Dragon Ships and Iron Knights (1066)

The Battles of Gate Fulford, Stamford Bridge and Hastings.

This is a new boxed game from Legion Games covering the Viking and Norman Invasions of 1066.

Disclosure, I am the designer of the Stamford Bridge / Hastings games. Geoff Noble is the designer of the Gate Fulford game. All three games share the same system.

Design History - Around 2000 / 2001, I designed Hastings, followed by Stamford Bridge and self published them using Desk Top Publishing software and it was the sort of package where buyers had to mount and cut the counters themselves.

Around 2015/16 Revolution Games picked up both titles and published them as separate games under the ‘Invasion 1066’ banner. These were ziplock games and it was a real pleasure for me to see the games now with properly printed and punched counters.

Most recently, Legion Games were working with Geoff Noble to produce a strategic level game covering the events of 1066. That game is called 1066 Year of Destiny and has just been published.

Randy at Legion Games was interested in having a sister game to 1066 Year of Destiny, that just dealt with the three main battles of that year as individual stand alone games, but collated into one box, so that between the two game packages, there would be a coverage of the subject at both the strategic and tactical levels. 

I’m pleased to say that Legion Games picked up my two 1066 games and invited Geoff Noble to put together the Gate Fulford battle, making up the trio of battles that define 1066.

So here we are, two game, Dragon Ships and Iron Knights, together with 1066 Year of Destiny which have just been released.

What do you get in Dragon Ships and Iron Knights?

The game is boxed. Each battle has their own 17” x 22” map with large hexes that accommodate the lovely large game counters (.75”). These are the sort of counters that are individually nested within the frame, so they just push out and already have nicely rounded corners.

Each battle has its own 12 page rulebook (8 pages for Gate Fulford). Each has the identical core engine rules to the front, followed by the special rules for that battle, set-up instructions and a description of the historical background. The package rounds out with three attractive single sided play aid cards. 

All the artwork has been done by the very talented Ken Demyen - thank you.

The games are two player (though they solo fine as many boardgames do)  described as low - medium complexity, with solitaire stated at med - high. Playing time is around the two hour mark.

The three battles very much each have their own character.

Hastings is a grinding battle. It was a long battle for its day at 8 hours. A brutal frontal assault against a well defended ridge position with flanks resting on difficult terrain. I have tried to get the emotional aspects of the respective commanders into play, so William should feel increasingly desperate to break into the ridge as the turns pass by and Harold should sense an increasing crisis as the pressure against his fragmenting line grows - both commanders will be saying ‘just one more turn, one more turn’. The designer notes stress to the Norman player ‘do not give up part way through the game’, much can happen in the last few turns.

Above - part of the Hastings map. This shows the right flank of the ridge (from Harold's perspective), protected by difficult terrain.

By contrast, Stamford Bridge is pure hack ’n slash, after playing Hastings, the player may become shocked how quickly the casualties mount - who will stay the course! The Vikings arrived in 300 vessels and went home in 30, such was the brutality of the fighting.

Finally Gate Fulford, has the elements of a puzzle. Understanding how to get the best out of the two wings, when to advance and when to retreat and how best to incorporate the German Beck into your battle plan and manoeuvres. Hex by hex, down at the beck, things matter.

Above - Part of the Gate Fulford map, showing the Viking left flank. Note on the edge of the map is the 'out of Arrows' box. In all three battles, archer units are placed here if they run out of arrows during the fight. This allows them to be removed from play without contributing to victory points for 'lost' units.

Your buying decision if you already own either Hastings, Stamford Bridge or both?

Taking budget and personal circumstance to one side, this is a question that some prospective buyers will be considering.

The games are clean and play well, fit the 2 hours slot and work fine solitaire. In this new edition, in my view, they have gorgeous components. There is a new battle to explore (Gate Fulford) and this gives a different game than the other two titles. One system is delivering three games.

There has been a tidy up of the rules, just a word changed here or there to help clarity, together with some tweaks to the special rules and victory conditions. I think with all of that and especially a new battle, the new Legion Games version offers much.

Important to me are that the games are accessible, with easy to get into systems, they play in a small space and can come down off the shelf often with minimum re-learning of rules etc and there is good playing variety between the three battles.

If you are happy with what you already own, those games are already doing what the same title(s) in the new edition are doing. The rulebook that you have works in total sync with the game you have. So I think you just have three questions to ask yourself. Do you want the extra battle(s)? and do you want the step up in aesthetics? and is this something that works for you budget wise?

Regardless, thanks to everyone who has either supported previous versions and / or intends to get the Legion Games edition, your support is and always has been appreciated. 

Thanks to Geoff Noble who brought the Gate Fulford scenario to fruition, to Randy Lein for giving an opportunity for the game to reach print again and to Ken Demyen for everything artistically that he brought to game and for his patience with me.

I will be supporting the games at the Legion Games company folder at Consimworld and at the game folder at BoardGameGeek. 

Needless to say, there will also be some commentary here at the Battlefields and Warriors blog and over on my Commanders web site.

Resources.

LINK to the Consimworld Legion Games page;

https://talk.consimworld.com/WebX/.1dd3a0e6/23288

Link to to BoardGameGeek DS&IK page

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/464753/dragon-ships-and-iron-knights

Link to my Commanders Site (General)

https://commanders.simdif.com/dear_diary.html

Link to the Battlefields & Warrior Blog (General)

https://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/

The Crossing: Ukraine, Late 1943

I can't help but feel a little uncomfortable in publicly 'gaming' Ukraine situations, while that country is presently suffering the miseries of war, but here we are in 1943.

After the recent knock-about games with a lone KV-1S and Panzer IIIM, using the Panzer boardgame system from GMT, I felt ready to play scenario 1.

This is essentially a meeting engagement with both sides ordered to capture the two bridge crossings and the ford. 

The Soviet tank company has 3 platoons, each of three T34/76 (43), plus a company commander for a total of 10 tanks. The Germans get 2 platoons, each of five PzIVG, plus a company commander for a total of 11 tanks.

The scenario is intended as an intro game, fully compatible with just using the basic rules, however I am swapping out some rules for the advanced versions, to include the gun / armour / fire process and the inclusion of command, which essentially determines the number of orders you can place and sets the distance that tanks may separate from other tanks in their platoon . 

The respective company commander tanks have a command radius of 10 hexes (1000 metres).

I have also dipped into the optional rules for vehicle bogging and will also have a go with the morale rules.

Soviet on the left, German on the right

Above - the starting positions. The Soviets have chosen to put two platoons on their left, but this leaves them with just one platoon on the right, who will be facing the greater numbers of a German five tank platoon and will need to use the local terrain to their advantage!

In the opening turn, everything on both sides are given ‘move’ orders. The forces simply need to close on the objectives and get within effective gunnery range. For the most part in this scenario, avenues of approach are fairly open, so there are dangers to both sides.

The battle quite quickly develops into two separate types of engagement. On the Soviet left, there is basically a shoot-out over open sights. 

The gun on the Soviet T34/76 when it fires at 10 hexes is classed as medium range, but at 11 hexes and above, the gun fire becomes classed as 'long' range fire and that makes things harder to hit.

The Soviets have slightly disadvantaged themselves here as one of their platoons is 10 hexes from the panzers .... but the other is 11 hexes away! That second platoon have crossed the cusp of benefitting from medium range and will now be using long range.

The more effective Pz IVG gun can claim medium range right out to 12 hexes, so the Panzer IV's have BOTH Soviet tank platoons within medium range and that gives them a 20% advantage in the chance of scoring hits when trading shots with the Soviet tank platoon that is furthest away. It is these nuances that delight.

Over on the Soviet right, their tank platoon enters the linear woods at its top end and a game of cat and mouse evolves.

The German tanks that face them have split their platoon, 3 tanks enter the lower end of the woods, while 2 tanks move along the river bank to put down fire support, but one of those tanks is immediately brewed up and left burning (see below).

Now going back to the Soviet left flank, losses climb for both sides, the Soviets lose two tanks and the crew of a third bail out (failed bail test) when their tank is hit and damaged. The Germans also lose two tanks, while another gets damage and another specifically suffers a track hit, even so, it is presently the Germans that now have more gun tubes in action!

Suddenly there is a big set-back for the Germans, their company command tank has crested a hill exposing it to fire from the Soviets at the woods edge. ‘BOOM’, a hit and a brew up! The loss of the company commander means that from now on, the Germans can only have up to half their available orders used for move orders - effectively making them less responsive on manoeuvre.

Casualties are roughly even and heavy, both sides are close to reaching their cohesion point levels, once reached, the number of things that can trigger morale tests increases .. including any movement! Things will just go downhill.

If they are to win, the Germans need to end that stalemate position in the lower woods and so they break cover from the trees to out manoeuvre the Soviets at the top end of the woods, hoping to get behind them.

The next tank lost is Soviet and their force hits their Cohesion Level, the commander knows that all offensive action is now out of the question and decides that the remnants of the company should pull back and find cover, from where they can overlook the crossing points at the river and fire …… but once you hit your cohesion level, importantly - even basic movement triggers morale tests and today, rather quickly, following failed tests, the Soviet vehicles start to hesitate and gain 'broken' status - it really is all over for them.

The game is only at the halfway point, plenty of time remains  for the battered German force to manoeuvre to control the river crossings and claim a chunky victory!

The introduction of the advanced gun / armour rules and the addition of the two optional rules, morale and bogging added extra depth to my previous play. With 15 turns to the scenario, I almost certainly could have been more thoughtful for both sides in their approach to initial contact to reduce losses.  

On the Soviet left, having one platoon at medium range, while the other was (just) at long range from the PzIV’s, meant that their effectiveness was immediately reduced by 20% and that as it turned out mattered. I could have given that platoon a 'Short Halt' order, which for that turn would have allowed them to fire with a heavy penalty (-3), but then they could move up to half allowance and that would have brought them closer for subsequent shooting. The German ‘mid range’ for their 75mm gun is a little more generous, with their guns being able to fire out to 12 hexes, which was catching both of the Soviet platoons - I like these small differences, they matter. The Soviets needed to move closer or get onto the German flank - that sounds realistic!

It should also be noted that the Germans were lucky when each of their own Bail Tests following damage were passed and so those tanks stayed in the game. The Soviets by contrast failed their one and only Bail Test, costing them a tank.

The Cohesion level is set by the scenario, being 6 for the Soviets and 7 for the Germans in this instance. That one point difference actually decided the game because both sides at the end actually had equal losses of 6 tanks, but with the Germans still not reaching their own cohesion level, they remained effective, while the Soviets didn’t. 

It is hard to do much, or at least it becomes more restrictive to do the things you need to do, once that Cohesion Level has been reached and that of course is all for the good as it starts to close the game down rather than witness both sides fighting to the last tank etc.

There are 8 scenarios in the core module, all set in the mid war. I will start to go through the module, playing the scenarios in the order that they are presented, each time bringing more of the system into play.

Scenario 2 is set in Poland 1944 and it gives another chance with a vehicle only scenario to use the basic rules. It is a meeting engagement that centres upon two forces advancing on a village. The players can bring in some of the advanced rules if they want.

Scenario 3 introduces the addition of infantry, anti-tank guns and transports and so we find ourselves being drawn into the advanced rules to deal with these new elements.

Doing a bit of re-familiarisation with the system has been enjoyable.

Resources.

A few years ago, on an earlier wave of enthusiasm for all things Panzer, I did a blog post that compared the T-34 to the Tiger tank. It is probably too long and too dry for many tastes, but I include a link for those that like these sort of things - LINK

https://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2017/08/panzer-by-gmt-analysis-of-t34-v-tiger-i.html

I have another bit of web space called COMMANDERS that is a bit more snippet based than here and gets updated more regularly - LINK

https://commanders.simdif.com/dear_diary.html