Chessboard War

Time for the next installment of the Tony Bath Compendium

CHESSBOARD WAR

by
 Tony Bath
The War Game Digest Book V Volume III, September 1961

Battleground: a sheet of board 3′ x 3′ divided up into 2″ squares.

Initial layout: each player sets out his army on his own side of the board. Any lay-out may be used, but his front line may not be more than 7 squares forward from the base—line.

Moves: The players toss for first move, and then move alternately. At each move one piece may be moved — infantry 1 square, cavalry 2 squares. Moves may be made in any direction, forwards, backwards, sideways or diagonally, but cavalry must move 2 squares and in a straight line. Two pieces may not occupy the same square, but cavalry may jump over a square occupied by one of their own pieces. They cannot jump over opposing pieces.

Combat: Individual combat results when one player moves a piece into a square already occupied by an enemy soldier. The attacking player then throws 2 dice. In equal combat (i.e. infantry v infantry or cavalry v cavalry) he must throw a six to kill the opposing piece; if a horseman attacks a foot soldier he kills him with a throw of 4 or higher. If the required number is not thrown, the defending player then throws: if he can beat the other’s throw then the attacking soldier is slain, but if he fails to beat it he must retire his piece one move. If no square is open for this retirement the man is captured. All dead or captured pieces are removed from the board. A soldier who has slain his opponent in hand to hand may make an additional move.

Missile Weapons: Any troops possessing missile weapons i.e. bows, slings etc. may fire upon any enemy within 2 squares range. At the commencement of each move the player must indicate which pieces are firing and nominate the soldiers they are firing at. He then throws a dice for each man, a six being needed to kill.

Object of the game: to kill the enemy king and capture his base. The base is the middle square of the base line, and should be indicated by a different colour. Here the King takes his stand: he may not leave this square. To kill him and capture the base the attacker must move a piece into contact, and then throw a 6; failure to throw a 6 means death to the attacker. The King cannot be harmed by missile fire.

Additional Rule: in addition to his King, each player may appoint a General, and indicate him to his opponent. If a player’s General is killed, he loses 4 moves.

The first try—outs of this scheme were most illuminating. For these experiments I used forces comprising 29 horse and 50 foot apiece, in addition to the King. Further, 15 of the infantry on either side were archers. In the initial layout King Arthur’s army spread its bowmen along the front in a thin outpost line, with a two—deep block of spearmen.in the centre. The cavalry were in two equal columns on the wings, with a few in reserve in the centre. The main body of infantry was drawn up in column in the left centre, with the remainder in reserve on the base line.

King Modred used a different formation. His main cavalry force, 24 strong, was massed in column on his right, with the remaining horsemen scattered about in the centre. The bulk of his infantry were deployed in 3 lines in the centre, and the right was held by about half his archers backed by a few spearmen. The rest of the archers formed a ring around the King himself.

Arthur’s plan was to hold his centre back and drive both his cavalry wings deep into the enemy line and pinch out his centre; Modred’s was also to hold back his centre, but also to remain on the defensive on his left, and blitz his main cavalry force straight through to the enemy base line. In actual fact neither plan got very far.

Modred won the toss and opened the attack by advancing his cavalry as planned: Arthur promptly countered by bringing forward his left-wing cavalry. In the course of this move one of his knights, much to his astonishment broke right through Modred’s centre, cut down one of the archers of the guard, and challenged Modred himself, but was slain. The battle then developed very swiftly as Modred completely switched his plan of attack. While his main cavalry division engaged Arthur’s left wing cavalry in an indecisive combat, and while Arthur’s right wing cavalry got itself entangled with the archers on Modred’s left, a series of one man cavalry raids were launched from Modred’s right centre. Easily cutting through or by-passing the spearmen in Arthur’s centre, these knights broke down the ring of infantry around the king and challenged him one after the other. Attempts by Arthur’s cavalry to intervene proved abortive, and though 7 knights fell before Arthur*s sword, at last he went down under the lances, and Modred gained a complete victory.

Several lessons were learnt from this little action. Firstly that the rule by which cavalry must move their full 2 squares in a straight line (i.e. a cavalryman cannot attack an opponent who is only l square away) means that the attacking player must handle his pieces with great care, otherwise his cavalry may easily bog down and be unable to move. On two occasions a Modred knight burst through Arthur’s outer defences easily enough but was immobilised because he could not reach a position exactly 2 squares from the inner defensive ring.

Secondly, that cavalry is the decisive arm, and that infantry should be largely used as blocking pieces to hamper the movement of enemy cavalry. Once attacked by an enemy horsemen, the odds are completely against the infantryman who will be slain 9 times out of 10. The best defence for the King would appear to be a guard of archers — Modred’s archer guard was only pierced once in four attacks.

Thirdly, that the attacking piece in equal combat is at a slight dis—advantage since it must obtain a six to dispose of its opponent. Therefore, although the whole object of the game is to drive an attack home to the enemy base, if the enemy can be drawn into the actual attack move preceding combat, so much the better.

I then tried a second game, with slightly reduced forces but using exactly the same methods. Again Modred easily pierced Arthur’s position and, at some cost, slew him: thus confirming the lessons of the first game. A third game was then initiated, with Modred using the same tactics but Arthur altering his. This time Modred’s attacks were held by a combination of archers spearmen and a few cavalry, while Arthur built up an assault on Modred’s left, this time mixing his cavalry with archers. In this way, every time the cavalry were blocked by infantry or archers whom they could not get into position to attack, Arthur brought up his own archers and blasted a way through, giving his cavalry freedom of movement once more. By this method Modred’s archer guard was at last pierced and the King slain.

I should have mentioned that in the second game I used the optional rule of having a General in addition to a King. Carelessness by Arthur contributed largely to his defeat, because quite early in the game a Modred knight was allowed to reach a position from which he attacked and slew Arthur’s general. The 4 moves thus gained proved decisive.

NOTE: I devised this little game a couple of years ago when in the early stages of war gaming. It is not intended as a serious alternative to the regular war game, though it doubtless could be expanded in various ways. However, as a means of passing half an hour or so with something to do with war games I think it serves its purpose.

We do hope you are enjoying our postings of WGD articles by Tony Bath; there are a few more in an ‘almost ready’ state, so be sure to look for the next chapter of our Tony Batch Compendium. As well as news concerning HistoriFigs.

Fact or Fancy?

Once again, I was looking for something else when I stumbled upon another interesting article by Tony Bath. With the other pieces I have in the pipeline, it looks like you may be stuck with a few more posts concerning the work and war gaming of Tony Bath. For those of you into Imaginations this article should be a treat. For those of a pure historical bent, well this is still a good article. So without further delay, the next post for the Tony Bath Compendium

FACT OR FANCY?

by Tony Bath

The War Game Digest, Book V Volume III, September 1961

In my experience war gamers fall into two fairly distinct categories: those who base their games on fact — i.e. the American Civil war, the Napoleonic Period, the Franco-Prussian war etc. – and those who dream up their own kingdoms, continents etc. and people them as they see fit. Naturally not everyone falls distinctly one side or the other of this line: some of us who prefer fancy to fact do not go as far as others.

However again it has been my experience that those of you who faithfully reproduce the armies of South and North, France, Prussia, Austria and the rest tend to be a little patronizing towards those of us who produce our own countries. You point to the immense amount of research you do to ensure that your uniforms are correct down to the last button and flash, to the absolutely correct organisation of your miniature armies, and tell us how easy it is for us, who don’t have to conform to realism.

Have you ever stopped to think just how much work in fact goes into the creation of a mythical kingdom or continent? Unlike you fact-lovers who only have to refer to reference books, prints, postcards etc for all your details, every single point whether it is composition of an army, uniform colouring, number of troops — even maps of the country – have to come from our imaginations. So you see, it is in fact the creator of a mythical empire who probably works harder at his task than the pure fact general.

But to the war gamer who prefers a mythical set-up, all this work is part of the fun. Lets just take a look at how he goes about setting up his own empire.

First of all comes the creation of the area itself. Here if your own fertile imagination fails you, you can turn to a number of authors who have obligingly already created ready-made empires in their novels. In the books of Robert Howard I found the mythical Hyborian Age which formed a wonderful basis for war gaming; in “Lord of the Rings” by Tolkien I came across a second equally perfect land which I dubbed Tolkia. A story in a pulp magazine by Sprague de Camp formed the basis on which Roy Blackman based his land of Heskeronis. Edgar Rice Burroughs offers fertile field, both in several of his Tarzan stories which offer hidden lands in the depths of Africa, and better still in his stories of the kin doms of Mars and Venus. Or you can turn to the old legends of earth itself and reconstruct the lost kingdom of Atlantis or the lands of Lemuria.

Having established your country, you next need a map of it in considerable detail. Here I was lucky in that both Howard and Tolkien included in their books maps of the area covered. True Howard’s didn’t show any great detail, but it gave the shape of the different countries. Blown up into a size some 6′ x 4’, these maps gave me the bare bones of my continents. with the other lands I have briefly mentioned, it has been a case of constructing suitable maps from the details mentioned in the books.

I now had my map of Hyboria in outline divided into over twenty different—countries. In the·books I learned a few details of some of these, mentions of their cities, rulers and characteristics. The rest I had to provide myself, so I set about founding cities, creating kings and princes, dividing the kingdoms into provinces, marking in mountains, roads, rivers etc. Slowly my continent was taking shape.

I now had a reasonably detailed map, and I had created a nobility, linking it together in many cases by marriages – oh yes I had to create princesses as well as princes – and the next step was to have some means of deciding on the size of the armies involved and their characteristics. My map was divided into half-inch squares, each representing an area 5 miles square; so I decided that each square not covered by mountains would – yield a revenue of so much per year. By counting the number of such squares in each country, I arrived at a total figure; in addition to this I established mines for gold, silver etc. in various areas and assessed their revenue, gave focal cities additional revenue for trading tolls stepped up the revenue of particularly fruitful areas, seaports etc.

Next I worked out a system by which certain proportions of the revenue involved went to certain people: the lord of a demesne kept so much, the count of the province had his share the duke took so much from his duchy, and all contributed to the royal coffers. The king in turn paid certain sums to people like the High Constable, Lord warden of the Marches etc. Having then decided on the cost of the upkeep of various troop units · light and heavy cavalry, light and heavy infantry elephants etc — I could decide just how many troops each kingdom, duchy or province could support.

Type of troops involved – whether mediaeval, Greek, Roman, Persian, Saracen etc. – came next. Accordingly I divided my continent up, the western countries getting mediaevals the south Egyptians, Persians, Aztecs etc., the extreme north Vikings and Saxons, the central areas Greeks and Romans, the east Saracens, Goths and Celts. I worked out exactly how many troops I needed and set about making them.

Now came another problem, uniform colours. There must be a ready way of distinguishing the troops of say Aquilonia from those of, for example, Hyrkania — for while I might easily know the difference, other people using my troops probably wouldn’t. So I set to work to map out a system of colour grading by which no country would uniform its troops in the same colours as another. To each country I gave a two-tone uniform — Aquilonians for instance wear black and gold, Hyrkanians blue and silver -and then using this as a base worked out variations for the provinces within a country. So that while the pikemen of the province of Gunderland wear Aquilonian black and gold, their accoutrements are red and their shields bear the Gunderland crest.

All this has taken weeks and indeed months of careful planning — and I’ve enjoyed every moment of it. Indeed, I’ve gone much further than this, purely for my own pleasure, by working out systems whereby my nobles can inter—marry, revolt against their rulers, assassinate one another, die from natural causes, and many other items. In Tolkia I have in addition a College of Wizards who can affect the situation by their use of the Black Arts, and beyond the normal weapons of war my rulers there can call on such fearsome beasts as pteranodons (winged reptiles), tyrannosaurus and dinosaurs to do their bidding. (Sometimes of course they do their own bidding with disastrous results to their masters!)

As I said in the beginning, there is no need to go this far if you do not wish – you can dream up your mythical country without all the trimmings that I and some others have applied.
The beauty of a mythical land is that your own tastes and fancies are the only rules — you create what you like how you like.

Don’t think that I am against those of you who prefer factual empires — everyone to their own taste, and as long as we enjoy ourselves in our own way then our hobby has justified itself. But I hope the foregoing may have convinced some of you that we myth-lovers put in as much work in our own way as you do!

 

Lots more where this came from. As well as news of ongoing projects and new releases. Check back soon, for more.