How did I miss this?

 

 

The second edition of This Very Ground - now subtitled Victory or Death - was released in a Kickstarter last year by Brigade Games and the original author, Keith Stine, and I just found out about it! Don't know how I missed it, though there seemed to be relatively little fanfare around it. This Very Ground was the set of rules that started my gaming journey in the French and Indian War. And it has been a journey.

I lived in the Twin Cities area from 1996 to 2001, and then moved to Tulsa, OK for work. I traveled some as part of my duties and on a trip to Minneapolis I had an opportunity to revisit an old haunt, our FLGS, The Source. It was on this trip that I purchased This Very Ground after a quick perusal in the store. I had to cross the I-35 bridge afterward, and later that afternoon while sitting in the hotel bar, I saw on the CNN national broadcast that the bridge had collapsed! Wasn't actually a "close call" as I had crossed it about 2 hours prior to its collapse, but it was a fluke that I was in the city at all.

The games in the early posts of this blog were all played with This Very Ground, a fun set of rules with innovative approaches to alternating unit activation and "volume of fire" representation and reloading. The use of D10s and percentile morale mechanics made it scalable, too; unit sizes from 5 to 25 or more figures were easily managed.

So why did I move to another set of rules? I eventually found the morale system to be really ineffectual, and Officers didn't do much other than rally off Unit Disruptions, which happened so frequently in my experience that it had little effect on the game overall. But the rest of the game was elegant, mechanically consistent, had good period flavor and was fun to play.

Lo and behold, these are the two areas that received the most attention in Victory or Death! The movement, firing and formation mechanics are basically intact from the original edition, but the command and morale systems got a thorough revamp. Activation is still alternating, but Officers use Command Points to Activate Units and effect Unit performance with a few appropriate Commands. Morale still uses Disruptions as the main "control" lever, but now Officers, and even the Units themselves, have more options and responsibilities for managing them.

One aspect of the original rules I really liked was the Testing to Charge mechanic, and how hard it was to actually get into a Melee, and that once a Melee was initiated, it was a one-turn fight to the death. That mechanic has been modified - and may not have been simplified - but it is still in Victory or Death.

Like all the other "black powder" rule sets we've seen of late, the focus of Victory or Death has been expanded beyond the French and Indian War, but has been limited to conflicts in North America. Rules and army lists are provided for King Philip's War, French & Indian War, American War for Independence and the War of 1812.

All of the rules that were released separately after the first edition covering Cavalry, Cannons & Boats are now collected in Victory or Death and updated to the new mechanics where needed. No additional volumes to buy!

The one thing I find lacking is a unit deployment system. There are 4 scenarios included - one for each of the 4 conflicts mentioned previously - and you can extrapolate a basic deployment system from the rules in all four, but deployment is so key to a game's play I find this a big miss. Again, the deployment system from Sharp Practice 2 might have to be borrowed. 

And the caveat: I haven't played This Very Ground: Victory or Death yet, but am really looking forward to putting "the old friend" on the table.

While we're on the subject of deployment, another of the Too Fat Lardies' (with Reisswitz Press) rules for WW2 deserve a mention.

The Patrol rules are really fun and create a real sense of the "fog of war." Unfortunately for me, they are aimed - as usual - at post-Normandy combat, so I probably won't even try 'em out until they release rules for the Western Desert.

Lastly - and certainly not "least" - I got my second CoVid vaccination shot! Hopefully that means a facemask-to-facemask game in May or June. Bring on "the normal."

See ya.

Independence Day and Muskets and Mohawks

 Here is the revisit of our Muskets and Mohawks game I promised, sort of a "colonial nod" to July Fourth given the timing of the post.

Muskets and Mohawks (from Two Hour Wargames) represents small-unit skirmishes in the French and Indian War with 10-man units (artillery are 5-man), each with a Leader. Basic types of troops are Regulars, Militia, Irregulars, including Indians, Civilians, Gunners and Cavlary. Regulars can also be further identified as Grenadiers, Guards or Lights. Units are in 1 of 3 formations: Formed Line, Mob or Unformed (skirmish). "Higher" formations are possible: 2 units make a Platoon and get an extra Leader, 2 Platoons make a Company, etc. Irregulars form "War Parties." The names are general enough to be whatever scale you want.

The heart of the system is Rep and Reactions. Each unit and Leader is assigned a "Rep" between 2 (raw civilians) and 6 (warriors of great reknown). During the game units test against their Rep using 2d6 (with some modifiers that add or subtract d6) when certain events occur or when certain actions are desired. You pass a d6 by rolling equal to or lower than the Rep. These are called Reaction Tests:

Received Fire
Received Casualty
Leader Lost 
Rally or Form Line
Charge Into Melee
Take Trophies
Fast Move
Controlled Volley*

When several Tests are required to be taken (for example if a unit Receives Fire that causes a Casualty, which turns out to be the Leader) you roll once and apply the result to all the tests, taking the worst result. Potential results of the tests are, generally, from best to worst: Carry On (pass 2d6), Retire (pass 1d6) and Run Away (pass 0d6). The presence of Leaders, units in support, type of Unit and Formation all provide nuance and are all listed on the Reaction Test charts, so is not a test of the players' memories, too!

One side activates their units or leaders, moving from right to left across the field, after which the other side does the same, so the activity swirls around the table in a "clock-wise fashion." As each unit activates, it can take ONE action, which include moving and changing formation, charging, firing and reloading. Each unit takes its action, and all units take any reaction tests caused by the action before moving on to the activation of the next unit.

All foot movement is 8"; terrain modifies formations used rather than rate. Fast Movement is possible when 24" or more from known enemy. Formations limit or enable movement dependent on terrain. Units can go Prone, too.

Musket range is 18"; rifle range is 24". There are two types of Fire: Fire At Will and Volley. Firing at Will uses the number of d6 of the unit's Rep, with some modifiers (like +2d6 for firing at Formed units) and one casualty is caused by each "1" rolled. Another roll determines if a Leader was a casualty. When units begin Firing they must continue to Fire At Will until one side Retires or Runs Away, after which they must spend an Activation Reloading before they can move again. Volleys can only be fired if a unit is in Formed Line and Reloaded. 1d6 is rolled for each figure in the unit (plus some modifiers) so a full unit starts with 10d6! 

Melee is bloody, and requires a Charge Test, which both sides take and elegantly represents both the attacker's elan in the charge and the defender's will to stand.

There are rules for terrain, reinforcements, campaigns, scenarios, hidden movement and a novel AI to play solo against. This is a solid set of rules. . . but once again I prove that reading is not enough. . . you have to play them to really understand them!

So, to understand the rules, Aaron and I set up a simple meeting engagement game, with a section of open terrain to maneuver the Regulars, and some woods for the Irregulars. 

Aaron took the French and Indians, which left me the British and Colonials. We each had 6 units and decided to start whatever troops we wanted to on the long edges, and to bring in any remaining units when desired as reinforcements.

The colonial Rangers (Irregulars, Rep 4, Leader Rep 5) face the French Marines (Irregulars, Rep 4, Leader Rep 5) in the woods (visibility and musket range reduced to 12") while the British and French Regulars march toward each other in the open, the French in Mob formation and the British in Formed Line.

The British Regulars advance to the creek and fire the first volleys - one completely ineffectual and one that causes several casualties. Regulars are stoically tough, and the French pass their Reaction Tests and Carry On, shaking out into Line in their next Activation and then an Activation later, returning Volley fire (we're using cotton balls to represent "smoke" and that a unit needs to "Reload").

The French bring on a unit of Coureur (Irregulars, Rep 5, Leader Rep 5, Rifles) in the woods, and the British respond with a unit of Militia (Militia, Rep 3, Leader Rep 4) - no match for the Coureur in the woods but the British have no more uncommitted Irregulars! The Rangers and Marines are now locked in a firefight, like the Regulars, until one or the other is forced to retire.

But nobody Retired or Ran Away! Both sides blazed away at each other, taking casualties and losing Leaders. The Coureur began sniping away at the British Regulars, so the British brought up a second unit of Militia in support. The French responded with a Unit of Indians (Irregulars, Rep 4, Leader Rep 5) in the woods, who despite talking some fire from the Militia, successfully charged them and piled into Melee. The fight was bloody on both sides, but the Militia was killed to the last man, right before the Marines' last soldiers died to Ranger musket fire.

Both sides called forth their last reinforcements; the French their last unit of Indians and the British a unit of Regular Grenadiers (Regulars, Rep 5, Leader Rep 5). I was loathe to use the Grenadiers in the woods, but I had no other counter to the Indians.

The Rangers Reloaded and fell on the rear of the Indians that had killed the MiIitia, and died to the last man, one ferocious warrior responsible for at least 4 Rangers on his own!

One unit of French Regulars was wiped out, and when the other was forced to Retire, the British Regulars Reloaded and crossed the creek under fire from the Coureur (also under fire themselves from the Militia) and the remaining French Regulars.

The Grenadiers finished off the remnant of the victorious Indian unit, which triggered the entrance of the last Indian unit. When the last French Regular unit was eliminated, what was left of the British Regulars and Militia advanced on the still dangerous Coureur, though they would eventually be whittled down to nothing. That left French victory down to the fresh unit of Indians tearing through the woods toward the bloodied Grenadiers!

That left the Leader of the Grenadiers with a critical decision: hold fire and take the Charge of the fresh Indians with loaded muskets (removing a negative modifier for Receiving a Charge Unloaded) or Firing first and creating an opportunity for the Indians to fail a Reaction Test. Melee would be bloody. . . so the Grenadiers Fired. . . and caused a single casualty. The Indians failed their Reaction Test - rolling two "6's" - and being Irregulars, Ran Away! 
The British breathe a huge sigh of relief. . . and marvel at their luck. . . 

So after a serious play-through, what did we think of the rules? We liked the overall feel and play: simple, elegant and intuitive, once you understand the Reaction Tests. I particularly like the Firing rules - firing by Rep and tracking fire as a unit with casualties caused on a single die result instead of separate rolls for hits, wounds and saves. One thing bothered us. . . too many units died to the last man. We expected the Reaction Tests - in effect, the morale system - to have a more dramatic impact.

Did we do something wrong? Of course we missed some small rules, modifiers and such, the way you always do at first, but did we do something majorly wrong?

Yup. I took a deep dive into the rules. . . and discovered we were doing two important things wrong.

First, when taking multiple Reaction tests, we should have rolled the dice ONCE, and used the same roll for all the tests, taking the worst result instead of rolling each test separately. Second, and even more importantly, on the Reaction Test chart, when passing 1d6 and having to roll again with one die, that test is taken against the LEADER Rep, not the UNIT Rep, and if the Unit doesn't have its Leader it automatically passes 0d6. These are big differences and should make the units behave a little more dramatically. We plan to play again this month and see!

I'll end with a teaser for Recruits in Lee's Summit, MO next month, where we'll be supporting The Baron and Fistful of Lead with our big toys : )

* Controlled Volley is a "house rule" I wrote when I couldn't find a way to do something I am pretty sure should be allowed. It got the official nod here.

Stupid Human Tricks, Colonial-Style. . .

While reading A Wilderness of Miseries by John E. Ferling, I came across this passage in a chapter about typical military discipline during the American Revolutionary War that surprised me:

"Some of the orders were designed to protect the troops from one another, to prevent accidental or deliberate injuries; for instance at the outset of the war officers were notified to fine soldiers around Boston who tried to catch British-fired cannon balls before they stopped bouncing."

Who has to be told, under threat of fine, not to catch a cannon ball?

Fiinally Finished the Beast. . .

Well, it took a while. . . partly because I don't plow through one book at a time. . . and partly because the Butterfly Brain gets distracted by all sorts of topics both historical and contemporary. . . and partly because An Invincible Beast is a bit of a dense read. I'm a big fan of Dr. Matthew's combination of research into primary sources with physical recreation, ballistics testing and re-enactment, but it is not exactly summer beach-reading.

On page 399, Dr. Matthew summarizes (sorta):

Diodorus declared that 'Macedonian spears had conquered Asia and Europe.' The organization of of Hellenistic pike formations onto units and sub-units, combined with an elaborate and symmetrically distributed command structure, made the pike-phalanx a very ordered instrument of war - one that was mutually supporting, offensively and defensively strong, and adaptable to the varied tactical requirements of the ancient battlefield. Phalangite formations, for example, could be deployed to different depths, with the most common being that of sixteen ranks deep, but could also be arranged in deeper or shallower configurations depending upon the terrain, the size of the opposing force, the decisions of those in command and the situation of the day.

It seems that pike phalanxes were in a more open order than usually depicted, to make room for 5 ranks of deployed pikes, and the great length of the pikes were generally used to hold the opposing forces at bay. 

This allowed the pike-phalanx to effectively pin an enemy formation in place as part of the standard tactic of pike-phalanx combat - that of the hammer and anvil. Across the entire Hellenistic Period this tactic of using the pike-phalanx in the center to hold an enemy formation (or part thereof) in position while other, more mobile troops swept around to strike from the flanks remained unchanged. This in itself demonstrates the integral part that the pike-phalanx played in the conflicts of this time period.

While the functionality of the phalangite remained little changed cross the Hellenistic Period, the tools and strategies of war constantly developed in attempts to overcome the advantages held by the pike-phalanx, particularly during the time of the Successors following the death of Alexander the Great in 323BC when pike-phalanx fought pike-phalanx and a decisive tactical advantage of some kind was required to secure victory. Consequently the sarissa (pike) itself became longer to outreach an enemy armed in similar fashion, and beasts such as elephants were more regularly employed to try and smash an opposing formation apart. Many of these tactical 'experiments' met with mixed results; the pike could only be increased in length until a point was reached where it was almost impossible to wield, and contingents of elephants could be countered with other elephants, a solid wall of pikes, missile troops or other measures. As a result, the phalangite, and the pike-phalanx, retained its position of supremacy on the battlefield.

Yet for all its advantages, the pike-phalanx did have its limitations. This was mainly the potential for gaps to open in the line - due in part to the phalanx being comprised of semi-independent units and sub-units. If such gaps could be exploited by a more mobile opponent, one who could get inside the rows of projecting pikes, this was when the pike-phalanx was most vulnerable as the long sarissa made the phalangite a very ineffective individual combatant, and larger units were incapable of turning to meet threats from the sides once their pikes had been lowered. It was the ability of the Roman legionaries to take advantage of this inherent weakness in the Hellenistic pike-phalanx which ultimately led to the formation's demise.

 Sounds like DBA to me : )

If you want to know how the Romans defeated the pike-phalanx, or exactly how it was organized, or when and where it was first developed, and by who, you'll have to read the book.

I stumbled onto another book when looking up the author John Ferling, some of whose work about the Revolutionary War I have read - but I was not familiar with A Wilderness of Miseries, which is about the "warriors" of colonial America. Its sociological angle immediately drew me in. I AM "plowing" through this one!

I'll have some more F&IW terrain to show soon, as well as some thoughts on rules for the period I am considering.

See ya!



 

Some Colonial American Reading Goodness

Found an interesting new book in the latest ERH catalog: The Pennsylvania Associators, 1747 - 1777. Partial description from Amazon:

Organized on December 7, 1747, at Philadelphia, the Military Association, an all-volunteer military establishment pledged to the defense of Pennsylvania, served as the de facto armed force for Pennsylvania, a colony whose leadership, a loose coalition of Quaker and German pacifists, land barons, and merchants, foreswore military preparedness on religious and ideological grounds. For the Associators, including their most noted supporter, Benjamin Franklin, a defenseless colony was no longer practical. During the War of Austrian Succession and again in the Seven Years’ War, Associators organized defense efforts in defiance of the Pennsylvania colonial leadership. Associators also helped defend American Indian refugees against the infamous Paxton Boys in 1764. By 1775, Associators found themselves as the colony’s only legitimate military leadership and, by capitalizing on electoral gains in the lead up to the American Revolution, Associators assumed offices vacated by former officials. During the critical battles of 1776, the Associators in their distinctive round hats and brown coats proved a decisive asset to the Continental Army.

After playing our first HOTTs game together, Bruce took one look at this blog and asked if I had this book in my library: Fortress America: The Forts That Defended America, 1600 to the Present.

I have it now! The book includes some very good plan drawings of principal forts by Polish illustrator Tomasz Idzikowski that I've not seen elsewhere.

Also a couple new Ospreys with nice artwork and lots of good scenario fodder.

 
See ya!