You have probably noticed that the War of Stuart Succession has occupied quite a bit of my recent wargaming time, and that, of course, was by design, rather than accident, although I admit that I was rather pleased with the campaign as a whole. I mentioned a while ago a problem with wargame campaigns, in that it can seem that a campaign is settled in a wargame or two, rendering the time taken to set it up and draw the maps (etc.) feeling like it was wasted. I suspect that that is one of the reasons wargame campaigns are not, it appears, that popular.
Still, this one, as with the Very Mogul Civil War, worked rather nicely. The diplomatic table certainly helps to deliver some awkward decisions for the ‘players’, in this case Arbella Stuart’s unshakable alliance with Isabella of Austria. It was not, incidentally, planned that way. The diplomacy dice just refused to adjust the score downward. This meant that once Isabella was in London, there was not much for Arbella to do except wander around the Home Counties waiting for something to turn up. That something was Edward Seymour, who caused her army to mutiny.
A new feature of this campaign compared with the Mogul campaign was the GOOS score, which, I am sure you will recall, stands for ‘God On Our Side’. This was a feature of the campaign which also worked nicely. Such were the religious sensibilities of the time that a victor in battle could claim the approbation of God, while the loser’s cause became more suspect. As the victor gained 5% GOSS while the loser lost 10% it could have given some cause for aggressive actors to consider their moves carefully. As it happens, it did not.
You can see in the photograph above the diplomatic table, with the GOOS score in the rightmost column. The first entry is James’ final score, of 05%. The highest GOOS score is Isabella’s, of 55%, while Arbella’s had been that high, but the mutiny put paid to it. It was a nice and simple way of keeping track of each participant’s popularity, and I shall probably use something similar again.
The aim of a wargame campaign is, of course, to produce wargames. This one did so very nicely, thirteen in all. A further function of the GOOS score was to determine whether the trained bands turned out against a ‘foreign’ (i.e., non-county) force. Usually they did, and, on the whole, gave a good account of themselves. After all, the trained bands defeated three Scottish and one French invasions during the campaign, and only lost (in the long run, anyway) to the Low Countries Spanish and Arbella.
I did consider permitting the trained bands to garrison towns and stand sieges rather than face invaders on the open field. I think I did right in not permitting it, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I would have got fewer wargames. Secondly, I would have had to introduce artillery and siege trains into the campaign. This is highly doable, with ‘train’ additional armies, but would have made things a bit more complex to administer, I think. Thirdly, the campaign might have bogged down in a series of sieges (which is what usually happened in the period, historically), and it might have become boring.
I think it is worth mentioning the tactical rules I use, which are my own ‘Wars of the Counter Reformation’. They are almost certainly not to everyone’s taste, and I would not expect anyone else to use them, but they do give a nice game which can be quite quick. I think the record was about half an hour, although most games are an hour or two, if I take things slowly. I suspect that another bugbear of the wargame campaign is longer table-top actions, which bog the campaign down in detail and do not necessarily aid the ‘flow’ of the action. It can be done, of course, although the popularity of the ‘Dominion of….’ rules and their ability to enable campaigns to be played quickly does seem to imply that I might have a point.
I suppose a few other comments are worthwhile. Once again, the campaign emphasised the importance of naval activity, even though only one wargame was at sea. Aside from that, the Spanish and English navies were active in transporting armies around the place once Spanish naval superiority in the Channel was obtained. This probably needs some more pondering, but I am not sure where to take that thought. It also indicated that I needed some decent naval rules, so I concocted my own. Other naval rules I have encountered tend to be of the complicated, record-keeping, and geometry sort. There must be simpler and accurate ways of taking to the seas.
Still, overall, in the game, the unluckiest player was Edward Seymour, with two fumbles and two mutinies to his credit. As one of them was on the first turn, his campaign for the throne never got going. He had a chance when he joined forces with Arbella, but fumbled again and ruined both of their chances. The luckiest was Isabella, of course. There were a number of critical points where her campaign could have disintegrated, most obviously when the Dutch invaded the Spanish Netherlands, but she managed to keep it all together.
James VI of Scotland was pretty unfortunate as well, so much so that I captured one of his dice rolls for posterity. On the other hand, I suspect that the campaign might have been weighted against him, as it is quite a long way from Midlothian to Middlesex, and he had no navy. On the other hand, he was the player with the highest initiative. He ended up wounded and captured. Interestingly, the highest initiative player in the VMCW was Mir Jumla, who ended up captured and executed. Having the highest initiative is not an unmitigated good, it seems.
So, there we are. An engrossing and entertaining campaign which, at times, really made me think about the player’s options. And I got a load of wargames out of it. The only problem is that I now have to think of what to do next. After a load of early modern campaigns, I feel something more ancient coming on.