Command & Control

I INTEND using Bob Cordery's big-battle rules as printed in Battles Of Napoleonic Europe, but omitting most of the section on orders.

In his rules, each turn begins with artillery firing simultaneously.

Then the players issue orders to their units, and there is a dice-off to see who goes first.

The winner reveals the orders he has given, and activates his units, although each unit has to first pass an activation test.

I will be scrapping the issuing of orders, but keeping the activation test.

So, for each unit a die will be rolled, the score reduced by a distance-from-the-general factor.

This is calculated by dividing by three the number of grids the unit is from the general, the result being rounded up.

This factor is deducted from the die roll, a final score of 2 or more being required for activation.

I think this makes for a good command-and-control mechanism, without the time-consuming chore of writing orders (and without the potential arguments around interpreting such orders).

Developing A Scenario

THREE years ago I paid £2.99 for a "Western Rider Cowboy & Indian Playset" in a gift shop in Paignton, Devon (https://timspanton.blogspot.com/2017/10/cowboys-indians.html).
The following year I paid about £7.50 for a "Wild West Playset - Cowboys & Indians" in a toy store in Olomouc, Czech Republic (https://timspanton.blogspot.com/2018/08/toy-lightning-strikes-twice.html).
Both were fun purchases, but I found no way to turn either into a wargame.
However, with time on my hand - haven't most of us, right now? - and a renewed interest in Bob Cordery's Portable Wargame series of books, I decided to take another look.
One of the things inspiring me was realising I would not need to buy a new gaming cloth - I cannot recall how much my green gaming cloth cost, but I know it was not cheap.
I guess I could use the green cloth for a cowboys & Indians game, perhaps set Last Of The Mohicans-style in in the eastern United States. But in that case the palefaces would not really be cowboys.
Instead I am using a sand-coloured fitted sheet which easily fits over one of my approx 6ft by 2ft 6in gaming tables. I suspect it would also fit over both tables side-by-side.

A desert-like Wild West base

Since I am adapting Portable Wargame rules, the next step is to create a grid, which I do with green beads bought from a pound store for exactly this purpose.

The table with a 14x6 5in grid

So far, so good. But I hit a problem when I came to remind myself of the contents of the two playsets. Unfortunately, the figure scales are not compatible.

Colourful contents ... but not matching

Never mind - this is a toy-soldier project, not a modelling diorama.
I will concentrate on using the smaller figures, which go perfectly well with the scenic features, and the smaller of the two wagons.
Indeed the only figures I will use from the larger-scale set will be the two mounted cowboys and the two mounted Indians. I need to use them as the smaller set has no men on horseback.
(To be continued)

Working It Out

ONE of the big challenges with 54mm wargaming is scenery, and specifically buildings.
There are magnificent-looking products on the market, but they tend to have a much larger footprint than is suitable for tabletop gaming.
This is especially the case for Project Kaiser, where I will be using a gridded table (actually two tables pushed together) with units likely consisting of four infantrymen, two cavalrymen or a gun and four gunners.
Bob Cordery, of Portable Wargame fame, came up with one possible solution earlier this month when he pointed out (http://wargamingmiscellany.blogspot.com/2019/05/wooden-castle-building-blocks.html) that discount chain The Works is selling Castle Blocks, a 75-piece wooden set intended for children aged 4+ to build a fort.
I went yesterday to a branch of The Works at the Stratford Centre - not to be confused with nearby Westfield - in East London.
Castle Blocks costs £25, and, like Bob, I was sorely tempted to buy a set as parts of the fort can easily be used separately to create built-up areas with something of a Germanic/East France look.
But perusing the store I found something even more suitable, and a lot cheaper.

Four 'wooden houses'

The label on the back of each house is titled "Decorate Your Own Wooden House." In small print comes the warning: "This product is not a toy. Please keep away from children."
In other words, the houses are aimed at adults. Now can you really imagine any adult wanting such a thing? Well, obviously there are some, and I am one of them!
The houses will require a fair bit of work before they are fit for the wargames table, but I am very pleased with my find.

Gridding The Tables

HERE is how my double-table looks with a 12x10 5in grid.

I added the markers, which are beads from Poundland, in a rather rough-and-ready manner - more precision will be needed when setting up the playing area in earnest.
More scenery is also needed, as well as more figures painted, but the next photo gives an idea of how Project Kaiser will appear nearer completion.

Order! Order!

I HAVE taken the plunge and ordered a second wargaming table, necessary for my 54mm gridded Project Kaiser.
Also today I sent my second order for figures from Transport Models of Preston - a mix of 1870 Prussians and American Civil War Federalists. How the latter will fit in to the Franco-Prussian War will be explained once the troops arrive.

Comparing Grids

HAVING thought about it overnight, I am strongly leaning towards buying a second wargaming table.
That would give a total playing space of approximately 6ft by 5ft, allowing me to form a 4in grid of 18x15 squares.

How a 4in grid would look

But why stop at a 4in grid? I could form a 5in grid of 14x12 squares, which would have the advantage of allowing figures to share a square with terrain features, as in the photo below.

A sample 5in grid

I have checked out the price of buying a second table, and it has risen by less than £1 since I bought the first one three years ago.

Pounding The Streets

POPPED into Poundland in Peckham yesterday on the off-chance I might find something useful, and was rewarded by spotting a jar of beads of the sort little girls use to make necklaces.

Fab find

At least, I assume that is what the beads are for - the good thing, as far as I am concerned, is that they are green.
As such they should make good markers for the grid for my Project Kaiser 54mm refight of the Franco-Prussian War.
My plan, as it stands, is to have a grid of 12x10 3in squares, and it turns out I have plenty of beads for this purpose.

The grid roughly laid out - more precision would be needed for the real thing

Unfortunately, contrary to what I thought, my wargames table is not quite 2ft 6in across, which means arranging 10 3in squares is a bit of a tight fit.
The second problem is that 3in may not prove big enough for my planned units of four infantrymen, two cavalrymen or a gun with four gunners.

The grid with some figures and not-to-scale scenery

Having written the above, I must say the units look better in the photo than they did when I hastily set them up this morning.
I shall have to give this some serious thought. One obvious solution would be to buy a second table - there would just about be enough room in my central London flat.

Making Rules Grid-Compatible

I AM expecting to use my Project Kaiser 54mm toy soldiers on a table-top battlefield formed of 12x10 3in squares.
However, I have a lot more reading to do before I decide on the rules to use, but if I do use an already published set they do not have to be specifically designed for a grid.
In fact I will probably compile my own rules, but would not be surprised if they are heavily influenced by Neil Thomas's in  Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815-1878.

Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe … the more I read the book, the more I like it

The key to using these rules would be converting movement and firing distances from centimetres to squares.
Thomas has loose-order infantry moving 8cm in difficult terrain, 12cm in the open and 16cm on roads; close-order infantry moving 4cm, 8cm or 16cm; skirmishers, who are not penalised for difficult terrain, moving 12cm or 16cm; cavalry moving 12cm, 16cm or 24cm; and artillery moving 12cm or 16cm (no movement in difficult terrain). In addition, infantry lose a quarter of their move if turning. Note that all movement distances are dividable by four.
Weapon ranges are 8cm for smoothbore muskets, 16cm for early rifles, 24cm for later breechloading rifles, 32cm for smoothbore guns, 48cm for rifled bronze guns and 60cm for rifled steel guns. Again all measurements are dividable by four.
Bearing in mind that Project Kaiser is for toy soldiers at corps level rather than regimental, and will work best with simple - but not simplistic - rules, I would probably dispense with skirmishers and just have one formation for infantry. None of my infantry will have smoothbore muskets, so their 8cm range can also be ignored.
One possible solution would be to convert the 60cm range of rifled steel guns to five squares. This would give rifled bronze guns a range of four squares, smoothbore guns three squares, later breechloading rifles two squares and early rifles one square (in each case distances have been rounded to the nearest whole number).
Movement distances could become one square for infantry in the open, half a square in difficult terrain and two squares on roads. Cavalry could move two squares in the open, one square in difficult terrain and three squares on roads. Artillery could move one square in the open and two squares on roads.
There has been even more rounding with the movement distances, and there is the additional problematic factor that infantry have a half-square move in difficult terrain.
But as movement would be measured through the sides of grids, rather than through corners - a point emphasised by Bob Cordery in his Portable Wargame books - there would be no need to give infantry an extra penalty for turning.
Inevitably there have been some compromises in the above conversions, but I think they make a good basis for further work.

Project Kaiser

NEXT year sees the 150th anniversary of a conflict that radically changed the course of human history.
For centuries it had been assumed that if German-speaking lands were to be united, it would be under the leadership of the Dukes of Austria, ie the Habsburgs, better known for their long run of success in elections to the title of Holy Roman Emperor.
Admittedly the electorate was small and extremely select, never reaching double figures, but even religious schism could not dethrone the Habsburgs.
However a temporary blip in 1740, when Charles VII of Bavaria won the title, was followed by the empire's dissolution in 1806 as a consequence of Napoleon Bonaparte's victory the previous December at the battle of Austerlitz.
The Habsburgs had anticipated this, with the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II giving himself the extra title of Emperor of Austria in 1804.
Austria's dominance in German affairs had faced various challenges over the centuries, but by the 1800s its only serious rival was Prussia.
The two countries fought in the mid-1700s, with Prussia grabbing traditional Habsburg lands in Silesia.
They came to blows again in 1866 when Prussia won an overwhelming victory in the Seven Weeks War.
This allowed Prussia to annexe Hanover, Frankfurt and other German-speaking lands. More importantly, from the viewpoint of Prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck, it led to the creation of what was called the North German Confederation.
(Bismarck's title in German was Ministerpräsident, which literally translates as minister-president - his better known title of chancellor was to come with the formation of the German Empire.)
Despite its limited-sounding name, the confederation covered much of what today would be regarded as Germany. It soon forcibly included Saxony, but missing - for the moment - were the major states of Bavaria, Württemberg, Hesse-Darmstadt and Baden.
Also missing, very much according to Bismarck's plans, was Catholic Austria, which he feared would challenge Protestant Prussia's pre-eminence in a united Germany.
Four years after the Seven Weeks War, Bismarck seized the chance to goad France's Napoleon III into invading German lands.
Austria remained neutral, as did Denmark, which also had a recent grudge against Prussia, while nationalism overcame most south Germans' fear of Prussia to such an extent that Bavaria, Württemberg and Baden joined the Prussian side.
The Franco-Prussian War, known in German-speaking lands as the final event in a series of conflicts called the German Wars of Unification, broke out on July 19, 1870.
It lasted longer than seven weeks but could easily be called the Seven Months War as the Germans marched into Paris on February 17, 1871 (the official victory parade in Paris occurred on March 1).
France was forced to pay an indemnity of five-billion francs - the equivalent, depending on how you calculate it, of almost £350billion in today's money.
That eye-watering sum was chosen to match the formula of an indemnity imposed on Prussia in 1807 by Napoleon Bonaparte, and was later the basis for reparations imposed on Germany after World War One.
But the main result of the Franco-Prussian War was the formation of a unified Germany under the title of German Empire, which included all states where German was the main language, except for Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein.
The new German Empire included the vast majority of Alsace and German-speaking areas of Lorraine (its German name is Lothringen), both former parts of the Holy Roman Empire that had been seized by France in the 17th and 18th centuries respectively.
The King of Prussia became, officially, German Emperor, a title carefully worded over other possibilities that included Emperor of Germany (the preference, apparently, of Prussia's king at the time, Wilhelm I) and Emperor of the Germans.
The latter two titles were regarded as politically insensitive - Emperor of Germany because it implied personal rule over all states within the new German Empire, and Emperor of the Germans because it implied rule over all German speakers.
The German Empire began as a federation of 27 states, but one in which Prussia completely dominated by virtue of population, territorial size and the wording of the empire's constitution.
Incidentally, the German word for emperor, Kaiser (all nouns in German are capitalised), reflects the original Roman pronunciation of the title caesar (the letter c in Latin was pronounced as a k - if the Romans wanted an s sound they, weirdly enough, used an s).
Clearly the Franco-Prussian War was a pivotal moment in European history but also had major ramifications for humans most everywhere, leading, as it surely did, to both World Wars.
Project Kaiser is my name for what I hope will bring together three of my current main interests in wargaming - 54mm toy soldiers, using a grid as a playing surface, and refighting historic battles on or close to significant anniversaries.
As it happens, I already have some figures that are very suitable for Project Kaiser, being  reproductions of Victorian metal soldiers.
I bought them somewhere in Kent, I believe, probably Deal or Folkstone, in the 1970s.

My metal toy soldiers patrolling in front of my collection of wargaming books

The box they came in does not reveal the manufacturer, but they are described as being "Prussian Band Jäger Battalion circa 1870".

Distinctive packaging

There is no way I am willing to spend the sort of money required to complete Project Kaiser with metal soldiers - luckily there is a good alternative.
to be continued

Review: Table Top Battles - Grid Wargaming With Miniatures

THIS is officially the second edition of a set of rules that first came out in 2004 as Table Top Armies, but was republished with amendments as Table Top Battles in 2007.
Although it has only 58 pages of A4 paper within flexi covers, the booklet, which I got for £15-plus-postage from Caliver Books, has much in it despite using fairly large print.
Photos accompanying the text are excellent, showing just how attractive miniatures can look on a surface of gridded squares.
Quite a bit of thought seems to have gone into designing the cover and, naturally, the rules, which generically cover ancients through horse-and-musket with many supplements, including ones for naval warfare, air combat, fantasy and solo gaming.

Well-designed cover

Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the wording of the rules, which contains some really appalling and baffling English.
It starts with the Forward (sic): "Table Top Battles has sold around the world albeit in small numbers and has had a good reaction from the Public when staging Participation games. Admission granted by the Newbury And Reading Wargames Association at their annual warfare event named Warfare."
Again: "After Table Top Battles appeared, other rule sets based on the square grid have been published. Written by some big names in the war game hobby industry."
This carelessness with basic English is perhaps not of great importance in a foreword, but it creates doubt in the rules themselves.
For example, page 18 covers "Hand to Hand Combat (Using a 12 sided die)".
Before getting to the combat mechanics, we are told: "(b) Some types of stands have a chance to avoid combat."
The stands are listed, and then comes: "(c) Throw a die for the stand trying to avoid combat. The score must be a '4' or more. If this is attained the stand can be moved back 1 square minimum, 4 square maximum, facing the enemy."
Apart from the poor grammar, the question arises: do the authors, Michael and Joyce Smith, mean a 4 on a 12-sided or six-sided die? The former gives a 75% chance of success, the latter a 50% chance. Perhaps the answer is obvious to you; it isn't to me.
Issues like this might have been cleared up by including what every set of rules should have, in my opinion: a detailed play-through of a battle.
Enough criticism; what do I like about Table Top Battles?
As I have already stated, the booklet is generally well-presented and a lot of eventualities are covered in the rules.
These are not, and do not pretend to be, suitable for tournaments at wargame conventions - there are too many possible bones of contention and the rules are not period-specific enough for most tastes.
What they are very much suitable for, as I hoped when buying, is simple battles that emphasise the toy-soldier aspect of the hobby rather than model-soldier realism.
The rules could certainly be used for refighting famous battles from history. Indeed it is quite possible I will be using some of the Smiths' ideas in an upcoming project I have for refighting the Franco-Prussian War in 54mm-scale.
The great advantage of using a gridded table-top is it almost completely eliminates one of the biggest time consumers in wargaming - measuring movement and firing distances.
The Smiths recommend using a grid of 16x12 2in squares. That is a total of 192 squares, which may sound a lot but only requires a table 3ft by 2ft 6in.
You would not need to rebase figures, provided they are on bases which fit inside the squares, eg the popular base-width of 40mm would be more-or-less ideal.
To sum up: despite its easily avoidable faults, I regard Table Top Battles as a pleasing addition to my wargaming library.

Review: The Portable Napoleonic Wargame

THE Portable Napoleonic Wargame is the third in a series of Portable Wargame books by veteran wargamer Bob Cordery.
I have the previous two books, The Portable Wargame and Developing The Portable Wargame, and have gone through the latest offering twice.
I bought it direct from the publisher, Lulu, in paperback format for £10.98, which includes £2.99 shipping.

Attractive cover

The book has some 170 pages and contains FOUR sets of rules, although one set is more of historic interest, being a modification of Joseph Morschauser III's rules from his pioneering 1962 book How To Play War Games In Miniature.
Morschauser fought his battles on a gridded table-top using figures and scenery that emphasised the toy aspect of the hobby.
Cordery follows very much in this tradition, although he has greatly developed the concept, adding layers of realism without overly complicating what are genuinely quickplay rules.
The great advantage of using a grid is it massively speeds movement and firing calculations. The price for this is a reduction in flexibility, and the obtrusiveness of the grid markings.
Cordery gets around the latter problem to a large extent by using hexagonal terrain produced by Nottinghamshire-based Kallistra. The terrain looks fabulous and, while the hexagonal lines are clear, they are not so "in your face" as you might expect.
Hex terrain works really well for 20th-century and later wargames, but I am a lot less keen on it for games set in earlier times when straight lines were usually such an important feature of how armies formed. A square grid, as used by Morschauser, works better, in my view.
Cordery goes into some depth on the pros and cons of hexes and squares in his original The Portable Wargame book. He does not repeat that discussion but you can get a clear picture of the issues by studying the three battles reported in great detail in The Portable Napoleonic Wargame.
Why three battles? Well, in addition to the modified Morschauser rules, Cordery includes three sets of his rules to cover Brigade, Division and Big Battle engagements. The differences between the three sets are not mere tinkering but reflect the very real differences in the scales depicted.
Each set comes with its own battle report - Division on a squares battlefield, the other two on hexes. The battles include numerous black-and-white photos and a complete turn-by-turn account of what happened.
These reports get repetitive at times, especially as the language used is somewhat long-winded, eg there are far too many sentences like: "The 2nd US Light Dragoons rolled a D6 to resolve what happened and a D6 die roll score of 4 meant that the unit lost a further 1SP [strength point]."
This could easily be reduced to: "The 2nd US Light Dragoons rolled a 4 to resolve what happened, losing a further SP."
Cordery is also addicted to endnotes. The book has 178 of these, all of which could have been incorporated into the text without any interruption to the flow of the narrative.
But to an extent these criticisms could be seen as nit-picking as there is so much to commend.
Even if you are not particularly interested in the Napoleonic period you might find the book worthwhile just for its appendix on two command-and-control systems using playing cards. These are in a way stripped-down versions of Bob Jones' famous - infamous to some people - Piquet family of rules.
Cordery's original playing-card system was detailed in The Portable Wargame. I used it in my refights of the Battle of Chotusitz http://timspanton.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-battle-of-chotusitz.html and the Battle of Sahay http://timspanton.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-battle-of-sahay.html with mixed results.

Looking from behind the French lines at the Battle of Sahay

He now calls this The Random Method and has added a similar, but much less random, Turn-By-Turn Method, which he uses in the book for his Division battle. It seems to work well for engagements using a small number of units, but then so does the system of orders he adds to his Big Battle rules.
None of the three sets of rules is meant to be sacrosanct, and I can well imagine a user wanting to add flavouring, one way being by adding so-called national characteristics (for example, the rules make no difference between the musketry of a two-deep British line and a three-deep French one).
Will there be more Portable Wargame books? I certainly hope so, and the obvious next step would be The Portable Ancient Wargame.
If so, I hope Cordery takes a leaf out of Neil Thomas's marvellous Ancient & Medieval Wargaming book by showing how Portable Wargame rules can be used to refight historical battles.
But that is for the future - for now I heartily recommend The Portable Napoleonic Wargame and feel sure it will make for pleasant browsing for many years to come.