So far I have sketched out a combat mechanism for both Artillery and non-Artillery Combat, with the latter doubling up for Close Combat (i.e. fighting between Units in adjacent abutting grid areas). In the case of Artillery Combat, this will be taken ‘as is’ from my MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules, although I do intend to include a rule that allows an Artillery Unit to ‘hold fire’ so that it can fire later in the turn sequence in support of another Unit.
Non-Artillery Combat will still use the special D6 dice with symbols rather than numbers on the faces, but the number of dice thrown by each type of Unit will be determined by its strength and possibly its tactical formation, and not the range. This is a significant change to the existing mechanism that I used in my MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules, but it makes it easier to accommodate differences in Unit quality and to reflect a Unit’s reduced fighting ability as it begins to suffer casualties. I am also including a proviso that non-Artillery Units that move and fire in the same turn will fire with less effect.
I have also decided to keep the existing move distances from my original MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules, but I will remove the difference between Native and non-Native troops. This was only really applicable to a few colonial Native armies and could easily be included in an appendix of optional extra rules.
My current design ‘block’ concerns the activation of Units during the turn sequence. In my MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules I used an IGOUGO mechanism, but this does not provide sufficient uncertainty in both solo and face-to-face wargames. In the end my choice has come down to two alternatives:
- A card-based system (possibly similar to that used in the RED HEX wargames rules); or
- A D6 initiative dice system of the type suggested by Kaptain Kobold.
Because of the nature of my overall design, it is possible to ‘design’ many of the mechanisms I intend to use in my ‘new’ rules as separate self-contained subroutines. The same is true of the Unit activation mechanism I will eventually choose. In fact I could choose one mechanism but still ‘offer’ the other as an alternative within the appendix of optional extra rules.
I am making progress … but the progress is still very much rushing slowly!
Thanks to cutbacks across the whole of the education sector the company has had an increasingly difficult time getting some clients to pay promptly for the services we have provided. As a prudent businessman I decided that the company needed to arrange an overdraft facility to ensure that the company’s cash flow was secure … so I paid a visit to my bank to arrange it.
This was the beginning of my wasted half-day.
When I arrived at the bank I had to join a queue at the reception desk. There were only two people in front of me … but I did not reach the front of the queue until fifteen minutes had passed. I was then sent to the waiting area … where I waited … and waited … and waited. Eventually I managed to speak to a customer adviser … who told me that they no longer dealt with business clients in any of the bank’s branches. (Why they could not have told me at the reception desk, I don’t know.)
What the customer adviser did give me was the telephone contact details of the bank’s business advisers, whom I was assured would be able to help me. It was interesting to note that the telephone number was a Premium Rate one … and that the bank would make money just by answering my telephone call.
I rang the number … and, after listening to some somewhat poor quality recordings of classical music, I was eventually connected to a business adviser … in Mumbai. After answering numerous security questions and explaining what I wanted, I was put on hold before being forwarded to yet another adviser … this time in the UK.
I had to answer all sorts of questions about my company’s finances … and then the questioning switched to my personal finances. I asked why this was relevant as the company is a limited liability company and has a twelve-year trading record that shows good financial management has been in place all that time. The reply was that because the company had never borrowed money before, it had no record of repaying debts, and I had to show that I had a good personal credit rating.
I reluctantly agreed to answer the personal financial questions … but when the questions switched to my wife’s finances I became very uncomfortable answering them … and said so. I was told that if the company needed the overdraft facility, the answers had to be provided. In the end I agreed to answer them in writing after asking my wife’s permission.
This whole process took from 9.30am until 12.30pm … and at the end of it I felt that I had wasted my whole morning. I also felt that the bank was singularly unhelpful, and proved the old adage that banks are willing to lend you an umbrella when the sun shines, but want it back when it looks like it will rain.
In the end my wife refused to fill in the Overdraft application form that the bank had emailed to me (as I had expected she would) and I have gone elsewhere to find the money to ensure that the company’s cash flow is secure. If I had realised what a waste of time it was going to be dealing with the bank, I would have gone elsewhere from the start.
The morale of the story is that if you want to waste half a day of your life, try borrowing money from a bank!
The battles were fought out over a series of large tables, and in the first battle the fighting took place around Ulyanousk whilst the second battle was fought in and around Ketteringrad and Wellingrad. The following photographs are mainly from the second battle, and are presented as a series of vignettes.
The Battle for Wellingrad
Wellingrad was heavily garrisoned, and its defenders included a large number of Heavy Artillery Regiments.
The fighting was particularly fierce around the bridge over the river … and I seem to remember that the bridge was blown up in rather unfortunate circumstances!
Ambush … and counter-attack
In one instance a Soviet force of Tanks and Infantry caught a German column on the road and ambushed it but …
… right behind the German column were two Regiments of Panzer Grenadiers, who counter attacked with considerable vigour. The German counter-attack was supported by Artillery fire and air attacks by Ju87 Stukas.
Italians in the East
Not all the invaders were Germans. Several Axis allies also fielded troops, and the largest contingent was the Italians.
If You Go Down To The Woods Today …
The big advantage of MEGABLITZ is that it is possible to field and use some of the more unusual or exotic military Units that armies sometimes have. For example, Cavalry can be used to reconnoitre, to patrol, to protect flanks, or even to act as a mobile attack force.
Woods and forests are also great places to concentrate troops before mounting a counter-attack or from which to launch ambushes.
Some Odds and Ends
I did consider just re-writing my existing MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules but I think that a better course of action is to start with a clean slate. This does not mean that I will not borrow heavily from the MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) rules when I actually put the ‘new’ rules together … but it may mean that some of the existing mechanisms will be reworked or even replaced.
This is not a new phenomenon for me. Past experience of wargame design (and my ‘training’ as an IT lecturer) has shown me that successful designs require several distinct stages of development. These are:
- Identify the main objectives
- Analyse the design parameters
- Design the game’s structure and select and/or design the necessary game mechanisms
- Implementation of the games structure and game mechanisms
- Testing and Evaluation of the games structure and game mechanisms
It was relatively easy to complete the Identify stage of the process, and the Analyse stage followed without too much difficulty. This should – in turn – inform the work I do during the Design stage (the stage I have now reached) and if I get this stage right, the Implementation stage should be quite simple to undertake … I hope!
So where am I now?
The objectives I have set myself are:
- To create a framework for wargames rules that can be used – with minor changes – for historical conflicts fought between 1850 and 1920.
- That the rules must be capable of being used to fight both face-to-face and solo tabletop battles.
(They may appear to be quite simple objectives but it will be quite a tall order to achieve them … but I have high hopes that I will be able to produce a satisfactory result.)
The design parameters are:
- The rules must be designed for use with a gridded tabletop (preferably a hexed grid that utilises hexes that are 10cm wide when measured from side-to-side [i.e. the size of Hexon II hexed terrain]).
- The rules must be usable with either figures mounted on single and/or multi-figure bases or suitably coloured and/or labelled wooden blocks.
- The mechanisms used must be simple to use, easy to remember, and produce acceptable results.
- The rules must have a user-friendly layout with a readable-font (i.e. no less than 9pt) and preferably they should fit on no more than two sides of A4-sized paper.
- The tabletop should be as free from non-essential clutter as possible (i.e. whilst this does not preclude the use of markers, playing cards etc., their use is to be avoided if it is at all possible).
- Players should feel that they command an army – albeit a small one – on the tabletop battlefield.
- The rules should encourage players to use the correct historical tactics in order to win, and that no single weapon type should be omnipotent on the tabletop battlefield.
What comes next?
I must now begin to make some decisions about the game’s basic structure (i.e. what will happen during each turn?) and the game mechanisms that I intend to use. I already know that:
- I want to use turn sequence that allows a degree of action/reaction to take place, and this will mean a move away from the traditional IGOUGO turn sequence used in MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB).
- I want to keep the existing Morschauser-inspired separation between Artillery and non-Artillery fire combat wherever and whenever this makes tactical sense.
- I want to have a single combat system for resolving non-Artillery fire combat and Close Combat.
- I want to use a combat resolution system that uses D6 dice. This does not exclude either the use of specially marked or conventionally marked D6 dice.
- I want to have a non paper-based method of recording a Unit’s combat status. This will probably involve the use of multiple numbers of bases (or wooden blocks) to represent each Unit, with the number of bases representing its fighting strength and willingness to fight.
(Some of these points might appear to belong in the Analyse stage, but it is sometimes difficult to disassociate how you want to achieve something from the mechanisms you use to achieve them.)
It may appear to the casual blog reader that I have achieved most of this already, and that all I have done is to write the design brief for MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB), but the truth of the matter is that MEMOIR OF BATTLE (MOB) evolved in a rather unstructured way, and by going back and designing a set of rules from scratch the resulting rules should be better.
We shall see!
If my memory serves me correctly, Tim Gow supplied all the models and I supplied the scenery. The latter included a very nice green vinyl cloth. These used to be sold in branches of Games Workshop, but were discontinued after a year or so. That was a great pity as they were ideal for wargaming because they were hard-wearing, wipe-clean, and did not crease if you kept them rolled up between battles.
Both books are published by Osprey and are written by Robert Forczyk. They are:
WARSAW 1944 (Osprey Campaign Series No.205  ISBN 978 1 84603 352 0; this book contains illustrations by Peter Dennis) …
… and GEORGY ZHUKOV (Osprey Command Series No.22  ISBN 978 1 84908 556 4)
I know next to nothing about the Warsaw Uprising, and WARSAW 1944 will go some way to filling an empty space in my knowledge as well as space on my bookshelves. I already have a copy of Zhukov’s somewhat sanitised autobiography, and I hope that GEORGY ZHUKOV will be somewhat more critical in its approach. I happen to think that Zhukov was a great general … but not as great as some of his hagiographers would like us to believe.