Historical Brandywine

One of the things so fun about Brandywine is all the different ways it can be played.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen 2 battles alike yet.  I also haven’t exhausted all the possible strategies yet either! 

 

Players are free to setup anyway / anywhere they want to.  The game doesn’t even provide for a historical setup.  Still it is kind of nice to know.  How exactly did the battle go down? 

 

So here you are.  Just for curiosities sake, this is how it opened up historically.  It is a nice reference for players wanting to study the actually historical fight.  

 

 

img_8311

 

 

img_8313

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written Orders

img_7221I love using written orders in games. It adds so much depth and fun.  Some players however, hate the idea of using them.  It just ‘seems’ like too much fuss. 

This got us thinking… Is there a simple way to simulate the delays and effects of real Kriegspiel written orders?  Instead of written orders, how about some kind of simple order chit system?

img_7224

We experimented with this extensively. We had hidden and rotating Order cubes along with Directional cubes.  We plotted the movement of messengers and implementation times.  It was a very accurate model of what goes on.  It worked very well. 

img_7225

After all that hard work, we dropped it. What?!  Why?  Because it was unnecessary.  In the end, it added almost nothing to the game.  It added complexity and rules.  It added work for the players to do.  What impact did it have on the outcome and flow of the battle?  Almost nothing. 

Was I disappointed? Absolutely not. I was very excited by this outcome.  Pub Battles is even stronger than I realized.  It already incorporates most of effects of written orders in the basic design.  The way the turns work.  The way the commands move.  The way you can attempt to alter the turn sequence.  This IS Kriegspiel.  These rules are simulating the effects of written orders.  

img_7219

All in a simple, elegant 1 page of rules format. There is a lot more going on with this deceptively simple system than you realize.  I think we’ve stumbled upon a gem.  

In the end, the only thing we’ve decided to add for the Sharpsburg battle is a simple rule for adding Chits to the cup. That’s all we need.  I love it when the best thing turns out to be the most simple thing. 

Bounding Overwatch

7thcav11

A common tactic for Cavalry at the time of Custer, was deploying 1 Battalion to lay down fire while a reserve Battalion formed up and got ready behind. When things started getting hairy, the 1st Battallion would bug out by leap frogging behind the reserve. This would give them time to reform and take over next. In this way, a very small Cavalry force could fight in a sustained conflict with a much larger force.  (assuming they don’t run out of ammo)

Most games don’t simulate this dynamic very well. How does the Pub Battles system model this?


 

The Cav are small in numbers but they can be very subborn. The Sioux are treated as militia. The Cav are regulars. The result of this in the battle is that the Cav stands and holds relatively easy. The most common result is the Cav stands and the Sioux flips and retreats or is killed. About every 3rd shot flips a Cav.

So, after a couple waves of assaults, most of the Cav battallion ends up flipped. Now they ARE at risk. About every 3rd attack will destroy a Cav Company!

Now, if you had a reserve Bn to the rear, no problem. You hold until the front line becomes mostly spent. Then retreat back behind the reserve Bn. They can rally while the reserve holds the line for a few turns. Then they can switch. This models the common ‘leap frogging’ tactics for Cavalry at the time very well.

The problem at Little Bighorn is: There usually aren’t any reserves. Or the reserves are getting pummeled from another direction. This situation is made even worse by your line getting overwhelmed and flanked on each side. This allows for multiple shots on the Cav which is very likely to flip them in the first wave attack.

Then you end up with an agonizing decision to make. Your line is flipped. What do you do next turn? You can retreat OR rally. You can’t do both. Do you stand and rally so you can fight another turn or two? If you do, you will most likely get enveloped. With some luck, you may be able to fight your way out and fall back. The other option is to retreat but then you stay flipped. Your units remain vulnerable to getting killed in the next combat.  

Custer’s Gatling Guns

gatling-gun

Custer left the Gatling guns behind and for good reason. Bringing them would have greatly slowed the march. In all likelyhood, there wouldn’t have been a battle at Little Bighorn. The Sioux would have escaped.

True but wargaming isn’t just about modeling and duplicating history. One of the most intriguing aspects of our hobby is exploring ‘What ifs?’ It may have not been very feasible but how would Gatling guns have changed the battle? Would it have been enough to save Custer? How and where would they have been best deployed? What impact would they have had? How would the 7th manuvered differently? How would they have changed the their tactics?

Here is a brief report on a recent play test we did with the Gatling guns. It gives you a good idea about how the game works:


 

I took Custer and Mathey. Mathey set up the G-guns overlooking medicine tail coulee crossing. Custer drove north towards the crossing by Squaw creek.

The Sioux started crossing the Little Bighorn. The G-guns opened up. The first one jammed immediately with no hits. The second one hit 1 Sioux block, sending it retreating and then jammed. :/

The guns would have been immediately overrun and destroyed after that! The only thing that saved them was that Custer rolled to alter the turn. He moved next and turn right around and rode back to cover the guns.

The Sioux attacked. The next turn was a thing of beauty!! The G-guns opened up. They killed about 10 Sioux blocks and sent another 15 running. Custer went back to plan A:   strike across the N. crossing to threaten the NCs.

The next turn, the G-guns popped of a few Sioux then jammed again! Custer tried to come running back to save them but missed the roll this time. The Sioux overran and destroyed them. It was fun while it lasted.

After that, things got rather…… messy.   Custer’s Bn ended up in very awkward positions trying to cover and protect the guns. The whole commanded ended up scattered and isolated somehow.

Sigh.    

 

Legacy Risk

Has anybody played the new Legacy Risk? This looks like a really neat idea.  It sounds a bit crazy doesn’t it?  Tear up cards.  Throw them away.  Write on the board.  Write on cards.  Change the rules of the game as you play.  What?!  How is that for a grand strategy board game?

Yep, that’s right. If you haven’t heard of Legacy Risk, the game actually changes as a result of how you play.  You can build up cities and destroy them.

We got a copy of this to play. Everybody has been gone running around this summer.  We haven’t had a chance to play yet.  What is it like?  Does it work well?  Can you completely mess the game up by playing it or does it balance itself out and work ok?

How does this compare to Supremacy? Any interesting contrasts?  Any interesting stories of you games?  What happened?  How did it turn out?

Fighting Terror

libya_1842274c

In most strategy games like Risk or Axis & Allies, you plan is clear.  Attack and fight the other Superpowers.  Who is the leader now?  That is what we are used to.  When playing Supremacy, this can get turned upside down.

This can especially become a problem when facing the Terrorist in the new Rising Crescent expansion.  The Terrorists fly under the radar.  Most players ignore them.  They certainly don’t look like a threat.  They start with nothing.  No cards.  No armies.  Not even any money.  No problem right?  Wrong.  That is the biggest danger.  They are often under estimated.  At least at first.

The trouble with terror is that their growth can easily explode exponentially.  The most common mistake is for players to ignore them.  They only have a few armies now.  No big deal.  They aren’t MY problem.  Somebody else will take care of them.  It’s somebody else’s job right?  Wrong!  The Terrorists are everybody’s job all the time.  At least this is how you should think of them.

Sometimes players will complain that the Terrorists are too strong.  You can’t beat them.  It takes a huge effort to clear them out of an area and then they just pop up somewhere else.  It’s frustrating.  Yes, that is true but it is a job that MUST be done.  It is a chore.  Like taking out the trash.  The reason they are growing out of control and taking over the whole game later is because everybody ignored them for the first couple of turns.

You have to beat them down.  Your allies have to beat them down.  Your enemies have to beat them down.  Everybody needs to take a swipe at them.  Think of it as part of your global maintenance routine.

We played a game of Supremacy this week.  The Terrorists were ignored.  They built up and swarmed all over Europe.  The EU  player started complaining that they were too hard to beat.  It wasn’t realistic.  They kept popping up faster than they could take them out.  They completely overran Europe and conquered them.  Is there a play balance problem here?  Is this realistic?

Take a look at the real world Europe today.   Look at the demographic trends.  Project that out another 4-8 years.  What does that end up looking like?  Does it look realistic now?

I wonder if the real world Superpowers will wake up in time to beat down terror into a manageable size before it’s too late?

Which Flag?

Washington's%20Continental%20Flag%20Standard

 

 

We included optional bonus flags for Washington and Howe with Brandywine. What are these for?  What’s the difference?

 

We did these just for fun. Which is better?  Well, it kind of depends what you want.

 

The Standard Flags are all the same. The main advantage here is hidden intel.  Which HQ is it?  If they are all the same, you can’t be certain.

 

Washington’s personal standard is just plain cool. It adds a nice historical touch.  Howe didn’t have one but it seems strange if he doesn’t have something unique if Washington does.  These optional flags look great.  The downside of course is that the opponent knows exactly they are now.

 

How big a deal is this? Well, if you are playing a standard game, with two players it’s not a big impact.  After the first turn, everybody usually knows who’s who anyways.  Brandywine is a small battle.  There aren’t many commands.  It is easy to watch and keep track of.

 

With an Umpire, this can become more of a mystery. Except with an Umpire, it also doesn’t matter.  You can’t see the real map.  You only know what the reports tell you.  So the optional flags are still hidden.

 

How could the optional flags hurt you then?

IF you are playing the optional:

  • early start open
  • hidden command chits
  • turning spent units face down
  • reassigning blocks to other commands before the battle

 

For a 2 player game, these rules can add a lot of hidden unknowns to the game. Now you can’t be exactly sure what the enemy has, when and where they are, who can still move next and who can still attack?  Unless of course you are using the optional Howe and Washington flags….   That blows a lot of your intell.

 

Will you be playing these rules often? If not, it probably won’t matter.

Frustration as a Weapon

FrustrationAltanakaCan real command issues be a fun game? Are they compatible?

 

Conventional wargame wisdom is no. Real command is boring, dull and frustrating.   A game has to be fun. To be fun, it must be instant. No delay. No frustration. No unknowns. Must be complete knowledge and complete power and control.

 

Some of these ideas are changing. Columbia broke a lot of ground in this area.

 

This is what surprised me about Kriegspiel. It’s more like real command. It is boring, dull and frustrating? My experience was quite the opposite. It was very exciting and interesting. It can be frustrating. Frustration can = tension and fun in a game.

 

I think maybe there is more frustration at first. I can’t just move my pieces. I have to write orders first and then wait until they receive it. There is the delay. You have to start thinking ahead and planning for this. It’s not bad but it does run contrary to our instant gratification culture today. I can’t wait that long! I want an answer now! I want to move the piece myself and know what happened immediately. I can’t wait a whole turn to find out!

 

With a little practice, you adjust to it. Then it’s not frustrating. After a little more practice, then you start thinking…..

 

Hmmmmmm…….   They do this. I have to see it. Write orders. Delay. Then reaction. There is a lag. I move. Delay. They react. They move. Delay. I react. Let’s look a step further. Could we use this as a weapon? You betcha! People like Alexander, Hannibal, Napoleon, Jackson, Patton and Guderian were experts at it. Let’s think a couple moves ahead here. Much like Chess.

 

If we move like this, what will the enemy do?  They will likely react like that. Except there will be a 2 turn delay. Guess what? Now you know the future. You know where the enemy will be in 2 turns. You also know where he will not be, even before he does. Is that useful information? Can I get a ‘Heck Yeah!’?

 

If you know this ahead of time, you don’t have to wait until the enemy reacts, then delay while you send your next batch of orders. Send the orders now!! Then there will be NO delay. At least not for you. Assuming all goes well and you plan and time this right, the sequence will now be:

 

  1. You order.
  2. Delay.
  3. You move.
  4. Enemy orders to react.
  5. Delay.
  6. Enemy moves to react.
  7. You move.
  8. Enemy orders to react.
  9. You move.
  10. Enemy orders to react.
  11. You move.
  12. Game over.

This is called seizing the initiative. Keeping the momentum. Patton described this as rocking the enemy back on his heels by a good hard shove. Once he is off balance, it only takes repeated light shoves to keep him there, while you steadily advance.

 

The enemy is always off balance. Always in an awkward position. They never catch their breath. You are always 1 step ahead.

Frustration

 

Does that sound frustrating, dull and boring? Dishing it out or being on the receiving end of this, it sounds like a pretty exciting and fun game to me.

Hexless Wargames

6mihex

 

Why do we use hexes or areas in wargames? Presumably, to make them easier.  How do the pieces move?  Well, you just move them from space to space.  Just like Monopoly.  Everybody understands that mechanic.  It is more simple to explain in rules and for people to learn the game.  How many spaces does infantry move?  Armor?

One of our primary design goals being brevity in rules, we analyzed numerous wargame rulebooks. An amazing thing that stood out to us was:  the huge amount of pages and text dedicated to explaining hexes and/or areas.  Fine print.  Triple column.  Full sized pages.  Take a look at the rules for the games you are playing now.  How many words explaining moving?  Into hexes, out of hexes, across these certain hexsides but only in these cases.  Then there are hex ZOCs.  How does that affect movement?  Does it work the same for supply?  What if there is a national border?  An enemy ZOC?  What terrain is it if there are multiple types?  Is the hex side terrain different than in the hex?  Is the river in the hex or along the hex side?  How do pieces see into, out of and through hexes?  To the center of the hex or just a corner? Is there facing?  How does that work?  Do they face the spine or the side?  Where is the flank?  It goes on and on and on.

I thought this was supposed to make the game more simple? By comparison, the original Kriegspiel rules were very simple.  How do pieces move?  You just pick them up and move them.  How far?  This far by foot, that far mounted.  Much like miniature rules.  Real simplicity.  Ironic that something the wargame industry invented for simplicity and clarity resulted in so much complexity and confusion.

We noted an added benefit also: The map looks much better!  Any way you do it, hexes and areas are just plain ugly.  Don’t believe me?  Compare the Pub Battles map to the average wargame.

Brandywine hexes

 

 

IMG_7764

I rest my case.

 

Measuring?

 

measuring

 

What is the best method of measuring moves?  Do you have to get the measuring sticks or the compass? 

There are no spaces or hexes in Pub Battles.  The pieces just move. How far? There is an indicator on the terrain effects chart.

So you need to measure this with something.  These are the main options:

Free
You could just use a ruler. Or cut out a piece of paper/cardboard in the exact length. We’ve even used marked strings before. All of these can work fine.

Measuring Sticks
The Kickstarter version came with these for free.

They are NOT included in the game now!

In some ways, I like these better. The stickers denote 1/3 moves. (If you place them right) This makes it handy to account for terrain costs and formation changes.

Compass
These are a splurge. You gage them off the Terrain Effects chart. Not quite as convenient or fast as the sticks. They have a wonderful, period, tactile feel. Talk about emersion into the time period. That is the way it was really done.

No, you don’t need them but there is something really cool about using them. Here is a blog on using them from a backer. His aren’t as pretty. You do have to be careful that the sharp points don’t damage the map. It’s not too hard though. Just don’t grind them in.