Two years on ...

The 18th September is my blog anniversary. I set up this blog and wrote my first blog entry on that day in 2008 ... and since then I have written six hundred and eleven further blog entries (this is the 612th!).

I still enjoy writing my blog, and will continue to do so as long as I enjoy doing it. It has brought me great pleasure, an even wider group of people with whom I can discuss wargaming and other topics, and – most importantly – it has made me do things that I have thought about doing but never quite got around to. Saying in print that 'I am going to play-test my new rules' leaves an expectation amongst your readers that you are going to do so ... so you have to!

So with that in mind, I am about to go and set up a tactical situation using the board, figures, and dice from my copy of BATTLE CRY in order to test out my ideas regarding some developments to that games combat system ... and then I will have to write a blog entry about it because I said that I would ...

Meetings, meetings, meetings!

When I got up this morning and went to work, I did so in the belief that today I would be able to leave work earlier than normal. On Thursdays I finish teaching at 2.30pm, and my marking and preparation were up-to-date ... so there was nothing to stop me getting home in time to try out my ideas for modifying the combat system used in Richard Borg's BATTLE CRY wargames rules.

I was out of luck.

Just after midday I received an email 'reminding' me that there was a Faculty Meeting at 4.00pm ... a meeting that I had previously been unaware of. So rather than leave at 2.30pm, I had to carry on working until 4.00pm, when I then went to the meeting ... that, as usual, did not start on time. In fact the meeting finally lurched into being at about 4.20pm, and drifted on for over forty minutes. A variety of things were discussed, but nothing seemed to be decided, and I felt that my time could have been better spent. I finally left the building just after 5.00pm, and as a result, I did not get home until just before 6.00pm, feeling thoroughly fed up and no longer in the mood to do much at all.

On the plus side however, I have been sent several useful links to BATTLE CRY-related websites and discussion groups that may have useful tips and ideas for me to look at. I intend to spend half an hour or so visiting them before I go to bed, and with a bit of luck I might have a better day tomorrow.

Lots to think about

I had to go to a meeting in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire straight from work yesterday, and I did not get home until after 10.00pm, which is why I did not manage to write a blog entry. The drive there took me over an hour, and the drive back slightly less time, so I had plenty of time to think about Richard Borg's BATTLE CRY wargame rules.

Although the rules are part of a complete 'package' (i.e. the game comes with a printed terrain board, hexagonal terrain features, command cards, and plastic Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery figures) they can be used with any hexed terrain system – of which I have two, Heroscape™ and Hexon II – and normal wargames figures.

Several of the game mechanisms employed – especially the combat system – are simple, elegant, and very easy to use. I know that other wargamers have developed wargames rules from the original set, and I find myself drawn to doing something similar, although I do want to retain a flavour of Joseph Morschauser’s ‘Musket’ Period and ‘Frontier’ wargames rules.

First and foremost, I want to develop the basic combat system used in BATTLE CRY. There are one or two ideas that I have that I want to experiment with. These are:

• Giving Infantry that are armed with poorer quality firearms (e.g. smooth-bore muskets) three as opposed to four dice. This is intended to reflect the shorter range at which such weapons are effective and their lack of accuracy when compared with rifled firearms
• Giving Artillery that is armed with better quality ordnance (e.g. rifled and/or breech-loading field guns) increased range but not more dice. This is intended to reflect the longer range at which such weapons are effective and their improved accuracy when compared to smooth-bore artillery

I am sure that someone else has probably already thought of these ideas, and no doubt they will be in contact to tell me about their experiences; in the meantime, I hope to set up a few tactical situations to test out my ideas … assuming that I have enough time over the next few days!

More thoughts on the longer the range, the fewer the dice

I was slightly later than usual leaving work today ... and as a result I got caught up in a minor traffic jam. This meant that I had to sit in my car for the best part of fifteen minutes with little to do except think ... so I did ... about yesterday's refight of 1st Bull Run using BATTLE CRY.

Some of the players and I have now had a chance to properly read Richard Borg's BATTLE CRY rules, and we have realised that we had not quite got them right.

One thing that we got wrong was the number of dice thrown by a unit when it was fighting another unit. For example, we were using the number of figures in an Infantry unit and the range at which it was firing to determine how many dice it could throw. Therefore, if an Infantry unit had lost a figure, it lost a die from the number of dice it could throw; If it had lost two figures, it lost two dice from the number of dice it could throw ... and so on. At the same time, we were also reducing the number of dice it could throw to reflect the range at which it was firing (e.g. if the range equalled three hexes, the Infantry unit could only throw two dice).

In actual fact the rules state that an Infantry unit throws the same number of dice, however large or small its figure strength may be, until it is wiped out; the number of dice is only reduced to reflect the range at which the Infantry unit is firing.

We also failed to add additional dice for generals who were accompanying a unit, and we did not grasp the effect that hills had on the number of dice that could be thrown by units that were on a hill and firing at targets below them or on units that were firing at targets that were uphill from them.

All this was whirring around in my head whilst I was stuck in my car. On reflection, the way were fought our battle would probably have been better had we used the rules correctly ... and that the combat rules are worth serious consideration as a model for any future changes I might make to my development of Joseph Morschauser's 'Frontier' rules.

The longer the range, the fewer the dice

Now that I have had some time to think about the battle that was fought earlier today using Richard Borg's BATTLE CRY rules, the one game mechanism that I really do think that I will copy is the one where the number of dice a unit throws diminishes with the range they are firing at.

For example, Infantry have a range of four hexes, and a full strength unit of four men throws four dice if the target is in an adjacent hex, three dice if it is two hexes away, two if the range is three hexes, and a single die if the range is four hexes. The number of dice is also reduced by one if the unit is firing at a target that is on a hill above them.

This is very simple, easy to remember, and encourages each side to close the range and get fighting as soon as possible.

PS. The rules are available in PDF format as a free download.

A day of wargaming

Every month or so during autumn, winter and spring, a group of us try to have a get-together in Central London so that we can play wargames. We usually start at some time between 10.30am and 11.00am, have a break for snack lunch at about 1.30pm, and finish between 4.00pm and 4.30pm. Often one of the group will stage and umpire a game that they have designed, and the rest of us pitch up (with food and drink for the lunch)and play.

Because several of the group are either away from the UK working, or have just returned from overseas postings and are settling down to life in the UK, it was decided that we would each bring along a game and if time allowed, we would play one or more of them.

By sheer coincidence, one of the group had brought along a game that he has designed using the board from BATTLE-CRY, the old Milton Bradley game about the American Civil War, and I had taken my copy of Richard Borg's BATTLE CRY, which was sold by Avalon Hill.

Milton Bradley game is a strategic-level wargame which allows the players to refight the entire Civil War, whereas Richard Borg's game is a tactical-level game for re-fighting the main battles.

We started by playing BATTLE-CRY, and the game ended when a small Confederate Cavalry Division managed to capture and hold Philadelphia just as the might of the Union was about to be unleashed on an offensive that would cut the Confederacy in two. As one of the Union commanders, I may be a bit biased, but I felt that we were unlucky not to win the War.

Because we had enjoyed ourselves so much, we were only just able to have a quick battle to try out BATTLE CRY. None of us had played it before, and we chose the Battle of Bull Run for our 'lesson' in how the rules worked. In actual fact, the result was reasonably historical, and we all agreed that it is a nice simple game that uses lots of good game mechanisms ... some of which I suspect will be copied and developed.

It was a great way to spend and Sunday, and I am looking forward to the next one!

Nugget 237

I collected NUGGET 237 from the printers just before lunchtime today, and it is in envelopes waiting to be posted on Monday. With luck, it should be with subscribers by next weekend.

This issue is a special one because it is devoted to the memory of Paddy Griffith. For that reason, I have made it freely downloadable from the Wargame Developments website.

Another free plan

This afternoon my wife and I went shopping. I managed to buy some more Goblin Green paint from the local branch of Games Workshop (I do seem to be getting through quite a lot of it at the moment!), and on the way back to the car I happened to go into the newsagent, where I saw a copy of MARINE MODELLING INTERNATIONAL: PLANS & CONSTRUCTION SPECIAL.

What actually caught my eye was the '2 FREE PLANS' caption on the cover ... so I picked it up and realised that one of the free plans was for a Victorian Coastal Defence Battleship called HMS Lord Clive. This was not the name of an actual Victorian battleship, although the name was used for a coastal bombardment monitor during World War I.

The model is a 'stand off' scale model of what were termed 'breastwork' monitors or coastal defence ships, but it is generic enough for my purposes.

The real thing: HMS Glatton (1871)

As soon as I saw it I started to think about building something similar to it – but somewhat smaller – for my Colonial and nineteenth century wargames ... so I bought a copy of the magazine, and the plans have already been added to my archive of future projects ... which seems to be getting bigger and bigger by the day!

Tonight I was a scoundrel

It is recorded, by his biographer James Boswell, that on 7th April 1775, Doctor Samuel Johnson stated that: 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.'If that is true, then tonight I was a scoundrel!

Tonight was 'The Last Night of The Proms', and whenever possible I watch the finale as I like to sing along with 'Rule Britannia', 'Jerusalem', 'Land of Hope and Glory' ... and 'The National Anthem'. It reminds me that I am English and British, and it fills me with patriotic pride. I know that no country is perfect, but I feel proud to be what I am.

Does that make me a scoundrel? I hope not ... but if I am, then I am happy to be one ... if only for an hour or so.

PS. I actually think that Doctor Johnson was actually railing against false patriotism rather than true patriotism when he made his much quoted remark. James Boswell says so ... and he was there at the time.

Things To Come: The location of the battle in the colliery

Some time ago I wrote a blog entry about Alexander Korda's 1936 film THINGS TO COME.

After 'The Boss' or 'Chief' has restored some form of peace and order on 'Everytown', he starts a short but decisive war against the 'hill people' (whom one assumes are the Welsh) to capture the coal mines that will enable his 'country' to have a source of power.

The locations used for this part of the film looked very realistic ... and a recent email that I have received informs me that it was a genuine but disused colliery in South Wales.

The email was sent to me by Graham Bennett, who is a retired coal miner from South Wales. He has a particular interest in recording the history of the collieries of Wales, and he very kindly sent me the following information and photographs of the actual location used for this part of Korda's film:

• The location used for the film was the South Griffin Colliery, which was situated in the Bourneville Abertillery/Blaina area

• The first part of the mine was begun in 1873 (No. 1 Pit), and two further pits (Nos. 2 and 2 Pits) were added in 1878
• In 1888, the colliery was linked to the nearby Roseheyworth Colliery

• No. 1 Pit was closed in 1909
• In 1921 Nos. 2 and 3 Pits were closed, but continued to be used to ventilate the Roseheyworth Colliery
• In 1935, the disused colliery was used as a location for Alexander Korda's film, and many local unemployed miners were used as 'extras'
• In 1959 the colliery was capped, and the site was used as a dumping ground for waste from the Roseheyworth Colliery, which was itself closed in 1985

• The film location is no longer visible, as it is now covered by the spoil heap from the Roseheyworth Colliery

As a lover of old films – particularly those made by Alexander Korda – I am very grateful to Graham Bennett for sending me this information and giving me permission to use photographs from his collection.