New England and elsewhere.

With the fire crackling nearby and Christmas lights blinking a few feet away, it would be easy to forget the abysmal conditions that soldiers often find themselves coping with. Even in the rear area at a major headwuarters a soldier's life is full of minor annoyances and inconveniences, but the close you get tot he front the more you can be sure you'll be in discomfort. Indeed, I'd say that physcial misery is a greater constant in warfare than death and destruction. Battles last hours or days, but bad weather can last weeks.

Which brings to mind bad weather and how soldiers fight in it. Any kind of stromy weather or precipitation can bring problems, of course, but fighting in the snow and cold has to be among the most challenging. Currently we're in the anniversary weeks for the Battle of the Bulge, 65 years ago, and the Winter War, 70 years ago. Both were marked by a lot of fighting in the cold and snow, but they are hardly the only ones.

Before the modern era figthing duringt he winter was rare, but not unheard of. Winter fighting is difficult for modern, well-equipped armies, it's hard to imagine how much more difficult it was in the pre-industrial era when even summer campaigning could mean deprivation. So it's even more remarkable to see that there were a number of battles that did take place in snowstorms. Perhaps one of the most famous was the Battle of Trenton, which may very well have saved the American Revolution by giving Washington''s army a badly needed win. Another notable fight ina snow storm occurred a few years later on Feb. 7-8 1807 at Eylau, where Napoleon experienced a setback and check in his string of victories.

While it was difficult for black powder era armies to fight in the snow, it was possible. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any ancient era battles that occurred in the middle of a snowstorm. Possibly the logistics were too tenuous for an eancient army to attempt such a thing. Perhaps the most famous snowy campaign in ancient times was Hannibal's passage of the Alps, but that didn't involve any fighting, Indeed, the route was chosen because it avoided any fighting.

Generally in strategic or operational level games the weather conditions are incorporated into the basic mechanics. The major exception to this is East Front wargames, which generally have extensive rules about the Russian winter. Weather rules are more common in tatcical level games, with many such as Advanced squad Leader having special rules that would allow players to set a design your own scenario in a blizzard.

Some games I know of that incorporate snowy weather include ASL, Eylau, A Frozen Hell, Memoir '44 and nearly eveyr strategic level Eastern Front wargame.

Are there otehrs?

Out of the box, Twilight Struggle

I've long intended to get this game. Besides being very well-regarded as a game, it also has a lot of personal interest for me as a Baby Boomer -- it's not just history to me!

Just about the time I was thinking of getting it, though, I heard about the Deluxe Edition GMT was planning, so I decided to hold out for that.

It arrived yesterday and naturally I haven't played it yet, but I thought I'd share a few out-of-the-box impressions.

First off, the box itself is impressively tough. It's one of GMT's "armored boxes," and it should last a looooong time.

Inside the box is a very nice, solid mapboard and a full-color, lavishly illustrated rule book with a 3-turn example of play.

The cards are first rate, the counters thick, euro-style affairs and four player aid cards. I think they intended on including two, but the first run came out too flimsy, so they included a second set on firmer cardstock, or so it appears, as two of the aids are lighter stock than the others. There are some baggies for the pieces and a couple of dice (one red, one blue in a nice touch.) Oh, and the box has an insert that will keep everything from rattling around.

Altogether a first-rate presentation. I'm looking forward to the first game.

65th anniversary of the Bulge

Couldn't let the night end without noting that today is the 65th anniversary of the start of the Battle of the Bulge.

From a wargamer's standpoint it was high drama and a perennial favorite of designers. Nearly every wargame designer, it seems, has felt the need to make a stab at the battle.

But underlying that gameboard drama was the heroism and sacrifice of real people, heroes whose ranks are diminishing daily at a rapid clip. So let me just note the anniversary of their big challenge and say 'thank you' for meeting it.