Somewhere over southern England, 1942

Recently, Julian picked up his copy of "Scramble", a set of rules that he's had for over a decade but had not tried.

Reading them, he was enthused. Working through them, carefully, over a day, he was 'a devotee' of them. Yesterday we caught up, chez-il for a play test.

Julian gave me the rules to read prior to the game. I could see what he meant. They are well written, organised logically and even include a fabulously humorous 'aside' with 25 'rules of the air'. These include:

"In the ongoing battle between objects made of aluminium going hundreds of miles an hour and the ground going zero miles an hour, the ground has yet to lose."

And,

"A ‘good’ landing is one from which you can walk away; a ‘great’ landing is one after which they can use the plane again."

The rules are sufficiently detailed so as to model flight of the little planes and to provide mobs of decisions and considerations for we ground-pilots as we move our miniature version around and try to get hits on our opponents. You are not adjusting ailerons, rudder, throttle and flaps, but the effects of these to turn, climb, dive, bank, roll, fly straight ahead; or various combinations.

Being our first game with the rules—and my 'virginal' flight during World War II—he devised a relatively simple scenario; sufficient planes and types to make it interesting, but not so many for two 'rules novices' to handle.

Two He-111H-16s have just left their target zone and are heading to their base in France, accompanied by two Me-110E-1s.
All planes 1/700 from Julian's collection. He has painted them, but they are currently unmarked. His daughter is going to apply decals, utilising her youthful eyesight, which is both a generous and marvellous bit of input to dad's hobby, I reckon.

A flight of Mk VC Spitfires had another idea.

Aeroplanes really move. Fast. You could say that they fly along. Julian used a combination of 'mapped' movement and arrangement on the table so that we did not need to chase one another around the entire room, down the drive, across the paddock... The planes were set-up in their relative positions and altitudes. We then rolled for initiative. The player who lost the initiative moved first. Movement of each of his planes was plotted on the paper. The winner of the initiative now moved his planes, which were also plotted on the paper. The planes were then placed in their new relative positions on the table. So, the planes moved around, while 'the earth stood still'!

Julian tracked the movements of the planes on a piece of paper.

The rules use the 'unit (U)' approach to movement and ranges, so are completely scaleable. This also enabled one version of U on the paper (U equivalent to 4 mm) and another on the table (U = 5"). Julian had calculated the latter so as to represent U at a natural scale of 1/700, that is, 1:1 with the planes. Unfortunately, our planes were going too fast and far, so he had to adjust this to U = 2".

We also, unwittingly, played the movement incorrectly. It is supposed to be alternated, with each side moving a single plane or formation in turn, beginning with the player who lost the initiative. Initiative used the skill of the highest ranking pilot (by the rules scaled from 2 to 14) as the only modifier to a roll of a D10.

Our error was no matter. In fact, by using Julian's plotting prior to moving on board, we could easily do simultaneous movement. Simply write down what each plane is intending to do in its ten seconds (length of a turn), then plot the moves of each plane, adjusted for any necessary tests of the pilot's skill, and place the models. Simple, effective and much, much more betterer, in the opinion of this little black duck.

Firing is conducted at the end of the turn. Planes of the player with the initiative fire first, with all damage and/or critical hits applied immediately. We did this correctly in the game. We could either use the same approach with simultaneous movement, or make a logical decision as to which plane fires first and do a roll off only for the individual situations that require one.

Both sides successfully spotted one another. I climbed and turned, right and left, with the two Me-110s, while the He-111s flew for home as fast as possible.

The Spitfires descended and came in for a long-range shot at the bombers.

Here we had a long pause, discussion, checking of some statistics of estimated actual hits, consulted the values allocated to planes in the rules and made some calculations. The driver? Far too easy for an average, or even novice pilot to hit at long range. Julian had found this in his solo play test and thought that he had 'fixed' it by changing the penalty for firing at long range. His test was a dogfight. Bombers are easier to hit, correctly, but with the way in which hits are converted to damage, he was gonna cause serious damage to both bombers from one, three-second burst of fire, from two fighters per bomber, at long range. Then he'd have a large handful of D6 to roll at a 1 in 6 to produce critical hits. To quote from an email that Julian sent to Andrew Finch in which he outlined his philosophy and asked the author's opinions of his proposed changes:

"Air wargames where there are huge casualties are just of absolutely no interest to me at all....  So, all the proposed changes below are intended to try to get closer to history, which will probably mean no casualties at all in most encounters. Fine by me!"

We settled on a simple adaptation of the system in the rules; scale down gunnery skill and reduce the damage per hit. A hit is produced when gunnery skill + weapon modifiers + 'situation' modifiers*  > defence value of the plane. A hit results in a number of damage points according to the weapon that inflicted it, e.g. two per machine gun, three per cannon (in rules damage is this no. x value of a D6!). Damage goes against the DAM statistic for the plane (more for bombers than fighters, more if the plane had a bit of armour). For each hit, roll a D6 to see if a critical hit is inflicted. We still have the 'box crossing', that is, blowing bits of the plane off until it falls out of the sky, but it is more likely to be seriously disabled or even brought down by the effects of the critical hits. Our changes worked in this game. Hopefully they will stand up to further testing.

(* Situation modifiers are range, relative position, use of an extended burst of fire (with chance of reducing ammo.) and firing a single or three guns, since ordinary fire is for pairs of guns.)

With our adaptations, his Spits inflicted 15 of points of damage on one bomber (against a DAM of 53) and wounded a crew member (from a critical hit), but only three points on the other. The tail gunners of the bombers missed.

Julian had allowed the Germans a 'little surprise' in the form of two FW-190s that could 'march to the sound of the guns'. Now was their time.

NOW we had the real tension of air wargaming. What to do, how to outwit the opponent and get into a good position for firing?

I lost the initiative and so moved first (all planes as we were erroneously doing). I got one of the FW-190s to dive to the altitude of the Spitfires and to execute three turns,  intending to end a bit ahead of the initial location of the Spits, hence a bit behind their new position. Each turn is effectively done as a 30º tangent to a turning circle, that is, turn 30º move according to the manoeuvrability factor of the plane, then repeat if wishing to turn more. A 'tight turn' of 60º is also possible, but requires a successful roll against pilot's skill, where failure leads to loss of altitude. "The pilot spends the rest of the time to recovering the aircraft assuming he has not hit a cliff or the ground." Turning like this is a clever mechanic that works really, really well and is far easier than numerous templates for planes with various levels of manoeuvrability.

The second FW-190 turned once and then flew straight ahead, maintaining its higher altitude. The bombers continued to fly straight ahead, as fast as their little engines could propel them, while the Me-110s continued on their wide turn, intended to bring them behind the Spitfires. They turn a bit like battleships!!

Julian sent two Spitfires directly at the bombers, to try to get into point-blank range. Range is divided into point-blank (U), effective (2U) and long, determined by weapon's maximum range. The other two made a single right turn and flew straight ahead, intending to end behind the first FW-190.

Julian plotted the moves and we placed the planes to see what happened!

Not quite as intended, but a really interesting ten seconds! The two Me-110s are to left and right, just off the mat. One of the FW-190s is at the same altitude, at the back left of two of the 'rearmost' Spitfires, which in turn are behind, but to the right of the first FW-190. Ahead of the latter are the other two Spitfires, behind the bombers.

A closer view shows the FW-190 at higher altitude (out of focus), two 'rear' Spitfires targeting the other FW-190, with remaining Spits and the He-111s furthest from camera.

Another view from behind the two 'rearmost' Spitfires.

Julian had 'missed by that much', so only one of his Spitfires got to fire at the FW-190. Mind you, he had positive modifiers for close range and behind the tail, but only an average gunnery skill for the pilot. He failed to get over the 16 required to achieve a hit with either of his three-pairs of guns (i.e. three rolls of a D10 and three separate calculations)—getting a maximum of 16, from memory. The rules use ≥ defence value#, but we made this greater than.

#For most planes, especially bombers, there are separate defence values for loaded and clean; higher and lower respectively.

The two other Spitfires took their shots at the right-most of the bombers in the photo. It was able to return fire. The FW-190 behind the Spitfires had the angle for a long-range shot.

Bursts of machine gun and cannon fire from the 'forward' two Spitfires brought the damage on the right-most bomber (in the photo above) to 11, while killing one of the crew and causing damage to the plane's rudder (acrobatic factor (AB) reduced by one). The bomber returned fire, with the 'tiger in the tail'—anyone else recall that issue of the Commando comic?—but he missed.

The FW-190 at lower altitude, the one that had survived the attack of the Spitfires behind him, was able to fire at one of those to his front (see angle in photo). Julian made him an ace (but not ace of aces), so he had a gunnery factor of six. He was not 'on song' on this occasion—i.e. I did not roll high enough—so missed... 'by that much'.

We did not have time for another turn, so 'talked it through'. It turned out to be of no matter. I would have continued to fly the bombers home, tried to bring the FW-190s in a position to fire at the Spitfires and brought the Me-110s around and forwards more so as to (hopefully) be in a position to dive on the Spits in the turn following. For his part, Julian's flight CO would have called time and the Spitfires would have got out of Dodge, or Dodgeton-upon-Sea, as it was likely called!

Action over. It had been an action-packed 30 seconds!!

Not to mention a fabulous day spent working through the rules and enjoying the aerial 'contest'; as well as plenty of side discussions, mirth and general friendship. A bloody marvellous way to spend a Thursday. Thanks so much Julian!

I super excited for the next action.

I am sure that, for example, we could handle a full B-17 raid, with fighter escort and 'boggies' coming in from above. In time, it would be marvellous to do a ground support action with "Scramble" for the aerial part (blink of an eye) and ground rules for the rest. Alternatively, Julian is thinking about a carrier action, provided he can find a decent set of naval rules:

"finding a decent set of them has eluded me these past fifty years (literally), but with your help I think the quest might yet find its goal, especially if a set can be modified. Victory at Sea, General Quarters and Stations Manned & Ready (the A&A set) are all potential candidates. Watch this space!"

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!

Ed's marvellous rules

News Flash! Ed, of Ed M's Wargames Meanderings, one of my blogging e-friends, has produced and published (via his blog) a wonderful looking set of rules called ‘Chocolate Box Wars’.

The cover of 'Chocolate Box Wars', demonstrates Ed's excellent desktop publishing skills and professional presentation.

The rules are intended for "post-Napoleonic continental armies", but are readily adaptable and adapted for non-European or non-European-style armies and conflicts. In fact, Ed has already done this for you and provides sample army lists and characteristics for them (more on that later).

So, we are talking about "...elegant officers and steady soldiers in all their post-Napoleonic finery..." that were idealised on boxes of confectionary*. Hence the name for the rules. Pretty uniforms, pre-maxim guns.

(*Not to mention cigarette cards, of which I have many, thanks to collections of my paternal and maternal grandfathers and the valuing of the cards by my parents, transporting them across the world and around various parts of Oz.)

This hyperlink takes you to his post about 'releasing' the rules.

As Ed states in his introduction, the rules are a bit of a ‘doffing’ to the "Floor Wars" and "Little Wars" heritage of the modern hobby of wargaming, but (pleasingly to me) they have more detail for command, formation, ranges, unit characteristics and such. He has drawn inspiration and adapted mechanics from two set of rules called "Iron Cross" and "1914" (neither known to me).

From his posted play tests, they look and sound beaut, but I wanted to provide more of an assessment, so read the rules prior to writing this post.

The time and attention dedicated to the development and play-testing of the rules over seven years is evident in the quality and clarity of the rules and player aids.

He has divided the rule 'book' (pdf) into two parts: the rules (15 pages) and the background, optional rules, rationale/explanations, references, acknowledgements and biography (17 pages). Separate documents provide a two-page quick reference sheet, army lists, worksheet to construct your own armies/units (pdf and excel), examples of unit labels and a 'player card' with an explanation of the abbreviations that are used on unit labels on the obverse and diagrams of firing zones on the reverse.

The rules are designed for games using relatively small numbers of figures to represent units. They are not specific to a ground scale nor scale of figures and have no scale for figure to actual combatant. Distances and ranges in the rules are with 28 mm figures in mind, but they can apply to any scale, or be scaled, as desired. Units are defined by bases of two for an infantry battalion or cavalry regiment, one for an artillery battery or for commanders.

Units are characterised by type (infantry, cavalry or artillery) and class (line, guard, reserve or auxiliary). They may have one or more 'attributes', such as formation (heavy or light, field or horse), size, special weapons (infantry with rapid fire rifles or doctrine/training) or advanced weapons (infantry such as sharp-shooters). Lastly, they have a morale class from élite (A) to low (D), or variable (V).

Command and control is done via activation points, but in one of the most clever ways that I have seen. An army has a 'pool' of activation points (APs) which is the sum of the APs for the units and commanders (see copied graphic below). At the beginning of the turn APs from the pool are allocated, one per unit and one per sub-command, then additional APs may be allocated to units, subject to command range. Adding APs increases the likelihood of activation. The AP pool is reduced by one for each eliminated stand, but cannot be reduced below one AP per unit.

The types of units and their contribution to the pool of activation points.

So, the pool of activation points is finite, but not so limited as to result in inactive units. More points can be used if you really want to get something done. Furthermore, the game turn is brilliantly devised. The active player (determined by a roll# for initiative at the beginning of the turn) tests to activate a unit first, but the non-active player may attempt to react (which is not as easy as 'action' is for the active player). Successful reaction allows the 'non-initiative' player to move his unit first and to resolve any fire. The active player then moves his unit. The active player may also elect to pass. "Players may activate and pass, switching roles several times in a turn." The turn continues until both players have expired their APs, which may not occur at the same time, of course. This is an inspired version of 'I go you go', combining the concept of initiative with 'snatching' initiative'. Brilliant Ed!

(# A twelve-sided die is used by each player throughout the rules.)

Another marvellous attribute of the command and activation is that guards are more difficult to activate and contribute fewer APs to the pool. This represents a "... battalion/regiment or brigade (maybe) of household or other special status guard. Although they may be spectacular combat units on their own, tactically agile (typically elite), and able to make units around them more steady, the guards establishment is a parallel force structure and not well integrated into larger formations. Furthermore, in the very status-conscious CBW era, aristocratic guards officers often did not play well with others, regardless of rank, and could be obstinate, even insubordinate, if given a task deemed beneath their dignity."

Once activated, a unit may do one of five 'actions': move, fire, move and fire, rally, or retire & reform. As expected, movement distances are determined by formation and adjusted for terrain. Units that move and fire do not move as far. The morale class of a unit affects activation, reaction and rallying (in the expected manner).

Combat, "...for simplicity, combat is referred to as “fire”" produces hits, which accumulate to cause removal of a stand once they reach the 'cohesion' level for the type of unit. Rallying is a test to attempt to remove hits, with modifiers for the morale of the unit and proximity to HQ (or a unit of guards—so they do 'care' really, hahaha).

The rules are 'packed' with clearly drawn diagrams for movement principles, changes of formation, relative position, determining range, fire zones and specific examples of combat.

In the second section of the 'book', Ed explains the origins of the rules, what and how he made adaptations to "Iron Cross" and "1914" and added new ideas. He also provides an explanation for particular mechanics, a host of optional rules, a bibliography of primary and secondary sources and other wargame rules that were his sources, acknowledgements to play testers and of fellow bloggers who provided feedback and/or encouragement, as well as an interesting bio. of the man himself!

Ed has given us everything that we need to begin using the rules 'out of the (chocolate) box'.

As mentioned above, separate documents comprise a quick reference sheet, army lists, 'army builder', unit labels and 'player card'. The army lists provide guides for "nationally or ethnically flavoured" armies; 'Catholic German, Austrian, and Austrian Influenced', 'French, French influenced', 'Prussian, Protestant German, Prussian Influenced', 'British, British Empire, British Influenced', 'Italian States, Mediterranean Basin', 'Tsarist and Balkan Clients', 'Danes, Norwegians, Swedes...Viking-folk', 'Hungarians, Eastern Europeans, Frontiers of Europe-Folk', 'American Civil War, Mexican American, Spanish American etc.', and 'Insurrectionists, Territorial Forces, Colonial Native Opposition'.

His two-page quick reference sheet is clear, colourful, not over-cluttered and looks to include everything that a player needs to refer to in the course of normal play. He puts the 'professional' wargames industry to shame with this, as well as the detail and clarity of the rules and additional background and references provided.

I am inspired

I have in mind to use Ed's rules for the Russo-Turkish War 1877–78, once I have figures painted. This is a way off. Mind you, reading the rules in some detail has me keen to make this happen sooner!

Prep'd figures: Romanian infantry left and Russian guard right.

Prep'd figures: Cossacks! Uniformed at left and older, more traditional dress at right.

Prep'd figures: Guard hussars left and Grodno hussars right.

Clearly, too many cavalry for a balanced army so, as well as painting these, I will require more infantry, some artillery and, of course, some Turks before I can give Ed's rules a whirl.

Vale René Chartrand

A post on Ken ('Ralphus')'s blog subtitled 'A tribute to René Chartrand' alerted me that something was 'amiss'.

A quick search brought me to a post on the blog of Helion Publishing with the sad news that he had passed away on 28th July.

We have lost another good 'un.

The author biography on Helion's and Osprey's sites (for both of whom he authored books) tell us the René had been "a senior curator with Canada's National Historic Sites for nearly three decades" and then became "a freelance writer and historical consultant."

I'll cherish the books that I have authored by him that bit more. And they are numerous.

Most especially, "The French Soldier in Colonial America". It is a small, pamphlet-style book published by the Museum Restoration Service of Ontario that is packed with detail and useful information.

I purchased it in Quebec City on a visit to Canada in 1990. Along with "Battlefields of Canada" it commenced my, now long and continued interest in the study of the French and Indian War (Guerre de la Conquête).

It also introduced me to René Chartrand and placed him firmly in my mind as an author of quality work.

In a mere 40 pages (inclusive of the index) he managed to cover a history of the compagnies franches de la marine over the entire period of French colonial America, as well as the (later raised) cannoniers bombardiers and the troupes de terre, plus descriptions of uniforms, arms and equipment. The text is accompanied by numerous reproductions of excellent art-work, by Eugène Lelièpvre and other artists (sadly all black and white, save for the cover) as well as photographs of arms, accoutrements and locations.

A few pages from The French Soldier in Colonial America to illustrate its quality and detail.

In subsequent years, I purchased further books by René about campaigns of the French and Indian War.

Then, as he moved his work to the Napoleonic Wars, I bought many of those. René's books constitute at least half of all of the Ospreys that I have purchased.

Most recently, I purchased the second volume of his "The Armies and Wars of the Sun King 1643-1715". Louis' army not being central to my interests, this was chiefly for information about the French troops present at Szentgottárd in 1664.

Impressed by this volume, I planned to get the others in the series, but as the more economical pdf versions. I am more driven to do so now.

Sadly, this series was to have been René's last.

Here's to you René Chartrand. Thank you.

Books in my personal collection that are authored by René Chartrand

French and Indian War

Chartrand, R (1984) The French Soldier in Colonial America. 18. Historical Arms Series Museum Restoration Service, Bloomfield Ontario, Canada. 40 pp.

Chartrand, R (1999) Quebec 1759. 3. Order of Battle Series Ed. J Moore. Osprey Publishing Limited, Oxford, England. 96 pp.

Chartrand, R (2005) Louisbourg 1758: Wolf's first siege. First Published 2000. Praeger Illustrated Military History Series, Westport, Connecticut. 96 pp.

Chartrand, R and Courcelle, P (2000) Ticonderoga, 1758 Montcalm's Victory Against All Odds Campaign 76. Osprey Publishing Ltd., Botley, Oxford, UK. 96 pp.

Chartrand, R, Dennis, P, Spedaliere, D and Shumate, J (2012) Tomahawk and Musket French and Indian Raids in the Ohio Valley 1758. 27. Raid Osprey Publishing Ltd., Botley, Oxford, UK. 80 pp.

Chartrand, R, Dennis, P and Stacey, M (2014) Montcalm's Crushing Blow French and Indian Raids Along New York's Oswego River, 1756. Raid 46. Osprey Publishing Ltd., Botley, Oxford, UK. 80 pp.

Napoleonic Wars

Chartrand, R and Black, F (1990) Napoleon's Sea Soldiers. 227. Men-At-Arms Ed. M Windrow. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 1st edition. 48 pp.

Chartrand, R and Younghusband, B (1998) Spanish Army of the Napoleonic Wars (1) 1793–1808. 321. Men-At-Arms Ed. M Windrow. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 1st edition. 48 pp.

Chartrand, R and Younghusband, B (1999) Spanish Army of the Napoleonic Wars (2) 1808-1812. 332. Men-At-Arms Ed. M Windrow. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 1st edition. 48 pp. Location: Fisher collection, York.

Chartrand, R and Younghusband, B (1999) Spanish Army of the Napoleonic Wars (3) 1812-15. 334. Men-At-Arms Ed. M Windrow. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 1st edition. 48 pp. Location: Fisher collection, York.

Chartrand, R and Courcelle, P (1999) Émigré and Foreign Troops in British Service (1) 1792-1803. 328. Men at Arms Ed. M Windrow. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 49 pp.

Chartrand, R and Courcelle, P (2000) Émigré and Foreign Troops in British Service (2)1803–15. 335. Men at Arms Ed. M Windrow. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 49 pp.

Chartrand, R and Courcelle, P (2001) Bussaco 1810: Wellington defeats Napoleon's Marshals. 97. Campaign Eds L Johnson and D Chandler. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 1st edition. 96 pp. 

Chartrand, R and Courcelle, P (2002) Fuentes de Oñoro 1811: Wellington’s liberation of Portugal. 99. Campaign Eds L Johnson and D Chandler. Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 1st edition. 96 pp.

Chartrand, R and Hook, R (2004) Spanish Guerrillas in the Peninsular War 1808-14 108. Elite Osprey Publishing, Oxford, England. 64 pp.

Wars of Louis XVI

Chartrand, R (2020) The Armies and Wars of the Sun King 1643-1715 Volume 2 The Infantry of Louis XIV. Century of the Soldier 1618-1721 No. 50. Helion & Company, Solihull, England. 278 pp.

Limits

I tried to add another blog to my reading list today, only to be greeted by this abrupt error message. Judgemental it is too!😀

Apparently, I have exceeded my limit.

Yes Blogger, I know that, in reality, I cannot follow more than 200 blogs, but I like to give it a d@mned good go!

Funny really, since I exceeded it ages ago. Must have come with a recent 'update' to Blogger...

Playin' with the big boys

Big as in 1/32. Playing = test game of Nuts!

It has been around four years since I first acquired the rules with the intention of doing some squad level games of the Second World War. They had passed the read test, but what about a play test?

Stephen and Julian travelled up/over for the game.

July has been 'visitor season' for us, so I did not get a chance to re-read the rules before hand. The fellas were extremely patient as we used the first couple of moves to get accustomed with the basic mechanics. They are quite easy to come to grips with, albeit idiosyncratic, as were the details of shooting, mêlée and vehicles as we progressed.

Simple game, simple scenario. A couple of squads of paras making their way from the drop zone to the Arnhem bridge. German defenders in woods awaiting them.

The German infantry defenders (front) with possible reinforcing squad of Waffen SS behind (accompanied by a PzKpfw V).

Two squads of paras, one with jeep and 75 mm pack howitzer.

Julian advanced the first squad of paratroops carefully towards the woods, spread out and going prone at each 'step'.

Sgt Smithers and the other leadmen entered the edge of the wood, sparking an 'in-sight' test for the closest German defenders.

Successful with the test, the Germans opened fire, hitting Sgt Smithers who used his 'star' quality to downgrade the hit to a 'duck back'. Corporal Clobber and the other paras returned fire killing the German rifleman who had hit Smithers and taking Col. Klink 'out of the fight'.

Not a good opening for the German infantry with one rifleman 'definitely dead' and Col. Klink 'out of the fight'. However Cpl Harte and Pte Krak remained in place with the MG42.

Paratroops' grenade attack! Fell short.

Unscathed, Harte killed one of the paras and forced the others to take cover.

A second grenade attack also missed the target, but the charge by the paras was more successful. Harte and Krak killed in the ensuing mêlée.

Lead by Corporal Clobber, the paras prepared to advance further into the wood...

While this combat was occuring, Stephen brought the second squad of paras down the road, jeep and gun to the fore (a combined roll of 7 for the initiative had produced reinforcements).

Next turn, we rolled a double for the initiative, producing a 'possible enemy force'. The Waffen SS and tank entered the game.

Kaptain Konrad and his squad come on behind the Panther. It probably should have been a Stug to be more accurate for Arnhem, but that PzKpfw V looks so good!

The Germans seized the initiative, so the Panther moved towards the second squad of paras, stopped and opened fire with the main gun.

The thin-skinned jeep was no more, but Captain Flashman jumped clear (thanks to his 'star power') directing the remaining members of his squad towards the wood.

That brought an enjoyable little game to an end.

It had been great to finally have a go with Nuts! and to get the 1/32 figures back on the table after so long. Both will feature again at some stage for sure.

Thanks to Stephen and Julian for making this first game with Nuts! such an enjoyable experience with laughs a plenty.

Rules

Nuts! 4th Edition by Two Hour Wargames (2017).

Figures and vehicles

Airfix British Paratroops

Airfix German Infantry

Mars German Elite Division (Normandy 44-45)

Classic Toy Soldiers German Panther tank (camouflage)

Newray Willys Jeep 1/32 Scale Diecast Metal Model

Gun that came with a packet of toy soldiers

The weaving path of opportunity

It's funny how things come together sometimes.

I have been considering what map I want to use for the Greater Northern War campaign. It needs sufficient detail for map movement, but not so much that it is overawing.

I had a search for a contemporary map (contemporary to the early 18thC, that is) that could do the trick. One looked promising.

Map of Europe in 1700 from Atlas Minor ou Briesve available online from the Royal Belgian Library.

Then I realised that it lacked sufficient detail. It and others in that atlas will be useful for reference though.

As will those from King George's Military Collection and the Digitales Archiv Marburg. None will do for a map for the campaign.

The idea of merging maps from contemporary boardgames (contemporary to us, that is) came up in discussion between Julian and me. Getting the scales to fit could be tricky, but the main negative is that I don't want to use hexes.

It seemed that the only answer was to draw my own.

Where to start?

I have a Rand McNally Atlas of World History that seemed a good starting point. None of the maps can be used directly as they have arrows and text relating to the points that are being made/period shown. So, again a useful resource, but not THE resource.

Then, I found that someone had drawn a blank map of Europe in 1700. Seemed marvellous!

Political map of Europe in 1700 (by a user hurricanehunter on DeviantArt).

All I had to do was to print it on a large sheet of paper and draw in the bits that I wanted... Hmmm. Perhaps not. What about if I used it as a background in my drawing package EasyDraw? Yeah, that would be better and easier. Or would it?

Oh dear, this was getting all too hard. Perhaps I would have to just use a hex map after all. Time to think about it for a bit.

Work came to the 'rescue'. I picked up a project that meant I had a lot to do in a short space of time, so no time to think about drawing maps (or even to paint figures).

Yet, opportunity weaves an interesting path.

As part of the project, I did some simple statistical analyses using R. Now, R is probably something most of you have never heard of. It is a computer language, developed from S and S plus, that is open source (i.e. completely free), and is supported by a huge community of people who develop packages for tasks related to data analysis, visualisation, manipulation... and more. In short, it is bloody amazing.

R is script-based, so can take time to work out, but, because of that, it is really flexible. There are loads and loads of examples on the web (back to that huge community).

Anyway, in addition to doing my bit of stats, I wanted to present a spatial representation of locations for the data, but one that was somewhat 'opaque'. I'd seen a graph done by a colleague in another project, where the locations of data points had been presented on axes of longitude and latitude. Brilliant.

Two-three hours of searching, finding options, changing script, getting errors, repeat and repeat and I had my graph.

What (the #@$!) does this have to do with my map for the campaign? In searching for how to do this, I found examples or how to draw graphs in R.

"Hang on a minute," I said. "I'll save those pages for later and see what they are about."

A brief version of 'later' came along and I looked at the examples on the web more closely. I was excited at the prospect. I even found a heap of publicly available shape files that would probably help with layers for my maybe, eventual map.

A bit more 'later' came today when I had finished the reports, so I decided to have a first pass at drawing a map.

This quick, first pass developed into several hours, but I am happy with progress and the prospect of having something functional, flexible and reproducible.

Following the steps in the example on the web and using the R package 'rnaturalearth' gave me this preliminary map (scaling a map of the world to show the bit that we need for this campaign).

I did not want the borders of the countries, which are modern. How to remove them? Too easy, as it turned out as it had been done for me. Simply use the set 'coastline' from the R Natural Earth collection. Overlaying the rivers and lakes took a bit of search, try, fail, search, try again, but I got there!

One overlay done, I was off. Mountain areas from the European Environmental Agency (probably too coarse, so I'll have to keep looking).

I need some cities. What had I done wrong? Ah, this was only a sample file. Not public domain, they want payment for this set of data circa 1700.

The free World Cities dataset worked, just a few too many!!

Making them grey is a nicer look, but still too many. No matter. I can edit the Excel file and reload it as a shape file (or just make my own from scratch).

That was enough for now.

 

Happy with progress so far and having a way to improve what I have—edit the cities, try to find a file with a better representation of the mountains—it is time to turn in.

 

Good night.