The Battle of Gate Fulford 1066.

Please note, this game was played with a pre-production copy of the Dragon Ships & Iron Knights game. My understanding is that the now published game is being shipped to Legion Games (U.S.) and that the game should reach them before the end of September.

I am the designer of the Hastings and Stamford Bridge games part of the package - so you won’t be surprised to see that my view of the system is obviously favourable.

The gate Fulford battle has been designed by Geoff Noble and it fully integrates with the system used in the Hastings and Stamford Bridge games.

The main terrain feature is the German Beck, a waterway, that has a ford that can be crossed without penalty, but elsewhere, units entering will disorder on a die roll of 5 or 6. This is a very simple gaming device, but it adds a lot of nice moments to the game and of course you know that your most important attacks will defy that 66% chance of success and get disordered! :-)

The Saxons will score victory points by fighting their way onto the southern side of the beck by the end of turn 3.

The Vikings will score victory points by fighting their way onto the northern side of the beck by the END of the game.

Plus there are the usual VP’s scored by inflicting casualties.

The flanks of the beck rest on the River Ouse at one end and thicket at the other, so this is a game of frontal assault.

At the start of play, the Vikings have Tostig’s force guarding the beck, while Hardrada with a much larger force is on the left and to the rear and about to move up - though his force is not allowed to move on Turn 1. So there is a small window of time for the Saxon to battle with Tostig and get a foothold on the other side of the beck, before Hardrada comes raging into view!

Opening Turns - both Saxon wings cross the beck, the Northumbrians are unopposed at this time, but the Mercians have to fight with Tostig. The Mercians under Morcar get the upper hand and push the Vikings back.

But Tostig counter-attacks and that goes badly for the Vikings, Tostig dies and most of the Orkneymen rout!

There is a short pause, broken by Hardrada bringing up the left wing and crashing into the  Northumbrians.

Mid game - The Saxon army pull back behind the beck and so the Vikings are compelled to advance onto the beck, with some of their numbers disordering, but overall, their attack is successful and the Saxon left flank (Morcar’s Mercians) start to take very heavy casualties and units start to rout.

End game - The Saxon left (Morcar) is seriously weakening, but they manage to hold on, though Edwin’s Northumbrians on the right are having to send men over to the Mercian position to support them keeping the line behind the beck.

Try as they might, the Vikings simply can’t breach the beck. Their right is significantly disordered and as the last turn plays out, both sides hold their respective positions on either side of the beck.

Totting up the VP’s, both sides are within 10 VP’s of each other, which is classed a draw. Looking the situation on the map, I think that is a fair appraisal!

Post Game Thoughts;

That was a very enjoyable game, in which both sides were engaged throughout, working hard to exploit enemy weaknesses, but finding few opportunities! We had a coffee break away from the table, so I think we were probably actually gaming for around 1 hour and 45 minutes, which saw us get right through to the end (Turn 10) with a generally easy pace.

Tostig falling on Turn 1 gave a nice moment of narrative, though it obviously presented the Vikings with problems for the rest of the game. Leader loss generally happens on a die roll of 1. Leaders are a good way to get a combat boost to get the job done ….. but it can be surprising how often those ‘1’s get rolled! 

Morcar was slow in getting back behind the beck and so took unnecessary losses, while the Vikings under Hardrada could have pressed harder on their left. Crossing the beck does run the risk of suffering disorder, but the Hirdmenn morale levels are very high and they can afford to take early losses without the spectre of rout hanging over them - but their attack must then successfully break into the Northumbrian position if any losses (which generate VP’s) are to be justified.

The Vikings have two jobs to do - kill off enemy units and get plenty of good ordered troops over the beck to rack up some VP’s at the end of game.

The Saxons also have two jobs to do - get over the beck with enough good ordered troops by the end of Turn 3 to score VP’s, then they must hold off the more powerful Viking army to stop them getting across to the north side of the beck.

Geoff has done a nice job on the scenario, there is a lot of nuance to it. Now not only does this system offer the three battles of 1066 together, but the games themselves offer three different gaming experiences under the one umbrella system.

Hastings is the grinding battle, you just have to put your back into it and press on and hope that the enemy breaks before you do!

Stamford Bridge, is opposite to that experience, it is a more open game of pure hack ’n slash. The Vikings came in 300 longboats …. they went home in 30!

Gate Fulford is a thinking scenario, not quite a puzzle, but the placement of each unit matters and the randomised disordering effect of the German Beck means that there are no guarantees to thoughtful choreographing!

Rediscovering wargame magazines from 1989 / 90

A while ago, I recalled having read an article by Clive Lane in an old wargame magazine, which dealt with the subject of figure gaming using hexes, a novel subject at the time (late eighties). I wanted to dip back into those articles again and so after a little internet research I found two candidates on e-Bay and ordered them.

The magazine in question was of course the rather marvellous ‘Practical Wargamer’, which had editor Stuart Asquith at the helm and was published by Argus Specialist Publications.

We should remind ourselves that in 89 / 90 we were essentially in the pre-internet world as far as the average household and the wargamer were concerned. This fact alone made this magazine a hugely important part of the fabric of the wargaming community.

Anyway, my two magazine issues ( Winter 1989 and September - October 1990) arrived, each with an article on hexes by Clive Lane - all good! 

I have just come across the magazines again today as I sort through boxes of treasure and they are being enjoyed as old friends!

The mags come in at 58 - 60 pages. They are largely presented in black and white text and line drawings, with some pages offering colour photographs and illustrations. 

There isn’t a WWW web link or an e-mail address or FaceBook page reference anywhere in sight. Instead, the adverts carry real estate addresses, telephone numbers and that typical request that the reader ‘sends 75 pence in stamps for a catalogue’ or a ‘Self Stamped Address Envelope for more information’ - which almost feels quite charming or quaint now.

Looking at an inflation calculator, £1 Sterling in 1989 would be valued at around £3.23 in todays money, so the front cover price of a magazine (£1.95) would equate to £6.45 today, so not a big difference on the face of it, but in those days, the average family generally had much less disposable income in their pockets (though that situation is on the rise) once priorities like food, gas, electric and rent / mortgages were paid for, so really by comparison, I imagine the mags were really more expensive …… though of course you didn’t have the ‘necessity’ of a mobile phone, an extra holiday and a car or two to worry about :-).

Browsing both copies I noted that;

The Beatties advert (a good, nay, iconic, UK model shop) had 59 branches.

Minifigs 15mm packs were 80 pence.

The entrance fee to Colours 90 (Wargame show) was £2.

W.E.Hersant Ltd were the big name book sellers for wargamers, rather like Caliver Books are today.

Alec Tiranti Ltd was selling all things to do with hand casting and centricasting.

Hovels buildings had a new Spanish range with a 25mm ‘three storey house and balcony in resin for £5.40 with 15% postage cost.

Don Featherstone has an article looking at the Egyptian army of 1882.

The marvellous Bob Marrion’s original artwork of soldiers in watercolour are given space amongst the few pages of full colour.

Southsea Models, Mili-Art, Britannia Miniatures, Mac’s Models, Skytrex, Hales Models Stonecast, Wargames Foundry, Spirit Games, Chelifer Books, The Drum and Minifigs are amongst the regular advertiser names that dominated ‘our yesterday’.

Overall, I always had an impression that this magazine was written for wargamers by wargamers and I note that sentiment is reinforced by a reader’s letter to the editor in one of the mags, as he complains about the mix of articles being too weighted to certain periods and the editor replies that he can only work with the material that is submitted to the magazine, so it sounds like at that time, we were still some way off from in house writers taking up that slack of insufficient submission from the readership.

The articles are underpinned by a strong sense / presence of history and sections explaining the important stuff of tactics and detailed construction of formations and their roles. There are several references to written orders and the business of wargaming feels like it is being expressed as a serious activity, with a level of exactitude that I sometimes wonder whether that flowed from the pens of those who had actual military experience and wanted things portrayed 'right'. It certainly comes from a time when more gamers were engaged with what was considered the importance of research and so this was all welcomed information.

Even in those days, I was interested in writing and boardgame design, but there was a seeming constraint that the world of publishing was coloured by those with an academic background, who through qualification had the ‘authority to write’ and the gateway to getting published was absolutely controlled by editors and publishing houses and you just had to rub along with that, a little in the shadows.

Fast forward to today and the power of print is at the fingertips of anyone and everyone. Self expression via the internet (this page for example), whether in written form or video, has brought a significant confidence and capability to pretty much anyone to project themselves into a public space - though of course that has not always been for the good. As the saying goes, the best thing about the internet is that everyone has a voice, the worst thing about the internet is that everyone has a voice. 

By contrast todays magazines, which of course have become just one part of what we now know as social media, seem to have a looser approach, with abstraction given due space and even the prospect of fun enters the language. Though editors must increasingly have a frantic job each month, just ensuring that they have enough content to fill the pages and maintaining sustainable circulation numbers. 

‘In house’ writing for magazines has reduced the voice of gamer diversity and I feel a slight hoorah! coming on for those early magazines and their editors who, given the times, gave space to the ordinary wargamer to share their own aspect of the hobby with the rest of us, after all that is how you get an article from the pen of say wargamer Clive Lane, playing on my mind over 35 years after it was written.

On a final note, one of my magazines has a strong smell of damp that is unpleasant and spoils it as an experience of ownership. Please don’t store documents and boardgames in attics and garages etc. Bring them indoors, yes I know space is a premium, but one might simply have to make room by getting rid of something less important, like the bed, dining table or T.V. and even all of the kids toys.    Good Luck :-) 

Starting a new Pocket Army for Dodgy Backs!

Well, there is a bit more to it than that - it is connected to some ‘thinking’ - Oh Dear!

It is a Pocket Army because its size will be contained, but it is also a three foot army because I am speed painting and viewing at the three foot rule is a guiding principle. It is also a …. Oh what should I call it! …. A restricted mobility army for those occasions that my back / leg problems have a flare-up and I need to sit at the table with just a small game in front of me. It is also an experimental army to bring all of the above together for some sort of assessment of feasibility on how best to proceed.

Since doing the 10mm infantry in 2 ranks on 3 bases, I am now looking a 3 ranks on 2 bases, but having a similar total frontage of 110 - 120mm.

Pocket Army - 5 x infantry, 1 x artillery, 1 x light horse and 1 x heavy horse per side will be the object of the exercise. Last year I cut a couple of neoprene gaming mats down to 4’ x 2’ and I would see these armies operating in that sort of space.

Three Foot Army - Painting with the three foot rule in mind. I have been doing some test bases, where the figures are primed and then glued into positions on bases ….. and then painted - fast! I have never previously thought this a good idea, but it certainly forces you away from getting involved in all of the detail. 

Just get a general impression and the paint only goes where the brush and the eye can go and it is a faster way to paint. I don’t enjoy seeing the results close up, but at gaming distance (three foot), there is a lot of forgiveness. I know this sounds a terrible thing to say, but without the usual love poured into them, it allows me to tell the family that when I’m dearly departed, not to worry about them, they can even be thrown away! They will be as disposable as any football or concert ticket.

So far I have painted a group of Pendraken 10mm bases and now a group of these Epic bases. At the conclusion of that, I think it just comes down to personal preference, though I think the looser 10mm artillery looks better to the eye than the very fixed Epic poses with the gunners in rigid positions, but I like the Epic infantry better (I will rebase by 10mm to the same look and see how I feel about that). The cavalry fight it out on equal terms.

Restricted Mobility Army - I am having problems standing for lengthy periods at my gaming table. It is 40” off the ground to reduce bending, which is good, but being on my feet in a fairly static position can soon bring discomfort that lasts for a few days. Sitting at the dining table brings some relief, but not if stretching across it, so the idea of having a 2 x 4 mat under my nose, while sitting, holds some appeal - restrictive, but sometime you can’t have a cake and a bun!

Long (long) term, more of my gaming may come down to this sort of play, so perhaps having a couple of Pocket Armies on stand-by for that eventuality is not such a bad idea.

Experimental Army - I have a potted history of jumping back and forth between scales, systems and table setups. There is of course a financial cost to this, but equally important a time cost, whether that be painting or moving between systems etc, so I am just feeling my way along with this project, to see where it goes ..... if anywhere! 

One of the benefits of going with the ‘three foot army’, with most things being painted while on their base, I can build all of the bases of the whole Pocket Army ahead of time and game with them unpainted, pushing them into the painting queue one at a time as the fancy takes me, until the armies move slowly from being mostly unpainted, to painted.

This a critically more effective way of seeing whether a project suits and settling upon the right set of rules, rather than having to paint everything first.

In my minds eye at the moment, is a game with relatively big bases and fewer moving parts. Having tried variations on this theme, I quite like the latest iteration as follows.

Infantry - For Napoleonics, taking the British aside, the formations can be represented 3 ranks deep, so even if I go for a smaller frontage, the extra rank keeps the number of heads in the unit high enough for a good visual presence.

Above - This is a three foot photo of a 3 foot unit .... it looks okay to my eyes! (actually, in truth, it does withstand closer inspection).

2 bases are needed per unit as I want to be gaming at the more tactical level, where the difference between line, assault column and square can be shown. My first unit off the production line to have these traits are Epic Prussian musketeers, with each base measuring 55mm x 35, the whole unit occupies a frontage of 110mm, with a total of 60 heads, which gives a fair sense of mass.

Above - the same two infantry bases now in column. 

The only thing I am not sure about yet is whether the ranks might be better positioned slightly closer together on say a 30mm deep base, but the deeper base makes assault column look ... deeper! Anyway 5 or so such units on the 4 x 2 should work okay. 

Cavalry - These are set on 80mm x 60mm bases in two ranks of 6 to give 12 models. The example here are Epic French Dragoons. When I did the same base in 10mm, for the same ‘look’ it allowed two ranks of 7. Both look good. 

I intend to use the cavalry as a single base per unit and not concern myself with formation, their class of light, heavy, lancer etc will be what matters. Three bases can represent a whole brigade, say 2 up front and 1 behind, with a frontage of 160 - 180mm .

Artillery - These (above - Epic) are set as 3 guns on a 80mm x 40mm base to represent a battery. In my games, usually 2 guns are used for a battery, so the 3 models offers a bit more real estate. 

However, if I compare the Epic base to the 10mm base (above), In my view, I think the 10mm looks better. The guns have more room to breath and the crew are scattered more randomly over the entire base. My Epic version by comparison looks a bit too rigid. I will likely try and do a separate limber base, to represent the guns when on the move.  

Anyway, as stated, this is a plodders project, that may or may not bloom!