Playing with Speed Paint

 There was a lot of fuss made when the Citadel Contrast Paints were released.  They were expensive and so I didn’t bother.  But the Army Painter Speed Paints were even more enthusiastically embraced and were cheaper.  So I got the starter set.   Initially I tested them on a unit of Celts Sloshing the Speed Paint straight onto the white undercoat. It worked well but I find any kind of wash technique on white a bitty messy and muddy.  I definitely feel that one has to frame the washes with solid paint on things like belts and other accoutrements.  I also found that they did not work on the shields which made sense; lacking crevices to flow into the whole purpose of the product was lost.  So, the shields got solid colour, painted designs and conventional highlights.  Overall I was quite pleased and it went quickly.  

I tried another technique on a small unit of cavalry.  This time I did a zenithal primer, starting with black and dry brushing the whole figure (horse and rider; I always glue everything together before painting) with white.   Once dry I used a brown Speed Paint on the horse and in one coat got a very pleasing effect.  Score!

Overall I like these paints.  I will continue painting my Napoleonics, Renaissance and SYW collections with a black undercoat and deliberate highlighting in 3 layers.  But for some ancients and colonials this set of paints works well, especially those with simple tunics. 

Some thoughts about skirmish gaming and Mourir pour l'Indochine

Skirmish gaming and few comments about Shawn Taylor’s Mourir pour l’Indochine

 

If you are reading this you are probably already interested in the war in Indo-China that culminated in the defeat of the French colonial army at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.  In many ways this is a forgotten war, overshadowed by the subsequent US involvement and the more familiar moniker, the Vietnam War. But this French conflict has a character of its own blending older technologies with the familiar helicopters and river boats of the later war.  What Shawn has done is take a very serious look at the war from an intimate perspective.  Mourir pour l’Indochine will put you into the firing line and the chaos of low-level combat.

 

First, I have to make clear two things.  Shawn is a friend of mine and I like to support his games.  I did some text editing for this book.  Second, this is not the type of game I usually play.  I love the “big game” and play and write rules that support epic battles played with 28mm models.  Shawn’s game is not that.  Mourir  is definitively a skirmish game and usually I run from these.  My problem with skirmish games is that they are either too simple and lack period feel or are too detailed and heavy going.  

 

It might seem strange, but I like this hobby because I am fascinated by military history, tactical problems, and how military systems and doctrines were developed and applied to resolve those problems.  I am not interested in the killing.  It is the tragedy of war. And yet, this is often where simple skirmish games devolve with clusters of figures running around the table simply killing off their opponents or suffering the same in return.  Militaries don’t function that way. As Phil Sabin pointed out in one of his scholarly pieces, if ancient armies fought each other like dueling fools, a la Hollywood, half of both sides would be dead and no one would win or lose.  And it makes a mockery of history where it is clear that miliary organization was about keeping men secure and controlled and that losing that control meant a devolution into chaos. Serious losses occurred once one side or the other fell into disarray. If a game does not attempt to show that tension it has lost me unless the scenario designer has done his work to mitigate that gap in the rules.  Indeed, I have played very good games with simple skirmish rules because the scenario was engaging and challenging in spite of the rules.

 

Now, the opposite problem -- a game that is too detailed -- can be a labour to play and yet I think skirmish games that are not saved by the intervention of the scenario designer must have a degree of detail.  Shawn’s game is definitely of this type.  One of the game play-testers wrote that Mourir was a ‘labour of love’ and this is certainly true.  Shawn put a huge amount of effort into addressing the technologies and tactics of this war.  What is also clear is Shawn’s intimate understanding of military organization and how chains of command at the low-level of infantry combat work.  Here his career in the Canadian military comes through.  Mourir puts you into the firefight and forces you to make command decisions for your fire-teams that respects the limits of their assets and training/quality.  As you would expect, running a force of Vietminh is different than commanding a French patrol.  Vietminh field craft and tactics gave them advantages “beyond the wire” but the French had assets like artillery support that could save them from certain defeat.  Using these assets and managing your command and control is essential to playing this game successfully.  And this is clearly something that must be learned.  The game is not a conventional I-GO-U-Go.  As one side performs actions, respecting their command hierarchy, keeping their fire-teams coordinated and thinking carefully about the order of actions  using fire and movement tactics and how the available weapon systems interact, the enemy can interrupt that process with interdiction fire in effect robbing the enemy of initiative.  Both sides need to be involved and focused on what is happening.  I think that a skirmish game demands this kind of interaction and Mourir delivers.

 

I think Mourir pour I’Indochine does what it promises.  It provides a detailed and evocative game of low-level infantry combat (with support weapons and vehicles) set in the diverse terrain of Indo-China.  This is not a beer and pretzels game and requires a degree of dedication to the history and the level of combat to play effectively.  If you don’t want to be immersed in your game, this ruleset might not be to your liking – there are lots of generic and simple skirmish games out there that might suit you better.  But if you want to think about how to best set-up an ambush or how to arrange your patrol to get out of that inevitable crossfire, this might be the game for you.

Update: Grid Game

 This time it is just a textual post...no pictures.  

The ACW game is nearly written, although textual revisions will follow and this can be a long process.  

The grid game for ancient through renaissance battles is developing really well.  It is called Control to Catastrophe. We have quite a few games under our belts and the basic rules engine has been remarkably stable.  I am really excited about this game and have started the massive task of building army lists.  I think this is a necessary evil.  Army lists are really a fantasy since they try to represent a generic 'list' for armies that were usually not regularized, often drew on locally recruited mercenaries and were, therefore, ephemeral in nature.  Yes, the basic troop types of a Roman army can be considered 'typical' but I suspect that even those Romans took to the field with an army that was different at every battle they fought - even during the same campaign. Ideally players should play scenarios with custom designed scenarios for each game.  Of course, most gamers are not inclined to do this, so I am going to provide lists but will include an historical scenario for all the period groups of historical adversaries.

We will see how it goes. 

Pictures of recent games...in random order!

 

A 1940 scenario using Rapid Fire Reloaded

 WWII gaming was never an easy sell in my group.  It seemed that a few of us wanted to play and we collected huge armies - I have about 400 hundred 20mm/ 1:72 vehicles alone -- but finding a set of rules that people would be excited to play was near impossible.  Spearhead was tried and is a great set, but felt 'stretched' in 20mm.  Battlefront WWII is a well designed and easy game to play but suffers from the fact that a result is very difficult to arrive at in the 2-3 hours we have to play.  We tried BKC and I really liked it...most didn't.  The activation rolls meant too many players were left doing nothing too often.  

I had collected all of the Rapid Fire books over the years and even had a typed set of the rules before RF (1) had been published.  The books are pure delight and inspiration.  But for some reason I never tried playing RF. On reading the rules they seemed strange.  On the one hand there were rules for every imaginable operational function -- even aircraft carriers...yes in 20mm -- but all of that lovely abstraction seemed to be dovetailed with rules for throwing grenades as in a skirmish game!  None of the rules were difficult although RF1 and RF2 still used a casualty table that put off many of the fellows in my group.  It did seem old fashioned and frankly seemed like the rules were not the product of a design concept but more along the lines of a development process that responded to need in an almost ad hoc fashion.  I couldn't see my guys playing this game.

Well, fortunately one of the group suggested, after yet another teeth-pulling WWII game, that we try RF. It was designed for 20mm models and we had all the books...and it did look quite easy to play.  I am so glad we did.

After years of playing RF now, and yes, weathering the frustration of the casualty table, Colin Rumford and Richard Marsh have developed Rapid Fire Reloaded (RFR) and it is fantastically simple to play, has no tables and is fun. In fact, I had developed a simplified casualty system that anticipated RFR precisely.     

Is RFR nuanced and "realistic?"  Probably not.  But I would say any rule set can be ruined by creating silly scenarios and any game can be played with a sense of realism if done in the right manner.  And frankly, WWII gaming is particularly stretched anyway by the 1000-foot general syndrome regardless of the rules played.

So, RFR has kept us entertained for years and will continue to do for many more years to come.  I have valued the very long range relationship that I have developed over the years with Colin, helping doing the odd-bit of editing and have continued to build layouts for the game.  One day I will manage to play all of Juno and Omaha.  I have modelled everything but don't have the 16' table to accommodate it all at once.

Recently we played a scenario from their latest Blitzkrieg book.  Here are a few shots courtesy of my buddy Thomas:

An irony....

 It is an irony that the more work I am doing on BFE and other gaming projects the less time I have to post updates. This has the effect of making it look like I am not doing much!  In fact, there is a load of things happening behind the scenes.  The ACW game is now developing fast and I have continued work on the book rules (as opposed to simply up-dating the play-sheets).  This is very positive.  We have been playing variations of this BFE-based game for many years, but it is far more stable now.  It is amazing how long this process can take when you only play the period occasionally.  Fortunately I have a group in Italy playing the game too and their initial feedback has been very useful.

BFE3 is in a hold pattern. Until the ACW game is done I am not sure how deeply BFE3 will be a revision or a tidy-up.  There were definitely some things that I needed to add/rewrite for clarity.  Things like the siege rules and large buildings sections had gaps that I have now filled.  The basic game however didn't need much revision - just textual corrections and precision.  We will see.  Doing any of these projects "off the side of your desk" is not the best way to get things done.  But play-testing is also a very slow process and I want to make sure my games are well tested before they go out there for consumption.

I have also designed an ancient to "renaissance" (early modern) grid-based game.  This is going really well. The mechanics are, like most games, familiar, but conceptually it is very different from anything I have seen.  The grid is such a wonderful simplification and cleans up so many vagaries in play.  Now, I would not use a grid for many period or levels of play, but for large battles set in pre-modern wars I think it works really well.  To the Strongest clearly shows what can be achieved with a grid but is a game that did not fly in my group.  So I wrote my own.

Sorry for the lack of pictures.  I know that the people who visit the blog seeing just text is a turn-off, but I wanted to get a new post up.  Pictures will follow.