Old School, Physical Wargaming

A few years ago, I got in on Civil War Advanced Tobruk System' the idea of adding in material on the American Civil War seemed pretty interesting. And Critical Hit has put out CWATS version 3.0; this time as a module of the main 2014 rulebook. 

I plan on getting other Advanced Tobruk System material; my only other material from this was the original ATS title and its module: Wavell's 10,000. 

I have the idea that not many people have taken up the Civil War material from ATS, and by having 3 iterations of the rulesets, I fully realise that this makes me a version of a unicorn. 

Each individual basic infantry/cavalry unit is 20-25 men. However the units are not intended to be functioning, efficiently, independently. Functioning = fire combat, as well as movement. Much of this is governed by the command control system, which is what might be expected from the period. 

In the meantime, I am looking at either going next to the First World War, or some Second World War topics. I mean, it is Advanced Tobruk, so at some point I really want to get into some armoured warfare. I don't have the room to set up fully and do the really big scenarios in anything -but I look at these as the 'system' angle, meaning this is something that with a little bit of imagination, it should always be possible to set up some scenarios.

I hope to get things together so as to set up a little bit of movement and combat, so I get the hang of the combat system in action.

I have a fair selection of grand tactical material; have done a fair bit in the digital world, but some of the earliest material I have had was following my brother's Kernstown issue of S&T, which led me to get Terrible Swift Sword. I have most of GBACW series; I have Clash of Arms' 4x titles in their La Bataille series on Waterloo (sort of a superquad), Wellington's Victory, Quatre Bras. And then there is the HPS/JTS/WDS material; I guess what that means is that conceptually I think I get what CWATS is trying to do. 

At the same time, another early title I had had was the original Squad Leaders series and their 4 modules. I did get some ASL as well (a lot actually, but I gave up on it over 20 years ago. I might get the rulebook again). I had the original Tobruk as published by Avalon Hill - point being, I also have an idea of what ATS is about (to a degree) ... meaning I understand it is different from the original in a lot of ways; I get that Critical Hit is a business selling bespoke material - a LOT of it, and I really respect that. I look forward to getting into things even more.

And simultaneously, I am looking at reworking some HPS/JTS/WDS material for myself; I have an idea of the difference between engine, and scenario design, and want to see where it can go. Oh I don't really plan on doing anything with it apart from seeing if I can do it, and what it looks like.

 

Project Work - when you have choices, make a choice and start somewhere.

Chancellorsville seemed as good as any place to start; in doing so, the focus will be on the Eastern theater of war - and that, essentially, means the Army of the Potomac versus the Army of Northern Virginia for the most part.

I was digging in through the Civil War Battles' title: Campaign Chancellorsville. I don't do this in order to play the stock scenarios. Frankly speaking I like working within Tiller's engines; I don't necessarily accept what the designer has presented as anything other than their interpretation of the engine.


Why Chancellorsville? Berg's title published by Clash of Arms, and there wasn't anything in the title that covered both the Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville as a whole. However I didn't necessarily feel bound by the order of battle structure presented. And that was probably a good thing, because the structure provided shows the Union artillery, as effectively part of the Army of Potomac Corps command structure directly; this wasn't so - Hooker had restructured and reorganised the Army of the Potomac, and one part of that was putting the majority of artillery under divisions -and that severely limited the effectiveness of Union artillery. This isn't just me saying this - Stephen Sears flat out wrote it in both his Gettysburg and Chancellorsville titles; and also elsewhere by other authors.

I never really understood, in game terms, the purpose of leaders assigned to artillery formations, and in this case it was mix and match, with some units having none at all. And I didn't really understand the purpose of gun sections (or rather I didn't agree with them -not for the Union side - not if you are wanting to try to limit their effectiveness - vis a vis the Army of Northern Virginia's artillery (at this battle). Now I guess none of these are necessarily valid or invalid, but they were design choices, and doing the unscientific alt-f to see if anything was mentioned in the notes - there was nothing at all mentioned. I was mainly looking for why it was that Union artillery was set up to fall under the Corps commanders' game impacts. I never found anything.

I also wasn't sure why Stuart's group was set up as a Corps in the game, when at this point in time, it was listed as a Division.

And finally, it caused me to do a rethink of how to represent a unit where a commander is running 2 units (say- army, and corps, as Lee was here - with Longstreet sent off to another part of the state; he didn't return to the ANV until after the conclusion of the battle. Now, to be fair, this isn't the only instance of this problem coming up in an order of battle set up. I think I had something like this happen in the American War of Independence at Savannah, back to the Civil War at Chantilly (for the Union side -which was worse, is I think that one also had a misattributed leadership set up -and I think it was Stevens and Reno off the top of my head - Reno was Stevens' superior officer there and was in charge of - I think a corps and a division). I guess the specifics aren't as important a point as to - what do you do with these situations? 

I hit on trying, instead of having 2 of the same leaders in the game - to having 1 leader - probably in the superior ranking role; then having a "leader" unit that is basically a collective 'staff' label - it sort of still only represents the same guy, but in game terms it should serve as a mechanism to refer on the command and leadership ratings throughout the unit.

In terms of Leadership effectiveness within the engine; that's something that I need to have a think about. I don't think it is accurate to think of this in terms of 'was this guy a great leader, a poor leader, or somewhere in between -it's more like what impact did this, that, or the other leader have in game terms. And that, in turn, also piggybacks on to morale ratings of units in the oob under command levels.  Like say - if a leader was particularly inspirational; their units performed accordingly ... and I believe I read leaders passing their 'rolls' for leadership, and command (respectively) pass this along down to the next level of leader, and the next ... etc - ultimately landing with units.  Take that strong leader out of the equation - what happens? Well, it seems like rating the units too highly ... you get no real difference in impact, which sort of obviates the impact of having leaders with really solid leadership/command ratings.  The morale rating working, effectively like a rallying number (or morale factor - roll over it - you break ... pass it, you're good) ... and if broken, pass the rally roll, you've rallied and are no longer routed. Pass it again, and no longer disrupted ... 

Which is a roundabout way of saying -something to think over -and maybe go there.

I also opted to add HQ detachments as a general rule -these aren't really massive- usually about 25 guys and would come from rotating details within larger formations (some of which were known, and others not). It's also a good excuse to create graphics for the Union Corps that Hooker had introduced.

I plan on redoing the unit portraits - and want to see what I can come up with that is a little like what the Blind Swords' series uses. I want to put together a new set of leader portraits - and want to go through Battles and Leaders and other lithographs -to see what I can put together. I sort of started along that path several years ago when I found some tintype frame graphics.

And if you want to know why you use a frame? For me it's about setting a consistent alignment. I know that recently the publisher got away from this - and they do have their own distinct style preferences. 

I want to build a top down map that is different from the isometric style's look and feel. For me isometric = miniatures (and probably say- 28mm miniatures); top down (2D) - that's your traditional board wargame look. 

Menus ...will change, phasebox.... change ... blank box areas ... change (and will be made way less busy, as the focus ought to be on the battle map - they've done some nice work lately -and of course none of the CWB titles are using 32 bit PNG files -so I haven't barely begun to scratch the surface of what can be done with these.

I mentioned Army of the Potomac's artillery at Chancellorsville, and the changes in the artillery arm over the course of the war are a fascinating story, which to me -is a good story to show from one title to the next, as in the context of the course of a series. 

I guess the above is what happens when you do a little bit of work in advance of writing anything down. . . :] it happens. 

Learning Additional Techniques, Getting More Done, and checking in with a Panzer Campaigns Title ... in other words, Saturday.

As it happens, I worked on ... orchards, of all things. I did some work with the buildings, chateaux, village graphics.

Using screenshots, I worked on better alignment in hexes, and opted to go with a simplified orchard look. I also used colour fill -and that worked out pretty well.

I did some brief experimenting with drop shadows, to get some transparency layer work in. That worked, but I decided it was a little out of context, considering it was a top down map, and shadows shouldn't be a factor. However, from a technical standpoint, it worked - but it only worked using a specific process. Drop shadows are really only one way to use this feature- so I am thinking of opacity - probably on the river banks to start with, and see how that goes - not at the point where I am going to try it, but it is in the back of my mind; it might also be an answer for some really ugly mid level 2D wooden fence hexsides.

For the urban, buildings, and chateaux hexes, it will involve alignment within hexes, probably density adjustments, and trialing the most effective colour combinations.

However, since I had some draft map graphics for Panzer Campaigns sitting around, and a relatively new (new to me, at least) Poland '39 title, I decided to plug in the 2D graphics that I had done to have a look.

I wanted to do this for awhile, as I recalled the stock graphics always seemed a little too water-heavy for the look for swamp/marsh hexes, and wanted to see what the version I was using looked like. I never really was sold on this being a really good idea for a title on the entire campaign, only insofar as--- it is a LOT of units to manager in a battalion level title. I remember my first Panzer Campaigns title; it was early 2000's, maybe very late 1990's, and I'd gotten a title from a reseller (probably Chips n' Bits or something like that) ... I'd played the Campaign Series from Talonsoft, and it looked similar (ok lacking unit size markings on counters ended up giving the wrong impression of the look and feel; the map had nearly identical 8 bit graphics). And... I got totally overwhelmed - it wasn't even funny. It was, however, Kharkov '42. I only really 'got' the series, once I dove into Normandy '44 which was very similar to the Avalon Hill game, The Longest Day (which I had played a lot). 

I've got a couple of Poland games, but those are at the divisional scale, so I mean battalion level, still strikes me as ambitious; however it did get published... so felt like a reasonable fit.

 

On Representations of Human Habitation...

 ... and also on visibility with a gradient of background colours, that encapsulates the next challenge on this mapping project.

I took a break from it today, apart from brainstorming some looks, so nothing done with the woods/orchards where roads/trails go through those hexes.

I have some interesting options that look usable, in some material I had for mods in the Panzer Campaigns; particularly for smaller orchards. I haven't tried it yet, but am keen to give it a look.

I have 3 different types of 'human habitation' hexes; translation - chateaux (basically smaller fortified areas (such as a keep) - the point being it is a version of a hardened target. Then there are village/town hexes, then one off buildings.

I look at buildings (especially in the earlier periods covered) as more of an affectation to the map (and not really anything of any actual, proven, defensive value). And what I mean by that, is mainly I just don't think there are sources that these actually ever existed, let alone having any impact on anything. For anyone familiar with the film, "Office Space", essentially it's "Flair". Nice to have, but basically just for show.

Might give some of this a go tomorrow. 

Mains, Roads, Paths update

Status: Done

With regards to Fields, terrain type - here is a good example of what I mean, the entire image takes up the entire hex (usually), and that doesn't need to be like that, not to mention it is a little impractical. To be really fair, though, it feels like a lot of the maps as designed go a little overboard with the number of fields, or at least the sizes of them.

I plan on playing around with the fence graphics; that was only ever a draft, and in addition to that, it was a draft from a long long time ago now.

 

 

The To Do List (Map Graphics)

I want to remove the texture from my land hexes, so I will need to do some (old Adobe Fireworks terminology) magic wand and eyedropper work (then probably build a vertical spectrum chart.

I do have some shallow/deep water hex work done (in draft form).

On my list for tomorrow, are some pretty straight-forward material: get the Mains, Roads, & Paths put in all of the titles' folders... done.

Convert over:

• Woods
• Orchards
• Boulders/Rough
• Swamps
• Fields (less in a hex shape, and showing some empty space -probably in rows: and the reason you do this on a top down map is in order to be able to see the elevation colour coding. 

 Consideration given to establish distinct colour coding for:

• Single Buildings
• Chateaux
• Village/Town hexes

And the woods, orchards, village/town hexes have versions for where roadway/pathways run through them. 

I am aware that none of this really takes much advantage of using the transparency layer on the files, but I want to get something workable first before experimenting with shadows, etc...

What I suspect I will find, is that there are distinct boundaries inherent with the files, meaning that when this portion of the file is reached, then that's it - the image will be cut off, and the remainder of it all will be shown elsewhere.

I expect to get the roads changed over, and tested, but not sure how much farther I will go all in one sitting. 

---

I have been having a think about leader graphics, and I am not at all sure I like the look of the pike. For the Middle Ages, I might go for a sword. Might keep doing a sash look for some of the Musket and Pike. I'll have to do some research around the colours since it is shown by unit type in the OOB. That wasn't available to me when I initially tried this out (engine progression, you could call it).

Finally,  before I close this off for today, I am not a fan of the tiny font -so that will get changed around in various places. Notably with Skirmishers, Routed, and Ships off the top of my head.

I am leaning to, hopefully, not actually needing lettering on the units, but rather accomplishing the same thing with colour combinations.

Anyways, that's all for tonight!! :) 

 

 

On Maps and Things...

Series Work: Let me start by stating I haven't really ever entirely approached work with a series all at once; partly due to when I began working with the graphics, there was not a lot of titles in some of these series, but that is no longer the case.

In this instance I want to be working on titles that are using PNG files, mainly in order to keep things in more of a "working rhythm".  This is basically a personal preference, plus I was used to working with BMP files in the past (which made editing a little easier - like when wanting to apply maybe a bit of a colour filter - you could just do it all to the entire file - which you can't really do, when using a 32bit PNG file. 

Both Sword & Siege, and Musket & Pike engines, are largely the same - so what I have to work with are the titles-

Sword & Siege:  

• Demo
• Crusades I 
• Crusades II
• Longbow I 

 Musket & Pike:

• American Revolutionary War  
• Great Northern War
• The Renaissance
• Seven Years' War
• Thirty Years' War
• Vienna 1683 (series demo)
• War of the Austrian Succession 

First objective is to get an elevation colour scheme model that works; I sort of already have one, so I will use that to start off, however just changing the hexes has a big effect but it is only a start.

One note here, the publisher's user guides speak of best practice, however I have found that when modifying files (and make no mistake this is all about modifying files), my own best practice is to copy the entire game folder and relabel it, like LW_game_title_here  (where LW is my own 'code' for Longespee's Workshop. That way you have a set of the stock standard files, and there should be almost no way possible of getting changed files inadvertently mixed up with those that you don't want to change). With graphics, the usual area that might need a reversion would be with alignment. And sometimes I end up having multiple copies of a title to work on, as sometimes you want to compare a draft to something that you had of your own, that was working, and now it might not. 

And with these, a lot of what is going to be going on initially, is getting my drafts into working game folders, so that means BMP to PNG conversions (and clean ups). I might swing back later on and do a hex install where I have no textures. Plus I never did versions for the various folders  under the Map folder (such as: Autumn, Frozen, Snow - there might be more in other folders).

Eventually my idea is to get a little regional variation to the schemes, and maybe divide up eras into having a distinct look and feel, but that is for another day. I still have a little more work to do with this today. The big challenges will be with armies' colour schemes, and I want to see what I can do with the unit symbols.

I rather like the 'Block" look being used, but think there is a little room for improvement; it is pretty good though, so I will be playing around with those files to see what I can come up with (especially the artillery units --- I think those can probably be a little and not lose any of the original look and feel that was provided). 

At any rate, back to work - I have some hexsides to get into place.