1:10: The Only Scale

Before I leap too much further into sharing more of my AWI battle plans, I realized it might be worth your time to talk a little bit about scale and rules.  The American Revolution can be tidily divided between the northern war and the southern war.  The north features those classic actions such as Bunker Hill, Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Germantown, Saratoga, Monmouth and a host of other actions.  These tend to be good sized, actions, with Washington fielding over 18,000 men at Monmouth.  That's a passel  of troops and a worthy subject for a 1:20 action. 

My interest in the Southern campaign, however, showcases zero battles of such size.  The largest battle is Guilford Courthouse, with about 2,000 British and 4,000ish Americans.  The other four battles are much smaller indeed. It's a campaign that calls out for 1:10 scale.  Why?  Setting aside Guilford which has a bunch of 250-400 man units on both sides, most of the participating units are small.  At Hobkirk's Hill and Eutaw Springs many of the British units are 140-160 men strong.  Those are sixteen figure units, or four stands at 1:10.  At a larger scale they'd be only a couple of stands.  One of my favorite units is Kirwoods Delaware Regt., a stud unit that wears very cool bed-ticking trousers.  They are effective light infantry with an influence on a battle well beyond their 80-110 men.

There are some snags with the 1:10 scale.  I am not convinced that the groundscale always works.  I have some very large Continental units at 40 figures or ten stands.  They take up 15 inches on the game table.  That seems like a lot of room. What about large units that can fight in open order, such as the British 33rd Regiment.  What if one end of a ten stand unit is attacked?  What then?  I guess I need to do some more reading.

Despite the ground scale concerns, I can't envision another way to do the South in a larger scale.  If nothing else the historical feel is gone and you have tiny units.  How do you show the 50 17th Light Dragoons at Cowpens, or William Washington's Continental horse at each of these five battles.  Lee's Legion would be a speck.  These units and others influenced battles far more than their tiny size would indicate-and the more there are, the cooler they look. I also think it's best in 28mm.  There, I said it.  I'm slime, but I admit it.  I haven't seen any 15mm AWI I'm particularly enchanted with, and would you really trade in your Perry figures for 15mm Old Glory?  I think not!

Rules are always an open question with me.  Most of the games I want to run/plan are geared around   conventions or with friends who aren't familiar with the rules or the period.  So, they have to be fairly easy easy to pick up with reasonably simple mechanics. I own a copy of British Grenadier rules, which I hear lots of good things about.  If I had an intact group of regulars interested in the period, I'm sure I'd play these.  They are adaptable to 1:10 and have a couple of useful scenario books.  Unfortunately, that's not the world I live in.

A couple of years ago I began writing, or perhaps deriving would be a better term, a set of AWI rules from Fire and Fury.  At that time, Regimental Fire and Fury was still in its 275th beta version and publication was not on a foreseeable horizon.  I was also intrigued with the Hasenauer spawned "Wars of America" Regtl. F and F rules intended to serve a wider audience covering the American Revolution through the Mexican War.  Those rules are still unaccounted for.  Because Fire and Fury, together with The Sword and the Flame, are the greatest rules every written I decided to adapt my own version I called Tarleton's Quarter.  These were intended to be written at a 1:10 scale and aimed at the American Revolution in the South.  With those rules I hope to capture the more open formations the British used, and the closer integration of regular troops, provincials, and militia that was a regular feature of war in the Carolinas.

AWI: The Big Rules Quandry

I'm not really ready to play an AWI game yet. Well, I could, I have lots of figures in various stages of remounting and painting

I have my 1st and 2nd Maryland figures, tons of militia and riflemen, some cavalry and such. I have lots of Brits. Finally remounted my highlanders, some regular battalions, lights and provincial units. I'm still just working on some big American units that historically play throughout the period.

The big question, for me anyway, is rules. I have some basic rules requirements. The first and most important is they be suitable for AWI in the South. Except for a few battles, such as Green Springs or Yorktown, there aren't any real big battles. The rules need to accept a ground scale and figure scale of 1:10. That can lead to some big units, but it's doable. "British Grenadier" and "Fire and Fury Regimental" both fill the bill. I think "Loose Files and American Scramble" can be made to work too.

The rules also need to accommodate my mounting. I've just remounted my figures back to 40mm square bases. Each base is equal to 40 figures, though skirmishing units such as riflemen and jaegers are only mounted two to a stand. It appears I can make this work with all the foregoing mountings. I have questions about the scale for F and F Regimental, because I think they are designed for 15mm, but perhaps I can get some clarifications.

Feel for the period is also important. Could I actually refight Cowpens with all its retrograde movement? Are there allowances for the extended order the British units might have employed? That's a definite yes for British Grenadier and Fire and Fury Regimental. Not quite so clear for Loose Files.

I'd also like to host games at conventions or informal gatherings. Fire and Fury would probably work. British Grenadier might be a stretch for those who aren't real excited about the period. Rank and File by Crusader games would probably work too, but they lack a lot of period flavor.

Anyway, lots to think about.

Rules and the Report From Up North

My British Grenadier rules arrived from WarWeb on Tuesday. It only took a week, which was great, though the postman saw fit to fold them over in their carboard container. Grrr. I gave a long look to them, and I am anxious to try out a friendly game. There is a fair amount to do--not for the faint of heart, but not as busy as Flint and Steel was. I like the disruption points, the mounting and the idea that they are usable at 1:20 and 1:10.

I'm also including some pictures from my Canadian colleague Doug Hamm. His work is beautiful, though I'm not sure I always agree with his taste in projects. The first picture is of Pakenham's British massing for an assault on Jackson's lines at New Orleans in 1815. A nasty slaughter indeed. The two remaining pictures are his remount of his gorgeous French AWI units, Front Rank figures, that he is organizing for an assault on British held Savannah in 1779. Another brutal riverside attack. The figures are pretty, but the battle is not.

Yes, I am still here

Can you tell it's summer? Even though I have the summer off, it seems as though I've devoted even less time than usual to painting and gaming. There's lots of reasons why, including an early July excursion to Kent State University for a couple of weeks, but that's not the point. It's time to get back on the blog.

Not much historical gaming since June. I've painted a little bit and I'll share that in just a moment. I don't know whether I'm just sort of out of gas, or I'm going through a phase, but it hasn't been a very productive six or so weeks. I'm also staring at school starting three weeks from Monday, so the clock is ticking on having some fun. With J-camp most of next week, things seem to be getting away from me.

I have painted some Martians this summer. Ho-hum. They were the last of my militia figures for our campaign. Check out the Shastapsh blog for an update.

However, I've also been working on some Hundred Years War figures. In late June I'd kind of made up my mind that I was going to live with Warhammer Ancient Battles and the Armies of Chivalry supplement. I made contact with Adrian Nelson, and hopefully we'll play a little AoC before the summer is out.

However, Chris Craft also contacted me about The Crusader Rules and Medieval Warfare. I learned that we have similar basing for my multi-figure mountings and thus my dual projects can continue living.

In any case, I've been painting my Perry Agincourt to Orleans figures as French. They sure are nice figures, though I'm not making very rapid progress on them. Despite their loveliness, I still have a zillion OG dismounted French to paint (okay, not a zillion, it just seems that way.) Not only that but the Crusader Rules seem very doable for a larger game, and it may be my answer to a convention-style Poitiers game.

Back from the Desert: A Lewis and Clark update

The L and C project continues. Why oh why does it seem endless. I took a little vacation from painting as Lorri and I went south to Palm Springs over my break. I had a good time as usual. Palm Springs is a wonderful place. It's restful, the weather is fantastic, and there is always something interesting to see. This year I took the missus to Joshua Tree and we drove up into the San Jacinto Mountains to hang out in the rustic little town of Idyllwild.

We got came home on an entertaining plane ride Friday. We got caught up in one of those occasional desert wind storms that blow in from the coast through the gap between the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains. We had a hard time even getting off the ground and arrived home at 11:00 p.m., instead of three hours earlier as planned.

I did get some painting time this weekend. I finished the second unit of Soldados de Cuera, as well as the remaining Comanches. All that is left is the unit of mounted Soldados. Okay they don't look terribly soldado-like. I bought a pack of Presidial Lancers from the Old Glory Mexican War line in the wake of the London War Room disaster. They look pretty usable with their round hats and boar spears. I've gotten a nice start with them, but I'm also in the middle of deadline. I'm hoping I might have them finished by Sunday.

Today I received some hills I ordered from Battlefield Terrain Concepts in Virginia. They are very nice resin hills that I want to use to break up the battlefield. They aren't intended to be difficult terrain obstacles, just provide dips in the ground. I also am beginning to work on the river bank, and have picked out the piece of plywood I'll use to form the large island in the river that will hold the Corps of Discovery's encampment.

My hope is to begin messing around with the Black Powder Battles rules next week. It should be fun.

Tarleton's Quarter Revisited

As I mentioned last week, I've just finished Matthew Springs book, "With Zeal and With Bayonets Only." Springs' work is intended to dispel commonly held beliefs about the formations, and battlefield philosophy of the British army during the American Revolution.

I think there are some basic points that Springs makes that can be easily be summed up in a little list:
1. The British generally fought in open formations with spacing of 18 inches between files rather than the Continental norm of 6 inches. This allowed them to move more quickly through difficult terrain, but made it more difficult to effectively dress lines and and maneuver with other regiments. There are exceptions to this rule, but they are few. American regiments also tended to fight in these formations.
2. Light infantry units tended to be the numbero uno elite regiments. These troops, nicknamed "bloodhounds" were the most active, usually operated on a flank, and in the absence a cavalry arm, became the pursuit force after a broken or retreating enemy.
3. British units in the American Revolution generally did not volley with American untis. It was first fire and then charge with the bayonet.
4. In the American Revolution, the first fire was terrifically important. Because it was typically the best loaded round in a firefight, it would be the best prepared. One great volley fired in defense could completely undo a bayonet charge, as at Cowpens.

In my own rules set for AWI, Tarleton's Quarter, it presumed that the British formations at Cowpens were not unusual. Springs states that they were common, and the British only rarely adopted close order. This may mean a rethinking of the rules, and perhaps eliminate the need for them. I am considering ordering a copy of British Grenadier, which is wildly popular. If they don't do the trick, I may instead go back to Loose Files, which at least treats the unique conditions of fighting a war in America as a unique experience.

The Trouble With Ancients

I am a battle guy. When I think of miniature wargames I've never been one to get stuck on points or equal sides, I more often get set on scenarios and particularly historical battles. Maybe it's just the history geek in me, or too many readings of The Face of Battle, but that's just where I am. When I take on a project, what usually drives my interest is a famous battle. Cowpens in the American Revolution, Battle of the Wabash in the Wayne's Legion era, Chippewa in the War of 1812, those are the visuals that helped me get going. I also was able to either find rules, or create rules that helped me realize my visions.

Ancients are different. I have purchased more sets of Ancients rules than any other period, or maybe I should say periods. WRG 6th and 7th editions, Legion (you're probably too young to remember them), The Universal Soldier, Tactica and Tactica Medieval, Warhammer Ancient Battles, DBM, others unnamed, and now Fields of Glory and Medieval Warfare. The problem with each of these rules sets are points. Everyone wants to play them as a competitive set of rules-make your army, set up the terrain, line your troops up and have at it. I guess what I want to see is Chaeronea, Pharsalus, Clontarf, and Agincourt. Maybe it's because ancients rules cover such a wide range of history-4,500 years-that such is necessary, I don't know.

Yes, there are some rules systems that have catered to specific epochs of the ancient/medieval millieu-WAB and FoG come immediately to mind. However, with some special exceptions, those are still tied to the rules and point systems, which may not effectively represent historical armies. Those that come immediately to mind are Republican Romans and Hundred Years War combatants. Naturally, I beef because these are the armies I have or am building in 25mm. However, no rules set have ever properly allowed the Roman Quincunx to exchange ranks, and I haven't seen much that convinces me that English longbowmen function properly. It would be nice if there was something more period specific. Even the army lists recommended in Medieval Warfare and Fields of Glory show the English and French knights as mounted, though the Goddamns never mounted their knights except for a small reserve according to a well established system, and les Crapauds decided that arrowstorms were too tough on horseys to fight mounted after Crecy. Excuse the notable exceptions. This is all a product of catering to the ancients at tournament generators crowd. Makes me a little crazy. Just give me a set of rules in which I can fight the battles with lots of little men.

Fields of Glory: First Impressions

I met with David Sullivan today and played my first game of Fields of Glory. I really enjoyed it. I didn't run many of the charts-David did that. I cannibalized some of my DBA armies to build an Early Ostrogothic army, the same army I used for DBM. It's mostly a foot bow and cavalry army. The horse is mostly the equivalent of medium cav, with one unit of armored horse. The bows, while there are many of them, and they get to roll piles of dice, aren't in a position to be decisive. Bow fire really has to be followed up by some kind of shock troops.

While I did get pretty much hammered in the game, it was still enjoyable, and worth playing. I need to paint up some more cavalry figures, and try it again!

I did add Mariner Too to my list of completed hydroplanes today, as well as Casey's custom painted Revenge. I'm looking forward racing them on July 19th at Game Matrix.