Saturday, 22 August 2026

A big battle fought in three games - part 1

I quite often enjoy picking up an old wargaming book in the evening and reading a chapter or two. Recently, I picked up my battered copy of "War Games" by Donald Featherstone and read the chapter “Organising a Campaign,” which provides an overview for running a Franco-Prussian War campaign.

One detail particularly caught my attention was that battles between the opposing armies in the campaign were fought as three separate games, with each game representing the action of a corps. Each army was organised into three corps: left flank, centre, and right flank. The winner of the overall battle was the side that won two of the three games. It did not go into detail about what happens if one side wins the first two games, and whether the third game would still be fought. I would assume that two victories would constitute a minor victory, while winning all three games would be a major victory.

I do not want to start another campaign while my Battle of Britain campaign is still in progress. However, the idea of playing three connected Napoleonic games sounds appealing. Especially as, last week, I added a four of second-hand artillery units to my Napoleonic collection after tidying them up and rebasing for my needs.

The recently added 25mm Minifigs artillery mixed in with my 30mm Plastic Spencer-Smith Napoleonics. The size difference is not noticeable on the tabletop.

What follows is my approach to deciding the tabletops, Corps organisations, and deployments for the three games. It is mostly geared towards the solo gamer.

Deciding the Tabletop Layouts

The first step was to decide upon the terrain for the three tabletops. Rather than have three fixed layouts, I opted for a method similar to the approach used in "Programmed Wargame Scenarios" by Charles S. Grant when determining the tabletop layout.

Layouts A1, A2, and A3 are possible tabletop layouts of the left flank. Layouts B1, B2, and B3 are the possible centre layouts. C1, C2, and C3 are the right flank layouts. Hopefully you can see the variations between tables A, B, and C.

I drew up three layouts for each game, with each having similar features but being slightly different. After the players have decided upon their deployment, the dice would determine which layout is to be used. This hopefully will create some awkward moments and force the players to change their battle plans as their troops deploy.

I drew all three tabletop layouts on a single page so that the features of the left and right flank tabletops would line up with the centre table. While this is not particularly important, as each game is fought in isolation and troops are not moved from one tabletop to another. It will be useful later when I have played the three games, and write a battle report covering the overall action. Having the three layouts that at least look as though they can be joined together will also be useful when creating the overall battle map.

When drawing the maps, two things were important:

  1. Each tabletop must have at least one road entering on the player's home table edge, as late arrivals and reserves will enter the game.
  2. The hills and towns are objectives, so there should be three objectives on each layout. The winner of each game is the side holding the most objectives, so these need to be positioned carefully to provide a reasonable level of fairness, although complete symmetry is not necessary.

One further note about the vagaries of these layouts comes from reading the chapter “A Potted Campaign” in Featherstone's "War Game Campaigns" where it notes that maps could be inaccurate and reports from scouts were not always reliable. These sorts of uncertainties are very useful for the solo wargamer.

After drawing the maps, the approach of each army must be determined. Then players have a general idea of the terrain over which their army will be fighting and where their objective might be.

The dice can also determine whether the first game is fought on the centre table or one of the flanks. This does not really affect the battle, but it adds to the narrative or any game reports.

Deciding the Corps Organisation

Each army is organised into three corps, with a reserve. Each corps contains 10 units, with the composition determined using the army selection table from Neil Thomas's book "Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815–1878". A dice roll determines the composition of each corps.

The army composition table from Neil Thomas's book "Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe 1815–1878" is similar to the "One-Hour Wargames" book by has 10 units rather than 6 and you always have as a minimum one unit of skirmishers, artillery or cavalry.

Each army has a reserve consisting of three infantry and three cavalry units. Once a reserve unit is committed to a game, it cannot be reused in any subsequent game. 

I am using a modified version of One-Hour Wargames Napoleonic rules for the battles, along with the chance cards from the book's chapter on “Solo Wargaming”. The original deck contains 15 event cards, with one card drawn at the start of each player's turn. I have replaced three of the No Event cards with Reserve cards. When a player draws one of these Reserve cards, they can choose to bring any available unit from the reserve pool into the game. This means it is possible for a player to receive three additional units during a game, but there is no guarantee that the reserves will arrive when they are actually needed!

Late Arrivals

To introduce a little more uncertainty, before deployment each player rolls a D3 to determine how many of their units will arrive late. These units are placed in a late-arrivals pool and can begin entering the game from Turn 2 onwards via any road on the player's home table edge. Only one late-arriving unit can enter per turn, with the player choosing which unit to bring on from their pool.

There is one restriction: at least one artillery unit must be included in the late-arrivals pool. Apart from this, the player has complete freedom to choose which units arrive late.

Reserves use the same mechanism. If reserve units become available before all the late-arrival units have entered, they are simply added to the late-arrivals pool.

The player with the most late-arriving units starts the game. If the number is equal, the dice decide who goes first.

Late arrivals quick move along the road to join the action.

Deployment

Before setting up the tabletop, each player must decide how their available units will be positioned.

My tabletop is 6 × 4 feet, with the longer 6 foot edge being the player's home table edge. Deployment is divided into three sections: left, centre and right, with each section occupying 2 feet of the table edge.

Within those three sections, the player can deploy their units as they wish. So, if a player decides to deploy their cavalry on the left flank, those units must be deployed within the left 2 foot section once the tabletop layout has been determined.

Here is an example...

A corps contains:

  • 5 infantry
  • 2 cavalry
  • 2 artillery
  • 1 skirmisher

The player rolls a D3 for late arrivals and scores a 3.

The first decision is which 3 units will be placed in the late-arrivals pool. The player chooses the mandatory artillery unit and two infantry units.

The remaining 7 units (3 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 cavalry and 1 skirmisher) must then be divided between the left flank, centre and right flank.

To help with planning for these games, I quickly draw four squares representing each of the three deployment areas and the late-arrivals pool, then jot down the units in the appropriate squares. This gives me a simple deployment plan that I can refer back to after setting up the tabletop.

The deployment plan. 7 units deployed on the table (left, centre, and right) and 3 late arrivals.

Once the tabletop has been set up, the units are placed in their designated areas. Each unit can be deployed up to its movement distance plus 6 inches from the table edge, but must remain within its designated section of the tabletop.

The 7 units are deployed in their sections.

Sequence of Setup

There are quite a few steps involved in setting up the campaign games, so here they are in order:

  1. Draw the tabletop layouts — three variations for each tabletop.
  2. Decide which direction each army is approaching from, such as north or south.
  3. Use the dice to determine whether the first game is fought on a flank or in the centre.
  4. Determine the composition of each corps involved in the game.
  5. Roll a D3 to determine the number of late arrivals for each corps.
  6. Decide the deployment plan for each corps and reserve.
  7. Roll to determine which tabletop layout is used and set up the terrain.
  8. Deploy the available units on the tabletop according to the deployment plan.
  9. The player with the most late arrivals goes first. If the numbers are equal, use the dice to determine who starts.
  10. Play the game, noting any use of reserve units, they will not be available for subsequent games.

This gives me a three connected games in the context of a larger Napoleonic battle. The next few posts will have the individual game reports and then a final overall battle report using the narrative from the three game reports. 

Background

To set the scene before playing the individual games, here is the background to the battle.

East Bravance, Spring 1813

In April 1813, a French army has crossed into northern Bravance with orders to march south between the Pies and Zollern Rivers and prevent any Austrian advance. The French commander, Marshal Victor de Launay, has organised his army into three Corps, supported by a small reserve.

Maps of the area are limited.

The Austrian army, under the command of Marshal Karl von Hohenbruck, is marching north in three columns between the two rivers, unaware that the French army is advancing towards them. Between the rivers lies an agricultural region known locally as the Bravancian Plain. Several major roads connect a number of small towns and villages.

The army positions as they make contact initially around the Pies River.

The first contact between the two armies occurs along the banks of the Pies River, near the towns of Gelsen and Bernsdorf. As reports of the enemy's presence reach both commanders, their armies begin to concentrate, and prepare for battle.



26 comments:

  1. You have built another interesting campaign. Looking forward to seeing this develope over time. Replacing the No Event for Reinforcements is a great idea for determining their arrival time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reserves chance cards does add that unpredictability to their arrival for a solo game.

      Delete
  2. This looks very interesting. I must revisit War Games and read Organising a Campaign again! I look forward to seeing how this develops. For a quicker resolution of the fighting in each corps' sector, one could use the appropriate 'Dominion of...' rules for one's chosen period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I do not have the Dominion rules, I did think about using a OHW style of game with 6 units on a smaller table. In the end I went for the larger table to allow for the three objectives.

      Delete
  3. Genius. I’ve often looked at this to see if I could make it work and now I don’t have to! Of course, I don’t have a table which somewhat scuppers everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did think about playing on a smaller table 3x3 like OHW, but opted in the end for a larger table.

      Delete
  4. A really enjoyable read, like the idea for this campaign and enjoyed seeing your thought process on it, will be interested in seeing how it all develops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first game is complete and I am now setting up the second game.

      Delete
  5. Very good, I like the random table generation (which can be used many times over) and the 'reasonable' size of each game. Looking forward to what follows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had not considered the reusability, but it is there.

      Delete
  6. I have no experience with playing campaigns my self, but I find the way you describe Donald Featherstone's approach both simple and appealing. 3 separate games and the one winning 2 of them are the winner. I think this can be adapted to my 'army men wargaming'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a short chapter and well worth rereading. The concept should translate to your army men wargaming.

      Delete
  7. Brilliant stuff there Peter:)! I must have another look at Featherstone's book in the light of this, once September arrives and the 'campaign season' begins...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well worth a look. I am now preparing for the second game.

      Delete
  8. Fantastic system Peter. I am adding it to my collection of wargame ideas I have stolen from the net.
    As I solo game this will be very useful and I look forward to how the battles develop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The second engagement is underway on the tabletop. Once I get all 3 played I will do a post. All being well this weekend.

      Delete
  9. A lot of really helpful ideas here Peter! I have always like the concept of a campaign but have only ever played in one - an FIW one designed by the Canadian Wargames Group (Habitants and Highlanders)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find as a solo player campaigns always seem to add a bit of interest and throw up some interesting games.

      Delete
  10. Great idea for a mini campaign Peter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The second game is on the tabletop, so I should finish all three games this week. Then I will have to think about the best way to post about it.

      Delete
  11. An interesting idea, be good to see how it plays out. I had toyed with the idea of something similar for the French Revolutionary period when the Ancien Régime armies tended to operate in a cordon covering all approaches - weak everywhere and strong nowhere. In this way the battles were often a series of disjointed actions out sight of each other - each being fought on a table as a separate action. I had intended that the once all the forces had been committed to the various tables, the attacker would choose where to start. The winner of the game would choose which of the tables would be fought next. Also, the winner, would be allowed to send some units, if relatively fresh, to neighbouring tables, delayed by an amount related to how many turns it took for the win. This way a quick win, with a big force, would be able to make its presence felt in adjacent actions, but if you concentrate too much you leave the residue too weak to resist long enough for any reinforcemenst to arrive. Never got round to actually organising any games to work this way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the idea of the winner of the previous game picking the next tabletop layout to be fought over.

      Delete
    2. The thinking was that having won the initiative the choice of tabelallowed eth the winner to fight the next most favourable table, i.e. one where they had concentrated more troops and/or one where they could now feed in reinforcements from a victory on an adjacent table. Of course if you lose, it allows the opponent to choose the table and if you've skimped elsewhere you may lose again and the opponent may be able to feed in reinforcements to those tables where you hoped to have amassed more than him.

      Delete
    3. Some nice ideas. I do like the idea of choosing the next engagement and additional reserves. For the reserves it would be adding an additional reserve card(s) to the chance card deck.

      Delete
  12. Gotta say this looks and sounds brilliant!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ray. It all worked out well with the 3 games played. There are a couple of minor changes I would make second time around. I write about these in part 2 of the post.

      Delete