Desired scans : Rank and File supplements Harpoon 3 & 4 supplements Force on Force supplements Hind Commander At Close Quarters War and Conquest Modern Spearhead
Austin Martinez
13th May in military history:
1568 – Battle of Langside: The forces of Mary, Queen of Scots, are defeated by a confederacy of Scottish Protestants under the Earl of Moray, her half-brother. 1779 – War of the Bavarian Succession: Mediators at the Congress of Teschen negotiate an end to the war. 1804 – Forces sent by Yusuf Karamanli of Tripoli to retake Derna from the Americans attack the city. 1846 – Mexican–American War: The United States declares war on Mexico. 1862 – The USS Planter, a steamer and gunship, steals through Confederate lines and is passed to the Union, by a southern slave, Robert Smalls, who later was officially appointed as captain, becoming the first black man to command a United States ship. 1864 – American Civil War: Battle of Resaca: The battle begins with Union General Sherman fighting toward Atlanta. 1865 – American Civil War: Battle of Palmito Ranch: In far south Texas, more than a month after Confederate General Robert E. Lee's surrender, the last land battle of the Civil War ends with a Confederate victory. 1912 – The Royal Flying Corps, the forerunner of the Royal Air Force, is established in the United Kingdom. 1940 – World War II: Germany's conquest of France begins as the German army crosses the Meuse. Winston Churchill makes his "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech to the House of Commons. 1941 – World War II: Yugoslav royal Colonel Mihailović starts fighting with German occupation troops, beginning the Serbian resistance. 1943 – World War II: German Afrika Korps and Italian troops in North Africa surrender to Allied forces. 1958 – May 1958 crisis: A group of French military officers lead a coup in Algiers demanding that a government of national unity be formed with Charles de Gaulle at its head in order to defend French control of Algeria. 1972 – The Troubles: A car bombing outside a crowded pub in Belfast sparks a two-day gun battle involving the PIRA, Ulster Volunteer Force and British Army.
Zachary Hernandez
It is 449 years since the Battle of Langside, one of the more unusual contests in Scottish history, bearing a superficial resemblance to a grand family quarrel in which a woman fought her brother who was defending the rights of her infant son. In 1567 Mary, Queen of Scots' short period of personal rule ended in recrimination, intrigue and disaster when, after her capture at Carberry Hill, she was forced to abdicate in favour of James VI, her infant son. Mary was imprisoned, while her Protestant half-brother, James Stewart, Earl of Moray was appointed Regent on behalf of his nephew. In May 1568 Mary escaped, heading west to her remaining supporters, and the safety of Dumbarton Castle with the determination to restore her rights as queen.
Mary's army was commanded by the Earl of Argyll, who was to show little in the way of real military skill: it is even suggested in the sources that he fainted at one point, though this is almost certainly a rumour spread by his enemies. With her army engaged the Queen stood some distance to the rear. As her troops attempted to force a passage through Langside they were met by close fire from hackbutters. Many in the front ranks were killed, throwing the remainder back on those following, and adding to the general confusion. They pushed on, finally reaching the top of a hill, only to find the main enemy army drawn up in good order. Moray's border pikemen advanced to intercept Mary's vanguard. Both sides now met in 'push of pikes'. The forest of inter-locked spears was now so thick it is said that if those behind threw their discharged pistols at the enemy the weapons simply rested on the shafts as on a carpet, rather than falling to the ground.
Justin Cruz
The battle was now at its height and the outcome still doubtful, until Moray saw that the right wing of his force was beginning to lose ground. He immediately galloped to the main battalion and brought reinforcements. This was done so effectively, and the counter-attack pressed with such force, that it broke the enemy ranks. Moray, who hitherto had stood on the defensive, repulsing Mary's cavalry, now charged at the main enemy battalion, the fight now joined all along the line. The Queen's men crumbled, the fugitives being closely pursued by a party of Highlanders. The battle, which had lasted for some forty-five minutes, was over. In all some 300 men had been killed, a figure that almost certainly would have been much higher but for Moray's decision to avoid further bloodshed by ordering a halt to the pursuit. Many prisoners of note were taken. Mary and her escort rode off, eventually arriving at Dundrennan Abbey. From here she left for England, never to see Scotland again.
This is a great bit of Tudor-era hack'n'slash, encompassing all the fun of pike and shot with strong medieval touches. The forces range from knights with the most advanced technology of the time to rough and feral Scots kerns.
It is 152 years since the Battle of Palmito Ranch, which is generally regarded as the final battle of the American Civil War since it was the last engagement involving casualties. It was fought on May 12 and 13, 1865 on the banks of the Rio Grande east of Brownsville, Texas. It took place more than a month after Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.
Union and Confederate forces in southern Texas had been observing an unofficial truce, but Union Colonel Theodore H. Barrett ordered an attack on a Confederate camp near Fort Brown, for reasons unknown (some claimed he wanted to see combat before the war completely ended.) The Union attackers gained a few prisoners, but the attack was repulsed near Palmito Ranch the next day by Col. John Salmon Ford, and it was claimed as a Confederate victory. Casualty estimates are not dependable, but Union Private John J. Williams of the 34th Indiana is believed to have been the last man killed in combat in the war.
Union forces consisted of 250 men of the 62nd U.S.C.T. in eight companies and two companies of the (U.S.) 2nd Texas Cavalry Battalion, 50 men without mounts. At first their attack was successful, although it failed to achieve the desired surprise. During the afternoon, Confederate forces counterattacked with less than 100 cavalry, driving the Union troops back. Fighting stopped for the night and both sides sent for reinforcements. The next day Union forces advanced again and scattered skirmish actions grew into a fierce and confused fight Eventually they retreated once more, losing a fair number of prisoners. Total Union casualties were 4 killed, 12 wounded and 101 captured; the Confederatew suffered 6 wounded and 3 captured.
Xavier Williams
In July 1865, Barrett drew charges of disobedience of orders, neglect of duty, abandoning his colors, and conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline against his immediate junior, Colonel Morrison, resulting in the latter's court martial. Confederate Col. Ford, who had returned from Mexico at the request of Union Gen. Frederick Steele to act as parole commissioner for disbanding Confederate forces, appeared as a defense witness and assisted in absolving Morrison of responsibility for the defeat.
This battle is small enough to make for a good skirmish yet large enough to be played as a battalion-sized action. It's an intriguing example of the Civil War in the West, something that usually gets overlooked; this battle involved Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, and Native American troops. Also there's a certain novelty to fighting the very last action of a war.
Warlord straight up copied the T-44's description in Konflikt '47 from wikipedia.
Camden Edwards
...
Brayden Wood
...
Owen Murphy
...
Carter Bailey
...
Tyler Allen
...
Jacob Taylor
...
Jaxson Hall
...
Sebastian Barnes
Bolt Action campaign is starting soon. This is getting hung up at the FLGS tomorrow.
Christopher Walker
Sd.Kfz 222
Jaxson Scott
wooooo! that's gonna be off the chain.
I am somewhat concerned about that tech center in Spain - US is essentially going to have high tech straight away. I suppose that could be partially balanced by their lack of close production centers. Essentially US will have Shermans right off the bat, and lose all the fun of playing early war with stuarts and half tracks.
Also you will probably want to increase movement distances since there are many squares - 2 squares of movement per turn probably wont be enough, unless you want to spend at least 2 turns moving around before anything happens....
Asher Rogers
Well, what else is there to write about it?
John Baker
The first three turns are going to be moves with no combat, and everyone starts with 1000 points in their center square. We'll just do those the night we open the campaign, so players will have six squares of movement before turn 1 begins. It's true that the US will probably have extra tech from Madrid, so I'm sort of hoping that the Germans and British try to rush it. Since they're apparently formed an alliance, they won't be busy with each other.
Samuel Harris
You know what copying means, right?
Josiah Bailey
nice, be sure to take a photo once the action starts going down! If I were you I'd make the first 2 or 3 turns before things kick off not count towards the changing period - so essentially the start of hostilities is the start of early war.
Tyler Reyes
...
Nathan Bennett
Question for knowledgeable anons: What material would mid 1600s artillery pieces mounted on ships (specifically, cannons and swivel guns) be made of? The ones you see nowadays are generally painted black, but what about back then? Would they be painted (and would it be black) or left natural? How much of the paint would have been removed due to firing and handling?
Kevin Mitchell
Probably Bronze, maybe cast Iron.
Dominic Evans
Well that varied somewhat depending on the piece, but back then they were genuine black iron (and bronze in the earlier years), with the smaller pieces (like swivel guns) being bronze or copper.
Cooper Baker
Copied, hey? Adapted would be more like it, but what, pray tell, would you have written?
Gavin Allen
Can you post a link to the custom rules you are using?
Jaxon James
What do you expect from "Soviet Hordes ARRR" K47? I found the Anti-soviet bias to be a tad strong in K47, but maybe it's me. And of course, the T-44 was already a old design for soviet standards by 1945: pic related, your t-54 ancestor in March 1945. But I guess German idolizers like BA players would die of a stroke to get such tanks for the Soviets.
If one of my young students did something like that for a test, I'd throw his exercise away. Copy pasting from Wikipedia is a sign that they don't care.
Jordan Phillips
Used to be plagiarism was an excuse for disciplinary action. We talking college kids or just middle school/high school?
Liam Rivera
Bronze was the best metal for smoothbore artillery. It's relatively easy to work, sort of cheap, but more importantly, it's soft enough that it can easily absorb the shock from firing a cannonball. An equal thickness of cast iron from the same time period would heavier, enormously more expensive, and much more likely to burst when firing. As metallurgy improved, iron guns improved, but bronze was still in common use as late as the 1860s in smoothbore guns. Bronze, however, is way too soft to take rifling - any rifling grooves you cut will be stripped away after just a few shots, so the introduction of rifling in the early 1800s necessitated a move to iron and eventually steel guns.
Carson Morgan
This raises a question I've been pondering for a little while. Is there actually a hard line between iron and steel? What defines steel? If you work iron in charcoal does that make it "steel"? Is pure iron even useable as a sword or is every iron sword technically a form of steel, even if lower grade than post-industrial revolution steel?
I've come across the issue in the context of ancients wargaming, and trying to decide how many of my dudes to give iron armour vs bronze armour. We know non-bronze armour was used in the 400s+ BC, but a lower proportion than bronze, so it must have either been more expensive or less useful, right? Well some people say less useful, others more expensive, and most of the ones who say less useful are arguing that it was soft and heavy because iron, while those who say more expensive are arguing that it was more difficult to make because steel
All I could find for sure was that "steel" was made by the Hittites well before the Hellenistic era, but this doesn't really prove anything conclusively; I've also seen some say that you can't consider anything before the early Renaissance to actually be "steel", and Wikipedia gives vague and conflicting definitions. I don't really want to read a whole book on the history of metallurgy to figure it out...
Mason Lopez
Steel does not undergo eutectic reaction during its production whereas cast iron does. I.e. the components do not melt homogeneously.
Zachary Wright
It has to do with iron arranging itself in a crystalline lattice around carbon. Iron worked in charcoal is wrought iron, which isn't steel, but is still harder than regular iron. Wish I could offer more, but that's the little I know.
Anthony Bennett
Thanks for the answers, clears up a couple of the questions.
I realize it's mostly autism but it's one of those things that bother me because I can't figure it out. I assumed "iron" armour was superior and more expensive because it eventually replaced bronze, until I started reading people say how much harder and lighter bronze is than most assume.
Geography also plays a part in this equation, as independent of utility, some regions had more iron and less tin in the ground, which made bronze scarcer and therefore iron armour likely to be present in higher proportions for regional warriors. Spain and Anatolia had large iron deposits which is probably why the Iberians and Hittites were notorious iron/steel-workers
There also seems to have been variance of skill even within the same culture, as some Romans write of the Gauls/Celts as producing "iron" swords superior to the Roman in strength, while others say that Celtic swords would bend during combat and had to be straightened with the foot after a few blows. This then led some historians to conclude that the Celts went into battle wielding essentially a cast iron bar with which they bludgeoned their opponents, which was almost certainly not the case. More likely some tribes had excellent smithing techniques and others crude.
The scarcity of concrete information from the era is always frustrating
Christian Turner
>I assumed "iron" armour was superior and more expensive because it eventually replaced bronze, until I started reading people say how much harder and lighter bronze is than most assume.
This is more because iron is usually easier to get at than the components for bronze, less expensive to produce, and while it's not AS hard or good as bronze most of the time it's still capable of producing weapons that serve well enough to kill one's enemies or armor that can capably turn the enemy's blows.
Levi Sanchez
>while it's not AS hard or good as bronze most of the time it's still capable of producing weapons that serve well enough to kill one's enemies or armor that can capably turn the enemy's blows.
I think I read somewhere that it either holds an edge better or is easier to sharpen than bronze (or both) which is why it was adopted for weapons much faster than for armour. Also I assume it's easier to form into rings which would explain it's near-universal use for chainmail throughout the Hellenistic and Roman eras.
It only really matters in a wargaming context because I would paint more elites with silver armour and weapons if it were superior, or more mercs and levies with it if it were cheaper and less effective. This is kind of mitigated by the practice of silvering and gilding both iron and bronze so in a worst-case scenario I can just rationalize it away
Colton Morales
>I've come across the issue in the context of ancients wargaming, and trying to decide how many of my dudes to give iron armour vs bronze armour
Naturally it depends a lot on the precise date and culture of your dudes.
Bronze continued to be used in armour well into the Iron Age for a number of reasons. The most important is that ancient metallurgy simply could not produce large sheets of iron with any sort of reliability or quality if at all. Greaves, helmets and breastplates tended to be bronze since these items are best made from one or a few components. Even in the Early Middle Ages when use of bronze in armour has long since vanished, helmets were made from multiple panels riveted together and it's only with advancing technology that it becomes possible to raise a helmet from a single piece of iron.
Early iron armour tended to be made from many small components, the earliest being scale. Mail is a huge game changer as it allows the production of very high quality armour in iron.
As a base material iron is cheaper/more abundant than bronze, but how suitable it is for a given item of armour is very dependant on the tech/skills available. Items that could be made from iron usually were and it's only when that is impossible or the resulting product would be greatly inferior that the more expensive but easier to work with bronze is used. In many cases that means a given warrior might have both iron and bronze armour; a Roman or Gaul with an iron boss on his shield, a mailshirt but a single-piece bronze helmet.
Jason Ortiz
I am talking directly from memory, but I seem to recall that you CAN'T sharpen bronze, at least not in the same way as iron. When the edge gets dull, your only option is to essentially reforge the blade. Hence why iron was much preferred for swords, knives and such.
Easton Lewis
>Both sides now met in 'push of pikes'. The forest of inter-locked spears was now so thick it is said that if those behind threw their discharged pistols at the enemy the weapons simply rested on the shafts as on a carpet, rather than falling to the ground.
Wyatt Lopez
BMP
Cooper Wright
>very manfully
Wyatt Clark
Bump
Jaxson Powell
Hey /hwg. It's the guy from ChargeBlog aka the man writing all those posts about technicals/rules comparison. More recently I've done some stuff looking at the Foxhound and MRZR in 28mm (see picture).
I'm expecting to have the piss taken out of me for a post like this but i'm wanting to ramp up what I'm doing with my blog. To help this I'd like to increase the eyes on my stuff. I've setup a Facebook page so you can get your wargaming dose straight in your news feed (look for ChargeBlog on Facebook). The blog is also running (look for ChargeBlog on google) and support RSS feeds and email subscription. It's also has Ada but it's just small AdSense blocks that adblock loves to turn into yellow squares.
This will be the only post I do like this but I really like reading /hwg and I'd love to keep writing stuff you guys like.
Justin Foster
Huh, autocorrect messed some of that up
Juan Lewis
Cool stuff. Are you thinking about focusing primarily on moderns?
Bentley Morris
He posted a google document a few thread ago, they are essentially adapted from the Ostfront campaign rules, but with secret movements and attacks, and some rules for scorched earth and rebuilding areas.
In the spring of 1944, most of the snow has melted, but the standing pond is still frozen solid
Ryder Baker
The soviets have brought almost an entire platoon of infantry, as well as two T-34/85s and a terrifying IS-2
Tyler Gray
The Finns have assembled a few squads of infantry, including an elite Sissi recon squad, a German howitzer, and a motley collection of tanks. A modern T-34/85 captured from the Russians, an elite StuG III Ausf F, and a behemoth KV-1 stolen in the first months of the war
Hudson Cooper
For all its size and armor, the lumbering, outdated KV-1 was destroyed by the very first shot from one of the Soviet T-34s
Josiah Price
By pairing up, the StuG III and the Finnish T-34 were able to keep the IS-2 suppressed, but weren't able to destroy it in time to save the Finns.
I didn't take any more pictures from here on, but the Soviet forces played their part with skill. My Finns died hard, but they died, until their morale collapsed(a pair of unlucky FUBAR rolls) and the Soviets rolled past them and back into Finland.
Aiden Perez
In case anyone's curious about the dice colors, my group does a thing where, if you're fielding multiple platoons(in this case both an Armored and Reinforced platoon) you use two separate dice colors, and can only activate units from the appropriate platoon. It cuts back a bit on the advantages gained by adding an armored platoon to a reinforced one, and represents the difficulty two forces with separate chains of command would have with close coordination.
Connor Davis
Thanks! Its what i mainly play and have the most interest in so yep, that will be the focus. Although some of my friends I play with have mentioned WW2 or Napoleonics
Samuel Russell
Okay, that makes sense. Modern isn't really my thing, but it's always interesting to see new/different kits even if I'm not too interested in the period at the moment.
Andrew Richardson
Playtesting Hind & Seek...
Search and destroy mission - Soviets have intel on Mujahideen whereabouts, send in a small unit to deal with them. Hind, 2 BTR-60s, T-62 and 2 solid infantry squads.
Mujahideen realize they have no RPGs at the start of the game, but the T-62 hits a roadside mine straight away (a Mujahideen asset) so not too worried any more.
Mujahideen stinger teams show up on the high ground, targeting the Hind, but the BTRs focus fire on them, and although a single stinger is loosed, it misses the Hind, and the 2 units scatter in the hills never to be seen again.
The BTRs swerve past the burning T-62, but mujahideen goryunov MGs open up from the surrounding hills, causing the front BTR to bail out - the infantry inside hit the deck, suddenly under fire from 3 Mujahideen infantry units, the rear BTR dismounts the infantry inside and reverses hard to attempt to get enough distance to target the Mujahideen on the high ground (above its weapons elevation...)
Meanwhile the Hind conducts attack runs on the Mujahideen infantry, they have no way to take it down, so just try to ignore it while pinning the soviet infantry and trying to take out the rear BTR with the Goryunov MGs - the Goryunovs prove ineffective.
Command control completely breaks down for the front Soviet infantry squad, and they dig in next to the bailed out BTR, hoping help will arrive... A Mujahideen mortar squad targets the 2 soviet infantry units from the distance, turning a pretty bad situation into a really very bad situation. The Hind is the only decent thing on the table at the moment for the Soviets...
An easy search and destroy mission has turned into a fight for survival for the beleaguered Soviet infantry - its uncertain if they will complete their objectives
Kayden Davis
Turned out Soviets deployed almost half the amount they should have - which accounts for the total rapage (the infantry were annihilated and Soviets lost at least 50% making the game a Mujahideen victory) We'll have another game this sunday at the club, this time with correct points. Definitely learned a bit from the play-test though, and the game runs pretty smoothly. Helicopters a terrifying when you don't have any AA weaponry!
Caleb Sanders
HA!
Josiah Green
Any tips on figuring out what uniforms were used in each battle of WOTR?
Joshua Barnes
There were no uniforms.
Colton Morales
Each commander had logos and colours. So yes there were unit uniforms of a sort
Jose Gutierrez
Thanks user
Cooper Murphy
Well it's pretty easy to discover the various heraldry of the different lords, it's well documented and there's a couple of good Ospreys in our Medieval folder, for example. But there are many more detailed books on the subject. Then you just line up the relevant lords who participated in each battle and there you go.
Dominic Mitchell
Uniforms!=insignias.
Michael Hughes
/v/ wouldnt know history if it bit them in the ass so i come to you /hwg/
im trying to think of the name of a somewhat recent wargame that sits somewhere between the tactical and strategic level. It uses NATO counters and plays in real time, focused around ww2.
You mean Kampfgruppe Normandy? I don't think we have that but Battlegroup Kursk and co. is essentially a spiritual successor (written by the same guy)
Robert Mitchell
Commander: The Great War is also a fun game if you've got a mate
Aiden Evans
I briefly passed the hebrew command models from Warlord games and I got this huge mindboner about creating an army based around the Kingdom of David. What models would fit the part? We're talking 11th and 10th century BC.
And if I want to stretch the timeframe and continue going with the kingdom of Judah(10th-6th century BC) can I use the same models? Would the soldiers look mostly the same?
Samuel Green
Thanks! I'll check it out.
Elijah Cox
also, the scale is not wholly important. As long as I can kill some infidels and recreate the United Kingdom I'll be glad
Adrian Howard
...
Adam Cooper
Foundry have some Canaanites and other Biblical-ish stuff that might suit in 28mm
Magister militum also have a fairly extensive Biblical range in 15mm.
Isaiah Wood
>United Kingdom >Jews
Oy vey :^)
Justin Perry
I've got some 1/144 scale WW2 aircraft from ground combat games.
What would be a good ruleset to use these with for actual air combat? Preferably something that plays nice and quickly.
Tyler Russell
Lacquered Coffins?
Dominic Sullivan
All the stuff I've seen for that had larger numbers of smaller minis.
Would it work with 1/144 stuff?
Tyler Bennett
Generally aerial games are pretty scale-agnostic.
Worst comes to worst you've just got to fiddle some distances. Since you don't even really need terrain and a blue cloth will do as a game mat, shouldn't be too hard.
Parker Torres
The kingdom of Israel is sometimes called the united monarchy and I was being funny.
Zachary Parker
Not wargame related, but are there any good historical RPGs? Roman, Napoleonic, WW1, and WW2 are my favorite periods.
Matthew Nguyen
there are supplements for some rulesets like GURPS.
Jace Ross
There are OneDice games for WW1 & WW2, and Duty & Honour was shared recently for Napoleonics. Depends what roles you want the players to take in the conflict. Achtung Cthulhu uses WW2 as a setting.
Logan Walker
When I've googled names involved in the battle I'm looking for all I'm seeing is reenactment photos and most of them only show 1 side in any real fashion.
Thomas Wright
Does anyone have a pdf for Rome the Life and Death of a Republic?
Nathan Barnes
I've dropped you an email too - would love a chance to dust off my 6mm soviets
Dylan Nguyen
Where are your figures from out of interest?
Cooper Barnes
Maybe Check Your 6? It's a derivative of the Blue Max/Canvas Eagles rules.
