I've waxed lyrical about these rules for years, and I had Brandywine set up for Fitz and I to have a go at, even before we tried the FKaP game last episode. That said, I do want to try the FKaP hack for Williamite wars, plus I needed the table for another side project, hence we had to get Brandywine done...
We have done Brandywine before, so rather than go through the battle (the British won it again :O ), it was indeed refreshing to see the elegant simplicity (without being simple) that is V&B in all its glory.
Granted the new edition simplifies a few things, gives an extra dice for regimental stuff due to some Napoleonic battles now have linear vs brigade bases, and sorts out the skirmisher issues, but we used the original rules for this one.
It did make me think again about using the wing scale rules for AWI (which extends range, but allows for individual battalions, or even companies, depending on scale); indeed, perhaps V&B are the perfect set for AWI, especially so with a multi battle campaign in mind. Definite food for thought. They also make a perfect group game.
An inch is 100 yards at Divisional scale, a strength point 500 men. you can field large regiments or brigades.
PLAY SEQUENCE is Command Determination, Move, Rally (by touch), Morale tests (in contact or short range - muskets don't have a short range though - later firearms do), Combat.
Roster sheets are used, but they have never caused me great issue; in fact their contribution to logging the numbers vs an eventual division exhaustion total, can be quite tense.
COMMAND DETERMINATION is fairly simple - the only downside is the number of commanders due to 'better' staff. French Napoleonic armies have officer clutter everywhere. I have considered fixing this by using division 'counters' as commanders.
MOVEMENT is 'BIG' : 12" for an infantry regiment/brigade. NEVER forget the advantage of going stationary after movement however. You double your fire effectiveness. This is the dirty little secret of the original game.
DISORDER effects can radically reduce effectiveness, allow saves from firing etc. requiring rallying - which is where the high number of officers come in where relevant. Older C18th armies miss this benefit.
Units moving to contact, can't move obliquely, but CAN make a facing change at the start of movement. This makes decisions very interesting along the line of firing. Actually a very well thought out mechanism.
MORALE TESTS - built into the turn sequence - can be devastating for poor troops as they disorder. Double disorder is a rout. The mechanisms here are well thought out and work well.,
COMBAT has some nice touches; again, stationary units can win out simply by virtue of being well formed and in good order.
SAVING THROWS - NOT like BP in this regard, as they are used vs disordered fire, buildings, arty vs arty, and skirmishers. That's pretty much it - buckets of D6 you will not see here.
DIVISION EXHAUISTION - my single favourite mechanic in the game. As the brigade wear down, they contribute to the overall division 'number', which can be 40-60% of overall strength. This is absolutely key, as when DE is reached, it can't move to contact, and then has to roll vs morale collapse, which means permanent disorder. Rallying will help for DE, but not morale collapse. It's the nicest mechanism I've seen for seeing your division just devastated in the midst of battle. I can see it happening in everything from Williamite wars through to ACW.
A lovely system, which has also been hacked for many periods and does deserve more attention. I have often considered using it with hexes, but that, is as they say, another story.
View across the Brandywine, form the American lines
The Americans keep a decent reserve throughout the battle, but...
British assaults on the fords
Hessians make massive gains on the flank
At the fords, fighting is vicious, with units being shot to pieces
The Americans make an error, pulling back from British artillery, but leaving room for British manoeuvre en masse
'Here they come' Cornwallis's flanking actions make massive inroads against what would have been the American reserve
British pressure on the American right flank
A few isolated British regiments, could have been pulverised, but American caution was too prevalent
Washington splits his forces, then splits them again. The battle become three separate fights. (This also happened last time, if I recall).
There was simply too much British pressure, and allowing them to move around the fords, permitted too many units to gain ground. The Americans simply ran out of units. But again, these rules let us fight big battles, and get sensible results.
I have a few of the additional books, and really must analyse the Scottish Jacobite one in some detail.
Excellent refight, Darren. Of course, my interest is knowing your thoughts on how this Brandywine battle under VB compares to our refight of this battle under FoH? A compare and contrast would be of interet, at least to me.
Thanks Jon. No question that your refight was more exciting - because (1) we had you as referee which kept up the fog of war - we were quite cocky at times, not realising how close some our units were to breaking - in addition to the fact that we were remote from our troops, and could see most of the battlefield, but not always with the 'god-vision' we are used to (2) the dice dynamic was different, and probably more exciting that VnB (3) the hexes kept everything straightforward. VnB is not dissimilar in terms of the attrition dynamic, and it can be very bloody. Also, when we had two players on two, it was intriguing to comment to my companion re. what the opponents were doing. Your games were infinitely better because of how we fought them, the fog of war, and the nature of command decisions supplanting rules thoughts. To be honest, the rules never got in the way. I think it's a very different dynamic in your games therefore - but strictly comparing rules on rules - they both do the same thing. Where your Brandywine was better, was the refereeing and the fact that most 'general' decisions were left to us while you made the game work.
...and yes, please count me in for the next one ...Steve wants a re-fight ;)
Thanks, Darren. I am in the midst of fighting Franco-Austrian War and WAS battles but I will create another AWI scenario that we can take to the field. Any battle of particular interest to you that you would enjoy tackling?
Excellent Jon aye. I would be very keen to try Germantown actually - the morning fog would create even more fog of war. I know we did the PBEM version with Norm, and that does make me keen to try with FoH, with Steve etc.
Failing that, I am a bit of a fanboy for Saratoga too.
Lobositz would be an excellent choice. Gridded might be easier online Jon, but whatever you would prefer ; though non-gridded does add that extra fog-of-war dimension on top of everything else.
Thanks Norm . I do get passionate about this set. A lot of pre-blog history with them, and they do a lot of things that modern rules tend to forget about or rationalise in other ways.
VnB are a seriously underplayed set of rules which lose out to less well designed sets. Why? Simply, they are too radical for some people and don't give the majority what they seem to want; restrictive command & control mechanisms and things like national characteristics and bonuses for being French or Prussian, or stereotypical categorisation of Russians as "stubborn" and that sort of thing. It seems most wargamers want to be Napoleon , yet form units into square; have less control over what their troops do, yet win because they field French (thus somehow inherently better than Austrians say). Winning and losing being out of their control - "I would have won if I hadn't thrown a one and got a blunder!" " yes well the French are +1 on everything, but that reflects their historical performance ". VnB are an extremely versatile set of rules as the supplements and scale variants show, but at the same time deceptively simple, without being simplistic. Neil
Absolutely agree Neil. I think GDW simply wanted to have a set of rules for their home games, and the set started life more akin to a C18th 'Command Decision'. But they boiled the factors down to what's required - and created something very unique in terms of game design. Still a stalwart.
From memory, I think that 'Volley & Bayonet: Road to Glory' was originally designed to be marketed by 'Foundry' figures, with a view to being their go to rules to suit their miniatures - the idea being that you could do medium sized battles with a smaller number of figures, without breaking the bank, and then graduate to larger battles and go the foundry route. I do wonder, that if this had occurred, would V&B have got the marketing treatment in W. Europe that Black Powder ended up getting instead...
The second edition of Command Decision had a prototype set of Horse & Musket rules included (forget the name), but these were radically different from VnB, being more "traditional" . It was several years after this that VnB appeared. I think it was designed to refight whole historical battles at a convention in a reasonable amount of time. FC was paid a retainer or salary; the idea being he would produce rulesets for Foundry. Only "Condottiere" actually appeared. At the time I was working at Foundry and "knew" FC via the CD Mailer. I had a undefined role, as well as mail order and production, I ended up trying to start a gaming centre at Foundry. One of my ideas was to promote the new VnB which would be published by Foundry, by using the Foundry SYW Prussians and Russians. I even contacted FC to explore a potential scenario, Zorndorf or Kunnersdorf. The idea was rapidly quashed by the management (not Bryan Ansell he was busy with other things and only dipped into the businesses occasionally). Shortly afterwards, there was a drive to reduce costs dramatically, FC's arrangement was terminated and I was made redundant. A promising idea that sadly never got off the ground. They were also supposed to publish Terry Gore's Medieval Warfare; I tried to get a tournament organised, but publication got delayed and delayed. Poor Terry died before it was published and my redundancy killed the competition. There were issues I won't record here with the initial version that nearly got published with a real howler after tinkering by the editor. Neil
Neil - thanks so much for this. I had no idea ! I knew there was a Foundry connection, but you have absolutely brought truth the the situation for us. So you are in fact the guy responsible for trying to bring VnB to the masses via Foundry. Amazing stuff. now imagine if you had been able to give it the marketing treatment that Black Powder got. We'd be in a very different place, and black powder scale wargaming rules would be the better for it. Thanks for your efforts. You have inspired me to do more with VnB, and reminded me that there is still a hardcore few who see the benefits of the system over the other sets that are out there.
I'm not sure I was that important. There was a vague plan between Bryan and Frank that Foundry would publish Frank's rules and he would write other sets for Foundry. Bryan got distracted and left the day to day running of Foundry to his business partner. He was only interested in it making a profit essentially. A lot of the hands on management was left to an ex-GW staffer and then me after I joined. Bryan had all these ideas and visions for Foundry but it was hard enough keeping it functioning. I remember getting saddled with 6 months of unanswered emails! As a fan of VnB, I thought getting them published and tying them into the Foundry SYW figures was something worth doing but it got snuffed out at birth. There was more appetite for stocking Warhammer historical rules and getting 1644 republished than VnB. There was a backlog of publishing for the obscure Foundry book titles. Even Ancient Warfare was given to someone to edit who took forever and then nearly cocked it up completely on the final draft. Apart from me, there was no-one there who had any enthusiasm for VnB; it was all Warhammer derived stuff due to the backgrounds of the people. I tried but without much success. I agree, had it been supported, it could have given BP a run for it's money. Neil
As you say Neil, it all being warhammer derived stuff is the issue, but the sales guys (guy) invariably seem to think that is what will sell. BP and the warhammer/warmaster clones appear to be a triumph of style over substance - even the 2nd edition BP is chock full of errors, on top of a game system which is less than stellar. VnB is substance over style, any day, is tightly written, playtested, and works so very well.
I remember the storm when Warhammer Ancient Battles came out. It got a royal panning in Slingshot. Ironically, I was informed by the ex-GW staff who drifted from fantasy to historicals using WHAB that it lacked the excitement of the fantasy version as it was all just humans; apparently, the variations in creature stats meant when translated to historical was "a bit boring". I also remember when BP emerged; when it was pointed out was incomplete, was said to be a "toolkit". My thoughts were that if I was paying that much for a set of rules, I'd expect them to be complete..... I got a cheap copy probably about a year or two ago to see if there was anything of use in them. Don't think I've done more than flick through them. It's rather like the Jervis Johnson free rules in WI. I flicked through them and then had to look at the individual "army" charts. Units must be 24-36 figures, derivative mechanisms with "chance cards", couldn't see much that was really original. In the words of the GW generation "meh!" No doubt when the glossy version comes out after the demands of fans, they will sell loads...... Neil
I certainly second that. Thank you for such golden information Neil. It makes me even more determined to try VnB across a wide range of periods and 'shake' the rules - because I know they won't break.
Thanks gents. I have been reticent to discuss what happened at Foundry during my brief stint there. Partly out of difficult memories; my redundancy came out of the blue and it was a difficult year before I found another job. It took a while to forgive and move on. In many ways they did me a favour as I would never have been where I am now, in what is my ideal career. It's also partly as I don't want to be taken to court for slander! I should point out that Foundry have a completely different management now. Bryan Ansell had taken a back seat when I was there. He visited infrequently so I have no idea if he was aware of much that was happening day to day. My recollections are just that, and others may have different memories. I did try to get VnB promoted but there was no appetite. Perhaps I should have tried harder. I know there were issues around what had gone on when Bryan decided to involve his family, culminating in the move to the grounds of his house, but I was long gone by then. It did teach me that it's best to keep your hobby separate from work - certainly for myself. Working in the wargames industry didn't lead to more wargaming, quite the opposite; the last thing I wanted when finishing work was to have anything to do with toy soldiers! Neil
V&B - Possibly one of the finest rules of their generation. You get down to the business of maneuvering and commanding your armies. The battle reports read like...well, like historical battle reports.
Agree w/Darren's comments above about FoH and VB. That was an outstanding game put on by Jon. The D10s gave a much wider swing and added a bit more drama than you are apt to see with VB IMHO. Nothing wrong w that.
Re V&B, I'm still trying to figure out how to break a stationary line of SYW Prussians and I've been playing for 20+ years...
Re Brandywine, I've played this scenario and it's tough for the Americans because of 2 significant reasons - first is knowing the right time to retrograde your covering forces, and second is to keep an eye on the *actual* objectives which are force preservation and keeping a road to Dilworth open. As you showed in this AAR, retrograde operations in the face of the enemy are extremely hard to pull off, even with very competent troops.
Right Steve - you hit the nail on the head. At first glance, the sceanrio seems made for a stalwart American defence, but that flank action is a division- breaker, but I've been reminded how good V&B is. I need to look at the Jacobite book(s) again, as currently studying around that period, and need background reading (an excuse to read wargaming books lOL)
Also there are some GDW "Series 120" boardgames from the late 1970s that are the spiritual predecessors to the concepts in V&B - namely Guilford Courthouse and Lobositz. Frank Chadwick also published "Eylau" which is also strikingly similar. I don't think it's a coincidence that Lobositz is the first scenario in the original VB rules!
Right. You'd mentioned that before. I think there was an Alma boardgame in that series too - and it's the Crimean war scenario in the book. Good point. These guys knew what they were doing, and the rules echo that.
Actually FC has done some more recent stuff that's more like VnB - Leuthen in the Drums and Muskets series by Victory Point Games. The units are brigades but SPs very similar to VnB. Neil
Ohhh - thanks Neil. I hadn't realised that Frank had put new material out...that it's related to VnB mechanisms is also very interesting. I'll take a look at this.
D___ you sir! Here I am happy in a SYW/Twilight of the Soldier Kings groove, and you throw up a great looking AWI game. Might have to look into V&B. Chris/Nundanket
I am not qualified to comment on the relative merits of the rules apart from agreeing with the implication that Black Powder are a bit crap! Brandywine is one of my favourite AWI scenarios because you can do so much with it...hide the British flank march, send confusing intelligence reports to the Americans and so on. Our group played in once many years ago and it was a fantastic game, full of surprises right to the end.....but yes, the British won that one too!
Thanks Ross. It's so much a better game than BP, in my opinion...which are, agreed, a bit crap. Had V&B been given the glossy treatment, it would be a gem of marketing.
Do what they say on tin in relation to streamlined/simple systems to allow big games/battles to be played (hence lack of a lot of lower level tactical stuff etc) but they needed bigger table sizes (10’/12’ x 6’) for most scns than I could ever manage (and I found replicating terrain difficult) Wonder how system compares to Bloody Big Battles ? Like Rommel bit too close to a boardgame abstraction for me, I like my squares and attack columns :-)
BBB have a completely different design ethic than either VnB or BP - all those column shifts for one thing with all the various modifiers for different specific things. They share with VnB an aim to refight whole battles, but approach it from a completely different angle IMHO. Not my cup of tea, but if it works for you. As to table size; that's simply a reflection of the base sizes. Lots of VnB players in the UK reduced the base size and measurements, or substituted "half-inch" for inches (became known as the "half-inchers") or even produced their own rulers to measure ranges and distance. It's possible to substitute centimetres for inches, especially where using smaller scale figures. That's one of the stand-out design elements with official variants using different scale distances. It's possible to play with larger units (as in more figures) using the wing and other scales. Lobositz is quite a small table; a lot of historic battles took place in cramped areas. Neil
Yep - funny you should mention that. I started with VnB, using plastic Napoleonics on 2"x2" bases in the 90s, for Waterloo no less. I made a specific plastic rule with gradations in 2/3" (17mm ish) for it. Worked very well...and meant that an 8'x5' requirement, suddenly became a 6'x4'.
Kieth McNelly has also done some excellent stuff re. VnB here (I think he has also contributed massively to Modern Spearhead): https://volleyandbayonet.wordpress.com/
Indeed. He also hosts a lot of articles and scenarios from the heyday of VnB in the late 1990s. Somewhere on his site is Martin Soilleuil-Cardwell's VnB campaign for Soldier King developed from the game and the ACW campaign (derived from A House Divided). Neil
Cheers Ray. There is something about VnB's simplicity, with subtleties (like DE) that makes us keep coming back. It covers many periods too, so versatility is a big plus.
Excellent refight, Darren. Of course, my interest is knowing your thoughts on how this Brandywine battle under VB compares to our refight of this battle under FoH? A compare and contrast would be of interet, at least to me.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jon. No question that your refight was more exciting - because (1) we had you as referee which kept up the fog of war - we were quite cocky at times, not realising how close some our units were to breaking - in addition to the fact that we were remote from our troops, and could see most of the battlefield, but not always with the 'god-vision' we are used to (2) the dice dynamic was different, and probably more exciting that VnB (3) the hexes kept everything straightforward. VnB is not dissimilar in terms of the attrition dynamic, and it can be very bloody.
DeleteAlso, when we had two players on two, it was intriguing to comment to my companion re. what the opponents were doing.
Your games were infinitely better because of how we fought them, the fog of war, and the nature of command decisions supplanting rules thoughts. To be honest, the rules never got in the way.
I think it's a very different dynamic in your games therefore - but strictly comparing rules on rules - they both do the same thing. Where your Brandywine was better, was the refereeing and the fact that most 'general' decisions were left to us while you made the game work.
...and yes, please count me in for the next one ...Steve wants a re-fight ;)
Thanks, Darren. I am in the midst of fighting Franco-Austrian War and WAS battles but I will create another AWI scenario that we can take to the field. Any battle of particular interest to you that you would enjoy tackling?
DeleteExcellent Jon aye.
DeleteI would be very keen to try Germantown actually - the morning fog would create even more fog of war. I know we did the PBEM version with Norm, and that does make me keen to try with FoH, with Steve etc.
Failing that, I am a bit of a fanboy for Saratoga too.
@Jon second for Germantown. Or SYW Lobositz. 2 of my faves at least.
DeleteYAYYY can't wait sir. will be great to play again.
DeleteSo many interesting choices. Shall we tackle Lobositz? Gridded or non-gridded?
DeleteLobositz would be an excellent choice. Gridded might be easier online Jon, but whatever you would prefer ; though non-gridded does add that extra fog-of-war dimension on top of everything else.
DeleteHaving never fought Lobositz, I must set to work.
DeleteAn absolute superb post, I am going to read it again now with coffee ….. serious stuff 🙂
ReplyDeleteThanks Norm . I do get passionate about this set. A lot of pre-blog history with them, and they do a lot of things that modern rules tend to forget about or rationalise in other ways.
DeleteVnB are a seriously underplayed set of rules which lose out to less well designed sets. Why? Simply, they are too radical for some people and don't give the majority what they seem to want; restrictive command & control mechanisms and things like national characteristics and bonuses for being French or Prussian, or stereotypical categorisation of Russians as "stubborn" and that sort of thing. It seems most wargamers want to be Napoleon , yet form units into square; have less control over what their troops do, yet win because they field French (thus somehow inherently better than Austrians say). Winning and losing being out of their control - "I would have won if I hadn't thrown a one and got a blunder!" " yes well the French are +1 on everything, but that reflects their historical performance ".
ReplyDeleteVnB are an extremely versatile set of rules as the supplements and scale variants show, but at the same time deceptively simple, without being simplistic.
Neil
Absolutely agree Neil. I think GDW simply wanted to have a set of rules for their home games, and the set started life more akin to a C18th 'Command Decision'. But they boiled the factors down to what's required - and created something very unique in terms of game design. Still a stalwart.
DeleteNeil, this is a great summary and highlights the importance of knowing the goal and design philosophy behind a set of rules.
DeleteFrom memory, I think that 'Volley & Bayonet: Road to Glory' was originally designed to be marketed by 'Foundry' figures, with a view to being their go to rules to suit their miniatures - the idea being that you could do medium sized battles with a smaller number of figures, without breaking the bank, and then graduate to larger battles and go the foundry route.
DeleteI do wonder, that if this had occurred, would V&B have got the marketing treatment in W. Europe that Black Powder ended up getting instead...
I think we all know my views on BP vs V&B LOL
The second edition of Command Decision had a prototype set of Horse & Musket rules included (forget the name), but these were radically different from VnB, being more "traditional" . It was several years after this that VnB appeared. I think it was designed to refight whole historical battles at a convention in a reasonable amount of time.
DeleteFC was paid a retainer or salary; the idea being he would produce rulesets for Foundry. Only "Condottiere" actually appeared. At the time I was working at Foundry and "knew" FC via the CD Mailer. I had a undefined role, as well as mail order and production, I ended up trying to start a gaming centre at Foundry. One of my ideas was to promote the new VnB which would be published by Foundry, by using the Foundry SYW Prussians and Russians. I even contacted FC to explore a potential scenario, Zorndorf or Kunnersdorf.
The idea was rapidly quashed by the management (not Bryan Ansell he was busy with other things and only dipped into the businesses occasionally).
Shortly afterwards, there was a drive to reduce costs dramatically, FC's arrangement was terminated and I was made redundant. A promising idea that sadly never got off the ground.
They were also supposed to publish Terry Gore's Medieval Warfare; I tried to get a tournament organised, but publication got delayed and delayed. Poor Terry died before it was published and my redundancy killed the competition. There were issues I won't record here with the initial version that nearly got published with a real howler after tinkering by the editor.
Neil
Neil - thanks so much for this. I had no idea !
DeleteI knew there was a Foundry connection, but you have absolutely brought truth the the situation for us. So you are in fact the guy responsible for trying to bring VnB to the masses via Foundry.
Amazing stuff. now imagine if you had been able to give it the marketing treatment that Black Powder got. We'd be in a very different place, and black powder scale wargaming rules would be the better for it.
Thanks for your efforts. You have inspired me to do more with VnB, and reminded me that there is still a hardcore few who see the benefits of the system over the other sets that are out there.
I'm not sure I was that important. There was a vague plan between Bryan and Frank that Foundry would publish Frank's rules and he would write other sets for Foundry. Bryan got distracted and left the day to day running of Foundry to his business partner. He was only interested in it making a profit essentially. A lot of the hands on management was left to an ex-GW staffer and then me after I joined. Bryan had all these ideas and visions for Foundry but it was hard enough keeping it functioning. I remember getting saddled with 6 months of unanswered emails! As a fan of VnB, I thought getting them published and tying them into the Foundry SYW figures was something worth doing but it got snuffed out at birth. There was more appetite for stocking Warhammer historical rules and getting 1644 republished than VnB. There was a backlog of publishing for the obscure Foundry book titles. Even Ancient Warfare was given to someone to edit who took forever and then nearly cocked it up completely on the final draft.
DeleteApart from me, there was no-one there who had any enthusiasm for VnB; it was all Warhammer derived stuff due to the backgrounds of the people. I tried but without much success. I agree, had it been supported, it could have given BP a run for it's money.
Neil
As you say Neil, it all being warhammer derived stuff is the issue, but the sales guys (guy) invariably seem to think that is what will sell.
DeleteBP and the warhammer/warmaster clones appear to be a triumph of style over substance - even the 2nd edition BP is chock full of errors, on top of a game system which is less than stellar.
VnB is substance over style, any day, is tightly written, playtested, and works so very well.
I remember the storm when Warhammer Ancient Battles came out. It got a royal panning in Slingshot. Ironically, I was informed by the ex-GW staff who drifted from fantasy to historicals using WHAB that it lacked the excitement of the fantasy version as it was all just humans; apparently, the variations in creature stats meant when translated to historical was "a bit boring".
DeleteI also remember when BP emerged; when it was pointed out was incomplete, was said to be a "toolkit".
My thoughts were that if I was paying that much for a set of rules, I'd expect them to be complete.....
I got a cheap copy probably about a year or two ago to see if there was anything of use in them. Don't think I've done more than flick through them.
It's rather like the Jervis Johnson free rules in WI. I flicked through them and then had to look at the individual "army" charts. Units must be 24-36 figures, derivative mechanisms with "chance cards", couldn't see much that was really original. In the words of the GW generation "meh!"
No doubt when the glossy version comes out after the demands of fans, they will sell loads......
Neil
Neil, this has been a fascinating discussion. Thank you very much for enlightening all of us!
DeleteI certainly second that. Thank you for such golden information Neil. It makes me even more determined to try VnB across a wide range of periods and 'shake' the rules - because I know they won't break.
DeleteThanks gents. I have been reticent to discuss what happened at Foundry during my brief stint there. Partly out of difficult memories; my redundancy came out of the blue and it was a difficult year before I found another job. It took a while to forgive and move on. In many ways they did me a favour as I would never have been where I am now, in what is my ideal career.
DeleteIt's also partly as I don't want to be taken to court for slander! I should point out that Foundry have a completely different management now. Bryan Ansell had taken a back seat when I was there. He visited infrequently so I have no idea if he was aware of much that was happening day to day. My recollections are just that, and others may have different memories.
I did try to get VnB promoted but there was no appetite. Perhaps I should have tried harder.
I know there were issues around what had gone on when Bryan decided to involve his family, culminating in the move to the grounds of his house, but I was long gone by then.
It did teach me that it's best to keep your hobby separate from work - certainly for myself. Working in the wargames industry didn't lead to more wargaming, quite the opposite; the last thing I wanted when finishing work was to have anything to do with toy soldiers!
Neil
Neil, you seem in a much better place now and with many interesting stories and insights. Good stuff!
DeleteV&B - Possibly one of the finest rules of their generation. You get down to the business of maneuvering and commanding your armies. The battle reports read like...well, like historical battle reports.
ReplyDeleteAgree w/Darren's comments above about FoH and VB. That was an outstanding game put on by Jon. The D10s gave a much wider swing and added a bit more drama than you are apt to see with VB IMHO. Nothing wrong w that.
Re V&B, I'm still trying to figure out how to break a stationary line of SYW Prussians and I've been playing for 20+ years...
Re Brandywine, I've played this scenario and it's tough for the Americans because of 2 significant reasons - first is knowing the right time to retrograde your covering forces, and second is to keep an eye on the *actual* objectives which are force preservation and keeping a road to Dilworth open. As you showed in this AAR, retrograde operations in the face of the enemy are extremely hard to pull off, even with very competent troops.
Right Steve - you hit the nail on the head. At first glance, the sceanrio seems made for a stalwart American defence, but that flank action is a division- breaker, but I've been reminded how good V&B is. I need to look at the Jacobite book(s) again, as currently studying around that period, and need background reading (an excuse to read wargaming books lOL)
DeleteAlso there are some GDW "Series 120" boardgames from the late 1970s that are the spiritual predecessors to the concepts in V&B - namely Guilford Courthouse and Lobositz. Frank Chadwick also published "Eylau" which is also strikingly similar.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a coincidence that Lobositz is the first scenario in the original VB rules!
Right. You'd mentioned that before. I think there was an Alma boardgame in that series too - and it's the Crimean war scenario in the book. Good point. These guys knew what they were doing, and the rules echo that.
DeleteActually FC has done some more recent stuff that's more like VnB - Leuthen in the Drums and Muskets series by Victory Point Games. The units are brigades but SPs very similar to VnB.
DeleteNeil
Ohhh - thanks Neil. I hadn't realised that Frank had put new material out...that it's related to VnB mechanisms is also very interesting. I'll take a look at this.
Deletehttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/123604/leuthen-fredericks-greatest-victory-5-december-175
DeleteMany thanks for this. Just watched a video review - interesting game indeed.
DeleteCompass Games has begun reproducing some of the GDW's Series 120 games beginning with 1940, 1941, and 1942.
DeleteFC has also been busy with his Arab-Israeli fascination:
Deletehttps://mataka.org/frank-chadwicks-days-of-battle-golan-heights/?amp
Neil
D___ you sir! Here I am happy in a SYW/Twilight of the Soldier Kings groove, and you throw up a great looking AWI game. Might have to look into V&B.
ReplyDeleteChris/Nundanket
T'is always a pleasure to de-rail the best laid plans sir, albeit in a good way :)
DeleteI am not qualified to comment on the relative merits of the rules apart from agreeing with the implication that Black Powder are a bit crap! Brandywine is one of my favourite AWI scenarios because you can do so much with it...hide the British flank march, send confusing intelligence reports to the Americans and so on. Our group played in once many years ago and it was a fantastic game, full of surprises right to the end.....but yes, the British won that one too!
ReplyDeleteThanks Ross. It's so much a better game than BP, in my opinion...which are, agreed, a bit crap. Had V&B been given the glossy treatment, it would be a gem of marketing.
DeleteDo what they say on tin in relation to streamlined/simple systems to allow big games/battles to be played (hence lack of a lot of lower level tactical stuff etc) but they needed bigger table sizes (10’/12’ x 6’) for most scns than I could ever manage (and I found replicating terrain difficult) Wonder how system compares to Bloody Big Battles ? Like Rommel bit too close to a boardgame abstraction for me, I like my squares and attack columns :-)
ReplyDeleteBBB have a completely different design ethic than either VnB or BP - all those column shifts for one thing with all the various modifiers for different specific things. They share with VnB an aim to refight whole battles, but approach it from a completely different angle IMHO. Not my cup of tea, but if it works for you.
ReplyDeleteAs to table size; that's simply a reflection of the base sizes. Lots of VnB players in the UK reduced the base size and measurements, or substituted "half-inch" for inches (became known as the "half-inchers") or even produced their own rulers to measure ranges and distance. It's possible to substitute centimetres for inches, especially where using smaller scale figures. That's one of the stand-out design elements with official variants using different scale distances. It's possible to play with larger units (as in more figures) using the wing and other scales.
Lobositz is quite a small table; a lot of historic battles took place in cramped areas.
Neil
Yep - funny you should mention that. I started with VnB, using plastic Napoleonics on 2"x2" bases in the 90s, for Waterloo no less. I made a specific plastic rule with gradations in 2/3" (17mm ish) for it. Worked very well...and meant that an 8'x5' requirement, suddenly became a 6'x4'.
DeleteKieth McNelly has also done some excellent stuff re. VnB here (I think he has also contributed massively to Modern Spearhead):
ReplyDeletehttps://volleyandbayonet.wordpress.com/
Indeed. He also hosts a lot of articles and scenarios from the heyday of VnB in the late 1990s. Somewhere on his site is Martin Soilleuil-Cardwell's VnB campaign for Soldier King developed from the game and the ACW campaign (derived from A House Divided).
ReplyDeleteNeil
What a great post, sparking some really good conversation. I'm getting back into VnB, not played it for at least 20 years.
ReplyDeleteThanks everyone!
Cheers Ray. There is something about VnB's simplicity, with subtleties (like DE) that makes us keep coming back. It covers many periods too, so versatility is a big plus.
Delete