Having done quite a bit of research on ANZAC/Australian M113s in Vietnam, I’ve decided to change my plan for collecting them. I’ll recap my original plan from 2020 (ANZACs in Vietnam – Steven’s Wargaming Project), have a look at the kits I have today, and then outline my new, slightly more megalomaniac plans.
ANZAC M113 Callsigns: Australian APC Tactical Signs in Vietnam
I’ve started looking at my ANZAC project for Vietnam. I’m hoping I’ll be able to start making progress on this in 2023. But I got stuck on the tactical signs for the Australian M113s. Despite having a few books on Vietnam, I had no information on the tac signs. So I did some research. I found two pretty good sources: Ian Johnston’s “Australian M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers in the Vietnam War” and M Heaust: M113A1 APCs at Long Tan 18 August 1966 and a bunch of slightly more dodgy sources. Then I added in a bit of guess work. Here is the result.
The ‘To Hit’ Quandary – 5 plus or 2 minus
It is very common for game systems to give different units different to hit scores. The big question for me is, is it better to (1) give good units a higher to hit score or (2) reward higher dice rolls?
Operational Terrain 8 – Monopoly Buildings to Fit 4 Inch Hexes
I’ve been doing some more musing on Operational level wargaming for my draft Deep Battle rule set. My Experiment on a 4 Inch Hex Grid forced me to get Tiny Hills to Fit the 4 Inch Hexes. Now I’m doing the same thing with buildings. In fact I’m using Monopoly buildings which are more like … Read more
2023 Confessions of a Megalomaniac Wargamer and Amateur Historian
So 2022 went okay. And now it is time to lay out my megalomaniac plans for 2023. I will try to tone them back a bit as, despite a lot of activity, I achieved depressingly few of my goals last year.
As usual I present this as a brain dump of my active projects, i.e. those all projects that are more or less “in progress”. The list is then split into three parts: likely in 2023, unlikely, and background activity.
2022 Reflections of a Megalomaniac Wargamer and Amateur Historian
My goals for 2022 were typically overly ambitious – some would say megalomaniac. As usual I didn’t achieve them all, less than I was hoping, but it wasn’t a bad run.
Scots-Irish versus Picts – An Arthurian HOTT Battle Report
My Scots-Irish army arrived and I wanted to get them on-table, so I convinced Chris to bring over his Picts. Chris took the Picts, of course, and Adam commanded my Scot-Irish. This was Arthurian Big Base and Hordes of the Things (HoTT).
Summary: Quick Scots-Irish victory.
Moscow 1941 – Map on a 60km Square Grid for Deep Battle
I’ve drawn a new table top map for the Battle of Moscow. This time I’ve gone for a square grid with one square per 60 km. This is all part of the agonisingly slow development of my Deep Battle rule set. These rules will be Operational in nature hence the grand scale of the map.
Almost Fosse Bridge – A Crossfire Battle Report
Jamie was coming over and I quickly knocked up this Crossfire scenario to continue my experiments with the revised Anti-tank rules. This time I wanted tanks on both sides and we ended up with three Panzers attacking and two Shermans in defence.
The scenario is extremely loosely based on the Coldstream Guards and Scots Greys defence of the Fosse Bridge on 13 September 1943. One of the many small actions following the Salerno landings in the Italian Campaign. Emphasis on the “extremely loosely”. At the time I only knew the battalions/regiments present and the location of the bridge which gave me a modern google map of the modern site. Not much to go on historically, but it gave a good game. I’ll write up the scenario later although a real Fosse Bridge Scenario will be quite different.
Bogging and Anti-tank Mines – Revising Crossfire Anti-tank Rules 7
Both the Crossfire minefield rule and the Hit The Dirt bogging rule are special mechanisms using 1d6 and special outcomes. I think it is possible to align these with the normal infantry to hit dice, and without unduly affecting play. Since I’m revising the anti-tank rules to use the normal infantry to hit dice, this is a good time to tweak the bogging and anti-tank mine rules.
Collective Farm 643 – An O-Group Battle Report
Adam remains keen on ‘O’ Group, and has put together an Eastern Front scenario called “Collective Farm 643”. Chris took the attacking Soviets and I had the defending Germans. Adam was umpire and provide all the kit.
Summary: Over quick. The Soviets took the direct route to the objectives and got hammered.
Battle of Lemon Bridge (18-19 July 1943)
I was reading David Cole’s account of his time in the 2nd Battalion, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers in Sicily and Italy and got kind of fascinated by the Battle at Lemon Bridge (18-19 July 1943). Part of the reason for my fascination is that, for a long time, I couldn’t find the bridge, at least it isn’t on modern maps.
Infantry Anti-tank Weapons – Revising Crossfire Anti-tank Rules 6
While I mull over the feedback I got about my previous post to revise Crossfire’s tank rules (Anti-tank Rating – Revising Crossfire Anti-tank Rules 5), I thought I’d share my thinking on infantry anti-tank weapons. Bazookas, Panzerfausts, Panzerschrecks, PIATs, and their poor relation, the anti-tank rifle.
S12 Fighting Across the River – A Tilly’s Very Bad Day Battle Report 1
I persuaded Adam and Chris to play my S12 Fighting Across the River Scenario for Tilly’s Very Bad Day. Although this is a generic scenario, the armies were from the Thirty Years War. Chris was the Blue player, the attacking Swedes. Adam was the defending Red player, with the Imperialists.
Contested river crossings in the Seventeenth Century – Musing for Tilly’s Very Bad Day
Recently we play tested my S12 Fighting Across the River scenario for Tilly’s Very Bad Day (which I’ll post about soon). After the game Adam and I got to talking about the premise of the scenario and Adam encouraged me to take a closer look at some 17th century battles that feature a river crossing. In this post I look at four such battles and look for patterns in four factors: (1) crossing points; (2) forces present; (3) forces engaged; and (4) the battle result. The nature of the river crossings includes whether the river was fordable and how many crossings there were. A lot of men might have been nearby but only a minority were actively engaged, which suggests whether these battles were ‘nasty fights’ or ‘grand battles’. The result of battle is on the list because the defenders of a river crossings had a habit of ‘retreating once things get serious’.