Table Top Battles: Now available again

One of the major influences on my wargaming in recent years was my purchase – at Warfare 2008 – of a copy of Mike and Joyce Smith’s TABLE TOP BATTLES – TABLE TOP WARGAMING WITH MINIATURES.

This morning I received an email from Leon Smith – who is Mike and Joyce Smith’s nephew – that informed me that there has been another print run of the rules, and that they are available again via Caliver Books. It appears that they are not listed yet on the Caliver Books website, but that they can be ordered from them. The contact details for Caliver Books are:
Caliver Books
100 Baker Road
Newthorpe
NG16 2DP
England
+44 (0)1159 382111

http://www.caliverbooks.com/

My ‘guiding principles’ for writing wargames rules

When I wrote yesterday’s blog entry about the origins of my PORTABLE WARGAME rules, it set me thinking about the various inputs – for example, wargame rules written by other people and late-night discussions at COW (the Conference of Wargamers) – that have influenced their development.

I did try to draw up a ‘family tree’ that showed how my PORTABLE WARGAME rules were ‘descended’ from ‘Return to New Stanhall’ via SCWaRes, the RED SQUARE games, TABLE TOP BATTLES, and Joseph Morschauser’s ‘Frontier’ wargames rules … but the diagram showed so many inter-relationships that it ended up looking like a spider’s web and being almost impossible to follow.

What did emerge was a list of ‘guiding principles rules’ that I use as a guide when I write wargame rules. These are:

• Fred T Jane’s ‘Reality’ or ‘Primary Rule of Wargaming’
• Golf’s ‘Spirit of the Game’
• Joseph Morschauser’s ‘Dice’ rule
• My own ‘Discard rule’

By sticking to these basic guiding principles, I find that I can write wargame rules that satisfy my needs, and that I hope satisfy the needs of others.

Fred T Jane’s ‘Reality’ or ‘Primary Rule of Wargaming’
This states that:

‘Nothing can be done contrary to what could or would be done in actual war.’

It is the first rule that is quoted in Fred T Jane’s NAVAL WAR GAME rules, and he considered that it should be the guiding principle when dealing with any disputes that might arise during a game. That is as true today as it was when he wrote it in 1898.

Golf’s ‘Spirit of the Game’
This is adapted from ‘The Rules of Golf’, as published by the Royal and Ancient (R&A) Limited. It states that:

‘Wargames are played, for the most part, without the supervision of an umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual players to show consideration for other players and to abide by the rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the wargame.’

I consider that this rule should be made into a banner and hung up where it can be seen by everyone attending a wargames club or show, and that people who cannot or will not abide by it should be treated as pariahs (Rant over!).

Whilst this is not a true 'guiding principle' when it comes to the process of designing and developing wargames rules, I always have it in mind as this is the spirit in which I want my wargames to be fought. I used to have this statement at the beginning of all my wargames rules (along with Fred T Jane's ‘Primary Rule of Wargaming’) ... and I think that I might well include both in all my future ones.

Joseph Morschauser’s ‘Dice’ rule
Joseph Morschauser had a simple rule for adjudicating events that were not covered by a specific rule. It states:

‘Let the dice decide!’

Simply put, if two players cannot resolve a situation that arises during a wargame to their mutual satisfaction, then they should each throw a dice, and the winner’s ‘solution’ prevails. Morschauser considered that time spent arguing about what should happen was time wasted, and that the important thing was to get on with the wargame and argue afterwards.

My own ‘Discard rule’
I have heard other members of Wargame Developments refer to this as ‘Cordery’s Rule of Wargame Design’. It states that:

’If players consistently ignore a rule because it does not make sense or hinders the flow of the wargame, then the rule should be discarded. If players do not notice that it has gone, then it probably should not have been there in the first place.’

This has stood me in good stead over the years, and has enabled me to ‘strip out’ lots of unnecessary rules and verbiage.

These are my ‘guiding principles’ for writing wargames rules. I wonder if other writers and developers of wargame rules have similar ‘guiding principles’?

Nugget 130 ... A particularly good issue

In preparation for yesterday's blog entry, I read through NUGGET No.130 ... and realised that it contained an article that had important ramifications for my subsequent wargame designs. The article was written by Ian Drury and was a report about a session he had run at the previous COW (Conference of Wargamers). The report – which was entitled 'Return to New Stanhall' – described his game about an opposed landing in the South Pacific during the Second World War, and included a complete set of rules.

During the following year I developed Ian's rules into a set of Colonial wargames rules called SCWaRes (Simple Colonial Wargames Rules) that used a gridded playing surface. I demonstrated SCWaRes at a subsequent COW, and I began to be convinced that this was they way forward for my future wargame designs.

A photograph of my very first play-test of the rules that eventually became SCWaRes.

A photograph of one of the battles fought as part of the Mirkat Campaign. The rules used were the final version of SCWaRes.

Over the next few years I continued to develop my ideas, influenced by Ian Drury and Richard Brook's RED SQUARES rules (e.g. REDCOATS AND DERVISHES) and by Mike & Joyce Smith's TABLE TOP BATTLES: TABLE TOP WARGAMING WITH MINIATURES. The end result of this process was WHEN EMPIRES CLASH!

The next major 'leap forward' was my re-discovery of Joseph Morschauser's book, HOW TO PLAY WAR GAMES IN MINIATURE. The illustrations of Morschauser's battles fought on a gridded battlefield spurred me on to research further into his wargame designs ... and these researches were incorporated into John Curry's re-print of Morschauser's book and subsequently to my latest opus THE PORTABLE WARGAME rules.

And to think that all this began thirteen years ago!

To use 2D6 or a D12? That is the question!

One of the comments I have received as feedback about my latest set of wargames rules has given me pause for thought with regard to the type of dice that I have been using.

I used a D12 in my design because it is what I have been using recently, and this was prompted by its use in TABLE TOP BATTLES – the generic rules from which I have gained so much inspiration since I bought them.

Now when I write rules I like to keep things as simple as possible, and this includes the numbers and types of dice that are used during the game. I hate rules where I have to throw a D6 for this, a D8 for that, and a D12 for something else. Until recently my preferred option was to use the good old D6, but the move to using a D12 seemed to make little difference … until now.

The comment was made with regard to the number of squares of troops that can be activated by a Commander during a turn. The D12 gives 12 possibilities, each with an equal chance. The use of 2D6 gives 11 possibilities, but with unequal chances of each possibility occurring. Thinking about it, the latter makes much more sense and should produce a more ‘balanced’ battle, whereas the former produces a battle where events can wildly swing backwards and forwards in favour of one side or the other.

Having thought about this long and hard today, I have decided to replace the D12 with the use of 2D6 in the next draft to see what will happen. I suspect that the battles will become far more even than the one featured in the first play-test, but until it has been play-tested I will not be sure.

A short breather …

Having found the two sets of painted and based 15mm Peter Laing figures in my shed, I thought that I would take a short but necessary breather from operational-level wargames design and see if I can use any of them with my modified version of the TABLE TOP BATTLES wargames rules.

I checked the size of the bases the figures are on and was very pleasantly surprised to find that they fit quite well into the 5cm squares. This means that I could use some of the Chaco War figures – which are paint conversions from Peter Laing’s range of WWI British and Russian figures – for my currently moribund Laurania campaign. This would be a diversion from my current plans, but …

Operational-level Wargame Design 5: Why use combat values for units? How will combat be resolved?

Numbers, Predictions and War

The choice of what method to use to resolve combat is – in my opinion – the most important decision a wargames designer can make. Get this wrong, and however good the rest of the rules mechanisms used may be, the design will fail.

The problem is that combat is not an easily quantifiable event because it ultimately depends upon human interaction, a notoriously difficult thing to model. There are people who have spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to achieve this seemingly impossible goal, and the writings of one of these – Colonel Trevor Dupuy – occupy a place on the top shelf of my bookcase of wargaming books.

The three main books he wrote about combat are:

• NUMBERS, PREDICTIONS AND WAR: USING HISTORY TO EVALUATE COMBAT FACTORS AND PREDICT THE OUTCOME OF BATTLES (1979)
• UNDERSTANDING WAR – HISTORY AND THEORY OF COMBAT (1987 & 1992)
• ATTRITION: FORECASTING BATTLE CASULATIES AND EQUIPMENT LOSSES IN MODERN WAR (1990)

In the first of these books Colonel Dupuy explains how he and his colleagues at HERO (the Historical Evaluation and Research Organisation) developed the concept of QJMA – the Quantified Judgement Method of Analysis of Historical Combat data. They analysed the data relating to over one hundred battles and developed a very long and complicated formula that produced results that, when the specific data was added, accorded with the actual results of the battles they had studied. They appeared to have identified a mathematical model that could be used to predict the outcomes of battles.

The second book takes the theory forward, and compares the methodology – now referred to as QJM (the Quantified Judgement Method) – with other theories of combat.

The book begins with what Dupuy termed ‘The Timeless Verities of Combat’. These are:

• Offensive action is essential to positive combat results.
• Defensive strength is greater than offensive strength.
• Defensive posture is necessary when successful offense is impossible.
• Flank or rear attack is more likely to succeed than frontal attack.
• Initiative permits application of preponderant combat power.
• Defenders’ chances of success are directly proportional to fortification strength.
• An attacker willing to pay the price can always penetrate the strongest defences.
• Successful defence requires depth and reserves.
• Superior combat power always wins.
• Surprise substantially enhances combat power.
• Firepower kills, disrupts, suppresses, and causes dispersion.
• Combat activities are always slower, less productive, and less efficient than anticipated.
• Combat is too complex to be described in a single, simple aphorism.

The book also describes the QJM Combat Power Formula in considerable detail, although the description begins with Clausewitz’s Law of Numbers and shows how QJM relates to it. Put simply they both boil down to:

P = N x V x Qwhere:

P = Power (In QJM this is termed Combat Power)

N = Numbers (In QJM this is termed Force Strength)

V = Variables (In QJM this is termed Environmental and Operational Factors)

Q = Quality (In QJM this is termed Combat Effectiveness Value)

By comparing the Combat Power of both sides in a combat, the results of that combat should be predictable. It is thinking behind this basic formula that I will be using to develop my own combat resolution system.

It is worth noting that the Combat Effectiveness Value used in Colonel Dupuy’s work seems to show that certain nations produce more effective soldiers than others. For example, in his third book the use of QJM demonstrates that during World Wars I and II German soldiers were 1.2 times more effective that British, French, and American soldiers, and up to 3.0 times more effective than Russians. It also shows that during the Arab-Israeli Wars Israeli soldiers were at least 2.0 times more effective than their Arab opponents. Some commentators have cited this as showing that Colonel Dupuy can only get his formulae to work by ‘fudging’ the data; others have sought to examine how and why this apparent ‘national superiority’ has come about.

Applying the concepts behind QJM

Taking concepts behind the QJM Combat Power Formula as a starting point I have chosen a very simple method of combat resolution that combines the following factors:

• A numerical value for each type of unit based upon its training, equipment, and experience.
• Numerical values that represent transient effects on combat (e.g. terrain, surprise).
• An element of chance (i.e. the use of a dice).

When the Combat Power of both sides are compared, a result is generated using a system that is not very dissimilar for that used in Phil Barker’s DBA and TABLE TOP BATTLES by Mike and Joyce Smith.

The numerical values I have chosen for each type of unit are:

1: Basic combat value for all units
+0: Poor quality General*
+0: Poor quality infantry and cavalry
+1: Average quality General*
+1: Conscript infantry and cavalry
+1: Transport
+2: Good quality General*
+2: Equipped with light AFVs
+2: Regular infantry and cavalry
+2: Artillery
+3: Exceptional quality General*
+3: Equipped with medium AFVs
+3: Elite infantry
+4: Equipped with heavy AFVs
+5: Equipped with very heavy AFVs

Note: The starred (*) additons to the basic combat value only apply to command units.

Therefore an inexperienced (conscript) Russian Rifle Regiment will have a combat value of 2 (basic combat value plus 1 for being conscript infantry) whereas an elite German Panzer Grenadier unit will have a combat value of 4 (basic combat value plus 4 for being elite infantry).

The numerical values I have chosen for each transient effect on combat are:

• Add the command stand’s combat value: If a unit’s division, corps, and/or army command stand is in an adjacent hex, add the command stand’s combat value.
• +1: If the firing stand is artillery firing at a target that is in an adjacent square.
• -2: If the target stand is in defence works, inside a wood, or inside a built-up area.

The element of chance is represent by the use of:

• A D12 (for the Germans).
• A D10 (for the Russians and Axis allies).

The choice of different dice has been made in light of the work done by Colonel Dupuy to show that the soldiers of different nations have different Combat Effectiveness Values.

Resolving Combat

When combat occurs, both sides take the combat value of the unit that is involved in the combat, add the numerical values of any relevant transient effects and the dice score that they throw, and this give that unit’s Combat Power. These are then compared, and a result is generated.

The combat results are:

• If the attacking unit’s Combat Power is lower than the defending unit’s Combat Power, the combat has been ineffective.
• If the attacking unit’s and defending unit’s Combat Powers are equal, each unit throws a D12 or D10 (as appropriate) and the unit with the lowest score stays in its current position and reduces its combat value by one.
• If the defending unit’s Combat Power is less than the attacking unit’s Combat Power but more than half of the attacking unit’s Combat Power, the defending unit stays in its current position and reduces its combat value by one.
• If the defending unit’s Combat Power is less than half of the attacking unit’s Combat Power, but more than a quarter of the attacking unit's Combat Power, the defending unit reduces its combat value by two.
• If the defending unit’s Combat Power is less than a quarter of the attacking unit’s Combat Power, the defending unit reduces its combat value by two and withdraws until it is at least one hex away from an enemy unit.

Note: If a unit has to withdraw more than four hexes to comply with a combat result or it is prevented from doing so because of an obstacle or enemy unit, the withdrawing unit is deemed to have been destroyed.

The combat resolution system will need vigorous play-testing, but as it is built upon a reasonably sound body of theory and previous experience I hope that any modifications will be minimal.

Operational-level Wargame Design 1: Why hexes? – A few extra comments

Having re-read what I wrote in my last blog entry, I realised that I had not made it clear how close the decision between using squares and hexes was.

I do like squares, and have used them before in game designs, most notably when I wrote SCWARES (Simple Colonial Wargames Rules). My discovery in the National Archives of the rules for the 1956 BRITSH ARMY WAR GAME – which are now available from John Curry – further reinforced my belief in the use of squares, as did my purchase last year of TABLE TOP BATTLES by Mike and Joyce Smith.

Had I not owned a large amount of Hexon II terrain, I would have gone for squares, but the thought of having to start building and storing a second terrain system from scratch – and my knowledge of what my wife would have said about it – made the pragmatic choice to go with hexes inevitable.

Mind you, if I ever have enough time and storage space …

A time for reflection

Having finally had a few hours of time to myself, I have been able to think about what project or projects I want to proceed with next.

I have now boiled it down to the following:

• Doing some further work on SOLFERINO IN THIRTY MINUTES in preparation for the Conference of Wargamers in early July. This will involve making some additional playing pieces so that the French III Corps can be deployed on the battlefield as well as activation cards for Marshal Canrobert, who commanded the III Corps.
• Unpacking my collection of Del Prado pre-painted 25/28mm Napoleonic figures from their storage boxes and organising them into units. Once that is done, and any damage they may have suffered is repaired, I will varnish and base them.
• Finishing the redraft of my much-modified version of the TABLE TOP BATTLES rules by Mike and Joyce Smith so that they can be used to re-fight land battles from the mid-twentieth century. The rules are intended to enable me to fight an operational-level Eastern Front campaign using my existing collection of 20mm MEGABLITZ figures and model vehicles. The individual figure and vehicle bases will represent regiments, and the working title for the rules is OPERATIVNAIA ISKUSSTVA (‘Operational Art’ in Russian).

Going places … and coming back!

I have just returned from two ‘back-to-back’ cruises on P&O’s Oriana. The first cruise lasted thee days and visited Zeebrugge and Cherbourg (it was supposed to go to Le Havre, but the French dock workers were on strike and we were diverted to an alternate port).

We have visited Zeebrugge many times, but on this occasion the weather was not to good when we disembarked so all my wife and I did was travel into Blankenberge on the shuttle bus. We had a very pleasant walk along the seafront, bought some Belgian chocolate, and one or two other things (including some very nice 1:100th scale model tanks made by SIKU).

Luckily for us the diversion to Cherbourg did not stop my wife and I from joining an excursion to the British landing beaches in Normandy. It started with a visit to the Pegasus Bridge Museum, where I took loads of pictures and bought quite a few bits and pieces. These included a 6th Airborne Division baseball cap for my father (who served with 53rd [Worcester Yeomanry] Air-landing Light Regiment, Royal Artillery, the division’s artillery regiment) and a couple of pre-painted model aircraft (a 1:150th scale Messerschmitt Bf109 E3 painted in Rumanian colours and a 1:140th scale MiG-3 in all-white camouflage, both made by SKY PILOT) for myself.

The second cruise went to Madeira, Gran Canaria, Tenerife, Lanzarote, and Vigo. The weather was not too bad considering the time of year, and the ‘sea days’ between Southampton and Madeira on the way out and Lanzarote (via Vigo) and Southampton on the way back gave me time to do some reading. The latter included:

• AFTER STALINGRAD – THE RED ARMY’S WINTER OFFENSIVE 1942 – 1943 by David Glanz
• CHILD 44 by Tom Rob Smith

As one would expect, the former is a very detailed, scholarly work that draws heavily upon the Russian military archives that are slowly being made accessible to historians. The latter is a murder story set at the end of the Stalinist era, and captures the feeling of a time when the slightest suspicion of disloyalty could condemn individuals and their families to imprisonment or execution.

The ‘sea days’ also gave me time to think about my next wargaming projects and to begin work on a set of operational-level World War II wargames rules that draw heavily upon the MEGABLITZ rules written by Tim Gow, the various rules created by Richard Brooks and Ian Drury that are collectively known as the RED SQUARE rules, and TABLE TOP BATTLES by Mike and Joyce Smith.

But more of that later …

And now for something completely different ...

After spending so much time and effort of late preparing for Cruiser 2009 and Salute 2009, and with COW 2009* not taking place until July, I can now think about doing some work on one or two of my other wargaming 'projects'.

I am not yet sure which project will get my attention first. I still intend to fight at least one more battle from the Lauranian Border War using the TABLE TOP BATTLES rules, and I also want to try out the naval wargame rules in the book. Doing the latter will require at least four suitable ship models to be built, and building them from scratch should not be too difficult or time consuming. It would also give me the opportunity to explain the processes I use.

I am also very taken with the idea of re-fighting the War of the Pacific, particularly as I own what is currently the definitive uniform guide for the three warring armies (UNIFORMES DE LA GUERRA DEL PACIFICO 1879 – 1884). The land and sea battles that were fought were all quite small, and could easily be re-created using the TABLE TOP BATTLES rules. Although there are no figure ranges available for the Bolivians, Chileans, and Peruvians, the uniforms are very similar to the French, German, and US uniforms of the period, and could be reproduced with a reasonable degree of accuracy using paint ‘conversions’.

The Eastern Front has fascinated me for a very long time, and now that I have two sets of suitable solo rules to use – my own mid-20th century variant of TABLE TOP BATTLES and RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES (TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED) – I am very tempted to start expanding my Russian and Axis forces.

In addition to all of the above, I also want to re-fight the Bay of Pigs incident, re-build my Spanish Civil War armies, inject some life into the presently stagnant colonial campaign I started some years ago, and build up some small armies for the post-World War I Wars of Independence that took place around the edge of the Baltic Sea.

So many potential projects; where should I start?

*For those of you who don't know, COW is the Conference of Wargamers, which is the Wargame Developments annual conference. It takes place at a local authority-owned country house in Northamptonshire from early Friday evening until late Sunday afternoon.

A busy weekend ... and hopefully a less busy week

I had a busy few days this past weekend, but I did manage to write several articles for THE NUGGET (the journal of Wargame Developments). These included:

• A review of the TABLE TOP BATTLES wargames rules;
• A synopsis of my World War II hex-based variant of the basic TABLE TOP BATTLES wargames rules;
• A report on the Cruiser 2009 event that was held aboard HMS Belfast on Saturday 28th February 2009.

With any luck I should be able to buy the materials I need to make the playing boards for SOLFERINO IN TWENTY MINUTES tomorrow morning, and then start making them on Thursday.

Table Top Battles - Play-test - Land Battles (for mid-20th century warfare on hexes)

For the purposes of this play-test, the fighting on the left-hand side of the tabletop was resolved using the amended rules that include:

• A card driven turn sequence.
• The use formation morale values.
• The degrading of individual unit points values and the formation morale values as a result of combat.

The fighting on the right-hand side of the tabletop used the rules as play-tested on 1st January 2009 but with the addition of the card driven turn sequence.

Note to readers

The description of the parallel play-tests in this entry is very long and detailed. This has been done so that readers can follow the game mechanisms in operation.

Scenario

A Russian Rifle Brigade (4 Rifle Battalions – each rated as ‘Conscript’ and with a points value of 2 – and an artillery battalion – with a points value of 2) had been given the task of capturing a vital road that ran between a small range of hills. It was led by an ‘Average’ General (also with a points value of 2). The Russian Rifle Brigade therefore had a formation morale value of 6.

A German Kampfgruppe of two German infantry battalions (each rated as ‘Regular’ and with a points value of 3) defended the road by occupying defensive positions on either side of it. They were also commanded by an ‘Average’ General (with a points value of 2). The German defenders therefore had a formation morale value of 4.

Turn 1

The playing cards were shuffled and dealt to each unit on the left-hand side of the tabletop. The order in which units were activated was:

• Russian Rifle Battalion 3
• German Infantry Battalion B
• Russian Rifle Battalion 6
• Russian Artillery Battalion 2
• Russian Rifle Battalion 5
• German General A
• Russian General B
• Russian Rifle Battalion 4
• German Infantry Battalion C

Russian Rifle Battalion 3 advanced on German Infantry Battalion C and opened fire.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 6 (thus generating a score of 6 plus 2 minus 2 = 6 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works]).
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 9 (thus generating a score of 9 plus 3 plus 2 = 14 [D12 score plus unit’s points value plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex]).

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: No effect
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: No effect

German Infantry Battalion B opened fire on Russian Rifle Battalion 4.

• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 6 (thus generating a score of 6 plus 3 = 9 [D12 score plus unit’s points value]).
• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 5 (thus generating a score of 5 plus 2 plus 2 = 9 [D12 score plus unit’s points value plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex]).
• The result was a draw and both sides threw another D12. The scores were 7 for German Infantry Battalion B and 3 for Russian Rifle Battalion 4.

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: The Russian Rifle Battalion lost 1 points value.
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: The Russian Rifle Battalion withdrew.

Russian Rifle Battalion 6 advanced on German Infantry Battalion C and opened fire.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 2 (thus generating a score of 2 plus 2 minus 2 = 2 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works]).
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 10 (thus generating a score of 10 plus 3 plus 2 = 15 [D12 score plus unit’s points value plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex]).

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: No effect
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: No effect

Russian Artillery Battalion 2 opened fire on German Infantry Battalion B.

• The Russian Artillery Battalion’s score was 11 (thus generating a score of 11 plus 2 plus 2 minus 2 = 13 [D12 score plus unit’s points value plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex minus 2 because the target is in defence works]).
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 8 (thus generating a score of 8 plus 3 = 11 [D12 score plus unit’s points value]).

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion lost 1 points value.
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion withdrew.

Russian Rifle Battalion 5 advanced up the road and opened fire on German Infantry Battalion B.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 2 (thus generating a score of 2 plus 2 minus 2 = 2 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works] on the left-hand side of the tabletop and 2 plus 2 = 4 [D12 score plus unit’s points value] on the right-hand side of the tabletop).
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 5 (thus generating a score of 5 plus 2 = 7 [D12 score plus unit’s points] on the left-hand side of the tabletop and 5 plus 3 plus 2 = 10 [D12 score plus unit’s points value plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex]) on the right-hand side of the tabletop).

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: No effect
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: No effect

Neither German General A nor Russian General B chose to move.

Russian Rifle Battalion 4 advanced towards the left-hand German defences. On the left-hand side they were able to open fire on German Infantry Battalion B, but on the right-hand side the German unit was out of range.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 2 (thus generating a score of 2 plus 1 minus 2 = 1 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works].
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 4 (thus generating a score of 4 plus 2 = 6 [D12 score plus unit’s points].

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: No effect
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: No effect

German Infantry Battalion C opened fire on Russian Rifle Battalion 6.

• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 12 (thus generating a score of 12 plus 3 plus 2 = 17 [D12 score plus unit’s points value plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex]).
• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 2 (thus generating a score of 2 plus 2 = 4 [D12 score plus unit’s points]).

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: The Russian Rifle Battalion withdrew and lost 1 points value.
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: The Russian Rifle Battalion was destroyed.

At the end of Turn 1, the formation morale values on the left-hand side of the tabletop were:

• Russian Rifle Brigade: 6 minus 2 = 4
• German Kampfgruppe: 4 minus 1 = 3

Turn 2

The playing cards were shuffled and dealt to each unit on the left-hand side of the tabletop. The order in which units were activated was:

• German General A
• Russian Rifle Battalion 5
• Russian Rifle Battalion 4
• German Infantry Battalion C
• Russian Rifle Battalion 3
• Russian Artillery Battalion 2
• German Infantry Battalion B
• Russian Rifle Battalion 6 (left-hand side of the tabletop only)
• Russian General B

German General A advanced 1 hex along the road towards the Russian so that he could support both German Infantry Battalions.

On the right-hand side of the tabletop, Russian Rifle Battalion 5 occupied the empty left-hand German defences.

Russian Rifle Battalion 5 opened fire on German Infantry Battalion B.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 6 (thus generating a score of 6 plus 2 minus 2 = 6 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works] on the left-hand side of the tabletop and 6 plus 2 = 8 [D12 score plus unit’s points value] on the right-hand side of the tabletop).
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 4 (thus generating a score of 4 plus 2 plus 2 = 8 [D12 score plus unit’s points plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex] on the left-hand side of the tabletop and 4 plus 2 plus 2 = 8 [D12 score plus unit’s points value plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex]) on the right-hand side of the tabletop).
• The result on the right-hand side of the tabletop was a draw and both sides threw another D12. The scores were 7 for Russian Rifle Battalion 5 and 2 for German Infantry Battalion B.

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: No effect
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion withdrew.

On the left-hand side of the tabletop Russian Rifle Battalion 5 assaulted the position occupied by German Infantry Battalion B.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 8 (thus generating a score of 8 plus 2 minus 2 = 8 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works].
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 4 (thus generating a score of 4 plus 2 plus 2 = 8 [D12 score plus unit’s points plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex].
• The result was a draw and both sides threw another D12. The scores were 10 for Russian Rifle Battalion 5 and 2 for German Infantry Battalion B.

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion lost 1 points value.

On the right-hand side of the tabletop, Russian Rifle Battalion 4 advanced 1 hex towards the German defences now occupied by Russian Rifle Battalion 5.

On the left-hand side of the tabletop, Russian Rifle Battalion 4 opened fire on German Infantry Battalion B.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 5 (thus generating a score of 5 plus 1 minus 2 = 4 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works].
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 4 (thus generating a score of 4 plus 1 plus 2 = 7 [D12 score plus unit’s points plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex].

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: No effect

On the left-hand side of the tabletop Russian Rifle Battalion 4 assaulted the position occupied by German Infantry Battalion B.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 9 (thus generating a score of 9 plus 1 minus 2 = 8 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works].
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 3 (thus generating a score of 3 plus 1 plus 2 = 6 [D12 score plus unit’s points plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex].

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion lost 1 points value. Because its points value was now reduced to 0, German Infantry Battalion B was destroyed.

German Infantry Battalion C opened fire on Russian Rifle Battalion 3.

• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 1 (thus generating a score of 1 plus 3 plus 2 = 6 [D12 score plus unit’s points value plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex]).
• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 4 (thus generating a score of 4 plus 2 = 6 [D12 score plus unit’s points]).
• The result was a draw and both sides threw another D12. The scores were 7 for German Infantry Battalion C and 8 for Russian Rifle Battalion 3.

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion lost 1 points value.
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion withdrew.

At this point the German formation morale value reached 0. The reduction of the formation's morale value to 0 would force all the units in the formation to withdraw next turn.

On the left-hand side of the tabletop, Russian Rifle Battalion 3 advanced 1 hex towards the right-hand German defences.

On the right-hand side of the tabletop, Russian Rifle Battalion 3 advanced and occupied the empty right-hand German defences.

Russian Rifle Battalion 3 opened fire on German Infantry Battalion C.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 3 (thus generating a score of 3 plus 2 minus 2 plus 2 = 3 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works] on the left-hand side of the tabletop and 3 plus 2 = 5 [D12 score plus unit’s points value] on the right-hand side of the tabletop).
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 10 (thus generating a score of 10 plus 2 plus 2 = 14 [D12 score plus unit’s points plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex] on the left-hand side of the tabletop and 10 plus 3 = 13 [D12 score plus unit’s points value] on the right-hand side of the tabletop).

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: No effect.
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: No effect.

Russian Rifle Battalion 3 assaulted the position occupied by German Infantry Battalion C.

• The Russian Rifle Battalion’s score was 10 (thus generating a score of 10 plus 2 minus 2 = 10 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works] on the left-hand side of the tabletop and 10 plus 2 = 12 [D12 score plus unit’s points value] on the right-hand side of the tabletop).
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 5 (thus generating a score of 5 plus 2 plus 2 = 9 [D12 score plus unit’s points plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex] on the left-hand side of the tabletop and 5 plus 3 = 8 [D12 score plus unit’s points value] on the right-hand side of the tabletop).

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion lost 1 points value.
Result on the right-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion withdrew.

At this point the German formation morale value reached -1.

On the left-hand side of the tabletop Russian Artillery Battalion 2 opened fire on German Infantry Battalion C.

• The Russian Artillery Battalion’s score was 10 (thus generating a score of 10 plus 2 minus 2 = 10 [D12 score plus unit’s points value minus 2 because the target is in defence works].
• The German Infantry Battalion’s score was 1 (thus generating a score of 1 plus 1 plus 2 = 4 [D12 score plus unit’s points plus General’s points value because he is in an adjacent hex].

Result on the left-hand side of the tabletop: The German Infantry Battalion lost 1 points value. Because its points value was now reduced to 0, German Infantry Battalion C was destroyed.

At this point the German formation morale value reached -2.

On the right-hand side of the tabletop German Infantry Battalion B retreated 1 hex along the road and took up a defensive position around the small farm at the bend in the road.

On the left-hand side of the tabletop Russian Rifle Battalion 6 advanced 1 hex towards the empty right-hand German defences.

Russian General B advanced 2 hexes up the road to support the advancing Rifle Battalions.

Turn 3

By now it was obvious that the Germans had failed to prevent the Russians from capturing the road between the range of hills and that the German General would be lucky to escape. The play-test was ended.

Conclusions

Trying to run two play-tests in parallel is both time consuming and exhausting, but it does give the opportunity to compare two different variants of the rules using some degree of scientific method.

Both variants work, and which of the two should be developed is ultimately down to a matter of personal preference. The left-hand side of the tabletop produced a game that had less movement but which saw the gradual destruction of units; the right-hand side of the tabletop had more movement and saw units withdrawing or being totally destroyed rather than being slowly degraded. On balance I prefer the former rather than the latter, but I feel that with a little more tweaking I can get the best of both melded into one.

Another traffic jam ... another re-think ...

I managed to sort out and setup the terrain for the parallel play-test I planned to run on Thursday, but pressure of work means that I have not yet been able to run the play-test. However the extra time has given me the opportunity to have another re-think about the amended combat rules I intend to test.

Whilst sitting in the inevitable traffic jam on the way to work on Friday my thoughts turned to the combat results I proposed to use. As my play-tests are almost always solo affairs, I like to make as many of the decisions 'automatic' as possible. In other words, to create game mechanisms that only allow a few decision-making options. It struck me that my proposed combat results contained 'either ... or' options that could be eliminated ... so I have eliminated them. The combat results now read as follows:

Firing

• If firing stand’s score is lower, fire has been ineffective.
• If the firing stand and target stand scores are equal, each stand throws a D12 and the stand with the lowest score reduces its points value by one.
• If target stand’s score is less than the firing stand’s score but more than half the firing stand’s score, the target stand reduces its points value by one.
• If target stand’s score is less than half the firing stand’s score, the target stand withdraws until it is one hex away from the nearest enemy stand and reduces its points value by one.

Hand-to-Hand

• If attacking stand’s score is lower, Hand-to-Hand Combat has been ineffective.
• If the attacking stand and defending stand scores are equal, each stand throws a D12 and the stand with the lowest score reduces its points value by one.
• If defending stand’s score is less than the attacking stand’s score but more than half the attacking stand’s score, the defending stand reduces its points value by one.
• If defending stand’s score is less than half the attacking stand’s score, the defending stand withdraws until it is one hex away from the nearest enemy stand and reduces its points value by one.

These new combat results strike me as being much simpler and easier to remember during a wargame. It will be interesting to see how they work during the play-test.

Too much work ... too little time ...

The last few days have been very hectic, with work and my non-wargaming life taking up almost all my available time. As a result I have not yet been able to set up the play-test of my most recent proposed modifications to the TABLE TOP BATTLES wargames rules. With a bit of luck the situation should ease tomorrow, and if it does I hope to be able to report back on the results of the play-test.

The play-test will be set up somewhat differently from previous ones. Because I want to see how effective the modifications I have proposed are or are not, I intend to set up a simple attack scenario that I will run in duplicate. In other words the same scenario will be played out on two identical parallel battlefields. When I throw dice the results will be adjudicated in both battles according to their allotted version of the rules. This sounds much more complicated than it actually is, but it is as close to a ‘scientific’ method of play-testing that I can come up with.

In the meantime I have added a visit counter to my blog in the hope that I can get some idea how many people are reading my rambling and incoherent thoughts.

Table Top Battles - Land Battles (for mid-20th century warfare) - Even more thoughts

One of the things that struck me after my play-test on 1st January was that it was too easy for attackers to drive defenders out of defensive positions without having to resort to Hand-to-Hand combat. So whilst sitting in today’s traffic jam on Blackheath I started thinking about how I could deal with this problem. The solution I came up with was to amend the combat results.

My amended versions of the combat results are:

Firing

• If firing stand’s score is lower, fire has been ineffective.
• If the firing stand and target stand scores are equal, each stand throws a D12 and the stand with the lowest score withdraws until it is one hex away from the nearest enemy stand or it stays in its current position and reduces its points value by one.
• If target stand’s score is less than the firing stand’s score but more than half the firing stand’s score, the target stand withdraws until it is one hex away from the nearest enemy stand or it stays in its current position and reduces its points value by one.
• If target stand’s score is less than half the firing stand’s score, the target stand reduces its points value by one.

Hand-to-Hand

• If attacking stand’s score is lower, Hand-to-Hand Combat has been ineffective.
• If the attacking stand and defending stand scores are equal, each stand throws a D12 and the stand with the lowest score withdraws until it is one hex away from the nearest enemy stand or it stays in its current position and reduces its points value by one.
• If defending stand’s score is less than the attacking stand’s score but more than half the attacking stand’s score, the defending stand withdraws until it is one hex away from the nearest enemy stand or it stays in its current position and reduces its points value by one.
• If defending stand’s score is less than half the attacking stand’s score, the defending stand reduces its points value by one.

I hope that these amendments will work with the other changes I proposed yesterday. My next play-test should indicate whether they do or not.

Table Top Battles - Land Battles (for mid-20th century warfare) - Some more thoughts

Last night I re-read the section that deals with unit rosters in my copy of the TABLE TOP BATTLES wargames rules. The idea is quite simple; rather than removing a stand if – during firing or hand-to-hand combat – its score is less than half the firing or attacking stand’s score, the stand’s points value is reduced by one. This continues until the stand’s points value reaches zero, at which point it is destroyed and removed.

In addition, if the unit is part of a formation (e.g. brigade or division), the formation will be allocated a morale value that is half the total points value of the units in the formation at the beginning of the battle. When units lose points value, the formation loses the same number of points from its morale value. When the formation’s morale value is reduced to zero, it must withdraw from the battlefield.

I am not a great lover of rosters because they involve paperwork that tends to clutter up the tabletop, but the concept is a good one and addresses some of the problems that I had when I first adapted these rules for fighting mid-20th century land battles.

I used some of my Megablitz units for my play-test, and they already have magnetic tape on the back of the stand for a strength point marker. I therefore used Megablitz strength point markers to remind me of each unit’s points value during my play-test.

Whilst journeying to work this morning I got stuck in the usual traffic jam that occurs on Blackheath. As I sat there waiting to move I started to think about using the roster concept but replacing the roster sheet with removable Megablitz strength markers. These could be changed for lower values as a unit’s points value is reduced. In addition, the formation command stand could have the formation’s morale value represented by a Megablitz strength marker. This could also be changed as the formation’s morale value is reduced.

At the same time I also got to thinking about replacing the use of a D12 throw at the beginning of each turn to determine which side had the initiative with the card-drive turn sequence I have used in RED FLAGS AND IRON CROSSES (TARRED AND FEATHERSTONED). This should make the game much easier to play solo, and reduce the amount of time each player spends sitting around waiting to do something in face-to-face games.

I hope to try these ideas out in a short play-test at some time over the next few days.

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow …

Despite the worst snow London has had in 20 years, I managed to get to work only slightly later than normal, thanks to my trusty Mazda Tribute 4x4. Most of the side roads were not gritted or cleared, but these were not too difficult to negotiate in low gear with the four-wheel drive set to permanent. The main roads were almost empty – thanks to the fact that no buses were running – and most of the other drivers were being sensible, although I did see a few ‘muppets’ who had no idea what they were doing and a couple of drivers who seemed to think that aggressive driving was safe in the prevailing road conditions.

Having got to the Academy where I work I discovered that the staff outnumbered the students; there were six staff and five students! Needless to say the Academy was closed by 9.30am, and will remain so until Wednesday morning at the earliest. So it was back home for a couple of ‘bunce’ days off work.

This has given me the opportunity to do a couple of things that I thought would have to wait. Firstly I was able to read through a set of draft rules sent to me by Richard Brooks. We are jointly putting on a game at the forthcoming SALUTE 2009 on behalf of Wargame Developments. The game is entitled SOLFERINO IN TWENTY MINUTES and is a fast-play game that uses an 8 x 8 grid and playing pieces that represent infantry and cavalry divisions, artillery support, or personalities. Like most of Richard’s rules they look simple but produce very sophisticated results.

The second thing I managed to do was to have a long look through my most recent book purchase. This is Caliver Books latest publication, UNIFORMES DE LA GUERRA DEL PACIFICO 1879 – 1884. This war has intrigued me for a long time, but most of my interest has been in the naval aspects of the war, particularly the Battle of Angamos. This was one of the few ironclad vs. ironclad actions, and resulted in the capture of the Peruvian HUASCAR by the Chilean BLANCO ENCALADA and COCHRANE. Such was the importance of the capture of the HUASCAR that she is still in existence today as a museum ship in the port of Talcahuano, Chile.

This book about the uniforms of the War of the Pacific has shown me that I could easily refight the war both on land and at sea. The uniforms were variations on the typical European uniform styles popular at the time (i.e. French and German) but with a few South American twists. As I was trying to read the Spanish text and looking at the superb illustrations it struck me as being an ideal project for use with the TABLE TOP BATTLES wargames rules. Here we go again …

Table Top Battles – The Lauranian Border War (1869) – The Battle of Turga

Scenario

As a result of the incursions by ‘bandits’ along the border between Laurania and its northern neighbour, a group of ‘bandits’ had been captured and imprisoned in Turga by units of the Border Guard. In response to this ‘outrageous’ action (the leader of the ‘bandits’ – Stefan Esterházy – was the son of a senior officer in the northern neighbour’s army) a large force of troops crossed the Lauranian border with the intention of seizing Turga, releasing the captives, and then ‘teaching the Lauranians a lesson’.

The invading force consisted of two battalions of infantry (each four companies strong and with a points value of 3), two companies of light infantry (with a points value of 2 each), and a battery of field artillery (with a points value of 2). They were led by General Tobias Esterházy (rated as ‘Poor’ and therefore with a points value of 1).

The garrison of Turga comprised two companies of Border Guards (rated as light infantry and therefore with a points value of 2). They were, however, to be reinforced by troops that were being sent by rail from Laurania City. These reinforcements were to arrive on two separate trains, each of which carried an infantry battalion (four companies strong and with a points value of 3) and a field artillery battery (with a points value of 2). General Branco, who was to command the Lauranian troops when they came into action, accompanied the first group of reinforcements. General Branco was one of Laurania’s most experienced generals, and was rated ‘Exceptional’ (and therefore had a points value of 3). The first reinforcements were to arrive D6 moves after the start of the battle and the second group were to arrive D6 moves after the first group.

N.B. Trains moved at cavalry movement (i.e. 4 squares per move).

Turn 1

The Lauranians threw a D6 to determine when the first group of reinforcements would arrive. The score was 2. The first group of reinforcements would therefore arrive during Turn 2. They then threw a second D6 to see when the second group of reinforcements would arrive. The score was 5. As a result the second group of reinforcements would arrive during Turn 7.

Both sides then threw a D12 to determine who had the initiative. The invaders gained the initiative and moved first.

The invaders moved down the road from the border towards Turga. The light infantry led the advance along the road and the railway track with the two infantry battalions deployed either side of them in half-battalion columns. General Esterházy followed behind the left-hand company of light infantry; the artillery battery, in turn, followed him.

The company of Lauranian Border Guards that was patrolling the road towards the border fell back to the edge of Turga, whilst those guarding the jail remained at their post.

Turn 2

The invaders again gained the initiative by throwing a higher D12 score and moved and fired first.

The advancing light infantry engaged the company of Border Guards, and their gunfire forced the Border Guards to seek cover in and around the houses on the outskirts of Turga.

In the meantime, a locomotive and wagons was fast approaching the railway station from Laurania City; the first of the Lauranian reinforcements were about to arrive!

Turn 3

The Lauranians gained the initiative by throwing a higher D12 score and moved and fired first.

The train carrying the Lauranian reinforcements finally reached Turga railway station, but the units aboard would not be able to unload until the next turn. In the meantime the two companies of Border Guards held their positions and awaited the invader’s attack.

The invaders continued their advance towards Turga, and the left-hand company of light infantry and the two leading left-hand companies of infantry exchanged gunfire with the Border Guard company that was occupying the houses on the outskirts of Turga. This exchange was ineffective, neither side suffering any significant casualties.

Turn 4

The invaders gained the initiative by throwing a higher D12 score and moved and fired first.

The two leading left-hand units of infantry attempted to flush the Border Guards out of their position but the Border Guards were able to evade their attackers and withdrew to the next line of houses. The remaining units of invaders continued their relentless advance towards the centre of Turga, although the close terrain of houses and woods caused them problems when they tried to maintain their alignment.

The Lauranian reinforcements were unloaded and deployed into the centre of Turga. General Branco realised that the situation fast becoming desperate, and he personally led the artillery battery forward to engage the advancing enemy light infantry. The artillery opened fire on the right-hand company of light infantry … and wiped them out!

Turn 5

The Lauranians gained the initiative by throwing a higher D12 score and moved and fired first.

General Branco realised that by taking the initiative and acting as aggressively as possible he might be able to force the invaders to retreat. He therefore led his troops forward as quickly as possible with the intention of engaging them at close range. The artillery battery fired at the remaining light infantry at point-blank range, and forced them to retreat. The Border Guard company, seeing the General Esterházy was now exposed, opened fire on him … and killed him!

The death of their commander shook the invader’s morale, and they immediately began to withdraw.

Turn 6

The invaders gained the initiative by throwing a higher D12 score and moved and fired first.

The invaders withdrew they way they had come, followed – at a reasonable distance – by the Lauranian infantry battalion and artillery battery. General Branco had no intention engaging the invaders as they still out-numbered his own forces and were more than capable of inflicting considerable casualties on the Lauranian units.

Aftermath

The body of General Esterházy was returned to his country with full military honours. General Branco led the escort himself, and secured the release of the General’s son - Stefan Esterházy – so that he could return home with his father’s body. The remaining ‘bandits’ – who turned out to be a mixture of ex-soldiers, idealistic students, and members of an extreme nationalist party – were all put on trial and given long prison sentences. They were, however, released within weeks as a result of an amnesty granted in celebration of the Lauranian victory at Turga.

Conclusions

I had expected this to be a very intense battle with lots of hand-to-hand fighting in and around Turga. I also expected that the arrival of the two groups of reinforcements would be crucial to the outcome. As it was, the death of General Esterházy was a surprise, and came about when I realised that he had moved into the square next to that occupied by the company of Border Guards. It was too tempting a target not to fire at …and the result was unexpected. Nevertheless, the battle was an enjoyable one to fight, and leaves the way open for further border skirmishes between the two countries at some time in the future.

Notes about the models

The figures are all 15mm Peter Laing figures. The Lauranians are 1870 Prussians and the northern neighbour’s army are 1866 Austro-Hungarians. The roads are strips of masking tape, the ‘sea’ is a piece of blue card cut to the required shape, and the buildings are from a set of wooden toy buildings. The railway track, locomotive, and rolling stock are all from the range of HO9 scale models produced by ROCO.

Turga - a quiet town near the Lauranian border

Turga is a large town on the main road and rail link to the border. It has access to the sea, and a small harbour.

As can be seen from this image of the town, a company of Border Guards is guarding the jail where the ‘bandits’ are held, whilst another company patrols the road leading to the border.

Trouble on the Lauranian border

News has just reach Lauranian Army Headquarters that a contingent of our northern neighbour's army has crossed the border, and is making its way towards Turga.

This appears to be the culmination of a series of escalating incidents between our northern neighbour and ourselves. Over the past few weeks there have been several incursions into Lauranian territory by what can best be described as 'bandits'. They have raided local farms, stolen cattle, sheep, and horses, and attempted to cut the railway near the border.

The most recent 'raid' was intercepted by two companies of Border Guards, who were able to surround the 'bandits' and - after a short gun battle - capture them. They were then taken in chains to the jail in Turga to await trial.

It is interesting to note that the leader of the 'bandits' claims to be Stefan Esterházy, a Lieutenant in our northern neighbours army and son of General Tobias Esterházy. General Esterházy is, of course, the commander of the troops our northern neighbour has guarding their side of the border.

Two infantry battalions and two batteries of artillery have been despatched by rail from Laurania City to Turga to support the two companies of Border Guards who are stationed there. It is hoped that this will counter any large-scale incursions across the border.

Long Live Laurania!

Statement issued by
Lauranian Army Headquarters
Laurania City