We are where we are....

Command and Colours in space

One of the things that was very much on my 'to do' list during the lull in the great disposal was for me to reacquaint myself with my project pile. In many ways it was a case of saying hello to some old friends and goodbye to some others but it was a job worth doing. It has been some 6 months or so since I was able to do anything meaningful for myself - not that I have minded - and the time away has certainly given me plenty of opportunity to think about things.

The 'main event' for this year will be the 30mm Spencer Smith ACW project, loosely based on Kurz and Allison. The land element of this is actually well in hand for reasons that will appear in a post in due course so I shall be looking to the naval side upon my return from holiday. The figures for this project will mirror the contents of the Avalon Hill/Hasbro Command and Colours ACW game of Battle Cry so each side will have 40 infantry, 9 cavalry, 3 mounted commanders and 3 guns each with two gun crew. These will be based individually and are all painted in flat, gloss colours with plain painted bases. In short, 'old school shiny'.

For the most part the rules I will be using with these will be hex or square based (Command and Colours, the Portable Wargame or even MoB) although I will have the option to use A Gentlemen's War or even Rebels and Patriots on the tabletop. I plan to add to the collection in due course, albeit in a modest way.

The supporting case of 'side hustles' is a mixed bag but all of which have the advantage of being virtually fully resourced. These include the following:

ACW naval
WW1 naval - Avalon Hill Jutland or 1:2400th models
WW2 naval - Avalon Hill Bismarck or 1:4800th models
Red Alert - Command and Colours in space
The Great War/Rommel/Memoir 44/Portable Wargame WW2
WW1 Aerial - Avalon Hill Richthofen's War

The last three of the above can be readily satisfied in the short term simply by playing them straight out of the box although I am keen to 'model' them at some point. At a push I could also game the WW1 and 2 naval straight from the box using Jutland and the assorted variants I have and Bismarck.

There are some other bits and pieces but these have been consigned to the back burner as the above is really the most likely to be tackled in some fashion. I have deliberately kept the list quite tight and with as much boardgame overlap as possible so at least in the absence of models I can still enjoy a game or two.

Uniforms in the Age of Marborough

Thus far the only information I have about uniforms of the 1670 to 1720 period is courtesy of the two Helion Titles I recently acquired and that feature Turkey, Russia and Venice. I was also keen to acquire something that covered the mainstream armies of the period (no disrespect intended to Russia and Turkey!) and so was delighted to discover that Caliver Books had exactly what I wanted. A swift email exchange with Mr. Ryan and I am now the proud owner of a copy of the book you see below.

The current version. This is an A4 sized hardback and contains the information from both the previous volumes 1 and 2 as well as some additional details from the authors original WRG From Pike to Shot title. This is a peach of a book with some Bob Marrion artwork, line drawings and a few maps as well.

The original softback volume 1....

....and volume 2.

The predecessor to the above and one that I should like to add to the collection for completeness.

Whilst I have no intentions of producing armies for the more usual protagonists of the War of the Spanish Succession having the uniform details is important for my planned 'imagi-nation' forces for the era. The arrival of this book coincided nicely with me starting to sort out the figures I shall be working with and so I already have a few ideas to play around with.

Planning Armies - Portable Wargame Style

The original book in the series....

....and taken a stage further.

Possibly the pick of the bunch but I couldn't possibly comment....Seriously though, these rules will be forming the basis of my 18th Century project and by merely tweaking a couple of minor points will serve me admirably (note the basing convention used by Bob on the cover).

Whilst the grey matter has been absorbed with planning and organising the Minifigs portion of Eric's collection I have also taken some time to review some of the games I have posted about on the blog. For the most part the land battles used Command and Colours inspired rule variants as well as the Portable Wargame and its predecessors. In each case a grid-based playing area was used - either hexagonal (typically 13 x 9 - the same as a usual Command and Colours playing area) or squared (12 x 8). I used three sizes of hex - 4" (Hexon), 3" (Axis and Allies maps) and 45mm (Heroscape). the squares were a uniform 3" throughout. Each size (and shape) has its advantages but for me now the optimum will be 4" and squared.

One of the difficulties that arises when using a grid is that if the unit of troops is physically large then the room for any terrain is restricted. In my opinion a unit occupying a grid space should not take up more than half the area if terrain is a feature. With this in mind, and given that my wargames going forward will be largely Portable wargame based, I intend to use Bob's basing convention for my 25mm Minifigs armies. This will be 2 x 3 figure bases for an infantry unit, 2 x 2 figure bases for cavalry and a gun with two gunners for the artillery. Foot command, gunners and riflemen/skirmishers will be on a 1" square base and mounted command on a 1" x 2" base. Using this system means that when a single unit occupies a grid area there will be sufficient room to deploy any terrain that is required.

I have opted for a square grid as opposed to hexagonal simply because terrain will be easier to both build and to configure on the playing area. At this stage though I am still debating about using an offset square grid rather than the usual chessboard style. This would combine the best of both worlds in many ways but I have not made any decisions as yet.

One of the other points that arose with all this concerns army size. Based on the size of my usual playing area - 13/12 x 9/8 grid areas - a good sized game can be fought with around 8 or so units a side. On occasion I have fought actions larger than this but not by much. As a good benchmark a field force of around dozen units will cover a variety of army selections for use on the tabletop and depending n the scenario being fought. It is always a good idea to have and army slightly larger than you would routinely use so that special units can be cycled in and out of the collection as required. Using the Portable Napoleonic Wargame as a guide I am thinking that my old idea of building up an army consisting of a Charge sized infantry regiment and a cavalry regiment with a gun battery would readily translate into 8 x 6 figures infantry units, 6 x 4 figures cavalry units and two gun batteries. That translates into a full strength army of 16 units under the Portable Napoleonic Wargame which is larger than the biggest action I have fought by 4 or 5 units. I would add a further gun and crew and some rifle/skirmish infantry to the mix meaning in total the whole army would top out around 66 foot and around 28 mounted with three guns.

As I survey the inordinate quantity of unpainted metal currently occupying the man cave this figures regime seems the perfect way for me to translate the ideas I have into a gaming reality and so that will be the next step.

Venice, Austria, Russia and Ottoman Turkey

In order to translate the key elements of my Venetian/Ottoman/Austrian/Russia project for the tabletop I naturally need to conduct some research in the period from roughly 1650 to 1720. Aside from the altercation at Vienna in 1683 my knowledge of the period was sketchy at best but help was to hand in the shape of that very nice chap BalkanDave as well as a couple of very nice titles published by Helion. Naturally for the period I also need some rules and so a copy of The Pikeman’s Lament – a title in the ‘Rampant’ series led by Daniel Mersey – was also added to the collection.

Quite superb and whilst a little earlier than my planned forces does a fantastic job of setting the scene for the later wars between Venice and Turkey - with the Austrians and Russians also getting involved

The first of the two Helion titles is an absolute peach of a book – spoiled only by not having a hardback option for which I would have gladly paid for – and covers the period from 1645 to 1671 when Crete was finally captured by the Turks. This is real pike and shot territory and so Dan Mersey's The Pikeman's Lament or possibly Donnybrook would be ideal for the lower level actions fought in a campaign dominated by sieges and naval actions.

Another title from the 'Rampant' series

The two wars that I am mostly interested in from the long sequence of conflicts between Venice and the Sublime Porte are as follows:

• The Sixth Ottoman–Venetian War or the Morean War (1684–1699), resulting in the capture of the Morea (Peloponnese), Lefkada, Aigina and parts of Dalmatia by Venice and the end of Ottoman dominance in the eastern Mediterranean Sea
• The Seventh and last Ottoman–Venetian War (1714–1718) (also called the Second Morean War), resulting in the recapture of the Morea (Peloponnese) and of Tinos and Aigina, the last Venetian holdings in the Aegean, by the Ottomans

Of the above two the latter featured the active involvement of the Austrians from 1716 to 1718. The Turks had also successfully fought the Russians before the Second Morean War and this forms the basis of the second book I have acquired for research purposes.

Fresh from his success against the Swedes Peter came unstuck against the Turks and indeed, was lucky not to have been taken prisoner. History could well have been very different had this happened!

There is plenty of potential from a gaming perspective whichever way you look at the period especially for actions at the lower end of the scale. Most of the fighting between the Venetians and Turks invariably revolved around sieges - the Venetians were short of manpower and were not the economic powerhouse of previous years - so skirmishes make for a manageable games in respect of the number of figures required, playing time and table size. 

Once the Austrians appear then large scale battles feature as they did for the Ottoman war against the Russians.

Once again many thanks for BalkanDave for his input.

" A week is a long time in politics"....*

The famous Minifigs logo

No Weekly Sitrep just yet - mainly because I wanted to include the arrival of the remaining crates of unpainted 25/28mm figures from Bill as well as a couple of other news items. The Sitrep will be my post for tomorrow.

In the meantime though, my continual soul-searching continues in respect of how on earth I am going to translate my idea for the Balkans in the late 17th/early 18th century into a gaming reality. If you recall I have most of the figures I need courtesy of Eric's collection and Bill's generosity but I am having some doubts about my original plan for the armies. Virtually all of the figures are either Dixon, Foundry, Essex, Front Rank or Hinchliffe. Of these the only types I have any direct experience of painting are the Hinchliffe range and even that was a long time ago.

I make no secret of the fact that I am at best a reluctant painter of figures. Spencer Smiths or Minifigs I have no problems with; even the occasional foray into Hinchliffe I have even enjoyed, back in the days of flat colours, gloss varnish and unflocked bases.

As I went through the eleven crates of figures I was struck by the amount of Minifigs Eric used and I previously mentioned that these figures, although admirable to look at, do not really sit well alongside the more modern ranges. Personally I have no problem using them but I can understand why some gamers may well do.

The issue I will have with this lot will be the disposal of the same as I am thinking that whilst all the modern ranges will be snapped up the Minifigs collection may well take a lot longer.

The breadth of the Minifigs portion of the unpainted lead mountain is extensive and includes figures from the ECW up to the Seven Years War. There are some older 'telegraph pole' figures alongside the newer ranges which are now being produced by Caliver Books.

I must confess that seeing the range and coverage of the Minifigs figures in Eric's collection has given me much food for thought and if I am honest it has, in the space of a week, given cause for me to reassess my plans

I have a couple of ideas to run by Bill in connection with this part of the collection and so I will discuss the same with him this evening and the outcome will feature in the Sitrep tomorrow.

*"A week is a long time in politics"...Harold Wilson, former Labour Prime Minister and pipe smoker.

Wargaming Synchronicity and Carpe Diem

A selection of Venetian infantry. I found a rather good selection of these on Pinterest.

I am a huge believer in synchronicity - of multiple moving parts, seemingly unconnected but coming together in space and time to a particular end. Some may say that this is all coincidental and that there is no great plan in the overall scheme of things; or that one can be shaping the conclusion to suit the facts. I cannot comment on either of those two views but for me synchronicity has always had an air of inevitability attached to it. So it has been for me over recent weeks and in fact, going back over many years and including two visits to Corfu, two visits to Venice, two visits to Cyprus, two visits to Malta, three to Turkey and one to Crete. Probably even further back when you include being introduced to 18th century wargames in the first place at the former Newham Wargames club in the late 1970s as well the delights of the army and military history of the Sublime Porte, courtesy of Eric Knowles.

All of that history, of reading and visiting places touched by the great events of the past and thinking, always thinking about how they would game. Planning armies and discarding one design after another but still taking part in the occasional period specific game, just to stoke the embers of an idea, of a grand scheme.

I have always been attracted to wars or parts of wars that are not in the mainstream and so when anybody says Marlburian then straightaway thoughts of British, Dutch and French armies automatically spring to mind. For me it is the same thing with the Seven Years War - Britain, Prussia France and Austria first with everything else following up. I prefer the wars on the periphery - not necessarily smaller than the main theatres but, well, different. The armies are usually off balanced for one thing - meaning varying quantities of troop types as well as differing tactical considerations. For me this makes for a better game as both sides have different tools to use.

18th century Ottoman troops. Slightly later than what I am looking at but with little difference in attire.

I have always hankered after an Ottoman Turkish army - probably going back to when I was battered mercilessly by one trying to defend Vienna against hordes of Janissaries and a siege train I still have nightmares about. It always seemed to have that exotic 'wow' factor and I suppose it appealed to the inveterate tinkerer in me. There is such a diverse array of troop types and the army seemed geared up to be able to deal with any kind of opposition thrown at it. In many ways it reminded me of my Carthaginian army which was also a similar 'Swiss army knife' kind of set up although not quite as effective and certainly smaller!

I now have an Ottoman Turkish army suitable for the later 17th and 18th century. I politely declined the offer of Eric's painted version simply because armies of that scale (we are talking about thousands of figures) are no longer part of my gaming universe. I would never be able to use all of it and storing it would be beyond my resources. I toyed with taking a representative selection of figures from the collection - my standard 150 figures an army - but decided against this as the collection should remain intact for those that have more space, time and money than I.

The unpainted version is not as large but still tops out at over a thousand figures and includes Dixon, Essex, Foundry, Hinchliffe and Minifigs. The weakest portion is the cavalry as this virtually all Minifigs and so does not sit well alongside the infantry at all. It is no matter as I shall acquire what I need from elsewhere. I have selected the figures I shall be using and will make the final 'cut' once I have checked out a few sources.

What of the opposition? What do you plan to do with this lot? Well, and here comes the kind of synchronicity part, I have been looking long and hard at Eric's collection of unpainted models and have tried to work out what his plan was. I have no idea but it has crystallised a long dormant idea that resurfaced last year upon my return from Corfu.

The latter half of the 17th century and the early part of the 18th saw the Republic of Venice fight the Turks on a number of occasions. Ultimately the Turks were able to secure most of Southern Greece from the Venetians and indeed, it could have been a lot worse had the Austrians not come to the aid of Venice in 1716. The final war of 1714 to 1718 - the Second Morean War - ended with Venice becoming in effect an Austrian vassal  and the Turks ceding territory to Austria. The Turks kept much of the former Venetian Greek territory.

Eric had raised units for Venice for the period as well as a number of other Italian units as the armies of the Doges relied on the use of mercenaries alongside their militia and small number of regular units. The Turks had their usual core of Janissaries and Sipahis supported by locally raised volunteers and levies. The Austrians was a small regular army supported by the border forces of Croatia and similar.

It would be tempting to equate Eric's Venetians and Austrians with his imagi-nations of Umbriago and Bustenberg respectively but I have no certainty of this.

Janissaries accepting the Sultan's food - always a good sign as it meant that they were happy with their lot! Note the variety of dress except for the famous head gear.

My plan then, is to raise in addition to the Turks, three other representative forces for the period - Venice, Austria and Russia. These will be of a similar size to the Turks so 150 figures will be the order of the day. Taking some 600 figures from Eric's unpainted lead mountain will barely scratch the surface and in fact represents probably less than half a crate of figures.

If I am honest this idea may well have never seen the light of day were it not for the fact I am sorting through Eric's lead mountain and to be frank, it was simply too good an opportunity to pass up on as pretty well everything I need is right there.

I had never planned this, nor was the prospect of painting new style 28mm figures for the 18th century something I would have looked out for but, and this is the important part, many of the figures - particularly the Turks - lend themselves nicely to the old flat colours and dip approach which even I, with my well known pathological aversion to painting anything organic, can manage.

Of necessity I will need to invest in some material to support this project but surprisingly not to any great extent. I currently reckon around half a dozen books, a selection of bases and a number of cannon. For rules I have not really given much thought beyond The Pikemans Lament although I may take a look at Donnybrook. The Portable Wargame would work well or I may even take a look at something specifically Marlburian - perhaps even Maurice, about which I have heard many good things although the number of figures I will be using may be too little.

Let us not forget the naval dimension as well as Venice and Turkey fought a number of clashes in the Aegean sea.

There will be a lot to do with this and for sure it will be a slow burner but it certainly has the feeling of some kind of destiny about it. It has all the elements I enjoy from a gaming perspective as well as appealing to my sense of the exotic.

Carpe Diem for sure but with a long and convoluted ribbon of synchronicity wrapping it all up.

The Block On Effect

So much for me scaling back the blog posts due to readying my book proposal! Well at least this post is relevant to the book and so scrapes in under the wire as being worthy of mention....

A welcome bag of blocks - three quarter size. Note the Jutland ship block - I have both fleets ready in this fashion - and also the small quarter size block destined for use as a command, unit identifier and facing piece.

Now that the Christmas and New Year festivities are over I took the opportunity to tidy the man cave in readiness for the spring campaign season. The focus gaming wise will be very much Portable Wargame based so I took a close look at what I have completed and what will need attending to - both for the block armies and terrain. Whilst doing this I came across a bag of blocks that I had not done anything with other than having a quarter section lopped off. These quarter sections are what I shall be using as command blocks with the national flag and unit identification number. This in turn will help to tie in the game narratives to the action and indeed, is essential for helping to tell which way the unit is facing.

A closer look at the sizes and the Jutland based block

Back in the day I had made use of the three quarter sized sized blocks to stick the printed Avalon Hill Jutland counters I have (since replaced with the real thing). I had flirted with making some ship labels for naval gaming sing the blocks but never really pursued the idea with any great conviction. The upshot of this is that I found a carrier bag full of three quarter sized blocks - some 150 or so - that I had forgotten about.

Now here is the thing. I need to make a further set of blocks with black and white as the main colour - for use as Austrians primarily - which would mean getting these blocks cut into a 30mm and a 15mm size. Aside from getting to the chap that cut the originals for me this would presents little difficulty. The only thing is I am now seriously thinking about a naval block system and so will need a quantity of the three quarter blocks. I have plenty of time to think about this though and for sure I will need to park the idea for a while.

My proposal for the book is virtually finished - I merely need to check a couple of points of detail - and so that will be winging its way to the commissioning editor in about a week or so. I will then need to wait whilst he does his thing and then, all being well, we should be good to go come early March. Then all I have to do is write it....

Army Level Napoleonic Considerations

Another map of Waterloo showing the topography in a little more detail. Note the areas of higher ground missing from the previous map.

As part of the preparation process in respect of my Corps level horse and musket rules I am currently revisiting some old friends in respect of the books in my Napoleonic library. Needless to say 1815 features quite prominently although there are other titles on the wars against Napoleon present. What I am looking at are orders of battle for the three combatants.

I am planning on three types of game which will use broadly similar gaming mechanics with each tailored to suit the command level of the action being fought. The levels of command can best be shown as follows:

Level of Commander    Main unit of Command    Sub unit of Command

Army                              Corps                                   Division
Corps                              Division                              Brigade
Division                          Brigade                               Battalion

Using the above structure as a guide my plan at this stage is to use a single half block to represent each sub unit. This means that a Army level Main unit is a Corps which is turn made up of Divisions acting at Sub units and consist of a half block for each division and any accompanying cavalry, artillery and other assets. The end result is a formation of around half a dozen or so blocks depending on the organisation being represented.

Moving down a step and the Corps level game then the Division is the Main unit and is made up of a number of Brigades, again with each being represented by a single half block. As Divisions varied in composition in respect of the number of constituent Brigades these could also be anything from two half blocks upwards in size.

Finally at the lowest end of the scale we have the Divisional level game where the Main units are Brigades with the Sub units being individual Battalions.

From the outset you can see that there is a degree of similarity in the composition of the units at each level of action being fought. A Corps in the Army level game may have three divisions of infantry (represented by 3 half blocks), some cavalry and artillery (represented by a half block each) meaning the entire formation may consist of around 5 half blocks. A Division in the Corps level game may have 3 Brigades of infantry (again each of a half block) as well as some supporting cavalry and artillery (represented by a half block each). Finally a Brigade in the Divisional level game could typically feature three or four Battalions each of a single half block with supporting cavalry and artillery again represented by single half blocks if required.

Taking all that into consideration it would be beyond the realm of possibility to have a Main unit from each level of game that is the same size on the tabletop e.g. a Corps of 4 Divisions, a Division of 4 Brigades or a Brigade of 4 Battalions (admittedly this would be rather on the large side!). The use of a unit roster for recording combat losses and also 'what goes where and with whom' is essential given the variable scale of engagement I am considering. With these rules your printer will be your friend!

A print of the battle by William Heath. Coincidentally the pseudonym he used in the 1820s - Paul Pry, after a snooping theatrical character - is the name of a public house in my home town of Rayleigh. I was struck by the similarity of style with the later works by Kurz and Allison depicting the ACW and providing the inspiration for my Spencer Smith project.

Thoughts on Scales

This is very simple in that the only scale I am going to be consistent with is that a single half block will equal one unit/formation. The ground scale is fluid and so will expand and contract as required by the command level of the game being fought as will the associated battlefield topography.

Thoughts on Combat

This will be D6 based and the only constant is that a single D6 will be used for combat by each individual half block regardless of type. There will be no modifiers to consider as such as combat results will be dependent on the effects table being used which will take into consideration such things as terrain, range, attacker/defender situational advantage/disadvantage, troop quality - you know, all the usual stuff.

Plenty to be getting on with then.

Finally facing my Waterloo....

Even after nearly 50 years of reading about it, watching it and gaming it using figures, cardboard counters and blocks the Battle of Waterloo still has the power to move, excite and fire my imagination!

When you look at the map above what do you see? This is a stylised interpretation of that most famous of battles: Waterloo in 1815. Looking closely you can see some of the major topographical features - the road network, towns and villages, woods and waterways - and the approximate starting positions for the major formations that took part in the battle. The map also shows the various attacks and counterattacks that took place during the battle and the approximate times these occurred. The terrain appears to be flat with no significant relief to be seen so we can safely assume that the countryside the battle was fought over was, by and large, gently rolling fields and meadows. As a high level map this does the job reasonably well.

Looking at the way the units are depicted on the map one is straightaway faced with a number of questions. What does each block represent? What units are where? How strong was each unit? Who commanded what?

If one could enlarge the map scale then these points, rather like focusing a camera, become clearer in that one would expect the various blocks to subdivide into smaller blocks e.g. a corps block would split into divisional blocks which in turn would break down into brigades then battalions. All the while the terrain would become more detailed so that if one were to look at a map of the battle at battalion level it would look very different to the above.

This is a very obvious point but what it serves to show is that a single block labelled similarly to the above could serve quite happily as anything from a corps to a battalion. As long as one preserves the appropriate level of detail in the organisation of the forces, the terrain being fought over and the scope of the rules being used for the scale of action being depicted all should be well.

The best way I can think of to describe the above is when you are coming in to land in an aircraft. As you descend to earth the details in the countryside become larger and clearer the closer one gets to the ground and so by extension should the armies being represented and the battlefields one is fighting over.

Due to my lifelong interest in the campaign of 1815 I shall be using this as a test bed for the army level rules I am devising and indeed, depending on how it works out it may even feature in my book but there is  a lot of ground to covered before we get to that stage.

The first step I shall be undertaking is to, in effect, translate the orders of battle into game sized units. At this stage the only decision I have reached is that a single half block will equal a brigade sized formation so a typical division will contain a number of these (typically anything from 3 to 6) plus the all important command/identification block. In order to achieve this I shall be making use of the Napoleon Returns Volley and Bayonet supplement as well as the order of battle from Columbia Games: Napoleon (3rd edition). I will also call upon the various books I have about the campaign in my library. This should be fairly straightforward although I will need to be careful not to overdo the artillery element.

As far as the rules themselves are concerned I have a number of avenues I am investigating but at this stage it is fair to say that the end result will feature a number of game mechanics that have been seen elsewhere although with a couple of 'Crookisms' thrown in for good measure.

Onwards and upwards then!

Big Ideas and Small Steps

First of all, a very happy new year to one and all! Ours was a quiet one spent listening to a classic 70s/80s soul/jazz and funk playlist on YouTube whilst waiting for the midnight hour and the fireworks accompanied by a couple of very nice Gin and Tonics. It has been a number of years since we went out to see in the New Year but it does not matter as we still ritually link arms and sing ‘Auld Lang Syne’ at the appointed time - this year with our 8 year old grandson as well which he enjoyed immensely.

My main gaming effort for the coming year is of course my book. I am really excited about this (naturally!) and will be providing regular-ish updates as it progresses. I have the framework pretty much nailed down and without giving too much away it is devoted to fighting a variety of battles using block armies rather than figures. It is very early days and so I am not expecting it to be viable for publication until the latter part of the year. There will be play testing to be undertaken, photoshoots to be organised, not to mention proof reading of the initial draft - or in other words plenty to be getting on with.

Without going into finite detail I intend having three sets of rules and example games for each level of battle - from army sized engagements through divisional level down to battalion/brigade sized actions. There is a lot of other stuff that will be included and it is worth pointing out that the rules contained therein would be equally at home using figures so for non block gamers try not to be put off by the fact that the title will include the word BLOCKS!

I am starting at the top with the rules in that the army level game will be the first set that I tackle. The rationale for this is simple because when I first devised my block armies they were intended for use on a large scale. I allowed myself to get distracted in a way by the use of Command and Colours type rules culminating in Bob Cordery’s excellent Portable Wargame series. I have no regrets about following this tangent but it was never what the block armies were all about. Without a doubt Bob’s rules have given me much pleasure and indeed, they have established themselves as my ‘go to’ system for lower level games but recent events (mainly Andy Callan’s outstanding War of the Spanish Succession game using full sized Jenga blocks - the rules for this set up are superb) have served to remind me of what I had originally intended gaming with the blocks.

My plan was to be able to fight large scale Napoleonic battles - both historical and fictional - involving multiple corps on a 6ft by 4ft table. The forces used would follow historically accurate orders of battle where applicable and the basic half block would represent a brigade sized formation. A roster system would be used for recording combat losses as well enabling the all important order of battle to assume its rightful place in the order of things.

The rules I am working on for this project have received inspiration from various sources but, and this is the key point, they are intended to fight an army level GAME rather than be an uber-detailed simulation. They will be stylised and with a degree of abstraction but they will (hopefully) capture the all-important ‘feel’ of the period in question. My aim originally was to be able to fight Waterloo on a 6ft by 4ft table and so it will be no surprise that this particular battle will feature as part of the play testing, possibly even in the book itself.

There are a few other bits and pieces that will feature in the book and indeed, in many ways it would be very easy for a further volume to follow as the ideas I have would certainly be sufficient to write one!

With matters block-related being very much ‘front and centre’ it means that everything else will need to be self contained and modest in scope. Cruel Seas will feature (assuming it ever arrives that is...) and also some other WW1 and WW2 naval stuff but in a manner that may surprise you. Aside from these there is of course the Spencer Smith Kurz and Allison ACW project. I now have everything I need for this in terms of figures but, inevitably there is a curve ball in the shape of Rebels and Patriots - the forthcoming ‘Lion Rampant’ style rules due out later this month. Individual or multi-bases? That is the question!

Well that is me, so I hope that your own project list for this year works out - probably better than mine if truth be told if past experience is anything to go by!

Revisiting an Original Idea

The first version of the block armies. I many ways I think I may have gone slightly too far down the half block route as there are practical advantage to using the larger, full-sized blocks. I may look to go down the ‘half and half’ route and use a mixture of both types.

As part of the latest round of my block adventures I made a point of locating the original set I made way back in 2011. These were the original full sized versions rather than my later half-block standard. I knew I had squirrelled some away in an old biscuit tin but I was quite surprised to see just how many there are. I had only produced sets in three colours - red, green and blue. The latter is a lighter shade than I currently use but is still quite a pleasing hue. I used a stylised cannon for the artillery blocks and these, together with skirmishing infantry and cavalry, have double images on a single block. It seemed like a good idea at the time as it shows the unit operating in a much looser formation. I was never really enamoured with the command block I used in this scale as it was too large and it was for this reason I looked at the half-blocks. Originally I planned to use half blocks for command, artillery and light infantry and cavalry skirmishing.

I could readily bring these blocks up to what I am now calling the ‘the half and half standard’ - I would use the larger blocks solely for major infantry and  cavalry formations with the half blocks dotted in where needed. The only problem I have is that the blue blocks are a different shade to that I have used for the half blocks so some reprinting would be in order. I shall give this some thought and so may well tackle this over the Christmas holiday period. 

I must admit that seeing these blocks again was a real treat and served as a pleasing reminder of how much enjoyment the whole block concept has given me over the last six or seven years. They will feature in my book in some capacity and the temptation to fight a small game using them again is proving hard to resist!

Old Dog, New Tricks - Same Old Story!

The original version of Volley and Bayonet 

Napoleon Returns - one of the two Napoleonic themed supplements available with the other being for the 1809 campaign.

I am feeling a little on the embarrassed side. It is as though I have been trying to reinvent the wheel but of course the wheel is already in place and is perfectly serviceable as it is. For sure one could add some nice trim to the aforementioned wheel, perhaps even some glitzy chrome hubcaps or similar even, but the essential truth is that the tools for my large battle block game are already to hand - and I had completely forgotten about them!

Actually to say I had forgotten about them is not entirely accurate - I was aware of them but not exactly what was there to work with. Confused? I thought as much so allow me to explain.

Way back in 2012, during the height of the great block army growing pains, I messed around with a couple of ideas involving Volley and Bayonet by Messrs. Chadwick and Novak and Napoleon by Columbia Games (3rd Edition - and this is important as will be explained later). I even threw into the mix elements of DBA and also Bob Cordery's Memoir of Battle  - a Command and Colours based 19th century rule set minus the command cards. I took parts from each, mixed them up and tried to squeeze them into a hex-based set of rules that were unwieldy, unplayable and unsurprisingly 'fell at the first'.  However, and this is the important part, I made copious notes.

I suspect most readers of this blog are probably inveterate scribblers. I would go further and suspect that many have a number of notebooks or hastily penned scraps of paper lying around along with photocopied magazine articles, downloaded play sheets and all manner of written and printed material. In this particular case I had an A5 sized hardback notebook (I prefer these as they last longer when being carried around) with a lot of material in it relating to my plan to devise an army level set of block based Napoleonic wargame rules. I knew about the notebook but had forgotten exactly what was in it. In fact all I remembered for sure that was in the notebook were the Columbia Games order of battle charts. I was in for a very pleasant surprise.

The third edition version of Napoleon by Columbia Games. This version represented every division in the order of battle for all three armies. The map used to get pretty congested with blocks!

For reasons of convenience I had handwritten the tactical combat rules from Columbia Games Napoleon as well as photocopying the orders of battle from the game and sticking these into the end pages as a reference. I had also handwritten the complete order of battle from Napoleon Returns - the Volley and Bayonet supplement for the 1815 campaign - with strength points, exhaustion levels and morale and training ratings. I then when one step further and drafted not one but two variant sets of rules - De Bellis 1815 and Memoir of 1815. Admittedly these two are in fact incomplete but reading through them as I did last night they would not take much work to get table ready.

It is typical of me (the 'Same Old Story!' of the title) that not only do I no longer own a copy of Columbia Games Napoleon but that I have also disposed of both Volley and Bayonet and Napoleon Returns. Having the key information from both is extremely useful and so, in conjunction with the ideas of Charles Wesencraft and more recently, Andy Callan, I have plenty of material to work with in respect of realising a block based army level set of wargame rules.

The stylised battle board used with Columbia Games Napoleon....

....and the same in action - Prussians versus the French.

Sample labels from the third edition. The blocks are rotated as they sustain losses with the top edge showing the current combat strength point. As the labels face the owning player there is an inbuilt fog of war effect. Under the system I was working on and using the above as an example the Old Guard would have four 'brigade' blocks when at full strength.

Mention of Columbia Games Napoleon and the tactical rules contained therein reminded me of the idea I was considering in respect of the playing area. In the game itself when battle is joined on the map the blocks are then transferred to a battle board to fight he combat. This is divided into areas as shown in the picture above. Units (for this game the blocks represent divisions) fight for control of areas and the winner of the battle is the first person to clear an area of enemy troops. It is simple but works well in the context of the game. It would probably be a little too light as a standalone game but I reckon there is mileage in it to make it a little more 'wargamey'. It is an option to consider for sure.

Volley and Bayonet (I am referring to the original version) operates at a lower level than the Columbia Games offering and instead uses the brigade as its base unit size. As I recall my plan was to fuse the two approaches so that the strategic map moves were at divisional level and the tactical battles arising were to be fought using brigades. A typical Columbia Games divisional block has a strength of 3 or 4 which loosely represents the number of brigades or actual soldiery present. The plan was to use a single block to represent a brigade sized formation with the Volley and Bayonet strength points determining the number of combat dice used.

Where this all fell down was in trying to get it all to work on a hex grid which was why I abandoned the attempt. Now however, I am far better prepared to be able to make this a more viable idea and so for the umpteenth time I have offered up a prayer of thanks to the wargaming gods for hanging on to the notebook, even if I did rather foolishly let the game and the rules go!

Napoleonic Battles in the Grand Manner

Published in 1974 but now available from John Curry's History of Wargaming project

It never ceases to amaze me when the metaphorical wheel completes a revolution and comes back to where it started. The case in point is my long association with the Napoleonic Wars. I say long association deliberately because it was the period I cut my wargaming teeth on back in the early 1970s. I have mentioned previously my long gone but not forgotten Airfix British Army for 1815, my 1812 Russian Army and the 15mm 1815 set up I owned specifically for use with a set of rules called Le Petit Empereur. I have also mentioned my flirtation with Command and Colours Napoleonics and even a 54mm lawn based H.G. Wells style refight of the Battle of Leipzig, not to mention the naval side of the wars.

In short the Napoleonic Wars have given me much, if intermittent, pleasure over the years and so, for a variety of reasons, I now find myself staring down the barrel of dabbling in the period once again, albeit in different way from previously.

I am looking long and hard at army level actions - in effect fighting big battle/operational campaigns. This is a piece of pure indulgence for me as this is the type of game I wanted to fight years ago – in fact I messed around using Lego bricks as the units which will probably give you an idea about the vintage of this particular idea! Nowadays of course I use blocks of a rather different type. Having said that Lego is a great source for making simple 1:300^th scale buildings, at least the earlier ‘non model specific’ sets were and whilst I do not have any to hand I will build a few so you can see what I mean.

Whilst looking at this as an idea the first thing that crossed my mind was the inevitable question about rules. This style of action represents quite a step up in scale from my recent games and so a different approach will be needed. 

There are a few sets of rules pitched at this level - for example Blucher by Sam Mustafa or something like Volley and Bayonet, both of which have much to commend them. At this stage though I have something else in mind.

Way back in 1974 Charles Wesencraft published the book you see above. I recently acquired a copy of this and was really pleased to do so as I remember reading it 'back in the day' and being hugely impressed with it. The author's ideas seemed pretty advanced at the time although there was one set of rules contained therein that really caught my imagination and indeed, have stayed with me, waiting in the wings, until I was at the same level as the concept. I am of course referring to his 'Army Corps in Action' rules contained in chapter 11 of the book.

These rules use the following scales:

12" equal 1 mile

600/700 men equal 1 infantry base

400 men equal 1 cavalry base

1 gun model equal 1 battery.

I seem to recall an article by Charles Wesencraft in - and I stand to be corrected - a Battle Christmas special where he looked to fight battles where a single figure represented a battalion so in effect a typical base of three or four figures would represent a brigade. By extension a couple of normal infantry units of around 18 figures each would furnish in effect a Corps. 

As an aside if any readers have a copy of this (or whatever magazine it was published in!) magazine I would really appreciate a scan of the article.

Now I am going to throw in my two pence worth and say that a rule set on this basis would be better served by using either very small figures - 2/3/6mm - or, dare I say it, BLOCKS!

Old school I know but it is something I want to tick off the wargames bucket list. Assuming it works out I would even look to taking the rules into other directions as I reckon there is a degree of mileage in them.

Flags for the Memory

One of the key areas in respect of using the block armies on a non-grid basis is the question of unit identification and facing. Neither of these ever seemed particularly important when using a grid but on a free table are a significant factor. I have experimented with a number of options as to how best I can tackle this including using miniature flag poles in some fashion but for a number of reasons this has not really worked the way I would like. I had a brainwave though, in part inspired by Andy Callan’s Spanish Succession set up. By placing a flag on a block you have an easy way of identifying a particular unit. That is all well and good but sadly for my set up it only works up to a point.

Ignore the green label although the position will be the same for the flag in due course. The top half of the label will be the flag itself whilst the bottom will be white with an identifying number or letter

The single drawback concerns the thorny question of whether or not to use regimental colours or national standards. Regimental colours would be fine is one was representing a specific unit but given that my collection is used for multiple periods the use of such distinctions would mean producing numbers of blocks for various periods as unit flags evolved and presumably added various battle honours. By far and away the simplest method would be to use a national flag with some kind of identifying feature which in turn would be referenced back to the army roster. That was my line of reasoning in any event and so that is what I am going to do.

When I was making the block armies I has a number of sets cut not only in half but also into a quarter and three quarters. The three quarter blocks I intended to use for naval forces whilst the quarter size - ended up being used for various status markers. They appeared in one of my Rogan Valley battles as markers for hidden units. I have decided though that these are far more useful being turned into in effect command groups. By placing a national flag and a reference number or letter on one of these small blocks I will be able to kill several birds with one stone.

A unit deployed in line with the command in the van



A column of march - once again with the command in the van



A column of attack with the command in the van spurring on their troops.

A square with the colours in the centre.

To begin with the unit will have an identity of sorts. I realise that it would only be from a national perspective but this will suffice for the time being. The reference number or letter will help with the use of the roster as well as drawing deployment maps. Finally, the position of the command block will be able to show the facing of the unit depending on where it is placed in relation to the blocks forming the body of troops being represented. The pictures below will show what I mean.

For the record the blocks I use are 60mm by 20mm and are 12mm deep. For comparison purposes one could say they are 10/12mm which helps as a useful guide for making or buying terrain. The quarter size block mentioned is 15mm wide or half the size of one my usual half blocks.

I am currently working out how many flags I will need for the most common armies and once I have done that I will get them ordered. Once the blocks have been labelled with their flags I believe it will really enhance their appearance and so I am looking forward to doing this and getting them into action.

My Terrain of Thought

One of the objectives that I set out to achieve whilst using my block armies is that the resultant games should look as close to a 'traditional' wargame as possible. I was keen to move away from the 'map and counter' style of board games but realised very early on that using detailed model scenery in conjunction with the blocks did not look right. What was needed then, was a more stylised approach.

Kriegsspiel 1824. Note the very detailed map in use.

Most of the games I have fought using the block armies have made use of some very basic and simple pieces of terrain. Buildings are usually from the Town in a Bag range or from my collection of Greek souvenir ceramic houses. I have a number of rather crude hills - cobbled together quickly and due to be replaced with something a little more suitable in due course - and for roads and rivers I use pieces of felt cut to size. I picked up a bag of 50 assorted trees off  EBay which look pretty good although the bases I used for them are rather large. I have yet to use any fields although making them is easy enough.

A version of the Hellwig chess inspired wargame from around 1780. The game was based originally on chess but was developed into what you see above.  The terrain would be arranged as required. By all accounts it was very popular.

Going forward I shall be persevering with the buildings but I shall be doing something a little more detailed in respect of roads, rivers and hills. I have always liked step hills so will look to organise some of these as well as road and river sections. Depending on what is available commercially I will probably buy these and am thinking that 1:300th would be a good place to start. I will also be rethinking trees as my own are a real mish-mash of types.

Command Post Games in the US produce a number of map based block wargames using reproductions of actual maps of the battles themselves.

I am not averse to using printed maps with the blocks and indeed, using them really puts one in mind of a commander poring over a map plotting the downfall of his enemy, but there are a few problems in my mind. Large maps are unwieldy and limited to the area they cover. Hand drawn maps are easy enough to produce - I have done this in the past many times - but again will be quite specific to the area covered unless of course they are fictional. Maps may have a certain degree of flexibility in that they can be geomorphic to an extent and certainly the Axis and Allies versions I have used are useful in this respect. However, for my needs the use of traditional wargames terrain will be the way forward.

Simple and effective - the church, walls and trees from the Town in a Bag set.

Military Map Symbols and the Changing of the Block

An example of NATO style military map symbols. The basic system is very flexible and allows for designing custom units as required.

A simpler guide produced by the Armchair General

Originally my block collection was going to be limited solely to the traditional horse and musket period - roughly 1700 to 1900. As a result my blocks were quite simple in design as the units to be represented were confined to horse, foot and guns. I borrowed the design for what I use as a command block from David Chandler's book the Campaigns of Napoleon. The sole customisation I have used for the original set is to differentiate between 'heavy' and 'light' types by the addition of a black or white band across the bottom edge of the block label when viewed from above. If I am honest I am now thinking that I did not really need to do this as leaving the blocks as per their original design an element of the fog of war is introduced as the opposition will not know what troops they are facing unless they recce or attack the unit in question. 

The block in the top left corner is my default command block based on The Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler. The mortar and machine gun block (middle row left and centre) will need changing slightly and the armour block (bottom left) will have the track symbol flattened out slightly.

Where the issue gets a little more complex is when you get to the modern period. The bewildering variety of troop types that make up a modern army - and by modern I mean from WW2 onwards - means that a lot more labels will be needed. For my own collection I have cheated slightly in that I have not created a label for every troop type. A unit of armoured infantry for example would be represented by three blocks - two normal infantry and an armour block. Similarly a tank destroyer or a self propelled artillery unit would consist of an anti tank gun or artillery block deployed with an armour block. This works reasonably well but as I am looking to expand the blocks on a more systemic basis I will need to incorporate newer types on a more formal basis.

At this stage the first order of business will be to identify where the gaps are in the existing collection are and then to set about designing the new labels. There are also some existing types that will need modifying in order to align them to the style I shall be using going forward.

I have sets of blocks in six colours with the brown, grey and olive set being primarily for the modern era although the grey set also serves as Confederates for the ACW. My plan is to expand these three colours to better reflect the modern era whilst the red, green and blue sets will have those modern blocks reused. In effect I will have what I like to call a mechanised set of blocks and also a horse and musket set with the latter also being useful for earlier periods.

Being Purely Representational....

The main types of block I currently use. These will be expanded by some additional types, primarily for the modern period.

There is a throwaway comment that is frequently used by the denizens of SEEMS which has assumed almost cult-like status. Describing something on the gaming table as being "purely representational" and delivered whilst dripping in irony, usually occurs at least once per game in my experience and it is guaranteed to generate rolled eyes and a modest chuckle or two. It is however, an expression that has within our wargaming world a far deeper significance than being a mere jest.

As wargamers we routinely represent military formations with 'x' number of models or figures. These are linked with whatever rule set is in use and so there is usually a figure scale so that a single model soldier will represent an certain number of their historical counterparts. This can vary hugely from 1:1  for a skirmish game up to, well, any number you like really. For the purposes of this post let us work on the basis of around 1:25. A 600 man battalion will be represented then by 24 model soldiers. Multiply that by a dozen and you have a representation of a good sized division with usually some cavalry and artillery to taste.

Once assembled, and in the company of a like minded acquaintance the models are deployed on a table top with some items of terrain and battle is joined. A few hours later a decision or 'life' intervenes, the models and terrain are packed away and the game discussed over a cup of tea or something stronger.

So what has taken place? A game of war for sure, but what exactly was being represented? In this rather obvious case, a divisional level battle. At this point I feel obliged to ask - how many gamers know of any 'pure' divisional level battles fought during the horse and musket period? I intended this as a rhetorical question and for what it is worth I have absolutely no idea what the answer is although I am sure that there were some!

We could take the above battle further in that player A and B called their respective forces 'armies' and so the dozen battalions could be viewed as representing larger components than the number of figures would indicate. How many of us I wonder, have said "Right, those two battalions represent the brigade/division of General 'X'? Quite a few I reckon.

Straightaway this perfectly natural solution to the eternal problem of space and enough figures has the effect of skewing anything that approximates to a ground or figure scale. But the units mentioned in the previous paragraph will still look like two twenty four figure units - or in other words will still be purely representational!

The point I am trying to get to here is that using model soldiers to fight wargames is absolutely fine but let us not kid ourselves that by doing so we are accurately representing the art of war in miniature. What we are doing is playing a game based on our understanding of war that is in effect a kind of movable diorama or, dare I say it, something that is purely representational. I am as guilty as the next person for doing this and will continue to do so because, quite simply, as a hobby, a game of war using model soldiers is, to quote Messrs. Young and Lawford, "....a magnificent indoor sport."

However, for the grand scale of what I want to represent using figures is not the solution I am looking for.

It will probably some as no surprise as to what I am going to mention next. That's right. Blocks - or as my good friend Mr Fox once drily observed, "A load of Blocks...."

An earlier version of modern vehicle labels available in three colours. I was pleased with the way the drawings came out but opted instead to stick with military symbols.

My fondness for using wooden blocks featuring labels using common military map symbols is well known but I want to point out the advantages of using them, practical and otherwise.

As students of military history looking at maps of great battles and campaigns are almost obligatory. A well drawn map that is clear and ably supported by a relevant narrative can really serve to place the gamer in the shoes of the commander in question. The flip side of this is where the map is poor and the narrative is vague - and I feel quite sure that any reader of this blog will have experienced both extremes during their own research into their own particular period of interest!

The symbols employed on most maps are fairly standard and the core types mainly originated during the 19th century and were 'formalised' by the US during the Great War. The saltire in a rectangle  represents the cross belts of an infantryman; the diagonal line represents the sabre belt of the cavalryman whilst the single round spot is the muzzle of a cannon. These are the standard types and of course these can be expanded upon within the same generic type to represent specialists. The one thing they do not represent though, at least in the way I have fashioned my own collection, is the size of the formation the block represents.

The most usual way to indicate the size of formation represented by a single symbol drawn on a map is to add a series of crosses onto the leading or top edge of the unit. The number of crosses represents the level of formation so, for example, a single cross may refer to a battalion, two crosses a brigade and so on. The key thing is with this method is the importance of having a guide to the sizes of the formations being represented so most books that feature military maps will routinely have a legend explaining what means what.

For my own purposes and, it must be said, quite by accident the block collection I have built can be used for any scale of formation by the simple expedient of recording on a roster what the level the formation represents. So three infantry blocks would be equally at home being used as platoons or anything up to a corps, obviously with the appropriate additional blocks for support types - cavalry and artillery for example.

The end result of this is that I can use them for any size of action - with no loss of visual effect - by merely adjusting the emphasis of the rules and terrain being used - a couple of buildings at platoon level represents just that whilst further up the hierarchy a single building may represent an entire town or even city (actually this raises a similar problem to using figures but that is for another post!).

Another early block battle and for some reason I never saved this to the Games folder. This was fought on November the 11th 2011 and featured those old combatants Fezia and Rusland

I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that the use of blocks to fight wargames is a viable alternative to using figures and indeed there are certainly a number of practical advantages. To begin with making a couple of sets is a very simple undertaking. Storage is very easy and the size of the blocks is such that scenery from 15mm downwards can be readily used. This point is very important as it means that a 6ft by 4ft table can represent a good sized area to fight over when running a large scale or army level game. Finally, by careful choice of colour schemes one can use block armies for a variety of periods and as a good example of this my red set can and has been used for actions fought across the entire time span that the British army wore the redcoat. I should also add the point that the use of blocks have a long and distinguished history when used for wargames from Kriegspiel onward.

I enjoy the flexibility that using the blocks gives me and when used with 3D terrain it really brings a gaming battlefield to life but in order to make the most of them there needs to be disciplined approach. As mentioned earlier any supporting narrative needs to be clear so that the action is more readily understandable. It also means that easy unit identification is important - more so as unlike with figures you cannot rely on looking at the facing colours or standards of a block to see who they are.

I shall be developing the block armies over the next year to take the collection to the next level. It will mean changing some and producing newer types as well as addressing the unit identification issue. I shall be fighting both on and off a grid based playing surface and at all levels from platoon actions up to army level battles. It also  means that I shall be looking long and hard at rule systems to support this evolving project, both from existing sets and from my own efforts.

I was mildly surprised to read the answer below I posted in response to a blog comment from 09/12/13 - just over five years ago.

"Many thanks for your kind words - they are much appreciated. I must confess that the visual success of the blocks I am using has really made think long and hard about whether or not I need to use figures ever again! The designs I have used have evolved over time and the biggest difficulty I experienced was whether or not to use images of the troops or the military symbols. I am so pleased that I stuck with the latter as it seems to add to the flexibility of the collection - which is an important consideration for one who has such wide-ranging interests!"

Prophetic words indeed!

It will probably come as no surprise to learn that I am currently undertaking the ground work to produce a book on wargaming using blocks and other alternatives to figures and this will be the big project for next year.

From the figures perspective my efforts will be directed at the Kurz and Allison Spencer Smith ACW project with the two forces based on the organisation featured in Charge! by the aforementioned Messrs. Young and Lawford. I am looking forward to this as it is being undertaken with a specific look and aim in mind. I have not abandoned using figures by any means but for the most part what I want to do I can tackle far more easily using blocks. After all, one has to maintain one's hobby safely in the actual purely representational figure world rather than relying on the exclusively purely representational block world.