DBN by Alex Testo

Alex Testo has developed a set of rules inspired by the DBx stable of rules, specifically covering the Napoleonic period.

They are well written and presented, with some nice detail. At its heart, the basic game engine is delightfully smooth and so play runs easily off a simple Quick Reference Sheet.

Having read the rules twice, I am left with an impression that most game queries are going to be likely answered in the rules. 

One of the important elements that Alex has brought is the concept of attrition. Combat is by opposed die rolls plus modifiers. If you score higher than the enemy then a hit is applied, score double or more and you inflict 2 hits or something more serious!

The first hit is just a hit, two hits make the unit shaken and on the third hit, a unit is removed from play. Units do not get a chance to recover from hits.

I am presently collecting two napoleonic armies, my 28mm French / Austrian and my new project of Epic scale French / Prussian. The former are well established on 80mm bases, the later are on 55mm bases, but the project is so new that now would be the time to change basing without any real disruption.

In wanting to get these rules to the table as soon as possible, I face three initial possibilities on scale and basing;

The rule set prescribes base sizes of 40mm frontage for 15mm and smaller and 60mm for 25 / 28mm. A single musket base is representing something like a brigade.

Firstly I could re-base specifically to the measurements prescribed in the rules.

OR

My Epic can be placed on 55mm frontages. I’m not a big fan of the 55mm infantry strips sitting on the supplied 60mm bases, because you end up with a small gap at the end of the line, that can look a bit odd when placed next to a similar base, so I snip the rounded ends of the strips and attach them to a 55mm base, a nice tight fit.

Click on me!

For my new Pocket Army project, I have the infantry currently on 35mm deep bases, which allows for 3 ranks. That makes for a musket unit with 3 ranks of 10 men, so 30 heads to the base, which has a nice density to it. 

I will refit the cavalry to the same frontage (4 mounted for my dragoons shown above), but wanting 2 ranks (8 mounted) to make them look right next to the infantry, with a little bit of mass about them, they need to go on a 55 x 60 bases.

The artillery can happily could have a frontage of 2 guns with crew on a 55 x 40, though looking at conversions in the rules setting them at 60 deep would be fine.

If I went with this, then in moving from a 40mm to 55mm frontage per unit, I should increase all measurements by a factor of 1.375, so on the measuring ruler, 100 Paces should be raised from 25mm to 35mm. So for example, muskets fire at 200 Paces, so with this change, would fire at 70mm instead of 50mm.

I have asked Alex for a bit of advice on the subject of base size and he has said that the infantry and cavalry should really be on the same depth of base, so I may need to visually enjoy them as per above, but if forced to recoil etc, I might need to ‘imagine’ that the infantry have the same base depth as the cavalry. He also suggested that the 28mm artillery should have a 80 x 80 base placed underneath it, to keep everything true.

OR

If using my 28's, then they could stay on their 80mm bases and a similar process would see a doubling of the basic measurement, with 100 Paces being represented by 50mm instead of 25mm (exactly doubled), so my home made ruler would be marked up in 50mm (2") increments with musket bases as an example, firing at 200 Paces (100mm).

For the basic 12 element game, which in the rulebook uses a 2’ x 2’ battlefield in 15mm on 40mm frontages, I would need to grow the table to a 3’ x 3’ or just slightly less for the Epic and to 4’ x 4’ for the 28’s. In each case, you are really looking at the concept of a Pocket Army playing in a small space, which I like.

Alex describes the 12 element army as a corps sized formation and the rules have scope to increase the number of ‘corps’ used per side to give a bigger game, much like ‘big army DBA’ does. 

In this case, the battlefield would widen by 1 foot (300mm) per additional formation (corps). These bigger armies also accommodate multi-player games and can reflect some of the bigger historical multi corps battles. There are videos on Alex’s YouTube channel that have AAR’s on Eylau, Leipzig, Borodino, Ligny and Waterloo as examples.

Anyway, for now, I will do some knock-about games with my 28’s as that gives me fully painted forces, but as a project, I will chip away at the Epic scale as I need something that gets me away from the table where I stand, to the table where I can sit.

Every now and then, something comes along to re-enthuse and I am seeing DBN in that light. There will be more to come on this here, while over at over at the Commanders site I may set up a specific DBN page and put updates there.

Resources;

My Commanders site is just some extra webspace that I use to do the more snippet based type of posts and project discussion. It is paid for and advert free. LINK

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

The DBN site (for a copy of the rules, go to DOWNLOAD or if you want a hard copy, go to MORE and click on the CONTACT page to make your request) LINK

https://dbnwargaming.weebly.com/

For a video AAR of Quatre Bras LINK

 

https://youtu.be/hXJy05JOmU4?si=VI_20tLbej4upVAn

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 :-)