DBN - SYW Play Test

 

Historically, I have always loved reading rules, but I have the concentration of a goldfish when it comes to wargaming a period. I tend to flit from one rule set to another, never settling on a single set. However, I've decided to reduce the number of rules I use and focus on my favourites. As part of this effort, I've decided to fight, in 6mm, roughly the same War of Spanish Succession (WSS) battle using different rules to see which I prefer. See the Summary Page for other rule reviews.

Reference:

• DBN Web site 
• DBN SYW 
• DBN Facebook page  

Overview

The DBx range of rules have been around for many years and have both strong supporters and strong detractors, , especially the DBA version.    Although it is easy to play DBN like DBA, i.e, as a 12 unit v 12 unit battle on a 2'x2' table, the rules do not have to be played this way and they can be used in a more conventional wargame style reflecting historic army and battlefield sizes.  

The DBN rules cover the Napoleonic wars but I used the SYW supplement available for free from the DBN web site. My interest was to use the rules to refight battles on a 6'x4' table with units based as 60x30mm.  The rules base units on a 40mm frontage which represents 100 paces.  In my games units have 60mm frontage which represents 100 paces.  In my notes 1 BW (base width) = 60mm but if you play by the rules as written 1BW = 40mm.

The rules offer the ability to have combat using the traditional DBA approach or a new attrition approach.  I used the attrition approach.

I played a sole game with 13 units on each side in 1:30hrs including time to check on rules. 

These rules contain a number of  elements  worth comment.  These are:

• Friction of command:  Players roll a D6 for command action points (CAP). One point allows the general to move a unit or group of units within his command radium.  It's an extra point if they are further away.  A nice point is the command radium is effected by line of sight.  The effect of this CAP system is a general cannot always move all his command.  
• Turn sequence:  The traditional I go/you go with move, shoot, melee.
• Combat: Melee and firing are separate but the mechanics are the same.  A unit rolls a D6 and add factors. Double ethe score and a unit is destroyed or the lowest scoring unit received a hit.  Three hits destroy a unit.   I particularly like how this mechanic avoid the problem of one unit firing and causing casualties before their opposition get to fire.  A disadvantage is that elite units who win can  keep on defeating their opponents without ever taking casualties (however it's not very likely).
• No of units:  A unit can be regarded as a battalion or assumed to be several.  A typical army has approximately  12 or so units.
• Special equipment: None.  A tape measure and a D6 is all that's needed.
• Casualties: Players need to be able to record casualty hits on units until the unit is removed.  There are no figures removed as casualties. Three hits destroy most units.
• Scale: The rules work with standard  40mm base sizes but   As I was playing with 60x30mm 6mm bases it was trivially simple to convert to using 60mm bases.
• Availability:  DBN Web site http://dbnwargaming.co.uk/
• Cost: $15 for the pdf.  Seven Years war rules are a free download but require the full rules

Battle

Time Period: WSS 1701 (pre-creation of Britain)

Although this game as played solo, I fought it from the side of the British with the French taking minimal steps to repulse my attack, which makes victory less impressive. 

The Battlefield.

The battlefield was set up to allow for the various tests in the scenario.

English

4 English Infantry 

4 British standard Horse 

2 German allies trained Infantry 

2 German allies elite Infantry.

1 Medium guns

French

8 French trained Infantry  

2 French trained Horse

2 French Elite Horse

1 Medium guns

Stream Crossing: Stream crossing was not an issue.  Troops simply move more slowly over the difficult ground.

Cavalry v's Cavalry: The French horse split into two forces.  Two regiments moved to attach the English's German allies and the remaining force attached the four English horse.  The four to two odds allowed the Trained English horse to fight on an even footing with the Elite French horse and with an advantage against the trained French horse.    The English rolled some lucky dice and wider out the French horse.

Cavalry Frontally changing Formed Infantry: The Elite French horse charged the Elite German  foot with both units gaining support from adjacent friends.  The German foot won but took so many losses that they did not have the strength to press an attack against their objective which was a French held village.

On the English left flank the weakened French infantry were charged by the English horse and due to the casualties they had already taken they were cut down.  The game ended before the English horse could attempt to roll up the French flank.

Artillery: Artillery had a minor effect on the battle as Guns need to roll two higher on the combat dice to cause casualties on foot.  This feels about right as it prevents artillery dominating the battlefield

 Infantry vs  buildings: Infantry firing into buildings are at a considerable disadvantage and as the looser of an exchange for fire takes a hit , the attacking unit is soon warn down.  Assault by bayonet is a better option than shooting .  (Note: this differs from the standard rules where an assault on a building needs 3:1 or better to have much chance of victory.) As the German assault was with troops who had been mauled by cavalry and then shot from the village it failed  very quickly.

Infantry vs Infantry: The English infantry advanced across the field and closed in on the French right.  On average it takes 4-5 rounds to destroy the opposing infantry and your troops will be weakened. Firing is based on opposed rolls with one side or the other taking losses each time (unless they roll a draw (approx. 1 in 6) so the fight is quite attritional.

Army Moral: The English won the battle due to French losses.

Summary:  The rules played  were easy to pick up . Although it's possible for elite units to not take any casualties they tends not to happen.  Most melee and firing takes 2-4 rounds to resolve

Maurice Play test

 

This is part of a wider review of rules for the WSS, WAS & SYW.

• Official Sam Mustafa Publishing Group (a.k.a. the HONOUR Forum)
• Maurice page on Sam A Mustafa web site 

Overview

Like all of Sam's rule books, these are well-written and boast high production values. In addition to the "battle rules," they include guidelines for both "real" and "imagination" campaigns. The rules require a set of cards, which are used to issue orders and influence combat, such as providing a bonus when firing.

Copies of the basic cards can be downloaded for free from Sam's website, along with a copy of Maurice-lite, which is sufficient for an evaluation battle or two.

The rules cover the "lace wars" period and contain optional rules to shade them towards different ends of the period, from the War of the Spanish Succession (WSS) to the Seven Years' War (SYW). The rules play quite quickly and allow historical battles to be tuned to represent the troops or commanders who were present.

It is not intended as a criticism but rather an observation that, like most of Sam's rules, I find these rules to have a number of game-play elements which, on one hand, feel artificial but, on the other hand, add an extra level of skill and enjoyment to a wargame. I believe that you will need to fight a number of battles with these rules in order to learn the best way to win.

.

These rules contain a number of elements worth commenting on:

• Friction of Command: The rules allow the CinC to activate one force at a time. Therefore, there is a risk that battles become very focused on one force unless the general learns to spread his focus. Mechanistically, this is similar to the DBx rules sets with limited command action points (CAP) preventing a general from moving all his commands in a turn, or the command role style of rules, similar to Black Powder, which require a successful activation roll to move each command.
• Turn Sequence: Turns are quick to resolve as one force is moved each turn. This gives a quick-paced game where players are not waiting for their opponent to move their entire army before they have their own turn. In two hours, my opponent and I probably had 20-30 turns between us.
• Firing: Is done by rolling dice to hit, equal to the number of bases in a unit, and then a subsequent casualty disruption roll is made based on the quality of the troops, e.g., it's easier to disrupt a unit of conscripts than a guard regiment.
• Melee: The rules handle 1:1, 1 to many, and many to many melees. This is a good example of how well Sam writes rules. Each unit in the melee rolls a D6 and adds factors. The losing side can be destroyed or take two disruptions, and the winner will receive disruption casualties.
• Artillery: A battery has about the same firepower as an infantry base/two bases at canister range.
• Number of Units: A unit can be regarded as a battalion or assumed to be several. A typical army has approximately 15 or so units. The rules include a refight of the Battle of Fontenoy, which has about 18 units per side.
• Special Equipment: Core to the game are the Maurice cards, which must be purchased separately or a simple set downloaded from Sam's website.
• Casualties: Players need to be able to record casualty hits on units until the unit is removed. There are no figures removed as casualties. Five hits destroy most units.
• Scale: The rules work with all base sizes. All distances in the rules are given in BW (base widths). As I was playing with 60x30mm 6mm bases, I declared a 30x30mm base width, which resulted in 120x30mm units.
• Availability: Wargame sites (and in my case, eBay).
• Cost: ~£30 each   for the rules & cards.

Battle

Time Period: WSS 1701 (pre-creation of Britain)

As the game makes use of hidden cards, I fought this with an opponent so that I could be surprised by the cards played. I commanded the English and their allies, and my opponent the French.

The Battlefield

The battlefield was set up to allow for the various tests in the scenario.

English

• 4 English Trained Infantry

• 4 English Trained Horse

• 2 German Allies Trained Infantry

• 2 German Allies Elite Infantry

• 1 German Allies Trained Infantry (attacker's bonus unit)

• 2 Medium Guns

• Nation Advantage: Lethal Volleys

French

• 4 French Trained Infantry

• 4 French Trained Infantry

• 2 French Trained Horse

• 2 French Elite Horse

• 3 Medium Guns

• National Advantage: Cavaliers

Stream Crossing: The English left flank advanced towards and over the stream. As infantry, this did not have any impact. The English horse crossed the stream, which would have placed 1 point of disorder on them, but I played the "Find the Way" card and was able to cross the stream without penalty.

Cavalry vs Cavalry: The French horse charged the English horse. As the French national advantage was "Cavaliers," all their cavalry had a +1 combat modifier over the English. The two elite regiments had an additional +2 combat factor over the English horse. It was a bit of a bloodbath, and all the English horse were destroyed in three rounds of combat. However, the French horse regiments were left with 2 or 3 disruptions each.

Cavalry Frontally Charging Formed Infantry: The two elite French horse regiments, charged a single elite English allied infantry regiment but due to the close proximity a second elite infantry regiment  were able to join into the melee.  This  resulted on 2 horse regiments vs 1 infantry and 1 horse regiment vs 2 infantry.  (The Maurice rules handles complex melee very well).   The French horse lost and were driven back and subsequently took even more disruption from infantry volley fire.  However the disruption they placed on the elite infantry was a factor in the elite grenadiers failing in the assault on the village.

Artillery: As a bombardment order takes a full turn, artillery did not feature much in the battle. The English guns bombarded the village and, given enough time, would have worn down the defenders. I suspect that it may be one of the areas that may improve with more practice with the rules.

Infantry vs Buildings: Infantry assaulting buildings receive a -2 modifier. This puts trained infantry defending a village on an equal footing with elite troops performing the assault.  In this battle my elite grenadiers had already been mauled by the French horse and this resulted in them being defeated in their assault of the village.

Infantry vs Infantry: The English infantry advanced across the field and closed in on the French right. Under these rules, when one side volleys, the other returns fire but after the "active" side. The English national advantage of "Lethal Volleys" allowed a re-roll of any hits which fail to cause disruption. This proved to be a significant advantage, allowing the English to win on their left flank but leaving them with considerable disruption. This isn't a game where units which win firefights or melees are untouched and able to roll down the battlefield fresh as a daisy.

Army Morale: The French won this battle as the British army reached its breaking point. Although even if night had fallen first, the French would have won as they held the objective, which was in the village.

Summary

The rules played very quickly and were easy to pick up. My opponent and I both thought that we rather rushed into combat and should have taken more time to manoeuvre more broadly and take time action cards in our hands.

Honours Of War - Play Test

 

This is part of a wider review of rules for the WSS, WAS & SYW.

Although intended for the Seven Years War there are modifications for the WSS on the well supported Facebook pages for these rules.  

• Honours of war - Wikipedia
• https://www.facebook.com/groups/915148229853205  

Overview

The rules  play quite quickly and allow each player to have several brigades each containing a number of battalions/regiments.  Each brigade commander is assigned a level of competence appropriate to his nationality and the period of the war.  The rules reflect the performance and manoeuvre speed of historical armies and therefore all armies are not the same. e.g. Prussians are well lead and quick to manoeuvre and the Reichsarmeey are the reverse. 

These rules contain a number of  elements to the rules which I like and several worth comment.  The key points are:

•  Friction of command:  Most of the time brigades can be relied on to follow orders however about 1 in 6 (2 in 6 if poorly lead) commands may fail to advance.  Conversely some brigaded may advance double moves especially when well lead.
•  Turn sequence:  Players alternate moving brigades and then alternate shooting.  This adds an interesting choice of which brigade to fire realising that this will allow your opponent to fire first in a separate encounter elsewhere in the battle.
•  Combat: All firing and melee uses  an average die (2,3,3,4,4,5) modified by troop quality and situational parameters.  The score is then cross referenced on a casualties table.
• Artillery: A battery has roughly the same firepower as an infantry battalion.
•  No of units:  I played a sole game with 13 units on each side in 2hrs including time to check on rules. 
• Special equipment: The HoW rules use  average dice (beloved by WRG ancients players but not used very much these days).  It is quite easy to use D6 and score 1 as 3 and 6 as 4.
• Casualties: Players need to be able to record casualty hits on units until the unit is removed.  There are no figures removed as casualties.  Five hits destroy a unit, 4 force it to retire and 3 give it a disadvantage in combat. I like the way units on 4 or 5 casualties fall back a move, causing casualties  to units behind them as they fall back.
• Scale: The rules work with all bases sized and the author suggests scaling your moves and firing to the same as a unit's width as  both were roughly the same; i.e. about 80yds. 
• Availability:  Osprey (and therefore available from Amazon and most book stores)
• Cost: £9.99

Battle

Time Period: WSS 1701 (pre-creation of Britain)

Although this game as played solo, I fought it from the side of the British with the French taking minimal steps to repulse my attack, which makes my defeat even more embarising. 

The Battlefield: The battlefield was set up to allow for the various tests in the scenario. Review of WSS (WAS & SYW) rules.

English

• 4 English Infantry (2 superior and 2 standard)  with Dashing General 
• 4 British standard Horse  with Dependable General
• 4 German allies standard  Infantry plus medium gun  with Dependable General

French

• 4 French standard Infantry  with  Dependable General
• 4 French standard Infantry with   Dependable General
• 4 Horse (2 superior, 2 standard) with Dashing General

Stream Crossing: The English left wing commander smartly advanced a double move and  crossed the steam.  As infantry are not slowed by crossing hedges only the stream impacted their speed, 1/2 move penalty to cross.  

The English cavalry commander lead his troops forward across the hedges and stream.  I had a moment of thought when I realised that hedges and steams each cost a 1/ 2 move to cross, therefore could they be crossed in a move?  After some thought I ruled that the hedge and stream constituted a single 1/2 move penalty. 

Cavalry v's Cavalry:  Half the French horse  charged the English cavalry, while the other half charged the German allies on the British right flank.

The cavalry melee was bloody with both engaged regiments being supported by regiments to their real/flank.  I encountered an interesting result when both sides managed to take their opponents to 5 casualties forcing them to rout back a turn before dispersing (other supporting regiment took moral hits from being routed through).

Cavalry Frontally changing Formed Infantry: The superior French horse charge the formed Germans who had artillery support.  The cavalry took four hits from closing fire and retired back unable to reach the infantry line.

In the centre a French infantry battalion fired a volley into the British horse where were already carrying casualties from being routed through by friends.  This forced the British to fall back across the stream.

Artillery: The artillery had a significant impact on the fire fights by bringing  the firepower equivalent to a battalion to the combats.

 Infantry vs  buildings: Infantry in building receives a -2 defensive modifier which gives a considerable edge in combat.

Infantry vs Infantry: Choosing which brigade to fire first became important. I chose to fire my Germans on the right flank fire but that allowed the French right flank to fire at my (British) left flank first.  This allowed the French to give 3 casualties to the British imposing a -1 modifier on their return fire. This contributed to the eventual loss of the British left after a couple more rounds.

Army Moral: The French won this battle as the British army reached its breaking point.

Summary:  A popular and well supported set of rules which gave me a quick result.  I found the firing and melee results a little too variable for me but I had a good game.

Twilight of the Soldier Kings: Warfare Rule for the Age of Frederick the Great 1730-1780 - Play Test

 

Historically, I have always loved reading rules, but I have the concentration of a goldfish when it comes to wargaming a period. I tend to flit from one ruleset to another, never settling on a single set. However, I've decided to reduce the number of rules I use and focus on my favourites. As part of this effort, I've decided to fight roughly the same War of Spanish Succession (WSS) battle using different rules to see which I prefer. See the Summary Page for other rule reviews.

Rules: Twilight of the Sun King

Supplement:  Birth of the Age of Reason. Scenarios book 3: Louis XIV vs. the Grand Alliance

Time Period: WSS 1701 (pre-creation of Britain)

Overview
ToSK are innovative rules with a slightly messy but readable format. The rules are supported by multiple scenario books detailing battles of the period, including maps,troop numbers and disposition. (The scenario books are useful resources even if you use other rules sets.) The "Birth of the Age of Reason. Scenarios book 3:" scenario book includes much improved Quick Reference Sheets , an improved play sequence and swaps from using 2 average dice to 2 standard 1-6 dice.

These rules contain a number of  elements which I like and several worth comment.  The key points are:

• Friction of command:  Any unit can move straight ahead but have to make an order test if they do anything else such as change formation, cross an obstacle etc. Although units fail 1/3 of the time generals can grant 1 to 3 re-rolls depending on their quality.
•  Turn sequence:  The turn sequence is a little counter intuitive but you get used to it,  The alternative sequence in "Birth of the Age of Reason. Scenarios book 3:" is easier for most people coming to the rules.
• Combat: These rules take a very innovative approach.  As a player you do not roll to cause casualties but rather you roll to see how well your troops hold their moral when they are within shooting range  or in melee with the enemy.
• Artillery: One rule I greatly support is artillery bombardment (10BW 60cm) which requires enemy units to make an order roll before they can move.  Artillery does not cause moral hits on units until they  get within 3BW (18cm). This implements my long held belief that long range bombardment of the period disrupts armies and is an inconvenience rather than the cause of high casualties. 
• Tactics: The rules reward players who follow the tactics and formation of the period, specifically deploying armies in 2 or 3 lines. 
• No of units:  I played a sole game with 13 units on each side in 2:30hrs including time to check on rules. 
• Special equipment: The ToSk rules use 2 average dice (beloved by WRG ancients players but not used very much these days).  It is quite easy to use D6 and score 1 as 3 and 6 as 4. The "Birth of the Age of Reason. Scenarios book 3:" has updated rules to allow you to use regular D6.
• Casualties: Players need to be able to record moral hits on units until the unit is removed.  There are no figures removed as casualties.  Infantry have 3 moral and Cavalry 2, though this is modified for large/small units and determined/wavering units.
• Scale: The rules measure in base widths.  Units have 2x 60mm by 30mm bases but as long as you have consistent size basing that will be fine.  
• Availability:  Wyre Forest Gamers - ToSK 
• Cost: £14 (Supplements £20)

Although this game as played solo, I fought it from the side of the British with the French taking minimal steps to repulse my attack, which makes my victory less impressive. 

The Battlefield.

The battlefield was set up to allow for the various tests in the scenario.

English

4 English Infantry  with CinC General 2pt. (see 1 on image)

4 British Horse (galloping horse) with General 1pt (see 2 on image)

4 German allies Infantry plus medium gun  with General 1pt (see 3 on image)

French

4 French Infantry  with CinC General 1pt

4 French Infantry with  General 1pt

4 Horse (2 Elite, 2 trained) with General 2pt

Stream Crossing: The English left wing commander stacked his brigades up in 4 lines of battle (this provides a +2 bonus to moral from having multiple rear support) and advanced towards the stream.  The French commander marched his troops down to the bank of the rived.  The English general realised that he would have to successfully order his troops to cross the thick hedges and then wade the stream, therefore he stopped in musket range relying on the extra moral of his multiple ranks plus his superior platoon firing disciple in defeat the French Infantry.

The English cavalry commander lead his troops forward across the hedges and stream.  The first two regiments crossed the stream by rolling two action tests. The 2nd line halted on the English side of the stream.  

Cavalry v's Cavalry: The French horse advanced and two of their right wing infantry wheeled to cover their flank.  The remaining English horse cross the stream (their general having to help then with the activation) and advanced to support the first line of horse, who charge the elite French cavalry. 

The French cavalry as the passive side  were required to test their moral against the charge of the Galloping horse. They failed their test and as cavalry were required to take a moral hit and to fall back a full move backs to their attackers…but as they had formed up in two lines of battle with supporting troops behind them they  instead fall back behind their support and turned to face the English.   (I liked how cavalry loosing a fight always fall back and how historically correct formations help both in the fight be giving a rear support bonus and by providing support to fall back behind.)

The cavalry battle continued  for several turns.  One of the English regiments finding itself without rear support, lost a fight and was forced to retire a full move (3BW 18cm) which took them back across the stream and hedges.

Artillery: The French guns on their right flank bombarded the English infantry attempting to slow them down but without any effect.  Once the English infantry started to exchange musket fire with the French Infantry defending the stream the guns provided a penalty to English moral tests.  On the English right flank their artillery provided a similar penalty to the French troops defending the village. 

Cavalry frontally changing Formed Infantry: One of the English brigades of horse charged a French Infantry Brigade with rear support who made a terrible moral roll and the brigade was lost.  The English then  charged the supporting French line but  the French held and subsequently drove off the English who without any rear support fell back a full move. (Infantry should generally outlast cavalry in a fight but as each turn the passive player had to take moral checks a very poor dice roll can result in the loss of a unit.)

 Infantry vs  Buildings: The English  (German allies) advanced on the village, defended by two brigades with two more to the flank.  After an exchange of musket fire a the Germans attempted a bayonet assault on the village.   This required the French defenders to take a moral test which they passed.  Infantry defending fortifications who succeed in a test can force the attackers to fall back, which they did.  (I like the mechanism of forcing  attackers to fall back from a failed assault.) 

Infantry vs Infantry: One the left flank the English infantry tied to shoot their way across the stream. The Defending French Infantry  needed to roll 6+ to success in their moral test vs the English musketry (needing 8+  but having +1 for rear support and +1 for defending the stream).  Throughout the battle the French infantry defending the steam succeeded in every moral test, although their general had to step in with a re-roll a few times.

The attacking English also succeeded their moral tests ( needing 8+, +2 rear support, +1 superior rate of fire to French, -1 French artillery), although their general had to step in with a re-roll a few times.

Wing & Army Moral:  On the English right flank their German allies destroyed two French Brigades.  This took the French left wing to 50% casualties and they failed their moral and the remaining two brigades fled the battlefield. 

In the centre the English cavalry were also reduce to 50% but succeeded their wing moral however the remaining two brigades of horse were subsequently destroyed n combat. 

The French Cavalry centre attempted to hold off the Germans advancing from the English left flank.  They lost another Brigade and failed their Wing's moral.  This took the French Army to their moral test which they succeeded but the French CinC could see he had 4 brigades of foot vs. 8 English brigades and decided to quit the field.

Conclusion:  An interesting set of rules which ,to me, reflect the feel of the period.  I have also played the sister rules for the Seven Years War "Twilight of the Soldier Kings" which are a little more complex but reflect the period.  The thing I struggle with is the "passive" player testing their moral rather than the "active" player rolling to hit.  There is no reason for this to feel strange other than it's different to any other rules I have played.

Kampe in Reihen (Rules for the Lace Wars) - Play Test

 

Historically, I have always loved reading rules, but I have the concentration of a goldfish when it comes to wargaming a period. I tend to flit from one ruleset to another, never settling on a single set. However, I've decided to reduce the number of rules I use and focus on my favorites. As part of this effort, I've decided to fight roughly the same War of Spanish Succession (WSS) battle using different rules to see which I prefer. See the Summary Page for other rule reviews.

Rules: Kampe in Reihen (Rules for the Lace Wars)

Overview

These rules contain a number of  innovative elements to the rules.  The key points I noticed were:

•  Friction of command:  Unlike many other rules sets the player is not limited by the number of commands or units they can move, for example DBx rules having command pips or Blackpower having a command roll for each activation However in a very nice twist you can activate each unit once to fire or move but you can have a double or triple activation if you are willing to take a risk with an activation roll.  Once of the things I like about these rules is choosing when to take a gamble.
• Turn sequence:  The rules have random activation by command, so with three commands on each side this occasionally allows a command to active late in one turn and then early in the next, which is fun and adds an element of chaos to the battle. (When I have fought large battles at the Wargame Holiday Centre or with people unfamiliar with the rules we have used the traditional I go/you go system).
• No of units:  I played a sole game with 13 units on each side in 2:30hrs.  In large battles 4-6 players  most players have had two commands, each of 3-5 units.
• Special equipment: The author (and I ) have D6 with three red (success) and 3 black (failure) sides.  There would be no problem using standard dice 1-3: fail and 4-6: success.
• Casualties: Players need to be able to record casualty hits and moral hits on units until the unit is removed.  There are no figures removed as casualties.  Units generally have three or four bases and can take one hit per base. Once a unit has taken the maximum number of hits it starts to take moral hits. Each turn, moral hits must be removed or the units will retreat or route.  The author (and I ) use double dice stands for each unit, one for a white hits die and one for a red moral hits die. (Any dice or paper tracker can be used.)
• Scale: The rules make no recommendations on base size or figure scale.
• Availability: SKT Wargames Rules
• Cost: Donation to Combat stress
  
  

Although this game as played solo, I fought it from the side of the British with the French taking minimal steps to repulse my attack, which makes my crushing defeat even the more galling. 

The Battlefield.

The battlefield was set up to allow for the various tests in the scenario.

Time Period: WSS 1701 (pre-creation of Britain)

English

4 English Infantry lead by a Gentleman  - Marked as (1)

4 British Dragoons lead by a officer - Marked as (2)

4 Hanoverian Infantry plus medium gun - Marked as (3)

French

4 French Infantry  plus medium

4 French Infantry

4 Horse (2 veteran, 2 trained)

Stream Crossing

The English commander encouraged his brigade forward risking a group double move. Promptly fumbled and the entire command advanced briskly to the rear! Fumbles are not very common in these rules and only if the  general takes a risk. In this case these was a 1:16 chance which I "achieved".  Marked (1)

Realising the English were going the wrong way the French infantry advanced over the stream, double distance to cross . They would have faced combat penalties but their crossing was unopposed. (marked 2)

The English horse in the centre advanced across the hedges and stream more movement penalties than just crossing the stream but not a problem to fast moving horse.  One regiment peeled off to attack the French infantry who had just crossed the river.

Cavalry Frontally changing Formed Infantry

The French Infantry were unstoppable, very effective closing fire was followed up by a outstanding bayonet work.  (Closing fire - 5 dice hitting on 50% resulted in 3 casualties followed by the resulting melee (4 dice hitting 4 times).  The English cavalry waved their swords around then routed (6 dice, hitting 3 times, with one French save resulting in 2 casualties) .  Although this was an atypical result with 5 dice closing fire and 4 dice melee v's 6 dice  the advantage  in the fight was with the infantry which is historically accurate.  

Cavalry v's Cavalry

The two elite French cavalry (Gendarmerie de France) charged two English  Regiments of horse and won both melee despite having only having 5 dice (with one reroll) v 6 dice.  In subsequent turns one English horse  retired and the other broke and routed, affecting the moral of other nearby English horse.  In retrospect I'd set the English horse as 3 base charging horse (6 dice when changing and 3 dice in subsequent rounds). Possibly I should have used then as a 4 base regiment, (5 dice changing and 4 dice in subsequent rounds) , The French horse changed with 5 dice but stood for counter change and fired 2 dice closing fire then melee at 4 dice.) 

Artillery

The French guns on the English left flank caused the occasional hit but to no great effect.  The German guns bombarding the French in the village caused hits on the French Defenders but without any extra pressure on them they were able to rally off the hits. (Guns at long and medium range have little significant effect unless other troops are putting pressure on the command.)

 Infantry vs  Buildings

The village proved challenging to take by firepower alone.  The English could always fall back to rally from losses but this allowed the French to do the same.  The battle ended before the English tried an assault by bayonet.

Infantry vs Infantry

The English and French infantry engaged in a brutal close range firefight.  Both Generals were kept busy removing moral hits on their troops and keeping them in the firefight.  The balance was tipped when a French battalion gambled for a triple move and let off three volleys into an English battalion, destroying them by giving them an unrecoverable number of moral hits.  The loss of this battalion caused knock-on moral hits to the remaining English battalions, one fell back and two held firm. The loss of the battalion took the English cumulative losses past the army's break point and  the battle was lost.

Review of WSS (WAS & SYW) Rules

Historically, I have always loved reading rules, but I have the concentration of a goldfish when it comes to wargaming a period. I tend to flit from one ruleset to another, never settling on a single set. However, I've decided to reduce the number of rules I use and focus on my favourites. As part of this effort, I've decided to fight roughly the same War of Spanish Succession (WSS) battle using different rules to see which I prefer.  Below are two tables of reviews with links out to the individual battles/rules review.

I wanted the battle to contain the following elements:

• Crossing a small stream (as per Blenheim and Ramillies)
• Attacking a village 
• Cavalry frontally charging Infantry
• Infantry v Infantry
• Cavalry v Cavalry
• Artillery 

	Kampe in Reihen	Twilight of the Sun King	Honours of War
Battle review	Review	Review	Review
Clarity of rules	Average	Below average but good in supplements.	Good
Friction of command	One free move but can gamble for more	Limitations if a unit wants to do anything other that just advance.	Commands alternate  movement & firing with opponents commands.
Speed of play	Average	Average	Little faster than most
Movement & obstacles	Average	Innovative works well	Average
Attacking Buildings	Hard to succeed	"Realistic"	Defenders can be worn down
Army size	8-12 units per player	12+ units per player. Unit is brigades	8-12 units work well
Notes	Player feels involved not an observer.	Good but felt like a simulation rather than a game  Very innovative combat with moral replacing  "to hit" rolls.	Good but combat results are to varied for my taste
Cost	Charity payment	£14 (excellent supplements £20)	£9.99

	DNB - SYW	Maurice
Battle review	Review	Review
Clarity of rules	Clarity: Average  Presentation: Poor	Good
Friction of command	Generals roll 1d6  points and pat points to move units.	Generals move one command per round.
Speed of play	Average, 3-5 rounds to destroy a unit in combat.	Quick
Movement & obstacles	Bad terrain slows unit movement	Bad terrain may disrupt units
Attacking Buildings	Very difficult in DBN but only slightly difficult in the SYW supplement	Hard to succeed
Army size	12 units per player is not a problem.	12 or so units per player
Notes	Combat is opposed rolls.  There is no I firem you take hits then you fire with what troops you have left.	Different mechanic for shooting and melee. Melee always wears down troops even the winners.
Cost:	$15 for the pdf.  Seven Years war rules are a free download but require the full rules.	£30 rules & £30 cards (or lite version for free)

Warfare - War of Spanish Succession (WSS 1701-1714), War of Austrian Succession (WAS 1740 -1748), Seven Years War (SYW 1756-1763)

 

Let me emphasize that these are just my personal opinions and notes. I'm sharing them in the hope they might be helpful to those new to this period of history. I welcome any clarifications or corrections—ideally supported by evidence.

As a wargamer, I've been exploring the changes in warfare during the "Lace Wars" era, spanning the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714), the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748), and the Seven Years' War (1756–1763). When I first delved into this fascinating period, I assumed there weren’t significant differences in tactics or technology between these conflicts. I was mistaken. Over the 62 years encompassing these wars, there were numerous key changes in troop types, tactics, and technology.

These notes reflect my personal attempts to understand some of these changes, particularly in tactics and organization. I'm sharing them in the hope they might assist others who, like me, are interested in better understanding how warfare evolved during this time.

 War of Spanish Succession (WSS  1701-1714)

Key Wargaming Points

• Big battles were by mutual consent. It took several hours to set up ready for battle.

• Infantry fight in line and march to the battle in column of march.  Infantry firefights took place at close range 30yds-80yds.  Musket range should be about the width of an infantry battalion.

• Cavalry fought enemy cavalry.  The winning cavalry then threatened the flanks and rear of the enemy infantry.  

• Cavalry rarely defeated infantry with a frontal change.

• Cavalry tactics were split between charging home and trotting with pistols. 

• Artillery was mainly immobile.

Infantry 

During the War of Spanish Succession (WSS), infantry units were equipped with flintlocks and socket bayonets. The British infantry typically formed in three ranks, while the French infantry used four ranks. Cadence marching was not yet implemented during this period, meaning soldiers moved from point to point on the battlefield rather than marching in synchronized steps. The spacing between files in a regiment was also wider than it would be in later wars.

Infantry could generally expect to survive a frontal attack by cavalry, provided their flanks were secured.

The firepower of British and Dutch infantry was superior to that of the French due to several factors, including better training, the use of the platoon firing system, and more effective muskets.

The British practiced regular firing and reloading drills, while French infantry generally only fired their muskets once a year, except in times of war.

The British and Dutch employed a "Firing by Platoon" system, while the French used "Firing by Ranks." There has been considerable debate on the merits of these methods. Some argue that, after the first few volleys, the battlefield smoke was so dense that the difference between the two systems was negligible. My view is that, based on the experiences of soldiers whose lives depended on these tactics, the British and Dutch approach likely offered an advantage, as evidenced by its adoption by most armies by the Napoleonic Wars.

The British, Dutch, and other progressive nations used pre-made cartridges that allowed soldiers to quickly load their muskets by pouring in a standard charge, inserting a musket ball with wadding, and priming. Some nations, including France, were slower to adopt this method. For instance, the French introduced the gargousse (a paper cartridge without a musket ball) in 1703, but did not standardize a paper cartridge with an integrated ball until 1738.

The British used 12-bore muskets (meaning 12 balls per pound of lead), while the French used 24-bore muskets (24 balls per pound). Although the French could carry more ammunition due to the smaller musket ball size, British muskets had a greater impact per shot. French infantrymen believed that British muskets caused more severe wounds, which may or may not have been accurate but nonetheless provided the British with a psychological advantage.

Given these factors, it seems reasonable to conclude that British and Dutch firepower was markedly superior to that of the French.

Light Infantry

Specialist Light infantry did not exist amongst the major European powers during this period.  It was common practice by the French to deploy Grenadiers in "light infantry" roles to occupy woods and advance ahead to capture and hold villages etc.  It is therefore reasonable to assume that other Armies did the same or similar.

Horse (Cavalry)
Almost all Horse regiments in this period were cuirassiers.  Most word breastplates, many wore backplates and many wore "secrets" steel caps under their hats.  

British cavalry started the war without armour but adopted it during the war.  Also note that the French light horse were called that to differentiate them from the Household cavalry.  There were in fact heavy cavalry.

The British, Dutch and Danish followed the "Swedish" style and charged at a gallop.  The Franch, Austrian and others relied on a slower approach where cavalrymen would ride up to the enemy, fire their pistols, and then either charge home or retreat to reload depending on how shaken were their opponents .  There was much discussion and disagreement over which style was best.  During the WSS some French colonels adopted the "swedish" style but most remained with the traditional approach.  

It should be noted that at the battle of Ramillies the French Maison do Roi responded with a flat-out counter-charge against the Allie horse under Ouwerkerk suggesting that the separation of "styles" was not as clear cut as some think as this involved over 4,000 sabres. 

There were pros and cons for each however 100 years later in the Napoleonic wars everyone was charging. Which suggests it was the better approach.

From a wargame perspective your figures may look like "medium" cavalry in coats and tricorn hats they are in fact wearing steel cuirasses under their coats and steel caps under their hats.  They are what we would call Cuirassiers in Napoleonic armies.

Dragoons
During this period, dragoons primarily served as mounted infantry. However, the British Dragoons were an exception. The War Office recognized that dragoons were paid less than heavy cavalry and reclassified some regiments as dragoons, although they continued to function as heavy cavalry.

Light Cavalry and Hussars

Light cavalry in the WSS was deployed mainly for scouting purposes and did not play a significant role in direct combat.

The Austrian Empire, which included Hungary, raised several hussar regiments that primarily fought against the Ottoman Turks on the Empire’s eastern front.

The French established hussar units as early as 1692 and had five hussar regiments active during the WSS.

Artillery
Dragged to the battle field by civilian waggoneers, once unlimbered it was moved by hand.  At the Battle of Malplanquet, Lord Orkney's forces dragged heavy Artillery through dense woods.

 War of Austrian Succession (WAS 1740 -1748)

Key Wargaming Points

As the WSS with the following changes:

• Light infantry started to have a role but primarily used to secure woods and advanced positions ahead of the main army.

•  Artillery started to be mobile.

Infantry 

The Introduction of candance marching allowing a formed body of men to be moved between two points in an orderly and disciplined manner.  The French has caught up with everyone else and used In 1738, that the paper cartridge including the ball became standard. Prussians introduced the iron ramrod which speeded up their reloading and reduced breakages which prevented reloading.

However French and Austrians weapon handling remained slow and was outclassed by the English, Prussians etc.

 Foot were happy to receive frontal changes from cavalry but became much more vulnerable when changed in the flank or rear.  The square was used as a formation by isolated infantry such as at Mollwitz (WAS) when two  Austrian Grenadier battalions formed squares as they didn't have secure flanks and it was snowing.  

Light Infantry

The need for light infantry was recognized during this period, but only small numbers were raised. These troops were primarily used to secure woods and advanced positions ahead of the main army. Unlike the Napoleonic period, they were not deployed in large skirmish swarms.

The French actively raised and utilized light troops throughout the War of Austrian Succession (WAS). Notably, Grassin's Legion, established in 1744, played a critical role in defending the woods at the Battle of Fontenoy. By 1748, the French Army had expanded its light infantry force to 16 "corps," totaling approximately 10,000 men.

The Prussians established a Jägerkorps consisting of 300 men, while the Dutch formed the Nederlander Freicorps, a unit of 250 men. I suspect there are other regiments I've not listed.

The Austrians raised over 1,000 men as Pandours. By the end of the war, they had expanded this force into nine Grenze-Infantry regiments. However, two-thirds of this force were engaged in conflicts against the Ottoman Turks on Austria’s eastern front.

Cavalry

The cavalry remained much the same as in the WSS.  The still included a mix of charging or trotting with pistols. The British, Dutch, Danish and Prussians preferring to change and the French and Austrians preferring to trot.  In the French army, Individual French colonels did choose to charge if they preferred that style.

Dragoons remained much the same as in the WSS although they were a bit more capable of performing a cavalry role.

Hussars remained much the same as the WSS.

Artillery

Mobility was improved through the replacement of civilian Artillery trains with military ones. This allowed for the movement of guns during battle.

Seven Years War (SYW 1756-1763)

Key Wargaming Points

As the WAS with the following changes:

• Dragoons had moved from and Infantry role to a battlefield cavalry role.

• Artillery was mobile and horse artillery started to appear.

Infantry 

The Prussians were regarded as the best Infantry although their quality dropped through the course of the war.   Steady infantry  could still withstand a frontal cavalry charge (unlike the Napoleonic wars).

Light Infantry

Light infantry remained restricted to protecting flanks, woods, vineyards etc.  

The Austrian Army  deployed 15,600 Grenze LI in the European theatre. 

Fredric the Great did not feel that light infantry had a battlefield role  and used them for raids, reconnaissance and guarding the Army's bakery (a key resource).

Cavalry

The prime battlefield cavalry remained the Cuirassiers. 

Dragoons

Dragoons moved to joint battlefield & escort cavalry role.  They could still fight as infantry but it was very rare.

Light Cavalry

Most armies started to raise  light cavalry, i.e. Hussars, Chevauxlegersr (Saxon 1756/Austria 1760) or, light dragoons (Britain 1759) .  With the exception of the Prussians their role was more for scouting and raiding that fighting in battle

(Interesting point of note: Blucher of Waterloo fame was a Hussar in this war)

Artillery

Austrians advanced artillery design to Napoleonic standards and introduced horse artillery.

For further reference I recommend

• On the differences between British and French firepower, refer to Destructive & Formidable: British Infantry Firepower 1642–1765 by David Blackmore.
• The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborogh - David Chandler.
• The Armies and Uniforms of Malborough's Wars Vol1 & Vol 2 - CS Grant
• Kronoskaf Project WSS 
• Kronoskar Project Seven Years War

I'd like to expand my notes to cover the Great Northern War and the 9 Years War but they can be future goals