Wednesday, 10 February 2010

The Annexation of Chiraz

I purchased this excellent book by messrs Olley and Grant at the York show on Sunday. This is an excellent addition to any Old School library. There are 5 scenarios that can be fought separately or as part of a linked campaign. The book is well illustrated with maps and gorgeous colour pictures to wet any wargamers juices.

This book has inspired me even more to get some Old School gaming started sooner than later. The quick way is to use my current SYW collection based on units of 16 and combine them into either 32 or 48 man combined regiments. I am now seriously thinking of re organizing my collection and creating 36 man units for infantry and 18 man cavalry/light infantry units. I think that this organization would work for both Charge or the War Game although I will have to mark officer casualties for the War Game on Roster sheets.


Prince Lupus said...

It may depend on whether you choose Charge or the wargame. My personal choice is Charge, and then somewhere the simple and full game.

If you go for Charge you could keep the 16 man units and brigade them together to create a Charge unit. Although the Brigadier called them companies they can be used as independent units.

abdul666 said...

"Although the Brigadier called them companies they can be used as independent units."
Somehow this is -imho- precisely one of the problems with 'Charge!': a 16 man unit in two ranks does NOT carry the visual impression of mid-18th C. linear warfare (compare the photos in 'Charge!' and 'The War Game'). And a regiment / battalion structure of 4 companies more or less allowed to act independently fits better (small-scale) Napoleonic warfare.

To mark casualties on a roster rather than actually removing them can actually *save* time. In my last days of 'active' Ancient gaming with WRG 6th Ed we adopted the practice which became official under 7th) to have all the minis permanently glued on 'element' bases (4 / unit) and ticking the casualties on a 'graduated rod' (merely a line of squared paper): made a faster paced play.

Regarding the 'ideal' Old School library of a 18th C. wargamer, C. Grant's 'Fontenoy' was not only a very good book by itself, instructive, inspirational and a pleasure to read, but the very first 'War Game Companion'.

Mark Dudley said...

The fact that Charge allows units to act independently does not mean that you have to allow it.

I am planning to use my 28mm figures in 32 man infantry units and 16 man cavalry units and play the Chiraz table top teasers. I will probably use the Charge rules, but with a few tweaks such as Morale a la the Wargame added, although I am tempted to try the Wargame for these games. Perhaps I should run the games twice using the each set and write up a comparison.

My 28mm collection is all based with 4 infantry or 2 cavalry per base and is mainly used for Piquet and the Cartouche supplement. I am biased here as I wrote the 2nd edition of Cartouche. I have also started painting some Spencer Smith Infantry and these will be for Charge and will be singly based.

I have the Fontenoy book and it is must have for an OSW library

Bluebear Jeff said...

I find that the Charge! "light infantry" is far too flexible and powerful to fit my understanding of the WAS/SYW period . . . it seems to Napoleonic (as many have commented). But you can decide if you want to tone them down or not.

-- Jeff