The first play-test was fought on a map/tabletop that was a 6 x 8 hexed grid that measured 55cm x 85cm (21.7" x 33.5"). The battle was very enjoyable, and I had great fun trying out the first draft of the rules BUT I wonder if a bigger grid might have produced a longer and somewhat more tactically interesting battle.
This set me thinking, and I looked at what the map/tabletop might have looked like has a doubled the dimensions of the grid in both direction and ended up with a 12 x 16 hexed grid. I therefore took the original map ...
... and superimposed a red 12 x 16 hex on it.
My immediate reaction was to think that something along these lines would produce a potentially much more interesting series of battles as there was lots more to manoeuvre and the cities would be large enough for some FIBUA to take place. There would also be space to add some hills, something that was missing from my first play-test map/tabletop.
I then 'converted' this so that the main terrain elements would fit on a 12 x 16 hexed grid.
I then repeated this process, this time using an overlaying the original map with a red 12 x 20 squared grid ...
... which I then 'converted' so that the main terrain elements would fit on a 12 x 20 squared grid.
To me, the result looked a little unbalanced, and I altered the map slightly by moving everything one column to the left. The end result looked like this:
I think that this is a much better map as it looks far more balanced.
If I used 4-inch/10cm squares, this map would produce a 48-inch/120cm x 80-inch/200cm tabletop, which is a bit too large for my wargame table BUT if I used 2-inch/5cm squares, it would result in a 24-inch/60cm x 40-inch/100cm tabletop … which would easily fit on my table or even a large coffee table.
Please note that you can enlarge the maps shown above by clicking on them.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Bob, your new maps are very helpful to me in combining Shambattle with Morschauser's gridded game. The latter used a one inch grid, which would either give one more countryside over which to fight that could incorporate more terrain features, or a smaller, very portable game that could fit on an old boardgame board.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that the original SB did not really consider, being a child's toy soldier game, was what sorts of formations the troops represented. The use of individually-based toy soldiers created a sort of 'skirmish' game, but the presence of towns and cities would suggest each grid area would actually be quite large, so that the armies - in the H&M era - would need to be at least division, if not corps, strength.
In Morschauser's similar game map, the cities are forts and the other BUAs are villages.
Much depends, IMO, on the period setting and the level of game one wants. If I was using the map for an ECW game, for example, the cities would become a fortified manor house or small medieval castle and the towns villages that could be raided for supplies/livestock/taxes by the opposing garrisons.
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI actually had you in mind when I drew the larger, square grid version of the ShamBattle map … and having drawn it, it strikes me as being a better map/tabletop than the hex grid version. Not only that, but it is easier for potential users to replicate.
By moving to multiple-figure bases, I think that it becomes much easier to see the SB/PW hybrid as something that represents a higher-level conflict rather than a skirmish.
I’d not thought about using the rules and map for other periods, but your suggestions make a lot of sense. Having read them, my mind immediately turned to the sort of raids conducted by the Border Rievers. All you’d need would be to add some simple rules for herding cattle or sheep. It’s certainly something to think about.
All the best,
Bob
I like the larger grid, I think it will produce a more interesting and challenging game with more of a campaign feel, as opposed to a battle.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteI agree that the larger grid gives players more opportunity to fight a campaign rather than an extended battle. The increased number of grid areas allows both sides space to manoeuvre their forces.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteHaving read this posting, of course, I was forced to check out how the thing might be adapted to my own tables. Being more square than oblong doesn't seem to make all that much difference, and, as my hexes are oriented the other way, that had to be investigated as well.
I'll post on my blog how the maps look. Just one thing: I am VERY uneasy about the effect those marshes(?) would have on the action. I'd rather they were tracts of brush - more permeable and therefore more interesting country to fight in, I think.
I thought this might be a theatre for some border clash between the forces of Ruberia and Azuria, and use those armies according. It remains to work out the Orders of Battle.
Meanwhile, I've been giving some thought to a Second Blacklands War (inter alia) and the orders of battle for the respective armies. I think this will look rather different from the first, using my hex-table, for some rather larger scale battles. I thought I would 'tease out' your OOBs by scaling 1 stand = 1 brigade. Most Divisions would be 3 infantry stands, plus a stand each of artillery, MGs and cavalry where called for. The Divisional artillery and MGs would be 1SP each, but, as there would be far more artillery and MGs than my armies possess, methought to have the option of merging 2x1SP stands into 1x2SP stand.
Infantry stands would be 2SP each except for the Bulgarian, which would be 3SP the time.
As this war would continue on from my First Blacklands War, it will be quite a departure from the real Second Balkans War (the ascent of Turcowaz martial capacity really was a nuisance!), with some very peculiar alliances and enmities.
I'll write up that lot in due course.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteI can see no reason why the basic ShamBattle map cannot be made squarer or the hexes reorientated. The only limitations are the ones that we set ourselves.
I can also see no reason why the marshes could not be replaced by scrub or thick undergrowth. It’s something that I’ve been thinking about doing. Likewise, the river boundary could be replaced by a simple border fence or a range of hills, with the existing bridges becoming passes through those hills.
I think that a variant of the ShamBattle map would be ideal for border skirmishes between Ruberia and Azuria … and look forward to you using it to do just that!
I’ve been looking forward to reading about the Second Blacklands War ever since the First Blacklands War ended, and your projected OOB’s make a great deal of sense to me. I await further developments with gleeful anticipation!
All the best,
Bob
The larger area is a definite improvement in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI'm also interested by Arthur's thoughts on changing the period the Shambattle is set in - a whole new set of ideas come to mind!
Maudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteI agree; this is an example where bigger is certainly better!
I have a feeling that Arthur Harman will have more to write about the uses of ShamBattle for other periods.
All the best,
Bob
Nicely done, Bob 👍🏼. My personal preference is the 20 x 10 squares grid, which looks like there is plenty of room for manoeuvre + I veer towards squares rather than hexes…(also, wondering what the prevalence of malaria is in Blueford- looks perfectly placed, regardless of wind direction, to get the full attention of the local mossies 😶).
ReplyDeleteMartin S.,
DeleteI must admit that I thought that the squared grid leant itself better to the ShamBattle/PW hybrid map/tabletop, and may well pursue this idea a bit further.
You are right about the swamp. In a Matrix Game I suspect that someone would argue that any troops staying close by would suffer a depletion in its strength the longer it stayed there!
All the best,
Bob