Spanish and Portuguese Military History,
Wargaming, and other stuff
I’ve lumped all the other wargaming rules here.
My mate Chris asked “Have you considered ASL as a source of Crossfire scenarios? For example the Windy City Wargamers Color Scenario Pack, which includes the classic Eye of the Tiger scenario – which looks ideal as a Crossfire scenario to me.” As it happens I have considered this and have even written up some notes on Converting Advanced Squad Leader to Crossfire. However I’ve never actually done it.
Chris’a question inspired me, so this is my version of “Eye of the Tiger” for Crossfire.
The fifth game in our Fall of Hispania Campaign will occur in 448 AD, 2 game years after the last battle. Chris Harrod rolled Roman and I got Visigoth. Despite misgivings I have chosen Basic Impetus as the rules.
Basic Impetus has army lists but, even after I reformatted them, I don’t like them. So I tweaked the two that we are intending to use. Okay, I only made two small changes to troop types, but those changes stem from mistakes that get me quite het up.
I’m thinking of using Basic Impetus for the next game in our Fall of Hispania Campaign. The good news is that the army lists for the Fall of Rome period are freely available at Vol 7. Rome and Empire and Vol 8. Fall of Rome. The bad news is I don’t like them. Firstly, I can’t read them because of all the abbreviations, for example, “FP” does not leap out at me as “Heavy Infantry”. Secondly, the format of the table is counter intuitive for me; I want to know who the troops are first before seeing how they are classified. Thirdly, I disagree with some of the army lists. In this post I’ll content myself with addressing the things about the format that annoy me. In a subsequent post I’ll revise the army lists.
I’m thinking of using Basic Impetus for the next game in our Fall of Hispania Campaign. The good news is that the army lists for the Fall of Rome period are freely available at Vol 7. Rome and Empire and Vol 8. Fall of Rome. The bad news is I don’t understand them.
I was talking to John Fletcher and he mentioned most people who play Liberators choose the 1817-18 campaign, like I did. So I’m determined to refight other battles, hopefully all of them eventually. But to start with here is a catalogue of the scenarios.
In my recently published Albuera – A Volley and Bayonet Scenario, I used an Order of Battle by Jeff Glasco. For the scenario I did not try to reconcile Glasco’s order of battle with my own Orders of Battle at the Battle of Albuera. Nor did I inject my own thinking on the Spanish forces at the battle and it is the Spanish I want to focus on in this post.
I appears that Jeff Glasco, like most Napoleonic wargamers, doesn’t think much of the Spanish and layers on the disadvantages. This attitude and approach is fairly common in the wargaming community and, in truth, the Spanish armies were often pretty rubbish. But I’m not sure this indictment is warranted for the Battle of Albuera (16 May 1811). I want to highlight and counter some of the anti-Spanish points in the order of battle.
Here is my first attempt at a Volley & Bayonet scenario for the Battle of Albuera (16 May 1811). The Order of Battle is by Jeff Glasco and I contributed the rest.
Different rule systems assume different ground scales. So I thought I’d show one scenario map, a Liberators scenario by John Fletcher for the Battle of Ica, at different ground scales. And suggest which Wargaming Rules suit each scale.
There are a few reasons why I’ve gone for Volley & Bayonet to use for Peninsular War and specifically my Albuera Project.
The fourth game in our Fall of Hispania Campaign occurred in 446 AD, 29 peaceful game years after the last battle. Chris Harrod rolled Suevi and I got Vandal. The rules were the draft version of Red Spear, Black Crow from Morningstar Productions.
The summary is: Interesting rules, violent battle which could have gone either way, but eventual victory for the Vandals.
It is 417 AD in our Fall of Hispania Campaign, four game years since our last battle. I rolled the Visigoths again but this time Chris Harrod got Late Roman. The rules were Dux Bellorum.
The summary is: Being new to the rules I assumed the hill was difficult terrain, deployed accordingly, realised too late I was wrong, and then watched as Chris rolled over my hastily improvised battle line.
I really like the analyse of Ancient Warfare in Lost Battles by Philip Sabin. So I’ve written up what captured my attention.
Roland Davis has been painting for me again – some Swedes for the Thirty Years War. So I’ve been mulling over how to base them. Part of the answer is obvious – on big bases. The potential dilemma is what figures to put on each base given these are mixed pike and shot units. Here’s a few options I considered and a bit of a journey to get there.
Back on 10 Oct 2012 Andrew Coleby and I had a go at Bob Cordery’s Portable Wargame. I didn’t write it up at the time because I was busily converting this site to WordPress. Nominally the game was for the Battle of Maipo. I like the idea of wargaming on a chess board but the rules themselves need refinement.
I’m interested in using Lasalle for the South American Wars of Liberation. In that theatre infantry, when faced by superior cavalry, would often head for rough terrain. But the standard Lasalle rules don’t encourage this – the cavalry will just charge into the rough after the infantry. So I’m exploring a house rule to rectify the problem.