Adam and I play tested Bolivar’s Very Bad Day using my Tucuman Scenario. We wanted a small game to test my variant of Tilly’s Very Bad Day for the South American Wars of Liberation.
Summary: Good little game with the Patriots strong in cavalry and the Royalists strong in infantry. My Patriot cavalry stripped off the weak Royalist cavalry and encircled the Royalist infantry columns. Then we had a hard grind with repeated cavalry charges against the staunch Royalist infantry. Eventually Adam accepted he couldn’t win and conceded.
Phase 1: Game Set up
Most of the set up was given by the scenario: Tucuman
1.1. Agree game size
Small.
1.2. Recruit armies
The forces were given by the scenario. I just pulled units from
- Steven’s 1815 Argentine Army on Big Bases
- Steven’s 1817-18 Argentine Army on Big Bases
- Steven’s 1815 Royalist Army on Big Bases
- Steven’s 1817 Royalist Army on Big Bases
What I didn’t have was a supply train. But I rummaged in some boxes of figures I’d painted years ago and found a wagon, and separately some draft horses. Putting them on a big base gave the wagon train I needed.
1.3. Determine attacker
Royalist
1.4. Place Terrain
Given by the scenario.
1.5. Scouting
Not used.
1.6. Deployment
The game was fought outside the boundary of Tucuman so the city itself was off table to the north-east. That left only a road and a bit of the Campo de las Carreras on table.
I deployed my Patriots first in the conventional Horse-Foot-Horse configuration.
Adam wanted to mass against my northern flank so put all of his infantry two big regimental columns. The northern column had three battalions and the southern column had two. Each battalion was itself in assault column. The guns were in the extreme north, positioned to provide supporting fire as the big columns advanced. The supply train trailed behind the infantry. He put a squadron of horse towards the rear on each flank. You can see one of his squadrons between the guns and the supply train. He deployed the other squadron to the south of the Campo de las Carreras so you can’t see it in the photos below.
This was going to be an interesting game.
1.7. Bombardment
Nothing happened.
Turn 1
Adam wanted to get close as fast as possible and his columns charged straight forward.
With the Royalists so concentrated I saw an opportunity to encircle them and get my cavalry onto the flanks of the Royalist infantry. So I aggressively advanced on both flanks.
I designed Tilly’s Very Bad Day so combat starts in turn 1 and Bolivar’s Very Bad Day follows that trend. In this case long range shooting by the Patriot infantry.
Adam’s columns were also shooting but with far less firepower as only the front stand could shoot. None the less they managed to maul the squadron of Tucuman Cavalry to their front.
Turn 2
Already the general shape of the battle was clear. Big regimental columns attempting to batter their way through the weak Patriot centre, which swarms of Patriot horse harried the flanks of the columns.
In the extreme north I decided to attempt to ride down the Royalist guns and allocated a single squadron of Gauchos (Tucuman Cavalry) to the task. There was a good chance they wouldn’t survive the attempt but it seemed worth the risk. The Gauchos took some casualties going in but rode down one battery.
Turn 2 saw the demise of the Tucuman cavalry. Shot down by the leading ranks of Adam’s northern regimental column. Man you really don’t want cavalry in front of musketry.
My cavalry started to harry Adam’s southern regimental column. We quickly found that assault column is fairly imperious to cavalry charges, even from flank.
Remember that Royalist squadron south of Campo de las Carreras, well, I’d allocated my own squadron of Patria Dragoons to deal with it. And they did. Half the Royalist cavalry routed from the field.
Turn 3
Turn 3 was less good for my brave Gauchos charging the guns. They got mown down by canister.
Nearby more Gauchos rode over the rest of the Royalist cavalry.
Now I just had to deal with the infantry. My cavalry kept charging the flank of the Royalist southern regimental column, but without appreciable impact.
Turn 4
Turn 4 saw my Patriot cavalry charging the northern regimental column.
Having deal with the southern Royalist cavalry, my victorious Patria dragoons hit the rear of the southern Regimental column. I now had three squadrons charging the flank and rear of the two Royalist battalion columns. Would they ever break?
Turn 5
You can see that my Patriots hard nearly encircled the Royalist infantry.
But now I’d finally got my infantry into action. The Combined Cazadores Battalion and Reserve Infantry Company charged the northern Royalists.
And the Pardos & Morenos Battalion began to fire at close range into the Royalist battalion that had split off and was now in central position.
We hadn’t reached break point but Adam conceded. The writing was on the wall.
Conclusions and Observations
The scenario seemed fine so all my observations are about the draft version of Bolivar’s Very Bad Day.
Tweaks to the rules following Sipe Sipe
Sipe Sipe – A Bolivar’s Very Bad Day Battle Report suggested a whole bunch of tweaks to the rules.
I actioned all of the tweaks but some didn’t come into play in this game. Something to watch for and comment in a later game:
- Movement: Passage of Lines
- Movement: Artillery
- Shooting into and out of woods
- Commander casualty
- Artillery on hills
Other tweaks that came out of Sipe Sipe – A Bolivar’s Very Bad Day Battle Report seem to work so get a small nod here …
- Movement: Change of direction
- Shooting: Continue shooting
- Shooting ranges
- Commander attributes
- Deployment zones
Needs some work …
- Movement: Adam’s “shenanigans” move
- Melee: Cavalry charging line in flank
Game speed
Tilly’s Very Bad Day plays very fast. We can finish a large game in a couple of hours.
Clearly the draft of Bolivar’s Very Bad Day is playing slower. We played five game turns in a couple of hours. That, itself, is not too bad. My problem is we didn’t reach breakpoint and I’d not happy about that. I believe games should reach a definitive conclusion and not rely on a player conceding. So I would like to speed the system up.
When speeding up a game system I can only see a few places to tweak: deployment, movement, morale, and combat. Deployment is very advanced; we had charges in game turn 1 (by design). Movement is also already very generous. Morale didn’t really come into play much, and certainly didn’t slow the game. I think the problem is combat … those infantry battalions are perhaps too resilient.
On the other hand, maybe this was a reflection of the composition of the two armies in this scenario: Cavalry heavy versus infantry heavy.
Line versus Column
This game saw, briefly, line versus column. Did it align with what I learnt from researching Battalion line, column, and square – Tactical formations during the Napoleonic Wars?
In this game:
Adam was keen to advance quickly and put his infantry into column. Tick.
Once in column, close to enemy, it was hard for Adam to deploy into line or square or anything really. Tick.
I deployed by battalions into line, with two in front and one behind, but found them cumbersome to get into contact. Tick.
So I doing okay on line and column.
In hindsight, Adam could have deployed with gaps between his battalions to get more flexibility later in the game. The giant regimental columns were okay, but did constrict him once in contact.
In hindsight, I should have deployed my reserve battalion into column. This would have made it easier to redeploy where I needed it.
Cavalry versus infantry
One of the nice things about the Tucuman Scenario is it pitches a cavalry heavy force against a infantry heavy force. So, as a play test of emerging rules, it is a good option. How did it go?
Well, to be honest, I’m not sure. Our experience was waves of Patriot squadrons charging and bouncing from fairly resilient Royalist columns. Part of me was saying, to myself, shouldn’t this go faster. Shouldn’t cavalry on the flank or rear of infantry be devastating.
Another part of my was going, sure lines were flattened by cavalry on the flank but these are columns and the basis for battalion masse, so probably should be more resilient to flank attacks.
Then a third bit chimed in with, but shouldn’t squares be the ultimate anti-cavalry formation.
So did cavalry versus infantry work in the game? Probably. But it did make me want to spend a bit of time with combinations of opponents:
- Squadron charging front of a line – should be dicey outcome
- Squadron charging flank of a line – should be devastating
- Squadron charging rear of a line – should be devastating
- Squadron charging square – cavalry should almost always bounce but without too many casualties so they can keep trying
- Squadron charging front of a column – should probably favour infantry but not as much as square
- Squadron charging flank of a column – should probably favour infantry but not as much as square
- Squadron charging rear of a column – should probably favour infantry but not as much as square
I have some homework to do.
Movement: Adam’s “shenanigans” move
In the Alternative Chacabuco Play Test and Sipe Sipe Game 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. I like this idea the options available to Napoleonic troops narrowed as they approached the enemy.
Tucuman saw this rule in play.
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.
This worked quite well. It is radically different to Tilly’s Very Bad Day, but we liked it. It is worth more play testing, but next time I will add in Zone of Control as well.
There is a caveat. Perhaps a big caveat. I think this rule is part of the reason the game played slower than Tilly’s Very Bad Day. If a player wants to do something with a unit in TVBD, they do it. But in BVBD they often have to roll dice to see if they can do it. Every command check takes game time. Every roll requires players to think, to remember the rules, and apply them. And that is draining. Hmmmm.
Where to get Bolivar’s Very Bad Day
I have not published Bolivar’s Very Bad Day yet. Subscribe to the blog for updates.
Turn 5 commentary – I think you have mixed up your Patriots and Royalists……☺
“But now I’d finally got my infantry into action. The Combined Cazadores Battalion and Reserve Infantry Company charged the northern Patriots.”
An interesting battle. I’m guessing a column, especially of massed battalion columns would be more resilient to a cavalry charge than a unit in line BUT it would surely fall into considerable disorder. Unless they had time to reorder themselves (unlikely) then each successive charge would increase this disorder until they eventually fell apart. It’s also likely they would become stationary and pinned in place.
Neil
Turn 5 typo now corrected.
What you describe is exactly what happened. The Royalist battalions were more resilient than a line, were pinned in place hence stationary (although they tried to form square, they failed due to proximity of enemy cavalry), and slowly fell into disorder, leading to the loss of the game.
Historically columns were between a line and square in terms of resilience to cavalry charges. Close Column was pretty resilient, so much so that the Austrians renamed the close column to “Battalion Masse” and abandoned square entirely.
So I think the current rules worked for column. Annoying as it was for the dashing cavalry commander.
What I realised in this game, although it didn’t come up, is that line would be too resilient under the current draft rules. And that is what I need to experiment with.
In looking to speed up the combat, you mentioned with reference to the slower pace that “maybe this was a reflection of the composition of the two armies in this scenario: Cavalry heavy versus infantry heavy.”
This suggests that heavy armoured troops are always more resilient in these rules. That doesn’t sound unreasonable, but it will invariably lead to combat taking longer. Have you considered having a combat mechanism which compares relative strengths rather than absolute strengths? This would mean that heavy vs heavy would have the same chances of hurting each other as light vs light. It shouldn’t make any difference for heavy vs light, which would maintain the same differential you have already.
I figure that two heavily armoured opposing forces will keep fighting until there is a victor – you just don’t need to model that longer time on the tabletop. The downside would be if you need to keep timing consistent across the battlefield (e.g. the tactic “I’ll tie up his heavy cavalry for a few turns while I do all my attacks and movement on the other flank” wouldn’t work as well as it probably does now). Timing is nearly always an abstraction in wargames, so this doesn’t feel like it should be too much of a problem. Maybe depends how gamey or authentic you find those kind of tactics.
Sorry, I think we’re at cross purposes. When I said “Cavalry heavy versus infantry heavy”, I didn’t mean heavy cavalry versus heavy infantry, I meant an army dominated by cavalry against an army dominated by infantry.
Oh dear – yes, that’s rather obvious now I re-read it in context. Sorry about that!