Editorial Wargaming in Lincoln 2017 Hello Miniature Wargaming Enthusiasts, Welcome to the sixth issue of “The Lincoln Armchair General”. With the help of Andy and Mal, I have produced a 20-page issue. I hope you enjoy reading this sixth issue, as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Issue 7 will be produced, as and when time permits. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Mike Garrett (Editor) Email: lincolnwargames@hotmail.co.uk

As we near the end of 2017, the modelling and gaming aspects of my own “miniature wargaming” activities have correspondingly come to an end but as you can see, due to one final burst of inspiration, I have decided to end the year on an upbeat note by producing an issue of “The Lincoln Armchair General”. In terms of the hobby, what else has been achieved this year? Firstly, I was able (as usual) to attend the two local “Partizan” wargaming shows at Newark Showground, thanks to Andy Pascoe who took me in his car. My expenditure at both of these events was (due to necessity) very modest on each occasion; I was content to buy a few boxes of 20mm plastic figures plus more ready-cut hardboard bases from the “Warbases” stall. During the first part of this year, I have also been continuing the (ongoing) research and writing for a set of home-produced Napoleonic wargame rules which I have tentatively entitled “Bayonets and Eagles”. They can be played with either d10 or d6 dice and the units recreated using either a 1:20 or a 1:30 figure ratio. Of course, one needs an “opponent” to be regularly available at the weekend, in order to play-test the rules. During late summer, three consecutive Sunday afternoons were devoted to Napoleonic gaming (and the photos of those “battles” appear on pages 3-5 of this publication) but since then, things have gone quiet again. During the last couple of months, I have instead, managed to get back into the habit of actually painting a few more miniature figures. Despite others praising the virtues of acrylic paints, I continue to use Humbrol and Revell enamel paints as I perpetually have a large selection of their tiny paint tins in my procession. I buy the paints and brushes in Lincoln city centre, from either “B and H Models” or the local branch of “Boyes”. I find now (aged 53) that my eyes no longer allow me to paint miniature figures for very long periods of time, like they used to. About an hour and a half, painting the miniature under a bright lamp (which I also now require) seems to be roughly my limit, per session, these days.

(Continued on the next page)

Contents

Wargaming in Lincoln 2017…………… Page 1

In the Wargames Room……………….

Page 3

Representing pre-20th century Artillery

Page 5

Ideas for “Wars of the Roses” battles...

Page 8

Imagi-Nations and Terrain……………. Page 16

Thoughts on Siege Warfare………….. Page 18

Diary Dates for 2018…………………... Page 20

Local Clubs and Shops……………… Page 20

Page 1

THE LINCOLN ARMCHAIR GENERAL

A Journal of Miniature Wargaming

Issue 6, December 2017

“The Lincoln Armchair General”

WordPress Blog Page

To see all the PdF back-issues of “The Lincoln Armchair General”

please use the link below:

http://lincolnarmchairgeneral.wordpress.com

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

After the Christmas & New Year period, I intend to continue painting the miniature figures that are my immediate themes of interests; 20mm plastic Napoleonics (1806), 20mm plastic World War 2 (1939-1940) and 28mm plastic Wars of the Roses. I find that the hard plastic 28mm figures, after matt white undercoat is applied to them, retain the top coats of paint quite well. As for the 20mm plastic figures, the preparations problems vary. In most cases, after removing a tiny amount of “flash” from the figures, I was able to stiffen them slightly by first applying a coat of matt varnish and then a coat of matt white. In the case of the 20mm Napoleonic figures produced by “HäT Industrie” however, I had to experiment with a number of methods. The actual plastic that the figures are made from is very soft and has a “rubbery” feel to it. If varnish is applied to these figures, they remain permanently sticky, even if overpainted with white undercoat. After researching this problem on the Internet, by reading “The Miniatures Page” forum, the effective solution I arrived at, was to cover each miniature figure with a very thin coat of (undiluted) PVA glue. This causes the figure to become “hard” in a few minutes. A double coating of this glue is perhaps appropriate, when covering the more flexible parts, such as swords or the ends of muskets. When I lived at home, in the 1980s, I had my own game table but these days, the best I can do is place a green-coloured cloth over a table. At the moment, I am using a cheap piece of cloth bought from the local branch of “Boyes”. It is far from satisfactory, due to it being the wrong shade of green and also having visible creases in it, which thus spoils the overall look of the game. I recall the better solution arrived at, when covering the surface of Andy’s game table. Firstly, a visit to the local “B and H models” store resulted in the purchase of several model railway “grass mats”. They were then glued and stapled to wooden boards. These boards are now permanently on the top of his table. They could be placed in a car boot and taken somewhere else if required but one must be aware that a very small amount of the “grass” may come off, each time they are moved. I have considered buying an authentic-looking “battle mat” but these professionally produced items retail at an average price of £60. Another alternative is to buy four 2’x3’ wooden boards and cover them with a grass-coloured durable material. I shall make a final decision after New Year.

Mike Garrett

Page 2

Slot Cars, Toys, Miniature Figures, Plastic Kits, Diecast, Railways, Modelling Accessories etc.

7 The Strait, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, LN2 1JD http://bandhmodels.com/index.php?route=common/home

Miniature Figures, Plastic Kits, Paints, Brushes plus a wide range of household products

Unit 7, City Square Centre, Sincil Street, Lincoln LN5 7EY

http://www.boyes.co.uk/lincoln-store/

Warbases stock ready-cut MDF bases, movement trays, buildings, gaming accessories, acrylic tokens and their own range of miniature figures.

https://warbases.co.uk/

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

In the Wargames Room By Andy Pascoe

A short while ago, I hosted several Sunday afternoon "Napoleonic" wargames at my home. I am lucky to have a spare bedroom which I can use for wargaming and miniature modelling. My game table's surface measures 6' by 4'. Placed on top of that surface, are four “wooden” (MDF) boards, each measuring 3' by 2'. Each of the boards has its surface covered by a "grass" model railway mat (attached with PVA glue and staples). The model (card) buildings that are used on the game table are from the "Superquick" range. The ("Javis") hedgerows are made from rubberised horse air which has been covered with glue and then dipped in scenic "flock". I purchased the grass mats, the buildings, the trees and the hedgerows from the local "B&H Models" shop in Lincoln. Some of the terrain accessories, including the well, were purchased from “Warbases". The stone walls were purchased from "The Tree Fellers". The large model hill on my game table is one of my own creations; made from an insulation board which has subsequently been painted and flocked. The roads used on my game table are both commercially produced pieces and some of my own creations, cut from 5mm MDFboard. For the purpose of the games shown in the photos, the two small oppossing "armies" were created by splitting in two, my Napoleonic Polish army. The miniature figures used in this army are old (but relatively tall) 25mm Hinchcliffe Figures; Lancers, Infantry and 6pdr Foot Artillery, which seem to be compatible with the 28mm Victrix French Napoleonic figures which I have recently obtained.

Andy Pascoe

B&H Models (Lincoln) http://bandhmodels.com/index.php?route=common/home

Javis Scenery http://javis.co.uk

Superquick Card Model Buildings http://superquick.co.uk

(More photos on the next page)

Page 3

Page 4

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Representing pre- 20th century Artillery By Mike Garrett

If using 15mm figures, each three-gunner artillery element should have a width of 30mm and a depth of 40mm. If using 15mm figures, each four-gunner artillery element should have a width of 40mm and a depth of 40mm. An artillery battery (of the 18th or 19th century), when unlimbered for action, should thus be represented by two or more artillery elements in a line (in base-to-base contact) on the game table. If a 1:20 figure ratio is being used, an artillery battery should be allowed one four-gunner artillery element for each two artillery pieces that it was known to have, in real-life. Thus an eight-gun battery will be represented by 4 four-gunner artillery elements on the game table (three elements could each have a field gun mounted on them; the fourth may have a howitzer model). If a 1:30 figure ratio is being used, an artillery battery should be allowed one gunner figure for each artillery piece that it was known to have, in real-life. Thus an eight-gun battery will be represented by 2 four-gunner artillery elements on the game table but a six-gun battery will be represented by 2 three-gunner artillery elements on the game table. There has been much debate amongst both historians and gamers, regarding the frontage, and perhaps equally critical, the depth of, the artillery battery, when it is deployed on the battlefield. Some game players argue that the deployed artillery battery’s depth is not deep enough, if represented on the game table by just the artillery pieces and gunners. The author would argue however (using the diagram below), that although the base depth of the artillery element appears to be over-deep (considering the ground scale being used), if one also takes into account the lines of Caissons and Limbers that were deployed behind the artillery gun line, then the depth of the artillery element is approximately correct (Although an extra 1cm or 2 cm of depth could still be added to the “artillery element”, if desired).

Artillery Pieces and their Gunners

Ammunition Caissons with their Limbers

and Drivers

Limbers and Drivers

for the Artillery Pieces

This article has been inspired by on-going discussions regarding the representation of Napoleonic period artillery (and also, earlier-period artillery) on the game table. The author has initially, written the majority of this article as if he were dealing with the Napoleonic period but later expresses his ideas regarding the artillery of earlier historical periods. In a “Skirmish” type of game, each miniature artillery piece or miniature gunner figure on the game table is deemed to represent one real-life artillery piece or gunner. In the “Battle” type of game however, a figure ratio is used. Thus, if a 1:20 figure ratio were to be used (1 miniature figure = 20 real-life men), each 18th or 19th century infantry battalion would possibly be represented by around 24 - 36 figures and those same battalions would possibly be represented by around 16 - 24 figures if a 1:30 figure ratio were being used instead. The choice of either 1:20 or 1:30 as the figure ratio to be used, also determines the number of miniature artillery pieces and miniature gunner figures that will be required, to represent each artillery unit (usually referred to as either a Battery or a Company). It is suggested, for the purpose of the game, that miniature gunners and artillery pieces should be mounted on bases, referred to as Artillery Elements. The author argues that two types of Artillery Element should be considered. The first should be a three-gunner element, consisting of three gunner figures and one artillery piece, all mounted on the same base. The second (the more-commonly used) should be a four-gunner element, consisting of four gunner figures and one artillery piece, all mounted on the same base. If using 20-28mm figures, each three-gunner artillery element should have a width of 45mm and a depth of 60mm. If using 20-28mm figures, each four-gunner artillery element should have a width of 60mm and a depth of 60mm. The diagram on the right, illustrates firstly (on its left-hand side) an “artillery element”; a base on which a miniature artillery piece and four gunner figures are mounted. It secondly illustrates (on its right-hand side, in the shaded sections), the same table area covered by the “artillery element” base and what it is actually representing, allowing for the ground-scale. Page 5

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

The reader will doubtless notice, that the number of gunner figures on each Artillery Element (as suggested by the author) is roughly twice as many as there should be, when the known real-life number of gunners is multiplied by either 20 or 30. It should be pointed out however, that the gunner figures on each Artillery Element are in fact assumed to be representing the combined number of gunners, caisson crew and artillery train drivers associated with the guns; therefore (give or take one miniature figure) the number of miniature figures is approximately correct. In the case of a limbered artillery model, its base could perhaps be calculated as follows. The frontage (width) of the base will be 4cm, if using 20-28mm scale figures; or the frontage will be 2cm, if using 10-15mm figures. Due to the width of the miniature draught horses, it may be necessary to add either 1cm or 2cm to the frontages quoted above. As for the depth of the limbered artillery base, it will have to be at least equivalent to the length of the model (i.e. the combined length of the artillery piece, the limber and the draught-animals) plus an extra 0.5cm clearance distance, ahead and behind the model. When a limbered battery needs to deploy, the middle point, of the limbered model's front base edge, will become the middle point of the deployed battery’s frontage (which will face the same direction that the limbered model was facing). The alternative is, to allow the middle point, of the limbered model's rear base edge to become the middle point of the deployed battery frontage but the battery in that situation, will be deployed facing the other direction. Below: A limbered six-gun artillery battery, represented by one limbered artillery model on the game table, is preparing to unlimber. The middle point on its front base edge is point “A”.

A

Below: The same six-gun artillery battery (1:20 figure ratio) is now deployed. Point “A” remains, as the middle point, of the battery’s front edge.

A

When a deployed (unlimbered) artillery battery is fired upon, it should be classed as a target in "Skirmish" order. As a general rule of thumb, four "hits" are required to destroy a four-gunner artillery element and three "hits" are required to destroy a three-gunner artillery element. Each “hit” inflicted on a battery, may be denoted by placing some form of numbered counter under the battery, or alternatively, detachable gunner figures me be taken from an Artillery Element; the player who controls the battery, decides which artillery element is lost, due to gradually increasing casualties. When "hits" are gradually inflicted upon a deployed artillery battery, they must not be equally distributed amongst each of the battery’s artillery elements; instead, as soon as enough "hits" have been accrued to cause the removal of one artillery element, the controlling player must choose which one is to be lost. When inflicting casualties on a limbered artillery model, the number of “hits” needed to completely destroy it, will vary, according to whether the players (at the start of the game) agreed to represent each battery on the march with one limber model, two limber models or one limber model for each of the battery’s artillery elements. Therefore, if a battery usually unlimbers and deploys as 3 four-gunner artillery elements (requiring twelve "hits" to be totally knocked out), then when it is limbered, it will also require twelve "hits" to be totally put it out of action. Similarly, if a battery usually unlimbers and deploys as 4 four-gunner artillery elements (requiring sixteen "hits" to be totally knocked out), then when it is limbered, it will also require sixteen "hits" to be totally put it out of action. If the limbered artillery battery discussed above (with 4 four-gunner artillery elements) were to receive just five "hits", it would later deploy as 3 four-gunner elements (as one artillery element would be deemed to have been destroyed while it was limbered) and a remaining “hit” would also be credited against it.

Page 6

If a limbered artillery battery (with 4 four-gunner artillery elements) is being represented on the game table by two limbered artillery models, then each limbered model would require eight “hits” to be totally put it out of action. To calculate the effect of artillery fire in a 1:20 figure ratio game, make one die roll per artillery element. To calculate the effect of artillery fire in a 1:30 figure ratio game, make one die roll per five gunner figures in the battery; if an odd 1, 2, 3 or 4 gunner figures remain, they should be awarded a die roll but the target should then be allowed a “Saving Throw”. Additional “firing modifiers” should also be applied to the required die roll, to allow for the range, the target’s cover type, the target’s formation and the weather (including wet ground affecting round shot, as it bounces towards its target). When it is declared that an artillery battery is firing, the intended target and the ammunition type being used should be declared, before the range from the battery to the target is measured on the game table. Artillery range bands (for 20-28mm figure games) are shown below.

Gun Category Range (rounded up)

Short Medium Long

Ultra-Light 8” 16” 24”

Light 10” 20” 30”

Medium 12” 24” 36”

Heavy 14” 28” 42”

Extra-Heavy 16” 32” 48”

The game table ground scale for the artillery ranges just quoted is 1” (25mm) = 20 yards. Shell, Rocket or Shrapnel ammunition may not engage targets within the first half of Short range; Canister may not hit targets beyond Short range. Definition of “Field Artillery” Gun Categories:

Gun Category Renaissance

Napoleonic

Ultra-Light Fawconet, Rabinet 2pdr

Light Sakeret, Minion 3pdr, 4pdr

Medium Saker, Serpentine 6pdr

Heavy Demi-Cannon 8pdr, 9pdr

Extra-Heavy Demi-Culverin 12pdr

If a battery is firing either canister or shrapnel ammunition, it is classed as firing at “double effect”.

In a 1:20 figure ratio game, “double effect” means that two die rolls are made per firing element. In a 1:30 figure ratio game, “double effect” means that the headcount of the gunner figures is doubled, before assigning one die per five figures. The game ideas suggested so far may be appropriate for representing artillery of the 18th or 19th century. For earlier historical periods, when artillery was not organised into formal batteries or companies, it may be more realistic to deploy miniature artillery as “one-element" units. Thus, in a miniature 15th century army, the three "Battles" that the army is divided into, may each have one or two artillery "elements" attached to them and each of those "elements" may be classed as a separate unit, for game purposes (requiring four “hits” to be put out of action, regardless of the number of gunner figures on each base). Similarly, “one-element" artillery units may also be used, when the Spanish "Tercios" of the 16th century or the Dutch "Brigades" of the early-17th century, have artillery assigned to them. It should be noted, that although artillery of the Napoleonic period could be limbered and moved around, once the battle had begun, this was not necessarily the case, in earlier historical periods. Certainly, very light artillery guns could be moved around (from the 1730s onward) but the majority of the larger artillery pieces had to remain in the position they were deployed in, for the duration of the battle. It should also be noted that some Medieval cannons were not mounted on wheels. It may be more appropriate, in a Medieval game, for a d10 “Saving Throw” to be made for each miniature artillery piece, when it wishes to fire: 5-10 = Gun Fires, 2-4 = Gun Misfires (but try again, next Game Turn), 1 = Gun Explodes (each Gunner figure makes another “Saving Throw” to survive).

Mike Garrett

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Page 7

Manufacturers of 28mm & 54mm Napoleonic Figures

http://www.victrixlimited.com/

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Ideas for “Wars of the Roses” battles By Mike Garrett

Above: The Battle of Tewkesbury, as depicted in the “Ghent Manuscript”.

Above: A 16th century portrait of King Richard III. The identity of the artist is unknown.

Introduction

This article has been inspired by various on-going discussions regarding the representation of “Wars of the Roses” battles in miniature. In order to write this article, the author has studied the following battles: 1st St. Albans (22nd May, 1455), Blore Heath (23rd September, 1459), Ludford Bridge (12th October, 1459), Northampton (10th July, 1460), Wakefield (30th December, 1460), Mortimer's Cross (2nd February, 1461), 2nd St. Albans (17th February, 1461), Ferrybridge (28th March, 1461), Towton (29th March, 1461), Hedgeley Moor (25th April, 1464), Hexham (15th May, 1464), Edgecote Moor (26th July, 1469), Losecote Field (12th March, 1470), Barnet (14th April, 1471), Tewkesbury (4th May, 1471), Bosworth (22nd August, 1485) and Stoke Field (16th June, 1487).

An army divided into “Battles” In the majority of the battles noted above, each army on the battlefield tended to be divided into three large units, known as “Battles" (the Vanguard, the Main body and the Rearguard). Each “Battle” was formed by combining the retinues of several lords and also adding companies of Militia, Mercenaries and a few Artillery pieces. Each lord’s retinue consisted of his attendant Men-at-Arms (Knights), Squires, Billmen and Bowmen. A single retinue could in theory, deploy its Men-at-Arms, billmen and other close-combat infantry in a single central block; its supporting bowmen would then deploy on either flank and / or form a skirmish screen in front of it. In practice however, it seems more likely, that the dismounted Men-at-Arms, Retainers and other close-combat troops, drawn from several retinues and companies, would be deployed together (side-by-side) to form one large “Battle” formation. Similarly, the missile troops (armed with Longbows, Crossbows or Firearms) that accompanied each of the retinues may also have been combined into larger amalgamated units that thus deployed on either side of the close-combat troops forming the centre of the “Battle”. Therefore, for game purposes, the bowmen (and other missile troops) on each flank of a “Battle” should be classed as separate game “unit”, as should any skirmishers or artillery deployed in front of each “Battle”.

Page 8

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Mounted troops should also be classed as a separate game “unit” but they were only used on a few occasions, in “Wars of the Roses” battles. A small group of mounted spearmen, were used as a hidden flanking force, at the battles of Towton (29th March, 1461) and Tewkesbury (4th May, 1471) but the only notable charges made by mounted Men-at-Arms seemed to have occurred at the battles of Blore Heath (23rd September, 1459) and Bosworth (22nd August, 1485).In some cases, the decision not to use mounted troops could have been due to the local terrain conditions but the more important factor seems to have been, that the Nobles and their Men-at-Arms needed to fight dismounted in order to both lead, and bolster the morale of, the lower classes of troops that formed the majority of the men in the “Battle”. If game players decide to class the close-combat figures of a “Battle” as one large game “unit”, then their Lord or Army Commander figure may only attempt to rally some or all of those them, if they are within a certain pre-determined radius of their Lord’s or their Army Commander’s standard. Alternatively, if the main body of the “Battle” is deemed to be composed of several smaller close-combat “units”, the Lord or Army Commander figure may attempt to rally whichever one “unit” it is actually with. The contemporary and near-contemporary chroniclers of the “Wars of the Roses” (such as the London Chronicle, Polydor Virgil etc.) tend to describe the course of a battle in terms of the clashes between the opposing “Battles”. They recount which “Battle” pushed back the other, and note which “Battle” broke first, thus affecting the morale of the other troops in their own army. Only occasionally, are a specific group of troops within a “Battle” mentioned; instead, it is usually the leadership qualities of the “Battle” commander (a King, Prince or Great Noble etc.) that is commented upon. The leadership qualities of a great nobleman leading a “Battle” could be decisive in terms of the conflict’s eventual outcome. On the game table therefore, each commander figure that leads a “Battle”, should be given a rating and a bonus score: Cautious (+1), Bold (+2) or Exceptional (+3). A “Battle” broken in hand-to-hand combat A melee (hand-to-hand combat) between two opposing “Battles” seems to have been a protracted affair. Therefore, on the game table, such a confrontation will need to be “fought” over several Game Turns, until one side has received sufficient casualties to cause its morale to falter and is thus forced to flee from the field.

There are various methods available, to determine melee casualties. The method to be used, depends on whether it has been decide (by the players) to make one calculation per figure (as done in a “Skirmish” game), make just one calculation for all the figures in the unit's front figure-rank, or make one die roll per so many figures in the front figure-rank. In the latter case, each of those little group of figures being diced for, are all attached to the same base and are referred to as either a “stand” or an “element” (and several “elements” together, form a “unit”). In the first option, the “Skirmish” game, each figure will have to achieve a certain die score to “hit”. The initial score required, may be altered by plus or minus factors, before the actual die is rolled. If a figure is “hit”, it usually is allowed a dice “Saving Throw” (based on its armour grade) in order to attempt to survive. The second option (used in a “Battle” game), involves rolling a die and then adding its score to a series of plus or minus factors. The final score is then cross-referenced on a chart, with the number of figures fighting in the unit's front rank, in order to determine the number of enemy figures “killed”. In the case of the third option (also used in a “Battle” game), calculations are made per “element”; each making a die roll in order to achieve a “kill” (or alternatively, each opposing pair of “elements” compare their total scores and the greater the score one has, compared to other, determines if the defeated “element”, is either pushed back, forced to retreat or is “killed”). The Loser of the round of melee (the side that inflicted the least casualties), has to take a Morale Test at the end of the Game Turn. If the result was a draw, both sides could be forced to take a Morale Test. A unit has to pass its Morale Test, in order to fight on. The Morale Test method may be judged sufficient, for game purposes but an additional method often used, is to declare that the Loser of a round of melee suffers a “Push Back”. A unit or “Battle” needs to receive a certain number of "push backs", in order to be forced to break and flee. A or B class = four Push-Backs; C or M class = three Push-Backs and D or E class = two Push-Backs.

(Continued on the next page)

Page 9

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

One less Push-Back is required, to break a unit, if one or more of the following apply: (1) the “Battle” is in close-combat with opponents to its front while also being attacked in its flank or rear, (2) the “Battle’s” own Lord, or the Army Commander, is seen to be either: killed, wounded or running away, (3) the “Battle” is “disheartened” due to seeing enemy reinforcements arrive after the battle has begun, (4) the “Battle” sees another friendly “Battle” (apart from skirmishers or artillery) break into a rout within 120 paces or (5) the “Battle” sees another friendly retinue become treacherous within 120 paces. Definition of troop Training Grades: A = Guards, B = Veterans, C = Trained, M = Mercenaries, D = Recruits, E = Demoralised. Instead of Training Grades, one could instead assign Social Class grades: N = Nobles, R = Retainers, M = Mercenaries, L = Local Militia, P = Peasants. Definition of Armour Grades: “Light” = No body armour but the figure may be wearing either a helmet, a hat or be bareheaded. “Medium” = The figure is protected by a padded jack and may also have a helmet. “Heavy” = The figure has a helmet and is protected by either a Coat-of-Plates (Brigandine), a Padded Jack and Chainmail or a Steel Corselet. “Extra-Heavy” = The figure has a helmet, armoured arms and legs, plus either a Coat-of-Plates (Brigandine) or a Padded Jack and Chainmail. “Super-Heavy” = The figure has a helmet and is also either fully protected by a suit of plate armour or has armoured arms and legs and a Steel Corselet over a Padded Jack. In the case of a “Skirmish” game, each figure could be assigned its own individual training grade and armour grade (depending on what the miniature figure can be seen wearing). In the case of a “Battle” game, one usually assigns the same training grade and the same armour grade to every figure in the same unit. When several figures are attached to the same base, as an “element”, they too must all have the same training grade and the same armour grade.

(Continued on the next page)

Page 10

WARGAMES

28mm metal figures, including Wars of the Roses

Website: http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/

Perry Miniatures

Manufacturers of 28mm Wars of the Roses figures, etc.

Website: http://www.perry-miniatures.com/index.php

http://www.bosworthbattlefield.org.uk/

See the various 20mm plastic Wars of the Roses and Medieval ranges (Red Box, Zvezda, Italera,

Strelets etc.) at your local hobby store or preview them on the “Plastic Soldier Review” website.

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Index.aspx

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

The alternative, more complex solution (when figures of differing training grades and differing armour grades deploy together as one “Battle”), is to assign a new “average” training grade and “average” armour grade to them, at the start of each Game Turn. The grade assigned will be dictated by whatever is the “majority” training and armour grade, among the figures in the front figure-rank. If precisely half the figures in the front figure-rank are one particular grade and the other half are a different grade, whichever is the higher grade, will be the one used. If three different grades are equally present among the figures of the front figure-rank, then the middle value will be the “average” one used. If one requires a random method to decide which figure in the front figure-rank of a “Battle” has just been “killed”, the suggestions shown in the next three paragraphs could be used. If the figures in the front rank are all of the same training grade (or social class) but have different armour grades, roll one d10: Score 1-3 = Lose one figure, with the lowest armour grade, score 4-7 = Lose one figure, which has the majority armour grade and score 8–10 = Lose one figure, with the highest armour grade. If the figures in the front rank are all of the same armour grade but have different training grades (or different social classes), roll one d10: Score 1-3 = Lose one figure, with the lowest training grade (or social class), score 4-7 = Lose one figure, which has the majority training grade (or social class) and score 8-10 = Lose one figure, with the highest training grade (or social class). If the figures in the front rank have both different armour grades and different training grades (or different social classes), roll one d10: Score 1-2 = Lose one figure, with the lowest training grade, score 3-4 = Lose one figure, which has the majority training grade, score 5 = Lose one figure, with the highest training grade, score 6-7 = Lose one figure, with the lowest armour grade, score 8-9 = Lose one figure, which has the majority armour grade and score 10 = Lose one figure, with the highest armour grade. When figures in the front figure-rank are removed as casualties, the resulting gaps in that line should be filled, by moving forward figures from the figure-rank behind.

The figures moved forward will not necessarily have the same training grade or armour grade as the figures they have just replaced; thus the “majority” training and armour grade of the front rank may gradually change to a lower grade. If a Lord or an Army Commander figure is with a group of figures, and fighting in their front figure-rank, a “Saving Throw” will have to be made for that figure, in order to prevent that figure becoming a casualty. A “Battle” attacked in the Flank At the battle of Tewkesbury (4th May, 1471), the Lancastrian right flank “Battle” was commanded by the Duke of Somerset. He noted that the terrain between him and the opposing Yorkist left flank “Battle” (commanded by Richard, Duke of Gloucester) was dominated by trees, ditches and hedgerows. Somerset thus attempted to use this terrain to his advantage. He left part of his own “Battle” in that terrain, to face the troops of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, while simultaneously leading the remainder of his men, via lanes concealed by hedgerows, to attack the left flank of the Yorkist centre “Battle” commanded by King Edward IV. This tactic may have succeeded, if the Yorkist centre “Battle” was simultaneously being attacked in the front, by the opposing Lancastrian centre “Battle” (commanded by Lord Wenlock). When the Duke of Somerset attacked the Yorkist centre “Battle” however, Lord Wenlock failed to support him with a frontal attack of his own. King Edward IV’s men were thus able to turn to face the attack from their left and beat off Somerset’s men. Simultaneously, all of Somerset’s “Battle”, including those left in the hedgerows, were suddenly advanced upon by the entire “Battle” of Richard Duke of Gloucester. In addition, a Yorkist force of 200 mounted spearman (which had been concealed in the nearby wooded area, known as “The Park”), also launched a surprise flank attack on Somerset’s troops. Somerset’s “Battle” thus broke into rout and he angrily rode over to Lord Wenlock to ask why his troops had not supported him.

(Continued on the next page)

Page 11

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Before Lord Wenlock could reply, Somerset fatally struck him in the head with a battle-axe and then rode over to seek sanctuary in nearby Tewkesbury Abbey. Seeing the army commander killed, Wenlock’s men then decided to flee the field and their action in turn prompted the Lancastrian left flank “Battle” (commanded by the Duke of Devon) to also flee the field. At the battle of Towton (29th March, 1461), the Yorkist troops on the western end of their army’s battle-line, were hit in their left flank by a force of Lancastrian mounted spearmen, which had been concealed in nearby Castle Hill Wood. With enemy troops to their front and enemy mounted troops on their left flank, the Yorkists at that part of the battle-line began to fall back. However, the situation was saved by their leader King Edward IV, who moved to that sector, so as to rally the faltering troops and ensure that they fought on. Later, in the same battle, the Lancastrian troops on the eastern end of their army’s battle-line were hit in their left flank by a late-arriving Yorkist force commanded by the Duke of Norfolk. The Lancastrian left flank troops thus broke into a rout and this panic gradually spread along the rest of the Lancastrian line which also then began to break and flee. At the battle of Mortimer's Cross (3rd February, 1461), the Lancastrian centre “Battle” (commanded by Jasper Tudor) broke into a rout, after seeing its own right flank “Battle” (commanded by Owen Tudor) flee from the field. It is possible, after their right flank “Battle” fled, that the Lancastrian centre “Battle” was then attacked in its own exposed right flank, while it was simultaneously fighting the Yorkist centre “Battle” (commanded by Edward, Earl of March) to its front. In terms of re-creating the effect of a flank attack, on the game table, it can be seen from the incidents quoted above, that such an occurrence could prove decisive. If a unit of miniature figures (a “Battle”), is fighting enemy figures to its front, it could be argued that if another enemy force moves into contact with the exposed flank (or rear) of the “Battle”, those attackers may commence to inflict extra casualties on the “Battle”, which combined with the casualties inflicted on it from the front, will have a detrimental effect on its morale, causing the “Battle” to quickly fall back and rout.

The author of this article admits, that over the years (on different occasions) he has been in the situation, where his unit of figures has used its front rank miniatures to fight an enemy unit to its front, while simultaneously, the file of figures on one flank have turned to face an incoming flank attack (i.e. taken a quarter of a move to pivot 90°) and begun an entirely separate hand-to-hand combat fight, with those incoming figures. On reflection, and especially after writing this article, the author is now of the opinion that once a unit (formed in ranks and files) is committed to hand-to-hand combat to its front, that is where its attention is focussed and should a flank attack occur shortly afterwards, although the odd one or two individuals may be able to turn to face these new attackers, in terms of the unit as a whole, it is impossible to effectively fight in two directions at once. Following this line of (game) thinking, one is thus obliged to conclude, that once the melee (hand-to-hand combat) begins, the unit concerned may not alter its formation or the direction it is facing. If enemy figures then move into contact with an exposed flank or rear, they get a “free hack”; which means they inflict extra casualties on the “flanked” unit. The “free hack” casualties are added to those inflicted on the unit’s front, to determine which Side won the round of melee. The “flanked” unit only inflicts casualties on the unit to its front (In effect, this is represented in the “De Bellis Antiquitatis” rules, by having one “element” dice against an enemy “element” to its front but also getting a bonus if there is another friendly “element” on the enemy’s flank). If a “Battle” sees that it is about to be attacked in its flank but has no enemy to its front, then it may have time to turn to face the attack. This is what Edward IV’s “Battle” appears to have done at Tewkesbury (4th May, 1471). In regards to this, one is still left asking, did his entire “Battle” wheel, in order face the incoming enemy (or perhaps more likely, did one retinue that formed the left flank of Edward’s “Battle”, wheel to face Somerset’s attacking troops)? When Edward rallied the “flanked” Yorkist troops at Towton (29th March, 1461), this seems to have been due purely to his presence and thus one must conclude, in game terms, that the troops concerned, should have a points modifier added to their Morale Test score for “Having the Army Commander present”.

(Continued on the next page)

Page 12

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Rout, Pursuit and Capture

The reader will no doubt realise, that if both the “Routing” and the “Pursuing” troops receive the same fixed-amount of additional movement bonus, added to their normal movement rate, then that could result in the “Pursuing” troops never catching up with the “Routing” troops as they would always remain the same distance behind the “Routing” troops, as both groups move across the game table. The solution to the problem could be, that units fully under the control of a player could receive a fixed amount of extra movement bonus if they are charging or if they are marching along a road; but troops that are either “Routing” or “Pursuing” (therefore, not fully under the control of a player) could instead be obliged to make several d10 rolls, in order to determine their total movement distance for that particular Game Turn. For each d10 rolled: 1-5 = +2” bonus; 6-10 = +3” bonus. Thus, if a routing “Battle” has to roll three d10, and those dice scores were 4, 5 and 7, this would result in a rout move of +2”, +2” and +3” (a total of 7”). In a “Skirmish” game, the dice rolling described above could be done for each individual miniature figure but in the case of a game involving several units per Side, the dicing should be done per unit. If there is a stampede of routing men across a marsh or ford, there is a chance that some of them could either fall over or become stuck in the mud. A “Saving Throw” should thus be made for each “Routing” figure, each Game Turn, if they are at risk. The minimum score needed to avoid becoming bogged down, is dependent on the Armour Grade of the figure; Super-Heavy = 8, Extra-Heavy = 7, Heavy = 6, Medium = 5, Light = 4 (but if an unarmoured horse is being used to help a figure swim a river, reduce the score required by 2 points). A “Saving Throw” should be made for each Lord figure being pursued, in order to ascertain whether he has been recognised (as a valuable prisoner) by his pursuers and thus been captured by them, rather than being killed. The minimum “Saving Throw” score required, is dependent on the highest social class of any pursuing enemy figure within 6”: King, Prince, Noble or Herald = 3, Squire, Retinue or Mercenary = 6, Peasant or Militia = 9.

Confusion in the Fog or Snow

At the battle of Barnet (14th April, 1471), the Lancastrian right flank “Battle”, commanded by the Earl of Oxford, defeated and pursued the Yorkist troops of Lord Hastings. When the Earl of Oxford then rallied 800 of his troops and tried to return to the Lancastrian lines, they were mistakenly identified (in the fog) as being the troops of Edward IV and were thus shot at by Lancastrian archers (of the centre “Battle”) commanded by the Marquis of Montagu. A cry of “treason” then spread along the entire Lancastrian line; causing many of them to flee the field which thus led to the Lancastrian defeat. During the opening phase of the battle of Towton (29th March, 1461), Lord Fauconberg ordered the Yorkist archers to shoot one volley of arrows at the Lancastrians. The wind was blowing the snow into the faces of the Lancastrians, so when their own archers attempted to shoot all of their arrows at the Yorkists, those arrows fell short. The Yorkists were then able to shoot the rest of their own arrows (and some of the enemy’s fallen-short arrows) at the Lancastrians. If one is thus attempting to re-create these battles on the game table, where the troops are concealed by either fog or snow, the assistance of a game umpire may be required, to help determine which troops are fully visible and identifiable to the enemy, which troops are visible but not identifiable and which troops are fully concealed. Until the Fog or the Snow clears on the game table, then at least for the first few Game Turns, full visibility could be limited to 120 paces. Troops may be seen and identified at that distance. Between 120 and 240 paces, troops may be seen in silhouetted form but not be identified. At distances greater than that, troops may not be seen at all. Only those troops (in the Fog or Snow) that are fully visible and identifiable should be represented on the game table by miniature figures. Units that are visible to the enemy, but not identifiable, should be represented by cardboard markers only. Troops that are totally out of sight are not represented on the game table (but their position is known to the umpire). If archers or gunners can only see certain troops in silhouetted form, it may be deemed appropriate that they should be made to take an “Impetuous” test and if they fail, they must fire at the target.

(Continued on the next page)

Page 13

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

A unit would thus be "taking a risk", if it declared fire upon unidentified troops, as it could not tell if it was inflicting casualties on friend or foe. The fired-upon troops, if friendly, would then immediately shout “treason”. It could also perhaps be ruled, that if troops are only visible in silhouetted form, then enemy troops shooting at them cannot see what casualties they are causing (i.e. the actual miniature figures “killed” are kept secret). If one is trying to re-create the battle of Towton on the game table, the Yorkist archers (with the snow and wind to their backs) could perhaps be allowed to shoot at Short, Medium or Long range and do not receive a negative modifier for shooting in heavy snow. The Lancastrian archers however, shooting south (into the incoming wind and snow), could perhaps have their bows’ Short, Medium and Long ranges reduced and also receive a negative score modifier for shooting at targets in heavy snow. Arrival of Outflanking Forces

In the case of the First battle of St. Albans (22nd May, 1455), the town's market square could be in the centre of the game table. The Yorkists could appear on the southern table edge and then attempt to fight their way north; along the town road that leads uphill to the market square (and the Lancastrians). The Yorkist outflanking force, led by the earl of Warwick, could appear later, on the eastern table edge and commence to fight its way westward, to the market square. In the case of the Second battle of St. Albans (17th February, 1461), the town market square could be in the south-west corner of the game table, with the main high street (St Peter’s Street) extended eastward from it, to the eastern table edge. The main Yorkist army should be deployed just north of St Peter’s Street, which puts them closer to the market square than they historically were but this does provide the most practical solution for accommodating all the miniature figures on the game table. Along the northern table edge, could be placed (decoy) markers, to represent the presumed position of the Lancastrian forces, threatening an advance south, towards the Yorkists. In response, the three Yorkist "Battles" could be deployed in field defences, located just north of St Peter’s Street, between the eastern edge of the market square and the eastern table edge.

Due to the rain and poor scouting, the Yorkist players will not be aware, that the entire Lancastrian army is carrying out a flank attack (around their western flank) until the first Lancastrian troops begin to arrive on the western table edge, on the western side of St Albans market square, where a small (unsuspecting) Yorkist flank guard force is located. Forces Arriving Late

It should be noted that both “Outflanking Forces” and “Late-Arriving Forces” appear on the edge of the game table, several Game Turns after the battle (game) has begun. The “Outflanking Forces” always arrive on one of the two neutral table edges but “Late-Arriving Forces” always arrive on their own army’s table edge In the case of the battle of Towton (29th March, 1461), the late-arriving Yorkist troops of the Duke of Norfolk, could appear on the southern table edge (marching northward, along the road). These troops may then deploy as their controlling player wishes, so as to reinforce a friendly unit or carry out a flank attack on an enemy “Battle”. At the battle of Edgecote Moor (26th July, 1469), both sides were expecting reinforcements to arrive; the Yorkists were expecting the Earl of Devon (with his retainers and Welsh archers), while the rebels were expecting the forces of the Earl of Warwick. It was the advance guard of Warwick’s troops which arrived first. The rebels saw them, assumed that all of Warwick’s forces had arrived and thus fled before the Earl of Devon arrived. In general, one could argue, that once a battle (game) has begun, troops could be “disheartened” if they later see fresh enemy troops arrive on one of the table edges. They should at least get a negative modifier in their Morale Test for “Unseen enemy have suddenly come into sight” and possibly another negative modifier, if the enemy force has appeared behind their flank. Troops “Breaking” before contacting the enemy On three different occasions, troops faltered and fled, before they came into contact with the enemy. At the battle of Hedgeley Moor (25th April, 1464), the Lancastrian left wing “Battle” commanded by lords Roos and Hungerford, broke and routed before the advancing Yorkist troops came into contact with them. At the battle of Hexham (15th May, 1464), the Lancastrian right wing “Battle” commanded by Lord Roos, broke and routed before the advancing Yorkist troops came into contact with them.

Page 14

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

At the battle of Losecote Field (12th March, 1470), fought near Empringham, the rebel army of Sir Robert Welles (the son of Lord Welles) broke and routed before the advancing Yorkist army of King Edward IV came into contact with them.

In order to re-create these situations on the game table, the troops concerned should be rated as “E” class (demoralised or badly-officered). A miniature Lord Roos, should at best, be rated as “Cautious” (or even worse, “Cowardly”). At Losecote Field, King Edward IV had Lord Welles executed, in sight of both armies, before the battle began. That had a detrimental effect on the morale of the rebel army. Treason on the Battlefield

Treason, or the “scare” of treason, was a decisive event that occurred during several battles in the Wars of the Roses. At Blore Heath (23rd September, 1459), following the death of the Lancastrian commander (Lord Audley) and the failure of the second counter-attack (led by his successor, Lord Dudley), 500 Lancastrian troops switched allegiance to the Yorkist side and began attacking the Lancastrians. At Ludford Bridge (12th October, 1459), the Yorkist army awoke to find that firstly, Sir Andrew Trollope and his 600 men (plus others) had defected to the Lancastrians during the night; and secondly, that the senior Yorkist commanders (York, Warwick, Salisbury etc.) had realised what had happened and escaped later that same night. Thus, no battle occurred; the leaderless Yorkist army knelt in submission before Henry VI (on the morning of the 13th October) and were pardoned. At the battle of Northampton (10th July, 1460), Lord Grey of Ruthin (commanding the Lancastrian right flank), arranged in advance, to switch allegiance to the Yorkist side; he thus allowed the Yorkist troops to pass through the defences of the Lancastrian camp, roll-up the Lancastrian army and capture King Henry VI. At the battle of Bosworth (22nd August, 1485), the Yorkist rear “Battle”, commanded by the Earl of Northumberland, failed to come to the aid of King Richard III and the rest of the Yorkist army, when requested to do so. When Richard and his small group of mounted retainers then charged towards Henry Tudor, in a desperate attempt to kill him, the forces of Sir William Stanley (who had initially been neutral) declared their allegiance for the Tudor side, then surrounded and killed Richard.

When considering how to represent “treachery” in a game with miniature figures, one must note, that during each of the Wars of the Roses battles described, only one side fell victim to “treachery” on the day, not both. The decision to commit “treachery” had already been secretly taken before the battle began and thus, to simulate this situation realistically, the miniature game should perhaps be “fought” (played) as part of a series of battles within one campaign and players could secretly negotiate to switch sides before a particular battle begins. In the case of a one-off game (a game not forming part of a campaign), an alternative game method that could be considered, is the use of a standard deck of playing cards, using the four suits but just one of the Joker cards. At the start of each Game Turn, after deciding which side has the “initiative”, the side that lost the “initiative” must first draw one card from the top of the pack. If the Joker card appears, the side drawing the card has become a victim of “treachery”. If any card apart from the Joker appears, then no “treachery” has occurred. The side which won the “initiative” then draws one card and similarly hopes not to draw the Joker card. If neither side has drawn the Joker card, another Game Turn is then played. When one side draws the Joker card, they are immediately declared to be the victim of “treachery” for that battle. No more drawing of cards will take place during the game. The army commander’s personal retinue will not betray him but any of the remaining retinues (including off-table retinues that are yet to arrive) are possible suspects. A random dice roll must be made, to decide which one of the suspect retinues has actually switched sides. If it turns out to be a retinue that has yet to arrive on the table, that retinue does not arrive; it has failed to answer its lord’s summons. If a retinue on the table is declared to have switched sides, then it will be controlled by either the defecting player, or by any other players on the team it is defecting to. The battle of Bosworth (22nd August, 1485), may perhaps be the one scenario that requires two Joker cards to be available. If the Richard III player draws the first Joker, the Earl of Northumberland fails to support him and if the Richard III player draws the second card, Sir William Stanley betrays him. If the Henry Tudor player draws a Joker card, Sir William Stanley betrays him.

Mike Garrett

Page 15

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Imagi-Nations and Terrain By Mal O’Connor

Above: The fictional flag of “The Grand Duchy of Schnitzelhausen-Dunkelwald”.

Above: A scratch-built diorama of a pontoon bridge being assembled.

Above: Under construction, a model of the ship “The Dear Old Surprise”, from the Patrick O'Brien books.

(Continued on the next page)

I am starting on a new project and period; it's a Seven Years War period “Imagi-Nation”, called “The Grand Duchy of Schnitzelhausen-Dunkelwald”. It should be fun! One of the best things about “Imagi-Nations” is that absolutely anything goes. The only limit lies in one’s imagination and the constraints of the time period in which it exists. The Grand Duchy, in my mind, is the sort of state that would, if it was in warmer climes, be a banana republic. As it is, it is a not so enlightened monarchy with a venal, self-serving aristocracy. The first decision was on which scale to use. I wanted to use 20mm plastics but the range was too limited for civilians etc. so I decided on 18mm using the Eureka figures, £12 for a 24- figure infantry or 12-figure cavalry regiment, which I think is pretty good.; I'm using Blue Moon settlers, Pirate civilians etc. for townsfolk. The big advantage in using 15-18mm figures is that it fits in with my Napoleonic collection, many parts of which may also become part of the Grand Duchy or its enemies. Of course every nation needs a flag. The motto on the Duchy’s flag is "In Carniche Fidelis" (“In Poodles We Trust”), which was adopted after a would-be assassin of Grand Duke Ernst Heinrich von Schnitzelhausen the 5th and his mistress Natalia Popyatopov was foiled when he trod on the tail of his beloved "Schitzi" and thus alerted the guard! The history of the Grand Duchy will emerge in all its glory in skirmish, map and battle games with a strong RPG presence, all of which have enjoyment and fun as major components. The battle side of the game will be serious though! To me, the preparation for a game is as enjoyable as the game itself, if not even more so; and the drawing of the game map is the start of the process, with the details on the map inspiring ideas for the battles, the events and the characters incorporated into the fantasy. No magic, undead or stuff; only imagination but fantasy nevertheless. I read somewhere that most “Imagi-Nations” fail because of too little imagination and following history/nations too closely so I determined to avoid this. I had intended the place to lie just between Germany and Denmark but, besides allowing too much interference from the real world, that left too little space, so I have decided it lies “Somewhere off the coast of Northern Europe,” in the “Funfhugel Archipelago” with a simple trade route marker indicating a vague direction to Europe and the New World. Page 16

It strikes me as strange that I want the place to be as imaginary as possible but I am also bothered about there not being enough space for it where it was originally supposed to be! Initially it was intended to be a small place but the forces needed for a decent sized game required a larger state and then there are enemies! I like the game’s scenery to be as well done as the miniatures. To be honest, I think I get as much pleasure from building the scenery as I do the figure painting! I've been working on a base cloth for games; big enough to fit the dining table. I've used green felt, painted with acrylics, using a small roller to dull the colour and add a bit of variation before covering the cloth with PVA and static grass/flock. I finished off with a good spray of watered down PVA as a sealer. I'm quite pleased with it for a first attempt. I'm working on Teddy Bear hide long grass fields too. They're not bad but I need to dull down the green a bit. I am using felt strips to represent rivers and roads. The felt is cheap, flexible and durable; it attaches itself to the game cloth (like “Velcro”) really well, so there should be no slippage. I've tried making hedges out of chopped foam and it works quit well. The problem is getting the foam to stick together, yet still be slightly flexible. I have used tea / coffee grounds and dried herbs for the foliage. I have stuck them on with PVA and then painted over them. I use felt strips as bases for the hedgerows, so they'll follow the terrain. Below: The carriage of Grand Duke Ernst Heinrich gallops through the countryside.

For trees, I use either grape stalks or the Hoch "Naturbaume" Seafoam, a box of which will give you more trees than you'd ever need on one table. Whichever I use, I like to give them a couple of dips in watered down PVA, hanging them on the line until dry between coats. This gives a bit of flexibility and durability to the tree. You can then thicken the "trunk" with a mixture of PVA and flock. Foliage can be the clumps of chopped foam (same as for hedges), normal scatter or some "foliage" that comes in sheets. I can't find what it's called but if you tear or cut it into triangles, you can then drape and glue it over the branches to make a very open oak or beech looking tree. I also use wire armatures for larger trees. A related project I'm working on is card buildings using MS Paint and “textures” from various photos, primarily for the main building complexes at Waterloo and Ligny. I am designing them with a reduced groundscale so they aren't too big on the games table. They can be built as either a simple flat structure (as shown on the photo below) or more elaborately, as in the case of the “Superquick” models for 20mm figures. I got myself special “Modelbuilder” software which is supposed to help model railway builders and when I am used to that, I should (hopefully) be able to do the buildings in any scale fairly easily. The main trouble with it is importing textures so I keep going back to my old ways. I don't know whether the fault lies in the programme, my old PC or in operator error!

Mal O’Connor Below: A trial-fit of the card building components which form a well-known chateau.

Page 17

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Some thoughts on Siege Warfare By Mike Garrett

Above: The Siege of Mortagne (1377); part of an illustration in the “Chronique d’Angleterre”, published in Bruges in the late 15th century.

The attacking forces may also have already-dug trenches, an already-dug Sapper tunnel (under the foundation of a tower or a wall “section”) and pre-positioned fixed or wheeled Mantlets to provide extra cover. Both sides may also have prepositioned artillery pieces (trebuchets or cannons) that are deployed behind earth redoubts or mounted on the walls. The defenders are highly likely to have pre-positioned extra ammunition in the defences, to be used by their archers and gunners. Piles of boulders or cauldrons of boiling oil could also be positioned on the top of the walls by the defenders. If a boulder or boiling oil is dropped over the side of a wall, it will land on the ground immediately below, obliging all figures within a certain radius to make a “Saving Throw” (a die roll) to survive.

If the attackers place a ladder against an undefended section of wall, they may climb up during their next allowed movement phase. If defenders are on top of a wall “section” when an enemy ladder is placed against it, those defenders may make a “Saving Throw” (a die roll) in order to push the ladder away from the wall.

(Continued on the next page)

For quite a long time, I have contemplated various "skirmish" game ideas that could be used to recreate in miniature, the siege of a castle or a walled city. The miniature figures used in the game, as either the attackers or the defenders, could be any scale. I usually use figures that are 20-28mm in height but the more that I also consider the possibility of presenting a "participation" game at a local wargaming show, the more I wonder if larger scale figures could also be appropriate? I initially envisage that the game could take place on a 6' x 4' game table but how much of that game table's surface area should the besieged castle or city cover? It is possible for a square or rectangular (walled) area to occupy the centre of the game table but players must also realise that there would thus be a very limited area around the table's edges for the attacking forces to initially deploy on. In this same game situation, the players controlling the defenders may find it difficult to reach into the middle of the table, in order to move the defending figures around the walls, towers and gatehouses. In order to make more table surface area available to the attackers (and also make the miniature walled defences more accessible to the defending players), a number of solutions are possible. The first solution, would be to have three of the four walled sides on the game table but the fourth side would in effect be "missing" because it would instead be the defending team's table edge (and thus not accessible to the attackers). This would enable the defending players to reach more easily into the castle or city. Another solution might be to represent only a "quarter" of the castle or city. On the game table therefore, one quarter of the game table could be enclosed by two lengths of wall that meet at a corner tower. An even simpler idea may be to have a single wall (incorporating towers and a gatehouse) running across the centre of the game table (either widthways or lengthways); on one side will be the buildings within the defences and on the other side will be the countryside occupied by the attackers. In the case of an on-going campaign, the besieged castle or city may have already been surrounded for several days or weeks before a direct assault on the defences is attempted. At the beginning of the game therefore, the attackers may have ready-prepared scaling ladders, wheeled penthouses, battering rams etc.

Page 18

Above: A depiction of the Siege of Orleans (1429), taken from “Vigiles du roi Charles VII” by Martial d’Auvergne. Any miniature figure that climbs to the top of a ladder is going to be at a disadvantage when fighting against enemy troops behind a parapet. Bowmen and gunners will thus be required, to shoot at the troops behind the parapet, in order to give the troops climbing the ladders a better chance. If the defending garrison is already affected by on-going starvation or disease, those defending figures should receive a 1 point penalisation on their Melee, Shooting and Morale dice rolls. If a gunpowder-cannon fires round shot on a flat trajectory, it is more likely to strike the base of a wall than a trebuchet projectile. Although both types of projectile may inflict damage on stone defences, the projectiles fired from gunpowder-cannons are far more effective. A trebuchet or mortar fires a projectile on a higher curving trajectory, which is therefore more likely to strike the top of a defensive wall or overshoot entirely, hitting people or buildings on the opposite side. In order to determine the damage inflicted on buildings or defences, each miniature building, tower or gatehouse should be classed as a separate “section”. A length of wall (between either two towers or between a tower and a gatehouse) should be formed from several wall “sections”, each being at least 6” (15cm) in length. A building or a “section” of defensive structure will collapse when a certain amount of Damage Points have been inflicted on it. The number of Damage Points required will vary according to the size and type of structure being used.

It is recommended, that well before the day of the battle (game), the defending players should make a list of the model buildings, towers, gatehouses and defensive wall “sections” intended to be used and that list should also show the pre-calculated number of Damage Points required to make each building or structure collapse. For each artillery hit inflicted on a building or a “section” of defensive wall, a die roll is made (and then cross-referenced on a Damage Chart) in order to determine the number of Damage Points inflicted on that structure.

Each miniature figure that is either inside or on a collapsing building or structure is allowed to make one “Saving Throw” (a die roll) in order to survive. The miniature figures that have successfully escaped from a collapsing structure should be placed around the edges of the debris. If the players agree, a unit of miniature figures may have to be temporarily split into parent unit and a sub-unit, if some of its surviving miniature figures are on one side of the debris while others are on the opposite side. On each occasion that a mortar’s shell or an incendiary projectile hits a roofed building, there is a chance that a major fire may begin. The player that inflicted the hit must make another dice roll; an “even” score indicates that no fire has begun but an “odd” score indicates that a fire has begun. At the end of each Game Turn, another die roll is made for each un-tackled fire currently raging in a building, to determine the number of extra Damage Points inflicted on the building. While a fire is burning in an occupied building, the miniature figures inside must take a Morale Test at the end of each Game Turn and if they “fail” their test they must evacuate the building. Troops inside a burning structure (or troops outside a burning structure but in base-to-base contact with it) may be assigned to fire-fighting duties. The controlling player may declare which figures are attempting to extinguish which currently raging fire. The figures assigned to fire-fighting are still classed as being part of their unit but they cannot shoot at the enemy or take part in any melees during the same Game Turn.

(Continued on the next page)

Page 19

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Issue 6 The Lincoln Armchair General December 2017

Fortress gates (main gates and postern gates) are also required to have an appropriate number of Damage Points inflicted in them (by either a battering ram, axes or a gunpowder explosion) before they are declared to be broken down. Before the game begins, a gunpowder demolition charge may be pre-positioned under a “section” of the defences (in an already-dug Sappers tunnel) by the army which intends to carry out the attack. When it is declared that the charge is to be detonated, a die roll is made.

The result may be either: charge fails to explode, target half-demolished or target fully-demolished. A half demolished wall “section” is classed as a defendable breach (and also as “broken ground”) which still provides hard cover for its defenders until they are “pushed back” by the attackers. A fully demolished wall “is classed as an open breach (and “broken ground”) which offers no cover to its defenders, unless they can improvise a barricade across it.

Mike Garrett

WAGAMES DIARY 2018 LOCAL CLUBS AND SHOPS

VAPNARTAK, Sunday 4th February,

Knavesmire Stand, York Racecourse http://www.yorkwargames.org/Vapnartak.htm

RED ON BLUE IN NOTTINGHAM (ROBIN), Sunday 11

th February, Nottingham Tennis Centre,

University Boulevard,Nottingham, NG7 2QH https://www.wargamesevents.co.uk

HAMMERHEAD, Saturday 3rd

March, The Gamers Lounge and the George Stephenson Pavilion, Newark Showground, Nottinghamshire, NG24 2NY https://www.hammerheadshow.co.uk

CANNON, Sunday 25th March, The Town Hall,

Retford, Nottinghamshire, DN22 6DB https://retfordwargames.wordpress.com

PARTIZAN, Sunday 20th May, George Stephenson

Pavilion, Newark Showground, Notts., NG24 2NY http://partizan.org.uk THE OTHER PARTIZAN, Sunday 19

th August,

George Stephenson Pavilion, Newark Showground, Nottinghamshire, NG24 2NY http://partizan.org.uk HEREWARD, Sunday 2

nd September,

Bretton Centre, Peterborough, PE3 8DX http://www.hereward-wargames.co.uk/tag/2018/ COLOURS, Saturday 15

th September,

Newbury Racecourse, Berkshire, RG14 7PN http://nrwc.org.uk/colours-2018

FIASCO, Sunday 28th October, New Dock Hall,

Royal Armouries, Leeds, LS10 1 LT http://leedswargamesclub.webs.com

LINCOLN MINIATURE WARFARE SOCIETY Monday evenings, from 7:30pm in the function room of "The Golden Eagle" pub, 21 High Street, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, LN5 8BD https://lmwslittlebigmen.wordpress.com

LINCOLN GOBSTYKS GAMING CLUB Each Thursday evening 6pm-10pm, United Reformed Church, Garmston Street, Lincoln, LN2 1HZ http://www.gobstyks.co.uk IMPS GAMING (Lincoln Shop and Games Club) 15 Crofton Close, Allenby Industrial Estate, Lincoln, LN3 4NT https://www.imps-gaming.com

THE GAMES STORE & COMIC CULTURE (LINCOLN) 10 Stonebow Centre, Silver Street, Lincoln, LN2 1DY http://www.thegamesstore.com TITAN GAMES (LINCOLN) 101 High Street, Lincoln, LN5 7QB http://www.titangamesuk.co.uk WARHAMMER (LINCOLN GAMES WORKSHOP) Unit SUA, Waterside Centre, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, LN2 1DH https://www.games-workshop.com/Warhammer-Lincoln

GRIMSBY WARGAMES SOCIETY Monday evenings, 7.30pm-11pm 104 Sixhills Street, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire http://grimsbywargaming.blogspot.co.uk

SCUNTHORPE "LOST LEGION" WARGAMES CLUB Monday, Tuesday and Friday evenings 7pm-11pm, Grange Farm Hobbies Centre, Wesley Road, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, DN16 1SA https://m.facebook.com/The-Lost-Legion-Wargames-Club-279489568773603/

Page 20