Jamie and Adam came over to play test Bolivar’s Very Bad Day, my Liberators variant of Tilly’s Very Bad Day. I’d just finished the hill for Battle of Sipe Sipe (29 Nov 1815), so decided to give the associated Sipe Sipe Scenario a go. Because we were play testing the rules, we wouldn’t have enough time to complete the battle but we figured we’d give it a go anyway.
Summary: Draw because we ran out of time. But good play test of the scenario and rules. Lots on insights most notably, the jungle fighting felt wrong under the draft rules and there shouldn’t actually be jungle fighting at all in the scenario. Both rules and scenario need tweaks.
Scenario
We used the first version of the scenario and the published Sipe Sipe Scenario incorporates some changes as a result of this play test.
This game had: bigger woods features; severely constrained overhead shooting scenario rule; full army deployment.
And just before the game I also discovered that the hill was meant to be low and gentle. Mine was three layers of foam high, which is the height I use for high and/or steep hills. So I’m going to have to make a low and gentle version. Sigh.
Pre-game
The scenario provides most of the pre-game activity.
Pre-game 2. Recruit army and organise commands
The forces were given by the scenario. The core of the forces were Steven’s 1815 Royalist Army on Big Bases and Steven’s 1815 Argentine Army on Big Bases. But I had to supplement from Steven’s 1817-18 Argentine Army on Big Bases, Steven’s 1817 Royalist Army on Big Bases and Steven’s 1818 Royalist Army on Big Bases.
Pre-game 5. Place terrain
The terrain was given by the scenario. Hill, road, Y-shaped stream and a narrow band of woods. Even that was going to give the players some challenges.
Ooops, somehow my narrow band of woods became deep jungle.
Pre-game 6. Deployment
Jamie deployed his entire Patriot army first. He went for layered lines. Adam, who had to stream and woods to cross, went for columns.
The Royalists had three divisions. The centre and right were slightly overlapped. The Patriots had only two divisions and a separate commander-in-chief.
After the game I tried to figure out the units from the photos. This is a bit tricky as many of the uniforms are identical – particularly for the Patriots. The Argentine flags have regimental numbers but you can’t also see them in the photos. Note: the 12th Infantry Regiment has two battalions.
The Royalists were easier to identify because most of their units have a unique uniform. For example the General’s Battalion in green jacket and purple trousers; remember this “battalion” actually contained two battalions (Fusiliers and Grenadiers). The Reserve Grenadiers have their bearskins. The Guardia del General their helmets. etc, etc.
The Royalist Cazadores were in their green uniform and the Fernando VII Battalion in their green and white.
Pre-game 7. Bombardment
No bombardment.
Pezuela’s attributes
Adam, as the Royalist player, choose Tactician over Tactical Flexibility for Pezuela.
Game Turn 1
Adam had a simple strategy. Get to contact as-soon-as-possible.
My of my game design goals is that the armies deploy at the point just before combat. So there is always shooting in turn 1.
The first casualty was an artillery section
Charge declarations are also possible in turn 1. In this case, Argentine Horse Grenadiers against Royalist Horse Cazadores.
The Royalist Cazadores a Caballo were driven back.
Game Turn 2
Adam’s Royalist pushed forward again, reaching the edge of the woods. Musketry blazed on both sides.
The two armies were approaching each other all along the line. On the right Argentine Granaderos a Caballos and Royalist 2nd Squadron Cazadores a Caballo charged each other for a second time.
The melee was inconclusive resulting in the two squadrons passing right through each other.
The infantry combat in the centre resulted in two Argentine battalions being pushed back.
The left had another, larger, cavalry encounter. In this case the Patriot Peru Dragoons pushed back the Royalist 1st Squadron Cazadores a Caballo.
Game Turn 3
Royalists edged forward again, but being in contact with the Patriots limited their options.
As a result of the pass through in game turn 2, each side had a squadron behind the enemy lines on the right flank. Both players pushed their infiltrating squadron forward.
But the Argentines had a second squadron of Granaderos a Caballos and these blocked, charged and routed the Royalist 2nd Squadron Cazadores a Caballo.
In the centre was a mix of musketry and melee.
The only decisive result in the centre was when the Royalist Ferdinand VII Battalion routed the Patriot Cazadore Battalion.
Inconclusive cavalry charge on the left.
Game Turn 4
Game turn 4 saw more charges. The right and centre-right now blurred together with both Granaderos a Caballos and the 9th Infantry Regiment charging and driving back the Royalist Fernando VII Battalion.
In the centre-left the Argentine 12th Infantry Regiment charged and routed the Royalist 1st Infantry Regiment.
On the left the Patriot Peru Dragoons rode down the Royalist San Carlos Dragoons.
It was 23.30 hours in real time so we called it a night. We had’t reached the breakpoint for either army so the result was declared a draw.
Scenario conclusions and observations
I’ve got a couple of observations about the scenario (jungle, skirmishers) but the rest are about the draft rules.
Game size
Jamie, when he walked in and saw the table and armies said, “wow, that is a big game”. This is a large game with large armies on a large table (remember my “large” table is only 6’x4′).
I confess I hadn’t thought about that before the guys turned up. We agreed we’d play anyway as everything was out, but we knew we wouldn’t finish in time. In fact we ended up playing for only 2 hours then stopped for a quick debrief.
I’ve learnt my lesson and next time we’ll use a smaller scenario to play test.
Terrain: Jungle
One of the players mentioned it, “felt like fighting through a jungle”. Yup, the woods features were too big. I had accidentally scaled up every woods features. Small became medium; medium became large. That meant the woods dominated the table. Which was historically inaccurate. Ooops
I should have set up the terrain like the map. Actually next time I’ll go even smaller for the woods and literally put a narrow band along the stream – I’ve changed the woods in the map in the scenario to be only 3 TUM wide.
Units: Skirmishers
The scenario needs skirmishers. Historically both sides field skirmishers and the first two days of contact were dominated by skirmishers. And skirmishers were also active in the early part of the day of battle. I haven’t made this change yet. I’ll think about it again next time we play the scenario.
Rules conclusions and observations
Bolivar’s Very Bad Day is still super raw. Just a Quick Reference Sheet and some notes. It evolves between every game so the evening started with Adam asking, “so what changes have you made since last time?” Here are some observations on the evolving rules.
Movement: Passage of Lines
My starting point for passage of lines was to use the regular movement of two units that happen to pass each other and/or interpenetrate. I think it happened once.
Adam is keen on a passage of lines being a thing in itself, with the units just swapping (like Castling in chess). We’ll try that out next time.
Movement: Artillery
Artillery can limber, move, unlimber, shoot. In Tilly’s Very Bad Day artillery can limber and move, or move and unlimber, shoot. They can never move and shoot in a turn. Limbering and unlimbering is part of movement. That is too restrictive for Bolivar.
During the game I ruled artillery could do two of four actions in a game turn e.g. limber and move, or unlimber and shoot or shoot and limber. The trouble is that requires memory of what the gun did this turn and might not work.
Might be simpler to do allow (1) optional unlimbered move and shoot or (2) limbered move with optional unlimber.
Another option is to allow the full spectrum in a game turn: limber, move, unlimber, shoot. Horse artillery should be able to do that for sure. In the duration of a game turn is large enough this seems fair enough. Perhaps apply a shooting penalty for guns that have moved. But the sequence of play for the reactive player has shooting before movement; so perhaps
On a related topic I definitely need limber / mule stands for my guns. Napoleonic two horse French artillery limbers should do the trick for some, but I also need pack mules with guns on top.
Movement: Adam’s “shenanigans” move
In the Alternative Chacabuco Play Test Adam has argued for a “shenanigans” move. [Note: I think shenanigans is engaños in Spanish]. Basically a unit, particularly cavalry far from enemy should be able to do anything within the movement allowance. This suggestion came up again at Sipe Sipe.
I like this idea the options available to Napoleonic troops narrowed as they approached the enemy. So I’m thinking of including something in the next play test.
Each unit can be in two zones relative to other units: the manoeuvre zone and the threat zone. The rule would go something like this:
In Threat Zone:
- applies when unit is any of (1) shooting, (2) the priority target of enemy shooting (in arc and range and is priority target), and/or (3) is within 4 TUM of any enemy
- This applies whether the unit starts or enters the threat zone
- A move in the threat zone includes an optional change formation, then optional change direction or optional move straight ahead
- Any unit must make a command check to change formation (line to square and all that)
- Any unit must make a command check to change direction (pivot on centre, wheel on corner, about face, oblique, turn, sideways, backwards)
- A move straight ahead never requires a command check
In Manoeuvre Zone:
- applies when unit is outside threat zone; the unit cannot start or enter the threat zone
- the units can change formation then move in any direction as long as the final position of the unit is within movement allowance of the original position of the unit (Adam’s “shenanigans” move; engaños in Spanish). Position is measured centre of the front of the unit.
In other words, a unit in the manoeuvre zone can do shenanigans.
Movement: Change of direction
The game made me think about changes of direction. I’m tempted to go for a different set to those in Tilly’s Very Bad Day , i.e. pivot on centre, wheel on corner, about face, oblique, backwards.
Pivot on centre is new, but was a manoeuvre that units practiced. One wing of the unit wheels back as other wheels forward.
Oblique in this period was max 30 degrees from straight ahead.
I’d dropped turn and sideways. For a line these both get replaced by change of formation, move, and change back. They aren’t possible for other formations.
A 90 degree turn is a terribly awkward manoeuvre for a Napoleonic unit. A line could do it by going into march column, march with pivot, then turning back into line. A turn isn’t even possible for a column.
Similarly, sideways is only be possible to a line. They go into march column, then march, then turn back into line. This could actually travel quite far as a sideways movement. It is not possible for column. A square doesn’t have a front so can move normally in any direction.
Shooting: Continue shooting
The current rule is that if a battalion or skirmisher has legitimate shooting target at any time they lose resolve, then they start shooting (add a shooting marker). From that point the unit has to shoot if it can. In the shooting step a unit can remove its shooting marker, and hence stop shooting, only if a commander is attached to the unit and it makes a successful command check.
Step 5.1 Don’t remove shooting marker; leave them in place to highlight that the unit must continue shooting
We’ve played this a few times and it works well. Annoying, but well.
Shooting into and out of woods
Not only was there too many woods features, “the jungle fighting was wrong”. The advancing battalions could shoot and got cover, which meant they were advantaged compared to the defending lines outside the woods. And the advancing guns could shoot. I think all of that is wrong.
Tilly’s Very Bad Day is pretty generous about terrain. Units can shoot in and out from anywhere, although the ranges are very short. But Bolivar’s Very Bad Day has much long ranges so a different approach is needed. Here’s what I’m thinking …
Cover: Battalions, rabble get retain cover in field fortifications but do not get cover in difficult. Only skirmishers get cover in difficult.
For shooting I probably need to divide difficult into concealing and exposed features. Concealing includes woods, field (in season), Field (enclosed) village / town. Exposed includes rough ground and steep slopes of hills (hill tops block in other ways). Targets within 1 TUM of the edge of concealing features can be shot at and get cover when shot at; targets further into the concealing terrain cannot be shot at. Skirmishers within 1 TUM of the edge of concealing features can shoot out; other unit types cannot shoot when in difficult. Units in exposed terrain are shot at normally.
Hmmm, I’m not sure that will work for Vargas Swamp. Most of the battle was fought on the giant Picacho Hill, which was both steep and wooded. I suspect battalions should be able to shoot in concealing terrain, but their range is limited. Perhaps 1 TUM limit like the rule about shooting from the edge.
Perhaps 1 TUM is too constrained and I should go with 3 TUM of short range musketry.
Shooting ranges
We’re playing battalions have a range of 8 TUM and light gun sections have 16 TUM. This seems to work.
Commander casualty
Two base units invite questions on commanders. Does a commander attach to base or unit? Is an attached commander affected by shooting at the other base in the unit? We’ve been playing the commander attaches to a base, but increasing that seems weird.
On a related topic, we are playing the normal Tilly rule where the enemy rolls to hit the general then the owning player rolls a saving roll. But I could introduce commander casualty rules that are more consistent with other mechanisms (combat, commander check).
Artillery on hills
The Patriots deployed artillery on the hill. So I included a scenario special rule:
Artillery can deploy on the hill. Any such guns can only fire ball shot, and not canister. They cannot shoot at targets within canister range. They can shoot over friend troops as long as the friend base is beyond canister range and the target is similar beyond canister range of the friendly. Similarly, they can shoot over the woods.
We found the special rule too restrictive and during the game changed to this:
Artillery can deploy on the hill. Any such guns can only fire ball shot, and not canister. A gun on the hill cannot shoot at a target on hill at all. But a gun on the hill can shoot overhead of friendly base(s), which are both within canister range and on the flat, at a target at least 4 TUM beyond the friendly base(s).
Melee: Cavalry charging line in flank
I need to look at cavalry charging the flank of infantry, particularly lines. This should be devastating e.g. Albuera where the 1st Vistula Legion Lancers and the 2nd Hussars destroyed three regiments of Colborne’s Brigade in minutes. What this space.
Commander attributes
We like the Commander special attributes. The players always eagerly check what their own and their enemies’s commander attributes are, seeking an advantage.
Deployment zones
The centre zone is now 1/2 the table width (in this case 6′ or 180cm) rather than being defined in TUM (in this case 3′ or 90cm). So each flank zone is a quarter of the table width (in this case 1′ 6″ or 45cm).
Unless the scenario says otherwise, I insist battalions and guns deploy at least partially in the centre zone.
The neutral zone remains 8 TUM. Meaning combat is more or less assured in game turn 1.
This all seems to work.
Lots to take on board here. Your design goal of immediate combat struck me particularly.
I did notice the pass-through result from the cavalry combat. These obviously did happen so that was good to see, and I thought it was especially appropriate given the scale of the game, but it looked as if the two units involved were able to move in their very next turns? I think if cavalry passed through each other, they essentially must have lost formation in order to do so, so would need to rally afterwards. Also, from a more psychological perspective, it looked odd for a squadron to engage in combat refusal, and then the very next turn press on further into the enemy rear.
Close-order troops should not count woods as cover. Skrimishers, yes. Shoulder to shoulder, no.