In our first game on Friday evening we had 6 players, and for the third game Saturday afternoon we had seven, but for the Saturday game at 9am we only had one player, "Andy." So I suggested we play a game together with just a few units so Andy could get a feel for the rules, This Very Ground, which he had not played before. And I would get to play in a game!
Andy chose the French so I took the British. We each took one Regular, one Irregular and one Skirmisher unit and deployed on our base edges, per the map above. Then we advanced. . .
I decided to advance my Regulars into musket range so Andy could see how volley fire worked. It was devastating!
Seven of the ten soldiers in my unit were killed, and I rolled the only number on a D10 I could have to fail the subsequent Courage test - 10 - and my remaining 3 soldiers scurried into the cover of the nearest woodline without firing a shot, earning a red "Disruption" marker. Now my right flank looked pretty weak, and the Coureur unit advanced to try to finish them off.
So I pushed my Provincials and Rangers across the river, both into cover, while the French Regulars advanced into the open and the Indians through the woods to meet them.
The Rangers held the Indians at bay, causing some casualties, while the Provincials used the rocky cover to reduce the French Regulars to two cowering survivors.
When the Indians finally crept close enough to charge. . .
. . . they wiped out the Rangers in hand-to-hand fighting. This success got the Coureurs all fired up and they charged the depleted Regulars, whose Leader had seen the charge forming and attached himself to the unit in the nick of time, adding his "body" to the pending fight.
It's a different story charging into bayonets, and the Frenchmen died to a man, leaving only the brave Leader left alive. Huzzah!
So with only two Regular soldiers and a weakened and disrupted Indian band facing a full-strength unit of haughty Provincials, the French quit the field, leaving Jenkins' Ford in British - Colonial, actually - possession.
Thank you, Andy, for a fun, fast game - maybe the most fun I've had a convention!
Next post will feature Game Three. See ya!
Here's a brief AAR of our Game One of Blooding at Jenkins' Ford at TwisterCon XII. The scenario is a variation of the Changing Fortunes: Blood in the Forest scenario in the This Very Ground rulebook. Here is the setting, if you need a reminder. The map above shows the positions of both sides' units at the end of turn 2. All were deployed at the edge of the board on their first activation, except for the British Rangers and the French Coureurs who were allowed to deploy anywhere on the board just outside of musket range, to simulate their scouting prowess.
The objective of both combatants was to engage and destroy the enemy and thereby gain control of the ford, which basically meant whoever sustained the fewest casualties would win. The terrain was a balance of open and woodland, so that both regulars and irregulars would have ground they could take advantage of. . . but that open ground would have to be braved to engage the enemy.
Both sides moved aggressively toward the enemy initially, but both then sought the safety of the woods edges as musket fire began to cause casualties.
The attack on the British left stalled as the Regulars and Rangers were content to trade fire with the French Regulars and Indians opposite, while the French Coureurs and Indians pressured the Virginia Provincials in the woods on the other flank. The Provincials tried to take the fight to the French but were eventually overwhelmed.
"Oh God, here they come!"
Game One goes to the French.
Game Two in the next post. See ya!
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!
