Thursday 14 January 2021

War Without an Enemy - Converting Numbers

Notwithstanding Iain's astute comment that War Without an Enemy ('WWAE') looks a little too involved to just be a battle generator, I ploughed on to have a look at how many models might be needed.

First off I did a stock take of my models and came up with the following numbers.

13 Jan 2021

Horse

Foot

Dragoons

Staff and Train

Command stands

20

17

1


Trooper stands

94


8


Pike blocks


16



Musket/dism.dragoons/firelocks


35



Clubmen stands


3



Mounted officers/staff




26

Field guns




8

Ships/fortress guns




4

Limbers




4

Wagons




3

To put some context on this, each Horse stand is 3 figures, notionally representing a troop of about 60 men in my rules. A Foot stand is 10-12 figures representing a pike block or a shot wing of 200-240 men. In my tactical rules ('Jacob Astley's Prayer' see below*) the command stands are supernumerary and are to show what the unit is doing - e.g. in front of the unit means it's advancing; behind it is stationary. [Aside: looking at these numbers I'm short of a Foot command stand, but have plenty of spare command figures].

Then I totted up the Strength Points on the wooden blocks that come with WWAE, and came up with the following.


Royalist

Total Strength

Units

Horse

30

10

Foot

69

8

Guns

6

3

Clubmen

3

0




Parliamentarian

Total Strength

Units

Horse

27

9

Foot

87

10

Guns

8

4

Clubmen

3

1




Combined

Total Strength

Units

Horse

57

19

Foot

156

17

Guns

14

7

Clubmen

6

2




The Total Strength shows the theoretical maximum numbers. However, it is unlikely that it would get to the point when more than 1/3 of the total armies got into in a battle. The rule mechanisms encourage you to disperse your armies in order to take cities and territories, and to avoid attrition by having too many troops in one area.

The final column shows a notional number of units if say 1/3 of the totals came face-to-face. In this scheme each Horse Strength Point converts to 1 unit and each 3 Foot Strength Points convert to 1 unit. The relative ratios of Horse and Foot to SPs fits with the fact that my horse units are a dozen figures whilst my foot are 3 dozen. Gun SPs are halved to arrive at the required number of model guns. That all works out very conveniently close to my total collection. Strictly speaking I'm about 30 figures short of the horse total - 2 packs of Mr Pengilley's excellent little models.

So a little army under the command of Old Robin like this on the board.......

Strength Points: Horse 3; Foot 12, Guns 4. The little halberd icon on Essex's block shows it is foot as well as a Leader.

....would convert to something like this on the table.


To be honest though, if it ever got to a full on mash-up I would not use Jacob Astley's Prayer, which are more suited to medium sized battles. I would run such a large game with In Deo Veritas or Ramekin ECW C&C. In both of those two I can use the command stands as whatever is the opposite of supernumerary, so I can eke out more units.

Glad I've got that sorted. I can move on to the next challenge.

* "Lord, help me today to realize that thou wilt be speaking to me through the events of the day, through people, through things, and through all creation. Give me ears, eyes and heart to perceive thee, however veiled thy presence may be. Give me insight to see through the exterior of things to the interior truth. Give me thy Spirit of discernment. O Lord, Thou knowest how busy I must be this day. If I forget [the rules], do not Thou forget me. Amen.”


12 comments:

  1. You are making good progress and this is promising. When I saw the photos with the playing pieces, the style reminded me immediately of other block games.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chipping away, bit by bit. It reminds me of a game called Maria that I bought years ago. But AWAE doesn’t have the skulduggery that Maria has.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting post and I love the look of the block armies. I fear a game like this would lead to 'mission creep' for me, ending up with too many figures that never saw the light of day! Sadly I have a track recoed of this and am currently looking at several examples of forces that are too large:(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s always tempting to get more. I was smugly thinking that I am pretty disciplined in that regard and suddenly in my head the thought popped up that I had forgotten about the Covenanters in the first table. I’m pretty cavalier 😉 when it comes to the interchangeability of my Cavaliers and Roundheads, but ‘I can’t do that with Scots, their flags are too different’. It’s the Devil’s way of making me rationalise another purchase. 😈

      Delete
    2. PS yes the blocks are pleasing on the eye. Also nice to handle.

      Delete
  4. This project seems to be coming along nicely and of course, you definitely need to add Covenanters....how can you refight Marston Moor otherwise?!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting stuff leading me to consider lots of different options and the cross over between blocks and figures ? 🤔

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's an unfortunate fact that acquiring a Covenanter army naturally means you have to acquire a Montrose army, those are I'm afraid the rules, he says gazing at his unpainted Montrose army!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds like one of those opening remarks from Jane Austin or An Oscar Wilde aphorism. And no less true for it. Scary thought. At least Montrose had the decency to keep his army small to keep wargamers’ budgets modest.

      Delete
  7. A cogent analysis; we'll see where further it may lead!

    Yes, about those Scotts... I too have been resisting a Covenanter force, and the Montrose opposition for same!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a long while since I had the words 'cogent analysis' written at the bottom of my work ;-)

      I think I'm beginning to accept the arguments in favour of the Covenanters.

      Delete