The Portable Ironclads Wargame….A Self Critique

C.S.S. Tennessee heading into the fray

I was, and still am, very proud of The Portable Ironclads Wargame. It was my first venture into the world of book writing and I thoroughly enjoyed the whole process. The book was always intended to be the first step in a grid based ironclad era gaming system that would combine the flavour of Bob Cordery’s Gridded Naval Wargame rules with the detail of David Manley’s Dahlgren and Colombiad set. Ideally I wanted to use squares but settled on hexagons because at the time I was not able to get squares to work in the way I wanted to. 

The format of the book - with grateful thanks to Bob Cordery for his editing and publishing skills, not to mention his contributions to the book itself - I am particularly pleased with as I wanted an ‘old school’ vibe in terms of content and so the end result ticked that particular box quite comfortably in my opinion.

It is not without its faults.

There are a a couple of known typos and some errors in a few of the combat examples - nothing major but irritating all the same. The wording of the rules in places suffers from the occasional lapse into what can best be described as ‘political bloviation’ - when the author himself has to reread sections to be sure of the meaning then you know there is a problem!

I am happy with the combat/damage system overall, but there are a couple of niggles that will be addressed in the revised edition - mainly around tidying up the text to make things clearer.

As mentioned previously, the existing firing arcs will be tweaked slightly and there will be the option to use a square grid as well as the original hexagonal version. Then of course there will be a suite of optional/advanced rules to use as required.

The revised edition will not be reinventing the wheel and so owners of the original edition will certainly not have any concerns about wholesale changes to rules etc. Inevitably with any set of rules, gremlins of one kind or another usually surface and the Portable Ironclads Wargame is no exception.

If I were marking this book as a school report I would be happy to give it a B+/A- with the following commentary:

“David has grasped the essence of his chosen subject well but his natural exuberance and enthusiasm has sometimes overshadowed his grasp of the detail. With greater application and forethought I am sure he will, in time, be better placed to grasp the nuances of the subject in hand.”

The above was taken from one of my actual school reports from 1972 - oh well, 52 years later and I suppose that seems like a good idea, perhaps I should try it…. :-)

Thoughts on Firing

Pipe cleaner bow waves and cotton wool gunsmoke - the former indicating ships that have moved this turn, the latter for ships that have fired after their movement. Looking at the above you can see that the current game turn has ended and only the sloop would be free to fire at the start or end of its next move, the other two would have to wait until the end of their movement. If a ship does not fire at all during their turn then any smoke markers are removed. The markers you see will be replaced with something a little more aesthetically pleasing in due course!

During the recent test of the alternate move sequence and move/fire, fire/move idea - both of which seemed to work quite well - I was reminded of one of the small niggles that seems to have grown into something requiring a bit of a rethink. The offending system is of course that of firing.

I am happy with the two step approach - rolling to hit and then rolling for damage based on any successful hits scored - and would still like to use this but I am now less convinced that reducing the number of D6 rolled to hit by range makes for a fun game. All too often ships are rolling single D6s at range which just seems a little flat. I am now leaning towards allowing the full number of gun dice to be rolled, regardless of range but with modifiers to the D6 rolls to reflect diminishing accuracy. This is complicated by two things. Firstly, under the existing system potential hits are scored with a roll of 4 or 5 for a single hit and a roll of 6 for two hits. Clearly this is problem when using specific scores to hit because one could then have the situation where a maximum range shot requiring a 6 to score a hit would in fact mean that the roll of a 6 would score two hits! 

My solution would be to shift the 4 or 5 equalling a single hit and 6 being two hits to the damage resolution rolls so that firing to hit would be the number of gun dice the ship carries modified by range. The idea I have in mind looks something like this:

Guns with a range of 4 (penetration factor of 2 or less)

1 - 3, 4, 5 or 6

2 - 4, 5 or 6

3 - 5 or 6

4 - 6

Guns with a range of 6 (penetration factor of 3 or more)

1 - 3, 4, 5 or 6

2, 3 - 4, 5 or 6

4, 5 - 5 or 6

6 - 6

Damage rolls would follow the normal 4 or 5 for a single damage point and 6 for two damage points - this of course being modified by the penetration factor versus the armour factor. 

It is very early on with this alternative idea but I believe it has potential. My rationale is that rolling great handfuls of dice is an enjoyable mechanic and makes for a banter filled game! 

Thoughts on the Revised and Expanded Edition

With apologies for the poor picture quality, the newly commissioned C.S.S. Tennessee steams gallantly towards the Union blockading ships.

As mentioned in my recent post I am planning to fight a small test action this weekend, pitting the newly commissioned C.S.S. Tennessee trying her luck against a Union sloop and a monitor. In many ways this will be similar to Hampton Roads with the exception that the old navy sloop will not be aground! I also mentioned that there are a couple of optional rules I am trying out that, assuming they are successful, will appear in the Portable Ironclads Wargame Revised and Expanded edition later in the year.

The two rules cover the turn sequence and firing and  remember, these are optional.

Alternate Movement.

In the original version of the rules players rolled for initiative with the winner having the choice of moving first or second with all their ships. As an option I am allowing players to alternate movement based on the initiative roll. My rationale for this is that I believe it will better reflect the organised chaos of most ACW naval actions as ships jockey for position whilst being mindful of the opposition. If using this method then some means of marking a ship that has moved is required and for this I shall be using sort lengths of white pipe cleaner folded into a ‘V’ shape and placed on the ship’s bow. This represents a bow wave and so as each ships moves it will become clear who has and it is an easy way to keep track. When all the ships are thus adorned the turn is over and these markers are then removed during the first phase of the next game turn.

Move and Fire, Fire and Move.

This option changes the sequence of play in that the firing phase is dispensed with as it now fits in with movement. The plan is for ships to be able to fire at the start of their move or at the end. Ships that opt to do the latter should have a marker representing gun smoke placed by them which then stays in place until the end of the ships next move (these are not removed at the start of the next turn. In effect a ship that fires at the end of a turn will not be able to fire again until the end of the next turn, assuming it wants to. If it does not then the smoke marker is removed and the ship is then free to fire either at the start or the end of the following move.

Both of these rules will force extra decision making on the respective commanders as timing suddenly becomes critical. In truth I was a little wary of these ideas as I figured that it may slow things down a little but but careful ‘marker management’ all will be later and besides, seeing bow waves and gun smoke adds to the visual appeal which is no bad thing.