Papelotte

 Papelotte Farm

Papelotte is another of the walled farms from the 100 days campaign. The plan shows where each numbered building fits in the model. As usual, I've taken the textures and plans from the actual building where possible. 

Once printed off, give each sheet a spray of fixative and stick to something like mounting board then cut out all doors and windows, colour raw edges and fit the inset pieces to the inner side. Note that some pieces are double sided and must be folded over and glued before assembling and that extra pieces are supplied to build up wall bases and mouldings. Roofs can be given more detail by printing off extra sheets, cutting into strips and overlapping the strips starting from the bottoms and working up, finishing off with ridge pieces.

Landscapes and Terrain in Central Europe

 

So often, when planning a games table that we are going to spend many hours building and detailing, we ignore the actual landscape upon which it is based. We probably get hills, rivers, roads &c. in the right places, but do we look close enough at the style of buildings? Of field types and boundaries or the area covered by woodlands or types of trees? What sorts of crops were grown? The nature of the landscape to some extent affected the style of warfare, so it's good to get it right.
Thanks to Rob Thompson for allowing me to use the following piece which fits in so well with the “Atlas” themed pages.

Landscapes and Terrain in Central Europe ( with specific reference to the seats of wars 1740-1813 in Silesia, Saxony,  and Bohemia)   - Notes for Wargamers:
First The Bad News:  Why it is Tricky to Generalise:

Even if we took the most restricted possible definition of the theatres of war, in order to get the smallest area of study, the variation within it would still be massive.  The (good news ?) is that there would be (and still are) some commonalities across the broadly similar landscape and climate of Central Europe. These commonalities arise from a long period of fairly static, and broadly common farming methods, exploiting a broadly similar environment. However, within that large chunk of land, there would still be (and still is ) significant variation in landscapes, and, actually a series of variationS (plural), superimposed on top of one another, at a variety of scales. As soon as one strays from the Northern European Plain the degrees of localised variation in landscapes increases markedly as the terrain (and climates) become significantly different. This then impinges on settlement patterns, social organisation and farming practices. Culture and ethnicity also plays a part.

What Area is covered?

It’s the area of the upper Oder / Odra and Elbe Rivers as shown on this map of Seven Years War battle sites, at the centre and right centre of the map:

This area was also fought over  by Austria Prussia and Saxony in the 1740s, 1780s, to  a more limited extent in 1806 and again in 1813 – the map below shows the rival armies lining up to contest the region in 1813:
The Northern European Plain:

This lies on the Northern fringe of the area which this appraisal is primarily concerned with.   A few comments about it are in order as the term can be misinterpreted.. It is called a plain but the word can be misunderstood by wargamers and others. Like almost all plains it isn't as flat as a pancake or as flat as a table top. It has no mountains,   . . . . but certain areas might still be of "high relief" i.e. rugged / hilly with reasonably steep slope angles, ravines, incised river valleys with abrupt edges to their flood plains etc    On this map (below)  it is NOT all the land within the ring, (the ring unhelpfully includes the mountainous areas of the Sudeten and Carpathian mountains between modern Czechia and Solvakia to the south, and SE Germany  and Poland to the north).  The plain is rather where the words are located on the map:


 
What Were The Common Identifiable Landscape Attributes of the  Central European Battlefields’ Zone’s Countryside Areas?
1) Data on the % of land which was woodland vis a vis today is very poor. For Silesia, possibly about the same amount overall in 1750 as today, so far more than there was in say 1945. Photos of Lower Silesia from the 1930s and 40s of agricultural areas show far fewer trees then than in today's landscape, in every single case. But in 1750 the population was far less, and hadn't entered the cycle of rapid population growth associated with agricultural and industrial revolutions, which is what reduced the numbers of trees. Post the 1945 population exchanges there were less people in Silesia, and rural to urban migration since then also has meant plots of farmland have reverted to scrub woodland in Silesia.  Bohemia and Saxony changed somewhat less, as they were not subjected to wholesale population transfers in 1945. It is rather more likely that there were slightly more trees in Bohemia and Saxony in 1740-1813 than today.

2) There are many more extensive and medium sized forested areas than there are in the UK. Many communities relied on having access to forest, and the population density being much lower meant that a lot less land had been cleared of trees.  Usually the land left forested was hillier, or was on the sides of ravines (too steep to be cultivated and thinner soils) or, it was the most distant land from the villages. Plus there would have been large tracts of totally uninhabited forest areas, 90% of the Sudeten / Carpathian mountains would have been like this, but also big tracts of uninhabited forest (pines) on areas of glacial sands where settlers had realised that the soils were barren and had kept out. The so called "Pine Barrens" which Prussia was infamous for, and helped explain why Federick the Great was very keen to get hold of the generally agriculturally richer lands of Silesia.  There are however some “Pine Barrens” within Silesia.
3) No hedges.    British wargamers often make the understandable error of assuming there must have been hedges around fields, but this isn’t the case, as there had been nothing comparable in Central Europe to the  “Enclosure Acts” which had shaped the landscape of much of lowland UK.
4) No Yorkshire Dales type stone walls, surprisingly, not even in the mountains where stone was lying about in abundance.
5) An occasional wooden fence, but not around the main  "fields" (strips). It was quite common to have a small area (veg plot / fowl run) fenced off around, or adjacent to, a house.  Fences were usually made from vertically placed irregularly shaped slats of wood: (without the glass jars!)

6) Long thin strips of land were the rough equivalent of what are termed fields in the UK. Size today varies a bit and shapes can be irregular where terrain is hilly or cut up by ravines, but most common dimensions would be 20 to 40m wide by 100 to 500m long. Its likely that since 1750 some strips have been consolidated and back then there would have been more of the smaller ones. "Field boundaries" would have been often not very obvious due to 3) 4) 5). At certain times of year, and according to what crops were being grown they would show up. Eg peasant x has done his ploughing but peasant y next to him has not yet. Often there was a small "baulk" - a tiny unploughed strip to mark the strip boundary, but this could be absent and instead the ploughing pattern would generally be turning soil away from the boundary on each side, so this formed a shallow ditch with the soil surface in the ditch being say 10-20cm deeper than the strips. In some areas some or all strip ends’ boundaries would be marked with a few big rocks.
 
7) The end 8m or so of each strip was mostly not ever ploughed in pre tractor times, as it was the turning area for the plough team. There might also be a crude drainage ditch running along the strip ends adjacent to the road, and quite often the banks and environs of this might have been colonised by a few trees.
 
The most common village form is dispersed linear. Dispersed - each farmstead (house and any associated barns etc) would be situated 30 to 200m from the next house. The houses would typically straggle along both sides of a routeway, sometimes, but not always, often only one dwelling deep, so that each peasant had easy access to the road. This made for very long thin straggling villages compared to the more compact ones found in most parts of the UK. Alternatively there could be a network of tracks on one side of the routeway.  This is a modern picture  and the buildings have been modernised or replaced but it illustrates  atypical sprawling village layout with the long strips running to left and right from the village:

 
9) The long axes of the strips are most often laid out perpendicular to the road or track which they abut, this is so every farmer/peasant can get to one end of the land he works via a track.
 
10) Village buildings - in many cases one end of a building was the barn the middle or the entire ground floor was for animals and the human accomodation would mainly be upstairs at one end. Before the Prussians had colonised Silesia in numbers (1780s onwards), and then built some enormous farms, most houses were relatively small.

This is a 1910 photo, but it is of a certified and listed farm building from renaissance times (part of it, internal, and not visible in this shot, at the back, is actually medieval). The house still stands, and still looks very similar. It is in the village of Karlowiec, between Gryfow Slaski and Mirsk in Lower Silesia, now Poland. It is about 2km from my home in the next village. It is being renovated by friends of ours, using the old construction methods, though they don't have to re-thatch it. I've been helping them occasionally with some bits of the work. One can tell it used to have thatch as a roof material, by the very steep pitch (slope) of the roof. The far end is all barn. The middle of the ground floor to the right of the central entrance door, has a brick vaulted ceiling (as is typical) , and very obviously has been a piggery. It has its own bread oven. This would have been one of the larger farm houses in existence before the Prussian colonisation which got underway at pace from the 1780s.  The incoming Prussians noticeably built bigger farmhouses, but colonisation was reltively slow.  Ground floor walls of the nearest 2/3 are mainly made of rough irregular local stone and some very poor quality brick. Actually there are unfired bricks on the inside of the end wall! All the barn and all higher bits are big wood frame structure with wattle and daub infill originally, some infill has been replaced by brick at a later date. [This half timbered style of house is called "Fachwerk".]
11) Farms were pretty much all "mixed" ( = all farms had both animal and crop production) but few quadruped animals were kept. Reasons were they ate too much of the crops, people were often hungry and their diets were less meat and dairy rich than today. The conversion of plant calories to animal calories would have been well below 10% efficiency, so having lots of animals was risky and wasteful. A median peasant might have one or two cows and a calf. The better off ones might have three times that many and would have owned oxen / steers and or a horse or two. A cow would be walked out to graze a field each morning and tethered there. It might be walked home to drink water from a well at lunchtime and then go back to the field again.
 
12) Chickens ducks and geese were all commonly kept. Most farms would have one or two pigs; the richer ones would have more.
13) Sheep and goats would have been almost unknown outside of some of the very mountainous areas.
 
14) Grains were the main crops in terms of areas planted, but potatoes were becoming more and more common as the 18^th Century progressed.  Just what proportion of the land was under potatoes is hard to say, but more by 1813 than there had been in 1740.   The grains cultivated were a mix of Wheat, Oats, Rye, Barley and Buckwheat.   Most of the ploughable land away from floodplains would be under one of these staple crops - perhaps 60% (?) of the total ploughable land. There was no pre-winter sowing, all were spring planted, so harvested quite late, but staggered in time. The first 4 could get up to head high on the best land by late summer.  Buckwheat takes longest to mature and doesn't get so tall – more like waist high.  A buckwheat field at all stages looks really quite different to the others, it becomes mainly a darkish brown with reddish stems prior to harvest.. Some of what was not cereal land would be growing vegetables - a bit of cabbage (it could be preserved easily as sauerkraut), some turnips and beetroot, and plenty of  protein rich beans / peas for drying than anything else.  Some flax (with blue flowers) for local cloth production as well.   Maybe 20% of the land may have been under these non-cereal crops. The remaining 20% or so would be down to grass for grazing pasture, or hay making. Possibly some was left fallow, but I'm uncertain of this.    There was no yellow flowering oilseed rape until well after WW2.     Below is some buckwheat which has been cut and left to continue drying ripening in stooks in the field. This was sometimes also done with the other cereal crops.

Buckwheat crop in mid summer:

15) Land very close to small rivers would not be used for crop cultivation due to the flooding risk. Thus it would tend to be a water meadow and down to permanent grass and used for grazing or, sometimes, for hay making.  Unlike property developers and speculators today, buildings were not built on flood plains.  Settlements large and small would be often on the first river terrace – one small step up from the at risk area.
16) Small orchards were very common and were usually located near the farm buildings.  Trees were typically big and tall, not dwarf for easy picking and pruning, like many modern varieties.
17) Fish ponds for carp and trout were also very common but there were more in certain areas where the soils were heavy enough to retain water well, or where nearby clay deposits were available to line them. Old ponds were usually quite small say 10 x 10 or 10 x 20m.
A few towns would be dotted about across the rural landscape.   Most would be small – more like what we might term a large village. Approx one every 15-25km or so.   Each town would typically have a large market square at its centre. Many but not all had walls around them though not necessarily in a good state of repair, and by 1813 a still fully walled town was becoming unusual. The reason being that simple stone walls were vulnerable to artillery.
By  1740-1813  wealthier townsfolk were building in brick and were having tile rather than thatched roofs (occasionally slate but only in a few rare areas).  Maybe one in four of the villages  would also have a “posh” manor house, or a chateau-like pile or  a “palace”.
19) Finally, bear in mind that even away from the Sudeten and Carpathian mountains themselves,  all of Bohemia,  a lot of Silesia, (especially in the south), and Saxony are really very hilly.  Using Google earth street view to get a sense of the relief is a good thing to do.
_____________________________________________________________________
These notes are my own observations, research and interpretations.  I’ve brazenly stolen/ copied  the photos (for educational purposes not for personal gain).  I first produced a fair few of these notes for a SYW facebook group enquiry.  But since the same question comes up every now and again, I thought I’d make them into a file to be put into a few wargaming facebook groups  I decided to tidy the notes up, expand them a bit and add a few points made by others in the discussion, and to add some more pictures.  They may not be entirely accurate,  and as I pointed out at the start, there is quite a bit of local variation, but I expect they are a fairly good starting point for wargamers wanting to model terrain.
I've lived in the extremity of SW Poland (former Lower Silesia) for some years now (we have a small farm there just 10km from the Izery Mountains  and within spitting distance of Czechia and Germany).  I grew up on a UK farm, and I worked on local farms, but then I spent many years teaching both History and Geography, including the evolution of rural landscapes, and I've travelled fairly widely in the region, visiting numerous battlefields.  Mainly the 1813 ones, but also some from the 1740s and 1750s.   It is an interesting landscape and region.   If anyone wants some help and advice about visiting the region then feel free to message me on facebook. You will be able to find me as I am a group member of this facebook group. [ Bruce Quarrie Rules and Napoleonic Wargame Group ]
Rob Thompson  09/03/2021

To some extent, Rob's description of the landscape where he lives in Poland echoes the area of the Britain where I live on the “Humber-head Levels.”. The dispersed linear villages are the same, built along higher points and low ridges that the roads followed in what was once a seasonal wetland, whilst it has only been within the last 10 years that the old mediaeval strip field systems that were exactly as he describes.

Projekt Veenaland

 Projekt Veenaland (The Meadowlands Project)

    This is a bit of an odd post in that it is the first of a series looking at a project from its very beginning, from planning to completion. Apart from anything else, it's one of my rare forays into something other than the Napoleonic period.

  I love this Footsore Miniatures figure of Odin. I've painted him in his usual attire of unassuming blues and greys and added Freki and Geri from the Northstar figures wolf pack. I'm really pleased with the way the model came out, though I must say, I never thought I'd find myself researching colour schemes for things like wolves, viking sheep and chickens! 
   

 The idea of the Veenaland project is to build a game set in the high age of the Norse gods -basically a historical rather than fantasy game, but a history where peoples lives are touched by the gods -either their own or others, where fates (or wyrds) are real and the Norns spin the tales of mens' lives. Veenaland - taken from Thomas Holt's fantastic book "Meadowland" is based on the theory that "Vinland" is a mistranslation of the word for meadow, replacing "veen" with "vin."

    I don't want the game to be simply a skirmish wargame but more an almost RPG campaign game centred round ships crews. Yes, I know there are already games like that, but I like to do things for myself. What I want is a game where players build up their crews and wealth through trading, raiding and building, where the crews aren't simply figures, but represent characters who may become heroes. I can see it in my mind's eye!    

 

  The clear first choice is how large the world in which the game is set should be. Should it be the whole of the Norse world or smaller? Obviously both have their advantages and disadvantages. Should it even be set in what we SEE as the "Viking World?" The game could just as easily be a sort of "Bjorn in the USA" (ouch!) scenario.

    There are myths or legends that when the Norse -I hesitate to call them "Vikings"- first arrived in North America, they discovered Irish monks farming alongside the Indians. Now these Irish were said to have crossed the Atlantic in one of two ways. the first was that they had used boats made of animal skins - precursors of the curraghs of the Irish West Coast, and, secondly that they had crossed in boats made of stone. Of course THAT was just a little too hard to believe in the days before iron ships and ferro-concrete racing yachts. So you see, it is possible to build the game almost entirely in North West Europe and the North East of America, with the protagonists being the Norse, the Irish and the "First of the Mohegans." Being a "son of death" -a mixture of Gael and Norse- myself, I quite like that idea but we'll see where the project takes us.

      Of course, whatever happens, our heroes will need someone to record their deeds, so "The Minstrel Boy", Bard or Skjald will be around to ensure their fame lives on.

Revolution to Regency#1: The Armed Forces of Mysore.

  The Armed Forces of Mysore.

"The Presence" himself: Tipu Sultan.

Introduction. 

    For me, one of the greatest joys of wargaming as a hobby lies in the background work -the research of an army, campaign or war. There can be few other hobbies that encourage reading and research to quite such a degree and for me at least, the “discovery” of a whole new area of study within my chosen period is something akin to finding the holy grail! All too often we forget that the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars were a global conflict and that many of the forces involved were far from the “state of the art” armies of Western Europe. Fair enough, these weren’t exactly in the main theatres of operation but did, nevertheless have potentially important effects on the outcomes in those theatres.

     Having been interested in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars for many years -since the “Waterloo” film came out when I was about 12 years old in fact,- I have always found anything to do with them a source of fascination. To a lesser extent, this fascination spreads to the whole of the Eighteenth Century, a century of warfare and upheaval, revolutions -social, military, industrial and economic- a century that moulded modern Europe into what it is today. I had, until recently, largely ignored those perennial bones of contention the Indies, West and East, which were peripheral to the main events happening in Europe, with the Ottoman Empire being the most outré state in which I was vaguely interested. 

    It was probably boredom that first piqued my interest in the “exotic” armies of the period. I’d got tired of painting the usual French, British, Austrians etcetera and reading ever more about a fairly limited period. How some people can concentrate on the “Hundred Days” is quite beyond me, covering as it does just 4 days of real fighting involving pretty limited forces. In a fit of defiance against an increasingly uniform hobby (see what I did there?) I consciously looked for something a bit different and being an avid devourer of Napoleonic naval fiction decided to look more deeply into the Ottoman Empire. This is where I found the major hurdle to building up an “exotic” army wasn’t so much the lack of miniatures as the lack of resources to do the research. It was whilst looking for information on the Ottomans that I found Mark Bevis's book “Tangiers to Tehran- A Wargamers’ Guide to the Armies of the Middle East in the Napoleonic and Pre-Colonial Eras” which sparked not just my interest, but my imagination too in a completely different direction as I began to realise these “peripheral” areas were far from that and I found, Like Napoleon before me, that my thoughts were turning to the East. 

    

    Mark's book led to me wanting more information and the Persian (Qajar) army really piqued my interest with it’s mix of line troops, mediaeval knights, Afghan tribesmen and hundreds of camel mounted swivel guns. Whilst looking for more information I found David Brown's excellent e-book “The Persian Army of the Napoleonic Era-Qajar Dynasty 1779-1857” which sadly hinted at events and forces even further East…. the Mughals, The Mahrattas, the “Honourable” (?) East India Company, the VOC and Compagnie des Indes Orientales, Mysore, Hyderabad –names to conjour with. Images of elephants, huge cannon, masses of cavalry and ranks of wild infantry in all the glowing colours of the Orient filled my head…. But where to begin? And so I began looking at the various warring states and empires on the Indian Peninsula. I soon realised that information on the armies of the Indian subcontinent, including the forces of Britain, France, Holland and Portugal was sketchy to say the least. Apart from a couple of “Osprey” books on battles and others covering the Sikhs and Mughals that there was practically nothing covering the period before the British Raj. 

    I feel that this lack of ready information prevents a lot of wargamers becoming interested in the region, which provides so many opportunities for table-top gaming at all scales from massive battles down to skirmishes. We tend to be drawn towards those periods and regions on which details of uniforms, forces and colours /banners are known, hence this attempt Revolution to Regency vol.1: The Armed Forces of Mysore page 5at gathering and compiling brief histories of the armies of India during the Napoleonic era which, I hope, will be the first of a series of guides covering the various armies.. Of course, Indian History doesn't neatly fit into that 1793-1815 slot that the Napoleonic Wars fill, so these guides will start at around the 1780s -around the time of the first of the “Revolutionary Wars”, that between Britain and her American colonies- and finish at around 1820 which marks a watershed in British (the dominant European force in the region) uniform and re-organisation from a largely European army to that of a sepoy one, so the period should be more “Revolution to Regency” than the “Revolutionary and Napoleonic”. I had expected armies of tribal war-bands, ill equipped, ill disciplined and ill led. What I found, much to my surprise, were large, well organised -at least in partforces based around cores of regular infantry disciplined and trained in the manner of Europe and in some cases backed by surprisingly sophisticated economies and industries, though the history will begin slightly earlier in order to place events in context. 

    Just as Indian history in general doesn’t fit in with European periods, neither does that of Mysore, the end of which, as an independent entity comes in 1799, consequently, any history beyond then will be that of a British ally. For those who are prepared to make the effort, there is a tremendous amount of information available. As far as possible, I have tried to work from period sources using books readily available on-line and images taken from Indian rather than European art. Most modern books on the subject seem to add little information that isn’t available in these older works. The difficult part is separating the wheat from the chaff –in knowing what is relevant and what merely appears to be so. To that end, some information that I find of interest but of dubious value I have added as an appendix. Finally, in some cases, the original writer does such a wonderful job of describing an event or scene that it cannot be bettered. When this occurs, I have made no attempt to alter their words. Those words have stirred my imagination and curiosity and, I hope, they will stir yours in just the same way, so don’t expect some deep and fancy history book –this isn’t it. This is a simple guide to an obscure army that will, I hope, act as a spring-board for others to begin their own journey of discovery. 

La Haye Sainte

This is a cardstock model of La Haye Sainte, the famous farm from the Battle of Waterloo. It is scaled for use with 15-18mm figures, though it could be scaled up for 25-28mm.

These illustrations are more or less contemporary with the Battle of Waterloo and modern photos of La Haye Sainte as it stands today. these are the images I used to design the model

The parts of the model are pretty self explanatory. Doors and windows can be cut out and inset using card spacers

Thoughts on Campaign Games part 2

There isn't any particular organisation in the way I'm presenting these -just as I manage to find them on my PC and put them on here. 

2 SCOUTING.

Napoleonic armies used line and light cavalry both for scouting and for screening their movements against enemy reconnaissance units. Heavy cavalry (cuirassiers) were not usually used in such roles as they were too expensive to equip, too few in numbers, too slow and too valuable on the battlefield to risk.

Scouting can take the form of a series of actions in which cavalry units attempt to locate enemy troops then either avoiding or driving in the enemy vedettes to gain information about their parent formations. The scouting system assumes reconnaissance by units of at least a squadron and that at least some will be intercepted by piquets. Piquets are infantry, Vedettes cavalry and whilst infantry are effective as a screen aren't much use for long range intelligence gathering.

Each player should have diagrams of each of their columns clearly indicating order of march, the location of units acting as screens (by company/squadron) and their distance from the parent formation expressed as up to 1, 3 or 5 miles (which affects combat values). Beyond 5 miles, the contact may be classed as a skirmish and fought on table using 12-16 figures to represent each squadron/company involved. Note should also be made as to whether the vedettes are to respond to enemy scouts aggressively or defensively. Unless changed, these values remain throughout the campaign.

Lengthening of columns alters the distance between screening units but not their distance away, i.e., a circle of piquets becomes an oval.

METHOD

The direction of the scouts approach should indicate on the diagram of the column how many piquets/vedettes are likely to be contacted. Piquets/vedettes cannot be moved round from another point without change of orders which is not allowed during a contact situation, though it is all well and good after one as the player will have gained knowledge of where scouts are likely to approach from.

Note that scouting combats are done in numbers of troops not figures.

A cavalry squadron will normally have between 3-5 figures giving a troop strength of 99-165. This gives a far better idea of losses incurred.

Each unit (squadron/company) involve throws 1xd10 which gives the basic percentage of them that make contact i.e., 7 =70% which is modified by the following

Add or subtract the modifiers to the percentage roll for each unit present e.g.

60% tired, veteran lancers of a squadron of 165 operating 4 miles from their parent column =50% = 82 men (rounded down)

If more than one unit is present, add them together

Compare the two sides and work out the odds i.e. 1:1, 2:1, 3:2 each of which represents a roll of a dx6. The higher the odds, the more chances of a good roll a player gets, so 3:1 would give 3 chances against only 1 for the other side. Each dice roll replaces the one made before it, with both sides alternating rolls with the side with the fewest number of rolls (or only roll) always going last. Players cannot choose which roll they use but may “stick” at any roll, foregoing any other chances.

The difference between the two scores is then looked up on the scouts/piquets table to give the combat results then casualties divided by 33 to give the result in figures.

MAP COMBAT

I'm not entirely sure where I got the idea for this from. I think it may have been from an article in one of the original “Miniature Wargames” magazine. For some reason, the name “Jim Webster” springs to mind, though I've tinkered with it a lot to bring it into line with my thoughts.

Map combats are fought in a similar way to scouting skirmishes and using the same list of modifiers, except that these are only 1 digit modifiers (eg. -10 becomes -1, +20 becomes +2. In addition, commanders morale modifiers are added as a +or- for each area and for the CinC in the overall action. However, to get some idea of what has occurred, each player draws up a plan of their forces, showing flanks, centre and reserves (who may be thrown in anywhere in the battle. )

The players then dice for which area of the battlefield engages first.

Each area of the battlefield is treated as a separate conflict with the reserves counting as a plus modifier of 2 to any section if in defence. The reserves can only be added to the final area fought if on the attack. Use of reserves need not be disclosed until they are used, i.e. After the other side has rolled their final dice

In this example, Blue attack Red's right first at odds of 4:3 So Blue rolls 2x dice coming up with 4 and a 2, Red rolls a die which lands on a 1. Blue rolls a 4 and a 5 which, as the modifiers come to +1 gives them a 6. Red rolls 3 with no modifiers then a 4. This means that there is a difference between attackers and defenders of 1, so we look at the result table which shows Blue take the position with heavy losses and must rally overnight before resuming advance and takes a few prisoners. Red withdraws in good order at dusk with moderate losses without pursuit.

The other flank comes up as area 2. Blue must use its reserves (+2) to bolster it's attack. Blues dice come up as 4,3 and as this is a poor score modified to 5, rolls again and gets a 1 modified to 3. Reds rolls end up as a 6 which means they are repulsed with severe losses, leaving wounded on the field and losing some baggage and many stragglers whilst red hold their positions but with severe losses. They may retire in good order if they choose.

The centre fights next with no modifiers on either side. Red can either use its reserve as a+2 bonus or use it for a separate attack. The dice rolls come up as the same on both sides. Red then rolls a 3 and has moderate losses. Blue rolls a 6 and has heavy losses, with positions remaining as they were.

Finally, in an attempt to win the day, red launches its reserve at blue's centre. Being veterans, these have a +1 modifier. They roll a 6 and “stick” with blue rolling a 5 on a -1 modifier. Red drives blue from the field with severe losses, leaving wounded on the field and losing some baggage and many stragglers, but takes severe losses itself and cannot pursue past nightfall. Blue's victorious flank can either stay on the field or retire with the rest of the blue force.

Generals should write up despatches in the character of the person they are playing, giving praise or apportioning blame as appropriate.

"Well I can't find ANYWHERE in the rules that it says they're allowed to win!"