Thank you to visitors

Looking back, it seems I started blogging on solo wargaming about one year ago.  Since then, over 11,000 people have visited the site.  This volume is a big surprise.  No doubt, some of the traffic has been through the Lone Warrior website, which has been an inspiration to me.  Another factor has been the pandemic.  Many social wargamers found themselves pushed toward solo wargaming.  If that disaster truly is passing, perhaps they will go back to social wargaming and traffic to sites like mine will diminish. 

Anyway, I hope some of the ideas presented here have been helpful.  

Thanks to all for visiting.  

Should you love your miniatures?

 

This quote is from Neil Thomas, Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878.

"Miniature wargaming has advantages over such contrivances as grids and ‘free kriegspiel’, however. Chief among these is the visual beauty of painted miniatures and three dimensional tabletops. Playing a structural wargame or a ‘free kriegspiel’ can be a curiously bland experience: one can feel almost divorced from the action. Miniature wargaming in contrast effectively predicates direct involvement, for the tabletop general identifies closely with the army he or she has collected and painted. This experience of empathy is a vital part of realism, allowing wargamers to put themselves in the position of historical generals: wherever they see an enemy unit routed they feel the elation of victory; the sight of their own units being destroyed engenders all the anguish and humiliation of defeat. For this is not an abstract body of men represented by counters, or sketches on a piece of paper–these are the wargamer’s very own little men. In this way, a miniature wargame can re-enact the historical experience in a manner very different, and infinitely superior to its physically anaemic ‘free kriegspiel’ rival. The problems of scale do however remain. The best approach to miniature wargames design lies in recognising their intractability, by appreciating that any game using figures is an abstract construct..."

While I am big fan of Thomas' One Hour Wargames, I was thrown off by the perspective revealed in the extract pasted above.   Here are my concerns.

1.  "The visual beauty of painted miniatures and three dimension tabletops."   Beautiful is not an accurate description of all tabletops and figures, nor is it necessary.  Bob Cordery used this phrase to describe what he is doing with his style of wargaming: 3D board game.  Don't get me wrong; Cordery also uses painted figures.  His approach to the board, however, is only beautiful if you like the abstract style.  I very much like that style, but I am not sure I would describe it as beauty.  Regarding the minis, seeing detailed painting just makes me feel inadequate.  It is a turnoff.

2.  "The tabletop general identifies closely with the army he or she has collected and painted."  Yes, I am fond of the minis I have collected.  Would I enjoy wargaming more if I carefully painted each mini and thus developed a relationship with it (him)?  No, because the minis are so small I can barely see them.  (Maybe this is why some people love tank warfare so much; at least you can easily see a tank.)  

3.  "The sight of their own units being destroyed engenders all the anguish and humiliation of defeat."  I am a solo wargamer so both sides are my 'own units'.  However, I do get an emotional reaction when one side is losing; I start to cheer for the underdogs.  

Let me suggest this distinction: fine modeling and tabletop wargaming can be related activities but they need not be integrated.  In other words, you can enjoy tabletop wargaming without being a fine modeler.  And not all fine modelers enjoy tabletop wargaming.  They might be just as happy building dioramas.  

Where the two activities (fine modeling and wargaming) come together closely is in RPGs and skirmish games.  When you have a small number of figures whose personal traits are important to the play of the game, painting might be more integral to the hobby.  Or so it seems to me as an outsider.  RPGs do not appeal to me.

Am I missing out by not developing a loving, empathetic relationship with my minis?  HA!  Give me a break. It is just a game.  I send those little guys out to get destroyed in every battle. Fortunately, they can be resurrected for the next fight.   I am not playing House; I am playing War.  In my mind, the minis are first and foremost professional soldiers doing a difficult job.  Their uniforms will be tattered and dirty, not neat and beautifully depicted. Heck, the green army can be green figures and the red army can be red figures.  Paint makes no difference as long as I can distinguish the unit type: artillery, cavalry, regular infantry, or heavy infantry.

The enjoyment comes from the excitement of the battle and the uncertainty about the result, not from the paint.

PS.  Have you ever noticed the guys who paint the inside walls of houses for a career often look a bit dopey?  It is the paint.  It fries their brains.  And it is addictive, so they love painting.  

Just sayin'.

   

Scenario 3 from One Hour Wargames

 This battle is set during the Franco-Prussian war in a fictitious location.  Scenario 3 calls for taking control of two fords.  In the photo shown below, the river is in the center of the battle field, a hill (green) is one corner, and a stand of trees is to one side.  North is to the left and south is the right. 

Rolling for forces resulted in the north army (Prussians) having one artillery unit, two heavy infantry units and three regular infantry units but no cavalry.  The French army had four regular infantry units, one heavy infantry unit and one cavalry unit.  The French appeared to be at a disadvantage since they had no artillery and only one heavy infantry unit.  

The French regulars advanced toward the eastern ford, taking shelter in the village.  The cavalry and heavy infantry rushed toward the western ford. The cavalry unit intended to cross the ford and assault the artillery battery.  Unfortunately, they did get there before the Prussian heavies blocked the ford. 

This setback for the French army was followed by a series of bad event cards: confusion, enemy hits, inability to move, ammunition shortage;, some bad events happened more than once.  They were reeling from all the bad luck. The Prussian artillery was dropping shells on the village where the French regulars were dug in.

However, the tide eventually turned.  The Prussian regular infantry took up their position on the eastern ford, firing ineffectively on the French regulars who were under cover in the village. The Prussians were exposed and taking hits from the French.  Meanwhile, to the west, the French heavy infantry and the cavalry unit were firing accurately on the two Prussian heavies, who eventually broke.  This enabled the French units to rush toward the Prussian artillery unit. 

Meanwhile, to the east, the Prussian regulars lost a unit and retreated back from the ford, so the French regulars advanced.  They outnumbered the Prussians and pressed their advantage.

Shortly thereafter, the artillery battery was destroyed and both the French cavalry and heavies moved toward the surviving Prussian regulars.  The French regulars continued to pepper them with shots.  The last Prussian unit was broken in round 10.  The battle lasted 20 minutes. It was fast and full of action.  The outcome surprised me.  I will try it again soon. 

An interesting battle report from the Thirty Years War

 https://balagan.info/battle-of-schlossmuele-a-tillys-very-bad-day-battle-report

This report was written in an interesting style.  Note that a brief but useful introduction gives the historical background.  A diagram shows the plan for the battlefield.  A single photo shows the actual battlefield used.  The report of the battle provides a nice summary of the action and the results of the rounds without too much detail.  The battle lasted less than ten rounds, which is just fine with me.  Keep in mind that when you develop a battle like this, you are most likely going to play it through several times, with variations.  

Anyway, I liked the style of this battle from the 30 Years War. 

Another grid blog

 This gamer strives for historical accuracy, within reason.

http://www.gridwargaming.co.uk/

Scenario 2 from One Hour Wargames with floating grid

 

The duration of this game, including set up, was 25 minutes.  This is a new game board set-up for me.  Hobby Lobby had a framed white MDF board on sale for $18.  Four-inch squares (tiles) from Amazon were about the same price.  I painted some squares green and others blue (for future use as lakes).  See the pictures below. The white road is a convenient use of empty space on the white board.  The tiles can be easily rearranged to set up a new scenario.  This new board is space-efficient and sturdy.  The inspiration comes from Bob Cordery, who uses hexes. 

The first step for this battle was to roll for forces.  The Prussians got four infantry and two APCs.  The Americans got five infantry and one Humvee.  The mission objective for both sides to control both the hill and the crossroads by the end of 15 rounds. The crossroads is closer to the south side of the board and the hill is closer to the north side.  The beginning moves, naturally, were for the Americans to take possession of the crossroads and the Prussians to occupy the hill.  See picture 1.

 The Prussian APC moved up to where it could pound the village from cover.  It was targeting the Humvee.  Some of the American infantry crossed over to some huts.  From there they could fire on the hill from cover.  The second Prussian APC swung around to west and fired on the huts from that location.  

Both sides were losing infantry units.  At this point I realized that the rules do not permit vehicles to end a turn in a village.  The Prussians began the battle with one more vehicle and one less infantry unit.  The odds were they might end up with no surviving infantry units.  In that case, they would not be able to occupy the village.

The American Humvee was taking too many hits, so it moved north where it was out of range of the Prussian APC yet could fire on the hill.  Next round, the infantry in the village abandoned it to reinforce the units in the huts.  

The battle was very close but at the end, all the Prussian forces were destroyed.  The one remaining American infantry unit proudly took possession of the hill (picture 2).   

Picture 1. Round 2.

Picture 2.  End of game.

Replay.

This time the Prussian begin by placing an APC unit on the hill in hull-down position, which reduces hits by two.  The American Humvee unit moved quickly to engage it as did two infantry units.  The Prussians charged the village with all of their infantry, taking hits as they approached while the other Prussian APC unit pounded the village from the tree line.  The defenders in the village were getting hammered.  However, the Prussian APC unit on the hill took so much damage that they withdraw off of the hill and behind it.  The Humvee pursued and finished it off, but the other Prussian APC unit had pulled back also and quickly destroyed the Humvee unit.  The infantry in the village slugged it out until it was obvious that the Americans needed to cross the road to the stand of trees.  They had a firefight that finished off the Prussian infantry but left only one American infantry unit.  The Prussian APC destroyed it.

Many More Replays

The OHW book contains a table that allows you to randomly configure the units for each side.  The number of possible unit types is four in each era.  Neither side should have exactly the same mix.  The number of possible combinations is....(drum roll)...a lot.  You do the math.

Also, using the event cards suggested by the author is a good idea.  They introduce an exciting random element into the battle.  Yes, it is fair; bad and good luck can hit both sides. 

Anyway, I will have to replay many times before i need to reshuffle the tiles to create the layout for the next scenario. 

***

OK, I have been playing this scenario for four days now, sometimes twice a day.  By rolling for configuration of forces, each game is different.

(TIP:  the army coming from the south should take possession of the village and try to hold it.  Both sides should ignore the hill.  The village has cover and the hill has none (except when  a tank is on the hill).   The battle will be won or lost at the village.)

Here is my insight for the day about OHWs: by rolling for the forces, I can play the same scenario for a week without getting bored.  AND if I change the era, I can repeat the process the next week and each game will be different.  OHW has nine eras, each with slightly different rules.  That works out roughly to 9 weeks of play on this scenario.  The book has 30 scenarios.  

My hat is off to Neil Thomas for developing a brilliant system.  Shear genius.

another great blog

 https://narrativesolowargames.blogspot.com/

I like the narrative style of game reporting, the use of One Hour Wargames scenarios, and the gridded battle field.