The Small, Thin Review of the Year

Well, that was (nearly) the year that was. And I suppose it is time to look back and see what has happened. A quick scroll through the posts of the year suggests that approximately 20 wargames have been fought out, which is quite good going for me at least. I cannot really get my head around those who manage 500 wargames in a year, paint four thousand figures to collectors standards, and still hold down a full-time job and spend endless quality time with their families and friends. I must be really inefficient, aside from a poor painter, because I can’t manage that.

Still, enough negativity. So far as I can see most of the wargames were part of different campaigns. The first was from my much-neglected ancients collection and was a consequence of my having painted the rest of the Germans. They forced their passage into the Roman Empire past the hapless Dacians who, if they did not keep defeating the Romans, I would start to suspect of being a sort of ancient road-bump.

Still, next up was a rather interesting and enjoyable campaign in Italian Wars Italy, based on the old Avalon Hill game Machiavelli. This was fascinating, trying out the different armies available with different strengths against each other. The French were within an ace of winning the whole thing, while the Papacy was close to being wiped off the map. Most of the systems I used for regulating the campaign solo, such as the diplomacy table worked very nicely, although the Spanish and French remained in alliance. By the end, the situation in central Italy was fairly well blocked. The powers involved had two armies in the area and were too strong, therefore, to take on any of the others, but not strong enough to have a go themselves. In the north the French were attempting to retake Milan, having lost it to a cheeky Imperial attack. If the French had managed to get moving they would have swamped the defenders, but the initiative cards were not kind.

The Machiavelli campaign generated seven of the wargames, which is pretty good going, I think, and a few surprises. The fight does not always go to the strongest, which is nice to know. The blocking of central Italy could probably have been solved by using the advanced Machiavelli rules, which include finance and the ability to pay off your enemies’ armies. The constipation of Italy could have been relieved by this, but I was cautious because I did not want to overcomplicate the campaign.

Flushed with success, however, I turned to the Thirty Year’s War and tried that. This was a very nice set up although it took most of a morning to sort it out. The map is good, and the counters and state cards are well done. However, even my simplified mechanics made the game too complex, and I gave up after two or three moves, and the same number of wargames. I do not think that it was the fault of it being played solo; the report I have is that the game is unplayable by groups as well. Back, as they say, to the drawing board, or at least to push on a little further with Machiavelli.

Next along, I decided to try out another campaign, this time much more limited in scope. I had been reading a bit about strategy and had sort of understood the strategic problems and opportunities found in the American Civil War. This is probably old hat to most wargamers but was news to me, so I decided to try it out. A very abstract map was generated and forces were randomly allocated from my ancient Greek collection. Four wargames ensued and the Athenians (representing to Union) won. This also was fascinating as a campaign as the Athenian defensive victories early in the campaign really crippled the Spartan plan, as well as crippling one of their forces which should really have been romping to victory.

The Machiavelli and the ACW Greeks campaigns both highlighted how scenarios can be created by the campaign itself. In the Machiavelli campaign, the Papal forces confronted the Spanish, defending a river line. The Spanish crossed the river and, instead of counter-attacking, the Papal army withdrew. This was a strategic decision to lose Rome but to keep the army in being to save Ancona and the other Papal army there. If the Papal army had carried on they would probably have lost and then the remaining army would have been defeated in detail. As it was they could contribute to blocking the centre of Italy.

In the ACW campaign the last battle related to the attempt of a Spartan army to escape the Athenians and retreat south to the other remaining Spartan army. They went down to defeat (partially, of course, glorious) but the scenario was to escape, not beat the enemy. Food, I think, for thought.

For something a bit lighter we revisited Ferdinand and Isabella and their bed antics (um, yes), in which Ferdinand had a much-reduced army. It was quite a lot harder to win with the reduced Spanish but after an initial defeat, he did manage to recapture his bed and carry it back in triumph to his lady. Perhaps you had to be there.

The final run of games has been based around Siena in the Italian Wars. This is an adaptation of an article in Miniature Wargames I wrote ages ago about the rise of the Aztecs. As I write the Sienese have conquered Florence but are desperately fighting against some random invaders. The game is actually midway through downstairs as I write, so I do not know the outcomes of this one. Expect to see a post soon.

There have been one or two other games, of course. The Irish, led by Donal and Dougal went down to defeat in the Curlieu Hills, which seems to round off the Armada Abbeys spur campaign nicely. I also experimented with a game representing reconnaissance. This tried out a few ideas for how to conduct a recce solo and seemed to work quite nicely. Integrating the game into a campaign is a work in progress.

So, there you are a year’s worth of games. I also managed some painting, more or less wiping out the lead pile. However, Santa has delivered some more, so you need not fear about my unpainted lead depression. It is still going strong.