Retiring Riskovia

I've enjoyed playing Maurice over the last couple of years, and very much enjoyed using my garish, unpainted plastic figures. But for ages I have been promising myself that I ought to paint them, and have been giving some consideration to how I might want them to look.

During the time we have been playing Maurice, we have developed a network of ImagiNations. These started with the brightly coloured Riskovians and their dour arch-enemies of the Duchy of Sans Couleur, which were swiftly followed by the armies of Albion and the Confederation of Tea States. We have even created back-stories and personalities for these nations.

Fun as they are, though, I have found the games lacking ... something. As much as I enjoy fantasy (indeed this blog's original remit is to a set of fantasy rules), I also like games that have some grounding in an historical basis. The nature of the armies for our ImagiNations has changed from game to game, as we have explored different makeups and national Advantages.  As I move my figures forward into a more permanent basing and possible paint-job I wanted them to be at least partially based on an historical prototype, so far as the rules and the numbers and look of figures allow.

What I'd like to achieve is two armies, each capable of being built to 100pts. National Advantages would be fixed and factored into the cost, but it would be nice to have a few options in terms of units of upgrades for each side.  I'd need to allow for the mercenary unit option of the basic attack/defence game in the rules.

Essentially the armies of Riskovia and Sans Couleur will disappear, to be replaced by two armies that look vaguely like historical ones.

Looking at this picture constitutes
about 50% of my research into the GNW.

Now 18th century warfare isn't something I know a lot about - Maurice is a case where I enjoy the game, despite not having much of a grounding in the actual period of history covered by it. There are plenty of conflicts and matched pairs I could choose from, but I wanted something I felt I could buy into, even with my limited knowledge. After minutes of research (Google) I have decided to look at basing my meagre forces on Great Northern War Russians and Swedes. This is for four reasons:

(i) They are both slightly more exotic than Prussians/British/French, without being too obscure.

(ii) We honeymooned in St Petersburg, and got caught up in the cult of Peter The Great promulgated by the tourist guides. Charles XII seems to have been a bit of a personality as well. So the main men are both interesting characters.

(iii) It's set in the early part of the period covered by Maurice, and I always find that the early stages of an era are the most entertaining - the kit and tactics are often clunkier and more entertaining.

(iv) The uniforms are pretty - I like the blue and yellow of the Swedes, and the green and red of the Russians.

OK, so where do I start?

Firstly, this is the era when some armies still used pikes, specifically the Swedes and Russians. So the Pikes rule would be in effect, and I will need to look at modifying one base in each infantry unit to become pikemen. I'm not sure quite how this will work with the pose offered by the Risk infantryman, but we'll see. I'm sure it won't be impossible. The Risk infantry has tricorne hats, which will work, although the Swedes also wore a nifty little blue and yellow cap, and the Russians had mitres. the caps I could probably reproduce with a little bit of judicious knife-work, but I'm, not sure how easy mitres would be to make. Or, indeed, if they're worth the effort for this project.

I think some of the cavalry ought to be wielding pistols, but the sword-waving Risk cavalry will have to do.

I have the following units to play with for each side:

Eight Infantry
Four Cavalry
Four Artillery

The Swedes have a well-trained, motivated army and a tactic (the Ga Pa) that consists of getting stuck into close combat as quickly as possible. Their cavalry might also be more prone to a 'traditional' knee-to-knee charge than their Russian opponents. The Russians often outnumbered the Swedes, but had an army that was undergoing reforms. Russian armies always seem to be depicted as steadfast, even if not entirely competent, so I'm going to run with that stereotype.

So, for the Swedes I am considering:

6 x Trained Infantry = 36pts
4 x Trained Cavalry = 24pts
4 x Artillery = 10pts
Total = 70pts

Plus: A La Bayonette and Cavaliers = 18pts

Total = 88pts

For the Russians:

6 x Conscript Infantry = 24pts
2 x Elite Infantry = 17pts
4 x Trained Cavalry = 24pts
4 x Artillery = 10pts
Total = 75pts

Plus: Rally To The Colours = 12pts

Total = 87pts

Left Over - two Infantry units, one of which I can paint in some generic uniform that doesn't look Swedish or Russian, and which can be the Mercenaries.

As you can see I'm still short for both armies, but they are at least roughly equal in points, and usable for a game. The Russians have the larger army, relying on the two Elite units backed up by a crowd of dross. Rally To The Colours should nicely represent their steadfast nature. The Swedes are a smaller army, geared up for close-combat, with their cavalry having a slight edge over that of the Russians.

I'm not sure how I'd make up the rest of the points at this stage. Ideally I'd like to get hold of another set of Risk figures, in which case I can make new units to add in. I'd like at least of couple of units of Cossack Irregular Cavalry, as both sides used them. A unit each of Irregular Infantry (dismounted dragoons) would be a nice option for each side as well. Otherwise I think the extra points would be spent on adding to the line infantry force - three more Conscripts for the Russians and two more Trained Infantry for the Swedes. Sadly I haven't seen any cheap, knock-off Risk sets for a while. I'm regretting not buying two sets when I had the chance*.

I'm certainly not going to pretend that the armies are 'accurate' representations of their GNW equivalents, but they would give the forces a little bit more character and identity.

Anyway, despite the length of this post, these are all just thoughts at the moment, and subject to me actually sitting down and doing something with the figures. But it's a start.

*In fact if you have, or know of, a spare set of tricorne Risk figure, I'd love to hear from you. I estimate I need about 100 infantry and 30 cavalry to pretty much do everything else I want to do.

A Square Grid In Riskovia

We're playing Maurice again on Thursday, so I dredged my gloriously unpainted Risk figures out of their cupboard this evening. And I noticed that two bases from each Maurice unit fitted into a square on my chessboard, and I thought ... why not?

I made the rules up as I went along. The basics were the same as my other square-grid Battle Cry derived games, but I thought I'd throw in some 18th Century specifics, derived from Maurice, mostly.

Movement distances were the same, but Artillery got a marker once it had fired. It couldn't then move again until the marker was removed - which cost it an activation.

Combat factors were reduced to reflect the fact that cavalry wasn't really shock-cavalry and infantry firepower wasn't as deadly as in the Mexican Adventure games. Infantry fought at 2-1, whilst cavalry fought with 3 dice, but automatically lost one if fighting Infantry. Artillery fired at 3-2-2-1.

The biggest change was that units could be activated in groups. The activation of a particular unit type could include a group of units, so long as they were all adjacent to each other and  on either the same rank or same file of the board. They all had to be in the same terrain as well. Activated units could move individually, but had to end orthogonal and adjacent to at least one other unit in the same activated group. Any units in the activated group that were eligible to battle could do so.

I used the close combat and troop quality rules I have been trying out.

I gave both armies six units of Infantry (two Elite) and three units of Cavalry (one Elite), plus one unit of Artillery. I didn't bother with a General on either side. I set victory at five flags, and gave both sides three activation dice.

I didn't take pictures of the game itself, but posed a few afterwards. The Riskovians won a crushing victory over their Sans Couleur foes, destroying five of their units for the loss of only one of their own. The group activation and low fire dice made for a wonderfully linear game, with infantry blazing away at each other for several turns. San Couleur attempted a cavalry flank move through some woods, but it was too slow to affect the game. The battle was won by the Riskovian elite infantry steadily eroding the San Couleur centre with deadly musketry, whilst their elite cavalry held the flank.

It was a lot of fun, and I'm going to do it again another day.

Here's the posed pictures.

The Riskovians fire another volley.

Their elite cavalry rides up in support.

The Sans Couleur infantry fall back, before routing from the field.

Troop Quality Update

In a post yesterday I proposed an alternative way of representing troop quality in 'Battle Cry' style games. Today I played a few quick games using my Mexican Adventure armies; I tried the encounter game and the San Lorenzo scenarios, playing each a couple of times.

The Encounter scenario gave me a game with plenty of militia units. The changes gave them a little more resilience, but a bad set of rolls could cause them to collapse quickly. This was more how I want them to behave, rather than just being very brittle.

I varied the San Lorenzo scenario to include an elite infantry unit - the French Foreign Legion. Here they are advancing on the village, with their general in direct command.

The militia behaved as in previous games, but I was pleased that militia cavalry seemed to have a little more staying power. The elite infantry got a thorough testing, though. Pinned in front of the village by Mexican musketry, they resisted several rolls of '6' (crossed swords) which would otherwise have destroyed them, and survived a turn or so longer than they should have done.

Here they are being terribly elite:

Three hits on them already, and only one required to remove them. And the Republicans kept rolling sixes.

Anyway, from those few games I would conclude that the changes don't seem to have radically broken the game and certainly vary the performance of units. I'll keep trying them out.

Troop Quality In The Battle Cry Variant

In some of the scenarios I have been playing using the Battle Cry based rules (which really need a name of their own) I have played with troop quality. Battle Cry itself doesn't really cover this; one scenario has a unit which starts with a strength of three figures instead of four, but that's about it. In the games I have played so far I have adopted this approach. So a normal unit can take four hits if it's Infantry or three hits if Cavalry or Artillery. Elite units get an extra hit, whilst Militia units have one less hit. This make Militia cavalry, particularly, very vulnerable; not necessarily a bad thing, but somewhat frustrating.

However I was pondering an alternative approach this evening, which I may try I the next game I play, but which I thought I'd throw open to the floor. This is to keep the number of hits a unit can take constant, but vary how likely they are to be inflicted.

I will use Battle Cry terminology, followed by the numbers I use in my actual games.

A normal unit is hit when its symbol comes up, or by a crossed sword (6).

An Elite unit is only hit if its symbol comes up. It can ignore the first crossed sword (6) rolled against it by a particular firing unit.

A Militia unit is hit if its symbol comes up, by a crossed sword (6). In addition the first flag (5) which actually causes the unit to retreat also inflicts one hit on it.

How does that sound?

And, like I say, I need a name for these rules; they're acquiring a life of their own.

Salem Church Revisited

Having tried the square-grid, cardless Battle Cry variant for the Mexican Adventure, I tried it with an American Civil War battle this afternoon. This has a slight Coals To Newcastle thing about it; using rules adapted from a game about the ACW to refight an ACW battle, but I thought that it would be fun.

I chose Salem Church as my battle. The Confederates had five Infantry and Artillery and a General. The Union had six Infantry, two Artillery and a General. Neither side had cavalry, so rolls pertaining to them were ignored - treated as 'no effect'.

I set victory at four flags. The Union could gain a flag by passing through/controlling a square just behind the Church. This was to encourage an advance on their part, and a defensive action of the part of the Confederates. Both sides had three activation dice.

Here's the Union in their initial positions, with the Confederate defensive line beyond them.

The Union advanced their right, and the Confederates opened fire, inflicting some hits.

The Union returned fire, inflicting hits back.

The Confederates lost a unit on their left, but the two Union units there were looking shaky as well.

The Union turned on the centre, and drove off the Confederate artillery.

They received a deadly volley from the woods in return, though.

The focus of the action now switched to the other flank, with a fierce push and shove between the church and the woods.

A Union advance through the woods ran into some fierce resistance.

The Union regrouped, ready for another advance.

In they went again, with artillery support this time. But the Confederates held firm.

The closing stages of the battle.

Both sides were now one unit from breaking. The Confederates kept up a deadly fire, hoping to take out the last Union unit they needed for victory.

A Union counter-attack failed to break the Confederates on their left.

But back on the Union right, the continuing skirmish in the woods there saw the last Confederate unit on the flank break, giving the Union the victory.

The game played quickly with so few units, and there were numerous lost activations owing to neither side having any cavalry and the Confederates losing their artillery early on. Indeed on one turn the Confederates failed to activate anything. The charging rule I used in the last game worked well, and I want to try it with firearm-equipped ACW cavalry sometime, so horses will probably feature in my next game.