Numbers, Wargames and Arsing About : Venture Fair

Showing posts with label Venture Fair. Show all posts

Saturday, 19 July 2014

Personally I blame Norm!

Well, not entirely....

The publication of Norm's Tigers at Minsk rules the other weekend has forced me to take stock. Here is where I am at the moment:

Tannenberg game: This has stalled for a few months because I have made great progress with the map but am struggling to represent railways on it. I have played around with various packages and am now getting the hang of using curves. Once I have completed the map the rest should be easy!

Venture Fair: A blockage on this game has been creating images of the counters so that the scenario maps can show the actual deployments, rather than just deployment areas. I think I can now do this but am still having trouble because the font changes when I create a picture of the counter. I think I just need to play around with the font I'm using so I reckon a solution is very close.

It is interesting that I'm having trouble with graphics and not with rules. That is simply because I haven't got that far yet. Luckily, I'm as keen to get the games looking right (the "realisation") as to get them to work so I am maintaining my interest. To help with this I have looked at Cyberboard and Vassal. Neither of them are easy so I am preferring to stay with the real basics (i.e. Paint!).

Why Norm has disturbed me is that his game uses a hex grid of 8 by 6.

This is Kallistra Hexon four inch hexes. I don't have any of this nor do I have any 10mm troops which is what Norm is using. I do have, however, a very nice T35 that I bought the other week in 15mm and I wondered whether I could use this plus some 20mm plastics.

The short answer is yes but I need to to use 125mm (5") hexes.

15mm T35 on a trial 5" hex, there is even room for some soldiers!

If I use these can I fit them on my kitchen table (which is the only one the children haven't covered in junk)? The answer is again yes, and I don't have to move the fridge.

Loads of room

So, if I get some 125mm hexes from East Riding Miniatures (48 for £15) I can knock up a nice board for Tigers. This means that I can not only have a crack at Tigers but also Norm's next effort which is ACW.

My other thought, and this is what worries me, is that i think I can fit Neil Thomas's Napoleonic rules (which use a standard eight unit army) to fit on the same hex grid. Mmmmmmh, how much will power will it take to finish the Tannenberg and Venture Fair games when an opportunity like this arises. Stay tuned.....

Don't forget I also have some Wurttemberger's to use.

Sunday, 29 June 2014

Designing is hard work!

Emerging scenario for Kilsyth 1645

My Venture Fair rules will cover five of the battles from the the brilliant campaign fought by Montrose during 1644-45. The battles were:

Tibbermore 1 September 1644
Aberdeen 13 September 1644
Inverlochy 2 February 1645
Auldearn 9 May 1645
Alford 2 July 1645
Kilsyth 15 August 1645
Philliphaugh 13 September 1645

I don't intend to cover Inverlochy, largely because this was a simple and ruthless massacre with little real interest for a wargames scenario. Also, Philiphaugh isn't on my list. Basically a surprise assault by the Covenanters destroyed Montrose's forces in short order with a resulting nasty massacre of prisoners and civilians. Again, not really good material for a wargame.

I'm not approaching this in any order but have done enough work on Tibbermore and Aberdeen to begin play testing. I've been using Stuart Reid's Auldearn 1645 as my main source. Aberdeen was straightforward but Tibbermore was problematic and I ended up rethinking it significantly. Ironic really as this is the only one of the battles fields I'm personally familiar with.

So I started on Kilsyth the other night not knowing what I would find when I reviewed my earlier draft. Lets not forget I drafted these scenarios out several years ago using the same sources.

So, some days later, I think I have finally got grip on the battle. Here is my sketch:

Thanks again to DoW and their map editor for M44

The right hand of the map is North. Montrose was between the Covenanter forces and Glasgow and Baillie, their commander, took his forces to find Montrose. He followed the road just off the left hand side of the map towards Glasgow. Montrose had drawn up in position yellow 1, possibly to ambush Baillie as he moved along the road (position blue 1).

Baillie spotted the ambush and took his troops off the road towards the north, using the local hills to hide his movement. However, when the Covenanters eventually moved out of cover through positions blue 2, Montrose reacted to being outflanked by moving his troops towards positions yellow 2.

The Covenanter commanded shot under a Col. Haldane, decided to have a go at the Royalists and moved into a group of cottages and enclosures known as Auchinvalley, precipitating contact with the Royalist Highland units. This engagement prevented Baillie prolonging his line towards the north so he used his cavalry to seek to outflank the Royalist line (blue 3). Royalist cavalry moving across the rear of their line (second yellow 2 position) from the original positions dealt with this threat.

Weight of numbers and experience told as the Royalists broke the Covenanter centre and the Royalist right wing destroyed Baillie's left flank.

I have really enjoyed learning about this battle and think I have now got enough of an idea to make a worthwhile scenario. Interestingly, I only made progress once I turned the map round by 90 degrees, then things began to make sense. Possibly a life lesson there!

Monday, 23 June 2014

Kiss Montrose's...

New scenario for Tibbermore

I'm still finding the story of the minister and Montrose's backside amusing but have stuck with the blandest of titles for this scenario.

I have revisited the forces and reached different conclusions to my original views. The Covenanters now have some "regular" troops and the Royalists some levy. My source is Stuart Reid's Auldearn 1645 (Osprey Campaign 123), a marvelous book on the whole campaign.

Play testing will be interesting because I think this may turn out to be more evenly balanced than the historical result. I may have to make further adjustments in due course.

In the meantime, I have roughed out the deployment:

This is a bit simple but I am working on getting the details of the units onto the map. A technical challenge so I'll have to ask the kids how to do it.

Sunday, 22 June 2014

More Venture Fair

Tibbermore 1644

I have spent an hour or so working on the Tibbermore scenario for Venture Fair. In doing so I have changed my mind about the orientation of the battlefield and also now feel the need to reconsider the forces involved.

Why the change in thinking? Well I have re-encountered the Montrose Society's website today. I had looked at this site before but at that time I was not very impressed. The site now, however, is very much improved and full of interesting information. Their magazine is called Venture Faire which I think is very cool (obviously!).

The traditional view is that the Covenanters were drawn up along high ground (Lamberkine Ridge) facing North with the Royalists on lower ground facing south. This has never made much sense to me as the Royalists would have their backs to the Almond Valley leaving no line of retreat. The Montrose Society propose that the Covenanters left Perth marching east, meeting the Royalists marching west. They therefore met across the huge expanse of open countryside around Tibbermore with Lamberkine ridge to the left flank of the Covenanters.

There is a great story that convinces me. The minister of Tibbermore Church gave water to Montrose on the day of the battle. After the battle he was defrocked for helping the enemy. He said in his defence that "there was not one of them who would not have kissed Montrose's backside on the day of the battle". If Montrose has come from Tibbermore why would he swing the Royalists across the face of the Government army? It is more logical that he would be facing them directly across the plain.

My view of the battle field now is:

The Royalists form up in front of the church facing the Covenanters who have Lamberkine Ridge to their left and the Hunting Tower to their right rear.

This is now a nice map (thanks to Days of Wonder) and it brings back happy memories of my Brother in Law's wedding reception at the Hunting Tower.

Now just to have another look at the troops involved....

Saturday, 14 June 2014

To him Pudel!

Aberdeen scenario for Venture Fair

I now have two things, a headache and the greatest respect for designers who make things look nice!

I have made great progress with the Venture Fair rules, however, while they are drafted they are not yet crafted. The rules themselves need some more work but this can only be done by some hard play testing. Hence the work today on getting the scenarios into some shape to play.

So, here is the first one.....Aberdeen.

I have been desperately trying to get the information into a one page scenario brief. When I think about the amount of information the Flames of War people get into their books, guff or not, I'm ashamed that my effort looks pretty rough. See the evidence for yourselves.....here (I gratefully acknowledge that the map graphics etc belong to Days of Wonder).

I'm hoping that Father's Day will involve my children completely ignoring me as usual so I can crack on with the other scenarios.

Wednesday, 21 May 2014

A d8? What!!!

Combat in Venture Fair

I have been applying my brain to work issues recently (honest Boss) so it has been a pleasant change to redeploy the gray cells back onto Venture Fair, my developing Montrose game.

I find that, in all my projects, even quite simple problems can slow me down. For example, having progressed my Tannenberg game really quickly, the hold up is about drawing convincing rail lines on my draft map. In Venture Fair, the issue is how to resolve combat.

My conceptual model for the game is Stephen Simpson's '45 game series which uses an unusual opposed die roll. One player, the attacker, rolls a d6, the defender a d8. Deduct the d6 roll from the d8 roll, if minus the defender takes a hit.

Doing the maths, a d6/d8 roll will produce 1 of 56 outcomes. 15 of these outcomes are in the attacker's favour (26% ish). The equivalent to hit number on a single d6 roll is somewhere between a 5 and 6. Each point on a d6 being around 17%.

A benefit from this is that modifiers in the d6/d8 model have a smaller impact than those for a single d6 or, indeed, 2d6 model.

I have given quite a lot of thought to various approaches including the DBA type calculation. A problem I have with DBA is that my brain finds it difficult to cope with the results (if less than but more than half and elephants are attacked by spears before breakfast...).

Even though I have a d8 I can't say I have ever used it in anger. However, I'm beginning to like the d6/d8 concept but I just can't do the mental maths. Taking one score from another may require taking off socks. Is there anyway I can simplify things?

Well yes. I pulled together a spreadsheet to look at the results distribution and realised I had actually developed a combat results table. This means that using a comparison of total scores (die roll plus modifiers) I could get an easy to read matrix.

OK, and even more simple? Well lets make all modifiers positive. No horrible subtraction, just adding.

Do we need lots of modifiers? No, a few and even then why have loads of tactical advantage modifiers when perhaps only one might do. So, depending on the circumstances, there will either be an advantage or not. Therefore, a small number of binary modifiers.

That's great, I just have to make it work in practice!

Oh, and this arrived in the post today. A first glance, very nice, just right for playing over the bank holiday weekend.

Monday, 21 April 2014

Venture Fair

A prototype Montrose game

Long long ago I started out to write a version of Stephen Simpson's 1745 rules for the campaigns of Montrose. They were called "Nil Medium Est" (No Middle Way). And here they are in all their hand written glory!

My main source was Auldearn by Stuart Reid (Campaign 123) and that remains the primary basis for the scenarios, see below.

I have been frustrated with these rules for a long time because, although only two pages long, they still feel too complex. I also had a big problem with the maps and how to actually draw them.

I have taken some decisions and had a bright idea. Ideally the game will be played on a hex grid and use toy soldiers. At present my Baccus ECW troops are unpainted and hidden in the garage. Therefore this prototype uses counters. They also use a map, in this case, the M44 scenario editor has been used. The M44 editor does not produce really printable maps but for a prototype it is just the thing. Once the troops are sorted I could even play on the Hold the Line map using the HTL tiles.

One map herewith for the battle of Aberdeen.