Other people's Portable Wargame battle reports

Yesterday I suddenly realised that I have not done a regular review of the PORTABLE WARGAME battle reports that people have been featuring on their blogs and on the PORTABLE WARGAME Facebook page ... so here is a taste of what people have been doing!

Andrew Smith has been fighting both Colonial ...

... and eighteen century battles ...

... using some very effective and innovative 2.5D buildings.

Martin Smith has been using the rules to fight American Civil War battles ...

... and Gary Sheffield has been play-testing his Medieval version of the rules.

In Australia, Alan Saunders has been fighting battles with his Seven Years War armies (which he created using figures that were originally playing pieces from RISK).

Cody N T Adams used playing pieces from the AXIS & ALLIES board game to form German and Russian World War Two armies ...

... and he has fought several battles (including Stalingrad) using his figures.

Last, but by no means least, Archduke Piccolo has been using the rules to fight an ongoing campaign based on the Balkan Wars.

---

Please note that the photographs featured above are © Andrew Smith, Martin Smith, Gary Sheffield, Alan Saunders, Cody N T Adams, and Archduke Piccolo.

My latest book sales figures

I managed to download the latest sales figures from Lulu.com, and they show that my wargame books continue to sell reasonably well.

The last time I looked at the sales figures, they were:

The latest sales figures look like this:

My sales have now broken the 7,000 barrier, and look well on their way to achieving 7,500 by the end of 2020.

My only slight disappointment is the fact that THE PORTABLE COLONIAL WARGAME has not sold as well as I had hoped, especially as the simple campaign system and terrain generator seem to have 'hit the spot' with a lot of wargamers who have used them.

These figures have encouraged me to resume work on the next book in the PORTABLE WARGAME series, and it will be featuring on my next short-term set of aims.

Making the new Madasahatta map even more user-friendly!

Having completed the new, colour version of the Madasahatta map, I decided that I could make it more user-friendly by splitting it into with sections.

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5

Section 6

Section 7

Section 8

I hope that fans of Madasahatta (and potential users!) will find these map section useful.

I should be somewhere in the English Channel ...

... but the cruise Sue and I were supposed to have started yesterday was cancelled just days after we had paid for it. (We are still waiting for a refund, but that is a different story.)

P&O's MV Arcadia.

The cruise aboard the MV Arcadia was going to the Eastern Mediterranean, and should have visited:

• Malaga, Spain (Thursday 22nd September)
• Messina, Sicily, Italy (Sunday 25th September)
• Rhodes, Greece (Tuesday 27th September)
• Heraklion, Crete, Greece (Wednesday 28th September)
• Athens, Greece (Thursday 29th September)
• Gythion (the port for Sparta), Greece (Friday 30th September)
• Gibraltar (Tuesday 3rd October)

There were four destinations on this list that we had not visited before, and we are very disappointed that we have been able to go on this cruise, especially as this was the fifth cruise that has been cancelled since the beginning of the pandemic.

We have some cruises booked for 2021 ... but whether or not they will take place is down to how soon the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic begin to diminish.

The new Madasahatta Map ... is finished!

Yesterday I found the time to finish the new, colour version of the Madasahatta map, and have added a key as well as the place names.

The original map looked like this ...

... and the finished map looks like this:

I am very pleased with the way it has turned out, and I think that if he was still alive, Eric Knowles would have enjoyed seeing it.

---

This was the third of my short-term goals that I have achieved, and I now intend to set myself a few more.

Frank Chadwick's 'bathtub' warships

I would really love some more information about Frank Chadwick's 'bathtub' warships, but all I can find is the section in BARBAROSSA 25 that deals with naval forces. It states the following:

'Both sides have limited naval capacity during the time represented by Barbarossa/25. The Soviets have destroyers and torpedo boats, while the Germans have an inherent naval transport lift capability. The following rules detail the abilities and limitations of the naval forces.

Soviet Naval Forces

The Soviets have four destroyers, as well as five torpedo boats. The characteristics of the Soviet destroyers (DD) and the Soviet torpedo boats (TB) are noted in the table which is located in the next column.

Armament is the vessel's main weapon and may be used for shore bombardment. In both cases it is equivalent to a single gun stand (battery). The destroyers are armed with 122mm guns, not howitzers. The AA armament can be used to attack any plane which is attacking the ship or attacking any other target in a port which the ship is in. Flotation is the number of hits the vessel can take before sinking. Lift is the number of personnel stands the vessel can transport. (in this case, the size of the stand being transported is irrelevant.)

Items other than personnel stands may be transported at the following rates:'

One is left with the impression that Frank Chadwick's 'bathtub' warships were probably quite basic to look at, and that the destroyers were probably two-thirds to a half the size of the destroyers.

'Cartooning': The modelling equivalent of 'bathtubbing'

According to Steven's Balagan blog, the concept of 'bathtubbing' a wargames campaign came about thus:

'The first game where the reduction in scale took place was Frank Chadwick’s reduced-scale Barbarossa campaign. Frank boiled the Soviet navy down to a handful of vessels, and created models of them which were . . . shall we say . . . lacking in certain details.

John Harshman saw the models, and remarked that they looked like something suitable for sailing in a bathtub. Frank loved the notion, and the campaign was henceforth called “Bathtub Barbarossa”.'

When I read this, I was immediately struck by the fact that it was Frank Chadwick's model ships that brought about the term 'bathtub' when referred to a wargame campaign, and that as many of my model ships are also 'lacking in certain details' (and accuracy!), I have for years been doing what Frank Chadwick did when I created my 'cartoon' ship models to use alongside my wargame figures.

It is interesting to note that this reflection on 'cartooning' and 'bathtubbing' comes at a time when I am trying to formulate my own campaign rules for an Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War campaign, and when my fellow bloggers Archduke Piccolo and David Crook are building 'cartoon' model ships to use on their respective tabletops.

This has set my modelmaking mojo twitching, and I am trying to resist the temptation to build some 'cartoon' warships. I did set myself some short-term aim less that a fortnight ago, and so far I have achieved two of the three aims I set myself. I am determined to achieve the third (which is to complete the new, colour version of the Madasahatta map) ... but after that, who knows what I'll do next?

One of my cartoon warships in action during the Winter-ish War.

Maybe I might just build myself a few 'cartoon' warships!

A short health update

Some time ago I took part in the UK bowel cancer screening programme. The results indicated that there was a need for me to undergo a colonoscopy, and this took place on Wednesday afternoon.

During the colonoscopy, three polyps were removed, and these have been sent for further examination to see if there is any indication of the presence of cancer cells. The results will be passed on to me in a week or so's time, at which point I will know if I require treatment or not. In the latter case, I will undergo regular monitoring.

As my regular blog readers can no doubt understand, waiting for the colonoscopy has rather occupied my mind since I was told that I needed one. In fact, the procedure was no more that mildly uncomfortable ... unlike the pre-procedure process, which required me to take Moviprep on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. That said, I strongly recommend anyone who has what the literature coyly describes as ‘traces of blood in your poo’ to have the procedure. I may have bowel cancer (the odds are, in fact, quite low), but having had the colonoscopy, I will know, and can undertake any treatment that is required.

Should I use Strength Points and Equipment Values?

In the recent play-test mini-campaign I ran, I factored the equipment used by a formation into its total Strength Points. For example:

• 1st Infantry Division:
• General von Tarlenheim (Average; 6 SPs)
• 1st Divisional HQ (Average; 2 SPs)
• 1st Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
• 2nd Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
• 3rd Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
• 1st Artillery Regiment (Average; 2 SPs + 2 SPs)
• 1st Anti-tank Battalion (Average; 2 SPs + 2SPs)
• Total strength: 28 SPs (equivalent to 14,000 men)
• Exhaustion Point: 10 SPs

Although this is nice and simple, it does not reflect the fact that any equipment 'lost' during a campaign needs to be replaced ... and this requires production capacity rather than personnel replacement. If I apply this idea to my example, it now looks like this:

• 1st Infantry Division:
• General von Tarlenheim (Average; 6 SPs)
• 1st Divisional HQ (Average; 2 EVs)
• 1st Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
• 2nd Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
• 3rd Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs)
• 1st Artillery Regiment (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
• 1st Anti-tank Battalion (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
• Total strength: 22 SPs + 6 EVs (equivalent to 11,000 men)
• Exhaustion Point: 8 SPs

If I apply the same thinking to 1st Panzer Division, it looks like this:

• 1st Panzer Division:
• General Hentzau (Above average; 6 SPs)
• 4th Divisional HQ (Average; 2 EVs)
• 1st Armoured Car Battalion (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
• 1st Panzer Regiment (Average; 3 SPs + 3 EVs)
• 2nd Panzer Regiment (Average; 3 SPs + 3EVs)
• 7th Motorised Infantry Regiment (Average; 4 SPs + 3 EVs)
• 4th Artillery Regiment (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
• 4th Panzerjager Battalion (Average; 2 SPs + 2 EVs)
• Total strength: 22 SPs + 17 EVs (equivalent to 11,500 men)
• Exhaustion Point: 8 SPs

In campaign terms, the two formations now 'cost' significantly different amounts of production capacity to raise before a campaign, and replacing losses of equipment is far more costly in the case of armoured formations than it is for standard infantry ones.

This is just one of the ideas that is currently whirling around in my head, and may well come to nothing. If I do take it further, one thing that might come into play is equipment recovery on the battlefield, a factor that became very important to all sides during World War Two. It's much easier, quicker, and less costly to repair a battle-damaged tank you can recover than it is to replace one that is totally lost because the enemy has occupied the battlefield.

It is certainly something for me to think about over the coming weeks.

Some thoughts about the Operation Barbarossa mini-campaign

The first thing that strikes me is that the campaign system seems to work. It generated three battles, all of which were plausible, and the results were reasonably historical. After two quite easy victories over unprepared Russian formations, the Germans were pretty well fought to a standstill by the remaining Russian troops. The latter were wiped out in the process, but the German advance had been stopped until they had been able to regroup and replace their losses. In the meantime, STAVKA would be able to move more troops forward to meet a renewed German offensive.

I liked the SP equivalence idea that I 'borrowed' from Archduke Piccolo. It seemed to add something to the campaign. For my purposes, it needs to be tweaked a little bit more, but this is only a minor point.

The version of the PORTABLE WARGAME rules that I used worked well for the first two battles, but I was really struggling to keep all the balls in the air during the third and final battle. For one thing, the 8 x 8 squared grid was really too small for such a large battle (I think that a 12 x 12 squared grid would have been better ... but I don't have one at present), and troops were coming into Close Combat before they had had the opportunity to engage the enemy with gunfire beforehand. Using the playing cards to generate the Turn Sequence was difficult, and I ended up with three (and at the end, four) sets of cards in use at the same time. I had to remember which was which ... and at least once I got them muddled up. Luckily, I don't think that this affected the outcome of the battle.

I think that I pretty well 'pushed' the PORTABLE WARGAME rules to the limit ... and maybe, a bit beyond. In retrospect, I should probably have used my HEXBLITZ rules for such a large battle, and it may be that if I do want to refight the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War, it is those rules (or something like them) that I will need to use.

As play-tests go, I think that it was a great success. It pointed out what worked, and highlighted what needed further development or to be changed. I now need to take a break from my Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War project, if only to give myself time to think about what future direction I need to take.