The Liberators 1810-1830 Yahoo Discussion Forum included Errata for Liberators QPR in the files section. With the demise of Yahoo forums these have disappeared. Since I refer to them in my Clarifications of Liberators QPR, and John Smith asked about them on the Liberators Facebook page, I’ve reconstructed the errata here based on the handwritten edits to my copy of the rules.
I wrote this about five years ago because a couple of my projects, i.e. Albuera in the Peninsular and Sipe Sipe in South America, had stalled because I didn’t like any of the available horse and musket rules. Inspired by Roland’s WW1 experiment I wondered if I could make a horse and musket variant for Crossfire. These rules have now remained raw and unplayed for some time. I stopped work on them because I decided I had bent the rules so far that it is no longer Crossfire. But rather than having it lurk on my hard drive any longer, and because Jamie asked about it, I thought I’d share. What do you think?
In our recent game of Tilly’s Very Bad Day Chris observed that, as the defender, he could exploit the terrain placement rules to his advantage. This is my proposal to address Chris’s concern. These rules allow randomised terrain for pick up battles in any period.
The terrain placement rules described here borrow heavily from Terrain Cards for a ECW Campaign.
Continuing my Megalomaniac tendencies, this is my reflection on 2018 and how I did against my world conquering goals. Check out my 2018 Confessions of a Megalomaniac Wargamer and Amateur Historian for my overly ambitious aspirations.
I have noticed that my The Confessions of a Megalomaniac Wargamer and Amateur Historian of 2015 was literally a confession, describing my overly inflated ambitions and incomplete projects. But the 2016 edition was more a reflection on my progress against those goals. It has been a 23 months since the 2016 edition and it is time to revisit. But I’m going to split the reflection aspect from the confessions bit. So this is my reflection on the 23 months from the beginning of 2016 to the end of 2017.
All my Peninsular War infantry/cavalry units are on Big Bases with two big stands per unit. Also I don’t want to combine small units in the South American Wars of Liberation because there are already only a few units on table and I want to represent them all. So I need some way to represent the number of men, and hence number of stands, in a different way to standard Lasalle.
I thought I’d show off my 1815 Argentines. I my thoughts on Using Big Base Liberators Figures of 1817-18 for 1815 I highlighted a few gaps that I needed to fill before I could refight Sipe Sipe. I could use some figures from my 1817-18 Argentineans but I had to get a few more.
If you are interested in the other side, I’ve already posted on my 1815 Royalists.
It has been a year since my Confessions of a Megalomaniac Wargamer and Amateur Historian so definitely time for the 2016 update. I figured that, by sharing what I’m working on (far too much) and where I was up to with it (not far enough), I’d feel bad enough about my lack of progress to limit my work in progress and get some projects finished. Well, it worked, but only partly. I still worked on seven projects this year and finished none.
I want to try Napoleon at War (NAW) for Liberators and one of the first questions is … what do I do about my Big Bases? Luckily Phil from Wargaming in the Sun has some useful suggestions for using units based for Lasalle / FoGN with Napoleon at War. I can just add to his analysis to cope with my 2 x 80mm x 40mm basing.
My thoughts on Using Big Base Liberators Figures of 1817-18 for 1815 highlighted a few gaps that I needed to fill before I could refight Sipe Sipe. I could use some figures from my Royalists of 1817 and 1818 but there were a fair few units that didn’t have a direct equivalent. That gave me an excuse to get some more. Okay, it isn’t hard to convince me to get more figures – in this case it just took some fancy uniforms that aren’t seen in other years of the Wars of South American Liberation.
I have rebased my 1818 Royalists on big bases, so I took the opportunity to do a photo shoot including some units I’d not featured before. This is the army that won at the Battle of Cancha Rayada (19 March 1818) and lost to San Martin at the Battle of Maipo (5 April 1818). For those interest in the earlier armies I’ve also got the Royalist army for 1817.
I have rebased my 1817 Royalists on big bases. So I took the opportunity to do a photo shoot including some units I’d not featured before.
This is the army that got smashed at Battle of Chacabuco (12 Feb 1817). I’ve also included the units for the Alternative Chacabuco Scenario in Fletcher (2006).
This is my second blog post in my series on Talcahuano, the port fortress near the city of Conception in Chile. This time the focus is the Combat of Talcahuano which led to the Patriot capture of Talcahuano on 28 May 1813. As I mentioned in the first post the purpose of the series is to figure out how to make an interesting scenario from an assault on the fortress.