Glory is Fleeting Napoleonic v1

So I was reading the list of events for the upcoming CANCON 2024 (Australia Day weekend) and was reminded that Field of Glory Napoleonic 2 (FoGN 2) is now Glory is Fleeting Napoleonic v1.

As far as I have found out in the very short time researching its new identity, the official rules are not published yet but they are complete. Enough to be the official rules at a major gaming convention. The person responsible for their debut belongs to the same wargaming group who've always provided a core following of the original Field of Glory Napoleonic. Judging from interest shown for the upcoming event from overseas, the rules still maintains it core following here in this part of the gaming world.

Apparently the renaming implies this new iteration is now so far removed from the original Field of Glory Napoloenic necessitating retitling. 

Only minor note: my search engine seemed to confuse it with a published set of Napoleonic papers of the same name. So maybe they might need to rethink the name. Or, as I soon discovered upon refining my search request, simply append "rules".

The organiser of the event happens to be one of the co-authors of the now-defunct FoGN 2 rulebook. That they went to all that trouble only for a total reboot seems both discouraging and yet makes sense. The original was a serious mish-mash hobbled together on the fly. FoGN 2 attempted to straighten out that mess and give some sense of coherency and order. But it never really addressed the complexity of the rules themselves with their awkward game mechanics. Plus, many found the concept of corps-level gaming a bit perplexing: many were familiar with the clouds of skirmishers in front of the compact formations. This familiarity did not translate over to FoGN and FoGN 2 all that well. 

Now it seems to me, without having even seen this new ruleset, that Glory is Fleeting Napoleonic version 1 looks to be the next step in the evolution begun by Field of Glory Napoleon over a decade ago.

Below is a link to a recent batrep by someone who has used these rules. Their review is quite favourable (understandable) for the most part. 

Link

Borodino Project - The Refight: Turn 6 - Russian response. What's the plan?

Several options are available to the Russian player Turn 6 now that the French have declared their hand and begun their assaults upon both the fleches and the redoubt. After ruminating over how to respond, several plausible options are available:

• Option 1 : Sit tight, do little or nothing, and absorb the French assaults. Reinforce where needed in this turn phase. But do not counter-charge beyond the fortifications. Keep what committed front line forces not directly involved as reinforcements.
• Option 2 : Counter-attack in force from the defensive position. Utilise cavalry in support (Sievers) for this task. Either direct counter-attacks at the main attack points or commence flanking options (where possible) designed to draw away enemy forces from the main assault. Short-term immediate response is the aim. Some of Baggavout's and Osterman's corps units have already begun moving into the centre.
• Option 3 : Trust in the defensive line to deal with the present threat. Meanwhile, begin shifting units from the original right flank battle lines to the centre. At the same time create a secondary line of defence behind the front line with your ready reserve using Russian Imperial Guard (Lavrov/Constantine) and artillery reserve (Kutaisov) as the core of this defensive secondary.
• Option 4 : Reinforce Tuchkov's flank with cavalry (Duka) and grenadiers (Borozdin) if possible. Already started with Duka's 2nd Cuirassier division on the move south to assist Tuchkov.

Procedure: Roll 1d10. Add C-in-C's command factor (Kutusov is Skilled, so modifier is +2). If result is:

3-5      =   Option 1 

6-7      =   Option 2

8-9      =   Option 3

10-12  =   Option 4

Commentary and Discussion

This approach may appear randomly arbitrary to the spectator, and it is. There is no hierarchal order to the options given that randomizes the response. It also keeps me from interfering too much. 

The historical French plan was, as mentioned many times before, a simple up-the-guts, all-in assault with all-arms. There was no finesse whatsoever. It was a bludgeon of a battle. And therefore not much room for tactical flair or creativity. Yet. There still remains the what-ifs.

Anyway, I wanted to give the Russians, whose whole strategy mindset seemed to be one of defensive delay from the beginning, some leeway in how they might respond within the restrictions of that tactical mindset. I did not want too much divergence from actual historical recourse.

The Russian Situation at the start of their Turn

This is an update on the current status of the various Russian positions at the start of their Turn 6.

Situation on Table 2 (Far Left Flank)

For the Russians on this flank, the situation is not looking good at the moment. The unexpected success of the Polish light horse is causing mayhem and confusion among Tuchkov's grenadiers after they easily dealt to the brave Cossacks who chose to stand and fight instead of run like some others did.

Those infantry units busily engaged in the retake and defence of Utitsa appear solid and cohesive. And seemingly unaware of what's happening in their rear. However, the heavy cavalry of Latour-Maubourg's cavalry corps are approaching fast, and the valiant Russians are certainly aware of their presence. Hopefully the arrival of Duka's heavy will arrive in time. 

Further south though, beyond Utitsa and the Mound, Poniatowksi's forces are busily regrouping in preparation to move on both Utitsa and the Mound. The Polish commander is relieved to be aided by the heavy cavalry of Latour-Maubourg. There is hardly any Russian forces to oppose this new developing situation. Karpov's cavalry split up earlier with one half retreating east while the other half linking up with Tuchkov's and the infantry. It was the latter Cossack force which was beaten up by the Polish light cavalry brigade. The other units of Kaminski's Polish cavalry are closely monitoring the eastern retreating Cossack force and preventing them from linking up with Tuchkov. 

Apart from those already engaged in the fighting in and around Utitsa, the Polish infantry are reforming to both support and advance upon the Mound. This means their artillery are also moving up to provide better fire support. 

The lone Russian artillery battery on the Mound was quickly abandoned by the victorious Polish light cavalry. And it looks like it will be claimed by the Poles as there are no friendly Russian units within reach. It performance was pitiful anyway. The only other Russian artillery unit is now retiring with Karpov. 

Situation at the fleches (Left Centre)

The defenders here have managed to push back the first two attempts by the French units from Davoust's I Corps. They can also call upon the as-yet-uncommitted grenadiers of von Mecklenburg-Schwerin's division. The artillery stationed in and about the fortification have been heavily engaged and accounted for themselves very well forcing back the leading enemy assault units. The fleches also contained infantry defenders. 

The French divisions of Compans and Dessaix however are experienced troops and any setback they suffer are quickly overcome as they renew their advance. Their artillery too are moving forward to set up and bombard the defenders.  

The ruined village of Semenovskaya (Centre)

A brigade force holds this area. As yet unengaged apart from the sporadic ineffective artillery fire, the force is notable because it's where several of the major commanders (Bagration, Borozdin, Golitsyn) are located. Attention, as yet, has not yet spotlighted this defensive location because the main assaults are concentrating their focus upon the temporary fortifications. But that might soon change as reports are incoming of French cavalry heading their way.

The Grand Redoubt (Centre)

Here is where the main action seems to be focussed with units from Morand's and Gerard's divisions successfuly striking the forward trenches hard despite taking some early hits during their approach. The Russian defences, however, retaliate splendidly repelling the initial assaults. But the French persist and soon gain footholds in the trenches, forcing those defenders there to relinquish their position. Buoyed by this success, the French move on toward the main earthwork fortification.

The artillery stationed therein operate busily and contribute to forcing certain French units back during the advance. But they have been operating uncontested and will find out about the consequences as the French bring up their artillery guns. Lots of them. 

The New Post road bridge (Right Centre)

Dokhturov is now faced with an unblown bridge to his frontage with yelling blue coats crossing and heading for his position. Already his forward skirmishing line has folded under the relentless pressure of swarms of French and Allied troops eager to melee. But his main lines are strong and ready. And waiting. Eugene's infantry are seen massing to make the inevitable push. 

North of Gorki (Left Flank)

This part is not fully shown on the existing gaming table. What is shown is a thin strip along the far right table edge. Gorki represents that northern boundary. This slender gaming area is shared by both Dokhturov's corps with Platov's cavalry corps in support, and unplaced infantry elements from Osterman-Tolstoy's corps. Baggavout and his corps is further north (far right) and not shown on the gaming table at all. They only make their appearance during flank marches. 

Olsufiev's 11th division from his corps, however, has begun moving south with Baggavout among them. This is the original flanking movement permitted in Turn 5. Bahkmatyev's 11th division of Osterman's corp is also on the move south. 

The risk here, for me gaming this, has been moving both corps in their entirety would present the French with a golden opportunity to outflank the Russians. As the New Post road leads directly to Moscow, this is a real fear for Kutusov and his high command staff. Hence his original deployment. Even though Platov and Uvarov are still posted there, I doubt very much that the entire right wing will move en masse south going by speculation based on historical concerns. Which is why in the original flanking move, I only chose to relocate just two infantry divisions and one corps commander instead the entire four infantry (von Wurttemburg, Olsufiev, Bahkhmatyev I and Bakhmatyev III) and three cavalry corps (Uvarov, Platov, Korf). 

Solo gaming often throws up these concerns which is part of the fun.

 

Little-known Rules: War of the Roses by the Perfect Captain

Seems the English are just as fond of civil disobedience as the rest of us. Without really bothering to delve greatly into the matter (at eight years old, intellectual curiosity was very limited, under-developed, and mostly superficial anyway), I intuitively sided with the losing Lancastrian cause. Nearly sixty years later, I am still siding with the losing side simply because I know the value of what-ifs. Especially when wargaming. And, besides, ultimately the Lancastrians won when Henry defeated Richard III at Bosworth.

ACOS stands for A Coat of Steel which is set in the War of the Roses (1455-1487). It covers the main areas of conflict - England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. 

I am really liking the breakdown and detailing these rules provide into the period and how it was fought back then. 

Within the concept of the rules a Band, usually refers to a single 40mm stand representing 60-100 men. Whether this is historically the case deserve further investigation but for now I content to accept their explanation. Besides, it makes for an interesting appeal, and it's better than being called a "thingy". 

A group of bands (normally 3 or 4) belong to a Contingent while a Company comprises several contingents (ranging between 6 to 16 contingents - no more, no less). Scale for these rules is 28mm. Which allows scope for painting beautiful minis.

The Company is the basic tactical unit within the game, and must be led by a commander. Beyond that, as you rise up in organisational levels terms like Ward, Host, and Battel become more common and therefore the norm, especially in Campaign Mode (ACOP - A Coat of Paper). Like I said before, the rules are designed for company-level gaming but it is possible to wage large-scale tabletop conflicts. It means more players of course.

What is attracting me right now with this ruleset, i.e., wanting to pull out the paint brush and acrylics, are the coat-of-arms of those involved. These are part of the multitude of other files - cards, counters, personalities, scenarios - that seriously much colour to the ruleset. And it's a big plus rergarding The Perfect Captain; their production output is seriously good for Little Known rules.

Always found shield heraldry fascinating. There is colour. There is history. There is symbolism. And the perfect opportunity to create a colourful company, especially the standard bearer, is really motivating me to buy some minis and assemble a group together.

Which commander to choose from the eighty-odd has yet to be determined however. But I do know he will be Lancastrian-aligned. Although there are some nice shield emblems on theYorkist side too.

Leaders come in all degrees of competency and loyalty. I like the fact that you can have commanders on your own side suddenly turn Treacherous on you. Much like real-world situations. Gives it a spice from your usually bland commercially produced sets. 

I've already printed out Ironbow 2, Strongbow (the campaign mode), The Armies of Strongbow, and John Bull/Patriots (covering the period of the American Revolution up to 1815 on the North American continent). 

Also exploring my options in terms of suitable figurines, their availability within Australia, and type. My son is planning on travelling overseas to the UK next month so I could probably save on the pricey overseas postage if I can get my act together. 

I will test the waters, so to speak, with these various rules to some degree of commitment. 

There are other rulesets within the free grab bag from all those years ago. There is a set of seven modules based within the Pike and Shot era (16th-17th centuries) centred on the Spanish domination in European affairs at that time. Rules cover such specifics as conventional naval warfare, piracy in the New World, religious persecution (Hugenots), conventional land battles, sieges (coastal and fortifications). There is even a simple duelling module! And a Nordic ruleset covering the local wars of Scandinavia is tossed in for variety.

Of course, I should end this brief post back on the topic of English civil disobedience, namely that other great conflict that divided the nation: the English Civil War. There are three modules for this period - Planter Fox (Ireland module), Tinker Fox (core ruleset), and Very Civile Actions (campaign module).

There is a lot here to keep me occupied for many several years.

Red River campaign - revisiting the American Civil War

Long ago, back in the late 90s, I ended a solo ACW campaign that grew from two opposing brigades into two veteran corps battling in an alternate timeline. Once completed, and after some lengthy analyses over the subsequent years, I came to an eventual understanding that my fascination with the period had somehow reached its finality. Which surprised me as for as long as I could remembered the ACW was one of the pillars of my wargaming experience ever since I found this hobby as a teen. Now I had somehow reconciled myself to answering why it had held such a fascination for so long. Once that realisation bubbled up into my conscious awareness, I found a relieving sense of peace.

Since then, apart from the occasional flirtation that never materialised into anything concrete or lasting, I have not had any real desire to open up that ACW drawer ever again. Until now. And now it's more a nostalgic trip. And a desire to fulfil to a commitment made to myself a few months back.

So, let's get started.

Firstly, the Red River campaign was an actual historical campaign. Why Red River? The name itself is the obvious attraction. Secondly, it's not as well known as Grant's Vicksburg campaign or Sherman's famous march to Atlanta. I've always enjoyed exploring side alleys and little-travelled paths more interesting anyway. I knew nothing of the campaign. What better place to start.

From memory, I believe I have enough minis to cover both sides for this upcoming short campaign. 

Scale will be 20mm. 

Painting minis will not be an issue - certainly not on the scale of the Borodin refight project. 

But first I need an idea of the exact amount of minis needed for this campaign. Still currently doing research on total numbers for the campaign. Using wikipedia as my start point. Not expecting to venture further beyond wikipedia as it covers well enough the essentials of the campaign. Plus it gives breakdowns on exact numbers per formation.

The ruleset I am interested in (Terry Wise's Airfix #33) is still available online but I am not keen on spending any money if I can avoid it. Still hunting for a free copy somewhere online. If after all that searching I come up empty-handed, I can always fall back on D. F. Featherstone's Wargames rules. Bare basic but certainly doable. And definitely familiar.  I really don't want to devote too much time or effort bringing this short campaign to the table. 

Two main battles were fought in the campaign. Obviously these will be replayed.

Map movement and What-if? The notion of map movements inspired by planned intentions is interesting. And invariably raises notions of what-if. But I have to make a firm decision on whether to run this campaign as just the known battles or play the what-if option. If the former, no need for map movement. If the latter, then "yes". But the latter means greater investment in something that shouldn't be so involved. 

Compiling a suitable list of actions to wargame from the campaign (wikipedia), I've come with enough actions to get this wargames campaign going.

• Battle of Fort De Russey - March 14, 1864
• Battle of Henderson's Hill (or Bayou Rapides) - March 21, 1864
• Battle of Mansfield (Sabine's Crossroads) - April 8, 1864 (major)
• Battle of Pleasant Hill - April 9, 1864
• Battle of Blair's Landing - April 12, 1864
• The Actions near Alexandria - April 24 to May 13, 1864
• Action at Hudnot's Plantation - April 30, 1864
• Actions at Wilson's Landing - May 1 & 2, 1854
• Foraging Party attacked - May 2, 1864
• Capture of City Belle - May 3, 1864
• Loss of John Warner, USS Covington, USS Signal - May 4, 1864
• Battle of Monett's Ferry - April 23, 1864
• Action of 26-27 April 1864 
• Battle of Mansura - May 16, 1864 (major)
• Battle of Yellow Bayou (or Norwood's Plantation) - May 18, 1864

More to follow over the coming weeks. Cheers.

Little-known Rules: Iron Bow 2 - a Medieval wargaming project

Been looking beyond the Borodino Refight for a new modelling/gaming venture for some time now. Various ideas have been bandied about but nothing firm enough has emerged beyond initial enthusiasm which doesn't carry far. 

I did recall some old rulesets that were freely available from eight years back. What attracted me to them, besides being free, back then were their high quality production. They also covered various specific periods within the historical wargaming genre - from the Pelopponesian conflicts of the Ancient eras through to the numerous wars of the Middle and Renaissance periods right up to global conflicts of the early 19th century. 

The rules themselves were aimed at company-level (of low hundreds) operations. Not quite full-on large-scale battles but definitely not skirmish. And they cover not just land but naval actions. Nowadays all levels of wargaming are catered for in the twenty-first century. But these sets produced from the early 2000s (and earlier) were few and far between and often quite crude in their output production values, i.e, one or two Word-style pages and tables. 

I was indeed fortunate enough to find these treasure trove of rulesets.

I invested in a couple of sets many years back. The first was the Peloponnesian Wars. I managed, at that time, to assemble together, in 15mm, a small Spartan and Greek list. I had high hopes for future expansion but nought came of that. Even though I coaxed a fellow club member at the time to join in for a playtest, interest soon waned as something else soon caught my eye.

The next set was devoted to the Russian Civil War. Chose 20mm and accumulated a large enough list of both Bolsheviks and White Russians. Even had armoured vehicles. Started campaigning after playing a few small engagements to acclimatise myself to the rules. 

Of late, however, I've begun to rediscover renewed interest in starting a new wargaming/painting project. Hence the search for other rulesets from the publisher who offered a wide variety of period rulesets. These included both land and sea and stretched from Ancient times to early nineteenth century. 

Lately I've begun reviving interest enough to read through some of the rules, going so far as start prepping them for printing. 

The publisher of this veritable treasure chest of free rules is The Perfect Captain - a North American entity made up of several talented rules writers. One of their strengths is the production values pertaining to each ruleset produced. 

Their website (The Captain's Chest) is still active. However, downloading the still-listed rulesets is no longer possible as I recently found out the other day when I tried to download the Medieval set. EDIT: I have since learned the site shut down October 2020. Good news is that they're still active as a facebook group. 

Fortunately, for me, I had the sense to download the sets all those years ago. 

The ruleset I am interested in reviving Ironbow 2 which happens to be the core ruleset covering the Early Medieval period. It is not confined to one specific region; this is where Strongbow comes in being an expansion set that covers those lists not in IB2 - specifically all manner of feudal French (both northern France and south of the Loire valley, Flanders, German (Holy Roman Empire), the wild Irish, Scots, Welsh), 

Other expansions of the IR2 series include Alexius 1113 (Byzantine campaign against the marauding Seljuks), and Villehardouin (an IB2 scenario for the Byzantine-Archean War 1262-64). 

There is also Princes of the East (dealing with the First Crusade) and In The Shadow of Byzantium 2 (1205-60). Both of these are separate rulesets to IB2. 

I have lumped all these sets listed above into one grouping and called them Medieval. 

The main author of Ironbow 2, by the way, is Billy Toufexis (I believe) and it was released by The Perfect Captain in 2006.

I am focusing on the Strongbow expansion specifically to get me started on the road to discovery. And as I read through the document, it calls to mind Lion Rampant by Mr. Mersey. But apart from that single distinction Lion Rampant is very much a simplified generalised tabletop game wearing historical costume whereas IB2 seems more historically substantial and less gamey. Various factions have specific characteristics emphasised more than LR which tends to lump all types into neat gaming boxes.  

The usual hurdle remains, namely, adapting IB2 to solo gaming mode. But as this is par for course anyway, it's not really an issue. Just another step to actual play.