Thomas Gleason - one of the contributors to the Portable Wargame Facebook page - posed an interesting question a few days ago:
Not sure if anyone is familiar with a Hare & Hounds board. ... The layout got me thinking about utilizing this type of movement for certain types of terrain ....
A typical Hare & Hounds board.
He then goes on to suggest that units in built-up area might be able to move diagonally whereas those in forests would have to move in a straight line up and down the board unless they were on a road. He then asked:
Has anyone attempted to use this style of movement in a 3 x 3 game. Maybe (it) would add too much complexity and blocking within such a small space.
Hare & Hounds is a two-player strategy game that was popular in northern Europe from the medieval period until the 19th century. The rules are very simple: The hare is trying to get past three hounds who are trying to surround and trap it. The three hounds are represented by three playing pieces that start on the circular spaces at one end of the board, and the hare is represented by single playing piece that normally starts the game in a square in the middle of the board or on any of the vacant squares.
- Having decided which player moves first, they alternate their turns.
- The Hounds can only move straight forward, diagonally forward, or sideways.
- Hounds cannot move backwards.
- Hounds can only move one space per turn but only onto a vacant square,
- Only one Hound may be moved each turn.
- The Hare can move one space per turn in any direction but only into a vacant square.
- If the Hare successfully passes the three Hounds or reaches the other end of the board and lands on a circle, the Hare wins.
- If the Hounds surround the Hare so that it cannot move, the Hounds win.
Interestingly, my first thought when I looked at the Hare & Hounds board was that it sort of resembled a ShamBattle board. I played around with it by turning the whole thing through ninety degrees and placed a single circle at each end to represent each side's capital city. The end result looked like this:
I then added another line of squares as well as two towns to each side and then marked the border between the two countries. My new version of the Hare & Hounds board looked like this:
I am now thinking about what simple campaign rules I could use with this board, but I'd like to base them on the original Hare & Hounds rules if it is at all possible.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteIt's very reminiscent of my "linked box" SCW campaign which has resurfaced on a blog with all the old Magweb content. It appeared in an issue of Abanderado. It is here, sadly without the map drawings:
https://stefanov.no-ip.org/MagWeb/aband/v6n1/ab61colu.htm
The main site is here:
https://stefanov.no-ip.org/MagWeb/maglist.htm
Neil
Neil Patterson,
DeleteThanks very much for the link to the SCW 'campaign in a day' article. It seems to be very similar to the Hare & Hounds campaign map ideas I set out on my blog. I have been working on this idea since I wrote my blog post and will be writing a follow-up blog post which should be uploaded early next week.
All the best,
Bob
Interesting. Looking at the board, this just popped into my head: each turn represents a day. Players each get three six unit armies which start in their three cities. Each turn both roll for initiative with the high roll choosing to move first or second. Each turn a player may move one of their armies along any path, battles occur when moving on to a point occupied by an enemy army and are resolved as 3x3 battles. If a player has a friendly army on an adjacent point he or she may send one unit to reinforce the battle, dice each turn (1/6 cumulative) for arrival on the battlefield from the direction it marched from. (This can result in a flank attack). After the battle a reinforcing unit returns to its original army. Armies that lose a battle must retreat to an open point, and may not move on the players next turn. If unable to retreat the army is eliminated.
ReplyDeleteForced march: a player may forced march an army moving two points, but if he or she does so the army will be one Random unit short due to straggling.
Rally, instead of moving a player may rally and reinforce an army allowing its units to recover lost strength points.
Winning the game: the first player to take both of the enemies secondary cities without losing either of their own, or the enemy capital, wins.
Battlefield generation: if the battle takes place at a city there will be a BUA in addition to any other terrain generated. Once a battlefield has been generated any other battles fought at that location will take place on the same field.
Mark Cordone,
DeleteFunnily enough, some of your thinking is very much in line with my own although your suggestions for further development are more advanced than mine.
I particularly like your flank attack and forced march ideas, and the victory conditions make a lot of sense, as does your 'Rally' option. Needless to say, we are in complete agreement that once the terrain in a square has been determined, it remains the same if a further battle takes place there.
All the best,
Bob
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. I think this also has potential for a naval campaign.
DeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteI had not considered the possibility of using the board for a naval campaign BUT thinking about it, it has potential, especially if you wanted to model a blockade, with the hare being the blockade breaker and the hounds being the blockaders.
It's something for me to give serious thought to.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for publishing this! It could be the solution I've been seeking for creating a simple mini-campaign game of the 1814 campaign in France.
Would you like me to write it up as a vehicle for generating PW Napoleonic games for your next compendium?
Best wishes, Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteI am still working on developing this idea and hope to publish an updated version in a few days time. I hope to include some untested campaign rules that will hopefully work for an 1814 Napoleonic campaign.
I'd love a contribution from you about a Hare & Hounds campaign for the next Compendium, and I will soon contact you with some of my current ideas.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteThe thought almost immediately occurred to me that one could run a more elaborate 'Long Live the Revolution' type of campaign with this kind of set-up. Apart from the major centres, the other 'squares might represent a certain type of terrain, which might include hamlets and villages along with the other sorts of things that make the countryside interesting. One might even include a railway, snaking from 'capital to capital, visiting the other main centres, perhaps, along the way. Why not add an airfield each side of the border?
One difference I'd be inclined to make to the map: placing a town on each side right up to (but not on) the border. They could be on the same side, or opposite, as seems the more interesting.
I think you and Thomas and Mark - and, by the looks of it, Arthur as well - have invented something new - something that might be called 'Shampaign'.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteYou spotted something that I hadn't ... and it has stimulated a few ideas that I would love to develop if time allows.
I'm going to stick with a city and two large towns on my working version of the board, but I can see the point of adding extra towns and/or villages (or possibly other objectives) to the board. That's something for a further development, I think.
I like the idea of calling is SHAMPAIGN as it very memorable and sums the concept up very well indeed.
All the best,
Bob