The other day I made an assertion here about the recent ratio of wargaming posts to those on other subjects which was so inaccurate that perhaps even the Mango Mussolini himself would have hesitated before saying it. In an effort to nudge reality nearer to speciousness this post is about wargaming.

Nothing much of note has happened in the annexe for quite a while, but in the background I have trying to work through a small issue with the Vauban siege rules. When we first played them a couple of years ago I dropped a couple of elements that I couldn't work out how to deal with while we wrestled with the big picture of how they hung together overall. One was the 'blind spot' at the point of bastion into which the guns of that bastion cannot fire. The guns of adjacent bastions or other elements of the fortress can, of course, target anyone entering that space - that being the raison d'être of the star design - but they will do so at longer range.

There were three elements to the issue: what the rules say, what my bastions actually look like and how to make some sort of measuring device that reflects where we end up after considering the first two. To help playability the rules treat a lot of the aspects of siege warfare in an abstract manner. When it comes to bastions this means that each bastion is deemed to be a unit of fortress guns, that can fire to either side, but not to both sides at once, with the number and position of models being simply for aesthetic purposes. That in turn means that arc of fire and dead ground need to be defined without looking at the toys. There is a large colour diagram in the rules which aims to do this, but whilst I can see what the author has done, I'm a bit unsure as to why he has done it.

Putting that to one side for the moment let's turn to the bastions which I designed using a CAD system, made with a laser cutter and which feature in my games. They're the wrong shape; or to be more precise they are a bit squished up. Had I made them to both reflect 18th century reality and also to fit in the necessary models (necessary for aesthetic purposes only - see above) then the fortress would have stretched most of the way across the table and there would be any room for the siege lines. So they are somewhat foreshortened with very different angles to both commercially produced bastions that others may have and indeed to the diagram in the rules. It's time for the application of wargamers common sense. The dead ground at the point of my bastions will be laid out in a way that looks all right to me; my table my rules.

But how to measure it out? You would not believe the lengthy discussions that have taken place around this essentially trivial topic.  Ideas have ranged from drilling holes in the bastions themselves and fitting lengths of piano wire, to marking the table edges, to amending the original CAD drawings and thereby 3D printing an angle wangler. In the end, and based largely on a conversation with a non-wargaming boardgaming friend of mine, I have gone seriously cheapskate and cut some shapes from foamboard and painted them green. The main advantage being that if the area of dead ground doesn't seem right after all when playtested then I can just cut some more and try again.

 I have set the siege up again to have a little play. It's been getting on for three years since it was last out on the table. I refer to 'the siege' because the initial layout is always going to be pretty much the same. These photos may therefore look familiar. 

One change that we decided was necessary was to start the game with some of the second parallel already built, and that's what you see above. I want to test whether that means that any adjustment needs to be made to the force sizes or to the opening values of food, powder, morale etc. I hope not, and that's the way I'm going to try it first. Having re-read the rules I'm not sure we gave sufficient weight to blind spots around the bastions during previous games, although as it was so long ago I may just have forgotten. One aspect of addressing that which requires some thought - and possibly the manufacture of  player aid or two - is that my bastions don't have as acute an angle as would have done in real life or as the rules assume. The main reason for that is simply to make the table footprint more manageable, although it also makes it easier to put the cannon and figures in them. As I say I need to have a think about how to match the rules to the terrain.

Speaking of terrain, the only real change since last time is that I have modelled and cast up some proper positions for guns and mortars to replace the rather bodged way in which I did it before. Hopefully you can get the idea from the photo above.

 A couple of months ago I posted photos of the forces laid out for the final assault in the siege game that has been clogging up the table in the annexe since the middle of last year. I have actually played it out, I just haven't written it up. The reason for that was that it became obvious fairly quickly that it was impossible for the attackers to succeed using the combination of the rules as written, the forces as chosen and the tactics which I was employing. 

A small part of the problem was that the defenders had won every one of the preliminary siege rounds, forcing the besiegers to attack before they had built all the siege equipment they otherwise might have and without the level of superiority of forces they would have wished for. Possibly also I had jinxed them a bit by writing in that last post: "I don't see how the attackers can lose". However the main problem is that assault by escalade is exceedingly difficult. Now, obviously it should be, but then again one wants a balanced game. I came away with a number of thoughts as to how to tweak things, for example I think more, but smaller, defending units might work better. The attackers also need to concentrate their efforts to gain local superiority. I had held off posting about it pending trying those out, but have decided to move on and do something else completely.

So, overall I thought the rules, which you will recall were published about a year ago in Miniature Wargames, were an interesting way to represent a medieval siege. They could also provide a platform to build on to include some of the aspects which Vauban's Wars introduced effectively e.g. food, spies, disease. The part that didn't work for me was the assault, but funnily enough that's the bit that isn't handled well by VW either. 

 Having bigged up the 'Lion Rampart' article in the July Miniature Wargames I do have a slight complaint: it was a tad vague on one detail. "Surely not," I hear you cry "wargames rules that are ambiguous? Say it ain't so!". The issue relates to what I see as the key difficulty with gaming a siege on the tabletop, namely that sieges are clearly campaigns. They go on for a long period, with happenings in slow time punctuated by happenings in quick time. If one wishes to get all one's toys out on display - and what else are they for? - then one ends up with the table being the map and the map being the table. 

This typically means that the slow-time stuff works fine, but there is a problem when we need to move to the quick-time stuff, typically assaults and sallies. The 'Vauban's War' answer to this is to pretend there isn't a difference and that one can just switch to a tactical ruleset and carry on. This was so obviously bollocks that we didn't even try it. Instead I quickly knocked up an abstract high-level set using C&C dice, but they haven't been used to date because in our playtests everyone seemed to prefer the grind of bombardment and starvation. I think that the answer to this dilemma which has been decided on by the author of 'Lion Rampart' is to admit defeat and put the toys back in the cupboard. A lot of action will be pen and paper until there's a need to set terrain up, get the little men out and play a scenario. I say that's what I think because it would seem implicit, but he never actually comes out and says it. 

It all makes sense, but I rather like the look of how my home made town and castle all looks and want to leave it set up to be admired, although admittedly only by me and the window cleaner. So, I've chosen to go for two 'tables' side-by-side. The first is the town and is the one on which the final assault (*) will be fought; the other is a space on which scenery will be set up and taken down to fight out the smaller actions along the way. I think this is not only aesthetically pleasing, but actually beneficial based on what I remember of how 'Lion Rampant' plays in practice. More of this in due course.

* And one thing I really like about these siege rules is that there will definitely be a final assault come what may.

 Last year we played some horse and musket siege games in the annexe using 'Vauban's Wars'. It was the publication of those which had led me to laser cut a fortress and take up resin casting in order to make some saps. That was all a bit of a digression from what I was previously doing, which was using the laser cutter to make myself a modular castle and some town walls. That in turn had been driven to some extent by having owned models of medieval siege equipment for years and never really having got them on to the table.

My attention was therefore caught by an article by David Hiscocks in the July issue of Miniature Wargames entitled Lion Rampart, described as a siege campaign for Osprey's 'Lion Rampant' rules. I had briefly thought about trying to rejig VW for an earlier period, but had abandoned the idea as those rules are definitely written for the age of a structured and scientific approach to siege warfare. However, having read and played them was good background to reading this article because I could see how he was attacking the same challenge, but had come up with a very different approach. I was sufficiently impressed to think about trying it out. I've had a bit of a play around and have come up with the following:

I'll do another post as to how I ended up with that layout and what the marked off area is all about. Note that the sun is still shining in West Yorkshire despite it being late July.

Don't enquire too closely into the period or the place; let's just say late medieval, somewhere in Western Europe.

 There was consensus around a couple of issues following our siege games. One was to make the game a bit quicker by starting with more of the siege works already in place and the other was about how close together siege guns could be. As I think I've mentioned before, the rules are agnostic when it comes to terrain; you play with what you have. The way I did it originally was to cast the embrasure piece separately so it could simply be slotted into trench lines when required. It turned out to be one of those ideas that were better in theory than in practice. As well as leaving the guns a bit too far apart it was quite fiddly to place on the table. So I have decided to cast up some proper gun emplacements.

The trench sections are 10cm long, so my first thought was to make the emplacements 5cm. However that's not quite wide enough for the guns and crew. In addition, I used bits and pieces from the Italeri Battlefield Accessory Set when making the masters for the trenches and saps and wanted to do the same again for consistency. That decision led to 6cm being a more convenient width and so that's what I've gone with.

The only other materials used in the masters are foamboard and Polyfilla, all covered in a couple of coats of wood varnish. I have ordered both silicone, to make the moulds, and polyurethane, to cast up some models, and will crack on when it all arrives. I'm tempted to make a mortar position while I'm waiting.

 The rules may work, but the link between my camera and my laptop still doesn't. (As an aside, having failed with everything else I have now ordered a new cable. If that does the trick then apologies to Microsoft will appear here in due course.) In the meantime readers are denied the full range of artistic shots that I took and are instead limited to a quick snap on the phone.

The game was closely poised when time ran out. I said that I would finish it solo and, who knows, maybe I will. One thing I rather like about the rules is the sheer variety of things that can happen, and we had a couple of occurrences that we hadn't encountered before. There was an uprising of sorts by the civilians within the town, which didn't amount to much, and then news came that a relieving army was on the way, albeit it turned out to be coming as slowly as it possibly could. 

So, by and large I am happy with the rules, but I think they need to be tweaked to achieve a couple of things: increase the besieger's chances of winning somewhat and make sure a game will finish in two evenings. The main routes to do that are likely to be to start the game with some of the second parallel already built, for it be be possible for siege guns to be placed closer together (either two guns in an emplacement or just making the emplacements smaller), and perhaps reducing the strengths of the walls. The rules as published are necessarily agnostic about scenery definitions, so I think I also need to clarify further what can and can't be done with the pieces I actually have; e.g. how many units can be one one stretch of fortress wall. And I think some escalade rules would keep the defenders on their toes.

In an event, it will be a while before we have another go. I'm going to clear the table - either before or after I finish off the game - and try something else. In the short term Mark has promised/threatened to bring round his classic 20mm Napoleonics (which can be seen here) for some Old School, er, goodness. 

 “It was always cheaper to build a new 33-MegaLith circle than upgrade an old slow one.” 

- Terry Pratchett

In my absence from the blog over the last week or so the shocks have kept coming in the the specific fields of politics and cricket: it turns out that the prime minister is a liar and that England aren't very good. However, it hasn't been any amazement which I may have felt that has prevented me from blogging; rather it has been the after-effects of upgrading my laptop to Windows 11. Much driver updating later, almost everything now seems to work. The exception is that I still can't transfer photos from my camera, which is unfortunate because there has been a game in the annexe. 

I have had, therefore, to resort to my phone to record the intricate trenches with which the besiegers have approached the fortress having learned from the mistakes of the first game. The scenario is basically the same, with only some minor tweaks to how the wall strengths are recorded. Once again it proved to be an enjoyable evening, and we shall resume next week with the bombardment proper. My rules for assaults got a run out when the attackers launched a brief sortie against the sappers in the foremost trench. Whilst I hadn't had that specific situation in mind when I wrote them, the process didn't fall over when put to the test; faint praise, but the most that I'm prepared to give.

Here's why 11 is better than 10:

 In case anyone was counting, the title reflects the fact that, entirely deliberately, there were two separate PotCVIpouri posts. But it has been so long since I was here that you have probably forgotten who I am. Indeed there have been occasions during the last few weeks when I wasn't entirely sure who I was myself. Way back when, we had played the first part of a siege game. I was unavoidable detained elsewhere for the second part, but it did get played. Whilst I obviously can't give any indication of exactly what happened it reached a point where the participants figures that it was simply a question of luck of the dice as to whose morale ran out first and therefore who won. I think the besiegers were being a bit optimistic because, unusually for Piquet, the defenders can carry on after getting down to zero morale and so would inevitably have won.

We need a debrief, I feel, to see what worked and what didn't. What is clear, though not unexpected is that the rules work a lot better with more than one player. In the meantime there have been a series of Crusades games using To the Strongest!, although I have been unavoidably absent for most of them so once again I can't report back.

What I can tell you about is the new campaign underway in the annexe, to which I have given the codename "Operation Mouse Poisoning"; it's a fight to the death.

 It's time for another book review, and this time we have left the 15th century behind. Which is kind of apt because, if Dr van Creveld is to be believed, leaving things behind has been the defining feature of armies on the march from the Thirty Years War onwards.

The author makes the seemingly inevitable claim that he is going to debunk long established myths. I came to this knowing nothing in particular about military logistics and so can't really comment on whether he does so (*). He also claims that he will be carrying out thorough analyses from a new perspective. These mainly seem to consist of the sort of arithmetic problem that Mr Wilkins used to set us in the first year at Boreham Wood Grammar School: if one man with one lorry can move 10 tons for 100 miles in a day, then how far can 5 men with 2 lorries move 15 tons in a week? So not that new a perspective then. In fact it reminds me of the course I got sent on at a time that I was building airports for a living. It was run by a chap from NASA and was billed as 'Advanced Estimating Techniques'. These basically consisted of forecasting how many man hours something would take, how much each hour would cost and then multiplying the two together. Still, they put a man on the moon, so who am I to quibble?

"That's one small sum for man"

I assume that Dr van Creveld is American; the book is in American English anyway. Presumably therefore Patton's name is included in the subtitle to attract US readers. In fact George doesn't feature very much at all, the focus in the section on North Western Europe in 1944 is mainly on Montgomery. The American Civil War isn't covered either. Those that are featured include Marlborough, Napoleon, both the von Moltkes and Rommel, the last of whom doesn't come out of it well.

I found it interesting - admittedly from a low knowledge base - and took one point away in particular. The author asserts that in the Horse and Musket era (which for this purpose includes the Franco-Prussian War) the percentage by weight of an army's supply requirements represented by ammunition and powder was circa 1%, hugely overshadowed by food and, especially, fodder. Given the size of the forces involved they could easily live off the land, as long as they kept moving. It was when they stopped - e.g. to undertake a siege - that they had a problem. In the Vauban's Wars set of rules which I have been playing recently the besieger is constrained by his powder supply , but not by food/fodder. Perhaps it should be the other way round.

Having mentioned the FPW, can I draw your attention to a week by week history of the conflict being run on the realtimehistory (all one word) YouTube channel to commemorate the, er, 151st anniversary; as you do. Probably not for those who are experts, but informative for anyone who doesn't already know the difference between a Dreyse and a Chassepot.

* It's worth mentioning that the book was first published in 1977, so they may well be yesterday's myths anyway.

I had intended to post yesterday about the conclusion to last week's game, to clear the decks ready for this week's return to siege works in the annexe. However, in the circumstances I inevitably spent the day in a self-indulgent Rolling Stones marathon. I'm a big fan, originally I think because the elder brother of the chap who lived next door to one of my best friends at school had all the early albums; and if that's not a good enough reason then I don't know what is. The death of an eighty year old shouldn't come as a shock, but it did because they had always been there and I implicitly assumed that they always would be. RIP Charlie.

In any event, there wasn't much to write about the game because it swiftly ended in defeat when the British Light Division ran away. I had posed the question as to what to do with one unit which was toe to toe with the French, but it was moot because they were destroyed before I had a chance to do anything. I remain a bit sceptical about the rules as they stand, but - and I urge you to suspend disbelief - it is quite possible that I'm wrong. We need to play them some more.

Rules that do seem to (mostly) work are 'Vauban's Wars', which we have now had a chance to try properly. I had set up the game a couple of months ago now, but never played it solo it because it was too hot, then it wasn't hot enough, then it rained, and then I couldn't be arsed. But last night we assembled Peter as the garrison, the Chuckle Brothers as the besiegers, and me in charge of frantically flicking through the rulebook. It all went fairly well and is, as I had thought it might be, a different and better game when not played solo.

The besiegers have thrown up some gun emplacements close enough from which to attack the ravelin in the photo. The first siege guns moved forwards were driven back by counterbattery fire, but were quickly replaced. The numbers are the strengths of the defences, which were established by astute use of the French master spy, who has so far been successful in every mission on which he - or perhaps she - has been sent. The ravelin had an initial strength of 5, but the guns have quickly reduced that. In fact, the attack dice rolled higher than the defence dice throughout the evening, on both sides. The game will hopefully be completed next week. 

 It's been a thin time hobby-wise recently, but there has been a low level of background activity going on, most of which can be seen in the photo below.

I've added two extra bastions on the table edge, originally to ensure that all the walls were flanked by two sets of fortress guns. In the last run-through I found that I had to restrict the besiegers to attacking the front two walls in order to avoid them having an entirely artificial advantage. Increasing the number of bastions may also make the game go more quickly, due to the way that the forces are built up in the rules. I shall return to this shortly, or if not shortly then at least eventually.

The other new additions are the ravelins now shielding the walls. I have taken quite a liberty with historical accuracy with these, in the interests of fitting everything in to the space available. They should be at a much sharper angle, but to reflect that, and to also allow them to contain my existing artillery bases, would mean their footprint, and therefore that of the covered way, extending way out; which in turn would push the first parallel back off the table. Near enough is good enough. 

Let's have a song on that theme from the aptly named 'Dodgy':

 I had intended to carry on writing in yesterday's post, after the gratuitous smutty limerick, answering some questions that no one has yet asked. But the force was weak with me; perhaps because I am prostrated with grief. Which I suppose leads to the first question: what did you really think of HRH The People's Racist? I shall simply say that I respect and honour all those who fought against fascism, and leave it at that.

What I was going to write about yesterday was the other question not on anybody's lips: what's happening with the siege games? Well, I have been mulling it over and have decided that the way to make the game quicker is to put more forces on the table. There is some serious logic behind this counter-intuitive conclusion and will share it with you, dear readers, as soon as I set a new game up.

In the meantime, I have been making some more siege and fortress guns. These require more crew and this time I have gone for Kennington Miniatures (sold by SHQ of course), just by way of a change. 

It being April 12th I once again have access to the workshop in which I do much of all this stuff. That's the laser cutter shrouded in the orange cloth at the back. The red sheet in the foreground is some laminated acrylic, on which there will be more to report in due course I hope. Today's task is to use the heat gun to mould some Sturktur-Hartschaum. These are a tool and a material new to me, so either I shall return in triumph with photographs of a magnificent new addition to my Vauban fortress, or I shall burn my hands so badly that I shall never be able to type again.

Valete.

 I have been asked for my thoughts so far on 'Vauban's Wars'. Well, I don't like to sit on the fence, and so I am going to come right out and say that they seem "perfectly acceptable".

I shall certainly be exploring the rules further and am currently considering what I might make or paint next to facilitate this: a couple more siege guns for sure and, assuming that access to the laser cutter won't be long in resuming, some ravelines. Because, apart from anything else, I am grateful to these rules for keeping me occupied during lockdown and providing a route for me to try out resin casting. That context has undoubtedly provided a halo effect and made me feel warmer about them; on top of which, even if I say so myself, it all looked pretty good.

Nobody games sieges because...well, because they go on a long time and nothing much happens. So it is to the great credit of Eric Burgess that he has managed to develop a set of rules which extract the action from the tedium and, by moving things along fairly quickly, make it playable. Every turn represents a few days and the results of each are effectively a summation of all the digging, firing, moving about etc done during those days. Issues such as supplies of food and powder, weather, desertion, disease etc are dealt with, but at a level of abstraction that doesn't overwhelm everything else. It's a bit like a campaign fought out on a tabletop, a concept I'd never really thought about before; although if someone were to tell me that Donald Featherstone had written a book on the subject I wouldn't be that surprised.

 I enjoyed my solo run through, in which the balance between garrison and besieger tipped a few times backwards and forwards. The caveats mentioned in previous posts still apply, in particular this is all my interpretation of what is meant and how it should work. I believe that the author runs a Facebook group on the rules, but I don't have a Facebook account so that hasn't been of any help to me.

I do have one or two observations that I would be looking to confirm or otherwise in subsequent games:

• The defender's role seems a bit reactive.
• Many of the swings in fortune mentioned above stemmed from things other than the actions of either side; I like a random event as much as the next man, but you don't want the entire game determined by them.
• The rules for sorties and assaults are limited and, while we never had either in my try out, my wargamer's common sense (shut up!) tells me they wouldn't work very well.
• Some of the points and strengths ascribed to unit types - Coehorn mortars for example - look a bit odd. 

 Those considerate chaps in Ahmedabad have once again gone out of their way to clear some space in my diary and so I have been able to bring the siege game to a conclusion. Turn 8 initially went the way of the besiegers, who won a long run of initiative, caused further damage to the wall and, to my surprise because I hadn't read the rules properly, set fire to the town. It was put out before it could either spread or do any damage.

It was never going to be enough in any event, and once the garrison got the chance to fire their artillery they quickly reduced their opponent's morale to zero and the latter were left with no choice but to withdraw.

You can just see in the photo above that the wall section being attacked had been reduced to level 5, which is still quite a long way from creating a breach. I shall be pondering the lessons learned from all this - apart obviously from "make sure that you thoroughly acquaint yourself with the rules before you start" - but my initial thought is that the besiegers should have spent more time on counterbattery fire from the second parallel before pressing further forwards. I have no suggestions as to how the defenders would best have reacted to that.

 "And the seventh sorrow is the slow good-bye..." - Ted Hughes

While they were occupied repairing the sections of sap flooded by the torrential rain during Turn 5, they were driven off completely from the third parallel. Sensing an opportunity the garrison started to dig out from the covered way, aiming to seize and destroy the gun emplacements.

Before they could do so the besiegers managed to move up a couple of siege guns, surviving the opportunity fire as they did so, and, for the first time, bombarded the wall. It is, I suspect, too little too late.

The die next to the wall shows the cumulative hits against that section. When it reaches ten the section will drop from level six to level five. As you might guess it needs to reach level zero before there is a breach. It's not going to happen. The other die is showing the cumulative hits from the mortars which have been shelling the town. Once again, this isn't going to amount to anything worth talking about very soon.

Ignore what it says - it's really Turn 7

And this is why: the attackers have very little morale left. To add insult to injury one of their commanders has died of disease, meaning that they weren't able to rally any units this turn.

I've mentioned before that I'm not confident about my grasp of either rules or tactics - and that definitely still stands - but I have had a bit of an epiphany regarding the role of infantry in the game, which is progress of a sort.

"Shortly afterwards it started raining, very innocently at first, but the sky was packed tight with cloud and gradually the drops grew bigger and heavier, until it was autumn’s dismal rain that was falling—rain that seemed to fill the entire world with its leaden beat..." - Haldor Laxness

Turn five was bookended by disaster. The first happened in real life when I knocked a whole load of stuff on to the floor. Anyone who has seen the wargaming annexe and the solidity of the table in it will be as baffled as I am as to how I managed it; my first thought was to be thankful that I did it at my house rather than someone else's. Anyway, no permanent harm was done, except that when I had picked it all up one of the cards was missing. Again, especially given the size of the room, it's a mystery as to where it might have gone. Still it will turn up, and the pack came complete with blank cards; presumably to allow for clumsy players.

After that, things proceeded smoothly, although not in the way that I expected. Instead of the besiegers moving up their siege guns and battering down the wall, it was the fortress guns which forced the retreat of both artillery and infantry from the third parallel. I'm not going to go through things in detail, but I will repeat my previous caveats: it's certainly not a good game to play solo, and it's at least possible that I'm not doing it right anyway. 

The turn ended abruptly when it started to rain very heavily; so heavily in fact that some of the siege works have flooded. Now, the players get some choice as to where the flooding occurs, but my decisions were done in the context that I hadn't (still haven't actually) read the rules for repairing them.

So what I've tried to do is to isolate the gun emplacements so as to further delay the commencement of the bombardment of the walls. 

 After making the observation that it wasn't much like the usual sort of Piquet game, it went out of its way to prove that it was. The besiegers got all the initiative and turned all their Sapping cards, rolling a whole bunch of 3s on their siege dice. They have reached the glacis before the garrison got a chance to make any raids this turn.

This is important because raids can't be made on besiegers once they get that close. After that the defenders have to rely on...well actually, I am struggling a bit to see what they can do after that point.

They tried a sap of their own to see if they could outflank the attackers. They couldn't, although the fortress guns did damage a heavy gun and force its withdrawal from this emplacement.

However, there are others ready to move up.

And there are mortars shelling the town.

This is the position at the end of the turn. Much of this information would be secret and would be the basis of the espionage element to the game.

 Following the untimely end to the cricket in Ahmedabad I have turned once again to the siege. 

I have rearranged the glacis, narrowed the covered way and put a ditch where I said a few days ago that no ditch would be.

 The second attempt at 'Vauban's Wars' was delayed slightly because, as I'm very pleased to be able to report, I have had a sore arm for a couple of days. In the interim I have received a parcel from Kallistra. I don't think that I had ever bought anything through the post from them before, having previously collected all my orders at shows, but it was as prompt and efficient as you would expect. The new arrivals were some half-hexes, enabling the glacis to take on a more regular form.

The photo reflects the end of the third turn, although turn two ended on a tied initiative dice roll and was very short. As you can see, the besiegers have developed a stretch of the second parallel and moved a siege gun forwards, albeit still too far away to breach the walls. The 'siege die' mechanism for sapping seems to work, although in a classic example of sod's law three of the first four rolls came up zero. The besiegers have lost half of their sappers to trench raids - by contrast, the garrison kept rolling 11 on a D12 - and may need to start using infantry as substitutes soon. Raiders also destroyed a gun emplacement, otherwise there would be two siege guns in the parallel.

I'm still not entirely sure that I'm doing it right, but it looks OK.