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.

ARMOURED WARFARE WITHOUT THE COMPLICATIONS

It has been a busy past few months here at HistoriFigs HQ. Between the ‘day job’, farm work, the holidays and figure casting there has been little time to sit down and write. With the holidays behind us, farm work settled into the winter routine we should start to have a bit more free time (well, at work we are gearing up for a new software release, but that shouldn’t take too much extra time, except for a few short periods of time), so perhaps I can get back to a more regular posting schedule.

Here at HistoriFigs, we prefer our miniature games to be, well Games. Our ideal set of rules can be condensed to two side of a standard letter sized sheet of paper (well, at least everything we need for a game, the actual rules may well be longer, but we should not need to refer to the rules very often). We have a few rules sets that we play frequently that fit this description, but have never really settle upon anything like it for the interwar period. That is until now. While looking for something else I discovered an article by Tony Bath. One that presents a set of rules, that fits what we have been looking for. So, without further delay we present:

 

ARMOURED WARFARE WITHOUT THE COMPLICATIONS
by Tony Bath
The War Game Digest, Book VI Volume I, March 1962

Since we live in a modern age, there is bound to be an attraction for the war gamer in the idea of tank warfare. Indeed, quite a number of people do specialise in modern war games, both of World War II vintage and even later. But I feel that many others have, like myself, been put off this type of game by the seemingly endless complications of it, with literally dozens of differing types of tanks and guns with their various armour values, with aircraft, minefields and the like.

Are these complications in fact really necessary to tank games? In my opinion an excellent game can be run without them. (Enthusiasts of the Reavley – Tarr school can stop reading at this point — this article is not aimed at them!) If you like complications, then all well and good – but if you are looking for a simpler game with shorter rules, here is my suggestion.

First of all, your selection of figures must be severely limited. I have set my game in the 1920-30 period and have selected the following:

  • Renault heavy tank mounting 57mm cannon and machine gun
  • Vickers light whippet tank, amphibious, mounting only a machine gun
  • Open truck or lorry for transport and ammunition carrying
  • 75mm field gun
  • Heavy machine gun with two man crew
  • Rifle team of two infantrymen

All of these figures I have cast myself, in OO gauge, the infantry, gun crews etc. all being in the prone position. From this it will be seen that you have only three types of missile weapon, tank gun/field gun, machine gun and rifle. Only two types of tank either of which can be knocked out by gunfire. So your rules can be simplified as in those given below.

l. Movement

  • Infantry 5” and fire, 12” and not fire
  • M/G Team 5” move or fire
  • Field Gun 6” move or fire
  • Truck 12″ across country, 18″ by road
  • Light Tank 24”
  • Heavy Tank 18”

The light tank is amphibious and can cross secondary rivers or streams

For infantry and M/G teams, deduct 3″ for crossing wall, ditch or other such obstacles. Field guns and trucks cannot cross same, must spend one move breaking down or bridging obstacles. Tanks are not delayed at all by such obstacles.

2. Ranges

  • Rifle or Machine Gun, 18”, 12”, 6”
  • Field gun or Tank gun, 24”, 18”, 12”

3. Firing

Rifle team fires one shot per move, M/G team or tank machine guns two shots per move, field or tank guns 1 shot per move. Hits obtained by 6 at long range, 5 or 6 medium range, 4, 5 or 6 short range

4. Hits

Rifle fire: it takes 1 shot to kill a rifle team, 2 shots to kill a machine gun team or a gun crew —1 hit on either of latter reduces rate of fire by half

Machine—gun fire: ditto.

Gunfire: Will knock out any opposing tank, tankette, gun, truck or machine gun crew. When firing on infantry, 1 dice to see how many teams affected.

5. Casualties

From rifle or Machine-gun fire: Infantry or machine—gun teams saved by 5 or 6, gun crews by 4, 5 or 6

From gunfire: Infantry teams saved by 6 only, machine-gun teams saved by 5 or 6.

Field gun, 5 or 6 undamaged, 3 or 4 rate of fire halved, 1 or 2 destroyed. A second hit while rate of fire is halved means total destruction.

Tankette, 5 or 6 undamaged, 1, 2, 3 or 4 destroyed

Heavy Tank: Hit from front, 1 or 2 destroyed, 3 crippled but can still fire, 4, 5 or 6 unhurt
Hit from any other point, 1, 2 or 3 destroyed, 4 or 5 crippled but can still fire, 6 unhurt

Trucks: 1, 2 or 3 destroyed – if carrying ammunition, 1, 2, 3 or 4

6. Ammunition

Field guns and tanks carry 8 shells each

Trucks carry 8 shells and can replenish ammunition supply of guns or tanks

7. Transport

Trucks can carry 2 machine gun teams or four infantry teams. Deduct 3” from move for loading or unloading.

8. Close Fighting

Infantry over—run by tanks can throw grenades, l per team, and need a 6 to obtain a hit. A tank hit by a grenade needs a 4, 5 or 6 to survive.

If the infantry fail to destroy the tanks they must surrender.

 

There you have a very simple set of rules which can be memorised in a short time. It is also fairly realistic to the type of warfare which took place in the bulk of the Spanish Civil War, or the undeclared border warfare between the Russians and Japanese in Machuria in the 1930’s. Either of these wars could be re-fought with the few types of figures I have mentioned.

Of course, if you want the rules just a little more complex, you can give better value for entrenched troops, dug—in guns etc. and indicate this with strips of plasticene. Beyond this, however, it is inadvisable to go. Once you start introducing minefields and aircraft, or other types of artillery, you are back to the ultra—modernist with his fire-tables and complications.

By now, if they have bothered to read this far, the war gamers of the realist school are no doubt thoroughly disgusted; but I would emphasize that this article is by no means meant to snipe at their type of game. If that’s the way they like to play, then good luck to them and I hope they enjoy it. But if you like a less complicated life, then try the 1920 game — you’ll enjoy it.

—–

This article, along with some recent reading has prompted me to look at some long delayed and unfinished projects. As such I think you can look forward to further reporting concerning these rules.

I have quite a backlog of things to write about and I will endeavor to post more frequently. However, that is all for now. Until next time, we wish you all the best in 2013.