Saturday 6 May 2023

Connecting or mashing up a couple of tabletop layout ideas

A lot of my wargames rely upon scenarios from the book "One Hour Wargaming”, either as one off games or incorporated into campaigns. When setting up the tabletop using these scenarios, I generally end up doing two things: 

  1. Modifying the scenario map so it fits with using a 6x4 foot tabletop. This essentially entails stretching the map which is drawn for a 3x3 foot tabletop into 6x4 foot dimensions.
  2. Adding additional terrain features as the tabletop can look very empty otherwise

As I replay the scenarios, especially my favourites, I am increasingly finding myself adding a number of terrain features to help add a bit more variation and interest, such as small woods or a knoll here and there.

An example of One-Hour Wargames scenario 7 - Flank Attack (2) using Minifigs 15mm ACW figures.

Anyway, Last week I was travelling to New Zealand to visit the adult children, and to keep myself occupied while waiting at the airport or on the flight, I was reading a book about English Civil War battle of Edgehill. The book was recommended in one of the comments from a post a few weeks ago (a quick thank you for the tip). 

Current reading “Edgehill 1642”

One of the interesting chapters in the book is about how they went about trying to interpret and piece together the battlefield and its features using the different sources and written accounts of those at the battle. Often written many years later, these accounts could have different or conflicting views on the battlefield terrain.

This got me thinking about my approach when I’m laying out terrain features on the tabletop for a game, and whether there was a better or more systematic way of doing things. This jogged a memory about a technique used in the book “Programmed Wargames Scenarios” by Charles S. Grant for selecting tabletop layouts.

A very useful book for solo Wargames

Many of the scenarios in the book use an approach where different versions of a battlefield layout are drawn and then decided by the dice. This clever technique creates a geographical “fog of war” when deploying forces, particularly so for earlier periods when armies on a campaign had none or few accurate maps. 

Example from the book with 3 different options for the left, centre, and right sections of the tabletop. 

The scenario maps were divided into three sections: left, centre, and right. Each section has three variations of the terrain which fits with any of the adjacent sections. So a road or river going across the map would always link regardless of the sections selected with a dice roll.

Prior to selecting the left, centre, and right sections. Each army must write orders or draw their deployment. This can create a few problems for players, for example, they find some difficult terrain in front of their cavalry or a an unexpected building which can assist the opponents defence.

So, I thought I would try and apply the Programmed approach to one of the One-Hour Wargame scenarios. I picked the scenario Flank Attack (2) which is one of my favourites. The first step was to take the map from the book which is for a 3x3 foot tabletop and stretch it to a 6x4 foot tabletop.

Scenario map for Flank Attack (2) modified for a 6x4 tabletop

Having drafted a map it is divided into the left, centre, and right sections. Then each section is reworked into three options which are slightly different. In the picture below the centre row (dice 3-4) represents the above map.

One-Hour Wargames scenario Flank Attack (2) map has been modified to create different terrain options using the Programmed Wargaming Scenario approach. After writing down the deployment, roll the dice to decide the tabletop layout.


The left section selected by a 6, the centre by a 2, and the right section by a 5.

I cut out the sections to help show how the selected sections fit together to create the map.

The final tabletop setup

With the tabletop setup determined the next step is to see how the forces are deployed based upon their prior written orders. Using the ACW forces already set up we find few changes with the Union deployment. However, than two of the flanking units find themselves positioned on a hill and the other two facing woods which they will have to navigate. 

The Confederate force deployment is not quite as planned. Their main line is anchored on a small hill (the scenario objective) and the remaining line spread out in the valley with their cavalry now positioned on a second small hill. There is no nice long ridge to defend as expected.

A view of the troops deployed with limited prior knowledge of the tabletop layout. 

A better view of the Confederate troops spread out in the valley between to small hills.

The half the Union flank attack will now have to navigate the woods.

Anyway, the tabletop is now setup and ready for a game. Time to stop posting and play!

27 comments:

  1. Peter, your time away was put to good use in pondering game set up. Nifty idea on the variable terrain tiles. ACW armies? You are full of surprises!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ACW armies don’t get much of a showing and I often forget I have them.

      Delete
  2. I'm lucky to have the Charles Grant book, but haven't gotten many games in with it yet. I'd love to try a campaign of some sort, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a very useful book with lots of ideas. I am trying to work out my next campaign as my WW1 campaign will wrap up soon.

      Delete
  3. I've had occasion several times to use C.S. Grant's battlefield generation system - and his programming for solo play. Yields excellent games with sufficient variety to play the same scenario yielding different storylines. In this battle, both sides were programmed...
    http://archdukepiccolo.blogspot.com/2015/12/retreat-from-smolensk-part-first.html
    Cheers,
    Ion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link, very interesting to to read about both sides being directed by the solo directions from the book.

      Delete
  4. another intriguing and tempting idea, you really must visit the kids more often if this is the result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There certainly is plenty of time to ponder ideas on the flight.

      Delete
  5. A great idea to combine the Grant 'terrain tiles' with OHW scenarios. Despite having Grant's book for many years, I've yet to actually try one of the scenarios, much to my eternal shame. Now that my interest in Napoleonics has been piqued, I might give these a go, as they seem more suited to the period than say the SYW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am like you, yet to play using the solo directions in a game.

      Delete
  6. This looks great, Peter. I’d been considering some sort of random ‘extra terrain item’ for the OHW scenarios used for games in a mini-campaign currently under way, but this is far better my a country mile. …Will have to dig out my ol’ copy of CS Grant’s books… (Anything which makes the outcome of a solo game more unpredictable is a bonus…and unexpected terrain features certainly stir up the pot a bit).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a very neat way of creating some tabletop set up surprises.

      Delete
  7. That’s a great idea Peter. You could add a scouting rule that allows a side that outscouts the other the chance to redeploy a unit or two in accordance with the terrain.
    Hope your trip to NZ went well.
    Chris/Nundanket
    PS that Edgehill book is a good one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the scouting rule idea. The trip went well - thanks.

      Delete
  8. Very interesting, using the Charles Grant 'randomised terrain' is a great idea. One qualification I would add, though, which is that it seems a bit harsh to make the commanders set deployments BEFORE seeing the terrain - in 'real life' they might have poor maps, but I'd asume any decent commander would look at the actual ground before deploying? ( though perhaps constrained by pre-set 'battle plans' such as you have described for ECW armies). I seem to remember William Waller, for instance being described as a master of 'reading the ground'.. I think perhaps if I were using this method, I'd generate and lay out the terrain first , and then allow commanders to make what they can of it with their deployments..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The level of deployment flexibility and adjustments is an interesting question. Other suggestions include allowing a certain number of units to redeploy. An updated mechanism is needed, which will no doubt have to be period specific. In the meantime a few more test games will have to be played :-)

      Delete
    2. I'm with David here. But then I'm not a fan of random deployments anyway.
      Generals, even tabletop ones, often make poor judgment calls, or miss the relevance of things when deploying, or unit commanders get it a little wrong or an order goes a stray, but I've found many random deployments are often too random to make any sense. I make mistakes but when I'm the general, they should be my mistakes!

      But that's just a prejudice of mine.

      Delete
  9. Peter, your impending ACW battle drew me in to looking at your ACW D3 Rules. The rules refer to 'activation' but there are no activation rules / mechanics. Is, if not prevented by an event card, every unit allowed to 'act' each turn or is there an 'activation test'?
    Also, under 'Determining Victory' is the following:
    "Each unit routed or eliminated. Units still count even when rallied through event card, and rallied units are counted twice if mounted or eliminated a second time."
    I assume "mounted" should read "routed"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks I will have to double check and update the rules.

      Delete
  10. Always fascinating reading your posts and following your thought processes Peter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. There is still a bit more thinking to do with deployment, but I will certainly continue with the Grant tile approach when any OHW scenario becomes a bit stale.

      Delete
  11. More excellent ideas for a solo gamer here Peter. I think Chain Reaction 3 skirmish rules have something similar for creating the playing area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the tip on Chain Reaction 3 I will see if I can check them out.

      Delete
  12. Very well thought out. Though you will need to generate lots of terrain tiles to have a selection. 😀
    I do like games that have something of a random set up or with some very limited control. Maybe in the future there can be some scouting rules to allow one side with a greater Area knowing to influence the rolls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will be generating the tiles as and when I need them and gradually adding to them. As for deployment there are various options like you said around factoring in scouting, etc.

      Delete
  13. Great idea Peter and I have saved it for later - I hope you don't mind 😊

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you find some reuse of the ideas.

      Delete