Painting with a Purpose

 As you are probably bored of me writing, I am not trying to increase the footprint of my armies. By ‘footprint’ I mean the storage space the toys take up, which is basically one cupboard and about five extra boxes with the outsized terrain pieces in them. The idea is not to allow the space taken up by that to increase, as it will all eventually have to fit onto a much smaller space than at present.

That said, I have found myself painting a fair bit this year, perhaps unexpectedly. As I have already reported, the Japanese have had a significant augmentation in the recent past. Looking a bit further back, the Southeast Asians have also increased, and the Ottomans and Mughal Indians have added a few bases as well. Some of these, admittedly, have simply been using up odd strips of Irregular troops, which were left over by my decision to double the number of strips on a base, but some were done deliberately, as the demands of the 1600 – Something campaign have become clear.

The only European troops I can recall painting in the recent past are two bases of Polish Winged Hussars, after an unfortunate incident early in the campaign where I ran out. Since painting and basing them, of course, the Poles have not been engaged in any fighting. I dare say that they will come around again, just not in the last few turns.

I have also doubled the number of Mongols I have available. I discovered that my Central Asians were in a bit of a mess, and Mongols (along with Tibetans) are fairly useful sorts, able to be deployed as anything from Koreans and Jurchen to Circassians and Moguls. After all, ‘Mogul’ is a corruption of ‘Mongol’ in the first place, because that is where the Emperors came from (a long story).

The rest of the additions have mostly been infantry, due to the doubling referred to above. The cavalry were not doubled, and so remain at five or six figures to a base. Thus the number of infantry bases has had to increase, and, in some areas like South-East Asia, I still probably have too many cavalry bases for the number of infantry, given the constraints of a twelve-base army.

Still, before I digress too much further, I have been pondering my current painting and any future it might have. As I have noted before, I am not a skilful or particularly happy painter. Many wargamers are both, but it is not me, and mostly I prefer to keep my painting to limited numbers. On the other hand, the Estimable Mrs. P. is very firm in her ‘no grey armies’ rule, which is another caliper on simply buying stuff.

Recent painting has been of the bits and pieces variety. The picture shows four bases of Chinese bows and crossbows, which will be used in China and Southeast Asia. There is also a base of Chinese foot there, originally Boxers from Irregular’s colonial range, but since the Boxer ethos was to use traditional weapons, the early modern wargamer has a useful set of figures. The oddity is the base of Aztec ‘swordsmen’, which is a base to use up a spare strip. I do not actually need any more Aztec types.

On the other side I have two Indian command elephants, so my Asian armies do not have to have their generals integrated with a combat base. I have long thought about this, but not done anything about it. This has not (nearly) changed. There is also an extra base of Mongol light cavalry, which was caused by me looking at the wrong army list for the Mongols when I bought the doubling troops; I got six light horse (which is fine for Jurchens) rather than seven. The final strip is a bit of an oddity, an Aztec gun hauling crew. This has been hanging around, half painted, for years, and now has been (nearly) finished. It can sit in the guns and limbers box and, I suppose, could, in fact, be used to haul anything.

Left, for the moment, in my ‘due to be painted’ box are some Indian mounted officers, so I can have order markers (those annoying triangular bases you can see on the wargame photographs) which actually look in keeping with the Asian games. This is, of course, pure indulgence on my part. I do not ‘need’ them; they are for aesthetic purposes. I also have four trees to paint, to augment the number of woods I can deploy. Actually, the motivation behind this was to use up some odd trees I have accumulated. I also have some other strips of Western infantry officers and some cavalry who will be based as additional order markers.

After that lot, what next? Well, I am not aiming at anything major. I suppose that I could start on African armies, using Zulus for the east and Ashanti for the west, along with some colonial Abyssinian figures for the Horn of Africa. But I think I shall stick to Aztecs for them, to be honest. I think I would be around 36 bases for each, and while I do have an empty box or two, I think I do not want to paint that many figures whose accuracy could be questioned. I have also considered obtaining some Eastern Forest Amerindian types as well, and discounted them on the same grounds, although I can, of course, find suitable figures in Baccus’ French and Indian Wars range.

Aside from those non-projects, and a few odds and ends in my deeper storage box (mostly offcuts of strips) which might make it to the painting stage if I get really bored, I have not found anything else that I am really lacking. The most vulnerable are probably the Ottoman and Mughal armies, in the sense that it might be fairly easy to run out of troops if big armies are constituted. On the other hand, the maximum size of an army in the campaign is around 36 bases, which I can probably manage so long as the Ottomans and Mughals do not end up fighting each other.

And so, when those officers and trees are painted, I am thinking of retiring my paintbrushes. At least for the moment.

1600 – Something: Bosnia Confrontation

Some of you might recall, in the Spring 1606 turn, the Venetians were a bit irritated by an Austrian incursion into their territory and requested that the Ottomans do something about it. This was, shall we say, for diplomatic reasons, the Venetians having trading ties with the Ottomans and, perhaps more importantly, no army of their own. As the Austrians have been wandering around the Balkans at will for a while, the Ottomans agreed, but action was delayed while the Emperor recovered from illness.

The time has now come for the reckoning, and so an Ottoman army of five cavalry bases, three light horse, two janissaries and two militia took on an Austrian army of four shot, two pike, two light horse and four cavalry. While the diplomatic context might be complicated, the military one is a lot simpler than of late.

The terrain gods were kind to the defenders, in this case the Austrians. They got a stream dividing the field, a hill on their right (with cavalry on it, above), a field to hide musketeers in, and plenty of rough ground to divide up the enemy attacks. The Ottoman plan was to keep the Austrian infantry occupied in the centre, try to worm around the Austrian right with the light horse, and smash the Austrian left with the cavalry. The Austrians, noting their deficiency in light horse, pulled the baggage right up behind the infantry line.

The action proceeded rather slowly, due to a lack of will to move by the Austrians and a lack of tempo points for the Ottomans. Nevertheless, the Ottoman light horse on their left are in action, and suffering slightly from the Austrian musketeers in the field. The Ottoman infantry have moved up in the centre, but are nowhere near ready yet. The Ottoman right, under the general, is in position, slightly outside charge range of the Austrians. Given the situation, the Austrians are in the process of moving a cavalry base over from the hill on their right to the left flank.

I am giving the wind rules another go. In this action, the wind is light and blowing from the south-west, that is, the nearside left-hand corner. The smoke from the Austrian muskets has not dispersed but is drifting gently between the wings of the armies on that side. I am also trialling weather rules, again following my naval rules. In this case, the weather was ‘fair’. I am not quite sure of the time scale for the moves of the battle, but I am thinking about 15 minutes per move, so I will roll for the wind and weather to change every 8 moves, or 4 hours. That sounds like it might be about right. Mind you, it does mean that I have to count moves as well.

A few moves later and the Ottoman foot is nearly in position. On the Austrian right, the single base of light horse is taking on three bases of Ottoman lights and winning, albeit with some musket support. On the near side, the Ottoman general gambled and moved into charge range of the Austrians, hoping to be able to charge next move. Unfortunately, he lost the tempo and was counter-charged by the cuirassiers. The Ottomans are being driven back, and the general himself has been lost. Oops. That was not part of the plan.

The cavalry of the front line of the Ottoman right has been routed, and the Ottoman army has been forced to fall back. On the far side you can see that the Austrian light cavalry is still prevailing against the Ottoman light. Indeed, they have routed one base. In the centre, the infantry is in disarray. On the Austrian left, the general has managed to pull back both of his bases which charged. To protect them while they rally, the base transferred from the Austrian right has charged in, but it has been bounced and is now in deep trouble against a base of sipahis. On the other hand, the Austrian light cavalry on this flank, which hitherto has achieved very little, is not taking potshots at the Ottoman militia in the centre.

The end came in various guises. On the up-side for the Ottomans, they have stabilised their left by pummelling the Austrian light horse a bit. The Janissaries have come into action in the centre and are winning the firefight, at least at the moment. On the downside, Austrian firepower shook the militia, and the light horse finished the job (on a lucky dice roll), and now the militia are fleeing. On the Ottoman right, nearest the camera, the rallied cuirassiers have charged again and wrecked the Ottoman cavalry. The third base was too close to the front line and has been swept away.

With the general lost alongside eight bases, Ottoman morale went to -6. A good dice roll did not help an irrecoverable position, and the army routed.

So, the Austrian incursion into the Balkans has survived with fairly minimal losses. The Ottomans, however, have lost their main European army. The battle before last, of course, they were on the defensive against the Persians and won, at least relatively. Cavalry-based armies attacking defensive positions seem to be at a disadvantage, but the key factor here was the timing of the cavalry charge by the Austrian left. If the Ottomans had won the tempo, we could be looking at a very different outcome. But part of the issue was the terrain, which prevented the Ottomans from bringing their cavalry advantage to bear.

The other factor was some very good Austrian combat dice rolling, especially from the right wing light cavalry and the left wing cavalry when it was needed. The other factor was the Austrian reserve cavalry, which switched from the right to the left wing and then sacrificed itself to allow the rest of the cavalry to recover.

The wind and weather had only a minimal effect on the action, which was a good thing, but now I need to make a rather better move counter, wind and weather tracker thing. That should, I hope, be straightforward. The next action sees the Spanish attempt to take Paris, I think.

Return to East Africa

 My post on East Africa and the activities of the Ottomans and Portuguese around Mombasa in the 1580s generated some interesting responses. Firstly, JWH of the Heretical Gaming blog came up with a photocopy of an old Miniature Wargames article on the fighting around the island, by Andy Callan. This was interesting, especially in Mr Callan’s interpretation of the forces and how they could be represented. I’ll return to that in a bit.

The other response was by James and consisted of a few articles from JSTOR. Some were open access (hooray), but one was a subscriber-only paper (boo!) from 1987. I could pause to question why a paper from 1987 needs to be behind a paywall, but the mysteries of academic publishing really do elude me. Life being what it is at the moment, I have only managed to read the one James sent, not the other. I will get around to it.

Anyway, I have read Matthew Schoffeleers, ‘The Zimba and the Lundu State in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries’, The Journal of African History, 1987, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1987), pp. 337-355, and interesting it is too. I shall attempt to summarise it here, but this is only from a fairly swift first read.

The first thing to note is that the Zimba of this article might not be the same as the Zimba of the fighting around Mombasa. To a non-specialist, this is confusing. The paper focuses on the area further south, around the Zambezi River, and north from there to Lake Malawi. Now, there is a river from Lake Malawi which joins the Zambezi near a place called Sena, which was a Portuguese outpost and trading centre. It gets a little complex.

The Portuguese came as traders for the ivory, cloth, and gold and silver mines which were/are along the Zambezi and its environs. Initially they rubbed shoulders fairly happily with the Muslim traders of the same commodities, including slaves, who originated in the Swahili Coast ports. As the Portuguese presence increased, tensions also grew, leading to violence, raids, massacres and so on in the 1580s and beyond.

The question that arises and is addressed in the paper is the status of the polities in southern Malawi, the area between the Lake and the Zambezi, at this time. There appear to be two schools of thought. The first is that these states had been created roughly in the Sixteenth Century by local rulers grabbing each other’s kingdoms and thus the polities grew. The other possibility is that they grew as a result of pressure from the Portuguese themselves as they turned trading outposts into forts and started to look like permanent features and rulers, rather than fairly ephemeral traders after a quick buck.

How do the Zimba come into this? Well, it would seem that there were a fair number of runaway slaves from all these places, slavery being endemic among both Africans and Portuguese at the time. A lot of them seem to have gone south of the Zambezi and formed some sort of a grouping there, who were then hired by one of the rulers, the Lundu, against another, the Muzura, and, incidentally, against the Portuguese when they allied with the Muzura.

Confused? Yes, well, so am I. The documentary sources are sparse, the names are confusing, the timelines are obscure, and the outcomes are also partly unknown. Still, it is clear that the Portuguese stayed. The area being discussed is, after all, part of Mozambique and, therefore, was Portuguese-owned (as a colony) into the Twentieth Century. The account given does show, rather gratifyingly, that the African leaders were quite capable of taking initiative and invading places, either other African polities or Portuguese enclaves. The politics of allying with or attacking the Portuguese is a bit obscure, but, as with most colonial warfare, a lot of the fighting was done by Africans.

As a case in point, the Zimba in 1592 overran a local chiefdom allied to the Portuguese. He called for help from the captain of Sena, who marched out with Portuguese and African troops and discovered the Zimba in a palisaded camp. The captain of Sena called on help from the Portuguese of Tete, who marched out with Portuguese, African vassals and Portuguese African troops. These were ambushed and killed by the Zimba, unknown to the other Portuguese, who only found out when the Zimba sallied forth beating Portuguese drums. Upon this, the Portuguese retreated, only to be ambushed in turn. The next year the captain of Mozambique had a go with 200 Portuguese and 1500 African troops, and failed as well.

All of this is quite interesting, of course, and is an indication of early modern state formation among Africans, as well as the potential of very early colonial wargaming. The forces are small, the stakes are high, and the technological differences are not great. The Portuguese cannon in the second expedition could make no impact on the Zimba fortress, for example.

However, we do have the problem that no one seems to make suitable figures. As Nanducket commented on the original posts: Where do you even begin to find depictions of soldiers for armies that we know next to nothing about? It is a good question, but Andy Callan has some suggestions. Clearly, the Portuguese and Ottomans can be sources from Renaissance-style ranges, to the taste of the wargamer. The Africans are more difficult, but Mr Callan suggests Zulus. I had, in fact, considered this myself, but as I do not want to increase the footprint of my armies at present, I am going to use Aztecs. Mr Callan observes that the Zulus of the Nineteenth Century had been rearmed with assegi thrusting, rather than throwing, spears. But aside from that the figures would probably work well, especially at smaller scales, like my own 6 mm size. Or, as I said, I will substitute from my extensive Aztec collection if the South-East Africans ever get to blows.

That said, the above does not really explain the Zimba who turned up at Mombasa to embarrass the Ottomans. Unless Zimba means, somehow, an aggressive set of runaway slaves who turn up from time to time looking for action and loot. I am still not sure I know.

1600 – Something: When the Smoke Cleared

Back with the 1600 – Something campaign, you might recall that a defeated Muscovite army withdrew from Estonia to Latvia. The Latvians, given a failed Muscovite GOOS roll, were not too impressed with this and local forces rallied to see off the threat. You might wonder why the Muscovite army went that way, but this was because there was not really room inland from Estonia for another army, as a withdrawal to Novgorod would force the Muscovite army there into garrison. And anyway, the Muscovites still harboured ambitions for a port on the Baltic.

The Latvians, therefore, as a local force, drew randomly from the German Minor States list. They got four cavalry bases, four pike bases, three shot, and one light horse base. The Muscovites, given the casualties last time, had reverted to a wholly Muscovite list, consisting of six cavalry bases, two streltsi shot, two Cossack light horse bases, and an urban Cossack pike and shot base.

The terrain really did favour the Latvians, with a nice hill within their deployment area to put the infantry on, and plenty of terrain on their side of the table to make life difficult for the Muscovite cavalry. After some consideration, the latter decided to mask the Latvian right and centre with some cavalry and the infantry, and to try to overwhelm the Latvian left with light horse and cavalry.

Not much happened in the early part of the battle. The Latvians were reluctant to move off the relative safety of their hills, and so the Muscovites had to slog across the field to get at them. You can see in the foreground the Muscovite right hook getting into position. Lurking behind the trees on the left is the Muscovite general and some more of the cavalry, who are hoping to strike the Latvians centre-left when the Muscovite right has done its job.

As you can see above, an extensive firefight has started in the centre, and it is not proceeding to the Muscovite advantage. You can also see there is a fair bit of smoke drifting about, as I am using the rules piloted in the previous battle. The wind speed is 3, which is fairly light, and it is blowing from the camera side of the field. I am now thinking of adding some weather rules, but I’ll need some which are appropriate to different regions of the world.

The action proceeded with a lot more smoke hanging around. The firefight continued to go in favour of the Latvians. One base of Streltsi has already been routed, two more are shaken and stranded in front of the Latvian infantry. The Cossack pikes were left to their own devices and attacked the Latvians on the hill, only to be routed by the latter’s pike. In the foreground, the Muscovites are working on their cavalry traffic jam, hoping to get a charge in on the Latvian left.

Continued good shooting from the Latvians has seen off another base of streltsi, and the Cossack shot are rocking as well. In the foreground, the Muscovite general has charged with his cavalry up the hill. The Latvian shot have been driven back shaken, but, after initial success against the pike, the Muscovite cavalry has been driven back down the hill. The Muscovite general survived this (a first, I think, in the campaign), but the morale check caused by the fleeing foot has caused the Muscovite army to waver.

The end came fairly quickly. The Latvian shot, peering through the gun smoke, saw off another Muscovite foot. The Latvian pike on the hill, commanded by the general, advanced down the slope to rout the shaken Muscovite cavalry they had just recoiled, while the left wing Latvian cavalry advanced into the wavering Cossack light horse and routed them as well. A Muscovite success was routing the Latvian shot on the hill.

The constant stream of losses had sapped Muscovite morale, although a good roll (considering the initial score was minus 2) meant that they ‘only’ went to withdraw status. Conversely, a poor Latvian score meant that they wavered. The Muscovite general, incidentally, survived the rout of his cavalry base.

However intact, the Muscovites only have five bases left from the initial twelve, and so retreat is the only option. The Latvians managed to hold out, with the loss of a single base. I will have to work out what the Muscovite army does next. At present, I think disbanding it is favourite, as I do not think the Muscovites have the money to repair it, and there is not really anywhere to move it to to recuperate.

That was an interesting action, I think. The Latvian defensive position was always going to be a tough nut to crack for a cavalry army, and the Muscovites nearly made it work. A slightly better roll on the uphill cavalry attack on the Latvian main position could have given them the upper hand. On the other hand, their infantry was simply shot to pieces by the Latvians. This was just good dice rolling rather than anything else. As it turned out, the Latvians could have put their second pike block on the hill as well, and then the Muscovite attack would probably have failed more quickly. As it was, neither the Muscovite left, nor the Latvian right got into action.

So, in spite of their best efforts, and the help of dastardly French diplomacy, the Muscovites have, for the moment, failed to get to the Baltic coast. Mind you, they do have a fleet on the northern coast, but that is a bit hampered by lack of support, and being a Swedish unit that defected. It may have to disband, and Muscovite strategy might need reorienting away from the Baltic towards the south. We shall see.

Next along, I think, we have the Ottomans taking on the Austrians in Bosnia, at the behest of the Venetians. As I have just had two distinct defensive victories, some rooting for the offence might be needed. We shall see.

Lightest Africa Again

In the chapter on conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa in the Seventeenth Century, Jeremy Black observes that there were three types of conflict. The first was between African states themselves, the second between European actors and native Africans, and the third between Europeans (The Cambridge Illustrated Atlas of Warfare: Renaissance to Revolution, p. 42). The dynamic powers, he observes, were African. Colonialism had not really got started by 1600.

The planned expansion of the 1600 – Something campaign to Africa has reached the South-West of the continent. The activity here was mainly Portuguese. The margin by which European technology – muskets – outclassed native weaponry was not great. The Musketeers were hampered by a slow rate of fire, and I read somewhere that the Africans learnt to throw themselves flat as the firearms were discharged, scrambling up and charging before the Europeans could reload.

For my pains I have been reading John K. Thornton’s The Art of War in Angola, 1575-1680 (Comparative Studies in Society and History, 30(2), 360–378, (1988).) As with much modern military history, it is of perhaps limited use to the wargamer. In a similar way, I am afraid, Thornton’s book on warfare in Atlantic Africa was only of limited use. There are reasons for this which I have discussed elsewhere (p. 168 – 170 of that book), so I will not repeat myself here. But there are some interesting takeaways, at least for my purposes.

Firstly, there were no cavalry available in central Africa. The climate is just not suitable for them, and even though the Portuguese tried to introduce them, they never got above about a dozen mounted men. These might have been useful for scouting, but could get overwhelmed by the scouts of the other side. So, in general, cavalry were not used.

Secondly, at least for Angola, the DBR army lists seem to be in error. Thornton argues that the normal Portuguese army in Angola consisted of European officers and generals, and mostly African troops. The DBR list (III.1) lists 10 – 48 Portuguese foot, and 6 – 12 Africa slave or Arab infantry. This seems to be incorrect, although the West African Forest Peoples list (III.7) does allow Portuguese allies. This is probably more accurate for ‘Portuguese’ armies.

A consequence of the lack of horses was, of course, that the pack animals became humans. Given that the land was fairly sparsely occupied, armies had limited opportunities to forage, and so had to carry more or less everything they needed, in terms of food, with them. Hence armies had large quantities of porters and camp followers. Thornton suggests a rule of thumb should be one and a half camp followers per soldier. This limited the maximum size of armies to 10 – 15,000, although these were regarded as handy armies in Europe at the time, I believe.

The impact of the musket was limited. As noted above, the slow rate of fire was a problem. So, too, was the habit of Angolans to fight in fairly dispersed formations. They did use arrows, but saw no need to close up as European armies did. The latter fought in close order units, of course, because they did have to face cavalry. The Angolans, not having this problem, fought in a much more open formation. Thornton notes, along the way, that opponents tend to overestimate the size of armies which are dispersed. The units, after all, fill more space per man than expected.

The Angolans did not use much in the way of fortification. After all, if your opponent was going to starve in a few days anyway, you only had to delay him for that length of time, and they would be forced to go away. Thornton notes that the local defences resembled the earthworks, ditches, and low walls that Europeans had developed painfully from the later Fifteenth Century. Given the logistical and manpower limitations, and the infrequency of fortifications, artillery was not widely used.

The Portuguese, it seems, largely adapted themselves to Angolan styles of warfare, rather than the other way around. The Portuguese infantry did have some advantages in weaponry, swords and armour, although it made them rather slower than their opponents. The Angolans too had heavier infantry, and used them as a reserve, which could win or lose the battle. The Portuguese adopted similar tactics. These reserves were used when the lighter infantry ran away, which they often did. After all, the threat of pursuit was much less in a cavalry-free battle environment, and so breaking formations (especially when they were looser already) had a much lower penalty than it did in Europe.

This ability to run away also made the baggage train more important, incidentally. The protection and capture of baggage was an important consideration on the battlefield. After all, many of the troops’ families could be found there, and so it was an important morale consideration, if nothing else. On the other hand, given the propensity to run away, decisive victories were hard to obtain, as the defeated army would simply reform a few days later and menace the victors.

Overall, I think Angolan forces will fit quite well into the campaign. The Portuguese tried for decades to subdue them, largely unsuccessfully. Conquest had to wait until the Nineteenth Century. In fact, the Portuguese conformed largely to local tactics and conditions, and used African troops extensively. One force in 1585 consisted of 300 Portuguese and 9000 Africans. The parallels to the Spanish conquest of Mexico are few. The Portuguese did not have the same technological edge as the Conquistadores, nor did they arrive at a critical time in the politics of the regions as the Spanish did.

African polities were quite capable, in the time period of interest, of resisting, allying with and using European forces and arms. The Portuguese were not always successful against African forces, and the situations on the ground were often complex, with assorted native polities, mutually hostile, who were quite capable of manipulating the situation to their advantage. In this sense, of course, the parallels with Central America are more distinct. As there, we have to let the native have their agency.

Rounding Up The Stragglers

There are a few outstanding things to report here, and I shall start with the painting status.

The above shows the Japanese forces, now all painted and almost all based. There are six foot Samurai bases, four ashigaru with yari, two shot and one bow ashigaru base, and two Samurai cavalry. Those of you who have good memories and like that sort of thing might immediately smell a rat: were there not five ashigaru with yari bases?

You are correct, there are. Unfortunately, I messed up the basing of one of the said bases, and it will have to await the next batch. This sort of thing happens from time to time, I suppose. Anyway, the above nearly doubles the available Japanese forces, from about one-and-a-half armies to three. Thereabouts. It will be useful if either the Japanese decide to invade Korea, or if they fall apart into civil war. Both are possibilities in 1600 – Something.

Another development is that I have finally finished my measuring sticks, as shown above. The one on the left is a base width wide; the one on the right is a half base width. Both extend to the putative new range of heavy cannon in the rules, and the first three base widths of the measure are divided into half-base widths. As the Estimable Mrs P observed when she saw them: ‘Much neater than your handwriting…’.

I have found that the thinner one is handier for the actual games, as the other can knock things around a bit more easily. They both have a bit of a tendency to bow, which is OK. You could argue that they are not that accurate, and I would agree. The lines are hand-painted and a bit wobbly. But then, I do not really do millimetrics and working out exact distances and angles. I am more in the ‘if it looks and feels right, do it’ sort of camp. The other issue is that I could have scored the plastic card to make things a bit more precise, but decided not to, as it would make the measuring sticks more likely to snap.

A few other things have come to pass rule-wise. I mentioned the new smoke rules last time, and they are imported from the naval rules. I have also mentioned the new artillery rules, including longer and shorter ranges. The motivator for this was a recent battle in Burgundy where Spanish artillery, trained on an open field, managed to rout some French infantry single-handedly. At one level, that was fine. After all, I do recall Bicocca and the mess French guns made of Spanish cavalry at that one, but it did seem a little extreme. So the artillery has been downgraded a little, while the ranges have been adjusted. Not that it has made much difference yet.

That brings me to another thing I have been pondering over the last few weeks, relating to both the tabletop and the campaign rules. I keep tinkering with them, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that. On the other hand, I do feel a little guilty that, for example, the introduction of some fairly swingeing financial rules a few game years ago has really, totally and utterly crippled Sweden as a power. Is that fair? Should I have, say, set all debts to zero at the end of that year and proceeded from there?

I do, of course, invoke guideline 1 from that book, which is, essentially, if it happened and you think it was wrong, do not go back and redo it, for that way madness lies. Thus the Swedes are facing recurring bouts of rebellion and the loss of their budding Baltic Empire. That seems fair enough, and, indeed, agrees roughly with the historical record. But I do feel a little guilty sometimes that the financial rules were retrofitted, and I had not worked out the implications of going into debt before the Swedes plunged headlong into unaffordable wars.

The issue is a little more acute with the expansion of the game to cover the Far East and now Africa. For example, in the original Euro-centric campaign, the Spanish got an extra D6 money per year to cover income from the Empire, both the Spanish and Portuguese. The expansion to the Far East made no difference to that, as I did not model the Portuguese Empire. But now, with Africa and the Americas added, it is starting to look a bit odd. The two sea-borne empires are, on paper, wealthy, having large geographical holdings for the Spanish and great trading holdings for the Portuguese. So, should I remove the Spanish extra money per year?

At present I have not decided, and I will see how things go. At present the Spanish are unlikely to go bankrupt, as they did in real life, but that seems to be because they are holding on to a major empire in Europe on a really very small group of armed forces – three armies, two artillery trains and a fleet. The Empires will have to figure out how to remit money to the metropolitan capital as well, which entails having a suitable fleet (which they can do) and an unbroken chain of bases for re-victualling and repairs. Actually, thinking about it, the situation is not unlike the coaling stations of steamships.

The advent of empires has necessitated another slight rule change. Fleets started out as just fleets. In my head they were galleys in the Mediterranean, and galleons elsewhere. However, I have realised that there is a big difference between an ocean-going galleon and a home-defence galleon. This relates to the victualling issue raised above. Until the 1650s or thereabouts, for example, most English warships did not have the range to go far from their home bases, and the ability to receive supply at sea was limited. So the fleets of empire tended to be different – hence the ‘East Indiamen’ of the period. So now I need another fleet type, the ocean-going galleon. That, at least, is reasonably easy to implement, as only the Spanish and Portuguese have them at the moment, although the Dutch are starting to build such an object.

1600 – Something: Obscured by Clouds

And so, westwards in the Summer 1606 move, to another Persian invasion of Mesopotamia. After the last round of hostilities here, both sides have deployed field armies, and so it was two standard lists that encountered each other. The is three Ottoman light cavalry bases, five cavalry, two janissaries, and two militia bases. These faced two light cavalry, six cavalry, three shot, and a militia base.

For this game, I tried a little experiment. In the naval rules, as you might have spotted in the last game for Spring, there was a lot of smoke generated. This was inspired by historical accounts of naval battles in the Anglo-Dutch wars, where the sky is reported to have turned grey. Indeed, if you look at some of the artwork of the period, you will find that the skies are indeed grey, and it is not just an artistic conceit. The sheer number of cannon fired made for lots of smoke.

Anyway, after the success of the smoke reducing visibility at sea, I thought it was time to consider it on land. After all, 500 muskets going off at more or less the same time do make a lot of smoke. So a temporary rule was introduced that the smoke I use to keep track of who has fired this turn will linger unless a roll is made under the wind force number. I also added (which should probably be in the naval rules as well) that un-dispersed smoke will drift downwind.

The terrain rolling favoured the Ottomans, who are to the left above, sitting, mostly, behind a stream. Their light cavalry is deployed forward of it, just to make a nuisance of themselves. The Persians have put their infantry in the centre, with the militia, mindful of the Ottoman light cavalry, by the baggage. The Persian lights are on their right, hoping to make a gap somewhere for the heavier cavalry to pass through.

The Persians tried, shall we say. They got their shot in over the central hill and are firefighting the janissaries. Unfortunately, they were also taking pot shots at the Ottoman militia in the rough ground, and so did not focus their superior firepower against the Ottoman shot. On the Persian left, their cavalry has been held up and disrupted by the Ottoman light cavalry. On the far side, the Persian and Ottoman light cavalry are having a go at each other, but the Persian heavies are refusing to cross the stream.

The Persians were having to be cautious. The Ottoman heavy cavalry on both flanks is lurking within a charge move of the banks of the stream, so any attempt to cross is likely to be met by a downhill charge, which will, in all likelihood, destroy the Persians. The best hope was on the Persian right where the light cavalry could cover the heavies, and the Persian reserve and general headed that way.

This, however, took quite a long time, and the situation was not much better than it was when the general set off. The Persian cavalry was still refusing to cross the stream. Meanwhile in the centre the Persian shot had managed to drive back a base of janissaries but was not going to attempt to cross the stream without some cavalry support, which had just arrived on the right.

At this point some strategic considerations began to emerge. The engaged forces were the only field armies for both sides for quite a number of provinces. Neither side could really afford to lose the army, as then only local forces would be available to prevent an invasion. This might be adequate, but it might not, and neither side wished to risk it, particularly. Secondly, the Persians had never been sure they could force the crossing of the stream. With their cavalry advantage, they would have preferred more open terrain. Additionally, they could possibly have used their militia base on the front line to assault across the stream.

As for the Ottomans, they were on the defensive anyway, and the same considerations applied to them about crossing the stream. Light cavalry, of course, are not disrupted, but their light cavalry were stretched enough on the wings. They were also losing the firefight in the centre, partly because the smoke kept blowing in their faces, rendering their shooting a little less effective.

At this point, and with these considerations, the Persian commander gave the order to withdraw from the combat. The risks of crossing the stream outweighed the potential that could arise from it. While the firefight was going in their favour, the Persians could not see how to exploit it, especially having committed the reserve cavalry and general to the right.

While this was not, perhaps, the most exciting game in the world, it was, nevertheless, interesting. The tactical problem of how to cross an obstacle in the face of determined opposition is always a thorny one, and the Persians did not have an answer this time. The aim was to outflank the Ottomans on the Persian right, but the timing of that did not work out. They might have done better to have retained the general and reserve cavalry in the centre and tried to exploit the advantage they had gained there, but it was only marginal, and losing cavalry to militia might have been deemed embarrassing.

So, both sides live to fight again, and I dare say they will. The rule change seemed to work quite nicely, with a -1 to shooting factors for firing through smoke. Even though the wind was strong, the smoke still hampered the firefight. While I cannot think, offhand of too many incidents where smoke caused problems for combat, it must have been a bit of an issue, especially in those European actions where there were a lot of muskets and cannons. I do recall an incident at Basing House where a regiment of foot was loomed at out of the smoke and opened fire, only to find the loomers were on their own side.

Still, next up is the accidental Muscovite invasion of Latvia. All I have to do is work out a Latvian army list for 1606….