We’re really joying Populous, Rich and Rebellious, our four player Campaign using Tilly’s Very Bad Day, and set in the English Civil War. But people keep asking me, what about the Thirty Years War? (Most recently Peter Godden.)
The Name
I quite like the name “Populous, Rich and Rebellious”. It was a quote from a historian of the English Civil War. What should I call the Thirty Years War version of the campaign?
I found a couple of quotes supposedly by Volkmar Happe, chronicler and counsellor at the small court of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen in Thuringia. Presumably these are from his Chronicon Thuringiae (Happe, 1619; referenced in Müller, 2020), however, I don’t have access to that chronicle and it is in Germany anyway. The quotes I found are in a comment by Tammuz at Historum: Do you know any 30 years war quotes?.
- “In many a village there have been five, six regiments, in many a small farmhouse a whole company. Like caterpillars, they have soiled, devoured, fed, devastated and destroyed everything.”
- Regarding Protestant troops in 1634: “Murdering, robbing, stealing, taking, defiling, whoring, etc., these are the most chivalrous deeds and virtues of our soldiers. Our tribute swallowers are not a hair better than the enemy.”
Wow. Those are pretty evocative and suggest names like, “Devoured, Fed, Devastated” and “Murdering, Robbing, Stealing”. But neither of those grabbed me.
I also briefly considered “A World Aflame”, reflecting the widespread devastation and turmoil across Europe during the war. But that is too close to Flames of War.
Another option was “Sword and Sceptre”, emphasising the interplay of military and political power during the era. Too bland.
The name I’ve settled on is “The Vulture’s Feast”. I could rationalise it as symbolising the opportunistic nature of various factions during the conflict, but actually I just liked it.
Factions
I have previously done quite a lot of thinking about Factions in a multi-player Thirty Years War Campaign
I still favour only two factions: Hapsburg and an Anti-Hapsburg Coalition. Hapsburg with German Catholics (Imperial, Bavaria) and Spain and occasional protestant supporters. Anti-Hapsburg Coalition with France and the most protestants (German, Danish, Swedish, Dutch).
Some regions start neutral. I’m also wondering if there should be a mechanism for regions to become neutral again. Something like, a victory in battle awards the player two Capitulation Points to be used immediately. Capitulation points change allegiance of regions. At least one capitulation point must be spent in the region being contested. A second region can be affected, cannot be a capital, but otherwise can be anywhere. To change a regions allegiance costs:
- from neutral to friendly = 1 Capitulation Point
- from enemy to neutral = 1 Capitulation Point
- from enemy to friendly = 2 Capitulation Points
Map
Okay, so I need an area map of central Europe. Actually, I already have area maps of central Europe. For example, I have both versions of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) Board Game. but they just scream “complicated” at me. I can’t cope with complicated. For example, there are something like 120 regions. Too much for me.
The map for Populous, Rich and Rebellious has 13 regions in England in Wales. Having an odd number means that the final victor is obvious. Two of those regions are capitals. An odd number of regions and having capitals seems a good idea for the new game.
For the Thirty Years War I toyed with various options, including maps with 15 and 21 regions but settled on 25 regions. Somehow this number gave me all the regions I’d expect to see on a map, without excessive detail. The 25 regions are:
Habsburg-Controlled (7): Bavaria, Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Spanish Netherlands, Tyrol, Flanders, Hungary.
Anti-Habsburg-Controlled (7): Bohemia, Upper Palatinate, Lower Palatinate, Silesia, Hesse-Kassel, Moravia, Dutch Republic.
Neutral (11): Swabia, Franconia, Saxony, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Westphalia, Lorraine, Württemberg, Thuringia, Mecklenburg, Savoy.
Of course, 25 is nearly double the number from Populous, Rich and Rebellious and I don’t know if that is a problem.
But it got worse as I added five countries (Spain, Poland-Lithuania, Denmark, Sweden, France) around the edges. You won’t be able to invade countries but they count for support going into a battle (adding Campaign Cards) and they could also be a source of troops on some Campaign Cards (e.g. French Army Mobilises).
Hapsburg Countries (2): Spain, Poland-Lithuania
Anti-Hapsburg Countries (3): Denmark, Sweden, France
“Spain” in this case is actually the Spanish Empire in Italy and the start of the Spanish Road. Speaking of which, on the map with 25 regions the Spanish Road has several routes like its historical counterpart:
- Spain – Savoy – Spanish Netherlands
- Spain – Lorraine – Spanish Netherlands
- Spain – Tyrol – Bavaria or Upper Austria
I’m thinking reinforcements from the capital can reach only 3 regions. I hope that constraint will make Anti-Hapsburg operations against the Spanish Road more likely during the French phase. Northern Germany will see action during the Danish and Swedish phase. Central Germany when the capital is in Bohemia or the Lower Palatinate.
Timeline and number of battles
Populous, Rich and Rebellious cover the English Civil War from 1642 to 1646 i.e. 5 years. I thought we could fight four games for each campaign year, 20 games in total. Clearly that isn’t the case. I think we’ll end up playing 14 games in total.
So in planning “The Vulture’s Feast” I think I should aim for about 15 games. The Thirty Years War lasted from 1618 to 1648. Perhaps I assume one significant battle every two years. If we start eager, like we did with Populous, Rich and Rebellious, we might initially go for one battle every year then drop back to one battle every two years as enthusiasm for the campaign wanes. That kind of mirrors attitudes to the Thirty Years War.
I could introduce a variable element with a random number of years advanced:
Average 1 Year per Battle: Roll 1d6; on a 1-2 advance 0 years, 3-4 advance 1 year, 5-6 advance 2 years.
Average 2 Years per Battle: Roll 1d6; on a 1-2 advance 1 year, 3-4 advance 2 years, 5-6 advance 3 years.
The campaign starts in 1618 after Bohemia has revolted. So it makes sense that the Hapsburgs get Strategic Initiative on the first campaign turn. This is their chance to retaliate.
Game length
In Populous, Rich and Rebellious the table top game length is set by a combination of season, weather and time of day. This gives a result of between 6 games to 12 game turns for the attacker to win.
Season: With one game every year or two, the season is probably determined randomly. Roll 1d6 with 1-2 Spring, 3-4 Summer, 5 Autumn, 6 Winter. Or something.
Weather and time of day are unchanged.
Campaign Cards
I have to start with this campaign card, after all, my table top game is named after the death of Johann Tserclaes, Count of Tilly:
- [Beneficial] Tilly’s Very Bad Day: Once during the battle one enemy commander is automatically killed if hit by shooting
Many of the campaign cards from Populous, Rich and Rebellious, our Campaign using Tilly’s Very Bad Day, and set in the English Civil War, also work for the Thirty Years War. I have left out any cards that mention a specific personality or historical event tied to either the Royalists or Parliament. That still leaves quite a few. For example:
- [Beneficial] Army fully paid: Before the battle add one Pike+Shot unit to the order of battle
- [Detrimental] Fodder is scarce: Before the battle remove one Horse unit from the order of battle
In addition I could also retain the “Carlo Fantom” card because he had earlier fought in the Thirty Years War. Given he was Croatian I have tweaked the card to include light horse. Here are a few variations:
- [Beneficial] Carlo Fantom – Impervious to bullets: Once during the battle one Horse or Light Horse unit ignores the result of shooting
- [Beneficial] Carlo Fantom – ‘I fear neither God nor bullet’: Once during the battle one Horse or Light Horse unit ignores the result of shooting
I’ve love to use this if I can find a Thirty Years War version.
- [Detrimental] ‘Let a cannonball divide me’ (Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull): For the entire battle one chosen commander is automatically killed if hit by cannon fire
A few suggestions from my Musing on Commander Special Attributes in Bolivar’s Very Bad Day could be turned into campaign cards.
- [Beneficial] Artillery man: Double friendly bombardment dice
- [Beneficial] Eye for terrain: After Defender has finished modifying terrain, the general can swap any two terrain cards/pieces
And then some new cards with specific Thirty Years War flavour:
- [Beneficial] ‘Magdeburg Quarter’: Once during the battle an enemy rout causes two enemy units to suffer Morale Erosion. Retain until used
- [Detrimental] ‘The Destroyer of Armies’ (Matthias Gallas): Before the battle remove one Pike+Shot unit from the order of battle.
- [Detrimental] ‘I know my Pappenheimers’: For the entire battle one chosen commander is impetuous; if attached to a unit that can charge, then must declare a charge.
- [Detrimental] Coward (Duke Charles IV of Lorraine): For the entire battle one chosen commander cannot declare charges; if attached unit declares a charge, then commander immediately detaches and is left behind
Cards for each faction bring a lot of flavour. Here’s a few Hapsburg cards:
- [Hapsburg] “For God and the Virgin Mary!”: Once during a battle all friendly units attacking a single enemy hit on 4-6
- [Hapsburg] Albrecht von Wallenstein – “What the Emperor cannot achieve through treaties, I shall accomplish by force of arms”: Before the battle add one Pike+Shot or Horse unit to the order of battle
- [Hapsburg] Tilly’s Tercios: Before the battle add two Pike+Shot units to the order of battle; any Hapsburg Pike+Shot can deploy at the start of the game in Big Pike+Shot units.
- [Hapsburg] Croat Raiders: Before the battle remove one Light Cavalry unit from the order of battle
- [Hapsburg] Edict of Restitution: Before the battle add one Pike+Shot unit to the order of battle
And some Anti-Hapsburg cards:
- [Anti-Hapsburg] “God With Us!”: Once during a battle all friendly units attacking a single enemy hit on 4-6
- [Anti-Hapsburg] ‘A danger to the Empire’ (Emperor’s Edict): Before the battle negate all Hapsburgs cards mentioning Albrecht von Wallenstein; Retain until used
- [Anti-Hapsburg] Hakkapeliitta Charge – ‘Cut them down!’: Once during the battle all cavalry charging the same enemy unit hit on 3+
- [Anti-Hapsburg] Secularisation of Monastic Properties: Before the battle add one Pike+Shot unit to the order of battle
- [Anti-Hapsburg] Ernst von Mansfeld – “Until I have made my fortune”: Before the battle add one Horse unit to the order of battle
- [Anti-Hapsburg] Bernard of Saxe-Weimar – Mercenary Prince: Before the battle add one Pike+Shot unit to the order of battle
- [Anti-Hapsburg] Bernard of Saxe-Weimar – Always the high ground: When generating terrain, after Step 3. Defender swaps terrain cards, the player can swap any two terrain cards.
- [Anti-Hapsburg] Louis II de Bourbon, Prince of Condé – “Hush! Here comes the enemy!”: When generating terrain, after Step 3. Defender swaps terrain cards, the player can swap any two terrain cards.
Phases of the Thirty Years War
My Timeline of the Thirty Years War is divided into five major phases based on who was leading the Anti-Hapsburg faction at the time. I’m thinking my new campaign rules probably need to reflect this somehow. I haven’t quite wrapped my head around it, but I’m toying with the idea that the Hapsburgs have a fixed capital (Vienna in Lower Austria), whereas the Anti-Hapsburg capital floats around based on the phase of the war. It could be something like this:
| Phase | Anti-Hapsburg Capital |
|---|---|
| 1618-21 Bohemian Revolt | Prague in Bohemia |
| 1621-24 Palatinate phase | Mainz in the Lower Palatinate |
| 1625-29 Danish intervention | Copenhagen in Denmark |
| 1630-35 Swedish intervention | Stockholm in Sweden |
| 1636-48 French intervention | Paris in France |
As in the current rules, each side would get an strategic advantage for fighting near their capital.
I considered having the phases dynamic, for example, the phase might changed based on campaign events or because either side draws a particular Campaign Card. But that all seemed too complicated. My current inclination is to hard code the phases into the campaign timeline.
Observations and conclusions
I’m getting pretty excited about this project. I think “The Vulture’s Feast” will offer considerable interest for wargamers who play in the Thirty Years War and particularly for players of Tilly’s Very Bad Day.
I admit this project is a bit lonely. With the original game I had Adam as my partner in crime; he has a history degree specialising in the English Civil War. Unfortunately, I don’t have a buddy for this one.
Where to get Tilly’s Very Bad Day and Populous, Rich and Rebellious
Both are available for download as PDFs:
Tilly’s Very Bad Day (PDF)
Populous, Rich and Rebellious – English Civil War Campaign (PDF)
References
Happe, V. (1619). Chronicon Thuringiae.
Müller, J. (2020) “Globalizing the Thirty Years War: Early German Newspapers and their Geopolitical Perspective on
the Atlantic World”. German History, 38(4), pp 550-567. Oxford University Press.
Hi Steven,
great to see the progress you’ve made, these ideas look very interesting.
I’d like to propose an inclusion for some type of card – when Christian of Brunswick had an arm amputated after Fleurus he had cast a memorial medal inscribed ‘Altera restat’ – I’ve still got the other one!
No wonder he was known as ‘the Mad Halberstadter’!
Cheers,
Peter.
Excellent. I like it. That is exactly the kind of suggestion I was hoping for.
Hi Steven,
I’m excited to see this taking shape and like your ideas for adapting the system to the TYW. I love the title too, if I put aside my petty, pedantic concern that there aren’t, I think, any central European vulture species . It’s a shame “Glutter of Ravens” is already taken, though there’s always”An Unkindness of Ravens” or even “A Murder of Crows”.
Anyway, that’s far enough down that sidetrack. It’s your game and I look forward to following it’s development.
Best regards, Chris
I can live with that biological flaw. 🙂
Actually “Two centuries ago, Egyptian, bearded, cinereous and griffon vultures were among the most common breeding bird species in central and southern Europe”. so we’re good.
I’m relieved to read that. You just don’t realise how worried I was. 😀
Not sure you should keep the phases static. The participants did not know that. A bit when playing a strategic game of napo Penninsula when Nosey knows that plenty of toys will go away in 1812. In 1811 he did not know.
There coukd and possibly should be more battles, again no fixed numbers. You also could have confrontations ( with a sort of card attack defend withdraw and die roll) which end up fast in nothing decisive. Better that way than on the table on the too rare games.
I thought about the phases quite hard.
Static: Simple – only one additional rule (moving capital). But, as you say, they get to predict when things change. More generally, as I shared on email, my campaign goal is not a simulation of the Thirty Years’ War. I merely want to provide context for table top battles and include a bit of period flavour. To achieve that goal, static phases is fine.
Dynamic: This is certainly more realistic. But it probably involves using certain Campaign Cards that trigger a change. And I already have too many draft Campaign Cards (I’ll share them next week). Roughly speaking I need to cut 50% of the draft cards I’ve got so I’m loath to add more.
I appreciate the feedback and I’ll keep thinking about it.
You could add the the change of phase as a second function to some cards, so adds a pike and shot unit AND changed the phase. A subsidiary question would be – phases still happen in order, just advancing dynamically, or specified phase on the card so the order could also change as well as the timing.
The other option might be like a shouted and ladders campaign. Losing or winning a number of battles in a room causes the change.
In terms of number of battles … my main concern is that the campaign finishes. Our experiences from ECW is that we can cope with 15 games. Not more. Of course other folk might have more stamina than we do and can make their own decisions.
Sounds like quite project, I can recommend Peter H Wilson’s Europe’s Tragedy as a source as it offers a more modern perspective than CV Wedgewood’s history. I think it would give a bit of period flavour if you attempted to recreate the political structures of the Holy Roman Empire. The Emperors lack of any real power or money, his reliance on allies within the Empire and without. Another aspect to try and recreate is Wallenstein’s new idea of making ‘war feed war’, whereby the cost of armies was borne by occupied territories through exacting contributions. It was a major feature of the later 30YW and directly links control of territory to the ability to sustain armies. A nice contrast when armies were sustained from taxation within the Imperial territories such as Lower Austria or for the rebels such a Bohemia and Saxony. On the issue of battles, perhaps there could be a campaign mechanism to resolve smaller battles and you only fight the larger ones, which happened less frequently anyway.
Theatrum Europaeum is a good source for images and digital version can be found at various German library websites such as https://diglib.hab.de/periodica/70-b-hist-2f/start.htm?image=00487 and the Royal Collection contains some interesting items as well https://militarymaps.rct.uk/thirty-years-war-1618-48/order-of-battle-at-the-battle-of-leipzig-1631-leipzig-saxony-germany-51deg2022n-12deg2216e-0
It sounds as if you could create quite a unique campaign that is sufficiently different from the ECW one but equally playable.
Good luck!
Thanks mikhailkoshkin. Nice resources.
I have tons of 30YW books and Wilson’s is my primary source.
Given I’m likely to only fight a battle every two years, these are by definition the big ones. Other battles are assumed to be happening but don’t change the course of the campaign so I don’t have to simulate them at all.
Rivers as an additional network to roads?
Have you read anything about the ‘Fiscal-Military State’ as a historical paradigm?
In wargaming terms the link between the state’s ability to raise taxation or income which is then spent on military power. A classic example might be the Dutch Estates, which being relatively wealthy, is able to afford a greater military capability than its population might expect.
In terms of the campaign and the map, you might consider including rivers and coastline (being a source of revenue, commerce and trade) as well as their military potential (source of supplies and transport) as well as the roads (military transport).
In effect you would have two networks in your geographic space, with different importance attached to them one military and one income.
This could give you a difference with the ECW campaign, in that controlling a province allows you to sustain an army but in turn the enemy controlling a river downstream might reduce that provinces income. As you no doubt know, rivers were a key throughfare in the 30YW, with fortified towns as crossing points and so key military objectives.
a potential title that did spring to my mind: Four Horsemen!
Nice.
Hi Steven,
Since my earlier comment I’ve been reading your post in detail and would like to offer the following observations. (Steven sighs.) I hope they’re helpful.
I like the concept of capitulation points, although I’d prefer a more neutral term such as “Political” but that’s just personal. Would you award two points for any victory no matter how marginal?
I like the map, it looks workable.
I particularly like the concept of the “Spanish Road” (SR) too, because it had such an important influence on strategy and so gives a real period flavour to the model.
Moreover the way you propose to build the SR into the mechanisms by using it to influence the availability of beneficial campaign cards is neat.
I do think that the concept of the SR leads to a couple of questions that are worth considering.
The first is whether and how to specify the routes? You seem to be on track of fully specifying the routes in the current model, having identified three, two step routes. If that’s your preference I think it’ll work. However I notice that two of the routes pass through neutral regions so I wonder if there’s a general definition to be devised? More on that in a moment.
I also notice that you haven’t specified the Lower Palatinate as part of a route to the the Spanish Netherlands or as a terminus in it’s own right. I’m pretty sure that region was part of the SR, at least during the early part of the war. It may be because the region starts in the hand in the anti-Hapsburg coalition.
I also wonder whether you’re planning to extend the SR concept to include the remaining countries? In other words will every country have it’s Spanish Road? Probably so, as the principle lies behind the core mechanism of campaign cards.
So that led me to wonder whether it’s possible to make the definition generic, so that it can be applied as required? Something like this, maybe?
“A Spanish Road is operational if no more than two friendly or neutral nodes lie between an active coalition member country and the disputed region. Reduce the available card set by one for every neutral region en route or for the second region en route if both are friendly.”
Another question. What is the source of an army? A region? A country? Either? I ask because at least two armies spring to mind that will have a home country but no obvious home region, vis the Swedes and the French. I don’t mean that’s a problem I just wonder how to deal with it. Similarly, Tilly’s army (he of the very bad day) is not strictly Austrian Hapsburg but rather Spanish Hapsburg ergo of Spanish origin.
Reframing that question, I might ask who raises and maintains army? I presume a coalition, of which I think there will only ever be the same, eternally warring pair. But how are these constituted at any given time? Is each constituted from the then current collection of friendly countries (a static set) together with all currently friendly regions (a fluid set) of which one must be the current capital of that coalition?
Does the term “capital” refer to the capital of one or other coalition so that there are only ever two, opposed capitals at any given time but not necessarily always the same pair? Which leads me to ask, do have in mind a list of the possible capitals?
Right, I’m blown out now for the time being. I hope that’s all of since use.
Best regards,
Chris
Chris, I always appreciate your observations.
I called them “Capitulation points” here but their origin is “Political Impact” from my Using Political Tokens for Military-Political Climate in an Insurgency Campaign. So “Political Points” would be fine.
I called out the “Spanish Road” because I wanted to ensure it was reflected in the game. Yes, I ignored the Lower Palatinate because it starts Anti-Hapsburg.
The “Spanish Road” would behave like any reinforcement route from a named source. Some Campaign Cards would provide reinforcements from the capital, others from a specific country (e.g. Spanish Veterans from Spain). These reinforcements are only available if have an unblocked route from the source to the contested region. Enemy control blocks but friendly and neutral control do not. This is exactly why I was toying with “Capitulation points” as a mechanism for continuing to have neutral regions in the game. I was thinking a range of up to 3 regions from the source to the contested region.
I’m not interested in tracking specific national armies on the map. The armies for a battle just appear (it wouldn’t be a battle without troops on both sides) and are generic. In Populous, Rich and Rebellious they are generic Royalist and Parliamentarian. In the Vulture’s Feast they are generic Hapsburg and Anti-Hapsburg. Most troops in this war were German. A good example is Gustavus’s “Swedish” army which had a very small proportion of Swedes. Most of his troops were German (many of whom fought for both sides at one time or another). I think Tilly was Flemish (Pseudo Spanish) but he is most famous for leading the army of the Catholic League so totally German. National flavour for an army comes from the minority of Campaign Cards tied to a locations; of “French army” is just the “Generic Anti-Hapsburgs” with one or more Campaign Cards giving them French troops. The desire to have use French Campaign Cards will nudge the Anti-Hapsburg player towards campaigning near France when Paris is the Capital.
Yes, there are only two Capitals. One per Coalition. The list of possible capitals is given in the post.
I really like the map, it works brilliantly. I love the way that the arrangement of e.g. Upper Palatinate, Franconia, and Saxony which looks so odd on the page actually makes perfect sense in the real world.
I think the choice to have countries as well as regions is a very good one, as influence from outside the Empire was so critical to the shape and nature of the TYW. Do you think that Poland really provided enough support to the Hapsburgs to be represented this way? I would be tempted to remove Poland and promote the Dutch Republic to a Country to lean in to one of the big historical inequalities between the sides – the anti-Hapsburgers had much more external support. In my mind more asymmetry makes for more interest, and the idea of the Hapsburgs reconquering Holland in this period seems a bit far out.
I don’t imagine you want to represent too much siege warfare, but I feel an important part of the shape of the war is the contrast between well-fortified provinces (e.g. the Spanish Netherlands) which could only be conquered a bit at a time, and the much less well-fortified ones which were sometimes over-run very quickly after a field battle. Possibly fortified provinces could cost more capitulation points to convert, or capitulation points (or cards) could be used to fortify friendly provinces. Combined with your plans for changing anti-Hapsburg capitals in different phases that could shape the focus of each phase quite effectively. I think it would be a shame if the default anti-Hapsburg move in the final phase is to invade Austria via Savoy and Tyrol.
Andrew. I’m glad you like the map. I keep looking at the Upper and Lower Palatinates and wondering about their neighbouring regions but I hope I’ve got it right.
I’ve included Poland-Lithuania for a few reasons: (1) They did provide aid; (2) Gustavus cut his teeth agains them and came straight from a campaign in Poland-Lithuania; (3) I have the army.
I confess the Dutch Republic has bounced between region and country several times, for the reasons you mention.
You’re right I don’t want sieges but perhaps you are right that Fortified regions can provide some game effect without sieges. Perhaps more capitulation points (an idea I like). Or perhaps can be made neutral but cannot be converted to friendly at all.
More to think about.
Any thoughts about whether including Transylvania in the mix is warranted?
As they actively supported the Bohemian revolt, were central to Mansfeld’s last campaign and were cooperating, (albeit somewhat ineffectually), with the Swedes after Jankau in threatening Olmutz, Brunn and Vienna, their role seems more influential than Poland’s.
Hi Steven,
I like your approach for a 30 Years war campaign, with the cards for flavour. Will give it a run at my club where we have quite a few keen Renaissance players.
Simon