Got back from TwisterCon yesterday and it was back to work today. With no time yet to do a proper report on the games played, here is a little peek at "Blooding at Jenkins' Ford" to tide you over until I can get to it.
It was great to see the Tulsa crew again, and even picked up a couple of new yard dice!
Check back later this week for the proper update I mentioned.
See ya!
Here's a peek at the map of the terrain we'll be scrappin' over at TwisterCon in Oklahoma City. . . wait for it. . . Oklahoma, next weekend. Game description is here.
Just have a few more figure bases to finish up this weekend then we'll be all set.
Come see us if you're in the neighborhood. Or make a special trip to the neighborhood, like me.
See ya!
My 54mm French and Indian War game is heading down to Oklahoma City. . . Oklahoma. . . later this month (March 25th and 26th) for TwisterCon XII. We're going to play two games, one Friday night and the second Saturday morning.
The game is called Blooding at Jenkins Ford and is described in the program:
French and Indian War. This scenario represents one of the many small skirmishes that erupted in the forests of North America as colonial defenses, bolstered by English Regiments, sprung up after the defeat of General Braddock at the Battle of the Monongahela. French and Indians dispute British and Colonial control of a key river ford on the frontier.
Scale is 54mm and features my collection of John Jenkins models; rules are This Very Ground by Iron Ivan Games.
I haven't been to TwisterCon before, but the program looks fun; plenty of games, vendors and even a flea market. Come see us if you're in the neighborhood.
Then next month we'll play a lot closer to home at the next Recon, here in Minneapolis, on April 23rd. A lot less driving for yours truly! Scenario still TBD.
See ya (maybe for real)!
Yup. And Dragon Rampant, too. Do I like em? Yup. Wanna know why? Because they remind me of DBA/HOTT. A lot. And you know coming from me that's high praise.
So how are they similar? Both games primary design goal was for a simple, fast game. DBA 3.0, in its introduction, says, "Our original intent was to provide the simplest possible set of wargames rules that retain the feel and generalship requirements of ancient or medieval battle." Similarly, Lion Rampant states,"Keep the rules simple, streamlined and abstracted where appropriate: don't make players continually thumb through the rulebook. Quick play and minimal record-keeping to allow multiple games in one session." DBA 3.0 concurs: "A game usually lasts less than an hour, so that a 6 round convention competition can be completed in one day. . ."
Significantly for me, their key similarity is the way the combatants are defined. As DBA 3.0 describes: "Wargamers pay more attention to weaponry than did ancient commanders. Surviving ancient manuals lump all foot skirmishers as psiloi whether armed with javelins, sling or bow, defining them by function rather than armament. We have applied the same principle throughout with no apparent loss of overall realism. Morale and training distinctions have also been discarded as linked with function. Thus, most knights are rash, all warbands are fierce but brittle, all skirmishers are timid."
Lion Rampant takes a similar approach: "Embrace medieval caricatures: knights should be headstrong, spearmen resolute, tribesmen fierce, and light cavalry agile. Performance is abstracted: make sure units 'feel' right." Unlike DBA, Rampant embraces unit training upgrades and downgrades, providing some differentiation between "green" and "veteran" units. Again unlike DBA, Rampant uses a point system to build equivalent opposing forces.
Here's a spreadsheet I built showing how the two game systems classify similar troop types in both "historical" and "fantastical" manner. . . I know.
Both games use about the same number of models to represent an "army;" about fifty figures, give or take a few, depending on the army. This permits one to collect a variety of different armies when one has budget or time constraints. Aesthetically, this works in Lion Rampant's favor, as it is designed to represent skirmishes, as opposed to DBA's focus on classic field battles. Another nod to the skirmish level of Rampant is the use of scenarios, which provides some variation from the classic "line 'em up and go at it" nature inherent to larger battles. Models are based individually in Rampant, instead of on "elements" of 2 or more representing larger units in DBA, and this also appeals to the "skirmish aesthetic" because terrain can be more complex and interesting when you don't have to accommodate large bases. I hope it's become apparent that building convincing terrain has become a big part of the hobby for me.
HOTT (the fantasy companion of DBA) has been criticized (not by me) for an overly simplistic representation of magic, and if that is your assessment, you may like Dragon Rampant's simple but more detailed spell system.
Rampant uses an activation system that has become fairly common today; an activation roll on one or more dice, but gives it a nice nuance by rating each type of unit for movement, shooting, charging and morale, neatly giving each type (knights, spearmen, etc.) a personality and definite battlefield use.
What does all this mean? I am definitely not leaving DBA 3.0 for Ancients "army-scale" gaming, and may use 15mm to get more of that "massed army" feel, but for my Dark Age/Fantasy gaming I am seriously considering moving toward the Rampant family of rules and individual basing, and using some of my F&IW terrain in dual service. Individual bases also have the added advantage of permitting other skirmish rules to be played, too, should I get the opportunity.
And, because someone is bound to ask, "How does Dragon Rampant compare to Saga?" here is my take. I understand why the battleboard system, with special boards and dice for each Dark Age faction, is appealing to gamers of the period. In most wargames rules, one Dark Age warrior fights much like another, so the battleboards and faction-specific rules of Saga give each warband a unique personality. But for me, the system intrudes upon the game "experience;" I am too conscious of the game and its mechanics and less involved with the "narrative" unfolding.
So we'll see if this goes anywhere. I am deep into the Great 54mm Basing Upgrade still. . .
See ya!
Some more bases completed; General Montcalm and a Native ally shown above. Following are some British and Colonial Officers, British Regulars of the 44th Regiment, French Colonial Marine Regulars, and some veteran French Marines in campaign dress.
Still lots more bases to do, but next up, Cluck Amok considers Lion Rampant and it's growing number of variants.
See ya!
Hello, 2016! Happy New Year. And no, you'll get no New Year's resolutions from me. I'm back to exercising regularly (post-shoulder surgery) and I eat better now than in any earlier time in my life, so no major changes needed there. Sure, I'd love to be more prolific in my hobby life, but I'll be damned if I'll trot out a list of all the game projects I want to complete this year, only to have to lament at the the end of the year how little I actually accomplished. My leisure time is too limited for that kind of pressure, and my Butterfly Brain fights me every step of the way.
That said, I did have a few days off work (mostly) between Christmas and New Year so decided to attack the Great 54mm Basing Upgrade by starting with a few troops appropriate for skirmish-sized games. Some Anglo civilians are shown above and below are some Coureur, Native villagers, Virginia Provincials and some assorted "leaders;" Provincial, Native and French Marines.
I have a few more units on deck: some British and French Regulars and some mounted leaders. The filler, texture and paint is on the bases - they just need the final "moss, grass and leaves" step.
Then I watched Star Trek Into Darkness and inspired the Butterfly Brain. I finished off the week with a little work on a Klingon Bird-of-Prey to go with the little USS Reliant I built last year for my 1/2500 scale Star Trek: Attack Wing project. The base green and "shadowing" is complete and ready for the application of various hand-painted greens to simulate panels of ablative armor (THAT will be fun).
See ya! Go Chiefs and Go Vikes!
Here's something you may never see again on this blog - Cold War action! Or in this case Cold War gone hot. I was invited to join a game of Challenger 2000 (I think) at our local Recon gaming event.
I was on the Russian team, tasked with clearing the Americans from the urban area, somewhere in Europe, pictured above. American armor and infantry held the urban center, with armored support in the wooded areas on both sides of the town. While my team mates provided fire support on the American armor on the flanks, I was tasked with rushing two companies of Soviet infantry in BMPs into the town from the cover of some woods and a white phosphorous smoke screen. "Expect some casualties," I was told.
My small armored company of T-90s suppressed the American tanks in the woods initially but were soon destroyed in turn. My infantry then dismounted behind the smokescreen and headed toward the town on foot, with the BMPs racing ahead to try to neutralize the American infantry in the buildings.
Then suddenly a British armored column appeared on our right flank and started a turkey shoot on my BMPs!
While my infantry worked its way into town, my team mate (Bruce) chased the American armor out of the woods on our left flank . . . and into the town where I assume the rest of the fighting took place.
I "assume" because I had to leave the game before it was finished - a definite "party foul" on my part but couldn't be helped. I wonder if "we" cleared the town, too.
See ya!
Oh. . . and Merry Christmas!
