Some notes to Steve and Nigel on the Black Powder Ruleset

Had a brilliant game of 'Black Powder' with Steve and Nigel's 7 Years War, 20mm plastic armies, last week. Both brilliantly painted although with very different painting styles - Steve's nicely painted-block painted and detailed, Nigel's very different - a striking drybrush on black technique-not designed to be examined close up,-but looked very effective on the tabletop. The game would have been more brilliant of course if I'd won, and I think Steve was a little consternated when I capitulated around 10pm, but as this was the fourth BP game in around as many week's for me it was fairly clear to me I'd failed to capitalise on a good start,. My right wing had almost completely crumbled, centre stalled and vulnerable to his cavalry and my initially successful left flank assault had failed to clear a stubborn grenadier regiment needed to turn the flank. Not a winnable situation, and prolonging the action just to try and reach stalemate, well not the action of an honourable Austrian gentleman!

This is around the 5th or 6th game of 'Black Powder' I've had now, all have been very enjoyable but I'm starting to get a feel for the system's strengths and weaknesses.

Nigel very selflessly referee'd as he wanted to get to grips with the system. As I'd been playing BP rules for three weeks in a row under Reece's umpireship, a few rules questions came up, which I found looking up for myself early the next day. Didn't find them all, but thought I'd share a few:

1) Nigel had a different interpretation of when a unit becomes 'Shaken' and how long it remains so to Reece. Reece rules that once a unit has taken hits EQUAL to its 'Stamina' value it is 'Shaken' and remains so until 'rallied' off by a general etc.. Nigel ruled a unit 'Shaken' only when it had taken casulaties GREATER than its 'Stamina'. This has a big impact on the game, as casualties greater than a units 'Stamina' are discarded at the end of the turn. So in Reece's games a 'Shaken' unit was pretty useless until you commit a general to it. In the game ref'd by Nigel 'Shaken' units bounced back quite quickly.

Checking the rules, I found a pretty clear reading on this one:

'Once a unit has taken casualties EQUAL (my emphasis) to its stamina value it is shaken. In most cases this value will be 3, meaning that once a unit has taken three casulaties it is shaken.' p.48. Similar ruling also p.66

So this one goes to Reece's interpretation, but as the rules on 'Shaken' units are explained in at least 3 different places in the rulebook, scattered across some 80 pages, I understand Nigel's difficulty in picking this up.

2. Steve questioned whether troops disordered by closing fire could still charge in. I'll need to look at the rules again to quote chapter & verse, but my rules check confirmed they could. Troops 'shaken' by closing fire are a different matter though, as they are subject to a break test etc.

Basically combining points 1. & 2. together, disordered is a minor condition, they recover automatically after a turn, can still charge in etc. 'Shaken' is a more serious business, it is permenent until a general arrives to try to rally them, cannot charge, and have to take break tests every time they take more casualties.

3. Some confusion arose when I elected to form square on being charged by cavalry. We were not sure if it could in this period (but Nige allowed it), we were then not sure if the cavalry could charge in. I threw it across to Phil on the other table, backed up by Ginge who said Cavalry could definitely cannot charge squares-although I got my come uppance for the ungentlemanly way I appealed before the ref had time to rule by having the unit slaughtered by infantry on the next turn!

Sorting this out after required a careful reading of the section on 'Advanced Rules' the next day.

The rules note in the section Units with the 'Form Square' Special Rule' reads as follows:

"'From the age of Marlborough, if not before, infantry units would typically form square only as a defensive measure during a retreat. They did NOT (my emphasis) do so as a tactical enemy cavalry as did infantry of Napoleonic times. From the end of the eighteenth century troops were trained to respond to cavalry threats by forming square. Troops trained to form square in this way have the special rule 'form square' p75.

The rules then go on to explain rules with this special rule MUST form square when charged by cavalry. It also says infantry forming square in response to a cavalry charge cannot deliver closing fire.

There is some vagueness in terms of 'end of the eighteenth century', but I take this to mean the Revolutionary/Napoleonic war era, not the earlier 7 years war period. In any case, the ref/scenario setter has control over this, as a unit needs to be designated as having this special rule.

So there we have it. Two different tactical reponses to cavalry charges. Earlier than Napoleonic stand and blast them, hoping to stop them with fire, Napoleonic period form square when charged (but lose on blasting them). Napoleonic players will doubtless use Napoleon' s trick of charging with cavalry to force them into squares which infantry/artillery can then attack, but earlier 18th century warfare is an altogether more gallant, and less devious, affair. My reading is that pre-Napoleonic troops can still put their troops into squares, but have to do so well ahead of being charged, using a regular move, but this is definitely the ref's call as he could rule they can only do this when they are also 'in retreat'.

Regarding Phil/Ginge's comments, the answer is yes they are broadly right but were wrong to be so definite, as there is an important exception (which might have applied in our case-I can't remember).

The rules can be found in the section on forming Battalion Squares p.74-5. The rules begin by stating 'The rules apply to all troops, including those of earlier period...'. It then goes on to say (note italics are in the rulebook not mine) 'Enemy cavalry are not permitted to charge a square unless it is disordered or shaken'. It goes on to note this applies also to Fanatic cavalry. It goes on to explain 'Cavalry ordered to do so will automatically halt 3" away and the player can use whatever remaining move remains to ride back, or around the side of the enemy, as he wishes.' p 73.

So was Phil/Ginge right? Well, yes to say cavalry cannot charge infantry, but the 'disordered' and 'shaken' exception immediately after is a pretty important on that i don't remember them pointing out.

Anyway, thanks again for the game. Hope this clarifies things a bit for next time.

American Civil War for Fire & Fury

My big achievement so far in 2011 has been finally finishing both my American Civil War Armies in 20mm plastic. The main set of rules that I'll be using are 'Fire & Fury', although there should be no problem if I decide to use Volley & Bayonet or Black Powder instead. Fire & Fury are 'Grand Tactical' rules designed to fight large battles with a ground scale around 1":50 yards, but Volley and Bayonet is for even bigger battles and uses 1":100 yards. Black Powder doesn't have a ground scale as such but the musket range would imply around 1":1o yards, so more appropriate for regimental sized actions. We've given the figures a spin with Fire & Fury rules and all agreed they gave a really great game, so they'll probably remain our core set.

One innovation for me was trying out the paper flags found at www.warflag.com. The only problem is that I felt they were such a big success that I will have to do this with all armies where I can do so, especially the Napoleonic, which will even further delay there arrival on the tabletop!

This requires trimming away any existing flag and pole (or rifle if you use a different figure) on the figure and replacing it with some wire. I did this with pliers, after heating the wire on a gas flame, strengthening with PVA where necessary. The flags on the site are for 25mm, not 20mm figures, but I tried different sizes using photoshop to reduce them, but settled in the end for the size I downloaded them. This makes them a bit bigger than true scale, but I actually think it looks much better on the tabletop. Flags are added by sticking together around the pole with PVA glue. Once dry they are bent into a more interesting shape. The site recommends varnishing, which I haven't done yet.

The following pics show them before trimming the ends of the poles with wire cutters:

I bought all the figures a scarily long time ago. They are a mix of Esci, Imex and Italeri. I bought most Esci (probably for a dumb recent like they are cheaper), but if I were to do it all over I would buy all Italeri, and some Imex Confederates. Italeri figures are much nicer, and there is a lot of variety in their various boxes. Imex Confederates are mainly valuable because they are all in floppy hats, which are thin on the ground in other sets, so it gives you more troops like this. I've gone for almost 50/50 units with hats and kepis for the confederates and I like that look.

Just for reference for future games/opponents. I initially based these up according to the F&F recommendations for 25mm. I later regretted it for three reasons:

1) This doubles the base width viz-a-viz 15mm, and they recommend doubling move distances/ranges etc.. But F&F is specifically designed for 'Grand Tactical' games with AT LEAST one Corp of troops per side, in fact the rule writers themselves are clearly play with 15mm, with lots and lots of figures (most of the published scenarios are for huge battles) on very big tables. Double the frontage of your brigades and scale up your movement distances/ranges and unless you double your playing area you have to scale DOWN the size of actions you put on the table. So why buy a set of rules for large scale actions then restrict yourself this way?

2) Being a cheap skate, I planned everything on the basis of using about 3 infantry figs to a stand. This is recommended for 15mm, and for 25mm it says 3-5 figs. I thought I'd get away with 3 figs, but after basing everything up it just didn't look right, and I didn't feel like buying and painting any more figures, which was already plenty to paint.

3) My big bases with a sprinkling of figures were taking up lots of storage, far more than my tightly packed bases of Napoleonic troops. My two 'starter' armies were taking up nearly 10 storage trays.

So when I finally decided to have a second serious go at trying to get this lot painted in 2010, I took a drastic decision. Rebase the lot. I decided 20mm was after all in the middle of 15mm and 25mm, so why not go for the smaller base size. In the result, I have been very happy with the result and it has caused very few issues. Infantry look good three to a base. Cavalry took a bit more thinking out -it being a toss up whether to have one mounted figure or two on a base- but I stuck to the 2 to a base recommendation, but based them first individually (might want to use them for Western or some other type of skirmish) and used 'sabots' with magnetic sheet to get them to the same size as the infantry 'stands'.

As mentioned many of the F&F scenarios are MASSIVE and designed to be played out over many hours, if not days! The rule writers clearly are in love with this period and love painting hundreds of figures in blue and grey. I do not see myself spending night after night for the next few years doing this, so this is a relatively small F&F army. Fortunately there is a brillant website at www.fireandfury.co.uk with loads of scenarios and 'competition armies' for exactly this size of army, designed for games completed in 3-4 hours.

For future reference if any potential opponents are reading this and selecting a scenario, I have 10 brigade command stands per side with a little over 80 stands of Union & 70 stands of Confederate infantry (ie. close to 250 figs a side). I have around 10-15 stands of figures per side left to finish painting, so there will be over 90 when completed. I also have 2 Corp Commanders and half a dozen divisional commanders per side, two units of cavalry - about 10 stands a unit-per army. I take my artillery and limbers from a large 'pool' including Napoleonics and have crew based separately on stands of two figs each, which can be deployed two stands to a gun (ie. 4 crew) or just one, so there is no problem deploying ten plus guns per side. Overall this gives me enough for about 'a Corp and a half' to put on the table. It would be nice to push this up a bit (to two or even three Corps) so that I can play a few more of the scenarios out there, but overall it is a 'tabletop-filling' force, so I'm happy for now.

To finish off here's a pic of the two armies 'filling the table', although taken before I finished painting the cavalry.

Anglo-Egyptian Army in Sudan

My Anglo-Egyptian army for Sudan is pretty close to completion, and could certainly be fielded as it is.

I've considered using a number of different rule sets. Top of the list for now is 'Sword and the Flame', an older ruleset but with a lot of character. This requires figures to be based individually, and I've used 1p coins for the purpose and cardboard or thin MDF for mounted troops. I've just seen you can get special laser cut movement trays for 1p coins, which I'll probably get. This will also make them easier to use with 'Black Powder' which covers this period and is designed for larger battles than 'Sword & the Flame'.

The 'Sword and the Flame' rules specify ratios for different armies relative to the British. From memory the ratio for Sudan is 2.5 to one. So the main constraint on how many British that you put on the table is not the number of Colonial troops painted up, but the number of Dervishes, because you need a lot more of them!

The first picture is the latest addition to the force, a unit of British Camel Corp, mounted and dismounted. The figures are mainly Hat, with the dismounted force filled out with some extra Waterloo 1815 and Esci figures.

Next up is a couple of units that I completed just before that. These are the excellent Hat Colonial Highlanders. I've split the box to paint them two different ways: in red coats and in khaki.

The red coats could be used as Black Watch in a Tel El Kebir fight against the regular Egyptian army, when Wolseley led the British invasion of Egypt to secure the country for its creditors after it defaulted on debts incurred to build the Suez canal. My British Army for the Zulu wars would provide plenty of other 'redcoats', but I just don't have enough Egyptians at the moment. I also thought the Highlanders could be used for Majuba Hill, if I ever got around to buying and painting up some Boers. As my Confederate Cavalry and Imex Confederate Infantry which I have based up individually can be used as Boers, I probably should say 'more Boers'. Unfortunately, although there were 'redcoats' at Majuba Hill, I recently read it didn't include the Highlanders (Gordon's I think), who shipped in to the Cape from India, clad in Khaki.

So khaki it is for Majuba Hill, as well as the NW Frontier...but the Sudan? On recently buying the 'Black Powder' book, I saw Highlanders deployed for battle against a horde of Fuzzy Wuzzies in 'grey'. Arrgh!!! On reading the Osprey book it was fairly clear accounts were sketchy of that particular campaign and mention is made of some uniforms being khaki and some grey, so unless I stumble on a more definitive source (and I'm not going to look too hard!), khaki is probably fine.

Next up is the Egyptians, what I have nicknamed the '21st Tommy Coopers'! The Egyptians apparently had three uniforms throughout this period. These were a white (summer) uniform and a blue (winter) uniform in the 1880s and a khaki one in the 1890s. I've gone for the early summer one. It ties in with pictures I've seen of the Egyptian army at Tel El Kebir, if I ever look to expand it for a match up against the British, and I'm sure distant garrisons might have been slow to be re-equipped in the later period! The picture is one of two units, and figures are from Waterloo 1815.

The Waterloo 1815 sets also provided some more figures I planned to paint as Sudanese. I had intended to use these for the later period and started painting them with brown tunics and khaki trousers. The sources I have for uniforms in this period, however, seem to conflict, and as I'm not that happy with the look, I may re-paint the jackets in blue.

For now that just leaves three more units. These are two of them:

These are the first two units that I painted up for the British, and truth be told I'm now a bit dissatisfied with them. The figures look fine when inspected in the hand, but not very impressive and 'a bit dull' on the tabletop, being rather over-shadowed by the Hat Highlanders. The figures, British and Sikhs, come from Esci's NW Frontier pack (British being the same as their Zulu Wars British). Maybe its because I've painted them in a darker khaki than the Highlanders (I notice time and again how, when you have the choice, using lighter colours generally looks so much better on the tabletop. Maybe its because I've gone for (a realistic) khaki turban, rather than something less realistic for campaign but more spectacular. Maybe its because I based the Sikhs when I lived in Spain, and use 5 peseta coins which are smaller than a 1p and seem to 'diminish the figure'. Either way they are serviceable, but not great, and the Sikhs are likely to be 'retired' (or just sent for WW2 duties!) once I have painted the new Hat Sikhs that I have bought, which are larger and 'chunkier' like the Highlanders.

That just leaves the unit of British lancers that I have converted with head swaps, some mounted officers from the Waterloo 1815 set not yet painted, and the Gatling guns still on their sprues. You might see the lancers in the background in some shots, but as I still have some painted to do on them I haven't taken any pictures.

Apart from that I still have a fair number of spare Esci British figures, and I might try painting some in grey, as I did to add some more dismounted camel corp figures, which ended up indistinguishable from Hat's dismounted figures, but might leave it until hat brings out its Zulu war British before adding any more khaki clad British.

Not included are my Zulu war British. Early in the conflict some British regiments wore redcoats, so they could be added.

Future additions could be the Hat Gardiner gun, which includes a Naval Landing party, Egyptian Army Camel corp and Colonial Artillery, but none are essential. As mentioned a possible extension is to paint up a lot more Egyptians, to match against the British at Tel El Kebir.

Obviously, this also gives me a solid core of a NW Frontier force, for which I can use the British in khaki (and grey if I paint some that way), the Sikhs, the Highlanders and the lancers. I'm just waiting for Hat to bring out some Bengal Lancers to complete that force. All of the aforementioned could also be deployed in the Boer Wars, too. Although I'm planning a force for Chris Peer's 'Darkest Africa' rules in 28mm not 20mm, a lot of these figures including Sikhs and Sudanese could be used in African wars, and I painted up some of the Esci Muslim Warriors (now re-issued by Italeri) within my Dervish force, with a view to be being used as Zanzabari Arabs as well.

This is the whole force so far arrayed together: