The Italian Attack On Sollum

John has sent me this report of the Blitzkrieg Commander game he ran last night, as well as some pictures:

Last night, I organised a game of BKC, it was a modified scenario from Scott Fisher and Nathan Forney’s Skirmish Campaigns, North Africa. 40 – 41 Italian Misadventure and the Arrival of the DAK.

As it says the book is for skirmish campaigns so I upgraded all the forces by 3 so in the end, there was an Italian company against a platoon of British Infantry. A feature of the “Skirmish Campaigns” books is that each force has some options that are rolled for. This works as each game can have different forces. I was lucky in my rolls as I had the company commander with me in all the games I played so I had a leadership advantage.

The British started with a minefield and some trenches. I modified these by making the trenches up to platoon size positions and the minefield to the standard size BKC ones.

The game was on a three by three foot board. Geoff and I played 3 games in the evening.

In the first game the Italians had the assistance of an engineer section whilst the British had a leadership of 8 with the company commander. The Italians fought long and hard, losing one of their platoons, they were however defeated as the Brits prevented them from seizing their objective way beyond their given time, then withdrew intact. The Italian objective was to seize the white two-story building.

Of concern in all games was that the Italians could occupy the vacant entrenchments as the Brits could not occupy them all.

In the second game, the Italians had mortar support whilst the British had the company commander and another smaller minefield. The Italians were forced to withdraw after the loss of two of their platoons, this being their break point.

In the last game, the Italians had the company commander with a leadership of 8 whilst the British leadership was only 7. The British rolled Mortar support. However their MFC (Mortar Fire Controller) or FO was never able to call it in.

The Italians were very successful with their initiative rolls and quickly advanced to an assault position, one platoon with two in support. They were able to fire on the Brits and suppress them before assaulting the stone building and forcing the British out into their own minefield.

A problem identified with this as well as any BKC games with turn limits is that on average you can only move 50% of the time, thus making turn restrictions rather hard to achieve. Alan suggested we only count turns as recorded when the attacking side is able to execute at least one order. This worked well in the last game but needs a lot more play testing for larger games. And indeed all games with turn restrictions.

Here's some pictures.

Town of Sollum, looking west.

Town of Sollum, looking east.

Game 1 - First Italian attack.

Game 1 - Italians assaulting.

Game 1 - Italians retreating.

Game 1 - Italians on the northern flank.

Game 2 - Italians to the south.

Game 2 - Italians preparing to assault

Game 2 - Italians. In a trench.

Game 3 - Suppressed British troops.

Game 3 - The British in their own minefield.

Monocacy (9th July 1864) - A Longstreet Game

This was our first attempt at running an historical scenario for Longstreet. Four of us had a go at the 1864 Battle of Monocacy, where Lew Wallace delayed Early's Confederate troops for just one day but, in the process, probably saved Washington from Confederate attack. Playing historical actions is always a good test of a set of rules.

Caeasr adapted the scenario from one in the old 'Bullets and Dirt' booklet by George Anderson and Ryan Toews. We used 15mm figures based on 1" stands. Mark put together the lovely terrain.

Caesar and I took the Confederates; he took Ramseurs's force and assaulted the bridges over the Monocacy, whilst I had Gordon and Breckingridge's flanking force. Ralph and Mark took the Union.

I think this was an ambitious scenario to play in a short evening; it took a while to set up before we even started playing, some of which was sorting out the card decks. But once we started it rattled along very nicely. Caesar assaulted the bridges, and the Union shifted troops to meet him. My troops had a long march across some rough ground, and barely got into action before we had to call time. Caesar had taken quite a lot of casualties by this stage; the Union didn't have to worry too much about my troops and were able to concentrate their efforts on him. It turned out that our plan - Caesar demonstrating against the bridges whilst the flanking force went for a concentrated assault on the Union far left - wasn't far off the original.

If we played it again we would have the main Confederate force starting closer to the Union lines, so that it would be harder to defeat them in detail. This is always an issue with adapting scenarios from one set of rules to another; issues of timing and distance based on ground-scale and movement rates. Regardless it was a fun game, and playing an historical action was very satisfying.

There is, of course, a gallery of photos.

A view from behind the Confederate flanking force, looking across the rough ground to the Union lines. Caesar is just deploying his troops in the distance.

The main Union line. Their cavalry did lots of marching to and fro, and no fighting.

Mark studies the oncoming Confederate hordes from a distance.

Ramseur's Division prepares to assault across the river. Just by the railway bridge you can see a Maryland regiment which held off several assaults during the course of the battle.

The Confederates continue to advance.

Fierce fighting across the fords and bridges.

A close-up of the Confederates.

Union and Confederate lines.

And a view from behind the Union lines, as the Confederates begin to concentrate on their left.

An artillery duel across the river. This was the final position in that area.

At the top of the picture the Confederates had just got into action. Otherwise this part of the battlefield was still quiet at the end of the game.

A final shot of the battle when we had to call time, showing the great terrain set-up. The pictures actually don't do justice to how nice everything looked.

So, did Longstreet work for an historical game? I would say that it did. although I think it's always going to be hampered by the One Brigade to One Player nature of the card play. As I said earlier, the only change I'd make to this particular scenario is to reduce the distance between Gordon/Breckinridge's troops and the Union line; they probably need to start a couple of turns close. This will force the Union to decide how best to deploy their troops to meet two nominally coordinated Confederate attacks.

Thanks to all involved for putting on a great game.

(A second report, on the night's Blitzkrieg Commander game, will follow later.)

Weird World War II - Painting Progress

After a break of nearly two years (yes, two years) I have, today, made some more progress on my 15mm Weird World War II American army. Here's a few choice bits, in various stages of completion.

Captain America - mostly done.

The Haunted Tank.

Lassie (Yes, Lassie fought in WWII - in 'Courage of Lassie').

There are other rank and file elements that are mostly complete as well, but I'll save those for another post.

Somewhere In Russia - 1812

Last night we played Back Powder; set in Russia in 1812, a force of French (three infantry brigades and one cavalry brigade), plus some Austrian allies (one cavalry and one infantry brigade) had to drive off some Russians defending a position based around a small village. The Russians had, I think, three infantry brigades and some cavalry.

The French had ten turns in which to destroy or shake nine Russian units. Capturing and holding the village counted as having destroyed two units, so was worth considering as an objective.

Caesar commanded the French, with Peter and I as underlings (he actually controlled the late-arriving Austrian allies himself). Ralph, John and Austin took the Russians. I ended up with three infantry brigades, facing one rather stolid looking brigade commanded by Austin.

Here we can see Ralph demonstrating some cool dance-moves to Caesar. Or explaining what troops are what. One or the other. The troops are the French.

Mark adopted a more thoughtful approach. In the foreground you can see the Russians.

Russian infantry.

Austin's infantry were supported by howitzers, which were a complete pain because they could shoot at my troops over the heads of his. Very unsporting.

It's rare for me to be given infantry; normally I like to have cavalry and make a considered and thoughtful assault. So I decided to treat my troops as cavalry with no horses and go for a plan which involved a rapid assault on two likely looking infantry lines opposite. A key part of the plan was to dazzle the soberly-dressed Russians with my troops' colourful hats.

My cavalry infantry advances ...

A key feature of my plan was to lead with my elite, Russian-hating, Polish infantry unit. This failed on the first turn when it refused to move. The Poles' plan was obviously to use the French as a protective shield.

Caesar rapidly demonstrated why you should never let him roll dice if you need to score more than a couple of hits. Our grand-battery initially failed to make much impression on the village.

Peter got stuck in with the cavalry, and gave us our first victory when the Cossacks routed pretty much without a fight.

My infantry piled into the Russians. the Russians stood like a stone-wall. It was very frustrating; generally I won the close-combats, but the Russians just calmly gave ground. And when I lost a close-combat my units retreated or routed.

The Poles moved up. We had great expectations of the Poles.

And in they went. The Russians finally found themselves fighting an opponent who didn't run away. And they started to waver.

On the other flank, things were getting messy. The French cavalry were suffering from inertia, and our fourth infantry brigade found itself outflanked by Russian reinforcements. There was lots of fighting, which I didn't really keep track of.

Turning up late, but expecting to take all the credit for any victory - The Americans! Sorry ... The Austrians!

Their cavalry looked very dashing and, to its credit, did a nice job providing support for my infantry when my own skirmishers, to a man, downed tools and refused to move and do it themselves.

One more attack from the Poles, and the surviving French saw three Russian units flee the field. Adding them to the casualties inflicted elsewhere gave the French the victory.

And here's the mess that had developed on the other flank. Actual Russian casualties were evenly spread along the lines; some in the centre, including the infantry unit defending the village, a few on this flank early on and my own late contribution.

The game was good fun, with lots of troops but still played to a conclusion in about three hours. Black Powder certainly delivered in that respect. We also managed to keep the game flowing by virtue of the fact that the rules are simple enough that we could all remember most of them.

Thanks to Ralph for organisation, figures and caramel wafer biscuits, as well as Caesar and Austin for more figures. I just turned up with some dice.

My Dice Rant

Dice with pictures on one of the faces. Why? It might look pretty, but it makes the dice far less functional that it should be and, in some cases, creates unnecessary confusion. How so? Because some manufacturers put the picture on the six, and others put it on the one. Sure, after a few goes you remember what the picture means, but in the heat of a game it's annoying to constantly have to do the translation ("Little flag means six").

I mean - here are four dice with pictures or images in place of the one or the six. In three cases it's the one. In one it's the six. But which is which?

Spots or numbers, please. Anything else just isn't required.

These are sensible dice.

(Note: I have picture dice in my collection, mostly from shows or tournaments where they were given out as freebies. I never use them.)